Barker Rick: General Debate 
Barker Rick: General Debate 
[Volume:642;Page:11788] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 It is very interesting how the National Party always puts out there its hopes and plans to get rid of Helen Clark—for example by promoting her to the United Nations. The National Party knows that when it comes to stumping it out on the campaign trail it will never have a campaigner who will out-campaign Helen Clark. The best thing that National members can do is hope that she goes away and gets a job somewhere else. It is the same hope that they are putting up for Steve Maharey. 
Talking about plan Bs let us talk about Mr Williamson and his tasteless jokes about obesity and prisoner of war camps. This means that Mr Williamson will be a prime candidate for Minister of Corrections—if National ever ever gets back on to the Treasury benches. As for Mr Brownlee he has had himself a job for a while that was to be his plan B—that is working for a bunch of people trying to tidy up casinos. But unfortunately for Mr Brownlee the two people involved in his company have gone AWOL and have never been seen again—Gerry jumped first. 
When it comes to arguments about what will go on in the future the National Party for a long time was running a campaign of very vicious personal attacks against Helen Clark but its members have now suddenly decided that they do not like personal attacks any more because questions have been raised about the judgment of their leader John Key. The question that has been asked on several occasions is what John Key thought about the Springbok Tour. Well we all know that he says he cannot remember. We all talk about whether John Key was for the war in Iraq. He was for it for a while. Simon Power put out the National policy in favour of the Americans and the British and he said that where they go is where National wants to go. That was until National got such a negative reaction from the public. National members suddenly changed their minds and then had a different policy. That policy was gone by lunchtime as well. 
It is just typical of the National Party’s policy development that it is for things when people are for them and it is against them when everyone else is against them. On the Kyoto Protocol National members thought at the time that the general public were opposed to the protocol. John Key went around and said that climate change was a complete hoax. Another National MP said that it was the worst example of international socialism. Now suddenly because of Al Gore’s movie and other people National realises that it is a very important issue for the future of our planet and it is now in favour of Kyoto. 
On paid parental leave the National MP Anne Tolley said that if National ever got back into power it would scrap it. John Key later said that he thinks he supports paid parental leave. Judith Collins said in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that she would have much rather had tax cuts than paid parental leave but recently told the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that she could have done with paid parental leave when she had a little child. So I ask National members which it is—are they in favour of paid parental leave or are they against it? Or will it be like 4 weeks’ annual leave? They opposed it bitterly at the time but suddenly realised that the New Zealand public wanted to have 4 weeks’ annual leave and they are now in favour of it. Is it going to be like KiwiSaver? National opposed KiwiSaver bitterly at the time but now because the general public thinks it is a great idea National is in favour of it. 
If we want some more flip-flops from the National Party what about the combat wing? We had a long period of rhetoric where the National Party claimed that New Zealand under Labour had gone soft on its responsibilities and should have had what it claimed to be a balanced strike force and that if we did not have this we were bludging on our mates. Now the National Party has come around and said that it will not reinstate the combat wing. 
How believable is the National Party on any of its policies? The National Party did everything it could to oppose the nuclear-free policy but now it has suddenly decided that the general public seems to like it so it is in favour of it. The National Party has no credibility on any of these policies whatsoever. The last one which I thought was a classic was on foreign policy. The National Party has recently gone on the record as saying that there is not much difference really between National and Labour on foreign policy and that in fact the National Party basically agrees with Labour. So I ask the National Party which it is. Is it going to have some policy before the next election or not? Is it going to have policies that it will oppose the Government on on a point of principle on a point of argument and on the point of having a logical reason for being in such a position? 
We had a very good example in the House this afternoon when Steve Maharey challenged the National Party spokesperson on education to have a policy. We have not heard one at all. What does the National Party’s website have relating to justice? There is a blank space. There is nothing. What it has is a statement that it would like to hear people’s ideas and asks them to send an email. That is the National Party’s position. It does not have any ideas. It likes to steal the Labour Party’s ideas. But when the public comes to a view that this is what they really support National will agree with that too. The National Party has no ideas so it is going to take up the challenge at the next election. It is going to be confronted by an energised Labour Party full of ideas and full of policy.