Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8107] 
3.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she phone her brother-in-law Allan Hardacre a scientist at Crop and Food Research on or about 12 November 2000 to discuss the problem of GM-contaminated corn; and did she request that the then Minister for Biosecurity Hon Marian Hobbs also phone him for advice at that time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No and no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who is telling the truth given that Mr Allan Hardacre in a written submission to the committee said that the Prime Minister did phone him and furthermore that the Minister for Biosecurity also made her first phone call at the Prime Minister’s request? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I phoned Mr Hardacre some time over the weekend of 25 or 26 November. In further discussion with Marian Hobbs I suggested that she might find it useful to talk to him. Apparently she did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does she reconcile her statement during the election campaign “on the chair of the board I did not get involved” with the fact that she twice phoned her brother-in-law a scientist at Crop and Food Research with key contracts with the industry; that she requested that Marian Hobbs ring him to discuss the issue and that she also requested that Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet adviser Ruth Wilkie seek advice from him and does she now accept that she was donkey-deep in the Government’s management of this issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not. I recollect one conversation as is in my written evidence. I did not request Mrs Hobbs or Ms Wilkie to ring the gentleman. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How can the Prime Minister reconcile the answer she has just given to the House and her statements during the election campaign that she knew nothing about any cover-up with a memo to her dated 8 December from Ruth Wilkie who works in her department stating: “We cannot say that we have reliably discovered contamination in the corn currently planted but equally we cannot say that we have completely discounted it. … The blanket ban on new organisms contained in the HSNO Act runs counter to reality. The proposed level of tolerance of .5 percent contamination being found and 99 percent confidence is very low and probably in the long term is not sustainable.” and does that not show that her statements during the election campaign were just not true? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Absolutely not. There was no cover-up. As Dr Prebble said in his evidence the only advice the Prime Minister ever offered him was that if any contamination were found the corn should be uprooted. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Prime Minister has said that there was no cover-up and on 11 July 2002 said on National Radio: “I believe in total disclosure. I have nothing to hide. All Government advice will be made public.” why was the key memo from Ruth Wilkie that Mr Prebble has just quoted kept secret? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It was certainly not kept secret on my instruction. It most certainly was not. If the member wants to check that with Dr Prebble he should ask him to return to the committee. That was not a decision taken by me or advised by me. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile that answer with the concept of ministerial responsibility and with a memo I have in my hand dated 17 July—10 days before the election—from Ruth Wilkie to Dr Mark Prebble stating: “I wish to register formally my concern I expressed on Saturday the 13th of July about the decision to withhold from public release DPMC notes to the Prime Minister on the management of potentially contaminated corn seed in December 2000. I consider that at least one of the notes filled an important gap in the paper trail.” and is the Prime Minister saying that she takes no ministerial responsibility for what happens in her own department? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously there was a debate between Dr Prebble and Ms Wilkie. I happen to think that Ms Wilkie was right but my advice was not sought at the time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should New Zealanders believe any public statement she makes of the sort: “All documents will be released.” when the head of her own department deliberately and knowingly kept key documents secret at the most sensitive time of the electoral cycle? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That was a decision he made. He and Ms Wilkie disagreed on the matter. As I have just said I happen to think that Ms Wilkie was right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the people of New Zealand to believe that the head of her own department would knowingly disobey her specific instructions on the most sensitive document and the most sensitive issue in the 2002 election without her having any knowledge; if so are we also expected to believe in the tooth fairy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The right honourable Prime Minister can answer the first question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said that was a decision that Dr Prebble took on his own. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the  
Hansard 
 from the question that has just passed in the light of the evidential material that we are expected to take to the Clerk’s Office each day to get a question in. It seems to me that there is some concern around the fact that the question referred to “on or about 12 November 2000”. That had to be in there because the open question: “Did you ever phone your brother-in-law?” could not be asked. That would be a ridiculous question and Parliament should not waste its time on whether Ministers phone members of their family. To quantify it in the context of the issue and to make it a reasonable question a date had to be put in there. From the papers that were released it was not unreasonable for Dr Smith to put in “on or about 12 November”. I want to know whether you consider it reasonable for the Prime Minister to say no but subsequently to answer another question by referring to the 26th of that month. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that I have here the question as submitted. It has been changed only a little bit to put in the words “Ltd” “then” and “Minister for Biosecurity”. Apart from that it is exactly as it was submitted. Questions have to be authenticated. Answers are a matter for Ministers and the House decides how it reacts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that misses the point. Of course the question went in like that. I said that. I also said that it was reasonable for Dr Smith to do that. What I think is unreasonable is for the Prime Minister to say no to that using up one of our questions then come back a few moments later and say that it was a short period later. That is unacceptable. Members cannot lodge a question that does not make sense. It would have been unintelligible without an “on or about” date in it and it would not have got through. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a matter for debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had enough of this matter now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have asked you to consider something. I did not ask for an instant ruling. I have asked you to consider the  
Hansard 
 when it is printed. It is an important issue. We should not have to use a supplementary question to dig out the essential answer asked for in the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked me to consider it and I will. I call Jeanette Fitzsimons for a supplementary question. The Greens have not had a question yet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. They may not have had a question yet but nor have we on this issue. They can take their turn like everybody else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon I have made a mistake. I am sorry the member is absolutely correct. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Prime Minister advise Dr Prebble not to release this information; if not is he still employed with her department and why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I did not give him that advice. He is still employed as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and he is a very commendable public servant with much merit. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is someone about to leave. I have called only Jeanette Fitzsimons. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In the light of her statement in July last year: “I want anyone involved to speak totally openly.” and in the light of Genescan’s refusal to appear and give the select committee its test results on the corn on the grounds of commercial confidentiality will the Government require Genescan which it now owns as a Crown entity to appear and give the committee the information it is seeking? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that the Government cannot require that company to appear. I understand—and this is only from what we are hearing in the public arena and from what the committee is hearing—that it is citing commercial reasons. I do not believe that the Government has grounds for trying to go across that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the House to understand that the position is that 10 days before the election when the Prime Minister was telling the nation that every document with regard to “corngate” had been released the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had chosen to keep a document secret that revealed that on 8 December she had learnt a great deal about the “corngate” matter that she had denied any knowledge of on TV3 and that her position is now that she knew nothing about that and that Dr Prebble is a model civil servant—who presumably carries out the Prime Minister’s will—who should be recalled to the Local Government and Environment Committee but that she will not front up to that select committee herself even though we have all seen the British Prime Minister being willing to appear before a select committee; why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There must have been at least seven questions in that. Dr Prebble is a model civil servant. He took a decision on his own account. Ms Wilkie disagreed with him and I happen to think she was right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to firstly table the memo from Ruth Wilkie to the Prime Minister in respect of contaminated corn that was kept secret during the election campaign. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a memo from Ruth Wilkie expressing serious concern that the memo was not released against the Prime Minister’s wishes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Radio New Zealand transcripts where the Prime Minister said six times that there would be total openness and that all documents would be released. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the submission from Mr Allan Hardacre saying that he did make two phone calls to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that is in front of a select committee. It can still be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.