Cosgrove Clayton: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: General Debate[Sitting date: 19 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16811. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Nothing strikes more at the heart of a democracy in a Parliament than the word “corruption”. Nothing strikes at the heart of a Parliament—as the Minister of Justice who may or may not take a call sort of disappears from view and from target.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Nothing strikes more at the heart of a democracy than when Ministers show an abrogation of the truth and a lack of transparency.John Key is wont to require in this House that we use full quotes. He often says that in question time. So I invite the Prime Minister wherever he may be and the members of his Government to look at the Cabinet Manual paragraph 2.61. I will read the full quote: “A pecuniary conflict of interest may arise if a Minister could reasonably be perceived as standing to gain or lose financially from decisions or acts for which he or she is responsible”. It goes on in paragraph 2.62: “A conflict may arise if people close to a Minister such as a Minister’s family whānau or close associates might derive or be perceived as deriving some personal financial or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister …”.I put it to you in this House that from Judith Collins’ her actions of obfuscation of hiding the truth from journalists and answering only questions she was forced to answer of some would say lying by omission—in fact I think the Prime Minister said “lying by omission”—of dodging and weaving and drip-feeding out details every day and of changing her story one can only draw the conclusion that this Minister not only had the perception of a conflict of interest not only had a conflict of interest but had a pecuniary conflict of interest. And by the way she was the one who brought her husband into this debate not this Parliament not this Opposition and not the media. She and her husband were attempting to enrich themselves by her actions of having dinner of endorsing products and of knowing—before she advised the Prime Minister as we just heard from question No. 12—that she was going to be meeting with a Chinese official.No one can say that this Minister is somehow some sort of delicate dilettante daisy—a first time MP. Oh no! This is “Crusher” Collins. This is a lawyer a senior member of Parliament a Minister who told Paul Henry that she does not apologise for anything and a Minister who told Paul Henry that she by her own admission has done an outstanding job—an outstanding job. Humility comes to this Minister? I do not think so.Then of course on the 10th day of the saga going through as if by some act or some training to cry on cue we have the Minister shedding the odd tear as she is put under pressure on the bridge by the media. Well I say that camouflage will not wash. I say that camouflage will not wash. The truth about this Minister one of the most experienced Ministers and the Minister of Justice to boot is that she knew exactly what she did and what she was going to do when she omitted certain events from her request to travel. Not only that of course she knowingly did not inform the Prime Minister that she was meeting a Chinese border official. When it was found out by the media by Grant Robertson and by others they had to drag the truth every day from this Minister. She thinks she is off the hook because she can stand up and grin in that Shirley Temple sort of way and say she apologised.The problem that Minister has is that she has a problem with the truth. She has a problem with facts. Every day there is a new revelation. She told us yesterday she did not know where she was. Well maybe somebody should have bought her a GPS. She told us yesterday she was just popping in to see somebody but then we know there were dinners there were meetings and all the time she lied by omission when she was answering only questions she was forced to answer.That strikes at the heart of democracy. This is a Minister who allegedly prides herself on her professionalism and prides herself on being New Zealand’s sort of Iron Lady a lookalike Maggie Thatcher. This is a woman who can spit acid in this place better than an Australian cane toad. This is a woman who is no shrinking violet and can dish it out of course. This is a Minister who called a member of Parliament in this Chamber—a member of Parliament in this Chamber—a “pervert” and then she expects us to sort of have a little bit of sympathy for her as she sheds a wee tear. The poor old daisy.