2. Deputy Prime Minister—Actions and StatementsHon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Deputy Prime MinisterDeputy Prime Minister—Actions and Statements2. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Yes I do in their context.Hon Paula Bennett: Does he believe his actions and those of other Ministers have met the bar set in 2.57 of the Cabinet Manual which states: Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards."?SPEAKER: Order! I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question to make sure it is entirely within the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister. He has no responsibility for any other Ministers.Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you sir. Does he believe his actions have met the bar set in 2.57 of the Cabinet Manual which states: "Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards."?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes and compared with that member and her colleagues my actions are as pure as the driven snow.Hon Paula Bennett: When he said yesterday in his statement as Deputy Prime Minister "Mr Mitchell may have misunderstood her underlying point." what was the underlying point Mr Mitchell misunderstood?SPEAKER: Order! Because this is a very finely tuned matter I'm going to do what I did with Dr Smith last week and seek an assurance that that statement was made by the Deputy Prime Minister and in the body of the statement uses that appellation for the Minister.Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I expected your question on that. I have a copy of it that's clearly under the Deputy Prime Minister and clearly has it written as his statement. I'm happy to—SPEAKER: Yes the member tables it and continues with the question.Hon Paula Bennett: Thank you. Would you like to hear the statement again?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No I heard it. We're not slow learners over here. Can I just say that when I was first made aware of—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just answer the question.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well if you keep quiet for five seconds old man you'll hear it. [Interruption] Can I just say that when I first heard of a report of this conversation I knew that someone had got the wrong end of the stick and so I thought seeing as my colleague had allowed another parliamentary colleague to get a mistaken impression that we should correct it as fast as possible. I thought that was the right thing to do. I mean there's nothing big about this but we're surely not going to have Mr Mitchell trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?SPEAKER: Order! Having listened to the reply and looked at the statement I accept the member's word and it is very clear that it is headed "Deputy Prime Minister". It is however clear to me that there is nothing in the statement that is the responsibility of the Deputy Prime Minister.Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In all fairness the statement that has been put out is clearly "Deputy Prime Minister". It doesn't even say "Leader of New Zealand First" on it. I double-checked that. So he has made those comments as the Deputy Prime Minister and as such he has responsibility for them as the Deputy Prime Minister and should be answering accordingly.SPEAKER: I think you have to go quite a lot further than mislabelling a statement—[Interruption]; minus three supplementaries—in order to bring something into ministerial responsibility. He might be responsible for mislabelling a statement but there are areas which he is not responsible for and the activities of Ministers as was made very clear by the Prime Minister as all senior members of the Opposition will know is a matter for the Prime Minister and not the Deputy Prime Minister.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the problem with your ruling is that it ignores the fact that the Rt Hon Winston Peters putting out a release under the banner of the Deputy Prime Minister has made an accusation against one of our members that he now apparently simply cannot be questioned upon. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask him "What did he mean? What was the other side of the story which my colleague apparently has not understood?" To say that the House can't question the Deputy Prime Minister about a statement he makes as the Deputy Prime Minister I think begins to—frankly it just shields him from any of the normal scrutiny that would go on someone who makes from a ministerial position such an accusation.Hon Chris Hipkins: The closest example I can think of where the House has dealt with this matter before was when the then Labour Opposition was trying to question the then Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key about statements that he had made in his capacity as the leader of the National Party but he had made them at his prime ministerial press conference. The Speaker of the House at the time—I can't actually recall what the exact issue was but I remember arguing about it—argued that he had made those statements in his capacity as leader of the National Party even if the venue in which he had made them was his prime ministerial press conference. The question is not where a statement is made or how it is cited or the title that is used in citing; it's whether the Minister has ministerial responsibility for the matters in question. In this case the Deputy Prime Minister does not have ministerial responsibility for the issues he's being questioned about.Hon Nikki Kaye: I did want to rise to speak because you have taken three Opposition questions as a result of my outburst. I am frankly appalled that in this House a Minister could put a statement out with the words "Deputy Prime Minister" and then as Speaker you could somehow know that he wasn't acting in his responsibility and he had mislabelled the statement. That's why you got the outburst. I would ask you to reflect on this. It's a very serious matter. It's not possible in my view for the Speaker to know what's inside a Minister's head. They've issued a statement in the capacity as Deputy Prime Minister.SPEAKER: Can I just make it absolutely clear to Nikki Kaye that I am quite offended by her comments then. I know what the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister are and that's what's important and I ruled that way.Hon Gerry Brownlee: There is no comparison between the example given by the Hon Chris Hipkins and the current situation. For a start if a person is being interviewed by a group of journalists in a stand-up situation they may well be asked a range of questions and they may answer them without actually specifying "I am now taking this hat off and putting this hat on." That was you will recall established well by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt when he sat in the Chair that you now occupy some years back. But in this case the Deputy Prime Minister on the Deputy Prime Minister's letterhead put out a statement making an accusation against a colleague of mine suggesting effectively that my colleague had got the wrong end of the stick. We're just now saying "Well what was the right end of that stick?" He must know for him to have made that statement. Given that this is not a trivial matter any suggestion that someone gets in the road of a member of Parliament doing their work—the elected work that they are sent to this place for—is a serious matter. Therefore for Mr Peters to simply say "Well you know the Hon Mark Mitchell must have got the wrong end of the stick or got the wrong meaning etc." cannot just stand as a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that says "Close off; nothing to see here." Surely he can be questioned about what he actually meant?SPEAKER: If in the body of the statement which I'm sure the leader of New Zealand First approved it had said "Deputy Prime Minister" I would have had more sympathy. But the fact that it has been printed by a press secretary on an inappropriate letterhead does not—[Interruption]; minus another three—bring it within the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that a Government press secretary should know the difference between a letterhead that says "Leader of New Zealand First" and that of Deputy Prime Minister? You can only assume that it was done through the offices that are located on the ninth floor which are Government offices—ministerial offices—not party offices.SPEAKER: In actual fact I think as the member is aware there are a number of people who are employed in those offices who are dually employed including in his own leader's office.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: A further point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes it is because that implies that there is some level of bad behaviour going on in the Leader of the Opposition's office—in other words using taxpayer funds illegitimately unreasonably—and that is not the case. But it would be worse if that was somehow to be the reason why there would be an excuse for the Deputy Prime Minister to make an accusation on Government letterhead using Government resources to make that accusation but then not come under any scrutiny in the House whatsoever.SPEAKER: I do want to if I can draw this to a close as soon as I can and I want to be very careful about reflecting on mistakes made by staff members—especially a person who has had quite a history around these buildings working for a number of parties. But it is clear to me that someone made an error in putting it on this letterhead.Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I've got two points of order. The first is around the process of tabling documents and the supplementary question from the Hon Paula Bennett. You as Speaker had then asked for the document and yet there wasn't a process of tabling it. So my question is: have you made a ruling as a result of that action that you have to sight any documents that are made by members of this House in a supplementary question before you allow them to be raised on the floor?SPEAKER: The answer to that is no and I let the member ask her question. Carry on—second point.Hon Louise Upston: Sorry Mr Speaker on that first point—SPEAKER: No no the first point's been dealt with. If the member has a separate point of order she may raise it but that point of order has been dealt with. Second point of order?Hon Louise Upston: The second point of order is the assertion that you've made Mr Speaker about a staff member making an error. As a member of this House I'm curious as to what's led you to that conclusion given that it is a document that's on letterhead from the Deputy Prime Minister.SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat now. If she is curious about my rulings and requires tutelage I'm happy to explain it to her but not to take up the time of the House. I've made an indication to members that if they don't understand my rulings if I've not been clear enough then I'm willing to talk to them about it but points of clarification—or points of curiosity as this one might be characterised—are not allowed under the Standing Orders. I'm going to warn the member: she's disputed my ruling once already; if she disputes it again I will view it very seriously.Hon Louise Upston: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In terms of the Speaker's ruling that you have just used could you please bring that to the attention of the House? I've been listening to the comments around me and I just want to know what that ruling is please.SPEAKER: Well I think the member's now trifling with the Chair.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. My point of order is simply that if we are now to move on from this—get it all nicely resolved; everyone is happy to an extent—is it reasonable that we effectively lose six supplementaries because of a mistake made by one of Mr Peters' staff members?SPEAKER: No. The six supplementaries have been lost because members on my left breached the Standing Orders.Fletcher Tabuteau: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any molehills that have been transformed into mountains of late?SPEAKER: And three of the supplementaries have just been given back because the member knew that that was not a proper question."