Hodgson Pete: Address in Reply 
Hodgson Pete: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:148] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 When I heard the first speaker for the National Opposition the Leader of the Opposition lead off the debate this afternoon in what was one of the “less-lustre” speeches I have heard even from that member I thought the interjection from the leader of the Progressive Party was really spot on. He asked the member whether he had worked out why National had not won yet. I think the answer to that question is no the National Party has not worked it out. 
The concluding remarks from the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Key that New Zealand has missed out on a great Government is pretty much testimony because there is still the view amongst National Party members that the normal resting position of this country is that they are in Government—that the default position is that they are in Government and that the natural party of Government is the National Party. That party points to its very proud past to give evidence for that and indeed it has a very proud past. But the National Parties that existed during the 1950s the 1960s and the 1970s are not the National Party in front of us now. In that time there was New Zealand’s version of the post-war consensus where we did not attack people for being different or for having different proclivities. Their ideas religion sexuality or indeed ethnicity were embraced and deemed to be OK. 
I have just come through an election in which my party happened to come home first but I found that election a difficult one because I found some things about that election that were ugly. I did not like the idea of the word “mainstream” being a code for excluding and sidelining those people who are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants—and heterosexual. I did not like that. I did not like the idea that we could have an election campaign in this century in which the race card was played so repeatedly and with so obvious an attempt at sophistication—and so obvious failure. 
I did not enjoy that and I did not enjoy the subtext that went through emails and people’s speeches or the most ugly subtext that came out in the pamphlets that were put out we now know by the Exclusive Brethren. How did we know? We knew because the Green Party outed those people. 
Then we had the spectre of the then—and still—Leader of the Opposition saying: “I know nothing!” like some sort of Sergeant Schultz. The deputy leader of the National Party said that he knew nothing and the difference between those two utterances was that the first was not true and the second was true because the Leader of the Opposition had not told the deputy leader of the National Party what the Leader of the Opposition knew. He did not tell his own deputy. Instead we had a progressive unfolding of the truth as the Leader of the Opposition was put to the sword day after day by media that knew they were on to something—as indeed they were. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: We have a point of order and I just remind members that points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the last time I was in this House the word “liar” was not allowed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Did a member— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is quite clear that no one can accuse someone of lying in this House; a member can accuse someone of lying outside the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated; I am on my feet. I remind members again that there will be silence during the dealing of points of order. A member cannot accuse a member of being a liar inside or outside the House. If a member— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I want to make it clear that I did Madam Speaker and I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: And I think at this stage I should withdraw and apologise should I not? I will anyway. I would say none the less that whether or not the Leader of the Opposition— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Whether or not he lied to Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Right—lied to Gerry Brownlee he certainly went to the public and said he was sorry. But that was days afterwards. That was after we had learnt that the Leader of the Opposition had met with the Exclusive Brethren on one occasion and on the following day we learnt that the Leader of the Opposition had met with the Exclusive Brethren on two occasions. And a day or two after that we learnt that the Leader of the Opposition had met with the Exclusive Brethren “on a number of occasions”.This was the man who said he had no knowledge of those pamphlets. 
I believed Gerry Brownlee when he came on television opposite me and said: “I have no idea.” I believe Gerry Brownlee because the Leader of the Opposition runs a very tight ship. It was so tight that he did not even tell his deputy. 
This same Leader of the Opposition then went to the wananga and famously gave two speeches—the inside speech and the outside speech. The real problem with that was that there was a journalist or two on the inside. The Leader of the Opposition thought he would get away with it because that is how inexperienced he is. He gave two speeches thinking he could get away with it but he got caught. 
We had an election in which the Leader of the Opposition was standing up giving away $4 million per annum in tax cuts that this country does not have to give away and saying that the country does have that sort of money to give away. The Leader of the Opposition did not win the election despite the size of that bribe because he could not lie straight in bed and tell two stories 2 days in a row. He could not do it. The Leader of the Opposition found himself at variance with the truth too often in those 4 weeks. Too often the Leader of the Opposition found he was “nuancing” himself into the swamp again and again and again. 
The Leader of the Opposition cannot work out how to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Those are the three criteria. The first and the third will not do. If one tells the truth and nothing but the truth but does not tell the whole truth that will not do. 
So the Leader of the Opposition managed to blow the campaign. He pretty much bribed people with their own money he would have wrecked an economy he spent the 1990s trying to fix from his then job then he pretty much managed to make enough nuanced remarks to get caught day in day out every week. We just could not believe it. We said: “My God that was amazing. Next week will be better for them.” But on Monday there would be another stuff-up always from the Leader of the Opposition—unless it was from the member for Rakaia about logging which was the only non - Leader of the Opposition cock-up in the whole campaign. The rest of the party performed pretty well. But the Leader of the Opposition was a liability to himself and finally to his party and he came in second despite a bribe that was bigger than any I have seen in my political career. 
That man scratched every itch. He approached every—[ 
Interruption 
] Dr Cullen should not be telling members that today it is for tomorrow. Dr Cullen has just leaked something but everyone was shouting so members did not hear it and I certainly will not repeat it. It is for tomorrow. The Leader of the Opposition scratched every itch he appealed to every prejudice and he reached in for the biggest bribe I have ever seen and he lost! 
Dr Don Brash 
: No no no. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member should not say: “No no no.” What happened was that $3.9 billion a year turned out to be not enough. It was an extraordinary bribe and it turned out not to be enough. 
I just cannot believe that a guy who preached fiscal restraint for all the 1990s would turn round and in order to get himself a name would then bribe the economy with $3.9 billion. I think the Leader of the Opposition has to be satisfied that his epitaph in history is to have signed each $5 note in this country and that is about it. He will not fight another election. It is not going to happen. He is not as a 68-year-old going to fight another election. It will not be feasible for him to stand in an election for a term of office that when concluded will see him aged 71 years. It will not happen. The member will in due course take his leave from Parliament give what I hope is a gracious speech and I hope he will enjoy a well-earned retirement but he will not be Prime Minister. He will not be Prime Minister because he could not keep a straight story. 
It was a very interesting and for me very revealing campaign. It was the most difficult campaign I have been in because there was a certain ugliness about it that I have not experienced since the 1981 tour. Even that tour had a certain friendliness about it that I thought was very sweetly recalled by Mr Brownlee in his comments regarding Rod Donald last week. I have not been in a campaign that had a thread of ugliness running through it as deep as rich and as damaging to me as in the last campaign. I found it very difficult indeed. 
I am very pleased that in this country when one brings together racism homophobia bribery and dishonesty one cannot win. I am very pleased that that is the case and I urge the National Party to find a new strategy next time.