English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
English Bill: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18897] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I was not on the Privileges Committee but I must compliment the committee on the way it went about its business. The fact that the committee came to a majority decision involving a range of parties shows that due consideration was given to all the evidence. I think it is timely though that we stand back and ask ourselves why there was a privileges complaint in the first place. In many respects this issue is a fairly straightforward one. A Parliament by its own will has passed the Standing Orders around pecuniary interests and I believe that when it did that it had an expectation about what the purpose of that register was. The purpose as articulated in the debate about that register was to make sure that there was full transparency about any interest in donations of politicians. Prior to that register being initiated there were no particular rules in Parliament although I think every MP was aware that New Zealand has among the highest standards in the world in respect of the relationship between politicians and money. In my view and it remains the case we did not need a pecuniary interests register to maintain that standard. It was always regarded as one that MPs would respect and the punishment for not respecting those standards was members’ exposure in the media. 
The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament has taken another formal step. We have every expectation that MPs would be open and transparent as required by the register about the payment of significant amounts of money. There is no denying that a basic fact at the core of this report is the payment or payments—however confusing—of significant amounts of money. 
I come to a couple of points that Dr Cullen made. He seemed to be positing some disagreement with the test that an MP should make an honest attempt to understand what has happened. I back up Russel Norman’s contentions on this. What else would Parliament expect? The register of pecuniary interests would have no meaning if politicians were not expected to make an honest attempt to find out their own circumstances. We are not being asked to inquire into anyone else’s circumstances—simply our own. It is no different from the way the law works in pretty much any other respect I can think of—tax law for instance. There has to be an assumption of an honest attempt otherwise the register is completely meaningless and it could be rendered meaningless by MPs saying: “Well because someone didn’t put in front of me in large bold black letters details of the transactions that involved me then I wasn’t obliged to declare it.” That situation would be ridiculous. I think the application of a common-sense standard is actually all that is required here. 
Significant payments were made. Parliament is a pretty understanding beast actually. If people genuinely did not know or had a misunderstanding of the law at the time I have no doubt that the conclusions of this report would be different. Parliament is eminently forgiving of human weakness actually in my experience if people are open about it. In this case it has not turned out that way. 
I will come back to some of those issues but in the light of the thrust of the Privileges Committee which was simply to establish whether the declaration should have been made I am very concerned about the way the Prime Minister has gone about denigrating the process. Through this whole process at various times when the procedures of this committee have appeared to not suit the political objectives of the Prime Minister she has had a crack at our public institutions. In one day she alleged that the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Law Office were responsible for leaking details of fact to the Leader of the Opposition. I have to say I have not heard that type of allegation for a long time in politics—to have a Prime Minister attack a couple of our legal institutions. Of course they should not be immune from criticism whatsoever but to attack them out of political convenience is unacceptable. 
The Prime Minister adopted the same strategy with the Privileges Committee and I shall take members through a number of statements she made about the committee. On 27 August when the procedures of the committee had already started she said she was awaiting the outcome of the Privileges Committee: “There is clearly a conflict of evidence and I await the outcome of the committee.” And then on 28 August she said the report would be finalised and would be reported back to the House in time for that report to be debated. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just coming to the point. On 15 September she said: “Unless there’s some devastating development which suggests otherwise I would follow a process of procedural fairness.” On 17 September she said: “Well … the advice I’ve had from senior colleagues on the committee and their advice is let the process continue.” On 22 September she said: “I’m saying that the whole process has been tainted from the outset …”. 
How ridiculous is that from our Prime Minister? She spent a month endorsing the process. In fact her principal weapon against political criticism about her own close involvement in this Owen Glenn saga was to say: “No we have to rely on procedural fairness.”; yet day by day she had advice from Labour members. As she said publicly she was being briefed by Dr Cullen on the proceedings of the committee. Then right at the end when it became clear that even Labour’s support parties were going to have to deal with the evidence on its merits she turns round—after full knowledge of all the proceedings for the whole month—and says the whole process has been tainted. I just remind this House what an outrageous statement that is by a Prime Minister about a committee of this House. That simply underlines the strategy of denigration followed by Labour—dirty Labour. Whenever a public institution whether it is the Ombudsman or the Privileges Committee— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can we come back to the report. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —comes to a conclusion that the Government does not like the Government accuses that institution of lacking integrity— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could you take your seat please. Can we concentrate on the report because the debate is really moving towards a general debate rather than a debate on the report. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I am drawing attention to a simple fact: the Prime Minister of New Zealand has alleged to this House that the process of getting to this report was tainted and I say that that allegation is outrageous. She has no basis for making that statement. Her lack of integrity is condemned by a month of statements that supported the process of the Privileges Committee. Helen Clark it now appears has no respect for this institution; no respect for MPs in here being judged by their peers; and because this institution through this report has not served her direct personal political interests then it must be tainted in the same way that as soon as it became clear her friend Owen Glenn was going to give evidence that was inconvenient he turned into a drunken womaniser who had lost his marbles rather than a friend of the Labour Party. Well as it turns out the public will get to make their judgment about Helen Clark and what she thinks about the Privileges Committee.