Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1228] 
1. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he agree to the requests of former Minister Hon Dr. Nick Smith and others for an inquiry about the Minister’s role in the ACC case of Bronwyn Pullar and surrounding issues; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: No; first the Prime Minister has accepted Dr Smith’s resignation because of his errors of judgment which deals with those matters; and secondly there are independent investigations under way by both the Privacy Commissioner and the police into other related matters. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will the inquiry being undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner look at whether any of the following had an influence on how Bronwyn Pullar’s case was handled: Nick Smith’s letter on her behalf; her connections to other National Party MPs; her connection to the former National Party president; her connection to board members of ACC; and if not is not an independent inquiry necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That would be a question best directed to the Privacy Commissioner about what matters she is covering. The member can get answers to the other questions by asking ACC or asking Ms Pullar. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will the inquiry being undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner address the issue of why two senior ACC managers attended the meeting in December 2011 with Bronwyn Pullar and former National Party president Michelle Boag well before any privacy issues had arisen; and if not is not an independent inquiry necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think that meeting warrants an inquiry. For those of us who are familiar with constituents who persist over many years with particular complaints I am not surprised to hear that ACC sent a senior manager to a meeting with someone who clearly had been corresponding with it over issues for many years. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will the inquiry being undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner look at the role of a board member in setting up a meeting between two senior ACC managers with Michelle Boag and Bronwyn Pullar and whether those senior managers were aware of the Minister’s letters about and interest in her case and if not is not an independent inquiry necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The matter before the Prime Minister was the issue of conflicts of interest for a Minister. It was established that those conflicts had not been dealt with appropriately and the Minister involved has paid a heavy price for it. That matter does not warrant further inquiries. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why will the Prime Minister not accept that an independent inquiry is necessary to restore the public trust and confidence in the processes of ACC and the transparency and accountability of his Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The transparency and the accountability of this Government have been well established by the fact that a Minister was demonstrated not to have dealt with a conflict of interest appropriately and has now resigned as a Minister. In respect of the ACC actually the irony here is that it is Ms Pullar who has got a lot of interest in how the ACC works and has over a number of years proven to be a persistent litigant with ACC. 
Grant Robertson 
: Even if he does not accept any of the other reasons for an independent inquiry does he not think he owes it to his former ministerial colleague Nick Smith to hold the independent inquiry that he is asking for? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No for the reasons that I set out on behalf of the Prime Minister earlier. Dr Smith has now resigned because of his errors of judgment and secondly independent investigations are under way by both the Privacy Commissioner and the police into any related matters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Privacy Commissioner is restrained to issues of confidentiality and the police are restrained to issues of criminality why is he trying to flannel this Parliament by saying that is a good enough inquiry on the issues of political impropriety? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The matter of political impropriety has been dealt with swiftly and with serious accountability in contrast to how those matters used to be dealt with by the previous Government. 
Kevin Hague 
: What advice has he taken on whether the Privacy Commissioner has the legal power to consider ministerial responsibility and interference in ACC claims and what was that advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The issue of ministerial responsibility is fundamentally one to be dealt with by the Prime Minister not the Privacy Commissioner and the Opposition is carrying on as though no action has been taken. In fact a Minister stood in this House yesterday and took the most serious punishment a Minister can take and that is resignation from the executive and from his portfolios because of his acknowledged errors of judgment. That is how the issue of ministerial responsibility has been dealt with. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s answer did not address the issue of what advice had been sought. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the fundamental point the member made although his question went on to what advice had been sought in respect of and the final part of the question related to matters of political— 
Kevin Hague 
: The final part of the question asked what the advice had been if there had been any. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In case of doubt I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Kevin Hague 
: What advice has he taken on whether the Privacy Commissioner has the legal power to consider ministerial responsibility and interference in ACC claims and what was that advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister for sure. I cannot actually say whether he has taken advice on that matter but it is quite likely that any advice asked for on that matter would tell us what we already know and that is that responsibility for how Ministers behave fundamentally lies with the Prime Minister not the Privacy Commissioner and the Prime Minister has dealt with the issue. The Opposition may not have realised that the Minister was resigning yesterday but that is what happened. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Prime Minister confirming that there will be no Government-ordered independent investigation into the conduct of Dr Smith in respect of ACC claims? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has conducted his inquiry into the conduct of Dr Smith and the result of that inquiry is that Dr Smith resigned from his portfolios and resigned from the executive. There are no other measures that can be taken in respect of ministerial responsibility. They have been taken. 
Kevin Hague 
: How can the public have confidence that ACC claims will be administered in a politically neutral way when there has been no investigation into the extent of political interference in claims? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has considered the circumstances around Dr Smith’s actions. Dr Smith has considered those actions and that has led to the resignation of the Minister because a conflict of interest was not handled appropriately. I note that Ms Pullar’s public statements indicate that she remains deeply dissatisfied with her treatment by ACC despite I think 3 years of communication with the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s description of Nick Smith’s letter as improper inappropriate and in error which resulted in his resignation how does the Prime Minister differentiate that from the affidavit given to the Supreme Court by the Attorney-General in support of his friend Bill Wilson? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Bill English—in so far as the Minister can answer that. It is a fair way from the primary question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is right. It is unlikely that the member’s question bears much resemblance to reality. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has dealt with the matter of the Attorney-General’s support of his friend Bill Wilson— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. It is not that difficult to read the primary question and see that the primary question has nothing to do with the Attorney-General and nothing to do with Bill Wilson. The member asked a supplementary question that was so far away from the primary question that I could have ruled it out but I did not. Maybe I should have ruled it out; that would have avoided the answer which was perhaps unhelpful. The question is too far from the primary question. If it helps deal with the situation I think the Minister’s answer perhaps could be ruled out and the question could be ruled out because I think the question was out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you have ruled it out I will go back to scratch. Why is the treatment of Nick Smith fair if he has to resign for providing a letter of support in an ACC case but the Attorney-General does not have to resign for providing an affidavit for his friend in the Supreme Court? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am advised that the assertions made in that question are incorrect.