Street Maryan: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is very clear that this Government has a propensity to appoint its friends in order to advance its own interests. It does not matter whether it is Brian Neeson Ken Shirley Ravi Musuku Georgina te Heuheu Sir Wira Gardiner Wayne Mapp Jenny Shipley Steven McElrea Judy Kirk Don Brash Richard Griffin or Richard Long and I could go on with an assortment of former members of Parliament electorate chairpeople failed candidates for the National Party or old staffers. This Government continues to appoint people it prefers in order to advance its own interests. 
There is one particular appointment that I want to speak about with some real seriousness because it goes to just what the Government is trying to achieve with its appointments. One of the people in the last manifestation of the National caucus whom I admired a great deal was Katherine Rich. She is a woman of ability and principle and I admired her a great deal. She in fact led the National caucus on some issues such as the section 59 debate when she refused to be whipped and follow the party line and made sure that we got better legislation than was in place. This is a person of principle Katherine Rich and she is the head of the Food and Grocery Council. So why has the Government appointed her to the Health Promotion Agency? There is clearly a conflict of interest. 
The food and beverage industry is a $15 billion industry and the Food and Grocery Council’s own objective is “To promote oppose or move for the recision of any legislation regulations by-laws or policy affecting the interests of members.” and I quote that from the objectives of the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council. My very great fear is that they have deliberately created this conflict of interest for a woman of ability because they wish to have some mitigating influence on the work of the Health Promotion Agency. What is the objective of the Health Promotion Agency? Well the Health Promotion Agency it says “must lead and support activities for the following purposes: (a) promoting health and … encouraging health lifestyles: (b) preventing disease illness and injury: (c) enabling environments that support health and … healthy lifestyles:”. The Food and Grocery Council has campaigned against the mandatory inclusion of folic acid in bread it has campaigned against the reduction of salt and sugar in food and it has campaigned in favour of liberal trading policies for alcohol. 
 So my distinct suspicion is that this Government has cynically appointed this woman of ability so that it can mitigate messages that should come out of the Health Promotion Agency so that nobody could ever accuse it of being nanny State and so that it can reassure its friends in the food and grocery industry that it still has their interests at heart. “Do not worry we will not let any of that namby-pamby health promotion stuff get away on us. We will make sure that we do not do anything that affects the sale of your sugary products or your salt-laden products or your products that do not inspire health or healthy living in any New Zealander.” 
My very deep concern is that National’s cronyism not only sacrifices some of its best people but also is used in the interests of the industries that support it. In this particular case its cronyism is used against the interests of the health and well-being of New Zealanders. This is one conflict of interest that this Government is using deliberately for its own purposes and it needs to reflect seriously on that issue. Thank you.