Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15197. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in the stability of his Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Will he depend on Mr Banks’ vote to pass legislation for the remainder of this term?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That will depend obviously on whether it is either a confidence and supply issue or case by case as we deal with every party in Parliament. But in principle yes where Mr Banks chooses to exercise that vote on behalf of the ACT Party.Hon David Cunliffe: If it is on a case by case basis as the Prime Minister has said what does it say that he could not muster a majority for his copper tax or the Resource Management Act changes and how can the country be confident of stable Government over the next year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The fact that we have not introduced the Resource Management Act legislation does not mean that we cannot actually command a majority. The member might actually be quite surprised by that but we will leave that actually for another day. In terms of the copper tax that was never actually tested. We were aware that our partners would not vote for it and we decided not to introduce it. But anyway we would not have done so because after that point the retail service providers decided that they did not want to do a deal with Chorus so it was a moot point.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister now know for certain that the Hon Peter Dunne did not leak theKitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not know the answer to that. I do not believe that was the purpose of the privileges claim.Hon David Cunliffe: Then how could he accept him back in his Cabinet?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because firstly we have not done that and secondly we accept the member at his word.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with Colin Craig that man may never have walked on the moon?Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Prime Minister as far as he has responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and one of the great privileges of being Prime Minister is that you get the opportunity firsthand to have some unique experiences. One of mine was having—Grant Robertson: You’ve been on the moon?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I have not been to the moon. I have not been to the moon although I know that Labour’s economic policies are developed up there. But no. As Prime Minister I had dinner with Buzz Aldrin one night. Buzz looked pretty convinced that he had been to the moon and he would know.Hon David Cunliffe: Will one of his unique experiences be to have Colin Craig land on “Planet Key”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well there are a lot of people who would like to be part of “Planet Key” as we saw in the last election when over a million people voted for National. And how many voted for Labour? Was it 300000 or 400000?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Not any more Johnny.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well actually our polling last night did not indicate that.Hon David Cunliffe: Which is worse: propping up a dying Government based on the vote of a potential electoral fraudster—an ex-Minister whom he thinks may have released secret documents—or an extremist who put out 20000 leaflets saying that John Key should not be the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We deal with MMP. That requires any political party or group of parties to get 61 votes. Come the next election it will be the same situation. It will be no different for the Labour Party than it will be for the National Party. But what I can say based on all the things I see is that the probability of National being able to get those 61 seats is far greater than it is for Labour. The one difference though between election 2014 and election 2011 is that I will go into election 2014 with 100 percent of my caucus wanting me to get there and you Mr Cunliffe will go there with less than a third of your caucus wanting you to get there.Hon David Cunliffe: In the run-up to this election does the Prime Minister continue to intend to hop from cloud to cloud; if so under which cloud will he find the Hon John Banks and on which cloud will he find Colin Craig?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know but I will find the Labour Party’s economic policies in cloud-cuckoo-land.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister’s statement that he has to take Mr Dunne at his word in respect of his denial mean that he believes Mr Dunne did not leak theKitteridge report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member has on numerous occasions strongly said that he did not leak the report. I accept the member at his word. There was no conclusion to that report.Dr Russel Norman: How legitimate does he believe his asset sales programme is given that it was passed by a single vote in this House and that that single vote was the vote of John Banks the discredited MP who is currently in front of the courts for electoral fraud?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well firstly I think it is really important that we recognise and actually respect that every New Zealander is innocent unless they are proven guilty. We as members of this House actually have a responsibility I believe to at least accept that basic principle which we expect other New Zealanders to accept. Secondly in a parliamentary majority in this Parliament you are required to get 61 votes and those 61 legitimate votes are required. We have them; that is called a majority. If Russel Norman is telling us that if one day—goodness knows if it ever happens—he is part of a Government he would not count that as a majority that is a really interesting proposition which he should get to his feet and tell New Zealanders about now. Thetruth is that it is just typical Russel Norman—says one thing will do something completely different. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! And that includes the member.Dr Russel Norman: My question to the Prime Minister is in relation to his previous answer. Given that the courts have found that John Banks took a $15000 donation from—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I am anticipating with this question is that there is a case now that is sub judice—before the court. I am certainly not ruling that question out of order but I am going to ask the member to rephrase it in such a way that he does not breach Standing Order 112 by referring to a case that is now potentially sub judice.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was actually quoting from the judge’s decision in the most recent judicial review that Mr Banks went to court about—exactly that case.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. Speaking to the point—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that is a very reckless comment for Dr Norman to have made. There has been no finding; there has been simply a determination that it should proceed to a trial—quite a different matter. Dr Norman has I think got himself in some trouble by implying that there has been a judgment when there has not been.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect the sub judice rule here involves whether or not Mr Banks knowingly had a declaration filled out and that is the matter that is before the court. It is not whether he received the money. That has been accepted by his lawyer and it was by him at court. The sub judice rule concerns his knowledge as to that declaration of return. That is a different matter and Dr Norman has not traversed that at all.Mr SPEAKER: Let me hear again from the member but I would just ask him to be careful and consistent with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this matter which is quite complicated and difficult.Dr Russel Norman: Given that John Banks received a $15000 donation from Skycity does he believe that it is legitimate for him to rely on John Banks’ vote in giving Skycity concessions to massively expand its operations?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that not going right to the heart of the case that is going to the court?Hon Members: No it’s not.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No well I am sorry. There are constitutional experts and lawyers over here who might think so but—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I accept that this is a very difficult issue but I think the way that question is now worded is in order and it is stating facts that are now in the public arena. The Prime Minister can answer that question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue though is how any donation was received and for him to assert it was received by Mr Banks is at this point wrong.Mr SPEAKER: But that was not the question that—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was. He said: “Given that he received …”. Those words are wrong.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The issue is how it was then described—the receipt of it. That is the issue. I do not think there is much doubt to the best of my knowledge thatthe donation was received. It is then a matter of how it was returned. I have ruled that the Prime Minister can answer the question and that is the absolute end of the matter.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not accept the premise of the question.Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that it does damage to the reputation of this House that the vote on the Skycity bill which gave enormous concessions to Skycity was reliant on the vote of John Banks who received a $15000 donation from Skycity and is currently before the courts on exactly that issue?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Once again the member has proved that he cannot count. The majority was two not one.Dr Russel Norman: Did he or any of his advisers or colleagues pressure John Banks to stay on as an MP despite the fact that he faces a trial for electoral fraud because his Government relies on the single vote provided by that MP in this House to pass his most unpopular legislation like asset sales?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No not to the best of my knowledge.