Diplomatic Protection Squad—Prime Minister’s Statements

Why was the Prime Minister unable to—[ Interruption]

I want to hear the question.

The cuckoo’s nest is—

It is up to the Speaker to deal with excessive noise, not to the questioner to make those kinds of comments.

Why was the Prime Minister unable to decline Diplomatic Protection Squad protection on his holiday in Hawaii at a cost to the taxpayer of $30,000, when his predecessor and other Prime Ministers declined such protection and had that instruction complied with?

What I can say is that I am not a security expert. I take advice from the experts, who are the police. I can also say that that is a sensible thing, I think, to do. I stand by, I might say, all the statements I have made in relation to whether I have the ability to take them. One of the reasons I know that is that I have sought the views of a much higher power, as members will know. That member, of course, was Phil Goff. When he was asked why he takes—

The Prime Minister will resume his seat immediately. The question did not warrant an attack on the Leader of the Opposition.

It did, actually.

Order!

Point of order.

Point of order.

We now have two points of order. I must have done something equally wrong.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not an attack on the Leader of the Opposition; it was quite relevant to the question.

The member is not going to litigate the issue. I will hear the point of order from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Supplementary question.

Supplementary question from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Why does he require extensive Diplomatic Protection Squad protection with him in the parliamentary complex, including while he is on the treadmill in the parliamentary gym, given the extensive security that already exists in the form of up to 50 professionally trained security officers who already guard the parliamentary complex and the gym?

I assume for the same reasons that Helen Clark had them in the facilities. [ Interruption]

I say to both sides of the House that we will not have any more of those kinds of interjections.

Was the $800,000 budget blowout on the Diplomatic Protection Squad the highest priority spend for the police in 2009-10, given that the police have already been forced by his Government to cut 340 cars out of their vehicle fleet as part of a $20 million budget cut, as confirmed in writing by the Office of the Auditor-General?

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

No, I think the budget blowout was unfortunate, and therefore I apportion the blame fully back to the previous Labour Government, which signed the employment agreement that made $600,000 of the $800,000 blowout necessary.

Was the Prime Minister aware when he decided not to direct the police not to come on holiday with him that for each day they had surfing in Hawaii, they would get 3 days’ leave when they came home?

I take advice from the police and, as I said, I take it in the same way that Phil Goff does when he is asked why he has security at Waitangi. He said it was because the police insisted on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just looking for a point of clarification here; I must say I am a little confused. We have had some to-ing and fro-ing in the last day or two about the nature of what you described as “gratuitous comments” that were being made on this side of the House yesterday. I think it is fair to say that we have had a bit of an interchange on that point today, and I think we are starting to settle in that area. There is an issue, though, that comes to mind with the Prime Minister’s responses to some of those questions. Initially, the quote used from Mr Goff was considered inappropriate because it was attacking a member. It was used again and was appropriate presumably because you did not rule that it was not. The use of other members’ quotes over a period of time by both sides of the House has been, frankly, as long as I have been here, a useful tool for question time. I just want to be sure that we are not venturing into new territory here without a bit of a further think about it.

I invite the honourable member to check the Hansard and look at the question asked by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the question asked by the Hon Trevor Mallard, and he will see why I treated the two questions differently. I listened very carefully to the questions asked. In the first case today where I was concerned about an answer given, the primary question was a very straight question, and the first part of the answer was a somewhat gratuitous comment about the questioner, and I stamped on that. But I listened to both, and the two questions that I treated differently were different. I listened very carefully to the questions asked, and when members insert into their questions political innuendo or connotations, I give much more latitude in answers. Where members ask straight questions, I will not tolerate their being attacked for asking straight, fair questions. I am acutely aware that some questions that may seem to be reasonably straight can be quite strongly not so. I am not that stupid; I have been around the place a fair while, and I listen very carefully. That is why I treated those two questions differently.

If I could just respond briefly, Mr Speaker. Nobody is saying for one moment that your experience leads to any degree of stupidity. Are we saying now that the way in which the question is worded determines whether the answer can be used appropriately or inappropriately in the way that you described? Am I clear about that?

That is correct. Where questions contain political content, political content can be expected in the answer. Where a question is a straight question, I believe that it deserves the respect of a straight answer.

So that I am absolutely clear for members on this side of the House, you are in no way ruling out the use of members’ quotes from previous engagement in this House?

Not at all.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I seek leave to table a transcript from Radio Live on 6 May when Phil Goff was asked—