Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday “The police statement quite clearly said that there was insufficient evidence that there is a statute of limitations and that he has complied with the law.”; if so where in the police statement do they say that Mr Banks complied with the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my statements that the police statement quite clearly says that there is insufficient evidence and that there is a statute of limitations. What I should have said was that I believe that Mr Banks complied with the law. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does submitting a false return which the Prime Minister acknowledged Mr Banks did constitute complying with the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well no charges have been laid against Mr Banks. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that Mr Banks receiving a cheque by hand in an envelope from Skycity chief executive Nigel Morrison having a receipt for that cheque sent to Skycity and then listing the donation as anonymous complies with the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Quite possibly. That is my belief. If you look at the police statement that they issued on 26 July it stated that “they established that the return was compiled by a campaign volunteer who assured Mr Banks it was accurate …”. As the police said in their statement there was insufficient evidence and although they concluded yes that the return was false they could not prove that Mr Banks would have known that when he signed it. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is supplying a false return an offence under the Local Electoral Act 2001? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It depends on the timing but there is no particular belief that Mr Banks has broken the law. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that in the past you have been wary of Ministers offering legal opinions but on this particular matter the Prime Minister has offered legal opinions over the past 2 or 3 weeks and I think in that context the question I asked was a direct one and a reasonable one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the dilemma—I mean I accept the member’s point that the Prime Minister has not answered his question. But the issue is that Ministers are not required to—that was a particular question that asked for a legal opinion on whether something complied with the law. If a Minister chooses to give—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! If a Minister chooses to make some comment on it or give a legal opinion that is their business but to ask them directly for a legal opinion I do not think I can force a Minister to give a legal opinion. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is the editorial writer of the  
Dominion Post  
wrong when they said last week: “Mr Banks has now lost all credibility and Mr Key’s will be steadily eroded the longer he stands by him.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I accept the member at his word. In truth if you want to run the country off editorials then I could pull out a few about Mr Shearer and how he is a lost cause if you want. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why does he not accept the sworn statement of Greg Towers that Mr Banks told him on 8 February this year that he could not help Dotcom because of the election support? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said the other day support can take various forms. Mr Towers as I saw in the  
Dominion Post 
 also said that he was unaware of any donation from Dotcom to Mr Banks. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is he continuing to protect Mr Banks when sworn statements from the chief executive of Skycity and a senior partner at Simpson Grierson show that he lied to the New Zealand public while he was a Minister of the Crown? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I would reject that as the police statement says there is insufficient evidence. As the police statement also says—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —although the return was false they could not prove that Mr Banks had known and what the police statement says is that they have established that the return was compiled by the campaign volunteer. You see the problem is that those members cannot join the dots enough and they just do not like it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that it is extraordinarily unusual for a Minister in this House or a member to be accused of being a liar or to have lied and for you to do nothing about it from the Chair. That is extraordinary. I have never seen that before. I am asking you: are you going to act in this case or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point the member raises is an interesting point. The member may notice that it was its use in a question that I did not object to. I did start to object to the interjections accusing a member of lying but I think that in a question the language being used is hugely important. If a member were to construct a question that included the word “lie” or “lied” in a way that was outrageous—that accused a member of outrageous lying or something like that—I would certainly object but I think we can get too precious about some of these things. One should remember that the Minister being questioned has the chance to respond. I think it is a very different situation. Interjections should not be responded to and that is why I do not accept—members should desist from interjecting that any member lied. I will not tolerate that. But I think that the wording of questions so long as the construction is careful and the question does not make an outrageous assertion I have not—the same thing came up last week I think from memory and I did not intervene. Part of the reason for that is that the Minister has the chance to respond in answer but I would intervene if the construction of the question was such that it in my view was outrageous. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot put my finger on this because it is outside of the Standing Orders but if a member of this House is not in a position to defend himself it surely behoves somebody in this House including perhaps you to do that for him if it is capable to be done which is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that it is an interesting point that the member raises. But I invite him to reflect on the fact that where a question is being asked and as long as the language is moderate the Minister being questioned has the chance to defend the other Minister if it is involving another Minister and the member may note that the right honourable Prime Minister has done that. He has defended the Minister at some length. So it is an interesting issue. I certainly do not want to hear members accusing other members across the House of lying. I do not want to hear that at all. I do not want to hear accusations like that being made even in debate. In question time as long as the construction is careful and moderate I am certainly prepared to listen to the advice of the House on it but I do not want to keep intervening all the time. To me the important thing is the construction of the question and whether it is making an outrageous assertion. I mean there seems to be where there are questions around the accuracy of information—certainly in this particular document there is a question here; there seem to be some arguments around whether or not the information in it is accurate. To me to pussyfoot too much around the language I think is just being excessively pedantic as long as the use of the language is not outrageous.