Williamson Maurice: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Williamson Maurice: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14321] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 A great deal of politics is about credibility and whether the public can actually believe what one is claiming. In the last few days this country has seen a series of events occur by which Labour’s credibility will be eternally tarnished. I refer to the issue of Owen Glenn and funding and of “cash for honours”. I will take the House through a little bit of the history of the facts then I will ask members in this House to say whether they think there is even a tinge of concern about the timing. 
For example Mr Glenn has been an incredibly successful transport entrepreneur for many many years but when did he get his gong? Did he get it 7 years ago 9 years ago 12 years ago or 15 years ago? No; he got it the year that he gave the Labour Party a $100000 interest-free loan. That is right. So there is the first question on credibility. Did the Government say it honoured Mr Glenn for his contributions to transport policy? Well if that was the case then there were many other opportunities in other years for it to have happened. But no; just as the moon and the stars aligned for Annette King’s problem of violent crime in Auckland so they aligned for Mr Glenn to get his gong at just the same time he had given the Labour Party $500000 for the 2005 election. 
Let us track through the timing on this issue. If we go back to 31 December—the time of the gong—we see that Mike Williams the Labour Party president rejected any suggestions that Labour had rewarded the man who was also its largest donor. He said: “I know it will be interpreted in that fashion but I think he richly deserves it. He is a generous man.” That is what Mike Williams said—that he richly deserves it and he is a generous man. Well I understand why Mike Williams would say that. I understand exactly why Mike Williams would say that. 
Mike Williams went on to say that Mr Glenn had not made any donations to the Labour Party since 2005. So the next question of credibility is this: who in this country believes that the president of any major political party that was in receipt of a $100000 interest-free loan would not remember it? I ask members in the House to put their hands up if they think that the president of a major political party could forget that especially given that the party received $500000 from Mr Glenn at the election before. There is not a mutter—not a murmur. 
It goes on and gets better. I know that Helen Clark learnt a number of things from Tony Blair. She learned lots about the third way and all that fuzzy Steve Maharey stuff. But I did not know that she had learnt about the “cash for honours” stuff as well as she had. When one listens to the timing of this issue with regard to Mr Glenn’s original claim one finds that he had been offered the job as Minister of Transport. I ask members to listen to the timing of it. I mean poor old Harry Duynhoven must be absolutely spitting tacks over this. For 21 years he has been there wanting desperately to be the Minister of Transport and not a mutter nor a murmur comes his way. The Prime Minister meets Mr Glenn at a yachting function—that is very Labour-ish is it not; it was at a Kawau yachting function over some chardonnay—and suddenly it was all on. Mr Glenn was offered the portfolio. 
I ask members to listen to the Prime Minister’s response to this claim on 15 February because it is really worth listening to. I have all of the newspaper clippings from her interview if members want to see them. She said that it never happened. In response to the question of whether Mr Glenn was offered the transport portfolio she said it never happened. But then 2 days later that got changed a bit. She said that if it had happened then she did not remember it. Well how can she say that it never happened and then say that if it had happened she did not remember it? 
Hang on; there is a third option. We then get to the third option which is that she did not remember it but if it had happened then it would have been said in jest. Who believes that? Again members who believe that sequence of events should put their hands up. There is not one hand. That is dead right. The credibility on this issue is shot to pieces. 
In politics timing is everything. I know that when an issue breaks on this side of the House that we need to deal to it gets dealt to really quickly so that we do not let it linger. When the Mr Glenn issue about the transport portfolio was broken on 15 February one would have expected that if it was not correct and needed to be corrected then about an hour later the actual correction and the realignment would have occurred. But it did not occur on 15 16 or 17 February. Only yesterday at 1.37 p.m. did Audrey Young report on her blog that she had just been told by Mr Glenn that it was a facetious comment taken out of context. Again I ask members whether they believe that. If that is what it had really been then he would have said so straight away at the time 5 days ago when it blew up to be an issue. 
I have to say that when the Prime Minister says she was saying it in jest then it has to be the funniest line because she is really well known for her humour. She is really well known for being a bit of a larrikin and for throwing these jokes around at parties is she not? Oh yes! I am sure that when she said to David Benson-Pope: “We are kicking you out of Dunedin South.” he saw the funny side of the joke and said: “Prime Minister you are great with that humour.” I am sure she is well known for her funny lines at parties. Mr Glenn should have known that he was dealing with a Prime Minister who when she goes to parties just tells one-liners and funny jokes because that is what it was said to be. But we do not believe that because there is even more to come. Yes wait there is more. 
Now we are talking about some sort of an honorary position in Monaco that Mr Glenn not only thinks he should be getting but also says he has been promised. He said he has been told that. He said—and I am sorry to use the word but it is a quote from him—he will be given it “If Winston ever gets off his arse”. That is what Mr Glenn said. I know he will have a long wait for it to happen but that is what he said. 
New Zealanders are disgusted at this sort of behaviour. They are really disgusted because there are heaps of New Zealand business leaders who more richly deserve honours in this country and who have done some stunning things for this nation but who have not been rewarded. I put it to Labour members that the only reason that has not happened is it is suspected—I do not know but I think it is suspected—that those people might have been contributors to the National Party in the past but not Mr Glenn. Members should again remember the timing of this. 
There is another thing about timing that I love. Mr Glenn said he gave the $500000 during the 2005 election campaign. He said that what really riled him was the “sneaky” way in which the Exclusive Brethren had reportedly tried to hide the fact it was behind the campaign. Actually Mr Glenn is again being economic with the truth because he gave his first $200000 of the $500000 a year before the Exclusive Brethren had even been heard of. I had never heard of the Exclusive Brethren; I thought they were called Plymouth Brethren or something. I did not know there was an Exclusive Brethren. When Mr Glenn gave that money in 2004 the Exclusive Brethren were not even an issue. The issue had never been raised. We had never heard of them. There were no pamphlets. 
So when Mr Glenn said he gave his money to the Labour Party only to balance up the campaign from the Exclusive Brethren it was a lie. It was an absolute outright lie. Let us look at the timing. The timing was that he gave the money beforehand. 
Here is a sneaky bit about timing. Members will love this one. The Cabinet paper that covers the Electoral Finance Bill stated: “We will ban any offshore donations to political parties.” That was in the original bill and in the draft that came to this House. Then suddenly Mike Williams went out publicly and said that yes the Labour Party had accepted money from this man—a $100000 loan—and that it would accept money again at the next election campaign. Members should guess what happened. The legislation was changed so that expat New Zealanders living overseas can now make donations. 
I say to this House that it is not acceptable that this Labour Government passes such legislation. Some foreigners out there like Julian Robinson have done more for New Zealand in terms of progressing things like a free-trade agreement with the United States. I do not know whether he has given money to the National Party; I can swear before a lie detector that I do not know that. That man has done more for New Zealand but no he will not be seen as being a mate. But what is Mr Glenn seen as being? It is corruption of the very worst sort and it will be Labour’s biggest downfall.