2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he have confidence in his Minister of Corrections’ handling of her relationship with her chief executive; if so, why?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; because she is working closely with her chief executive to restore public confidence in the Department of Corrections.
How can the Prime Minister possibly have confidence in the Minister of Corrections’ management of that relationship—and its sustainability—when she has irretrievably damaged it by repeatedly refusing to express confidence in her chief executive, having first prejudged his performance, and then having been proven quite wrong by the State Services Commission report?
Firstly, the Minister has made it quite clear that she has the confidence that she can work with the chief executive. Secondly, the Minister has quite correctly identified that the important issue here is one of public safety. I would note that ever since the findings of the Auditor-General’s report were seen, the Leader of the Opposition has had nothing to say about public safety.
Was it Mr Matthews’ head that the Prime Minister expected to roll when he personally backed Ms Collins’ call for that to happen; if so, how does his own credibility stand in light of the State Services Commission report that Mr Matthews’ sacking would not be justified?
At no time did either the Minister or I ask for heads to roll. We correctly asked the State Services Commissioner to look into the Auditor-General’s report, to find out where accountability lay, and to ensure that performance would be improved in the Department of Corrections. New Zealanders rely very heavily on the fact that the Department of Corrections needs to carry out its functions with a high level of public safety. This Government is focused on it because the previous Government was not.
In light of the Prime Minister’s answer, I seek leave of the House to table a document that says: “The Prime Minister … is backing Judith Collins’ efforts to remove its chief executive, Barry Matthews.” That statement is in the New Zealand Herald of 19 February 2009.
Mr SPEAKERI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second time in 2 weeks that the Leader of the Opposition has attempted to use editorial comment as a quote. It is not a quote. I am not responsible for the subeditors at the New Zealand Herald; I wish I was.
I will not hear further on this, because that is not a point of order. Leave is sought to table a press statement. Is there any objection to the press statement’s being tabled? There is.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the comments of Paul Kuchenbecker that Ms Collins is “all bark and no bite“, and with the view of Colin Espiner and the media that National has handled this issue in a shambolic way; if not, why not?
No. Actually, I agree with the State Services Commissioner, who stated yesterday: “The Minister has said she will be setting high standards of Mr Matthews and expecting him to perform in the coming months and working with him on that.” I think that that is exactly the right message.
Does the Prime Minister, then, accept Mr Rennie’s report that Mr Matthews’ “… dismissal would not be a fair or a proportionate response,”; and does he, therefore, accept there is now an untenable relationship between Ms Collins and Mr Matthews that can only be resolved either by buying—
The member will resume his seat. The last part of that question was totally out of order with regard to supplementary questions.
The member had already asked the primary part of that supplementary question, then a follow-up bit, and he then sought to put into the question material totally superfluous to the asking of the question. I am afraid that I am not prepared to accept argument over the matter, because that is the fact. If the Prime Minister heard the question, then he may answer it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not argue with the substance of that ruling but with the process that you used. It is usual for a Speaker, when he or she wishes to interrupt a member asking a question, to get to his or her feet. You did not do that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
That is a dreadful attack on you as the Chair of this House, and I think that most members would expect that member to be dealt with summarily. It is quite appropriate for the Speaker to engage with members at any time. The respect shown to the Chair is shown one member to another, and Mr Mallard completely denies that convention in this House. I do not think that we can tolerate a lot more of Mr Mallard’s challenging of the Chair.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Coming from that member, that comment seems a little off, given that on television on Sunday night he was heard to be interjecting—
The member knows that that comment is not contributing to the point of order. I appreciate the honourable member’s point, but, as Speaker, I would like to think I am big enough to take that kind of point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard when he is clearly concerned. My problem was—for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition—that supplementary questions have to be supplementary questions. The member asked the first part to that supplementary question, followed it up with a second part—which was OK—but then proceeded to inject his opinion into it further to that. That is absolutely out of order for supplementary questions. [ Interruption] Order! I am on my feet.
The member has been in this House long enough to know how supplementary questions are to be constructed. It is not good enough to keep, week after week, trying to ask questions that do not comply with the Standing Orders. I have accepted the question; I invite the Prime Minister to—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two points to my point of order. First of all, you looked at me and said “Order!” when I had done absolutely nothing, so I seek an explanation of why I might have merited that. Secondly, I ask you to think just for a moment of what my question was. My question was whether, given the untenable relationship that exists, the options are either to pay out Mr Matthews or to remove Ms Collins. That is a question; that is not a statement.
The problem was that question was not exactly the question the member asked. If the member were to check Hansard he would find that he asked a particular question, he followed it with a question about whether the Prime Minister would take a certain action, and he then sought to put an opinion into the question. It is at that point that I stopped the honourable member. This way of asking supplementary questions needs to stop. I apologise if I offended the member, but it is very easy for him to ask questions that comply with the Standing Orders. I invite the Prime Minister to reply.
I do accept the findings of the report from the State Services Commissioner. I also accept the view that the Minister can have a good working relationship with Mr Matthews, but that does not mean that Mr Matthews will not have to set very high standards. That is absolutely the right thing to do, according to the State Services Commissioner.