Madam SPEAKERI have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 a settlement of the insider trading case. The settlement is a particular case of recent occurrence and, given that the Securities Commission is a party to the settlement, it does involve the ministerial responsibility of the Government. However, I am not convinced that this matter requires the House to set aside its pre-arranged business to debate it today. The matters of concern identified in the application, such as the role of the Serious Fraud Office in the settlement and the imminence of KiwiSaver, are matters that can be conveniently explored through other parliamentary avenues—for example, the estimates and financial reviews. The application is therefore declined.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the time available for the estimates, in respect of parliamentary and MPs’ scrutiny at the select committee, has gone. Therefore, we are not afforded the opportunity to raise this issue there, and the Speaker was, I am sad to say, misadvised by one of her staff. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is that this issue concerns two men who pocketed over half a billion dollars in a series of transactions in this country, and the latest one was exposed—and it includes them both, because Midavia Holdings includes Michael Fay as well as David Richwhite—and no official bothered to do a darned thing about it, including the current head of the Serious Fraud Office, who is about to retire, his predecessor, and the head of the Inland Revenue Department.
So this is not a matter that should be just glossed over. It concerns the first time that anyone in officialdom has done anything about those men, who just rob this country blind, in transaction after transaction after transaction. They robbed a whole lot of New Zealanders, as well. Here we are now, in June 2007, with a chance to have a debate and to point out that our officials were derelict in their duty, as were many MPs, and you say that it can wait. Do you not recall the reason that the matter was not investigated by the Serious Fraud Office? The present incumbent, Bradshaw, said that too much time had gone by. Too much time went by because he sat on his backside and did nothing. He was politically corrupt in his failure to act; it is a definition of corruption that one does not act because one is too scared of the consequences.
Simon PowerRt Hon WINSTON PETERS Link to this
No, it is not enough. I know about the National Party’s cover-up of this matter. That is why National does not want a debate—because it sought to cover it up. National even sought not to have the documents disclosed. Now, Madam Speaker, I am asking you to reconsider your decision, given that the select committee cannot discuss this matter now as the time for the estimates examination has gone.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
I am informed by my colleague, just on a matter of fact, that the matter is still in front of the Commerce Committee until Thursday. It has not actually deliberated on these matters.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) Link to this
We are not on that committee. We are in front of the Law and Order Committee. This is a law and order matter; it is not a matter of commerce in that context. The Serious Fraud Office comes before the Law and Order Committee. That is why I raised it in that context. Madam Speaker, given that you were once the Attorney-General, you should have understood that better than most members.
Would the member please be seated. I understand the point he is making, and I thank the member for the point of information. It is a matter that could be debated in the general debate tomorrow if the opportunity for examining the estimates has past. As the member well knows—
Rodney Hide—I am still on my feet, Mr Hide—Speaker’s decisions, of course, are not relitigated by members, but members are perfectly free to seek leave to have the debate.