Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20249] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 With “Doonegate” we have a question about the honesty and integrity of Prime Minister Helen Clark. It goes like this. A journalist hears from a source that Mr Peter Doone interfered with a young officer going about his duty and that when the young officer went to breath test the driver of the car Mr Doone told him that that would not be necessary. The reporter rang Helen Clark the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Members may be surprised as to why he did that but he rang her because she was leaking like a drain on Peter Doone. She was in a position to know what had happened because she had Rob Robinson’s report. The Prime Minister of New Zealand assured the reporter that if he wrote that he would not be wrong. 
Of course the reporter being a good reporter had his tape recorder going. The reporter rang the Prime Minister a second time to confirm the story and Helen Clark did. It is not correct to say that she said it was contested—she confirmed it. Indeed the editor then rang to confirm it with the Prime Minister which she did. 
Of course what the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 printed on 16 January 2000 was untrue and if it were untrue it was highly defamatory. The  
Sunday Star-Times 
 did not publish the story until it took it to its lawyer. The lawyer OK’d it having listened to the tapes and seen the transcripts of what the Prime Minister said. Everyone in this House knows that if the Prime Minister had said: “Actually that’s contested.” the paper never would have run the story because it would not have been safe. 
On the Sunday of publication Mr Peter Doone said that the story was wrong and that he was going to sue the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
That was well reported at the time. So both the reporter and the editor rang Helen Clark who was going through the process of deciding whether Mr Peter Doone should be disciplined or sacked. She confirmed for them that what they had written was correct. She told them she had the report in front of her and to hang tough. That is what the Prime Minister of New Zealand said. 
What did the paper do? On 23 January it editorialised that Peter Doone should go and repeated the defamation. How could it be so confident? Well it had every reason to believe that what it was saying was true because the Prime Minister of New Zealand who had the Rob Robinson report had said it was. 
On 25 January Mr Peter Doone resigned his post. The Rob Robinson report was released and holy moly what Helen Clark had said was in the report was not. Peter Doone then spent 5 years and a lot of money pursuing the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
A couple of weeks ago Mr Doone discovered that the person who had confirmed the story and who in fact had encouraged the paper to run it was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] At that point he knew he was suing the wrong party. I want Trevor Mallard to think about this—why would Peter Doone suddenly stop suing the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and start suing the Prime Minister? Mr Doone realised that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
had the perfect defence because Prime Minister Helen Clark had assured it that what it had written was true. On that basis after the Lange decision Mr Doone’s suit would not stand up against the  
Sunday Star-Times.  
The  
Sunday Star-Times  
and Fairfax say that Helen Clark confirmed the story. That is what they have told the court. Helen Clark has told this House that she did not confirm it. So someone is telling an untruth. It could be Fairfax telling the court that Helen Clark confirmed the story when she did not. But she has put in a brief of evidence supporting its contention. Helen Clark has not contested what Fairfax told the court but she has come to Parliament and said the complete opposite. I think that Helen Clark is lying over this.