Robertson Grant: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: General Debate[Sitting date: 16 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:13935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): John Key must stand down John Banks as a Minister. The District Court in Auckland has called Mr Banks to trial for knowingly filing a false electoral return. John Banks has lied to the Prime Minister he has lied to the people of New Zealand and he has knowingly filed a false return.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What happened to a fair trial?GRANT ROBERTSON: He says: “What about the trial?”. This is what the judge said Dr Smith. The judge said that John Banks had closed his eyes to the obvious. He had signed an electoral return that he knew was false. Why? In the District Court yesterday the Chief Executive of Skycity Nigel Morrison said—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the member has correctly observed this matter is now going to trial before the courts. The court has made the decision that this matter is now before the courts. There is a very clear Standing Order that states that members should not comment on matters before the courts as that is seen to prejudice a fair trial for a member of this House. I think the member needs to be constrained given that crucial fact.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have kind of been internalising—I think that is the word—where this debate might actually be going. The first comment I would make is that a word that refers to the use of terminologicalinexactitude has yet to be proven andI think that the member should desist from that. The second point is that I would deem the detail around what the court case might be to be off limits because of the rulings that we have substantially in this place about matters before the courts. So I think that the member should not be referring in detail to the case. I understand that this is a finely balanced argument. I am trying to assist the member in trying to apply the rules of the House.GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I—OK we will extend.GRANT ROBERTSON: I thank you for your advice on this matter Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding of the relevant rulings is that I am at liberty in this House to make comment on matters that are before the courts. However I do have to show the kind of judgment that I think you have reflected. So I just want to make it clear that I am not prevented from referring to those matters in my understanding of the Speakers’ rulings.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is about where I think I got to. The member should not try to deal with the detail of the case. There is a matter that I think the member is referring to that relates to integrity but it is actually delving into the detail of the case. So I just caution the member on that part.Hon Trevor Mallard: But you’re allowed to refer to the judgment.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes and I want to quote from the public statement of the judge. This is what he said: “Mr Banks has closed his eyes to the obvious.” What he is referring to there in matters that have been dealt with many times in this House before is that Mr Banks signed an electoral return that he says he did not read. That is the excuse that he has brought up in this House and in the public arena many times over the last year—that he did not read it. Well that excuse is not available to a small-business owner who is filing a tax return. They cannot get away with it when the Inland Revenue Department comes knocking by saying: “Oh I’m sorry. My tax return was false because I didn’t bother to read it.” but that is what John Banks did. That is—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to refer you quite specifically to Speakers’ rulings on matters that are to be adjudicated by the courts. They are very clear and they say that pending adjudication in the courts they must not—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member just refer me to the precise Speaker’s ruling?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes. I am referring to Speakers’ rulings 30/1 30/2 30/3 30/5 and 30/6 which quite specifically say that if a matter is “pending adjudication in the courts [it] must not be debated in the House”. What the member is directly proceeding to do is debate just those issues.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I think the member has now gone beyond what I ruled when he started quoting the matters that will be before the courts when he reached the judgment and was passing comment on that. I think he went beyond and I was trying to assist the member. So I would ask the member—in principle yes but detail no.GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify with you that the judge in the District Court has issued a ruling today. I must be at liberty to be able to quote from that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can but you cannot comment on it.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes right. That is right. How long do I have left?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just over 3 minutes.GRANT ROBERTSON: The judge has not only said today that Mr Banks did close his eyes to the obvious but also said that the evidence shows—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The decision by the court today is that Mr John Banks will stand trial on these issues—that is all. What we know from the court is that it has said that there is sufficient evidence for this to go to trial. I do not think that the shadow Leader of the House can proceed down the road where he is going relative to the Standing Orders which are just so clear in this area. If a matter is to come up before the courts this Parliament should not debate it because that would prejudice the proper trial that the court must have.GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order Dr Smith says that all the judge did was say that the matter should go to trial. That is not correct. The judge made a number of comments today that are in the public arena and that I am entitled to refer to.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I am taking my advice from Speaker’s ruling 30/3 which is why I have ruled that the member can quote but not comment on. If you look at Speaker’s ruling 30/3 you see that it states that “the law in general may be discussed but one may not discuss the application …” and that is what I have taken from it. I have said that the member may quote but not comment on. The judge’s determination which the member is quoting is in the public arena and I have said that the member is at liberty to quote that but not comment on. That is the ruling that I have given.GRANT ROBERTSON: What the judge has said is that the evidence in the case shows an apparent intention to treat as anonymous the donation given by Kim Dotcom. That donation was a donation that Mr Banks met with Kim Dotcom—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member immediately ignored your ruling. He was quite entitled as you said to simply quote what the court said. The moment he finished that he then went on to a commentary on the evidence specifically in respect of Mr Kim Dotcom. The member cannot litigate. The Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings are very clear that the member cannot litigate the matters that are now to stand trial with regard to Mr John Banks.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: There is one point that Mr Smith failed to make which is that he cannot litigate your ruling. He is not the Speaker; you are the Speaker. You determine what is in order not him.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not actually need to be reminded of that. Can I firstly say that I was distracted while the member was speaking. I am sorry; I was doing some research on the matter. This is actually a matter of balance. I think that the question that the member is raising pertains to a member’s relevance in this House—that I understand. But I have been very clear that the member cannot litigate comment on the judge’s ruling. The difficulty I have also is that I do not actually have in front of me the judge’s ruling to know what the member is quoting from and whether he is maybe adding to it. So I am cautioning the member to very clearly understand what I am saying and I will listen with greater attention now.GRANT ROBERTSON: How long have I got now?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has 2¾ minutes.GRANT ROBERTSON: John Banks has consistently said in the public arena that he did not know—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.GRANT ROBERTSON: No.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I want to directly read the Standing Order. Standing Order 112(1) says this: “Matters awaiting … any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any … debate”—may not be referred to in any debate.GRANT ROBERTSON: Did I refer to it?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!Hon Dr Nick Smith: The immediate point that the member went into was a debate specifically about what John Banks had said publicly on the very matter that is now going to stand trial in Auckland. It is not appropriate—it is not appropriate—for this Parliament to assert the right that the court now has to resolve this issue.GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order I had got out only about half a sentence on that occasion before Dr Smith stood up. I had not mentioned anything about the court at that point at all. What I was about to refer to were statements that John Banks has made in public relating to his campaign for the Auckland mayoralty. I was going to go on to talk about statements that John Key has made about whether a Minister’s lying would constitute whether or not he should keep them on as a Minister. Dr Smith did not even give me the chance to get to that point. I have listened to your ruling and I am going to speak in accordance with it.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I will again read Standing Order 112(1) which is pertinent to legislation and that is my interpretation on it: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication in or suppressed by an order of any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion debate or question including a supplementary question subject always to the discretion of the Speaker”—Hon Dr Nick Smith: And the right to legislate.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: —“and to the”—Hon Dr Nick Smith: So what the Standing Order is saying is that this requirement not to debate issues does not prevent Parliament from being able to get on and pass law and I agree with that. But can the member debate the very matters before the court that will be subject to a court ruling today? And the answer is very clear from that Standing Order that we must let the High Court do its job and make the judgment as to whether Mr Banks broke the law or not.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And that is why I have said that the member can go as far as quoting but not debating. That is what I have said. Now let us see whether we can make some progress.GRANT ROBERTSON: And where are we at now?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: 2½ minutes.GRANT ROBERTSON: Very good. John Key came into the office of Prime Minister saying that he would hold his Ministers to the highest ethical standards. He also came into this Parliament and said that he would stand a Minister down if that Minister lied to him. Those are the standards that John Key has set and those standards have been broken by John Banks. This is a shoddy tawdry Government propped up by a member of Parliament who has consistently misled New Zealanders and whose memory is such that he cannot remember getting in a helicopter flying to the Coatesville mansion and having lunch with Kim Dotcom and a woman whom he described at the time as the most attractive woman in New Zealand. He cannot remember that. He cannot remember asking for a $50000 donation to be split into two. He cannot remember getting a donation passed across the table—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is immediately breaching your ruling by getting straight back into the debate on the very issue that is going to stand trial. I think you need to hold to the standards of the House—long established—that you cannot debate a matter before the courts which is what this quite clearly is.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I did make a point before Mr Deputy Speaker and—I mean no offence—you may have misinterpreted it. I was actually trying to defend your position. That member needs to read the Standing Orders. You are the sole judge—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not need this. I do not need—[Interruption] Order! Thank you very much. Look I am trying to steer a course of balance here anduphold the Standing Orders. I have made it clear that the member can refer to but not comment on and I think that the member was getting into that order. He was fine until he got to some of the detail around that so I will give him 1 minute and 20 seconds.GRANT ROBERTSON: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The case that is before the District Court is around the question of whether or not Mr Banks had knowingly filed a false electoral return. In the period when I was speaking before Dr Smith interrupted me again I was speaking about a set of facts that are actually not relevant to whether or not a return was filed. Whether Mr Banks has forgotten that he had flown in a helicopter to the Coatesville mansion is not a matter that is currently before the court. So knowing that I will carry on with—how long is left?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just over a minute.GRANT ROBERTSON: Just over a minute? This Government relies on John Banks’ vote to pass critical legislation such as the legislation implementing the Skycity deal. That is what stands between the Government and passing its law and that is why it has such a desire to protect John Banks. Nick Smith spent about 20 minutes trying to protect John Banks. He is doing that because this Government knows that it is standing on only the record of a man who will stand trial for electoral fraud.John Banks should not be a Minister because John Key should have stood him down when the police report came out about this last year but John Key would not even read the police report. He closed his eyes because he did not want to know the truth. Now he will have to face up to the truth. John Banks will stand trial for electoral fraud. This Government will stand on the basis of that tawdry shoddy behaviour. John Key must stand John Banks down.