2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
On how many separate occasions did she discuss with the Rt Hon Winston Peters the issue of a donation from Mr Owen Glenn, and what responses did she get from Mr Peters that gave her the confidence to retain him as a Minister?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
I spoke with Mr Peters in late February, and on three occasions in July. On each occasion, Mr Peters assured me that neither New Zealand First nor he personally had received donations from Mr Glenn.
Can she confirm that Mr Glenn told her in February that he had made a donation to Mr Peters and/or his party, and that Mr Peters had himself asked for that donation to be made?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can confirm that Mr Glenn told Mr Mallard and me that he had met with Mr Peters in Sydney. We were certainly left with the impression that he had been asked for money, and that some time later he had been advised where to pay it.
Barbara StewartHas the Prime Minister seen any reports regarding confidence in the Rt Hon Winston Peters that would suggest that Mr Key has changed his position on this matter several times, from one allowing wriggle room to one of having no confidence in the findings of the Serious Fraud Office if it clears Mr Peters, yet he has said he wants to keep the Serious Fraud Office should he be in charge after the election?
Madam SPEAKERThe Prime Minister has no responsibility for the National Party or its views, but she can address the question as long as it does not address the views of the National Party.
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question is not inside the scope of the primary question, which was about the donation given to Mr Peters—the Owen Glenn saga as we now know it. It does not relate to all sorts of extraneous things that might arise out of it.
However, it does raise the important question of confidence, and that is what is used in the primary question. I looked at the question closely and it was on that basis that I gave the ruling. But the Prime Minister is not responsible for National Party views.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I am not sure it would be possible to answer the question without getting into that sort of territory.
Did the Prime Minister not think that because this issue involved her Minister of Foreign Affairs soliciting a large donation from a person who was seeking to become the honorary consul to Monaco, she should have taken more action than simply observing that there was a conflict of evidence; and that, in fact, she should have forced a resolution of this conflict back in February?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Of course, I did take action, and that involved phoning the Minister, who assured me categorically that he had never received money personally, nor had New Zealand First, nor had he asked for it. I must say that my assumption was that both men were honourable gentlemen and there may well be some innocent explanation.
Gordon CopelandWhy, when it become clear some 6 months ago that Owen Glenn’s advice to the Prime Minister that he had made a substantial donation was contradicted by Winston Peters, first to the Prime Minister, and then to the public of New Zealand, did the Prime Minister not take steps to determine the truth of the matter, since, given his position as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the issue had the potential not only to destabilise the Government, but also to negatively impact on New Zealand’s reputation within the international community?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As I said in my previous answer, I believe that both gentlemen are honourable gentlemen, and I assumed there may be some innocent explanation.
R Doug WoolertonHas the Prime Minister seen any reports regarding confidence in Winston Peters that would suggest that Mr Key has given away parliamentary questions in an effort to damage Mr Peters by proxy, to a member who went on to blatantly mislead the House by making outrageous claims of a TVNZ cover-up, only to find that the item that the member claimed TVNZ destroyed had been sitting on a shelf since January 2005; and what does that say about the credibility of Rodney Hide?
I repeat again, and then I will take Mr Brownlee’s point of order, that reports must relate to ministerial responsibility, and therefore they relate to the confidence that is in the primary question. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for other matters. So I would ask those members who may have already prepared questions to reflect on that ruling, because it may well be that their questions will have to be ruled out of order.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Obviously I have no responsibility for the way in which the National Party allocates its questions or supplementary questions. I can only observe that Mr Hide seems to have had rather more than what an ACT member would be due.
Was it not a sign of how serious this issue was, that the Prime Minister rang Mr Peters in South Africa to discuss it with him; if so, why, when she was unable to reconcile the two conflicting stories that were being told to her, did she not seek to resolve this matter rather than letting it drift on until it was discovered by the media?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Because as I said in response to an earlier question, I assumed that there must be some innocent explanation as both gentlemen are honourable gentlemen.
Did the Prime Minister or any of her staff or colleagues go back to Mr Glenn after she had discussed the issue of the donation with Mr Peters; if so, what was discussed with Mr Glenn?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Certainly, I have not been back to Mr Glenn. I do not know of anyone who has been back to Mr Glenn on this.
Does the Prime Minister not think she had an obligation to disclose what Mr Glenn had told her, when Mr Peters subsequently called his press conference on February 28 to deny that there was ever a donation and to wave around his infamous “No” sign?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
No, because I have assumed that both gentlemen are honourable gentlemen.
Does the Prime Minister accept that by failing to disclose what Mr Glenn had said to her at a time when Mr Peters was emphatically denying such a donation, and calling editors and senior journalists liars, and demanding their resignations, she made herself complicit in Mr Peters’ attempts to mislead the New Zealand public?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Absolutely not. It has been clear all along that there is a conflict of evidence, and both gentlemen are honourable gentlemen. One assumes there is some innocent explanation.
Does the Prime Minister think that after she raised the issue of a donation with Mr Peters, Mr Peters did enough to check whether Mr Glenn’s claims were true; if so, why?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
It seems clear to me that Mr Peters was very confident that no money had come to him personally and no money had come to New Zealand First.
Did she have any involvement in facilitating the donation from Mr Glenn to Mr Peters and/or New Zealand First?
Can she tell us whether any member of the Labour Party was involved in the process leading to Mr Glenn’s donation?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Obviously I have no responsibility for the Labour Party president or council in this House, but Mr Williams has been clear on the public record that he has not had such a role.
Has Mr Glenn ever told her about any other donations or offers of donations to politicians or to political parties in New Zealand, aside from those made to Mr Peters and to the Labour Party; if so, who were those politicians or parties?
How much confidence does she have in assurances from Mr Peters that he and his party have acted inside the law, in the light of revelations that New Zealand First appears to have breached the Electoral Act by failing to disclose funds received from the Spencer Trust?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
There are a couple of other trusts this House might be quite interested in breaking open, for example to see whether Lord Ashcroft, whom the member had the secret meeting with a few days ago, put in money through the Waitemata Trust and the Ruahine Trust. He seems to have paid for Crosby/Textor to help the British Tory Party; how about helping the New Zealand National Party through those means?
Does she consider that it is her obligation as Prime Minister to uphold the highest ethical standards in her ministry; if so, was she not obliged to sort out whether Mr Peters asked Mr Glenn for a donation way back in February, rather than to turn a blind eye to it, hold on to a key piece of evidence for 6 months, and let Mr Peters turn this affair into a circus?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As I have said, I consider both gentlemen to be honourable gentlemen and I have assumed that there is some innocent explanation.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
With reference to a meeting in Sydney, can the Prime Minister confirm that that meeting took place in, I think, August 2005; if so, has she received any credible explanation as to how Mr Peters could have asked for a donation to legal fees for an electoral petition arising out of an election that had not yet been held?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Mr Peters is emphatic that the only occasion he met Mr Glenn in Sydney was indeed in the August prior to the general election.