Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Peters Winston: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Electoral Act—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7840] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Bill English 
: The member is a lawyer. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They say she is a lawyer but there was no evidence of that in her speech. Richard Worth is an honorary consul to facilitate— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: At least I pay my taxi fares. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member would but she would not know what the law of specific performance is about. If someone does not get a service he or she does not pay—not in my book. But then again that member was pretty rough on the law and that is why she was a trade union lawyer. 
Richard Worth is a consul facilitating connections between two countries and that is seen to be in New Zealand’s interests. This is the first time I have ever heard of that being a question of allegiance. 
I go back to the facts here. The facts are that New Zealand First as a party is pleased for Harry Duynhoven and his family. We are pleased because an inadvertent act led to consequences that would be in my view a very very harsh result for any member of Parliament. It had consequences well above the issue of whether there be a by-election; it simply meant that any right of payment of salary and future earnings was going to be affected and in the case of superannuation be dramatically affected. I know that because I actually resigned from Parliament and my seat went to a by-election and those were the consequences. Of course these people who rush to help now did not rush to help me then. 
Hon Annette King 
: You didn’t ask. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I am not in the business of asking the help of people who are breaking every law in the book and who are on the Privileges Committee yet did not have the decency or the integrity to defend their rights let alone mine. But they rushed off to London to defend the rights of someone who was not a member of Parliament. Do members remember that? Do not tell me who it was; I remember Mr Caygill and these people of the most dubious legal background in terms of integrity and ethics who would know nothing about the issue and it is not a matter to be laughing at now. 
But I want to say that in the case of Harry Duynhoven it was clear in my party’s view having heard the evidence that there had been a breach of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act and that that was an inadvertent act the consequence of which would be very very hard for a member of Parliament to have to live with. That is why we said we would support legislation to correct his position. 
Let us follow the chronological sequence of events. It is said that on 11 June the seat became vacant—if the evidence stood up of course. That is a good question. How would one come to that decision before hearing the evidence? It is possible that Harry Duynhoven could have come along to the committee and said: “Well actually I had a gun to my head at the time and that’s why I signed the documents.” At that point everything would have been satisfied for a breach save intent. So that matter of evidence had to be heard. 
But I say this to the National Party: when the Speaker made his decision in the Speaker’s ruling on 23 July that was the time to protest. That was the time to say: “No no we’re not having this. This matter is not going to the Privileges Committee and it is not coming back to the House. We want the decision made now.” Our position was that because of who it was and our understanding of and respect for him we would like to hear the evidence. I will say this right now: if some members of Parliament had been involved the answer would have been: “Forget about the Privileges Committee; let’s have a decision right now. If anybody has any doubt send it off to the Electoral Court get a case stated in respect of the outcome as has happened before and have the matter decided.” But one cannot surely accept on 23 July that the proceedings would go to the Privileges Committee and then to the House for its conclusions yet make a decision before that event happened. To those who are seeking to attack the Speaker—Mr Speaker I am sure you do not need me to defend you—I say that my simple facts are that members cannot have it both ways. If they accepted the resolution of 23 July which came without demur then they cannot say now that the Speaker was wrong. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: We don’t. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: We did not—National and those who would contest it. Then was the time to speak up or in this sense for ever hold their peace. 
But I want to say exactly what happened. We agreed to regularise Harry Duynhoven’s position because there was a breach but it was the most innocent one I have ever seen where the electoral law is concerned. We agreed that the law be exclusively changed for him. But what happened is far more serious. What happened is we had two lawyers and a historian on the Privileges Committee and their body language spoke volumes. They knew full well that what they had heard meant there had to have been a breach but they preferred to ignore that—just plain ignore it. There is a person on that committee called Margaret Wilson the former dean of the Waikato University law school—that icon of academia in the minds of the people who attend there and no one else. This person the former dean of a law school cannot see what everyone else can see including the Solicitor-General the Clerk of the House and everybody else on the committee. 
Then we had something far worse. We had a totally shameful abuse in that the Act was taken beyond Harry Duynhoven to include every member of Parliament and to suspend its operations for the whole of this parliamentary term. We had a shameful abuse of Harry Duynhoven a shameful abuse of his circumstances a shameful abuse of the Speaker in my view and a shameful abuse of Parliament. That is where we have got ourselves now. Whilst every other leader is prepared to say that there is no one in his or her caucus who seeks the sanctuary of this legislation Helen Clark would not. This person who front-foots issues who spin doctors who speaks about her leadership potential and puts herself alongside people like Fraser and Holyoake this person who has more speechwriters and advisers than anybody else in the history of New Zealand’s Parliament cannot tell the House what every other leader can say about his or her party and that is that not one member of her caucus other than Harry Duynhoven is affected by this legislation and therefore the blanket coverage is not necessary. That is an abuse of Parliament. 
I am here today to ask Helen Clark who is the member or members other than Harry Duynhoven who were caught by this legislation. Name them! Have the integrity to place the facts before Parliament rather than seek general sanctuary for every member of Parliament although every other political party does not want it and disowns it! Until she can do that then let us have the media stop this humbug which Colin James is beloved of of their reporting what a genius Helen Clark is. She is not. There has never been a leader so weak when she is going backwards. There has never been a leader so weak at parliamentary time—so much so that she avoids it day after day. She treats Parliament with contempt. There has never been a leader who cannot front-foot it in debate after debate on television when the leaders debates ever happen. She has never won once and she never will. It is all hype public relations and spin—so much so that even her photograph is unrecognisable from the real thing. Imagine if I tried that! Would I get away with it? No I would not. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They couldn’t improve it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Imagine if Mr Prebble tried that! He would be laughed out of town. Imagine if Mr English tried that! He would be laughed out of town. If Mr Jim Anderton tried it he would be laughed out of town. But suddenly for Helen Clark anything can be done and the media excuse it. Do members remember when she went up to Brunei? She got off the plane and started going across the tarmac. Those people were waiting for her to get off the plane because they had been a sent a photograph and the person who got off the plane was not the person in the photograph. 
Do members remember the 1999 election campaign? She was putting up hoardings with her husband—a public relations stunt—and a little Maori boy was standing there. He looked at the picture and said to Helen Clark “Who’s that?”—out of the mouths of babes! [ 
Interruption 
] What is it about? It is about someone who claims to be a leader but on a fundamental question of integrity honesty and owning up will not tell this Parliament whether anyone other than Harry Duynhoven is affected by this legislation. She has massively abused Mr Duynhoven his family the Speaker and all of Parliament. Why will she not own up? When will some journalist do his or her duty and ask her?