Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:648;Page:17565] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Over the years I have come to gain enormous respect for our Prime Minister Helen Clark. I do not agree with her socialist policies but I have respect for her intelligence her hard work and indeed her integrity. I think she has set a very high standard for her Ministers for her Government and for the country. But I have to say that I have been bitterly disappointed with what has transpired over the Winston Peters money scandal during which Helen Clark has failed to live by any standard that any Prime Minister has had in this country. I had thought it was because the Prime Minister needed the numbers but now I do not believe that that is the reason. I believe there is a concern that if an investigation occurred into how this money came to be the Prime Minister would be worried about where the investigation would end up. 
I do not for a minute think the Prime Minister has done anything wrong but we ourselves should consider this: we know Mr Owen Glenn to be a very wealthy man and a very generous one. He gave $500000 to the Labour Party. He loaned that party money when it was in dire need. He gave $100000-plus to Winston Peters and we understand offered a quarter of a million dollars to the Maori Party if it would support Labour. How would a man who does not live in New Zealand—he lives in Monaco—know to do this? Mr Brian Henry has forgotten who it was that suggested that he contact Mr Glenn. I had never heard of Owen Glenn. So who was the person who was in touch with Mr Glenn—saying it would be quite helpful if he would help out Mr Peters and New Zealand First and that it would be quite helpful if he would help out the Maori Party—and why did that person not suggest that Mr Glenn help the ACT party? It sort of all points to someone who is very close to Labour and to someone who knows Mr Owen Glenn who knows that he is generous with his money and who knows also that if he is provided with a little acknowledgement the money is forthcoming. I think that is what has shocked me most about this sad affair. 
New Zealanders know what has happened here. They know that a Minister of the Crown had $100000 appear in what was effectively his bank account—because that is what his lawyer was running for him—so that suddenly the amount of his bill dropped by $100000 while he was a Minister. If he were a police officer and $1000 appeared in his account he would be stood down and there would be investigations if he could not explain that. If he were a council worker overseeing a contract he would be stood down and investigated. If he worked in business he would be stood down until he explained how that money came to be. But we have a Cabinet Minister receiving $100000 effectively into his bank account and no questions being asked. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all we know that that statement is not true in fact. Clearly there is an implication here of corruption and I think the member has been warned about this before. He is not telling the truth in the House. As we all know Mr Henry has indicated that the money was paid to him that Mr Peters had no idea about the money being received by Mr Henry and that as soon as Mr Peters was made aware of the situation he notified the Prime Minister. Mr Peters has acted totally above board. What Mr Hide is saying is totally wrong. There is an implication there and I ask you to rule on it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that actually the MP Dail Jones raises debatable points and that is what we are having. If he wants to settle it and take it beyond debate Winston Peters would come down to the House and give a personal explanation. Then it would not be debatable.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I point the member to a couple of things including Speaker’s ruling 41/6. It is really up to the member himself to raise this but Speaker’s ruling 41/6 states: “If a member feels that repeated reference to some matter in the member’s private life is a reflection on the member’s integrity then the member is entitled to the protection of the Chair and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter.” The other ruling I want to reflect on is Speaker’s ruling 25/5 which refers to allegations of corruption and I mentioned it earlier when this issue was raised last week. I will share with the House as well Speaker’s ruling 25/5 which states: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” I think that is where the issue is at the moment so I ask Mr Hide to be very careful in how he conducts this debate. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Let me be clear that I think it does bring into dispute the integrity of the entire Parliament and indeed of the Government and the Prime Minister. I am saying that $100000 appeared and I accept that Mr Dail Jones says it was somehow in the lawyer’s bank account. But we know that Mr Peters’ bill payments dropped by $100000 so it was to the benefit of Mr Peters. We also know that Mr Peters was considering whether to grant Mr Glenn an honorary consulship and there has been no explanation about how all this transpired. But people—not me because I always think the best of people and I want to make that plain to you Mr Assistant Speaker—including some of the good people of Epsom and some people wider afield are a suspicious lot. They look at that and they ask an obvious question—but not me because I know that he is an honourable member—and they think that it is corrupt. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.