Moroney Sue: General Debate 
Moroney Sue: General Debate 
[Volume:629;Page:1386] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am familiar with what it takes to have a hard-working successful and competent Government because I am a Labour member of Parliament. I am familiar with what that all takes because we have had a Labour Government for the last 6 years. However as a new member of Parliament I have been very interested to see how an Opposition behaves—and it has been quite an eye-opener. 
For that reason I was really interested to see what happened during National’s 3-day caucus retreat. I thought: “Here comes the challenge.” because is it not the job of the Opposition to challenge the Government? What challenges would Opposition members put before the Government? What in-depth proposals would they have for the future of New Zealand? Clearly Dr Smith does not understand the concept of continuous improvement because when he spoke previously to this House he was concerned about changes—that changes might happen in New Zealand. Well let me tell members opposite that continuous improvement is exactly what this Government strives for. That is why we are continuously looking to see what we can do better for New Zealand. 
But what was National doing at its caucus retreat? I had hoped its members might get a whiteboard out and start doing some calculations on the tax cuts they had promised throughout the election campaign. Then they might have worked out that those promises did not add up. They would have worked out that what they had promised would amount to having deficits in this country. They would have worked out that we would end up having cuts subsequently to health and education in order to give those tax cuts they had promised and yes that spending on roading could not go ahead with the tax cuts promised. Perhaps they were going to spend 3 days working out and finally coming to a conclusion about what it means to be “mainstream”. What is the definition of mainstream? Perhaps they were going to spend their 3 days working that out amongst themselves and getting agreement on who is and who is not mainstream and which members of the National Party caucus fitted that criterion and which did not. But no they did not come to any conclusions even on those issues. In that 3-day retreat what ended up happening was an endless number of leadership squabbles and leaks to the media. A few witch-hunts were going on about who leaked what to whom. Then just adding to that there were a few flip-flops—now characteristic of the National Party—on policy for good measure. That is what happened during the 3-day National Party caucus retreat. 
I want to thank the Hon Paul Swain for giving a wonderful racing analogy before of what is going on with the leadership squabbles within National because I can finally understand who is in the field and who the players are. So I thank Mr Swain for that. But the cloak-and-dagger approach was not left behind after the 3-day retreat. I have been observing the strange movements of the National Party caucus over the last 24 hours and in particular the strange movements of its leader Dr Brash. While Prime Minister Helen Clark was dealing with issues affecting the nation at about a quarter to 10 last night Dr Brash was spending his time here in this House. I thought he had come to make a speech but no he spent his time sidling up to back-bench members to shore up his own position in the leadership squabbles. That is what he was doing while the Prime Minister Helen Clark was dealing with issues that affect this nation. 
I am reliably informed even though I was not in the House at the time that that is exactly the same sort of thing Jenny Shipley was doing just before her demise as leader of National—coming into the debating chamber late at night to get alongside back-benchers. The other contenders I am sure know of that approach and they will be using it as well. Simon Power knows it so do Bill English and John Key. How many approaches have they been making? How have they been sidling up to back-benchers to shore up their positions in the leadership squabble? And what will the role be for Tau Henare? It is sad to see that he has been ejected from the House for this sitting because of his lack of respect for the role of the Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. That is a longstanding convention. All of us at some stage have to leave the Chamber. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. But what role will Tau Henare play in the current squabbles going on about the leadership? I was not in the House when the waka-jumping legislation was debated and went through but I believe that the waka in question was known as “Tau Henare” so he must be looking forward to what will be happening in the aftermath of the leadership coup that will inevitably happen within the National Party. That is fertile ground for Tau. The disaffected will be thinking— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know she is new but she must use the member’s full name please. 
SUE MORONEY 
: So that is fertile ground for Tau Henare in his new-found home in the National Party because after the leadership coup has happened what will the disaffected—those people who supported a member who did not win in that leadership coup—be looking to do? Will they be looking to form yet another new party? That is the sort of thing that Tau Henare specialises in and I think he would be looking forward to that. All of those things are going on across the way there; meanwhile what is happening on this side?