8. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by all the responses given on behalf of the Minister of State Services by the Hon Trevor Mallard to oral question No. 6 on 22 November 2007; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) Link to this
Mr Mallard based his answers on advice he was given.
Has the Minister seen the statement from Hugh Logan saying: “I am concerned that written material provided to the Minister in preparation for a question in the House led to a reflection on the work of Ms Erin Leigh in 2005-06 that was not intended by the ministry.”; if so, how does she explain Trevor Mallard’s very explicit claim that six pieces of work by Ms Leigh demonstrated incompetence?
I can explain it in this way. I have been advised by the State Services Commissioner today: “I have seen the information that the Minister used, and I agree that the Minister’s comments were understandable. The basis for the comments can be found in the information.”
Has she seen the comment of Hugh Logan saying that Erin Leigh’s work was professional and of good quality; if so, how did Mr Mallard get it so wrong—was it a case of Mr Mallard reaching any conclusion he possibly could out of the information provided by the ministry in order to protect his colleague David Parker?
I realise the member has written out a number of questions, but he ought to have listened to my answer, because I have just told him that the State Services Commissioner has said today that he has seen the information the Minister used, and he agrees that the Minister’s comments were understandable. The information the Minister received from the Ministry for the Environment came from Mr Hugh Logan and was given to the Minister. The State Services Commissioner has said that with the information the Minister used, he agrees that the Minister’s comments were understandable and the basis for those comments can be found in that information. That says to the member that my colleague used the information he was given by the Ministry for the Environment. Mr Logan has also said that he did not intend the note to reflect on Ms Leigh’s performance, but rather it was an attempt to explain some of the circumstances around her departure.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect, when that question was being answered there was a barrage from the back bench of the National Party, particularly from the two Bennetts, who sit side by side. They at no time kept quiet during the answers, and people down here cannot hear them. Frankly, if the National Party leadership fails to demonstrate any control over its back bench, then you should throw those members out and give us a fair go in the House to hear what the debate is about.
Madam SPEAKERIs the Minister of State Services saying to the House and the whole country that it is OK for Trevor Mallard to come into this House, rip the career and reputation of Erin Leigh to bits, and churn it through the mill by misinterpreting the information from Mr Hugh Logan, and that that is OK because the State Services Commissioner says it is OK?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it was made clear that the information the Minister used—the information provided by the Ministry for the Environment to the Minister, and which the Minister used—was the basis for the comments he made. The member is trying to turn this matter to his advantage rather than really caring about the reputation of Ms Leigh.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Has the information used by Mr Mallard been released into the public arena in its entirety; if not, at whose request has it not been released, and why?
Ms Leigh is very happy for the statement that Mr Logan has made today to be released, and I will table it at the end of the question, because Mr Brownlee would like everyone to see it. It does not need to be read out; it will be tabled, and the media and everybody can see it. But I do need to say that it was Ms Leigh who objected to the release of the original note; she said that was because it was damaging.
Does that mean that the Minister responsible for this particular case is now criticising Ms Leigh for not releasing documents that are clearly defamatory?
I am saying that Ms Leigh has every right to make that decision not to have the note released. I support her right to do that. As much as the member may want her to do that so he could make more political capital from it, that is her decision to make, not his.
Why has it taken 2 weeks for the truth behind Mr Mallard’s baseless allegations to come out, and can we assume that this is another case of Mr Logan and Mr Prebble sitting quietly on their hands until it all got too hot, just as they did in the case of David Benson-Pope and as they are doing in the case of David Parker?
Will the Government require the Hon Trevor Mallard to make an apology to Erin Leigh for his mistake?
No. The Minister used information provided to him by Mr Hugh Logan, the Secretary for the Environment. He used that information in good faith.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Will the Government require the State Services Commissioner to apologise for comments that seem to bear out Mr Mallard’s judgment, as read out by the Minister today?
I am acting in my capacity as the Minister of Justice in relation to the inquiry that is currently under way. That question ought to be directed to the Minister of State Services.
John KeyI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on whether the Prime Minister has misled the House. Yesterday, in answering questions to me in relation to this matter, I asked the Prime Minister about the statements that Mr Mallard had made. Firstly, she said she had read the Hansard and she considered the statements Mr Mallard had made to be rather mild by his standards. We now know, of course, that Mr Logan was in the process of preparing the statement he released today. We now know that, whatever interpretation the Government wants to put on it, Miss Leigh has been defamed. That is quite clearly the case. The Prime Minister said, in answer to a further question: “I have no evidence that anyone is being defamed”. Quite clearly, yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister would have been well aware that someone was being defamed and that someone had been defamed. That person is Erin Leigh.
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the Prime Minister of New Zealand would have been fully aware of that situation. She would have had that knowledge when she came down to the House, and she has misled the House. So indeed has Mr Mallard, who quite clearly now knows that he has defamed Miss Leigh.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I say maybe that would go towards answering the question of why, when I asked them yesterday, neither Mr Mallard nor the Prime Minister would repeat those statements outside the House—they have not done that.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Apart from the fact that the member is raising an issue of privilege, this is not the way to raise it. He should have been here long enough by now to know that. But, secondly, we are now getting into Alice Through the Looking Glass territory. What is being argued here is that Mr Mallard, basing his answer on information given to him by the head of his ministry, gave an answer in conformity with that information. That information may have been wrong. Mr Logan may have got his facts wrong, but Mr Mallard was entitled to give an answer. The Prime Minister gave an answer yesterday based on the information available at that point. Mr Logan made a statement this afternoon. To the best of my knowledge, that information was not available to the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. Even this Prime Minister is not as prescient as that.
The member has raised a matter of privilege, and this is not the appropriate way to raise it. There is another way to do so, and if the member wishes to raise it he should do so appropriately. It is certainly not for the Speaker to judge the accuracy of members’ statements in this House; otherwise there would be no end to it.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just in relation to the earlier point of order I raised, I wonder whether the Government will be advising us then on at exactly which point the Prime Minister was aware of the briefing note Mr Logan was putting out and the statement he intended to put out. I go back, Madam Speaker—
I am sorry; I do not want to interrupt the member, but that is not a point of order. We are now getting into debating matters. They are not points of order. I have ruled on that. There is a process in which to raise these matters. All members know that, and they should follow the correct procedure, please.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are a couple of things worth noting in this. The first thing is that Mr Logan’s statement today makes it clear that Ms Leigh notified the ministry that she was ending her contract and ceasing to work for it. The implications given to the House by Mr Mallard were that her work was not of a sufficient standard and that therefore she had to be replaced. That is quite a different matter. In any event, it means that the House has been misled.
I am sorry; I do not want to interrupt the member, but I do not know how many times I can say this. This is a matter of privilege. There is a process to follow. This is not the process. I do not want to hear any more points of order on this particular point. There is nothing more to be said. I am happy to receive communications from members in the appropriate way.