Cunliffe David: General Debates 
Cunliffe David: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6153] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 If it walks like a flip-flop if it talks like a flip-flop if it sounds like a flip-flop then it is a flip-flop. That flip-flopping sound is not the sound of Gerry Brownlee hitting the ground begging for mercy and to be heard in silence; it is the sound of Bill English inventing yet another policy change. Let us go over some of the recent ones. Social policy: Bill English wants to get rid of National’s hard uncaring image built up over 9 long years in Government. Then what does he do? He puts Don Brash in as a social policy spokesperson. He wants to make domestic purposes benefit time limits compulsory and he wants to send people back to work under threat of losing the dole. That is why nobody believes National. It does not know whether it has a heart or whether it needs a heart transplant.  
Flip-flop number two is Nick Smith on education signage. Nick Smith says that separate signage is racist but he does not realise that the word “children” means the same in English as the word “tamariki” in Maori. He did not remember that the regulations under which they were promulgated were regulations he brought in when he was Minister of Education. Nick Smith has had to be covered up for today by Gerry Brownlee in what must surely be one of the most embarrassing interventions in a general debate in this term of Parliament. Gerry “Petal” Brownlee the front row prop was begging to be heard in silence because he could not get a word in edgewise. He was begging for mercy for Nick Smith. The member is obviously having a bad day. Clearly the stress of imminent litigation is weighing heavy on his extra broad shoulders. Why did an experienced former Minister when faced with a routine constituency case not write earlier to the responsible Minister directly? Why did he come to the House today and lose his cool? What is going on? And why did he allegedly go too far anyway in divulging information about the case? Why is the National Party seeking to litigate the matter against the Solicitor-General under cover of parliamentary privilege in the general debate and at the same time claiming the right of silence? That is appalling and an abuse of the Standing Orders. National cannot have it both ways. If it is potentially sub judice it should be kept in the legal area.  
Speaking of flip-flops National’s economic policy takes the cake. This Government has proved its farsightedness once again. Two weeks ago we said we were keeping some money in the putea kitty to cover contingencies. Last week we said that Tranz Rail needed to have a capital injection and we have done it and I have not heard a single word from a single constituent saying that that was the wrong call. New Zealanders want the trains to run on time and they have no respect for an Opposition that failed to put in place the proper safeguards for a botched privatisation yet has the gall to criticise us for fixing it. In the general debate Dr Cullen again showed himself to be a fine finance minister but it is not just about being respectful in the way he deals with business. It is also having the strength to call a line when it needs to be called and I refer to the outrageous Fairfax-INL potential masthead deal where that takeover was going to generate $700 million in profit according to press reports of which some $400 million was going to be through tax advantages on the masthead transaction. And the Minister of Finance quite rightly said “Not on my watch.” That is $400 million or so—if the press reports are to be believed—that we could spend on shortening waiting lists on putting police on the streets and on making sure our kids have a decent education not on feathering the nest of a parent corporation that may not know the difference between a proper business proposition and a tax avoidance matter. Our Minister of Finance is both fair and strong. He does a Budget that makes clear that this is a business-friendly Government but he also draws the line when it needs to be drawn against unfair and inappropriate business practice. We should contrast that with the National approach to economic policy.