Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Shane Jones said I asked my ministerial colleagues to make the decision on that project in order to manage a conflict of interest."—he said this in a written answer two months after attending the meeting—"As such I have had no formal meetings regarding the Manea Footprints of Kupe project since receiving my ministerial warrants." I'm not sure that turning up to a Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) Ministers' meeting would be considered an informal meeting—that's a formal meeting. So this answer in reply to Paul Goldsmith's written question No. 8264 (2018) is false and incorrect. Then specifying "no formal meetings" leaves one definitely of the view that there were informal meetings since he received his ministerial warrant. We've heard of meetings at the Ōpōnoni pub.I guess the Minister would say as he travels about in Northland that he has a wide variety of informal meetings all across the region as one would expect. I have lots of informal meetings myself. To say that those informal meetings don't count when it comes to a conflict of interest is incorrect because the Minister was able to say to my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith in one of his questions on 27 June "I have been very loud on the marae in my own area in my community after I was approached by someone who I felt I should have no fear or favour following his advice encouraging me to meet with [certain people]". That was an informal meeting and the Minister would have gone on to meet those people and of course that became a whole series of questions in the House that came from that. So to hide behind "I've had no formal meetings" is not good enough and not strong enough. It influences people's actions and I have no doubt at all that when the Minister attended this meeting with the other provincial growth Ministers and they wanted to have a reassurance you can't get much more formal than that. To state that he was there informally is so incorrect and so it is a conflict not only of his interests but also of his statement in a written question.You've got to ask "Well what are the perceived conflicts?" The Minister has said his relationship with the key proponent of the project Whetū Naera—the chief of Hokianga—and his past advocacy and support for the project as a Labour MP. But you'd also have to say as many MPs would know in their constituencies that when you have worked with a kaumātua when you have supported a project there is a strong interest in you causing that project to succeed otherwise your mana and your reputation is affected because you have not delivered on your support—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not mine—not mine.JONATHAN YOUNG: —other MPs I'm referring to—have not delivered on their support and their advocacy as has been suggested by my colleague Andrew Falloon. Not just from in this House and not just from this side but the conjecture of the media is that if New Zealand First are to succeed in the 2020 elections then they need an electorate seat. If the Hon Shane Jones was going to stand in Northland then his mana and his reputation are absolutely vital so perhaps there is an implied conflict in that particular area.To hide behind "I have had no formal meetings regarding the Manea Footprints of Kupe project" is absolutely just an obfuscation creating suspicion that more is at stake here. But why did he arrange for Kelvin Davis to make the decision? He said "It's necessary for me to seek advice from time to time from the Cabinet Office." etc. Obviously the Minister has worked with Mr Davis in the past when it came to decisions regarding Northland. I do recall back in February 2018 in a discussion that's been raised here today regarding the State Highway 10 roundabout that here we see there was an obvious cooperation or collusion at its finest.Earlier in the year the State Highway - Waipapa roundabout project near Kerikeri received the go-ahead for $9 million of provincial growth funding and I raised this in a question in the House. I questioned the appropriateness of this considering the Cabinet minute stipulated the Provincial Growth Fund couldn't be used to fund any projects already funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). So Mr Jones said the chief executive of NZTA came to him asking for the money although Shane Jones in reply to one of my questions said "NZTA has provided me with details of specific projects in response to requests for information from myself about projects that may align with the PGF criteria." It was interesting and I raise this issue because—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It might be interesting but it actually—JONATHAN YOUNG: No no—madam it does have context and it's around this conflict of interest and particularly in the Northland area. It was Northland MP Kelvin Davis who suggested through his own question at that particular point in time that the PGF fund was given because of the huge number of serious accidents and fatalities. Well as we found out later through the parliamentary research unit over 15 years there had been no fatalities. I raise this point because in my area from Bell Block to Waitara there is a piece of road that has three intersections in the country's top 20 that are deemed as incredibly dangerous and we have had 12 fatalities in the last 10 years. Why is it that one roundabout gets funding and another doesn't—one has no fatalities and the other has 12 over a decade?So what I would say is that this is pork-barrel politics at its worst where New Zealand lives are at stake. When we want accountability and probity and transparency around the Provincial Growth Fund and how it's administered and that it's not a political slush fund it's because New Zealanders' lives and welfare are at stake. I believe that is a very important issue that we need to understand here that it's not just a conflict of interest because Shane Jones says he knows a kaumātua; it's not just a conflict of interest because it's a project that he supported. I say it's a conflict of interest because it's to do with his mana and his reputation in a region that he has made many promises to to the point when in a formal meeting—not informal; a formal meeting—of PGF Ministers when there was a question around reassurance that Treasury was saying they don't back this project that he was involved in he participated in a decision that went his way.So I believe that we do need to call this a decision this process into the clear light of day and there needs to be accountability. People all over this country are recognising more and more and more that this Provincial Growth Fund is being misused at times. It's doing a lot of good things. It's doing a lot of good things but at times it's been misused for purposes which I think New Zealanders would be very upset about and disagree with.That's the point I wish to raise and I thank you for the opportunity to bring these matters to the House."