Questions to Minister

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all his Ministers to comply with the responsibilities set out in the Cabinet Manual?



Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. Ministers are expected to comply with the guidance set out in the Cabinet Manual and to seek advice from the Secretary of the Cabinet as necessary.
David Shearer: Did he ask Nick Smith to resign; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; the Minister offered his resignation, and I accepted his resignation because, as the Minister said himself, he exercised poor judgment in supporting an ACC claimant while he was Minister for ACC.
David Shearer: When did he first become aware of Nick Smith having written inappropriate letters on behalf of his friend Bronwyn Pullar?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first letter—the reference—I was made aware of on Monday evening, and the second letter, the one that the Minister made reference to in the House today, which was back to another former member of Parliament, I was made aware of this morning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did the Prime Minister, or those in his office, know of Ms Pullar’s frustration with ACC, that she was pressing his Minister for help, and that Dr Smith had told Ms Pullar that his helping would be inappropriate? When did he first learn of that?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to answer that question. I simply do not know. I know the claimant, and in my early days as a member of Parliament I was aware, right back then, that she was frustrated with ACC. I understand she has sent significant correspondence to ACC over the years, but I am not in a position to know when the Minister was first made aware. You would need to put that question to, I guess, the ACC office.
David Shearer: Does he still stand by his statement yesterday: “If you are going to sack Ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one, you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and that was because in relation to the first error of judgment, when the Minister wrote a reference for the claimant, although I consider that to be unwise, and although I consider that to be an error in judgment, I did not consider it, on balance, in relation to everything else the Minister had done to be a sacking offence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Prime Minister cause to be released the long trail of emails and correspondence between Dr Smith and Ms Pullar; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to release those particular four letters. The member, if he wants any other correspondence, should ask for it under the Official Information Act.
David Shearer: Does he still believe, in light of today’s events, that this is “an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one,”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I consider the first instance to be exactly that. I consider the second to be one too many.
Kevin Hague: Does the Prime Minister stand by the repeated assurances given in this House yesterday by the Minister for ACC, Judith Collins, that the matters concerning Dr Smith’s conduct will be covered by the Privacy Commissioner’s investigation, given that it is now clear that those matters fall well outside the powers and functions of the Privacy Commissioner?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is at the risk of paraphrasing the Minister, but anyway, if the member is asking whether there will be any further inquiry, I have not seen any information that would indicate to me a further inquiry is necessary. There are inquiries that will be undertaken by the police and the Privacy Commissioner, but I do not see the need for any further inquiry.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1203/S00284.htm