Power Simon: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Power Simon: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18881] 
SIMON POWER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): 
 I move  
That this House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on a question of privilege relating to compliance with a member’s obligations under the Standing Orders dealing with pecuniary interests; censure Rt Hon Winston Peters for knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests; order Rt Hon Winston Peters to file within 7 days of this order amended returns for the years ended 31 January 2006 2007 and 2008 covering any gifts debts or payments in kind that he has not previously registered; resolve that the Standing Orders Committee review the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests; and resolve that the Clerk of the House of Representatives enhance the support available to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests in order to provide an authoritative source of advice for members making returns of pecuniary interests. 
 I stand today as the chairperson of Parliament’s Privileges Committee with this report having been tabled late yesterday afternoon or early evening. Madam Speaker I believe that it is appropriate you have remained in the Chair for the early part of this debate at least as this is a very serious matter. 
Before turning to the detail of the report I will make a few introductory remarks. First of all I thank the staff of the Privileges Committee for handling what at times have been complex and difficult issues. I also take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Privileges Committee who approached this particular referral in a way that I consider to be appropriate and thorough. It is worth noting that in the recommendations in the report the majority view in respect of the first and second recommendations includes representatives on that committee from National the Greens the Maori Party United Future and the ACT party. The minority report in respect of the first and second recommendations represents members of the Labour Party and New Zealand First. The third and fourth recommendations relating to referrals of this matter and the Standing Orders Committee are unanimous recommendations from all members of the Privileges Committee. 
Madam Speaker as I as chairperson have said on many occasions both during the course of hearings of evidence and in private discussions with committee members the terms of reference to the Privileges Committee from you were very narrow and specific. Despite the view some had that this inquiry may have been more wide ranging it was not. Evidence that did not relate to the questions before the committee are not reported on. 
Madam Speaker on 5 August 2005 you ruled that a question of privilege arose from complaints that the Rt Hon Winston Peters failed to disclose a gift and failed to disclose a debt and the name of the person who discharged it. That question stood referred to the Privileges Committee. I want to take a moment to outline the terms of reference the committee decided upon in respect of that referral. The terms of reference were as follows: the meaning of “debt” and “debtor” in the context of the register of pecuniary interests and the meaning of “gift” similarly within that context; whether a debt existed and should have been disclosed; whether if a debt did not exist a gift was received from a person whose name was known or would be reasonably discernible or a donation was made that covered expenses in an election campaign and further if a debt or gift existed whether Mr Peters knowingly provided a return that was inaccurate in a material way; whether the rules for disclosure of pecuniary interests required clarification or amendment; and any other matters. 
In broad terms the committee agreed to a process that saw it hearing evidence from Mr Peters and his counsel Mr Henry. We invited Mr Owen Glenn to appear before us to give evidence. Mr Peters and Mr Henry had a further opportunity to appear before us following Mr Glenn’s appearance. Significantly during the course of the committee’s deliberations we received a communication from the director of the Serious Fraud Office. On hearing further evidence from Mr Peters and receiving written evidence from Mr Henry the committee determined that these matters did not go to the heart of the matter referred by you Madam Speaker to the committee. However we note that if payments were made by a third party these would have constituted a gift. We made Mr Peters aware of the draft findings and provided him with an opportunity to comment. Mr Peters’ response is appended to this report as Appendix N. 
At the centre of the matter before the committee was a payment of approximately $100000 from Owen Glenn to the account of Brian Henry. The fact of this payment was not disputed. It is worth noting that the committee having heard evidence early on and having received specific advice on the issue determined that there was no legal debt. The issue then quickly moved to the issue of whether a gift had transpired between the parties I have already mentioned. 
Mr Glenn told the committee that after speaking with Mr Peters on or shortly after 5 December 2005 he sought Mr Williams’ view on whether helping Mr Peters would be helpful to the New Zealand Labour Party. Mr Glenn believed that this was discussed at a brunch meeting with Mr Williams on 14 December in Sydney. Mr Glenn told the committee he telephoned Mr Peters later that morning—11.16 a.m. Sydney time; 1.26 p.m. New Zealand time—to tell him he would contribute to the cost of the petition. Mr Glenn said that in the course of that conversation he offered to provide $100000. Mr Glenn told us that Mr Peters then said his lawyer would send account details and requested that the donation be kept confidential. That evidence was disputed. Mr Glenn supplied us with a copy of the email he then received on 14 December from Mr Henry which gave Mr Henry’s bank account details and referred to a conversation between Mr Glenn and Mr Henry’s client sent at 1.40 p.m. New Zealand time. It was at that point that the Privileges Committee was required to balance the evidence that was before it. On page 12 of the report from the committee it has set out how it went about the assessment of that evidence and in particular the standard it used in analysing and drawing inferences from the known facts. 
Essentially as I said earlier the matter then drew very quickly to the issue of whether a gift should have been declared on the register of pecuniary interests. The committee considered that the payment was of benefit to Mr Peters. It is clear that the intent of the donor in this case was not to benefit the barrister and the committee was of the view that it was the member’s legal expenses that were being contributed to not the barrister’s well-being. Together these elements show clearly that the payment did constitute a gift to Mr Peters. 
At that point the matter became somewhat more complicated. The committee then had to move to determine the knowledge of the payment and in the words of the deputy chair of the committee “at this time the committee was faced with two different narratives.” There were some points of agreement between the two narratives. Mr Peters and Mr Glenn agree that they met in Sydney on 13 August 2005. The parties all agree that on 14 December 2005 there was a telephone call from Mr Glenn to Mr Peters which was followed immediately by a telephone call from Mr Peters to Mr Henry after which Mr Henry emailed Mr Glenn with bank account details. Mr Peters and Mr Glenn agree they were both at the Karaka yearling sales on or about 31 January 2006. 
The majority of the committee believe that it is extremely unlikely that Mr Peters and Mr Glenn could have had a conversation on that date without the issue of a donation being raised. A minority of the committee could not dismiss the argument put forward by Mr Peters that the money was not mentioned. In the end the committee has delivered a majority report and a minority report. The majority of us consider that the sequence of telephone calls followed immediately by an email containing bank account details indicates that the topic must have arisen during one or both of those conversations. 
The committee then moved to its finding of contempt which is contained on page 19 of the report. We found that the payment as I said did constitute a gift and we found no evidence that Mr Peters made an honest attempt to ascertain whether any donations had been received before making his return in February 2006 despite his knowledge of the arrangement with Mr Henry and the likelihood of donations being received towards his costs. For those reasons the majority of the Privileges Committee determined that a contempt had occurred. 
Issues remaining for the Standing Orders Committee to consider are contained in the report. I emphasise that when you referred this matter to the committee Madam Speaker that was something you asked the committee to look at in some detail. I will finish where I started by thanking the staff of the committee and the advisers to the committee as well as all members of the committee for the way that the hearings the evidence and the deliberations were conducted.