1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement today that she has “no basis” to remove the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ ministerial warrant; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
What the Prime Minister actually said earlier today was that the proceedings of Parliament’s Privileges Committee last night provided no basis for her to remove Mr Peters’ ministerial warrant today.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that one of her roles is to supervise the application of the Cabinet Manual to her Ministers, which says that at all times Ministers are expected to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards; and, by refusing to sack Mr Peters, is she telling the New Zealand public that she believes that he has, at all times over the last 6 months, behaved in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
One of the very highest ethical standards that any Prime Minister should seek to uphold is the rule of law. That means going through proper process.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that at the heart of this controversy is a donation of $100,000 to a senior Cabinet Minister or his party, that over a period of 6 months that donation has not been adequately explained, and—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. One would expect parliamentarians to understand the importance of words. The claim made in that question is patently and absurdly false. Mr Glenn has now made it very clear—although his emails at the time said otherwise—that he did not pay any money to New Zealand First. So that is the first count. The second one is that he admits that he has never paid any money to me, either. That is the second point. The third point is that the issue is about whether he paid it to a lawyer’s account.
Madam SPEAKER
Hon Peter DunneI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That exchange raises an issue that has been troubling me for some days. It relates to the exchange of information in this House about matters that are material to the deliberations that the Privileges Committee is now embarking upon. I would be grateful for your advice, Madam Speaker, as to the extent to which the general debate in this House about the broad swell of allegation is limited by, or influenced by, the proceedings in the Privileges Committee. Members of this House who sit on the Privileges Committee are hearing all of this, and at the same time are hearing the evidence and trying to reach a fair and balanced decision.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I do have great sympathy with what the member says, but the reality is that evidence that is given to a select committee in an open meeting is able to be referred to. The House has never in the past constrained its ability to refer to that kind of evidence. What cannot be referred to are the proceedings that are going on within the committee—the deliberations of the committee on matters where the committee has not been in open session.
It is my understanding that these matters have actually been raised in open session, so therefore it is acceptable for the House to refer to them.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that one constraint on her ability to act to enforce the Cabinet Manual, which requires Ministers to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards, is that her own behaviour has not upheld or been seen to uphold the highest ethical standards?
Did the Prime Minister, in the course of her phone call with Mr Peters in February after the meeting with Mr Glenn, mention her conversation with Mr Glenn in which he told her that he had made a donation; and if she did not tell Mr Peters that Mr Glenn had told her he had made a donation, why did she not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister certainly recollects raising with Mr Peters the issue of whether a donation had been made; whether that donation was to New Zealand First or for any other purpose was not clear at the time. Mr Glenn would make certain allegations. The Prime Minister certainly does not recollect whether she mentioned to Mr Peters whether Mr Glenn was responsible for raising that matter in that form, but she accepts Mr Glenn’s assertion in that respect.
Is the Prime Minister now telling us that, having been advised by Mr Glenn that he had written out a cheque for $100,000, she did not mention that particular fact when she spoke to Mr Peters?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I just said the Prime Minister accepts Mr Glenn’s statement in that regard—unlike Dr Nick Smith, who apparently has a perfect memory of everything that has happened in his life, except during the 2 weeks that he was deputy leader of the National Party. What has been completely forgotten in this debate so far, time after time, is the context in which this occurred: the story, both on television the previous night and in the New Zealand Herald that morning, that Mr Jones had indicated that an anonymous donation of “somewhere close to $110,000”—I think that was the phrase—had perhaps been given in relation to the Auditor-General’s requirement for New Zealand First to repay $158,000. The context was not in any sense or form any kind of payment made to Mr Peters’ lawyer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Can the Prime Minister, having seen the 21 February public relations firm email, confirm that Mr Glenn distinctly refers to the words “New Zealand First” and that that is most likely what he told her—an allegation or claim that was easily rebutted?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
That indeed is what that email says, although, of course, Mr Glenn tried to claim to the Privileges Committee that he had no recollection of the context around the Auditor-General’s requirement of a $158,000 repayment—a claim about as credible as his statement that he paid Mike Williams large sums of money, apparently to buy KFC for hundreds of Pacific Island people in Māngere.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the record of evidence shows that Mr Peters has a clear recollection of the account of their conversation in February—
Taito Phillip Field Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that we are so focused on being accurate and truthful in everything that we say, I tell members that I distinctly recall, from listening to the news last night, that the KFC story referred to Manurewa, not Māngere.
Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Peters’ account of their conversation in February, when he said: “The PM checked with me after the Glenn business school opening, and I told her the newspaper claims were not true. She did not mention any conversation with Mr Glenn, as I recall.”; and, if she does not agree with that account of the conversation, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have discussed that matter with the Prime Minister. She does not agree with that particular part of Mr Peters’ statement, but that does not change the general thrust of the discussion.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is it important whether one actually recalls that, given that one’s own party had presented the person who was being phoned in Africa with the statement of the allegations being made, so that whether Mr Glenn was referred to is not a matter of great moment—I already knew that from the newspapers?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Quite so. Indeed, I can say further that if Mr Glenn’s claim that he told the Prime Minister that a $100,000 donation had been paid into Mr Henry’s account is correct, the Prime Minister, I can assure the House, follows up on such specificity with very specific questions to Ministers.
Is the Prime Minister now telling us that having heard startling information from Mr Glenn, namely that a $100,000 donation had been made, our supposedly forthright and brave Prime Minister then rang Mr Peters but did not mention to him that the person who wrote out the cheque had just told her he had written it out?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
If the member had listened to either of the answers I gave him on that matter, he would know that I was not making that claim at all. The member is always reading his prepared questions and does not listen to the answers.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Does the Prime Minister not think that words are important and need to be accurate, and that Mr Glenn’s statement in 21 February’s email that the money was being paid to New Zealand First was surely something that could be easily checked, as could the statement, made today on Nine to Noon by Mr Bill English, that I am being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and the police—a demonstrable falsehood?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Words are important and also the context. For example, Mr Glenn’s claim that the donation to the Labour Party was made because he was concerned about the activities of the Exclusive Brethren clearly is demonstrably false, because the donation was made before anybody, other than those in the National Party, knew about the Exclusive Brethren’s support for the National Party.
Is it not a bit odd that, given the Prime Minister’s responsibilities under the Cabinet Manuel to make sure that all Ministers are seen to uphold high ethical standards, she had a conversation with Mr Peters just after she had been told by a donor that he had written out a $100,000 cheque and she did not ask Mr Peters about it; and does that indicate she was more concerned about upsetting Mr Peters than she was about getting anywhere near the truth of the matter?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very, very clear from the facts—Mr Glenn’s facts, in fact—that the words were “to New Zealand First”. Mr English, an experienced parliamentarian, sits there and just keeps on ignoring them.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member continues not to listen to answers and then to ask completely misleading questions. The context on 21 February was in terms of the $158,000 Auditor-General’s determination against New Zealand First, as Mr Glenn himself said in an email on 21 February, that very day, in terms of a donation to New Zealand First. The fact is, therefore, that that was the context of the conversation. And the Cabinet Manuel does not apply to New Zealand First; it applies to Ministers.
On which date did the Prime Minister then first tell Winston Peters that she had been advised that Mr Glenn had told her he had written out a $100,000 cheque; or was she so scared of upsetting Mr Peters that she never quite got around to it?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The member continues not to listen. I have no knowledge of whether Mr Glenn told the Prime Minister that any kind of cheque was for $100,000. I very much doubt whether Mr Glenn wrote out a cheque. If he did, I do not know why he was asking for the bank account number of Mr Henry; the technology has moved somewhat on from those particular days. That is one particular point we might get right. But more than that, I do not know whether Mr Glenn mentioned a specific amount. He did tell the Prime Minister he had made a donation. That donation on that day was clearly in the context of the Auditor-General’s determination, and that was, according to Mr Glenn, in his own words, a donation to New Zealand First.
Rodney HideI ask the Prime Minister whether her deputy, Michael Cullen, advised her that Winston Peters’ performance last night was credible and convincing; if not, is it her intention to keep Winston Peters on as a Minister until election day?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I can tell the member that the advice I gave the Prime Minister was indeed the same advice that Mr Power has given the country, and that is that further evidence is being called for, and the conflict of evidence remains unresolved. The Prime Minister, who believes in due process, therefore is not taking any further action until that evidence is heard. The member may believe that he is prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, but that kind of multitasking is not welcome in a democracy.
Is the Prime Minister aware that today the Reserve Bank has described the outlook for the economy in terms that include slower trading partner growth, further house price falls, falling employment, the ongoing effects of high interest rates, and the reduced availability of credit to household and business sector activity; and can she confirm that her Government, which is mired in scandal—.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether the member has picked up the wrong question here, but this has nothing to do with the primary question.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that because of her own actions in hiding the facts from the public and her own indecision about whether she has a basis to remove the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ ministerial warrant, her Government, which is mired in scandal, has been paying no attention to the serious economic issues that this country faces, and between now and the election it is unable to do so, because the Prime Minister is ethically compromised?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No, not at all. What I can say is that the Opposition has spent weeks asking questions about this issue, and not one of its members has had the guts to stand up and ask the Minister of Finance about the state of the economy at any stage during those weeks.
Can the Prime Minister confirm the now widespread rumours that the reason she will not sack Winston Peters is that he might go feral on her in the same way that Owen Glenn has done, and he knows where the bodies are buried?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I welcome Mr English’s confirmation that Mr Glenn has gone feral; that does not make him a good witness.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I wish to table two documents. One is a statement from Donald Hamish McIlraith, who is the chairman of New Zealand Bloodstock and who was the host to Owen Glenn at Karaka. It confirms entirely my evidence before the select committee.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You said “No objection.”, and then the member shouted “Yes!”. He is too late.
That is true, actually, if we go strictly according to the rules. I called it, then the member said “Yes!”. Members know that is why we are meant to have silence during points of order—so that one can clearly hear about the matter to be tabled. That was done on that occasion.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters said he was tabling an affidavit, or a document, that will confirm his entire testimony. I do not believe that to be true.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is that document to be tabled then?
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The second document I seek leave to table is an article by Nick Venter on page A2 of the Dominion Post today, where it says Rodney Hide asked a young woman to move from her seat so he could sit behind me—his hero.