4. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he believe clear and unambiguous leadership is now needed to ensure that rules regarding the private interests of Ministers are upheld?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
As Prime Minister I have responsibility for protecting the integrity of the decision-making process of executive Government and maintaining public trust in the executive. I have always expected and demanded that my Ministers act lawfully and behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.
Was he showing clear and unambiguous leadership when, even before he became Prime Minister, he happened to forget how many Tranz Rail shares he owned?
Was he showing clear and unambiguous leadership when he set up a blind trust to manage his real estate, dairying, and wine interests, which was blind in legal theory but which had 20/20 vision in practice?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not hear the Prime Minister’s reply, and I wonder whether I could have the chance to hear it afresh.
Mr SPEAKERI ask members to be quiet. I realise that issues can be tense. Would the right honourable Prime Minister mind repeating the answer?
Was he showing clear and unambiguous leadership when he reinvented a new ministerial housing system, supposedly to save the taxpayer money after the Bill English debacle, only to find that his system costs more because Ministers can, and do, pocket more money without having to show that their expenses are real?
I am satisfied that the new system works effectively, is fair, and balances the needs of both taxpayers and Ministers.
Did he show clear and ambiguous leadership when he initially denied wrongdoing by Dr Richard Worth, the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, or Pansy Wong, only to have to backtrack when the facts emerged?
Why is it always the Prime Minister’s instinct to deny, forget, minimise, dampen, distract, ward off, and worse, or to run a new agenda, rather than to live by clear personal rules himself and require his Cabinet to do the same?
In the 2 years that I have been Prime Minister I am proud to have led a Government that has had greater transparency and greater openness than previously. I am very grateful that I was not a member of the previous Labour Government, which spent its time with Taito Phillip Field, Winston Peters, and a range of other people whom it sought to protect and hide from. [ Interruption]
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to go back over the supplementary questions that the Hon Pete Hodgson raised, and the way of doing it, in the context of the Standing Orders. I let him finish, obviously, but I raise this for next time. It seems to me that the danger that we might be heading into is the ability of members to put down questions without notice, in effect, by asking a Minister or Prime Minister whether he or she believes that clear and unambiguous leadership was shown in a particular case, and then allowing a whole range of issues to be trawled. It seems to me that the House might want to enable that to happen, but in the past Speakers have been quite tough about members putting down questions like that without notice.
I appreciate that the member has raised this point in good faith. These are difficult issues. I think there was nothing unusual about the primary question that was put down. Over the years members of the House have lodged primary questions that give no particular indication of where the supplementary questions will go. I listen to the supplementary questions, and if there have been outrageous allegations against a member—or in this case the Prime Minister—I have ruled them out. Where possible I tend to let the Minister deal with the question. I think the Prime Minister dealt with the questions on this occasion. But as Speaker I accept that I have to be careful, because outrageous allegations are totally out of order and outside the Standing Orders. I will be mindful of that issue.