Seymour David: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: General Debate[Sitting date: 03 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1084. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):It gives me great pleasure to finally be here not least of all because of the irritation that it causes to some members that I am indeed here. I just want to tell you—it may come as a surprise to you—that I actually have something in common with the Rt Hon Winston Peters: we both have a monopoly on intellect within our caucus. That is unfortunately a fact. Let us face it: what exactly is the job description for being “I am the deputy leader of New Zealand First.”? Well she is not here because she got bored designing rockets at NASA I can tell you that much.I am especially proud to be here standing for the ACT Party in the third-freest economy that this world has ever seen. It is no coincidence that—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which party’s that? How many MPs?DAVID SEYMOUR: Where is your seat Winston? How exactly is Tauranga? How are the people of Tauranga treating you these days? Not so well not so well. There is not a seat in this country that you could win.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reluctant as I am the Standing Orders requires someone not to use a person’s first name or his second name in fact but to call him an honourable member—in my case a very honourable member. He cannot say that.Mr SPEAKER: The member did casually refer to the member by his Christian name and that is certainly out of order.DAVID SEYMOUR: I am terribly sorry. Thank you very much for that guidance on the etiquette of the House. For that I am extremely grateful to the member. I was saying that I am very very proud to stand for the ACT Party in New Zealand the freest economy that the world has ever seen apart from a couple of small city States that by no coincidence are also the most vibrant intelligent and interesting societies that the world has ever seen except perhaps with a few exceptions which I will not name for fear of breaching the Standing Orders.I also want to address myself to some of the traditional members opposite because I feel that perhaps at a slightly different time or age I could have been one of them. I am talking about maybe around the time of my birth. But actually it may surprise most that I am thinking about even earlier than that and in particular I am thinking of Mickey Savage—I assume you can call him that since he is no longer here—and Peter Fraser. Peter Fraser once famously said that it was the Government’s role to provide people—whether or not they were rich or poor from town or country male or female or from whatever race too—with an education that would best help them achieve their goals. That is something to which I am deeply committed. I am deeply committed to the partnership school kura hourua policy. Anybody who finds themselves to be a sceptic of that policy should actually go and visit the schools not go on Radio Live and lie about whether they have been to the schools. They should actually go and visit the schools not the private school that was previously operated by the sponsor but actually go and visit the school. I find that that is the best antidote.Tracey Martin: I have.DAVID SEYMOUR: Well we are very pleased that some members have. You should keep visiting them until you change your mind. I know it can take a long time. I am very proud of that policy because it is giving kids who have failed elsewhere an opportunity—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Been a teacher?DAVID SEYMOUR: —to learn to get qualifications to have skills to have a career. I have not been to Antarctica either but I know it is cold—just to borrow something from across the House. Those kids end up in a situation where they can ultimately feel good about themselves. That is the promise that Peter Fraser made. That is the promise that I am committed to helping fulfil for the children of New Zealand. It is a pity that so many people on the other side of the House are so much more worried about the means that were used to achieve the ends rather than the ends themselves. Has that not come out in the nastiness of recent press releases from the member sitting at the back there? In conclusion I am very proud to be here with ACT and a free society and with a policy that uses the principles of the market and a free society to actually achieve some of the ends that members opposite supposedly believe in or at least their predecessors believed in very strongly. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.