English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17614] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Racing; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Prime Minister ask her Minister of Foreign Affairs for yet another assurance that he and his party have behaved lawfully at all times in light of yet another newspaper story suggesting that more questions need to be asked about Mr Peters and his party’s handling of political donations; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister takes the view that it is better for political leaders not to know too many details about donations made to their parties because they will then be less likely to be influenced by those donations. In any case in the case of this morning’s story in the 
 Dominion Post 
 it said itself that there could have been one or more cheques. If there were two then we could easily divide $19998 by two and arrive at a legal sum for non-declaration purposes in 1999. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned that a newspaper would run a story like that and not put up any evidence or documentation other than the allegation yet have the meerkats running around taking notice of it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Democracy has many facets; that is one of them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister think that Mr Peters has satisfactorily answered all the questions asked of him by the media over the last 2 weeks and does that include yesterday’s verbally offensive refusal to answer questions put to him by the  
Dominion Post 
? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not for the Prime Minister to judge the actions of a member acting in the role as the leader of a political party. I note however that Mr Peters at least fronts up directly to the media unlike one party leader who uses his staff to bully reporters editors and if need be publishers. His name is Mr John Key and every member of the press gallery knows that that bullying occurs. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in relation to the David Benson-Pope affair that “it’s not enough just to be capable you’ve got to be credible.”; if so what part of Mr Peters’ responses to date does she regard as “credible”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has been assured by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he has committed no illegality and the member has yet to demonstrate anything to the reverse. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister see any similarity between the advertising campaign paid for by leading bloodstock breeder Patrick Hogan overtly supporting New Zealand First during the 2005 election campaign and the covert campaign run by the Exclusive Brethren Church in that year and does she have any concerns about the connection between that campaign and the fact that Mr Winston Peters subsequently became the Minister for Racing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it would be absolutely apparent to everybody that there was no covert campaign on behalf of the racing industry in 2005. There was a very overt campaign; it was overtly against the Labour Party at that time including signs on horses at racetracks. The Exclusive Brethren however decided to follow a biblical injunction and hide their lights well under any large number of bushels. 
Hon Bill English 
: When the Prime Minister met with Mr Peters on Tuesday did she ask him for an explanation for each of the allegations swirling around him; if so did he answer in the same way that he answered the  
Dominion Post 
; and if she did not ask him why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As far as I am aware the Prime Minister asked for assurances that no illegalities have occurred and received those assurances. I am not privy to that meeting and therefore cannot answer further. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us why yesterday she would not answer the question as to what exactly Mr Peters told her on Tuesday that makes her believe that he has in no way acted inappropriately in relation to the $100000 donation from Owen Glenn the $25000 donation from Bob Jones or the $20000 donation mentioned this morning? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has responded to those questions and continues to issue the challenge to the National Party to outline who the anonymous donors were who funnelled $2 million through the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not the issue here. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not the issue here because it is a mere $2 million of anonymous donations funnelled through the National Party buying influence in a whole range of policy areas. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the Prime Minister’s view that if one makes allegations in this business one backs it up with documentation a modicum of understanding of the law and one puts it together in a way where the conclusion is irrefutable and that this kind of conspiracy run by these people will not succeed? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The last bit is not relevant. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I accept the member’s view and I think that in this case one could well say that people who collect cheques in glass towers should not throw stones. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in her Minister of Foreign Affairs in light of his 2005 comments that moderate and militant Muslim groups “fit hand in glove everywhere they exist.” and that “Underneath it all the agenda is to promote fundamentalist Islam.”; and what reassurance can she provide to this House that New Zealand’s foreign policy has nothing whatsoever to do with these embarrassing comments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Foreign Affairs acts within the doctrines of Cabinet collective responsibility in respect of the foreign affairs portfolio and has significantly expanded the work of that portfolio. I would have thought that it is apparent to anybody that there are Islamist terrorists in the world today; it is important to draw a distinction between that and people who are Muslims.