Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18256] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think the former Minister indicated to the House that the challenge I have as Minister of Education now taking full responsibility for tertiary education is a challenge that has been there for some time and that while some might criticise tertiary education standards as having slipped recently it is clear that they slipped some time ago. 
For the people who are not aware that was Dr Nick Smith the member for Nelson. It is fair to say that a couple of years ago I would not have thought I would be saying “Go!” to the former president of the Post Primary Teachers Association. I think she will beat him. She is a very reasonable person especially when one compares her with Nick Smith. She showed that she could be the president of a major union for 2 years whereas that member showed that he could be the deputy leader of a minor party for 3 days. That is the comparison and those— 
Darren Hughes 
: But he took 2 weeks’ pay though. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Did he? I thought he hit John Carter the day after he became deputy. I cannot remember the exact sequence but it was clear that he took off after about 3 days or was it 2 days later? I will get it right. The member can correct me later on as to which day it was. 
I have been around this place for a little over 20 years and although I am a relatively young person every now and again one feels inclined to share one’s advice with people from the Opposition. I truly believe that it is important for a Government to have a strong Opposition one that works well together one that tests the Government and one that improves the policy. Frankly the Opposition—the National Opposition in particular—has been a bit wanting in that area and I want this Government to stay sharp. 
I think there is beginning to be what might be described as a leadership crisis within the National Party and that is particularly sad. I have been working it out but can I just say that I will send the comment from Nick Smith’s speech when he called me PC to my Labour electorate committee. It is one of those things that if I could have on the record pretty often would not do any harm! 
 One or two of my colleagues gave me a bit of a hard time earlier when I indicated that if Dr Mapp had been a sheila he would be out by now for disagreeing with the leader of the National Party but that because he is not a sheila he was pretty safe. We know that Dr Brash is very good at being assertive with women when there is an argument—or maybe he is not good at being assertive; he is good at being authoritarian and sacking them when there is a problem. He cannot handle dissent from a woman especially a woman who is young enough to be his granddaughter. 
It must be a problem when someone who pretends to the leadership of the country cannot have a rational discussion with a young woman and seems to think that because a woman is young and possibly slightly more televisual than he is—and is certainly not using a comb-over—she cannot have brains. That seems to be the point Dr Brash has reached. Either he thinks she cannot have brains or he thinks he cannot have a good discussion with her and work through an issue with her. 
Frankly I think it is very sad for the country that people within a party like the National Party cannot get together in a room maybe with a referee someone reasonable understanding and neutral—there are probably quite a few within that group—to arbitrate or mediate. A number of them could do that job. On occasions in the past when we in our party have had some intense discussions the deputy leader has been good at helping us work through issues and come to a conclusion. There should be someone in the National Party who can sit in the same room as Dr Brash and his women MPs either individually or collectively so that they can discuss the issues and work through them to a conclusion rather than having the arrangement whereby they tell Dr Brash that they are going to resign if he says a particular thing and he goes ahead and says it anyway and then expresses surprise when they do what they have said they were going to do. 
Darren Hughes 
: Isn’t that Murray McCully’s job? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I understand that Murray McCully is a special assistant to the Leader of the Opposition on parliamentary matters or something like that. I think it is fair to say that Mr McCully is probably not the best liaison person as far as women and Don Brash are concerned. I do not think that would be an appropriate role for Mr McCully. 
There is one other thing. Members will remember that in about August last year I raised in this House the possibility of an intense caucus debate on the welfare issue—a Mexican stand-off between Dr Brash and Katherine Rich—and it was denied absolutely. A lot of denials and cover-ups came from them. I will now share something else with the House. I will hear it denied. 
Darren Hughes 
: Take them into your confidence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will share it with a few close colleagues who are here to listen to me and with anyone else who happens to be out there in radioland. I want Dr Brash to deny that he has made migration inquiries. I want him to deny that he is looking—or someone is looking on his behalf—to shift to the United States. Is that true? Has he made that sort of inquiry? Has someone made that sort of inquiry on his behalf? Has he already decided that he will lose and that when he does lose he will be so embarrassed that he will leave the country? Early next year when Dr Brash— 
Deborah Coddington 
: Who with? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will not say whom he is shifting with. That would be inappropriate. That would be bringing other people into the debate and I do not do that despite the invitation of the member to do so. I do want to say that I want Dr Brash who has already promised to resign by Christmas if he loses—or when he loses I suppose; that is the way we look at it—to say that he will stay in the country afterwards and contribute to New Zealand as we contribute to the superannuation he gets. 
I would like to make a few brief comments on student loans. I want to thank the 62 percent of students who when surveyed said that they thought the Government’s policies were fair compared with 15 percent in 1994. I want to say to people who have been students that I think they are great in the way they are reducing their loan balances. I want especially to congratulate the people with big loans who the evidence now shows are paying off more of their loans not only in proportion but also absolutely. I congratulate them. They are making some real progress and I think that is good. They are getting on top of the debt. Those with the biggest loans are getting on top of their debt the most quickly and I think that that is very important. 
Average student loan balances are not growing nearly as fast as they were. When one includes those people who are paying the loans off they are dropping. Some of the gender differences are reducing as well. I think that is good. There are some things that we have to do. It is clear for example that when Maori finish their degrees they pay their loans off as quickly as Pakeha because they get good jobs. But too many Maori students get—I will not use the full words of the Minister of Maori Affairs—nonsense “tohu” certificates that do not have much value which leave students in debt but without the income needed to pay their loans. The Prime Minister has said we will be working on that and that is my job.