Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:663;Page:10964] 
6. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she stand by her statement in November last year about convicted rapist Maka Renata that “an intensive plan has been put in place to manage this offender’s reintegration which involves police. Agencies will be taking every step possible under the law to ensure the safety of the public.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: On both occasions when the rapist Maka Renata absconded this year on what dates was she first advised that he was on the run? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I cannot say the exact dates on which I was advised but I can say that I was advised in due time. I can also remind that member that it is not permissible under the law for the Minister of Corrections to instruct any department in relation to an offender but I have absolute confidence that the department has acted completely within the law and responsibly. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise two points with you. Firstly given that this question was on notice and it contained a quote specific to the case in question the Minister had a number of hours to perceive that she might be asked about the detail of the case. Secondly my supplementary question did not have the word “instructions” in it. It simply asked—and I am happy to repeat it—on what dates she was first advised that the rapist had absconded. She has had a number of hours to prepare; it was a specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One has to be reasonable. The Minister obviously does not have that information. If she had that information I am sure she would have told the House. She made it clear that she did not have it. I was listening carefully. Had she gone on to add any criticism of the Opposition I would have been concerned but she did not. She went on to simply explain the Minister’s position in all of this. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Hon Simon Power on this occasion—he is normally very good in complying with the Standing Orders—that I am on my feet. We have got into a bit of a mess there because of an unnecessary interjection from the Hon Shane Jones. The House needs to be a little more reasonable. We know that the sound system is making it hard for members to hear. That kind of interjection makes it impossible. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The same member who earlier called you childish when you were on your feet called out “Out! Out! Out!” while you were on your feet again. I have a feeling that if someone over here including myself had said “Out! Out! Out!” in those circumstances when you were on your feet we might have been gone 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House needs to settle down a bit. The member who is raising a point about what might have happened on the other side will remember that I was sufficiently courteous to him to allow him to repeat what he had claimed was a point of order when I was pretty certain it was not. I presume that the member is referring to the very loud voice at the back of the House. I ask the owner of that very large voice at the back of the House who is looking everywhere else but at himself at the moment—I refer to Mr Quinn—to please be a little more respectful to the House. He has a large voice and should not interject when the Speaker is on his feet. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: On each occasion when the rapist Maka Renata absconded how long was it before his victims were advised that he was on the run? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I cannot answer that question but I can say this to the member: if he expects me every time an offender escapes or goes on the run to strap on my little Taser and go charging after him or her I can tell him that I have far more faith in New Zealand police than he clearly has. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is similar to the last point of order. This question was on notice. It is clear from the primary question that the Minister was being asked whether she stood by her statement regarding the case of Maka Renata a man who has been on the run for 3 weeks. She had ample time to prepare an answer. Are we going to waste further supplementary questions by asking very specific questions to which the Minister says that she does not know the answer because she has not prepared and has not done her job? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point of order but he is really questioning the quality of the Minister’s answer. The Minister answered the question. She said that she does not have the information the member was seeking. The quality of the answer may be something for the questioner and the public to judge but in respect of the Standing Orders the Minister has answered the question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I will try again. On each occasion when the rapist—[ 
Interruption 
] Well you might laugh but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Leader of the House now— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well come on! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is unacceptable and the Leader of the House should not set a bad example like that. I ask both sides to settle down or someone will be taking an early shower. We cannot allow that kind of disrespect to the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: On each occasion when the rapist Maka Renata absconded what action if any did she take or request of agencies to ensure the safety of the public? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I asked the agencies to make sure they were taking every action that they could. I remind that member that the offender whom he is referring to has finished his sentence. In addition to that—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the Opposition want the answer or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to resume her seat. I say to members on both sides of the House that the solution to this noise problem is in their own hands. When the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was seeking to ask his supplementary question there was a barrage of loud interjections from the Government benches. I am looking right now at the member who was particularly involved; she knows who she is. When the Minister is answering the Government cannot expect the Opposition to be silent when the Government was very noisy during the asking of the question. Ultimately the standards in this House are for the members to set. If members want me to start applying the Standing Orders a few people may be leaving the House pretty pronto. I do not want to do that. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I will continue for the Opposition’s benefit. An extended supervision order was applied for in November when the offender was still in prison. It has not yet been granted by a court. The member should know that all that the Department of Corrections can do is apply for such an order; it does not grant it. It is before the court and that member should respect the court process. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why did she wash her hands of this issue palming it off as an operational matter and refusing any further comment about Renata’s most recent disappearance when she was asked for comment by the  
Herald on Sunday 
 given the fact that she was very willing to publicly comment about this prisoner following his release in November last year? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That member might not realise it but there is an ongoing police investigation right now. I think we should support the New Zealand police to get on with their job. That member might want to be the puppet of the  
Herald on Sunday 
 but I am not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I request a considered ruling from you on a matter. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers should know that they do not interject when a point of order is being heard. I say to the Hon Judith Collins that it is not good enough for a senior Minister to treat this House with contempt. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I request a considered ruling because I do not want to waste the time of the House. It is simply this and I am not challenging your ruling. If the benchmark is that Ministers answering questions on notice can come down here and say that they do not know if that is your considered ruling then those are the rules of the game. But I would have thought given other rulings that you have made—very fair ones—that questions on notice require a level of detail. To come down to the House and say that one does not know the answer and to not offer even to provide— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now verging into criticising the Minister’s answers. Had the member wanted detail around the dates he has referred to in his supplementary questions he could have put that in his primary question. His primary question just asked whether the Minister stood by a certain quote. The remedy is in members’ hands if they want precise answers. The Minister clearly did not have the information that the member was seeking in his subsequent supplementary questions. In his final supplementary question the member made an unnecessary allegation about the Minister’s actions and got a pretty political response from the Minister. Again that was in the member’s hands—that he asked that kind of question. If the member had put down on notice a question about those dates I would have made sure that he got the answer but he did not and that limits my ability. We cannot judge the quality of an answer in this House but I will do my best to make sure that the member gets an answer to questions when they are put down. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the last answer of the Minister—and I have waited till after my colleague had raised his point of order—there was a reference by the Minister to my colleague being the agent of a particular news organisation and it was not a nice description either. Mr Speaker I thought that in the end you were going to rule that out of order and I think it should be. I think it was offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty I have as Speaker is that with the noise going on I did not hear what the Minister said. I cannot rule if I cannot hear. [ 
Interruption 
] Look the House is wearing my patience today. We will not waste further time at all. If the member is as sensitive as that the Opposition will be quieter so that I can hear what Ministers are saying—and that applies to the other side as well. I am a little tired of the disrespect to the House from both sides. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a real problem. If an offensive remark is made—if I have to write it down and show you what it was I will—you cannot hear it and the Minister gets away with it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not waste further time on this. I ask the member to sit down. I ask the Hon Judith Collins whether she made an offensive remark—I just want her to tell the House. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not think it was offensive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not think it was offensive? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No and anyway— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. I have asked the Minister whether she made an offensive remark. She does not believe she made an offensive remark the member involved did not appear to have taken offence I as Speaker did not hear it and that is where the matter lies. 
Hon John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member opposite may well make a very genuine point: if offence is taken of course a member should apologise. I would make just one point though and it is that on this side of the House when either I or other members near me are answering questions we are subjected to Mr Mallard making comments constantly using for instance the word “liar”. He did that on numerous occasions through questions Nos 1 2 and 3 today. If Mr Mallard is such a sensitive little daffodil as he is proposing he is that is totally fine but I would ask him to be consistent with his own comments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to hear further on this. The member will resume his seat right now. I apologise to the House that as Speaker I allowed that situation to go on. What the Prime Minister said was absolutely correct and it is intolerable. I have tolerated that from the Hon Trevor Mallard day after day and I do not intend to do that any more. I want this matter now to be treated as both sides of the House having been offended and I will not take any further points of order on this issue. I remind members though that henceforth if I hear members alleging the other side of the House to be lying or liars—[ 
Interruption 
] If the member is disputing that I can absolutely assure him. If he is not aware of what he is saying then let us deal with that separately but I will not consider this matter any further. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the member. I have ruled on this matter and the member risks— 
Hon Simon Power 
: An overseas trip? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been raised. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I am concerned about my colleague’s reputation. I have to confess that it was I who said it and not Mr Mallard and I withdraw— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard the Hon Trevor Mallard make those accusations across the House day after day on several questions a day. I have tolerated it and that is my fault and I apologise to the House. I believe that it perhaps is what has led to more disorder. It is my fault as Speaker and I will clamp down on it. Now we will be moving on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to leave the House now but I refuse to accept that I called the Prime Minister a liar today because I did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be leaving the House right now because he has disputed my ruling and he will leave. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And he will not comment as he goes or I will be naming the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.