3. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he agree that he made an “apparent threat to pull a piece of tax legislation in retaliation for the Herald’s coverage of Labour’s pledge card rort”, as reported by the media?
Simon PowerI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Halfway through my colleague’s question, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises felt he could bellow across the Chamber. You have given several warnings on this matter over recent weeks; the Minister should be asked to leave the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
A week or two ago, when I was not here, I was listening to the radio, and listening closely enough to hear you give a ruling that made it clear that people could interject during questions. All I did was ask whether that question was drafted in Ireland.
Does the Minister agree that at least two of the statements he made on the topic—namely, that the New Zealand Herald would be wise—
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Opposition frequently complains that Ministers do not answer questions; I did not get the chance in that case. It is quite a brief answer, but I would like to give it.
My apologies. I am sorry, Mr Key. Perhaps Dr Cullen would respond to your initial question, and then you may ask your supplementary question.
Does the Minister agree that at least two of the statements he made on this topic—namely: “The Herald would be wise to consider the consistency of its position.”, and that his message to it was just to think a bit carefully about the implications of what it is engaged in—were clearly intended to threaten the paper’s owners, APN, and that if the New Zealand Herald did not desist from both reporting and writing unfavourable editorial comments about the Government, there would be implications?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I cannot even find one of those quotes. In terms of the other one, let me refer the member to the New Zealand Herald editorial the previous day, which stated that this “does not sound any different from that of taxpayers who have claimed deductions on the best available advice and it turns out on legal scrutiny that they have to pay the money back.” The was in precisely that position, and we were legislating to remove it. Despite all of its bluster, it has failed to answer the question of what the moral difference is.
Hon Peter DunneWill the Minister confirm that the legislation dealing with that matter is actually in the name of the Minister of Revenue, and that he has made no approach to the Minister of Revenue about withdrawing or amending that particular provision?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is absolutely correct. Indeed, if the member and the New Zealand Herald had bothered to read the first press statement, they would have seen that it said: “As a result the government has agreed to support legislation which effectively retrospectively validates that understanding and relieves the Herald’s owners of that bill.” All the Muldoonism and bluster came from the , not from me.
If we are to believe the Minister that those comments were not of a threatening nature—that is, could result in a changed attitude towards APN’s tax issue—then was the purpose of his comments actually to remind APN that it owed him and his Government a favour, and it better not forget it?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, not at all. It was to remind the New Zealand Herald journalists that it is wise to be consistent. When one decides to climb on to a high moral horse, it is a damn good idea to make sure the saddle is firmly tied on.
Is it not a fact that the new modus operandi of this Government is that when it does not get its own way, it just bullies? It does not matter whether the victim is a Television One journalist, the APN owners, or the owners of Telecom—if this Government does not get its own way when it has its back to the wall, it just bullies them.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The only examples of bullying of journalists that I know of have certainly come from the member’s usual bench mate, who frequently bullies journalists, and the press gallery know it.
Is it not a fact that, whatever way one cuts it, it is just grossly inappropriate for a Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General to raise the tax affairs of a newspaper critical of its Government, when those tax affairs depend crucially on the support by his Government of pending legislation; if he was not intending to bully the newspaper, why did he include in his press release the fact that that money could be used for a lot of hip operations?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Because I was pointing out to the New Zealand Herald that a very large amount of money was involved, and that, for once, it might care to be consistent in its position. Of course, for that party—a party that accepted money from the Exclusive Brethren, denied it had done so, then admitted it, and denied it knew about the pamphlets—to talk about consistency is unbelievable.
Would the member please be seated. Could the Minister please summarise his answer, and would members please have the courtesy to allow some of us to hear the answer.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think the brief summary is that the pot opposite is of a very dark colour.
Is it normal behaviour in some countries for Governments to condition their support of certain legislation in return for political favours; if so, is this the kind of behaviour he would like to see in New Zealand?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
As I said before, all I was doing was challenging the New Zealand Herald journalists to explain the moral difference. They have failed to do so, so far.
Hon David Benson-PopeInterjections do provoke other interjections, so I remind members please to show courtesy towards each other.
Can the Minister confirm that he issued the press release against the advice of his own press secretary, Mike Jaspers; and when we consider this, coupled with the recent claims he has made against other journalists—that they are writing stories supportive of tax cuts solely on the basis of their own personal position—does that not show that he is rapidly losing not only objectivity but, in fact, credibility as New Zealand’s Minister of Finance?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, not at all, and I note recent opinion polls on the handling of the economy by this Government. I challenge that member to explain what promises with regard to accident compensation his party made to the insurance companies in return for their donations.
Point of order—[ Interruption] Remember that there are no interjections during points of order. Point of order, Rodney Hide.
Rodney HideIt is a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny attempting to bully New Zealand Herald journalists; and what did he make of the Prime Minister’s advice to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Winston Peters, that launching a jihad on the was not the best course of action when in difficulties and trouble?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I do not think even the New Zealand Herald journalistsbelieve that I have the capacity to bully them. As a lifelong atheist, I am the last person to launch a jihad, in any shape or form.