2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement in July regarding the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “I’ve made it clear all the way through this round of allegations that I accept an honourable member’s word as his bond unless I have reason to doubt it.”, and does she consider, in the light of Owen Glenn’s statement to the Privileges Committee yesterday, that she now has a reason to doubt the word of Mr Peters?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, I stand by the statement, and I am aware of disturbing evidence given to the Privileges Committee last night, to which there is a right of reply.
Is it not clear that there is now enough evidence that Mr Peters has misled the public that, regardless of the Privileges Committee’s decision on the separate and narrow issue of whether or not Mr Peters should have declared a pecuniary interest, the Prime Minister should act to sack Mr Peters immediately?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Mr Peters may be the hardest person in the country to insist on due process for, but I do think that any reasonable person would agree that he has a right to reply, tonight.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Mr Glenn yesterday, in regard to a meeting they had in February 2008, in which he said “I also told her of my conversation with the Labour Party president, Mr Williams, before I agreed to make that donation back in 2005. It was my understanding Mr Williams would have to clear this with his colleagues.”; and does she accept Mr Glenn’s account of this conversation?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Mr Williams does not accept that version of Mr Glenn’s account. Frankly, I do not have reason to distrust my president’s word.
Peter BrownDoes the Prime Minister share New Zealand First’s concern that it is totally unethical for any leader of a political party to make statements day after day to the media, and to ask umpteen questions in Parliament—all with the assumption of guilt—about the substance of an issue that is before the Privileges Committee whilst the hearings are still in progress, and does she believe that that is turning the Privileges Committee into a kangaroo court?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I have on a number of occasions in the House expressed concern about the extent to which the comments of the Leader of the Opposition have compromised the position of his party’s members on the select committee.
Why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week, when asked whether any member of the Labour Party was involved in the process leading to Mr Glenn’s donation: “Mr Williams has been clear on the public record that he has not had such a role.”, when she knew from Mr Glenn that Mike Williams certainly did have such a role—or is this just another secret she decided to keep from the New Zealand public?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Mr Williams has been very clear in his statements that he did not act as any kind of facilitator for that funding. Further, I am advised by Dr Cullen, who was at the select committee, that Mr Glenn was also clear that Mr Williams had not been a facilitator.
Is it not a fact that in February 2008, when Mr Glenn told Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, that Mr Williams had known all along about the donation because he had sanctioned it, that that was not new news to Helen Clark, because she has four conversations a day with Mike Williams, and in the last 2½ years I am sure he has popped that into the conversation?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can absolutely assure the member that no conversation of that kind between Mr Glenn and Mr Williams was reported to me at the time.
Are the facts of the situation not that when the Prime Minister rang Winston Peters in South Africa in February 2008, she was not ringing him to ask whether he had accepted a donation from Owen Glenn—because she already knew that—but was ringing him to ask whether he had left a paper trail that would see both of them get caught, as they have been?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The member is really scraping the bottom of the barrel now—really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have been quite clear about why I rang Mr Peters. It was because Mr Peters was being reported as denying that he or his party had received a donation, when it was being suggested to me that he had indeed received one.
Is it not as simple as this: the reason the Prime Minister has not sacked Winston Peters for taking a donation from Owen Glenn is that she would be sacking Winston Peters for a donation that was sanctioned by the Labour Party?
Madam SPEAKERI am reflecting on the use of the term liar in the House, in respect of a person who is not here to be able to defend himself. Maybe the member would like to rephrase his question.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member cared to consult the transcript of yesterday’s Privileges Committee meeting, he would find me saying that as far as I am aware, nobody has called Mr Glenn a liar. I certainly have not. I have once, in this House, in the open, in answer to a question, said he was confused as to whether his donation was to New Zealand First or to Mr Peters. He was confused about that.
Rodney HideI think the easiest way forward is for Mr John Key simply to ask whether Helen Clark believes that Owen Glenn is telling the truth.
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As I have said today, I have given both Mr Glenn and Mr Peters the benefit of the doubt. I frankly would compare honesty on this side of the House any day with Mr Key’s, because we have yet to have any honesty about what he talked to Lord Ashcroft about, what he talked to the Exclusive Brethren about, what he talked to the Spencer Trust about when he was raising money, and what he talks to offshore merchant banks about when he is talking about flogging off the State-owned enterprises. Let us have some honesty from Mr Key.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that Owen Glenn’s lawyer, who was present yesterday and gave advice to Mr Glenn about how he should answer the majority of questions put to him by the committee, is none other than Geoff Harley who acted for Fay Richwhite during the wine-box inquiry?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
It is my understanding that indeed he was involved with the wine-box matter.
Does the Prime Minister think Mr Williams, who was described today by Owen Glenn as “wrestling with the truth over these matters” and “an unmitigated falsifier of veracity”, and who has previously tendered his resignation after making misleading statements about Mr Glenn’s financial relationship with the Labour Party, remains fit to be a person who is a director of four Crown entities and is earning a Government salary of $107,000 a year?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I think the comments made today are not atypical of the sort of hyperbole that flows when acquaintances fall out.
Does the Prime Minister agree with my advice to Winston Peters—that is, to take an oath tonight, expose himself to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act 1961, and tell the truth?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
My understanding of the requirement of those appearing before the Privileges Committee is that they are acting, in effect, as though they were on oath in a court.
Why did the Prime Minister not just simply tell the New Zealand public back in February that there were two versions of events, and that she could not reconcile the statements from Owen Glenn and the version of events by Winston Peters; why did she keep the New Zealand public in the dark for the last 6 months?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
That question was asked yesterday, and I replied as follows: I am not in the habit of going out and saying I had private conversation A and private conversation B. As far as I am concerned, that was at that time primarily a matter between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters, and Mr Peters and the news media.
Is it not a summary of events that 2½ years ago Owen Glenn checked with Mike Williams, who almost certainly checked with Helen Clark, that it was OK to give $100,000 to Winston Peters; that in February 2008, when Owen Glenn told the Prime Minister, she already knew about the donation and had known about it for a long period of time; that for 6 months the Prime Minister kept it secret from the New Zealand public, and the reason she has not sacked Winston Peters is that she is involved up to her eyeballs in that; and that what happened yesterday was that the truth jetted into town?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I do not believe there is a shred of truth in anything that member has said, and, frankly, from my knowledge of him, that would not be a surprise.