Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
Cullen Michael: Adjournment — Sittings of the House 
[Volume:636;Page:7216] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 13 February 2007 and that the sitting days in 2007 be as follows: 
February 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 and 28; 
March 1 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 28 and 29; 
April 3 4 and 5; 
May 1 2 3 8 9 10 15 16 17 22 23 and 24; 
June 12 13 14 19 20 21 26 27 and 28; 
July 17 18 19 24 25 and 26; 
August 7 8 9 14 15 16 21 22 and 23; 
September 4 5 6 11 12 13 18 19 and 20; 
October 9 10 11 16 17 18 23 24 and 25; 
November 6 7 8 13 14 15 20 21 and 22; 
December 4 5 and 6; 
and that the House do at its rising on Thursday 6 December 2007 adjourn until Tuesday 11 December 2007 
. 
Could I begin Madam Speaker by congratulating you on your year. Your cool—at times icy—wit is starting I think to exert some control even over those who are not used to having women in control of them. I also congratulate Mr Deputy Speaker on his always courteous manner within the House the Assistant Speakers—and particularly I call upon the honourable Ross Robertson in that respect—the Clerk’s Office the Hansard staff the messengers the security staff our secretaries ministerial staff research units media staff and anybody who I have missed out in that long list because I am sure there is somebody who does not come within those particular categories. 
This year 2006 has been a fascinating year. We can look at the achievements made in just the last 2 or 3 days. The Government has put out an energy strategy. The Government has passed a tax bill which Bill English admitted yesterday that National tried to do but could not get it through Parliament—could not even get it through its own Government. We put through a major rewriting of the telecommunications legislation. We got a tax discussion document out today on the international tax regime to fix up the mess that the National Government put in place in 1991. Tomorrow we release a new tertiary education strategy. And that is just from Monday to Thursday. In the meantime all that National has done is to try to comb its hair in the mirror. 
At the start of the year we had a Government with a secure majority and two major parties: one centre-left and one trying to be centre-right but actually veering off to the far right. Now we have a Government with a secure majority and—if we are to believe National—there are two major centre-left parties in Parliament. The centre-right party appears to have disappeared within the last couple of weeks. It is not just a new face; it is a whole new book that we are supposed to believe. Apparently it is now a Coke versus Pepsi battle going down to 2008. The trouble is that we are the real thing; they are Pepsi. That is the problem those members will have. 
We can look at National’s amazing flip-flops. It has been sort of Opposition by press statement and speech. Race Orewa has gone. Nuclear issues are fixed. National is saying: “Do not worry US we will not change the policy.” and on industrial relations it is saying: “We are going to keep the current industrial relations Act.” On Iraq National is saying: “We should never have been there.” on the Exclusive Brethren it is asking: “Who are they?” and on tax it is saying: “We are back with Mr English too. We will have small incremental changes as we can afford them and we are fiscally responsible.” Well I thought that was what I had being saying for the last couple of years. That is Mr English’s bold new policy. He went on  
Morning Report 
 especially to tell the nation that it was the National Party’s policy. 
On the issue of climate change of course National members are now true believers. But the problem is that that is not what Mr Key has been saying before on climate change. He now says that he firmly believes in climate change and always has yet he used to say it was all a hoax. It was all a hoax but now he firmly believes in it. This is a man who firmly believes in a hoax. It is not surprising. He is the only man I know of who can remember not opening one email 18 months or so ago. He must receive very few emails if he can remember that the one he did not open came from the Exclusive Brethren. 
Of course Mr Key has done other flip-flops. He was asked: “Do you think New Zealand should have taken part in the invasion of Iraq?”—to which the appropriate reply is that the Iraqis probably would not have noticed had we done so—but he answered: “No I do not. The position from the National Party caucus at the time was that they did not think New Zealand should send combat troops to Iraq. Ah what we thought was and what I felt was that America and the coalition of the willing had the right to take action in Iraq because at that time the world believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.” In other words he believed America was right but he believed that he should not have backed America. 
That is not what Mr English said at the time because—as Dr Brash now tells us—he sat there silently saying that we should not go Bill says: “We would have gone if we had been the Government.” and John now says: “We would not have gone.” Well I do not know whether people can follow all that but I am completely lost through it all. 
Mr Key is a man who is now what 48 or 49. At the time of the Springbok tour he was about 23. That is the kind of age when events impress themselves on us. He has said that he cannot remember the Springbok tour. Why? Because to remember it is to remember that he held a position on the Springbok tour. There was not a single New Zealander who did not have a position on the Springbok tour. Dr Brash was opposed—I can remember that quite well. Mr Key cannot remember. Why? Because it is politically inconvenient for him to remember what he was doing on that particular issue. 
On industrial relations Mr Key said 2 years ago that there was nothing wrong with the Employment Contracts Act. Then he said a couple of days ago that National was not planning to make any major changes to the Employment Relations Act. Well which is it? Does he back the Employment Contracts Act or does he back the Employment Relations Act? The reason he cannot choose between them is that he does not know what the differences are. He has not thought about it. When someone gets up in the morning and asks himself: “What has happened to my Merrill Lynch shares overnight?” he is greatly disinterested in what happens in employment relations policies. 
The fact of the matter is that John Key is the man who went to Britain to be told what to do. He came back and he is David Cameron without the substance—David Cameron without the bicycle and with only the VIP car. That is what he is at the present time. 
John Key is the man who now makes National’s policy on the hoof. Can people imagine a Labour Party where the leader of the party gets up and in three speeches overturns every policy on which the party ran at the last election—just like that! Every statement that Mr Key makes is utterly vague and utterly meaningless. He is a walking billboard saying no more than three words of any significance and when he does utter them they are utterly confused. 
When Mr Key was asked his views on civil unions he said that he thought the Civil Union Bill was a gay marriage bill. Then when he was talking to gay people on www.gaynz.com he said that marriage was not being asked for in the civil union bill. When he was asked how he voted he had to admit he had voted against it. Did he vote against it because it was a matter of principle? No he said—look at that! He waves his biro and says “No”—he voted against it because he thought that was the way to vote to please his electorate. There is a man of conscience! We have a conscience vote and he says: “Oh look my conscience is that way. I am this way but my conscience is that way.” At least Dr Brash pretended he had changed his mind honestly on the process; Mr Key never had a mind on the issue at all. 
What we had with Don Brash was a lemon curd pretending to be a pavlova. That was Dr Brash as the National Party leader. What we have with John Key is a blancmange pretending to be a fruit salad. That is what we are going to face between now and the election. 
Mr Key’s deputy is Bill English a man who nurtures more grievances than anybody I have ever met in my life. He is a man who will back John Key to the hilt—and if he ever gets the chance right in it will go and he will try again to be the leader. He is now saying about John Key exactly what he said about Jenny Shipley. “I will back her all the way through to the next election” he said about Jenny Shipley and: “I will back him all the way through to the next election” he says about John Key—and we already know that it is not true. 
Then there are the all the new disenchanted. Poor Lockwood Smith! He asks one question every day. It is the same question but it does not matter. Look where he is! He bought a new pair of speedos and he still did not get on to the National Party front bench. He saw Maurice Williamson promoted on the grounds of Maurice’s outstanding performance in the House. Maurice has not asked a single question all year as far as I can remember and has given no more than two speeches. Poor old Lockwood Smith has been overtaken by him in the race back to the front bench for all the retreads in the National Party. 
Helen Clark and I are now facing our fifth National leader and our seventh National deputy leader. Only a brave person would lay any money on those numbers staying the same between now and the next general election. Roll on No. 6 roll on No. 8 roll on No. 7 and roll on No. 9. Merry Christmas!