Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations

I seek leave to make a personal statement in relation to allegations made yesterday by Mr Hide that I had misled this House over the matter of the Civil Aviation Authority’s alleged taping of telephone calls.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will take the opportunity to explain our objection. Mr Duynhoven is not wanting to explain to the House something that relates to a personal matter. Mr Hide’s questioning of him was very much of him as a Minister, and if he is to put the record straight, then, quite clearly, he should make a ministerial statement.

When questions in this House have been raised about the accuracy of answers to questions, Ministers have always responded, from time immemorial, by seeking leave to make a personal explanation, if there is a need to correct an answer or, as in this case, to affirm the accuracy of the answer that was given. It is not done by way of ministerial statement, and never has been.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Anyone is entitled to raise an objection; an objection has been raised.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a hypothetical point of order in this kind of instance. Perhaps a Minister who has been accused of giving an incorrect answer comes to the House and seeks leave to make a personal explanation to correct the answer, and the leave is denied. I assume that then no question of privilege could apply, in that the Minister had sought to correct that answer at the first opportunity.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Of course. It would then be for the Minister to write to me.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the fact that the request for leave was denied on a misunderstanding, perhaps it would be reasonable for leave to be sought again.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am prepared to have leave sought again. There has been a request from that party—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps it would help the House to make a determination about whether leave should be granted in this circumstance, if Mr Duynhoven were to indicate whether he was going to correct an answer or rebut an allegation. If he is rebutting an allegation, then it is surely a matter for a ministerial statement.

Of course, that is a rather peculiar assertion, because if the Minister has been accused of misleading the House by giving incorrect answers, he goes away and checks those answers, and he comes back to reaffirm them, then that is just as important as correcting the answer in the first place.

I hope we do agree to give Mr Duynhoven leave, but I will make one point. Mr Harry Duynhoven sought to make a statement yesterday. The correct procedure is to correct the answer as soon as possible. I believe he went over to see Dr Michael Cullen, who suggested to him that he not do that. He spent 24 hours with the spin doctors, trying to work out a correct answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that, put like that, that is not a point of order. I am prepared to put the question to the House again.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is fair enough that we do get some sort of precedent set around how these matters are dealt with. I would have thought that if the Minister had accurately given an answer to the House, then there was no need for him either to correct or embellish. In fact, there is a procedure that he has available to him to remedy the situation where a member accuses him of some sort of misleading of the House or, indeed, dishonesty. So I think it would be good to hear from Mr Duynhoven as to whether he would be correcting an answer that he previously gave incorrectly, or simply wishes to rebut an allegation, when we all know that he has another course of action available in that regard.

I presume that the other course of action being referred to is to take a charge of a breach of privilege. I think that shows again the common misunderstanding opposite that members may make an assertion that is incorrect only if they are not telling the truth. A member may well make an assertion that is incorrect and wrong in fact, without intending to mislead the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: However, I have been asked to give leave, and it is in the members’ hands, not mine. Does anybody object? There is objection.