Hide Rodney: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Hide Rodney: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18891] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move  
That the following words be added: “that the member Mr Peters be requested to apologise to the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s editor Tim Murphy and political editor Audrey Young for calling them liars and demanding their resignations and that the member be suspended for the remainder of the day.” 
I do so because I believe that a gentleman would do so and because I think we in this Parliament and we in New Zealand want a press that is free and is not about to be bullied by Ministers and members of Parliament for simply telling the truth—as indeed the Privileges Committee has found. I also say that censuring a member of Parliament in this way is serious. I think it needs to be a bit more than just censure and that is why I suggest that suspending Mr Peters for the remainder of the day—which means right through the urgency procedures—is appropriate. 
I would also like to acknowledge and thank someone who as yet has not been acknowledged and thanked and that is Mr Owen Glenn. Mr Owen Glenn has been a very generous man to New Zealand. He has also been a very generous man to the Labour Party and indeed to Winston Peters. He took the trouble of coming to New Zealand to give evidence. I am sure that that was at considerable expense and considerable inconvenience to him. I was ashamed to be a Kiwi and to be a member of Parliament because whatever one might think of his evidence the idea that he should come under such abuse and attack for taking the trouble to appear before the Privileges Committee was I thought bullying and it showed a level of ingratitude by our country’s representatives that I found unacceptable. 
The majority of the committee found that Mr Peters should have declared the $100000 and indeed that Mr Peters in front of the committee or his lawyer did not tell the truth. I think we can be proud of the Privileges Committee for the way it went about its business. It is never easy taking one of one’s own through a process such as that. I am proud to be a member of a Parliament whose committee showed itself capable of going through the process in a fair and justifiable way. 
I have to say though that I am very very disappointed in the committee’s handling of the information provided by the Serious Fraud Office. I have some considerable knowledge of the operation of the Spencer Trust and I have put that information before the Serious Fraud Office. I think the Privileges Committee made a mistake on behalf of the people of New Zealand by ignoring it. I believe that at the very least the committee should have said that the matter would need to be considered again once the Serious Fraud Office investigation had concluded. I am not happy that we have a situation whereby the Serious Fraud Office has come under attack. It is an independent law enforcement agency doing a difficult job and I was disappointed to hear members of the committee say in this House that they wished that the Serious Fraud Office had not come forward. I am sure that the Serious Fraud Office would rather that I had not laid a complaint with it. I am sure that it would rather not have the information it had. It was in a very very difficult position and that an independent law enforcement agency is bullied in the way that it has been is I think a sad day for New Zealand. 
What the Serious Fraud Office showed is that Mr Peters and Mr Henry did not tell the truth to the committee. Mr Henry initially in answer to Mr Russel’s question said that he had paid the $40000 in costs out of his own pocket. After that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who’s Mr Russel? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry: Russel Norman. I apologise to Mr Norman. Brian Henry told the committee initially that the $40000 had been paid by him and he was firm on that point. The committee was subsequently told by Mr Peters that he had gone back and checked his records and had discovered that no he had reimbursed Mr Henry. He was firm on that point. 
The Serious Fraud Office in its investigations came across information totally at variance with that testimony. It discovered that indeed the Spencer Trust had paid that money; that the Spencer Trust indeed had $15400 on account that the money had been given by donor A that the trust took a loan to make it up to $40000 that $40000 was paid across and that donor A then gave an additional four donations of $9999 through separate legal entities to the Spencer Trust making a total donation to the Spencer Trust from donor A of $55396. We know that something like over $200000 went through the Spencer Trust all of it undeclared all of it not declared under our electoral laws and all of it not declared on the pecuniary interests register. 
I can tell the House that New Zealand First and its MPs knew nothing of the Spencer Trust except for Doug Woolerton. He in fact knew about the Spencer Trust. He fully knew about the Spencer Trust. Mr Peters would sit in his office and tell his staff “Don’t worry; get Wayne Peters to pay for that.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This matter was ruled out by the committee. It said so. Now a report is before this House and Mr Hide seeks to relitigate material that was debunked by the committee—not accepted by the committee. The committee said the matter was settled because there was no debt. So could you bring him back to the subject matter if you can. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the Serious Fraud Office information is contained within the Privileges Committee’s report. Surely I can refer to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry the Rt Hon Winston Peters. If the material is in the report it is open for discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What is in the report is not $200000 or anything of the sort. It is the matter of $40000 that is in the report. It is in the wiring diagram. Mr Hide is now introducing new material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the report. That is my point. Look in the report. I have read it; it does not refer to that matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I ask Rodney Hide to contain himself to referring to what is in the report and published before this House. Any other matters are extraneous and outside the debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. I certainly will do so. I will certainly talk about the process before the committee—as indeed is my right. 
Mr Winston Peters in his office would instruct his staff “Wayne Peters will pay for that.” We had the Spencer Trust— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is nothing whatsoever in this report to suggest that. Mr Hide is just making it up as he always does. I ask Mr Hide where in the report the matter he refers to is; I ask him to point to it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. Any comment Mr Hide? If you are not referring to something that is in this report—and I have not read it right through—if you cannot show me that that discussion about Mr Wayne Peters is somewhere in this report then it is not to be included in this debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am certainly entitled to discuss the operation of the Spencer Trust. I am certainly entitled as a member of Parliament to get up and express my dismay at the Privileges Committee not ruling on the information from the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you Mr Hide. Take your seat please. There is a quite clear distinction. I took advice before I took the Chair. Earlier today when the Speakers met the advice was that this debate was to be constrained to the material presented in this report. To talk—and it is in the Speakers’ rulings—about something that one thinks ought to have been in the report is not pertinent to the debate. Please contain yourself to comments on what is in the report. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. I refer to page 100 of the report. We see the wiring diagram provided by the Serious Fraud Office. The money goes into the Spencer Trust and is paid across actually to Bob Clarkson. What is not clear from this report is who donor A is. We know that it is one person who has paid across $55396— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Again hear what I said. I said that you cannot presume what is not in here; you can talk about only what is in here. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is in the report! If you have not read it— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Excuse me; sit down please. If I heard you correctly then you referred to donor A and then you said “What is not there …” and you took off again. You must stick with what is here. Thank you. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: The explanatory note says that the donations total $55396. The point I was making is that all we know is that it was from donor A; we do not know who the person is which I think I am still allowed to say in this Parliament. It is interesting that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is being asked by Parliament to fill out 3 years of pecuniary interests register. We know he will be required to detail the payments to the Spencer Trust and who provided them because they are a gift to the Rt Hon Winston Peters— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is an old English saying that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it. The law on trusts changed last year. 
Nathan Guy 
: What’s the point? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is that no such disclosure is required because the law on trusts did not change until the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Sorry that is a point of debate; it is not a point of order. Thank you. Please continue for your remaining minute Mr Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Peters will be required to provide those details because that $40000 is clearly a gift to him just like the $100000 from Owen Glenn has been ruled to be a gift to him. I say to Mr Peters that this House will be very interested to learn who donor A is and to discover the link between that money and the policies that the Clark-Peters Government has introduced in its Budget. Thank you.