Dunne Peter: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Dunne Peter: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18889] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I begin my contribution by acknowledging the role of the Privileges Committee chairperson Simon Power in steering a rather difficult course with a degree of aplomb as the committee members have deliberated over the last few weeks. I also acknowledge the role of the Clerk the committee secretariat Mr Kós—our Queen’s Counsel in attendance—and others who advised us along the way for carrying out their duties with a high degree of professionalism. 
I am not going to dwell on the lots of extraneous noise that there has been about this case. There has been a lot of drama and there has been a lot of claim and counterclaim most of which has been utterly irrelevant to the proceedings at hand. I simply want to concentrate in my time on the events of 14 December 2005. Those events go to the heart of the issues we were forced to deliberate upon. 
I want to pick up on the comments that Dr Cullen made about the double-track narrative. If we take those events and start to work through them we find that the areas of difference are very slight. It is acknowledged by all sides that a telephone conversation took place at the instigation of Mr Glenn between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters. It is acknowledged by all sides that within a minute of that call terminating Mr Peters contacted Mr Henry. It is acknowledged by all sides that within a very short period of that call terminating Mr Henry emailed account details to Mr Glenn. What is further acknowledged is that as recollections go a substantial part of the conversation between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters dealt with trade diplomacy and matters of that nature. I will come back in a moment to the question of whether a request was made for account details. It is acknowledged by all sides that the content of the call between Mr Peters and Mr Henry clearly referred to the fact that there had just been a conversation with Mr Glenn and certain details had been raised during that conversation. And it is acknowledged by all sides—because the record is there—what was contained in Mr Henry’s email. 
When we come back and say there are two versions of the narrative we find that the second version essentially hinges on what took place in the conversation between Mr Peters and Mr Glenn. The majority view to which I adhere is that during that conversation from the evidence we have there was a wide-ranging talk about trade possibilities and Mr Glenn’s views in that respect and at the end of that a request was made for Mr Henry’s contact details. That is what prompted the second phone call and the subsequent email. When the committee members tested that point in evidence with Mr Glenn he was adamant that that had been the case. When we tested it with Mr Peters his indication was that he could not recollect whether that had been the case. He did not deny that it had happened; he said he could not recollect that that had been the case. He further acknowledged in subsequent testimony that when the three events were put alongside each other it was reasonable to assume that there must have been a reference in the first conversation; otherwise why would he have contacted Mr Henry? 
The point I am making is that the actual area of difference between the majority view and the minority view is close to minute. It hinges on whether one believed the logic that during the course of this conversation about other things Mr Glenn must have said words to the effect of “Oh by the way I need Brian Henry’s contact details.” If he did not do that one has to ask oneself why Mr Peters on getting off the phone within a very short space of time thought: “I’ve got to ring Brian Henry to say I’ve just talked to Owen Glenn.” and why within a very short space of time of that conservation concluding Brian Henry would say: “I’ve got to send my account details to Owen Glenn.” Mr Henry’s version is that he saw the call from Mr Peters to him as being a memory prompt but it is a very convenient memory prompt within about a 15-minute window. 
The majority formed the view because of the evidence that was put before the committee and the lack of denial of this proposition that at the end of or during that first conversation with Mr Glenn there was a discussion about Mr Henry’s contact details. Mr Peters then rang Mr Henry to confirm that he had been talking to Mr Glenn who had asked him for the details which Mr Henry subsequently provided. On that basis the majority concluded that the test of knowledge had been achieved. One does not have a discussion that requires one to submit account details without others drawing the conclusion that it must have been about money. 
One of the things that I think is a slight red herring in this matter is the issue of the $100000. What we were required to establish was whether there was knowledge of the gift not knowledge of the particular amount. I think that knowledge of the gift was established. The question that then arose was whether it was a debt or a gift. The issue of a debt had been disposed of much earlier. The advice that we received from Mr McGee who was the author in many senses of the pecuniary interests register was quite categorical. He said that moneys advanced for the purposes of an electoral petition did not come within the definition in the Standing Orders of moneys advanced for electoral purposes and therefore could be concluded to have been a gift. Therefore the issue about disclosure of those in the return took effect. On that basis it was relatively easy to draw a conclusion about what had happened and what the consequences should have been. 
I say too that this process was difficult and complicated. It was not helped by some of the obfuscation we received in the evidence particularly that provided by Mr Henry. I do not think he did his client a great deal of good with some of the evidence and some of the obfuscatory answers that he provided when it was fairly clear what had actually been occurring. I think that is a matter he will have to deal with in due course. 
This issue is an important one. It goes to the heart of why we have a pecuniary interests register and it will have ignited some of the old debates about whether it was even necessary. We have one in place. It was noted—from memory by Mr McGee—that we have one in the Standing Orders not in legislation and because it is in the Standing Orders the standard of proof that is applicable is not of the same level as it would be if it were in legislation. That is important in the context of this case because this is Parliament making a determination on the basis of the application of its Standings Orders and the test that needs to be applied is the one that is appropriate in those circumstances. 
This is not an issue that I think anyone can take a great deal of pleasure from. It is a sad occasion when a select committee has to speak to one of its own in the way that the Privileges Committee has. I do not think that the other matters—the intervention of the Serious Fraud Office and other associated events—were in the event particularly helpful. I think if anything those events continued to cloud the occasion in a way that was not particularly positive or beneficial to those involved in them or to the conduct of this inquiry. 
It could be tempting in such circumstances to engage in a measure of triumphalism and some will do so. I am not going to do that because I do not think it is appropriate. This is a matter that the committee members sought to apply our best judgment to in the circumstances. I for one came to it completely open-mindedly. I did not think that the initial reference amounted to a great deal until such time as the evidence started to unfold. In that respect I note that when the issue of Mr Glenn’s appearance was resolved the story started to become much clearer. I do think Mr Glenn’s behaviour after he left the select committee did not do much for his reputation either but the select committee had to focus on what he said to the select committee not on what he said in every press conference he gave around New Zealand. 
On that basis United Future supports the recommendations. We do not support the amendments that are being proposed. We do so not with any great deal of alacrity but with a heavy heart and a wish that the lessons of this case will be learnt and not repeated in the future.