Dyson Ruth: General Debates 
Dyson Ruth: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15036] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 New Zealand is a great country. In fact in my view it is the best country in the world to live in. We have strong economic growth. In fact we are one of the key successful economies in the OECD. We have the lowest unemployment for nearly two decades—the unemployment rate is the second-lowest in the OECD. We have low inflation. We have growing household incomes. For the first time in our country’s history more than 2 million New Zealanders are employed. Our Working for Families package which we delivered in our last Budget gives significant financial support to 60 percent of all New Zealand families with children. Our social report shows that we are in the top half of the OECD for the majority of the key social indicators. 
So given that we do live in the best country in the world and we all know it why would anyone—any New Zealander—go overseas and attack our country? Why would any New Zealander go to Australia and attack our country? Well the public and the media response to Dr Brash’s attack on our country has been consistent and strong: going overseas to attack New Zealand is just wrong. 
Some of the best lines from the media are worth repeating to the House. The  
Dominion Post 
 stated: “Dr Brash has no obligation to follow or promote a government line. It would be odd if he did. But nor is his role to go overseas and bag and belittle the country in which he wants to be prime minister.” The Christchurch 
 Press 
 stated of the National Party leader: “It is all very well to carp and criticise but voters need more on which they can judge whether the party would be a potential alternative government. … Brash fails to state clearly what National would do to improve on the Government’s performance.” John Armstrong said: “Don Brash’s assertion that New Zealand risks becoming ‘just another Pacific island state’ not only bordered on the ridiculous it was silly politics to boot.” Fran O’Sullivan said: “… the National leader’s article relies too much on insinuation without adequate factual underpinning to justify the doom-casting.” and he provides “no roadmap for the future.” She also said: “National’s leader would have made a much more useful contribution if he had spelled out where his party stood on the single market and other measures which will avert his prediction of a failed state.” She described his presentation as “little more than a summation of why he came into politics. … What it doesn’t say is why he bothers to stay and what he will do.” The  
Manawatu 
 Standard 
 Simon Power’s own local paper stated—and I am sure he agrees with it—that it is “not a good look for a political leader to go overseas and to effectively bag his own country”. Nobody in New Zealand would disagree with that. It is just not a good look for a political leader to go overseas and bag our country. 
No wonder the tensions within the National Party are now so obvious! Simon Power has been described by Dr Brash as having very good networks in his caucus which I think is code for “He’s got the numbers so he has to stay on the front bench even though I demote him.” John Carter has missed out on the Speaker’s job because of the “Brash-McCully” deal with Clem Simich. Maurice Williamson has to stay down in the back row despite being one of National’s rare flashes of talent because of the brat-pack influence. Linda Scott and Roger Sowry are leaving and more resignations are rumoured. John Key is counting the numbers. John Key is brash and ambitious rather than “Brash and dull”! 
The National Party former leadership has become increasingly embittered and mean-spirited. Bill English who used to be a pleasant chap has become increasingly bitter and mean-spirited to the point that he moved a resolution in the National caucus that no National Party MP would be allowed to go to John Tamihere’s book launch. How petty how bitter and how mean-spirited can one be! Those members missed a fine book launch. I am sure that not fronting up saved them from feeling envy. I do not think anyone could have put it better than Jane Clifton when describing the reshuffle. She said there were two ways to read National’s reshuffle: either it is brave and far-sighted or it is a desperate fig-leaf arrangement.