Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:648;Page:17311] 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Racing; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister now received advice from the Cabinet Office as to how Mr Glenn’s $100000 gift to Mr Peters should be treated by the Prime Minister; if so what was that advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Whether that is a gift is not a matter to be determined by me or the Cabinet Office; it is a matter to be determined by the registrar of pecuniary interests. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: In view of the calls from the Opposition for party leaders to resign or be referred to authorities for receiving donations and claiming not to know about them has the Prime Minister seen any reports of any party leader who knew about donations by the Exclusive Brethren to buy an election and did that party leader claim to have forgotten about them; if so could that member’s record of forgetfulness explain why he is so willing to contemplate having those people in a ministry of his own? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the matter is actually worse than that. I think that Mr Key remembered not reading an email he said he had never received. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware and can she confirm that paragraph 2.79 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 requires Ministers to obtain her express permission to keep gifts valued at more than $500; and will she not accept that Mr Peters by his own admission has now admitted that he received a gift of $100000 from Mr Glenn and whether or not she likes it has to determine whether he will be allowed to keep that gift? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I say again that whether the sum is a gift is a matter for the registrar of pecuniary interests. But can I further make the point that immediately Mr Peters was told of the source of that particular donation to a legal fund he declared it to me. The Cabinet Office advised me that the court case of course was one of particular public interest—considerable public interest—and in such circumstances if and I underline that word such a sum of money were deemed to be a gift there would be no reason to require a Minister to relinquish it. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm these facts: that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing a competent job; that these allegations are unproven—none have been confirmed to be against any rules or guidelines—that the Minister has kept the Prime Minister informed at every stage; and that he is continuing to perform his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the best interests of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that the answer to all those questions is yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does she agree that the political funding scandal now enveloping the Minister for Racing and Minister of Foreign Affairs shows that if we are to continue with a system of private donations to political parties then it needs to be transparent; if so why did the Labour Party and New Zealand First fail to support the Greens’ call for such transparency in the Electoral Finance Act? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I told the House yesterday I would be absolutely delighted to see corporate and large private donations banned on the basis that there would need to be State funding. That has been our consistent position. In answer to the chirping opposite of course there was no parliamentary majority for a system of State funding. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the question as to whether Mr Peters should be allowed to keep his gift of $100000 from Mr Glenn is in fact quite a simple matter and the Prime Minister should be clearing up that issue within a matter of days not a matter of weeks? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not sure that the member listened carefully to the answer I gave. What I said was that the Cabinet Office advises me that if the sum were deemed to be a gift there would be no reason to require the Minister to relinquish it given the considerable public interest in the court case for which that money was paying. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the US Secretary of State is visiting New Zealand this weekend after accepting a personal invitation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs and is that not yet another example of the strength of the current Minister’s ability to carry out the Government’s policy of continuing to improve relationships with the United States of America? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my understanding that from the very first meeting of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with Condoleezza Rice he has made it very clear that he would like her to accept his invitation to come to New Zealand. She is coming this weekend. I think it is in the interests of New Zealand that she does so and I commend the Minister for the work he has done to build the relationship with the Secretary of State. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister for Racing acts at all times with the interests of the whole racing sector at heart or does she have any sense as some in the racing industry do that his actions tend to favour those at the high end of the industry which incidentally is the same end from which New Zealand First has received substantial donations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously I do not have any independent information about where donations come from but I can say to the member that I have had absolutely no advice or indeed even any suggestion of the issue of preference that she has raised. 
John Key 
: Will the Prime Minister in light of everything we now know about the matter categorically rule out the appointment of Owen Glenn as honorary consul in Monaco; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made it very clear that I consider such an appointment to be highly unlikely. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What does the Prime Minister see as the strengths of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in dealing with our neighbours in the Pacific? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It has been I think the good fortune of New Zealand that our Minister of Foreign Affairs has from his time as a university student had connections with many people who have risen to the top of their Pacific country’s legal systems political systems and business systems. He has drawn on all those personal contacts and has brought to the portfolio in my view a very high level of interest in the welfare of the Pacific and of course he has been responsible for very significant increases in the development assistance budget for the Pacific. 
John Key 
: Should we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer that Mr Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs who received a $100000 gift from Mr Owen Glenn could be in a position to appoint Mr Glenn as an honorary consul in Monaco; is the Prime Minister seriously telling New Zealanders that she thinks there is no conflict of interest there that she is not worried about that and that that is now the new standard for her executive—that even if a Minister receives $100000 from someone that Minister can appoint that person to a position? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is clear that the member does not listen to the answers given. I can say that it is no more likely that Mr Glenn would be appointed honorary consul than it is likely that the gentleman whom Mr Worth lobbied for would be appointed to the position. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs also acting with her confidence in his role as Associate Minister for Senior Citizens given that senior citizens have benefited through improved funding for pensions and elder care and the SuperGold card? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Associate Minister for Senior Citizens most certainly is operating with my confidence and I acknowledge his work in the development of the SuperGold card and of the entitlements available pursuant to it not least of which is the fact that on 1 October people from all over New Zealand who are over the age of 65 and who have that card will be enjoying—provided that negotiations with the regional councils are completed—free off-peak travel on public transport. I think that is a tremendous thing. 
John Key 
: Did Winston Peters ask for the racing portfolio when the Prime Minister allocated the portfolios in 2005? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Prime Minister expect that the registrar of pecuniary interests will rule that a gift is a gift or otherwise regardless of whether it was given by Mr Glenn or anonymously but rather on the basis that it was received and retained by a member of Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Clearly Mr Peters’ word has been accepted across the House—that he did not personally know of or personally receive that sum of money. That has been made quite clear. As to how the registrar of pecuniary interests will rule on whether it is a gift I cannot help the member. But I find it very strange that Opposition members are so certain about these things in the House this afternoon. I listened very carefully to Mr Key on radio this morning and he was clear that he accepted Mr Peters’ word that he had not known what the source of funding to his lawyer was. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask for your guidance and assistance. On a couple of occasions now during the asking of supplementary questions—once in comments made by Mr Key and once in comments made by Ms Bradford—implications of corrupt practice have been made. My understanding is that implications of corrupt practice by an honourable member of Parliament are out of order. I ask for your guidance on how such comments should be treated. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes they are out of order. I did not hear those comments but if they were made then I say to the members who made them please be on notice that they are unacceptable in this House. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the allegations made against Mr Peters are indeed very serious allegations and that it is bad for her Government—and actually bad for Parliament—to have those allegations swirling around without their being satisfactorily resolved; and will the Prime Minister tell the country why she is not acting to resolve those issues and get to the bottom of them when she could do so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer is simple: because I am not the registrar of pecuniary interests nor the Commissioner of Inland Revenue nor the Commissioner of Police. I have made it very clear that there are proper processes to be followed. I might add the obvious fact that I am not the Speaker. The Speaker receives complaints of privilege; they are matters for the Speaker to consider. I am advised by the Cabinet secretary on what is proper and I listen very carefully to the Cabinet secretary. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister think that the Government’s failure to get the numbers to progress sustainability measures like the Marine Reserves Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill may have anything to do with the large financial contribution to the party of her Minister of Foreign Affairs from Vela Fishing which is involved in serious— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is the very implication that I raised in my point of order—that the Minister is involved in corrupt practice. I ask that that question be ruled out of order. 
Metiria Turei 
: My question asked the Prime Minister for her view on potential influences that may impact on one of her Ministers. It is quite reasonable for her as the Prime Minister responsible for her Ministers to consider that issue. There was not an implication of corrupt practice; it was simply a question about the responsibility of Ministers and potential influences on their ability to do their job—which is quite within her responsibilities. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There are many Speakers’ rulings on this matter and any suggestion that people are subject to outside interference or direction in relation to how they cast their vote in this House has been ruled out on many many occasions in many many different contexts. 
Rodney Hide 
: It was only in the last sitting period that Mr Peters raised a question about the National Party being venal and corrupt. You allowed that question Madam Speaker. Mr Mallard actually assisted on the basis that it was raised as a hypothetical question. In fact it was a much more strongly worded question than the one that the Greens are raising. I point out that the difference between the two is that one question had documentary evidence and the other one was just an allegation. 
Ron Mark 
: The wording in the question that raised my concern was the inclusion of the words “had anything to do with the large donations he had received”. I would have thought that those words were immediately an implication of corrupt practice and therefore should be ruled out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As members know and as was rightly raised in the point of order members cannot make implications or imputations in questions that go to matters that could be interpreted as misconduct or corruption. I listened carefully to the member’s question and I would suggest to her that she rephrase the question because I would rule that in that context it could be seen that there is an implication of corrupt practice. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister think that the Government’s failure to get the numbers to progress sustainability measures like the Marine Reserves Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill through the House may have anything to do with the relationship between her Minister of Foreign Affairs and other fishing interests particularly for example those of Vela Fishing which is involved in seriously unsustainable fishing practices including the fishing of orange roughy tuna and Antarctic tooth fish? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If I were for a moment to accept that in respect of New Zealand First I would have to accept it in respect of every party that was unsympathetic to those particular law changes—not least of course the New Zealand National Party. 
John Key 
: Why given the seriousness of the allegations against Mr Peters is the Prime Minister not following her normal course of practice which is to refer this matter to an independent inquiry in the same way she followed that procedure when the Taito Phillip Field matter was being considered even if the inquiry was a bit of a sham? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Issues have been raised in respect of pecuniary interests in respect of tax and in respect of privilege in this House. There are three independent sources of inquiry that can be used for each of those. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister for Racing and her Minister of Finance are regarded as having saved the racing industry through changes to racing’s tax system that gave it equal footing with casinos? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am pleased that the member quoted that particular matter because I have in my hand a 2005 document entitled  
National’s Plan for the Racing Industry 
 which says that it would align racing betting duty with that paid by casinos at a cost of $25 million. So it would be nice if Mr Key could clarify for the media later whether any donations were received from the racing industry in return for that promise. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Do any of the Prime Minister’s Ministers receive donations from industries they are meant to be regulating and taxing; and does she expect any Minister including her Minister for Racing who finds himself or herself negotiating tax breaks for party donors to bring that to her attention? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do think there was in that question exactly the implication that Mr Mark objected to before. I can say in respect of Ministers that they are not expected to receive donations from industry at all. But I will also make the obvious point that when a Minister is appointed in charge of a portfolio there is a legitimate expectation from sectors relating to that portfolio that they will be able to put a case to that Minister—whether it is fisheries forests agriculture health racing or whatever—so that they can have their requests considered. That is the normal business of Government. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will continue her Government’s programme of improving our relations with the United States and Pacific and Asian nations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly am. In respect of each of those three areas it is noteworthy that in the past week or so Mr Peters has been doing our country’s and the Pacific Islands Forum’s business in the South Pacific. He is hosting the United States Secretary of State here this coming weekend and accompanying her to the Pacific. Of course at this time he is in Singapore in respect of a meeting I believe for ASEAN Ministers. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the content of some of the supplementary questions asked this afternoon particularly those from the Leader of the Opposition does the Prime Minister see the refusals by anyone to rule out the Minister of Foreign Affairs continuing in his role after the election as a reflection of his strong performance in the role a reflection of the total lack of competence on the Opposition benches or a combination of both? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is my opinion that Winston Peters has acquitted himself well as Minister of Foreign Affairs and I am sure that should he be in a position to be negotiating a portfolio again he will be putting forward a very strong case. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that the new standard for the way she will measure her Ministers is solely on their performance in their portfolio and not in relation to whether they take a $100000 gift—which is clearly in breach of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 regardless of whether she wants to accept that? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am mystified by that question because Mr Key has agreed elsewhere that he accepts Mr Peters’ word that he did not know the source of donations into that fund. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports of somebody arguing that all political donations should be anonymous so that one cannot be influenced by them; secondly that even where a political donation is anonymous the person who received it not knowing who it was should nevertheless declare who it was and what it was; and thirdly arguing that any behaviour by a person before he or she entered Government—such as for example being convicted of contempt of court—should have nothing to do with being appointed as a Minister unless of course he or she is appointed as a Minister in a Labour-led Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It seems to me that all those conflicting positions are held by the same person: Mr Key. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept that there is probably quite a lot of difference between a donation that may be accepted by a political party and a donation that is accepted by an individual for his or her own personal use? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yesterday I cautioned the member from going down that particular route because if he is going to hold Mr Peters accountable for declaring donations into a legal fund as either relevant debt declarations or gift declarations in the interests of the pecuniary interest register then we would want to know why Mr Smith did not declare the debts and did not declare the gifts and whether he knows who puts money into his account. I am well aware that Mr Smith declared a beneficial interest in a trust but he has not declared the debt that he owes—nor has he declared who helped him pay for it; nor has he declared gifts under that section of the declaration. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I contacted the registrar of pecuniary interests and sought advice as to what disclosure requirements I was to make. The registrar was clear that what I needed to declare was a pecuniary interest in a trust. I have done just that. I seek leave to table the pecuniary interest declaration that I made on that advice which clearly states there was a trust that provided support for that legal action. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It therefore follows from Mr Smith’s point of order that if that were the appropriate course for him to follow and that he does not have to declare either debts or gifts then nor does Mr Peters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: At the end of Dr Smith’s statement he then sought leave. So leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to make the comment as a point of order that Mr Smith’s point of order was not a point of order. It was a personal statement and should have been dealt with as a request to seek leave to make a personal statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is quite right. I gave the member the benefit of the doubt because it was unclear as to whether he was seeking leave or making a personal statement. At the end of his thought I assumed he would in fact get to the point. I gave him the courtesy of waiting. At the end of it he did seek leave. That leave was sought and has been denied.