Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5791] 
1. 
 Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he committed as Prime Minister to consulting with and listening to people prior to making decisions that impact on their lives? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why then did the Prime Minister engage in the sham of having a select committee go around marae in Auckland consulting on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council if he intended to make a decision before that select committee had deliberated or reported back to the House? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It was not a sham. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can it not be a sham when the Prime Minister has made the decision without taking account of a select committee that has not even deliberated on the issue or reported back to the House notwithstanding the promise made to people that their submissions were being listened to in good faith? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We have heard from those groups directly. We have read the submissions— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Leader of the Opposition may not like it but on numerous occasions I had meetings with mana whenua groups and Maori groups around Auckland. In the end we reached a conclusion that we think is in the best interests of Auckland. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How is the rejection of Maori seats compatible with the Prime Minister’s statement that “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions that are made before or during the select committee process” given that 60 percent of the submissions on this issue were in favour of Maori seats and only 20 percent were against them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We listened to the submissions. That does not mean we have to agree with them. When it comes to listening to submissions and not agreeing with them or listening to the public I am looking at the Leader of the Opposition who was previously part of a Government that was the absolute maestro when it came to doing that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister back down from his earlier support for having Maori seats which he said could be introduced as an amendment to the super-city legislation or when he indicated his intention to introduce an amendment was he just telling the Maori Party what he thought it wanted to hear at the time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I caution the member about making assumptions that are not necessarily factually correct. Secondly I make the point that what the Government is proposing in Auckland happens to be identical with what was passed by the previous Labour Government 6 years ago. If it was so bad back then why did it not change it when it had the chance? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was the threat of the ACT Party leader to throw his toys out of the cot and resign his position on the question of the Maori seats the reason why the Prime Minister chose to prefer that view and ignore the view of the Maori Party on the issue; if not what was the reason? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No; it was a factor but as I said yesterday not the dominant factor. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will National members of Parliament with strong views on the issue who oppose Cabinet’s decision be given the opportunity to cast an individual vote on the issue in the legislation as Georgina te Heuheu did in 2001 on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because the Auckland governance legislation is a Government bill. If ever there was a caucus that wanted to have split votes it is the Labour caucus when it comes to its leadership from what I can tell. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is from  
Hansard 
 and is a speech from Georgina te Heuheu proclaiming that the National Party gave its members the right to do such— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a  
Hansard  
document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the second document which is from Stuff.co.nz where Mr Key says: “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions—”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table something from Stuff.co.nz. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
John Boscawen 
: Has the Prime Minister listened to the 1.5 million Kiwis who voted no in the referendum who were not seeking comfort from the Government but a law change so that a light smack is not a criminal offence; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have and yesterday I announced a number of initiatives that I think will go towards giving great comfort to New Zealand parents. They include a full review of police procedures a full review of Child Youth and Family procedures and a full review of the procedures that involve the transfer of referrals between Child Youth and Family and the police. A number of other initiatives are around reporting to ensure that New Zealand parents have clear and unbiased information. I think New Zealanders will welcome those steps as we look to refine the law. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Does the Prime Minister accept in listening to the people that it is Parliament’s job to make the law and the job of the police to enforce the law and that the issue in the referendum was the law itself and not the behaviour of the police? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think what people can draw from the way that the law is currently working is that it is fulfilling the intentions of Parliament; that is we are not yet seeing cases where good parents are being criminalised for lightly smacking a child. Yesterday I made it quite clear that we intend to document or record from the police on a 6-monthly basis that information on an unbiased basis. It is my view that that unbiased and unfiltered information should find its way into the public domain. If there are any cases that demonstrate to me that the law is not working I will personally ensure that we change the law immediately.