Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:673;Page:19057] 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his comments that there is nothing wrong with Ministers accepting hospitality from the Government’s banker Westpac? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have any concerns about ministerial staff accepting the corporate hospitality of Westpac; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I expect them to act carefully in a considered manner and even though they are not bound by the  
Cabinet Manual 
 in the same way as is laid out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he consider that public servants such as staff from Treasury should be able to enjoy the corporate hospitality of Westpac? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a matter for the State Services Commissioner. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can he guarantee that no ministerial staff seconded from Treasury have enjoyed the corporate hospitality of Westpac? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he then follow up with the Minister of Finance as to whether any of his ministerial staff seconded from Treasury have been enjoying Westpac’s corporate boxes given that public servants are not supposed to accept such gifts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No—I think the edict was over the Rugby World Cup not prior to that—in the same way that I will not be delving into that member’s mind to see whether he changed it on his views to America when he accepted free travel from the US State Department. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Would the Prime Minister have any concerns about Treasury staff receiving corporate gifts in the form of access to Westpac’s corporate boxes given that Treasury is the decision maker for the Government’s multimillion-dollar banking contract? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. I do not think the member is right. I think the process is being run by the Ministry of Economic Development. It will make a recommendation and that recommendation will go to Ministers who are likely to base their decision on the recommendation. What I am fairly sure of is that we will not be following the suggestion at the Green Party conference that it goes to Kiwibank. That is because Kiwibank itself has come out and said that although it has the ambition it does not have the capability. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If the final decision on the master banking contract is therefore in the hands of Ministers under the influence of ministerial advisers does he have any concerns that both Ministers and ministerial advisers have been in receipt of corporate hospitality from Westpac? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker I— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it is unusual to come to the defence of the Government at this time but I think it is important that the question of undue influence of people on members of Parliament even in my suggestion in their ministerial roles is a suggestion that should not be made in this House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If I have inadvertently made an inference of undue influence that was certainly not my intent. I am questioning the process of awarding the contract— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat his question and to make sure that there is no implication of undue influence. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that if as he has just said it is up to Ministers to make the decision about the allocation of the master banking contract the public may rightly have concerns when they see Ministers receiving corporate hospitality from Westpac? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No more than they would have concerns about Russel Norman going off to America paid for by the US State Department. I do not really like the inference from the member because it is without foundation. There are well set out guidelines in the Cabinet guidelines. There is also a pecuniary interests list. The member is simply making accusations to get on the front page of the paper and I think the member can do better than that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table my pecuniary interests statement where I made it transparent about the State Department gift unlike— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Dr Russel Norman 
: —corporate gifts from Westpac. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Russel Norman is very lucky that I do not take more serious action because he knows I was on my feet. He kept speaking when there not a matter of a point of order. It started out as a point of order and I fully accept that but then he went on to matters beyond a point of order and we do not table publications that are as readily available to all members as pecuniary interests are. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reflect when you have a moment on the comments made by Dr Norman. What he has said in the House this afternoon is that members are in breach— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but it was not a point of order that the Prime Minister was seeking to raise there. The questions I accept may have had implications but because of that I allowed the answers to somewhat reflect on the questioner which I may not have done under other circumstances. So I think the situation has balanced itself out. I think the questioner in the answers received had some of his actions questioned and I think that is where the matter should rest at the moment. But I do urge members to be careful in asking questions to make sure they do not imply improper practice. I apologise because I should have come down more heavily on the last supplementary question. I did err there in not making sure more quickly than I did that the question was rephrased. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to prolong things but it is against the Standing Orders for a member to deliberately mislead the House. The point I was going to make is that the member has actually made an accusation that people have deliberately misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise but members cannot use the Standing Orders procedure to accuse other members of deliberately misleading the House. There is a proper procedure for doing that. If the member has offended any individual members they can make a personal explanation. There are other procedures though to be followed if it is believed that a member has deliberately and wilfully misled the House. There are other procedures to be followed on that; we do not use the Standing Orders procedure for that purpose. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As somebody who has declared in the pecuniary interests register that I received hospitality from Westpac I do take offence at the comments made by the member that all members on this side of the House did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wishes to make a personal explanation he can seek leave to do that but he cannot use the point of order process to make a political statement in the way he just has. The Standing Orders do not provide for members to do that; there is a procedure. If the member has been offended he can seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Which I just did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is seeking— 
Hon Simon Power 
: No no I am not seeking— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot get to his feet on a point of order and claim someone has misled the House or claim he has been offended. He can seek leave to make a personal explanation if he believes that an unparliamentary statement was made; I have already dealt with that matter. I accept that I perhaps erred in not coming down rapidly enough on the questioner when he appeared to imply in a question possible inappropriate behaviour. If a member believes some other member has deliberately and wilfully misled the House there is a procedure to go through for that; it is not the point of order process. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with that point of order. Does the member have a new point of order? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I do Mr Speaker. Just to clarify at no point was I suggesting that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. This is just abusing the Standing Orders of the House. We do not carry on a debate under a point of order. Members should be careful to not abuse the Standing Orders in the first place. I have already apologised to the House; I blame myself for letting things get to the point they did. I will watch more closely in the future.