Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15296] 
4. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 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) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 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? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 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? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is wrong in his accusation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 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 SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be quiet. I realise that issues can be tense. Would the right honourable Prime Minister mind repeating the answer? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I refute the member’s accusation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 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? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am satisfied that the new system works effectively is fair and balances the needs of both taxpayers and Ministers. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 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? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is incorrect in his statement. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: 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? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: 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 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the National backbench has quite finished I will call the Hon Rodney Hide. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I 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. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 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.