Financial Review Debate — Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

I would like to spend 5 minutes on this issue to inquire whether the Prime Minister is going to take his place in the chair or whether he is going to spend his time out consulting with people who do not believe—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I think the member knows the rules about referring to the absence of a member.

No, I have not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, you have not, but this is just a wee caution.

The question I was going to ask is whether the Prime Minister gives greater priority to consulting with people who believe that vapour trails are poisoning New Zealanders or that man did not land on the moon, or whether Parliament is his priority. That is the question that I want to ask, because this is the debate where we talk about Cabinet process, where we talk about the revolving door, and where we talk about the member who is currently out of Cabinet, the Hon John Banks, who is out because there has been a prima facie case established against him for fraud. That is the reason the Prime Minister accepted the fraudulent member’s resignation. This is the time we ask whether as part of the ongoing matters to do with the formation of Cabinet, the Prime Minister is going to go canvassing with John Banks in the back woods of Georgia—the scene in Deliverance—whether that is where John Banks is going to do his canvassing, or whether he is going to leave that area alone and just go to Utah and talk about polygamy.

I want to know about the leadership of ACT and what is acceptable to the Prime Minister, who is acceptable to the Prime Minister—

💬 Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it is appropriate right now that you remind the speaker on his feet that this is a debate about the Prime Minister’s expenditure, the Prime Minister’s department, the Cabinet Office, and the responsibilities of those, not Georgia, not something in Texas, and not all the other crap that he is coming up with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think the member’s use of certain words was inappropriate at that point, and I would caution him not to do that. I think there was a very clear instruction laid out to the Committee about where this debate should go, and I think the member speaking needs to draw into the report of the Prime Minister. Examples are fine, but we need to keep bringing it into that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been in this Parliament for quite a long time, and when we come to these sorts of debates, particularly those involving the Prime Minister, I do not recall ever seeing the person who was in charge of the vote that we are talking about—and I cannot offend against Standing Orders, so I will put it this way—being unable to respond to the debate. Right? I have not said anything else. He is unable to respond to the debate. It really is a serious diminishing of this Parliament—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! [Interruption] Order! I am not sure what the point of order is. Please sit. It has also been the custom of the Committee of the whole House to have other members filling the Chair here on a regular basis. I am not sure what the point the member is making is, but I do not see a point of order that is relevant to the debate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, I know that members fill in when Ministers and others are not available, but when you are down the road having coffee, which has just been reported to me, that is something else.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! You are using a point of order for the purpose of debate.

The point I was trying to make is that this Prime Minister will take anyone and he will get the advice that he wants in order to have any crook, anyone who believes in weird ideas, and anyone who wants polygamy, bigamy, or a whole pile of other things to be part of his arrangement. It makes a “shared ministry” and a “close ministry” take on a whole new set of meanings when John Banks and others are involved.

I want to focus, in particular, on the biggest scandal of the past 12 months in this area, and that is the reinstatement of the Hon Peter Dunne—and that word “honourable” is usable only in this Parliament—to this Prime Minister’s department. Let us just get the facts straight. Mr Dunne, for a very short period of time—until he woke up—claimed to the media only that he did not make the draft Kitteridge report on the Government Communications Security Bureau available to a Fairfax journalist. After about a day Mr Dunne stopped making that claim. Mr Dunne would not tell the Prime Minister that he had not made that report available. The Prime Minister had discussions with him on at least three occasions, and he would not give the Prime Minister that assurance. On, I think, five occasions, Mr Dunne has been invited, within Standing Orders, to make it clear in this House that he did not make the draft Kitteridge report available to a Fairfax journalist, and on every single occasion he has declined to do that. And that is the right thing to do, because if he did the opposite, he would be lying and he would be before the Privileges Committee, so that is the right thing for him to do.

But I just want to ask Chris Tremain how he feels being fired as Minister of Internal Affairs—fired as Minister of Internal Affairs—and replaced by someone who leaked a confidential document on the Government’s spy agency. This was a Minister who, at the time, refused to tell the Prime Minister he did not do it, because he could not. He could not lie to the Prime Minister. He did not want to lie to the Prime Minister. He did not want to lie to the House. That is why the Hon Peter Dunne did not make those denials.

I want to say to the Prime Minister that he is going to have to make a correction soon, because the Prime Minister, on the last Wednesday the House sat, stated in this House that Dunne had denied it. He had not.

Report noted.

Government Communications Security Bureau

New Zealand Security Intelligence Service