Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:4766] 
3.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that he made an “apparent threat to pull a piece of tax legislation in retaliation for the  
Herald 
’s coverage of Labour’s pledge card rort” as reported by the media? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Halfway through my colleague’s question the Minister for State Owned Enterprises felt he could bellow across the Chamber. You have given several warnings on this matter over recent weeks; the Minister should be asked to leave the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A week or two ago when I was not here I was listening to the radio and listening closely enough to hear you give a ruling that made it clear that people could interject during questions. All I did was ask whether that question was drafted in Ireland. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was perfectly consistent with the ruling. Would John Key please continue. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister agree that at least two of the statements he made on the topic—namely that the  
New Zealand Herald  
would be wise— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Opposition frequently complains that Ministers do not answer questions; I did not get the chance in that case. It is quite a brief answer but I would like to give it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My apologies. I am sorry Mr Key. Perhaps Dr Cullen would respond to your initial question and then you may ask your supplementary question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. [ 
Interruption 
] 
John Key 
: If you do not take the call it is not my problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House please settle so that we can hear the questions and the answers. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister agree that at least two of the statements he made on this topic—namely: “The Herald would be wise to consider the consistency of its position.” and that his message to it was just to think a bit carefully about the implications of what it is engaged in—were clearly intended to threaten the paper’s owners APN and that if the  
New Zealand Herald  
did not desist from both reporting and writing unfavourable editorial comments about the Government there would be implications? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot even find one of those quotes. In terms of the other one let me refer the member to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial the previous day which stated that this “does not sound any different from that of taxpayers who have claimed deductions on the best available advice and it turns out on legal scrutiny that they have to pay the money back.” The  
New Zealand Herald 
 was in precisely that position and we were legislating to remove it. Despite all of its bluster it has failed to answer the question of what the moral difference is. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister confirm that the legislation dealing with that matter is actually in the name of the Minister of Revenue and that he has made no approach to the Minister of Revenue about withdrawing or amending that particular provision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is absolutely correct. Indeed if the member and the  
New Zealand Herald 
 had bothered to read the first press statement they would have seen that it said: “As a result the government has agreed to support legislation which effectively retrospectively validates that understanding and relieves the Herald’s owners of that bill.” All the Muldoonism and bluster came from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 not from me. 
John Key 
: If we are to believe the Minister that those comments were not of a threatening nature—that is could result in a changed attitude towards APN’s tax issue—then was the purpose of his comments actually to remind APN that it owed him and his Government a favour and it better not forget it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all. It was to remind the  
New Zealand Herald 
 journalists that it is wise to be consistent. When one decides to climb on to a high moral horse it is a damn good idea to make sure the saddle is firmly tied on. 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that the new modus operandi of this Government is that when it does not get its own way it just bullies? It does not matter whether the victim is a Television One journalist the APN owners or the owners of Telecom—if this Government does not get its own way when it has its back to the wall it just bullies them. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The only examples of bullying of journalists that I know of have certainly come from the member’s usual bench mate who frequently bullies journalists and the press gallery know it. 
John Key 
: Is it not a fact that whatever way one cuts it it is just grossly inappropriate for a Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General to raise the tax affairs of a newspaper critical of its Government when those tax affairs depend crucially on the support by his Government of pending legislation; if he was not intending to bully the newspaper why did he include in his press release the fact that that money could be used for a lot of hip operations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because I was pointing out to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that a very large amount of money was involved and that for once it might care to be consistent in its position. Of course for that party—a party that accepted money from the Exclusive Brethren denied it had done so then admitted it and denied it knew about the pamphlets—to talk about consistency is unbelievable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I could not hear that answer. 
John Key 
: You didn’t miss much. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. Could the Minister please summarise his answer and would members please have the courtesy to allow some of us to hear the answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the brief summary is that the pot opposite is of a very dark colour. 
John Key 
: Is it normal behaviour in some countries for Governments to condition their support of certain legislation in return for political favours; if so is this the kind of behaviour he would like to see in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before all I was doing was challenging the  
New Zealand Herald  
journalists to explain the moral difference. They have failed to do so so far. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Tell us about the Brethren at your house Mr Key. 
John Key 
: Go back to your tennis game would you? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Interjections do provoke other interjections so I remind members please to show courtesy towards each other. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that he issued the press release against the advice of his own press secretary Mike Jaspers; and when we consider this coupled with the recent claims he has made against other journalists—that they are writing stories supportive of tax cuts solely on the basis of their own personal position—does that not show that he is rapidly losing not only objectivity but in fact credibility as New Zealand’s Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all and I note recent opinion polls on the handling of the economy by this Government. I challenge that member to explain what promises with regard to accident compensation his party made to the insurance companies in return for their donations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] Remember that there are no interjections during points of order. Point of order Rodney Hide. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny attempting to bully  
New Zealand Herald 
 journalists; and what did he make of the Prime Minister’s advice to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Winston Peters that launching a jihad on the  
New Zealand Herald  
was not the best course of action when in difficulties and trouble? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think even the  
New Zealand Herald  
journalists 
believe that I have the capacity to bully them. As a lifelong atheist I am the last person to launch a jihad in any shape or form.