Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9170. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What is her reaction to New Zealand being ranked the third least-corrupt country out of the 133 included in Transparency International’s survey on corruption and how will she endeavour to ensure that New Zealand maintains a favourable anti-corruption ranking in the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 With pleasure. It is a tribute to the work over a very long period of time of central and local government politicians central and local officials and their independent review agencies. In any instances of inappropriate behaviour we will continue to act swiftly to ensure that our reputation stays intact. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that answer does the Prime Minister consider that the granting of contracts worth $2.1 million by the Ministry of Health to anti-smoking lobby groups—requiring them to lobby members of Parliament in order to generate support for a member’s bill the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill—will be viewed favourably by corruption watchdogs like Transparency International; if so why does she come to that conclusion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I doubt that the transparency watchdog would regard that as an instance of corruption; but it might regard it perhaps as inappropriate contracting. I do think that it would see an example of corruption in the situation say of tobacco companies buying support from political parties. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that this lobbying by smoke-free groups and the Prostitutes Collective was an inappropriate use of health dollars which crossed the line from lobbying for health promotion to political lobbying; and can she assure the House that those contracts in support of Labour’s political agenda will not be continued? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that the lobbying of MPs was not part of the contract for the Prostitutes Collective; it clearly was in the case of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and others. The Minister responsible has already addressed the issue. An inquiry is occurring to ensure that appropriate contracts are entered into in future. I note of course that general lobbying was part of the contracts signed previously. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What specific action if any has the Prime Minister taken to address the public-sector corruption cases of recent weeks involving public funding of the ASH lobby and the case of immigration officers who abuse their powers in attempting to gain sexual favours? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The latter matter has been dealt with by the Immigration Service and by the Minister in question time. In respect of the former matter I do not regard it as an instance of corruption but as an instance of inappropriate contracting—to engage in behaviour that is not appropriate. It is much more appropriate to describe corruption as a situation for example where an outside person or body is paying a sum of money to a member of Parliament to be a member of Parliament. We look forward to the declarations that all members of Parliament will be required to make under the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill in that regard. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The final statement made by the Acting Prime Minister is a slur on every MP. It is similar to the one he made earlier which you also did not pick up suggesting that political parties are being financed by the tobacco lobby. If one looks through the accounts put in by parties at the last election no political party said it was getting any money from tobacco lobbying. That was a straight-out slur made by the Minister to have people think that other parties were being financed by the tobacco lobby in order to justify his secret financing of ASH. Now he is suggesting that there are MPs here being sponsored—unless he is referring to the well-known sponsorship by the trade union movement of certain Labour MPs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last comment made by Dr Cullen was inappropriate and I hope that comments on that matter will not be repeated. I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had better withdraw for the fact that I have also made that accusation in this House on three occasions in relation to Mr Hide and he has never taken a point of order to contest it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have asked the member to withdraw. I now ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that might change our ranking in the Transparency International survey—for example reports on whether behaviour in the House today in relation to the smoke-free legislation might be influenced by tobacco companies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do notice that there are some rather obvious delaying tactics today. However having been on both sides of this House I would never describe delaying tactics in Parliament as a form of corruption. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I take the Acting Prime Minister back to an earlier answer in which it was indicated that a particular activity is currently under investigation with regard to the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill and in the light of that answer will the Prime Minister be instructing the Leader of the House to defer consideration of that bill until such time as the inquiry is completed; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the Leader of the House has no power to defer the consideration of that bill. It is a member’s bill on a members’ day. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table evidence that the Labour Party took a huge sum of money from Fay Richwhite when Margaret Wilson was the president as evidenced by David Lange’s testimony. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the Acting Prime Minister’s previous answer will the Leader of the House discuss with the sponsor of the bill whether it would be appropriate to set this matter aside until the inquiry he referred to earlier is completed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I take it from the reaction of members that they have been completely uninfluenced by lobbying on behalf of the bill by members of ASH so not only was the contract inappropriate it also appears to have been a waste of public money. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table in the House a letter from the British American Tobacco Co. Ltd to Mr Peter Dunne. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I am quite happy for the letter to be tabled but I would love to know what it says before I agree to the resolution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the member could say a little bit more. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: “Dear Mr Dunne Paul Adams has asked me to send you the enclosed £100 to help pay for your away day. I do hope you will enjoy yourselves. If at all possible I would be grateful if you could get receipts etc. Enjoy your visit to England.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that that is the price of a McDonald’s! Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is. That is the end of the matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might give us some indication as to whether £100 translated into New Zealand dollars would be a big enough sum to be disclosed under the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Paul Adams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like it clarified that Paul Adams is my name and I probably would not have £100 to start with but I would not like members to think that that reference was being made to myself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is making it clear that that does not refer to himself he can ask for leave to make a personal explanation. Is that what he is doing? 
Paul Adams 
: Yes. I would like to clarify that the Paul Adams referred to in the letter that we have just heard read by the member of the Green Party is in fact a different Paul Adams to me. I would like to make that clear at this point in time. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I wish to make a personal explanation regarding the matter that has just been tabled. That incident was in December of 1994 during the course of a private visit to Britain. I was hosted to lunch by Mr Adams who worked for Rothmans—I think it was called at that stage. The £100 referred to was provided to make sure the cost of lunch was covered for my family and me during a private visit. There was no other involvement and I would contrast that with the time-honoured practice around this town—which I suspect may have occurred as recently as the most recent lunch hour—where members of Parliament are hosted to private lunches by various lobbyists. It was in that category and in that category alone and any suggestion of anything to the contrary is simply malicious and untrue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his statement. His word will be accepted.