General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. There is a wealth of opportunities for this debate today and I will take a few of them. We will talk about National’s bail policy and the fact that National members cuddle up to people who are charged with arms offences. We will talk about wages and about the promise John Key made at the Kerikeri District Business Association to drop wages. We will talk about John Key’s hidden donation to the National Party through the Waitemata Trust and some of the details around that. We will talk about Richard Worth. He is someone who is transparent, unlike John Key, in that when he wanted one of his mates to be a consul-general for New Zealand he admitted that he had a substantial self-interest in the request. And, if there is time, we will get on to the Brownlee diaries, which are very, very interesting.

First of all, I ask John Key the same question I asked him last week. It is a question that I will ask him every time I have the opportunity. Why did he not have the courage to turn his back on Tame Iti when Tame Iti approached him? We expect someone of principle, someone who aspires to be the Prime Minister, to say “I will not cuddle up to someone who is charged with serious firearm offences.” We expect someone like him to have the courage to front up in these matters, or, in this case, to not front up—to turn his back, to walk away, and to say it is not appropriate to meet with someone like that, to hongi, to give endorsement, and to give approval. Every single week that we have the opportunity to do so we will ask that question, until John Key gets off his backside, gets into this House, and answers that question.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member knows that he cannot refer to an absence from the House.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: He certainly did not say that. He said until he gets off his backside and comes into the House. It was a reference to the future. Most of us do go out of this place, at least at 10 o’clock at night, and come back again later.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Dr Cullen.

Why did John Key propose to the Kerikeri District Business Association that he would drop wages, then say later on that he wanted them to go up? I am not saying that he is a liar—I cannot and I will not—but when was he telling the truth? What does he believe? Was neither time the truth, or was it just another case of John Key saying one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group? The truth does not matter to John Key; he just tells people what they want to hear.

My next question to Mr Key is when he will tell this House how much he gave as part of his hidden donation—hidden in order to avoid the declaration—to the National Party. Was it six figures, as we understand; and was it more than what Owen Glenn gave to the Labour Party? We know that John Key did it through the Waitemata Trust and we know that Murray McCully’s mate Bob Browne arranged for that donation to be hidden. Bob Browne distinguished himself while chair of Transit by having the only motorway extension that happened in Auckland go to his own front door! We are talking about someone who is used to doing dodgy deals, and the fact that he is a business partner of Murray McCully is probably an indication of that. We want to know how much John Key’s donation was that Bob Browne hid.

I again compliment Richard Worth, and indicate that at the end of this speech I will seek the leave of the House to table the letter from Mr Worth—

💬 Hon Member: Dr Worth.

No, Mr Worth at the time—before he bought his PhD.

I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Richard Worth OBE, MP for Epsom, which states: “There is an aspect of substantial”—

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Yesterday the Government let out on bail a hardened criminal—after he had been refused bail by the courts—as part of a deal, which also included $100,000 in cash. Today we have found out that the Government has cooked the figures in the report on serious hospital incidents, which shows that many Kiwis have died avoidable deaths. We have also had the revelation that Work and Income is paying towaway fees for drunk drivers so they can get back their cars. That is just today, and that is just the small issues.

The big issue is Helen Clark’s judgment over Labour’s billionaire donor friend. Let me read what Helen Clark said in November 2007 as the culmination of Labour’s campaign for transparency in political donations: “The important thing is to have fair rules and a level playing field, and what we’ve seen in New Zealand”—listen to this—“is the intrusion of very, and I underline very, big money into our election campaigns.” But Labour received very big money from a very big donor, by the name of Owen Glenn. There may be questions about Mr Glenn’s judgment, but he is not Prime Minister of New Zealand. The serious questions are about the judgment of Helen Clark, who is the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Helen Clark needs to explain these following issues: why was it that she was advocating the Electoral Finance Act for transparency and was against big money in politics, when she was part of deals behind closed doors to get more big money from a big billionaire donor? Why was she spending all year going on about very wealthy people trying secretly to influence New Zealand’s politics, when she was party to an arrangement where a billionaire lent $100,000 to the Labour Party, interest-free? Why was it that Labour instructed the Justice and Electoral Committee, under Helen’s Clark’s guidance, to change the law so that Owen Glenn could keep donating, despite the fact that he was an expatriate? Why did Helen Clark sit on the Cabinet strategy subcommittee on appointments and honours, knowing there had been a secret loan to the Labour Party, and give Owen Glenn a serious New Year honour, and expect there to be no comment on it? Why was it that she knew about the loan and had been party to discussions with Mike Williams and Winston Peters about giving Owen Glenn a job as consul for Monaco, but when she read in the newspaper that Mike Williams had said there was no donation, she said and did nothing? What person in the Labour caucus, let alone in the New Zealand population, believes that Helen Clark did not know about that—till yesterday? No one believes it. That is the ultimate misjudgment, if Helen Clark thinks that New Zealanders still believe her.

New Zealanders do not believe her, because she rammed the Electoral Finance Bill through the House and said it would bring transparency and would exclude big money influence from politics, yet behind the back door she was making precisely that sort of deal. That also raises questions about the judgment of Mike Williams, who is meant to be the world’s best political party strategist, for the world’s best Prime Minister, the man who denied—[Interruption] He is the guy who dumped Labour in it.

Debate interrupted.