1. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Has he been involved in discussions on electoral systems in the Pacific?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
Yes. There have been several discussions relating to constitutional reform in Tonga. There have been discussions relating to electoral petitions in the Cook Islands and Samoa, and there have also been discussions about the international community’s call for fair, open, and free elections to be held in Fiji by March 2009.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Yes, I have. I have had cause to have several discussions about a particular case. During an electoral petition hearing a claim of organised push-polling was conducted on behalf of a candidate, involving the Exclusive Brethren church and scores of workers, which, because of the nature of push-polling, was an election expense. The allegation of push-polling was denied in the court, yet the candidate himself admitted at the weekend’s National Party conference receiving the help of 150 Exclusive Brethren members. This means that the National Party committed perjury, which is a serious offence.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Yes, there are a number of cases. But one case in particular involved an undeclared cheque of $250,000 from Fay Richwhite to the National Party in 2002. A second case reported was that National Party money was funnelled through a law firm’s trust fund controlled by a former National Party president.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Yes, there was the case in 2005 where the candidate had described himself as a New Zealand sporting representative, which could be true only if New Zealand fielded a pocket billiards team before the First World War.
Rodney HideIn light of the Minister’s expert knowledge of electoral discussions in the Pacific involving the Exclusive Brethren—
Ron MarkI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member is old enough, and has been in this House long enough, to know that starting a supplementary question with the words “In light of” is not appropriate. He should start with a question, and leave it at that.
Madam SPEAKERI thank the member and I am sure all members will take note. Would the member please ask his question.
How come the Minister of Foreign Affairs is such an expert on electoral systems in the Pacific that he knows all about what the Exclusive Brethren were doing with Mr Clarkson, and all about the funding of New Zealand First and other political parties, but cannot take the opportunity like he promised to do in this House to explain what happened to the cheque for $25,000 that he solicited just before the election in 2005 from Sir Robert Jones that was then deposited in the Spencer Trust—administered by that member’s brother—which hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone through; he cannot tell us anything about what happened to that $25,000, but he is an expert on everyone else?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I tell the member who is dressed as a cockatoo every day in this House that the evidence given by Malcolm Wright, as eventually published by the New Zealand Herald when it finally got its mind around it, said three things: first, I was not there when the subject was raised; second, I was annoyed and angry when it was raised; and, third, I was not there when any money was paid over to a trust. Those three critical factors are the total answer to this question, but I say that a member who has failed to declare an office expense in Wellington of $20,000—for which today I will table the landlord’s letter, showing 9 years’ free rent was paid for by the head of the Business Roundtable in Remuera—should not be asking any questions in this House, and, better still—[ Interruption] I say “Over here Rodney; don’t look over there, but over here.” I say to the member that, better still, he should go and get some legal advice from Stephen Franks, but I know that he has left the party.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was all very interesting but why does not the Minister just explain what happened to the $25,000, which was the question I asked.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During my answer I heard a call from the back of the House and I recognised the voice. It is the one who told his campaign team and his legal advisers that he had no knowledge of the Exclusive Brethren. However, of course, he told the National Party, in a flippant moment of honesty over the weekend, that he did. So perhaps the perjurer can get up now and apologise.
Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. If members could please, when they raise—[ Interruption] That was not a point of order. If members wish to raise points of order, they must relate to what is in the Standing Orders to some breach of the Standing Orders. They are not used for speeches and comments. That is not what question time is for; it is for questions to be asked and addressed.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He made a totally unparliamentary and, above all, untrue comment.
Then the member should ask for that without a large explanation. The member has sought that it be withdrawn and apologised for. Would the member who made the comment please do so, so we can move on.
Bob ClarksonWould the member who made that comment please withdraw and apologise before I take the next point of order. I did not hear who the member was.
Please be seated. While I am on my feet, members are to be seated. Now would the member who made that comment please withdraw and apologise. No one will own up to it. OK we have a new point of order then.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Clarkson made the comment. We all heard him. Now, will he please withdraw and apologise.
No, we did not all hear him, and that was the point. It was why I said that I did not hear who made the comment. I asked the member who made it to withdraw and apologise. Would the member please do that.
I am sorry, would the member please be seated. This is equally not a point of order. If members wish to have this exchange, then they should have it outside this Chamber or in the context of a general debate. Now we will move on.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have asked you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. He has indicated that he is the party who is the subject of my complaint, and the Standing Orders require him to withdraw and apologise or you will treat him accordingly. Please, I am asking you to apply the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings.
The member knows that when, in fact, the member asks for a comment to be withdrawn and apologised for, then the member should do so. I ask the member once more to do so. We would like his continued presence in the House.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry; I am not withdrawing and apologising. If the Minister is allowed to be corrupt in this place, then that is all there is to it.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While we are being sticklers for these sorts of things, you will have heard during the exchange of points of order that the Rt Hon Winston Peters referred to the exiting member as a perjurer. That is totally unparliamentary. It does not require the member to be offended; it is an offence to the whole of Parliament when that sort of abuse is hurled around the place.
I am sorry, I did not hear that. I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise if he used that term.
Please be seated. Will everyone just settle. The member asked for a point of order, and he wants to table a document. Would he please now explain what the document is.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
It is a letter from the landlord in respect of the ACT party’s taking $20,000 per annum and failing to disclose it.