12. Question No. 12—TransportNICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of TransportQuestion No. 12—Transport12. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Why was it only after an intervention from the Ombudsman that she released information in the public interest about her 26 March letter to the Minister of Transport and does she stand by her view stated in that letter that work on rapid transit should be prioritised ahead of a second Mount Victoria tunnel?SPEAKER: With the one amendment—I think the member knows. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): With respect to the first part of the question I note that I did release information in the public interest regarding the letter prior to the Chief Ombudsman's opinion. That took the form of responses to oral questions in the House and answers to written parliamentary questions. The information released in the subsequent statement was entirely consistent with earlier information and the Ombudsman's decision states that. I absolutely stand by Cabinet's decision to prioritise the roll-out of new bus lanes rapid transit and safe walking and cycling because that will deliver more reliable buses. It will make the city easier to get around and it was what Wellingtonians clearly stated that they wanted to be the priority in the Let's Get Wellington Moving consultation. Nicola Willis: Well does she agree with the Ombudsman that statements she made in the House about the letter have generated significant public and parliamentary debate as well as confusion public disquiet and speculation." and will she apologise for her lack of openness and transparency? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In response to the first part of the question I agree with the Ombudsman that I could have been clearer but I would note that members of the Opposition and particularly that member were directly responsible for false speculation and whipping up a lot of concern and confusion about the issue. Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her statement on Facebook on 31 October that "National is lying and spinning" in relation to her letter; and if so what were the lies she was referring to?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In so far as I have ministerial responsibility I do believe that National has had a habit of misleading and that is true with respect to the decision of the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman said and I quote "my opinion is that the Ministers were entitled to withhold a copy of the letter in order to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions between Ministers". That was the decision of the Ombudsman and I stand by it.Nicola Willis: Would she support a resequencing of the Let's Get Wellington Moving projects to get the second Mount Victoria tunnel under way sooner as recommended by officials; and if not why not?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That's a hypothetical question but I would say that the reason why the Government is prioritising rapid transit is because it will move eight times more people than two additional lanes through the Mount Vic tunnel. What the public have said—and I think that the member hasn't actually read the feedback from the public on Let's Get Wellington Moving. There is overwhelming support for public transport overwhelming support for mass transit and overwhelming support for reducing congestion by reducing the number of the cars in the city by reducing dependency of people on their vehicles and by providing cost-effective alternatives like mass transit. I know that the National Party has a long history of opposing public transport like the Northern Busway electrification of the Auckland rail network—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will not allow any such direct comment about another party made in a question; why is it acceptable in an answer?Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker obviously it's your power to rule on that matter. I would note that the Minister was subject to a continuous barrage of interjections which related to anything from party political matters to other matters and I think in that context it was fair enough.SPEAKER: Yes and I think she was being asked to differentiate between policy approaches as part of the question. She was being asked to change her view towards a position that's been enunciated by another party. I think the Minister was getting pretty close to a finish though.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That does not give the Minister or any other Minister answering a question the right to make a blanket statement about their own personal views on this party's policy. Her comment was "I know for a long time." That does not relate surely to the last two years that this particular issue of the Wellington roading network or transport network has been subject to questioning in this House.SPEAKER: No and I think it's a longstanding process in this House that Ministers take responsibility for their answers. It's not my job to comment on their accuracy. If something is clearly not a fact and can be proven as such there are ways of bringing it up with me but I have seen a series of Speakers' rulings in the past including those from my immediate predecessor which indicate that basically if members disagree with answers to supplementary questions there's not very far that they can go."