Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:669;Page:15926] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 On 17 November 2008 the Prime Minister said: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary.” It is interesting that Mr English is the first speaker in this debate from the other side of the House. He talked at length about what he thinks New Zealand people believe. I say this to Mr English: they believe that the Prime Minister has not lived up to the standards he set for himself and his Ministers. The New Zealand people believed it was not on when Mr English dodged weaved squirmed and tried everything he could to get around the rules when he claimed for a house—I think it was in the order of $24000. He claimed for a house and rented it through Ministerial Services back to his trust. I say to that member that the people of New Zealand believed all too well that he dodged weaved behaved inappropriately and cheated. 
What was the Prime Minister’s response to that? Was it to admonish him? Was it to sack him? Was it to censure him? No it was to change the rules—the ministerial rules—so that not only could he get $24000 but he and every Minister I think could get in the order of $48000 or thereabouts without producing a receipt. He did not get sacked— 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation relevant to what the member has just said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: The member has given the impression that under the new rules I claim a housing allowance. That is incorrect: I claim no housing allowance. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I endorse his statement because he does so by choice. He could still claim the new housing allowance. If he did it is within the rules. But because the feet were put to the fire month after month day after day because of his dodgy arrangements he had no option but to say to the Prime Minister that even though he could claim under the new rules which the Prime Minister rewrote to benefit him he would not do so. That is the part of the explanation we did not hear. What was the new higher standard there? The rules were changed to suit him. 
Then we had Richard Worth. We will not go down that track too much. Another standard was breached. There was another dodgy deal overseas by a member who is now not in this place. The Prime Minister stood by Richard Worth day after day month after month until the inevitable happened. 
Then we come to Rodney Hide the great perk-buster. The ACT members “Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber” over there stand up for him every day. He is the man who railed destroyed careers and attacked families because he viewed MPs’ use of travel allowances as perks and inappropriate. He was then unzipped—I will not say from where—and was found to be using travel allowances for his own purposes. That was the height of—there is a word that you will not let me use Mr Speaker and I accept that. We know what the word is. What was the high standard? What did the Prime Minister do then? He did nothing. 
Then there was strike two on Mr Hide. He stood by and aided and abetted a former member who covered up a suppression order. He knew about a former member of this House who stole a dead child’s identity. What did the Prime Minister do then? He said that that was in a private capacity and was nothing to do with him. 
Then we had Phil Heatley. Do members remember the old limousine or self-drive car following the train all the way to Nelson so that he could drive back? I do not know whether it was full of flowers or presents—who knows? Then there were the half-dozen bottles of wine at the National Party conference on the ministerial credit card. What was the Prime Minister’s response then? It was to take him out to relax and bring him back. Where were the high standards and where was the action there? 
Then of course we had Mr Finlayson—“Mr Grumpy” all right—who for 4 years never declared among his pecuniary interests that he had a directorship. Dame Margaret Bazley said that that was incorrect and a false return. No action was taken; it was a mistake! 
Then of course we come to the doozy: Pansy Wong. I put to members that the investigation carried out on Pansy Wong is a cover-up. It is a cover-up because to my knowledge no one in history who has pleaded guilty to the accusations and said that funds were misused is then investigated in the following way. She was asked to produce a few diaries and asked whether she has done it again. The answer was no. She was asked whether Sammy had done it again and she said no. The investigator then said: “OK fine. I believe you. End of story.” The investigator did not check one fact or piece of corroborating evidence. That investigation would not stand up in a court. We know that a former member of this House was charged and found guilty of a similar offence. But what is the action here? She is out of Cabinet. 
The Prime Minister says that if you plead guilty once you are cleared. It is OK just do not plead guilty too many times! That is the higher standard of National and that I say to Mr English is what the New Zealand people believe.