11. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he expect all Ministers in his Government to comply with paragraph 4.53 of the Cabinet Manual; if so, what sanctions would he consider where a Minister failed to comply with this rule?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; and I am not aware of any case where a current Minister has been represented at the expense of the Crown in line with the provisions set out in chapter 4 of the manual.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
Is it his view that this rule applies regardless of which agency of the State funds any legal representation?
No, because in the case of a Minister, those expenses would be paid for by the Crown, and in the case of an MP, they would be paid for by the leader’s office and, therefore, not by the Crown.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
Has Cabinet, since he became the Prime Minister, ever considered a request for direction in respect of costs being retained by a Minister where they covered damages that were awarded to that Minister if the Minister’s expenses were paid for by the Crown?
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
In what circumstances would he agree to an individual retaining financial costs that were awarded to that individual when all or a substantial portion of the legal fees were paid for by the taxpayer?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We had some changes in the Standing Orders of the House at some stage in the past, while you and I were both here, that allowed hypothetical questions. To say that a question is hypothetical when he does not like it—
Mr SPEAKERTo save the House’s time, I say that I heard the question very clearly. The Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for taxpayers’ money that might be used that is sanctioned by the Speaker for that purpose, for example. [ Interruption] I am on my feet. Where a Minister’s costs are paid, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, because they are paid by the Crown. Where costs for a member of Parliament are funded, that matter is finally sanctioned by the Speaker. The member in his question did not distinguish between the two, because the member said “the taxpayer”. The taxpayer can also cover those payments sanctioned by the Speaker.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
In any event, the Prime Minister said that he considered it a hypothetical question. He can, of course, answer that question, but he went on to say that he does not answer hypothetical questions, and that is a perfectly reasonable response to the member.
I believe it is a reasonable response in this circumstance, because the Hon Trevor Mallard is right that the Standing Orders that used to rule out hypothetical questions were changed, so there is no reason why a hypothetical question cannot be asked. But, in my view, that question started to move away from the area of the Prime Minister’s ministerial responsibility.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you are entirely right in your interpretation of the question in that it could have covered either one of the areas that the Prime Minister is clearly responsible for. When the Prime Minister came into Government, he said he would have better accountability—
The member will resume his seat right now. The Prime Minister answered questions very clearly where he had responsibility. He answered questions very clearly about that, and said that he was totally unaware of any case where that had not applied. He also made it clear to the House that he had no intention of changing any rules in that area. My concern about the member’s final question was that it started to move away from the Prime Minister’s area of direct responsibility, and, in those circumstances, I do not think that I could ask the Prime Minister to respond more precisely than he did.