McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6202] 
4.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: On what date or dates did Mr Leith Comer apologise to him for embarrassing him with incorrect answers to parliamentary questions as reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 31 May and what were the specific questions that Mr Comer apologised for on each occasion? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I received an apology in writing from Mr Leith Comer on 10 April 2003 for an incorrect answer to question No. 2261 which was about training wananga. I am advised by Mr Comer that this was the apology he referred to when being interviewed by the  
Dominion Post. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these matters have now been the subject of a report by Treasury dated 30 May has the Minister read that report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Could the member repeat the question please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes please repeat the question. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister or anyone is perfectly at liberty to ask for a question to be repeated. I ask the member to repeat the question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these matters were the subject of a report by Treasury dated 30 May has the Minister read that report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The report was a totally different issue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to advise me whether you regard that as a satisfactory answer in terms of addressing the question. I asked a very specific question to which I believe it would be quite difficult to provide an answer that did not include either the word “Yes” or the word “No”. I put it to you that the Minister did not refer to the question I asked in terms of giving an adequate answer under the Standing Order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Not only did the Minister seek to address the question he actually answered it absolutely precisely. If the member had cared to listen to the Minister’s first answer instead of reading out his pre-prepared supplementary question he would not have asked that supplementary question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I refer to Speaker’s ruling 129/6 which states quite clearly: “A Minister must attempt to give a reasonable answer …”. The Speaker’s ruling does go on to state that one may not be satisfied with the answer but the test here is whether that was a reasonable answer. I do not believe that anyone in the Opposition and most people who would answer honestly on the Government benches could possibly say that that was a reasonable answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further comment on that. The Minister was asked a question and he most certainly did address it in his answer. 
Lynne Pillay 
: When was the corrected reply to question for written answer No. 2261 lodged? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The corrected answer was lodged on 1 May 2003. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Did the Minister read the report into Te Mangai Paho prepared by Treasury dated 30 May of this year? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This supplementary question does not relate to the original question and answer. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It does. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh no it does not; the members have not listened to the original answer. The original answer related to question for written answer No. 2261 the report of 30 May. It does not relate to those but to other matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes that is perfectly correct. This question relates to another issue. However I will allow the member to restate his question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that the matters that caused Mr Comer to feel a need to apologise to the Minister were the subject of a report prepared by Treasury on 30 May did the Minister read that report? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said quite specifically that they were not. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member now will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now the member will leave the Chamber. I am not having anyone comment on the issue of this Chair. 
Hon Roger Sowry withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now I am happy to hear a point of order from the Hon Murray McCully. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: It is well accepted now and the Minister has confirmed that the chief executive of his department felt a need to apologise to him over some matters. The Minister today wants to assert that that apology was in relation to one question. That question was amongst those covered by a report of Treasury. I want to know and I think the House is entitled to an answer on this whether the Minister took the step of reading the report to ascertain whether the matter that Mr Comer apologised for was referred to in that report. That is a perfectly legitimate question for a member to ask in relation to the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to ask the Minister one question: was that issue referred to in that Treasury report? [ 
Interruption 
] I will not have any comments like that. I will get advice then I will ask the Minister a question or other people will leave too. Was the question the chief executive apologised over on 10 April in that Treasury report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the broad context yes. But can I note that the apology tabled by the chief executive is here which I am prepared to table in detail. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to ask his question. It is perfectly correct. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We thank you for your assistance but the situation has become slightly murky. There is considerable confusion on the part of some members in the House because this apology relates to question No. 2261 not one of the specific group referred to and not one of the group that was investigated by Treasury. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I can only rely and I suggest that you can only rely on the Minister’s word in this respect. He has just said to the House that in a broad sense to summarise his words the matter is referred to in the Treasury report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is correct. The Minister did say that. I would now like him to address the question that was asked by the Hon Murray McCully. I ask the member to repeat his question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given that these matters were the subject of a report into Te Mangai Paho by Treasury on 30 May did the Minister read that report? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite clear from answers given to the House that these matters were not the subject of that report. The corrected answer had been given to this House before that report was received. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I reiterate and support what my colleague said then. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can assist this House in a way that will help the Government with its point. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: No thanks! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member will leave the Chamber. I said there were to be no comments during points of order. 
Hon Dover Samuels withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: If I may just get the dates right this point is actually in support of Dr Cullen and the Hon Trevor Mallard. The report came out on 28 May. Mr McCully and I presented a report showing that incorrect answers were given on 29 May. On 30 May the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri held a press conference where he explained in response to the Hon Murray McCully and my report that he had apologised for providing incorrect information to the Minister of Maori Affairs. The natural conclusion of the journalists who were receiving Mr Comer’s report was that the apology was for the questions that formed the basis of the Treasury report. It is also a confusion that up until today I have been labouring under and probably members of this House have also been labouring under. The difficulty that the Minister of Maori Affairs has is that he does not realise that the report does not actually cover question No. 2261 because he has not read it. Therefore the Hon Trevor Mallard’s point is right. Mr McCully cannot ask his question because the report has nothing whatsoever to do with what the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri was apologising for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I think on this occasion I am going to agree completely with what Mr Hide said. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We now have a further difficulty because the Minister actually in answer to the question put to him by you made the statement that in broad terms it did refer to written question No. 2261. One of the members is now incorrect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps we can solve this matter. The member will ask his question without the word “given” at the start. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Did the Minister read the Treasury report? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Several times. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the Minister expect his chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri Mr Comer to advise him immediately that he Mr Comer discovered he had incorrectly advised the Minister who as a consequence of that advice had misled Parliament; if that is so how come he did not receive that advice until 9 June? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the first instance yes. Can I say that in relation to parliamentary question No. 2261 on 10 April I received a letter from Mr Leith Comer apologising specifically for that matter. The corrected reply was lodged on 1 May and that member may recall that the adjournment was between 14 and 25 April. I returned to the office on 28 April and I want—hopefully for the last time—to repeat this: when I received the external report on 28 May I asked my department to review all the questions and my responses relating to Te Mangai Paho to check their accuracy. My officials provided me with a report on 9 June and I lodged the 13 corrected answers yesterday.