English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4892] 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What is the full text of her apology to the Bush administration for offence caused by her comments about the war in Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I gave the New Zealand Ambassador to the United States verbal authorisation to convey my apology for the offence that had been taken. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is public reference to the fact that a letter was delivered. The Prime Minister will be aware of that. It is treating this House lightly if she does not answer the question by telling us what was in the letter which has been referred to publicly by her office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister was asked a specific question by the member. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is wanting a very early exit. The Leader of the Opposition asked a very specific question. I listened to the answer. It was a very specific answer. We accept members at their word when they do that and that is where the matter rests. But the member now has supplementary questions. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I asked a specific question about text not about verbal assurances. There is public record of the text. It is a matter of national importance. The Prime Minister simply has not even attempted to answer the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister was asked a specific question. I adjudged she gave an answer to it. She can answer the question as she wishes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may well have adjudged that that was sufficient given her answer excepting that Mr English has very clearly pointed out to you the word “text” and what he meant. There is also a convention in the House that you look after new members or inexperienced members of Parliament but you do not look after Prime Ministers who should be able to look after themselves and that is the point I want to raise with you. The Prime Minister has been asked a very clear question—[ 
Interruption 
] I will look after you you pup but not her. There is a convention in the House that backbenchers and new members of Parliament are looked after by the Speaker but Prime Ministers are not. Mr English is asking a very clear question about the text and that having been brought to your attention I think you should make sure she answers properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I adjudged the Prime Minister did give an answer that was within the Standing Orders but that is what supplementary questions are for—to elicit further information. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a bit of a problem here. Under Standing Order 372(2) “the reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked”. The subject matter of this question was the full text of her apology. In no way can the Prime Minister’s answer be said to be on that subject matter. She was referring to some verbal conversations that she had had unless the Prime Minister—and perhaps this is how you are interpreting it and maybe that will be a matter for a letter—was giving you an assurance that there is no text and that is how she is answering the question. But if she is not giving an assurance—and she appears to be reluctant to take part in these points of order—that there is no text then her answer cannot be said to come within Standing Order 372. It is an answer to a question that was not asked. The question she was asked was what the full text of the apology is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that nobody knows that the Prime Minister has produced any text. It could for example have been put in the ambassador’s words. We do not know. That is why supplementary questions are allowed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given her comment that “People are usually in no doubt what I mean about things.” what does she mean when she is saying to the US Government that she apologises for her comments on the war? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It was clear to me that offence had been taken to the reference to Mr Gore and I apologised for the offence that had been taken. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do endeavour to be clear about things. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for that assurance of clarity. Would she tell us now in respect of the Al Gore comments whether she was right or wrong? Yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use the last few words. He can certainly ask the question. The Prime Minister can decide how she answers. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have nothing further to say about the comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is “rhubarb” to be an answer adequate for the Prime Minister in this House on such a serious matter? She rises to her feet on a matter of national importance—[ 
Interruption 
] Let me finish. I have not finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down when I stand up. Please sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished my point of order—as long as you are clear about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member certainly did not use the word “rhubarb”. I never heard that word used. The Prime Minister gave an answer and that was the answer with which she addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The word “rhubarb” is by way of an analogy. It is commonly understood in the English language to be a contemptuous answer to a serious issue. That is why I used it. I did not say she used the word “rhubarb”. I asked by way of analogy whether rhubarb was to be an adequate answer in this House. Will you deem it proper that whatever she says is an answer? Frankly when it comes to matters of international and foreign policy importance the Prime Minister is treating you and this House and the whole country with contempt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer is no. I regard questions asked in this House as deserving an answer. That question got one. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer that was given was: “I am not going to give an answer.” or words to that effect. Standing Order 372(1) requires that an answer “must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest”. Do we take it then as the Prime Minster cannot tell us whether she believes she was right or wrong that if she was to say whether she was right or wrong that would not be consistent with the public interest? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Prime Minister declined to elaborate and she is entitled to do that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My patience with this issue is fast going. 
Rodney Hide 
: I am very sorry if that is the case Mr Speaker but in response to earlier points of order you said—and you told this House—that clarification is what supplementary questions are for. When the supplementary questions were put the Prime Minister said: “I’m not prepared to say anything more about this subject.” If that ruling stands then we can have every Minister coming down to this House each and every day and saying to any question that those Ministers do not feel like answering that they are not prepared to answer it. You are on record as saying that that is acceptable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. What I said was that the Prime Minister declined to elaborate. She is entitled to do that. 
Hon Bill English 
: In her capacity as the Prime Minister of New Zealand who says what she means does she stand by this statement: “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Offence has been taken at that comment and I do not believe it is in the public interest to compound it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Perhaps I can just ask the Prime Minister this simple question: in relation to her apology does any text exist? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in my initial answer I gave verbal authorisation to the New Zealand ambassador to convey my apology. Diplomatic channels have worked. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not have put the question more simply. I just asked whether a text existed and no one in this House is any the wiser. All the Prime Minister had to do was say yes or no. The Prime Minister will not answer anything else but surely we are entitled to know whether a text exists. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked the question and the Prime Minister addressed the question with an answer. She is entitled to elaborate in the way she chooses. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is making a complete mockery of question time. The Leader of the Opposition has gone to the trouble of putting down a question asking whether there is a text. He asked that question but did not get an answer. Then we were told by you that all we had to do was ask a supplementary question. I have asked a supplementary question—I actually used up one of the other ones—just to find out whether there is a text and the Prime Minister will not even answer that. That is making a mockery of this House. In fact we deserve an apology from her now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Perhaps the Prime Minister could elaborate on the term “diplomatic channels” in the answer she gave. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I gave as I have said several times now verbal authorisation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr Wood to convey an apology. I did not instruct them on the means of conveyance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is still not an adequate response from the Prime Minister. When we go down to the Clerk’s Office every day to lodge a question we have to be able to substantiate the question we are asking. There would be no reference on the Order Paper today to a text if there was not some indication somewhere—presumably in this case in the media confirmed by the Prime Minister’s office—that there was a text contained in a letter sent to the ambassador presumably. We are being treated with utter contempt by the Prime Minister when she does not answer the simple question: is there an instruction or is there an indication in a text form somewhere out of her office to the United States? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed there must be an authorisation. That authorisation must be in the form of some form of quotation from the media—the same media reporting a leadership coup in the National Party today. It does not follow—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to address the point of order only. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: My point is that the fact that something appears in the media does not make it true. 
Hon Bill English 
: That is absolutely right. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I thank the member. That is the point I was making. Therefore the fact that one could produce an authorisation especially if it was from the  
Dominion Post 
 
does not demonstrate that that was a fact. The Prime Minister gave an answer addressing the question and we are now back to the situation where the Opposition does not like the answer and is therefore going to barrack and yell because like badly behaved boys they cannot take the answer they have been given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister’s elaboration did give the information. She certainly did address that part of the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take grave exception to the remarks made by the Leader of the House. It was a complete abuse of the point of order procedure. Stating under a point of order that people are badly behaved boys is out of order and I believe that with other remarks he should be asked to withdraw and apologise and you should think about expelling him from the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am certainly going to ask him to withdraw and apologise for that remark. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You refused to call the members opposite to order when they barracked and yelled while I was talking to a point of order. It is out of order to make any comment while a point of order is being spoken to and I suggest that the entire Opposition should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. There is give and take on both sides. I regard that matter as now closed. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the Leader of the House has told us that it is clear that a text exists and presumably when the Prime Minister said “apology” that must be in it so she was quoting from it then under Standing Order 362: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to lay the document on the Table.” I now require the Minister to table the apology. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there has been no quotation from anything. [ 
Interruption 
] I was going to allow the Hon Bill English a supplementary— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point of order is now getting to the point where it is getting past acceptability. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I just want to be clear where we have got to. Can I now assume that it is all right for us to send questions down to the Clerk’s Office that make assertions without providing the current burden of proof to back those questions? That is what we are effectively saying if we accept what Michael Cullen has told us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say quite specifically that members must authenticate a question. There is no corresponding obligation on Ministers answering and the Speaker cannot answer for Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said in reply to Mr Prebble that there was no quotation from any text. It has long been my observation in this House that for a Speaker to establish that he usually asks the Minister or in this case the Prime Minister first. He does not have a stab in the dark and think he can answer it himself. There was enough in the Prime Minister’s answer to open suspicion that she may have been quoting from a document as Mr Prebble raised in the first instance. Now would you ask her that and not make the decision yourself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I did ask the Prime Minister to elaborate she did so and that addressed the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find it quite incredible. We have a situation where the Prime Minister has told us that she has given verbal advice to John Wood the ambassador that he can apologise. I have taken from further remarks that this was clearly put into a text and a message was sent to the ambassador—and of course it would have been to confirm it. I think that if those words are there that he is to apologise she was quoting from a document and she should be required to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. There was no quotation from a document. No quotation from a document was claimed by the Prime Minister. She did not refer to a document. Only if a Minister purports to quote does Standing Order 362 become engaged. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that the officials have written down any text relating to this apology; if so when will she tell us what is in that text? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member’s questions to me have been about a text of my apology. I have repeatedly said to him that I gave verbal authorisation. I then leave it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to convey it as it sees fit. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very straightforward question of a Prime Minister who regards herself as totally knowledgable in matters of foreign affairs. The simple question was whether she believed that officials had written down in any text the apology that was being given and if so when that would be displayed to the House. Is the Prime Minister asserting that she does not know whether officials have written it down or is it simply the case that she is totally embarrassed by the fact that it might be written down and we might discover what she was apologising for? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question by the member. I adjudged that she addressed it. 
Hon Bill English 
: You did not call us Mr Speaker. Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has had three so he will take— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can be helpful here. We should go back to the primary question because I think the House is under some confusion. The question asked by the Hon Bill English was what was the text of her apology to be conveyed. I think that what we are hearing from the Prime Minister is that she has not apologised but the ambassador has. That is new information and maybe it would help the House if the Prime Minister would be clear on whether she has apologised to the Americans or whether the ambassador has apologised to the Americans. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I adjudged that the Prime Minister addressed that question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that her answers now lead us to believe that officials have apologised and not her and that she has apologised because of the offence that was taken not because of the statements is it her intention to apologise herself to the US Government for the statements that she made that it found offensive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have given authorisation to the ambassador to convey the following: firstly my sorrow at the fact that offence had been taken my recognition that offence had been taken and my apology for the offence that had been taken. How the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade chooses to convey that is entirely up to it.