Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chauvel Charles: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5313] 
5.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Was the personal information she released relating to two solo mothers retrieved from a SWIFTT terminal located in her ministerial office complex? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 First of all there is no terminal. Second yes the system was accessed from my office. Third the member may not be aware that the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today (SWIFTT) access was actually installed by the previous Government into my office in order to make it easier for seconded staff to access benefit information in the course of their work. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Charles Chauvel. [ 
Interruption 
] The Hon Trevor Mallard and the relevant Government member will cease that level of interjection. I have called Charles Chauvel for a supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did create half of the noise then but Gerry Brownlee created the other half. I object to being named when he was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Gerry Brownlee likewise will not interject like that. We have had enough of that. I have called Charles Chauvel on a supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Members please show some courtesy to Charles Chauvel asking a supplementary question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice has the chief executive of her department Peter Hughes given her about the appropriateness of her actions in regard to the public release of confidential information held on his ministry’s database? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The chief executive has been unwell with the flu for the last couple of days but I had a conversation with him. At the end of the day it was my decision not his. He certainly acknowledged that I had made that judgment call and that he backed me on that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister recall the following part of the Privacy Commissioner’s guidelines which she said she read that state: “If the individual has misrepresented the facts on which … actions were based the Minister could say that there are some undisclosed facts which give a somewhat different picture and if the individual would authorise release of further details … the Minister would be happy to oblige.”; if she does why did she not follow those guidelines in this case? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I have said numerous times I certainly did look at those ministerial guidelines. I made a judgment call based on them and I am quite willing to stand by that. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister tell the House what would be likely to happen to a Work and Income front-line case officer who released personal details about a beneficiary to the national media without that beneficiary’s knowledge or permission and is she at all conscious that she might apply the same standards to herself? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That would be an operational matter. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday: “There is certainly access to interest-free student loans.” when beneficiaries are not entitled to use student loans for the particular purposes she was outlining as she had just been told by one of the women who presented to her “a compelling argument to extend these loans to beneficiaries for these purposes.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Thank you for the opportunity to clear this up. That sole mother was saying that the $1000 she could borrow for course-related costs was not enough and that she needed more to get her through her study. That is what her argument was. She can borrow up to $1000 under the student loans scheme for course-related costs if she fits the criteria. I think the member may be getting student loans and student allowances mixed up. Yesterday in the House when she was trying to table things she said allowances in one place and loans in another place. Yes beneficiaries can access student loans for course-related costs of up to $1000. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the report in today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 stating that the Minister has asked her officials to look into interest-free study loans not an admission that her decision to cut the training incentive allowance was a lousy one in the first place? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is really clear that that sole mother yesterday put to me that the $1000 she could borrow was not enough to cover all of her course-related costs and as a consequence she may need to borrow a uniform on top of that. We had a discussion about how that would be and I said I certainly would look into some of that. She made a compelling argument and that is fair. That is what a debate is about. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Can the Minister assure the House of the Government’s commitment to protecting core benefits? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. We are totally committed to maintaining core benefits. One thing I have learned since becoming Minister is that the previous Government avoided tough decisions by adding layer upon layer; no hard decisions were really made. We are in tough times and I have had to make hard decisions. However I have been up front and honest about every one of those hard decisions. I have not hidden behind staff members which is a bit hard for that side to understand and I will continue not to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Would the Minister support a front-line Work and Income official who released the details of the amount that she the Minister received as a beneficiary on the training incentive allowance without the Minister’s consent; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Members on the Opposition side of the House are always keen to blame the staff. Just yesterday we saw that member Trevor Mallard try to blame the staff in my office for accessing information—that was the furthest from the truth. Now Opposition members are trying to bring in hypothetical staff situations in the ministries. I made a decision and I will stand by it. I know that is hard for the member to understand. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question and it was: “Would the Minister support a front-line official who released her details?”. It had nothing to do with the Minister’s release of a beneficiary’s details. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the honourable member that I do not need help on this point of order. I hear the point the member makes—and he makes a genuine point—but the dilemma is that it is a hypothetical question. Our Speakers’ rulings show that where hypothetical questions are asked there is a wide latitude in the way Ministers can answer them. Members cannot expect Ministers to answer hypothetical questions. That is the dilemma in asking that kind of a question.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will continue that discussion a little bit. No one expects— 
Hon Member 
: Is it a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No one expects a definitive answer. We changed the Standing Orders in order to allow for hypothetical questions. Even a hypothetical question should be addressed. My submission to you is that nowhere in the Minister’s answer which referred entirely to the past was there any reference to or any addressing of the hypothetical question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker I will take you back to question No. 5. It was actually about the Minister’s actions and the use of a terminal in the Minister’s office. It was all about the Minister’s behaviour. The Minister was subsequently asked about the behaviour of staff and she quite rightly pointed out that that was an operational issue. The member has come along with a hypothetical question that talked about the behaviour of staff when the substantive question was all about the Minister’s behaviour which she has been up front and honest about and has answered all questions about. The substantive question is not a question about the behaviour of particular staff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s points. This is a difficult issue. One of the dilemmas with hypothetical questions is that if we try to force Ministers to answer them too closely we can create hypothetical answers that then really lead to major problems for the House. That is why I have real difficulty in asking the Minister to be more precise in answering a hypothetical question especially when it relates to hypothetical actions about a staff member. That is what is such a dilemma. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a difficult point of order to make because I am not sure how we have got to this point. The question I have asked was directly related to a question that I asked yesterday and referred specifically to course costs over $1000. That was the original question. The answer the Minister gave was that is where the question of the student loan scheme came in. I knew that the student loan scheme did not apply and that is why I sought leave after you rightly pulled me up for taking a point of order that was not a point of order. Mr Speaker you said to deal with it in a proper way so I sought leave to table the criteria that related specifically to these elements. If the Minister now knows that her answer yesterday was incorrect she needs to make a formal correction to the House. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Paula Bennett but I do not want to go any further than that. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is a debating issue. We disagree on this point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is the dilemma I have. I found the exchange today to be informative yet I still must confess that I am not clear on exactly what the provisions are. That is why the point that the Hon Paula Bennett has made which is that there seems to be some debate over these exact arrangements shows that it is not a matter of the Minister having given an incorrect answer. What is more a Minister must decide if an incorrect answer has been given and correct it if it has been given. As Speaker I cannot ask the Minister to correct an answer. I cannot judge an answer’s accuracy or otherwise. That is why I do not believe I can assist the member beyond that. The previous supplementary question was a good question. I see no reason why further supplementary questions cannot be asked in order to clarify the issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When the Minister received the extra information about the person on the benefit did she consider putting the information in a brown envelope and slipping it under the door of a member of the press gallery as occurred under the previous Government with the member who just asked the question? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well yes I knew that another practice had gone on previously but I decided to be up front and honest. I know that Labour struggles with this fact but yes I was on a benefit for years; yes I managed to get off it; and yes I then joined the National Party. That is the way it goes. 
I seek leave to table a letter written by the Ministry of Social Development to Ministerial Services in 2005 explaining why it was advantageous for Minister Maharey and Associate Minister Barker to have those systems installed in their offices. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.