Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7219] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she made her statement reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of 24 June 2003 as “ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that” did she personally have confidence in herself to make that statement; if so how does she reconcile that statement with the Labour Maori members’ statement given on the same day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Prime Minister has complete confidence in the statements she has made on this issue and has no difficulty reconciling them with other statements she has seen and heard on this issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is so why with regard to question No. 3 yesterday—of identical intent and meaning and from the same source—did she duck it and why was she not prepared to face up to this House and answer the question yesterday and more important tell us how she reconciles it with the Maori members’ statement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The question yesterday referred to a different statement. The Prime Minister has checked the press conference and cannot find any record of her having made the statement referred to yesterday. The Attorney-General certainly did make that statement. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister intend to stand by the substance and intent of the statement made about a month ago referred to in this question that ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown and that legislation would clarify that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Legislation will certainly be used to clarify the fact that all New Zealanders have rights of access to the seabed and foreshore and that they cannot be affected by any title being granted that gives exclusive rights. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister seeking to duck the issue which was that on 24 June the  
Dominion Post  
reported: “Ms Wilson and Prime Minister Helen Clark said the planned law change would clarify that the Crown and thus the general public owned beach foreshores and the seabed.”; and why was it yesterday of such moment to duck out of that were it not for the fact that she is too scared to come down here and— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for that last comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise—were it not for the fact that she is lacking what it takes to come down— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is out of order also. The member is just trifling with me as Chair. He is very close to being sent out. That last part of the question is struck out. The first part can be answered. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better not be in any way challenging my ruling. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise and I want to complete the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been completed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it has not. You have ruled it out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry I did not rule the question out. I ruled the last part of it out and I want the Minister to answer it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have apologised twice for imputations. Now I want to complete the question the way it was properly phrased in the first place otherwise it is just an open question on fact. I want a conclusion out of this from the Minister and I think I am entitled to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member has asked the question. He can queer his own pitch by saying what he said but then the whole question will be ruled out. I am being very generous in allowing the Minister to comment on the first part. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister does not duck anything and certainly will not duck anything from that particular member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled that in; you ruled what I said out which actually underscored what I said in the first place. My real point is that yesterday’s quote and today’s quote are from the same press conference by two different reporters but the import is identical. You allowed the Prime Minister yesterday to refer that question to Margaret Wilson who she knew was not here. So it came back to the person answering today. This circuitous route towards democratic accountability is a disgrace and we do not wish to put up with it. I am asking fairly why she could not answer yesterday the question of the same import today. The answer seems to be she is not prepared to answer on either day. That is why he is answering. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I said yesterday—speaking now as Deputy Prime Minister—the Prime Minister did not find in the transcript of the press conference the quote that was used yesterday. That quote certainly referred to a statement made by the Attorney-General therefore the question was referred. The quotation today was included in the transcript of the press conference. The Prime Minister will not duck anything from that member. She is prepared to meet him anywhere anytime except at a Courtenay Place bar in the early hours of the morning. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with a point of order. There is nothing for me to rule on at this particular point. The comment made by the Deputy Prime Minister was not insulting; it just merely made a statement. It certainly did not reflect on any other member of this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact is that yesterday that was not the logic that you accepted for the reference onwards. The logic you accepted yesterday was that because Margaret Wilson had also made the statement and she being responsible for these issues she should answer it. That is what you said yesterday. Now today we find out that although there was no denial for a whole month from the Prime Minister as to the propriety of that reporting as to her comments it now is an issue. That is a disgraceful abuse of this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not because in fact I did not say that yesterday. I said it is up to the Government to determine who answers the question. It is not up to me. Supplementary question the Hon Bill English—did he have one? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is my turn then; I am on my feet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had two. Mr English has had one. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect he is sitting down and I am standing and every precedent says that you should ask me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am now finished with the member. He may leave the Chamber. I am not having that constant—[ 
Interruption 
] I asked because the member had originally stood when it was his turn to ask a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am now calling the Hon Bill English. [ 
Interruption 
] The member did stand before and I called him. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it now in order in this House for a member to be able to get a question at question time when he is sitting on his bum as opposed to a member who is on his feet and seeking the call? In this particular case Mr English was still sitting down. Mr Peters was standing up and you have thrown him out of the House because he was exercising his parliamentary responsibility to question the Government about what is happening. The Government may not like it and other Government members may not like it either but he is entitled to the call if he is the only one standing up—surely. Please rule. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member does not recollect accurately at all. Mr Peters asked the first supplementary question. Mr English asked the second supplementary question. Mr Peters asked the third supplementary question and at the conclusion of that during it the Hon Bill English stood up. I automatically assumed he was next. As far as I am concerned I did not throw the member out of the Chamber for raising a point of order; I threw him out because he is defying the Chair and everyone in this House knows it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened to your recollection of events which I have to say does not concur exactly with mine. I recall seeking the call only once and it is unfortunate perhaps if the consequences of that are that Mr Peters ended up challenging the Chair. So in his defence I would say that I share Mr Peters’ understanding that I had sought the call only once and did not actually seek the call a second time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really appreciate the statement from the leader of the National Party. As I understand it what he just said is that he was not seeking the call. Therefore it was perfectly appropriate for Mr Peters to be on his feet and to seek the call—which is what he was doing and for which you have ejected him. Now we have Mr English supporting Mr Peters’ approach. We are very concerned about the way in which you are conducting question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I did not eject Mr Peters for raising points of order; he has raised so many and I have heard them all. I ejected him for being rude to me which is not acceptable in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether later in the day you might be able to look at the transcript the  
Hansard 
 of the proceedings around this particular question. I think that tempers certainly do become a little bit frayed when answers come from Ministers that are generally well outside the requirements of answers as set down in the Standing Orders. In particular Mr Peters would have had some justification for being a little hot under the collar at the earlier response by the Acting Prime Minister Dr Michael Cullen to the part of his question that you had actually ruled out of order. Those sorts of responses from Ministers do lead to disorder in the House. I think it is very unfortunate that Mr Peters has found himself getting so frustrated that some of his frustration has been vented as disrespect for the Chair. There is no disagreement with your decision but I think it worthy of your time to have a look at the  
Hansard 
 and perhaps give some Government Ministers an instruction that they are as much responsible for disorder occurring in the House because of their answers as is any other activity that might come from this side of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I have answered every question addressed to me today directly. You ruled out of order as I understood it a reference to the Prime Minister being scared. The first part of the question referred to ducking the question. You said that the first part of the question could be answered and that is the part I answered absolutely directly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct. I want to say that as far as I am concerned Dr Cullen has answered questions directly when he has been asked them today. As everyone knows I did not ask Mr Peters to leave because of that. I thank Mr Brownlee for the comments he made inside his point of order.