Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you Mr Speaker. I join with many members in this House who have said that that this is never a topic that this House enjoys debating. I don't think there isn't a party in here that hasn't had to grapple with the loss of a colleague who has been forced to resign from one position or other because we as a Chamber—we as a House—do take these matters with the utmost seriousness; it is something as parliamentarians that we do view very seriously. I think the tenor of the debate has been one that shows just how seriously that we do as a collective Parliament view these matters. I think one of the things that nobody in this House is going to disagree on is that New Zealanders rightly expect and deserve very high standards from their Ministers and from their parliamentarians in terms of trust in terms of transparency and in terms of people following the rules. What we have seen yesterday with the with the resignation of my colleague Michael Wood is that he accepted that he had fallen short of those expectations and certainly fallen short in his behaviours of the expectations that our Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has laid out very clearly to us as Ministers as what he expects and has paid the ultimate price for that. It's never a nice thing to have to grapple with though. As previous speakers have said in this debate our transparency and our willingness and openness to declare what potential conflicts our parliamentarians and our Ministers may have given things they own and interests they have lies at the very heart of building the trust and the New Zealand system. So not only do Ministers need to disclose anything that may be of conflict of interest in their decision making when they come to make decisions in actively manage any of those conflicts as they arise—declare them and manage them. We do that through a process with the Cabinet Office and that is laid out in the Cabinet Manual and laid bare. New Zealand has had a Cabinet Manual as it is now known but had previous names earlier since 1979 and this is very clearly laid out in terms of that authoritative guide to central government decision-making for Ministers and indeed for the broader public service about how things operate. It's endorsed at the first Cabinet meeting of an administration in terms of how it is going to provide for the orderly recommencement of the Government and the expectations around how it is that things are going to operate from there and it is an important document at the heart of any Government that is formed in this country and has been for a number of decades now.But we as parliamentarians also take our responsibilities to declare any interests that we may have seriously as well—it's not just Ministers. We need to declare those through the pecuniary interest process so that everybody can see what it is that a particular member what interests they have and what could possibly be an influence on them. One of the things that has come through very strongly in this debate as I don't think there are members in this House who believe that Michael Wood's failure to meet those expectations in terms of the management of his conflicts of interest—and not just the expectations but to actively put in place all the rail guards he needed to do—was for personal gain. I don't think there's anyone in this House who believes that to be the case. But I think what everybody in this House is an agreement on is that we rightly have these protections because it is so fundamental to the trust that New Zealanders need to be able to put in their Parliament and in their Government and that is something that we hold dearly to. Why I've been somewhat heartened by the debate and some of the discussion that we have heard over the last 24 hours which hasn't been a pleasant time—but I've been somewhat heartened to hear some of the agreement that seems to be building. The Prime Minister has sketched out some of the things that he's going to put in place in terms of moving to quarterly reporting with the Cabinet Office on the conflicts and not just the annual update as it is now putting in place a different escalation process if a Minister is not fully engaging with the active management of their conflict having that dedicated person in your office who can be the second pair of eyes and ears that says Hold on you probably need to pull back from being involved in this decision because of X"—I think that is an important safeguard that can be put in place—and also those full disclosures before a standing item at the start of a Cabinet meeting or a Cabinet committee meeting and this is just good governance practice. This is something that you see at a range of governance environments with it as put in place. But I think also the Prime Minister is beginning that conversation about regimes such as exists in Australia—such as the restriction regime on shareholding for Ministers and the way in which that can be managed—and it's been heartening to hear other parties wanting to engage in a really mature way with their conversation and question whether that is a system that we also need in New Zealand so that there's no ifs buts or maybes but you know that when you become a Minister there is an action that needs to be taken. It's in black and white that you need to put that those assets into a different form in terms of it being a blind trust or an equivalent so that you're not actively involved in the management of those assets. I think that that is a debate and a discussion that would strengthen us as a Parliament if we can have that discussion in a really constructive way because we can see how it operates in Australia because at the heart of this lies the question of trust and it's something the all of us as elected representatives need to take seriously. The public need to know that we understand and know the rules and that we will follow them. What we are standing here debating today is a debate that's been sparked by someone who has paid the ultimate price for not following those rules and not following the expectations that were clearly set out by our Prime Minister. But I think we also do need to in the context of having this mature discussion acknowledge the hard work that that Minister his put in but also accept that there is a consequence when the rules are not followed. Thank you Mr Speaker."