7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
Hon BILL ENGLISHHon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does he still have confidence in Paula Bennett, given her use of confidential beneficiary details; if so, has that confidence been dented?
The Prime Minister does have confidence in Ms Bennett. He also has confidence that she will see off the member’s boasts around the place that he is going to get her because Labour does not like her.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a particular problem now because I know of your rulings, but I want to make it clear that the Prime Minister told an untruth about something that I said. It is just not—
Mr SPEAKERThe member must sit down now. If he wishes to ask further questions around his question he will obey the Standing Orders. The member cannot litigate an answer by way of point of order. That is simply what the Standing Orders provide.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to comments made by the Prime Minister.
Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to the answer given by the Hon Bill English in respect of comments made by the Prime Minister. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The Prime Minister’s reply indicated that I had used a set of words about Ms Bennett. That is untrue.
Jo GoodhewWhat other reports has the Prime Minister seen on the use of personal information by previous administrations?
The reports the Prime Minister has seen indicate that previous administrations, such as the previous Labour Government, made a habit of releasing information. The previous Prime Minister released a lot of personal details about the police commissioner, and then when she was asked she had no comment and said it was nothing to do with her. A former Minister of Immigration put information in an envelope and slipped it under the door of the press gallery, and then she got sacked because she said she did not do it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does the Prime Minister agree, in view of Paula Bennett’s answer today—that is, that it would be an operational matter if a staff member released private information—that Paula Bennett’s actions are completely his responsibility as the Prime Minister?
One of the differences between the previous Government and this one is that Ministers in this Government make decisions and take responsibility for them, which is exactly what she has done. I have to say that getting lectured by that member and the Labour Party about intimidating people is absolutely ridiculous.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
How does the Prime Minister explain how it is in the public interest to suppress the reason he lost confidence in Richard Worth as a Minister, but then to publish private, personal, and confidential information from beneficiaries?
Labour members may be surprised to know this, but what is paid to beneficiaries is actually advertised heavily in every Work and Income office. People can walk into my parliamentary office, pick up a pamphlet, and look up the payment that is made to a sole parent with three children. That is not confidential information, actually.
Does the Prime Minister know of other examples where personal information was leaked to the media through anonymous sources?
There are so many examples of that occurring under the previous Labour Government that the Public Service thinks that that is how things are meant to be done. They are as surprised as Labour members are that a Minister who provided information to get a balanced debate has said that she did it and she stands by the decision. I must say, public opinion seems to be with that Minister.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Would the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Economic Development if he revealed commercially confidential information supplied to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise if the company that supplied it criticised Government policy; if not, where is that line drawn?
I think that is about two layers of hypothetical questions. What I can say is that Ministers are not going to go down the track of a former environment Minister who used the briefing from his chief executive to attack a Government whistleblower as “sad and incompetent” and then publicly revealed employment details about that whistleblower. In a case I dealt with in Opposition a teacher gave me details of National Certificate of Educational Achievement exam results, which are publicly available, and was pursued as a “sad alcoholic” for weeks on end.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to the answer that has just been given.
Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in relation to the answer just given. Is there any—[ Interruption] I put this again to the House because it is an important issue. Denying leave to make a personal explanation is a major issue. Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Before I call the member for his supplementary question, I will say that I know, as I said yesterday, that this issue is deeply held, but when a Minister answers a question that might be a hypothetical question, that is no reason to depart miles away from the question and to make a very provocative answer. I am troubled that the House declined leave for the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Would the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Police if she used the police computer in her office to access the criminal records of Sue Bradford when she opposed, as she regularly does, Government policy on police matters; and if not, where is the line drawn?
This line of questioning makes me wonder just what Labour was up to when it was in Government. The fact is the Prime Minister expects Ministers to follow the protocols, guidelines, and legal principles in respect of the treatment of private information in the public environment.
This release of information has certainly prompted widespread public debate—and it is a legitimate debate—about how balanced this kind of information should be, whether or not a Government is being attacked. We had some concern about the strength of public commentary against a sole parent receiving a benefit; we do not endorse that. A number of newspaper editorials, though, have supported the Minister. The New Zealand Herald said the Minister was right to give the public the facts. The Press in Christchurch said the Minister was justified, and the Dominion Post commended the Minister for commendable openness. The Labour Party attitude, I think, just shows how far out of step with the public mood it is.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Would the Prime Minister have confidence in his Deputy Prime Minister if that Minister revealed the abortion records of someone who took a public pro-abortion position in opposition to Bill English; if not, where is the line on revealing private information drawn?
This really does confirm my concerns about what the Labour Government was up to. That is a ridiculous question. The Prime Minister would expect every Minister to follow those guidelines and conventions that respect the privacy of information that is private, and make well-judged use of public information for the purposes of public debate, which is what the Minister has done.