Brash Don: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Brash Don: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1977] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. Yesterday David Parker resigned as Attorney-General saying that he was ashamed that over each of the last several years he has lodged false documents with the Companies Office. This morning he resigned his other ministerial positions. I say at the outset that lodging false documents at the Companies Office does not make Mr Parker an unmitigated crook and it does not make him an inherently evil man. Although I do not want to impugn the integrity of anybody else in this House let me be so bold as to suggest that there are one or two other people in this House potentially on both sides of the House who may have been inadvertently guilty of lodging a false document with the Companies Office—though probably not for 8 or 9 years in a row—but for a lawyer to make a false statement is a serious matter. Lawyers are the professionals we depend on in our society to ensure the accuracy of the documents that they sign. They should not sign documents knowing them to be false under any circumstances. For the most senior law official in the land the Attorney-General to have done so not once but on several occasions is a serious matter. Mr Parker was right to tender his resignation. I commend him for that. 
Two questions now arise. The first is: why did David Benson-Pope not take a similarly honourable course and tender his resignation after the police found a prima facie case that he had bullied pupils in his care while he was a teacher and—arguably at least as serious—after it was clearly established a few weeks ago that he had misled Parliament last year when he claimed that in all his years as a teacher he had never had a complaint lodged against him? Surely he should have tendered his resignation and equally surely Helen Clark should have accepted that resignation. Helen Clark was quick to accept David Parker’s resignation. She was quick to accept Lianne Dalziel’s resignation when Lianne Dalziel admitted misleading the public about the case of a Sri Lankan immigrant. She dismissed poor Dover Samuels for allegations that were swirling around. She dismissed Taito Phillip Field. She dismissed John Tamihere. She suspended Harry Duynhoven. She dismissed Marian Hobbs. She dismissed Phillida Bunkle. She dismissed Ruth Dyson. But she did not dismiss David Benson-Pope for what even she admits was an error of judgment. 
The second question is: what next for Mr David Parker? If he is tried and convicted under section 377 of the Companies Act on the grounds that he lodged false documents with the Companies Office it raises serious questions about his ability to remain as a member of this House. But if he is not even prosecuted even more serious questions arise. How come Labour Ministers always seem to be above the law? How come the police found a prima facie case that Helen Clark had forged a painting but they decided not to prosecute? How come the police prosecuted a civilian driver and five police officers for racing through South Canterbury at breakneck speed with Helen Clark in the back seat and they did not prosecute Helen Clark when Helen Clark was clearly the person ultimately responsible for that incident? How come the police find a prima facie case against David Benson-Pope for bullying a pupil in his care but decide not to prosecute? How come the police find a prima facie case against the Labour Party for failing to show a Labour Party authorisation on the pledge card—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Trevor Mallard how come the police failed to find a Labour Party authorisation on the pledge card which was the centrepiece of the Labour campaign but then decided not to prosecute? How come the police failed to find a case against the Labour Party for overspending the limit established by the Electoral Act when the Chief Electoral Officer and the auditor of the Labour Party’s expense return both agree that Labour overspent the limit by almost 20 percent if the pledge card is to be counted as election spending? 
And yes establishing a prima facie case does not mean proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But as Scott Optican associate professor of law at Auckland University has noted: “A prima facie case means there is enough evidence so that a jury instructed properly as to the law could find on the facts that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” or as Gary Gotlieb President of the Auckland District Law Society has noted: “Prima facie means there is a sufficient case for the accused to answer.” In other words establishing a prima facie case means that there is at least a presumption that the charges should be fully aired in court. 
I do not claim to have evidence of political interference in the decisions of the police but these cases do raise very serious questions. The questions are even more worrying when we reflect that over the same period the police prosecuted not one but two members of the National Party caucus—and for what? In one case the prosecution was for an offence that Parliament itself had decided should not be an offence. In the second case the offence was so trivial that the judge himself said at the preliminary hearing that the matter should— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you turned down one letter asking for an urgent debate. I think that the member might have picked up the wrong set of notes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: The second action taken by the police against one of my National Party colleagues was for an offence so trivial— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’m right—it’s the wrong set of notes. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you please ask Mr Mallard either to leave the Chamber or to desist? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a debate but—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is on his feet and he has raised a point of order. I just ask everyone to calm down so that we can hear what the member is saying. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is an urgent debate around a specific matter. A letter has been written on that specific matter: the resignation of Mr David Parker. I assume that there are some rules of relevance around the debate—that what we are debating is the resignation of the Minister and the reasons for that and the implications of that perhaps for the Government. We seem to be debating a quite different matter. As my colleague implied we seem to be debating the matter that was turned down for debate in part. We are traversing now almost every issue except the issue surrounding Mr David Parker—perhaps because as the member said at the start of his speech the matter over which Mr Parker has resigned is one on which a number of members might find themselves exposed and perhaps the National Party does not want to talk about that particular matter at any great length. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member himself said that actually as members opposite would know if they bothered to listen to their own leader—he said it. The point I am making is that this debate is about a specific matter and this matter is not now being debated. The Leader of the Opposition has wandered out of the paddock around South Canterbury and goodness knows where else. We have yet to arrive back at the ministerial office. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The leader of the National Party seeks your protection from proper examination by other members of Parliament as to the quality and quantity of his debating. With the greatest respect I have never before seen someone who leads a political party being unable to carry the debate without the protection of the Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] National Party members can hiss all they like— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please address the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The plain fact is that this is a robust debating chamber with a certain historic character—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order by the way Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is a point of order and there will be an opportunity for further discussion on it but I ask the member to stick to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is that we should not change the rules of this Chamber just because someone cannot hack it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have two points to make on that point of order. Firstly Madam Speaker I ask you to recall that the Prime Minister herself stood up in this House and asked for silence when she mounted a defence of the Hon David Benson-Pope. Secondly it does seem interesting that the Labour Party does not want Dr Brash to apply some scrutiny to the fact that Mr Parker acted honourably and resigned when he got caught but that everybody else in the Labour Party—as long as they deny that it ever happened even though the whole world knows it did—manages to survive. That is the hallmark of a corrupt Government. I am not surprised that Trevor Mallard does not want that matter discussed here today and that Michael Cullen wants to defend him for trying to prevent the discussion. There is nothing wrong with Dr Brash’s contribution to this debate. We know that it is hurting the Labour Party—otherwise its members would not be here in such numbers looking so very glum. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank all members for their contribution to the debate through a point of order. I rule however on the initial point of relevance. The debate does have to be relevant so it should concentrate on Mr David Parker. But it can be put in the context of referring to other related matters although these must be supplementary to the central issue. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I was making the point that if Mr Parker is not prosecuted for his offences it raises some very serious questions. There has been a succession of incidents in recent years where Labour Party Ministers and the Labour Party itself have been found—guilty is too strong a word. But there have been incidents where a prima facie case to be answered has been established. A prima facie case has been found again again and again—“paintergate” speeding through South Canterbury David Benson-Pope and now the police case last Friday. I was making the point that over the same period during which those events were occurring the police took action against two of my colleagues. I made the point that the first action was for an offence that Parliament itself determined should not be an offence and the second action was for an offence so trivial that the judge himself said it should not have come before the court and the prosecuting attorney said he was undertaking the prosecution on instructions from a higher authority. 
 That is what happened to the National Party whereas with the Labour Party somehow the police found a prima facie case but say that on balance they will not prosecute. It is crucially important as the old adage has it that justice not only is done but is seen to be done. No member of the public can yet assess how serious Mr Parker’s offences are. Nobody can make that assessment. They may be much less serious for New Zealand’s long-term future than Mr Parker’s failure during his short tenure as Minister of Energy to recognise the seriousness of the electricity shortage now facing New Zealand with spot prices at a level that are leading some major producers to cut back on their production. They may be much less serious for New Zealand’s long-term future than Mr Parker’s failure during his short tenure in the role as Minister of Transport to bring Transit to heel and ensure that New Zealand’s roading crisis is resolved in a timely manner. They are almost certainly much less serious than the difficulties he had dealing with the climate change questions though to be fair he was not responsible for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. That was done by the new Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. 
What should worry all New Zealanders is that the Labour-led Government is so desperately short of talent that Helen Clark has had to recycle into the portfolios from which Mr Parker has resigned men who have failed in those portfolios previously. Pete Hodgson is the new Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. As Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues it is Pete Hodgson who carries responsibility for the appalling blunders around the Kyoto Protocol for the “flatulence tax” proposed and abandoned for the carbon tax proposed and abandoned for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol itself in late 2002 ahead of many of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and for the assessment that participating in the protocol would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the New Zealand economy. He is the man who ridiculed critics who questioned his judgment on that but now has to admit that the cost to the New Zealand economy will be many hundreds of millions of dollars—as an optimistic assessment. He is the man back in the climate change portfolio. 
Pete Hodgson is the new Minister of Transport. But again he was the Minister of Transport previously and in many ways is much more to blame than David Parker who held the portfolio for a short period of time only. Trevor Mallard is the new Minister of Energy. It is hard to know who is most to blame for the mess in that sector. He was Minister of Energy in the period prior to the election but only for about the same time as David Parker since the election. He certainly did not set any sensible new course for the energy sector and we will hold him fully responsible for any shortages of electricity we have this winter. 
So they are a very tired bunch and the loss of just one man from Cabinet makes it clear just how desperately short of talent the Government is. In fact it is a tired Government and an increasingly arrogant Government that is repeatedly dependent on the police and Crown Law not choosing to prosecute them despite prima facie breaches of the law. Unless we get an early election we face a very bleak 2½ years.