Madam SPEAKERI have also received applications from the Leader of the Opposition and Rodney Hide to debate the resignation of David Parker. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and I agree that it requires the immediate attention of the House. The application is therefore accepted. Dr Brash lodged this application first, so I call on him to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am interested that you say Dr Brash lodged his first. What time did he lodge his application with your office?
The member can come and look at it at the Table. As I recall, it was a day or so ago. I am quite happy for the member to come and look at the correspondence.
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Yesterday David Parker resigned as Attorney-General, saying that he was ashamed that over each of the last several years he has lodged false documents with the Companies Office. This morning he resigned his other ministerial positions. I say at the outset that lodging false documents at the Companies Office does not make Mr Parker an unmitigated crook and it does not make him an inherently evil man. Although I do not want to impugn the integrity of anybody else in this House, let me be so bold as to suggest that there are one or two other people in this House, potentially on both sides of the House, who may have been inadvertently guilty of lodging a false document with the Companies Office—though, probably not for 8 or 9 years in a row—but for a lawyer to make a false statement is a serious matter. Lawyers are the professionals we depend on in our society to ensure the accuracy of the documents that they sign. They should not sign documents knowing them to be false under any circumstances. For the most senior law official in the land, the Attorney-General, to have done so not once but on several occasions, is a serious matter. Mr Parker was right to tender his resignation. I commend him for that.
Two questions now arise. The first is: why did David Benson-Pope not take a similarly honourable course and tender his resignation after the police found a prima facie case that he had bullied pupils in his care while he was a teacher and—arguably, at least as serious—after it was clearly established a few weeks ago that he had misled Parliament last year when he claimed that in all his years as a teacher he had never had a complaint lodged against him? Surely, he should have tendered his resignation and, equally surely, Helen Clark should have accepted that resignation. Helen Clark was quick to accept David Parker’s resignation. She was quick to accept Lianne Dalziel’s resignation when Lianne Dalziel admitted misleading the public about the case of a Sri Lankan immigrant. She dismissed poor Dover Samuels for allegations that were swirling around. She dismissed Taito Phillip Field. She dismissed John Tamihere. She suspended Harry Duynhoven. She dismissed Marian Hobbs. She dismissed Phillida Bunkle. She dismissed Ruth Dyson. But she did not dismiss David Benson-Pope for what even she admits was an error of judgment.
The second question is: what next for Mr David Parker? If he is tried and convicted under section 377 of the Companies Act on the grounds that he lodged false documents with the Companies Office, it raises serious questions about his ability to remain as a member of this House. But if he is not even prosecuted, even more serious questions arise. How come Labour Ministers always seem to be above the law? How come the police found a prima facie case that Helen Clark had forged a painting but they decided not to prosecute? How come the police prosecuted a civilian driver and five police officers for racing through South Canterbury at breakneck speed, with Helen Clark in the back seat, and they did not prosecute Helen Clark when Helen Clark was clearly the person ultimately responsible for that incident? How come the police find a prima facie case against David Benson-Pope for bullying a pupil in his care but decide not to prosecute? How come the police find a prima facie case against the Labour Party for failing to show a Labour Party authorisation on the pledge card—[Interruption] I say to Trevor Mallard, how come the police failed to find a Labour Party authorisation on the pledge card, which was the centrepiece of the Labour campaign, but then decided not to prosecute? How come the police failed to find a case against the Labour Party for overspending the limit established by the Electoral Act when the Chief Electoral Officer and the auditor of the Labour Party’s expense return both agree that Labour overspent the limit by almost 20 percent if the pledge card is to be counted as election spending?
And, yes, establishing a prima facie case does not mean proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But as Scott Optican, associate professor of law at Auckland University, has noted: “A prima facie case means there is enough evidence so that a jury, instructed properly as to the law, could find on the facts that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”, or as Gary Gotlieb, President of the Auckland District Law Society, has noted: “Prima facie means there is a sufficient case for the accused to answer.” In other words, establishing a prima facie case means that there is at least a presumption that the charges should be fully aired in court.
I do not claim to have evidence of political interference in the decisions of the police, but these cases do raise very serious questions. The questions are even more worrying when we reflect that, over the same period, the police prosecuted not one but two members of the National Party caucus—and for what? In one case the prosecution was for an offence that Parliament itself had decided should not be an offence. In the second case, the offence was so trivial that the judge himself said at the preliminary hearing that the matter should—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you turned down one letter asking for an urgent debate. I think that the member might have picked up the wrong set of notes.
The second action taken by the police against one of my National Party colleagues was for an offence so trivial—
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you please ask Mr Mallard either to leave the Chamber or to desist?
This is a debate, but—[ Interruption] The member is on his feet and he has raised a point of order. I just ask everyone to calm down so that we can hear what the member is saying.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an urgent debate around a specific matter. A letter has been written on that specific matter: the resignation of Mr David Parker. I assume that there are some rules of relevance around the debate—that what we are debating is the resignation of the Minister and the reasons for that, and the implications of that, perhaps, for the Government. We seem to be debating a quite different matter. As my colleague implied, we seem to be debating the matter that was turned down for debate, in part. We are traversing now almost every issue except the issue surrounding Mr David Parker—perhaps because, as the member said at the start of his speech, the matter over which Mr Parker has resigned is one on which a number of members might find themselves exposed, and perhaps the National Party does not want to talk about that particular matter at any great length. [ Interruption]
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The member himself said that, actually, as members opposite would know if they bothered to listen to their own leader—he said it. The point I am making is that this debate is about a specific matter, and this matter is not now being debated. The Leader of the Opposition has wandered out of the paddock, around South Canterbury, and goodness knows where else. We have yet to arrive back at the ministerial office.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The leader of the National Party seeks your protection from proper examination by other members of Parliament as to the quality and quantity of his debating. With the greatest respect, I have never before seen someone who leads a political party being unable to carry the debate without the protection of the Speaker. [ Interruption] National Party members can hiss all they like—
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The plain fact is that this is a robust debating chamber with a certain historic character—[ Interruption] This is a point of order, by the way, Madam Speaker.
Yes, it is a point of order, and there will be an opportunity for further discussion on it, but I ask the member to stick to the point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
My point is that we should not change the rules of this Chamber just because someone cannot hack it.
I have two points to make on that point of order. Firstly, Madam Speaker, I ask you to recall that the Prime Minister herself stood up in this House and asked for silence when she mounted a defence of the Hon David Benson-Pope. Secondly, it does seem interesting that the Labour Party does not want Dr Brash to apply some scrutiny to the fact that Mr Parker acted honourably and resigned when he got caught but that everybody else in the Labour Party—as long as they deny that it ever happened, even though the whole world knows it did—manages to survive. That is the hallmark of a corrupt Government. I am not surprised that Trevor Mallard does not want that matter discussed here today and that Michael Cullen wants to defend him for trying to prevent the discussion. There is nothing wrong with Dr Brash’s contribution to this debate. We know that it is hurting the Labour Party—otherwise its members would not be here in such numbers looking so very glum.
I thank all members for their contribution to the debate through a point of order. I rule, however, on the initial point of relevance. The debate does have to be relevant, so it should concentrate on Mr David Parker. But it can be put in the context of referring to other related matters, although these must be supplementary to the central issue.
I was making the point that if Mr Parker is not prosecuted for his offences, it raises some very serious questions. There has been a succession of incidents in recent years where Labour Party Ministers and the Labour Party itself have been found—guilty is too strong a word. But there have been incidents where a prima facie case, to be answered, has been established. A prima facie case has been found again, again, and again—“paintergate”, speeding through South Canterbury, David Benson-Pope, and now the police case last Friday. I was making the point that over the same period during which those events were occurring the police took action against two of my colleagues. I made the point that the first action was for an offence that Parliament itself determined should not be an offence, and the second action was for an offence so trivial that the judge himself said it should not have come before the court, and the prosecuting attorney said he was undertaking the prosecution on instructions from a higher authority.
That is what happened to the National Party, whereas, with the Labour Party, somehow the police found a prima facie case but say that, on balance, they will not prosecute. It is crucially important, as the old adage has it, that justice not only is done but is seen to be done. No member of the public can yet assess how serious Mr Parker’s offences are. Nobody can make that assessment. They may be much less serious for New Zealand’s long-term future than Mr Parker’s failure during his short tenure as Minister of Energy to recognise the seriousness of the electricity shortage now facing New Zealand, with spot prices at a level that are leading some major producers to cut back on their production. They may be much less serious for New Zealand’s long-term future than Mr Parker’s failure during his short tenure in the role as Minister of Transport to bring Transit to heel and ensure that New Zealand’s roading crisis is resolved in a timely manner. They are almost certainly much less serious than the difficulties he had dealing with the climate change questions, though, to be fair, he was not responsible for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. That was done by the new Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues.
What should worry all New Zealanders is that the Labour-led Government is so desperately short of talent that Helen Clark has had to recycle into the portfolios from which Mr Parker has resigned men who have failed in those portfolios previously. Pete Hodgson is the new Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. As Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, it is Pete Hodgson who carries responsibility for the appalling blunders around the Kyoto Protocol, for the “flatulence tax” proposed and abandoned, for the carbon tax proposed and abandoned, for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol itself in late 2002 ahead of many of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, and for the assessment that participating in the protocol would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the New Zealand economy. He is the man who ridiculed critics who questioned his judgment on that but now has to admit that the cost to the New Zealand economy will be many hundreds of millions of dollars—as an optimistic assessment. He is the man back in the climate change portfolio.
Pete Hodgson is the new Minister of Transport. But, again, he was the Minister of Transport previously and, in many ways, is much more to blame than David Parker, who held the portfolio for a short period of time only. Trevor Mallard is the new Minister of Energy. It is hard to know who is most to blame for the mess in that sector. He was Minister of Energy in the period prior to the election, but only for about the same time as David Parker since the election. He certainly did not set any sensible new course for the energy sector, and we will hold him fully responsible for any shortages of electricity we have this winter.
So they are a very tired bunch, and the loss of just one man from Cabinet makes it clear just how desperately short of talent the Government is. In fact, it is a tired Government and an increasingly arrogant Government that is repeatedly dependent on the police and Crown Law not choosing to prosecute them, despite prima facie breaches of the law. Unless we get an early election, we face a very bleak 2½ years.
DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
I would like to explain to the House the circumstances surrounding my resignation. As I summarise it, the Investigate magazine article that came out yesterday effectively accused me of three things: firstly, that I swindled Mr Hyslop out of his money and caused his demise; secondly, that I attempted to bribe him; and, thirdly, that I filed inaccurate returns to the Companies Office. In terms of the first two allegations—that I swindled Mr Hyslop somehow and attempted to bribe him—I categorically reject those allegations and I will return to them. On the point of annual returns, that is different. I accept I have made a mistake and that is why I have resigned, and that is an issue I will return to as well.
In the early 1990s I retired from legal partnership to pursue business interests. I became involved in four ventures that involved Russell Hyslop, none of which succeeded. In relation to three of those ventures, I was left carrying the burden of sorting them out following Russell’s bankruptcy. I did so to the best of my ability. It took about 3 years. The outcomes were not what anyone desired, least of all me, but I made the best of what was a bad situation. I only just stayed afloat myself. Indeed, I contemplated taking the easy way out by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy myself and letting someone else sort out the mess.
I decided not to do that, and managed to avoid it at the suit of other people only by working very hard. I returned to work full time as a lawyer, while also attending to the resolution of the failed ventures. At the same time, I was involved in other ventures that were succeeding. I sold all but one of them, which at the time was not of great value. I ploughed all of my earnings into dealing with the consequences and keeping my head above water. I looked at selling my own house, but it was fully mortgaged to the bank and would not have released any money to creditors.
I have never hidden my failures. I succeeded before and after my dealings with Mr Hyslop. I never denied my share of the responsibility for the things that went wrong. I certainly shouldered my share of the burden of managing them when they went wrong, and I believe I acted honourably. Russell Hyslop looked for other people to blame following his demise. He is wrong to say that I caused his downfall. He made allegations of wrongdoing after his bankruptcy. The official assignee looked into the allegations before deciding not to pursue them; and he looked into them in some detail. The official assignee had three options. The first was to pursue the allegations through the office of the official assignee. The second was to allow Mr Hyslop to pursue the allegations himself. The third was to determine that no further action was warranted. To avoid any suggestion of bias, the official assignee in Dunedin referred the matter to the Christchurch office. The Christchurch office decided on the third option, which was to determine that no further action was warranted.
In terms of the allegations of bribes, Mr Hyslop distorts what happened. I never offered a bribe. I did try to reach agreements with Mr Hyslop, and I give an example. One of the developments the company had was a subdivision of land in Dunedin. It was obvious to me, if not to Russell Hyslop, that he was insolvent and that in due course he would lose his house in terms of bankruptcy. I wanted to help his family by obtaining a section on to which he could have moved a house— from another property that the company owned—that was scheduled for demolition or removal. That could have been achieved legally and at comparatively low cost. That did not proceed. Indeed, the land was sold, as one lot prior to subdivision, to another developer with whom Mr Hyslop was involved. That relationship soured too, and Mr Hyslop and he are now embroiled in litigation.
I also note that the events that surround the allegations of bribery now all happened prior to Mr Hyslop’s bankruptcy and if there were anything to those allegations, I would have expected they would be dealt with at the time. I lay all those events out, otherwise I will be accused of hiding them.
After 3 years I started again. I could go on further and tell members about all the details prior to those 3 years, but I do not have time. However, after those 3 years I did start again and I rebuilt my life. I re-entered business and I succeeded, and I am proud of what I achieved. Public office does expose one to criticism and the picking over of one’s life. If one has made mistakes, there are plenty of critics ready to stand in judgment, always looking to find the disgruntled and to dig up events that would not otherwise come to light.
I came into Parliament almost by accident. In 2002 I stood in a safe National seat and although I fought hard to win, I thought it was likely that I would lose. So I avoided asking myself the question of whether I really wanted my life to be picked over in the way that politicians’ lives are. But I was elected and I have always respected what politicians are supposed to achieve here. So I stayed and I have contributed. I am 46 years old. I have achieved quite a bit in my life, in business but also as a member of the wider community. I have made my mistakes and I can assure the House that I feel my mistakes so much more acutely than I do my successes. I learn from them. But I have never hidden them. Indeed, at times, I have almost advertised them.
In terms of the annual returns members might ask how this came to pass. It seems silly. Well, Mr Hyslop was a shareholder and director and he went bankrupt. The official assignee took no interest in Mr Hyslop’s shares in the company, because they were worthless. The affairs and conduct of the company were left to me. For the first 2 years I sent the relevant resolution to the official assignee before I filed the annual return. Yesterday, going from recollection, I said that I did that once. It now appears I did that twice. In subsequent years I cut a corner and I did not put the form to the official assignee. Why did I do that? Well, in my mind the official assignee, who stood in the shoes of the bankrupt, Mr Hyslop, had no interest in the company. I did not think about the issue clearly enough. If I had, the consequence I now face would have been easily avoided.
I am told there are bound to be other members in the Parliament who have made similar mistakes. That is probably true, but how I respond is a matter for me. I have always thought that my business record would be thrown at me here and I have always been ready to answer those criticisms. The allegations about annual returns did surprise me. It was so easily avoided and I kick myself for not avoiding it. After it was raised yesterday, I quickly formed the view that I should resign as Attorney-General. I thought I saw a fair line between that portfolio and my other ministerial responsibilities, but the questions that journalists asked me caused me to reflect on that overnight. I think they were right. So following the Westminster tradition that I believe in, I resigned my other portfolios this morning. I will join the back bench and I will work hard on the difficult issues this Parliament always grapples with.
I shall respond to one other issue raised by Dr Brash, concerning standards of law being upheld. I do believe that the same standards of law applied to others are applied to parliamentarians, and that is how it should be. In terms of Mr Benson-Pope, who really believes that Mr Benson-Pope should be hauled over the coals for his actions as a teacher all those years ago? Incidentally, he continues to deny those allegations of wrongdoing, as is his right to do. If a member should be hauled over the coals for his or her actions all those years ago, where does it end? If it ended as Dr Brash would like, really would this country get the politicians it needs? I do not know that it would.
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
I begin by acknowledging the comments made to the House this afternoon by the honourable David Parker. When a member speaks in the House his word is to be taken, and the National Party accepts David Parker’s word and the comments he has offered the House this afternoon.
I reiterate the points made by Don Brash when he started the debate this afternoon. There is no question as to whether David Parker is a bad man. There is no question as to whether some further pernicious action should be taken against David Parker. But there is a real question about the integrity of this Government, when, as we have just heard, a Minister can come to the conclusion on his own that he should not sit in a Cabinet and should not be part of ministerial decision-making, at least for a time, because of an action that was taken some time ago, albeit inadvertently or mistakenly. David Parker walked out saying that he was not fit, that he needed to be rehabilitated, and that he was going of his own volition. He accepted that the standard he was accused of, or had set, was not acceptable.
That contrasts very sharply with the Prime Minister, who asked her secretary to paint a painting for her. She then signed the painting and said that she did it—that it was hers—and continued to say so until she was outed. She was investigated by the police, she was found to have committed fraud prima facie, and she then weaselled out of it by saying that others were doing it and why should she not get away with it. Then we have the Prime Minister apparently in a hurry to get to the rugby. She put no pressure on the police, because they do not interfere in operational matters. She did not say to the policemen that they needed to catch that plane at a particular time and that they would have to go a little bit quicker across the Canterbury Plains. No, she sat in the back of the car, apparently unaware it was doing speeds of up to 160 kilometres an hour. I have to say in her defence that if I were sitting in the back of a car with Jim Sutton I would think that time had stood still as well. However, the police set up barricades from one end of the island to the other, the car flew through the countryside like a rocket, and the Prime Minister sat back and said that it had nothing to do with her. Five policemen and a civilian driver had to go to court. They got punished and their reputations were snotted all over the place, but the Prime Minister did not accept one iota of responsibility herself.
Then there is the latest debacle where $446,000-plus of the leader’s office funding, which is under the direct authority of the Prime Minister, has quietly slid into the Labour Party election coffers. The Prime Minister says that she did not know about it. She had no idea, it was not her, she was not responsible, and she will not own up. That repeated behaviour stands in stark contrast to the honourable David Parker and the way in which he has handled this situation.
When will someone point out to the Prime Minister that we have a case here of the two Davids? One is the favoured and one is the vanquished. It is OK to lie to Parliament, apparently, but it is not OK to make a mistake on a defunct company return. Well, as a nation we will be in severe trouble if we keep tolerating this sort of nonsense from the Prime Minister. It is time that people start to ask her to be accountable. That is when we will see the shaking starting.
We notice today that the portfolios David Parker was given just 6 months ago have quietly gone back to the people who had them before that. Remember the carbon tax? That was Pete Hodgson. He was the genius who told New Zealanders that we would make money out of the Kyoto Protocol. He was the genius who said that a carbon tax would be good for them, and he was the Minister who got the boot because the Prime Minister backed off. I want to know where the Prime Minister is setting her goals, given that she told the House today that New Zealand has a great future in burning coal for energy and that she has a Minister who has long been on the record as saying “no way”.
Then we look at the interesting appointment of Trevor Mallard as Acting Minister of Energy. He is the guy who sat with that ministry for over 9 months last year, and who presided over what will be cold, long nights for New Zealanders this coming winter because he sat on his hands. Today he tried to tell us that because there is conflict in the electricity industry—the generators, the Electricity Commission, and Transpower have all got big issues going on with one another—we are better off than we have ever been before. Well, when the cold nights come it will be Trevor Mallard who bears the price.
Then, of course, the role of Attorney-General has gone to Michael Cullen. Well, we will see how that goes. Michael Cullen is not a lawyer. We know that he has in the past expressed views—I am going down a track I will not go—that relate to judicial appointments that, I think, are quite despicable and quite inappropriate.
But one can see the real problem the Labour Party has when one looks at its back bench. I want to know when Ross Robertson will be made a Minister. Why can he not be in Cabinet? I want to know when the great white hope, Shane Jones, is going into Cabinet.
Hon Tau HenareHe must be. I want to know when they are going to bring George Hawkins back, because he was a very capable Minister in comparison to Mr Hodgson and his debacles, Mr Mallard in his non-attention, and Dr Cullen’s lack of interest in the portfolio.
There is also, of course, the wider issue of how the Labour Party will present this particular situation to the public, because at the end of the day the public are not silly. My call would be that most people—most fair-minded New Zealanders—looking at this situation and reading the report tomorrow on David Parker’s comments to the House today will see that this guy has acted pretty honourably. They will ask themselves how it is that Helen Clark can justify doing so very little about her own situation and so very little about Mr Benson-Pope’s situation, and how she can justify trying to tell New Zealanders that if she does something it is OK. Remember those great words that by the very definition a Prime Minister cannot leak? Do members remember that? Let us just extrapolate that out a bit. What the Prime Minister was really saying was that by definition she cannot break the law. That is what was implied by Helen Clark, that is what is meant by Helen Clark, and that is, of course, what she is now hoping New Zealanders will turn their eyes away from.
I want to reserve my last comments in this debate for the Rt Hon Winston Peters—a man who used to have a lot of promise, a man who readily now leaps to the defence of this rotting Government, and a man who stands up in the House day after day extolling the virtues of Helen Clark and her co-Ministers. All I can say to Mr Peters is that he should get out the cheque book, he should write a cheque for 40 grand, and he should post it to Bob Clarkson, MP for Tauranga.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Link to this
I want to say to Mr Brownlee that, unlike him, I have spent some money in my career on things I believe in, not once but countless times, and I have counted it as an honourable and professional thing to do. Whereas Mr Brownlee has never spent 5 cents on any matter of principle, ever, other than himself, I have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on great causes—and most of them I have won.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to concede to Mr Peters that that is true: he has spent thousands of dollars on issues that he believes in—and, what is more, there are bar owners all around this country who would agree with him.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
No, no. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. That is a personal reflection, under Standing Order 116.
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely, in fairness, you would note that that same Standing Order should have been applied to Winston Peters when he started the nonsense lines in his speech earlier.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Can I just say to that honourable member that when a point of order is being heard, that is done in silence. It is a courtesy to other members.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
The fact of the matter is that if that member of Parliament cannot take it he should not dish it out. He had hardly got back to his feet and dropped to his knees when he was exposed as the sham he is—the pretender to the throne of the National Party, who is about to be deposed by his back bench. That is what will happen; I know that party. The leader of that party will be Tau Henare. The leader of that campaign will be people like Nick Smith. Members should watch them. They are up against a grindstone already. They just cannot wait.
I think that what David Parker did today was a very honourable thing. It is far too infrequent in this House, and in that respect it is almost unique. He said that he had made a mistake and that he wishes to pay the price for it. I think it is a terrible price, frankly, because one could come to the view, as a lawyer, that someone adjudged a bankrupt has no right to be involved in any management of a company, at all. That is a simple legal principle—that anyone adjudged a bankrupt is not entitled to be associated with the management of a company.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I have not finished, but I could talk about Fiji, of course—which is where that member went to take part in what was a totally corrupt investment programme. He was paid a whole week’s salary to stay in a bure—which included lodgings and food, day and night—and never declared any of it. That is the truth. He will not answer any questions about the people who lost tens of thousands of dollars. And who was that for? It was for a man who is currently in jail in the United States. That is the kind of Shylock and charlatan he associates with. He is the same member who left his taxi book in a taxi one night and then claimed it was in a restaurant—
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
No, no, he left it in a taxi. Members can imagine how that would happen. Then he claimed it was in a restaurant, so I have to assume that the taxi was in a restaurant! But it was in a taxi, and for a whole month the staff went home on the taxpayer. Did he say anything? No. Did he declare a loss? No. When he was found out he rushed to try to rectify it. But he still has not apologised for his attempt to cover up.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
No, no, my point is this: by way of comparison, David Parker’s course of action was more than honourable.
Rodney Hide, of course, is the exact opposite in every respect. He is a man who leads a political party that has falsified its tenancy returns for the last 3 years in this Parliament. Is that true or false? Ah, I know what the member is thinking. He is thinking he got away with it. I am sorry but that is tomorrow’s news, and there will be more about that later.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Could I just bring members back to the debate.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
I want to tell David Parker that I hope he comes back as a Minister, because I think he has ability. I think he has integrity, and I think, frankly, that though the papers should have been filed, and they should have been filed with a resolution that was unanimous, one could easily have come to the opinion, as a lawyer, that a bankrupt individual in whom the official assignee had lost interest was not a requirement for that unanimity. It is not a great sin in that respect—not like the ones I have seen over there on the Opposition benches on so many occasions in my political career.
Oh, yes, I saw those people cover up the wine-box inquiry. Day after day and month after month they tried to cover up hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud. Yet people like Mr Brownlee have the audacity to get up in this House and spout as though they are now somehow the paragons of virtue. Have members seen the likes of it? And there is not so much as a blush on his face.
Darren HughesRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
Yes, who on earth would believe the National Party when it comes to that?
There is also the example of the man who went off to court and it was found that he had not told the truth.
Hon Dr Nick SmithRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
National members seem to have trouble with the English language. Do they know what a bauble is? I want to tell them, and I want to tell those in the ignorant press gallery, as well. Let me tell people in the ignorant National Party and the literarily untrained press gallery that a bauble is a trinket not worth having—so of course we do not want those. Sometimes, as the English say, the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. The joke is on both those groups of people.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
On behalf of the Green Party, I say that I am disgusted and sickened at the way the business of this House for days, weeks, and months has been diverted from the serious issues facing this country into mudslinging and character assassination. We have become a Star Chamber, and McCarthyism is alive and well. It is the last resort of a desperate Opposition that has no ideas and no policies to attack individuals through character assassination.
The disappointment of Opposition members was palpable today when David Parker did the honourable thing so quickly that they could no longer use all the questions they had laid down in question time for the purpose for which they had laid them down. They suddenly had to do a lot of research on the electricity situation and various other things because they could no longer use their questions to try to lampoon the Minister, who had just resigned.
Failure to report accurately to the Companies Office is not trivial. It does reflect on the office of Attorney-General, and I think it is commendable that David Parker took only hours—less than a day—to reach that conclusion and to tender his resignation as Attorney-General. But I think he has been too hard on himself in assuming that it disqualifies him from being the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, on which he was starting to make a real impression.
I ask other members in this House to reflect seriously on how many of them have never done anything that they regret. How many people in this House have never done anything in their lives that they would be ashamed to have dragged in front of this House, exposed for scrutiny, and exaggerated by other members? How many of them have never broken the law in any respect whatsoever? I think that if people were honest about this, they would realise that we are pretending to set up parliamentarians in some kind of glass cage as people who must be perfect in every respect, so that we can have enormous fun dragging them down when we come across some misdemeanour in their past. That is not what the New Zealand public expects them to be.
I am not the only person in New Zealand—and the Greens are not the only six people—who is sickened at the way Parliament has gone on and on and on about one Minister after another because the Opposition cannot find anything else to talk about. We had weeks of it with David Benson-Pope. We had weeks of it about the pledge card. But we do not hear much from the Opposition about its overspending. We do not get any acknowledgment from Opposition members that they colluded with and encouraged a religious sect to spend half a million dollars on their behalf distributing outright lies about the Green Party to every letterbox. We do not hear that said very much at all by the members on those benches.
David Parker is an honourable man. He is one of the most honest and straightforward people I have dealt with in this Parliament. I worked with him closely over the last 3 years on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I found him to be utterly scrupulous, even declaring conflicts of interest to the committee when most of us would never have thought there was a conflict of interest, at all. I hope that his extreme honesty and scruples today will not prevent his coming back as a Minister at some stage in the future, because I think he has a great deal to offer.
Meanwhile, will this Parliament take anywhere near as much interest in the questions facing this country as it is taking in this kind of debate? Will we see the threat of climate change, which is already under way—and New Zealand’s so far rather pathetic response to it—debated with as much passion as we have the misdemeanours of individual people in the House? Will we see peak oil and the threat that that poses to our way of life, our transport system, our production, our trade, and our economy debated with anything like the seriousness with which these personal matters are debated? If members want to have an easy life in Opposition, it is too easy just to focus on slinging the mud rather than doing the real work and getting stuck into the real issues. But New Zealand is the poorer for it.
People out there hold Parliament largely in contempt. As a member of this House it gives me huge sadness to say that our standing in the community is not high. That is why there is so much support for having 20 fewer of us. Of course, whether it would be the right 20 who go would be another question. The public does not seem to have quite worked out that it will not necessarily get rid of the 20 that it thinks are the biggest problem. It is time that Parliament took seriously its lack of standing with the community. The first way to do that would be to stop this mudslinging and personality and character assassination and actually get on with the issues that are important to people.
The future will not condemn this Government because some Ministers erred in roles that were not part of their ministerial warrant. Future generations will be much more concerned about whether this Government took serious action on the big issues facing our country, particularly the issues that David Parker was in charge of—climate change, peak oil, and transport solutions.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Before I call the next member I advise the House that the Māori Party has agreed to share its speaking time with the ACT party.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe Mr Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. Me kī pēnei nā, i runga i ō tātou marae, ko te tikanga, ko ngā mea kua hē ka tae ki mua i te aroaro o te iwi. Ka mutu, ka kōrero rātou, ka noho wahangū te iwi. Kia mutu te kōrero, ka rongo te mea whakahē i ngā painga, i ngā kino ka puta i te kōrero. Kia mutu te kōrero, me noho rātou mai i te tīmatanga ki te mutunga o te kōrero. Ko tāku, ko tā mātou o Te Tōrangapū Māori, ko te mihi ki a Mr Parker i tae mai i te rā nei ki te whakamārama mai i tana hē. Ka mutu i reira.
[ Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to us all. Let me say this: the custom on our marae is that those who have erred must appear before the people. After that, they present their case, andthe people remain silent. After the delivery, the ones in opposition hear the positives and negatives that emerged. At the end of the delivery, the people must remainfor the entire discussion from the beginning to the end. For me personally, and for us of the Māori Party, we commend Mr Parker, who came here today to explain where he erred. My address ends there.]
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) Link to this
This Parliament has a rare form of unanimity today. Everyone in this Parliament now agrees that David Parker should not be the Attorney-General, should not be the Minister of Energy, and should not be the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and the Labour Party agree on that point. The National Party agrees on that point. United Future agrees on that point. I believe that New Zealand First agrees on that point. I think the Greens say that David Parker did the right thing. I believe that the Māori Party says that Mr Parker did the right thing. So, too, does the ACT party. But I want to contrast this with the situation just a little over 24 hours ago. Helen Clark miscalculated, she has lost her touch, and she has misjudged. I want to take members back to just over 24 hours ago, to Helen Clark when this story first broke. Helen Clark said that there was no need for a public investigation, and she did the classic Labour Party trick of attacking the messenger. So Ian Wishart was attacked, and his magazine Investigate was attacked—attacked by the Prime Minister of this country, and she said it was nothing. Let us just understand what was done.
This Parliament has passed a law that says that if someone files a false statement under the Companies Act, he or she is liable to a fine of $200,000 and 5 years in jail. If that is nothing, why did Parliament pass that law? It is important, because a decision is made not to audit a company’s accounts; not to provide a true and accurate statement of accounts. That is why one has to go around and get every shareholder’s permission. David Parker knew he had to do that, because he got his father’s permission, and he got his own permission, but he did not get Mr Hyslop’s permission. David Parker cannot claim that he is ignorant of the law, because the Labour Party has been telling us for years and years that he is a hotshot lawyer.
We also learnt that Mr Parker set up the arrangements for Mr Hyslop so that he would be financially disadvantaged at every turn in this deal. The Labour Party, which is supposed to stand up for the poor and downtrodden, stood up and ripped this gentleman off, and Mr Parker admitted this to the official assignee. [Interruption] Labour members pull faces. The article states: “ ‘Mr Hyslop was therefore effectively in a different position in relation to the project from you and your father, is that correct?’ ‘Yes.’ … ‘If the project failed would that not place him in a much less advantageous position than the position that you and your father enjoy?’ ‘That is correct,’ confirmed Parker.”
But Helen Clark said it did not matter. A false statutory declaration had been signed, a false record under the Companies Act—it does not matter. Then, later on in the day, it became clear that Helen Clark decided Mr David Parker was not fit to be the Attorney-General, because essentially he had filed a false statutory declaration. It is no small matter. But, we were told, he could be a Minister of the Crown. So one can be a Minister and demand that every poor businessman and businesswoman in this country comply with the hefty red tape laid on them by this Government, but the regulations do not apply to the Minister. That is what is happening under Helen Clark, with this Government. There are two rules: one for every New Zealander, and for the Opposition, and a special rule for Labour Ministers, Labour MPs, and the Labour leader. They carry a “get out of jail” card everywhere they go. That is what happens if one is a Labour Minister.
Then Helen Clark attacked me. She said it was my fault that David Parker is in trouble. I want to put on record in this House that I had nothing to do with that company. I gave no legal advice to David Parker. I did not know Mr Hyslop. I did not fill out the form. I did not give David Parker the pen. He did all that on his own. I say to the Prime Minister that it was David Parker who filed the false statutory declaration—not me, not Ian Wishart, and not Investigate magazine. I say to the House again that if it is no small matter, why is there a $200,000 fine and the potential for 5 years in jail? Helen Clark said that he made a mistake. That is a bit like saying: “I broke the law, no one has been hurt. I made a mistake, therefore it is OK.” Funnily enough, if no one has been hurt then maybe it should not be a crime, but we let Parliament make that decision. In this case, Parliament has decided that it is a crime, and that rule should apply, surely, to those who make the rules—Ministers. But Helen Clark says no. And David Parker says: “Oh, I cut a corner.” If one is a small-business man and one breaks the tax laws of New Zealand—or the company laws, or the occupational safety and health laws, or the electoral laws—and then says: “Oh, look, I’m sorry but I cut a corner. I made a mistake. It’s OK.”, it will not wash.
Everyone has agreed that David Parker should not be a Minister and should not be the Attorney-General, so how come Helen Clark took so long to reach that view? How come Helen Clark and the Labour Party attack everyone for simply pointing out what David Parker had done, as though it was their mistake? I say to Helen Clark that her Government now lacks integrity and honesty. I think that filing a false statement, a statutory document, when one is the Attorney-General and a Minister of the Crown is unacceptable. I think this issue does need a full investigation. I say to the House that it is an important job to hold Ministers to account. That is what Parliament does—that is our Westminster parliamentary democracy. But Ministers can be held to account only if they give truthful answers. What we have seen in this House is Ministers giving untruthful answers. That is the parliamentary crime of David Benson-Pope. He has given untruthful answers in this House, and therefore we have no accountability in this Parliament. That is the tragedy of this Government.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Can I just say to the member that “untruthful” means “given to lying”; it is diverging from the truth. A generalised charge that a person is untruthful cannot be permitted, but a particular reference to an occasion on which a member has admittedly diverged from the truth in a certain statement is not unparliamentary. I just caution the member on the use of his language.
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this
I want to carry on in this urgent debate from where my parliamentary colleague Rodney Hide left off. Helen Clark left the media, the public of New Zealand, and this House in no doubt today as to where she stands in relation to matters such as those that arose yesterday and today with David Parker. There are important points of principle here that we should pay very serious attention to. The stance that Helen Clark has taken in trying to belittle what has happened—and that the Green Party speaker Jeanette Fitzsimons took when she stood and said we should get on with important parliamentary business, when in fact we have a very important point of principle here today—is nothing short of selling New Zealanders short.
Helen Clark tried to tell us that Mr Parker made a simple mistake. I think that he himself described it as cutting some corners. But there is much, much more to this matter than that. This House agrees that David Parker has done the right thing in resigning, firstly, from the position as Attorney-General, and, later today, from his other portfolios. That indeed is the right course of action, because one thing that members of Parliament must have is integrity. They must be able to stand in this House and speak from a point of principle and with integrity. However, what have we seen over the past 6½ years with this Government? We have actually seen a complete lack of integrity. Nine Labour Government Ministers have lost their ministerial positions because of a complete lack of integrity of various sorts, with the misleading of both the media and this House, the “paintergate” and motorcade incidents, and the belittling of all those actions. In front of New Zealanders and this House, there has been a complete lack of integrity.
Not just this week but ever since the election, this tired-looking Government’s position has not been one of “do as I do” but one of “do as I say”. There is one rule for the Labour side of the House and a completely different rule for the other side. This Government takes the position that we should do as it says, not as it does.
Twenty-four hours ago Helen Clark was backing David Parker, saying that he had made a simple mistake. What he in fact did was make a false statutory declaration. As Attorney-General that was clearly an intolerable position for him to be in, and he has done quite the right thing in resigning from that role. He misfiled an incorrect document under the Companies Act. We now know that a person found guilty of doing that can be punished with 5 years’ imprisonment or a $200,000 fine. That clearly is intolerable, and a full investigation must be undertaken.
I ask members what they think would have happened had Mr Parker not resigned from his positions. Would the Prime Minister have continued to back him in the way she has backed other Ministers, particularly Mr Benson-Pope? Would the police have found a prima facie case that, again, would have gone absolutely no further?
New Zealanders want their politicians to come to this House and act with integrity, to do the right thing, and to get on—as the Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said—and debate the real issues. The problem is that over the last 6 years we have had so many issues in relation to Labour Government Ministers who have been given responsibilities for portfolios but who have acted without integrity. They have come before this House and they have not filled their positions honourably. They did not do what they should have done. New Zealanders who voted them in want them to come to this House to represent them with honour and integrity. Signing paintings, saying you painted them yourself when you had not—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate.
I apologise, Mr Assistant Speaker.
Acting in those ways and misleading the House and the media, as Lianne Dalziel did, is not what people expect of their politicians. It would be great if the Opposition could stand here and, rather than having to hold Ministers to account, instead hold the Government to account for its policy decisions and debate the real issues. The problem is that we have had nine Ministers who have not allowed the Opposition to do that. We cannot stand here and do our job by allowing Ministers in place who act with no integrity at all—[Interruption] Those members over there might like to shout, but that is just part of the Labour Party spin machine, too, is it not—to make as much noise as possible to divert attention from the real issue, which is that of Ministers who cannot do their jobs properly because they lack integrity. There have been nine such incidents with Ministers in 6 years. One such incident could be considered unfortunate. Over a 6½ year period, I suppose a loss of two or three Ministers might be considered unfortunate, but nine Ministers? I would say that something is wrong with this tired Government when nine Ministers have fallen by the wayside.
Prime Minister Helen Clark stands up and says that this Government is an honourable Government, that it has integrity, that it does its job, and that it is acting in the best interests of New Zealanders. But this Government does one thing and tells New Zealanders to do the other. I do not think that the Prime Minister any longer has the moral authority to govern this country. Something is lacking when nine Ministers fall by the wayside. This is a tired Government that lacks integrity. What we need as a result of yesterday’s and today’s revelations—firstly by Ian Wishart, then, as things have come to light, by others—is a full and thorough investigation into this matter so that we can get to the bottom of everything. This country needs to think very carefully about whether it has a Prime Minister and a Government that have the moral authority to govern properly—to govern this nation, to lead it, and to make policy decisions on behalf of New Zealanders. We need to think very carefully about that.
Today’s issues are not just about making simple mistakes. This was not a little mistake; it was a serious error of judgment. It was made not once, not twice, but over a series of many years. David Parker has done the right thing in resigning from his positions. He took 2 days to come to the decision to resign from his other portfolios. But it raises much greater issues that New Zealanders need to consider carefully. We should be asking whether the Prime Minister has the moral authority to continue to govern. Do her Ministers have integrity? How many more cases do New Zealanders have to put up with before we can get to the real issues? People in this House keep talking about them, but we are prevented from debating them properly because of other issues that should not get in the way, but do.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
I rise as a friend and a colleague of David Parker to put on the public record some matters that I think should be put on it at this time. I say at the outset that I support David Parker’s decision to resign and that I am saddened by it. I support it because I spent time with David over the last 24 hours, and I can say freely that he would not have felt comfortable had he stayed. He would not have felt comfortable within himself had he stayed. He has always, in my experience—and I have known him for years, though not decades—acted honourably. “Honourably” is a reasonably old-fashioned word. It is widely used around here—some would say overused—but it is a word that I apply to this man’s life within this place and outside of it. He has always acted honourably in his dealings with people in business, in politics, and in civic affairs. It is a remarkable trait that he has. He is not the only person I know who has it, by any means, but this is an honourable man in the original sense of the word.
I am saddened by his resignation because he has a remarkable talent. That talent will now be put on hold for a time as the result of this mistake, or series of mistakes, of his. I am saddened—and Jeanette Fitzsimons touched on this a little more strongly than I intend to—because the court of public opinion that is represented here, loudly, allows someone who has made a mistake to be heard only if he or she resigns. Someone who seeks to try to give an explanation or to speak calmly instead of resigning is subject to a blood-lust from political opponents that readily crosses the line from transparency and accountability.
Transparency and accountability are, of course, good things in a strong democracy, and essential things in a functional democracy. In Parliament there is a higher level of accountability and transparency than is to be felt amongst the ordinary citizenry, and that is how it should be, but it often crosses that line into harassment and bullying, and invented froth and anger. We have seen that trend in New Zealand in recent times, and I think the possible extensions of that behaviour are troubling. In the extreme—and it would be in the extreme—we would need to think around America in the McCarthy era, and the Weimar Republic in Germany. They would be extreme examples, and New Zealand must not go there.
Let me tell members a little about the David Parker I know. David Parker is a bright guy. He managed to get himself through a law degree, a commerce degree, and his professionals in 5 years at Otago University. He worked while he was doing that as a woolstore worker, on roading gangs, in the port, and as a gardener. Soon after he graduated he also was one of the people—he would want me to make it clear, I am sure, that he was not by any means the only one—who began the Dunedin Community Law Centre, which became a model for community law centres around the country. He then spent time as a lawyer in London before returning to Otago.
He worked in Central Otago for a time, and then in Dunedin he joined Anderson Lloyd, which is the largest law firm in the South Island. When he was about 28 or 29, in my recollection or his, he was a civil litigation partner in that law firm, and he then became a managing partner before leaving the law and moving into business. One of the reasons he left law initially was that he was troubled by the high costs of civil litigation, and it did not suit him to continue to work in that area. So he started up the Percolator Cafe, he had a forestry partnership floated, and so on. Then he entered into a bunch of business ventures, which he has explained in some detail, with Russell Hyslop. I will not say too much about Russell Hyslop except that he is well known in Dunedin and to a number of people who sit at the Cabinet table. It is fair to say that a trail of half-finished business and wrecked relationships follow in his wake, and I will leave it at that.
After Russell Hyslop’s bankruptcy, David return to work full-time as a lawyer for 3 years, as he has explained. Then, because of his efforts he came to the attention of a number of business people in Dunedin who saw that he had corrected a bunch of errors and had worked hard to do that. He had taken insolvent companies through to a point of neutrality. He was involved with a number of people who were business leaders in Dunedin: people like Jim Guthrie, Max Shepherd, Tak Hung, John Farry, and the late Howard Paterson. Those people worked with David and saw him as a skilled person. He was therefore involved with a number of biotechnology companies. The best known is probably BLIS Technologies, where he was the inaugural chief executive, and he took it through on to the main board of the New Zealand Stock Exchange. He was also the inaugural chief executive of Botry-Zen and PharmaZen and was involved, a little less directly, in A2 Corporation. That was the range of his business activities.
He then decided that he wanted to give voice to his interest in politics, and it was at that stage that he became more strongly involved in the Labour Party in Dunedin North. Around 2001, I think, he became the chair of the Labour electorate committee in Dunedin North, where I was, and am, the member. In 2002 he decided to stand for Otago, and he won the seat, surprisingly. Bill English, who was the leader of the National Party at the time, is on public record saying that that loss—because National lost a number of seats in 2002—was the one that hurt him the most. The reason is that it was a seat that on paper Labour should not have won. David Parker won it. In 2005 the same thing happened. He lost the seat, of course, but he lost it by a margin narrower, in my analysis, than he otherwise might have. So David Parker has two important electoral competitions to his credit. He has won one and lost one, but he has done better than expected in both. In Cabinet he had four portfolios, three of which I know well and which I would regard as complex portfolios, and the fourth as Attorney-General, which is a pure mystery to me. I wish him well and I hope he returns to a New Zealand Cabinet table soon.
Dr Brash said that David Parker’s actions do not make him a crook or an unmitigated bad man, and I think that is a wise position for Dr Brash to take. I think it is almost beyond doubt that David Parker is not the only person in this House who has taken short cuts in the filing of Companies Office returns. Then Dr Brash, regrettably, made a fool of himself by suggesting that the police were biased in favour of the Labour Party when they announced last week they were not going to prosecute the National Party either—and they did that in the very same press statement. Nonetheless, he accused the police of bias and said that we should pressure them to prosecute David Parker under the Companies Act—as if that is not a step towards a police State. Dr Brash did not acquit himself well.
Mr Brownlee has his own history, of course. He assaulted someone. He was not prosecuted by the police, but a civil charge was taken and won. Mr Brownlee lost that civil case, on the assault charge. As for Mr Hide, I would simply say that he is a man cheated of an opportunity to get angry, who got angry anyway. He did not explain to the House why he routinely refused on Morning Report to answer the question of whether he had been to Dunedin and had been involved in this. He did not respond to Mr Peters’ allegations regarding the returns on Pipitea Street, and he did not explain how he got so much speaking time. I can tell members that it was because the Māori Party gave it to him.