Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:14821] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 In the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 9 August there was a very telling picture of Don Brash with Gerry Brownlee sitting at his side to his immediate left. I thought that was odd as Gerry Brownlee sits on Don Brash’s right. Then I realised it was an archive photo because the  
New Zealand 
Herald  
could not readily find a recent photo of Don Brash in his seat in Parliament. I thought that was a very important point for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to raise and sure enough the caption under the photo says it all: “Strangely silent: nobody could accuse Don Brash of hogging the limelight at question time in Parliament. The Opposition leader has spoken up less than his deputy Gerry Brownlee.” Well the fact that the  
New Zealand Herald  
had to go into its archives to find a photo to go with its story headed “Missing in action when it counts” speaks volumes. The bottom line is that Dr Brash does not like asking questions in Parliament because he finds it demeaning. He thinks it is a bit beneath him to come to Parliament and ask questions. Here he was today in Parliament large as life and there was not one single question on the Order Paper from the Leader of the Opposition. 
I think there is a reason for that too. When he gets up to ask a question he is not very good at it. Own goals are his particular forte. For example he questions the Government about providing 4 weeks’ annual leave for ordinary workers but he expected 4 weeks’ annual leave when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. One rule for all? One law for all? It does not mean one law for all when he would be disadvantaged by it. He wants one law for all only when there is a headline in it for him not when it would enable ordinary working people to have 4 weeks’ annual leave. The bottom line is that if Don Brash were to have a chance—and he will not have one—he would get rid of 4 weeks’ annual leave before lunchtime I reckon. In fact he would probably get rid of lunchtime as well if he had half a chance. 
What I cannot understand is why after what was touted as a major reshuffle Dr Brash did not take centre stage in his leader’s seat on the first day back in Parliament in order to show just how proud he was of his handiwork. But he could not bring himself to do even that. On the first day back he could not even sit with the new team and say how proud he was of what he had achieved. The bottom line is that he knew he had not done a good job and he knew that we knew it. 
The reshuffle has already been nicknamed the “Power cut” but it is a power cut with a difference. Imagine being demoted keeping a front-bench seat and getting a pay increase at the same time! It does not look right to me and the public are not buying it. I actually feel sorry for Simon Power. I thought he had great potential when he came to Parliament but let me be frank he has not proved himself. That “Power cut” of a reshuffle is a wake-up call to Simon Power but it is a wake-up call with bells and whistles. Talk about softening the blow! How much extra pay will Simon Power get for his new role—his demotion? The amount of $21000 a year extra goes with the demotion. That is the sort of demotion I would have liked to have but it was not to be. Paying more and getting less is the National Party philosophy. When we look back at what that party in Government did to accident compensation health education State housing—the list goes on and on—we see that every single time it was “pay more get less” except of course for workers under the Employment Contracts Act who were doing more and getting less. That is how the Employment Contracts Act worked under the National Party Government. 
The National Party reshuffle is nothing more than a diversion to draw attention away from the fact that three of the five major speeches we have been promised by Dr Brash have not been delivered. It is interesting to see which ones they are: welfare education and the economy. That is because Don Brash has his own views on those policies and they do not match the spokespersons’ views. That is why we have not seen those three speeches. The last time a spokesperson disagreed with one of those speeches she lost her job.