Urgent Debates — Hon Maurice Williamson—Ministerial Resignation

I have received letters from Dr Russel Norman, the Hon David Cunliffe, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the Hon Maurice Williamson. The letters relate to a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. Not every ministerial resignation will lead to an urgent debate being accepted. However, the case in question is not related to a policy matter that might be debated in the House on some other occasion; it relates to the administrative responsibility of the Government. Furthermore, Mr Williamson has not resigned in respect of just a portfolio responsibility; he has resigned as a Minister altogether. After weighing up the circumstances very carefully and the public interest in ministerial probity, I have decided to err on the side of allowing a debate today. Dr Norman’s letter was received first, and I therefore call on him to move that the House takes note of an urgent matter of public importance.

I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. This cuts to the heart of our democracy—this issue around Maurice Williamson—and this cuts to the issue of whether our democracy is for sale under this Government. But I think that we should start in this case from the point of view of the victim of domestic violence, because I think that under our system everybody is deserving of the protection of the law. Regardless of how rich a person is, regardless of what connections a person may have, and regardless of the wealth of a person’s abuser, everybody deserves the protection of the law in this country. In this case we had a Minister intervening to protect the abuser, not to protect the victim, and I think that is what is truly, deeply appalling above everything else in this case. Here was a victim of domestic violence—the perpetrator in this case has pleaded guilty to domestic violence—and here we had a Minister of the Crown intervening in a police investigation to put pressure on the police not to go ahead with a prosecution for a domestic violence incident.

Put yourself in the shoes of all the domestic violence victims across New Zealand. It is a hard thing to complain in a domestic violence situation. It is always difficult, it is always traumatic, and how much harder is it when you have Maurice Williamson intervening on the side of your abuser in a domestic violence situation? How much harder is it for a victim of domestic violence trying to get justice in this country under this Government when we have a Minister of the Crown intervening to try to prevent the police from going ahead with the prosecution of a domestic violence perpetrator? That is the actual situation we have just experienced in our country. We have gone through the experience of a National Party Minister ringing up the police in a case of domestic violence and leaning on the police not to go ahead with the prosecution. So, from the point of view of the victim, which I think should be at the heart of this whole debate, everybody deserves equal protection from the law, but the National Party does not seem to believe that any more. It seems to think that some people—if you are a domestic violence abuser who has a lot of money—should get special treatment. That is what happened in this case.

I think it is important to read from the police email about National Minister Maurice Williamson’s conversation with the police about this case of domestic violence. Maurice Williamson’s mate was a domestic violence abuser in this case. According to the police email, Mr Williamson rang up a senior police member and said that somebody should review the matter to ensure the police were on solid ground, as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand. Think about that for a second. Think about what Mr Williamson—a very senior National Party member, a member of the National Party for decades, a member of this Parliament for decades—was saying. Think about what it means. He was saying that this person, Mr Liu, had to get special treatment because he was wealthy. Because he was planning to invest money in New Zealand, National thinks that he should get special treatment in the criminal justice system.

This very senior National Party member of Parliament and Minister was intervening in a police investigation to put pressure on the police not to go ahead with the prosecution of a domestic violence abuser, because that abuser was investing money in New Zealand, because he was wealthy. Think about what that means for our justice system. Think about what that means for all the victims of domestic violence in New Zealand. Think about what it is like to complain about domestic violence and how difficult it is to go to the police in a case like this. Then, when you are involved in a police case like this, you have a Minister of the Crown intervening on the side of your abuser to try to stop the police proceeding with the prosecution. That is how low National has now got.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Rubbish!

It is that low. Mr Gerry Brownlee says “Rubbish!”. I am sorry, Mr Brownlee, but we have the evidence from the police in front of us right here. The police email says that Mr Maurice Williamson, a senior National Minister, rang them up and said that he wanted to make sure somebody reviewed this matter—a domestic violence case. Mr Williamson was intervening to say to them that he wanted them to review the matter to ensure the police were on solid ground as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand. What he is saying is that the law is not equal. We are not all equal before the law, because if some of us are wealthy, then they get special treatment according to National. That is what senior National Minister Maurice Williamson has just done in our country in the 21st century, this year. Think about that.

So where did the rot begin that we end up at the point where a senior National Minister thinks that someone should get special treatment in a domestic violence case because they are wealthy? How did we end up in this situation with this Government in 2014? I would argue that the problem is this. National has adopted the culture of the world of business, where everything is for sale—and that is fine and how it is meant to be; the world of business is all about money—and has applied it to the world of Government and the world of justice. What it has said is that in the justice system you can buy your way out. If you are accused of being a domestic violence abuser, and you have got contacts with the National Party and you are planning to invest a lot of money in New Zealand, then you can buy your way out of it. Maybe another donation to the National Party would fix it for you. You can have a National Minister ring up senior police on your behalf if you are a domestic violence abuser. You can have a senior Minister in the National Government ring up the police and lean on them to not proceed with the investigation.

So what National is saying is that there is the culture of the world of business, and there is nothing wrong with the culture of the world of business—we need to make money in the world of business, and that is fine. But when National brings that over to the world of justice, and says that the richer you are, the more justice you will get, that is wrong. And what National has done is wrong. What Maurice Williamson did was wrong. Think about it from the point of view of the victim of domestic violence. For once, National should look at its heart and think about it from the point of view of the person who has had violence done against them by their partner.

I would also say that National is applying this idea that money rules all else to the world of politics. In the world of politics it is supposed to be one person, one vote. We are all supposed to be treated equally by the Government of the day. That is regardless of how wealthy you are, regardless of how much money you may give to a political party. We are all supposed to be treated equally in the world of politics and democracy. That is the idea of democracy. The whole idea, what our forefathers and foremothers fought for over centuries, was that we could all have one person, one vote, and be treated equally by the law and by the Government. The whole idea was that we would not get special treatment just because we were rich, and we would not get special treatment just because we donated to a political party. This is where National has lost its way.

Maurice Williamson and the attitude of Maurice Williamson, I think, have come to represent everything that is wrong in this current Government. The amazing thing is listening to him even after he was sacked as a Minister. He was defending the position that you should get special treatment if you are planning to invest lots of money in New Zealand. This reminds me very much of the Skycity debate. Where did the rot set in? Let me suggest to you one place where this may have begun, and that was the Skycity debate. The idea of the Skycity debate was that this Parliament changed the gambling laws of New Zealand in order to facilitate Skycity. You could argue that it bought the law—that might be a bit strong. But you could certainly argue that National’s position was that if Skycity was willing to invest a lot of money, it could get the law changed for it. That is very similar to the position of Maurice Williamson, which is that if you are investing a lot of money in New Zealand, you should get special treatment from the justice system, even if you are a domestic violence abuser.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is wrong.

Mr Brownlee says this is wrong. So he is defending Maurice Williamson. Let us be clear about what Maurice Williamson did. He did not say that everybody—a domestic violence abuser or a victim—should get treated equally by the law. Maurice Williamson said no. If you are planning to invest heavily in New Zealand, you will get special treatment. He said that their case must be on solid ground, so, presumably, everyone else’s case does not need to be on solid ground. But if you are planning to invest lots of money in New Zealand, the police’s case against you should be on solid ground.

The Green Party does not believe what Maurice Williamson and the National Party believe. We believe that all people are equal before the law. We believe that all people are equal under our democracy, and we will defend that position. Every time that the Green Party has proposed more transparency around donations to political parties, the National Party has rejected them—every time. It has rejected every attempt to clean up the system. Simon Power, to give him his due, did have some respect for the idea that we need more transparency around the system, and some of the changes that he made around electoral finance were very, very good. But what we are seeing now is that this Government opposes every attempt to clean up the political system, and the reason it opposes every attempt to clean up the political system is that it is defending the indefensible.

Maurice Williamson has become, I think, the most rotten piece of this whole ideology that the National Party has adopted, which is that the more money you have, the more say you should have in Parliament and in the Government and in our democracy, and if you have enough money, you should get special treatment under the criminal justice system. That is exactly what Maurice Williamson was saying in his intervention in this case.

So this is a pretty simple case. I do not think it is a complicated issue, actually. I think that it is quite straightforward. I think that it is good that Maurice Williamson has been sacked, and good on the Prime Minister for doing it, but the Prime Minister needs to look in the mirror and see where the rot has set in. Where has this culture arisen that says that the more money you have, the more influence you have in politics, and the more say you have in the criminal justice system? That is wrong, and I think that most New Zealanders will reject what the Government has been doing in this respect. We need to clean up politics in New Zealand, and we need to remember that the law is here to protect all New Zealanders, even if they happen to be the partner of a domestic violence abuser who gave a lot of money to the National Party. Even those victims, Mr Brownlee, deserve our defence as a Parliament, because the law is here to protect all of us.

The member Dr Russel Norman is usually moderate, if sometimes assertive, in his criticisms, but some of those criticisms, particularly in respect of domestic violence, were simply objectionable. It is disgraceful to allege in this Parliament that any political party sponsors a justice system where somehow people can buy their way out of justice. It is simply wrong.

He could have made a more reasonable point about the judgment of the Minister in picking up the phone, but he did not. He chose instead to slur, to smear, and to moralise from the position of someone who says: “Everyone should be treated equally, but I went off to see Dotcom.”, who could be a critical part of forming a Government that he wants to be part of. Why did he go off to see Dotcom? He was not visiting my neighbour in Dipton, who might expect the same treatment from a Labour-Green Government as Kim Dotcom got. I challenge the member to get up and say that Phillip Mills’ Green growth agenda will not be adopted in any form by a future Labour-Green Government—that there will be no subsidy schemes, no incentives, and no support—because if it is, it will look like Phillip Mills has bought the Green Party with his $65,000 donation. So I just suggest to the member that he get off his high horse—take just a couple of steps back down off the saddle—before he wades into this kind of fantastical moralising.

Actually, I am going to indicate support for Maurice Williamson as a Minister. As a Minister, Maurice Williamson was a good Minister. I worked with him on a whole range of issues. Maurice Williamson was the Minister who put together the package for dealing with leaky homes, showing in the process of that a great deal of understanding of the human pressures that go with having a leaky home, the technical issues that were involved, and the patience needed in trying to square the circle and find some kind of workable solution.

Maurice’s enthusiasm for technology is, I think, well-known, but it has had a real impact for New Zealanders. The SmartGate process at the border is largely a product of his enthusiasm. The roll-out of ultra-fast broadband is in no small part due to his strong advocacy for it when the National Party was back in Opposition. He has also done a lot of work over recent years on one of the more difficult aspects of Government, and that is getting Government agencies to work together. In this case it was the border agencies, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Customs Service, and the Immigration Service. They have had to learn how to work together and to also have a wide-ranging technology upgrade to ensure that New Zealand stays suitably connected to the rest of the world. In fact, Maurice has even been able to make the portfolio of statistics look exciting through his enthusiasm for the integrated data infrastructure, which is going to make a real difference to many New Zealanders as the Government becomes more effective in delivering results through its public services.

But Mr Williamson knows now what we all need to keep in mind—that is, in return for the privilege and opportunity of being a Minister, we are fully accountable for all the judgments we make as a Minister. Although day to day those judgments can fall short of the ideal, and they sometimes do—they sometimes do—there are some judgments we make that, as the Prime Minister said, go over the line. One of those judgments is to pick up the phone to take a point of view on the work of the police in their prosecutions. There has been some discussion about the extent of interaction of politicians and the police around investigations, but none of those excuse that particular judgment. It was a poor judgment, and he has been held to account.

But, of course, if the Leader of the Opposition was held to account, he would not have his job either. It is interesting to see today that the Greens are a better organised Opposition than the Labour Party is, once again. Once more we saw a small sign of why the Greens are a sharper, better, dominating operation. They got their letter in first for a snap debate, a snap debate that has been known about for what—5 days? 6 days? And in that time, the Labour Party was too busy messing up its variable savings ratio policy to be bothered or to have the time to be able to get the letter in for the snap debate. [Interruption] Well, there is accountability in the National Party and in the National Government. The Minister goes over the line; the Prime Minister takes action. How many mistakes can David Cunliffe make before he is held accountable by the Labour caucus? Well, we know the answer: he can make an endless number of mistakes because by changing the rules he made sure the caucus could not hold him to account.

Let us just look at today’s little episode. We have asked the Labour Party one question about its compulsory KiwiSaver policy: how much will contributions have to go up to make a difference to interest rates? That matters because putting up contribution rates cuts the incomes of hundreds of thousands of low-income New Zealanders. I thought the Labour Party would give us a number, but David Cunliffe decided one answer was not enough. He tried three. So he said, first, “I haven’t got that number on me.” Then he said: “The research has been done. I’ll bring it next time.” And then he said: “There is no number.” So we go into an election campaign—I will say “helpfully”, from our point of view, but probably not so helpfully for accountability within the Labour Party—where under its signature policy the leader of the Labour Party cannot tell New Zealanders by how much their pay will be cut if they vote for him.

We have seen the sharp contrasts in accountability. David Cunliffe keeps his secret trust donors secret. Here is a question for the Labour front bench: who donated to David Cunliffe’s secret trust? To use the words of the Deputy Prime Minister of a proposed Labour-Green Government, who bought David Cunliffe, and is he accountable to his own front bench and his caucus for those donations? Maurice Williamson has been accountable—he has paid a price; he lost his job—for an action he took on behalf of someone he knew. Will David Cunliffe be held accountable in the same way? I am waiting for Labour members to get up and explain to us whether David Cunliffe will be held accountable in the same way that Maurice Williamson has been held accountable. No? Well, it is all about accountability. How can the Labour caucus hold David Cunliffe accountable if they do not know who his donors are? We look forward to hearing about it.

It seems the Minister of Finance did not want his full allocation of time. That is hardly surprising, because he did not really defend the Minister who has lost his job, the Hon Maurice Williamson, at all. In fact, National’s response to this very serious breach of ministerial standards has been to throw mud at the Green Party, to ignore the substance of the allegations, and to fail to excuse, justify, or defend even once the shocking lapse of ministerial standards that is now endemic in that National Cabinet. Maurice Williamson is just the latest Minister to be added to National’s roll of dishonour. There is still room for more to come, and no doubt there will be more. But last week he joined the ranks of Pansy Wong, Phil Heatley, Nick Smith, Peter Dunne, and John Banks. It is a long list—long and growing.

Mr Williamson’s resignation and the issues that led to it are very serious matters that question the independence of the New Zealand Police and its ability to conduct investigations without political interference. New Zealanders must have an assurance that Ministers in any Government will not, cannot, and must not use their positions either to favour some members of the community or to apply pressure to independent organisations like the Police. New Zealanders are stunned, New Zealanders are shocked, and New Zealanders are saddened that that could have occurred at all.

The fact that it did occur tells us a lot about the culture within National and the disarray that this Government is coming into. It is the Prime Minister, Mr Key, who is directly and ultimately responsible for the growing culture of cronyism—cronyism and arrogance—on the part of this National Government. These are the lowest ministerial standards in a generation. It is a culture that says that the normal rules of conduct no longer need apply and that the rules of the Cabinet Manual have become mere guidelines.

It is now allowable, for example, for Ministers and their families to financially benefit from companies that Ministers have assisted in their ministerial capacity, without a proper declaration of conflict of interest to either the Prime Minister or the public. Why is Judith Collins still a Minister? Those companies, like the one represented by the donor to Mr Williamson, have donated thousands—tens of thousands—of dollars to the National Party, and that is now business as usual. For this National Government, politics is no longer any kind of calling. It is simply a business—cash in, cash out. Standards are down and Ministers are hanging on, and the public is becoming disillusioned that this Government represents any more their hopes and dreams for a better future.

The Prime Minister has led this culture of cronyism and entitlement not just by omission but by deliberate act himself, like taking $55,000 from the chairman of Oravida and then telling the public it was a donation to a charity. The National Party was the charity. He reinstated Peter Dunne to his ministerial role, despite the almost certain truth that he leaked a classified Government Communications Security Bureau report. He relies upon the vote of John Banks, who is currently on trial for taking large amounts of money and then covering it up. He excused the Minister of Justice, after she overruled the Prime Minister, for condoning the actions of Minister Williamson interfering in a police operational inquiry, not to mention the fact that it was a domestic violence inquiry and that he was a wealthy foreign donor. In any intervention you would expect the Minister of Justice to be the first to apply the rule of law and the conventions of the Cabinet Manual, but she did not. She sought to overrule the Prime Minister. Why is she still in office?

That same Minister of Justice is a trained lawyer. She is a lawyer who is trained to manage and identify conflicts of interest, but she could not manage her own, and she has most recently taken out her frustration through low, personal attacks on individual members of the press gallery. These are the standards in John Key’s National Cabinet. These are the reasons New Zealanders are losing hope and losing faith that this Government can represent any more their aspirations for a better life for themselves and their children in this beautiful country of ours.

It is proper for us to briefly recall the incidents that led to Mr Williamson’s resignation. He rang the Counties Manukau district commander in January regarding the investigation of Mr Donghua Liu after his arrest in December 2013 on assault charges relating to a domestic incident. Mr Williamson told them to “ensure we are on solid ground as Mr Liu is investing a lot of money in New Zealand.” He did not say Mr Liu was investing a lot of money in the National Party, but he was doing that as well. And since when, in this great country of ours, has the amount of money in someone’s bank account been able to determine their treatment under the law? That is not the New Zealand that our people want to see. That is not the country we want to build.

Mr Williamson then said that it was not improper because he was not a friend of Liu. You might say they were just beach bach buddies. That contrasts with Ms Collins, who was having dinner with friends whom she could not talk to but saying that they were friends after all. Mr Williamson, however, had helped Mr Liu get citizenship after it was initially declined. He held his citizenship ceremony in his electorate office the next day. He encouraged him to buy the holiday home next door. He saw the plans for it, and he worked on it. How close is that to foreign money? It is way too close for New Zealanders. To take that and then interfere in a police investigation to try to get the man off a domestic violence charge—a plague that affects one-sixth of all women in New Zealand—it is no wonder that members of the National Party across the way are hanging their heads low.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Disgraceful.

It is disgraceful. It is not the New Zealand that New Zealanders want to build.

Very, very sadly, this is not the first occasion. First, there was Richard Worth. He resigned in 2009 after being caught out travelling to India and talking up aviation training in New Zealand, all the while operating as the director of New Zealand Aviation Ltd and holding shares and directorships of an Indian trade group—yet more undisclosed conflicts of interest, yet more cosy relationships with foreign money. It took a while, but he eventually left. Then Pansy Wong got it wrong in 2010 on yet another taxpayer-funded trip to China. This time as a private individual she witnessed her husband’s business deals, signed a contract using her ministerial title, and promoted—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: She was proved right.

—here is one for Mr Brownlee—her husband’s hovercraft business and the interests of a local Chinese website. She was too close to foreign money. A culture of cronyism setting in. It all sounds very familiar, does it not, given Ms Collins’ current troubles?

In March 2010 Phil Heatley was sacked for much less. He lost his position when it was revealed he had charged Ministerial Services for expenses he was not entitled to. Or there is Nick Smith, sitting there, who went—only to return—for writing a letter of support for his friend and National Party campaigner Bronwyn Pullar while he was a Minister, on his ministerial letterhead. The Prime Minister described that as a lapse of judgment, but in the light of Ms Collins, one could feel sorry for that Minister, because he was treated harshly by comparison.

This goes to the culture within National. It is a culture of cronyism, a culture of arrogance, a culture of entitlement, a culture that the rules that apply to all other New Zealanders no longer apply to the Government. There is an old rule in politics that when that rot sets in a Government goes out.

I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Thank God for that. Oh, what a tangled web she did weave when first she did practise to deceive. Maurice Williamson’s action in contacting the police was a breach of ministerial rules. There was no grey area in his actions; it was a blatant breach of how Ministers must behave. Maurice has done the appropriate thing and resigned. His Prime Minister has lauded him for doing so and has lauded himself as Prime Minister for taking that action.

But what about Judith Collins? Where is the accountability here for cronyism, for sleazy favouritism, and for corruption? The Minister of Justice was asked, you may recall, some simple questions about a company connected to her family and her engagement with the company’s business whilst on a ministerial visit to China. What is relevant is that connection, because it determines whether there was a serious conflict of interest in her actions, whether there was a breach of the Cabinet rules, and whether an allegation of corruption can possibly be made. The Minister’s response was to do everything and anything but tell the truth. She explained one of her three engagements with Oravida in China as being a casual meeting on the way to the airport.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s the debate about?

The debate is about ministerial standards, and whether someone—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No it’s not. Read the letter.

I know that the last person to understand ministerial standards is one Gerry Brownlee, because, as you recall, there was a new casino to be set up in Christchurch, and the new directors were going to be Gerry Brownlee and the head of the National Party. He got found out for that. So the last person to be able to speak here on a matter of convention would be Gerry Brownlee. Judith Collins said she was on the way to the airport.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Tell us about the brown paper bag at the fisheries do.

He is excited now. I have struck a nerve. We have struck a nerve. Turn the cameras on to him. I want to see how upset he gets when he hears the truth. Every action she took was to both withhold the truth and divert focus from the truth. All these actions were bound to fail. And do you know what? She began to regard herself as being above the rules, above the law, and above convention. She believes she is beyond reproach and beyond accountability. She blames her staff, and she blames the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Williamson crossed the line, it is true. Collins crossed the line countless times and she must go.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will use the member’s full name.

Certainly I will. The Hon Judith Collins crossed the line countless times and now she thinks that, when all else has failed, she can take leave, hide from further scrutiny, and have this scandal blow over. What is the taxpayer to make of that? You have got Maurice Williamson taking the cop, saying that he made a mistake, and resigning, but not this one. It seems that when a Minister comes under pressure, she stops work, takes a rest, and takes a holiday.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Speaker decides to require Parliament to set aside time for a debate on a matter that is of public interest and significance, it needs to be on a topic that is very clearly stated in the letter to the Speaker. There were four letters today, I understand, and in each case, it was sought to debate the circumstances around the resignation of the Hon Maurice Williamson. What we have at the moment is a speaker who is using this opportunity to make accusatory statements in a way that is completely unacceptable and unparliamentary. I would ask you to call him to speak within the bounds of the debate that is in front of us. Otherwise we are unreasonably using up time on a day that belongs to another event and, ultimately, the time of members tomorrow.

You would have heard the speech given by the Hon Bill English. You will also know what the complaint was that came to the Speaker with regard to ministerial rules. That is what the whole issue is about. What we have got is a very embarrassed person trying to constrain the debate.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am going to speak in this debate very shortly, but I would ask you to perhaps read to the House the letter that was supplied to the Speaker, which led to the debate.

💬 Grant Robertson: This debate is one around a number of topics to do with accountability and to do with the ministerial resignation. The Hon Bill English delivered a speech of around 8½ minutes, approximately 6½ minutes of which were about the Labour Party, about David Cunliffe, and about issues related to that. This is a robust debate, but Mr English’s contribution has raised a number of issues. Mr Peters has been speaking for a few minutes now on topics closely related to ministerial behaviour—far more closely related than most of Bill English’s speech. I would ask for consistency. Bill English was allowed to complete his speech; Mr Peters should be allowed to complete his.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to members that in addressing this issue—[Interruption] We have a point of order on the floor. Can I just say to members that when addressing this issue, members, when they respond to a speaker, are generally given 1 or 2 minutes to respond to what the other speaker has said. This is a debate about the resignation of the Hon Maurice Williamson from his ministerial portfolios. Members may refer to other members in passing, but we need to remember that the reason for this debate is the resignation of a Minister from his portfolio. So I just ask the members to recognise that when we come to debate this issue, and recognise also that all members are honourable members.

Maurice Williamson did not engage in a cover-up, but what we are seeing now is one. The real issue is who caused all this pressure. Of course, the answer is when a certain Minister set out to deceive. Maurice did not deny it. He said: “I made the phone call.” His explanation fell short and he went. This is how democracy is destroyed—when instead of setting standards and principles of acceptable ministerial behaviour, the Minister and her Prime Minister so demonstrably fail the rules. They seem to be in another world—a different realm from that of Maurice Williamson. It is a world where standards of ministerial conduct do not apply to them. Why has Maurice gone?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Williamson.

Why has the Hon Maurice Williamson gone? If I was him, I would be feeling a bit upset, because it seems that there are nakedly different standards. Why is Judith Collins still a Minister if there is a consistent set of Cabinet rules? Is it the National Government’s contempt or disdain for the public? Is it arrogance of the type you saw in that point of order by Gerry Brownlee? He thought, as Rumpole from down in Christchurch, that he could offer something by way of a moot point that we should all take seriously. There is no possible justification, Mr Brownlee, for your colleague to remain a Minister. It is simply an outrage, an insult to the New Zealand public. It is an affront to democracy. What is the taxpayer out there to think? When they are under the stress and pressure of work, do they get a chance to walk off home, not be accountable, and face no more questions as to how they are going? No, they do not. They stick it out because that is part of the job, and a ministerial post, paid for by the taxpayer, demands the same standards.

Who thinks that it is a mere coincidence, first, that following the dinner—this is what happened. This is new. It is not known by the members over there, because they are so indolent and lazy. You had the Ministry for Primary Industries recall of 3 August. You had the 6 August letter from Julia Xu complaining about what has happened to the company Oravida. Then you had the 20 and 23 October engagements, before and after, by one Judith Collins. Then you had the sanitary certificate secured by her connections in China for the company. And then guess what happened. Its sales, which had hit rock bottom, took off like a rocket. They soared to millions and millions of dollars, and Mr Brownlee thinks he can get up and excuse that. It is a disgrace. We know that the National Party is cracking behind the scenes. We know that the reason Maurice Williamson and Judith Collins should be thanked by us is that they have finally unveiled the real character and sordid nature of the modern National Party—cronyism, sleaze, corruption, all sorts of secret funding.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just say to the member—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say, and I have been thinking about it myself. I would just like to refer members to Speaker’s ruling 26/5 in relation to corruption and disloyalty. I want to read it to the House because I think it is important when we are looking at this debate. “It is not only the right, but the duty, of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way, but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” That was Speaker Statham in 1934, so it goes back some considerable way. I just want to again advise members that all members are honourable and that is it. Refer to each other as honourable, despite what we might think as otherwise. All of us here are aspirational and we call a member what we would want for them and us all to become. I caution the House that we tend to see things in the world as we are, not as it is, and when we point one finger at someone else, we point three at ourselves. So I just caution the member. If he can be careful, please, in the way in which he is addressing the House.

There is more to come. The reason Judith Collins is not telling the truth to this House is that the moment she does, she will not just cease to be a Minister; she will cease to be a member of Parliament. For somebody who used to be on the Law Society—a serious administering body up there in Auckland, the biggest group of lawyers in the country and perhaps the most talented—I say that Judith Collins is withholding the truth and so are her colleagues, because they know the consequence. The trouble is that there is, Mr Brownlee, more to come.

Well, I would have to say that the catchcry of Winston Peters’ political career has always been: “There is more to come.”

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: And there was.

And there was—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about those Russian subs?

—but for one of those moments when the propeller hit the bottom of the Cook Strait, the Russian subs came in, the surveillance device was on the Mikhail Lermontov, there was not cash in the brown paper bag at the Kermadec restaurant, and when he said no, he did not know what he was saying. But there was always more to come.

I want to begin my comments today by complimenting the work that the Hon Maurice Williamson has done as a Minister, to express my regret that he has had to make the choice to resign, and to further compliment him for recognising that he had put a foot over the line and that it was the only consequence that could occur as a result of that. These things are very hard for people’s families, and so I want to acknowledge his family, his wife and children, who, of course, will be suffering with him as he is trying to come to terms with understanding just how he could have had that lapse of judgment that got him into this position. He is a good man. He has contributed a lot to New Zealand—his family should know that—and I am sure that he will continue to do so for some years to come.

This debate is essentially Parliament setting aside time to discuss the circumstances under which Mr Williamson was forced to—well, not forced to but decided to resign. Those circumstances have been well canvassed through all the outlets in the media that this country has. The member himself has made it very clear that he considers that he made a mistake. He said that he has had a lapse of judgment and that he was in a position where he could not continue as a Minister. The suggestion that Mr Williamson was at any time motivated by the particular wealth of an individual is completely fatuous. It is as fatuous as me saying that there is a Christchurch multimillionaire who funds New Zealand First, for example. Everybody knows that that is the case, but no one actually says it, because it is not appropriate to do so.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee said that there are certain things you cannot say. That is a demonstrable lie that he just engaged in. He knows full well that a party with the highest return rate for the lowest expenditure is not the beneficiary of one of his filthy mates.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to members—that is not actually a point of order—that this is a robust place.

Let us consider for just a moment some of the contributions to this debate today, starting with Russel Norman. Russel Norman seems to think that somehow the decision by Maurice Williamson to resign was an indication that standards were falling inside the ministerial arrangements we have in this country. Far from it—it was confirmation that those arrangements are, and continue to be, upheld. The gentleman concerned went on further to suggest that there was almost an attitude that if you have got a lot of money, you can get favours out of the Government. Well, that is complete and utter nonsense. The National Party discloses all its donations—more so, I would suggest, than most other political parties, because we have nothing particular to hide.

💬 Sue Moroney: What about the trusts?

For example, the member over there is talking about trusts. Well, let us talk about David Cunliffe’s trust. Let us talk about David Cunliffe’s trust and ask why he cannot tell us who paid into his account. As the Hon Bill English said, someone has bought David Cunliffe. There is no question about that. What about the arrangements between the Green Party and Phillip Mills? Phillip Mills is openly saying he wants a Green agenda for New Zealand. He wants his own type of Green growth agenda for New Zealand. He rejects what other mainstream parties are doing, so he is off to put his money into the Green Party. That is policy for cash—nothing short. Russel Norman—the great and virtuous Russel Norman—walks up to the Dotcom mansion and tries to do a deal over Dotcom’s extradition for cash for the Green Party, but apparently that is not any sort of misleading or inappropriate behaviour.

What about the Electoral Finance Act that the Labour Party rorted upon the people of New Zealand, supported by the Green Party? And if you want to start listing off Ministers who resign, there were 11 of them under the previous Government. One of them, interestingly, was the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Maurice Williamson has done the right thing. He is an honourable man. He does have a political future and he has contributed an enormous amount to New Zealand at this point. He should be commended for recognising where the line is, and for him to have made that choice is, I think, commendable.

Many of the facts of the Maurice Williamson resignation are extraordinarily clear. On 23 January the Hon Maurice Williamson made a very clear error of judgment not just by having a conversation with the police about an open criminal case; by just picking up the phone, he clearly breached the Cabinet Manual. Many here would probably argue that he breached a convention that applies to all members of Parliament, but what is absolutely clear is that he did breach the Cabinet Manual. In doing so, he undermined two very important principles that guide us, as members of Parliament, but also the justice system: firstly, the independence of the police and the importance of constabulary independence; and, secondly, the very fine line we walk in between advocating for constituents but never abusing our position of power by being seen to influence the justice system.

The Minister of Police also plays a very important role in defending the independence of the police. You will see that from time to time the Minister states that she cannot intervene in something because it is considered to be operational. But let us look at the role that the Minister of Police played in this particular case. The call, as I have said, was made on 23 January. On 4 April a media outlet put in a request for information that the police may have had regarding Maurice Williamson’s intervention in a case involving Mr Liu and before the courts. On 14 April the police flagged with the Minister’s office in a list of Official Information Act requests that this request had been made. The Minister has since released the text of that description in the briefing, and it does state simply the name of Mr Liu and does not include the name of Mr Williamson. The Minister’s office, of course, you would have thought may have asked questions about the nature of the release, given how highly politicised that particular National Party donor had been in the past, but accepting the office’s word that no questions were raised, we move to the next part of the time line.

On 28 April, 2 weeks after the police provided that small description of the Official Information Act request, as the Minister has confirmed in the House today, she was verbally told by the Commissioner of Police, Mike Bush, that a request from a media outlet had been made and it involved Maurice Williamson. Today in the House we asked some follow-up, and I believe important, questions about that briefing. When the Minister of Police was briefed by the commissioner, was she told when the public would know this vital information about her colleague’s interference in a police case? Did she know at what time and at what date the public would be told? And had the journalist been informed of this? She told the House that the information would be released—if my recollection is right—the following week or thereabouts, when the court case was due to come up. The court case is on 10 June.

She also claimed in the House today that she was told that the journalist has been informed that the information would be released to them the next week. The journalist has not been told. The journalist was not told until after she was briefed, and the date given to that journalist was 10 June. My point is this: the Minister of Police either misled the House today or the police misled her. She knew there would be several weeks before the public would know about this case. And what did she do with that information? Absolutely nothing. She did not tell the Prime Minister. She did not even ask for the emails relating to Maurice Williamson’s case. In fact, Mr Williamson and the Prime Minister received the email evidence before she did, which was on the Wednesday. The fact of the matter is this Minister of Police did nothing to protect her police force. She asked no questions. She heard no evil and saw no evil. Thereby, in doing so, she failed them and failed to protect their constabulary independence in favour of protecting her own colleague.

The only people in this place who have not made mistakes are those who have actually not done anything. In this instance, Maurice Williamson made a mistake, he took responsibility, and he resigned as a Minister. The person whom he inappropriately phoned on behalf of was prosecuted and convicted by the courts. On both instances, justice has been done.

The member who has just spoken, Jacinda Ardern, has wanted to talk time lines, and her leader has wanted to talk about standards. I am happy to engage in that. From the time the Prime Minister knew of Mr Williamson’s conduct, it was 36 hours later that Mr Williamson resigned. I challenge the member to compare that with the record of the previous Government in a far more serious offending. Members will recall Taito Phillip Field. He did not just break the rules of the Cabinet Manual; he committed a corrupt criminal offence for which he went to prison. What was the time line on Mr Taito Phillip Field, I ask Ms Ardern. She is now hanging her head and so she should, because it was not 36 hours. It was not 36 days. It was actually a whole lot longer than 36 weeks. So I say to members opposite that before they get on their high horse and before they start throwing stones in this glass house, they should reflect on their own record of vigorously defending Taito Phillip Field under indefensible circumstances for many, many different months, and contrast that with the way in which the Hon Maurice Williamson acknowledged that he was at fault, took responsibility, and resigned.

It was with an element of sadness. I think Maurice Williamson is a talented person who has given this Parliament and this country great service, whether it is in information technology—and I have a particular interest and I have big boots to fill in the role that he has been playing around the regulation of buildings for earthquakes—and I think we would all acknowledge that his infamous rainbow speech was a positive contribution to this Parliament. So it is with sadness.

But, equally, though, I say that anybody who questions the high standards that the Prime Minister, John Key, sets for this administration overlooks the record and overlooks the facts. There was nothing more ironic, Annette King, than hearing Mr Cunliffe lecture us on standards at the same time as he continues to refuse to divulge who the major donors to his secret trust were. He lectures us on transparency at the same time.

💬 Hon Annette King: Who had the dinners at the restaurant, Nick?

Well, my point to Ms King is this. We would not know whether Mr Cunliffe has dined at a dinner with his major donors, because he will not disclose who the donors are. That is a very clear contrast.

We have heard this afternoon in this debate members speak as though it was an invitation for an orgy of mud-slinging. I just simply say to members of this House, and particularly members opposite, that I know why they do not want to debate the Budget. I know why they do not want to debate the state of the economy—the strong job growth and the increasing economic confidence. I know why they do not want to debate with Judith Collins crime being at its lowest level in 30 years. I know why they do not want to debate with Tony Ryall the state of the health service. I know why they do not want to debate the improving education standards. It is because the truth is that when this Parliament focuses on debating the issues that matter, there is only one choice for New Zealand on 20 September. Members opposite want to engage in an orgy of mud-slinging because that is their only hope. That is their only hope—that they might be able to drag down this Parliament and drag down politics in New Zealand in the hope that some of the mud might stick and they might be able to crawl their way back to the Treasury benches. I simply say to this House to get a grip. Maurice has acknowledged responsibility. He has resigned. Let us get on with the issues that matter.

I have learnt in 3 very short years here that this is an extremely rough-and-tumble place. It is actually quite a sad thing when a Minister resigns. Maurice Williamson likes the saying that in this place, one day you are a rooster and the next day you are a feather duster. Sadly, our friend Mr Williamson has experienced the rough and tumble of this place. I want to say some very kind things about an individual who I actually think has served this country and this Parliament very well for many, many years. I grew up living in the Pakuranga electorate. The first time I joined a political party, it was in Maurice Williamson’s electorate. When I went and worked for a member of Parliament, it was in Maurice Williamson’s electorate office. If there is a model of someone as a local electorate MP who goes above and beyond every single time for his constituents to battle on their behalf, it is Maurice Williamson, the member of Parliament for Pakuranga. Sadly, Maurice’s desire to be helpful, Maurice Williamson’s desire to go above and beyond for individuals, has led him to go a bit too far in this case, and he is paying a very high price for that mistake.

I just want to reiterate to this House that Ministers and members of this Parliament serve extremely hard and serve very well on behalf of their constituents and the people they serve. We are all humans, though, and from time to time we make mistakes. When we make those mistakes, it is important that we bear the consequences, and that is exactly what has happened with Maurice. The Prime Minister has acted appropriately, as a Prime Minister should do, in accepting the resignation of Maurice Williamson, and Maurice Williamson did the honourable thing in resigning for the mistake he made. He is an honourable member.

Some of the things that we have heard today from members opposite are absolutely unbelievable. To be lectured by Winston Peters about corruption is like being lectured by a lady of the night about abstinence. It is so hard to believe. I can think of only one person who had been referred to the Serious Fraud Office for donation issues, and that is Winston Peters. To have Russel Norman stand up in this House and talk about democracy being for sale, knowing that he went to Kim Dotcom’s mansion and talked about intervening in the extradition process should he ever get into Government, is simply unbelievable. To have him turn up here now and talk about democracy being for sale, and to have David Cunliffe stand up and talk about donations and talk about rich—

💬 Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to the member opposite making references to Winston Peters being corrupt and I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to whether they were appropriate in light of the statements that have been made about references to members being honourable, given that, certainly to my knowledge, the Rt Hon Winston Peters has never faced, let alone been convicted of, any—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I hear the member, and I think it is probably pertinent to just reflect on what has been said. I have been listening very carefully, and the member who was on his feet said, I think, that the member whom you are referring to made some accusations of corruption. I was listening, and I think that probably is correct, and it was pulled up at that stage. I do not think we should go back to where a point of order has been ruled on, but the member speaking did not actually accuse the member whom Richard Prosser is defending. He said that that member actually made the accusation, which I believe was correct, but I think we just need to be a bit cautious about accusations. I think Assistant Speaker Robertson made a good call and cited the Speaker’s ruling that was appropriate. The debate has gone pretty well; let us just keep it on that level.

Thank you. No, I did not say what Mr Prosser thought I was saying. Perhaps he might like to listen a bit better next time. I was referring to the fact that members opposite like to lecture us about issues when they themselves know that they very much have some issues and skeletons in the closet that they need to answer for. To hear David Cunliffe talk to us about donations not being declared when we all know very well, he knows very well, and those sitting behind him know very well that he received donations during a leadership election that he subsequently was not willing to declare—it is absolutely unbelievable for him to come here and lecture us.

When we think about those who have donated to political parties, and when we think about those people who in the past decade or so have been highlighted as those who have received favours from political parties, there are no better examples than from the time when Labour was in office. Think of names like Bill Liu. Think of names like Taito Phillip Field, who actually was convicted of a crime in this country. If Labour Party members really want to get into the subject of donations, then I suggest they go back and look through all of their bank accounts in the time when they were in office, because there were certain Ministers in their Government who knew very well what was transacted and who knew very well about decisions that were taken. The Labour Party members should not come to this House and try to appear as holy as they wish to appear, because they will come a cropper in the future, I am sure.

Ministerial standards in this Government are high. The Prime Minister has demonstrated that. Maurice Williamson has demonstrated that he is an honourable individual by bearing the consequences of his actions. I just want to put on record once again that he is a hard-working member of this Parliament. I have witnessed that firsthand, as have the people of Pakuranga. His 27 years in this House will go down as 27 years of very hard work on behalf of New Zealanders, and he should be congratulated on that.

Well, that was extraordinary, was it not? Jami-Lee Ross finished his speech by congratulating a Minister who rang the police to intervene in a case of an assault by a man upon a woman. That is what Jami-Lee Ross has just done. That is the standard of the National Party—to get up in this House and to defend a Minister of the Crown for going and intervening in a case about domestic violence. I think that the actions of Maurice Williamson were disgraceful. Maurice Williamson has been in this House for 27 years, and he should have known better. What is interesting to me is that regarding the standards of behaviour of Ministers in this National Government, John Key likes to crow and say “I’ve come down hard on this.” That is only when they are caught out. It is only when they are in a corner and he has to move. It is not a high standard; it is just when they have been caught out and then suddenly he says “Right, let’s make sure this doesn’t happen. Let’s try to shut this issue down.” And consistently over the 6 years of this Government, that is what has happened.

They are not high ministerial standards. They are not the standards John Key told New Zealanders they would be getting under a National Government. What it describes is the kind of behaviour of a Government that thinks it is above the law and that the rules do not apply to it. The rules that apply to other New Zealanders do not apply to them. Maurice Williamson can pick up the phone and call the Counties Manukau superintendent—an interesting call to make, I might add, given that the Counties Manukau superintendent actually was not in charge of the case. So I am not quite sure why Maurice Williamson rang him. Perhaps it was because Maurice Williamson thought that that was somebody whom he could influence, somebody he could use his ministerial power on to ask whether they were on solid ground because this person had given a lot of money to New Zealand.

That is the second thing that marks this National Government out. It thinks it is above the rules, and it is out to support the wealthy few. How unbelievable that someone would think that ringing the police to say this person had given a lot of money means anything at all. What it means is it speaks to the values of the National Party. It speaks to the values where money talks. This is all about the donations that the National Party receives from wealthy New Zealanders. Money talks. If you donate money, you are in a different category and the rules do not apply to you. So the National Ministers think they are above the rules and they think that people who have money are above the rules. They will do anything to look after the wealthy few in this country, and it is a disgrace.

It is all about the donations that the National Party gets. Mr Liu donated $22,000. In the case of Oravida with Judith Collins, we now know that the National Party has received around $85,000 from Oravida over the last few years. The relationships between the National Party and big business in this country are way too close. What New Zealanders want out of a Government, I believe, is that it will treat all citizens fairly—that it will give everybody a fair go and everybody an opportunity. But with the National Party, be it an individual person or be it a business, it is the money that matters; it is not the person who matters.

Judith Collins is still a Minister; Maurice Williamson is not. How can that be? Yes, Maurice Williamson crossed over a line and he deserved to go and he resigned. Judith Collins has consistently misled this Parliament, misled New Zealanders, and misled the Prime Minister about her activities in relation to Oravida. That is bad enough. Any other Minister would go. David Cunliffe mentioned today that Nick Smith went as a Minister over writing a letter of support on ministerial letterhead for someone he knew, something he should not have done. Judith Collins, on a taxpayer-funded trip to China, orchestrated three events for her husband’s company, Oravida. It was a trip about justice issues. She got rid of a justice event so she could go 30 kilometres away from the airport to visit the headquarters of that company for a photo opportunity—an opportunity that official documents show was to increase the profile of that company. That is a breach straight away of ministerial standards, but in addition to that, as we have rehearsed many times, she also then orchestrated a dinner where the directors of Oravida and an unnamed Chinese border official were present.

Let us be clear: that dinner was a meeting. It was a meeting that was pre-arranged 5 days before she left New Zealand. It was a meeting that worried and concerned the New Zealand Ambassador to China and the head of the North Asia division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade so much that even after Judith Collins changed it from being an official dinner to being a private dinner, they still wanted to provide her with a briefing. Judith Collins gave it away in the House today, did she not? She said that she told the New Zealand Ambassador the day after the dinner that nothing untoward occurred. Why would you need to tell the ambassador that nothing untoward occurred at a private dinner?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Unless he was concerned.

The ambassador was concerned that something untoward was going to occur. No doubt that is in the notes that he provided for her. She felt the need to say that nothing untoward had occurred. Ambassador Carl Worker, in the information that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has released, has actually quite clearly distanced himself from this dinner. So that is a Minister on a taxpayer-funded trip on justice issues who orchestrated three events—she also got the directors invited to another event in Beijing—while she should have been talking about justice issues. And she remains a Minister but Maurice Williamson has been sacked. That is double standards. It is not just low standards of ministerial behaviour with John Key; it is now double standards as well.

This Government is accumulating the impression in the minds of many New Zealanders—and we have all heard it in the last week—that it is who you know that matters with the National Party, it is how much money you have got that matters with the National Party, and it is whether you have donated to the National Party that will get you influence, that will get you inside the door. That is an affront to our democracy. That is against everything that New Zealanders believe about an egalitarian society where everybody gets a fair go. There is no fair go under this National Government. The way it has gone about its business, be it with Skycity or be it with Rio Tinto or wherever it is, indicates the kind of cronyism that it favours. But it is in these personal actions that we see the true colours of this National Government—the true colours of a Government that will always put money before people, that will always favour the wealthy few, and where the standards that John Key told us he would apply to his Ministers have dropped to an all time low.

I want to refer briefly in that context to the actions of Judith Collins in relation to the press gallery, because they fit very much within this. Maurice Williamson resigned. John Key said he should have resigned. Judith Collins was the person left defending Maurice Williamson the other day, on Sunday. In doing so, she drew into debate a member of the press gallery and that person’s family. That is one of the lowest things I have seen a Minister do among many low things in this term of Government. It is the kind of behaviour that again speaks to the fact that anything goes with the National Government if you are not one of its friends. It was petty, it was vindictive, and it was deliberate.

The apology that Judith Collins has made was for a mistake. This was not a mistake. It was a deliberate act, consistent with the way that the National Government is going about its business: “Let’s take out people who dissent from us. Let’s change the law so you can’t protest. Let’s change the law so that the Canterbury Regional Council isn’t elected. Let’s change the law so that students and staff aren’t on university councils. Let’s silence dissent.” It is bullying, it is nasty, it is vindictive, and that is how this Government has ended up. It is a Government for the wealthy few that thinks it is above the rules and that has now no standards within its ministerial system. Maurice Williamson has resigned. That was the right thing to do. Judith Collins should follow. John Key should face up to the fact that his Government is now representative of the very wealthy few in this country and not all New Zealanders.

It is on a sad day today that I rise to speak in this debate. It is sad for a couple of reasons, the first being, of course, that Maurice Williamson—who has, to date, given 27 years of service to the constituents in Pakuranga—has made a mistake. He has very clearly made a mistake, he very quickly saw the error of his ways, and he has paid the price for it—a very high price. I am proud as a member of his caucus and one of his parliamentary colleagues that he took swift action in acknowledging that.

But what actually makes me more sad is what then happens in this House when a parliamentary colleague makes a mistake, says so, cops it on the chin, and resigns from being a Minister. But then what do we descend into in this House? Led by the Opposition parties, we then descend into the gutter. I actually want to reflect on comments that I will attribute to my colleague Chris Tremain. He basically said that if as a team you are unable to score points from your own success, what do you resort to? You resort to all sorts of tactics where you play the person, not the ball. That is why it is a sad day for me in the House today, because I do not think that it is ever a good day for the New Zealand public to see this kind of display, which is playing the person instead of playing the ball.

I am quite surprised, actually, that it was led by the Greens. From a political perspective, obviously they got in before Labour did. Labour was too busy sort of trying to work out its reshuffle and its realignment of players on its team, with Shane Jones moving on to a better team. Then, of course, Trevor moves up to a better position but goes back, literally within hours.

I think the most appalling comment that came through today was the absolutely revolting and despicable comment from the speaker from the Green Party suggesting that anyone in this Parliament—anyone in this Parliament—would not do their utmost to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. That comment, I think, is an absolute disgrace. That, more than anything, has saddened me today. I think it is upsetting because, instead, this place descends into very personal attacks.

I could stand here and I could list other Ministers in other Governments who have made mistakes, wittingly or unwittingly, and what has happened to them. But, actually, the New Zealand public are not interested in that. What they are interested in is the fact that we had a Minister who made a mistake, he copped it on the chin, and he has gone as a Minister. We have a Prime Minister who has very high standards for his Ministers. I think Nick Smith said that in 36 hours it was dealt with. But, actually, coming back to this whole point of the fact that Opposition members are not able to score points—they cannot score points in the real game, and the real game is actually focusing on the things that matter to hard-working New Zealanders, such as the things we are doing with the Budget next week, the things that we are doing in terms of improving access to health care for hard-working New Zealanders, and for raising achievement in our schools.

But the most significant area in this debate today is in keeping our communities safer, because the very Minister whom they are gloating about today is the Minister who got $26 million worth of P off the streets of New Zealand. I think the sort of thing that New Zealanders judge their Government on is the results. This side of the House, this Government, is delivering results.

I will not take much more time, but I do want to finish on the results that also matter to hard-working New Zealanders, and they are in the area of the work that this side of the House has done on protecting very vulnerable victims. It is this side of the House that put police safety orders in place, which immediately protect women and children who are under threat from domestic violence. So it is absolutely abhorrent to me to hear the sorts of comments that came from the Greens this afternoon in this House. I am enormously proud of the results that this side of the House has achieved in terms of lowering crime rates—the lowest rates in 30 years—and in particular the work we have done on protecting victims, such as victims’ notification, victims’ protection, the victims’ offenders levy, and we have put money into preventing sexual violence. We have done more than any Government previously has done in the space of domestic violence.

It is a sad day in this House, but sad for the reasons that we descend into the gutter with the Opposition speakers on a day like today, instead of acknowledging the results and focusing on the results that this Government has achieved and will continue to achieve.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.