Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16303] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What did the Acting Prime Minister mean by reported comments that Mr Tamihere’s ministerial future would be a “political decision” and does that mean the Prime Minister may make a decision prior to receiving a report from Douglas White QC? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The report the member relies upon misquotes me. However questions around Mr Tamihere’s future will in the end be political decisions following the report of Douglas White QC. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why can the Prime Minister decide that Lianne Dalziel should pack her bags within 48 hours of misleading the public yet she cannot decide that Mr Tamihere should resign for misleading the public over a vastly more important matter—one involving monetary benefit to him—and can the Prime Minister explain why her Government persists with two different standards for Ministers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I reject the insinuation that was made in the latter comment; it is not worthy of the member to keep repeating that statement. In relation to my colleague Lianne Dalziel the issue revolved around one word and a comma I think it is fair to summarise. The issues around Mr Tamihere are very complex and I note indeed that members opposite are retreating from most of the accusations around illegal or improper behaviour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why were Ruth Dyson and Marian Hobbs restored to their full ministerial positions yet after a full inquiry which found no blame whatsoever Dover Samuels was not; and how does the Acting Prime Minister square that with his comments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Samuels has been restored to ministerial status and is a full and active part of the Government and I work very well with him. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out sacking John Tamihere before Douglas White QC concludes his inquiry? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Like the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders the Government believes that the evidence should be properly considered. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will find out tonight that he is in a very small minority on that issue. The overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe that Mr Tamihere’s case should be heard carefully and considered carefully before a decision is arrived at. That is the purpose of the inquiry by Mr Douglas White QC. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that under her administration it is not wrongdoing that determines a Minister’s future but rather the level of political embarrassment to the Prime Minister; and does her lack of action in this case mean that she is simply waiting for her focus group reports and media clippings before deciding what is right and what is wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No but I invite the member to look immediately to his right at a person who committed assault and next door at somebody who was found guilty of contempt. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to the comment from the Acting Prime Minister which you seemed to think was perfectly acceptable in Parliament—despite personal explanations having been made and despite it being 
against your own ruling—let me make it very clear to the House that I was never paid for my actions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is irrelevant and is not—[ 
Interruption 
] My patience has gone. That is not a point of order. The member is skating on very thin ice with regard to his staying in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On what date did the Prime Minister learn of John Tamihere’s golden handshake if it was not in Parliament on 27 July 1999 or soon thereafter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a primary question question No. 10 which asks when the Prime Minister first learnt about the golden handshake. I am quite happy to answer the question as long as it is appropriate for me to do so at this point thereby pre-empting the question that is set down on the Order Paper for later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Peters is asking the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Just answer it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to answer it but I was giving Mr Hide the chance to ask it first as he wrote it. As far as I am aware the first time the Prime Minister heard of this payment was when allegations were reported last week. 
Rodney Hide 
: There you go Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question has not started. Please ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: So that is the rule now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and it always has been. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of the Acting Prime Minister’s commitment to hearing the evidence will he now rule out sacking John Tamihere before the Douglas White QC report is finished? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member has evidence and wishes to support a further allegation with evidence that might bear upon the question he has just asked I invite him to bring it forward. But so far the evidence produced by that member has not exactly been very solid. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order Mr Brownlee? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point of order is about the quality of the answer and whether the Minister addressed the question that was asked of him. He was asked whether he would rule out Mr Tamihere being removed from his ministerial post prior to the completion of the report from Douglas White QC and he answered in a completely spurious way by talking about his view that there was not enough evidence to sack Mr Tamihere. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen nothing so far to suggest that anything should be done other than follow a proper process—which I know the member does not like—of allegations first then evidence then response to the evidence then consideration of the evidence then a conclusion and then a determination of consequential action. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the answer to my last question the following: that despite the allegation being made on 27 July 1999 and the fact that John Tamihere was a candidate the Prime Minister at no time made any inquiry—then or later—as to whether the allegation was true; or is it that John Tamihere gave her an assurance that it was not true and last week she found out that that assurance was false? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member is getting a little confused about the chronology— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I’m not. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes he is. The original offer came from the trust in May 1999 and was declined by Mr Tamihere at that point. The renewed offer occurred much later than that. There was nothing in July 1999 at all. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister seen Mr John Tamihere’s speech of 24 March 2004 where he said: “… we need to make sure that we adhere to the highest standards. We must lift our own standards conduct and ethics to ensure that we are beyond reproach.” and does he think it acceptable that Mr John Tamihere should be on full ministerial pay and perks with no ministerial responsibilities and hiding out in Henderson rather than his coming down to Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before it is perfectly appropriate for the evidence to be considered properly before a conclusion is arrived at. It is more appropriate that Mr Tamihere is in Henderson than it is for that member to keep covering up for Mr Henderson. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] I will not be shouted at by Mr Brownlee. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the last part of that remark should be withdrawn. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that Mr Henderson is involved in the sex industry in Christchurch and had a long record of dispute with the Inland Revenue Department before I became Minister over matters of taxation payments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As with other comments made this afternoon that was not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to say so but my question asked whether the Prime Minister had seen that speech. That was not addressed. I also asked the Acting Prime Minister about that member being on full ministerial pay with perks with no ministerial responsibilities and hiding out in Henderson. Neither of those two questions was responded to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the second part. He did not address the first part. He is not obliged to address every part. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister why she through her Acting Prime Minister is disputing the chronology of events when the fact is that at the Taipa meeting in April the $50000 offer was made which John Tamihere rejected and that a later late May 1999 offer included the $280000 offer which John Tamihere accepted; why is he disputing that fact when it is part of the minutes of that organisation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister John Tamihere did not accept the offer that was made in May 1999 although of course that was the original date that the offer was made. It was renewed much later and then accepted. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Acting Prime Minister is going to stick with the view that Mr Tamihere did not take the payment in 1999 but rather accepted it at a much later date does he still stick by his statement yesterday that the income would be taxed in the year in which it was derived and does that not mean that Mr Tamihere is up for the 39c rate rather than the 33c rate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because the date of derivation of income is the date at which the offer was made. The member could be receiving income today that derived from the 1999-2000 tax year. I suggest he get a tax adviser on these matters.