Jones Shane: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJones Shane: General Debate[Sitting date: 19 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16076. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Ātēnā koe Mr Speaker. He kupu heitīmata. Ka nuinoa atutakuwhakahē ki tetū mai otōtātouMinita Take Māori meēnā kaupapaōna ka oratōtātou Reoi rotoiēneitūru ewhakanekenekehiaana e ia. He kupuwhakaritenōkutūpuna oNgāpuhi: kaotitetahi mahi ware kakainga e te hau. Mepēnātakuwhakamārama.[Greetings to you Mr Speaker. Some words to start with. I utterly condemn our Minister of Māori Affairs greatly for standing before us with those proposals of his that our language will survive in these pews that he is merely moving around. MyNgāpuhi ancestors have a saying to compare it against: when something completed is substandard the wind gobbles it up.]After having just reminded our Māori listeners that anything Dr Sharples believes he is doing to save the Reo is sadly misguided I cannot wait to have the opportunity to dismantle whatever other foolish notions he is going to proceed with. I have been accused of being intemperate. I have been accused of abusing parliamentary privilege. But I want you Mr Speaker and my fellow parliamentarians to know that this privilege is a key feature of our culture of our tradition. It is traceable right back indeed I should say to Thomas More along with our Westminster traditions. So I know it is fair enough that we must not use or abuse this position of bringing issues of significance.But it is not this side of the House that has had secret meetings with the chairman of Woolworths; it is the Prime Minister. It was not this side of the House. When the Prime Minister met with the chairman he unfortunately came home empty-handed from meeting with one of the most powerful commercial men in Australia and New Zealand. That is his problem. Our problem our challenge is to highlight issues but avoid any suggestion that we are being excessive in what we say and do under the cloak of privilege. People from Countdown went on national television last night and accused me of lacking specifics. They sought to derogate what I was saying. They know exactly whom I have been talking to. They know exactly who the shadowy characters are in that windowless Countdown room putting the squeeze on our fair-minded garden-variety New Zealand businessmen. It is not Dave Chambers; he can warble all he likes. I want to remind those people that they have managers who will face the music.Let me just give you an example of three specifics so I can move beyond these gratuitous criticisms that I lack specifics. Specific No. 1 is an email I look forward to handing on to the Commerce Commission subject to suitable anonymity protections. Countdown demanded tens of thousands of dollars from a supplier by 5 o’clock that day as payment for insufficient sales achieved in the previous month from the supplier’s product lines or it was goodnight Irene. Specific No. 2 is that my source told me that even to get into Countdown—to get anywhere near there—he had to pay 7 percent ofhis turnover back to the company. When he spoke to the Aussie supplier—to Countdown—it said it had never heard of this policy. Do not out there accuse this parliamentarian of not having detail.Specific No. 3 is a family-owned business with a $4.5 million turnover—[Interruption] Now that side of the House might sneer at these people with small businesses. I accept that National is the party of big business but do not sneer at undercapitalised small businesses trying to make an honest living and gain access into what is a tolling operation the duopoly structure of our supermarkets. The business had a $4.5 million turnover and 30 employees. What happened when they stood up to Countdown tactics? The result is that they lost their business have now moved and are living in Australia.They would love to come back but they are fearful because of the inability—the disinterest—of the Minister of Commerce to grapple with this problem. What did he say today? He has done absolutely nothing as the New Zealand Minister of Commerce in dealing with his counterparts in Australia. He did not know that sections 98 99 and 100 of the Commerce Act actually enable him to get the Commerce Commission to work collaboratively with the Australian equivalent which is now conducting that investigation. The person at the centre of these allegations fled from Australia. He fled from the investigation by theAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission. He fled into Woolworths and Countdown here in New Zealand. He is the person who has caused these dramas—an Australian merchandise manager—and I look forward to providing his identity to the Commerce Commission.