Dalziel Lianne: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:11088] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce 
 I find it incredibly hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition had no idea that one day somebody would ask National members what their policy actually was on any particular subject. What surprised him even further which has become obvious after hearing some of the comments he has made was that when he had answered someone would go back and check to see whether those answers compare with comments he had made earlier on the same subject. Of course someone doing that would find that there was in fact some conflict between the two. 
I ask whether the Leader of the Opposition really thought that the honeymoon would last all the way to the next general election. It certainly seems so from the Government side of the House. He thought that no one would take notice of the subtle but very real undermining that he is receiving from members on his own side of the House going by some of their comments. 
Let us look at Bill English. I just note my comment and throw that name into the ring. I think we should look at Bill English. He is a very disappointed and angry man who wakes up every morning and asks: “Why not me?”. He has not really got over the fact that he chose Nick Smith to be his numbers man which was probably not the wisest thing for somebody wanting to win to do. But anyway let us look at what he says about his mate John Key—the person he is the deputy to. Gosh I would not want someone this close to me with these views. 
Mr English says: “I’m a stayer he’s a sprinter. I grind away John just bounces from one cloud to another.” What on earth does he mean by that? Cloud-hopping—how ridiculous! Then we have another comment: “John articulates a confident and aspirational view about the future I focus on putting together the numbers and the programme”. Well he is not very good at numbers; we have already noticed that. The last comment is: “The other reason [the Key-English team] works is that we complement each other. John is a terrific marketer … and I’ve got the experience of government and policy.” That is what Bill English thinks about his leader. The bottom line is that John Key is rewriting history he is rewriting his own position and he is rewriting the positions of his party as well. 
 I actually knew that John Key would find the top job difficult when he could not remember what his position was on the 1981 Springbok Tour. Who else cannot remember what his or her position was on that tour? This is absolutely galling. What people do not understand is which constituency John Key is trying not to offend. That is the one that I have not worked out. Is he trying to avoid offending the pro-tour lobby because he was anti-tour or is he in fact trying not to offend the anti-tour lobby because he was pro-tour? 
I guess we will never know because of course John Key cannot remember. And this is the man who can remember what emails he did not read. I think that that is utterly extraordinary. This would require one to know that an email has been received and who it has come from so that one knows that one has not read it. It seems pretty extraordinary to me that this man can remember what emails he did not read but he cannot remember his position on the Springbok Tour. 
What we do know is that John Key has taken—I think I am allowed to say so—seriously diverging opinions on matters of interest to the people of New Zealand. I guess the focus has been on the Iraq war. The National Party’s position on it is that we go back to the Boer War World War II and the Viet Nam War because National members think that the Iraq war is so long ago that the differing opinions that John Key has expressed on the issue are somehow of no relevance to the people of New Zealand. There are people dying in Iraq today. 
I think the people of New Zealand have a right to know that National would have sent troops to Iraq. That is one of the reasons why Labour still sits on the Government benches. We have a leader who had the courage to stand up for her convictions and to express a view that was very strongly welcomed by the people of New Zealand—that we would not send troops to Iraq. 
Let us look at the differing positions of John Key. In July 2007 he said: “We have made it quite clear we will not be going to Iraq. We would not have sent troops to Iraq.” In February 2003 he said that he would be prepared to commit any support requested by the United States for a war against Iraq including SAS and combat troops. 
Let us look at John Key’s position on therapeutics. On 1 August he said: “Today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
story misrepresents our position. The story correctly quotes me as saying: ‘If they came to us now with that proposal we will sign it.’ ” The previous morning he said: “If they came to us now with that proposal we will sign it. We sat there waiting for it to turn up.” So we have two different positions on therapeutics. 
John Key said on climate change in November 2006: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” In May 2005 he said “this is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—”. One just cannot hold all of these different positions. 
But the one that I particularly want to focus on because it is one that is near and dear to my own heart given the electorate I represent is John Key’s position on housing. He told the 2007 National Party conference that he supports the homeownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. He then described what is happening in Hobsonville as economic vandalism. Hobsonville is an electorate that he represents in Parliament but will not even live in. He lives in Parnell does he not? I do not know Auckland as well as he does obviously but I do not think one can even see Hobsonville from Parnell. 
So it is quite interesting that John Key has taken the position of describing Hobsonville as economic vandalism. It is where 15 percent of the 3000 new homes being built will be reserved for first home owners. I think that that is a good Government policy and that it ought to be supported by the member who represents that area. 
I think the real reason John Key has taken this position on State housing is that he likes to run off the back of his own State house background. He is on the record as saying that he looks at his State house background as a great marketing ploy. That is what it is for him. It is a great marketing ploy. He can pretend that he is one of the good old guys that he is one of the real people and that he can really look after their interests. Well I wonder whether that is how he felt about New Zealand when he was out there speculating on the New Zealand dollar. 
I bet John Key was speculating on the New Zealand dollar when he was a money market trader. That would be a very good question for him to answer. Maybe he could answer whether that is just something one criticises after the event when one is a long way away from him. Did he or did he not do that? I think the people of New Zealand have a right to know whether somebody who is criticising people for their actions actually lived up to that criticism himself before he came to Parliament. It would be very interesting to see whether he ever finally answers that question. 
I will talk a little about State housing because as I say it does mean a lot to my electorate. I reflect on the history of the last time National was in Government. It has a sad and sorry track record on State housing: market-related rents with no market incomes to match. We saw the desperate poverty levels that people were driven to in different parts of Christchurch. It was not the part that John Key grew up in I have to say. Bryndwr did not suffer like Aranui. I went to primary school in Bryndwr; I know the difference between the two suburbs.  
National sold thousands of State houses. How many State houses did it sell? 
Darren Hughes 
: 13000. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It sold 13000 State houses. How many of them did National sell to one of their own MPs Arthur Anae? I remember that. I remember that he bought a significant chunk of South Auckland at the time. 
The previous National Government made no investment in the State houses it retained. When I look at Aranui today and compare it with the Aranui that I inherited as an MP in 1999 all I can say is that it has been a transformation in reality under this Government. Despite the massive hurdles that the people of Aranui faced they have been able to build a community they are proud of. That is a good thing for the country because they are able to take real pride in the place where they live and are able to make a real contribution. 
But the biggest thing that has happened for Aranui has been that unemployment is at the lowest level we have seen in over a generation and that has made a huge difference. People are earning money and are able to support their households in a real way and they can contribute to the nation’s well-being as a result. 
This Government has built this country up. The experience of National in Government is that it brought New Zealand to its knees. This Government has invested in the future of all New Zealanders. We do not distinguish between those who are rich or poor in that regard; National certainly does. It wants to take it from those who have the least and give it to those who have the most.