10. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Is she aware of rule 2.81 of the Cabinet Manual that states, “To avoid creating or appearing to create an obligation, gifts in cash or kind are not to be solicited or accepted from a commercial enterprise or any other organisation, either in New Zealand or overseas.”; and does she advise her Ministers that having their lawyer solicit and seek funds for their personal legal bills avoids “creating or appearing to create an obligation”?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
I am aware of paragraph 2.81 of the Cabinet Manual. I would, of course, note that the manual is not a rule book; it provides guidance. I advise all Ministers to act in ways consistent with that guidance.
Does the Prime Minister then believe that Mr Peters has found a way through paragraph 2.81 by having his lawyer, Mr Brian Henry, solicit and obtain funds for Mr Peters’ legal bills on his behalf, and that as long as Mr Peters does not know who was putting in the $100,000, he is still acting consistently with the Cabinet Manual?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I repeat that the Cabinet Manual does not set out rules; it sets out guidance. Secondly, the member has no basis for the allegations that he has just made about money for legal fees. Thirdly, I point out that Mr Brian Henry has stated publicly now on at least two occasions that everything he knows about funding electoral petitions like this one he learnt when he was involved in the National Party electoral petition for Wyatt Creech, after the 1987 election.
Has the Prime Minister asked Winston Peters whether he knew that Mr Brian Henry was soliciting and receiving funds on Mr Peters’ behalf, as Brian Henry has said he was doing, and has she asked also on what date Mr Peters learnt that his legal bill had been reduced by $100,000; if not, why has she not asked Mr Peters those questions—is she concerned about the answers?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
No, I have not asked those questions. The matter is clear to me. Mr Peters has advised me that he was advised late on Friday of the source of the money going to his lawyer. He had not known the source of that money before then. I believe that Mr Peters, like other sensible party leaders, keeps a great distance from the issue of soliciting funds.
Madam SPEAKERLet us have something to look forward to here in the House. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister is consistently and wilfully dodging the questions that Mr Copeland and I have been asking, by saying that Mr Peters did not know about the source of the donations. My question specifically asked whether Mr Peters knew that money was being solicited—not the source of the donations, but the fact that the money was being solicited.
I have listened very carefully. The Prime Minister, like all Ministers, is required to address the question. However, Ministers are not required to give the answer that members want to hear. The Prime Minister addressed the question.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
In light of the questions asked by Mr Rodney Hide, did the Prime Minister hear an interview this morning with the former leader of the ACT party, the Hon Richard Prebble, and can she contrast the nature of the statements made by Mr Prebble with those made by Mr Peters on those matters?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have certainly seen the transcript of the interview, and I heard it myself. As I take it from the interview, Mr Prebble was very careful as a party leader not to know of, or be involved with, the soliciting of donations for his legal defence costs. That seems to me to be pretty similar to what my understanding of Mr Peters’ position is.
The member will please be seated. As members well know, and as I have explained in the past, there is a market in supplementary questions. I have to be notified beforehand, and I have been notified, so Rodney Hide has an extra supplementary question.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and we can still look forward to another one tomorrow. Does the Prime Minister believe that Mr Peters knew that Brian Henry, his lawyer, was seeking funds to pay for his electoral petition against Mr Bob Clarkson, and does she believe that Mr Peters knew that the bill had been reduced by $100,000?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I cannot be expected to have any insight into those matters. What I do know is that Mr Henry has made it very clear that the way in which he has operated in respect of this electoral petition is exactly the way the National Party taught him to operate in respect of the 1987 one over the Wairarapa electorate.