Mapp Wayne: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
Mapp Wayne: Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee Members’ Pecuniary Interests—Gifts and Donations 
[Volume:650;Page:18904] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Mr Peters a member of 27 years standing—in fact the longest-serving member in this House—is judged as not telling the truth. That is not just National—and I make that point to New Zealand First—it is the members of the Green Party the Maori Party United Future and ACT. This whole issue has turned wholly on the evidence primarily of Mr Glenn but also of Mr Peters and Mr Henry. Up until then there might have been suspicions that there may have been knowledge but there was no evidence. It took the hearing of the Privileges Committee to establish the evidence. 
The issue here is actually quite straightforward. Did Mr Peters know or ought he to have known when he completed his pecuniary interests form that he was receiving donations? In truth the first evidence of this actually came from Mr Henry in his first appearance. He was specifically asked whether he would have told Mr Peters that donations were being received for his electoral petition. Mr Henry said he would have told Mr Peters and that would have been in early 2006. At that point Mr Peters would have known enough to disclose in the pecuniary interests. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He didn’t say that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Peters was saying he did not know that? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He didn’t say that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I suggest to Mr Peters that he read the transcript. That part of the report is entirely agreed by all members of the committee and in fact is highlighted in our principal report. At that point there was actually enough evidence to find contempt. But of course at that point the knowledge would have been only general and not related to any particular donor. 
That is why the evidence of Mr Glenn was so important. There was a lot of extraneous evidence. I do accept that recall is not perfect and that details do get confused and that is precisely why the conversations of 14 December were so important. The first call lasted 6 minutes. Interestingly both Mr Glenn and Mr Peters seemed to have some reasonable recall of that. In fact Mr Peters actually supplied a note dated 10 September setting out five issues that were discussed. Mr Peters did concede he must have been asked to supply the information to his lawyer. 
I can understand that the issue of the amount was not discussed but put it this way: Mr Glenn did not know the general proposition that one should not talk about money with politicians; that is why he was under no constraint. So he would have likely mentioned it. The issue here is not whether Mr Peters asked but whether Mr Peters knew and the majority did find that there was a probability that he would have known because immediately following that telephone call there was another call from Mr Peters to Mr Henry a call that lasted also 6 minutes. Interestingly enough of course there was no recollection of that call by either Mr Peters or Mr Henry yet there was an email. 
I would suggest to New Zealand First members that it was reasonable for the select committee majority to actually draw the inference that money was discussed and that is the only finding we make—just that money was discussed and that knowledge was possessed by Mr Peters adding to the statement by Mr Henry that donations had been disclosed to Mr Peters in any event. I suggest to Mr Fairbrother that juries up and down this country faced with the same sort of evidence would have drawn the conclusion that money would have been discussed in those circumstances. And in this circumstance so did the Privileges Committee and by majority of virtually every small party in the Parliament. 
So the finding is based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence on the balance of probabilities which is the very test that was suggested. The way witnesses deal with issues generally helps one to decide this issue. For instance last week Mr Peters was specifically asked by Mr Brownlee whether he had reimbursed Mr Henry for $40000 court costs. After all he had told Grey Power in a written speech precisely that fact. What did he do? One would think the answer would be a simple yes or no. But he gave a long and elliptical answer and frankly I could not work out whether he had said yes or no. We were entitled to conclude at that point that in fact Mr Peters had not paid yet that was in direct contradiction to his own speech written out for Grey Power. It was not something said off the cuff—in fact it was also said in evidence before the select committee. When we are faced with that situation we have to ask ourselves whether Mr Peters checked his records. Did he ask his lawyer? Well apparently not or at least the discussion was nebulous. That would also had it been a gift have to be declared and it is specifically stated in the Privileges Committee report that should that be the case that there is a donation from the Spencer Trust then that would have to be declared in the subsequent declarations of interest. 
We were faced with this situation. Mr Glenn specifically said that money was discussed. Mr Peters did admit that information about the lawyer was required. But there was no recollection of any telephone call between Mr Peters and Mr Henry even though it took place literally seconds after. I suggest to this House and to the people listening that it was reasonable for the Privileges Committee to draw the inference that Mr Peters had been informed that money was at stake. 
Do members know the irony of this whole case? All Mr Peters had to do was simply to declare that he was receiving donations. That was all he had to do. In fact other members of the House have done precisely that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member was advised by Mr Henry because he said so that he was receiving donations. That is on the record. The member should read the report for heaven’s sake! Mr Peters’ unwillingness to admit that he may not be right is actually the source of his problem. He seems to be unable to accept that maybe he is mistaken on this that maybe he did not take enough notice of what his lawyer said that maybe he did not make the honest inquiry—and that I say to Dr Cullen is not a new test. Could we imagine any other sort of inquiry? Surely members have to make an honest inquiry. That is not a new test notwithstanding what the minority says. New Zealanders expect honesty from their members. They can expect an honest disclosure. 
I have to conclude that Mr Peters has let himself down by not living up to his own standards. He has let this Parliament down and his peers will be judging him accordingly. I suggest that the public will also make their own judgment.