Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5357. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement: “The test is whether I can rely on the member’s word and he has given me assurance that he met the law … There is a statute of limitations and he has complied with the law”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement that “The test is whether I can rely on the member’s word and he has given me an assurance that he met the law. The police have quite clearly said there was insufficient evidence. There is a statute of limitations and he has complied with the law.” 
David Shearer 
: Does he accept the police findings paragraph 40 that John Banks breached section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the actual report but funnily enough I have seen the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today where it said the “Police concluded the report was ‘false’ but could not prove Banks had known when he signed it”. 
David Shearer 
: Does John Banks enjoy his confidence not because he breached the Act but because he was not prosecuted for breaching the Act? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: He enjoys my confidence because I can rely on his word. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe John Banks or does he believe Simpson Grierson partner Greg Towers when he says in a sworn statement to police that “John Banks said that as much as [he] wished to publicly support Kim that may backfire on Kim if it became known about the election support.” given that Mr Towers would risk his career including being disbarred as a lawyer if he was found to be lying? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is quite possible that both men are right. I would note that in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 newspaper it said that Greg Towers “also told the police he was unaware of any donation from Dotcom to Mr Banks’ campaign.” Support can take many forms. What I do know is that I have a caucus that supports me and that leader— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The House will come to order. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe John Banks or does he believe— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will note that when you got to your feet Mr Key kept talking but the sound system for him did not go off. So I want to know what is going on here because you told us that that was a practice round— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am sure that had he kept going it would have gone off. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe John Banks or does he believe Kim Dotcom when he says in a sworn statement to police that he offered Mr Banks $50000 and “Mr Banks immediately accepted my offer” and that “Mr Banks then said to me that it would be better to split it into two cheques for $25000 ... He told me it was because then he would not have to declare where it came from.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to assess the merits of that but what I do know is that the Local Electoral Act as it was designed by the Labour Government or at least not changed by it made it quite legal for someone to solicit a donation and in fact to ask a donor to give those donations anonymously. I will be pretty sure that the Labour Party did that under the old laws for general elections all the time. 
David Shearer 
: Does he believe John Banks or does he believe Wayne Tempero when he says in a sworn statement to police that he remembers John Banks saying “No not one cheque write two cheques out for $25000 each.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am just not in a position to judge that but I accept John Banks at his word. 
David Shearer 
: In the interests of having a transparent ministry will he ask John Banks to release his witness statement? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is not something I have ministerial responsibility for. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister asking one of his Ministers to release a document is something he has ministerial responsibility for when it goes to the ethics of that Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister in fact does not have responsibility for that document and the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to answer in that way. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He does not have responsibility for that document. We are not saying that he has responsibility for that document but he does have responsibility for the integrity of his Ministers and it is within his power and responsibility as to whether or not he chooses to ask for that statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Prime Minister has given one answer to one question. It is not beyond the wit of members to devise more questions to test the Prime Minister further on the matter. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister had said “I’m not wanting and willing to do that.” that would have been an answer that would have addressed the question. But to say that he has not got ministerial responsibility and therefore does not have to answer the question is with respect wrong. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable Leader of the House. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The convention that Mr Key as Prime Minister is entitled to rely on was well established by Helen Clark in the middle period of 2002 just prior to that year’s election when in fact she was in a situation of having considerable disruption due to the breakdown of the Alliance which was a party in the House at the time. It made it very clear that there are quite strong distinctions between a Prime Minister dealing with the ministerial responsibilities of Ministers and a Prime Minister as a leader dealing with the leadership or other issues relating to any other party. The  
Hansard 
 will record all of that. I believe that Speakers’ rulings have been relied on particularly by Speaker Hunt in the past and there is no case being made by the Opposition in this matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would like to refer you to the precedent of Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and his questioning of Helen Clark on the Taito Phillip Field matter where there were a number of documents that had to do with a commission which was not her responsibility that he questioned her about. The Speaker did not protect Helen Clark in those circumstances. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker happens to have a reasonable memory of those matters and following certain events yesterday he checked up on a number of those matters very exhaustively. In fact if the member’s memory is serving him well he will recollect that in fact the Government commissioned an investigation and that I raised a number of questions around that document. That is a totally different matter. This is not a document that the Government has commissioned. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My recollection of those events was that the point that you were making in your questions was that the inquiries did not go far enough and so you had leeway to ask the Prime Minister as to what other information was available that ought to be taken into account by the Prime Minister in judging the situation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We do not need to take this any further. The member should know I do my homework. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do my homework very thoroughly. All the  
Hansards 
 have been scrutinised from that period I can assure the honourable member and the questions all related in fact to content of that Government-commissioned report. Further supplementary questions can be asked but the answer the Prime Minister gave to that particular question was not an unreasonable answer because the Prime Minister does not have responsibility for that particular document. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have dealt with this matter so I hope it is a new point of order. 
Hon David Parker 
: I would ask you to go through those  
Hansards 
 again because I think that what you just said to the House is not correct. You said that all of the questions to the Prime Minister arose out of what was in the report. I have a clear recollection of those times and your questions were addressing what was not addressed in those reports which was one of your main criticisms at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to take this matter any further. The member is litigating a matter I have already ruled on and I suggest he does go back and look at it as carefully as I have. 
David Shearer 
: Is the handling of the John Banks case consistent with his undertaking to lift the standard of ethics in Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: At one level yes because that would not be hard compared with the previous Government. At a second level let me summarise the situation. My office has relied on the word of the member. The police in their statement have made it quite clear that there was insufficient evidence. The police have also made it quite clear that although the return may have been false they could not prove that John Banks had known it was signed in that particular way. And we know that the law was very loose. So although the Labour Party might think this is the biggest— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No there has been sufficient answer. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order Grant Robertson and it will be heard in silence. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table paragraphs 39 and 40 of the police report which says that the police concluded that the elements of section 134(2) were met for a prosecution of Mr Banks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those pages from that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 2 Paul Goldsmith. [ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon I missed Metiria Turei. I do apologise. Supplementary question Metiria Turei. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and happy Suffrage Day to you. Does the Prime Minister accept the finding of fact—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Metiria Turei supplementary question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister accept the finding of fact in the police report of 26 July 2012 that “Police have established that on 9 June 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to judge that but I know that the local electoral law in the way it is crafted would mean that it is quite legal to do that. You see if members do not like other members complying with the law they are free to think that way but actually the test is whether you meet the law. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very clear. The Prime Minister has said previously that he read that particular report and he has not addressed the question which is very simple: does he agree with the police finding of fact that John Banks solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom in a report he has read. He has not addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister answered the question in so far as he pointed out that to have done that is perfectly legal under the current Act. He does not have to agree with the member but he pointed out that there is nothing wrong with having done that under the current law. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the 26 July 2012 report from the police stating that the police have established that John Banks personally solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did John Banks tell the Prime Minister or his office earlier this year that he was not aware that Kim Dotcom made a donation to his mayoral campaign? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have told the House earlier Mr Banks assured me through my chief of staff that he had fully complied with the requirements of the legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I go back to the honourable member that is not exactly what the question asked. The member may repeat her question if there is some doubt as to that. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did John Banks tell the Prime Minister or his office earlier this year that he was not aware that Kim Dotcom made a donation to his mayoral campaign? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was not party to the conversation but to the best of my knowledge he was unaware of donations that were made. That is why they are anonymous. At the end of the day you can solicit them and you can have your own supposition but it does not mean that you actually know. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister not think that if John Banks was being genuinely honest with him he would have told him that he solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom as the police found in their finding of facts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not think you can draw that conclusion. What you can draw as a conclusion from the police report is two things: first there was insufficient evidence and secondly although the return was false the police themselves said they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that when he signed it because it was put together by another individual whom Mr Banks relied on. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is not the Prime Minister’s denial just his dancing on the head of a pin when most New Zealanders believe that John Banks was dishonest in his communication to the Prime Minister and are not New Zealanders right to expect more from the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but I think there is a genuine misunderstanding of what is actually permissible under the Local Electoral Act. 
Hon David Parker 
: In light of that answer and the answer given about three supplementary questions earlier is it the Prime Minister’s position that it is legal under the existing local electoral donation laws for a member to solicit a donation to know that a donation was made by someone whom they solicited it from but then to declare that it was anonymous? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is asking for a legal opinion and I am not in a position to offer that. But what I can say is that in my understanding of the way that it was put by the member that would not be legal. It is quite legal to go and to ask for support. It is quite legal to give indications of how that could be made anonymously but in the end the point there of course is that one never really knows. There were many donations made as I can see from newspaper reports. As for the $25000 donations it is impossible to know who they came from. Lots of people tell organisations that they will give money. They do not necessarily always do so. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table paragraph 38 of the police report which states: “Further analysis in respect of the evidence collected in the investigation established that the return was wrong in content as the donations for Skycity Dotcom … should not have been recorded as anonymous.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that page from that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The Rt Hon Winston Peters supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I must be able to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the police report says that the elements for a prosecution were established; if so why is he claiming in this House to be able to trust Mr Banks’ word? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the report so it is possible. I do know that the police statement that they put out which summarises the report said a couple of things one being there is insufficient evidence but what I also know from the report this morning is that the police concluded that the return was false. So on that basis yes the member may have some validity there but they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that when he signed it. What the police are quite clearly saying is that on the main charge of whether there could be a position where—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —that the situation was knowingly by Mr Banks false there is no claim of that by the police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If you have 42 donations all of which were anonymous all of which were forgotten would you then trust that man’s word in this House if he gave it to you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker should not be involved in the question in that way. I invite the right honourable gentleman to reword his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Prime Minister is aware that there were 42 donations all of which were substantial all of which were anonymous—that means the whole lot were all regarded as being anonymous—why would the Prime Minister then trust the word of Mr Banks on this issue? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The question at heart is whether the member complied with the law. That is the assurance he has given my office and I accept that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Further to that answer does the Prime Minister understand that filing a false return is a breach of the Local Electoral Act and that that is what the police have found that Mr Banks did? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It could be but as the police themselves said— 
Grant Robertson 
: It could be! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it could be but as the police said it is a lesser offence and it was outside the period of time. They also went on to say that although they concluded that the return was false they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that. So if you want to go after the person who put it together that might be right but not Mr Banks.