Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “in 2021, Stuart Nash’s then ministerial office consulted the office of the then Prime Minister on an Official Information Act request release where that email had been identified as part of that release”; if so, why was that request release escalated to the Prime Minister’s office for consultation?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, to the first part of the question: yes. To the second part of the question: on occasion, ministerial staff provide information relating to Official Information Act requests to the Prime Minister’s office on a no-surprises basis. I’ve accepted the apology of the staff involved and believe this was an oversight. Staff in the Prime Minister’s office deal with large volumes of information every day, and errors of judgment do occur. However, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I’ve made my expectation clear and don’t expect such an error to occur again.
Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister really expect New Zealanders to believe that one of the most highly ranked members of staff in the Beehive was that ignorant of Cabinet rules?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Human error is something that occurs everywhere, including in the Beehive. The advisers receive significant amounts of documents that they need to wade through. Clearly a mistake was here—they underestimated what was in front of them—but it was an honest mistake.
Nicola Willis: Isn’t it, in fact, the case that this was not one bad decision by one staff member but part of a culture of cover-up?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Absolutely not.
Nicola Willis: Why didn’t the staff member involved—with knowledge of the email—come forward with it two weeks ago, when the Prime Minister sought assurances that there were no further breaches of the Cabinet Manual by Minister Nash?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I would be speculating with regards to answering that question. I can only assume that given the copious amounts of documents they’ve had come through that it wasn’t front of mind that that was an issue. They underestimated, at the time, the significance of what was in front of them. But it was an honest mistake.
Nicola Willis: Isn’t it actually the case that the Prime Minister’s office saw the email and, instead of doing the right thing, actively chose to cover it up by refusing to release it under the Official Information Act?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No, that’s absolutely not the case. I also will say that, ultimately, all Ministers have responsibility for signing off Official Information Act requests. We receive advice from advisers, but ultimately it is the Minister’s responsibility.
Nicola Willis: Was the Official Information Act request in question one from Newsroom that, on 8 June, requested all correspondence since 2020 between Minister Nash and his political donors, and, if so, why wasn’t the email released?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I believe, in response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question: ultimately, Ministers have to sign off Official Information Act requests, and that Minister at the time made the decision that it wasn’t within scope.
Nicola Willis: Who decided it was out of scope: the Prime Minister’s deputy chief of staff or Minister Nash?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Ministers ultimately are responsible for signing off Official Information Act requests. That member knows that is the case. You can get advice from advisers, but ultimately it is the Minister’s signature on that.
Nicola Willis: What is the point of consulting the Prime Minister’s office if they don’t have the ethics and understanding of Cabinet rules to urge Ministers to release information in compliance with the Official Information Act?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question. The staff involved made a mistake and ultimately the Minister is responsible for signing off on Official Information Act requests.
Nicola Willis: Why isn’t the Prime Minister taking this opportunity to front up and make it clear that this was an egregious breach of the Official Information Act which involved a conspiracy between a Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office to decide to hide information from the New Zealand public?
SPEAKER: Order! A couple of things. I’ve reminded members yesterday, and I’ll remind them today, members might not like the question being asked but they are asked in silence.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member used the word “conspiracy”. Speaker’s Ruling 177/2 says that “Members can’t make implications or imputations in questions that go to matters that could be interpreted as misconduct or corruption”, and that seems to me that—
Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. My knowledge of the dictionary is such that I think a conspiracy is when people work together on an agreed strategy, and I did not use or imply corruption.
Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker, yesterday you admonished me and others in the House around interjecting and so on, and you made the point in doing so that you operate a different approach to questions, which I accept and understand that you allow questions to be asked and if they’re out of order or not within responsibility, then a person can get up and say that. What you saw from us was a reaction to that being taken to a series of questions involving unparliamentary language that also goes to the integrity of both MPs and also members of staff who cannot answer. I appreciate the style of chairing that you have, but I think what you saw was a response to the fact that we believe there has to be a limit, even for that, Mr Speaker.
Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to be helpful: conspiracy, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Any time the House is ready, when the Speaker is on his feet—that would be very helpful, thank you. The Hon Grant Robertson is correct, and I have let things go. I think I’m going to make a new alteration to the way that I have presided over question time. At least one part of the question should be in order for it to be valid. That question contained an imputation, and I am ruling it out of order.
