Hansard extracts re Peters

From Wednesday:

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware, and can she confirm, that Section 2.79 of the Cabinet Manual requires Ministers to obtain her express permission to keep gifts valued at more than $500; and will she not accept that Mr Peters, by his own admission, has now admitted that he received a gift of $100,000 from Mr Glenn, and, whether or not she likes it, has to determine whether he will be allowed to keep that gift?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I say again that whether the sum is a gift is a matter for the registrar of pecuniary interests. But can I further make the point that immediately Mr Peters was told of the source of that particular donation to a legal fund, he declared it to me. The Cabinet Office advised me that the court case, of course, was one of particular public interest—considerable public interest—and in such circumstances, if, and I underline that word, such a sum of money were deemed to be a gift, there would be no reason to require a Minister to relinquish it.

Now consider the weasel words here. First of all we have the declaring the court case was somehow in the public interest – as oppossed to the very private interest of Winston Peters who was trying to overturn the acual election result.

But secondly she is suggesting that Owen Glenn paying $100,000 of Winston’s debts is in the public interest and okay. Now maybe you could argue this if the donation was made before the court case – in order to allow it to proceed. But the timing is that Peters took the case and lost, and then Glenn helped him pay the costs.

And remember that the PM knows that Owen Glenn was lobbying Peters to lobby her to be appointed Consul – and she has said it is okay for him to keep the $100,000 gift. She has now succesfully approved American style funding for NZ.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I told the House yesterday, I would be absolutely delighted to see corporate and large private donations banned, on the basis that there would need to be State funding.

Helen wants to ban companies from being able to donate, but not unions. This shows her true agenda.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister for Racing acts at all times with the interests of the whole racing sector at heart, or does she have any sense, as some in the racing industry do, that his actions tend to favour those at the high end of the industry, which, incidentally, is the same end from which New Zealand First has received substantial donations?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, I do not have any independent information about where donations come from, but I can say to the member that I have had absolutely no advice or, indeed, even any suggestion of the issue of preference that she has raised.

Clark needs to look at the last Budget.

John Key: Did Winston Peters ask for the racing portfolio when the Prime Minister allocated the portfolios in 2005?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes.

Clark was ready with that answer.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister think that the Government’s failure to get the numbers to progress sustainability measures like the Marine Reserves Bill and the Fisheries Amendment Bill may have anything to do with the large financial contribution to the party of her Minister of Foreign Affairs from Vela Fishing

NZ First did not like this question.

Dr Russel Norman: Do any of the Prime Minister’s Ministers receive donations from industries they are meant to be regulating and taxing; and does she expect any Minister, including her Minister of Racing, who finds himself or herself negotiating tax breaks for party donors to bring that to her attention?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do think there was in that question exactly the implication that Mr Mark objected to before. I can say, in respect of Ministers, that they are not expected to receive donations from industry, at all.

The Greens may have been as silent as a mute on the Owen Glenn donation, but they are being zealous with the Vela donations.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I contacted the registrar of pecuniary interests and sought advice as to what disclosure requirements I was to make. The registrar was clear that what I needed to declare was a pecuniary interest in a trust. I have done just that. I seek leave to table the pecuniary interest declaration that I made on that advice, which clearly states there was a trust that provided support for that legal action.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It therefore follows from Mr Smith’s point of order that if that were the appropriate course for him to follow and that he does not have to declare either debts or gifts, then nor does Mr Peters.

Clark is being stupid or misleading here. Nick Smith has an actual legal trust established which has trustees and he has declared he is a beneficiary of this. That is different to Winston who has no such legal trust but instead donors just pay off bills on his behalf. The Standing Orders make it very clear how each situation is treated.

And in another question:

Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister asked Winston Peters whether he knew that Mr Brian Henry was soliciting and receiving funds on Mr Peters’ behalf, as Brian Henry has said he was doing, and has she asked also on what date Mr Peters learnt that his legal bill had been reduced by $100,000; if not, why has she not asked Mr Peters those questions—is she concerned about the answers?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I have not asked those questions. The matter is clear to me. Mr Peters has advised me that he was advised late on Friday of the source of the money going to his lawyer. He had not known the source of that money before then. I believe that Mr Peters, like other sensible party leaders, keeps a great distance from the issue of soliciting funds.

Clark here ignores the salient point of the question. Rodney did not ask anything about the identity of the $100,000 – just why she did not ask Peters when he knew he had had his legal bill reduced by $100,000. For you see that is when he should have notified her.

Rodney Hide: Let us have something to look forward to here in the House. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister is consistently and wilfully dodging the questions that Mr Copeland and I have been asking, by saying that Mr Peters did not know about the source of the donations. My question specifically asked whether Mr Peters knew that money was being solicited—not the source of the donations, but the fact that the money was being solicited.

Madam SPEAKER: I have listened very carefully. The Prime Minister, like all Ministers, is required to address the question. However, Ministers are not required to give the answer that members want to hear. The Prime Minister addressed the question.

Rodney caught on that Clark keeps refusing to answer that question. That is because she knows Peters should ahve declared the $100,000 the moment he knew his legal bill had been reduced by that amount.