Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16383] 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What is her response to today’s statement from the deputy chair of Te Whanau o Waipareira that the Hon John Tamihere received the $195000 golden handshake for “particular issues … which he was expected to deliver on”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 My response is that the nature of the payment is part of the inquiry being undertaken by Douglas White QC. I do note that the chair of the trust issued a statement that clarified what the payment was for. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement of the deputy chair of the trust that Mr Tamihere was paid for “some things that were expected in terms of supporting Waipareira in its Waitangi 414 claims” an assertion that Mr Tamihere was paid a success fee for negotiating access for Waipareira to taxpayer funding; and does the Prime Minister accept that any such arrangements would be quite wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a couple of statements from the deputy chair. One was in response to the question: “Can you confirm right now that it was not for stuff that John Tamihere would do for the trust while he was in Parliament?”. “No it was not while he was in Parliament.” Also there was another statement this morning in the same interview: “Yes it was a net payment as far as we were concerned. We were the ones who were expected to pay the tax.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do hope that in answering that way the Minister is not leaping to conclusions before Douglas White QC does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member cannot make those sorts of parenthetical comments. If he has a point of order it is a point of order not a comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My point is that the transcript we are dealing with has many parts to it and the most damaging part is the suggestion that Mr Tamihere was paid to advance Waipareira’s Wai 414 claim through to the Waitangi Tribunal in the hope that it would get the same recognition as other iwi and therefore access to considerable Government funding. I simply asked whether that was wrong. Is the Acting Prime Minister not prepared to make a comment on that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have made a comment on that. The deputy chair made it clear that the payments were not for anything that Mr Tamihere would do for the trust while he was in Parliament which is directly contrary to the assertions made by members opposite. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I realise we are supposed to table documents at the end of a question but the Acting Prime Minister is choosing to suggest we have it wrong. For that reason I seek leave to table the transcript now. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Following the deputy chair’s comments on  
Morning Report 
 this morning did John Tamihere alert the Prime Minister that he had drawn up the terms of reference for the Deloitte inquiry and that he had also sent a letter from his ministerial office alleging “incompetence negligence or corruption” within the Waipareira Trust; and would the Prime Minister think that a Minister who had evidence of incompetence negligence or corruption would raise that with other Ministers and indeed with the authorities? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that Mr Tamihere did start the process that led to a review of the trust on the grounds of negligence incompetence or corruption. There appears to be a certain amount of biting back as a consequence of that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether Mr John Tamihere had alerted the Prime Minister to his involvement in drawing up the terms of the inquiry and alerted his ministerial colleagues to his view that there was incompetence negligence or corruption. All that Dr Cullen did was to affirm my question not answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister in light of today’s most revealing comments from the trust asked Mr Tamihere for an assurance that he did not take money from the trust or any other external organisation for the purpose of “delivering on particular issues”; if so what was Mr Tamihere’s response? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I have not talked to Mr Tamihere since the interview. I repeat: what Ms Glavish said in an interview that seemed to fall over itself in a number of contradictions was that Mr Tamihere was not paid for anything while he was in Parliament. That is the nature of the charge the Opposition was originally making. It is now shifting its ground during this week to a different claim. 
Rodney Hide 
: My question to the Prime Minister repeats my first one: did John Tamihere alert the Prime Minister or his ministerial colleagues that he had evidence of “incompetence negligence or corruption” within the Te Whanau o Waipareira Trust and would the Prime Minister expect him to do so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I cannot answer that question. I do not know whether Mr Tamihere made that information available to the Prime Minister. I can certainly say that at some point and I cannot tell when I was aware that Mr Tamihere was taking action in that respect because of his concerns about mismanagement at the trust. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Acting Prime Minister expect the House today to accept the view from him that Mr Tamihere did not take the payment while he was in Parliament when he made it clear to the House yesterday that Mr Tamihere did take the payment in 2001? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I said yesterday was that he received a payment in 2000 or 2001. The question is when the payment was first offered and what it was for. What both the chair and the deputy chair of the trust have now said is that it was not for anything that Mr Tamihere was to do or had done in Parliament. We now have the Opposition questioning both the opponents of Mr Tamihere and Mr Tamihere. They are the only people who know what was in anybody’s mind at the time. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I put the same question twice—in different ways it is true—to the Prime Minister. The first time I did not get anywhere near an answer. The second time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: I am coming to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well come to it immediately. 
Rodney Hide 
: Be patient. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. Come to it immediately or the member will leave. 
Rodney Hide 
: The second time I put it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the point of order. What is the point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: If you let me explain I will tell you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be pretty concise. That is the Standing Order. 
Rodney Hide 
: The second time I asked the question the Minister said he did not know. Now it would have helped if he had said that the first time but usually it is helpful if the Minister says that he or she will get back to the member and provide the answer. I am asking through you Mr Speaker whether it would not be acceptable for the Prime Minister to do that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.