Williamson Maurice: Sittings of the House 
Williamson Maurice: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:628;Page:235] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this Government motion regarding the sitting hours for next year. The first point I would like to make to the Government is that it has had 6 of the best years economically that this country has ever enjoyed—through no benefit or fault of its own but just because of international commodity prices and conditions. But what do we face now? Everybody and every economist knows that times will get tough and that we are in for quite a bumpy landing economically. 
What does one need to do when times get tough? One needs to man the tiller and start doing some things because the boat sailed so comfortably only when things were going so smoothly. So what would we expect to see out of the sitting hours for next year if we have a bumpy landing in the economy? We would expect to see a Government that has its nose to the grindstone shoulders to the wheel and back to the wall and is getting on with things that will make the economy function. 
But what do we see? We see a schedule of sitting days that is the weakest limpest lamest thing that I have ever seen in my 18 years in this Parliament. Why would that be? Because of the deals the Government has done it has to be a do-nothing Government. David Lange would testify from his grave about what having a cup of tea and a breather does to a Government. Having a cup of tea and a breather finishes it. If a reformist Government wants to do something it has to keep ahead of the play. But this is not a cup of tea and a breather. For the Labour Government this is a whole morning tea and afternoon tea shoved together. It is a picnic lunch wrapped into a whole range of other days off and we will sit for only 87 days. Members of the public would be outraged if any of them were ever listening to this—which I know they are not. But if they were listening they would be outraged to think that this Parliament will sit for 87 days. 
 But let us go further and ask why. The reason is simple and my colleague Tau Henare touched on it: it is the leader of one of the coalition partners. He does not even admit to being a coalition partner but his name is Winston Peters and he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes he is. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Government. Let me tell members what he did as the deal because this is magic. Members will love this. He went to Rotorua during the election campaign and said: “New Zealand First will stand out from the Government. We will not be a coalition partner for either of the two tired old parties National or Labour. We will stand out from that.” That seemed a fantastically altruistic view of the world but obviously Winston Peters had New Zealand’s best interests at heart. It was great stuff. He had something better. Listen to this quote: “It’s a small price that my caucus is prepared to pay.” Listen to those words carefully. He did not say “I and my caucus” or “me and my caucus” or “myself”—he just said “a small price that my caucus is prepared to pay.” 
Let me give New Zealand First a lesson about business mergers. If a small company and quite a large company merge the shareholding and board representation should be in proportion to the companies’ size. Labour has 50 members of Parliament and 26 of them got to be Ministers. For those members who are not good at mathematics 26 out of 50 is more than 50 percent. More than half the Labour members got to be Ministers. So someone in the small company called New Zealand First that was about to go into this merger would have said that its members were in great shape there—at least 50 percent of them would be Ministers. Barbara Stewart would be a Minister; Peter Brown Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly would all say: “Hey this is great. If we do this deal just on a straight pro rata basis alone we’ll make it.” 
But it gets better. New Zealand First members should listen to this. If a small company is needed to make the merger work and if it will not happen without that company the company can negotiate even more. It could actually say: “Without us you don’t exist so we’re not going to go for the 52 percent that you guys have got; we’re going to go for more.” I know that some of the members would be worried about the commitment about the baubles. But let me tell members an old adage: It is better to be hanged for a sheep than for a lamb. Well I tell members it is better to be hanged for a lot of baubles than for just one. They would be much better to be hanged for a whole string of baubles than for one. 
What did Winston Peters go in and negotiate for in this coalition? It was just the one bauble. I want to test members of this House. Members should guess who got the bauble. Did Barbara Stewart get the bauble? No she did not. Did Peter Brown the deputy leader get it? No. Winston Peters went in there and members should remember what he said: “This is a small sacrifice that I know my colleagues are prepared to make.” Did they know that what he meant at Rotorua was that those guys were out of there but he was it—that he got the first-class travel the aeroplane the hotels and the silver BMW 7 Series taking him around? No they did not. 
It is no wonder Labour comes with a sitting schedule that is the thinnest and weakest I have ever seen in my 18 years here. There are two reasons for this. The Government will have Winston travelling the whole time— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I mean the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and I can tell members that he is “right honourable”. He is a man who sticks by his word! He told the public he was not in it for the baubles! He told the public he would not be part of a coalition! He was not going to have any bar of that! 
What is the one thing this Government cannot afford to have? It cannot afford to have Winston Peters in the House to answer questions. I predict that the Vote Foreign Affairs overseas travel budget in the next Budget will be huge. It will more than double so that Mr Peters the Rt Hon Winston Peters will be overseas all the time. He will not be representing the Government because—as members should remember—he does not represent the Government. In fact if New Zealand First members had had the chance to say where they would sit they would sit on the Opposition benches. 
My final points are made to Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly. I pick those two out because I actually think both are very good members of this House. I think Brian Donnelly’s contribution to education over the years has been stunning. I compare him with the current Minister of Education Steve Maharey. There is no contest! In fact John Tamihere’s view about “Smarmy Maharey” says it all. Brian Donnelly knows the education system better than any member of this House and would have been a great Minister. Did they negotiate anything for him? “No sorry Brian you are on your own pal; you’re out of here.” 
Simon Power 
: Cheers Brian! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Cheers Brian! And Ron Mark who has so desperately craved the honorific—“the Hon Ron Mark”—ain’t gonna get it and why? Because Winston Peters did not even ask for it. I tell Mrs Stewart that that is the actual issue. She should have a think about it. He did not even ask during the coalition talks. He went in there and said: “What’s in this for me?”. Labour which was so desperate to get a deal done that it would have sold its soul at the company store said: “Here’s the deal.” 
The next thing one would ask is what Winston has been famous for here? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: What has Mr Peters been famous for? He has been famous for immigration issues; he has fought those long and hard. He has been famous for scandals with regard to transport issues. He remembers when the Cook Strait ferry scraped its bottom when Richard Prebble was Minister of Transport. He has been famous for TVNZ scandals. Has any member of this House ever heard him talk about foreign affairs? Have members heard him talk about it ever? No. So what does one make him? 
I tell members why Labour made him Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is the one portfolio that means a Minister is out of the country all the time. “How do we get rid of this guy? How do we keep him out?” asked Helen Clark and her coterie. “We’ll give him the biggest bauble there is. In fact it will have the bangles and the beads dangling from it as well.” The baubles bangles and beads were for Winston Peters to have the overseas travel and the overseas first-class trips. Poor old Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly—about four of New Zealand First members—should have got a position if anything was in proportion. Would any member tell me that Brian Donnelly does not know more about education than David “Tennis Ball” Benson-Pope knew when he was there? 
Darren Hughes 
: Come on Maurice. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I am deadly serious. If Mr Hughes does not think Brian Donnelly does not know more about education than that man then he is wrong. But did Mr Donnelly get a role? No he is out in the cold and so is Ron Mark. It is an absolute disgrace and these sitting dates are an absolute sham.