Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I was proud to campaign for David Shearer and Labour in the Mt Albert electorate. I knocked on a lot of doors and talked to a lot of people during the campaign and I was at the Labour Party’s headquarters on Saturday night to show my support for our candidate. It was a real privilege to be there with Labour supporters and anyone in the room would have seen what I saw: a resurgent Labour Party full of energy and drive well led and ready for the challenges of the next 2 years that lie ahead until the next general election campaign. What a victory it was for David Shearer. Although the final results have yet to be declared the election night results are significant: 63 percent of the vote to Labour—as Phil Goff said—17 percent to National 12 percent to the Greens and 5 percent to ACT. 
But those results would have been no surprise to anybody who was knocking on doors in Mt Albert during the campaign because the same four themes came up time and time again on people’s doorsteps. First people were really proud of a legacy of excellent representation by fine Labour MPs most latterly Helen Clark and Warren Freer. There is no doubt that David Shearer was the beneficiary of that proud legacy. The second theme was transport issues including the incredibly arrogant decision not to proceed with the State Highway 20 tunnel. The third theme was another arrogant decision after 18 days’ consultation to bulldoze ahead with a super-city model that differs significantly from that advocated by the royal commission without any thought of giving Aucklanders a referendum to enable them to have their say on the proposal. And the fourth theme was a further example of arrogance in the refusal of the Prime Minister to say why he lost confidence in one of his Ministers Dr Worth. 
I believe that John Key’s decision not to tell the public why he lost confidence in Dr Worth not only is the height of arrogance but to claim that his refusal is on public interest grounds and then decline to set out those grounds raises serious constitutional issues. Earlier today in question time the Prime Minister continued his confused and unsatisfactory series of answers on this issue. I believe that it is time he fronted up to the House and to the public and told us why he lost confidence in Dr Worth and explain the inconsistencies. John Key is refusing to tell the public why he lost confidence in Dr Worth but the public are entitled to answers and accountability from the Prime Minister for his decisions. Dr Worth was paid more than $100000 over his time as a Minister but the Prime Minister is refusing to say why he lost confidence in him. At question time on 16 June the Prime Minister said: “As I said I will not go into specifics but it is fair to say that I lost confidence in Dr Worth and on that basis he could not remain a Minister.” But the Prime Minister told the media 2 weeks ago that the reason he was silent was that he did not want to contaminate any criminal investigation. The Prime Minister’s words were “I do not think it would be appropriate for me to contaminate that investigation by making loose comments.” This raises some serious questions. Why did John Key say he was not commenting because of legal contamination when the reason he lost confidence in Dr Worth supposedly was not related to that at all? What is the new standard of behaviour for Ministers? And why does the Prime Minister think there is no public interest in his decisions of this nature as Prime Minister? 
It is also not clear when John Key lost confidence in Dr Worth. The Prime Minister has specified no fewer than three different dates as the time when he lost confidence in Dr Worth. The Prime Minister told the House last Tuesday afternoon that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on 26 May he told Leighton Smith that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on 29 or 30 May and he told  
Native Affairs  
that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on Sunday 31 May. Those dates are from the answers he gave those three different sources. This raises some further serious questions. Just when did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Worth? Was it on the Tuesday as he told Parliament? Or has there been a misleading of the House? Why are John Key’s stories on when he lost confidence in Dr Worth so inconsistent and all over the place? Is the Prime Minister trying to hide his own poor judgment on the issue? And what is the status of all the decisions made by Dr Worth after John Key had lost confidence in him? Dr Worth was in office for a week after John Key lost confidence in him so whom did Dr Worth as Minister appoint what decisions did he make without the confidence of the Prime Minister and how arrogant is it for the Prime Minister to ask the public to just trust him when he has let a Minister of the Crown in whom he has lost confidence make serious decisions affecting the lives of ordinary Kiwis? Finally how is it satisfactory for John Key to simply assert that there is no public interest in the answers to these questions?