English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7212] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Deputy Prime Minister; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes but of course it is possible that proceedings in the next few minutes may lead her to change her mind. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order that was raised with you yesterday. I refer to Speakers’ rulings and in particular the one I raised with you yesterday by Speaker Tapsell about transferring questions. I seek from you a ruling that Ministers should not transfer questions if they reasonably can answer. The reason I draw this to your attention today is that the situation today is very interesting. As I picked up the Order Paper I thought: “I haven’t seen this situation for a very long time.” Here is the Prime Minister willing to answer one two three questions whereas as was pointed out yesterday the Prime Minister normally answers only one question—a question that can be answered only by her—which is about whether she has confidence in a colleague. What we clearly see is that when Mr Cullen is Prime Minister he is prepared to answer questions—but Helen Clark is not and I think that is further evidence and if we see this situation tomorrow when the real Prime Minister returns—[ 
Interruption 
]; if she does decide to visit us again—we will have a look at the question of whether she is transferring questions. If Dr Cullen can answer questions and the other Prime Minister cannot perhaps the Labour Party might like to take that into account too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is more a political point than a genuine point of order because in actual fact there is a Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister leaves the country there has to be an Acting Prime Minister and Dr Cullen is going to answer in that regard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact is that this Prime Minister this week will answer one question in the House. Yesterday in answer to an identical question the Prime Minister said that the statement was made by another member of her Cabinet who was not here but nevertheless she would answer for her. Now that is it for the week for this Prime Minister. We know that she is there in her room right now— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am going to finish this because it is a major point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the member to be seated please. I want the member to come to the point of order. It was said that the Prime Minister was not here. I have said that from evidence that I have. If I am wrong I apologise but I am pretty certain I am not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker you are wrong. My point is this: yesterday you allowed her to transfer that question but today it is in her name now as the person to answer it but she is not here. I can raise that fact. What we have here is a Prime Minister who is transparently ducking question time in the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —and it does not befit any Western democracy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am finished with that point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have. The member will be seated. Points of order have to be put tersely. I have here a circular from the Cabinet Office which states: “Absent Minister: Rt Hon Helen Clark; 23 [pm] - 29 July.” That means that the Acting Prime Minister is the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is 11 o’clock tonight—that is my first point. Secondly I require a fair chance to put my point of order and get the facts right as you have not. Thirdly I was denied a television interview because they were at the very time interviewing the Prime Minister. It is all very well to deal with the media but the fact is that the Prime Minister owes this House her attendance and some political accountability. I for one and my party for another are not going to put up with it. We demand in this House the right to put sound points of order and not to have this democracy decay into some kind of Third World shambles. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly this question was not on the Order Paper yesterday and nothing like it was on the Order Paper— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can assure the member that there was no question yesterday about confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister. I would have sat there listening with some eagerness had there been. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 5. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 5? I think the member means No. 4 or No. 6 both of which refer to a quotation—which is a quotation that the Prime Minister actually made—which is not the case with the question yesterday. The Prime Minister is on her way to Auckland. She is proceeding from there to Townsville to talk with the Australians. She is proceeding from there to Korea for the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. She is not available to answer questions today. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the time that I have been privileged to be in this House one thing I have learnt is that any member’s word is considered to be absolute. We are never allowed to challenge another member and say that he or she is not telling the truth or is mistaken. If a member says that they are correct then they are correct. How is it then that Mr Peters has been able to stand up in this House and say that you are wrong and not have to apologise for that? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not require any assistance on this matter. The member will sit down and he will not interject during points of order. The member knows that rule and he very nearly left the Chamber. I determined that I might have been in error. I am not perfect and I have never claimed to be; so I might have been wrong. But in actual fact I was not. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no legislation regarding title to the beaches and the seabed is it the Prime Minister’s intention to introduce legislation to this House that states that the Government now does own the beaches and the seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I invite the member to read more carefully what the Deputy Prime Minister said in that regard. There is no legislation that asserts Crown ownership of all the seabed and foreshore. There is legislation that deems ownership to be vested in the Crown—of the seabed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister’s confidence in him is because he thinks he can answer the questions and he has the intellectual rigour to come down and have a go at it whereas she cannot—which is the reason that he and a number of front-benchers lined up in September 1996 to get rid of her? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member’s memory is in error: it was not in September 1996. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does Mr Prebble want to remain in the House? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Do I want to remain in the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I would rather like to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right well—on this occasion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said that the event happened since September 1996. Up gets the Deputy Prime Minister whose hearing has apparently gone on him and he claims I said “December”. That is what all the laughter was about. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member’s memory is in error. It did not happen in September 1996. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why will the Prime Minister not directly answer the simple question: does the Government intend to bring in legislation that states that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore where other people do not own it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A Government caucus committee is working through reconciling the issue of ensuring traditional access rights of all New Zealanders to the seabed and foreshore with the preservation of Maori customary rights where they may exist. The answers to those issues cannot be fitted on a taxpayer-paid billboard. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What conclusion can the House take from the involvement of the Minister of Finance in the seabed and foreshore issue? Is it that the Prime Minister has no confidence in the Hon Margaret Wilson or is it that the Labour Government believes that it will be spending very large sums of taxpayers’ money on this issue hence the involvement of the Minister of Finance? Which one is it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suspect it is that when volunteers were called for the Minister of Finance was slowest to step backwards.