Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) Link to this
I move, That this House—
(1) resolves that the action of Hon Matt Robson in respect of his statement in his email newsletter “ Robson-on-politics”
(2) orders that Hon Matt Robson make an unqualified apology to the House, and that this be read by the Speaker when received,
(3) orders that Hon Matt Robson make an unqualified apology to Hon Peter Dunne and that this apology be published in his next “ Robson-on-politics”
On speaking I hope relatively briefly to this report, since the motion is lengthy and largely self-explanatory, and in the unavoidable absence of the chairperson of the Privileges Committee, Simon Power, it falls to me in my lofty role as deputy chairperson of that committee to present this report. The Hon Matt Robson made certain statements in his email newsletter on 1 November, to which the Hon Peter Dunne took exception. The committee was of the unanimous view that a fair and reasonable person reading those comments would conclude from them that Mr Dunne had, in effect, been improperly influenced by financial support from the liquor industry to cast his vote in certain ways within the House. There was, in the committee’s view, no doubt that that constituted a contempt, and warranted an apology from Mr Robson, both to the House and to Mr Dunne.
I will make two comments. Understanding as I do Mr Dunne’s strong feelings on the matter, I would raise, nevertheless, whether in all circumstances members need to bring such matters before the Privileges Committee. I have a feeling that if most of us listened to talkback radio during the day we would get very tired writing letters of complaint of privilege to you, Madam Speaker, given what passes for normal debate these days on much of the media in that respect.
Secondly, I wish to note that unfortunately Mr Robson has made further comments since, about the committee’s conclusions, which I think at the least can be described as not necessary, and unwise. I simply ask, given certain other duties that I have to perform at this stage, that I hope we will not in fact see him back before us on those particular matters, so that we can simply give them the passing ignorance that perhaps they deserve.
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
I think the deputy chairperson of the Privileges Committee has outlined very well the case that was brought against Mr Robson and the reasons for it. I just add to it by saying that to some people it may look at first glance as if this were a relatively trivial matter, and a matter that perhaps should not have occupied so much time. But the reality is that it goes right to the heart of the ability of members of Parliament to carry out their parliamentary duties, not only as constituent representatives but also as legislators in this country, free from the accusations of any who would like to bring them that they are somehow under the direction or employ, or in the service, of bodies that are outside this particular institution.
If one were to read the comments made by Mr Robson in a broad sense, one would see that the allegation was that Mr Dunne was not a free individual but was in some way encumbered by those who were funding his political party. Of course, although we read that and immediately know it to be untrue, and give it no real moment for consideration, the fact that someone makes that allegation impinges upon the freedom of members of Parliament to go about their business. So it was appropriate for the Privileges Committee to consider this matter, and I think the requirement on Mr Robson to make his various apologies is a minimal position we could have reached but is in this case appropriate. I am disappointed that he has decided to reflect publicly upon the processes of the Privileges Committee; I think we could have expected more of him, given that he is a former chair of that committee. But we on this side of the House certainly support the findings of that committee and are very pleased that the matter was brought before the committee. We accept, as Dr Cullen has said, that it is not necessary to pick up on everything anyone says, but I point out that the reality of this was the very specific allegations of some encumbrance on Mr Dunne that were simply untrue.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnātātou te Whare. It seems we are here to consider a question of privilege on a matter of contempt committed by the Hon Matt Robson against the Hon Peter Dunne. He alleged that the liquor industry’s support for Peter Dunne, as with that of the tobacco industry, has always meant that Mr Dunne has faithfully delivered for that industry’s interests.
Today the Privileges Committee has recommended that Matt Robson apologise to the House and to Mr Dunne for his remarks. But the real offence here is the issue of alcohol and tobacco sponsorship, its impact on the health of our nation, the influence it has on our politics, and the question of whether we are serious about dealing with the damning and destructive effects of alcohol and tobacco abuse. If we are, then we must accept that effective control will mean breaking the power of the tobacco industry, going cold turkey on its filthy tax dollars, and having the courage to stand up to those whose products kill by design.
Let me take this, my first, opportunity to stand in the House this year to put on record my congratulations to my whanaunga Tau Henare, his beautiful wife, and the equally fabulous Paula Bennett on taking up the challenge to stop smoking and on successfully kicking the habit. I would hope that the rest of the smokers in the House will take up the challenge also to provide leadership in the fight against tobacco addiction, because ours is not only the role of passing legislation but also the role of leadership by action.
Madam SPEAKERI am sorry to interrupt the member. I rise with some hesitation to interrupt, but this debate is on the Privileges Committee report; it is not a general debate on tobacco. So I ask the member to draw in his speech to the matter before the House please.
I am doing so, in fact, Madam Speaker, because this is not the first issue by which this matter has been raised, and Matt Robson’s was not the first comment made about this kind of activity. I understand that a comment was made earlier. I refer here to an article on the Action on Smoking and Health website that included a statement in 2001 from the Prime Minister, no less, that Mr Dunne had consistently picked up issues in support of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. So I am making the point here that it is not the first time the issue has been raised, and neither is it a criticism just of Mr Dunne. Last year, in fact, National’s associate spokesperson on health Jonathan Coleman got his nose punched for being a bit of a dick with a cigar while dancing the light fantastic with British American Tobacco at the U2 concert.
I note also criticism of the Government itself, because in December 2005 we learnt that all five Crown financial institutions in Aotearoa had invested in tobacco companies. That is kind of sad, because we have a Government that is wringing its hands about tobacco illnesses, insisting on signs in shops saying that smoking kills, and putting horrific pictures on cigarette packets, and, hello, it is propping up the industry that is killing us all. I say this because it is important that we realise that this is right across the House. Matt Robson’s comments have simply highlighted a problem that is affecting parties right across the House.
A note to the Minister who is responsible for tobacco, Mr Damien O’Connor—does he know that this is the only product that when used exactly according to the instructions will kill someone? A note to the Prime Minister—does she know she was investing taxpayer dollars in companies that kill nearly 5,000 Kiwis every year? A note to the Minister of Māori Affairs—does he know that smoking is killing more Māori than anyone else, and that his Government is paying for it? These issues are important because, sooner or later, everybody in this House needs to come to terms with the issue of Governments taking tax duty from tobacco. It is something that was raised by the Associate Minister of Health himself Mr Damien O’Connor. He said last year that he was aware of the contentious issue and that it was one of the dilemmas we continue to work through today.
Today is a great day to start to resolve that dilemma. Last year the director of the Smokefree Coalition, Mark Peck, said: “Government must show leadership on ethical investing and refuse to profiteer from addiction, disease, and death.” This year Dalton Kelly of the Cancer Society was calling for tobacco to be taken off the counters—out of sight, out of mind.
I am sorry to interrupt the member again but comments have to be relevant to the motion. The member is broadening into a general debate in this area. Could he please confine his comments to the Privileges Committee report.
The matter of the influence, or otherwise, of the tobacco and alcohol industries on politicians in Aotearoa is what brought this matter of contempt to the House. The Privileges Committee is determined that Matt Robson, and the general public, show respect for the sanctity of Parliament. I respectfully wish to add that that respect would be greatly enhanced if the matter at the very heart of this debate, the influence of tobacco money on Government decision-making, was dealt with once and for all. The Māori Party supports the call for respect for the institution of Parliament and the integrity of its members. But we also applaud Matt Robson for his passion in trying to highlight the undue influence of industries that have destroyed so many of our communities and killed so many of our people. As for privilege, I will consider it a privilege to be able one day to stand with all others in this House when we finally ban these companies of death from the shores of Aotearoa. Kia ora.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
First, I thank the Privileges Committee for its consideration of the complaint that I made. I also say that I am naturally gratified by the conclusion it has reached. I now await the receipt of both apologies. I make no comment on Mr Robson’s comments yesterday, and I certainly do not intend to take any further action in respect of them, as the Minister of Finance may have feared. I think he stands condemned by his own comments in that regard, and no further action is required.
I simply want to make one further broad point about why I raised the complaint in the first place. It was not raised lightly, and it is certainly not the case that every time someone is subject to criticism he or she does not like, that person should run off to the Privileges Committee. But the allegation that was made went to the heart of one’s integrity in this House. We come here as free members, exercising our free minds in making decisions on the issues before us. The implication contained in the statement made by Mr Robson was that in the case of—I think, from memory—the lowering of the drinking age, my mind was anything but free and was the captive of some others. That is the essential contempt that I took exception to.
Mr Harawira is partly right in what he says. It is not the first time the issue has been raised. In fact, 10 years ago I took a similar complaint to the Privileges Committee over comments made by Action on Smoking and Health at that time. The point I want to draw from that, which is not the point the member who preceded me made, is that an unfortunate intolerance is developing in the public health sector to debate on these issues. I simply say to those groups, which are entitled to their strong views, as I am to mine and others are to theirs, that in progressing their cause they should not assume that those who have a different view are somehow acting as the agents of others. It is too easy an accusation to fly about. Although I do not intend to continue raising matters of this type, I give notice that if future allegations of this type are raised that impugn my integrity, I will be back before the Privileges Committee. I think it is possible to have a reasonable debate on these issues, without descending into personalities.
The final point I would make is that I have been involved in alcohol control policies for probably longer than anyone in this House. My involvement goes back nearly 30 years, and my views are formed not by prejudice but by looking always at what works and what does not work. Our record has not been a good one, many of the measures we have adopted over that time have not worked, and I will not be silenced in saying so.
I thank the committee for its careful consideration of the case. I say in due modesty that I think it came to the right decision, and I now await the outcome from Mr Robson.