Hughes Darren: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hughes Darren: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18284] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The state of New Zealand is in good heart. When the Prime Minister rose yesterday to give her annual statement to Parliament I think it would be fair to say that by the end of it New Zealanders who listened to the message the Prime Minister delivered could agree that after 5 years of a Labour-led Government a lot has been achieved. At the end of the speech people could also say that there is still a lot to do. That is what I like about this Prime Minister and this Government: we have set out a very clear record of the areas we came into office hoping to make a difference in. We now have 5 years over which we can measure our progress on those matters but most important we have a leader who sets out a positive vision of where she wants to go next. Right throughout her speech—all 14 pages—we can see where the Prime Minister wants to take New Zealand into the future. This is not a leader or a Government that is resting on its laurels; it is a Government that is taking stock after half a decade and saying that the job has been well done and here are the areas it wants to go into next. 
After 5 years under this Government we see the economy growing very very strongly. There has been year-on-year growth since this Government came to office despite all the protestations in 1999 when this Government was elected that Labour did not know how to run the economy and things would go belly up. The Labour-Progressive Government can report to this House that 5 years of year-on-year growth has led to the lowest unemployment rate in 20 years and at the same time the lowest crime rate in 21 years. These are the areas that make a difference for ordinary people in New Zealand—when they see a Government delivering in this way. 
Not only has the New Zealand economy grown year-on-year but also it has grown relative to our OECD trading partners. Indeed we have been over the average in the last 5 years. I think that is a very important thing. This Government understands that we cannot pay for all the social programmes that we want to bring in without actually making sure the money is in the bank. Dr Cullen’s careful fiscal stewardship has been very important to making sure that we can put the money into health education the environment housing and all the other areas in which we do want to make a difference for ordinary people. 
So when I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday going through the areas where we have a proven record and the areas where we want to go to next I knew that this was a Government that was going places and going forward full steam ahead despite the fact we are opposed by a bunch of has-beens and no-hopers—clapped-out tired people who after 5 years in Opposition are tired of even that. Normally political parties get tired of being in Government but that political party across the Chamber from us is exhausted from being in Opposition. It is an extraordinary thing to see. 
This week we saw an amazing thing happen. Last year Dr Brash sacked Mrs te Heuheu which was seen as a great sign of leadership and strength and was reported and spun in that way. But what happened this year when Mrs Rich was opposed to policy and she was put out the door as well was that people started to work out that he is not a political party leader but a kind of one-man show surrounded by a few sycophants who have not had experience in Parliament—unlike as was mentioned the Labour front bench. The only experience the National Party can point to is the fact that 15 of its 27 members have been on the front bench at some point in the last 2 years. 
That kind of merry-go-round might give one the impression that they understand power and influence but they are not actually soaking up politics. I look along our front bench and see people who have been in politics for a long time and who understand the nuances of policy development of working with a team of personalities and of reaching out to communities. It is no surprise to me that when I look across at the other parties in the Chamber I see that the parties that are doing well are being led by people who understand the body politic. But when we look at the National Party which is led by someone who entered Parliament at the same time as I did in 2002 and the ACT party which is on 1.6 percent and is led by Rodney Hide we can see that they are going down the gurgler because they do not have any sense of purpose about what they are trying to do. There is no philosophy that unites them and no sense of cohesion about their programme. In fact the massive speech that Dr Brash wanted to give at Orewa was decided only a few days before. Who was in on that? Obviously no one. 
I find it amazing that in all the media interviews Dr Brash has done he keeps saying that he cannot go into details about the areas Mrs Rich and he disagreed on. Presumably in an ongoing debate one would know immediately what the areas were that one disagreed on. One would know immediately the differences one had about statistics approach international research and anecdotal evidence from constituency clinics. One would think he would have all the sorts of things that feed into every political party process and every policy development at the tips of his fingers but he does not have the answers. He trots up north to Orewa once a year and relies on people’s perceptions of things. He sets out a hazy sort of thing and with his glasses at the end of his nose and in that sort of leaned-over kind of way tries to make out as though he will put all these things right. Then he is thanked by the Rotary club people sits down and has a cup of tea. The next day the New Zealand people—because this is a democracy—want to ask questions about what was in the speech but every time he is asked a question he says: “Er well we’re still to work out the final approach in this area.” If he is asked about the other areas he wants to look at he says: “Well quite clearly we’ve got to develop some further points in this area.” So people do not have a single clue about it. 
What is worse is that he calls it a state of the nation speech. We could forgive him for not having details information and facts and figures if it were a broad positioning speech but no this man says: “This is the state of the nation I want to lead but don’t ask me any questions about it. Don’t ask me what any of these things are about.” 
Peter Brown 
: Tell us again how he says it. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: How does he say it? He says: “Er I’m quite uncomfortable with the way my own party won’t get on board.” The first thing he does when he returns to Wellington is to cancel his caucus meeting. We are elected to Parliament to serve here with one another—and political parties are based on a party vote system so we all come together from our different parts of New Zealand—but as soon as the going gets tough he says: “Uh I don’t want to have a caucus meeting today; can you cancel it?”. The reason is he says that he wants to be able to respond to the Prime Minister’s speech that she will give in 5 hours’ time. Here is the problem though: a week ago he had given the state of the nation speech. He should have been prepped more than any other member of Parliament to respond to Helen Clark on Tuesday because—apparently—he had given the state of the nation speech the week before. So it is an absolute shambles. Right across the National Party all its members are talking about one another. 
What occurs to me about Dr Brash is that he has a very old-fashioned view of the world. Dr Brash looks back on New Zealand and thinks of it in a 1950s and 1960s kind of a way. The problem is that it is now the 21st century. This man says with a straight face that it is politically correct to have a woman on the front bench of a political party. In 2005 he says that it is a politically correct thing to make sure there are women on the front bench. That is an amazing thing to say. 
But we know what is going on. The back-stabbing has begun so vigorously because all the traditional alliances are unravelling. National members cannot wait to climb into one another. I say to my neighbour to the north Simon Power that they are talking about him. The women are asking: “Why didn’t our people stand by us? Why did they allow this to happen to us?”. They are gunning for his seat on that front bench. They are saying that Simon Power should be sent back to the second row where whips are meant to sit so that a place in the front row can be opened up. Presumably it will be for Judith Collins. 
National had five new MPs in 2002: Don Brash was made the leader John Key was made the finance spokesman and Judith Collins was made the welfare spokesperson. The only two who got left behind were Brian Connell—and we know his view vaguely on these kinds of things—and Sandra Goudie. Sandra Goudie has remained silent on this because she is the woman gunning for Simon Power’s front-bench seat. I say to him: “Mate I think it’s all going to be on because the brain trust from Coromandel is on the way to serve up a big sign to Dr Brash.” 
In the Otaki electorate Government policies are really making a huge difference. I was delighted in December when the Minister of Health announced that capital funding would be made available for a new health facility in Levin. The people of Horowhenua have worked for a long time on health services in our area because they were let down year after year by a National Government. We gathered together all the key community people and worked very very hard over 2½ years to make sure we put together a plan— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That member was not there. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh I was there the first time we started that in March 2002. We started the process around the Horowhenua health centre development in March 2002 and in December 2004 we had the victory on that and I am very grateful to the Government for that. 
The other thing that affects our electorate is transport in the Kapiti part of the electorate. I was delighted by last week’s Wellington funding package of $225 million extra for our region. Of course the western corridor is not part of that at this stage. The preliminary findings will be out in April and I am looking forward to working with Winnie Laban Peter Dunne and my other Wellington regional colleagues plus all the councils including the Kapiti Coast District Council to make sure we put together a package that will assist commuters—rail and road—in my electorate because that will be very important to the economic development of the community in my constituency. 
So there is energy there is enthusiasm there is employment which is a very good thing and there is vibrancy not only in my electorate of Otaki but right through this country. Unemployment is down and health spending is up. Kids went back to school this week to find more teachers in classrooms and for the first time there is more funding available for them. The Prime Minister put out ideas around homeownership childcare savings for retirement and making sure that we offer a New Zealand that is forward-looking and dynamic and that includes people—and does not have a Government whose members are constantly turning on one another. When our Prime Minister goes out and gives a speech anywhere around this country she does not have to come back to Parliament and sack the responsible Cabinet Minister because he or she does not agree with it. We do not expel back-bench MPs from the party because they do not agree. 
We have a sense of purpose a philosophy and things we agree on and we are here for more than just venal politics. We are here to serve the people of this country and we will keep on doing that with vision purpose and a great sense of idealism and hope for this great country Aotearoa.