2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs; if so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Has the Prime Minister seen the letter released by the Privileges Committee from Owen Glenn earlier today that directly contradicts public statements made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and will she be sacking or standing down Mr Peters as a Minister as a result of those clearly contradictory statements; if not, why not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have seen the letter. I have seen the response from Mr Peters. I am aware the matter is before the Privileges Committee. I await the outcome.
Has the Prime Minister personally asked Mr Peters today for an assurance that he did not ask for, or know of, the donation of $100,000 from Mr Owen Glenn, in light of Mr Glenn’s clear, written statement given to the Privileges Committee, which states that Mr Peters did exactly that?
Has the Prime Minister seen the statement in the letter—released by the Privileges Committee this morning—from Owen Glenn in regard to a payment from him of $100,000, which states: “The payment was made by me to assist funding the legal costs incurred personally by Rt Hon Winston Peters MP concerning his election petition dispute, at his request. Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation, some time after I first met him in Sydney.”; if so, does she accept that this statement is a direct challenge to the credibility of Mr Peters’ earlier denial of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the solicitation of that $100,000?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Yes, I have seen that statement and I have also seen the refutation of it by Mr Peters. The matter is before the Privileges Committee. There is clearly a conflict of evidence, and I await the outcome of the committee.
Has the Prime Minister seen the statement in the letter from Mr Glenn, in that “Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales, I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.”; if so, does she accept that this statement is in direct challenge to the credibility of Mr Peters’ earlier denial of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the solicitation of $100,000?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
There is clearly a conflict of evidence on this issue, which is before the Privileges Committee.
Maybe the Prime Minister would like to answer this: if she accepts Mr Peters’ version of events over Mr Glenn’s, she is in effect saying to a person whom she gave a new year’s honour to, and that her party accepted $500,000 and a $100,000 interest-free loan from, that he is a liar?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
That is a ridiculous statement. There is clearly a conflict of evidence.
Dail JonesIs the letter to which reference has been made an unsigned letter that would never hold up in a court of law; that could have been sent to the Privileges Committee by a public relations firm, for all we know; and that does not conform with Mr Glenn’s usual form of writing, I understand, which has his letterhead and his signature on it and also his title?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Certainly the copy of the letter given to the Privileges Committee is not signed. I have drawn no conclusion from that, one way or another.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Does the Prime Minister accept the implicit assertion by Mr Key that a person who makes a statement that is subsequently demonstrated to be incorrect is a liar; if so, what does that say about Mr Key’s view of Maurice Williamson, Bill English, and Kate Wilkinson?
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that Mr Peters’ version of events—that he had no knowledge of and was not involved in the solicitation of the $100,000 from Mr Glenn—is completely at odds with the statement that Mr Glenn made to the Privileges Committee, that on that basis both of them cannot be right, and that if she is accepting Mr Peters’ version of events, she is saying to a man whom she was happy to accept half a million dollars from for her party and was prepared to give a new year’s honour to that he has lied to the Privileges Committee?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I repeat, those assertions are ridiculous. There is a conflict of evidence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Given that the allegation made by the New Zealand Herald on 12 July was that the money was paid by Owen Glenn to New Zealand First, is it not a fact that the letter before the committee now says precisely the reverse—that it was not?
Has the Prime Minister seen the statement, also by Mr Glenn, that said: “I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party, in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.”; and can she tell the House just who in the Labour Party would have given Mr Glenn this impression?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
If the money was paid over, according to Mr Henry, barrister, on 22 December 2005 and the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and the Government was signed on 17 October 2005, is there not reason to have some doubt as to the veracity of the statement made in that letter?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
These matters are before the Privileges Committee. I really think that it is somewhat futile for me as Prime Minister and not sitting on the committee to try to get into some kind of analysis of the evidence.
Gerry BrownleeCan the Prime Minister tell the country, if Mr Peters cannot give any greater assurances than the one he has given her today, but Mr Glenn is quite prepared in writing to state the facts of the case as he sees it, what her actions will be as a result of that?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
It should also be noted that Mr Peters has put in writing his understanding of the facts. If there is any joke around here, it is the National Party, which does not believe in a process of the Privileges Committee looking at the evidence. If the death penalty applied, Mr Key would be hanging people before the trial was finished.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
So that we can dissect and dispose of these allegations, one by one—the second one was one of fraud—is there any evidence in Mr Owen Glenn’s letter that suggests any such thing as fraud at all?
Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement yesterday that she would accept Mr Peters’ word “unless something arising out of the Privileges Committee or some other appropriate authority suggests I should not do so.”, and if a letter from Owen Glenn stating everything that is opposite to what Winston Peters said is not something out of the Privileges Committee that should suggest to her otherwise, what on earth would be?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The letter is to the Privileges Committee; it does not arise from it. Unlike Mr Key, I prefer to wait for the outcome of a proper process.
Rodney HideDoes the Prime Minister think it is a good look for her Government—or, indeed, for the country—for her Minister of Foreign Affairs to question the veracity of a statement made to the Privileges Committee by Mr Owen Glenn, who was described at the committee by Brian Henry as “a very honourable man”, especially considering this man was recognised by her Government this year with the New Zealand Order of Merit? He has given millions of dollars to many good causes in New Zealand, albeit he has also given some hundreds of thousands of dollars to some very shonky projects—$500,000 to the Labour Party, an interest-free loan of $100,000 to the Labour Party, and $100,000 to Winston Peters’ legal fees—and what does he get? He gets shunned, and the veracity of this man’s word to Parliament is questioned by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Is that all OK?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That long ramble could surely not be a parliamentary question.
Madam SPEAKERPlease be seated. No, I have said time and again to all members that the questions should be succinct.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Indeed, the shonkiest allegation I have seen this week is that from the former ACT member of Parliament, Deborah Coddington, who said that the Asian chapter of ACT paid the legal expenses for the party to get rid of Donna Awatere Huata so that one of the chapter’s members could come into Parliament.
Does the Prime Minister think it is a good look for the work of the Privileges Committee to be prejudged by the leader of the National Party in the House today; and will the Prime Minister take any action to have those members of the National Party removed from the Privileges Committee, bearing in mind that the evidence before the committee so far is on the basis of an unsigned letter from Mr Glenn, a signed letter from Mr Peters, an actual physical appearance by Brian Henry, barrister at law in New Zealand, and a physical appearance before that committee of the Rt Hon Winston Peters?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Mr Key’s behaviour would suggest that the National Party has indeed prejudged the case, and they may wish to think better of that.
Does the Prime Minister recall that earlier this year it was actually Mr Owen Glenn who came forward and gave the information that it was he who gave the $100,000 loan to the Labour Party? Guess what? It turned out to be correct. So why would the information that Mr Glenn has given to the Privileges Committee, which contradicts everything that Winston Peters has said, be incorrect?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
For the umpteenth time, there is conflict of evidence and the matter is before the Privileges Committee.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
If Mr Glenn remembers a meeting in Sydney at which there were certain discussions that relate to the electoral system in this country, yet the meeting was over the Bledisloe Cup weekend in August—well before the election—what does it suggest with regard to whose recollection may be true or false?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no way that question can be within the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister of New Zealand has absolutely no responsibility for the recollection of Mr Owen Glenn. She does have responsibility for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but that is not what the question was about.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The member is 100 percent wrong. First of all, the Prime Minister is apprised of the reference to Sydney by Mr Owen Glenn, and by me as to the date of it, which, unhappily for the National Party and Mr Hide, was before the election.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
No, it was not. Good try. [ Interruption] This is a point of order.
The member will sit down. The primary question was a very broad question. The supplementary questions that have flowed from it have been equally broad, but I think the member has raised a good point. We should keep within the parameters as to the primary question although, as I said, it has been broadly canvassed on a variety of issues. The right honourable Prime Minister, I ask you to address the question if you can.