Bennett Paula: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett Paula: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 What a fine example we have seen of two Ministers of the Crown performing for the gallery and the radio because they know there may be a few extra listeners given we are about to debate an amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act. It is a disgrace to our profession that they stood up and made personal attacks on people. It is a disgrace that the only thing they can do is stand up and make those sorts of comments. They are tetchy and it is understandable. The defensiveness that is coming out is understandable; so is the behaviour they are currently displaying. I suppose if we learn nothing else we know that they show a lack of taking responsibility and lack of acknowledging exactly what is going on. 
 The Labour backbenchers must all be nervous at the moment and the Ministers as well because when their leader says one thing that may not be the same thing she means the following week. We have a Prime Minister who chooses her quotes and chooses her day to actually get up and make them. So let us understand that on 14 September 2005 this Prime Minister said: “I think the only thing that he”—Taito Phillip Field—“is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.” Let us leap to 13 February 2007 when the Prime Minister said: “I have made it clear for quite a long time that the behaviour was unacceptable. It was unethical and immoral.” 
I ask what will happen to Steve Maharey when his promise of 20 free hours of childcare does not get fulfilled when thousands of children miss out on the very promise that this Government has given and when centres are openly not taking up the offer. What will happen to Steve Maharey and his job? I notice that Phil Goff has been a little bit upset in the last couple of days. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Agitated. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: “Agitated” is a word I would use—a bit nervy. He is making a few mistakes with personal statements and things. I am a little bit concerned about him. He has put out a press release to say he will go parachuting this Friday. I felt that maybe he should check his backpack a few times because this Prime Minister has a way of cutting people off when she does not agree with what is going on. So let us remember not to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade. We can have people like Ruth Dyson and Lianne Dalziel who have all felt the effects of this Prime Minister and we can have people like John Tamihere and Dover Samuels but when it really comes down to it it is the Prime Minister’s call. She believes that unethical and immoral behaviour is OK but do not rain on her parade! When her day has come and she is making her statement goodness help people who rain on her parade. 
Let us talk about what will happen with the policy of 20 free hours of childcare. Let us talk about some of the facts and some of the policies. Just today the Ministry of Education said it had no idea how many childcare centres would accept the 20 free hours. The ministry will have no idea until May and parents are expecting it on 1 June. This Government campaigned on a promise to parents that come 1 July 2007 those children—all 3 and 4-year-olds—will get 20 free hours. Now the facts are coming clear and it will not be available for those parents and their children. It is as simple as that. 
This Minister needs to stand up and be honest with parents who are relying on those 20 free hours. He made a promise he cannot deliver on it and it is time that the Minister came clean on it. What will happen to his job though? Does the fact that he is not fulfilling a promise make him unethical? I pose the question: is it unethical if someone cannot fulfil a promise that he or she has given to the New Zealand public? As such what will the Prime Minister do to cover it? Mind you she probably needs his vote and it is a different story when a leader has only a one-vote majority. All of a sudden all the rules change because it is not based on facts it is not based on ethics and it is not based on principle; it is based on how to keep that woman in power. That is the only thing that is considered by that Government. 
We have the interesting situation at the moment of having a member who is in the House but usually not in the House whose vote goes to the Government to use but only when it suits him. The Government is not sure when it can use his vote and it certainly does not know what he is doing when he is not in the House and it wants to use his proxy.