Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
[Volume:614;Page:10384] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 In a speech last weekend by Mr Prebble the leader of the ACT party in reference to the trouble of his colleague Ms Deborah Coddington he said we should not blame a member of Parliament for the actions of a spouse. On that point—and it is a rare occasion—I agree with Mr Prebble. However in relation to Ms Coddington and the fiasco with Alister Taylor and his so-called publishing companies the issue is not Mr Taylor and his financial manoeuvrings; the issue is Deborah Coddington who for over 20 years was a director/shareholder of and had an intimate association with various companies that we know did not deliver the goods to people—ordinary Kiwis in both New Zealand and Australia. In fact they were ripped off. 
The issue in this House is Ms Coddington’s responsibilities. It is she who should be called to account for her time as a director a shareholder and an owner who had oversight of the financial activities of those companies. Her personal relationship with a co-director does not make her claims of lack of knowledge credible but her responsibilities as a director and a shareholder are her own responsibilities. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have a sustained attack here by Mr Cosgrove. My question is: how does that compare with a parliamentary staffer of that member who travelled under a false name to get free air travel— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In fact Ms Coddington in the  
New Zealand Herald  
acknowledged she had knowledge that bills were not paid and that books were not published and delivered to people who had paid for them. In the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 22 and 23 November she said: “I wasn’t sure what the future would hold. The law and general practice recognises that a director of a company has two courses of action if he or she disapproves of the manner in which a company is being run—change the way it is run or resign. I tried to change the way Alister did business but I couldn’t so I resigned.” She goes on: “I wasn’t sure if there was any value in the company when I transferred the shares to my daughter on behalf of my four children but if there was to be any future benefit I wanted my children to have the chance of some benefit.” 
She is saying there that she admits she had knowledge of all the commercial activities of those companies. At various times she was a director a shareholder and an owner. She says she was aware of the activities. She resigned and because the rorting was going to go on she thought: “Hey! If there’s a profit to be made in it I’ll let my kids take that profit.” 
This is the person who is ACT’s spokesperson on consumer affairs and the Fair Trading Act. She resigned only when she thought it was politically expedient to do so—only before she became a member of Parliament. But the facts are that as a director she presided over the rorting of creditors. 
Mr Prebble also said in his speech that he pledged his support for Ms Coddington. Mr Prebble in his speech said the matter was just a “storm in a teacup”. Well I ask the taxpayers of New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department whether it is a storm in a teacup when there is a $27000 GST default debt to that department owed by Roger Jamieson Ltd between April 1998 and April 2000. Is that a storm in a teacup when I am advised there were only two shareholders—one of whom was Ms Coddington at the time? I do not think that Graham Sawyer who is owed monies as a former employee in a company of those two individuals Mr Taylor and Ms Coddington and who won a claim against them in a New South Wales court thinks that it is a storm in a teacup—and he still has not been paid. I do not think that Mr Bernard Moore who was also an employee of those individuals who won a court case for unpaid wages in a New Zealand court and who has not received a dollar sees that as a storm in a teacup. 
For 20 years the bodies and businesses of people and creditors and unpaid debts have been littered around this country. I say that it is not good enough for Ms Coddington to say that because she transferred her shares she then had amnesia—she being an award-winning investigative journalist in New Zealand who has received awards for “excellence in financial journalism” and for the “best crime and justice feature”. 
I ask her today what the total debts were when she transferred her shares from the companies of Mr Taylor and herself. I ask her today to tell us who paid for those paedophile indexes. Were they paid for on the back of publications where monies were received from other people but those people never received the books—or did she pay? If she did pay there is an easy way to clear the decks. She should show us the cheque butts show us the bank statements and show us the invoices. 
She should produce them because she is a member of the ACT party that demanded absolute scrutiny from Donna Awatere Huata but never demanded it from Ms Coddington. All we ask for is some answers to those questions but all we get is silence. I say to that member over there that in terms of impersonating people I know that Mr Hide for years has attempted to impersonate a tall thin good-looking bloke with hair integrity and honesty but he has failed to date.