Personal Explanations — Air New Zealand—Charter Flight to KuwaitText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePersonal Explanations — Air New Zealand—Charter Flight to Kuwait[Sitting date: 10 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 10 October 2007Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Personal ExplanationsAir New Zealand—Charter Flight to KuwaitRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek leave under Standing Order 350 in regard to issues relating to Air New Zealand’s charter flight to Kuwait.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there—Hon Bill English: Is it a personal explanation?Madam SPEAKER: It is a personal explanation. That is the Standing Order the member referred to. I assumed members knew that. Is there any objection?Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker we couldn’t hear what it was about.Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry Mr Peters but people were not giving their full attention. Could you please repeat your request to the House.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have asked them three times. With respect usually you ask wait a moment and if there is no demur leave is conceded. You do not ask three times.Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point—Gerry Brownlee: The microphones were not turned on. We did not hear Mr Peters—Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated Mr Brownlee. I am on my feet. If you wish to remain in the House you will please be seated. Mr Peters yes I think that members did not hear what you said because there was too much noise in the House and secondly you referred to just the Standing Order and I think it may not have been clear to some people what the Standing Order actually referred to. If you do not mind we will start again and if you could repeat your request we will take it from there. I would appreciate that. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I seek leave under Standing Order 350 in respect of Air New Zealand’s charter flight to Kuwait.Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can you give us some guidance as to whether this is the appropriate Standing Order—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is not a point of order.Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue Mr Brownlee.Gerry Brownlee: —for the Minister to use to address the House. The matters relating to this issue concern the Minister’s portfolio not the member personally. I think it would be far better if Mr Peters were to seek leave for a ministerial statement. Of course he does not need leave for that; he could just stand up and make it.Madam SPEAKER: I thank Mr Brownlee for his contribution. The matter is of course in the hands of the House. Members can either grant leave or not. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In respect of issues raised yesterday I find it necessary to make this statement to the House. On 16 August a National member of Parliament Murray McCully asked a series of five questions during question time and asked specifically: “Can the House have an assurance that at no stage did any official from his ministry”—and I repeat the term “his ministry” for MrMcCully’s edification—“communicate in writing or in any other form with him or his office aboutthe Air New Zealand charters?”. AsHansard records my response at that time was: “I have had a chance to review this matter with my officials and the head of foreign affairs over the last 24 hours. To the best of everyone’s recollections there were no communications to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or his office.” That was the answer. I stand by that statement. I did not receive any communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.As this situation unfolded a full account of the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in this matter and an apology were provided by the head of my ministry Simon Murdoch after I had answered questions in the House on 16 August—after I had answered the questions. That account was tabled in the House—that is Mr Murdoch’s explanation was tabled in full in the House.My office as part of the process sought clarity around a Combined Threat Assessment Group report associated with the Air New Zealand charter. At the time of my answering questions in the House on 16 August my office was aware that a Combined Threat Assessment Group report had been generated. What we could not confirm was whether the report had been received by my office. However because Mr McCully had specifically asked about reports generated by my ministry and as Dr Cullen had already alerted the House on the same day to the distribution of the Combined Threat Assessment Group report there is no need to correct any answer given in the House.Indeed the answers remain factually correct as Mr McCully now admits. The fact that a Combined Threat Assessment Group report had been distributed to several Ministers’ offices was reported in the media the following day 17 August. It is all there. But to ensure that the facts around this matter are clear—[Interruption] Well I know that member is going to groan because now he is having the facts rather than a dissertation—Madam SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —of trivial rubbish like we have been hearing over the media for the past 24 hours.Madam SPEAKER: Order! No would the member please continue and if—Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He cannot interrupt with a point of order.Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated! The Minister has a point. These statements are heard in silence. There were comments and they were starting to become audible. I remind members that if interventions are made they create disorder which was happening. Mr Brownlee do you want to make some comment? And then we will continue.Gerry Brownlee: I raised the issue before as to whether it was appropriate for Mr Peters to be making his statement under the provision of a personal statement to the House or whether he should have been making a ministerial statement. In the contribution we have heard so far Mr Peters has talked about his office about the processes in his office about how other offices were involved etc. etc. That is hardly personal to him. Any failing on his part has been in the office of Minister. At what point does the House’s indulgence of a personal explanation become so abused that members have a right to start rejecting the information being put before them by a member on the basis that it is inappropriately put? This of course is a matter that could no longer be debated if the House were to accept the explanation—providing of course that everything that is put before us is absolutely accurate.Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think that two points need to be made. The first is that if members believe that such a statement is going beyond what leave was granted for then the appropriate remedy is to raise a point of order not to start interjecting. That is theproper procedure. The second point of course is that if one were to take seriously Mr Brownlee’s commentary then if a Minister sought to correct an answer he or she should do so by means of a ministerial statement which would mean that every one of those occasions became a debatable affair within the House. Mr Peters’ point of course as he was explaining is that he does not need to correct an answer because in fact I as Acting Prime Minister at the time in the House actually gave all that information to the House at the time.Madam SPEAKER: I have heard enough. Initially the House itself judged it was appropriate for a personal explanation to be made so that matter is completed. The question then is whether the statement was remaining personal and was in order. So far it did appear that the statement was in order. It was relating to matters relating to Mr Peters. So I would ask him to continue.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Combined Threat Assessment Group report had indeed been sent to my office. It was received on Wednesday 16 May and receipted as it is a requirement that all documents of this nature must be lodged and receipted. The headline of the report and its risk assessment rating were read by the staff member but not the body of the report. The risk assessment rating determined by the Combined Threat Assessment Group—which I will not and cannot disclose—was not of a level though to ring those sorts of alarm bells. The report was then receipted and sent back.My staff member responded in the same way upon reading the report headline as did the heads of several Government departments and every other senior official who read it. Combined Threat Assessment Group reports make up only a small proportion of all the assessment material received by my office. Given the volume of documents and emails that my Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff handle every day they are expected to decide what information is to be put to me. This is in addition to the formal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and other Government departments that is put to me for decisions every day. In this specific incident my staff member displayed the same judgment as his chief executive officer and many other senior officials did. And I stand by his decision. If it is a matter of importance I expect either to be briefed by my senior officials or to see a formal ministerial submission on the subject. In the case of the Air New Zealand charters I received neither and my chief executive has already apologised for his omission and tabled that apology in this House.So the facts of the matter are clear. As Mr Murdoch has acknowledged errors were made by the department and they have been addressed and apologised for. A Combined Threat Assessment Group report which was not generated by my ministry came to my office and was dealt with in the same way that other senior officials had dealt with it. Those are the facts.