Mark Ron: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Mark Ron: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22227] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 And is that not sad? That is becoming the template of this Government. We can play the great spin doctor— 
Jill Pettis 
: Ron this is for the big boys. 
RON MARK 
: That I tell listeners is the plaintive cry of an about-to-become- extinct parrot. 
Jill Pettis 
: I don’t think so. 
RON MARK 
: Well if they want to throw it around it has got to come back—boomerangs have a habit of doing that. This Government has a habit— 
Jill Pettis 
: What seat do you represent? 
RON MARK 
: Oh here we go! This is the arrogant elitist Labour Party. If the Government wants to know if the public wants to know and if the Labour Party wants to know why it has become so detached from its membership there is the perfect example; the air of arrogance the air of “We won. You lost. Eat that!” the air of “I am a victim of my own success as a most popular and competent Prime Minister.” the air of Jill Pettis running around saying: “Oh New Zealand First is so unsophisticated.” and the air of a Labour Party whose members would rather attend a symphony concert or an art show or be seen at the World of Wearable Art Awards in a costume—doing the very things that it ridicules the National Party and supposedly its supporters for doing: flitting and flirting in high society but being so out of touch with working-class people that we end up with Ms Pettis uttering across the House: “What electorate do you represent?”. 
Well the message for Ms Pettis is this: one is not superior I tell the member because one has an electorate as an electorate MP. Every MP in this House stands here on equal terms. Georgina Beyer the person who sits beside that member will no doubt be a list MP after this election. She is worth no less than Ms Pettis’ pompous arrogant selfish self. That member should get the message now because paid-up card-carrying members of the Labour Party are sick of her arrogance and her elitism and they are sick of her being out of touch. She displays all the airs that ooze from her Prime Minister—that she would rather mix in high society with academia and the elite rather flit through art galleries than go and sit in a pub and talk to a working-class New Zealander who drives a bulldozer or sit somewhere on the West Coast and talk to an unemployed seamstress who is redundant because a business has folded. Ms Pettis now through  
Hansard 
 is immortalised in her arrogance and we will carry that flame for her in the next election. 
I want to go to Ms Marian Hobbs and Mr Mallard who sit here and champion the handling of the economy by their Government by proudly stating that they have created more work—more employed and fewer unemployed. When I say that there are far more casual workers and that the vast majority of the people they boast of as being employed are only casually employed Ms Hobbs says: “Oh but we have casual workers doing 50 hours a week and three jobs.” She is proud of that? Labour is proud of that? Labour is proud of the fact that working-class New Zealanders— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
RON MARK 
: You had better make it damn clear. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not intend to be intimidated like that across the House. Can that speaker withdraw and apologise for threatening me across the House by saying it had better be “damn clear” I make it clear? May he withdraw that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask that the tone of the House ease a little bit. There was fault on both sides. The member is concerned about misrepresentation and action about that can be taken only at the end of the speech. I ask Mr Mark to come to order please. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but we find ourselves in a slightly tricky situation. If the Minister is saying that she has taken offence at Mr Mark’s comments then the Standing Orders deal with that in a very specific way. If she is not saying that she takes offence then the manner in which you have ruled is of course absolutely correct. I think for the sake of creating the tone you desire Mr Assistant Speaker we should ask the Minister which of those camps she falls into. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Can I clarify it Mr Assistant Speaker? In the first place the speaker on the floor misquoted me. I stood to say that and he said in a very threatening tone for me to make myself clear. It was that that I took offence to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The first part concerns misrepresentation which is covered by Speaker’s ruling 35/3. The second part is that one parliamentary indiscretion does not justify another. So there was fault on both sides; it is one all. 
RON MARK 
: We live in a day and an age when Peter Brown stood in this House when the Employment Relations Bill was being passed and tried to get this Government to incorporate within that bill recognition in legislation of and protection for casualised workers. Marian Hobbs voted against the Supplementary Order Paper and Steve Maharey voted against that Supplementary Order Paper. Right now Labour is boasting; Mr Mallard stood there and said that 50 hours a week of casual labour is a good job. Well excuse me but the average Labour voter thinks it sucks that people have to do three jobs to get 50 hours’ employment a week—with no protection from the Employment Relations Act with no redundancy agreement and with no holiday pay. It stinks! It stinks that Labour—Ms Hobbs and Mr Mallard—can interject across the House and tell members of New Zealand First that that is acceptable. It is not acceptable in this day and age. It is not acceptable that supporters of Labour a party once led by Mickey Savage Norm Kirk—“Big Norm”—and Mike Moore should have to sit back and listen to those MPs in a Labour Government say that casual employment is a good thing. [ 
Interruption 
] Ms Soper knows of what I speak. It is an abomination that Labour voters all over this country are working casual hours and Labour says that unemployment is down. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I didn’t say that. 
RON MARK 
: Well Ms Hobbs tell the House how many people are casually employed today. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: A lot are casually employed. 
RON MARK 
: No how many? Do you know why you do not know Ms Hobbs? Because you have vetoed— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
RON MARK 
: No I said “Ms Hobbs”. Stop protecting her Mr Assistant Speaker. Do you know why the Government does not know? Because it vetoed Peter Brown’s— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You might not— 
RON MARK 
: Oh! It hurts. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member on my left well knows that when a point of order is being taken it is to be heard in silence. I know what the Hon Harry Duynhoven will say and I can say that I was not intimidated. 
RON MARK 
: I know that the pattern that is emerging of interjecting and taking points of order is intended to shut me down because I am hitting home. Labour voters all over the country know that this Government does not care about the number of people who are casually employed. Marian Hobbs says—[ 
Interruption 
] Did she just call me a liar? Marian Hobbs knows and has admitted that she cannot say how many casual employees there are because the Government vetoed Peter Brown’s Supplementary Order Paper that would have required the keeping of statistics on exactly that. I have only to ask Labour why. I ask Marian Hobbs why Labour vetoed that. Why? There is still no answer. I will ask Marian Hobbs again. Why did Labour veto that Supplementary Order Paper? That is the point. 
Jill Pettis 
: Porangi! 
RON MARK 
: What does that mean? Does that require a ruling from you Mr Assistant Speaker? I will move on because Labour members are simply trying to use up my time. 
In terms of Vote Police what we are dealing with is exactly what I started my speech with: the silent innuendo. The Prime Minister was asked questions in the House today about the “Waimate Run”—the equivalent of the “Cannonball Run”—which has resulted in five police officers and a civilian facing charges. She sat there in the sanctity and security of being the Prime Minister totally above it all. What did she say in response to the questions that were asked? She said that the requirement is to tell the truth in the House. By implication she said that she can say what she damn well likes on the street. She can go out on the street and say that she was totally oblivious to what was going on because she was so busy working because she had her head down in the back reading Cabinet papers. Yet we in New Zealand First know that that motorcade would not have done what it did if she had said stop. 
We in New Zealand First know that five police officers’ families—Dianne Yates just gave a big sigh. I will tell Dianne Yates this. This involves six families who have sat by and watched their partners and parents go through the stress and trauma of an investigation. Now those wives and children must watch those people go through the court procedure. Now they must sit there and wait and wonder whether their families will have a job and an income. They know that one person could have put an end to it. But Dianne Yates’ answer—it is in  
Hansard 
 and boy are we going to use it—is a sigh; she is bored. We will let the six families know that Dianne Yates is bored by our questions about what this Government thinks of their situation. 
There it is again. What a lovely way to finish! I started speaking of the arrogance that has permeated Labour. I was once a proud member of Labour but I do not look with pride upon the arrogance and contempt that came out of Jill Pettis’ mouth earlier and Dianne Yates’ mouth just then. It reveals the underbelly of Labour. The underbelly of Labour is: “We’ve been in Government for 6 years we’re going to be there for another 3 and we’re above it all.” Well it is not above it all and chances are it may not be in Government again. When that happens Labour members will have time to sit on this side of the House and reflect on the utterances of those two women and the comment of the Prime Minister that she is required to tell the truth in the House only; that she does not have to fess up and support those police; she can sit by and watch them hang when she knew precisely what was going on when it was being done for her and when she could have stopped it. It is just a repeat of “paintergate” and of her being a “victim of her own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister”.