Hodgson Pete: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
Hodgson Pete: Urgent Debates — David Parker—Resignation from Executive 
[Volume:630;Page:1991] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I rise as a friend and a colleague of David Parker to put on the public record some matters that I think should be put on it at this time. I say at the outset that I support David Parker’s decision to resign and that I am saddened by it. I support it because I spent time with David over the last 24 hours and I can say freely that he would not have felt comfortable had he stayed. He would not have felt comfortable within himself had he stayed. He has always in my experience—and I have known him for years though not decades—acted honourably. “Honourably” is a reasonably old-fashioned word. It is widely used around here—some would say overused—but it is a word that I apply to this man’s life within this place and outside of it. He has always acted honourably in his dealings with people in business in politics and in civic affairs. It is a remarkable trait that he has. He is not the only person I know who has it by any means but this is an honourable man in the original sense of the word. 
I am saddened by his resignation because he has a remarkable talent. That talent will now be put on hold for a time as the result of this mistake or series of mistakes of his. I am saddened—and Jeanette Fitzsimons touched on this a little more strongly than I intend to—because the court of public opinion that is represented here loudly allows someone who has made a mistake to be heard only if he or she resigns. Someone who seeks to try to give an explanation or to speak calmly instead of resigning is subject to a blood-lust from political opponents that readily crosses the line from transparency and accountability. 
Transparency and accountability are of course good things in a strong democracy and essential things in a functional democracy. In Parliament there is a higher level of accountability and transparency than is to be felt amongst the ordinary citizenry and that is how it should be but it often crosses that line into harassment and bullying and invented froth and anger. We have seen that trend in New Zealand in recent times and I think the possible extensions of that behaviour are troubling. In the extreme—and it would be in the extreme—we would need to think around America in the McCarthy era and the Weimar Republic in Germany. They would be extreme examples and New Zealand must not go there. 
Let me tell members a little about the David Parker I know. David Parker is a bright guy. He managed to get himself through a law degree a commerce degree and his professionals in 5 years at Otago University. He worked while he was doing that as a woolstore worker on roading gangs in the port and as a gardener. Soon after he graduated he also was one of the people—he would want me to make it clear I am sure that he was not by any means the only one—who began the Dunedin Community Law Centre which became a model for community law centres around the country. He then spent time as a lawyer in London before returning to Otago. 
He worked in Central Otago for a time and then in Dunedin he joined Anderson Lloyd which is the largest law firm in the South Island. When he was about 28 or 29 in my recollection or his he was a civil litigation partner in that law firm and he then became a managing partner before leaving the law and moving into business. One of the reasons he left law initially was that he was troubled by the high costs of civil litigation and it did not suit him to continue to work in that area. So he started up the Percolator Cafe he had a forestry partnership floated and so on. Then he entered into a bunch of business ventures which he has explained in some detail with Russell Hyslop. I will not say too much about Russell Hyslop except that he is well known in Dunedin and to a number of people who sit at the Cabinet table. It is fair to say that a trail of half-finished business and wrecked relationships follow in his wake and I will leave it at that. 
After Russell Hyslop’s bankruptcy David return to work full-time as a lawyer for 3 years as he has explained. Then because of his efforts he came to the attention of a number of business people in Dunedin who saw that he had corrected a bunch of errors and had worked hard to do that. He had taken insolvent companies through to a point of neutrality. He was involved with a number of people who were business leaders in Dunedin: people like Jim Guthrie Max Shepherd Tak Hung John Farry and the late Howard Paterson. Those people worked with David and saw him as a skilled person. He was therefore involved with a number of biotechnology companies. The best known is probably BLIS Technologies where he was the inaugural chief executive and he took it through on to the main board of the New Zealand Stock Exchange. He was also the inaugural chief executive of Botry-Zen and PharmaZen and was involved a little less directly in A2 Corporation. That was the range of his business activities. 
He then decided that he wanted to give voice to his interest in politics and it was at that stage that he became more strongly involved in the Labour Party in Dunedin North. Around 2001 I think he became the chair of the Labour electorate committee in Dunedin North where I was and am the member. In 2002 he decided to stand for Otago and he won the seat surprisingly. Bill English who was the leader of the National Party at the time is on public record saying that that loss—because National lost a number of seats in 2002—was the one that hurt him the most. The reason is that it was a seat that on paper Labour should not have won. David Parker won it. In 2005 the same thing happened. He lost the seat of course but he lost it by a margin narrower in my analysis than he otherwise might have. So David Parker has two important electoral competitions to his credit. He has won one and lost one but he has done better than expected in both. In Cabinet he had four portfolios three of which I know well and which I would regard as complex portfolios and the fourth as Attorney-General which is a pure mystery to me. I wish him well and I hope he returns to a New Zealand Cabinet table soon. 
Dr Brash said that David Parker’s actions do not make him a crook or an unmitigated bad man and I think that is a wise position for Dr Brash to take. I think it is almost beyond doubt that David Parker is not the only person in this House who has taken short cuts in the filing of Companies Office returns. Then Dr Brash regrettably made a fool of himself by suggesting that the police were biased in favour of the Labour Party when they announced last week they were not going to prosecute the National Party either—and they did that in the very same press statement. Nonetheless he accused the police of bias and said that we should pressure them to prosecute David Parker under the Companies Act—as if that is not a step towards a police State. Dr Brash did not acquit himself well. 
Mr Brownlee has his own history of course. He assaulted someone. He was not prosecuted by the police but a civil charge was taken and won. Mr Brownlee lost that civil case on the assault charge. As for Mr Hide I would simply say that he is a man cheated of an opportunity to get angry who got angry anyway. He did not explain to the House why he routinely refused on  
Morning Report 
 to answer the question of whether he had been to Dunedin and had been involved in this. He did not respond to Mr Peters’ allegations regarding the returns on Pipitea Street and he did not explain how he got so much speaking time. I can tell members that it was because the Maori Party gave it to him. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.