Joyce Steven: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Joyce Steven: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 15 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4393. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I think we should thank the “Leader of the Opposition” for that contribution because at least it was an argument even if it was an incoherent argument. For Mr Norman’s benefit the roads of national significance are not there necessarily for political reasons; they are there for congestion reasons—they are there for congestion reasons. The reason that we do not build motorways in small regional areas is there is no congestion. In Auckland weirdly there has been congestion. The Victoria Park Tunnel project has actually already been successful the Waterview Connection is being successful and the Waikato Expressway is hugely important for the New Zealand economy. That is because these roads are— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How about Puhoi? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway still carries more traffic every day than the entire Auckland rail network. It still carries more than the entire Auckland railway network. 
So here we are with the Greens’ incoherent economic policy. Of course the other problem for Mr Norman is that he says we should have a “smart Green economy” which means we just subsidise jobs with taxpayers’ money. He should visit the communities where his policies are having the most negative impact where the Greens are out there arguing against economic growth in places like Northland and places like Gisborne. He should go there and actually tell them to support oil gas and mineral exploration if he really cared about jobs in this country. But he does not; he cares about them elsewhere. 
But at least they have an argument. At least the Greens have some form of argument. In the Labour Party the argument is amongst the Labour Party about that vexed question of which David should lead the Labour Party. The continuing saga of David and David and David continues. We have of course “Denying David” in the House right now—Mr Parker. Mr Parker is “Denying David”. He has actually gone on to become “Mr Deluded David”. He is now “Mr Deluded David” because he actually thinks that Labour has an orthodox economic policy. He actually thinks it has a positive pro-mining policy. He has not spoken to its energy and resources spokesperson who says that oil and gas should stay in the ground. He has not spoken to Mr Shearer who thinks that mines should be banned—I have seen the placards that Mr Shearer was carrying. So that is “Deluded Dave”. 
Then of course we have “Dark Dave”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members should be referred to by their correct names. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am just getting there Mr Speaker. Mr David Cunliffe I was referring to—the Hon David Cunliffe. He has been wearing quite a scowl—at least I thought it was a scowl but I suspect it may actually be 5 o’clock shadow—since he did not get the leadership. I do not want to cast aspersions but I think we now call him “Denuded Dave” because he has indeed had the shave. He has had the shave and of course it was a close shave that he did not get the Labour leadership. We always said that if he had a shave that meant that the challenge was on. Indeed the challenge is on because he turned up at Parliament yesterday with the three musketeers with Ms Dalziel Su’a William Sio and Ross Robertson. The interesting thing about it being Su’a William Sio who turned up with David Cunliffe is that he was the one who ran the criticism of the Labour Party’s policy last week and completely tripped up the pro tem leader of the Labour Party David Shearer. Right when he was trying to do something there was Mr Su’a William Sio. He turned up in Parliament yesterday alongside David Cunliffe who was grinning from ear to ear and saying Arnie Schwarzenegger - like “I’m back. I’m back. I’ve had my shave and I’m ready for the challenge.” 
Then of course there is the third Dave—what is his name? I cannot remember his name. But anyway he is the one who is not not having an impact. He is not not having an impact that David. We are just not quite sure who he is but I suppose it is true that it is better the David you know—or the David you do not know. Maybe it is better the David you do not know than the one that you do not know even worse. That is possibly the issue. 
So we have at least with the Greens some sort of argument. It is a very very poor argument and it is a bad argument for New Zealand. In Labour the argument is all within the Labour Party. Meanwhile on the Government side of the benches we are focused on one very very important thing: the massive opportunity that exists for New Zealand if we want to take it up for our exports over the next 20 years. The opportunity in Asia is absolutely phenomenal. It is absolutely phenomenal.