Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Little Andrew: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1496] 
3. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: When was the email she received between 12 March 2012 and 18 March 2012 from Michelle Boag concerning Bronwyn Pullar and the involvement of both in a meeting over a mass privacy breach first printed by her or a staff member in her office? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Since this matter is before the Privacy Commissioner it is not in the public interest for me to answer that.  
Andrew Little 
: Does she stand by her statement in an interview on Radio Live this morning commencing at 8.22 a.m. that “I know exactly what has happened in terms of my office and myself.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I stand by all my statements.  
Andrew Little 
: In whose custody and control was the copy or copies of the email that was made in her office placed? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That matter is before the Privacy Commissioner and it is not in the public interest for me to answer that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear Andrew Little’s question. 
Andrew Little 
: What instructions did she give to any staff in her office or any ACC staff member in relation to the Michelle Boag email or any copy of it? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Since that matter is before the Privacy Commissioner it is not in the public interest for me to answer that.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has been in the media discussing this issue and now she is using a public interest defence in the House. How can you accept that she can use a public interest defence here when she is in the media discussing this issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I have said to the House before it is not the Speaker’s decision whether or not a matter is in the public interest. As Speaker I would certainly intervene were I to see that such a claim was outrageous. But on this occasion the Minister has indicated that the matter is being inquired into by an independent authority—the Privacy Commissioner—and it is not uncommon for Ministers to declare in their answer to such questions on matters that are being examined by an independent authority that it is not in the public interest to answer them. So in my view it is not outrageous for the Minister to be making that claim. It seems reasonable given the fact that an independent authority is conducting an investigation. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to reflect upon an earlier series of difficult questions for a Government which were questions by the then Hon—still honourable—Lockwood Smith in respect of Taito Philip Field. There were inquiries in respect of Taito Philip Field that were under way and yet the Government was still required to answer questions in respect of its conduct where Ministers had ministerial responsibility. I suggest to you that that shows that we cannot have Ministers just avoiding answering questions by claiming public interest when patently it is a matter of ministerial responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would be very happy to look back over that  
Hansard 
. If I could refresh the member’s memory somewhat the bulk of those questions all occurred after the publication of the Ingram report if I remember correctly. Questions prior to that time were usually met with an answer that there was an inquiry under way. I think it is pretty standard practice. What I would I think make clear to the House because this—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. This is a serious issue. Were the inquiry to be an internal inquiry by the Government I think that would be a different matter. That would be a different matter but where we have an independent authority conducting an inquiry or an investigation that can be compromised by the matter being questioned in this House. I think that is not in our interests. I make that distinction. Were it to be simply an internal Government inquiry I think the matter would be different but this is an independent authority. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is an inquiry being conducted by the Privacy Commissioner. It is not a commission of inquiry; it is not a judicial inquiry. The Minister has raised no issues of there being a sub judice rule preventing her from answering a question. It is not a matter of law; it is a matter of evidence. “When was that email reproduced?” is what she is being asked and to get up and fob the House off by saying it is not in the public interest is a decision that you have got to make not her. She is the Minister; she is being held accountable. Whether it is a matter of public interest or not is over to you to make and my submission is that I would like to hear from her why she thinks— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no no— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —based on the law or Speakers’ rulings— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the member has gone far enough now. The member has been here long enough to know the Speaker does not according to the traditions of this House decide whether matters are in the public interest or not. That is a decision of Ministers and the member knows that full well. As I have said before I would be prepared to depart from the tradition if I were to see a situation that was clearly outrageous. However the Privacy Commissioner has very significant powers of inquiry and it is an independent authority set up by statute. The Privacy Commissioner operates under statute. It is therefore I think not unreasonable for a Minister to claim that it is not in the public interest given that an inquiry by such an independent authority is under way to answer detailed questions on the matter. That is my ruling on the matter. If the member wants a ruling from the Speaker that is my ruling. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I seek a clarification? You mentioned that if you saw an instance of—I think the word you used was “outrageous” or “outrageous conduct”. Can I just ask you this: in terms of definition are you saying that if a Minister was to wax eloquent in the media about an issue and then come into this House and claim public interest to shut it down you would look at that issue? I just seek your clarification. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. By way of clarification what I want to make clear is that it is where a Minister claims that it is not in the public interest to answer a question and clearly the claim has no merit at all that it is not in the public interest. I mean here we have an inquiry being conducted by a statutory authority and it is not unreasonable in my view for a Minister to claim it is not in the public interest to answer detailed questions just as a Minister not long ago asserted in the House here quite reasonably it was not in the public interest to answer detailed questions about the Pike River tragedy while that was under investigation. But I will be watching the issue quite carefully. I will be taking advice on the matter because it has cropped up in recent days more than once. I accept the concern of Opposition members that it is unacceptable for Ministers to use the claim that it is not in the public interest unless it is genuinely not in the public interest. But on this occasion I believe that it is a reasonable claim for the Minister to make that that is not in the public interest given the independent authority is conducting the inquiry. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did she make the comments on Radio Live this morning that the member mentioned in an earlier supplementary question after the inquiry of the Privacy Commissioner was announced and if so why are those comments able to be made and ones in the House not able to be made because of the public interest? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Because they are quite different and also the Privacy Commissioner has emailed me today and advised me of the extent of her inquiry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether in fact she has that with her. I have an email— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. That was totally outside the Standing Orders of the House. It was not a point of order at all. I do not know what rush of blood caused that and there will be no repeat of that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order to the Hon Trevor Mallard. Since I have admonished him I will consider his point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table an email to Judith Collins and me from the Privacy Commissioner this morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If we accept that the Privacy Commissioner’s announcement of the investigation was yesterday—and the tabling was to establish that—and then the Minister went on radio and talked about exactly this issue she cannot come into the House and claim a public interest defence. I believe that you should label that outrageous. I think that does step over the boundary of “outrageous”—where the Minister spoke about this issue on radio this morning after the announcement of the inquiry and then claims public interest. How can it be that to speak about this topic on radio is in the public interest but not to speak about it in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To me the difference that we have seen in the House today was that there was a question relating to the Minister’s comments on the radio this morning. The Minister answered that question. It was other matters that the Minister has asserted as not being in the public interest to answer. But I recollect a question from Andrew Little about whether the Minister stood by her comments on a radio programme this morning and the Minister answered that question. So I have not seen anything outrageous so far and I assure members that I will watch this issue carefully because I accept the concern that it is not acceptable for a Minister to assert that it is not in the public interest to answer just to avoid being held to account. That would not be acceptable. Speakers have to be careful because they are normally guided by Ministers on their judgment but I am prepared as Speaker if I see something that is to me outrageous in that regard to overrule the Minister if I see that to be the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is it about the date of the reprint of the email referred to in the primary question that is not in the public interest and yet her comments to the public via the media are apparently in the public interest? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That matter goes to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What goes to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry? I asked her a question about why she is giving that answer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Indeed the member asked his question. He is just trying to ask it again by way of a point of order. The Minister answered it. I accept that the member is not particularly satisfied with the answer but that is the answer and the member cannot ask his question again by way of a point of order. I will hear the member further on the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am not asking my question again at all. But surely the answer “that goes to the heart of the inquiry” begs the conclusion that there has to be more than that because I am asking about the issue of public interest and she has not answered that at all. Maybe the Privacy Commissioner is; I do not know that. But I did not ask her what is going to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry; I am asking her what is different about these two different occasions—in this House and this morning on radio. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I might be able to assist. The member asked for my opinion. I have given it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is outrageous. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The House will come to order. It is not outrageous. The Minister raises a fair point that she was asked what the difference was which is seeking her opinion on a matter. She gave her opinion and that is an answer to that question. There is nothing I can do about that. 
Andrew Little 
: What inquiries has she made about how the email or a copy of it made it into the hands of the media including social media? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That matter is a matter for the Privacy Commissioner and it goes to the heart of the inquiry. 
Dr Russel Norman 
:I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a question about—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear this point of order. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: That was a question about what inquiries she had made. It was not about what the Privacy Commissioner was up to; it was about her responsibility as a Minister. It was about what inquiries she had made. I would also draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 173/1 which says that a Minister must answer a question “ ‘if it can be given consistently with public interest’.” That was Speaker Wilson’s ruling. If an answer can be given consistent with the public interest the Minister must give it. This was about her inquiry. She has a responsibility for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I will do because I want to make sure that everyone has a fair opportunity to pursue a serious matter like this is let the member repeat his question so that everyone can hear exactly what he is asking. 
Andrew Little 
: What inquiries has she made about how the email or a copy of it made it into the hands of the media including social media? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Since the Privacy Commissioner is looking into how this email document ended up in the media I think this goes to the heart of the Privacy Commissioner’s inquiry and I do not believe it is in the public interest for me to answer that. 
Andrew Little 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about the actions of the Minister and the inquiries she made. The responsibility of the Privacy Commissioner is whether or not a complaining individual’s privacy was breached. It has nothing to do with the actions that this Minister has taken with a publicly acknowledged action she has taken in copying this email. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Clearly the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation will investigate the actions of the Minister. I have to be careful; I am presuming. But it would be extraordinary if the investigation by the Privacy Commissioner did not investigate the actions of the Minister and therefore again it is not unreasonable for the Minister to claim that to talk about her actions while that investigation is under way is not in the public interest. Again I am concerned that I do not want to see this argument of it not being in the public interest used to block this House’s ability to hold members of the executive to account. But at the same time I think that where we do have an independent inquiry by a statutory authority I do have to respect that assertion of it not being in the public interest to comment while that inquiry is under way. Once that report is out members will have a lot of opportunity to ask questions and questions can be just as effective. One of the member’s colleagues referred to the Ingram report. Most of the questioning happened after that report came out. It was pretty effective. 
Charles Chauvel 
: To which Minister does the Privacy Commissioner report and to whom is she accountable; and how can this Minister possibly expect the House to believe or accept that the Privacy Commissioner can conduct an independent inquiry into her own Minister’s actions? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Privacy Commissioner reports and is responsible to the Minister of Justice. She has independence under the Privacy Act. I say that it is an extraordinary statement and comment by that member that the Privacy Commissioner cannot be independent. I have to say that is one of the most extraordinary statements and I suggest he might want to apologise to the commissioner.