Dalziel Lianne:  
Dalziel Lianne:  
[Volume:622;Page:17320] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I like other members have become accustomed to the Leader of the Opposition flip-flopping on major policy issues but I want to welcome the flip-flop that he has made on superannuation because superannuation is so vital to New Zealand’s future. However to hear a National leader say that superannuation ought not to be a political football caught in my throat when I thought back to 1975 and the biggest electoral bribe this country has ever seen and also to the surtax—“no ifs no buts no maybes”; the surtax would go. But never mind we can be generous because the flip-flop is in New Zealand’s interests. 
To read in the paper this morning that a conservative backlash against the Civil Union Bill has forced a change of heart from National leader Don Brash in that he will now vote against it flies in the face of reason. It was only a week ago that he told Radio Rhema listeners that his conscience was not for sale and I quote: “I’m not willing to prostitute my conscience for any vote and if that means voting for something which is unpopular or against something which is popular then so be it. You can’t expect me—and I’m sure you wouldn’t because you’re a person of principle yourself—to vote for something I disagree with just because it would win me votes.” 
So what changed things? Why was there a flip-flop of conscience? I think he indicated why in a comment he made in October when he said: “If I deliver I’m secure; if I don’t deliver I’m history.” Coupled with this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
DigiPoll—50.1 percent Labour; 30.4 percent National—that is what this is all about. It is about polls and nothing more. 
Dr Brash also said that his change of heart was about process but Radio Rhema asked him whether he would oppose the bill simply because of the process. He did say he might and he does have a habit of doing that. Yet he ended his quote by saying: “But I don’t want to be in a situation of opposing something just because that might win me votes.” The only reason Dr Brash is changing his vote is that his political strategists— 
Darren Hughes 
: McCully’s way. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes they would call it “McCully’s Way” if they were writing a film about it. His strategist told him to do that and all Dr Brash has done is undermine the one trait that one would expect from somebody whose signature appears on our bank notes. 
The embarrassment is his because to vote against something he believes in in good conscience is something that will weigh on his conscience for the rest of his life. His own father was so concerned about the vilification of gays and lesbians by those who took a literal view of the Bible that he wrote a book as a church minister to help the parents of gay and lesbian sons and daughters be clear that the Bible did not vilify their children. If Dr Brash’s own father could bring that to the attention of church people—and I respected his father; I was there at the launch of his book and that meant so much to gays and lesbians in churches throughout the country—then to see Dr Brash change his vote for political reasons is absolutely the worst example of political expediency I have seen in my time in Parliament. 
The vast majority of New Zealanders will be appalled at the orchestrated campaign by the Destiny Church which did not even make a submission to the select committee and by the Maxim Institute. It shows that all we need to change the National leader’s policy is to have that orchestrated campaign of submissions and emails. 
I know that if Don Brash had been Prime Minister last year New Zealand would have sent combat troops to Iraq as part of the invasion orchestrated by the United States of America—there is not one single member of the National Party who can deny that that would have been the case—New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation would be gone the benefit cuts of 1991 would look benign and there would be no return to the Employment Contracts Act because National would scrap labour laws and leave it to the market. Privatisation of public health education accident compensation and housing would all be back on track. Don Brash’s unwavering commitment to a failed ideology is understandable; his giving up on his principles is not.