1. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; because they are talented people working hard for New Zealand.
Does he believe that in all matters his Minister of Finance has followed that part of the Cabinet Manual that reads: “… Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.”?
Yes, and I understand that the Minister of Finance gets the same accommodation allowance as about a hundred other members of Parliament.
Does he believe that it is ethical for the Minister of Finance to undertake legal manoeuvres that happen to increase his family trust’s receipts from the taxpayer, at the same time as the Minister of Finance requires restraint in every other aspect of Government expenditure?
I understand that the Minister of Finance has explained many times publicly that he accepts that there was a perception problem, and that is why he paid the money back and now receives the same allowance as about a hundred other members of Parliament.
Does he believe that it is now time for the Minister of Finance to release his family trust deed, with appropriate deletions to protect the privacy of others?
No. The Minister of Finance receives the same housing allowance as about a hundred other members of Parliament, and that member could ask the same question of those hundred other members of Parliament, should he so wish.
What is the precise pecuniary interest that must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence—is it a personal pecuniary interest test or a familial pecuniary interest test?
As the Minister of Finance has said many times, he accepts that there was a perception problem with the arrangements. He kept to all the rules, but he paid the money back. What else can he do?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very precise. It had no extra material in it. It asked which of two tests should be used. That question was not addressed.
Mr SPEAKERI would ask the Hon Bill English whether he could focus on the test that is applied, because the question was specifically about that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for that in his capacity as Prime Minister.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is a long-established tradition in the Westminster system that, in fact, Prime Ministers have responsibility for everything that each of their Ministers has responsibility for, including the things that they are responsible for themselves. Prime Ministers can transfer primary questions, but you know as well as I do, Mr Speaker, that in the House of Commons and in this Parliament Prime Ministers can be asked questions that relate to conservation, to economics, and to social welfare. They are the Prime Minister and therefore they have to answer.
The dilemma I face is—I take it that the honourable Minister is still arguing that there is no ministerial responsibility for that issue.
The member is asking for a legal opinion. The Prime Minister has been advised that the Minister of Finance took legal advice—legal advice that was available to every member of Parliament about the declaration of pecuniary interests.
Mr Speaker, I am very happy to reword the question, if you would like, in order that it falls within the Standing Orders.
I thought the member was seeking to ask a further supplementary question. Was he on a point of order then?
If he has answered it, that is fine. What, then, does the Prime Minister make of this document headed “Travel, Accommodation, Attendance and Communications Services Available to Members of the Executive”? It is dated 26 May this year, which is proof that it was signed by Mr John Key. It states on page 3, under paragraph (c), concerning the principle that expenditure must be properly documented and supported with tax invoices and receipts: “Members of the Executive must be open in the use of public resources and disclose any conflict of interest in utilising entitlements, whether that conflict is pecuniary, personal, familial, or as the result of any associations.”?
It can only re-state what the Minister of Finance has said many times. He agreed that there was a perception of an interest in the arrangements, and that is why he paid the money back. What else can he do?
The Minister of Finance kept to all the rules. He accepted there was a perception of conflict, and paid the money back. The Minister of Finance receives the same accommodation allowance as a hundred other members of Parliament.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister for Land Information will accept the recommendation of the New Zealand Geographic Board that Whanganui City should be spelt with an “h”, which is consistent with the history, the heritage, the culture, the language, and the people of Whanganui, and what will be the process to enact this decision?
It is my understanding that the Minister for Land Information, who is a considered Minister, will look at the board’s findings and make any inquiries he sees fit before making his decision.
I seek leave to table two documents. One is the Executive Travel, Accommodation, Attendance, and Communications Services Determination 2009, and the second is the details thereof.