Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to be taking a call this afternoon on this urgent debate. I was just interested to see that Grant Robertson took the call that would otherwise be taken by a New Zealand First MP and I hope that doesn't indicate that the Hon Shane Jones doesn't intend to take a call this afternoon and answer some of the questions that have been put forward to him by Paul Goldsmith by myself and shortly to come I hope Jonathan Young because there's some very serious questions around the role that he's played in this fund and in particular with this project.David Parker spent the first five minutes of his contribution essentially saying that there is no conflict of interest in this case—there is no conflict of interest in this case. Well if that's the case then why did Shane Jones declare a conflict of interest? If there was no conflict to declare then why would Shane Jones put up his hand and say I have a conflict here in relation to this project and I need to step aside from the process."? The fact that he did that shows that David Parker is quite wrong—there is a conflict of interest to be declared. Grant Robertson continued on with that line. He said there's no conflict because "There's no monetary gain"—no monetary gain. Well if that's his test for what is a conflict of interest I have grave concerns about other decisions that happen in that Cabinet. If his test for a conflict of interest is only where an MP or Minister is making money on the deal then that is a scary representation of what might go on in that Minister's Government.If there was no conflict to declare why would Shane Jones declare one? If there was no point in declaring a conflict of interest and delegating responsibility to another Minister in terms of being actively involved in that decision-making process then why would he have declared one? The Minister of Regional Economic Development apparently withdrew himself from the process. But we now know that he didn't do that. He claimed in written questions earlier this year that he had "withdrawn fully from the decision making process" and further stated he had not attended any meetings. Well we now know that's not true—that's not the case. He did attend a meeting and so the question that we have on this side of the House is: why would he try and cover up that fact? Why would he suggest that he hadn't been to any meetings in relation to this project when we now know through the release of documents on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment website that he did attend a meeting?Grant Robertson made some comments—unfortunately he didn't address the one concern that we have which is that Grant Robertson was "reassured by Shane Jones in that meeting". So the fact is we know that if Shane Jones hadn't been at that meeting hadn't spoken on behalf of the project it wouldn't have been funded—it would not have received $4.6 million of taxpayers' money if Shane Jones had not been at that meeting. That is where the problem lies. The fact that he declared a conflict of interest in this project and still went to that meeting spoke on its behalf—and therefore taxpayers have put up $4.6 million to this project—shows that there has been a conflict of interest. Parliament has been misled—Parliament has been misled by the answers that Shane Jones has given to written questions. The concern that we have on this side of the House goes back to how the fund is being operated. There's a huge lack of clarity around the entire project. Ministers have said that they have great sway in deciding where money will go. I think it's less than $1 million will be decided by officials but anything greater than that is decided by Ministers. That means that Ministers—and Shane Jones is one of those Ministers—have great say over where that money goes. It's become a highly politicised fund and I only have to look as far as something like Westland Dairy where $10 million of taxpayers' money has gone.The problem that we have on this side of the House is that because it has been such a political fund because there's no clarity released on why funds are put into certain things—we have concerns around the Westland Dairy one in particular because in that case we don't even know the terms of the contract. We don't know how much the interest rate is for example. We don't know what the key performance indicators are. There is no clarity around Westland Dairy's $10 million or in fact most of the funding applications that have been approved by the Government. So I ask the Minister—and I hope he'll take a call shortly to answer some of the questions that we have—if it's good enough to give Westland Dairy $10 million then why not give $10 million on the same terms to a company like Synlait? Synlait for example don't know the terms of the loan that was given to Westland Dairy. They don't know that for example if they'd been given $10 million they might have been able to do a much better drying plant or something like that—produce far more jobs. But because there's no clarity around the fund and how it's allocated and what the interest rate is they don't know what they don't know. I want to now turn to the regional breakdown of the fund because that makes for quite sober reading. This goes back to Shane Jones—"Matua Jones"—his position as a Minister from Northland and if we look at the regional breakdown we see that $100 million of taxpayers' money has so far been allocated out of the Provincial Growth Fund for Northland. Now compare that for a moment with Canterbury which has received just $8 million; 8 percent of the funds that have gone to Northland have gone to Canterbury. If we're talking about conflicts of interest—Kiritapu Allan: Canterbury doesn't need as much assistance as surge regions like Northland like Tai Rāwhiti.ANDREW FALLOON: —which we are this afternoon we have to ask: why is it that 8 percent of the fund—or 8 percent of what Northland's received—has gone to Canterbury and $100 million has gone to Northland? Now David Parker said in his contribution that that was quite innocent and we all appreciate that Northland could use some investment. My colleague Kiri Allan across the hall has said has been talking about the Tai Rāwhiti as well. But when we're talking about such a dramatic difference in figures—of $8 million for Canterbury and $100 million for Northland—and if we're talking about conflicts of interest the question that has to be raised is: where is Mr Jones running? If it was as innocent as David Parker's suggesting I'd like him to speak perhaps later on today and confirm for us that no Shane Jones won't be running in Northland—Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just seeking guidance sir. This sounds remarkably close to a line suggesting something that should never be suggested in this House.SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I think we've seen over a period of time suggestions from both sides of the House or various corners of the House including in the time of the last Government of pork-barrelling approaches. I think that's the suggestion we're having here now. I'm listening very carefully to what is being said but so far the member's come up to the line and not gone over it.ANDREW FALLOON: Thank you Mr Speaker. So I come back to the $8 million that Canterbury has received and we again have to ask ourselves: apart from perhaps electoral advantage why is it that Canterbury has received such a small number? I have to say as a proud MP and a proud Cantabrian that there are a lot of issues around the process—there are a lot of complaints around the process in Canterbury and a lot of those complaints come back to the point that I've been making which is around clarity and the ministerial decision-making that there's no published parameters about what Ministers will look at. There's no suggestion of why Ministers will choose a certain project over another one.A lot of that $8 million actually has come to my electorate so I have to thank Mr Jones very much for that but $7.5 million has been allocated for the thermal pools in Methven which is a great project—but $7.5 million has been approved. Interestingly though they only ever asked for two. So the project came to Shane Jones they said "We'd like $2 million for this project." officials approved it around the middle of last year that $2 million should go forth to this thermal pools project it then landed on the Minister's desk where it sat for round five and a half months and then the Ministers came back and said "Oh well I know they've asked for $2 million but actually let's give them $7.5 million." So there are real questions around how the money is being allocated and why Ministers are making the decisions that they are.I do want to come back to Northland though because what's interesting in that $100 million is that nowhere do we see in that $100 million that's gone to Shane Jones' region of Northland the Northland motorway. The members opposite—we heard them for about three or four or five years talking very negatively about the so-called Holiday Highway. I found that quite offensive actually because the so-called Holiday Highway the four lanes to Northland would have unlocked the potential of Northland. If you look at the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan which was worked on not just by MPs but by stakeholders by local government by businesses and industry in Northland the No. 1 recommendation from that report was for a four-lane highway into Northland to unlock the potential of Northland.The fact that the Government has given $100 million on projects where the Minister is highly conflicted—he's declared that conflict—and has not put money into something that would unlock the economic potential of Northland I find quite outrageous. The fact that he would put money into pet projects where we now know he's conflicted because he's declared that conflict—he's gone to meetings which he said he hadn't been to. He's gone to those meetings sat in those meetings pulled his friend Grant Robertson aside and said "Oh actually mate can you just throw these guys $4.6 million? I know them; they're really good—but hey there's no conflict of interest here.""