Hodgson Pete: General Debates 
Hodgson Pete: General Debates 
[Volume:610;Page:7919] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I suppose the country is wondering a little—perhaps not a lot—why it is that the National Party and the ACT party want to get into bed with one another. Why was it that Murray McCully decided to get along to the ACT party conference and start to talk up the idea of some sort of a coalition beginning with some sort of non-hostility pact? Why might that have occurred? Well it is not too difficult to work out that Mr McCully who loves to be on the winning side can see that Bill English is not cutting it. He sees that Dr Brash—God help us all!—is the one who has to move into the position of leading the National Party in the future perhaps not for long into the future and that Dr Brash and the ACT party have got a compatibility that is not as existent between Mr English and the ACT party. So that is probably why Murray McCully went along and that is probably why before he went he did not ask Bill English whether he could go. He just told him he was going. 
What happened then was that when Mr McCully started to be interviewed on some of his thinking at the second-tier level we realised that actually it is a candidate-renegotiation deal that they are thinking about and all of a sudden the light goes on and says that even now Mr McCully cannot tell the difference between first past the post and MMP. A candidate-negotiation deal for example might say: “Let’s have no ACT candidate standing in Murray McCully’s seat. After all his majority is not that flash. After all the demography of his seat is changing on him. After all the Labour Party is more popular now than it was even in the election. After all Mr McCully probably thinks that the cool wind of change is blowing up his majority.” 
When we get down to the second tier we find that this non-hostility pact has got a little bit to do with the “Save Murray McCully” view of life but actually it is irrelevant. Last night’s TV3 poll amongst all the things it showed us showed that the preferred Prime Minister ranking gained by the National Party is now half that gained by New Zealand First although a National-ACT alliance of course would mean there would be a National leader of that alliance not an ACT leader. The reason for that is very straightforward. It is that no matter how unpopular Bill English is these days—and he is really unpopular—no one in this House is as unpopular as Mr Prebble so Mr English or Dr Brash must win that particular campaign. But it is irrelevant anyway because it is New Zealand First that is starting to show through. It is New Zealand First that is making the biggest noise in the House and getting the biggest gains. 
So we have an impossible split on the far side of the House. It is sufficiently impossible that Nick Smith will be in Opposition for a long time to come—9 long years. Do not even think about it; go to double figures and beyond! Roger Sowry will be standing against Darren Hughes’ daughter before he wins office again and Tony Ryall will be talking about 15 or 18 long years in Opposition if indeed he learns how not to dribble into his whisky. The long and short of it is that the splits and divisions on the far side of the House are irreconcilable and deep. 
There is no point in saying that Mr Williamson has to take the rap; that has not made and will not make a drop of difference. He was not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is that in politics if one does not stand for something one should not stand. That is a lesson the National Party has yet to learn. New Zealand First knows what it stands for. The ACT party knows what it stands for. The Green Party knows what it stands for. National does not know what it stands for—and that is why it is garnering no support. The great party of the 20th century is about to become the third party in this House if it is not careful. That is a remarkable event. I tell National Party members to forget about the ACT party for the moment forget about Mr Williamson for the moment and forget about treaty post-outs and the whole lot of campaigns they are running on agricultural emissions tax. They should forget about all that and ask themselves what the National Party stands for because the public for the moment has a great big zip alongside the answer to that question.