During the last urgent debate on John Tamihere (19 October) I said that whatever the outcome of the formal investigation, Mr Tamihere has to live with making a categorical public statement that he would not accept a golden handshake before the election and then proceeding to accept one after the election. I went on to say that ultimately he will be judged on the morality rather than the legality of his behaviour, and that he should reflect on that as he makes a political decision about his future. Mr Tamihere has reflected, and I believe he has taken the honourable course of action. But he has taken it at least 2 weeks late to rescue his political career. As I also said during that last urgent debate, John Tamihere has been a role model to many people, both Māori and Pākehā. He has let them down, he has let himself down, and, clearly, we now know that he has let down his Prime Minister. He should not have taken that payment. He should have consulted with the Prime Minister at the time — as we were clearly told today, she would have advised him not to take that payment — and in the last 2 weeks he should not have disguised through various ruses that the part of the payment that does not connect in any way with particular expenses or salaries or bonuses was in fact a golden handshake. I believe he will now be judged harshly for his belated honesty, and he has to live with that. I do not want to prolong his agony any further, except to say that whatever the outcome of the formal investigation I still think it is unacceptable for a member of Parliament to channel his election expenses through an organisation that he has worked for, especially one that is significantly Government funded and exists to help those who are very much the disadvantaged and poor in our community. I know for myself that I would have found it immoral and unacceptable to do that when I was working at Trade Aid, which is, in many respects, a similar organisation that relies on a degree of Government funding and also exists primarily to help those in greatest need. Mr Richard Prebble, on 16 October last year, in his vociferous speech opposing the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill, which will, in the interests of public accountably and transparency, require all non-Ministers to make similar declarations to those that Ministers make, said: "It is over to those promoting this bill to show why members of Parliament should make those declarations." I think that today we have a very clear demonstration of why all members of Parliament should make those declarations. In closing, I say that this is a very sad day for this Parliament because our word is meant to be our honour, and one of our members has admitted that he has not kept to his word. It is a very sad day for the Government because it has waited 2 weeks for Mr Tamihere to do the honourable thing, which he should have done on at least 19 October, and I would suggest some time prior to that - perhaps as far back as when Mr Winston Peters first raised the issue. Ultimately, it is a very sad day for John Tamihere because I think this marks the end of his political career.