Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
Dunne Peter: Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Member for TamakiMakaurau 
[Volume:621;Page:16537] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There is an old proverb that says “O what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”. Today John Tamihere has become the latest victim of that proverb. It is certainly true as events have unfolded over the last few weeks that his position as a Minister of the Crown became increasingly untenable. I do not believe that the matters relating to the taxation treatment of the payment that he received were ultimately his downfall. I think that Mr Tamihere’s downfall was brought about by his somewhat less than straightforward statements about whether he had received the payment in the first place—a point that he acknowledged in his statement this afternoon. I think it is a sobering reminder to every single one of us in this House and to the wider community that when we are put into a position where strong questions are asked of us we must give answers in a clear an accurate and a truthful way. People have seldom been hanged for what they do not do; they are frequently hanged for what they do. I think Mr Tamihere’s situation was a case in point. 
Mr Tamihere is not the only person to have woven a tangled web over this saga. When the House debated this matter 2 weeks ago all the calls then were for Mr Tamihere’s instant removal from office. The Douglas White inquiry was argued to be irrelevant a sham a cover-up and an excuse simply to give the Government space. Now that Mr Tamihere has resigned those same people say that because the process of the Douglas White inquiry has been put in train it should be allowed to run its course and make its recommendations and rulings. “O what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”. 
I think that the issue that arises from all that was touched on by one of the earlier speakers and it relates to standards. Standards come at a number of levels. There are the standards of behaviour required of Ministers of the Crown in terms of their demeanour their general behaviour and the statutory declarations that they make regarding financial matters. It is arguable that Mr Tamihere failed on probably all those counts in the end. Then there are the standards that apply to all members of Parliament. For the life of me I cannot see why we maintain a distinction between the two. I think that the pecuniary interests legislation that is before the Standing Orders Committee at the moment is entirely appropriate and that these events have made it even more so. 
I will make the point that the history of New Zealand politics in the last 60 or 70 years is not littered with very many examples of ministerial resignations. When resignations have occurred it has either been because someone was at death’s door or because an arm was twisted so strongly up someone’s back that it became impossible to do otherwise. An ultimatum was delivered as in the Derek Quigley case in 1982. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was held in the safe actually. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It may well have been held in the safe; it had the same impact as twisting an arm. The only three instances that I am aware of in which a Minister has genuinely resigned on what could be argued to be a matter of principle were Downie Stewart in 1933 over exchange rate policy Apirana Ngata in 1934 over financial irregularities in the then Native Department—both of which were accepted—and Roger Douglas in 1987 or 1988 over the pre-leaking of some aspects of the Budget that year. His resignation was not accepted. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They were left in the corridor. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do not care where they were left. The point I am making— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That was a jack-up as with Koro Wetere. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member is missing the point. The point I am making is that there is not a very strong history in this country of Ministers accepting responsibility for their actions. In fact Bob Semple’s famous words over the Fordell dam collapse illustrated that: “I am responsible but not to blame”. 
Simon Power 
: Absolutely right. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member whose area that was based in will know what I am referring to. I think that John Tamihere by standing in the House this afternoon and making the statement that he has made—whatever construction members choose to place upon it—has shown a sense of honour. It was very courageous to come here in the midst of all the accusations that have been swirling around face this Chamber and make that statement in the way that he did. Members will have their own view about its content and context but they cannot detract from the fact that in this instance John Tamihere did front up. That is a refreshing thing in this political environment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Two weeks late. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member says that it was 2 weeks late. Two weeks ago Mr Tamihere’s opponents were saying that an inquiry would be a sham that it should not be so limited and that it should be a full commission of inquiry. Now when John Tamihere has reacted by resigning they say that it was 2 weeks late. They cannot have it both ways and that is the point of this issue. 
What has happened here is regrettable. It has certainly destroyed a man’s career and has cast a slur on this Parliament. It has created a situation whereby a lot of New Zealanders—and I am sure the member who is seated opposite me will agree with what I am about to say—who have started off with a prejudice anyway will say yet again that when Maori are let near money they let us down. I think that is a reprehensible sentiment but it is one that is being said and heard in the wake of this incident. That is something we all have to confront. I regret very much that Mr Tamihere’s actions have placed us all as a nation in that situation. 
Where do we go to from here? The Douglas White inquiry will presumably be completed and will either confirm or contradict the statement that Mr Tamihere has made this afternoon. That will cause its own set of consequences. We do need to address the issue of standards because already as this debate has unfolded and in question time this afternoon and on other occasions all sorts of allegations have swirled around about other members about overseas commissions and about trips to all sorts of faraway places—that people were paid for performing duties. While we do not have clear sets of ethical guidelines and standards those allegations will continue to be made and will continue to swirl unproven to the detriment of the reputation of every single one of us. That is the first point that needs to be addressed. 
The second point is the one that I referred to a moment or two ago. We cannot continue in this country as a multi-ethnic culture that stresses its bicultural links if in fact we continue with the notion that putting Maori near money will cause unacceptable consequences. I put Mr Peters’ earlier colleague Mr Morgan into the same category of that debate. We think of the Tainui corporate box saga and of so many other things. The point I am making is that unfortunately for many people this incident will be seen as further proof of that notion. The real challenge for this House and for the members who are parading unctuously here in favour of accountability will be the extent to which they are now prepared to commit themselves to working towards better standards and dealing with that fundamental perception. In that situation John Tamihere is largely irrelevant. His circumstances mean that I think he is politically tarnished. But the message that arises from this matter cannot be lost sight of because if we do that we will simply be condemned to repeat the saga at some point in the future.