Flavell Te Ururoa: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18887] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. As my colleague Dr Russel Norman stated this matter has been a rather difficult one for us. The matter before the Privileges Committee to examine the question of compliance with the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interest has been one that the Maori Party has taken seriously. I acknowledge the officials who provided support to the committee and gave clarity to me on some of the key issues. I also acknowledge Simon Power the chair who led the process in a thoroughly impartial way and also assisted me when asked. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe—thank you also. 
It was disappointing to learn of the Prime Minister’s comments about the process of the Privileges Committee alleging that it was totally unsatisfactory in terms of any natural justice and that the whole process had become politicised favouring one side. That is not an observation I share nor is it behaviour that we in the Maori Party have indulged in during the sitting of the Privileges Committee. I have appreciated the thorough way in which evidence was requested the expert assistance of the officials as I stated earlier and the willing cooperation of those who forwarded information to us for our perusal. I will leave that matter there. 
The allegation as to whether contempt of the House has occurred is one that challenges both the institution of Parliament and the constitution of our party as a whole. The issue is not about personalities; it is not about political agendas. For me and the Maori Party at the heart of the allegation is whether the member had knowingly provided false or misleading information or had knowingly failed to make a return of pecuniary interest by the due date—kaore i ko atu kaore i ko mai; that is it. Now those are substantial issues and I am clear that the committee gave them serious attention. I must say that a number of other matters were raised during the discussions but I am pleased to say we were all kept on track and focused on the specific matters by the chair. 
In considering the matters before the Privileges Committee the Maori Party has the benefit of kaupapa that instruct us on serious matters of State. Those kaupapa tuku iho are the foundation principles of the Maori world and guide us as to the way in which we operate. There are tikanga that we apply to every situation be they matters before the Privileges Committee or bills that come before the House. We are driven by the kaupapa enshrined in our constitution. Those kaupapa are indeed what distinguishes us as the strong and independent Maori voice of Parliament. It is not in anyone’s interest to burn bridges to diminish the mana of individuals and to conduct politics on the basis of personal attack yet we have seen members indulge in that behaviour in this House from time to time. 
Through our kaupapa we endeavour to express manaakitanga towards others be they political allies or opponents. We believe that it is important to treat each other with respect and to act with integrity at all times. We want to ensure that our relationships with all parties are elevating and enhancing. We are not into character assassination. It was good advice that our co-leader Tariana Turia gave to three of us new members when we arrived in this House. She said: “Throw a rock and expect to get a grenade back.” When we talk about rangatiratanga we want to ensure that the conduct and activities of the parliamentary team the leaders in the organisation as a whole are reflective of the attributes of rangatira. It is about walking the talk following through on commitments made and upholding due respect for honesty. We are dedicated in our pursuit of kaitiakitanga which requires an active exercise of responsibility in a manner that is beneficial to resources and the welfare of the people. Those are just three of the foundation principles that I have tried to follow in the deliberations of the matter before the committee. 
In looking at the whole matter some key questions needed to be asked. One thing amongst others is clear: money went from a donor and it reached its intended person a politician. The first question is: did the donation meet the standard of being a gift? As clause 7(1)(b) of Appendix B of the Standing Orders requires a member needs to return a description of each gift including hospitality and donations in cash or kind received by that member with a value of more than $500 together with the name of the donor of the gift. In considering whether the payment was a gift we must ask whether it would ultimately benefit the recipient. I was clear that it would. The intent of the donor was straightforward: to assist the member in being able to meet obligations. The second question is: did the recipient have knowledge of the payment before the deadline for making a return at the time? Although the evidence was conflicting what happened on 14 December as my colleague Dr Russel Norman talked about led me to believe that the recipient knew that some money was to change hands in order to benefit him. 
The third and fourth questions ask whether the gift met the threshold that would require it to be declared in the return of pecuniary interests and whether the member made an honest attempt to account for the payment in his or her return. Well as the Privileges Committee report states “if a member knew of an interest and decided not to declare it the member would have ‘knowingly’ failed to declare an interest if it were subsequently established definitively to be a pecuniary interest.” It seems to me that if someone received a koha that person would at least be required to investigate whether it met the threshold. If that member was receiving advice from others like lawyers about money then those people should have advised the member. That did not happen. According to the Standing Orders neither of the people involved did what was required in order to meet the conditions set. The exchange of money was known about. There was an expectation from Parliament that koha be declared. It was not. Therefore this case fits the definition of “contempt”. 
Although a lot of evidence was provided for the committee to consider for me those three or four questions were all that mattered—not the party not the politician and not the political agendas. There were gaps and inconsistencies of knowledge in all of the information but at the heart of the matter was the subsequent obligation to report the payment in the formal disclosure of pecuniary interests. The Standing Orders are very clear about the requirement upon all of us as parliamentarians to make an annual return of pecuniary interests each year as of 31 January. In the case of a donation received from Owen Glenn that process was not followed. Consequently the majority of the committee has found the member to be in contempt. Although there are recommendations to come out of the report with the election at hand we leave this matter in the court of public opinion. 
I say from the outset that no one in the Maori Party takes any pleasure from the whole series of events but honour is important to us and it was important to our tupuna that it must continue to guide us. As I believe Mark Twain once said honesty is the best policy when there is money in it and indeed the procedures around the register of pecuniary interest for members of Parliament have an important function in keeping us all honest and ensuring our transactions are transparent. This is a very grave matter for this Parliament and we have formed the view that the censuring of the member is of sufficient concern to cause us all to reflect. 
In referring this matter to the Privileges Committee on 5 August Madam Speaker specifically referred to the implications of this matter for the reputation of members and the institution of Parliament. She said: “The issues raised are not peculiar to Mr Peters; they have the potential to affect members generally.” The Maori Party listened carefully to her korero and we believe that it is timely yet again for all members to reflect on the value of having a code of conduct to assist us all in enhancing our public reputation. Perhaps it is timely for the parties that failed to sign up to the code of conduct—Labour National New Zealand First and the Progressive party—to reconsider and to take the opportunity to sign up to the code which will help MPs to carry out their duties and just as important help the public to have confidence in their parliamentary representatives. That could be a positive outcome of this sad situation. Tena koutou.