Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:12166] 
4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When he said “there’s always clarification of the rules and they’re not always straightforward” in relation to the Hon Christopher Finlayson on four occasions failing to declare a directorship he held what did he find “not always straightforward” about the requirement to declare “the name of each company of which the member is a director”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The member was quoting selectively at that point. In the stand-up with journalists the Prime Minister was talking about the pecuniary interests register in general not Mr Finlayson. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he discussed this issue with the Attorney-General? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer as to whether the Prime Minister has discussed it with the Attorney-General. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the legal advice on this matter referred to by Chris Finlayson? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again I cannot answer that question but I think I can say to the member that we need to keep these things in perspective. The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is available to members to assist them to modify their register if and when information comes to hand or legal advice changes. As members know the requirements around the register have evolved over recent years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he seek Cabinet Office advice in relation to the opinion from the lawyer for Mr Finlayson’s friend’s trust on the meaning of whether the requirement that “the name of each company of which the member is a director” means that “the name of each company of which the member is a director” must be so declared; if so what was that advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again I cannot give the member that answer. What I can say is that I am sure the member shares my view that clarification of the rules is often required. For instance when in the previous Parliament a member did not declare on the register a $100000 gift the member opposite was part of a party that voted against a censure motion when clearly the register’s requirements had not been met. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When he said on 17 November 2008 “I expect high standards of my Ministers” did that include the expectation that his Attorney-General would file false returns and that the Prime Minister’s response would be “I don’t know because I don’t ask.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No; as the member knows the Prime Minister has high standards. He might be a bit confused by that member’s standards. The member seems to regard this as a significant breach of the register that requires censure but when he was given the opportunity to vote for a censure motion for a former member who did not declare a $100000 gift he decided to vote against that censure motion so I am not sure what the member’s standards are. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it the Prime Minister’s view that the Attorney-General’s filing of four false declarations is more or less serious than the member for Clutha-Southland declaring to three Speakers that his primary place of residence is Dipton? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is the Prime Minister’s view that he expects a high standard and he expects members to comply with the requirements of Parliament and that is what his members do.