Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6418. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she said “I understand that the matters referred to have been covered by a personal statement made in this House before.” did she check this out before she gave that answer; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: No because it was a supplementary question without notice. She therefore relied on her own recollections ably assisted by her bench mate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Disregarding who might be ably assisting her where in the statement of 6 July 2000 from John Tamihere which was a personal explanation are the following offences: declaring as income in a business transaction an unrealised profit of over $800000 on a sale not at that time entered into; or forging signatures on 34 cheques as evidenced before the Maori Affairs Committee by the Waipareira Trust’s former lawyer; where in this personal explanation that the Prime Minister said covered these issues are those two issues? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member had done more research he would have found that there are other personal explanations. I have three here. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In which of the other three explanations that the Deputy Prime Minister is holding other than the one of 6 July 2000 are there explanations for the two series of offences I am outlining now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In relation to the matters that the member raises one of those he did not raise yesterday in any case. The issue of what he calls forgery was raised on 6 July as were a number of the other matters he raised yesterday. The matter he referred to in terms of a mortgage was raised on 15 March—I am not sure in which year. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us again in respect of the declaration as income of unrealised profit—an illegal device that sends people to jail in other transactions—which explanations by Mr Tamihere cover that allegation and those of the 34 forged cheques? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On 6 July Mr Tamihere referred to a letter alleging forgery and fraud. If the member wants to raise those matters further I suggest that he wanders somewhere down Courtenay Place and utters them out loud. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to take that as an answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No he is not. Mr Speaker are you going to take that as an answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is that the member’s point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The Minister addressed that question by suggesting that the member say outside what he said inside. An explanation was given at a particular time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister in one her answers gave the identical answer which was that I should go outside the House and repeat that. I said to you and to her yesterday that the matter of $800000 of profit wrongly declared as income is a matter of the company’s audit and a public document so why would I be required to do that? That is my point. That sort of device used by that Minister and the Prime Minister yesterday is simply not a parliamentary answer. I am asking the Minister where in the explanations Mr Tamihere has made of which the Minister holds copies is that matter covered. It is fairly obvious. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility here because those are activities that occurred before the member came into this House. Any responsibility of course to the Prime Minister is the answer she gave and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has addressed that today. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two submissions. The first goes to Standing Order 117. I invite you to take some advice from the Clerk and consider a new ruling. Standing Order 117 gives a right in regard to the Standing Orders of a very narrow negative defence. I am requesting of you to consider the right of members in this House to have a halfway-house defence in regard to not having to be put to the sword and using Standing Order 343. This matter seems to be coming up more and more. I invite you to think about that on the basis of a positive and affirmative defence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking me to consider that ruling? 
Hon John Tamihere 
: That is right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I will deal with that first. The member has asked me to consider that ruling. I will. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: My second submission goes to the two issues raised by the member. The first one was well covered by the Serious Fraud Office. It reported back on it. The second issue— 
Hon David Carter 
: This is not a point of order. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: This has impugned my character and I will have a say. The second one is to read the audit reports and understand how to read audit reports. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can of course ask for leave to make a personal explanation. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think he has already done it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He has made the point he has wanted to make now. That is the end of the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems to me that we are getting into difficult waters with question time. Dr Michael Cullen suggested to Mr Winston Peters to go outside and repeat that but that seems to me to be inviting the Rt Hon Winston Peters to commit a contempt of court given that these cases are subject to court suppression orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is something I cannot rule on because I do not know the facts of that situation. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I shall ask the Prime Minister again. Where in John Tamihere’s numerous explanations to Parliament including today’s one by way of a point of order are the following serious matters covered: declaration as income of an unrealised profit ofover $800000 to bring the books from the red to the black on a sale not even then entered into; or the forging of signatures on 34 cheques as evidenced by the Waipareira Trust’s former lawyer before the Maori Affairs Committee? Where in those explanations and including today’s does Mr Tamihere cover those matters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My understanding is that part was covered in the 6 July explanation. I have a correction. There are just two personal explanations not three. I may have misled the House earlier by looking at my notes here incorrectly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where in the 6 July explanation that he has now alluded to is any coverage of the two matters I have raised in this House today and yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That explanation relates to alleging forgery and fraud. I notice as Mr Tamihere has pointed out that that was not what was found by members outside. I suggest that the continued use of that terminology in allegations in this House which were not found to be the case outside is inappropriate and improper. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister whether the reason she promoted John Tamihere despite his serious offences including forgery is that she herself— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That interpolation is not part of the question. I ask the member to please ask the question without that interpolation in it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am sorry but could you explain that again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question without the comments about forgery. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not. This is an offence that Mr Tamihere admitted and you are not going to stop me from reciting the facts. I am going to say it again: is the reason she permitted John Tamihere despite his serious offences including forgery that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raised a point of order. The member mentioned was not convicted of forgery therefore that cannot be alluded to in that way. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The fact is that Mr Tamihere as he will tell you admitted the offences of forgery and uttering. That is a fact. I do not know what advice you are getting from the Clerk but perhaps you should ask Mr Tamihere whether I am right or wrong on this matter because I intend to ask this question in the way I have asked it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not normal to requote from a personal explanation but I do quote from a personal explanation: “... the allegations of forgery went before the Auckland District Law Society which heard the case. While it determined that some of my actions had been inappropriate it did not determine to strike me off. In 1995 the police took a prosecution with regard to those allegations. The outcome of this case was that I was discharged without conviction.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are being misadvised. The fact is that Mr Tamihere admitted the offence. The issue of conviction is immaterial. He admitted it as part of the record. Now he can laugh and you can but that is a fact. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will help the member. If the member makes that as a statement of fact then he has to stand by it if he goes ahead and asks the supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I stand by it so here is my supplementary question: did she as Prime Minister promote John Tamihere despite his serious offences including forgery because she herself is a self-confessed art forger? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: She promoted Mr Tamihere because he is a very able young Maori leader who unlike many people I have known has not attempted to cover up aspects of his past. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You heard that answer. It is the second answer today that is totally unsatisfactory according to Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders. Otherwise I will start talking about the babysitter. [ 
Interruption 
] Have you got that? Now Mr Speaker I suggest that you intervene and bring him to order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I was distracted by discussing the matter with the Clerk. As far as I am concerned the Minister certainly addressed the question asked by the member.