English Bill: Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review 
English Bill: Urgent Debates — Release of Report—Telecommunications Stocktake Review 
[Volume:631;Page:3135] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 This debate has focused so far on the matters that were investigated by the State Services Commission. But of course the debate has raised some much wider issues. I want to ask the Government today why Minister Cunliffe who is at the centre of these goings on—and of policy decisions—still holds his job. The measure for whether Mr Cunliffe should still be in his job is the way the Government dealt with David Parker—his bench mate. Why is David Cunliffe still sitting in his seat with his warrants when by this stage of a similar set of proceedings David Parker was not? 
Let us look at the circumstances that David Cunliffe has got himself into. He did an interview yesterday—a wide-ranging interview we are told and a long one—in which he made comments regarding Telecom’s dividend and investment policy. Those comments were broadcast on the Bloomberg News wire which is a subscriber-only wholesale news service for participants in the money market. As a result of those comments the volume of Telecom shares being traded went way up and the price went down. Members should ask themselves why that happened. It happened because David Cunliffe is the ultimate insider. He is the Minister who has held over Telecom the threat that he will break that business up into wholesale and retail components if it does not meet the Government’s objectives. So when the person who has that power says to the market that Telecom should change its dividend policy of course the market will take notice. The Securities Commission has taken that seriously and certainly market participants have because it said today that it had received a referral from the New Zealand Exchange—not from some mum and dad shareholder of no particular legal account—relating to comments reportedly made by the Minister of Communications David Cunliffe. The commission is considering the referral. 
Let us just remind ourselves what has happened here. Someone who was certainly an insider has made comments that may break the law. Those comments have been referred by one statutory body the New Zealand Exchange which has regulatory experience to another statutory body the Securities Commission. The Securities Commission is considering whether to investigate. In my view it has no choice. It investigated comments made by Helen Clark in 2001 regarding Air New Zealand shares. Of course it had to do so particularly because the case involved a Government Minister who was privy to all sorts of information that no other shareholder could get. As my colleague has pointed out this situation is much more serious than the comments that were made about Air New Zealand. There was a significant drop in Telecom’s share price and there is ongoing controversy about the bumbling way the Government has handled the whole debacle of the leak in the announcement of its unbundling policy. 
Let us line up that seriousness alongside David Parker’s case. David Parker was stood down because allegations had been made that he had committed minor breaches of the Companies Act. He stood down. He admitted at the time that he believed he might have breached the Companies Act—because no one else was sure— 
Simon Power 
: It was pretty honourable. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It was pretty honourable. He said he had done the deed that he was alleged to have done. In David Cunliffe’s case there is absolutely no doubt that he did the deed. He has confirmed he made the statements. In David Parker’s case it is unclear whether the Companies Office had announced an investigation before he resigned. I believe he resigned before the investigation was publicly announced. Here we have another Minister who has breached a much more serious law in a much more public and serious way and who has much greater responsibility. David Parker had a responsibility to his shareholders and as an individual to keep the law. But it was not his responsibility as a Minister that he breached. David Cunliffe has used his ministerial position knowledge power and influence and made a statement which may break the law—and he is still sitting in his seat. It will be subject to investigation by the Securities Commission. 
So Helen Clark needs to tell us why that is the case. If David Parker went for a less serious offence related to his behaviour as a private individual why is David Cunliffe keeping his job for a much more serious potential breach of the law which he committed in his capacity as a Minister? How can Parliament and Telecom shareholders be reassured that he will not go out tomorrow and do it again? He lost a copy of the paper behind the photocopier. And now he has made a statement that is being investigated by the Securities Commission. That is a serious matter. What protection does the financial market have against that man? 
Hon Members 
: None! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: None because he is still in his job still getting all the insider information of which he has shown himself to be an unreliable custodian. Yet the Government is still giving it to him. He may be getting information right now—before he came into the House for question time perhaps—that the Government is going to split Telecom up. 
Simon Power 
: Who knows? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Who knows? Well everyone may know because David Cunliffe might go and tell everyone. He cannot be trusted. His breach is as bad as the breach by the messenger. It is as bad. David Cunliffe is the custodian of confidential information and he has broken the trust put in him. Is that not what the messenger did and look what happened to him? David Parker was not a custodian of public or commercially sensitive information—not at all. Yet he stood down because the trust in him was seen to be broken and he could not be restored to his position until he had been investigated. 
Simon Power 
: He lost his position. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In fact he did not go back to be Attorney-General. He never went back. That is the threshold Helen Clark set. David Parker was found to be not guilty but he was not put back into the position where he had to be trusted to keep the law. That is the standard and I might say to Mr Cunliffe that it is a high standard and you have breached that standard. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are asking Helen Clark to explain why she is not applying— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That senior member opposite is getting carried away but he cannot accuse you of anything let alone what he just accused you of. He should withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I had drawn that to his attention when I called “Order!”. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. David Cunliffe is the custodian of some of the most commercially sensitive explosive information that the Government has. We know because regardless of the leak the decision made by him and Cabinet has wiped $2.5 billion off the Telecom share price. That is how sensitive the information is. And he has gone and used that position to give information and a point of view to the market which it has to take notice of because he is the Minister who is the primary decision maker. Now thousands of New Zealand mum and dad shareholders and hundreds of thousands of people who have their retirement savings in shares in Telecom have to wait and hope that that man will keep his mouth shut. Helen Clark says it is OK that we wait and hope that David Cunliffe can keep his mouth shut. Well he cannot. He has shown that and he should go. David Parker went. David Cunliffe must go.