Smith Nick: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I could hear the bottom of the barrel scraping as the desperate deputy leader of the Labour Party gave that speech. Let us cut to the chase. Labour made scurrilous allegations about the International Convention Centre deal. The Opposition laid a complaint with the Auditor-General and the Auditor-General concluded that the Opposition got it wrong. If Opposition members had an iota of decency or integrity today’s speeches in the House would have been apologies from the Labour Party and the Green Party. 
I am not going to get into a dissection down to the subparagraphs and sentences of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report. The Television New Zealand headline said it all: “Report clears Govt in SkyCity pokies deal”. 
It speaks volumes that every one of the main dailies today gave greater prominence to the resignation of Charles Chauvel from the Labour Party than to the Deputy Auditor-General’s report on Skycity. What does that tell us? Well remember that Labour members had billed this Auditor-General’s report as their big hit? This was going to be the political game-changer for 2013. Instead the story is that they have lost one of their best brains. 
Charles Chauvel can see the writing on the wall. Labour members are leaderless and they are hopeless. They do not know what they stand for. They have resorted to throwing mud rather than actually dealing with the challenges facing New Zealand. The fundamental problem for Labour on the issue of the International Convention Centre and more broadly is simply one of credibility. 
I have got a very simple question for the three Labour speakers who have spoken and for the next Labour member to rise to their feet: why was it OK in 2001 for a Labour Government to do a trade-off deal of 236 pokie machines for a $36 million convention centre in Auckland? Where was Grant Robertson when that deal was done—with his pious comments in the House this afternoon? Where was David Shearer? Where were the other Labour members? Where were the Greens? The Greens were propping up that Government and not only did they not lay a complaint with the Auditor-General but they did not speak an utterance over that arrangement. That reinforces that it is all politics. 
 But there is a bigger problem for Labour. You see David Shearer has been in charge for over a year and New Zealanders have no more idea today than then as to what he stands for. As much as we have got from Mr Shearer is that he believes in hands-on Government. Well what the heck does that mean when on all of the critical issues—getting an international convention centre and the jobs from that growing our oil and gas industry creating jobs in aquaculture and creating and expanding irrigation to grow our most important primary industry—Labour has said it is hands-off? All that exposes is that David Shearer’s fundamental line that Labour is going to be a hands-on Government is shallow words for a lack of policy. 
There is another problem for Labour’s position on the Auditor-General’s report. Labour members say that if there are any process problems—“process problems” is what the Deputy Auditor-General said—then it is cronyism and corruption. Well what is happening next? There is another Auditor-General’s report due next week. It is about one of their colleagues Mr Shane Jones. If the Auditor-General finds that there are “process problems” around the immigration issues and the awarding of citizenship for a certain gentleman I wonder whether Labour members will be saying that is evidence of “cronyism and corruption”—the words they used today in the House. I suspect that Mr Shearer and Mr Robertson will be singing a very different tune in the House next week. 
I want to conclude with the facts. Labour members went out and said the deal was filthy. They said that it stunk. The Auditor-General’s office said it found no evidence to suggest—in fact it said these words: “nothing substantially wrong took place”. If Labour members want any respect or credibility they should get to their feet and apologise.