1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement at question time yesterday that he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister on Tuesday, 26 May 2009?
Hon BILL ENGLISHWhy, then, did the Prime Minister express confidence in Dr Worth as a Minister on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, given that he has said subsequently he already lost confidence in Dr Worth on that date?
The Prime Minister has made his view clear that he lost confidence in Richard Worth. The consequences of that include Mr Richard Worth’s resignation from his ministerial post.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that answer addresses the question that I asked, which was quite straightforward: why did the Prime Minister express confidence in Dr Worth, given that subsequently he has said he had already lost confidence in Dr Worth at that date?
Mr SPEAKERI was momentarily distracted while the Hon Bill English was answering, so could he repeat the answer to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I apologise.
The Prime Minister has stated that on that day he did lose confidence in Dr Worth. It may have been later in the day; he would need to go through a fairly detailed sequence of events to work that out. It is clear that as a result of that loss of confidence, Mr Richard Worth tendered his resignation as a Minister. He is now no longer a Minister.
If the Prime Minister lost confidence in Dr Worth on 26 May 2009, why did Dr Worth continue to hold responsibilities as a Minister and receive remuneration for that position for a week afterwards?
Because the circumstances in which the Prime Minister lost confidence in him merited investigation in the interests of due process. As that member and every other member of Parliament knows, it is easy to make allegations about people. Allegations are often heard. Before a Prime Minister acts decisively, he or she needs to establish the facts of the matter.
If the Prime Minister had lost confidence in Dr Worth, and given the fact that the police investigation has not even started yet, why did he not require the resignation of Dr Worth on the day that he lost confidence in him?
For just the reasons that were given before in answer to the previous question. Allegations can be made. A Prime Minister might draw some conclusions of his or her own, but would need to go through a process that demonstrates natural justice and establishes the facts of the matter.
Given that we have not gone through that process, why, therefore, has Dr Worth been asked to resign?
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister did go through a thorough and decisive process.
Does the Prime Minister now accept that it was a mistake simply to take the word of Richard Worth with regard to the complaint that I referred to him privately on 6 May, and to accept Dr Worth’s word that there was no substance to that complaint, given the parallels between that complaint and the subsequent complaint that led to his resignation?
No, the Prime Minister does not accept that. As a result of the enquiries he made regarding the earlier allegations, the results of those enquiries were communicated back to the Leader of the Opposition’s office about a month ago. If the Leader of the Opposition had concerns about how the complaint was handled, he had ample opportunity to raise those.
Does the Prime Minister recall, in the conversation that I had with him on 6 May, that there was extensive evidence by way of telephone logs and texts of communication between Dr Worth and the complainant; if so, why did he say there was no hard evidence not to accept Dr Worth’s word that there was no substance to the allegations?
It is correct that the Leader of the Opposition made those statements in the phone call. That evidence was never presented to, or sighted by, the Prime Minister. After his investigations into the allegations were completed, the results of those were communicated directly back to the Leader of the Opposition. If he felt that more evidence should have been produced or a different conclusion could have been reached, he had the opportunity to communicate that to the Prime Minister, but he did not.
Did the Prime Minister decide to force Dr Worth’s resignation only after he found out that the media were aware of a complaint that had been laid with the police?
On which date was the Prime Minister or the Minister of Police first advised that the police were investigating Dr Worth?
I would just have to go back and check the exact chronology there, but I think the Prime Minister would be able to tell you that it was on the day that Richard Worth’s resignation was announced.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
What is the status of commitments I received from Dr Worth at a formal meeting with him as Minister of Internal Affairs at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, considering that he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister a week earlier?
Clearly any undertakings or commitments made by the Minister in his capacity as a Minister were made on behalf of the Government, and they will be honoured and followed through on.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Why did the Prime Minister allow Dr Worth to hold formal meetings and give formal commitments as the Minister of Internal Affairs a week after losing confidence in him?
I can only repeat the answer I gave to earlier questions, which is that the Prime Minister went through a thorough and decisive process of establishing the facts of the matter before Dr Worth offered his resignation.
Metiria TureiI seek leave of the House to table a letter from the office of Dr Richard Worth, Minister for Land Information, showing his continued decision-making role in the appointment of the technical reference group for the review of the Overseas Investment Act, dated 29 May, which is 3 days after the Prime Minister had lost confidence in him.