Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported statement of 1 May 2012 that if Hon John Banks had lied over a donation from Kim Dotcom then he would be sacked from Cabinet? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister notes that that was a reported statement not a quote. He stands by his repeated statements to this House that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. The Minister may continue. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: He stands by his repeated statements to this House that his chief of staff sought and received an assurance from Mr Banks that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act in respect of donations. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he recall telling this House during question No. 2 on 1 May that Mr Banks gave his assurance during a phone call to his chief of staff that he was not aware that Mr Dotcom had made the donation to his mayoral campaign? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the answer is the same as to the primary question which is that his chief of staff sought and received an assurance from Mr Banks that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act in respect of donations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very tight and very specific question about a matter that is related to but different from the answer given. I know you have got very good recall but you might want a replay in order to test whether or not that question was even addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member does raise a valid point of order in my view because I think the Minister implied in his answer the answer but I will let the member repeat his question so that the House has certainty. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he recall telling this House during question No. 2 on 1 May that Mr Banks gave his assurance during a phone call to his chief of staff that he was not aware that Mr Dotcom had made the donation to his mayoral campaign? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously it is difficult for me to recall that specifically but I can confirm again for the House that his chief of staff sought and received an assurance from Mr Banks that he had fully complied with the requirements of the Local Electoral Act in respect of donations. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can he still have confidence in the Hon John Banks in light of documents that show that in February this year when Mr Banks was a Cabinet Minister he told Mr Dotcom’s lawyer 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” which is a clear admission that he did know about the donation from Kim Dotcom and could remember it as recently as this year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I do not believe that in regard to the—I presume he is referring to the papers that were released yesterday and I am pretty sure that the Prime Minister has not read those. He notes though that the police determined that there was insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution and that is the Prime Minister’s concern. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table the witness statement of Gregory Brett Towers lawyer for Mr Kim Dotcom who reported a phone conversation with John Banks where he said that he “wished to publicly support Kim [but] that may backfire on Kim if it became known about his election support.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can he continue to have confidence in John Banks as a Minister in light of the sworn statement from Kim Dotcom that Mr Banks explicitly solicited a donation from him and told Mr Dotcom “I want to help you Kim and I can help you more effectively if no-one knows about this donation.” indicating that he both knew about the donation and had an intent to hide it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I note that the member is just reading a series of allegations made in some documents released yesterday. I also note that the police obviously assessed the information and determined not to do a prosecution. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a sworn witness statement from Kim Dotcom that states in it that Mr Banks said to him “I want to help you Kim and I can help you more effectively if no-one knows about this donation.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: Supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this supplementary question. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can he continue to have confidence in John Banks as a Cabinet Minister in light of the sworn statement from Wayne Tempero Kim Dotcom’s bodyguard who said that he spoke with Mr Banks to confirm whether the cheques had been deposited and Mr Tempero’s quote is “ ‘Have the cheques been cleared or not’ and he said yes they had been cleared.” indicating that he was aware of the donation and had misled Mr Key’s chief of staff? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member can read as many of these things as he wants but I would note that they are allegations that the police did not proceed with a prosecution and also that the Labour Party itself described Mr Dotcom—and I do not know whether this is true or not—as a dubious character. That was as late as— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is an irrelevant part of the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! In fairness it is not totally irrelevant because the member was asking about an affidavit from a certain character and in his answer the Minister is at liberty to challenge the character of the person. So I think it was not out of order what the Minister did. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to belabour the point but the witness statement I was referring to there was not from Kim Dotcom. It was from his bodyguard not Kim Dotcom. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was still not totally irrelevant that the Minister was raising issues of character. 
Grant Robertson 
: If the Prime Minister’s test for John Banks staying as a Minister is only a legal one why will he not sack him given that the police file released yesterday says in paragraph 40 of the criminal assessment report that police conclude that the law was breached and that elements for a prosecution were met under section 134(2) but it did not proceed only because it fell outside the time for a prosecution? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again I have not read those details but I did note that the police determined that there was insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution. Also the Prime Minister would I think note that he holds his Ministers to a higher standard than that of the previous Government in regard to for example an example like— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the executive summary of the case released in relation to the Banks interview records at paragraph 29 those present but paragraphs 30 31 32 33 and 34 have all been withheld at the request of Mr Banks and is that an indication of the openness and transparency that he requires of his Ministers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is difficult to take lectures from that member and that party about standards— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister should answer the question—at least make some attempt to answer the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Smugness is a defence. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: From who? From you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! A number of National members seem to have suddenly gone blind. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker I just was not sure whether Mr Cunliffe was telling an intentional joke or just— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister will just answer the question. The Minister to answer the question please. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I cannot confirm that. I certainly have not read the file and I do not believe the Prime Minister has had the opportunity to read the file either. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is the Prime Minister prepared to have a Minister in his Cabinet who has misled him his chief of staff and the whole public of New Zealand when we all know that the Minister received the donations he asked for the donations and he even asked for them to be seen as anonymous as in the papers released yesterday? Why should that Minister be in his Cabinet and why will the Prime Minister not just get on and sack him? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think that is because—well there are a number of reasons actually but firstly the Minister concerned was not in the House in fact he was not even campaigning to be in the House at the time that the matters under discussion occurred. Secondly the police found that they would not proceed with prosecution. Thirdly I think everybody has accepted that the electoral law that applied locally at the time and indeed applies now does need improving. That is why the Government made the announcements it made yesterday. If Labour Party members were concerned they had plenty of time to make those changes themselves. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does having someone who lied and was shown to lie— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member cannot use— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have not yet Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! The member is referring specifically to another member and claiming they have been shown to have lied. The member cannot do that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At which point did I refer to a member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point and if I was premature I apologise. But the member knows he must not refer to an individual member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it his policy to allow people who lie and have been shown to lie to be members of his ministry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not answering on a particular hypothetical situation and of course the member—[ 
Interruption 
] No the member has told the Speaker that it is a hypothetical situation and I am acknowledging that. Once again it is not the job of the Prime Minister to read police files or to involve himself in police prosecutions which seems to be the suggestion. The police determined that there was not evidence to prosecute and did not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Prime Minister therefore confirming that the prosecution test is the same test as the ethical standard for his ministry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister has some difficulty I am sure accepting lectures on ethical standards from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No no. The question was a fair question about the tests for acceptable behaviour expected by the Prime Minister and it deserves to be treated seriously. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sure he is confident of the ethical standards that he sets for his Ministers. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the executive summary of Detective Inspector Mark Benefield’s criminal assessment report which indicates in it that the threshold had been reached for prosecution under section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act for John Banks’ actions but it did not occur because it was outside the 6-month time period. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.