Smith Nick: General Debate 
Smith Nick: General Debate 
[Volume:650;Page:18703] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I remind the House that that is the Minister who got on her high horse all last year demanding the need for openness and transparency around financial big-business cheques and who rammed through this Parliament the Electoral Finance Bill at the very time the Prime Minister was complicit in hiding a $100000 donation. You see this Clark-Peters Government is so up to its eyeballs in muck that New Zealanders are yearning for a fresh honest and uncompromised Government that can get on and address the issues that matter to this country of ours. Let me canvass why Owen Glenn’s testimony has torpedoed any resemblance of honour or of trust in this Government. It is simply because MMP Governments stand or fall on agreements between coalition partners. The $100000 payment from Mr Glenn jacked up by Labour was conditional on Mr Peters committing to prop up this Labour - New Zealand First Government for the full term. At its most basic the Clark-Peters Government was stitched together by a tawdry backhander for $100000. This is nothing less than our democracy being for sale. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not need to remind you Mr Deputy Speaker given the experience you have had that imputations of corrupt practice are totally out of order in the House especially when they come from the only MP in the place to be convicted of lying. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Deputy Speaker I say that the first thing is that the latter point is grossly untrue—grossly untrue—and of course the words the member used at the end of his point of order are strictly out of order. 
Ron Mark 
: The first point— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not need much more help. 
Ron Mark 
: The first point I made was exactly a correct point of order and the member himself a very experienced front-bench member and a former Minister knows precisely what he was doing. I will withdraw and apologise if he would like to tell the House what he was convicted of. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We will end this matter there. It is true that no member may make reference to the corruption or otherwise of a party or a member in this House. But the member who raised the matter ended his point of order on a similar note so let us proceed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence to the comment made by Mr Mark which is disorderly and outside of the Standing Orders. I ask you Mr Deputy Speaker to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I took offence at the imputation that my party stitched up a corrupt deal so I say to Dr Smith that this is 30-all. I will withdraw and apologise for using the word “lying” but if he would like to tell us what he got convicted of it would be easier. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As the member knows people make withdrawals and apologies in this House with no lead-in and certainly no follow-up. I will now ask Dr Nick Smith to withdraw and apologise and I know he will do so. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. What has been exposed is the rotten underbelly— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will just ask Mr Ron Mark to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is it a fresh point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: Yes sir. So that I do not make the same mistake again would Dr Smith do me the honour and the privilege of telling me exactly what he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Deputy Speaker I say that the issue the member refers to was in respect of a Nelson mum and dad who lost their child. The House might be interested to know that Ron Mark personally approached me and said he thought I had done exactly the right thing in standing up for that Maori family. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think all sides will be satisfied now. Dr Smith your time is as it was. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This whole episode has exposed awful double standards. Members should remember that Labour and New Zealand First spent all last year ramming through this Parliament a tawdry law that was designed to screw the electoral laws as much as possible in favour of this Clark-Peters Government. We heard speech after speech from New Zealand First and Labour members demanding open transparency with respect to big-business donations. The duplicity was highlighted when Labour specifically amended that law to allow for overseas donations if it just happened that the overseas donation was from an ex-resident. That description just happened to fit Mr Owen Glenn. Labour’s principles are that big money from overseas billionaires is fine as long as it is going to Labour. That is as far as their principles go. We have seen a trail of dishonesty from Labour and New Zealand First over this whole affair. The first porky was when Labour Party president— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No point of order. I just ask the member to withdraw that reference. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. The Labour Party president denied receiving any post-election donation from Mr Glenn but subsequently had to admit that he had received $100000. Labour then became complicit in February with Winston Peters’ denial that he had received $100000. Not only did Prime Minister Helen Clark know that that was untrue; senior Minister Trevor Mallard was at the meeting where it was disclosed that $100000 was paid. The question I have for the Government is: if Helen Clark has stood silently by at the sidelines knowing that Winston Peters’ statement was untrue how many other Ministers have been telling untruths to the public of New Zealand while she has sat silently by? All the transcripts show that both the Prime Minister and Mike Williams knew but denied knowing anything. It is no wonder Mr Glenn has today slammed the Prime Minister as self-serving and the Labour Party president as dishonest. Here we have at the highest levels of Government dishonesty and a complete breakdown in trust. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say today that she found Mr Glenn’s evidence disturbing and that she may now cut Mr Peters loose after the passage of the emissions trading legislation but the reality is that she knew everything back in February and misled the public.