Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'd like to begin my contribution by acknowledging and congratulating the organisers for the Pyeongchang winter Olympics and Paralympics who have helped grow cultural understanding and the spirit of international friendship across the global community. I had the distinct privilege of attending the opening ceremony at Pyeongchang and it was an absolute honour to see the joint entry of the two Koreas united under one united flag. I guess the word—I was moved—moving" was the smallest word that I could possibly find. I mean it was absolutely emotional for everyone who was actually present and I'm sure for millions of people watching around the world and long may the peace in the peninsula prevail.I also want to take a moment to speak about my motion at the start of question time today. For many people around New Zealand acknowledgments of this nature are incredibly important. Members do not always get informed that a date is coming up because many days are important to many different people and different ethnicities and some dates do in fact shift depending on the lunar calendar for example from year to year. We as members in this House have a duty to get their voices heard on important views and news and anniversaries particularly when the Government is not listening perhaps to them or celebrating their occasions in person or in action.Talking about action I'd like to follow up on the comment that my learned colleague Chris Bishop actually commented about. This Government and this Associate Minister of State Services (Open Government) the Hon Clare Curran have actually said that this Government will be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand's history. For reference I guess she has in fact used the phrase "open and transparent" about 16 times since she entered Parliament "transparency" on its own about 54 times yet we are not seeing it come to light in this Government which appointed her as the Minister for this very matter. Through her actions the actions of this Government holding up ministerial briefings and secret documents that govern their agreements—they're betraying the people of New Zealand and the transparency and accountability we all believe in. Actions actually speak louder than words. Actions have far more substance than their words and this Government's word seems to only be "spin".Just to clarify just an example today this morning the Hon Clare Curran had to correct her answer to her reply to written question No. 19129 (2017) a question she actually answered five days late of the due date which was about 63 days ago when it was due. Tail between her legs months after she should have given the full story to this Parliament and to this country. Now she didn't front up today despite being front and centre this morning just down the hallway in Parliament at the Parliamentary digital showcase where she was actually there. The people of New Zealand were wanting to hear about these serious issues from the Minister herself—she didn't front up.The thing is it was a very simple question. The question was "Has the Minister met with Board members or staff of TVNZ or RNZ since 1 December …?" That was a very simple question. "Did she or did she not meet with the head of content of RNZ?" was not the question; it was "Who did she meet with?" and she failed to declare the meeting that actually happened and she was seen. If there was nothing there if there was nothing discussed why would she omit to disclose the meeting? I mean it seems to be the habit of this Government to sort of claim that a meeting isn't really a meeting. I mean you know when you meet someone I guess Mr Assistant Speaker—if Mr Assistant Speaker and I met at a coffee shop for example will we actually declare that we met? The question was: did she meet? "Who did she meet?" was the question and she failed to disclose it.It seems that failing to disclose and do the prep work is the trend of this Government and this Minister had to go back and do the job again in issues such as the appointment of the Chief Technology Officer as well. Like the question that she had to amend she is now going back because she did not find among the 60-odd people from international leaders in the technology world—she says there was no one suitable for the Chief Technology Officer. She really is—she's a shambles.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed."