Peters Winston: Estimates Debate —  
Peters Winston: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7153] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking to page 1040 of volume II of the Estimates for 2003 I want to tell the last speaker that we in New Zealand First were not on the Government Administration Committee but if we were we would have had a lot of issues to raise—particularly about a department that is engaged in spin and duplicity. I want to know who those people are who occupy so much of the Prime Minister’s time and the taxpayers’ expenditure compared with for example truly frugal administrations run by people like Kirk and Muldoon. For every person they had she has about 10. 
But most important the difference is those gentlemen and Prime Ministers when they were required to came down to the House and spoke for their administrations whereas we have a Prime Minister who is all spin all image but cannot front in this House—like no other Prime Minister I have ever seen. When have we seen a Prime Minister too scared to turn up and face the music? She ducks out and gets junior Ministers to speak about the portfolio that she is in charge of. 
She was asked these questions which are very simple questions. What does “leeway” mean? She cannot tell us. On the question of collective Cabinet responsibility she cannot even tell us fundamentally what that means. Who in her department advised her how to answer that question? These are people who advise her at a cost of $7.104 million and that is just the known cost; the rest of course is hidden somewhere else. There is a whole raft of people like the “Burns unit”. What do they do? Well they are meant to speak to provincial New Zealand. What does that unit cost? The Government has all these people it is hiding. The Prime Minister was asked a simple question and I want to know who advised her not to answer it. She was asked: “Does the Prime Minister believe in same-sex marriage?”. That is a pretty simple question. What would her department do on that question? Would it need to have a whole review? Would it need to spend weeks and weeks studying the policy in order to tell the Prime Minister to answer as follows: “I don’t understand the question.”? 
It is no use the Prime Minister muttering to the man in the Chair because frankly we are going to have it out in the open. Say it louder! If the Prime Minister cannot hack the job that she is required to portray herself every day as being equipped for by coming down here and answering questions she should just say so. She should let us all know because then we will vote for a significant reduction in her vote of $7.1 million because clearly it is a waste of money. If she cannot hack fronting the public stage in this Parliament and ensuring that New Zealand has an accountable democracy she should just say so. Then we will carve back the vote commensurate with the lack of sound advice that she is getting. If she cannot for example tell us how Tariana Turia can make a statement on the issue of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council that is totally contradictory to the statements of everybody else in Cabinet then perhaps we could constrain her vote back to being what it should be for an absentee Prime Minister. 
Talk about frugality—does she love travel! She cannot wait to go to places like— 
Simon Power 
: The Air Force had to buy two new aircraft for her. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. It did. 
Jill Pettis 
: You’re just jealous because you’ve got no friends. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well if she is offering friendship—no thanks! I know that misery loves company but I cannot help the member. 
I ask the Prime Minister this question: why will she not answer parliamentary questions? Why is she always—[ 
Interruption 
] No no there are people up there who when they get a question from the rest of Parliament’s parties are meant to spend the next 4 hours providing the Prime Minister with an answer. Do members know what answer they provide her with? It is: “Duck it Prime Minister. Give it to some junior.” So why on earth are we spending all this money on these people who do not even know for example how to answer fundamental questions? Why can she not tell us for example who these people are who are being paid so much money every day to ensure that she does not front up and does not do her job? Where in the Western World does one see a Prime Minister like this one? 
Darren Hughes 
: As good as this. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes I know she has very malleable media. Where in the Western World would one see a Prime Minister—Canada the UK Australia or anywhere else that is a democracy—who is not prepared to front up? I have seen Blair for example go down to the English Parliament and on questions without notice he answers the whole lot. Of course that is the man whom she attacked before and during the Iraq war. 
Dail Jones 
: What did she do last week? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Last week she went across there— 
Simon Power 
: Another kiss. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The second kiss—yes. 
Dail Jones 
: Face to face. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Face to face she said—what was it? She said she trusts his sincerity. One day he cannot be trusted but off she goes of course wasting the public’s money as the Prime Minister supported by prime ministerial staff to a democratic union sort of conference that is based on ideology. How parochial is that? Imagine if I said that I wanted to go to a conference comprised of sane rational sound practical parties and that I wanted the taxpayers’ money! She just abuses the taxpayers’ money. She goes to see her leftist and middle-ish friends and somehow that is OK. No other Prime Minister has done that ever but for Helen Clark it is OK. 
But my point is simply this: when it comes to it she cannot hack the job in its most principal important form. 
Darren Hughes 
: This is the man who went to Australia for the Bledisloe Cup. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: How could I have gone to Australia for the Bledisloe Cup when it has not been held yet? [ 
Interruption 
] How can I go to the Bledisloe Cup when the game has not been held? Not only do those members deal in duplicity and spin but they plain do not tell the truth. The game is next week so how could I have gone? 
Darren Hughes 
: Last year. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There is the young fellow—what is his name? Damien Hughes? 
Peter Brown 
: Darren Hughes. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh—Darren Hughes. He had a predecessor Judy Keall and he is going to spend a long time trying to match her ability. He is going to spend a long time here trying to demonstrate that he is up to the job. I want to tell Darren Hughes this: shouting in the House showing one’s ignorance is not a way to progress up the political ladder— 
Darren Hughes 
: It worked for you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —and take it from somebody who knows! I want to ask the Prime Minister this: why did she say for example—and who told her to say it—that if the Democrat candidate at the last presidential election Al Gore had succeeded there would not have been a war? Why did she say that? Do we have to put up with a prime ministerial department led by a Prime Minister whose understanding of history is so cursory as to be a waste of time? Worst of all is the saying of it—it is not so bad that she thinks it; it is the saying of it. 
In the next breath she says: “We’re going to piggyback Australia in a free-trade agreement.” I say: “Don’t make me laugh! Don’t make the poor New Zealand exporter cry with such naive and stupid statements!”. Which person in her department told her to say that? What does the Prime Minister’s department say about for example the dollar rising by over 30 percent in 1 year flat—by this chart? What does her department say about that? Exports are down; they have been damaged severely by a Prime Minister who is too scared to show some leadership and some direction. This is terrible. The dollar has risen by over 30 percent from September until now and she and her Minister of Finance fail to take action. 
But they say according to the Labour Party back bench that she is a good Prime Minister! Oh no she is not. I will make this bet with those guys right now. At the next election this Labour Government is going to be out on its ear. The economy is changing as we speak. The American economy is in a situation of deflation and it is very severe. But more important on the fiddling socially odd strange and dare I say queer issues those members are going to go down—big time. They may not like it but frankly we on this side have had a gutsful of that Government over there foisting its weird silly gender-bending ways on the New Zealand people. I want to know how many gender benders there are in the Cabinet structure. How many gender benders are there in the Cabinet structure who let people like Chris Carter and the other guy from Christchurch let loose with some of the most evil vile legislation this country has ever seen?