Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16388] 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has the Prime Minister received an assurance from the Hon John Tamihere that he has done nothing to embarrass her or her Government; if so on the evidence to date does she believe that Mr Tamihere has lived up to such an assurance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Mr Tamihere has repeated to the Prime Minister what he has said publicly—that he has done nothing that would bring shame on him his family or the Labour Party. A process is under way to look into the allegations that have been made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House why anyone including Helen Clark should have any confidence in assurances given by a man who publicly stated that he would never accept a golden handshake and who we now know secretly accepted at least a $195000 golden handshake when he thought he could get away with it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latter matter is one that will be dealt with by the inquiry. But certainly the Prime Minister would give no weight to accusations by a man who pushed a pensioner downstairs. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not acceptable for the Acting Prime Minister to give the answer—and it is the first part of his answer that I am referring to; I am not worried about the second part. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am but I will deal with this. Personal comments like that are not in order and I would caution the Minister about making them. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had a week and a whole range of accusations have been made against a member including accusations relating to past conduct. I was referring to a matter that is on public record and has been in the courts. If that cannot be raised in this House what on earth can? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is true. What the Minister says is perfectly true. However this is question time and not debate time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was asked because the Acting Prime Minister stated in the House yesterday that Mr Tamihere got his payment in 2001. It would seem that the House should take the Acting Prime Minister at his word that Mr Tamihere got a payment. How can it be fair for him to address the question today by saying that this was a matter still under consideration—in other words putting doubt on the fact that Mr Tamihere ever received a payment when it is plain and clear he said on the one hand he would not take it and then when he thought he could get away with it took it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue the inquiry is looking at is what is the nature of the payment and what the payment was for. I invite the member to join 82 percent of New Zealanders in suspending judgment until the inquiry is completed. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. I want to say something to members. Points of orders are matters concerning procedures in the House in which I can take action—for example by giving a ruling or putting a request for leave. It is not a means of making a statement or asking another question. I cannot resolve this issue because this issue goes to debate not to my rulings as Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like a point of order this time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave of the House to respond to the Acting Prime Minister’s invitation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to respond. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister find it embarrassing that John Tamihere took a golden handshake after saying that he would not when Helen Clark stated in the Address in Reply debate in this Parliament on 8 February 2000 that her Government wanted to abandon the culture of golden handshakes negotiated in secrecy or is there now nothing that can shame Helen Clark and this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The one thing that is clear—and nobody has tried to argue this—is that Mr Tamihere received no payment to get rid of him from a job that he was not wanted in. If we are to talk about doing deals in secret then I invite that member to finally tell this House who has been paying him money since he became an MP. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister still stand by her statement: “I want politicians to say what they mean and mean what they say.”; and how would she characterise the actions of Mr Tamihere who said one thing publicly and did the opposite when he thought the coast was clear? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have said many times the issue of the nature of the payment and its purposes is a matter for the inquiry. I again invite the member to wait until the inquiry is completed just as 82 percent of New Zealanders said should be the case. Sixteen percent of New Zealanders are supporting the Opposition’s position. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting the Acting Prime Minister’s suggestion— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why are we having a question starting with “Noting” in his statement again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point is well made because it was the member himself who raised the point of order. Would he please start with a question word. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Prime Minister indicating to the House that Douglas White QC is likely to determine that the known payment of at least $195000 to John Tamihere in 2001 a couple of years after he said he would never take it is to have a new name—a name other than “a golden handshake”—and will she find that acceptable and somehow manage to line it up with her statements that the culture of golden handshakes will go under this Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has an open mind on the inquiry and will accept its conclusions—unlike members opposite who have hung drawn and quartered somebody before the evidence has actually been presented. One thing is clear: no payment was made to get rid of Mr Tamihere from his job. In fact it is the opposite: people wanted him to stay on in that job—unlike members opposite and their leaders one after the other. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the payment Mr John Tamihere said he would not take was authorised in May 1999 and afterwards he said he would not take it and that that is precisely the payment he then took? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the board authorised a payment in 1999 but Mr Tamihere declined to accept that. Something like 1 year later the board reaffirmed that offer. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to Mr Hide that he is very lucky because after his comment he had just said the first word. The member is the one who has called attention to it and I am listening. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Could the Acting Prime Minister speculate or give us his view on why a charitable trust that did not want to lose a chief executive officer would decide 12 to 18 months after he had gone to pay him a sum of this size? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said it is a matter for the inquiry to determine what the nature and the purpose of the payment was. But there is no question that Mr Tamihere succeeded in lifting the Waipareira Trust from a small organisation of 12 people to about 200 people whereas the member opposite is part of a caucus that has shrunk in size with each successive election.