General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:635;Page:6507] 
General Debate 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The National Party was very keen indeed to ensure that New Zealand had the opportunity of hosting the Rugby World Cup. Because of that my colleague Murray McCully met the International Rugby Board with Mr Mallard to make that point very clear. There was bipartisan support for New Zealand to host the cup. We also made a commitment that for that cup there would be a stadium that could host 60000 people. We are still committed to that. But that does not mean we are willing to write a blank cheque for any wacky project that the Government comes up with to make sure that the games do not take place in Helen Clark’s electorate. 
We very much regret that a full year after New Zealand won the right to host the cup the Government says that its preferred stadium option is a waterfront stadium and gives the citizens of Auckland 2 weeks to take it or to leave it. Yesterday we advised Trevor Mallard that the National Party was willing to support legislation to facilitate the upgrading of the Eden Park stadium—with some qualifications around financing—because the project seems eminently feasible the costing of it has been well supported by quantity surveyors and it seems clear that the extra capacity can be built comfortably within the time frame that we have available. But we would need to be satisfied about a number of issues before agreeing to support legislation for the waterfront stadium. 
First of all it is quite unclear what the cost of that stadium would be. Trevor Mallard talks about $497 million—not $500 million but $497 million—creating an impression of totally spurious accuracy. We have in our caucus someone who has actually built a stadium. He says that the cost of this waterfront stadium is likely to be double or treble the figure that Trevor Mallard talks about. It will be much much higher and the fact that the chairman of Fletcher Building has made it very clear indeed that this is a cost-plus contract makes that abundantly clear. 
Secondly there has to be huge uncertainty about whether this project can be built on time. It would not be satisfactory for us to say in the middle of 2010: “Whoops! Can we put the world cup competition back 12 months because the stadium will not be finished?”. 
It is also crucially important that the citizens of Auckland like this project because Aucklanders will be picking up a big chunk of the tab and Aucklanders will have to live with the result. As somebody who lives in Auckland I do not find the idea of a huge inward-looking stadium that blocks the views of one of the finest harbours in the world and that essentially is lifeless for most of the time attractive at all. My own preference on this question is not relevant; what is important is that the citizens of Auckland like the project and at this stage the indications are that Aucklanders do not like it. Trevor Mallard says that a waterfront stadium would “transform” Auckland. Well it might do but not for the better. If the Government wants to transform Auckland let it support the Eden Park upgrade and use the savings to transform the Auckland roading system so that the economy of Auckland can be transformed and so that people going to the games can get there before the first whistle. 
Let me also comment briefly on the suggestion that bed taxes be used to finance the stadium. The National Party is not at all enthusiastic about a bed tax; indeed to date the Government itself has opposed bed taxes with the then Minister of Tourism Mark Burton stating 4 years ago that it was neither fair nor credible to single out the accommodation sector for extra taxes. It is worth recalling that the tourism sector is the only part of the export sector that pays GST on its sales and that international visitors already pay $500 million in GST every year. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Last Friday the Families Commission announced the results of a study of mothers undertaken by Massey University on parenting and participation in the paid workforce. The study gave particular attention to the cultural and attitudinal norms of society around the important decision made by mothers about whether to provide at-home care for their children—particularly preschoolers—to re-enter the paid workforce or to have some combination of both options. 
The conclusions of that study are noteworthy. Firstly the women involved think that society no longer feels that a good mother necessarily stays at home full time. Secondly they believe that society today expects them to re-enter paid work part time and does not value stay-at-home mothers. The women feel that more should be done by the Government so that mothers have the choice to stay at home and care for their children rather than be offered assistance with childcare only. Most women also felt that the first year was an important time for mothers rather than for fathers to be with their children for bonding and breastfeeding. United Future shares those concerns. At the moment Government assistance weighs the scales in favour of workforce participation through assistance with childcare but does nothing at all for stay-at-home mums. 
The Prime Minister laid out her vision for such mothers a couple of years back. She lamented their relatively low levels of participation in the paid workforce whilst refusing to acknowledge in response to questions from United Future that mothers who stay at home with their children are also making a much valued contribution to New Zealand society and its economy. She talked about choice which is something that all of us value but she put forward no policy for stay-at-home mums. 
United Future has a very different vision. We say that full-time childcare by mothers should be both valued by society and tangibly recognised through Government policy. That is why we are passionate about income splitting for the 336000 couples who are raising children. Income splitting would reduce income tax for many couples and boost their net household income. In addition though that policy would send a positive message to those mothers who freely choose to stay at home with their children that our culture does value their unique and vitally important role in training and raising the next generation of Kiwis. 
Income splitting addresses the unique position of mothers holistically and it turns the focus directly on to the family unit and its need for an adequate income. In many cases it supplements Working for Families income support and reduces the need for such support through income tax reductions—three words that are now more and more associated with United Future. That is why United Future has included income splitting in its confidence and supply agreement. That is why the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne will be issuing a discussion document on income splitting and all couples with children can take some encouragement from that.  
 In this House we have consistently argued for a threshold adjustment to tax brackets for several years now. We have consistently advocated for and are acting on a reduction in business taxation and I am sure we will see both of those things delivered in next year’s Budget. We also continue to stay on the case of income splitting for couples who are raising children because it is fair it is just and it recognises the tremendous and irreplaceable contribution that mothers make to the training and the welfare of our children—something that is not only our future but already to a very significant degree our present. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In the next week or two the National Party will enter its eighth year in Opposition and still its members have not decided who is to be their leader. This is an extraordinary position to be in and I do not know of another period in New Zealand history when a party thrown into Opposition wallowed for so long with its leadership unresolved. Last time Labour was in Opposition its members resolved their leadership in a little over 3 years. The time before that when National was in Opposition its members resolved their leadership in a little over 3 years. But this Opposition has gone 7 years and in a week or two it will enter its eighth year in Opposition and still there is no progress. The issue is unresolved. 
The National Party’s favourite season of October and November though still not closed has only a couple of weeks to run yet its members still have not budged. They might budge of course in the next fortnight but it seems that the show-pony candidate is now losing his bottle. They might have budged yesterday of course but their leader scuttled back from the other side of the world to be at his caucus and to maintain his position. National members might of course budge early next year—in February or perhaps at Easter—or maybe they will do so before Christmas so that they can then leave time for the splits and divisions that will result in their caucus to heal over the holidays away from the media glare. But the point of the matter is that National members have not budged and they have not shown any sign of doing so. They might of course change leaders on the basis of some future blunder by the current leader or on the basis of a reinvigorated centre-right candidate in the form of Bill English. But right now as National’s eighth year in Opposition gets under way the issue is unresolved. 
The far-right candidate is of course doggedly going nowhere in every respect; the centre-right candidate is not showing his hand; and the show-pony candidate has his bottle slipping away from him for now. The deputy leader of the National Party is listening to this speech with a lovely grin all over his face. The issue is unresolved. This party cannot get there. It cannot amass the numbers for anything. The numbers for Don Brash of course are not there but he stays there anyway. The numbers for John Key might be there but only if he is there and he is not sure so no one else is sure. The numbers for Bill English take the form for most people in the National caucus of being everyone’s second preference which is always helpful if the caucus cannot sort out who its first preference is. 
The National Party is paralysed by its own indecision. Its members hang in suspended animation waiting for something to happen for anything to happen—anything really would do. A poll rise would do a poll fall would do a political event of some sort would do and a walking of the plank—or whatever it is to be—would do. They wait for developments and they wait for a sign; they are paralysed by their own indecision. They wait in the hope that an event or a shift might occur or that somehow the political scene might change—that it might nudge them towards some resolution or other. But right now as was the case last month and the month before that there is no resolution. That is why of course there is no policy in the National Party. There is no coalescing on any platform ever. There is no certainty about where in the political spectrum National might place itself. The reason is that the three candidates for leadership are quite different people—from the far right from the centre-right and a show pony. 
It is not easy if one is the National Party spokesperson on health say or on economic development or foreign affairs to know how to frame the policy where to pitch it whereabouts on the spectrum to place it whether to be timid or radical and how to triangulate the Government or head it off at the pass. These things are difficult to do if members do not know who their leader is or where their party is being led from. 
So there is no policy except tax cuts and even then there is no detail. In health for example National has a 5-point plan with four points on it. The plan has four sentences as if that adds up to something resembling a policy—of course it does not. National cannot sort out its leader so it cannot even sort out its portfolios. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a great shame that Mr Hodgson the member who preceded me is not back in his office doing something for those thousands of cancer patients who are unlikely to get their treatment because of his incompetence so far rather than being here in the House and making a ridiculous speech like that. He did make one interesting point. He said that the Opposition should be trying to triangulate the Government. That is a political manoeuvre where one tries to get the Government in trouble. Let me tell members we do not need to do that while there are senior Ministers in this Government wandering around the halls of this Parliament referring to Helen Clark as “Queen Helen” and bemoaning her imperious decision to place the national stadium on the Auckland waterfront. 
I do not want to speak this afternoon about the merits of one stadium over another. But I do want to make this clear: the National Party supported the efforts of the Rugby Union which were also supported by the Government to get the 2011 Rugby World Cup to New Zealand. We did so because the benefits of hosting such an event are enormous for this country. Everybody who has any idea about tourism numbers will know that they have held up in this country over the last few years largely attributable to things like  
The Lord of the Rings 
 movies and various other smaller-scale events that have meant that the rest of the world have been able to look at New Zealand and say that that is a place they would like to go to. We think those initiatives are worthwhile. 
But we also know that during the time of the Rugby World Cup in excess of 2 billion people worldwide will be watching at least one rugby game in New Zealand. That will be a huge opportunity to showcase the nation and to build on an industry that now is over 40 percent of our domestic economy. We are very upset about the fact that Labour Government members have sat on their hands for 12 months and done nothing to back up the promise they made to have a 60000-seat stadium available for the final of the Rugby World Cup. We now know that a big part of that “sitting on their hands” has been caused by the Prime Minister who said “not in my backyard.” That sort of behaviour is just unacceptable. 
Now we are in the awkward position of seeing local authorities in Auckland struggling with the decision that they must make within 14 days to commit their ratepayers to what appears to be quite an extraordinary expense. There were interesting comments from the Minister of Finance who said that if they go for one stadium Eden Park there will be no Government money. But if they go for the waterfront stadium the cheque book will be wide open. We know that there have been discussions between the Labour Government and Fletcher’s but I do not want to suggest that this is somehow a mechanism for the Labour Government or the Labour caucus to get rid of a certain encumbrance that hangs around their necks at the present time. But I would say that $800000 in a multi-hundred-million-dollar project is very little. So it does surprise us that we are in this situation. 
But more than surprising us it angers us. This event is too big and too great an opportunity for the country to be put at the sort of risk that Trevor Mallard is creating at the present time. If this Government were serious about New Zealand getting its maximum opportunities out of the Rugby World Cup then it would not be some little cabal on the ninth floor making all the decisions. It would be an opportunity I would have thought for the Government to involve far more people than that and to avoid the sorts of unfortunate political stand-offs that appear to be happening at the moment. 
 United Future is taking a wait and see position and the New Zealand First party is saying that it wants to take a wait and see option as well. Nobody can sit comfortably in this Parliament without the numbers in front of us without knowing what it will cost and without knowing who will bear that cost. We spend lots of time in this Parliament talking about the rates burden on people throughout the country and our desire to reduce it. The Government even brought in a rates rebate scheme. Let us make it clear that unless Michael Cullen is prepared to make a bigger commitment than he has so far anybody who receives that rebate will end up losing it. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 If anybody has any doubts about the paralysis in the National Party they have only to read the transcripts of both of those National Party speeches. On the Auckland stadium options Don Brash said: “I am not going to express my opinion.” which is short for the fact that he has no opinion. Gerry Brownlee the second speaker for the National Party said: “I am not going to discuss the merits of one against the other.” or in other words: “I have no opinion at all either.” Parliament should be a contest of ideas and it is very clear that on the Government side of the House there are ideas. On the Opposition side of the House there are no ideas—none whatsoever. 
It is interesting to see that this Labour Government has been promoting issues around global warming for quite some time and that the deniers of global warming and the destroyers of the environment on the National side have been loud and clear. But what do those members say when public opinion turns around dramatically after Helen Clark’s speech on global warming at the Labour Party conference? Suddenly John Key the show pony of the National Party gets attention when he appears before the cameras and says that he wants to see Al Gore. He had not expressed an opinion on global warming at all until then but when one is looking for big ideas one looks to the Labour Government. The Government is talking about economic transformation it is talking about national identity and both of these notions resonate with our community. 
From the other side of the House we had a speech today from the leader of the Opposition that was so wooden and dull it could have been delivered only by a Haitian zombie. The single most important achievement of Don Brash in this House has been to make Gerry Brownlee look good. No one else has been able to make Gerry Brownlee look as good as that before. 
Dr Brash is yesterday’s man. It is over for Don Brash; we all know that. Here is just one example. Dr Brash went to the RSA’s 90th anniversary do here in Wellington and said that he would have a review of the legislation for veterans. Well the Government has already announced that. He also said that he would have a review of Veterans Affairs New Zealand. Well I had already announced that. He is always picking up yesterday’s ideas. He is yesterday’s man. Mr Brownlee shows some energy and enthusiasm but we do not get any sense of energy or enthusiasm from Dr Don Brash. 
Don Brash reminds me of that fabulous quote from Winston Churchill on his political opponent Mr Attlee. He said: “An empty taxi turned up outside 10 Downing Street and Mr Attlee got out.” Well that is like Dr Brash. He went overseas to follow Helen Clark to the opening of the New Zealand Memorial in London. Who knew he was over there? No one seemed to know that he was over there. There were no reports of him—nothing. He drifted in and out of London. The only people who knew that he was in and out were the customs staff on the border; no one else knew about that. And he left early because he knew there was a vote going on in the National Party caucus. He is very nervous. 
It is springtime in the National Party and it is time for a change. Let us not forget that Bolger was rolled by Shipley in November Shipley was rolled by English in October and English was rolled by Brash at the end of the year—and Dr Don Brash knew that it would be four in a row so he scurried home to shore up the numbers. 
All the writers and commentators are saying that National has to get its leadership sorted out. Supporters of the National Party want to see strong leadership. The National Party cannot be united around Don Brash because the writers and the public know that Don Brash will not cannot and will never lead the National Party to victory—and certainly not at the next election. So the question is who will lead the National Party. 
 Well one obvious contender is Mr Key. If we find a television camera there is Mr Key in front of it. He is trying to make himself more appealing so he has suddenly found the issue of climate change. This is from the party that is determined to rip out the guts of the Resource Management Act which is a key part of protecting our natural environment. But National has suddenly found that global warming is an issue in New Zealand and it is coming to that issue. It is not that it is saying that the science is there or that it is committing itself to anything; it is just simply saying that it believes there should be some consideration given to the issue. 
But when we look at the National Party front bench we see that it is pretty woeful. I was interested to see in  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
 the other day that Dr Nick Smith one of the front bench members of the National Party was referred to as being “on another planet”. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 The stadium debate which engulfs New Zealand and particularly Auckland at this present time is an important debate. It has important implications for Auckland and it has important implications for New Zealand’s capacity to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup. The process by which we resolve that debate is even more important. 
We all have our own personal views about the right way to go forward. It is no secret amongst my colleagues and it is no secret to the Minister for Sport and Recreation that I strongly believe that the North Harbour Stadium would be the right place for us to host the final event and I commend Brendon O’Connor from that stadium and Mayor George Wood for putting forward such an effective and compelling case for North Harbour. It is the cheapest of the options; it also makes very good sense from a number of transport and other points of view. I commend my colleagues John Key Jonathan Coleman and Wayne Mapp for the support they have given that option. 
But this is not the National Party’s process; it is the Government’s process. The Government holds the pen. The Government is responsible for the fact that 12 months after the bid was won we are now embroiled in this debate with so few facts upon the table. The National Party role in this process is to deal sensibly and professionally with requests for legislation made by the Minister to facilitate the venue that the Government identifies as the one to move forward. Legislation is required whether it is for a waterfront stadium or an upgrade at Eden Park. In that respect it is important that we on this side of the House are able then to put aside our personal choices and ensure that there is a good process. 
The project will not be completed in the term of this Parliament or very likely not even in the term of the next Parliament. It has profound implications for the next Government of New Zealand. Although it is possible with United Future and New Zealand First that the numbers might be gathered together to help the Minister pass legislation through the House it would be much better for Auckland for New Zealand and for International Rugby Board confidence in our ability to host the World Cup if there is a consensus that spans the two major parties as we move forward with that legislation. The last thing I want to see is the International Rugby Board chief executive on the phone to the chairman of the Australian Rugby Union asking the Australians to put together a back-up proposal because it looks as if the Kiwis cannot get their act together. 
That is why with 10 days to go before the leadership of Auckland is required to spell out a decision the National Party has decided it should be proactive as part of this process—that we should spell out to Auckland and to the decision makers in Wellington what the parameters are for our decision making about the two different pieces of legislation in prospect. That is why we signalled that if the Eden Park proposal were selected by Auckland and moves forward we see no problem with facilitating the legislation dealing with the Resource Management Act consent process and the funding issues—with the qualifications my leader Dr Brash has talked about—to go very quickly through the House. The numbers and the design features are reasonably robust. 
Rob Fisher said this morning that they are 9 months ahead with the waterfront proposal and they are well ahead whether or not by 9 months. We feel sufficient confidence having looked at quite detailed plans as Mr Brownlee has indicated to indicate our support for legislation that will facilitate that. That is important. What it says is that Auckland provided the decisions are right can host a Rugby World Cup in a 60000-seat stadium in 2011. The National Party will commit to the legislation that will make that possible. 
If the Government wants to take a more adventurous path and move to a waterfront proposal that has many more significant question marks hanging over it then we have spelt out the more rigorous path we will take in regard to that legislation. That is appropriate. We have signalled to the Government that it will have to answer some very tough questions—not because they are National’s questions not because National has a partisan view but because they are the public’s questions. This is the public’s money and the public has a right to answers. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) 
: 
 This is one of those occasions when we start to think of contrasts. In this cup week I can think of a number of analogies that I will come to in a minute but one starts to think of the contrast with regard to the divide between the parties. On the one hand we have a Government that has announced a whole range of measures whether they be energy efficiency in housing climate change initiatives national energy strategies ideas visions and a whole series of climate change and environmental initiatives such as the solar water-heating programmes. My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons is working on star rating systems. The ideas are oozing out of members on this side of the House who are in Government. 
Then we look across the House and see the contrast with that. We see the effort made by National’s leader Don Brash. He staggered through—he talked about Bob Clarkson; I think he meant a bob each way—a sort of dissertation about a stadium idea or policy that he may have. He did make Gerry Brownlee’s speech look good. Then we had a contribution from Murray McCully which was actually rather sound in some ways. He has the spokespersonship on that whole deal for the National side of the House. He was the third speaker off the rank. I will tell the House about the National Party—here is the contrast with the Government which is pumping out ideas. I think somebody in America called it the vision thing. We have a group of people opposite us who are absolutely paralysed. They are dominated by plotting scheming and paralysis. They are trying to work out which horse they should jump on. 
It is cup week I am a Cantabrian and we did host the New Zealand Cup. I am reminded of a few horse analogies—as the crazy horse walks out the door— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am reminded of a couple of horse analogies. We have on the Opposition side of the House one or two thoroughbreds so those members say. One is nicknamed “National Velvet” according to  
North and South 
 and he is the front runner—that being John Key. Of course the problem with regard to John Key and the leadership is that he ain’t got the bottle or the steel to move. He does not know what to do. He would love to have a go at it but he is absolutely indecisive. And he purports to want to be the Prime Minister one day! That guy was once a sort of junk bond - trader in foreign exchange in New York. He traded in junk bonds up and down the country. Was he decisive in that? He cannot make up his mind as the thoroughbred of the National Party whether he will run. 
Then there is the draught horse over there Gerry Brownlee who would love to have a go at leading National. He is itching to have a go. He cannot believe his luck that he got to the deputy’s seat which he has and he knows that the only way he will survive—as he gets up every day in this Chamber with a bit of bluff and bluster—is if John Key rolls Don. 
But the problem is of course that the National Party is absolutely paralysed. It does not know which way to go. What did it roll out? Don Brash made a very interesting speech. He talked about the stadium costings and the need for a GST component to be included in them. He is the man who in the 1980s chaired the committee that designed GST. Suddenly in the Chamber today he rekindled his wonderful eloquent knowledge and expertise on GST. 
The problem is of course that as Don Brash pontificated on high about the GST in respect of the stadium costings he did not mention the $112000 that National owes in its GST overspend which it will not pay back. Given the muck that National members threw around this House week after week and I will not use the word but I think everybody knows what the first letter is—it is the “h” word— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the use of that letter is an imputation. Members cannot get around the rules. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. The member threw the muck around yet he had a dose of amnesia when it came to his party’s GST and whether it would pay it back. I remind people who are listening to this debate that National went so far in not moving on its own payments that the taxpayer-funded Television New Zealand had to pay part of the GST for National. It had to pay its bit back to the broadcasters. 
We can look at the National members staggering around over there in Opposition. Don Brash made a speech that would I suspect make paint dry. Don Brash stood there with no vision and no ideas but was backed up with a bit of smoke and mirrors and bluster from Gerry Brownlee. Then of course there is Bill English. John Key’s other problem is that he is being undermined by Bill English. Bill English would love to go there but he is a sort of old nag that is off to the glue factory. Bill English would love to get there but he ain’t going to make it. 
National members should get some vision they should get some ideas and they should actually tell us what their policy is on the stadium. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to join in the Wednesday debate this afternoon because on the Labour side of the House we sure have plenty to talk about and using a further analogy I can say that it is not just one or two members opposite who are headed for the knacker’s yard it is the whole National Party. I have never seen so many press releases about a National leadership challenge as I did when we were putting our files together this afternoon. What it means for the National Party is that it is paralysed. We are seeing no example of policy at all. National members have had many years in Opposition in which to put policy together. Being in Opposition is a good opportunity for a party to put policy together but we have not seen any emanating from National members. It is a waste of time on their part as nobody is listening to them because of their preoccupation with leadership changes. The impression that the public has about National members is that they just cannot get their act together and they are clearly headed for the knacker’s yard whereas members on this side of the House are like the great horse Kiwi from Waverley. We won the political equivalent of the Melbourne Cup and we have a very proud history in that regard. 
One of the other issues on which the National Party has got itself into a real quandary— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ll tell you what that member would be rejected by the glue factory. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that he has had his turn and he should hush down a little. One of the other issues on which National has got itself into a real quandary— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no Minister in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes there is a Minister in the House. The member will please continue. The clock has been stopped. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh my apologies David Cunliffe is here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will continue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want you to rule on this matter. Clearly there is a Minister in the House but we could not see him because he was slumped down over his seat asleep. Is there a requirement that the Minister should be awake in the House? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Mr McCully. It is a frivolous point of order and the member knows that it is. The Minister had his head down and was working. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could enlighten the House as to why there has to be a Minister in the House and what that Minister does while in the House. If there is a purpose to the Minister being in the House I would be interested to know whether that purpose can be fulfilled by someone who is sound asleep. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Brownlee for that. There have now been two frivolous interventions. I ask the member for Whanganui to restart her speech. 
JILL PETTIS 
: They are sharp are they not? They are so pathetic. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You referred to the member as the member for Whanganui. She is a list member and is not the member for Whanganui. You called the member for Whanganui; I think you should refer to her by her proper title. She is a list member not the member for Whanganui. She actually lost her seat to a very good member from the National Party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. That was an indiscretion on my part. I call the honourable member Jill Pettis. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Here we are proudly calling ourselves Kiwis and proud to be New Zealanders yet National Opposition members opposite worry themselves about things of no consequence at all in the greater scheme of things. That shows the huge difference between members of that party and Government members sitting on this side of the House. We are concerned about leadership; we are concerned about vision; we are concerned about New Zealand and the things that really matter. That is the difference between leadership on this side and the National Opposition on the other side which is riven with division. National is riven with division but we are leading the country and will continue to lead. 
We are leading on things like climate change—an issue that the whole world is talking about. Climate change is being talked about by the developed world by the whole progressive world. But the National caucus is filled with division about whether climate change is a reality and about how they can avoid talking about the issue and revealing those members within the National Party who are sceptical about climate change. They are too scared to lose what little backing they have from the business community and from the agricultural community. 
Which party made all the fuss about the methane tax or more commonly known in New Zealand as the “fart tax”? Which party led the charge? It was the National Party that decried the impact on climate change of methane and all of those emissions from farm animals. It is now catching up with the fact that it made a huge mistake. Credible scientists and credible people—like Al Gore who is respected internationally—are leading the debate on this issue and prominent countries in the world are listening to Al Gore’s words. National knows that it made a grave error back then. It has no policy because it has no leadership. 
John Key is a climate change sceptic. He is a doubter. John Key is the man who is more concerned about what his shares did overnight. When asked what is the first thing he thinks about each morning—I do not know whether Mrs Key knows this—he says: “My shares. I wonder how they fared overnight.” He is not the man who says: “My first thoughts— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is bad enough that Ministers go to sleep in the Chamber; it is not acceptable that you do. We want that woman pulled up; we want an apology; and if you were a halfway decent Speaker you would send her out of here. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not see that as a need to pull her up. All she said was that the first thing Mr Key thought about in the morning was his shares. That is a debatable issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s not what was said and you know it and the  
Hansard 
 record will show it. If you let it go it is a disgrace. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member has caused any offence the member will please withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I do not know what I am withdrawing for but I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You used to be a junior whip. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. Well that just shows how sensitive those members are. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I said that I will withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: And apologise thank you. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Absolutely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not acceptable that you allow that member to qualify her withdrawal in the way she has. On past occasions when the Speaker has asked someone to withdraw and it has been done in an insincere manner as that member has just shown the Speaker has required the person to leave the House. That should be exactly how it is played out in this circumstance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say Mr Brownlee that what I heard the member say was that the first thing Mr Key thought of in the morning was the value of his shares. I did not personally see anything wrong with that. That is what I heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point is that when you are asleep you do not hear the whole story. That is what has just happened and the  
Hansard 
 record— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I did not hear anything about what the member might be insinuating. I have asked the member on my right that if she has offended she will withdraw and apologise and recommence her speech. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I did without qualification. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the issue. The member has withdrawn and apologised. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I want to draw your attention to the fact that the member having withdrawn and apologised then qualified that withdrawal. That is unacceptable inside the Standing Orders and the Speaker always takes a course of action when there is such a qualification. I invite you to take it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not hear the member make a qualification but she knows that she cannot make a qualification. The member must stand withdraw and apologise. I ask the member to do that right now. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No please do it. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: And apologise. 
JILL PETTIS 
: And apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken offence that a member of this House should accuse the Speaker of being asleep during this debate. I seek a withdrawal and an apology for that accusation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for that. 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you call the member back so that he can do that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order please! Look guys; just calm down just relax. This is the Wednesday debate. I did not take any offence at the comment and certainly was not asleep. But I thank the member for rising to support the Speaker’s position. I understand the situation and I have dealt with it. I now want to call— 
Pita Paraone 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that you did not take offence but I certainly did and on that basis I was asking for a withdrawal and an apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You cannot take offence on behalf of another member. I am going to move on. I call the honourable member Jill Pettis. 
JILL PETTIS 
: It is absolutely delicious that members opposite can become so preoccupied about issues of no real importance at all. Getting slagged off a bit is just politics. That is what politics is about. It just shows how thin their skins are when they cannot take anything. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have already drawn to your attention the requirement under the Standing Orders for apologies and withdrawals to be made without qualification. I suggest to you that the member on her feet is now referring to the fact that members on this side who raised objections for which she was required to withdraw and apologise are “thin-skinned” to use her term for raising objection. I put it to you that that is not only a qualification of the apology and withdrawal but also it comes dangerously close to challenging the ruling that required her to make that withdrawal and apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to desist. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member also used a very unparliamentary term. She talked about National members who were “slagged off”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that points of order are heard in silence. If they are not then someone is going to get a yellow card. I call the honourable member Lindsay Tisch. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Following on from the point raised by my colleague Murray McCully he brought to your attention that a member cannot qualify a withdrawal and an apology which the member did do and then used a very unparliamentary term when she referred to National members as getting “slagged off”. We take offence and those words should not be used in this House. I ask that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A member has taken offence. The member will withdraw. 
JILL PETTIS 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the situation. 
JILL PETTIS 
: This is a new point of order. I seek clarification. In the interests of a continuation of a smooth debate would you clarify whether the word “misogyny” is unparliamentary. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well one can do anything in context so it depends on the way in which it is used in the House. 
JILL PETTIS 
: In context I suggest a bit of misogyny is rife here this afternoon because three male speakers from our side of the House spoke before me and there was not one interjection from the National Party. But when I got up on my haunches members opposite did nothing but interject and interject. I think a little bit of misogyny— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Picking on the girls. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes they are picking on a poor woman. I say: “Shame on you!”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Jill Pettis was doing it all over again was she not? She has been required to withdraw and apologise without qualification. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Twice 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: As my colleague Mr Tisch has indicated she has actually been required to do that twice. What did she do the third time? She repeated the same offence all over again. Mr Assistant Speaker she is simply trifling with your rulings and you seem to be willing to tolerate that. I find that unacceptable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s speech has been terminated. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 If ever a member were headed for the knacker’s yard quite frankly it would be the member whom we have just heard from Jill Pettis. She is probably too tough to turn into glue. She has been in Parliament for three terms but no one knows her and she does not even know the Standing Orders. I can tell Mrs Pettis that very soon she will be able to collect her pointy hat jump on the broom and head back to Wanganui for good. Normally I would be telling her campaign manager to do plenty of radio but in this case I do not know whether it would be a good idea. 
We have heard today that this is the Government of ideas. And it is. It is the Government of stupid ideas; it is the Government of middle-class welfare; it is the Government of retrospective legislation; and of course it is the Government of an unplanned stadium with no site no costings and no guarantee. I ask members to picture the day of the final of the Rugby World Cup 2011. The former Minister for the Rugby World Cup the now disgraced High Commissioner for Niue is sitting in the high commissioner’s residence eyeing that bottle of Heineken on the table rueing the comments he made in 2003 about John O’Neill and turning on his TV to see the All Blacks run on to Homebush. That is what we are headed for. On that day it is quite possible that down on the Auckland waterfront we will have a half-submerged half-built stadium and a $1.5 billion bill for the New Zealand taxpayer. 
Of course that is what has happened throughout this whole thing. Mr Mallard has approached this whole Rugby World Cup issue with a loose wire connecting his brain and his jaw. He got very excited heading off to Dublin. He was fulfilling his boyhood dream rubbing shoulders with the International Rugby Board and wearing his New Zealand Rugby Union tie wherever he went. He loved being up there on stage with Tana—members should have seen him last week with Jock Hobbs—he loves the limelight. He has been captured by fulfilling this childhood dream. But that is the problem. This stadium is all about politics; it is not about sport and it is not about what is best for New Zealand. 
Contradictions are running right through Labour’s approach to this issue. Four months ago MPs were invited to a confidential briefing on Eden Park with the non-existent Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. She was saying that we had to get behind this stadium and that it would be fantastic. Who is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues? We were hoping she would be taking a call in this debate because she has had a lot to say. But I guess she has pretty much been told to shut up and hide away. At that stage the Government wanted Eden Park and everyone had to get behind it. It had to be a cross-party thing; we had to be totally supportive. Now the tack has changed and I want to know why the Government did not come up with this proposal for a waterfront stadium a year ago. It has had plenty of time. But it is so craven that it will do anything to win the next election. Helen Clark hates rugby; I do not know why she wants this waterfront stadium. Why is it? I will tell members the reason for it. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the—[ 
Interruption 
] Sit down! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Yes mum. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know that the member is new but I say to him that points of order are heard in silence. 
Jill Pettis 
: That member has made a statement about what is a very important and topical issue. He said the Prime Minister hates rugby. I ask the member to withdraw that remark because it is totally untrue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. That is a debatable issue. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As I say this stadium is not about rugby; it is about Helen Clark building a monument to herself. She wants to be able to go into the next election and say: “Hey we’ve fixed Auckland. We’ve transformed the waterfront and we’ve done all this other stuff.” But what a miscalculation—it is backfiring. Members just have to read the  
New Zealand Herald  
each day. No one in Auckland wants this stadium. The councillors on the Auckland City Council want Carlaw Park. This is a failure of leadership. Why did the Government not just make a decision and take the responsibility? Why hand it back to the people of Auckland? The Government will get no decision. 
So now we have two options—as my colleague Murray McCully has said that is what the Government is offering. We have taken the sensible path. We are saying that yes we will support legislation for Eden Park because the stadium can be built we know the costings and we have to have the World Cup final played here—we cannot lose it to Australia. But there is no way that we will write a blank cheque to give this Government license to build the “Clark-osseum” down on the waterfront to burn taxpayers’ dollars and to end up losing the whole thing to Australia. 
Of course the reality is that we know where the stadium really should be and I do not know why the Government is not considering this. As my colleague Mr McCully said and Dr Mapp will agree the stadium should be at the home of the Ranfurly Shield—North Harbour Stadium. We have the land it is what my constituents in Northcote want it will cost only $250 million it will be the heart of the region for the future and that is where we would like to see it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is quite clear that the leaderless rabble across the Chamber have no policy and that is why the speeches of those members lack both consistency and factual accuracy. The last speaker Dr Coleman from the North Shore has not yet been to see the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to put in the bid for the North Shore and he has not let other people do so on his behalf— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is Northcote. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debatable issue. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I was speaking about the member for Northcote as well! 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it possibly be debatable whether a member is the member for North Shore or Northcote? Dr Coleman is the member for Northcote and I am the member for North Shore. That point is not debatable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I accept the member’s point. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that it is Wednesday. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: My difficulty of course is that that man has made absolutely no impression not only on me but on the Labour Party in the House—and on the Assistant Speaker quite clearly because the Assistant Speaker failed to pick up on the whereabouts of that very anonymous member. 
Let us look at the analysis of whether the Prime Minister hates rugby. Let us dwell upon that question for just a minute. The Prime Minister goes overseas. The Leader of the Opposition goes overseas. No one talks to him. He comes home early. The Prime Minister goes overseas on important world trade business and takes huge personal time out to go to the International Rugby Board meeting where her contribution secures the World Cup for New Zealand rugby. Her contribution was acknowledged by Jock Hobbs and the New Zealand Rugby Union. She showed the leadership that the last speaker can only envy—the leadership that he admires and the leadership that he wishes there was a touch of in the Opposition across the Chamber. If there were leadership across the Chamber and if the loyal Opposition had a leader to lead the charge that Opposition would also have some policy. But does the Opposition have policy? 
Hon Mahara Okeroa 
: No. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: We know that but the Opposition does not know it because we did not hear a “Yes” from the other side of the House. The Opposition admits to having no policy. This side of the House knows the answer—no. 
The member for Northcote is very quiet on the question of policy. “What is that?” he asks. The senior Opposition whip is very quiet on policy. “What is that?” he asks. “Who has to have policy around here? We are supposed to be the Opposition.” But to be in Opposition one needs to have a leader. So who are National’s leadership choices? Is it the millionaire who made his money from market trading and does not have any policy or plank to rely upon? Or is it the very right-wing Dr Brash who is so far to the right that only the member for Napier follows him faithfully like a puppy dog? 
The truth of course is that if we want to look at policy and contradictory behaviour we just need to go to a school in Napier. On Monday night this week William Colenso College in Napier said it all about Government policy. It had a prize-giving. William Colenso College is a decile 2 college which has students from year 7 to year 13 after a recent merger. It is a decile 2 college that could announce on that night that its National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results were the equivalent of an average decile 7 school. That is an amazing announcement from a decile 2 school that cannot pick and choose its students. 
The significant thing about that of course was that the local National member was sitting on the stage when that announcement was made. He is the very man who went on record during the last election campaign as saying that we had to get away from NCEA. Did he demur? No he clapped because he saw policy in action. What he also acknowledged by his presence on that stage was the failure of the National Party’s bulk-funding approach. The modern William Colenso College was born out of the bulk-funding fiasco of 1999. A new board was voted in—led by a very capable man who is now an MP—and a new principal and William Colenso College now has the figures to speak highly of the Government’s policy in education. 
An echelon that went through primary school in the days of the National Government came to William Colenso College in 2002 and its average literacy rate was 8 percent—that was its norm. Eight percent of that class had a normal literacy rate; the rest were lower. That class—a large complement of students—graduated on Monday and they were at the top of their performance level. The National Party member for Napier sat there and clapped them because he acknowledged publicly the success of the Government’s policy in education. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I have a question for Trevor Mallard. The question is what has changed since 13 May 2005. What has changed? The polls have changed dramatically and the front pages have not been very kind. On 13 May 2005 Trevor Mallard said that the Government was not prepared to fund a $300 million stadium. Now Mr Mallard is putting before all of New Zealand and all of Auckland a stadium that will cost probably twice as much—which is an estimate on the low side—and will have a much higher risk. It is a pity that he started the process just the other day and not on 13 May 2005 because that was 18 months ago and a heck of a lot of work could have been done in that 18 months. 
I stand here proudly as a former Mayor of Wellington. Wellington is a city that did build a stadium very close to the waterfront. That stadium has made a heck of a lot of difference. It was built on time and on budget. I congratulate all Wellingtonians on getting in behind and helping to deliver on that project. The economic spin-off has been huge. I go back to the arguments we had at the time. Would we put it in Porirua the Hutt Valley or Wellington? What would it do to rates? The cost of it would send rates sky-high. How could we consider changing the location from Athletic Park which was the home of rugby? 
I hear some familiar stories when I listen to the airwaves and read the newspapers at the moment. It all sounds familiar. The question is whether Auckland can do it. Can Auckland put a stadium on its waterfront? I actually hope it can but I have huge reservations and those reservations have been compounded by the inactivity and poor decision-making and leadership of the Labour Government. 
Two debates are running at the moment. The first debate is on whether Auckland should have a national stadium. I think Auckland should be the home of a national stadium. Should it be on the waterfront? I hope so because the economic spin-offs would be huge. Should Auckland have a 60000-person Rugby World Cup venue? Too jolly right; it must have that for New Zealand’s benefit. Would it not be ideal if those two venues were the same? Unfortunately I do not see that as being possible. There are too many risks before us for that to occur. 
The first risk is whether the stadium can be built on time. Maybe but it is a risk. Will it be affordable? Is that not when the guesswork really starts I ask Mr Mallard. The most fancied figure is $500 million. In May 2005 Mr Mallard said that the economic return from the whole tournament was $408 million so we have to weigh up whether the investment is actually worthy of that return. There is risk around the robustness of the numbers. The Government commissioned Rider Hunt a quantity surveyor to do the numbers. Could Rider Hunt possibly get the numbers wrong? It has costed a couple of prisons. Spring Hill prison was estimated in 2002 as costing $202 million but it ended up being $380 million—that was only 86 percent out. The cost of the Otago prison was estimated in 2004 as $156 million but it was delivered for $218 million—a 40 percent blowout. We have an issue. Quantity surveyors will get it wrong because it is all guesswork and the final plans have not yet been done. That is important. 
The general manager of Fletcher Construction for the lower North Island Bob Hall who built the Wellington stadium said when he was talking about preliminary budget estimates: “I would caution how this information should be interpreted and in particular be judged against any other proposal …”. He was talking about a preliminary budget estimate for the Manawatu stadium. “It would be my expectation that the design development phase would inevitably see additional dollars added to the overall project…”. This stadium will cost more than we believe. That has to be an issue for the Government for us and for Aucklanders. 
I sincerely hope Auckland can deliver on the Rugby World Cup opportunity. It is vital for Auckland and for us. I hope the city can show some leadership in the debate that is going on and get an answer by the time the deadline is up. That is important for the city. I give a final warning. We cannot focus just on building the stadium whether it be on the waterfront or at Eden Park. I learnt a valuable lesson in Australia: one has also to fill a stadium with a series of events. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be able to participate once again in the general debate. Last time I spoke in the general debate I was musing about the time of year. Yes it is still springtime. I was talking about how springtime is my favourite time of the year most importantly because that is the time of the year when the Labour Party has its conference. What a fabulous conference it was. 
Last time I talked in this general debate I was looking forward to the conference; now I would like to reflect on what a fabulous conference it was. It was the best-attended conference in 20 years. Yes it was held in provincial New Zealand—in Rotorua. My colleague the MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick hosted a fantastic conference that was full of people from real New Zealand—people who came from across the board. We had great diversity because that is the sort of party the Labour Party is. We have that sort of diversity that can inform our decision making. That is why we get decisions right. I also thank the Mayor of Rotorua who spoke at our conference and outlined just how well his city is doing under this Labour Government with all its forethought planning and vision. 
The other thing that happens in springtime that is dear to my heart is the Melbourne Cup. That has come and gone. We know who the winner was. The race has been run and we know who the winner was unlike National members who do not know the winner of the “spring roll”. National members have a traditional “spring roll” whereby they start to debate who their leader should or should not be. It has been going on since well before the Melbourne Cup. It still is not completed and that party is paralysed as a result. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Talk about something you know. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I do know a bit about the Melbourne Cup and I know a bit about how races are won so I will use a horse racing analogy to explain what I observe is happening opposite. I am also very pleased to note that this is the third time in this general debate that a member on this side of the House has used a horse racing analogy to explain what is going on in the National Party caucus. I am thrilled to bits that I have had that sort of influence on my colleagues; they are thinking about horse racing analogies. I have one of my own. 
Darien Fenton 
: What about the donkeys on the other side? 
SUE MORONEY 
: No I will not talk about donkeys. It is thoroughbreds that I am used to talking about but in this case I will talk about the National Party. 
A large field left the gates. No one knew exactly how many horses were in the field and who was lined up. They have been out of the stalls for some time and have been jostling for position. That always happens in a horse race—horses jump out and start jostling for position. But the National members have kept jostling for position and jostling for position and jostling for position. They are coming round into the home straight and guess what? They are still jostling for position. No clear leader is really emerging. So while all this is going on the punters of course are swapping horses. I think that in this analogy the punters are the back-benchers of the National Party. They are not really too sure who they are betting on. Perhaps they keep swapping their bets around because the leadership challenge that we were all expecting still has not happened. 
The other thing that I have learnt in my time of being involved in horse racing is that timing is everything. Timing one’s run is very important. Now John Key should study a few horse races because if he had he may have got his timing right. He might have worked out that a few weeks ago when a poll came out saying that National Party supporters preferred him over the current leader Don Brash that was the gap opening up in the home straight. That was the gap that he should have been able to power through. But did he take the gap? No. He could not take the gap. Perhaps he needs blinkers or a shadow blind or one of those other techniques that horse racing trainers use because he certainly does not seem to have the courage to take the gap. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member can never challenge someone’s courage as it is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. John Key certainly has not spotted the gap and he has not had the acceleration to be able to take that gap when it opened up for him. 
So he has shown to us that he does not have the right attitude; he does not have that winning attitude that is required. He has been held up when the gap opened up and he does not have that burning desire to win. If he does not have that burning desire to win to lead his own pack then the member really should not consider thinking that he could ever lead this country. Because if he cannot even design his own career and work out when to make a move and get his timing right on that what chance does he have of getting the timing right for critical decisions for this country? 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.