Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm not sure it's a pleasure to rise as part of this urgent debate on the dismissal of the Hon Stuart Nash as a Minister. The fact is he has been dismissed. The Prime Minister dismissed him within two hours of being notified of what is clearly an egregious breach of the Cabinet Manual and the standards expected of Cabinet Ministers in New Zealand. I say as much in sadness as in anger that what Stuart Nash did was wholly and utterly wrong and the decision of the Prime Minister to dismiss him was the right decision. We do have standards and we should be very proud in this country of the standards that we maintain in this country. They stem from a range of sources: from the Cabinet Manual from the transparency arrangements that we have from the Official Information Act through written parliamentary questions through an extraordinary network of advocacy groups and interest groups—and yes would you believe lobbyists and others—who bring their advocacy and bring their issues to this House and it now being more accessible in terms of bringing petitions and issues to this House. So we have a lot going for us.I respect what the member Golriz Ghahraman has just been saying in her words to the House but I do just point out in terms of electoral transparency the way our rules in the Electoral Act are currently framed is that basically the higher the donation the more transparency there is. It is true that there's a level of non-disclosure of details behind donations but for very significant donations there's not only a disclosure requirement but a timeliness requirement on that disclosure as well. But it is a matter of fair debate about whether that is adequate anymore in the environment that we've got. We know that we live in political systems now in this country and many others where money sloshes around and it can be pretty easy not just within political parties but within the broader political firmament. You look at the amount of money that was being pumped in to for example the occupation on the grass in front of Parliament last year that was funded by all sorts of sources and that was intended to have a political influence.I want to talk just a little about the circumstances in which the origins of Stuart Nash's ultimate dismissal arose back in 2020 in spite of the members opposite's desperate bid to create some sort of conspiracy theory out of it. We were faced with in the middle of the lockout the first lockout many businesses small businesses who'd completely lost their revenue struggling to meet their overheads and specifically their rental outgoings the payments for their leases. I was Minister of Justice at the time. We got much correspondence and much representation and we made the decision that we would do something about it and that those small businesses as so many other businesses had should get some sort of assistance to get them through what was an extraordinarily difficult time.We made the judgment that a potential policy remedy lay in the Property Law Act which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and therefore the Minister of Justice. We looked at the provisions there that allow interventions into lease agreements in particular circumstances and we thought we would devise a temporary remedy to give some relief to small businesses bearing in mind that actually for some small businesses—and I would say actually many small businesses—their landlords had already come to the party. There were many landlords who were sympathetic to their tenants who had lost their revenue either all or most of it over a reasonably significant period of time. But there was a number of landlords who just thought I've got my lease agreement you have this obligation; you must pay me those lease payments as per our lease agreement." even though in the circumstances beyond everybody's control it was manifestly unreasonable.There was some concern because we were a coalition Government and New Zealand First Cabinet Ministers—or one in particular Winston Peters was concerned about what he called the erosion of the sanctity of contract. He was most exercised by this and he was concerned about it. Nevertheless—and I was involved in many discussions with New Zealand First MPs and their Ministers to try to get to a mutually acceptable solution mutually acceptable between the coalition partners. Well we got to one and our Cabinet committee made a decision but then even after that decision was made—effectively a Cabinet decision because it was a Cabinet committee with a power to act—New Zealand First then withdrew their support and they indicated they would not vote for it. I can say for the record too there was another party in this House—well there's two other parties in this House who also indicated they wouldn't vote for it: it was the ACT Party and it was the National Party. So the crocodile tears that were being wept early this week by members in the National Party about the plight of small business at that time—they were completely meaningless. The National Party didn't care and I doubt whether they care even now. But we did and we tried to find a solution. It's interesting when I go back there was an interview for example involving Winston Peters with one of our top broadcasters Mike Hosking and Mike Hosking asked Winston Peters about this issue—the lease issue that has led to Stuart Nash's dismissal—and said "Are you holding up Andrew Little's plan with the rents around landlords and commercial operations?" Winston Peters answers "Why do you ask that question?" Then Mike Hosking says "Because I've heard it." and Winston Peters says "From who?" and Mike Hosking says "People I talk to." Then there's a bit of exchange and Mr Peters then goes on to say "I don't cause trouble but I've got an understanding of how business operates and how landlords and tenants operate and they are people where one size fits all and it's very complex and he's not prepared to do anything about it." is essentially what the rest of his answer amounts to. So we were up against a difficult situation and I can say dealing with that issue and dealing with all Ministers—and including Stuart Nash at the time—there was difficulty; there was resistance. Nobody would have expected that a Cabinet Minister of whichever party in the coalition would have breached Cabinet confidentiality and started disclosing to members of the public what individual Cabinet members had said either in a Cabinet committee or around the Cabinet table. That was simply not something that was ever expected in the Government under Jacinda Ardern and nor is it expected under Chris Hipkins. They are two people who uphold the highest standards of integrity and conduct and they have both made it very clear during their tenure of the office of the Prime Minister that they expect nothing less of Cabinet Ministers of whichever party they are in. So that is what has happened and I have to say when the facts came out this week of an email from Stuart Nash to supporters of his including donors of his where he had disclosed that information—disclosed deliberations of Cabinet—I can tell you that I like many many people who know the rules who strive to observe them was crestfallen and just extremely extremely disappointed. Now the benefit of all of this of course is that to a large extent what we see is the standards that we have set and the system that we have for dealing with lapses of integrity and acts of dishonour are dealt with. So literally within a couple of hours of this becoming apparent to the Prime Minister the Prime Minister took the only action he could take which was to dismiss the Minister. There was an Official Information Act (OIA) request and that has been the subject of members opposite's discussion but that Official Information Act request was processed in the way you would expect it to be processed. When there was a challenge about non-disclosure as I understand it by the requester to the Ombudsman ultimately the Ombudsman made no ruling and it wasn't pursued any further. But the system kicked into action; somebody who was interested did make a request under the OIA. That process was followed and when the requester wasn't satisfied appealed it to the Ombudsman but no different outcome was achieved. That is all that has happened and where there has been a lack of integrity where there has been a breach the system has kicked in and the stabilisers have worked and we should be thankful for that. What I can say on this side of the House and all of the colleagues I have worked with and work with now all of them display and carry out and sincerely uphold the obligations and responsibilities they know they have to maintain their integrity and the confidentiality of the Cabinet processes."