5. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
What further action, if any, has he taken since I first asked last week, to ensure Governments in the Pacific region are honest, transparent, and accountable?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
As I travel around New Zealand many people say to me: “Winston, you’ve been in politics a long time; you must know some good political jokes.”, and I say: “Rodney Hide.” The fact of the matter is that National members gave this question over to Rodney Hide today—I say to those thousands of people who are watching this broadcast from Parliament—because they were not prepared to ask it themselves. He might be impersonating a canary in this House but National members should be wearing the yellow jackets today, of course. I have asked my officials to keep promoting democracy and accountable government in the Pacific.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs take the opportunity he has now, in advancing honesty and transparency in Government in the Pacific, to put on record in this House what he told the public of New Zealand—that New Zealand First has received no donations from Simunovich Fisheries, contrary to what the Dominion Post claims today?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Anyone who read the Dominion Post today saw in paragraph 3 a barefaced allegation. There was not one fact, and there was no evidence and no proof, but the media in this country were happy to follow him regardless of his not giving them the courtesy of one detail to back up the allegation. It is drivel—typical of the last allegation as well, when they talked about $120,000 being in one or more cheques. They did not provide the evidence. There were no facts and no substance—just allegation. Anyone can see that this is the allegation of a campaign financed by certain people in this country who have been about this for a long time. I am bound to give members the good news—those people are not going to succeed.
Will the Minister now take the opportunity to deny in this House what he told the public of New Zealand—that New Zealand First has never received a donation from Simunovich Fisheries; if he will not deny it, what is the reason?
Madam SPEAKERMembers well know that questions must be addressed and related to ministerial responsibility. The way in which that supplementary question was framed meant that it was to the Minister in his capacity as a party leader.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I can say this, though, on the question of honesty, transparency, and accountability—particularly in view of the need for sartorial standards—I have spoken to some people in Epsom and told them not to elect a member who represents a party that has for many years secretly channelled millions of dollars from big business through trusts such as the Cargill Trust, which paid $2.9 million to ACT in one year. When the leader of the ACT party was questioned about the trust, he said that he did not know about it until he read about it in a newspaper article.
What can the public of New Zealand conclude about the credibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who says: “No, New Zealand First received no money from Simunovich Fisheries.”, but is not prepared to advance—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that this is a stalking horse for another campaign; it is so obvious. But he is not going to go outside the law—inside this House or outside it. Therefore I am asking you to bring him to order.
No. All I am asking members to do is to comply with the Standing Orders when asking their questions. Those questions should relate to ministerial responsibility and not to the roles other members have outside this House. Ministerial responsibility is the key.
Why will the Minister not enhance honesty, transparency, and accountability in the Pacific by repeating in this House what he told the public of New Zealand—that New Zealand First has received no donations from Simunovich—
No. I have ruled on this matter. Would both of you please be seated. You may think this is a circus but I do not, and neither do the people of New Zealand. There are rules here. If you want to debate other matters you can do so outside question time. It is your right to do so. Here we have questions, and those questions relate to ministerial responsibility. The first part of the question is fine; the reference to other roles is not. So I ask the Minister to address the first part.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
It is like taking candy from a baby. The reality of it is that I have been at pains to point out how transparency and democracy work around the Pacific. But, more particularly, I have some good examples. The following quote is from the previous leader of the ACT party, who said, when he was asked a question—
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You cannot shut down Mr Hide from asking a specific question about a matter that has been before this House—the matter has, in fact, been before the Privileges Committee—and then allow the Minister to rehearse a whole lot of answers that have nothing to do with his ministerial responsibility, no matter how thinly he might couch his associations—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
If Mr Brownlee could be slightly patient he would see in the words of these quotes why this is relevant. The quote begins: “In a free society …”, and that is what we are talking about—free and open democracy. I want to give members the quote.
If this were a free and open democracy, the Minister would not be worried about hiding behind the Standing Orders so as to not answer the question.
Would the Minister address the question. As I heard, the Minister got as far as giving examples before there was a point of order.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
The audience was stunned, I might add, when I gave this quote, which reads like this: “In a free society people should be able to donate to whatever cause they like. If it is their own money it is nobody’s business—no business of the public.” That statement was made by Richard Prebble in respect of the $2.9 million in the Cargill Trust. [ Interruption] We are talking about the laws that applied then, I say to Gerry—pay attention! When he was asked why that money had to be secret, Mr Prebble added: “How am I supposed to answer that question?”. A lot of New Zealanders do not particularly want to be on the front page of the newspaper—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would be an interesting, I think, piece of information you might give the House about how any of this answer relates to the Minister’s responsibilities, either as the Minister for Racing or as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to whom the question is set down. He should not be allowed to get away with this, Madam Speaker, when you have been so very hard on Mr Hide. You did not allow Mr Hide to raise issues with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that are relevant about the way in which financial transactions—
I have heard enough from the member. I am not being hard on any particular member; I am being hard in the sense of trying to ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with. The member asked a very broad question and the Minister was addressing that question—the exchanges were both broad; I accept that. We could rule them out of order, but I have not done so, because I think there is an element of ministerial responsibility in terms of the approach that has been taken. The Minister was responding with quotes on that, so that is the situation we have.
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could clarify for me, Madam Speaker, in relation to the premise of the question: since when was the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for the honesty and transparency of Governments in the Pacific?
The Minister has a responsibility about matters that relate to Pacific countries, and those matters in previous questions have also related to Government policy there. Of course, the member is right, in terms of the strict sense of that, that the Minister is not responsible. But in terms of the way in which the questions have been framed, I think they have so far come within ministerial responsibility in a broad interpretation.
Would the Minister not conclude that in the past week there has been a backward step in accountability, transparency, and honesty in the Pacific, because, to take an analogy, we have a Minister who tells the people that no donation was received from Simunovich Fisheries—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If Mr Peters can use an example—an unintelligible example, actually; Lewis Carroll would have been better—to try to answer his question, why cannot Mr Hide use the same process for getting an answer to his question?
Because the first question drew matters to a role that is outside the Standing Orders in terms of responsibility in question time. Analogies are used, and I know—
I am on my feet! Would members please just stick to the Standing Orders, both those asking the questions and those answering them—I have stopped both of you at times.
Would the Minister consider, with his vast experience of foreign affairs and the finance of political parties, that it would be a backwards step in a Pacific nation if a political leader and Minister were to deny ever receiving a donation when the newspaper in the capital city said that that member’s party did, and when, given the opportunity in the nation’s Parliament, the member refused to repeat the denial, because we have learnt from this experience in this far-flung nation of the Pacific that “No” means “Yes”, “Yes” means “No”, and he is an “Alice in Wonderland”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
That reminds me of nothing so much as the old English saying: “I shot an arrow into the air; whither it landed I knew not where”. You see, the kind of thing that we saw in the Dominion Post today is typical of a sleaze campaign. Let me tell members this. I take the story of Bob Jones. The only independent witness, Professor Malcolm Wright, said “One, I was not in the room; two, I was angry when I came into the room and found out that the subject had been raised; and, three, I was not present when there was any cheque paid out.” That is the story, gone and dusted. Mind you, it was in “Granny Herald”, of course, after 5 days of rumour and innuendo.
What would the Minister conclude about a far-flung island nation in the Pacific where a Minister was quite happy to deny political donations, but when asked in Parliament—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was hoping that a gracious providence would intervene, but I have to resort to asking you to do so. This is ridiculous, shameful, and disgraceful. No one should be allowed to make such an idiot of himself in this House.
People are free to present themselves however they like, as long as it is within the Standing Orders. Have you finished your oration, Mr Hide?
That is the problem. Be seated! You are turning this place into a farce, and it is not in the public interest to do so. Questions are to be short and succinct—not speeches—and answers are to relate directly to the question. We will have that now—a short and succinct question and a short answer, please.
What would the Minister conclude, if in the Pacific a Government Minister would go out in public and deny ever receiving a political donation, but would not make that denial in Parliament where it mattered?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Frankly, the ACT party should change its leader if that is the best it can do. The member has come to this House, he has not provided one shred of ammunition or evidence, yet he demands I give answers to allegations made by a fish-and-chip, throwaway newspaper, and a rather follicly-challenged, lying editor. I will tell members what that editor did about democracy. We had a candidate once, a doctor—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on where the answer is going here. It was a very succinct question from Rodney Hide, I thought, after your direction to him. The Minister is making no attempt to address the question asked.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I will. This doctor, a New Zealand First candidate, was accused on the front page of the Christchurch Press of rorting the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)—on the front page. I demanded an ACC inquiry, and 4 days later it exonerated him and said that rather than ripping off ACC, he had delivered four times the services.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This question was not about the editor of the Dominion Post—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I will—precisely: I am not going to respond to a dirty, underhand media campaign.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Peters was simply asked to respond to a legitimate question from Mr Hide that related to how he as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Pacific would view the activities of another Foreign Minister in the Pacific, who was prepared to say outside the House that he did not receive a donation but was not prepared to say so inside the House.
R Doug WoolertonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Oh yes, most certainly. Yesterday, I tabled a document, but I did not mention the man who signed it. His name was Sir Bob Jones. He was alleging that $20,000 was paid by him to the ACT party and never declared. Why would not one media person be interested in that? Well, the media has a spurious campaign going on against one party and its leader, which it is bound to lose.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Yes. I saw a coterie of New Zealand’s richest men secretly bankroll a political party in 1996, in a scheme set up to avoid disclosure of their identity and the amount of their donations. Over $2.8 million was paid into an undeclared trust now known as the Cargill Trust. This dwarfs—massively—any donations made to New Zealand First. But of course it went to the dwarf.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Most certainly. When it is alleged in an electoral court that push-polling took place by a whole lot of Exclusive Brethren and it is denied by legal counsel, but it is later admitted to by the very candidate who was a beneficiary of that, and who would not be here had that cost been put on to his account, then we are looking at perjury—a most serious crime for which one is capable of getting 5 years in prison.