3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Has she been advised of the statement made by Mr Owen Glenn to the Privileges Committee, in regard to a meeting between her and Mr Glenn in February 2008, “I also told her of my conversation with the Labour Party’s President, Mr Williams, before I agreed to make that donation back in 2005.”; and does she agree that Mr Glenn told her that?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
The Prime Minister is aware of the statement and that he mentioned he had had discussions with Mr Williams—a fact that, of course, has been confirmed by Mr Williams.
Is she also aware that in August 2005—just prior to the 2005 election—Mr Glenn asked Mike Williams for his views on his meeting Winston Peters before Mr Glenn’s meeting with Winston Peters, and then, after the meeting was completed, Owen Glenn also contacted Mike Williams, and that this exchange occurred before the discussion about the donation itself?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I do not have those specifics, but, clearly, on a number of occasions Mr Williams and Mr Glenn met, because Mr Glenn was a donor to the Labour Party.
Why does the Prime Minister believe Mike Williams’ public statements that he had no role in arranging the Glenn donation, when he discussed with Mr Glenn his first meeting with Winston Peters before the election in 2005, and was also party to the discussion in December 2005, when the matter of a donation arose; and when Mr Glenn said that he made the donation only because Mike Williams approved it?
Hon Dr Nick SmithHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Oh, dear me! In relation to the August 2005 conversation, clearly—clearly—that conversation could not have been about the donation or the payment of money into Mr Henry’s legal account, because that money was to assist with the legal costs of an electoral petition relating to an election that had not yet been held. On the other matter, of course, Mr Williams states very clearly that the discussion with Mr Glenn on that matter was about whether Mr Peters had a chance of winning his electoral petition. Mr Glenn asserts the opposite. There is a conflict, in the same way that Mr Glenn claimed that Mr Williams had turned up unannounced at his French home, when Mr Williams was able to produce an email showing that he had been invited by Mr Glenn to come to that home.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is it not a fact from the evidence—because the evidence is somewhat important—that Mr Glenn was interested in seeing me because he found me to be “a very interesting man”, a view widely shared around this country; and that was before the election, and, therefore, nothing to do with party funding was confirmed as being part of the conversation, at all?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That is my understanding. Indeed, Mr Glenn, I think, made that particular part of what Mr Peters says quite clear. He obviously takes an interest in New Zealand politics and was particularly concerned to ensure that a National Government was not elected.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the facts are that before the election in 2005 Owen Glenn had asked Mike Williams for his views about Mr Glenn meeting Peters, that after he had that meeting he let Mike Williams know he had had the meeting, and that in December 2005 they were having brunch together in Sydney only minutes before Mr Glenn rang Mr Peters to confirm a donation of $100,000; yet we are expected to believe that Mike Williams, who had expressed strong views about Winston Peters’ winning the Tauranga electoral petition, had no role at all in arranging, or helping, or assisting the donation that Owen Glenn made?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member may continue to write stories if he wishes. For example, to take just one element of that story, he claims now that Mr Williams told Mr Glenn that Mr Peters had a very strong chance of winning the Tauranga electoral petition. Mr Williams has never said that. Mr Glenn has never said that. But Mr English chooses to interpret that, because it joins the dots up better from his perspective. What we do know is that Mr Glenn made a donation to the Labour Party. That was publicly declared at the time, unlike the $2 million for the National Party that was funnelled through the Waitemata Trust.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Prime Minister not see the incongruity of the last question against the facts, for if it is Mr Williams who is raising the question of money, why am I being accused by the National Party, the ACT party, and every clown in the press gallery of being the one to raise money?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I think what is fair to say here is that the National Party is simply trying to repeat a kind of St Valentine’s Day Massacre. It is simply trying to ensure it lines up all its enemies against the wall before opening up the machine-gun.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the circumstances may need—well, do need—a full explanation, when the period from August to December 2005 covered the whole period when the Labour-led Government put together its coalition, and the facts are pretty straightforward that the president of the Labour Party was discussing with Labour’s largest donor issues around his meeting Mr Peters and, later on, making a donation to Mr Peters; and when will the Labour Party give a full account of all exchanges regarding party finances between Mike Williams, Winston Peters, and Owen Glenn at a time when Labour was making a coalition agreement?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member is continuing to interpret the facts as he sees them. Those are not the facts demonstrated in the public arena. The only facts that we do know are that Mr Key was acting as a bagman for the National Party, Mr Key had links with the Exclusive Brethren, the National Party got over $2 million of funding in anonymous donations through a trust, and Mr English and Mr Key call for transparency about party political funding.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
In the light of that last question, is it not a fact that Mr Glenn came before the Privileges Committee, and that for the periodbetween 12 August and 14 December, although he had accurate records in some respects, he had no records whatsoever of the type that would back up the assertions made by Mr English, the ACT party, and certain uninformed members of the press gallery?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
It is a fact that Mr Glenn failed to produce evidence in support of some of the assertions that he was making. It is also a fact that since he left the company of his lawyers, his tongue has become looser and looser and his claims more and more outrageous.