Urgent Debates — Hon John Banks—Ministerial Resignation

I have received a letter from Metiria Turei and Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the Hon John Banks from his ministerial portfolios. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Not every ministerial resignation will automatically lead to an urgent debate being accepted. Having carefully considered this application, I have decided to err on the side of allowing the debate. However, I remind members that the particular case that has been accepted is the Minister stepping aside from his ministerial responsibilities. It is not the matters involving the member, which are currently before the courts. As Mr Robertson acknowledged in his application, the particulars of the case ought not to be referred to. Although I have discretion under Standing Order 112, I have not been asked in writing to exercise this discretion. I therefore intend to be vigilant in ensuring that the House’s rules are followed to the letter.

As Ms Turei’s letter was received first, I had earlier accepted her application. I have therefore allowed her to return to the Chamber at the end of question time, and I call on Metiria Turei to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Disgraced and discredited—this Government is disgraced and discredited, having been so reckless as to lose yet another Minister this term; another Minister. Yes, one is an accident. Two—well, you might be able to justify two. But now it is three, and possibly another, being returned to having been disgraced again. This Government is fragile, it is in tatters, and we can see that being played out every day with the desperate measures that this Government is taking. John Key’s Government now relies on the votes, on the support, of two discredited and disgraced ex-Ministers, John Banks and Peter Dunne.

The Greens have been very clear from the start: as a result of the reasons behind this disgrace, and the reasons behind why he has resigned as Minister, John Banks must abstain from voting on National’s sordid Skycity deal—sordid Skycity deal. This conflict of interest is as bad as it ever gets.

💬 Hon Members: Sleazy deal.

I would not be one to comment on that word. Skycity’s $400 million deal rests on John Banks’ vote. And John Banks’ future as an MP and as a member of this Parliament rests on Skycity’s evidence. There is a serious conflict of interest. John Key has said: “No, nothing to see here.” Steven Joyce has confirmed that yet again today. And yet we know that there have been MPs who have, rightly and responsibly, declined to vote for legislation concerning casino deals because they felt that they had a conflict of interest. This was because, in that case, they were receiving funding from a casino, for various reasons. These MPs did the right thing by saying that they would not vote for this bill because they felt that the conflict of interest was too much. This is a statement of integrity. It is an action of integrity. But what is absolutely clear from this Government is that it has no integrity, and neither does the disgraced and discredited John Key.

The Government is now stumbling from crisis to crisis, it has the thinnest of majorities, and it is propped up by two lame duck members. New Zealanders are getting sick and tired of having a failed Government. The good news, of course, is that it is only a year or so until we get to vote this Government out and, instead, vote in a Green-Labour Government with a real plan for New Zealand.

This, of course, is a very long story. We have to remember quite far back to get to the beginning of this, which is interesting because, of course, it started with John Banks completely forgetting quite a bit at the time. He forgot the whole episode. Did he meet with people and seek donations from them? He could not remember. John Banks forgot. Did John Banks remember that he got a helicopter ride with Kim Dotcom? No, he completely forgot about the helicopter ride. Did he remember the discussion about getting donations? No, he completely forgot all about that. Did he remember about asking for the donations to be anonymous? No, he had no idea. He completely forgot all about that. But then, of course, he did remember, and was sure when signing off that he did not do anything wrong once he had finally remembered. He was sure that he had not done anything wrong in signing off his electoral expenses, hence the situation he is currently in.

How can this Minister have genuinely run successful businesses? And, you know, John Banks did. He spent two terms as the mayor of New Zealand’s biggest city, he has been a Minister of the Crown, and he has been an MP in this Parliament for many years, but how could he have done all of those things credibly—and this is the important issue—knowing that his career and his credibility depended on his honesty? He has signed off on documents that have now led him to be in court on a charge of criminal fraud. There is an issue here of honesty, an issue of credibility, and that has had a very significant and very negative effect on this Government.

The impact has also been felt by John Key. John Key, who refused to read the police report concerning the case. John Key, who was severe in his criticism of Helen Clark over the exercise of Taito Phillip Field’s vote. Some of us in this House may remember the criticism that John Key made. He demanded that she abandon the use of Taito Phillip Field’s vote while he was charged with and was undergoing the court proceedings—also criminal court proceedings—that eventually led to his imprisonment. John Key does not hold himself to the same standard that he requires of other MPs. He made demands of Helen Clark to force Taito Phillip Field to stand down, to resign, and to not exercise his vote because he was facing criminal charges. Now he finds himself in exactly the same position, with a Minister—or an ex-Minister now, because he has had to resign—but a member who props up his Government and whose proxy vote John Key and his MPs exercise, and he is quite happy to continue to exercise that vote while that member is in court on criminal charges. There is a word for saying one thing and doing another. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

That is right. You are not allowed to say that word in this House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—but there is such a word. So the rot that we see in this case, with John Banks now resigning as Minister and being subject to criminal fraud charges, extends beyond just John Key to others in this Government.

Nick Smith has now been accused of misleading the House over his involvement in suppressing the Department of Conservation’s very serious, very real concerns about the environmental damage that might be caused by the Ruataniwha dam. Hekia Parata has now twice been found to have acted outside the law—acted illegally—in her attempt to close schools, and her own officials say that they need to find someone else, someone trustworthy, to try to sell national standards. Even Simon Bridges, the man whom John Key calls “my boy”, has had his own uncontrolled blowout on television this week. He did look a bit like he was going to cry, and I did feel a bit sorry for him. He looked a little teary, but he had his own uncontrolled blowout on TV this week as he tried desperately to defend the Government’s environmentally reckless and economically failed fossil fuels policy. He was standing up for Anadarko, despite the concerns of the Kaikōura community and showing absolutely no compassion for the people who will be most affected by the worst harms—standing up for a multinational corporation, against all other odds.

All this Government’s big ideas have been abject failures. Asset sales never made any sense and, as the costs rise and revenue falls and as mums and dads steer clear of asset sales, the case for selling these assets gets worse and worse. The Government should wait for the referendum on asset sales and should listen to New Zealanders, who have consistently opposed asset sales. This is what it means to be a good Government: to listen to the people. This is what it means to be a democratic Government: to take account of people’s views, and not just the views of those who are the elite, not just the views of those who are the most wealthy, and not just the views of those who can take the Prime Minister to dinner and bend his ear to get a $400 million deal.

National standards and school closures are a mess. Hekia Parata is now so discredited that even her own officials are trying to find someone else to front her core policies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I would just ask members to show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. National’s fossil fuel obsession is also so environmentally bankrupt. It is an economic failure. The jobs have not appeared. The promised rivers of gold are nowhere to be seen.

I asked Steven Joyce today whether he thought that the deal that the Government is doing with Skycity, which gives Skycity a $400 million deal that is paid for by increased gambling opportunities and that is reliant for its passing on the vote of a disgraced MP who has a serious conflict of interest in that deal, was morally bankrupt, and he does not think it is morally bankrupt. He does not think that there is a conflict of interest. He does not think that there is anything wrong, when New Zealanders all around the country are emailing me all the time and saying that they are the ones who will bear the cost.

We know that our family members go to the casino and spend money they do not have, and they struggle and struggle, and we cannot stop them doing it. We cannot get any help to stop them doing it. The casinos keep marketing to these families, and we cannot make it stop. Allowing that to expand through this Skycity deal is morally bankrupt. Allowing a casino to subvert the gambling law, which absolutely prohibits any expansion in gambling, is morally bankrupt. When it is an exchange for a deal with Skycity, it cannot be justified.

I think there is great disappointment in John Key and his Government, and there is great disappointment in Steven Joyce, for their failure to understand the consequences of the deal that they are doing. They are so desperate—so desperate—to see this deal go ahead. When John Key goes to Skycity and plays barman for a couple of hours, you can see the cosy relationship that they have. They are so desperate to get this deal through, to favour Skycity above the many thousands of families and the kids who suffer.

We would expect more. We would expect so much more from this Government. We could have had so much more. But the Government is also doing it off the back of the vote from a disgraced MP who has a serious conflict of interest, and it does not even have the decency to accept that it exists. Government members could have the decency to accept that the conflict exists and that they are not worried about it or they do not think it is so serious or they think that it is manageable. That would at least be honest. But to simply say that it does not exist is, in my view, completely dishonest. What makes it morally bankrupt is that at the end of the day it is ordinary New Zealand families who will bear the cost.

New Zealanders deserve a Government that will legislate for their well-being, for equality, for a good life, and for a fair future for their kids. This Government has failed at every step, because every action it has taken through all the years that we have had this National Government has been to privilege the most privileged. We see the Government’s desperation to continue on that path, with its refusal to even follow its own instructions to others that they do not exercise John Banks’ vote.

We are very pleased that John Banks has resigned as Minister. This should have happened a year ago, with the police report. It has come far too late. But it has come at a time when the significance of the vote that John Banks will exercise has the greatest impact with the Skycity deal. It is a dirty deal, supported by a disgraced Minister, and this is a dirty Government, which is happy to push it through. Thank you.

The way the previous member, Metiria Turei, finished her speech showed the somewhat unfortunate trend for the Greens to use more and more extreme language as they try to compete with the Labour Party for the left-wing vote. It is getting harder for the Greens. There is no doubt about that. Mr Cunliffe is doing a better job of competing for that vote than his predecessor. But for a party that came into Parliament to raise standards, the vicious and vindictive nature of the Greens’ language, I would have to say, is not something that the Labour Party members do that often, in the same personal way that the Greens do.

Mr Banks resigned yesterday, consistent with an undertaking he had made that if the District Court decision was that he would go further down the legal process, then he would resign as a Minister, and that is appropriate. A couple of issues that I think need to be commented on have been raised by the previous member and by the Opposition during question time. One is simply that in the manner of any New Zealand citizen, Mr Banks will go into a legal process where the process assumes innocence until proven guilty. The eagerness of the Opposition to jump to conclusions about the results of that process do not, I think, really show respect for it. The Greens have raised the issue of how Mr Banks might exercise his vote, having resigned as a Minister. Well, it is not up to the Government to determine how people exercise their vote.

💬 Grant Robertson: Ha! That’s not what you said a few years ago, Bill.

It is a right of a member of Parliament to exercise—well, actually, Phillip Field exercised his vote. He voted against the Labour Party on some of the issues he was opposed to. I expect that Mr Banks will do the same. He will exercise his vote as he sees fit. By a constitutional arrangement he is a member of Parliament, and it is entirely up to him to exercise that vote.

As for the Opposition members’ contention that there is somehow a lack of stability in the Government, I would invite them, as I did in one of my answers at question time, to have a look at the confidence and supply agreements that the John Key - led National Government has in place. In fact, the majority of the Government has increased in recent weeks because Lianne Dalziel has resigned from Parliament, and we are yet to see the results of a by-election in Christchurch East. Who knows? The Government’s majority might increase as a result of that. You just do not know. So the suggestion that the Government is somehow propped up by anyone is simply wrong.

I also want to address one or two other issues that the member for the Greens actually raised. One of them, which I thought was quite out of order, was the assertion that the Government is somehow failing day by day. When the economy is growing; when employment in the regions is picking up; when it is pretty clear that in every region, despite the recession, the economy grew; when the numbers grew in all except one region—that is Gisborne—when we see reports today that in the South Island job vacancies are booming; they are not signs of a failing economy or of a failing Government.

I would also invite the member from the Greens, who decided to focus not so much on the capacities of Mr Banks but on the capacities of other Ministers, to look a bit more closely at policy. In fact, I would invite the Greens to think pretty hard about their own consciences. In respect of education, both the previous Minister and the current Minister have done more than any Green-Labour Government did to focus on those who most need the benefits of public education—who most need the benefits of public education. The Greens have opposed every single policy that is going about the difficult task of providing for those who most need the opportunity of a good education and a better opportunity. We will stand by that, whatever ministerial resignations there are.

To come back to Mr Banks, he has performed his duties as a Minister with consistency. He has stuck to the confidence and supply agreement. I have dealt with him over regulatory issues. They are complex. The Labour Party just agrees on more and more regulation; Mr Banks does not. He agrees with sensible regulation, and we have worked quite hard, actually, to create a regulatory system that deals with the issues of costs and benefits in an even-handed and transparent way. In fact, this Government would have, among Governments across the world, one of the more progressive approaches to regulation. That is evident. As for small business, John Banks was a strong advocate for things like a 90-day trial period, which encourages employment in small business. The Labour Opposition opposes that. It opposes small businesses being able to negotiate to set their own wages. It wants the living wage for all small businesses, particularly retail and those that service the Government. John Banks stood by those businesses.

So it is of some regret to the Government that John Banks has resigned as a Minister, because he carried out his duties faithfully. Sometimes he had differences of opinion with the Government, but, nevertheless, he stuck to advocating for those groups that would expect a Minister in that portfolio to advocate. Now, as with any New Zealand citizen who faces an allegation of unlawful behaviour, he will have to go through the legal process. He has outlined his own position about that, but it is appropriate that he ceases to function as a Minister while that is under way.

It has been a long 5 years under this Government, but I want to take us back to John Key’s statement of November 2008: “I expect high standards from my Ministers … if they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary”—John Key, November 2008. Consistently under John Key’s leadership, the standards of ministerial behaviour have dropped further and further and further.

John Banks resigned yesterday. Well, you know the truth: every piece of information that came out yesterday John Key knew last September, and he did nothing. He managed to forget everything that John Banks had said to him or his chief of staff, and he managed to turn a blind eye to the conduct that lowered the standards of ministerial behaviour. John Key has managed to combine amnesia with wilful blindness to create a shonky, tawdry Government that is now propped up by a disgraced MP. That is where the Government of New Zealand is left today. A tawdry, shonky, shoddy Government propped up by John Banks and Peter Dunne, two disgraced MPs. That is what it has come to under John Key’s leadership.

But perhaps we should not be surprised, because in the midst of the trouble for John Banks last year, here is what John Key said about John Banks: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics … The test I have to apply is the law.” and “I think he did exactly what he’d always said, which was comply with the law.” That is what John Key said. He took John Banks’ word, he tells us. Well, what a big mistake that was for John Key. Does the Prime Minister not now regret not reading the police report on John Banks? Because what that police report told everybody in this country was that John Banks had filed a false return. This is not a matter that is up for debate in the current trial. That is an established fact—that John Banks filed a false return. So John Key’s test that a Minister has to obey the law has already been broken by John Banks. John Key would have known that if he had not wilfully decided not to read the police report.

There is only one reason for that. There is only one reason for John Key lowering the standards of ministerial behaviour so low. That is because of his desperate, venal attempt to hang on to power. This tawdry Government that we have in front of us today is clinging on, on the basis of disgraceful behaviour from one of the Ministers. We need to look at what the Cabinet Manual says, because although John Key might think that there is “a wide definition of ethics”, what the Cabinet Manual says is “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.” That is not a wide definition of ethics. From day one in this Government, John Key has let New Zealanders down when it comes to what standards are acceptable.

Today in the House we saw another chapter. Mark my words: the roll of dishonour in this Government is not over. Nick Smith will be back in this House having to apologise. He will be, I predict, in front of the correct authorities in this complex to justify the fact that he intervened inappropriately. That is the record of this Government—taking away New Zealanders’ democratic rights, intervening in processes, and not behaving in a way that most New Zealanders would regard as acceptable.

This is the standard we have of John Key’s Government. This is the style of John Key’s leadership. Anything goes as long as it justifies the ends. It is the classic money trader’s approach. One day you will trade a currency up; the next day you will trade a currency down. John Key actually used to do that with the New Zealand currency. That is the approach he takes to the way he leads a Government. There is no moral compass. In fact, I am going to credit my colleague Moana Mackey for this, because she said very early on—I think before John Key became Prime Minister—that he is all map and no compass. That is what John Key is: all map and no compass. He knows he wants to be the Prime Minister, but he does not care about what he is doing, and he will try to stay in Government at all costs and with any shonky deals on the table.

Let us just remember how John Banks even came to be in this House. A cup of tea—that is what it was. It was the most expensive cup of tea ever sold in Epsom, in my view. John Banks is in this House because of a dodgy deal. John Banks is in this House to ensure that the National Party’s cronies continue to be rewarded. And what about the ACT Party?

💬 Hon Maryan Street: The what?

The ACT Party. I can remember the Rt Hon Helen Clark saying, when she stood up in the House, that she might disagree with everything the ACT Party stands for, but at least it has a principle that it is here for—an ideological principle. Well, that time is long gone. It started off with David Garrett. I do not think I will ever forget hearing David Garrett stand up in this House and say: “I stole a dead baby’s identity.”—a disgraceful thing. Then we had Don Brash with his hostile takeover of the ACT Party. And now we have John Banks, a man who clearly does not even believe in those principles and who is here only to support the National Party.

💬 Hon Annette King: What about Rodney Hide?

Rodney Hide as well—he disappeared in the middle of that. The ACT Party is over. It is over. It is done. It will not be back. John Banks has played a role to prop up this Government to allow this Government to go ahead with policies and laws that fundamentally undermine our democracy and that fundamentally go against what New Zealanders want.

Bill English stood up in the House twice today to tell New Zealanders that the National Government has got a great majority. Well, look at the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) bill. Look at the asset sales. They were passed by one vote, passed with the slimmest possible majority in this House, and that is down to the dodgy, sleazy deals that are done by this Government. That is down to Peter Dunne, the self-described “willing buyer, willing seller” on the GCSB bill, and now John Banks, a discredited MP, an MP who has indulged in what Annette King calls “terminological inexactitude” on a regular basis—terminological inexactitude towards the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, and all New Zealanders.

Although John Banks might now be in front of the court, he was convicted in the court of public opinion last year. New Zealanders do not trust his word, because what he is saying simply does not make any sense. As I have already stated, the police report was quite clear. A false return was put in place. We have heard many, many pieces of evidence in this case that point to the fact that John Key was misled by John Banks. That is the point at which John Key should have stepped in—September last year. He had the opportunity to do it. He did not take that opportunity, and that is because he is clinging on to power. He is hugging the political corpse that is John Banks because he is so desperate to survive for the next year or so.

Well, the message I have from the Labour Party to the National Party is to call that snap election. Go ahead—call that snap election, because we know we can win it. We know we have the agenda that New Zealanders want. This is a tired, tawdry Government in its second term, behaving like a third-term Government, and propped up by disgraced MPs. It is time for it to go.

New Zealanders listening to and watching that contribution from the former deputy leader of the Labour Party will sit there unbelieving that they are being lectured on ethics in government by the Labour Party. It is unbelievable to be lectured on ethics by the Labour Party. Do the names Taito Phillip Field, David Benson-Pope, Ruth Dyson, and Lianne Dalziel mean anything to that party opposite? Does the fact that the Labour Government was propped up by a party that was before the Privileges Committee for not telling the truth on electoral donations not ring with that party opposite? That party should not be lecturing anybody in this country on ethics or on doing the right thing, because that is the party that took $850,000 of taxpayers’ money illegally, spent it, and then wanted Parliament to retrospectively validate its taking of public money—$850,000. It stuck its hands in the taxpayers’ pocket and secretly pulled out $850,000, and it was David Henry who exposed it. It did everything it could to hide it. I am not going to be lectured on ethics by those people opposite.

The fact is that Mr Banks has done the right thing. Mr Banks has done the right and proper thing. He indicated to the Prime Minister’s office last week that if he was to go to trial, then he would resign his position as a Minister. But as he is still there, his resignation makes no difference to the stability of the National Government, and that is because this Government still enjoys very broad public support after 5 years in office during very, very difficult economic times. In fact, New Zealanders know that this country is on the up because this Government has focused on what really matters to New Zealanders, and that is jobs and opportunities for our people.

The latest ANZ consumer confidence poll, which I have just read about in the last hour or so, says that New Zealand consumer confidence is really picking up, and New Zealanders are feeling better off about the future since January 2008, which was before the global financial crisis. So the whole trend in this country is that things are getting better. There are more opportunities. There are more jobs. Mrs Bennett was talking about fewer people on benefits today, and so that is why this Government enjoys the broad support of New Zealanders and the confidence of this Parliament. The Government is determined to continue focusing on what really matters, and that is what this agenda and this Government is all about.

We have got a huge effort going in to giving the productive sector in this country the boost and the confidence that it needs against the headwinds of the higher New Zealand currency. Every day in this Parliament we see our Ministers talking about the efforts that this Government is making on the international trade front to provide opportunities for our exporters and for young New Zealanders. We see the Government every day talking about the work it is doing in resource management in order to give business a boost, and remove red tape with a greater focus on those things. We have seen the Minister of Energy and Resources talking about the huge opportunities for New Zealand in the whole minerals and petroleum exploration area, which are all-important for New Zealand.

So the Government remains very focused on the work that it is doing. It enjoys the broad support of the New Zealand public. It enjoys the support of the Parliament, supported by parties that have a right to be in this Parliament, and parties that support the agenda that this Government has. That is why the parties opposite can debate whatever they want to, but in the end, because we have a Government that is focused on what matters—growing the economy, jobs and opportunities, Better Public Services, the rebuild in Christchurch, and investing in infrastructure in New Zealand—that is why this Government maintains such strong support across the New Zealand community.

Several serious questions arise from the resignation of John Banks as a Minister. The first and most obvious of these is about his lack of judgment. It is that lack of judgment that causes me to have some serious thoughts about his leadership of one of the Government’s most important promotions, which is that of charter schools. There is already widespread concern about why those schools are needed and whether they will compromise standards because of the use of unqualified teachers, and many other aspects of charter schools are at least questionable. So we are entitled to now ask about the ministerial judgment of a man who has had to resign as a Minister because there are questions about the legal propriety of his past mayoral campaign election returns. We are entitled to conclude that this Minister, indeed, is a Minister who has exercised poor judgment across a range of issues. That includes not only his past behaviour in electoral matters but also his leadership of the charter schools programme. This justifies a total review, we believe, of the need for charter schools. at all. If his judgment is so poor, then there needs to be another look at them.

The question of judgment goes beyond just questions about electoral returns and what that means in terms of Mr Banks’ ability to exercise sound judgment. It goes to how the man has handled the situations that he has found himself in. Most New Zealanders will regard the way that he has handled those situations as very questionable indeed. It is clear to most that Mr Banks has not been as open, honest, and transparent as we are entitled to expect of a Minister. What this means is that he is not trusted by the community. This defines the nature of the whole Government. The Prime Minister has said that he has been happy to collude with all of this. Even now, the Prime Minister wants Mr Banks back. It shows that the Government itself cannot be trusted, and that, of course, is what we are seeing in the opinion polls currently.

I have just heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that he regrets the resignation of Mr Banks. Why should that be? Because we all know in this House, especially on this side of the House, that Mr Banks is the most lacklustre Minister that exists on that side of the House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, that’s not true.

Well—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s a mid-range Minister.

I said one of them—one of the most lacklustre. There are many lacklustre Ministers, but he is one of the most lacklustre of them all. Clearly, he is not really ministerial material. He does not have the talent or the personal ethical standards that New Zealanders expect of Ministers. Nor does he have the confidence of the New Zealand people to be a Minister. He does not even have the confidence of National voters. So why should the Deputy Prime Minister express such regret over this resignation, which the rest of the House, and, I think, the majority of New Zealanders, actually rejoice in? It is because it makes a Government that does not have the confidence of New Zealanders itself even shakier. It will take more than a manipulated cup of tea to save the Government now. Mr Banks has gone. The Government will be next.

The Banks affair is a long-running saga of sleaze, of playing the New Zealand people as mugs, and of manipulation and deviousness. So the resignation of John Banks has not come a day too soon for most of us. The damage he and John Key have done to New Zealand’s reputation as a well-ordered democracy is huge. The time is well past to put an end to the charade of evasion and double-talk that comes from Mr Banks. New Zealand has been at the top of the international non-corruption index for years. This Government, with Mr Banks in support and with his record, will put an end to that reputation.

The spin now has to stop. The process of justice must be allowed to take its course—no thanks, by the way, to the wimpy cop-out by the New Zealand Police; thanks only to the efforts of Mr McCready. Electoral law is a cornerstone of our democracy. Electoral law can be flaunted and manipulated with apparent ease, if you look at Mr Banks’ behaviour. The integrity of our entire system is put at risk by that behaviour. The law is the law for all, but Ministers have a special responsibility to lead in this way, and so, indeed, do all MPs. New Zealand First itself has had to face electoral accusations in the past. New Zealand First has had to run the full gauntlet of police and serious fraud investigation. The accusations were, of course, found to be utterly groundless. We did not get the easy ride that Mr Banks has had. We did not get officialdom looking elsewhere.

There is no tenable way Mr Banks could continue as a Minister. A Government Minister is in a position of great trust and responsibility. This Minister has grossly betrayed that trust and that responsibility, and this Government has colluded with him every step of the way. This Government is just as guilty as Mr Banks has been in that respect. The public must have absolute confidence in the probity and judgment and honesty of Ministers and of the Government. A more honourable person would have resigned when the allegations of electoral misconduct surfaced in the first place. Instead of that, we have had nothing but double-talk, manoeuvring, and, in fact, strategic silence from Mr Banks for more than a year. He has clung to office by his fingertips, and in that he has been aided and abetted by the Prime Minister and by the whole National Government, not because they have any particular regard for Mr Banks as a Minister but because they know that they have to have his vote to stay in office. I heard Mr English say today that in fact the Government had more than that, but the truth is that it needs every vote that it has got. In reality, its majority is just one, so without Mr Banks’ vote, this Government would not be able to cling to office in the way it has.

Finally, all of this reflects no credit at all on the Prime Minister of this country. He has allowed this tawdry tale to run on, to discredit his Government, to damage the reputation of New Zealand, and to make it possible for the people of New Zealand to lose confidence in the whole political process. This is a sad day for New Zealand, not because Mr Banks has resigned but because he has taken so long to come to that conclusion.

The next call is a 5-minute call.

From this side of the House we are detecting a stench. We are detecting the stench of a Government that is rotting from within. We are detecting a Government that is rotting from within, because not only are Government members becoming hysterical—and we saw Tony Ryall, whose voice goes up about an octave every time he gets under more pressure—but what we are seeing is a Government that is relying on not one but two liars. We see Peter Dunne, who has denied leaking a report, when everyone knows that is not true, and we see John Banks, who has denied knowing he got donations—and he has done it publicly—when, in fact, everyone who has read the relevant reports knows that that cannot possibly be true.

So what do we have? We have a Government led by John Key, who promised higher standards, that is held together by two liars.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, the member knows that Speaker’s ruling 42/4 says you cannot refer to a member as a liar. I will ask him to desist from that from now on.

Would it not be nice if the Government relied on people who could be relied on to tell the truth? Would it not be nice if there was a sense of integrity in Parliament—if there was a sense of integrity in Parliament and people told the truth? People refer to me and Mr McCready. I think it is an interesting situation that you have a liar, a fraudster, a bankrupt, a convicted blackmailer, and he has embarrassed two Cabinet Ministers, both of whom have been quite senior in their time. At least he is equal opportunity, Mr McCready—he is equal opportunity. But what he has recognised is what the police refused to recognise, and that is that the facts of this matter are abundantly clear. No one can receive an envelope, be told it is a donation, and pretend that it is anonymous. No one can ask for—

💬 Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the beginning of this debate the Speaker made it very clear that we could not debate the substance of the case that is before the court and that we are debating the resignation of the Hon John Banks as a Minister. I suggest that the member on his feet is now starting to stray into those points.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Mr Speaker made it very clear that we were to look at, under the Standing Orders, the issues relating to the Hon John Banks as a Minister. The issue, if one wants to go beyond that, is that he knowingly filed a false electoral return. That is out of order. It has not come up earlier, but I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 28/4, 31/1, and 31/3. I think the key one here is Speaker’s ruling 31/1 and I will just read it. “Where a matter is under adjudication before a court, the important thing is whether there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the case if it were to be discussed in the Chamber.” I will ask the member, and each subsequent member, to be very mindful of that.

John Banks resigned because a court found that there was a prima facie case that he had not told the truth. That is the matter, and what we have had is no further information on that issue for a year. John Key has known for a year that John Banks cannot be relied on to tell the truth, but he was a satisfactory member of Cabinet because he meets the standards—the standards for Ryall and the standards for Nick Smith, in particular. He meets the standards for Simon Bridges.

There is no requirement, as part of the Key ministry, to tell the truth, either in this House or outside. The only requirement that John Key has is that a court does not find in that way. What sort of ethical standard is that? This is the ethics of someone who does not care. John Key is holding on to power by his dirty, grubby fingernails because he wants to see his time out. He is getting contradictory advice. Judith Collins is saying: “Take the country to an election.” because she knows that when National loses, she will be the leader. Steven Joyce is saying: “No, no, no. Let me have a go.” “No, no, no. Let me have a go.” is what Steven Joyce is saying. But one thing that we know, for absolute certain—and it is in the polls that members opposite have been crying over as they have been consulting their Apples today—is that they are nudging on 40 percent and many of them are going to be goners.

It is good to take a call in this and save the Hon Phil Goff—[Interruption]

💬 Moana Mackey: Texting in the classroom. Texting Anadarko.

Well, in fact, it was Phil Goff’s call, Ms Mackey. [Interruption] I do not think it was. I want to talk about John Banks, who actually, I think we know, knew quite a lot about small businesses, who started out in small business, who grew a business, and, one thing is for sure, who knew the effect as a Minister—and still does as a member of Parliament—of poor public policy on the vulnerable in the area of employment law.

That is not something we can say for the Opposition in this House. We have seen some atrocious policy statements coming out of the Hon David Cunliffe, the new leader of the Labour Party, when it comes to these sorts of things. These policies actually make it very clear the Labour Party is not the party of workers. It is not the party of the vulnerable, because if it was, how could it raise the minimum wage to $15, a policy that would cost some 7,000 jobs? “No more fire at will.” says Mr Cunliffe—that would cost 13,000 jobs. Scrapping youth wages would cost 2,000 jobs. Supporting the living wage campaign would cost potentially up to 26,000 jobs.

Well, John Banks, as Minister for Small Business, knew that you cannot have, frankly, numbskull policies like that—policy by wishful thinking, policy that hurts those you are most trying to help. That is why he supported as a Minister, and continues to support as a member, this good Government, not lumping hundreds of millions of dollars—maybe billions of dollars—of costs on to the poor businesses that he represents and that this Government represents.

We can also say about all of this that what is very important, which seems to be lost in the speeches on the other side of the House, is that here we have a case as Trevor Mallard made quite clear, the police did not see fit to prosecute. The police went through. There are two bases for the police: evidential sufficiency and public interest. I have not gone back and checked the papers and how it went at that time, but clearly they decided on the basis of evidential sufficiency that there was no reason to prosecute. So we have a private prosecution. They are quite different, as Trevor knows—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?

As Trevor Mallard knows, sometimes these prosecutions are successful, but they are quite different from a police one with the processes that go through that.

Really, my point simply is that in this House, in this country, we all have the right to be held innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. So to have the kinds of kangaroo court statements we have heard, particularly from Metiria Turei—particularly nasty, vitriolic comments from her—about what a disgrace it is and so on, well, I would have expected better from someone with a law degree, actually; from someone like Metiria Turei. Because, actually, in this House we should uphold the fact that Mr Banks is innocent until proven guilty.

He has, however, of course, done the right thing. He has done the right thing because as soon as his case has been committed for trial, he has decided that he does not want to be a distraction to the Government and he has stood down as a Minister. As I think Tony Ryall said, he did it much quicker and with integrity, unlike many of the numerous cases we could list from the other side of the House—one Taito Phillip Field, for example.. It took months and months—actually, years was it not? Was it not years, Phil Goff, that you took defending him? Saying that all he was guilty of doing—all he was guilty of doing—was looking out for his constituents?

We on this side of the House follow good process. We look after workers, actually—real workers. That is what John Banks was about, as Minister for Small Business, and what he is still about, I think, as a member of Parliament. I would much rather be supporting this Government, any day of the week, than that poor sorry lot over there who stood up for Taito Phillip Field for far, far too long.

We are here today in this urgent debate on the resignation of the Hon John Banks as a Minister. As my colleague has said, he has not been found guilty of anything. Many, many New Zealanders are accused, they stand trial, and many, many of them are not found to have broken the law. So in this House we owe a responsibility to our justice system to uphold that premise that New Zealanders are innocent until they are proven guilty. I just want to commend the Hon John Banks for doing the right thing and resigning as a Minister outside Cabinet in this Government.

It is quite interesting. I thought it was interesting that the Hon Trevor Mallard stood and took a call in this debate, because the same private individual took a private prosecution against the Hon Trevor Mallard, accusing him of assault. Of course, someone who has stood and lectured us on morality would have stood down as a Cabinet Minister himself, you would have thought, when that prosecution was brought against him.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Did he?

Did he? In actual fact he did not. In actual fact he was excused from a Cabinet meeting, in order to appear in court. That is the calibre of the person on that side of the House who is standing and talking about the integrity of being in Government and the requirements to be a Minister, and the integrity required for that. Actually, Trevor Mallard pleaded guilty and paid a fine. He did not get a criminal conviction—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: And he spoke in the House on this.

—and he talked in the House on this. But he did not stand down.

I just want to comment on the fact that the Hon John Banks has a long record of service to this country, both as the Mayor of Auckland and also as a member of Parliament in this House, and, in fact, he is a fellow Minister of Police. In October 1990 he came to Parliament and was made Minister of Police. Within a month he was facing, as Minister of Police, the Aramoana massacre where a 33-year-old unemployed man shot and killed 13 people in that small township. I would hate to have been—and I am sure every member in this House would hate to have been—in the role of Minister of Police and have to face that. The first responder was a local sergeant, Sergeant Stewart Guthrie, and he was shot. I raise this only because I visited the Dunedin Central Police Station and commented to the Hon John Banks that that police station was built following the Aramoana massacre and as part of the entrance there is a memorial to that sergeant who was the first responder to that massacre. That, as I understand it, was at the instigation of the then Minister of Police, the Hon John Banks.

I just want to reiterate that we should not, in this House, take the opportunity to make cheap political points. It is sad when a member like Metiria Turei, who consistently is nasty, raises nasty personal attacks on individuals in this House, sees fit to use an opportunity like this, where we are discussing a particular Minister and the difficulties he is facing, and then spews out a barrage of abuse at a whole range of other Ministers about her perceived faults in their behaviour. This House should uphold the fact that every person is innocent until they are proven guilty.

This Government is now clearly developing a reputation for not only being a shonky Government, one that is tarnished by poor ethics and poor behaviour, but also as a shaky Government.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Long way to go to recognise the Labour Government, mate.

Those two things are connected, of course, Mr Joyce. The only reason that you have not sacked members of your ministry—you would like it to be your ministry; Mr Key’s ministry—is that you know you have to rely on discredited members of Parliament to maintain your tenuous control on power.

I want to say this. You know the Government is in trouble when National has the call and nobody rises to their feet. You know a National Government is in trouble when the acting Leader in the House, of this Government, Bill English, gets to his feet and cannot do 5 minutes, let alone 10 minutes, in defence of the indefensible. We saw that over John Banks. This is a Government that has been there only 5 years and it has lost seven Ministers—seven Ministers. Let us go through the list, shall we.

Richard Worth—sacked when it was clearly revealed he was sending inappropriate texts to another woman. That was Richard Worth. Then there was Pansy Wong—sacked for the inappropriate use of the travel allowance. Richard Worth, Pansy Wong, and Phil Heatley. Phil Heatley was sacked because he was inappropriately using allowances for wine and for travel for his family. That was Phil Heatley. Then we had Nick Smith. He was inappropriately making submissions on behalf of his friend Bronwyn Pullar. That is quite inappropriate for a Minister to do when that person is in conflict with his ministry. And he resigned. He has resigned once, and I will give you this undertaking: we will see him resign again, because he has been inappropriate in the way that he has effectively stopped his department, the Department of Conservation, from putting forward submissions on an important public issue that it should be heard on. It is not the role of a Minister to silence his department because he has a different point of view. That department was entitled to put forward submissions, and I believe that the comments made about the reason why it did not make that submission are clearly misleading. Then we had Kate Wilkinson. Well, she is in a different category, to be fair to Kate. She resigned because her department was failing in its responsibilities, and it is still failing in its responsibilities.

But the worst cases are the two members who have been absolutely discredited in the court of public opinion, who are—or were—Ministers outside Cabinet: Peter Dunne and John Banks. Peter Dunne, let us face it, leaked a report, the Kitteridge report on the Government Communications Security Bureau to a journalist. The evidence is there. That is why he would not submit the emails. The Government pretended that it was somebody else. The poor old civil servants had to line up and give their testimony on oath, but not Peter Dunne. He was never required to do that. There is not one member of the National Party with their head down at the moment who does not know that Peter Dunne leaked that report. He should not have just resigned from the ministry, he should not be in this House. He has no credibility. Why does National keep him there? It keeps him there because it relies on his vote for it to maintain its grasp on power. No matter how tarnished, no matter how tawdry, this Government keeps Ministers in place and will not sack them for behaving unethically, because, simply, it wants to maintain its grip on power. [Interruption] “Exactly”, Anne Tolley says. Anne Tolley has just agreed with my point that they keep tawdry, discredited Ministers in place to maintain their grip on the reins of Government.

Then you have got John Banks. Well, you know, one of the things that a Minister should do is have a good memory, and remember what he has done. Mr Banks does not remember Kim Dotcom—an easy man to forget, I guess! He does not remember his mansion—only a small shack; I suppose he might have overlooked it. He did not remember the ride to the mansion in the helicopter—well, he takes helicopter rides all the time! He did not remember asking for donations and he did not remember receiving them. John Banks, as the police report states, filed a declaration that was false.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

That is not in debate, Mr Speaker; that is the police report.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I just remind members, as I did before, that we have to be very careful with an allegation like that. That is what is before the court—whether John Banks seemingly and knowingly filed a false return. That is what we cannot refer to in this House, because it could be prejudicial to the court case. I will ask the member just to be very mindful of that. I mentioned that earlier. There is a Standing Order specifically on that point.

That is why I did not use the word “knowingly”. That would have been quite inappropriate, because it is before the court. But there is no doubt, no debate, and no question that the declaration was a false one—no doubt about that, at all. That is established.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Like 2005 and the credit card, eh?

Mr Joyce might remember that when he swore his oath of office, he was expected to behave as the Cabinet Manual says: “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.” Six Ministers, Mr Joyce, did not uphold those standards.

Did the Prime Minister do what he promised when he took office? “I expect”, he said pompously and self-righteously, “high standards from my Ministers. If they do not meet the standards I set, then, obviously, I’ll take the action if necessary.” “Read the full quote.”, the Prime Minister would say. Well, it was not in the quote, unfortunately. But what he was saying was: “I will take the action when I have no other choice.”, when everybody else in this country has reached the conclusion that a Minister has behaved wrongly, unethically, and sometimes illegally. Only at the end of the day, when he was forced to do it, did the Prime Minister sack those six Ministers, each of whom behaved unethically. This Government has reached the end of its time in office. Already out there in the electorate, people are saying “It’s time for a change.”

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Ha, ha! In your desperate dreams.

Keep giggling, Mr Joyce. Giggle to keep your courage up, but you know that to be the truth. You know that is what the polls say, you know that is what your polls are saying, and you know that is what people are saying out on the street. This Government has reached the end of its tenure. It is tarnished. It is tawdry.

What I object to most about the Prime Minister’s failure to do what he promised—to uphold ethical standards—is that this country actually has a good reputation. In Transparency International, it is the least corrupt country in the world. But you know, Mr Joyce, that to maintain that reputation, standards have got to be set at the top. If Ministers do not maintain those standards, then that will filter down through the rest of our society and we will see a diminishing of the standards that we have long been proud of and have upheld. This Government is not upholding those standards.

John Key did not even read the police report. Can Mr Joyce, if he is taking the next call, say why the Prime Minister never read the police report? He said: “I’m taking Mr Banks at his word.” Well, that is leadership, is it not! It is leadership to say: “Here are the charges against the man. Here is the pile of evidence. But, no, I won’t read the police report, because it’ll confirm it, and I’ll take him at his word.” Why did he not just honestly say, as Anne Tolley admitted to the House, that he is keeping people in ministerial posts because he needs their votes to stay in power? That is what it is about. It is not about taking people at their word, and it is not about not being obliged to read the police report. He should have upheld those ethical standards. John Key is the man who is on trial in this House, because John Key has not done what he promised the country 5 years ago that he would do—uphold high standards.

We have seen low standards. We have never seen lower standards than we are seeing at the moment, even in the way Mr Banks got into power. He is in this House for one reason—the National Party gifted him the seat of Epsom because it wanted to rort the political system to get extra people in the House. That is why it put Don Brash in—Don Brash, a former leader of the National Party, and John Banks, a former Cabinet Minister. The National Party put those people into the seat of Epsom to rort the political system. The public will judge National on that as well.

Let us have a quick look at the ACT Party. I have never agreed with the ACT Party, but once upon a time I could at least respect it, because it had a principled point of view. It does not have a principled point of view now. It is being manipulated as a tool of the National Party to keep a National Government in power, a Government that the people have had a gutsful of and now want to get rid of. The ACT Party, the party of Donna Awatere and David Garrett—they have certainly—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Time has expired.

Earth to Phil Goff. The Minister has resigned. The Prime Minister has upheld the standards. Earth to Phil Goff—who just popped a vein for the last 10 minutes, trying to argue for something that has already happened. Oh dear, Phil. The other thing that you should never do is if you live in glass houses, you should not throw stones—you should not throw stones. I will take a lecture from the Labour Party when it apologises for its deliberate rorting of the electoral system in 2005, when it created an extra $900,000 of electoral expenditure and it lied like a flatfish before it was able to go to an election. The Labour Government had to pass legislation to validate that appalling, deliberate rort of the New Zealand electoral system, which was authorised by Helen Clark, with the toadies in her office, like Grant Robertson. That is the appalling example—and Grant hates it—but it was a stain on his reputation before he even came to Parliament. It is the most appalling rubbish.

We will also take a lecture from the Labour Party when it apologises for keeping Taito Phillip Field in the ministry for months, and months, and months. This is the guy who went to jail. Phil Goff, a senior Minister in the Labour Government, says “Nothing to see here—nothing to see here”. I will take a lecture from Phil Goff when he finally turns round and says that the Labour Party was wrong about Phillip Field. And I will also take a lecture from the Labour members when they stop acting like immigration advisers, instead of like a Government, when they actually do immigration advice, and their Ministers pretend to be immigration consultants, and they get this dodgy deal done, and then they give the guy a citizenship ceremony in the Parliament. That is appalling, and these guys talk about transparency. They talk about ethical standards. Well, I am sorry, that is the most appalling lapse of ethical standards that these guys have been involved with.

So there you have a problem. You have the Labour members get up in this debate and start trying to lecture people about ethical standards. They try to lecture a Prime Minister, who has accepted a Minister’s resignation, as if he did not, and yet they were the dodgy ones who for 9 years actually lowered the standards for ministerial conduct, which the Prime Minister has then raised again. These guys are hypocritical, and they are in glass houses throwing stones. I strongly suggest they stop, because they look like the clowns they are. They look like the clowns they are.

I could do a whole roll-call of Ministers—one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11—12 Ministers during Labour’s time in Government who kicked the bucket one way or another. That is an appalling record. This Prime Minister has upheld the highest ethical standards, and when Mr Banks knew that he was going to have to stand trial, he went straight to the Prime Minister and said that he had to stand down. The Prime Minister accepted. So let us compare that with Taito Phillip Field. How does that go with the Taito Phillip Field test? [Interruption] I will say “Taito Phillip Field” all afternoon if you like, Phil, because that was the most embarrassing and pathetic example of prime ministerial accountability in New Zealand’s recent history. That was absolutely appalling.

But let us forget the Labour Party, because it is just wrapped up in all this rubbish. Let us talk about the Greens. Let us talk about the Greens, because it was the Green Party that started this debate and, with the greatest respect to it, it really does need to start thinking about what it is about. The Green Party’s sanctimoniousness on this issue is appalling. If Green members genuinely want to stop the convention centre in Auckland, and if they genuinely do not want the jobs, then they should have the courage and conviction to go out and argue for the closing of the casino industry, for the closing of the community gambling industry, and for the closure of the Lotteries Commission. They do not do that, because they know that that would be politically unacceptable. So they allow themselves to go out there and harrumph and carry on about an additional number of machines in the casino, to build a big convention centre—something that, by the way, they forgot to do when Labour was in office—and they expect us to treat the Green Party as some sort of principled, left-wing political party.

Worse than that, it does not like jobs. The reality is that it does not like jobs. This is what we get all the time from the Greens. They do not like jobs. The Labour Party does not like jobs. That is the problem. That is why you will not get back into Government, apart from the obsession with the beltway that Grant Robertson and Phil Goff are wrapped up in. The reality is that the Labour Party will not get back into office next year because it is not about jobs and growth for New Zealanders. It is about making up stories about the Government and opposing jobs at every opportunity.

What will be remembered about the bill that is behind this discussion today—what will be remembered about it—is that it will create 1,000 jobs in construction. It will create 800 jobs once it is constructed. It will be an asset for Auckland. It will be an asset for New Zealand. It will be like the Hobbit movies. It will be like the Resource Management Act changes that have helped to speed up development. It will be like oil and gas exploration, the biggest summer in New Zealand for oil and gas exploration and all the jobs that go with that. It will be like all these other things that the Labour Party and the Greens have opposed.

Increased irrigation—there we have the pro tem candidate for the Labour Party in Napier running around today saying he is against irrigation and against oil and gas, so he is out. He will not be standing, and, if he is, he will definitely not be winning the Napier electorate at the next election, because, actually, New Zealanders are interested in jobs. They are interested in growth. They are not interested in Grant Robertson—we have actually established that. They are not interested in Phil Goff. They are not interested in the Greens running around the place, setting up taxpayers’ money to do a stunt at Aotea Square in Auckland with cardboard boxes. They are interested in a Government that builds a brighter future for this country by ensuring opportunities for companies to invest and grow jobs, and to succeed, and for New Zealanders to succeed here and bring up their families here. That is what New Zealanders are interested in, and they are also interested in a Prime Minister who has the highest ethical standards and who delivers on that on an ongoing basis.

The Labour Party’s constant desire to pull the Government down into the mud that the Labour Party lives in is not working this time. It has not worked at any time, and New Zealanders know that this Government is working for them. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.