8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he believe that blind trusts are a legitimate way for Ministers to manage real or perceived conflicts of interest because they ensure that a Minister cannot know what assets they own at any point in time?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
The use of blind trusts as a means of managing any conflict between a Minister’s portfolio responsibilities and personal interests is one of the options available to Ministers, as set out in the Cabinet Manual. Although the Minister may know what investments go into a blind trust when it is first established, after that point the trustees have full authority to deal with those investments as they see fit, without reference to the trust’s beneficiaries.
Can he confirm that Whitechapel Ltd, the legal owner of Aldgate Trust’s assets, contains only three assets, being shares in Dairy Investment Fund, Highwater Vineyard Ltd, and Earl of Auckland Ltd, and can he further confirm that he once owned shares in those same three companies?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have no responsibility, ministerial or otherwise, for Whitechapel Ltd.
Mr SPEAKERThere will be no further interjections. The Prime Minister is absolutely right. He does not have any responsibility as Prime Minister for that company.
When he advised the House yesterday that Whitechapel may or may not act as a trustee for other trusts, did he take into account in his answer that in its 18 months of life so far it has acted as a trustee only for assets he used to own?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seemed perfectly fine for the Prime Minister to speak at length about Whitechapel Trust yesterday, but he is not at all able to give us any information today. That strikes me as not consistent.
I think we have to accept the Prime Minister’s word. On the face of it, it seemed perfectly proper. The Prime Minister declared that he has no interest as Prime Minister, or even a personal interest, in Whitechapel Trust, and that is the end of that matter.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
What changes have there been with his relationship with Whitechapel Trust since yesterday?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have no responsibility, ministerial or otherwise, for Whitechapel Trust.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that he was prepared to answer questions on this. If he was responsible yesterday and was prepared to answer questions, and he has no responsibility today, something had to change. That—
I have heard enough. I say to the member that that is a nice try, but—[ Interruption] I am on my feet, and the deputy leader of the Labour Party knows that. The fact that the Prime Minister might have referred to that matter in an answer yesterday is irrelevant to today’s question. Had the Prime Minister answered about Whitechapel Trust today, I would have ruled that it was valid for him to be questioned on it, but he has not. In answer to today’s questions, the Prime Minister has pointed out that he has no responsibility as Prime Minister, or any interests in it. That is where the matter must lie today.
Can he confirm that Aldgate Trust, a blind trust listed in his register of pecuniary interests, is legally owned by Whitechapel Ltd, and can he accept that the legal owner of his blind trust can own other people’s assets in theory but does not own other people’s assets in practice, so why does he persist with the fiction that he could theoretically be wrapped in a cloak of anonymity with many others, when it is rather plain that he is in Whitechapel all by himself?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have no responsibility, ministerial or otherwise, for Aldgate Trust, either.
Hon Rodney HideThis goes back to my earlier point about a series of questions that to me are clearly out of order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the issues that the member is trying to ask about. You are allowing questions that are out of order to be answered; therefore, an allegation is being put to the House. I do not think those questions can be allowed under the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The Cabinet Manual is very clear; the Prime Minister is the person responsible for the implementation of that manual for himself and for all other Ministers. It is his area of responsibility and if there is a conflict or even a perceived conflict, he has a responsibility to answer for that in this House.
Let me come back to the point raised by the Hon Rodney Hide. The dilemma I have as Speaker is that it is best for Ministers to determine whether they have any ministerial responsibility. If the question included an outlandish allegation, then the Speaker would rule it out, but I think it is better for Ministers to tell the House where they have no responsibility, rather than the Speaker intervene too much. On this occasion, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he has no responsibility for either Whitechapel Trust or Aldgate Trust. As far as the House is concerned, that is the end of the matter. The Prime Minister’s word must be taken on that. I think that is better than the Speaker trying to make such judgements, unless the question contained an outlandish assertion.
I seek leave to table today’s lists of assets held by Whitechapel Ltd, and to table the movement of those assets, each of them, from—
The member is not making a speech; he is seeking leave to table some documents. I just want to know where the documents have come from.
The first document comes from the Companies Office today. The second document derived from the Companies Office over several months.
I seek leave to table legal advice provided on 28 May 2010 from Taylor Grant Tesiram, which makes it quite clear that Whitechapel may act as a trustee for a number of trusts. [ Interruption]
I am on my feet. There will be silence. I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that he provoked that unruliness by an absolutely unnecessary interjection. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
John BoscawenHave any Ministers with trusts declared a conflict of interest at Cabinet discussions on the emissions trading scheme, which will pay out $1.1 billion to foresters in the coming year, and would he expect Ministers who have forestry interests to do so?
It has been a longstanding practice of this Government and previous Governments not to declare conflicts of interest discussed around the Cabinet table or that are registered by Ministers, and that is a policy I intend to continue with.
How many Ministers does he believe have forest interests in trusts that will benefit from that $1.1 billion in credits paid for by all New Zealand households through increases in their electricity bills?
I simply cannot answer the member’s question about how many Ministers have trusts that might include forestry assets. If he wants to put that question down in writing to me, I can refer it to the Cabinet Office.
I seek leave to table a draft letter from Contact Energy to its customers advising of an increase in electricity prices on account of the emissions trading scheme from 1 July.