King Annette: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2121. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Northland by-election that “last week we were looking through the various policies we want to announce so they were finalised I suppose last week. We’ve got another couple of announcements; we are making another this week on something else”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Those statements I made were as leader of the National Party. There is no ministerial responsibility for the comments I make in that capacity. I intend to reserve my long-term position as did Helen Clark of not answering questions undertaken in my capacity as leader of the National Party. But because the Clerk of the House has allowed the primary question through and as a courtesy to the House I will answer it. The answer is in my capacity as leader of the National Party yes.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I took the quote not from the leader of the National Party but from the Prime Minister’s post-Cabinet conference. He did not do it as the leader of the National Party; he did it as the Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite clear actually and it has been established over quite some time that comments I might make at my post-Cabinet press conference are made in a variety of different capacities. I make them in my capacity as Prime Minister. I make them in my capacity as leader of the party. In fact I have no doubt that next Monday I will be answering questions in my capacity as New Zealand’s home handyman Bunny Rigold too.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is an important matter and the line between the Prime Minister answering a question in a prime ministerial capacity or as the leader of a political party is one that is not easy to decipher on some occasions. On this particular occasion the question was taken as a quote from the Prime Minister’s press conference. The Prime Minister was certainly then free to answer it the way he did but I do not think anyone could sensibly argue that it was not a legitimate question and the quote came from a press conference held by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would urge you to reflect on those comments later on because the important point here is that every week I do a post-Cabinet press conference. It is actually a post-Cabinet press conference. Obviously on many many occasions I answer those questions as Prime Minister. I also answer questions as I legitimately said as leader of the National Party. I have answered many questions in that regard. I also answer them as a citizen as a father and as a husband. But Mr Speaker if your ruling is to stand that comments I make at my post-Cabinet press conference are only ones that will always be interpreted as those made as Prime Minister I would have to inform members of the press gallery that I will be answering questions only in my prime ministerial capacity.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The question I was responding to is whether the question is in order. If the question takes a quote from a prime ministerial press conference subsequent to a Cabinet meeting then in my opinion such a quote means that it is a legitimate question. The way in which the Prime Minister then chooses to answer the question is entirely his decision. I am not in any way arguing against the answer that was given by the Prime Minister but I am certainly saying on this occasion that the question was a legitimate question to be accepted in the first place.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In making such rulings in the future too I would submit that where the Prime Minister is answering questions about the spending of money that comes from New Zealanders through taxes and levies and that he spends through the authority of this Parliament he is almost certainly speaking as Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: I will consider that at the time.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We can have a debate over the merits or otherwise of whether something is policy—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to be clear. This is another point of order. I will be hearing it in silence.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We can have that debate. Obviously the Clerk of the House has allowed the question on that basis. I am more than happy to answer the question as I said. But I would just go back to this point that I would ask you later on to review that because if you are saying that every comment I make at my post-Cabinet press conference could legitimately be used as a statement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. We have covered this ground before. I am not in any way critical of the answer. I am simply saying the question was in order. It is the Prime Minister’s job to justify any comments that he makes and in what capacity he makes them. That is a matter for the Prime Minister.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not in any way to dispute your ruling but to point out to the House that there is considerable written material on this question from the Ombudsman—and to indicate given the primacy of this House it is for you and not for the Ombudsman to decide what is relevant for the Prime Minister to answer.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am making a comment only because Mr Mallard has tried to imply that there is something that members of the House should go and look for to get guidance on this. I would add to that that they should go and look at the Hansard for 2 August 2005 and subsequent days where in fact the then Prime Minister Helen Clark used exactly the same language the Prime Minister has used and made it very very clear and had it accepted by the then Speaker that there were occasions when she maybe on the one hand at that moment in her official capacity but then because of the question asked and the answer given was acting in her capacity as the leader of the party. Labour Party members need to realise that it was they who set that precedent.Mr SPEAKER: And if members are inclined—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If members are inclined to do further homework they can also look at the Hansard of 21 February 2006 where a very similar argument eventuated in this House. It is interesting to note that the proponents for the argument on that particular case were on the other side of the House.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify that if this is continuing to relitigate the matter that is creating disorder.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I am not wishing to relitigate the matter but what I am asking—and what I have asked on a couple of occasions and I do not think you have actually answered—is for you to go away and actually give us a ruling. Because the way I interpret your current statements—and correct me if I am wrong—is that if I make a statement at a post-Cabinet press conference then that will always be allowable as a question in the House. My point to you is that I do those press conferences wearing a number of hats. That has been a very legitimate process. The Clerk has determined that this particular question for a variety of reasons fits the category of me speaking in my capacity as Prime Minister. I can debate that point but I accept that point of the Clerk. But my main point is that I do think you should give this House a written ruling or otherwise every question I answer at post-Cabinet press conferences could be subject to a primary question and I do not think that would be correct.Mr SPEAKER: And I think the Prime Minister makes a reasonable point. It is important I not get this wrong. I will give consideration to it a bit further but I am certainly not saying that simply because the answer is given at a press conference subsequent to Cabinet that it will automatically be a legitimate question. I am saying that on this particular occasion when I study the transcripts very very carefully—aware that there was some dispute about whether this was a legitimate question—I am quite satisfied that the question on this occasion was legitimate. Equally I am saying that I am quite comfortable that the Prime Minister in giving the answer he gave addressed the question.Hon Annette King: Does he think it is important to be straight with the people of Northland when talking about Government spending—Hon Steven Joyce: Straight with the people of Northland? How about Labour being straight about who they want to vote for?Hon Annette King: —in Northland Mr Joyce—and if so why has he—[Interruption] Mr Speaker I cannot even hear myself think.Mr SPEAKER: It would help if the member could ask a concise question.Hon Annette King: I am asking a precise question and will I start again?Mr SPEAKER: I think unfortunately the member will have to start again but that is unlikely to be a concise question. But if the member would just continue.Hon Annette King: Does he think it is important to be straight with the people of Northland when talking about Government expenditure in Northland; if so why has he claimed his Government has spent $750 million on roads in Northland when $240 million of the funding came from Labour’s 2007-08 Budget 2008-09 Budget—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question now is far too long.Hon Annette King: No it is not.Mr SPEAKER: Well I am saying it is.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I am advised that it is correct. Secondly if Labour members care so much about Northland maybe they would like to tell us which candidate they are voting for: Willow-Jean or Winston. It is pretty simple. Just answer the question.Hon Annette King: Is it honest to claim 30 percent of funding from a previous Government’s Budget as your own contribution to roads in Northland in an effort to get votes while at the same time claiming that this Government is spending 40 percent more? Could that not be called chicanery?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Is it honest to criticise a political party for for instance finding an accommodation with the ACT Party or United Future but then to be in exactly the same situation and be “so confused” about who you would vote for as the leader of the political party that you cannot work out whether you would vote for your own candidate or Winston Peters? If someone needs to be straight it is Andrew Little with the voters of Northland.Hon Annette King: When he told reporters yesterday that he “assumed that all 10 bridges promised in Northland were justified on a cost-benefit analysis” have his minders subsequently told him that only three were mentioned in the Northland regional land transport plan over the next 6 years and only one of the three could manage a medium priority rating? Would that not be called duplicity?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is becoming quite clear is that Labour members are opposed to the 10 bridges in Northland. I tell you what—if this keeps up by the end of the day Willow-Jean will not be voting for Winston; she will be voting for Mark Osborne.Tracey Martin: How many Ministers and backbench National MPs have visited Northland to promote these new policies and put up signs since the TV3 poll and how does that compare with the number of Ministers and backbench MPs who have visited Northland—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot now hear the second part of the question. For the first part there was no prime ministerial responsibility.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were two parts to Tracey Martin’s question. One was around Ministers and Ministers visiting Northland for which there is prime ministerial responsibility. I accept—Mr SPEAKER: Not for backbenchers.Chris Hipkins: You could rule that out of order potentially but it would be impossible to rule out Ministers.Mr SPEAKER: I will tell you how we will make progress here. We will have a bit more silence so I can hear the question. The member can ask one supplementary question. If there is an element of it that I do not think is relevant then I will rule it out of order.Tracey Martin: How many Ministers have visited Northland to promote new policies and put up signs since the TV3 poll compared with the number of Ministers who visited Northland in the 5 months prior to March 2015?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have to go and check so I can assure the House but I am pretty sure it would be a lot more in the 5 months prior. The interesting fact of course is that the member is having to ask that question because her leader on the taxpayer is up there campaigning in Northland. He is campaigning for Labour voters I have no doubt but he is nevertheless campaigning.Tracey Martin: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: The question was addressed in the first part of the Prime Minister’s answer.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order—or I hope it is.Tracey Martin: I seek your clarification Mr Speaker. I believe that as a member of Parliament I have every right to ask a question regardless of who is in my party on the day or not.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member asked how many Ministers have been up there recently compared with the last 5 months and the Prime Minister said he did not have that number with him.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is hopefully a point of order.Chris Hipkins: It is indeed a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a clear ruling around referring to the absence of members from the Chamber which the Prime Minister has just violated. His answer was actually out of order.Mr SPEAKER: And that is true. No member should refer to the absence of another member. That is true.Hon Annette King: Could the Prime Minister tell the House when does politicking for a by-election cross over to being a bribe to buy an election—for example when an unelected private citizen gets to announce $69 million of taxpayers’ money—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. The first part of the question can be answered.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer is very clear: zero percent student loans. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to move on. Has the member got further supplementary questions? [Interruption] The member will resume her seat. I will allow her to continue to ask simple concise supplementary questions but if we are going to have speeches then I am going to curtail the question and move to the next one.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the end of question time I would like you to—in fact I will hand the questions over to you because you will find—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. My patience will evaporate very quickly with that member. She will be leaving the Chamber early unless she continues with concise supplementary questions in line with the Standing Orders.Hon Annette King: How would Transparency International rate a Government on its Corruption Perceptions Index that uses taxpayers’ money 19 days out from an election to fund projects that are independently rated as very very bottom of a priority list?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member actually needs to take a step back—Hon Steven Joyce: Have a breath.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —yes take a long breath—because political parties campaign on policies. Voters expect to know what parties are going to do. I go back to zero percent loans. Does the member remember that? I remember Trevor Mallard turning up sick as a parrot because the Ombudsman actually released the dodgy costings that the Labour Party had done and would not release them in the public domain before the 2005 election.