Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Ardern Shane: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1311] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 A Government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul and in this case we all know who Paul is with this Government. With this Labour Government—this Labour-led shambles of a Government—we all know who Paul is. It is its trade union mates its school union mates and of course its university lecturer mates. 
Much has been made by this Prime Minister about the growing diversity of New Zealand and most New Zealanders would agree with that statement. There is a growing diversity in this country. But what this Prime Minister does not understand is that in no circumstances do trade unions school unions and university lecturers make diversity. This country is being run by a bunch of loons—there is no question about it. And if this Prime Minister believes in what she has been saying—and I quote: “New Zealanders can continue to rely on a Labour-Progressive Government putting in place good policies to strengthen the economy.” then I suggest she comes down from her mythical mountain and takes a close look at the lacklustre Ministers whom she has in her Cabinet. In particular I refer to the Minister for Biosecurity the Hon Jim Anderton. 
The reason I say that is whether or not the Government likes it—and it praises the arts the film industry the tourist industry and all those exciting things this Government loves to praise—at the end of the day the New Zealand economy depends on the primary industries. And it always will as far into the future as anybody can see. But does this Government understand that? Not for a moment does it understand that. So I say to the Prime Minister that she should look at the competence level of her current Minister for Biosecurity because of what he has said in recent times. The Minister has already admitted that he knows nothing about biosecurity. He has already said that he spent the last 6 years as the Minister for Industry and Regional Development going around the country promoting regional development particularly the manufacturing industry. But what the Minister has left out of that comment is that during that time the primary industries in this country have had 2.8 percent growth year on year. The Minister who has been promoting industry around this country which has had 1.1 percent growth over the same time does not now need to advise the primary industries on how to get growth going in their area. After 6 years 1.1 percent growth is not good. There is no way that this Prime Minister can measure that as a satisfactory performance from this Minister. 
I have said repeatedly to the Minister that there needs to be a generic pest management strategy and that it is vital for the biosecurity future of New Zealand. Our new Minister for Biosecurity has said that I was living in a fantasy world by suggesting for a moment that that kind of set-up could work: that we could exclude the pests we do not have. So here is the first lesson for the Minister the Hon Jim Anderton: he should read his briefing papers. Page 15 of the biosecurity briefing paper to the incoming Minister under “Strategic Priorities” states that having generic incursion response systems is one of Biosecurity New Zealand’s top eight projects for 2005-06. What does the Minister say to that? The paper also explains to the new Minister: “MAF must make a greater investment in scenario and generic response planning.” That was the advice to the Minister. So I hope that the Hon Jim Anderton will show some integrity and apologise to me for remarks he made in a press statement dated 2 November 2005 when he commented on my call for generic incursion response systems and pest management systems and stated that: “… National is unrealistic clearly not ready for government and can’t be trusted with the taxpayers chequebook to make adequate decisions …”. That is what the Minister said. Our officials must have been totally embarrassed and must have shuddered at the ignorance of their new Minister. However I am pleased to note that slowly—very slowly—the Government is adopting National’s biosecurity policy. It has taken time but then no one could accuse Government members of being quick thinkers. 
As we are adopting the policy on generic incursion responses I see from Cabinet papers that the Minister is investigating an emergency response capability or fund—another good National policy. I take this opportunity to invite the Minister to carry on with National’s policy release and to bring in higher instant fines for those who flout our biosecurity laws at the border and the deportation of those who clearly are trying to get through the system without making an adequate declaration and so forth. The Prime Minister has made a mistake; she needs to change her Minister for Biosecurity. But I can see her problem: who does she give this important portfolio to? There is not too much talent on that side of the House. Who would she pick from? 
This naturally brings me to rural affairs and the Minister for Rural Affairs. The briefing paper to the Minister for Rural Affairs the Hon Damien O’Connor states: “Much must be made of the isolation funding and the funding of rural school buses in isolated areas.” I thought that that seemed interesting and I wondered how the Government was implementing that policy. I have with me a letter from the Minister of Education the Hon Steve Maharey. It says that he has told an isolated community that the Government does not fund school buses in such places and that it is the parents’ responsibility to get their children to school. So where does the Minister for Rural Affairs stand in relation to that example? This school is very isolated. It is way out in the back of eastern Taranaki. It has no access to the normal kind of school bus or alternative transport that everybody else enjoys. The Minister has told the school that it is not his problem; it is the school’s problem. So where is the fight for rural communities from that Minister for Rural Affairs? 
However any Government is all about leadership. We all know what the leadership of this Government is like. It is no wonder that Cabinet lacks the initiative talent and ability to understand some of these issues. Two official bodies have determined that the 2005 pledge card was an election expense. Helen Clark has said that her signature is on it and that she is accountable for it. We all know what that signature is worth. We have seen that signature on paintings; we know how good that signature is. We know how much currency it can carry. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What did the High Court say about your expenditure? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I say to the member who is interjecting that he should go back and look at the law and the determination that has been brought forward by the Auditor-General with regard to that particular issue. No wonder Helen Clark refuses to meet with the Auditor-General; she knows she is wrong. She knows that she has taken money and she should pay it back. But Helen Clark refuses to do so. When this matter was brought before the Auditor-General we all thought that it was to raise the issue of the “You would be better off under Labour” campaign which was also funded out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Now we know the real reason: she had plans afoot to swipe nearly half a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds to prop up the Labour Party election campaign. Clearly from the leader down this Government is rotten to the core. It is time that this Government moved on and allowed somebody with some real integrity to take over the management of this country. 
In closing I say that if Helen Clark really believes that what she did was within the law why does she not allow it to be tested? I am somebody who received the wrath of the Prime Minister. I had to go to court and prove that what I had done was not against the law. I ask why the Prime Minister does not do the same. Why does she not front up? Why do her Cabinet colleagues who are baying away not front up before the appropriate authorities and say to them: “We were within the law as best we understand it.”? It is because they know that the advice given to them at the time was that they were not within the law. The reality is that they know they are outside the law.