Street Maryan: General Debate 
Street Maryan: General Debate 
[Volume:638;Page:8203] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to contribute to the general debate this afternoon. I begin by referring to one of the activities that members engage in when we are not in the Chamber and that is moving around the electorates within which we work. On Monday afternoon I was driving to Kaipara College to talk to the principal there and visit the school as one does. As I drove through Kumeu I was very amused to see—and I thought it needed reporting because it was a traffic hazard—the jandals the flip-flops that were on top of the office of the Leader of the Opposition. It was absolutely extraordinary. Of course the first thing that came to mind is “flip-flop”. I do not want to labour that point particularly because it stands for itself; I really want to commend the people of Kumeu and Huapai for the fair they are having—the Jaffa and jandals fair. It is fantastic; there are jandals lined up against all sorts of letterboxes and businesses through that area. It really does bring a smile to one’s face when driving through to see that degree of humour and the promotion of a laid-back kind of lifestyle that the Kumeu and Huapai people enjoy. 
The smile on my face—because I was enjoying that whole message—turned into riotous laughter when I got past the constituency office of the Leader of the Opposition. I commend him for joining in the fun of the fair. I think it is a very good thing and humour against oneself is also a very admirable thing. But for a public relations company not to spot the lead-in this would give in respect of the “King of Flip-Flops” is beyond belief. I kept my hands on the wheel and remained on the road but I had to go back and see it a second time when driving back just to make sure I had not made a mistake. There they were bigger than anybody else’s! Other people have jandals attached to their businesses that are reasonably discreet but these were gigantic—these two blue and white flip-flops on top of the Leader of the Opposition’s constituency office. They really were worth remarking on. 
There is a more serious thing that I wish to address in the context of this debate—but it is not unrelated. The issue is to do with whether the member—who with all good humour may have attached some flip-flops to his roof—is trying to present himself as a credible alternative Prime Minister when there are so many flip-flops in his policies. This also needs to be drawn to the attention of not only the House but also the general public. It does not matter whether it is  
Agenda 
 on Saturday morning and newly made up housing policy a sudden recanting on the position of sending troops to Iraq or another item. This leader cannot and does not have it seems any wellspring of philosophical political commitment from which he can draw. He is constantly looking for the right answer for the audience. 
When he was asked by a student radio station what his view was on the Springbok Tour in 1981 he could not even bring himself to think up an honest answer. He could not bring himself to simply say he was for it or against it. He said he did not remember. He is the only person in this country I can recall who cannot remember which side of the argument he was on in 1981. The veneer that this leader—this would-be Prime Minister; this never-be Prime Minister—is trying to create is easily seen through by the people of New Zealand. It is easily seen through because the man has not kicked around long enough in political circles. Frequently we are accused of being Labour Party hacks or political hacks. There is something to be said for experience in this House and in politics.