General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Nothing strikes more at the heart of a democracy in a Parliament than the word “corruption”. Nothing strikes at the heart of a Parliament—as the Minister of Justice, who may or may not take a call, sort of disappears from view and from target.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Nothing strikes more at the heart of a democracy than when Ministers show an abrogation of the truth and a lack of transparency.

John Key is wont to require in this House that we use full quotes. He often says that in question time. So I invite the Prime Minister, wherever he may be, and the members of his Government to look at the Cabinet Manual, paragraph 2.61. I will read the full quote: “A pecuniary conflict of interest may arise if a Minister could reasonably be perceived as standing to gain or lose financially from decisions or acts for which he or she is responsible,”. It goes on in paragraph 2.62: “A conflict may arise if people close to a Minister, such as a Minister’s family, whānau, or close associates might derive, or be perceived as deriving, some personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister …”.

I put it to you in this House that from Judith Collins’ her actions of obfuscation, of hiding the truth from journalists and answering only questions she was forced to answer, of, some would say, lying by omission—in fact, I think the Prime Minister said “lying by omission”—of dodging and weaving and drip-feeding out details every day, and of changing her story, one can only draw the conclusion that this Minister not only had the perception of a conflict of interest, not only had a conflict of interest, but had a pecuniary conflict of interest. And, by the way, she was the one who brought her husband into this debate, not this Parliament, not this Opposition, and not the media. She and her husband were attempting to enrich themselves by her actions of having dinner, of endorsing products, and of knowing—before she advised the Prime Minister, as we just heard from question No. 12—that she was going to be meeting with a Chinese official.

No one can say that this Minister is somehow some sort of delicate dilettante daisy—a first time MP. Oh no! This is “Crusher” Collins. This is a lawyer, a senior member of Parliament, a Minister who told Paul Henry that she does not apologise for anything, and a Minister who told Paul Henry that she, by her own admission, has done an outstanding job—an outstanding job. Humility comes to this Minister? I do not think so.

Then, of course, on the 10th day of the saga going through, as if by some act or some training to cry on cue, we have the Minister shedding the odd tear as she is put under pressure on the bridge by the media. Well, I say that camouflage will not wash. I say that camouflage will not wash. The truth about this Minister, one of the most experienced Ministers and the Minister of Justice to boot, is that she knew exactly what she did and what she was going to do when she omitted certain events from her request to travel. Not only that, of course, she knowingly did not inform the Prime Minister that she was meeting a Chinese border official. When it was found out by the media, by Grant Robertson, and by others, they had to drag the truth every day from this Minister. She thinks she is off the hook because she can stand up and grin in that Shirley Temple sort of way and say she apologised.

The problem that Minister has is that she has a problem with the truth. She has a problem with facts. Every day, there is a new revelation. She told us yesterday she did not know where she was. Well, maybe somebody should have bought her a GPS. She told us yesterday she was just popping in to see somebody, but then we know there were dinners, there were meetings, and all the time she lied by omission when she was answering only questions she was forced to answer.

That strikes at the heart of democracy. This is a Minister who allegedly prides herself on her professionalism and prides herself on being New Zealand’s sort of Iron Lady, a lookalike Maggie Thatcher. This is a woman who can spit acid in this place better than an Australian cane toad. This is a woman who is no shrinking violet and can dish it out, of course. This is a Minister who called a member of Parliament in this Chamber—a member of Parliament in this Chamber—a “pervert”, and then she expects us to sort of have a little bit of sympathy for her as she sheds a wee tear. The poor old daisy.

The last person in this House I am going to take a lecture in humility from is Clayton Cosgrove. His speech showed a desperate Opposition that is disconnected from the issues that matter. Over the weekend, National had its very successful Bluegreens conference. We reviewed the progress that we are making in bringing together sound environmental and economic policy and planned for the policies that we want for the future. I want to commend my colleague Amy Adams for the work and the announcements on improving water quality and on getting better standards in areas like waste and so many other others.

This afternoon is a good opportunity to contrast that record with what took place in the electoral landslide in Tasmania. There, the Labor-Greens coalition Government was responsible for the worst economic malaise in our part of the world, for political instability, for record numbers of people who are jobless, and—ironically, given Labour’s announcement on timber processing—for a meltdown in that Government because of the differences of view between Labor and the Greens on timber processing. There is a salutary lesson for New Zealand as we go to the polls in looking at the record of that Labor-Greens Government in Tasmania. A warning for Labour members opposite: this is the only time in our part of the world Labor has gone into formal coalition with the Greens. Do you know how many Labor members of Parliament are left in Tasmania after the weekend? Just four—just four. I say to members opposite that Shane Jones is right—get into bed with the Greens at your peril. But we know Labour members think otherwise.

Let me go through a few of the reasons the parallels are important. Of course, we know that Tasmania is closest to us geographically. They actually have a proportional system of government, like us. Unlike the rest of Australia, the biggest part of the Tasmanian economy is their farming, their forestry, and their fishing industries, like here in New Zealand. Let us not listen to the rhetoric; let us look at the record of what the Labor-Greens Government gave. What has happened to unemployment in Tasmania? It is the worst in Australia. Youth unemployment in Tasmania is over 20 percent—over 20 percent. What is more is there has been a record number of young people leave Tasmania over the last 3 years of that Labor-Greens Government. Understand that a Labor-Greens Government meant young people losing hope and leaving the country. That is a salutary lesson for New Zealand.

But let us look elsewhere—the deficit. The deficit in Tasmania has gone up every single year of the Labor-Greens Government. It is the worst of any state in Australian, and it is a warning to New Zealand of the red ink that we would get into were we to go down that path. But there is another interesting parallel. The Green Party in Government in Tasmania has insisted on a single electricity purchaser. Well, how has it gone? Electricity prices in Tasmania have gone up by 12 percent under the very policy that Labour and Green members promote in this House.

If you look at growth—the worst growth of anywhere in Australia—if you look at jobs, if you look at power prices, if you look at the deficits, and if you look at political instability, there is a very loud warning from the electoral landslide in Tasmania. You see, Shane Jones is right. The contradictions that exist between the Labour and Green parties would result in a hugely unstable Government. New Zealand cannot afford it. I just simply invite Labour members to reflect on the advice from mainland Australia Labor politicians, who say “Get in bed with the Green Party at your peril.” That is advice that I am sure Shane Jones is taking on board. The record is clear. A Labour-Green Government would mean high unemployment, high deficits, political instability, high power prices, and record youth unemployment. New Zealand should not have a bar of it.

The milk has gone sour. Let us look at the facts of the Collins-Oravida saga. Oravida arranged a dinner in Beijing last year. It invited a senior and influential New Zealand Government Minister, Judith Collins. It invited a senior Chinese border official. This was not some spontaneous, last-minute, casual, brief encounter. This was an intentional business meeting.

The public is being asked to swallow that this Minister had nothing to do with Oravida’s business, but Oravida’s business is a matter of great consequence for her husband, a director of the company. Judith Collins kept this meeting under wraps, covertly, before going to China. She covered it up and omitted to mention it to the Prime Minister when the story broke. She left it out of her trip report. How very convenient it was for her to do that! What was actually happening was that she was covering up her tracks—her connection to a business meeting that was about securing advantage and benefit for Oravida.

This smells to high heaven. We have the Cabinet Manual for a reason. It is to avoid the very situation that Minister Collins is now in. It is to protect the public from corrupt practice, but sensible Ministers know that it is also to protect them. Judith Collins has committed one of the most glaring examples of conflict of interest and breach of the Cabinet Manual in recent New Zealand history. It does not get any more black and white. The irony is that she was, of course, over there officially to talk to this group in China—and it was all part of her report—the China Executive Leadership Academy in Pudong. And what was she talking about? She was talking about a “culture of openness and transparency. [The] law provides mechanisms for the public to find out what different branches of the government are doing.” She goes on to say more: “We believe that this builds trust and confidence in our system.”

If she or the Prime Minister had any actual sense of decency, they would ensure that she was no longer a Minister. The irony is that the ostensible reason for Judith Collins’ official trip to China was to talk about probity and principle in Government affairs in that speech. When a Minister flaunts and ignores the Cabinet Manual, there must be consequences. The Prime Minister must take the ultimate responsibility for the failure of his Minister. He should have asked his Minister where the standards were, where the care was, where the integrity was, where the probity was, where the scrupulous attention to ethical standards was, because all were missing.

John Key talked about there being a new standard under his leadership—oh, how he loved to talk about that. Well, the only standard we have seen is a double standard. If you are Pansy Wong or Richard Worth, you are down the road. If you are Judith Collins, you are as right as rain. Let us not beat about the bush here. The Prime Minister has been severely embarrassed by Judith Collins. He has been up on the ninth floor blushing away. But it begs the question: why has he not sacked her? What is he so afraid of about this milkmaid from Oravida? That is what she has been engaged in, behind everybody’s backs, back in this country. Now the big question in Parliament is what Judith Collins has got on John Key for him to be too scared to act. The Prime Minister looks weak. He looks out of touch. He is sitting on his hands while Oravida’s milkmaid runs about making a laughing stock of him. So Key must accept that this Government is contaminated, infected with the taint and smell of corruption from Oravida’s milkmaid.

New Zealand First says that this matter is not going to go away. New Zealand does not need Ministers who serve themselves; it needs Ministers who serve New Zealand. And as for the attack that she made on me, let me just say this: Mike Williams, a former president of the Labour Party, made it very clear that those members’ allegations about me were false, and he put it out—[Interruption] It is all in the article. If those members want to contest this, then why not go to the reports from the Privileges Committee? Remember, three drafts say that if Winston Peters wins this petition, he becomes the member of Parliament, and the pecuniary interest there is that he gets an electorate member’s salary, except that that is not the law. A successful petition would have been a by-election, so it was demonstrably false. I pointed it out to them, and they pulled that out and checked the same finding.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Get over it. Move on.

Let me tell Minister Adams over there that she is the last person who should attack Winston Peters, because I know something about her landholdings and her associations with the water supply in her part of the region. It reeks of corruption—reeks of it—and the public are going to hear more of that.

While other members are insisting on rolling around in the dirt, this Government and this party got together last weekend to talk about what we have done for the environment and what we are doing for the environment. We have got a record that we can be proud of. I want to particularly highlight the work of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith and local MP Colin King, who have come together to develop the Hikurangi Marine Reserve, the brand-new whale sanctuary, and the fur seal sanctuary. It is the final culmination of a very successful community collaboration by the Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura group. I want to congratulate Minister Smith and the whole community of Kaikōura on their work in putting together the protection of those most important mammals in New Zealand.

Although we are getting on with it, delivering real results, the actual record of Labour and the Greens when it comes to the environment is utterly woeful. It is woeful. Under the last Labour Government, propped up by the Greens, the reality is that we had more coal, oil, and gas energy produced than ever before. We had a 23 percent rise in our carbon emissions. We had 30,000 hectares of forestry cut down in that Government’s last 3 years alone. We had absolutely no meaningful action on water management, meaning that in the time those members were in Government water quality continued to deteriorate. You only have to pick the last report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, where she absolutely lays out the woeful deterioration through those years to 2008, which this Government is now getting on and fixing.

Now we are seeing what a Labour-Greens Government 2.0 would look like. We have already seen, of course, proposals for the Kiwi tax on the Kiwi net. We have heard them roll out their intentions to have KiwiAssure, adding the 97th insurance company to the New Zealand market. And today we have got Kiwi wood. Kiwi wood—finally a policy that Shane Jones can get behind. I can only assume that David Cunliffe is so sick of having brickbats thrown at him that he is now taking steps to ban bricks. But instead of the Labour Party telling the forestry industry how it should operate, there is one lesson that Labour should be taking from the forestry industry, and that is about trimming and culling dead wood—a lesson that the Labour Party has completely failed to learn. We have heard from my colleague Nick Smith. We have heard from Nick Smith exactly how much Australian voters punished Labor for getting into bed with the Greens. They saw how damaging that association was. They saw what it did to an economy very, very similar to New Zealand’s, as Nick has told you.

In New Zealand what is really interesting is that the infighting and the divisions have already begun. They have not even got into bed yet; they are just arguing over which side they are going to sleep on. Already they cannot work together. We know that the Greens would ban a mining policy. The Greens would ban it. Labour has said “Oh, it’s a significant part of the economy, and we won’t be turning off the tap.” David Parker, of course, is on record describing the Greens’ monetary policy as unhelpful and unnecessary. On cannabis—the Greens have always wanted it to be legal, and Labour, of course, takes the opposite view. We have got Metiria Turei questioning the integrity of Labour MPs in taking corporate gifts. We have got Phil Twyford describing the Greens as simply wrong on environment policy. Grant Robertson, of course, came out attacking Kennedy Graham’s blog as pure politics and just wrong. And while Metiria Turei has been complaining about Labour nicking policy from the Greens, we have got Clare Curran complaining about white-anting going on, with the Greens encroaching on Labour territory. So clearly they are happy bedfellows over there!

My favourite, though, has got to be Russel Norman coming out and telling Trevor Mallard to “go back to closing schools and making housing unaffordable like you did in govt”. So is it not interesting that today we have had Russel Norman talking about housing affordability, when he was on record not very long ago quite rightly pointing out that between 2002 and 2007 house prices doubled, the current account ballooned, and Labour did nothing? Wise words, indeed, from Russel Norman for once.

So what do we know? We know they cannot work together. They contradict each other. They do not trust each other. They do not like each other. The one thing we know is if you cannot run yourselves, you cannot run a country. We have seen it in Tasmania. It suffered under that for 16 years, and now the Labor Party has been punished with the worst result it has had, a result that will take a long time to recover from. That is the lesson to New Zealand. Do not make the mistake of Australia. Do not let a Labour-Greens coalition destroy this country.

I have to say to the member who has just resumed her seat, Amy Adams, talking of bedfellows, how does it feel to be in bed with a party that thinks incest is OK? I have to say that this Government has become a mathematical nightmare, not just because of its bodgie Budget figures or the dishonest recollection of the state of the economy in 2008, or its shonky promises of a brighter future. No—National has been reduced to an algebraic equation of its own actions over the last 5 years, and it goes like this: “f” plus “s” equals “be” plus “sr” over “a” plus “c”. That is “flattery” plus “self-importance” equals “bloated ego” plus “self-righteousness” over “arrogance” and “cronyism”.

The greatest exponent of this mathematical operation must be the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, because she has fallen for the oldest political trap in the book—the oldest political trap in the book. She fell right into it. It is called flattery. She believes the people around her and all her new-found friends when they say to her: “Yes, Minister. Very courageous, Minister. You are such a clever Minister. You should be the Prime Minister, Minister. Can we help you and your party be more successful, Minister? How much do you need, Minister?”. You see, flattery has led to self-importance, a bloated ego, and a self-righteous defence of any action—dodgy or otherwise. And that is what we have had from the Minister of Justice. She has been bolstered by all the sycophants around her, calling her “Crusher” and “Bold” and “Ballsy” and the “Reputation Slayer” and “Tougher than Teeth”. So when she is questioned as a Minister about her conflict of interest—not a potential one but a real conflict of interest—involving a business, her husband, fees paid, promotion for more business to help the family coffers, financial gain, and Cabinet rules, what does she do? First of all, she says “I’ve done nothing wrong.” She claims that others are using terminological inexactitudes, and then she says others are using malicious fabrications.

She was economical with the truth and she has been caught out. She was caught out and the Prime Minister, first of all, was a little cross, and then he said he was angry. And what we saw was very little boldness or “ballsiness” from the Prime Minister, because all he did was slap her with a limp bus ticket. She should have been sacked as a Minister if he had shown real leadership as a Prime Minister. She was economical with the truth to the media. None of us will forget her saying “You’re wrong, Paddy. You’re wrong, Paddy. You’re wrong, Paddy. There is nothing to see here.” Then we had from her the fake regret: “I’m apologising but I don’t like apologising.” That was the sort of apology that we got from the “apologetic” Minister. Then we got: “It is all so hurtful. It’s not fair to my family and my friends.” And then we got the tearfulness. But yesterday and today she was back at it. She was back at the old arrogance—it has not gone away.

You know, I did think it would take a little longer for her to become so arrogant, but there were real signs of it in Opposition. Judith Collins built her reputation on relentless attacks—often unfounded, untrue, and vicious—on Ministers in Helen Clark’s Government. Some of us will not forget her outrageous attack on the former Minister for Social Development. She called him a pervert, a grub, and a dirty old man. Perhaps it is she who has perverted the conflict of interest rule. Perhaps it was she who perverted the course of her car on the way to the airport. Judith Collins is the current Icarus of the National Party. She has flown too close to the sun, and she is crashing and burning. And she has helped to create a new algebraic equation: “a” plus “dd” equals “gd” over “d20/9”—“arrogance” plus “dodgy deals” equals “growing distrust” over “defeat on 20 September 2014”.

I have to say that I was really surprised to hear that attack on Judith Collins by the Hon Annette King—her attack on Judith and a conflict of interest because of her husband. Was she not the same member whose husband was the chief executive officer of a district health board, earning over $200,000 worth of health money when she was the Minister of Health? I think people in glass houses should not throw stones.

It is my absolute pleasure to talk about the Bluegreens, National’s environmental group, and about National’s environmental achievements, because the Bluegreens philosophy is something that New Zealanders understand and support. Bluegreens know that caring for the environment and growing the economy can and must go hand in hand. We also understand that it is the Government’s job to run this country well and to ensure the wise use of our natural resources in a way that supports the well-being of both the environment and the people of New Zealand. Bluegreens know that environmental decisions must be based on good science and resource use on sustainability, and that the tough decisions about our economy and about our environment can be dealt with by involving appropriate stakeholders and a collaborative approach, because Kiwis, when it comes to the environment, want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

We know that the quality of life for New Zealanders is predicated on the intelligent and sustainable management of our environment, because the two major economic drivers, agriculture and tourism—the industries and the places that create the jobs and pay the wages—are both predicated on a clean, pure, and unpolluted environment. No one wants to visit a dirty country. Nobody wants to buy food from a polluted land. That is why the Bluegreens are working hard to maintain and improve environmental outcomes in New Zealand, and we have made great progress.

We have made progress in reducing waste, in cleaning up the air, and in cleaning up contaminated sites and long-polluted water bodies. We have insulated homes to cut emissions, we have increased renewable energy, and we are expanding pest control to protect our magnificent birds. But we are also tackling the really tough environmental challenges and have introduced three important pieces of legislation for the very first time —legislation to better manage fresh water, the first ever framework to protect the oceans of our exclusive economic zone, and a new bill to mandate environmental monitoring and reporting.

Firstly, we are absolutely focused on improving water quality, and for the first time we have a National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and a National Objectives Framework. They are being built on the Land and Water Forum, which is the collaborative process and a significant step change to deal with this issue. Secondly, after 50 years of oil and gas prospecting and drilling in New Zealand without any environmental protection—I repeat that: without any environmental protection—we have introduced world best-practice rules for anyone working in the exclusive economic zone. This much-needed protection was voted down by Labour and the Greens. And, finally, our Environmental Reporting Bill will drive better environmental outcomes for the long term, because for the first time we will have good-quality, long-term monitoring, which will provide comprehensive, quality information to show trends, highlight issues, test solutions, and find the facts to make good environmental decisions for the future.

In 2009 a man named Michael Swann was sent to prison for defrauding his employer, the Otago District Health Board, of millions of dollars. The Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, was so incensed by the district health board’s handling of the case that he sacked the board chair, tore strips off the board, and appointed a Crown monitor. There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that this particular Minister was very interested in the subject of fraud, particularly against the Southern District Health Board.

I am not expressing an opinion about whether or not the actions of South Link Health in relation to about $15 million of taxpayers’ health funds were legal or not. What I am clear about—and I remind members that I was intimately involved in this matter from 2003 to 2008—is that the South Island district health boards, and particularly the Otago and then Southern District Health Board, which led action on the matter, believed very strongly that South Link Health had spent money outside the scope of its contract and without authorisation, and that they had evidence to establish this.

By 2010 the Southern District Health Board was ready to take the matter to court, having spent 7 years of negotiation and then mediation without achieving any progress at all and with no prospect of success if the process were prolonged. I also know that in 2010 the Southern District Health Board had received at least one and possibly two legal opinions to the effect that fraudulent behaviour may have occurred. First, Tony Ryall claimed in this House that he thought that this was a commercial dispute not involving allegations that public funds had been misused. Now he concedes that he knew all along that this was the nature of those allegations. He first claimed to have had no involvement. He now concedes that in 2010 he advised the district health board not to take the matter to court.

As every district health board chair and chief executive officer in the country knows, the Minister’s advice is actually an instruction. He has claimed several times—most recently in his answer to my primary question on 5 March—that former district health board chief executive Brian Rousseau was wrong to say that senior Ministry of Health officials were kept well-informed about the matter and about the fraud possibility. He says that they did not know about a possible fraud until late 2013. Today I have released correspondence—in response to Mr Rousseau’s request that I help defend his reputation—that proves that senior ministry officials clearly were in the loop and were aware that fraud had been raised as a possibility in 2010. I am looking forward to the Minister correcting this answer, as well, in the House.

What this shows is that the Minister’s account is completely implausible. His story now is that in an environment where everybody knew that he was super-sensitive about the possibility of fraud, the board and senior staff of the district health board, South Link Health itself, his senior ministry and National Health Board officials, and his own monitor at the Southern District Health Board all knew that fraud had been raised as a possibility but nobody thought to tell him until late last year, when the Auditor-General raised the matter.

💬 Hon Annette King: Unbelievable.

It is very, very hard to believe, and I do not believe it. I call on the Minister to release immediately all the advice he received from officials about this matter. I have to call on him to do this because the Ministry of Health, from which I have requested many documents under the Official Information Act, including advice to the Minister, has refused to release every document except one: the Auditor-General’s advice—the one document it knew I already had. I believe that even the interference that the Minister admits to having made in this case is inappropriate and steps over the line. If it can be proved that he knew about the possibility of fraud, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable.

On the weekend just gone we had the most positive Bluegreens Forum that one could imagine. It was held in Kaikōura and it culminated a lot of hard work, somewhere in the region of 8 or 9 years of collaborative governance. On the Sunday at the Takahanga Marae the Prime Minister gave the Government’s response to Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura. I would have to say, being the member of Parliament for Kaikōura, that it was incredibly positive when you look at the size and scope and the complexity of what was established through Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura. It is a marine reserve, a whale sanctuary, a New Zealand fur seal sanctuary, five customary fisheries areas, two taiāpure local fisheries, and three mātaitai reserves. There will be an advisory committee and fishing regulations that are specific to the area.

Just to help the listeners to the general debate understand the scope of this, it spans between the Conway River and the Clarence River. It has been a work of collaborative governance. When you look at it, the determination of this Government was to ensure that we had an asset for generations to come, not a liability. When you look at the work that this Government has done around environmental issues, you have got to say that they are at the very forefront of global policy establishment. Look at the Land and Water Forum. What a great way forward that has produced around a really difficult situation. The exclusive economic zone legislation now ensures that when anybody wants to do anything in the exclusive economic zone, they have got to follow regulations. It is worth remembering that under Labour there were no regulations. There were 34 wells drilled out in that ocean space, under no regulations whatsoever.

When you actually look at this Government’s record around ensuring that there are enduring assets, we want to also be able to look at what the Labour Government did. I go back to a situation in the Kaikōura electorate when the Prime Minister of the time pilfered all the money out of the arts, culture, and heritage fund and purchased, for $43 million, a leasehold property in North Canterbury. Can we say that that is an asset to the country, to future generations? We cannot say that because at the moment there is nobody managing the noxious weeds, the pests, and whatever else is growing there.

When we make a comparison between all the talk of what is occurring between the Greens and Labour, we have got to realise that this is a very, very serious combination. Effectively, we have only got to look across the Tasman Sea to Tasmania and we can see what such a relationship would bring about. A lot of the conversation we have been hearing here in Parliament is around Julie Anne Genter talking about cycleways and suchlike. I would just like to draw Labour members’ attention to the point of view that when you actually look at getting your exports from the rural community to where they are further processed and then off to the ports, you have got to have first-class highway systems.

There is obviously a lot of conflict between the Greens and Labour. There is no doubt about it. Shane Jones has got it right. He is on our Primary Production Committee and he is a level-headed sort of person who knows what “2” and “2” make. When you look at what has happened in Tasmania and the result there, the decimation of Labor because of its relationship with the Greens, what do we see? We see 20 percent unemployment amongst the youth. We see a single purchasing agency for power and a 12 percent rise in electricity prices annually. Tasmania was advised by every other state in Australia to not get into bed with the Green Party. That is something that we have got to remind the Labour Party of. When Labour members speak about their level of support, they talk about the level of the left, the lobby of the left. In actual fact, it is a combination of the Greens and Labour, and that will not last. The Labor Party over in Tasmania had to sack its Green MPs and then call an election.

Let us look at what we leave as an inheritance to our future generations by way of assets, not liabilities. Let New Zealand be aware that we cannot afford to have a Labour-Greens Government.

I say to Colin King, who was talking about the Bluegreens Forum, that when you mix blue and green like that you get a haughty shade of purple. I think there is no better colour to symbolise this National Government than that—no better colour to symbolise a Government that is beset by scandal and arrogance. Scandal and arrogance—there is no better example of that than Judith Collins and her behaviour in the last few weeks. Judith Collins will not admit that she made a mistake—not one, but several mistakes. Judith Collins still will not apologise. She kind of gives this sort of Clayton’s apology: “Well, I am sorry if people think I should be sorry.” But she is not ever going to front up and admit what she did was totally and utterly wrong. She is the pin-up for the type of arrogance that New Zealanders have come to expect from this National Government—an absolute pin-up for the type of arrogance the people have come to expect from this National Government.

Then, of course, there is the incompetence that New Zealanders have come to expect from this National Government. Hekia Parata is the perfect pin-up for that. It takes a special kind of Minister to establish an inquiry into a scandal that does not actually look at the scandal. That is exactly what Hekia Parata did. She set up an inquiry to look into the scandal involving Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust and the taxpayer money given to it, but it did not actually look at it. Let us remind ourselves why this inquiry was established in the first place. It became apparent that money was being spent on things like a Trelise Cooper dress, a 21st birthday present, a big farewell dinner, and $1,000 cash withdrawals being made out of ATM machines, and somebody’s son graduated and the costs of that were borne by the taxpayer. This was the sort of scandal that this inquiry was established not to look at. The inquiry did not even look at those things. Hekia Parata and Pita Sharples then called a press conference, in the dead of night, to announce the results of this inquiry. And they wonder why it is that people think that this Government is not being upfront and is being arrogant and out of touch. Those are two classic examples.

This is a Government that has one rule for itself and another rule for everybody else. It is a Government that is interested only in furthering the interests of its mates and those close to it. Look, for example, at the number of National Party donors who have been given honours under this Government. Tony Astle—60 grand to the National Party was enough to make him an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Chris Parkin gave $66,000 to the National Party, and that made him a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Sir Graeme Douglas—twenty-five grand gave him an insignia of the Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Sir William Gallagher—$42,000 got him a knighthood. Lady Diana Isaac—$20,000 made her an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. [Interruption] Oh, there is old “Maestro”, Jonathan Coleman, piping up at the perfect time, of course, because we know that Garth Barfoot gave him $5,000 for his campaign and he got made a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in exchange for that.

This is a Government that is only too happy to promote the interests of its donors and its mates, while New Zealanders out there who are struggling with higher power prices and who cannot afford to buy houses are completely overlooked by this National Government. It is very clear whose interests National is governing in. It is not in the interests of ordinary, everyday New Zealanders who cannot afford to buy a house and who cannot afford to pay their power bills. This Government turns a complete blind eye to all of that, while it focuses on furthering its own interests and the interests of its mates. This is a Government that is completely arrogant and completely out of touch. I would run through the list of appointments to boards and others of the National Party and all its mates, former MPs, the partners of MPs, and the partners of former MPs, but I have got only about 30 seconds left. That would take another 5-minute speech, and I would probably still be only scratching the surface of the cronyism and the arrogance that has beset this National Government.

New Zealanders deserve a Government that is focused on their needs, on the interests of all everyday New Zealanders. That is what they will get after 20 September, when they will have a Labour-led Government that is interested in dealing with the real issues affecting New Zealanders, such as creating jobs, making sure housing is affordable, bringing down the exorbitant price of electricity that this Government is in complete denial about, and making sure that our kids get the best education that they possibly can.

What a disgraceful, outrageous fabrication of fiction came from that member Chris Hipkins, as he listed off some great New Zealanders who have done more for this country than the combined members of that Labour Party. You have got to be amazed at that. What this country needs is an Opposition that does the job properly instead of maligning New Zealanders for the political pleasure and advantage that they see at this particular point in time. You know, New Zealanders deserve an Opposition who will be people—men and women—of integrity, and I think we have been disappointed today by that speech.

We have got to say that this Government is doing more for this country, particularly in the area of the environment, than we have seen for decades. As a number of members have stated in this House, in terms of a policy group the Bluegreens group is working very, very strongly and bringing some great policy initiatives that bring the right balance that keeps New Zealand working well but also builds a great environment. You know, I am very privileged to come from the region of Taranaki, and I stand here to say that as a region it stands out in its ability to maintain strong economic growth alongside a strong commitment to environmental conservation and enjoyment. Growing up in Taranaki, enjoying our environment is a birthright. We understand and we know that—from mountain to the surf and all the beautiful countryside in between.

New Plymouth was named best place to live by North and South magazine, beating all the big cities in New Zealand. We won the best small city in the world category in the International Awards for Liveable Communities. Yes, that was back in 2008, but recently—just a few weeks ago—2,000 people responded to a survey sent out by travel experience provider Experience OZ and NZ and voted Taranaki top spot on the list of New Zealand’s best destinations. It is in a region that utilises and develops its environment. We have intensive agriculture. We have oil and gas exploration. We have all of those activities that utilise our environment, yet people still vote that it is the best place to come to and that it is the best city. So we have got it right in terms of being able to develop an economy and protect an environment. I think New Zealanders ought to and should continue to look to Taranaki as a great example of this.

We can be assured that the National-led Government and the National Party are continuing to do tremendous work around the environmental care and protection of our country. You know, we believe that resource use must be based on sustainability. We have a sound record on better environmental management. Successful economic and environmental policy can and must go hand in hand to provide a cleaner, greener, brighter future for all New Zealanders. I believe that we do have it right and we are not lurching from one position to another position. We are science based and we are making methodical progress. We believe in the values of having a great environment, but we also believe that we need to not just enjoy the environment but be able to afford to live in this great country.

A number of our speakers have raised what must be a frightening story of what has just happened in Tasmania to the Labor-Green coalition there. For a long time it drove a very, very strong environmental programme and ended up—

💬 Hon Annette King: 16 years in Government.

You have got to be frightened, Annette King. You have got to be frightened of the coalition partners that you are looking at. There were 16 sad years—16 years that ended up with an economy with 20 percent unemployment and a continual deficit. Finally, the voting public and even, I think, the union members tossed the coalition out. You have got to understand that people have now reacted and are now swinging back and are probably swinging back too far. That is the problem about a Labour-Green coalition—it swings far too far. You know, it was reported by the Sydney Morning Herald that the new leader of the Government that is going to come in there went in there with a promise that it was going to turf out, toss out, the peace agreement that was forged between the labour markets and the environmentalists and—

The member’s time has expired.

It is a sad indictment on the National Party when it is not only its current Ministers who are arrogant and have conflicts of interest but also its previous Ministers. I am speaking about Georgina te Heuheu and what is going on at the Māori Television Service. What is going on at the Māori Television Service when the shareholding Ministers, Bill English and Pita Sharples, are finding out from media reports about what is going on with the appointment process with their chief executive?

💬 David Shearer: It’s a shocker.

It is an absolute shocker. The process has been started again, beset with leaks and conflicts of interest. I want to talk about the position first and not the person, because this is a very important position. The Māori Television Service has a taxpayer budget of well over $30 million. It has two channels, and it has a duty to preserve, protect, and promote the language and Māori culture here in New Zealand. It is an extremely important role in the broadcasting and Māori community, and the Māori Television Service board has a responsibility to choose the right person for cultural reasons, for broadcasting reasons, and for political, financial, management, and integrity reasons.

As I say, this appointment has been an absolute shambles since it began in June last year. There had been leaks, and people who were applicants for this job found out through the media that they were no longer being considered for the job. There has been a conflict of interest with the chair of the board of the Māori Television Service, Georgina te Heuheu, with her close friend Paora Maxwell being in the running for this job, and because of that the process had to start again late last year.

The conflict of interest with the former National Party Minister Georgina te Heuheu relates to Paora Maxwell, her very close friend, who, we understand, in the first iteration of the appointment process got his application in late. Although the recruitment company that received the application late said it should not consider that application, Mr Maxwell made the shortlist, and we have to ask why. The very close friend of Georgina te Heuheu made the shortlist, and we have to ask why that happened with a very close friend of the board chair.

Much has been said of Paora Maxwell, and he actually took the rare step of looking for some redress for some comments that were made in this House. But much has also not been said about Mr Maxwell. We know from his comments that he left Television New Zealand (TVNZ) in February 2013 and reports suggest that he left under a confidential agreement. We still do not know the details of that confidential agreement, and, despite attempts directed at TVNZ, we have not got the detail, and I do not think that we will ever get the detail.

I have two quite simple questions for the chief executive of TVNZ: seeing that Mr Maxwell has gone, and given his track record of employment at TVNZ, does he trust Paora Maxwell, and would he re-employ Mr Maxwell if he went for a job back at TVNZ again? If the answer to those questions is no, then I have serious reservations as to whether Mr Maxwell should be appointed to the senior job of chief executive at the Māori Television Service. I believe that TVNZ does have an obligation to the wider broadcasting industry to make sure that there is someone with integrity at the head of the Māori Television Service, and the board of the Māori Television Service has obligations to seek all information to make sure it gets the right person.

Why has Mr Maxwell been pushed for this job? Well, I think the simple answer is on the front page of the Dominion Post. It is because he has been chosen by his friend to go in and take the stick to the news and current affairs department at Māori Television, because this Government does not like scrutiny. When the hard questions get asked, members of this Government do not want anyone looking for them, because they do not want to answer. There were no answers yesterday when Hekia Parata fronted up over the allegations of corruption at Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust. There were no answers there, but Māori Television has been doing a very good job, according to Gavin Ellis, the former New Zealand Herald editor, of making sure the hard questions get asked.

The question of why this is happening has a simple answer, which is that this Government does not want Māori Television and its journalists asking those hard questions any more. Well, if it does not like it, do not enter into those situations where you are having Trelise Cooper dresses bought and where you are having 21st birthday presents bought. If you do not like the hard questions, that does not mean you bring someone in to take the stick to Māori Television.

I am pleased to be the final speaker in this general debate, but before I get on to it, I just want to say that I am not going to talk about Māori Television. When we start talking about the merging of colours, let us talk about the Dunedin South election in 2011, when National turned Dunedin South from red to a beautiful blue shade of purple. I will not be talking about that.

I am going to be talking about the conference I attended at the weekend at Kaikōura—our Bluegreens conference, hosted by our member Colin King. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I enjoyed listening to the announcement of the Kaikōura marine reserve, a marine reserve that covers more than 10,000 hectares around the Kaikōura Canyon and protects the area from fishing, mining, and harvesting of any kind. The Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill will introduce a whale sanctuary of over 4 million hectares, which will protect whales and their habitats from disturbances, including the type of seismic surveying used for petroleum exploration. There will be a seal sanctuary at Ōhau Point, as well as—I will reiterate—the five customary fishery areas. The bill will amend the recreational fishing regulations that allow the public to fish and dive in specific areas. We have not forgotten our recreational fishers and divers, and we have not forgotten our public, because we are giving them access to beaches and rivers as part of this bill. We are maintaining that.

The Kaikōura marine reserve is only one of many of the environmental policy outcomes this Government has successfully been responsible for. This is a Government that 5 years ago set out clear environmental priorities—priorities to improve the Resource Management Act, improve freshwater management, give better protection for flora and fauna, provide better ocean management, and meet our climate change commitments. These are only some of our principles.

I take note that the previous Labour Government was responsible for drilling 34 wells without regulation. When that was announced at the conference, everybody cringed—they cringed.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How many?

Thirty-four—disgusting. This Government has introduced regulations and we have taken responsibility for establishing the Environmental Protection Authority to make sure we regulate the drilling in our area. This Government has a sound record of better environmental management. We have successful economic and environmental policies. These must go hand in hand to provide a cleaner, greener, brighter future for all New Zealanders. We all know that every country that has a good environmental policy has a strong economy. It can go on the record of this House that this Government has a strong economic policy and strong economic outcomes. Kia ora.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.