Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1988] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 This Parliament has a rare form of unanimity today. Everyone in this Parliament now agrees that David Parker should not be the Attorney-General should not be the Minister of Energy and should not be the Minister of Transport. The Prime Minister Helen Clark and the Labour Party agree on that point. The National Party agrees on that point. United Future agrees on that point. I believe that New Zealand First agrees on that point. I think the Greens say that David Parker did the right thing. I believe that the Maori Party says that Mr Parker did the right thing. So too does the ACT party. But I want to contrast this with the situation just a little over 24 hours ago. Helen Clark miscalculated she has lost her touch and she has misjudged. I want to take members back to just over 24 hours ago to Helen Clark when this story first broke. Helen Clark said that there was no need for a public investigation and she did the classic Labour Party trick of attacking the messenger. So Ian Wishart was attacked and his magazine  
Investigate 
 was attacked—attacked by the Prime Minister of this country and she said it was nothing. Let us just understand what was done. 
This Parliament has passed a law that says that if someone files a false statement under the Companies Act he or she is liable to a fine of $200000 and 5 years in jail. If that is nothing why did Parliament pass that law? It is important because a decision is made not to audit a company’s accounts; not to provide a true and accurate statement of accounts. That is why one has to go around and get every shareholder’s permission. David Parker knew he had to do that because he got his father’s permission and he got his own permission but he did not get Mr Hyslop’s permission. David Parker cannot claim that he is ignorant of the law because the Labour Party has been telling us for years and years that he is a hotshot lawyer. 
We also learnt that Mr Parker set up the arrangements for Mr Hyslop so that he would be financially disadvantaged at every turn in this deal. The Labour Party which is supposed to stand up for the poor and downtrodden stood up and ripped this gentleman off and Mr Parker admitted this to the official assignee. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour members pull faces. The article states: “ ‘Mr Hyslop was therefore effectively in a different position in relation to the project from you and your father is that correct?’ ‘Yes.’ … ‘If the project failed would that not place him in a much less advantageous position than the position that you and your father enjoy?’ ‘That is correct’ confirmed Parker.” 
But Helen Clark said it did not matter. A false statutory declaration had been signed a false record under the Companies Act—it does not matter. Then later on in the day it became clear that Helen Clark decided Mr David Parker was not fit to be the Attorney-General because essentially he had filed a false statutory declaration. It is no small matter. But we were told he could be a Minister of the Crown. So one can be a Minister and demand that every poor businessman and businesswoman in this country comply with the hefty red tape laid on them by this Government but the regulations do not apply to the Minister. That is what is happening under Helen Clark with this Government. There are two rules: one for every New Zealander and for the Opposition and a special rule for Labour Ministers Labour MPs and the Labour leader. They carry a “get out of jail” card everywhere they go. That is what happens if one is a Labour Minister. 
Then Helen Clark attacked me. She said it was my fault that David Parker is in trouble. I want to put on record in this House that I had nothing to do with that company. I gave no legal advice to David Parker. I did not know Mr Hyslop. I did not fill out the form. I did not give David Parker the pen. He did all that on his own. I say to the Prime Minister that it was David Parker who filed the false statutory declaration—not me not Ian Wishart and not  
Investigate 
 magazine. I say to the House again that if it is no small matter why is there a $200000 fine and the potential for 5 years in jail? Helen Clark said that he made a mistake. That is a bit like saying: “I broke the law no one has been hurt. I made a mistake therefore it is OK.” Funnily enough if no one has been hurt then maybe it should not be a crime but we let Parliament make that decision. In this case Parliament has decided that it is a crime and that rule should apply surely to those who make the rules—Ministers. But Helen Clark says no. And David Parker says: “Oh I cut a corner.” If one is a small-business man and one breaks the tax laws of New Zealand—or the company laws or the occupational safety and health laws or the electoral laws—and then says: “Oh look I’m sorry but I cut a corner. I made a mistake. It’s OK.” it will not wash. 
Everyone has agreed that David Parker should not be a Minister and should not be the Attorney-General so how come Helen Clark took so long to reach that view? How come Helen Clark and the Labour Party attack everyone for simply pointing out what David Parker had done as though it was their mistake? I say to Helen Clark that her Government now lacks integrity and honesty. I think that filing a false statement a statutory document when one is the Attorney-General and a Minister of the Crown is unacceptable. I think this issue does need a full investigation. I say to the House that it is an important job to hold Ministers to account. That is what Parliament does—that is our Westminster parliamentary democracy. But Ministers can be held to account only if they give truthful answers. What we have seen in this House is Ministers giving untruthful answers. That is the parliamentary crime of David Benson-Pope. He has given untruthful answers in this House and therefore we have no accountability in this Parliament. That is the tragedy of this Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that “untruthful” means “given to lying”; it is diverging from the truth. A generalised charge that a person is untruthful cannot be permitted but a particular reference to an occasion on which a member has admittedly diverged from the truth in a certain statement is not unparliamentary. I just caution the member on the use of his language.