Brownlee Gerry: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Brownlee Gerry: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18899] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Firstly I refute the comments made by Dr Cullen at the end of his speech. I found them to be objectionable I found them to be an affront and I found them to be quite unreasonable in the circumstances. It is not inappropriate when we have a process like this that there is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: There should not be a barrage please. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Now— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who paid your legal fees? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will get to that Mr Peters. Now it is appropriate that when Parliament is considering the protection of its own Standing Orders— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A couple of things are happening here. The first is the barrage of interjections and the second is that although we have been told we have to constrain ourselves to the purview of the report now we are having a long heckle apparently about Gerry Brownlee throwing Winston Peters down some stairs. I am not aware of that incident being mentioned in the report and I think we should stick to the business at hand. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: It is very hard to constrain people in their heckling let alone to get them in their speeches to stay on the point. But I say the heckling is at the moment leading to disorder. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think Mr Hide’s point of order was quite fair and I would ask that in future if two people are interjecting and heckling from any party they be immediately brought to order because today we were subjected to barrages— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is enough. Take your seat please. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is appropriate that when the Privileges Committee is considering matters it should do so in a robust fashion. I remember when I was first elected to this House in 1996 some time after the formation of the coalition being in a social circumstance with a number of my new colleagues. We were in a discussion with a very senior member of this House who offered the advice that one’s knowledge of the Standing Orders made for a better member and that a member’s knowledge of them would give him or her greater latitude in participating in the business of the House. That member was Winston Peters. He is someone who has pitched himself shown himself to be a parliamentarian. So for him to be upset that the process he has just been through is too robust is in my view quite unacceptable and frankly somewhat sad. 
How many times did the committee hear that this matter could be all tidied up in 5 minutes that it could be all cleaned up in 5 minutes if we were only prepared to listen? We heard that not once not twice not three times but over and over again. Well I ask members to let me reaffirm the comments made by the Hon Bill English. We would not be in this situation if it were not for the Parliament itself deciding to change the Standing Orders in order to require these disclosures. So the three questions that Dr Cullen raised become most important: did Mr Peters know about the donation should he have known about it and should he have declared it? 
Other members today have talked about the way the committee went through the exercise of trying to hear from everybody in a reasonable fashion and I join others in saying Simon Power did a wonderful job in organising the way that the committee worked. He was a very very good model of how a chairperson should operate in such circumstances. It was not very easy going into a committee with the expectation that the issue might all be cleared up in 5 minutes to first be confronted by Mr Brian Henry a man whom I would describe as confused histrionic belligerent and evasive. I do not think that Brian Henry did Mr Peters’ cause one bit of good. Anyone who picks up this document and reads the transcripts from the start to the finish will be absolutely shocked at the way Mr Henry’s evidence shifted moved and ultimately changed to suit the facts that were coming out in all sorts of other directions. 
In that regard I would also have to mention that if it were not for the clear and authoritative guidance given to the committee by Stephen Kós QC the appearance of Mr Williams QC would have left the collective reputation of senior counsel in this country somewhat in tatters. It was an embarrassment to see someone with the public stature of Mr Williams struggling to understand which Standing Order he was required to work under. His comments directed very much at some members of the committee were to say the least vehement and bordered on the plain nasty. 
The essence of this case I think becomes decided when anyone reads from page 205 through to page 209 in the report. Those pages in essence are where the transcript deals with the fundamental questions about what happened on 14 December 2005. We were told in evidence that there was an email or a message I should say from someone who Mr Glenn thought was Winston Peters—but Mr Peters denied that it was him—around about 5 December 2005 and that following that Mr Glenn consulted Mr Williams about whether he should make a donation having previously turned down a request for a donation from New Zealand First. Mr Glenn’s evidence was that at a brunch in Sydney on 14 December 2005 he discussed the matter with Mike Williams and after that he made the phone call to Mr Peters. At that point although Dr Cullen talks about two narratives other speakers have already said there was so much similarity and agreement over what took place not only in the first phone call but also in the subsequent emails between Mr Henry and Mr Glenn that there had to be a good basis for making assumptions about what that discussion was about. 
It is interesting to look at the transcript as I said before. When Mr Peters in his second appearance before the committee was confronted with the evidence presented by Owen Glenn he stated: “I’ve got to say looking at it all—and I’ve tried over and over again to look at that and make sense of it—I’m happy to say to you look it’s quite possible that happened …”. Well what was it that jogged the memory over the couple of weeks if it was not the evidence of Owen Glenn himself the provision of the email traffic and the strong and unrelenting assertion by him that a donation was asked for and a donation was given? The answer to the question simply in the first case as to whether Winston Peters knew about it could reasonably be assumed I think. 
In relation to the second part which would require us to assume that Winston Peters did not know about the donation then the question would be whether he should have known. We then go to the question of Mr Henry’s evidence. Mr Henry constructed for us the arrangement between Mr Peters and himself whom he described as being like blood brothers. He stated further that he would go so far as to say he would go to considerable lengths to protect Mr Peters from the ravages of big business. That arrangement which had existed for a long time confirms in itself that Mr Peters must have known that costs were accruing somewhere that he might have to meet at some point and in his own evidence he said that periodically he made payments to the lawyer to cover those particular costs. He indicated that at one stage he made a payment of $148000 for some matter not related to this inquiry which apparently he lost. It indicated certainly that the pattern meant that he would have known. 
When it comes to the register itself what would have been the problem with simply writing down that the money was received from the Spencer Trust from Owen Glenn and from anyone else? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Because I didn’t know. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is the problem I say to Mr Peters. There is the problem. We conclude from the 14 December 2005 traffic that it would be most unlikely for Mr Peters not to have known. 
Stepping forward from that I simply say the committee reached its conclusions after considerable debate. It is not easy to see a motion like this being moved. I know there will be people in the public gallery and other commentators who will want to continue to refer to the Privileges Committee as the “Wet Bus Ticket Committee” etc. But for a member of Parliament for someone who values the right to speak freely in this House and for someone who sets himself up as being a parliamentarian above all else it is a huge penalty to have a censure motion moved against him by the House. No one does that with any degree of comfort or malice. It is simply a fact that if we are to have a Standing Order that requires pecuniary interests to be declared then we need to defend that pecuniary interests register with some clarity.