1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Racing; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.
Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement to the House yesterday in respect of Owen Glenn’s letter regarding donations to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which statement she said: “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.”; if so, why does she stand by that statement?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The matter has been referred to the Privileges Committee, which is in the middle of its consideration of that matter. There is a process there to be followed and to be completed. It is the clear intention, as I understand it, of all members of that committee that its report will be finalised and reported back to the House in time for that report to be debated.
Gordon CopelandIs it not now impossible to reconcile her statement to the House on 22 July: “Mr Peters has said he was not aware of who contributed to the fund for his legal fighting costs,” with the fact that Mr Glenn has said Mr Peters asked him for a donation in 2005; and if it is, as everyone else believes, now impossible to reconcile those two statements, will she now act to preserve the reputation of this House and of our country?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
It is my understanding that both Mr Peters and Mr Henry continue to assert that the approach to Mr Glenn for a donation was made by Mr Henry, not by Mr Peters.
In light of the Prime Minister’s statement today, in which she said she was advised by Owen Glenn that he had made a donation to New Zealand First and that she was advised in February, does she believe she misled Parliament yesterday when she said “it is somewhat futile for me as Prime Minister … to try to get into some kind of analysis of the evidence.” when it turns out she knew exactly the facts of the matter?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The last part of that question is an interpolation that does not rest upon fact. It is worthwhile—[ Interruption] Madam Speaker, did you hear that? I heard it quite clearly.
Madam SPEAKERWould the member please do so. A point of order has been taken for the comment to be withdrawn and an apology made.
John CarterHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I thank the member. The notion that it is all some kind of huge secret seems to ignore the fact that on Tuesday, 20 February, on the 6 p.m. news, Television New Zealand carried the story that some kind of donation had been made to the New Zealand First Party by Mr Owen Glenn. This was then followed up with a front-page story on 21 February in the New Zealand Herald, and that day Mr Glenn, of course, was attending the opening of the new business school at Auckland University, and the Prime Minister in the presence of Mr Trevor Mallard took the opportunity to talk with Mr Glenn and ask him whether in fact he had made a donation. He confirmed that he had made a donation, but it was not clear what to. New Zealand First—[ Interruption] Madam Speaker, this really is like the crowd outside Tyburn Tree in the 18th century, I have to say. It is very much like it. I am not going to go further, but I remind the House that Mr Glenn is confused over this. Mr Glenn wrote an email, which was flourished on the front page of the New Zealand Herald, stating that he made a donation to New Zealand First, and has written a letter to the Privileges Committee saying the donation was to Brian Henry’s fees account for Winston Peters’ legal fees. There is a difference between those two statements.
Why has the Prime Minister withheld from the Parliament and the public the fact that she has known about Owen Glenn’s donation of $100,000 to Winston Peters since Owen Glenn told her in February?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister knew that Mr Glenn had made a donation; and whether it was to a trust account, a fees account, New Zealand First’s account, or some other account is, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, lost in the mists of time.
Hon Dr Nick SmithHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am sure Dr Nick Smith can remember exactly what he was doing on 21 February this year, and might care to make a personal statement directly to the House to explain what it was. It could be very interesting, from some of the rumours that we hear about Dr Nick Smith. The reality is that the Prime Minister then rang Mr Peters, who was in South Africa, who said he had no knowledge of any such donation. Members will recall that on 28 February Mr Peters held up his famous “No” sign in that regard, and, according to Mr Peters, it was in July that he learnt about the donation. Nothing about that has changed.
Peter BrownWill the Prime Minister put the record straight and clarify something: is she aware of the excellent work the Rt Hon Winston Peters has undertaken in both the portfolios referred to in the principal question, and does she believe that it is fair and ethical for Opposition members—senior Opposition members—to make such wild allegations whilst this issue is before the Privileges Committee, which is made up, I might add, of some senior members of the Opposition?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There is no doubt that Mr Peters has served his country well as Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is no doubt there is a process in front of the Privileges Committee, and that that process should be followed through. I believe that Mr Key, Mr English, and others have placed their colleagues on the Privileges Committee in a seriously compromised position, because it is clear now that they are sitting there having prejudged the case.
Hon Peter DunneCan I ask the Prime Minister whether she, given the comments made earlier today about the Privileges Committee being able to do its work, will ensure, to the best endeavours that she can, that the committee is able to complete its inquiry and make its report to the House before the dissolution?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister does not control the Privileges Committee. It is master of its own destiny. As I pointed out to a couple of my colleagues on that committee—possibly at some risk of committing a breach of privilege myself—yesterday I raised the issue that with the House likely to be in urgency next week, leave of the committee will be required for it to sit before 9 a.m. on Thursday morning. I want it to seek that leave so it can complete its full 3-hour sitting time at that time. The members of the Labour Party on that committee want to see it complete its work.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that every time she has seen this picture on the TV in the last 6 months of Winston Peters saying the answer was “No”, she knew the answer was “Yes”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, I cannot, any more than I can confirm that Mr Key has ruled out a coalition with New Zealand First, because he only ruled out Mr Peters being in the Government, and did not rule out any other form of confidence and supply arrangement to prop up a National Government.
What trust can the public have in a Prime Minister who has led the media, the Parliament, and the public through a charade of weeks of questions and a Privileges Committee inquiry, while she has known the relevant facts all along, but did not reveal them?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is an assertion that is not based upon fact. As I said, the Prime Minister rang Mr Peters in South Africa, who clearly denied that he had any knowledge of that matter, and continued to do so, and the Prime Minister accepted his word on that matter. The Privileges Committee is not a charade; at least, it is not from the perspective of all the members other than those now, perhaps, from the National Party. But actually I do not think that it is a fair comment about Simon Power, or a number of other members on that committee. I would invite the member to think carefully before saying a Privileges Committee hearing is a charade.
Does the Prime Minister accept that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in particular, to ride roughshod over due process calls into question the ability and the competence of the members that the National Party has on the Privileges Committee?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think it is a little akin to what would happen if the Minister of Finance said that interest rates should fall. The Governor of the Reserve Bank would almost certainly have to make sure they did not, in order to prove he was independent.
Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that the only reason she has made this information available today is her fear that Owen Glenn would reveal it if she did not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No. The Prime Minister and the Labour members on the Privileges Committee would dearly like to have Mr Glenn actually present or on television videoconference for full examination. One could then weigh the credibility of the various statements that have been made.
R Doug WoolertonHas the Prime Minister seen any reports regarding confidence in her Minister that would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to run roughshod—sorry, I think that is the question that Mr Brown just read. However, Madam Speaker, there is another one.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I will murder somebody when I get back to the office. Has the Prime Minister seen any reports regarding confidence in her Minister that would suggest that the previous leader of the National Party has shown up the current leader to be weak and noncommittal, and, as the presenter of Close Up put it, “slippery” in his statements about post-election negotiations?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you think about how the question was asked, there is no ministerial responsibility for the Prime Minister, or for the Deputy Prime Minister for that matter, in relation to the question asked—finally—by Mr Woolerton. When he talks to his staff back in the office—
I am not sure about that, but I must say that if some members would lower their interruptions it would be a lot easier for the Speaker to be able to hear what was said. What I heard certainly was consistent with the Standing Orders, but, obviously, anything about another party’s policy cannot be commented on.
If you ask Mr Woolerton to read the question again—the right one—you will find that he did not ask for reports. He simply asked for comment.
Ron MarkYes, that is what I heard as well. I say to members these confusions arise when it is impossible to hear. There is much talk about freedom of speech—rightly so—in this House, and that includes the right to hear that speech.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have seen a number of reports. I have seen a report in which Mr Key stated he would rule New Zealand First out of a coalition, but then qualified that statement by saying that applied only to Mr Peters, and failed to rule out any other arrangement that would secure confidence and supply. The current Government does not have a coalition with New Zealand First; it has a confidence and supply arrangement.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr Peters’ denial that he received donations has turned out to be wrong, and that her denial that she knew anything about it has turned out to be wrong, so why should we believe the denial that the Labour Party arranged for this donation in order to secure the coalition arrangements with New Zealand First?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I will take the last part of the question first. What Mr Glenn said was that he made a donation to Mr Henry’s fees account to pay for Mr Peters’ legal fees in relation to an electoral petition at a point that was after the formation of the confidence and supply agreement. How, therefore, could it have been a payment to secure the confidence and supply agreement?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect when you get a chance and to look at the Hansard of that, because that implied corruption, did it not? [ Interruption]
And that is directly contrary to the Standing Orders—no member of this House shall imply that another member has acted corruptly.
Has the Prime Minister seen any reports regarding confidence in her Minister that would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to run roughshod over due process but lacks the courage of his predecessor, evident by his allowing himself room to wriggle out of his stance?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You know that there was unparliamentary language in that question. It cannot stand.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I point out that it was about lacking courage in that context.
Yes. I must say to members that I simply cannot hear. As such, the rulings have to be based on imperfect information in that sense. So it is in the interests of members to please tone it down. I ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary reference, then we will have the answer.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have certainly seen reports indicating Mr Key has prejudged the Privileges Committee process. This is most unfortunate because that committee has been given greater independence in the term of this Parliament by having a senior member of the Opposition as chair. As I have already said today, Mr Key left himself an enormous amount of wiggle room yesterday in terms of any future arrangements with New Zealand First.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is getting a little bit tiresome to hear Dr Cullen constantly threatening members of the Privileges Committee and suggesting that Mr Key has somehow abused the process. It was the committee’s decision—the committee’s unanimous decision—to release the information that led to various decisions by all sorts of parties yesterday, including the Prime Minister’s decision to confess today about her own involvement in this matter. I think it is inappropriate for you to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to continue with the line of threat that he is taking at the moment. No one sitting on that committee has breached any committee protocols whatsoever and we reject totally the suggestion that we have. Mr Key, based on public information, made a very sound judgment.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Sound or otherwise, the point is that he made a judgment, and that is Alice in Wonderland territory. It is not sentence first and then judgment.
Why should the public and Parliament believe that the confession made today by Helen Clark is all that she knows about these matters; will she make herself available to the Privileges Committee to answer all questions directly about her involvement in donations to the Labour Party and New Zealand First?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There is a specific matter in front of the Privileges Committee, and the committee is following through on that particular matter. It behoves all members of Parliament not to prejudge that outcome but rather to let the process proceed to its conclusion. The Prime Minister stated clearly on the basis of media reports that she was aware of possibilities, raised the issue with Mr Glenn, Mr Glenn said he had made a donation—not clear exactly to what—and Mr Peters denied that he had any knowledge of any such donation. That is where that matter rests, and nothing in that is inconsistent with all the material that is already in the public arena.
Does the Prime Minister understand how ridiculous her position now is, where she is trying to hide behind the Privileges Committee process—a process that would never have occurred if she had told the truth when she was asked?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I reject that accusation entirely. I do not think any member of that party should talk about telling the truth. We could go into that in a great deal more detail if Parliament had a few more months to run. I reject the notion completely that there is any kind of farcical aspect to the Privileges Committee hearing. The member is giggling because he thinks there is. I recall members doing exactly the same thing trying to convict Taito Phillip Field before there had been proper hearings in court.
If the Prime Minister is so concerned about telling the truth, did she tell the truth in this exchange on 25 February on 2ZB: “Presenter: ‘Do you believe that Owen Glenn gave substantial money to New Zealand First to help them pay their electoral spending bill?’ Clark: ‘Well, that—that’s a matter for New Zealand First to answer, isn’t it. It’s not a matter for me.’ ”; was that the truth?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Absolutely so. It was a matter for New Zealand First to answer. The Prime Minister had conflicting evidence. She, of course, took the word of her Minister. You see, the Prime Minister does not face the problem the Leader of the Opposition has—he cannot take the word of any of his front-bench colleagues on anything.
Rodney HideWhy has the Prime Minister allowed the office of Prime Minister of New Zealand to be trapped in the web of deceit and deception that Mr Peters has woven around this $100,000 donation, and therefore put the New Zealand Government—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether I need to go very far, but the question itself is out of order.
Yes, if the member could rephrase his question in a parliamentary way; the comments about deception and corruption are not appropriate in this instance—just ask the question of the Minister.
Why has the Prime Minister not upheld the standard that every New Zealander expects and been totally honest about what she knew, therefore avoiding the suspicion that there could be a web of deceit and deception?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister knew that Mr Glenn said he had made a donation of some sort to some account. The Prime Minister also knew that Mr Peters denied any knowledge of any such donation. Indeed, my understanding is that the story that led to all of that was not in fact about the Glenn donation, in any case—the matter that Mr Dail Jones was referring to.
Why did the Prime Minister reveal today the fact that she knew about the donation, and not at some stage in the 6 months since the event occurred?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister knew that Mr Glenn had said he had made a donation, and knew that Mr Peters had denied there was a donation. The Prime Minister has a lot of things to do in life.
So is it now the Prime Minister’s position that the reason she revealed this information today was that she was not busy; and she did not reveal it earlier, because she was too busy?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister had been told by Mr Glenn something, and told by Mr Peters something else, and that still remains the state of affairs, except for one key point: Mr Peters and Mr Henry are saying the same thing, and Mr Glenn is saying something different.
Why did the Prime Minister not reveal this information yesterday when she was asked in Parliament, and when she is bound in Parliament to give straight answers?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member would be quite unable to quote any Hansard where the Prime Minister did not give a straight answer to the question. The member would be quite unable to find any Hansard in that respect.