3. Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations Ministerial ConductANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterTodd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations Ministerial Conduct3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his answers during Oral Question No. 2 yesterday?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes.Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable moral standard for a former finance Minister to say on Radio New Zealand on 1 March 2016 that he was not aware of any specific problems between Mr Barclay and his former staff when in fact he was aware that Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson?Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaker's ruling 173/2 is quite clear that the Prime Minister has got no responsibility for a member of the caucus—a ruling by your good self. I would suggest here that is exactly where we are going with this question.Grant Robertson: I have two points to make. The first is that these matters were indeed traversed in question No. 2 yesterday hence why it is a supplementary question that Mr Little has asked. Secondly the first words of Mr Little's question were about acceptable standards for Ministers. The Prime Minister is responsible for that. He gave an illustrative example of a behaviour of a Minister and I believe that question is in order.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member to ask the question again but my first inclination as I heard the question is that because it was asking the Prime Minister a question in his former ministerial role as a Minister of Finance around radio comments the question is in order. The question can be asked again. I will listen again very very carefully and allow it to proceed if I determine it is indeed in order.Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable moral standard for the former finance Minister to say on Radio New Zealand on 1 March 2016 that he was not aware of any specific problems between Mr Barclay and his former staff when in fact he was aware that Todd Barclay had recorded Glenys Dickson?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the time the matter was under investigation and in fact the facts of it had not been established. Some of them were covered by a confidential employment settlement to which I was not a party and they were under investigation by the police and at the time I was not sure what I could or could not say about that.Andrew Little: When Prime Minister John Key said on Radio New Zealand on 7 March 2016 that he had had a bit of a discussion with Bill" did the former finance Minister tell the then Prime Minister that Todd Barclay had been recording his staff's conversations?Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the issue here is that I accept that the Opposition leader is dressing these questions up as being about the former Minister of Finance and so on but what is quite clear is that the Prime Minister the former Minister of Finance was answering these questions on radio as the former member for an electorate. He is not responsible therefore as Prime Minister or as the former Minister of Finance for these matters. It is quite clear in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings that he should not be answering those questions therefore on a non-ministerial basis nor should he be speaking or answering questions about a member of the caucus.Grant Robertson: I am not sure whether the Leader of the House heard the question correctly. The question asked about a statement the Prime Minister made. The current Prime Minister is responsible in this House for those questions. It was about something the Prime Minister said and it is a legitimate topic for these questions to be asked.Mr SPEAKER: Again I am going to ask the member to repeat the question. The question as I understood it is very much around ministerial responsibility. Mr Bridges raises the possibility that the question was answered in the Prime Minister's capacity as a former member of that electorate. That is possibly the case but I doubt it. He was on Radio New Zealand I would think because he was then the Minister of Finance. The question can be asked again. [Interruption] Order! I have called Andrew Little to ask his supplementary question.Andrew Little: When Prime Minister John Key said on Radio New Zealand on 7 March 2016 that he had had "a bit of a discussion with Bill" did the former finance Minister tell the then Prime Minister that Todd Barclay had been recording the staff's conversations?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure I would have talked to the former Prime Minister about matters that were relevant to the management of the caucus but I cannot recall either the discussion or the content of it.Andrew Little: In light of that answer and given that according to the former Prime Minister former finance Minister Bill English "just said a couple of his former staff members had left. That was it." is it acceptable that he covered up this incident from the Prime Minister?Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I come back to it because now what you have had is a reference to his former staff members. They were his staff members in his capacity as a local member of Parliament. The Speakers' rulings are incredibly clear in regard to that. They are not in a ministerial capacity and he is not responsible for what he did as a former member for an electorate. It is quite clear he does not have responsibility for that as Prime Minister of New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I do not agree with the member. The question to me is about the actions of a former Minister of Finance talking to the then Prime Minister. That is in a prime ministerial capacity; the Prime Minister has responsibility. The question will be asked again by Andrew Little.Andrew Little: In light of that answer and given that according to the former Prime Minister former Finance Minister Bill English "just said a couple of his former staff members had left. That was it." is it acceptable that he covered up this incident from the Prime Minister?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Allegations of a cover-up are ridiculous. The statements made to me regarding this were reported to the relevant party official—that is on the record—and then to the police. It is a weird world when the Labour Party says that reporting a matter to the police is a cover-up. Andrew Little: In light of that answer and what the former finance Minister knew throughout last year and that at times another MP was making statements that to his knowledge were incorrect did he not do anything to ensure that the law was properly observed?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I participated in a police investigation and made a statement about the limited knowledge that I had. The police investigated; you would have to talk to them about what they did how they did it and what they established. That is a matter for them and the same matters were actually canvassed extensively in the media. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member I do not want continued interjection from Mr Grant Robertson.Andrew Little: Is it an acceptable standard for a Minister to be aware that a public figure is lying and to cover that up for 18 months?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not accept the member's assertion.Andrew Little: Given his statement yesterday that it would not be acceptable behaviour to illegally record a staff member and his police statement that Todd Barclay did record Glenys Dickson is it the Prime Minister's view that Todd Barclay acted illegally?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. That question is definitely out of order. The Prime Minister does not have a prime ministerial responsibility for a member of caucus.Andrew Little: Why did a member of his office tell several journalists yesterday that what Glenys Dickson had told police did not stack up when his own police statement shows that her account does stack up?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no knowledge of that particular assertion but the police had many months of investigation of these matters and the member is free to ask them what they thought about it. I answered the questions I was asked by the police.Andrew Little: Is he aware of whether former finance Minister Bill English requested that police withhold his police statement from the Official Information Act responses about the Todd Barclay investigation?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand there has been an Official Information Act process. I was aware of it. I did not really take part in it. My statement is in the public arena and I think it contradicts directly the member's assertion of a cover-up. I answered the questions to the police with the knowledge that I had.Andrew Little: Given the police statement that—[Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again please less interjection from one particular quarter. Andrew Little is to start the question again.Andrew Little: Given the police statement that "Police consulted those individuals who provided statements as part of the investigation. The redacted file that was released took into account the views of the individuals consulted." why did he ask for his police statement to be withheld?Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate we have discussed this issue now in points of order but what we have got here is questioning about a police statement that was made by a former electorate member of Parliament. It has to have been because it was as the electorate member of Parliament that the Prime Minister had the information in the statement. It is quite clear in those Standing Orders and the rulings that I outlined to you earlier that in that regard therefore he is not responsible for them and he should not be answering as Prime Minister.Grant Robertson: The police statement specifically identifies Mr English as the Minister of Finance. The police statement was given as the Minister of Finance.Mr SPEAKER: No no. I am not convinced by the point raised by Grant Robertson. I am going to ask for the question to be repeated—or I invite the member to change the question. As I listen to it a second time I suspect on this occasion the Hon Simon Bridges is absolutely right in that the police statement would not have been given as an official prime ministerial or ministerial statement. I will listen carefully to the question but unless it has changed it is unlikely to meet the test of my allowing it to be put.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two points I want to make. The first is that yesterday we had a number of discussions and questions around the police statement. The Prime Minister has answered questions around the police statement just now. Just moments ago he contested Mr Little's view about the police statement. I reiterate: he identified himself in that police statement as the Minister of Finance. It is legitimate if only as a follow-up to previous supplementary questions for Mr Little to be able to ask that question today.Hon Simon Bridges: I think the difference Mr Speaker is that right now what we have from the Leader of the Opposition is questions in regard to the information in that statement and that information came to the Prime Minister not as Prime Minister but as the former member of Parliament for Clutha-Southland.Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I need no further assistance. It is time to move forward. The Clerk has now handed me a copy actually of the statement. In it Mr English is asked what his occupation is and he says he is a member of Parliament and the Minister of Finance. That does not mean to say that he continues to make a statement in a ministerial capacity. If the member wishes to change his question that would be the wisest way forward but if he wants to place it again and let me make a very definitive decision I give him that option.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to appear to be relitigating but there is an additional point and that is that the decision to withhold the statement was the police's and the question is whether it would take more notice of the view of the Prime Minister—Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That's not a point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well the Prime Minister interjects but it is a matter that has really two points. One is whether or not the police would take more notice of the Prime Minister's request than any individual's request. The second point is whether any ministerial staff whatsoever were involved in the communication because if they were involved in the communication it then squarely has to be answered.Hon Simon Bridges: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any further assistance. That does not really help the position at all. Whether police would be more influenced by a Prime Minister or somebody else I have no idea. That is over to the police.Andrew Little: In light of the most recent answer the Prime Minister has just given and given the police statement that quotes "Police consulted those individuals who provided statements as part of the investigation. The redacted file that was released took into account the view of the individuals consulted." does he accept that it is acceptable ministerial conduct that he requests his police statement to be withheld?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that all discussions were conducted consistent with the Official Information Act and the police in the end have statutory independence. In addition to that like any other agency it makes the decisions about what information it releases taking into account whatever factors it thinks are relevant.Andrew Little: Why should New Zealanders place any trust in him as Prime Minister given he has told media things that are untrue about his contact with Glenys Dickson told media things that are untrue about his knowledge of Todd Barclay's actions and consistently failed the moral standards that New Zealanders expect of their elected leaders? Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply disagree. The confidentiality of the original discussions had to be respected. It would be a breach of the law to breach those. Then it was a matter that was subject to police investigation and I participated in that investigation."