Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 12 to Minister, 23 July

E te Mana Whakawā, tēnā koe. I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to oral question No. 12 on Thursday, 23 July.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

On Thursday, 23 July in response to a supplementary question from Darroch Ball regarding an interview I undertook with Television New Zealand’s Q+A programme, I said: “I did never ever answer any question in regard to Serco, and I have had no conversations with them about any social services.” I have now had a chance to review the transcript from my interview. In that interview I was asked two questions that cited Serco as an example of a private company that delivers social services, and I did answer those questions. My apologies. I repeat, however, I have had no conversations with Serco about the delivery of social services in New Zealand. I was making the point in the interview that I would be open to the private sector delivering some social services if it can be shown it delivers better results. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that statement just then and to look back at Hansard for last Thursday. This is precisely why we raised the point of order at the time and precisely why Darroch Ball sought your permission, or the House’s permission, to table that transcript, because it would have made—

Order! The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order; that will lead to disorder. I will not see the tabling of transcripts in this House. If members want to seek further information, they have the ability to do so. The point of tabling is not to make a political point; it is to further inform members—[Interruption] Order! I am speaking to the honourable member Ron Mark. The point of tabling is to provide further information. If that information is freely available, then I will not be putting the leave.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a separate point of order to that, and that is regarding the personal explanation process where the Minister is giving a correction. My understanding is that the process has always been very clear: that Ministers correct what was in error and then leave their corrections at that. They do not then go on to elaborate the point that they were trying to make, which is an abuse of that process.

The member is correct. Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Leave is given by members in the expectation that the explanation given will be coherent and brief, explaining the point. I think on this occasion the Minister went on slightly longer than the Minister needed to, but that is for the Minister to call. The House then reacted accordingly. But, in future, to seek the right to make a personal explanation is a privilege of the House, and I would expect any member seeking to make a—[Interruption] Order! I would expect any member making a personal explanation to respect that privilege.

💬 Ron Mark: Point of order.

Is this a fresh point of order, or is it in any way relitigating what has just been covered? Because if it is, I will treat it very, very seriously by Mr Mark. Think carefully before you raise—

💬 Ron Mark: Two points—

Order! I just want the first point of order. I am advising the member before he starts that if it in any way relitigates—[Interruption] Order! I am just warning the member that if it in any way relitigates—[Interruption] Order! I think the member had better sit for a minute so I am just absolutely clear. When I reviewed transcripts of last week there were numerous times when a particular member continued to relitigate points of order. That, in itself, leads to disorder in this House. So I am giving not only Mr Mark but all members a warning that if they attempt to relitigate by raising perpetual points of order, I will treat it very, very seriously and be asking members to leave. Does the member have a fresh point of order?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is this. Under the Standing Orders that Minister had plenty of time to come and give this statement prior to the lifting of the House on the Thursday. I would ask you to reflect—is it appropriate that we then wait all the way through to the Tuesday, when the Minister herself could have corrected that error, in accordance with the Standing Orders—

Order! I have heard enough. It is for a member to decide; when they discover the information they must do so at the earliest convenience. I am not privy to deciding or knowing when the Minister decided that answer was not correct. It possibly could have been done Thursday afternoon—that is true—but that is not for me to determine. The member came into the House at 2 o’clock today, sought leave to make a personal explanation, and permission was given by the House.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

Again—[Interruption] Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I do not need a warning.

The member will resume his seat—the member will resume his seat. Again, I want to be fair to the member, because if he is asked to leave, I do not want him complaining that he has been asked to leave the Chamber. If it is a fresh point of order, I am only too happy to hear it, but if it in any way attempts to relitigate where we have got to since the House started at 2 o’clock, I will deal with it severely. A fresh point of order—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be rather obvious—and this point of order is to do with the sequence of events—that there was a contest as to the veracity of the matter. A member was denied a chance to table the document. That would have put the Minister’s staff and the Minister on alert. But by 10 o’clock—by the close of business that night she had not done so. That is what the point of order is about. It is the way that a ministerial statement or an explanation like that should be done and the time frame in which it should be done. She was on alert to do that. She did not do it.

Order! That is exactly relitigating what I have just said. I now ask the member to leave the Chamber. I ask the member to leave the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.