Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
Mallard Trevor: General Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:3163] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I agree with the member who has just resumed her seat Rahui Katene and say that her speech was well considered. There was nothing I could disagree with in what she said. What is occurring is a disgrace; that situation is one of a list of things that are a disgrace. The only comment I could make to her is the reflection that on matters of confidence her party is the party that is supporting the party that is doing those things. That is something she will be considering—and I am sure the member sitting next to her will be considering—over a period of time. I think that will be important. 
I will refer to the speech preceding Ms Katene’s speech from the Minister of Transport. He is the Minister of Transport who was offered quarter of an hour to explain the Government’s position on Waterview. He roared like a lion in here but he is not prepared to knock on those doors in Waterview and tell them what is going on while those doors still exist. Before the houses are bowled before the parks are ploughed up and before the community is destroyed one would expect a Minister to have the courage of his convictions and at least to use the processes of this Parliament to make a statement to have an urgent debate and to front up for the things for which he is responsible. 
I will also make some comments about Melissa Lee. It is very important that we get some things on the record. Melissa Lee made an application to New Zealand On Air through the company she owned before she became a candidate. Her circumstances changed. She became a candidate and she did not declare that change of circumstances before the funding decision was made. She should have. It is a basic matter of ethics that someone who has made an application for funding and who stands to financially benefit from an application should be transparent with the organisation that he or she is making an application to. 
My next point is about Pansy Wong and the financial agent for the National Party. 
Paul Quinn 
: How much petrol did you pay the unions with to shift your billboards? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will answer that question very very quickly. Lots of volunteers volunteered for my campaign and I declared every bit of it that was appropriate. The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union declared the rest of it. That member knows that because he is a member who looked at it. 
I will turn to Pansy Wong. She featured on the video made by Melissa Lee’s company. She did not declare that she widely distributed around the electorate of Botany where she was a candidate—[ 
Interruption 
] 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This House has lowered itself to barraging and that is not acceptable in this Chamber. I cannot even hear my colleague speak. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member makes a perfectly good point but he may recollect that— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Where was he during the last speech? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: While I am ruling there will not be interjections. The member may recollect that the Hon Steven Joyce faced very sustained interjections—and I will certainly stop the members—but I do not think the interjections on the member were nearly as bad as what happened during the Hon Steven Joyce’s speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I say to the member that he might want to come closer. I could tell that the Speaker could hear me because he was nodding and I do not think it was because he was going to sleep. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard will continue his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am making is that Pansy Wong did not declare the video that she widely distributed by way of DVD in her electorate. That was an expense for her and it was undeclared. The National Party did not declare it in its expenses or on the donation side. I do not know whether it had to and I do not know whether the DVD cost $10000 to make. It looked like it was very professional and I am sure that if it was made commercially then it would have cost $10000 and should have been declared. Even on the expenditure side it should have been declared and it was not. 
I want to know why John Key has said to Melissa Lee that he supported her actions with regard to that company. Did he support her standing over the staff while they were editing a political programme? Did he support her not declaring to New Zealand On Air her relationship with the company when she became a candidate? Did he support Pansy Wong when she did not declare that DVD when it was distributed? 
What are the standards of ethics that John Key is now promoting? Is he saying “If you can get away with it it is fine.”? What is very very clear is that someone who was actively involved in that company and who was being absolutely straightforward on the television that she had had a relationship breakdown with Melissa Lee has given a lot of evidence of unethical behaviour on the part of a member of this Parliament.