Mackey Moana: General Debates 
Mackey Moana: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8547] 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 As a new member of this House I have been surprised and disappointed at how little importance is placed on the facts by the Opposition parties when it comes to debates before the House. Firstly in relation to the corn inquiry it seemed strange to me at first that the National Party seemed to be so incapable of understanding the difference between the tolerance of uncertainty versus the tolerance of detectable levels—after all that is something that is almost intrinsic to scientists. I wondered why the Hon Nick Smith had to be told again and again how that worked. Then suddenly I realised it was not that he failed to understand it; it was that he did not want to understand it. I certainly hope that the biotechnology sector is sitting up and taking notice of how technologically inept the Opposition is when it comes to those issues. Let us make no mistake about the fact that the Opposition members will be out there wooing that sector at the next election yet they cannot understand even the basic fundamental principles of biotechnology. Who in New Zealand now knows what the National Party’s position is on genetic modification? 
That brings me to the matter of the foreshore and seabed. The National Party has decided that slogans are an adequate substitute for consultation and policy—which does not surprise me—and came up with the fantastic slogan “one standard of citizenship”. I suggest that the subtext of that actually means “I am sick of uppity Maori speaking out when they’re unhappy” or “treaty claims are so last century”. Or how about: “Now that we’re no longer chasing your votes we no longer care about your rights.”? The fact is that the National Party is suggesting two standards of citizenship: one where people’s rights are upheld and the other where those rights are ignored and eliminated. It is a shame that the National Party is not as passionate about one standard of living as it is about one standard of citizenship. This Government is about one standard of living for all New Zealanders and we are working for that every day. 
That leads me as a new member to a sad and cynical conclusion: the Opposition does not care about the issues that face New Zealanders. It does not want to help New Zealanders; it wants only to make them more afraid of their problems and issues. I say to Mr English that this country needs a leader who can propose serious solutions. It needs a committed Government to provide and implement those solutions; it does not need sloganeers. Maybe Mr English should stick to what he outlined in the  
Dominion Post  
by pretending to be the Prime Minister in the quiet room off the Beehive theatrette with Helen Clark’s old desk. I am sure Mr Sowry could perhaps bring along his teddy bear collection and they could play at being the Cabinet. After all Mr Sowry is no stranger to the region of make-believe as he fantasises about being the member for Otaki all the time. However I am told that even in that forum Mr English would still struggle to get the numbers. 
The fact is that Mr English is not capable of running this country. He claims he is a nation builder and a proud New Zealander; yet only a few weeks ago we found out that he had a photo of the Australian netball coach on his fridge because the Australian netball team was the world champion and now that our team is the world champion he thinks he might quite like to have a photo of the New Zealand coach. It is not that I am suggesting that Mr English should be rolled as leader of course. We in the Labour Party would be quite happy for him to stay there as leader of the National Party for long as he wants. I think he should be that party’s leader for ever. In fact I think I feel a member’s bill coming on. Perhaps the “Bill English (National Party’s Perpetual Misery) Bill” might be in order. 
Bill English’s conspiracy theories I have to say are starting to rival those of his colleague Dr Nick Smith. Mr English now thinks that the Prime Minister years and years ago had a hand in determining the time slot of  
Mana News 
 so that decades on she could make comments on the programme at 6.45 a.m. and not be heard by most New Zealanders. How is that for a conspiracy theory? That honestly does rival Nick Smith’s theories. 
That brings me to New Zealand First—and I see many of my New Zealand First colleagues sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber—and to a comment on the matter of immigration that was made last week by Mr Peters in one of the more appalling speeches I have heard in this House. I wonder how many of his New Zealand First colleagues would be prepared to go out to the people in the ethnic communities migrant communities and refugee communities—many of whom provide important services within their communities—and give that speech to them.