Hodgson Pete: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHodgson Pete: General Debate[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I have two issues to raise with the House today. First of all I have something that is not new; it is to do with Mr Key’s inability to hold to one line of a story—any story—for any length of time. However the second is new and I will come to it. Both issues involve Mr Key’s interaction with the electoral enrolment process and Mr Key’s public statements about where he lived at any point in time. The second issue involves additionally Mr Key’s interaction with the Companies Act and with the New Zealand Companies Office.Five years ago in June and again in July 2002 Mr Key stated publicly that he was building a house in Parnell central Auckland and that he was building “an electorate home in Helensville” which is in west Auckland. At the time Mr Key was living in neither home but in a third home in Remuera in east Auckland. Clearly Mr Key was on the move. The electorate home in Helensville clearly became more important for Mr Key because a few months later in October he was enrolled in the Helensville area and he voted in Helensville where his electorate home was situated—so far so good. By 2005 however Mr Key had changed his mind. He said publicly that he had intended to live in Helensville but that it had proved too difficult and he did not want to vote there any more but in Parnell where he then lived which is where he presumably votes now. So far all we have is a flip-flop—just another flip-flop. He said he would live in Helensville he enrolled in Helensville and he voted in Helensville but he then changed his mind. He may have broken the Electoral Act but he may not have; I do not know.But then after the flip-flop came the denial. A week ago on 15 August it was stated: “Mr Key said that when he first stood for Helensville the fact that he lived elsewhere had been front-page news”. Well it was not front-page news that he lived elsewhere; it was front-page news that he intended to live in Helensville. That is what he told the public in June and July 2002. So he told the Electoral Enrolment Centre that he lived in Helensville he told the public that he would live in Helensville and he told the returning officer that he lived in Helensville when he filed his expenses but he now denies that he ever said that. So we have a flip-flop followed by a denial. And that is Iraq all over again.But then things become a little more serious because the Companies Act comes into play. In March 2002 Mr Key told the Companies Office that he lived in Remuera. That was a statutory declaration. In October 2002 7 months later he made another statutorydeclaration to the electoral enrolment people that he lived in Helensville. In March 2003 6 months after that he made a third statutory declaration to the Companies Office that he lived in Remuera—again. In 2004 he confirmed for the Electoral Enrolment Centre that he lived in Helensville. So questions arise. I ask whether Mr Key really shifted from Remuera to Helensville to Remuera to Helensville during each of those periods and I ask whether that is somehow possible. Quite when did Mr Key live neither in Remuera or Helensville but in Parnell where he lives now? When did he shift to this third address? I ask whether Mr Key is aware of the provisions of the Electoral Act 1993. Did he breach the Act; if so was it by accident or design?Much more important I ask whether Mr Key is aware of the provisions of the Companies Act. No one may mislead the Companies Act. The law is strict. Section 377 of the Companies Act states that an offence is committed if anyone makes a false or misleading statement knowing it to be false or misleading. The offence is a serious one in our law. It attracts a fine of up to $200000 or a prison term of up to 5 years. If Mr Key were ever convicted of such an offence he would be asked—required—to leave this House.So serious questions arise: did he live in Remuera in March 2002 and did he live in Remuera in April 2003? If he did not in both cases or in either case has he approached the Companies Office to offer an explanation? Does the Companies Office prosecute someone who has a false address or does it prosecute only sometimes and if so under what circumstances? Let me remind the House that my colleague the Hon David Parker when confronted with a similar issue under exactly the same Act stood down. He resumed his ministerial role only when he was able to show that the error he was accused of did not happen. There are some questions to answer I say to Mr Key.