Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8749] 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statements: “I believe in total disclosure on this.” “I’m not putting any restrictions on anyone talking about it.” and “I am very happy for officials to speak completely openly because there’s nothing to hide.” in respect to “corngate”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As I advised the member last week those statements were made on 11 July the day after the Nicky Hager book appeared when I said that officials should come forward to brief the media on what had happened and they did that very day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does she reconcile her statement to the House that she could not explain why key documents to her were kept secret and that the select committee should recall Dr Prebble the head of her department to answer those questions with her Labour members on the committee voting against my very motion in that regard? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is entirely a matter for the committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s commitment to total disclosure and that key scientists notably Dr Geoff Ricketts from the Victoria University biological sciences department and Professor Charles Hurburgh of Iowa State University and their grain quality initiative have reviewed the test results of the corn concerned and expressed a view that they very probably showed contamination why is it that Labour members have voted against those scientists being able to give evidence to the select committee noting that that is against the Prime Minister’s previous commitment to total disclosure? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the actions of a select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not suggesting the Prime Minister is responsible for Labour members of the select committee. She is responsible for her statements on behalf of her Government and my question was how those actions were consistent with her statements of open disclosure and previous commitments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is in order but not the first part. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I advised those statements were made on 11 July and the officials briefed the media that very same day. What the committee does is entirely a matter for the committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Prime Minister has castigated the select committee as “a circus” will she and her Government support members’ notice of motion No. 1 in my name on today’s Order Paper that requires that all sessions of the committee in respect of the “corngate” inquiry be held in open public session so the public and media can judge for themselves who is making an honest endeavour to find the truth with regard to the “corngate” affair? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 237 “Confidentiality of proceedings and reports” which states: “(1) The proceedings of a select committee or a subcommittee other than during the hearing of evidence are not open to the public and remain strictly confidential to the committee until it reports to the House.” My office has been advised by the Clerk’s Office that there is absolutely no precedent for what the member is asking. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is an unacceptable answer from the Prime Minister. She has been in this House since 1981 and would know that if there were a notice of motion on the Order Paper to be considered by this House and voted in favour of by this House that becomes the precedent. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We have a very interesting situation here. We have a Prime Minister who has publicly said that we are in favour of a select committee that she wants it all to be open and now stands up in the House with a straight face and says that this is a matter for the committee. Every member of Parliament knows including the member interjecting that at the Labour Party caucus an argument that it is up to the committee would get nowhere at all. Of course that committee is acting under an instruction from the Prime Minister and she ought to front up and answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did directly address the question. Whether the answer satisfies members is another matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is another interesting aspect of the statement that has just been made. The notice of motion is on the Order Paper and therefore we take it to be a notice of motion that is in order. At the same time the Prime Minister is quoting advice from the Clerk’s Office as if the notice of motion is out of order. That leaves us confused. Either it is in order or it is out of order. Whether it is a precedent would be a matter for debate and we debated that in the case of Harry Duynhoven where there was no precedent for retrospectively qualifying him for Parliament. The question I want clarity on from you is whether that notice of motion is in order. If it is in order it is open to this House to seek leave to debate the motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct in both things he said. It is in order and it is in order for anybody to seek leave to have it debated otherwise it would not be on the Order Paper. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to have missed the previous call because I want to raise a point of order about what Mr Prebble said at the end of his statement that the Prime Minister had instructed the Labour members of the committee to do certain things. 
 I suggest that the member is raising an issue of privilege. To instruct members of a committee on how they are going to behave in that sense is in itself a breach of privilege because members must be free to act. Therefore if the member wants to raise that matter he should raise it by way of a letter to you not by way of speaking in the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is a novel and interesting argument. If the Minister of Finance went to a select committee he would discover that prior to voting members would say that they are going back to their caucus for consultation. They would then come back and say that this is the Government line. That is going on in every committee. If the member wants to put me up in front of the Privileges Committee for saying what we all know then make my day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is an important point. I do note that I am already on two select committees plus the Business Committee. But apart from that there is a question of consultation in seeking the views of one’s colleagues and one’s colleagues vote on those views. Even members of the ACT party—which apparently is supposed to be a bastion of liberalism and individualism—seem to vote on these matters. It is quite a different matter to say that members are being instructed by the Prime Minister on how they are to vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Rules about instruction relate to instruction from outside the House. However that point has been made during the course of the point of order. The last part of the member’s point of order was not a point of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have considerable sympathy for Dr Smith. As a member of that select committee I point out that the Government used its majority to block key witnesses coming to that select committee hearing. We then learn that it is only through an instruction in the House that the committee can be made open to the public—an objective that the Prime Minister publicly claimed she wants but in private the Government blocks it. Dr Smith has a notice of motion on the Order Paper and again the Government has used its majority to block that action. It places the Opposition in a very difficult position when all we are trying to get is an inquiry that is open and transparent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Any member can seek leave to debate that motion and can. [ 
Interruption 
] Just one moment. Leave has not yet been sought but if it is sought and denied that is the end of the matter. But that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Given her public repeated statements of favouring complete openness and disclosure on this issue what reasons would the Government have for not supporting my notice of motion that all of the select committee’s deliberations on the inquiry into “corngate” be held in open session? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In response to the previous question on this issue I cited the Standing Orders. Of course it is always open to the member to go to the Standing Orders Committee. Apart from that I do not wish to intervene in the affairs of the committee. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On reflection does the Prime Minister believe that her public comments criticising the select committee’s inquiry chaired by Green leader Jeanette Fitzsimons calling it a “circus” and a “farce” are compatible with her stated public intention of having an open and transparent inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a circus and a farce. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the select committee so that the public might judge who is responsible— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the minutes. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper in my name to be put to the vote without debate immediately following question time today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had an intriguing answer from the Prime Minister and I wonder whether she wants to review it. She told us that the committee is independent and that she has nothing to do with it. Indeed she has given the impression that she does not know what is going on with the committee yet she is prepared to tell the whole House that it is a circus and a farce. Is she the circus master or is she not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.