Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3558] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 If National had been able to form a Government after the last election what would we have had? We would have had Don Brash as the Prime Minister. He was the leader of the National Party only because the secret funders—the insider traders—said: “No Brash; no cash”. Gerry Brownlee—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. One is to do with the outrageous comments being made by the Deputy Leader of the House. The second point of order is that usually the debates in this House go from side to side. I never thought the Opposition would be so weak so early in the term that we would have two Labour speakers speaking one after the other. I want to know whether that is the kind of form we can expect —in which event we will take the second speaking slot on this side of House because as least there is somebody talking common sense in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will just make a point of observation. Members can never allege that another member has lied. That is absolutely out of order. If members do not like what a member says they can therefore speak in the debate. The matter can also be referred to Madam Speaker as a breach of privilege. All members in this House are honourable members. Their words are unreservedly accepted and all members will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the business of the House within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Gerry Brownlee would have been the Deputy Prime Minister. Bill English would have been the Minister of Education and Associate Minister of Finance. Members might remember that Bill English was a Treasury official when it did all the work that was done behind the scenes in the 1980s and 1990s. 
John Key would have been the Minister of Finance. Everyone in this House should see a movie called  
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room 
 then consider whether a money market trader that is a gambler—a good one but a gambler nevertheless—is the sort of person we want managing our finances in New Zealand. 
The next National member is Nick Smith who would have been responsible for the environment and the Resource Management Act. We would have had unfettered development. If he were responsible for energy he would be like Max Bradford on P. In respect of building and construction I ask members to remember the 1991 Building Act. Members might also remember that the funding of standards changed dramatically in the middle of the 1990s. There was no interest from the sector and no standard. No standard was ever given for monolithic cladding systems and that is why we had leaky buildings. 
Tony Ryall would have been running our health system. Hospitals would have been run as businesses with cash registers at the doors. There would have been a loss of institutional knowledge—like we had in the 1990s—as good people left. Intuitive senior nurses and democratically elected boards would have been sacked. Why would we ever let Tony Ryall run our health system? As for Judith Collins I was told that she joined a women’s organisation just before the election then left it straight after the election—she was gone by lunchtime I was told. 
The National Party has two faces. I ask members to remember 1990. National delivered a mini-Budget before Christmas. That mini-Budget contained the benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act—a package designed to go together. It was designed to give the appearance of increased productivity by cutting wages and conditions of employment and it was planned. The election was on 27 October Parliament was sworn in in November and the Employment Contracts Bill was introduced in December. It was written before the election. Who wrote the Employment Contracts Bill? It was not the Department of Labour because National was in Opposition. The National Party delivers not on its public promises but on its secret private deals and secret agenda. 
The public must never forget that National has one face for the public and another face for its secret meetings with its secret funders. National received $1.2 million from the non-voting Exclusive Brethren. We know that now but we did not know that the figure was $1.2 million before the election. Who paid for those really big billboards and whose idea were those billboards? A member of the National Party certainly did not come up with that idea. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How much did the unions put in? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I ask Mr Brownlee what the quid pro quo was. We know by looking at some of the fundamentalist websites overseas that women’s rights were in National’s sights—legislated morality in the name of family values. That is what we would have had from a National Government. I say to those new liberal members on the National Party’s back benches that you would have been dragged into this and some of you would have been happy to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Some of them would have been very happy to see the non-liberal approach as we had legislated morality in the name of family values. But I know that some back-benchers would have been appalled at what National was prepared to trade in exchange for the money of the Exclusive Brethren. Labour members understand family values better than the Opposition because we know that family values are underpinned by a commitment to economic and social policy and that is why Labour has the confidence of the House.