English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:5038] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she or her Government receive a message from the New Zealand Ambassador to Washington that a two-pronged strategy was necessary to repair the damage caused by her comments about the war in Iraq; if so what were the two prongs of the strategy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am certainly not aware of the ambassador delivering such a message. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Government make a commitment to the coalition to send peacekeepers to Iraq when that would be a strong signal that she genuinely did want to fix the damage done by her ill-judged comments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No peacekeepers have been asked for but I can advise the member that the Government is active in talking with Washington and other capitals and the UN about what kind of assistance can be rendered. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Is New Zealand making plans to contribute to humanitarian and reconstruction relief in post-conflict Iraq? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. As I just advised diplomatic discussions have been going on for some weeks between New Zealand and a number of Governments including the American one and with the UN and they are continuing. We want to see humanitarian concerns addressed as soon as possible and for the international community to now pull together to help the people of Iraq. We also want that to be done in a way that involves the UN to the maximum extent possible. I repeat: we have been expressing those sentiments for many weeks. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the importance of this matter to her fellow countrymen and women and to this country’s economy does she think it right and proper that she should give a total and fulsome apology and admit that her focus group - oriented comment with regard to Al Gore was plain wrong; in the interests of this nation are we not all owed that now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have answered that and similar questions many times and I stand absolutely by the position this Government has taken which is that participation in this war was wrong. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the Prime Minister’s answer I never asked her anything to do with the involvement of New Zealand or otherwise in the war in Iraq. I asked her whether she was prepared to humble herself for the first time for a long time and make a fulsome apology to the President of the United States. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point not a point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will she clarify her denial of any knowledge of a two-pronged strategy against the front-page story in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 which stated: “The US message—conveyed separately through New Zealand’s Washington Ambassador John Wood and United States - New Zealand Council President Fred Benson—was that a two-pronged strategy was necessary to repair the damage. First New Zealand needed to set the record straight over Helen Clark’s statements. Second New Zealand needed to give a clear undertaking to the United States to assist in post-war reconstruction.”; so is the Prime Minister telling us that everything in that statement is not true? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I am saying is that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is often wrong. I have received no communication whatsoever from Mr Benson. I am not aware of any communication received in Wellington from Mr Benson. I know that that was not the communication Mr Wood sent. What happened was that I spoke to Mr Wood after he had reported that offence had been taken and I gave him a verbal authorisation to convey my regrets sorrow and apology. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister still stand by the policy statement of her Government that New Zealand will take no part in the reconstruction of post-war Iraq unless the UN is in control of Iraq and has she given any undertakings to take part while the US remains in control? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government is having discussions in a number of capitals and with the UN about the legal basis for providing assistance. We are very keen to help the people of Iraq. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Prime Minister given any undertaking in the last 2 weeks that New Zealand will take part in post-war reconstruction in Iraq while the US is in charge? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Like most countries we are talking with many capitals and the UN about how we can provide assistance. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a direct question to which the Prime Minister could have said yes or no and she did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course the Prime Minister could have said yes or no but she chose not to. She addressed the question. I am not here to judge the quality of the answer in any way at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are quite right to say that except that in most Parliaments the kind of answer given by the Prime Minister would be simply unacceptable. The Speaker would find it unacceptable as would the press gallery and every parliamentarian. If we are to go on with answers that are totally evasive and rely on the Standing Order that allows a member to give any old answer he or she likes provided an answer is given then frankly this House is being gravely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members cannot— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have. I want the member to sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will be up again when you have finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members will— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We have a right to make a point of order in this House haven’t we? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members do not have a right to go on and on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say something first. Members cannot prescribe how Ministers answer questions by saying that they should answer yes or no. I know of no Parliament in the world that acts in the way that the member says. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is obvious to a lot of New Zealanders—even if it is not apparent to you—that that form of answering is the lowest this House has ever been in my time in Parliament. I have been here long enough to know that when the Prime Minister rose she was required to answer for her Government. We are now putting up with evasive answers for the first time and are still being told to refer to ministries ambassadors high commissioners and other people within the Prime Minister’s control. If we are to go on like that then it is pointless to have any question time at all. We are coming to the end of a long week. We have had some serious issues to do with our foreign policy and long-term economic interests and we have had no answers at all today as we go to a break. The Prime Minister can laugh but I am giving my view and the view of my party which I believe is the view of a lot of people both within this House and around this country. We deserve better and I am asking you to ensure that that happens. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot do that because I cannot prescribe how Ministers will answer questions. However I can say that as far as I am concerned everything the member said is the sort of thing he can comment on outside the House or in debate. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect there is something you can do. You are not responsible for Ministers’ answers but someone has just drawn Speaker’s ruling 128/4 to my attention which was made by Speaker Gray in 1992. It states: “If the Speaker feels that a Minister is trifling with the House the Chair can permit a further question or questions to be asked.” I just want to let you know that when that question was asked I was thinking about asking a supplementary question about it. Mr English asked a very important question. He asked whether the New Zealand Government was prepared to give aid to Iraq while the coalition of the willing was in charge or whether it will wait in the hope that the UN will take charge. The Prime Minister did not have to give a yes or no answer to that but she should have answered it. It is quite obvious to me that she was trifling with the House. She knew what the question was but she would not answer it. If I were to ask a supplementary question I would be using up the quota that you have given me but if you were to allow some extra questions on this matter I would most certainly ask that question again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I stand by what Speaker Gray said. If there is a distinct trifling with the House then of course I am going to allow questions. I had to judge the Prime Minister’s answer. I judged that she was addressing the question. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The difficulty we run into now is that if we look at the ruling that Speaker Gray gave in 1992 we see that he is suggesting that if the questioner—the Opposition or whoever might be asking the question—is not satisfied there is an opportunity for further questions to be permitted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On certain grounds. 
John Carter 
: Yes on certain grounds. The problem is that under the system we have now of permitting only so many questions per question and so many questions per question time we are limited to the questions that we can ask because we run out of supplementary questions. In circumstances like that where we are not satisfied I think it would be appropriate for you as the Speaker to allow further supplementary questions to be asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will look at that particular point but the very important issue is this: if I judge that Speaker Gray’s ruling stands on a particular answer then of course I can allow other questions. On this occasion I do not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Then I seek leave to ask the Leader of the Opposition’s question again without it being taken away from the Opposition’s quota. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of your statement when this issue first became the matter of inquiry. I think I heard you say that you do not judge the reply in any way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not quite say that. 
Stephen Franks 
: Then I think it requires clarification. It would be helpful because it is impossible to apply Speaker Gray’s ruling if you are not judging whether a reply addresses the question. Further—like I am sure many New Zealanders—I have been watching the performance of Tony Blair in the British Parliament and members of the Australian House. I am quite satisfied that question time in this House would be a matter of derision for people making comparisons. They are required to address questions and this House is reaching a stage where question time is becoming something to be embarrassed about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to say that in no Parliament can the Speaker answer questions for Ministers or tell Ministers that they must answer in a certain way. The Speaker can let questions continue—notwithstanding any other rule—if a Minister trifles with the House. But just because members are not satisfied is not a reason for allowing further questions. I might point out that when I watched question time in the House of Commons there was I think just one point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Speaker’s ruling—and just to make sure that we all understand what she has said—can I ask the Prime Minister whether her Government intends to be involved in respect of the reconstruction of Iraq under the aegis of the United States and the coalition of the willing or is it her intention to wait until the United Nations is involved? Which is it to be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has taken a decision to be helpful. It is exploring how it can be helpful. It has already committed $3.3 million. That will presumably be spent while the US is in Iraq. We are continuing to develop a response on the issue as most countries are. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the New Zealand Government made any undertakings to the coalition of the willing or to the United States Government that it will take part in post-war reconstruction while the coalition of the willing is in charge of Iraq? Has she made any undertakings in that respect? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thought that my last answer was very clear. The money we have committed to the UN humanitarian agencies will obviously be spent while the US is in Iraq itself. We are continuing to talk with Governments including the American one. As the member knows well New Zealand was not a member of the coalition of the willing. He was a member of the coalition of the barely willing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Every time the Leader of the Opposition asks a question he interjects continuously throughout the answer. I do not even think he knows he is doing it. I suggest to you Mr Speaker that following the previous points of order if there are to be penalty points on this side then frequent useless points of order and interjections should lead to fewer questions. Contrary to what Mr Peters says in Australia there are no supplementary questions at all during question time. Members get to ask one question and the Minister kicks the hell out of them for 5 minutes—if they are lucky. 
John Carter 
: The reason that there are interjections and endless points of order as claimed by the Deputy Prime Minister is because the Opposition is not satisfied with the Prime Minister’s answer. As a consequence she is likely to bring disorder to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that as long as I have been here I do not know when an Opposition has ever been completely satisfied with any Minister’s answers.