Peters Winston: General Debate 
Peters Winston: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10254] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Michael Fay and David Richwhite are bullies armed with money that rightfully belongs to the people of New Zealand. For more than a decade they have been able to buy the silence of those in power in New Zealand. That is why we now need a wide-ranging inquiry to set the matters right once and for all. In 2003 the Securities Commission faced intimidation. The head of that commission may say that the threats were inconsequential and not a matter for the police but I say that a threat of this nature is serious. We also had the campaign by the  
National Business Review  
to denigrate Jane Diplock and others on the Securities Commission. Has anyone bothered to ask why this was so? Whose errand was that paper on? 
We even have John Key shamefully backing those two crooks. What is it with the National Party of New Zealand? We all heard the Jamie Mackay interview of John Key on Thursday last week. He was as apologetic as ever like his former National Party mates before him. Why is John Key backing these two crooks? What does he know that we do not or is it just that merchant banking has a form of solidarity? Does John Key really believe that we would receive $20 million from Fay and Richwhite if they had done nothing wrong? People have been waiting for John Key to make his first big mistake and he has just made it. By siding with Fay and Richwhite over ordinary New Zealanders he has shown his true colours—once a banker always a banker. 
But there is much more to this case. Threats were made against those who stood up. Threats were made to their careers. Some of those involved will not come forward; they do not want to place themselves at further risk. This type of intimidation is not new. Some of it has been documented over the years and some of it has not. For example at the time that I first revealed that I had the wine-box documents phone calls were made to a broker Stephen Lunn threatening the life of his children and much worse than that happened as well. 
The  
Weekend Herald 
 last week catalogued their $438 million profit from having stolen $271 million from the New Zealand taxpayer and investors. But it is far worse than that. The real story of the wine box shows further very serious frauds on the investing public of New Zealand. The most recent episode is part of a long-running saga that has never been truly addressed. Before anyone trots out the disgraced report of the former Chief Justice let us listen to a few facts. We sought funding to call Tony Molloy QC as an expert. Sir Ron said no because he told my counsel the transactions were “grand larceny”. We went to the High Court then to the Court of Appeal to win the right to review the drivel that Sir Ron had produced over 3 years of investigation. We won at the Court of Appeal. We then had a trial at the High Court. The wine-box report on the key Magnum transactions was quashed. Why? It was because the transactions are grand larceny. So why did Sir Ron change his mind? It is simple. Someone got to him. 
National members stood in this House and day after day week after week crowed about this. The full story is in the submissions filed by my lawyers in the wine box. One counsel assisting Sir Ron quit calling him to his face corrupt. The Court of Appeal described the Magnum transactions as prima facie fraud. Sir Ron knew that. He told my barrister Brian Henry that it was grand larceny—his own words. He then ignored page after page of evidence. This is the indictment: they never thought we could work out what had gone on. 
Capital Markets is a classic transaction. The wine-box transactions cooked the BNZ’s books by $40 million. Fay Richwhite used the BNZ’s falsified profit to justify and pay a dividend to its listed company Capital Markets. Capital Markets was propped up by the fraudulent BNZ dividend. Capital Markets then sold a group of assets to Fay Richwhite a private company—their company—using a profit to earnings ratio of 2.5. Then Fay and Richwhite sold part of the same assets back using a profit to earnings ratio of 7.5 on the same day less the valuable assets but incredibly they were worth over three times the value they had in the morning. It was a $100 million gain to Fay Richwhite. Tony Frankham their puppet accountant told us that this was all OK. It was not. It was simple theft and I say that we need a full inquiry into these matters. There is no statute of limitations and now is the time to act and to tell those who are protecting those crooks that the day has finally come when New Zealand will stand up to financial thuggery. That is why so many of us were so delighted with the Securities Commission finally being the first and only agency in this country to do its public duty. 
Those who have aided the cover-up for the last decade must also be prosecuted for they are as bad as those they protected. We need a full-scale independent inquiry if this country is ever going to clear its name and have a financial market that we can respect. 
 I seek leave to table the relevant submissions on this matter in respect of the Capital Markets deal. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table the  
Weekend Herald 
 article listing Fay and Richwhite’s financial dealings written by Brian Gaynor. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table an interview with John Key on Gore radio last week backing Fay and Richwhite. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It doesn’t exist. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there an objection? No. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Brownlee said it does not exist. I am holding a copy of it right here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: There is no objection. It can be tabled.