Hipkins Chris: General Debate 
Hipkins Chris: General Debate 
[Volume:653;Page:2554] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I would like to talk today about leadership. I will begin by paying tribute to two extraordinary New Zealand leaders: Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. In particular I pay tribute to Helen Clark who made her valedictory speech today. 
During their time in Parliament we have seen huge transformation in New Zealand. We have become a nuclear-free and independent country in terms of our foreign policy. There has been massive change to the size and role of Government and significant constitutional evolution. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen led New Zealand with distinction for 9 years and were ably supported by competent Ministers like Phil Goff and Annette King. That was the first leadership team to really master MMP. It is worth remembering that the Labour Government in the entire 9 years it was leading New Zealand never had a majority either independently or in coalition. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had to put together each deal one at a time and they did it masterfully. They understood MMP and the importance of cross-party negotiations. I think a really important thing to remember is that their leadership style allowed them to do that. 
Now of course National is starting to get used to MMP as its relationship with the Maori Party shows. It applauds the Maori Party while sticking the knife into its front! It applauds it while it does that. The sad thing is that when National members did that today Pita Sharples fell for it. He fell for it. He is so happy having cups of tea with John Key—having little cups of tea and riding around in the BMWs—that he has been sucked in and has fallen for the applause and he has forgotten the people who put him there. 
But there is another thing that National has forgotten and has not caught up on. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had very high standards for the Ministers in their Cabinet; John Key clearly does not. He has demonstrated in the last few weeks that he has no standards when it comes to the performance and conduct of his Ministers and no case illustrates that more than the case of Dr Richard Worth. John Key has given the Minister of Internal Affairs three final warnings. This begs the question: what is a final warning if someone gets three of them? How many more warnings will come? 
First of all let us run through the history of the matter. On 30 March Dr Worth was caught out travelling to India as a Minister and talking up aviation training in New Zealand all the while operating as a director of New Zealand Aviation Ltd and holding shares in and a directorship of the Indian Overseas Group. So what did John Key say about that? He said it was “stupid” and “unwise” that he had given the Minister a “bollocking” and that he did not expect to see the behaviour repeated. A few days later on 2 April it was revealed that Dr Richard Worth continued to hold shares in WSD Global Markets an Indian-focused trade company and the J P Morgan Indian Investment Trust despite assurances that he had resigned from “absolutely everything”. What did John Key say on 6 April when he was asked whether Dr Richard Worth had no more chances and no more lifelines? John Key said “Yeah.” Then on the following day 7 April what did John Key say when Richard Worth failed to disclose that he was a director of WSD Global Markets when its associated company in the Cook Islands WSBC Bank was being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office? John Key said he had had an “extensive discussion” with Richard Worth. So his third warning was an “extensive discussion”. 
So first of all John Key said Dr Worth was stupid and unwise gave him a bollocking and said the behaviour was not to be repeated. Then when asked whether Richard Worth had no more chances and no more lifelines John Key simply said “Yeah.” Then he said he had had an extensive discussion with Mr Worth. Where is the leadership? How many transgressions does it take before John Key will show some leadership and do something about it? John Key’s credibility is now at stake; why will he not take action against Richard Worth? 
There is more than just a conflict of interest here. Richard Worth should not be a Minister because he has done absolutely nothing. I went through Richard Worth’s media statements and written questions to try to find out what he has been busy working on since he has been a Minister. I found that he has done nothing. Apart from going to India and creating a whole host of problems for the Government Richard Worth has done nothing. So I put a whole bunch of written parliamentary questions to him but he did not answer them.