Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Government policy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement that the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity deal vindicates his Government given that the Auditor-General’s response to his claim was not to agree with him but rather to state: “we have established deficiencies on the part of both officials and Ministers.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely and the reason for that as the member will be aware is that the Auditor-General’s report was divided into three parts. The first part of it was focused on my involvement and I was totally and utterly cleared and vindicated in that. That was my only involvement.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a legal opinion by constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks principal at Franks and Ogilvie outlining serious legal deficiencies in the Government’s Skycity deal. The opinion is dated 16 May 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that legal opinion. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Mr Franks’ view that the agreement with Skycity is “arguably unlawful” and “skirts important constitutional safeguards”; if he does not understand this constitutional principle will he read the central case on the issue the case ofFitzgerald v Muldoon?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I am sure what Mr Franks would find unlawful is someone coming in and telling the New Zealand public that they have 100000 signatures—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Mr Franks’ view that “The ability to ‘purchase’ a dispensation from regulation sits uncomfortably with the rule of law.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and no more than Labour would agree with that given it did exactly the same deal back in 2001.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Mr Franks that “Case law discourages anything … to fetter Parliament’s … power to legislate on future matters”; if so will he reconsider the aspects of the Skycity deal that do exactly this such as the 35-year clause?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Dr Russel Norman: Is this backroom deal with Skycity—along with the cancelling of democracy in Canterbury taking away the rights of carers to have their day in court giving Bathurst Resources the keys to our conservation estate stopping free speech at sea granting the Government Communications Security Bureau the power to spy on us and failing to act in good faith to reform MMP—not indicative of a Government that will not let our democracy stand in the way of special favours for its friends and donors?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the Government was doing that I might be inclined to agree with him but it is actually not correct. If one looks at for instance the changes to people’s ability to protest at sea the ability is very much there. There is a safety area that actually makes sense to all parties. When it comes to the Government Communications Security Bureau the member sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee and is well and truly aware that in fact the Government Communications Security Bureau has been carrying out activities under an agency relationship for a long period of time. In fact all we are doing is clarifying the law so there is no change in position there. There is no backroom deal with Skycity; it has been totally transparent. And even though the member does not like to hear it my role in that was totally cleared by the Auditor-General.Dr Russel Norman: Yeah right!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member just ask his supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: Will he listen to Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph former Prime Minister and Law Commission head Sir Geoffrey Palmer current New Zealander of the Year Anne Salmond—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the question. Would the member please start the question again.Dr Russel Norman: Will he listen to Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph former Prime Minister and Law Commission head Sir Geoffrey Palmer current New Zealander of the Year Anne Salmond and many many other New Zealanders who have raised concerns about the Government riding roughshod over New Zealanders’ democratic rights and over our constitution?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would not agree with the point that they are making. I would have to look at all the different contexts. They may not be in exactly the same place. But the bottom line is that the Government was elected under a mandate it took to the people. It has absolutely stuck to that mandate. When it comes to these issues the Government has presented them to the people of New Zealand. The people who are riding roughshod over the rest of New Zealand are the Greens who have played economic sabotage with the country and do not seem to care about that.Dr Russel Norman: Given that answer can the Prime Minister point to exactly where in his election platform he promised that he would remove from family carers of disabled people the right to go to court to challenge the lawfulness of Government actions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have to go back and look at all of the particular details but from memory the Government made it clear we would look at the matter. Let us understand exactly what the Government did in that legislation which is that it said rightfully so that it would address the issues raised in theAtkinson case. It also gave the right to pay family caregivers when they were looking after an adult disabled child. But the Government also said that there has been a very longstanding position—a very longstanding position—where there was arguably a line drawn about where the State’s responsibilities start and finish and where family responsibilities start and finish. This Government is actually moving the country to a place that only two other countries in the world are in and we happen to be doing something that Labour never did in office.