Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:621;Page:16336] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will always defend any member of this House or any member of the New Zealand public until evidence has been examined. I will not make a judgment. In this country there is a right to—[ 
Interruption 
] Those members do not want to hear it. There is a principle in this democracy that the facts of a case are examined either in a court or an inquiry before a judgment is made. I come back to this: in a court the cross-examination is also about the character of the people making the accusations. 
I come back to that and I come back to the mudslinger Mr Hide who to this day after authorities approached him and advised him that a conference he attended—where pyramid schemes fleeced hundreds of millions of dollars out of New Zealanders and where by his own admission he says he was duped— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have to say that my colleagues and I in New Zealand First are absolutely enraptured by this speech. We are learning things every moment but we would like to hear the speech in a rather less noisy environment. So if my colleagues behind me from the National Party could just desist a little bit we would hear far more. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be a vigorous debate and there will be the odd interjection allowed but that was too much interjection. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Clayton Cosgrove is a relatively new member but when one gets leave—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The House has set aside its time to give Mr Clayton Cosgrove permission to do what he said he wanted—to defend Mr Tamihere. In fact he appears to be using the time to make an attack upon another member of Parliament—who is now not able to defend himself at all. I say to you Mr Speaker that you should caution Mr Clayton Cosgrove and tell him that getting leave is a serious matter and that if he is not able to defend Mr Tamihere then perhaps he should just sit down. The charges are quite clear and those are the matters he ought to address. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Prebble has made a point part of which I agree with. The member did ask for leave to speak in relation to the defence of Mr Tamihere. I know that that will involve other comments that can be made and I do not want to be too harsh in that area but his speech must basically be about defending Mr Tamihere. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the key point here is that the defence of a member must involve an examination of the effective prosecution of that member in this House. We have had Mr Hide make a series of very very serious allegations and it is my view that Mr Cosgrove must have the opportunity to analyse those and the basis on which they were made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any other assistance on this matter. I made my ruling and that is how my ruling will stand. I do not think the member has added to it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think what Mr Mallard said was perfectly reasonable. Of course there has to be some discussion with regard to the prosecution and that will take up some of the time. He has about 3 minutes and 50 seconds left. Clearly that will not be enough. I would like to signal that certainly the National Opposition is willing to extend further time to Mr Cosgrove so that once he has got rid of his arguments against the prosecution he can come to the defence of John Tamihere because not only are we waiting to hear it but so is most of the nation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that Mr Cosgrove has asked for leave which the House granted him and he has 3 minutes and 51 seconds to go. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seriously I actually thank the Minister for his contribution there. I signal that New Zealand First believes that Mr Cosgrove would probably need some 30 minutes to do justice to such a defence and counter-attack on the prosecution’s assertions. I signal through you to Mr Cosgrove that should he like to seek leave there would be no objection to a half-hour speech on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to Mr Cosgrove; it is not up to anybody else. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Such cooperation in the House I have not seen for a long time! There is a need when the mud-slinger throws mud to ascertain the quality of that mud. Part of that process is to ascertain and characterise the integrity and credibility of the mud-slinger. We know that Mr Hide attended an investment conference and he claimed that he got duped. We know that hundreds of New Zealanders lost millions of dollars. 
We also know that he was approached by authorities and to this day he will not answer the simple question: why did he not go to the authorities? So if he will not come clean then we have to question the evidence that is provided. 
We have to question why Mr Hide said publicly that he would only cooperate in a limited way with the Douglas White inquiry. He drip-fed a little morsel here a little tantalising titbit there and he relied for his evidence on a dodgy audit report that he flicked around the gallery to a few of his mates. That report stated in its covering letter that it was not an audit review report at all. 
It is very interesting that Mr Tamihere is one of the people who called for an audit and a review and formed an audit committee. None of the complainants were asked what the problems were by the auditors. None of the elders the trustees or others who had raised financial concerns were ever asked. The auditors went on to interview the “gang of three” who were under investigation. We now know of another of Mr Hide’s sources: Mr Bruce Bryant who is a close family member and who has a relationship with a very prominent member in our community—but we will leave that subject there. I say to Mr Hide that he should tell us about Port Douglas but I leave that subject there. 
I say to Mr Hide that all the evidence he relies on and that he has drip-fed to the public is slowly being unpicked. He relied on a dodgy report that he said was an audit and review report. That has been disproved. So in defence of Mr Tamihere I say that people should look at the evidence and its quality. I do not know the last time Mr Prebble made an argument in a court but even he I think—and he is a learned lawyer and I do respect his talents—would say that the first thing one does is look at the evidence. 
I ask the question: why did the trust break the constitution by appointing a member of the audit committee to a job in the Waipareira Trust? Who appointed him? One of the members of the “gang of three” appointed an audit committee member—who was a trustee—to a job in the trust which is directly in contravention of the constitution. If that is not influencing an audit committee I do not know what is. So I say that people should look at the evidence and judge when the evidence is judged.