Parker David: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Parker David: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1981] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to explain to the House the circumstances surrounding my resignation. As I summarise it the  
Investigate 
 magazine article that came out yesterday effectively accused me of three things: firstly that I swindled Mr Hyslop out of his money and caused his demise; secondly that I attempted to bribe him; and thirdly that I filed inaccurate returns to the Companies Office. In terms of the first two allegations—that I swindled Mr Hyslop somehow and attempted to bribe him—I categorically reject those allegations and I will return to them. On the point of annual returns that is different. I accept I have made a mistake and that is why I have resigned and that is an issue I will return to as well. 
In the early 1990s I retired from legal partnership to pursue business interests. I became involved in four ventures that involved Russell Hyslop none of which succeeded. In relation to three of those ventures I was left carrying the burden of sorting them out following Russell’s bankruptcy. I did so to the best of my ability. It took about 3 years. The outcomes were not what anyone desired least of all me but I made the best of what was a bad situation. I only just stayed afloat myself. Indeed I contemplated taking the easy way out by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy myself and letting someone else sort out the mess. 
I decided not to do that and managed to avoid it at the suit of other people only by working very hard. I returned to work full time as a lawyer while also attending to the resolution of the failed ventures. At the same time I was involved in other ventures that were succeeding. I sold all but one of them which at the time was not of great value. I ploughed all of my earnings into dealing with the consequences and keeping my head above water. I looked at selling my own house but it was fully mortgaged to the bank and would not have released any money to creditors. 
I have never hidden my failures. I succeeded before and after my dealings with Mr Hyslop. I never denied my share of the responsibility for the things that went wrong. I certainly shouldered my share of the burden of managing them when they went wrong and I believe I acted honourably. Russell Hyslop looked for other people to blame following his demise. He is wrong to say that I caused his downfall. He made allegations of wrongdoing after his bankruptcy. The official assignee looked into the allegations before deciding not to pursue them; and he looked into them in some detail. The official assignee had three options. The first was to pursue the allegations through the office of the official assignee. The second was to allow Mr Hyslop to pursue the allegations himself. The third was to determine that no further action was warranted. To avoid any suggestion of bias the official assignee in Dunedin referred the matter to the Christchurch office. The Christchurch office decided on the third option which was to determine that no further action was warranted. 
In terms of the allegations of bribes Mr Hyslop distorts what happened. I never offered a bribe. I did try to reach agreements with Mr Hyslop and I give an example. One of the developments the company had was a subdivision of land in Dunedin. It was obvious to me if not to Russell Hyslop that he was insolvent and that in due course he would lose his house in terms of bankruptcy. I wanted to help his family by obtaining a section on to which he could have moved a house— from another property that the company owned—that was scheduled for demolition or removal. That could have been achieved legally and at comparatively low cost. That did not proceed. Indeed the land was sold as one lot prior to subdivision to another developer with whom Mr Hyslop was involved. That relationship soured too and Mr Hyslop and he are now embroiled in litigation. 
I also note that the events that surround the allegations of bribery now all happened prior to Mr Hyslop’s bankruptcy and if there were anything to those allegations I would have expected they would be dealt with at the time. I lay all those events out otherwise I will be accused of hiding them. 
After 3 years I started again. I could go on further and tell members about all the details prior to those 3 years but I do not have time. However after those 3 years I did start again and I rebuilt my life. I re-entered business and I succeeded and I am proud of what I achieved. Public office does expose one to criticism and the picking over of one’s life. If one has made mistakes there are plenty of critics ready to stand in judgment always looking to find the disgruntled and to dig up events that would not otherwise come to light. 
I came into Parliament almost by accident. In 2002 I stood in a safe National seat and although I fought hard to win I thought it was likely that I would lose. So I avoided asking myself the question of whether I really wanted my life to be picked over in the way that politicians’ lives are. But I was elected and I have always respected what politicians are supposed to achieve here. So I stayed and I have contributed. I am 46 years old. I have achieved quite a bit in my life in business but also as a member of the wider community. I have made my mistakes and I can assure the House that I feel my mistakes so much more acutely than I do my successes. I learn from them. But I have never hidden them. Indeed at times I have almost advertised them. 
In terms of the annual returns members might ask how this came to pass. It seems silly. Well Mr Hyslop was a shareholder and director and he went bankrupt. The official assignee took no interest in Mr Hyslop’s shares in the company because they were worthless. The affairs and conduct of the company were left to me. For the first 2 years I sent the relevant resolution to the official assignee before I filed the annual return. Yesterday going from recollection I said that I did that once. It now appears I did that twice. In subsequent years I cut a corner and I did not put the form to the official assignee. Why did I do that? Well in my mind the official assignee who stood in the shoes of the bankrupt Mr Hyslop had no interest in the company. I did not think about the issue clearly enough. If I had the consequence I now face would have been easily avoided. 
I am told there are bound to be other members in the Parliament who have made similar mistakes. That is probably true but how I respond is a matter for me. I have always thought that my business record would be thrown at me here and I have always been ready to answer those criticisms. The allegations about annual returns did surprise me. It was so easily avoided and I kick myself for not avoiding it. After it was raised yesterday I quickly formed the view that I should resign as Attorney-General. I thought I saw a fair line between that portfolio and my other ministerial responsibilities but the questions that journalists asked me caused me to reflect on that overnight. I think they were right. So following the Westminster tradition that I believe in I resigned my other portfolios this morning. I will join the back bench and I will work hard on the difficult issues this Parliament always grapples with. 
I shall respond to one other issue raised by Dr Brash concerning standards of law being upheld. I do believe that the same standards of law applied to others are applied to parliamentarians and that is how it should be. In terms of Mr Benson-Pope who really believes that Mr Benson-Pope should be hauled over the coals for his actions as a teacher all those years ago? Incidentally he continues to deny those allegations of wrongdoing as is his right to do. If a member should be hauled over the coals for his or her actions all those years ago where does it end? If it ended as Dr Brash would like really would this country get the politicians it needs? I do not know that it would.