General Debates

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. As I lead off for the Opposition parties in this first general debate since being elected as leader of the National Party I am conscious of the comments made in recent days in a number of media outlets about my relative lack of parliamentary experience, and about the bleak prospects of my forging a career as a stand-up comedian. May I briefly say to those critics that while I always try to achieve professionalism and competence in this Chamber, I did not embark upon this career with any aspiration of becoming some sort of antipodean Billy Connolly.

I should also say that if this Government were to continue in office there is little about New Zealand’s longer-term economic and social prospects that I regard as in the least bit amusing. I am heartened that many New Zealanders share a sense of urgency that we should address these important issues before it is too late. There is a mood for change and this spin-doctoring minority Labour Government is failing miserably to recognise this.

I acknowledge with a mixture of pride and humility that my party has chosen me to provide leadership at this important time. I am not in the slightest troubled that Mike King and Marc Ellis have nothing to fear from my appearance on the public stage. But I will be very troubled indeed if, by election day 2005, the need to face up to some key issues facing this country has not moved New Zealanders to see off this arrogant Clark Government.

My commitment to New Zealanders, as leader of the National Party, is to deliver on five key goals. First, we have to start narrowing the gap between our living standards and those of our cousins in Australia—a gap that sees every Australian getting nearly $200 per week more than the average New Zealander. If we do not narrow that gap we will not have the health care that Australians can afford, we will not have the roads that Australians take for granted, our teachers will not get the salaries that those in Australia earn, and New Zealand mums and dads will increasingly see their kids and grandchildren growing up in Australia. We will end up as a distant Tasmania to the Australian mainland. That is not what I want, and that is not what most New Zealanders want.

Second, we have to ensure that every child, whatever his or her race, whatever the affluence of his or her parents, or whether he or she lives in Auckland or in rural Southland, has access to quality education so that every child comes out of the school system able to read, able to write, and able to take his or her place in a modern society. At the moment they do not, and that is a disgrace. Unless we do very much better we will never have a healthy society, and we will never have a society where everybody can get a well-paid job.

Third, we have to end the creeping paralysis of welfare dependency. It is surely a scandal that, at a time when the economy is buoyant, 350,000 working-age adults and tens of thousands of their children are dependent on hard-working New Zealanders for a handout. As a country we currently spend $20 million per day on social welfare—nearly $1 million an hour—365 days a year. For the sake of those receiving that money, as well as for the sake of those paying it, we have to fix that system and give all able-bodied New Zealanders the dignity of contributing to our society.

Fourth, we need to head off the dangerous drift to racial separatism in New Zealand—a drift that this Government seems intent on encouraging. We must deal fairly and finally with historical grievances, but then ensure that all New Zealanders, of whatever race or creed, are treated equally before the law.

Finally, we need to ensure that all New Zealanders feel secure, and that means not just dealing firmly with crime, drugs, gangs, and vandalism, but also ensuring that our relationships with new friends in Asia and old friends in Australia, the UK, and the US are put on a firm footing.

For those New Zealanders who are sitting at home wondering who that was, let me say that Michael Laws, who was a member of this House for a little while and a member of that party for a little while, described Dr Don Brash, who has just sat down, as an inoffensive, if elderly man lacking either constituency or charisma.

Over the last little while, watching the National Party has been like watching one of those awful television reality shows. In this case I think the title would be When Tories Go Bad. The change of leadership from the hapless Bill English to the equally hapless Dr Don Brash took the outer limit of haplessness up to stratospheric conditions. Do not take my word for it. Listen to someone who should know. Jane Clifton said: “… this is, by a commanding margin, the most bunglingly, vandalously conducted leadership spill … ever seen. The coup’s result … has been dangerously compromised by the manner of its implementation. Could these plotters have made themselves and, more important, their party, look more desperate, unstable and indecisive if they’d been secret Labour Party operatives?”. That is what Jane Clifton said.

We have to ask whether Don Brash is secure, now that this hapless coup is over. We know, from the inside, that Bill English thought he had the vote—so much so, he was over the road celebrating with his mob before the vote was taken. We know that at least some people changed their vote from what they said they would do. We are told that the vote was 14 to12, but no one can confirm that. We know that so much stabbing in the front, ineptitude, and stupidity has gone on, that at least one member is now confined to his bed. We know that.

What we see is not a planned coup. National simply panicked. But at least now we have somebody who is honest. He is honest, and we know what the programme is. The programme is to scrap the unemployment benefit and minimum wage laws; make the unemployed stand outside post offices waiting for work; raise the age of entitlement to superannuation; sell assets; privatise health and education; and cut taxes for the rich. If one earns over $100,000, one gets $81 a week from Don Brash. If one earns under $38,000, one gets nothing from Dr Brash. At least that is honest. What are people saying about this? What are the reviews on this? These are the reviews. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that he must not interject while he on his feet and moving up and down the corridor. [Interruption] Members are only taking away the Minister’s time. Please be seated. I let a lot of interjection go on, because there was a bit of interjection in the first speech, but not that amount. The number of interjections will now cease dramatically, or else members will be leaving the Chamber.

What are the reviews of that performance? John Armstrong said: “There is a painful lesson for the National Party in the latest fracas over the leadership: if you promote show ponies”—I think he put the word “sick” in there—“from political nowhere straight on to the front bench, you’re asking for trouble.” Brian Rudman said: “Brash brings with him a baggage of extremist economic policies that have been rejected by the mainstream political parties. It’s as though the mistakes and excesses of the past 20 years have passed him by unseen.” “He is”—states the Sunday News—“a pointy-headed ex-banker. He’s the kiss of death.”

Those are not good reviews for the reality show so far. One would have to ask why they have done it. Why have the Tories gone bad? Yesterday, Deborah Coddington referred to the fact that Don Brash and the ACT party, as she put it, will get the country moving. That is the clue. It is also reinforced by the words of Fran O’Sullivan, who said: “The Welcome to Auckland party being hosted by a millionairess is another indication of Brash’s ACT party in drag.”

I begin by expressing my deep sympathy for the National Party. All those people down the years since 1936 who once worked with that great party will be in tears today. I predict that within 6 months there will be signs around all the rugby paddocks saying “Bring Back Bill”. This debate is about humbug, hypocrisy, and cant. Labour is attacking National, and National is attacking Labour, but they are both the same—Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. The member was reading out the list of achievements of the 1987 Labour Government. It sounded so familiar. They are both arrogant, born-to-rule, we-know-best parties, and they are trying to take New Zealand back to the two-party system.

National, we know, remains a deep and divided mess. However, the Prime Minister is becoming known for her callous attitude towards ordinary New Zealanders. She has no heart. The poor people of Afghanistan have had Russians, the Taliban, and now the Americans. What have they done to deserve the terror of Helen Clark paying a visit, all dressed up like a desert-based bee-keeper? There she was, on a secret mission—so secret that no one in to her office knew about it. What did the Afghans do to deserve her making that visit? On her first day back in the House yesterday she was asked about a condition that besets elderly people—and sad are the families and caregivers who have to look after those people. That condition is called Alzheimer’s. A former Minister of Health knew nothing about it. Whilst all First World countries are financing drugs to ease the lifestyle of those people and improve their period of life and their quality of life for years, and sometimes for decades, she claims that they do not work. She knows more than the Federal Drug Agency of the United States and all the equivalent agencies in Europe. The Prime Minister is more interested in financing weirdo, loony-tune policies of her minority groups. However, she cares not a whit for ordinary New Zealanders who are suffering and who should get hospital treatment in this country, but have to go to Australia.

On her first day back in the House she demonstrated that she has but one objective; it is just power. She has no principles. There would not be a former Labour leader who would recognise this present Labour Party. There is, after all, no longer a democracy in New Zealand. Thanks to the Greens and United Future, Labour is now running the country like a dictatorship.

Let me ask members a question. What did ordinary New Zealanders have to say about prostitution? When were they ever asked? What do ordinary New Zealanders think about prostitution? Were they ever asked? No. [Interruption] The United Future members voted for it. They thought it was a good idea.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will address the Chair, not his own back bench.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is coming off the member’s time.

Are you telling me I cannot turn round in this Chamber?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: You can, every now and then, but not continuously.

This is called a debating chamber, and I want to finish my point of order and not have you chipping in halfway through.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

I am making a point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will now be seated. I make the point that I allowed the member—and I have stopped his time now—to turn round for a continued length of time, but according to our Speakers’ rulings, turning round for a lengthy period of time is not in order. The member must address the Chair.

I will. What did ordinary New Zealand people have to say about same-sex marriages? What did they have to say about the foreshore and seabed debacle? What did they have to say about the treaty industry? What did they have to say, and when did they get a say, on the Privy Council? What did they have to say about genetic engineering? They were never asked. This is an arrogant Government—a totally arrogant Government.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: They got an inquiry.

Oh yes, they got an inquiry, OK. The Government has set up a group to do an economic analysis, excepting the report is a year after the Government abolished the moratorium. This is an arrogant, “we know best” Government. In 1999, the people of this country, in a huge referendum, voted to have 99 MPs. They voted for stiffer penalties. Were they listened to? No. What does Helen Clark think of that? She thinks they are not worth the time of day. But I say to the Labour Party that I know, and my party knows, how flaky its vote is. We know that New Zealanders get no salvation from that side of the House and from over here, but we do know—and mark my words—that by Christmas we will have shown them what New Zealanders really think.

What we often hear in these debates is people pulling each other apart. That is not the way to build a robust and strong New Zealand. United Future, under the excellent—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is entitled to be heard in reasonable silence.

I can speak up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will be seated. Whatever he might think, I will not be allowing that sort of rabble to continue. Members will be leaving the Chamber. I want Mr Adams to be given a reasonable hearing.

United Future, under the excellent leadership of Peter Dunne, is endeavouring to pull people together to build a better New Zealand. So if members have something constructive to say, they should say it. But members should not just get up in this House, at great expense to the hard-working New Zealand taxpayer, to parrot on and to pull people down. Most New Zealanders are very sick of it, and I do not blame them. This type of behaviour is totally unproductive, and it is past time that we put a stop to it. To pull people together requires someone in the middle ground. That middle ground is called the centre, and United Future is a true centralist party. Today I want to draw two groups together. The first group is the employers, who are a very good and extremely hard-working group of people, and, in most part, are people who care for New Zealand and also care for those whom they employ. Employers want to provide for their employees the best pay and working conditions that they can afford. Employees, for many small-business owners, are almost part of their family.

The second group is the unions. Again, this is a group of people who, in most cases, care for New Zealand and care for their members. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There is too much noise. There will now be no more laughing and inane comments. The odd interjection is OK, but that is it. The member has been unreasonably restricted from putting his point of view.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, you say there should not be any more laughing. Can we laugh quietly?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No. Mr Peters knows that I enjoy a joke, just as he does, but I do not enjoy inane, loud guffawing, and that is what I am referring to. The member must be able to be heard.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not having any further points of order. Please be seated. Please carry on, Mr Adams.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a proper point of order, or else Mr Mark will be leaving the Chamber. What are you going to do?

💬 Ron Mark: I am asking you to consider this point. Whilst I understand your serious desire to have an orderly debate, one of the issues we have discussed—in fact, you yourself have made comment on this in the House—is that one of the things that incites what one could only describe as, not discontent, but as bringing discredit, is people who stand and read a speech. There have been great orators in here, like David Lange.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Ron Mark: The member might as well table his speech and get out of here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. I am not having him standing and shouting while I am on my feet. Please leave the Chamber.

Ron Mark withdrew from the Chamber.

My question today is: why do these two groups openly fight battles against each other, when in most instances they are trying to achieve the same thing? United Future is going to make a huge impact on New Zealand, when the New Zealand public really grasps what a centralist party is all about. Believe me, they are beginning to understand. If unions genuinely want to see more take-home pay in workers’ pay packets, which I believe they do, and if employers genuinely want to see greater productivity, then they both need to get together and lobby the Government to supply United Future’s call for tax cuts, because this then becomes a win-win situation for them both. The only one that wins with an increase in the wage rate, is the Government, as it then collects more tax. But with employers and unions pulling together for tax cuts, it becomes two, the employer and the union, against one, the Government, and the chance of success has to be far higher. The workers will be happy as they will have more disposable income, and the employers will be happy as they will not have an increase in costs. Productivity could increase by taking on more staff, thereby boosting the economy. The Government wins in the end, as companies should become more profitable, and therefore the tax take will still increase.

That is why we need less extremism and pulling other people down for political gain in Government. What we need more of is plain old common sense. It may not be sexy but, by jingo, there is an air about it that I believe every hard-working, middle-of-the-road New Zealander would agree with. It is better to work together in order to achieve a common goal that works for both parties, than to fight each and achieve little. Unions and business people should put their weight in behind United Future and support our consistent cry for tax cuts, because we believe unions and business deserve better value for effort. Together we will build a better New Zealand.

We have had the sermon, and now we are about to have the lesson! We have here a shonky payment. Precious health dollars have been diverted to pay the tax bill of a public trust. The trust is the Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust, which is based in Napier. The Ministry of Health wrote a letter to Mr Apera Clark, the chair of the trust, on 8 January 2002, inviting him to forward to the ministry an invoice for the final payment of $90,665.33, GST inclusive, and asking him to confirm that he would receive the money by signing the letter and returning it to the ministry. Some stipulations were attached to the letter, one of which concerned the fact that the ministry had a tax bill from the Inland Revenue Department. The trust owed the tax department $74,146.96. Once the ministry received the invoice, it would pay the outstanding Inland Revenue Department tax bill on behalf of the trust.

That raises many questions, which the Minister of Health, to date, has been unable to answer satisfactorily. Why was a final payment being made to the trust when there was no contractual obligation to do so? The Ministry of Health had already written to the trust to tell it that its contract would not be renewed. The reason was that, in August 2000, an audit of the trust had been carried out by the Ministry of Health. Of the 64 criteria that the ministry tested at the clinic run by the trust, it failed 39. Those failed criteria included such things as basic hygiene and whether the practitioners were writing down the dosages of the medications they were dispensing, which are very basic things.

The spending was also in question. The ministry discovered that money was being spent, not on providing health services to the Māori people of Napier for “cultural and spiritual healing”, as the trust was contracted to do, but by the chairman, and his wife, who was co-signatory of the trust chequebook, on personal rent, power, groceries, dog food, spa pools, digital and Sky television—not just one, but two digital television providers—

💬 Brian Connell: Sounds like a hotel.

Absolutely. It was not five-star—the member should have seen the mess. The money was also spent on petrol, and cases of muttonbirds. The question arises as to whether the ministry actually cares how precious health dollars are being spent. It seems that it does not, because the ministry did not shut those guys down when they failed to meet 39 of the 64 criteria. What did the ministry do? It gave them a second chance. Mr Clark is a clairvoyant, who provided traditional Māori healing. He provided spiritual and cultural healing to the Māori people of Napier. Any other health practitioner would have been shut down immediately and been struck off by his or her registering body. Did that happen? No. Mr Apera Clark, who was the chair of the trust, was responsible for helping to draw up the guidelines for traditional Māori healing in 1993. Then, hey presto, in 1995, when the Ministry of Health agreed to have a pilot scheme for traditional Māori healing, who should get the contract but Mr Apera Clark’s trust? That is exactly what happened.

The main problem here is that the tax has been paid by the Ministry of Health. Why did the ministry continue to pay Mr Apera Clark $2,076 per week for 10 months after the audit that I have just described, when he was running a shonky business? The answer is clear. He had a tax bill that needed to be addressed. The Ministry of Health knew about that bill and invited him to submit an invoice to it so that the bill could be paid on his behalf. That trust received special treatment.

The flags at the National Party headquarters will be flying at half-mast today. Why? Because we are witnessing the demise of the once-proud National Party. That party is now an endangered species. We are watching the demise of the blue-billed Mogadoned yellow-bellied flightless Tory tit. We are witnessing the end of that endangered species. Very, very shortly, the National Party will need a Department of Conservation recovery programme, in which children around the country draw pictures of the blue-billed Mogadoned yellow-bellied flightless Tory tit and send off postcards, in order to save it.

Don Brash is now the new leader. There are heaps of unanswered questions roaming about this place. It is a great place for unanswered questions. One of those questions asks why National Party members were all called back last Friday night at 8.30. That has never been heard of before. I will tell members why. There was whispering, gossip, and people who knew stuff talking to people who did not know stuff. Everybody was talking. In fact, what happened, so we are told, is that the vote was 14 to 12 in favour of Mr English, and it was reported back to the caucus as 14 to 12 in favour of Dr Brash.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Treachery.

Treachery is what has caused the Nick Smith outburst. That is what got them back at 8.30. That is why there is so much bitterness and so much division over there, and it has not ended. My prediction is that Gerry Brownlee will be the deputy leader before Christmas. If the huddles going on around Parliament at the moment are anything to go by—he shakes his head but he knows this deep down—my prediction is it will happen by Christmas.

The problem then will be that these two, Dr Brash and Mr Brownlee, are ideologically opposed. Don Brash is last century’s man, dragging New Zealand backwards, trying to introduce the failed old-right policies that the country rejected at many, many elections. He is Ruth Richardson in drag. Everybody knows that. He is ACT’s ninth MP, and everybody knows that. What was his first king-hit speech yesterday as the leader? It was a debate on whether the Land Transport Management Bill should be called the Land Transport Management Bill. That was a huge one! Of course, we know that Don Brash is an honest fellow. If he says he will cut taxes for the rich, he will. That will mean that anyone earning under $38,000 gets zero, zippo, and members of Parliament get at least $100 a week extra.

If he says he will raise the age of superannuation entitlement, he will do that, because he is an honest bloke. If he says he will sell State assets again, he will sell State assets again. Let us put that up against Gerry Brownlee, who said there are those who say National is inextricably linked to the ACT party. He said they had their heads in the sand and all they could expect is their backsides to be kicked at the next election. I can tell members—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Say that again. It was pretty good.

He said that those who say the National Party is inextricably linked to ACT have their heads in the sand so far, and that all they can expect is their backsides to be kicked at the next election. I am looking at a lot of backsides—a lot of Tory backsides—that are going to be kicked at the next election. All we can see now is the National Party racked with division. It does not know where it is going to go. It has no leadership, no vision, no policy, and no philosophy, and it will have its backside kicked at the next election.

Why has Shane Ardern, for example, been replaced by David Carter? What does he know about agriculture that Shane Ardern does not know? He cannot even drive a tractor. Those Tory backsides are going to be kicked, and kicked good, at the next election.

We in the Green Party cannot, of course, remain unmoved by last week’s ascension of Don Brash to the leadership of the National Party, and although we congratulate Dr Brash on his new position, I feel honour-bound to sound a note of warning, as other colleagues have been doing this afternoon, about what his elevation might mean for low-income workers, unemployed people, and beneficiaries in this country. It is not a secret, but I think it is important that all voters remember that for the last decade Dr Brash has been promoting, among other things, further sell-offs of State-owned enterprises, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation of the labour market—including getting rid of the minimum wage—and an extremely right-wing manifestation of welfare reform.

In perhaps his most famous utterance on the subject since he became a member of Parliament, he advised the good people of the Orewa Rotary Club in January this year that abolishing the unemployment benefit could not be “done in isolation, but it might well be done in conjunction with other measures, such as having local governments become employers of last resort—offering a job to anybody who turned up at, say, the local post office at 8 a.m., with payment for that day’s work at the end of the day, in cash.” This declaration seems to have been made in blissful ignorance of the facts that, firstly, post offices as such no longer exist; secondly, local councils around New Zealand tend to be extremely wary of taking on job creation on behalf of central government, having been badly burnt by such schemes in the 1980s; and, thirdly, if such a scheme were applied to all job seekers registered with Work and Income, putting it into practice would cost thousands of millions of dollars more than the dole.

Subsequent comments on welfare reform from Dr Brash reveal a slight retraction from this position, possibly through the efforts of his colleague Katherine Rich, who does have some real understanding of her social services shadow portfolio. However, her new leader continues to make no bones about his commitment to time-limited benefits and to forced mass work-for-the-dole schemes. This is scary stuff. Although I know there are plenty of people out there who still think these things are a good idea, I would have thought someone who had been heavily involved in economic matters in the 1980s and 1990s would know better. For example, is Dr Brash not aware that a report written by the National Government’s own officials towards the end of its time in office showed that even the limited work-for-the-dole scheme in place at that time simply was not achieving the goals that Government had set for itself? Are he and his National Party colleagues not cognisant of the results of time-limited benefits in other jurisdictions, where the real consequences are transience, begging, homelessness, family break-up, mental and physical illness, crime, and ultimately—for some—death? The idea of limiting the amount of time someone can spend on welfare in his or her lifetime to, for example, 2 years or 5 years may sound tempting to someone on $100,000 or $500,000 a year, but have those people considered the reality of someone ending up in a situation where there is literally no means of support for that person and his or her family?

These kinds of answers to unemployment and poverty trip off the tongue in Parliament and in the Rotary club, but if they were ever implemented under a National-ACT Government they would bring the 1930s Depression revisited, with bells on. Mass forced work-for-the-dole schemes and limits on access to welfare will mean, in the end, a society in which rich and poor are driven apart even further than they are now, and in which crime, prostitution, and begging will become the only means of survival for many people.

Dr Brash is right about one thing. We do have over 300,000 people unemployed, and a lot more should be done about it by the Government, but the solution is not stopping the unemployment benefit or imposing workfare. Rather, it lies in creating real jobs at real wages for all of those who need them.

Alongside all of this, National’s new leader appears to be trying to bribe his old mates back into the fold by offering tax cuts to the rich and a chance to loot more State-owned assets.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should not have to point out that the use of the word “bribe” in the context of an activity of a member of Parliament is quite unacceptable, and should have been picked up by the Chair much more quickly.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I apologise. I did not hear that. If the member said that, would she please withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. I hope all those New Zealanders who think the National Party under Dr Brash is the shape of the future will have a little rethink about what kind of country they really want to live in. Instead of pandering to corporate greed at the expense of those who already have too little, National should, if it has any social conscience at all, consider supporting policies like ours—full employment as a primary goal of economic policy; the first $5,000 of income to be tax-free for all New Zealanders; a universal child benefit restored for all children; and a benefit system that is reformed, but in order to create less inequity, not more. We want to move forward into a secure, more fulfilling future for all New Zealanders in the 21st century, not back to the 1990s or the 1930s.

I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for making his views so clear. I am one of the members of this House who have often asked National members what the National Party stands for, so I am particularly pleased that Dr Brash makes no bones about what National policy is. I think that will be strongly welcomed by voters, who have also been wondering what, if anything, National represents, apart from it being a party that is prepared to sell thousands of State houses then complain that there are none. I think most of the members of this community will find it really useful to hear what Dr Brash says.

I believe what Dr Brash says, and voters in New Zealand should also believe what he says. He says that the most impressive MPs outside National are Rodney Hide and Richard Prebble. It is easy to see why he cannot find any in National. He wants further privatisation and further asset sales. On day one he started talking about selling TVNZ, the remaining power companies, and Air New Zealand. That will be a policy that is new to, and welcomed by, New Zealand voters! Dr Brash has been very clear that he would raise the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. He would give tax breaks to his friends the rich, and give nothing to lower-income people. He supports a capital gains tax and, perhaps most important of all, he supports the continued privatisation of health and education services. I think we should all be very grateful that he has been so unequivocal about the new difference between the National Party and the Government.

I think most New Zealanders now regard the National Party as a hapless bunch of two-timers. It took Dr Brash two goes to get rid of Bill English. It took 2 minutes for him to start talking about selling assets again. It took about 2½ days for the new deputy to get 2 weeks leave. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is just too good to be true!

Let us talk about the strategic brilliance of it all. Let us talk about how National members waited until Friday evening to have a crisis that had been building up over 3 days. Let us talk about how they waited until Friday evening so that they could fill the front page of all the Saturday papers—the only newspapers that people in this country read—with their great secret. Most people know the expression “day of the long knives”. This party has given the language a new saying. This was, and will go down in history as, the “disastrous day of the Dick Long”. It was his finest hour. I congratulate Dr Brash and his team on the strategic brilliance they have brought to the National Party. I shall repeat the Jane Clifton quote in the current Listener that we have already had read to us: “National could barely organise a coup [plot], so why would voters trust them with a country? … Could these plotters have made themselves and, more important, their party, look more desperate, unstable and indecisive if they’d been secret Labour Party operatives? The kindest thing you can say is that they genuinely thought they could save the National Party by destroying it.”

What did actually happen? I defer to the extra information shared by my ministerial predecessor, but I have heard a slightly different story. I believe that the actual scenario last week was that Bill English had 20 votes the day before, and that was why his numbers men were over at the Back Bencher celebrating—because they knew that they had stitched up the 20 votes. What happened? Well, they trumpeted it just a tad too loudly. There were people in the National caucus who were so disillusioned and so frustrated by the lack of leadership that they decided, when it came to the vote, to give Mr English a bit of a fright. So one or two of them changed their vote. Unfortunately, it was just one or two too many. It was a monumental mistake. They wanted to send a message to Mr English—they wanted to give him a fright—but they gave him the wrong message. They simply stuffed it up.

What does it mean? It means that the National Party is led by a minority leader. It means, in simple terms, that of the people who sit around Dr Brash fewer support him than support Mr English. Let us look at some of those supporters. Richard Worth will not be around after Rodney Hide rolls him in Epsom. David Carter and Lockwood Smith are great assets; they are despised by the rest of the caucus. What thanks did Georgina te Heuheu get for her support? She is in the third row now. Mrs Rich is a good supporter: she supported Jenny Shipley, she supported Bill English, and now she supports Don Brash. Frankly, with friends like that, and with a majority opposing Dr Brash, he should be very, very worried.

The arrogance and stupidity behind the content of the previous speech is why Don Brash will be the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, immediately after the 2005 election. Mr Benson-Pope outlined in the House today very clearly why the Labour Government will lose the next election. The Labour Government will lose the next election because it has idiot Ministers like Paul Swain, who came into the House today and told New Zealanders who are earning $38,000 a year that they are rich. People like Mr Benson-Pope stood up and said that Dr Brash’s decision to raise the income level of New Zealanders will somehow be such a huge lurch to the right that New Zealanders will reject it. Let me tell the House that New Zealanders are poor when compared with their Australian cousins, and this Government celebrates that.

Earlier this afternoon another incompetent Minister, Steve Maharey, gave an explanation of why he is known as the “Minister for Institutionalised Poverty”. He is the man who presides over the lives of the 400,000 working-age New Zealanders who derive their incomes from the benefit. Those 400,000 New Zealanders take $1 million a day out of the pockets of people earning $38,000 and less. If Labour politicians think they can stand on the floor of a factory and convince New Zealanders who work hard in difficult conditions that Labour is out there working for them, then they have it wrong. Those people want aspiration in their lives. They do not want Helen Clark telling them what they can have, what they can do, and when they can do it. They will listen to Don Brash telling them that they deserve better, because they do.

October 28 was the day on which the Labour Government began to lose its grip on Government in this country. It was noticeable, when Don Brash stood up this afternoon, that all of those on the Government benches were full of nervous twittering. Some of them decided to grandstand and then walk out, and we know that they then hung around the lobbies to hear the bad news. Others on the other side of the House sat glum-faced. Darren Hughes just smiled because he is a young man, and he knows that in 2025 he will still be young enough to be a young Cabinet Minister the next time Labour gets anywhere near being in Government.

I want to ask a couple of questions this afternoon. Do any Labour politicians think that telling New Zealanders it is OK to be $200 a week worse off than Australians will win them a vote? Do any Labour politicians think they can tell New Zealanders that we can no longer afford first-line drugs for simple conditions like Alzheimer’s, that that is good for people, and that they should therefore vote for that? The answer is no. Do any Labour politicians think they can go into the suburbs of this country and tell people that they cannot make choices about their children’s education, and that they simply have to put them into the institution that the State decides is best for them? The answer is no. It is those points that will knock those guys over.

That is why people like Mr—I cannot remember the guy’s name; he comes from Hamilton; he comes here only every second term, and he is having the next term off—and people like “Dazza Hughes”, the great white hope, will be gone. He will do a “Phil Goff” and be on his backside next time. That chap from Dunedin—the guy that people still think is on the city council—David Benson-Pope, he will be gone. He will be out. As for the member from Whanganui, she should get the cardboard boxes into the office now and start filling them, because she will be gone. I am afraid it is all over for my friend Paul Swain too. When New Zealanders wake up and realise that Helen Clark is saying that their current relative poverty, compared with Australia, is OK, and that Don Brash is saying we should lift our aspirations, grow our economy, and see the incomes of average working New Zealanders grow, there is no doubt whom they will follow.

This Government lost its grip on 28 October. Don Brash will be the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, and I look forward to serving in his Cabinet.

I say to the ladies and gentlemen out there in radioland that that was “Big Ger”, Gerry Brownlee, who, when I saw him on television the other night—and I am not criticising any member who is not in the House, at all—reminded me of the line in that famous play: “Friends, Romans, countrymen … I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him”. “Big Ger” really enjoyed the fact that there was somebody else feeling far more miserable than he was on that day.

I also say that the mood in the National Party is glum. Although the special atmosphere in Parliament may not seem that important out there in the big wide world, in politics the feeling of party members is incredibly important to the morale and spirit of a party. I have to say that I have never seen that lot over there, the National Party, so dispirited in the entire time I have been in here—in fact, for the entire time I have been an observer of politics, and that is more than 40 years.

💬 Simon Power: That can’t be right. The member looks so young.

I know it does not look like it, but it is true. I have to say that the mood over there is remarkable. I am commenting on it because it really is significant. There is no spunk. There is no fight. There is no verve. There is no get-up-and-go. It is no wonder I referred to Mr Brash as “Moga-Don”, because I know that that is absolutely how those members feel and how they present themselves at the moment. In fact, I suggest that Mr Brash might like me to take him to Smithfield market in Britain. An experience at Smithfield market could give Mr Brash a helping hand in elocution lessons.

💬 Simon Power: For television?

My word, it takes them a long time to drop to a joke over there. They are not quick, are they? I would be very happy to take Mr Brash to Smithfield market. In fact, I would enjoy it because, by golly gosh, listening to him today, he was as flat as a flounder.

💬 Simon Power: How much is flounder?

Flounder? Five bob. Any more bids on five bob? I would not give that party over there two and six at the next election. They are, to coin another phrase, dog tucker. So they would not be worth even two bob.

One of the other flat-footed things they have done over the last 48 to 72 hours that concerns me is that they have completely abrogated their responsibility towards the women’s vote. They have completely given it away because they know they have only a miniscule level of it anyway. I have to say that those Tory women over there, who think they got to where they are today all on their own, are just proving how selfish and self-centred they are and how unable they are to think towards the future. No woman on that side of the House got where she is today because of her own talent, charm, and good looks. Those women got there because a good group of women in New Zealand fought for many, many years for women’s rights, women’s pay, and better conditions for women—and that is why we need to have women spokespersons, advocates for women, instead of the selfish attitude that is portrayed by those members. The only woman on the National front bench mirrors the image of Ruth Richardson. She is almost her namesake. She is Ruth Richardson’s acolyte. She is a younger version and is not quite as tough as the previous one, but she could grow that way. That appointment is not encouraging to me, either.

National Party supporters out there in the real world must be cringing. Sure, there has been a tiny lift in their vote—we accept that. We knew that was quite likely to happen.

💬 Opposition Member: So death catches up!

Well, it is actually a case of “Dead Man Walking”. Members know it. We can read the body language. We can see the mood. We know that those members over there are not full of the joys of spring, at all. I tell those members that a niche party, a pressure group, is not enough to be elected as a Government, and that is all National is—a pressure group.

I have not heard a noise like that since I was in standard 4 and my friend ran his fingers down the blackboard. That was an appalling display of articulation by that member. The allegation that members on the Opposition side of the House are doing nothing for the women’s vote is just appalling. Murray McCully has been more than making up for that in recent days, and I am confident that we will deliver on that promise without too much difficulty, at all.

I just say this to Government members: Dr Brash provides a clear, studied, and articulate vision for this country, and I want those members to know one thing very, very simply. Dr Brash is above the smarmy, backhanded comments that come from Dr Cullen in this House, and above the niggling and nastiness that come from the Prime Minister during question time. Dr Brash is a man who has one thing on his mind, and that is: what is best for New Zealand? That is why members on the Opposition side of the House will wait with patience until the 2005 election, when Don Brash will become Prime Minister of New Zealand. As Gerry Brownlee said, it will be a pleasure to serve in his Cabinet.

What is the Government going to do in the meantime—between now and 2005? Well, the Prime Minister articulated her vision leading into the 2005 election yesterday, when she said it was not the policy of this Government to put things right. Well, is that not the truth? Nothing has been put right by that Government in the last term. Members need only to look at what is going on with regard to our defence forces. Troops are being deployed as an instrument of foreign policy, to make up for gaffes that the Prime Minister has made, and to cater for a domestic political market that is out of step with what is going on in the international arena.

I say to members of this House that Helen Clark is getting ahead of herself. The arrogance that surrounds the Prime Minister and her small cabal is absolutely clear, and it is patently obvious to the voting public. She is now far too important, apparently, to deal with domestic political issues, and simply swans off at short notice around the country, leaving Dr Cullen to deal with every domestic problem that she leaves in her wake. What are those problems that the Prime Minister leaves in her wake, as she travels around the country? Well, rural schools are being closed by Trevor Mallard. Trevor Mallard is out there shutting down the lifeblood of rural communities in New Zealand. Auckland roading is in crisis, and what does the Prime Minister say about that? She says: “It is not the policy of this Government to put things right.” That is just not good enough. That type of throwing away of responsibility just will not be tolerated by the electorate. Rates are climbing in local and rural districts because this Government’s new local government legislation has forced massive costs of consultation on to local government, and I can tell members that pensioners in my electorate are furious with this Government and the implications of its local government legislation, in terms of their rates rises. That is just not good enough.

We know there is a problem with the Labour Party when Steve Maharey kicks off the debate for the Government. We know there is a problem when king hitters like Martin Gallagher are held back to let Steve Maharey kick off the debate, and fine, well-meaning debaters like John Tamihere have to just sit in their cabbage-coloured shirts and say nothing. It is just not good enough to have the likes of those Ministers leading debates. Where is David Parker? He is a man, rumour has it, who—

💬 Darren Hughes: He’s campaigning.

He should be campaigning, I tell Mr Hughes, and I will tell that member why he should. Allegedly, David Parker recently had a conversation with the chairman of Dunstan Hospital, who, when explaining the fact that the whole board was about to resign, apparently said Mr Parker had no idea how difficult Katherine Rich was making his life in Otago. Let me tell David Parker and members of the Labour Party that she has not even started yet. The Otago seat is gone, and it will come back to National at the next election.

Whatever happened to Clayton Cosgrove?

💬 Hon David Carter: Who is Clayton Cosgrove?

He was such a promising member in the first term. Now he is confined to the back benches, far from the circles of influence, and is frustrated about his ability. He is knocking on the Cabinet door, asking whether anyone is in there and whether he can come in. He is being told no, he has to stay outside until there is a change of regime and Phil Goff comes back in. I say to Mr Cosgrove that once Phil Goff is leading the Labour Party, his chance will come again. Mind you, at least Mr Cosgrove is attending functions in his electorate—unlike Darren Hughes, who is renowned for no-shows all over the Otaki electorate.

The member should ask one of his colleagues about that. It is a pleasure to follow Simon Power, who at age 35 is already yesterday’s man. Simon Power has twice turned down the deputy leadership of the National Party, and National will not come knocking a third time. Other members like John Key will be lining up to take that place. Simon Power thinks he has the deputy leadership coming to him, but he has turned it down once too often.

This weekend the Labour Party goes into its annual conference in Christchurch, and what a story this re-elected Labour-led Government has to tell. Our party will be talking in Christchurch about leadership and partnership. It will be talking about growth and innovation, about fairness and security, about opportunity for all, about strong public services, and about building a confident nation. We have a story to tell that the National Party can only dream of, because it is in chaos everywhere, with not a vote to count.

We have seen an extraordinary change in the leadership of the National Party, and we saw an extraordinary display during the general debate today. The election for the leadership was an oops election. It was “oops”, because National members could not believe, as a caucus, what they had done when they had finished—nor can the country believe it, any more than those members do. The brat pack walked into the caucus room with 20 votes in the bag, but only 12 turned up in its favour. The brat pack members all betrayed and backstabbed one another, and as they sit together in this Chamber they are trying to work out whom they can trust and whom they should not trust. It seems there were 52 positions on the leadership, which was a shame when there were only 26 votes. The only person who was upfront about his support was Maurice Williamson, and he was not even allowed to vote.

But 14 votes do not make a happy family, and National members are now about as united as the Spice Girls, having elected “Ice Spice” to be their leader. Once again the National Party has panicked about its leadership change, as it did when it changed from Bolger to Shipley, from Shipley to Bill English, and now from Bill English to Dr Brash. If it were an episode of The Simpsons, we would be calling Dr Brash “Monty Burns”, the wealthy geriatric who runs a nuclear power plant while haplessly plotting the overthrow of the world. How fitting it is that Dr Brash is surrounded by other characters from The Simpsons. I note that Gerry Brownlee is doing a very good impersonation of “‘Sideshow’ Bob Terwilliger”. It is very good that “Ned Flanders”, in the form of Bill English, has been allowed to stay on the front bench.

But what have we seen so far? We have seen a policy of asset sales and a policy of tax cuts for the rich. For people earning less than $38,000—[Interruption] Dr Mapp says that $38,000 is not much money. He is right about that, but in the constituency that I represent, 65 percent of people earn less than $20,000.

💬 John Key: Do something about it, then.

We are, but we will not make those people work 5 years longer and make them retire at 70, while giving no tax cuts except to National’s rich mates. That is not a policy prescription that we sign up to. How rich it is of National members, particularly the list member Katherine Rich, to say that the Government should do more about the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, when the National Party wants to give tax cuts of $774 a week to New Zealanders who earn half a million dollars. Then they cry crocodile tears about not having strong public services. That party has a record—absolutely!

Dr Brash said he wanted to work with the devil to change the Government. I know that the ACT party is unpopular, but I am not sure even we think that Rodney Hide or Richard Prebble is the devil. The ACT party was not offended by that, of course, because yesterday we saw a fawning Mr Shirley and a sycophantic Ms Coddington get up and pour praise on Dr Brash, while National members sat there like stunned mullets, wondering whether they had done the right thing.

Mr Power said in his speech how proud he was of Dr Brash. It is a pity he did not vote for him, though. Simon Power said Dr Brash is going to be a great leader, but he did not even vote for him. It is just ridiculous. That is what was happening when Mr Power was speaking. We have read all sorts of comments about Dr Brash. One of the things he said in the paper, when he was asked about his personal friendships, was this: “I have found in recent years that I have allowed my close friendships to atrophy”. Atrophy! This is a man who is so right wing he has even restructured his social life. He made his mates redundant and told them not to come around on Monday—and they think he is a great Kiwi friend! But oh no, this guy is going to be fantastic out on the campaign trail!

Apparently, the answer to Mr English’s leadership was simply to promote Mr Carter. Members of the brat pack will be delighted to know that all they had to do was to elevate somebody called David Carter, and they could have ruled the National Party for years.

The other interesting thing has been the role of Mr McCully. I have always found Mr McCully to be a very fascinating character. National Party members revere him. Mr Power looks on him as an older brother, and they joke around. National members revere Mr McCully as some sort of great strategist, and I cannot understand that. Mr McCully’s strategies saw National with 47 percent of the vote in 1990, and 20 percent of the vote in 2002. Kevin Roberts, a peak-performing unit, was a strategy that went nowhere. Putting in Bill English as leader was a strategy that went nowhere. Organising the countercoup with the brat pack to keep Mr English in the job was another strategy that went nowhere. Yet National Party members say Mr McCully is their strategist—their man—and he is ace.

It is John Key who is laughing all the way to the bank. He is another first-termer who is going places, but he could not wait to get into the Dominion Post today. In the first feature on John Key, on page A15, he said what a centrist he was, and that he was far more in touch with middle New Zealand than Dr Brash.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.