Shirley Ken: Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee New Zealand Post Limited Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings 
Shirley Ken: Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee New Zealand Post Limited Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings 
[Volume:608;Page:5718] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The debate before us is whether this House should receive this report the question of privileges— 
John Carter 
: It just notes it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: OK it is whether we note it. I was most impressed with the speech by the Leader of the Opposition the Hon Bill English. He raised some issues that ran in the general debate here today—the whole notion of veracity and truth and the very critical aspect of our democracy that unless we have truth openness and transparency democracy is in peril. We have just heard a comment from the Leader of the House the Deputy Prime Minister that “less than full and frank” is not telling lies. As we know our whole justice system is based on telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words one cannot be economical with the truth by not telling the whole truth and one cannot be expansive with the truth by telling other things that are beyond the truth. We know that we have problems with the Prime Minister but we now have a new definition of truth from the Deputy Prime Minister. If one is “less than full and frank” that is all right that is kosher that is acceptable. I am saying to this House that that is not acceptable in a democracy that I want to be part of. We need an executive that is accountable honest and transparent at all levels. 
I can understand Jim Bolger’s position. He was seeking closure and I think he was trying to use his political skills to bring closure. The issue was not of his making: Ross Armstrong was the chairman during this unhappy incident. I would like to commend my colleague Rodney Hide who together with Murray McCully through sheer doggedness and determination through thick and thin stuck with this issue. I remember that when they first raised it we had Government members saying that they were denigrating a fine upstanding State-owned enterprise and that New Zealand Post was the model of State-owned enterprises. The Minister for State Owned enterprises did all he could to protect it from accountability and scrutiny but my colleague Rodney Hide ably supported by Murray McCully—I think they support each other actually—hung in there doggedly and took the matter to the Privileges Committee. 
 We say that our Privileges Committee is the highest court in the land but others say it is really just a soap-opera forum that can slap people at best across the wrists with a wet bus ticket. Is this Parliament satisfied that the sanctions calling for an apology from this State-owned enterprise are adequate when it is clear that those people lied? They lied to the Privileges Committee of Parliament and they did that very deliberately. I say that is not good enough. 
But it raises a bigger issue with our executive wing of Government and that is the halfway house that we have with our State-owned enterprises generally. It really brings home to us all the dangers of maintaining State-owned enterprises. They were only intended to be halfway houses but by having State-owned enterprises with an ongoing life we politicise the process. We invite this sort of situation where they do the political bidding of the executive. That is a real worry to me. We have a danger with State-owned enterprises dominating the energy sector and I think privatisation is clearly the step forward. I merely flag that issue in the context of this debate because the whole State-owned enterprise model is under question because of the behaviour of New Zealand Post over this issue. 
I come back to the point that truth is vital from our officials our Government departments and our State agencies. The role of the Minister should be to set the standard. The Minister should not be sending the message out there that it is OK to be “less than full and frank”. I condemn Michael Cullen for what he just told us in this Chamber.He said it is OK to be less than full and frank. I say that is not acceptable. We want a high standard that is based on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth—not some economy of the truth or expansion of the truth. That is not good enough. This Parliament should take heed of this debate and reflect on whether we should receive this report because it is a classic example and could well become the slippery path. A slip becomes a slide when the executive starts setting unacceptable standards based on deceit and untruth.