Speech from the Throne—Political Integrity

Does she stand by her statement on 14 September 2005 when she said of her then Minister Taito Phillip Field that “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.”, or her statement last year on the release of the Ingram report when she said of Mr Field that “the report does not find wrongdoing by Mr Field”; if so, how does she reconcile that with her comments made earlier in the week when she said in relation to Mr Field’s behaviour that it was “immoral”, “unethical”, and “unacceptable”?

Gordon Copeland Link to this

The Labour Party has been clear all along that the behaviour was unacceptable.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was unable to hear the Prime Minister’s response, and I think we would be keen to hear it in this part of the House.

It is useful at this stage to remind members, unless we are going to have an enormous amount of repetition and people leaving the Chamber, that members should be given the courtesy of being heard, whether they are asking or answering questions.

Goff Hon Phil Goff Link to this

The Labour Party has been clear all along that the behaviour was unacceptable.

To what extent does the Prime Minister believe that public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process has been damaged by revelations of cynical political manipulation, outright lies, and treachery—as revealed by the book The Hollow Men— as being commonplace in the National Party caucus and leadership?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you may have noticed since you have been in the Chair that there is a division in this House—roughly one-third there, one-third, of course, at the back bench, and one-third over there. You will have observed, surely, that the volume of noise coming from some parts is in no way similar to that from this end of the House, where people on the whole listen to the questions and do not jeer during the questioner’s time for asking the question. That was a repetition of what we have seen in previous years. I will not point to any political party, other than to say that there is nothing special about those members that warrants their getting preferable treatment to that of members at this end of the House, where people in the main have been much more quiet in their behaviour and prepared to await the parliamentary process.

I thank the member. He is making the point again that there was a total disregard of my request that we observe freedom of speech in this House, which means that members can be heard.

Roy Heather Roy Link to this

The events the member referred to in the question of course cast doubt over the integrity in politics, and to my mind a measure of whether the National Party members can put The Hollow Men behind them will be whether they vote for campaign spending law reform.

How does the Prime Minister think it boosts confidence in this Parliament when she denies that Kiwi kids go to school hungry, denies our health service is sick, and denies that our justice system is not working?

I have never denied that some children go to school without food. What I say is that our schools get on with doing something about that.

Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement this morning in relation to Taito Phillip Field when she said: “When the word started to come out just prior to the last election of some of the practices in the office, obviously we were extremely concerned, and that concern has never gone away.”; if so, could she tell the House why she set up the Noel Ingram inquiry in such a way and with such terms of reference that she knew it would never be able to answer the questions, if she had such concerns?

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

I have said many times in the House that the inquiry looked at whether there was a conflict of interest for Mr Field as a Minister.

How does it help to restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament when the Leader of the Opposition promises to engage in further discussions around means of making monetary policy work better, then, when the heat comes on, claims he was merely being polite?

Of course, the series of flip-flops we are used to seeing from the Leader of the Opposition does nothing to enhance public confidence in him or his party.

Can the Prime Minister explain how her decision yesterday to start expulsion proceedings against Mr Field restores “public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament” when, for the record, she did not expel him when she thought he was “immoral” and “unethical” and she did not expel him when she thought he was “exploiting vulnerable constituents”; in fact, the only reason he seems to be getting expelled is that he had the audacity to challenge the Prime Minister and steal her thunder on the day she was delivering her speech to Parliament—which, for the record, was not worth the effort on his part?

Goff Hon Phil Goff Link to this

I think any reasonable person would say that the Labour Party had showed patience beyond endurance. That has just ended.

To what extent does the Prime Minister believe that political reputations for integrity in Parliament will be damaged by the publishing in The Hollow Men of an email from Exclusive Brethren leader Ron Hickmott, setting out in detail plans to spend $1 million to support the National Party, sent to John Key, when Mr Key later denied he had ever known anything about the plans?

The Government was always puzzled as to how Mr Key could remember not seeing an email. But whether or not he saw the email, the email addressed to both Mr Key and Dr Brash stated that the Exclusive Brethren had “enjoyed your presentation”.

This is a very general and broad question. However, I just remind members that we should come back to the essence of it.

Has the Prime Minister been in contact with the leaders of United Future and New Zealand First to discuss the changing nature of her Government support arrangements, and what assurances or undertakings did they seek now that they know they are being dragged into what could only be described as a coalition of the unwilling?

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

The leaders of both parties are well aware that, post-election, arrangements were set up that ensured the Government had a majority on confidence. Nothing has changed about that.

What does it do for the integrity of the political system when a member of Parliament registers his or her car at the address he or she actually lives at, but on the electoral roll has an entirely different address that happens to be in the electorate he or she was standing for, as Mr Key did?

As I said to members—[ Interruption] I am on my feet. If members wish to remain in the Chamber, they will keep quiet. As I said to members, although this question is a very broad one, there is no ministerial responsibility for that matter. Supplementary question, John Key—[]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect—

Please be seated, Mr Peters. I am sorry, but I did not see you. I did not hear your call. I did see and hear the call of the member John Key. You will be next.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

I am sorry, Mr Peters, but I have ruled on this matter. So let us proceed, please.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You can actually sometimes say: “I made a mistake and should not have called Mr Key, because he has already had four questions. Therefore, I seek to rectify my mistake.”—which I ask you now to do.

I have ruled.

Did the Green Party seek any additional demands of her Government when she contacted its leadership yesterday to reaffirm its abstention on confidence and supply?

No. The abstention agreement is based on both sides working together in the working agreement and cooperating on certain issues, and that continues.

On the question of public confidence and the integrity of Parliament, what are her views as to which is worse: allegations made about an MP that have been denied and are the subject of preparation for a possible court action in a country that believes that people are innocent until proven guilty, or the clear purchasing of party political policy and funding of campaigns disclosed in a book called The Hollow Men, which are yet to be denied by the National Party—which is worse?