Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement given in answer to Oral Question No 2 on 1 May 2012 “my chief of staff spoke with Hon John Banks and sought an assurance from him that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act in respect of donations. Mr Banks gave his assurance during the phone call and stated that he was not aware that Mr Dotcom had made the donation to his mayoral campaign”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement that for a Minister to enjoy his confidence “The test is: has he misled me?” 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Is he aware of the sworn statement from Gregory Towers a partner at Simpson Grierson who said that Mr Banks told him in February this year when Mr Banks was a Cabinet Minister that he could not assist Mr Dotcom in getting medical attention in prison because “that may backfire on Kim if it became known about the election support.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not read the report but I have seen media reports. What I am aware of is that that is a statement from Mr Towers not a statement from Mr Banks. 
David Shearer 
: Is he aware of the dinner Mr Banks had with Kim Dotcom where Kim Dotcom offered him $50000 to which he replied “No not one cheque. Write two cheques out for $25000 each.” as cited in the sworn statement of Kim Dotcom’s security guard? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I am not aware of the specific dinner that the member is talking of although I am aware that Mr Banks had dinner with Mr Dotcom. I am also aware that under the rules of the existing legislation it is quite within the rules to solicit cheques and donations on such a basis and comply with the law. 
David Shearer 
: Can he assure the House that the changes to the Local Electoral Act that he is proposing will address the issues raised in the police files on John Banks? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I have not read the report but I can say that this Government will tidy up that legislation where that Government failed. A couple of years ago the Labour Party was not worried about this issue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a pretty straight question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I think the question was answered but I think the territory the Prime Minister was about to go into then was probably beyond the question asked. 
David Shearer 
: How can he be 100 percent sure that the new amendments will address those issues when he actually has not read the police files on John Banks? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am certainly well and truly aware of the failings of electoral law. Funnily enough so is the Labour Party because if I was to quote from Prime Minister Helen Clark she said through a spokeswoman that the electoral law was “confusing contradictory and needed to be reviewed.” Guess what! Helen Clark and I worked it out. The shame is that Helen Clark did nothing about it. 
David Shearer 
: Why does the Prime Minister refuse to read the police files on John Banks? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it is not my practice to go and read police files. This will come as a great shock to the member but the police are independent in New Zealand. They do their own investigations and guess what! This is the bit that the Labour Party is not quoting. Guess what! The police said that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute—by the way no case. 
David Shearer 
: How can he continue to claim that John Banks did not mislead him given that Mr Banks claimed that he was not aware of the donations from Kim Dotcom in spite of the fact that he solicited the donation at a dinner at Dotcom’s house; asked that the donation be split in half so he could claim it was anonymous; thanked Mr Dotcom for the donations during a phone call; and as recently as on 8 February this year declined to assist Mr Dotcom on the basis he had donated to Mr Banks’ campaign? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am confident of two things: firstly that my chief of staff spoke to Mr Banks’ office and sought an assurance that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act and secondly that he was not aware that Mr Dotcom had made donations. Many of the things that the member is now claiming are within the law. By the way there are many older members of this Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I think there has been sufficient answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Prime Minister remember saying “This is not a Prime Minister in control. It is a Prime Minister in damage control … She should now act over Mr Field. Why are we waiting Prime Minister? … Helen Clark is only interested in protecting her slim majority in Parliament.” and what has changed other than the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: A couple of things. First yes I remember making that statement. Secondly I am not surprised Trevor Mallard is on feet because quite frankly David Shearer is going about as well— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Look—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I ask the House to settle down a moment. This is not going to be easy if it gets too testy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Prime Minister still satisfied and will he rely on the police conclusion when the evidence now shows that John Banks lied to his chief of staff and/or the media on this matter; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The matter does not show that Mr Banks lied to my chief of staff—quite the contrary. Mr Banks complied with the law. You see the Labour Party cares about the law today but it did not care about it enough to change it. If you cared so much a while ago change the law back then.