Goff Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Goff Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7266] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 This debate started this afternoon with two speeches one of substance by the Prime Minister and one totally lacking in substance by the Leader of the Opposition. I listened closely to what John Key had to say. I cannot criticise his enthusiasm. He addressed the topic with all the enthusiasm of a secondhand-car dealer and about the same level of sincerity. When one analyses it what does one find that speech said? It was shallow it was without substance and it was a veneer—like the person who delivered it. The Nats’ body language during that speech was really interesting. They cheered as though they were on a drug-induced high. Then at the end of that speech as Winston got up to speak suddenly that high turned into a post-high depression and they sat there with glumness as they contemplated what John Key had actually said which of course was nothing. 
Leadership is about substance. It is about depth; it is about experience. It is about reliability trustworthiness and sincerity. What we got in the Prime Minister’s speech today was a speech of substance—a programme for how this Labour-led Government is going to take the country forward this year—setting out principles setting out directions and setting out priorities. It focused on areas that I think are really important: a sustainable economy both environmentally and in terms of transforming that economy to address the needs of the 21st century. It also focused on sustaining our families and our communities and their social needs and last but not least it focused on enhancing our national identity—on what we want to be as a small but smart creative inclusive sustainable nation that plays an important and a positive role in the world. I am proud of that New Zealand. I would have liked to see some sincerity on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in picking up those points and adding his voice to them. 
I would like to record just a couple of the points of progress made under this Government and alluded to by the Prime Minister. Between 2000 and 2004 60000 kids were lifted out of poverty. That is not rhetoric but is substance; we actually did that. 
Hon Bill English 
: The economy did it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I tell Mr English that another 70000 will be lifted out of poverty by the time this Government has completed the Working for Families programme in April of this year. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance on that achievement—130000 kids in this country have been lifted out of poverty during the term of this Government yet the Leader of the Opposition presumes to lecture us on why we are not doing more for the disadvantaged! 
Let me tell him about unemployment and beneficiary numbers. They are down by I think 110000. In my electorate in terms of the 18 to 24-year-olds the ones who might otherwise be vulnerable to joining youth gangs the unemployment figure for the Mount Roskill area at the start of 2004 was that 641 kids in that age group were on the dole and out of work. Today it is 144—a 77 percent reduction in unemployment. That result is replicated right across the country; that is about transforming New Zealand. That is about building a decent economic base and delivering socially to our people and I am proud of it. I am proud of it but I am not satisfied with it because we need to continue to strive to find new ways to create a society where every individual is able to reach his or her potential every individual is able to have a good life and every individual is able and encouraged to contribute as much as he or she can to the community. That vision of a centre-left social democratic party is not replicated by any vision that the National Party has ever shown in this country and National is absolutely bereft of vision now. 
Let us talk about the National Party. I like others read  
The Hollow Men.  
I read it when travelling between Auckland and Singapore and what a revelation it was. It did not rely on Nicky Hager’s interpretation. The National Party condemned itself in its own words—by its own emails—as being dishonest shallow manipulative lacking in principle and lacking in integrity. Gerry Brownlee as well as the rest of his colleagues ought to be deeply ashamed of what has been revealed. The effect was devastating. National dumped its former leader and now it is trying to re-image itself as a caring centrist party. If there were a Tui billboard on that subject it would read: “Yeah right!”. John Key is still on his political honeymoon and I say good luck to him. That is always the case with a new leader but the cracks are showing already. Let us take the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning and what Colin James stated. He has been around for a while. He has been watching John Key and he asked whether John Key has the look and feel of veneer rather than of solid wood. That is interesting. Colin James was probably not thinking about  
The Hollow Men 
 but it is the same allusion as that in that book.  
The Hollow Men  
exposed the National Party as being a party that is all about spin and not about substance. That is the truly devastating thing about it. 
I will come to Bill English in a moment. How does John Key measure up against the qualities of leadership? Well one of the qualities I mentioned before was trustworthiness. I ask Bill English whether John Key can be trusted. What does Bill English think about that? Well in 2003 Bill English will remember John Key coming to see him at home on the eve of the leadership coup against Bill English when Don Brash was put in in his place. John Key said to Bill English: “You’ve got my vote Bill.” He said that with all the sincerity he could muster and the next day he turned up in the caucus room of the National Party and his was the vote that turned Bill English out and put Don Brash in in his place. That was an act of double-crossing and treachery that you Bill English will never forget and will look to avenge. I say that John Key should fear that. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That member is a longstanding member of this House and he knows that he cannot use the second person to address members in this Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. He can say “you” because although “you” by itself refers to you “you Bill English” refers only to Bill English. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is right. Mr Goff has identified the context in which he is using the word “you”. 
Hon Bill English 
: So in that case— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well a lot of members do exactly that. 
Hon Bill English 
: I am not asking whether a lot of members do it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is quite right within the context of what the member is doing. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The really interesting thing about that point of order was that Bill English stood up not to deny what I said but to raise a technical point. Bill English by failing to deny it has confirmed that as a fact. Why do I say that John Key should fear Bill English? Because I put up Bill English the co-leader of the National Party for National Party politician of the year last year. Why do I do that? Because Bill English and other caucus colleagues and people close to him were responsible for the leaking of the emails on which  
The Hollow Men 
 was based. Bill English got his utu. Bill English and those very close to him got their revenge on Don Brash. It is a case of one down one to go because the next target in Bill English’s mind is John Key the man who double-crossed him and the treacherous man whose vote brought him down as leader in 2003. 
If we are to talk about treachery maybe we should think about how the Maori Party regards John Key the man who led it to believe that National would support the foreshore and seabed legislation and then reversed that policy. Pita Sharples had plenty to say about that and John Key’s trustworthiness. 
Of course there are other examples. The Leader of the House tabled in the House the minutes of a meeting that John Key had about a variable mortgage interest rate proposal put forward by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. In private in the room he was in he was enthusiastic about it. Yesterday or on Friday he dumped the idea. What about climate change one of the big issues that the Prime Minister brought up this afternoon? In May 2005 John Key said that climate change was “a complete and utter hoax”. But what was he saying in November 2006? “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” Now that is trustworthiness! What about sincerity? John Key claims to have a concern about the disadvantaged. He condemned a street in my electorate as representing an underclass when 80 percent of those people are working when all those people benefit from having income-related rents and when all those people benefit from the Working for Families programme. 
John Key told Wesley Primary School that it needed muesli bars without even asking it whether that was the case. He did not know we have a Fruit in Schools programme. Mr Key did that simply for political capital. When the principal of that school decried John Key’s attempts to exploit the school for shallow political ends he alleged that she had been put up to it by the Labour Party. I say that is a lie and Mr Key should apologise for maligning that principal’s integrity and ability to see through the hollow man that he is. 
If members opposite are really sincere in their concern about disadvantaged people—and of course we have disadvantaged people in our society—will they reverse National’s policy of pushing Housing New Zealand Corporation rents up to market levels which is what the previous National Government did? Will they? Will they reverse their policy of selling off State housing so that those houses are not available as stable and secure homes for disadvantaged kids?