Sabin Mike: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sabin Mike: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8995. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I think it is quite clear that New Zealanders have totally and utterly woken up to what is coming out of the Labour benches and of course from our friends across there in the watermelon patch. They have totally woken up to the sort of double-headed approach that is akin to throwing enough mud and hoping a little bit of it sticks and also scaring everyone into thinking there is some sort of a crisis out there. It seems to me that that approach is very much about saying: “If we can scare people into thinking we are a viable alternative—so let’s manufacture up a crisis.” It seems they have gone a little bit quiet on the idea of a manufacturing crisis but it does not stop them trying to manufacture their own crisis. 
Well there is something very scary all right. There is something very scary about parties on the other side of the House and that is the prospect to New Zealanders of a Labour-led Labour-Green Government with one Russel Norman with his finger on Treasury’s xerox. That is what we call “A for Armageddon” and that is pretty scary to New Zealanders. 
What is just as scary I think is the brain fade of the Leader of the Opposition one David Shearer. This is the same person who has $50000-plus—we are not sure how much it is; he does not seem too keen to tell us but it is at least $50000—in a foreign bank account and it seems that he cannot remember to put it on his pecuniary interests return. I think that we can forgive people for making an honest mistake. But then we ask ourselves: did he do this in 2009? Yes. Did he do this in 2010? Yes. Did he do this in 2011? Yes. Did he do this in 2012? Yes. Did he pay his tax every year on that money? Yes. So one could ask themselves whether this is an honest mistake—I do not know. But this is the man who would be Prime Minister; this is the man who wants his hands on Treasury’s money. I say to you that he seems to have a problem when other members in this House have issues around memory and money but it seems that it is sweet as a nut when it involves him. Well that does not sit too well with Kiwis and they have worked that out. 
Some other inconsistencies that we might want to consider when throwing stones around a glass house is that Labour is quite happy to promote one Hon Shane Jones—a good bloke but the Auditor-General did not have too much good to say in her report. But suddenly of course the Labour Party wants to take the Government down when in the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity Casino there was some discussion about how the process could have been better. When one looks at those two reports I think it is quite evident to see where the weight of evidence lies there but it seems what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. 
 We can also look back to the 2011 election campaign. I was watching with great interest as the Hon Phil Goff doing his very best to keep that sinking ship afloat talked about the fact that the 2011 campaign was a referendum on asset sales—it was a referendum on asset sales. I think we will all remember that and I am certainly sure that Labour Party members would remember it. 
Dr David Clark 
: And most people backed a party that opposed asset sales—right or wrong? 
MIKE SABIN 
: It just so happens Mr Clark that when Labour lost the election all of a sudden the faith it had in New Zealanders and what was the referendum means nothing because all of a sudden it wants another one. It gets its friends over in the Greens to pay a few people to scratch up a few signatures and away it goes. 
It seems to me that when we are throwing mud one must be very careful that one is not throwing it at a fan because it does tend to blow back in one’s face. That is what we are seeing time and time again here from a Labour Party and from a leadership that is scrambling to find its feet. If we look at the Labour Party I think we can be quite confident that the Labour caucus has support for its leader—absolutely confident in that—just the same as we can see that the Labor Party caucus in Australia has great faith in its leader Julia Gillard. There is a good reason for that and the reason is that they stand only themselves as a candidate. There is no one else running against them. It is hard to lose an election in that circumstance. I bet you that Mr Shearer hopes that that would happen in a general election but I cannot see that happening any time soon. 
I submit that there is a stark difference between the National-led Government and the Labour and Green benches. This is a disciplined National-led Government that is focused on what matters to Kiwis: the economy and managing the Government’s finance. The two-headed monster that we see on the other side of the House has a plan and it is so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a Cunliffe.