Tamihere John: General Debates 
Tamihere John: General Debates 
[Volume:610;Page:7449] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to rebut very quickly the speech of the outgoing Leader of the Opposition. There is only one party and one Government that can bring closure to matters of race relations in this country and that is a Labour-led Government. That is for one reason and for one reason only: we are the true representation of the real face of this nation. We have every stakeholder group represented here; we are not here for the vested interests of the few. It is important that when we embark on these debates we understand what runs deep and bonds us all as Kiwis—the principle of fairness. On this side of the House we have moderation and on this side of the House we have been fair—in spades. That is what will deliver closure on these issues and we will not tolerate the divide-and-rule politics that are being expressed on the opposite side of the House. 
One of the most sacrosanct rights of members of this House is the right of free speech. The freedom of MPs to speak the truth as they see it has been a jealously protected right in our Westminster system over the centuries. It traces back to the epic battles for supremacy between the House of Commons and the British monarchy. Indeed in New Zealand we have gone further. Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees freedom of expression for all Kiwis. But there is a clause missing; there is something that Sir Geoffrey Palmer forgot to include in that Act and it is that all New Zealanders have the right of speech—unless they are members of the National Party. All members of Parliament have the right to speak the truth—unless their name is Maurice Williamson. 
Let us look at what Maurice Williamson has done in order to get kicked out of the National Party caucus leaking as it does now. Has he criticised major iconic elements of National Party policy? Well Bill English certainly has. Was it Maurice Williamson who said that the Employment Relations Act was not that bad after all? No that was Bill English the Leader of the Opposition and leader of the National Party. Was that not a wonderful acknowledgement to the Attorney-General and Minister of Labour? After all the cant and rhetoric about the Employment Relations Act being the thin edge of the wedge to the establishment of a socialist State that we heard from the National Party when Jenny Shipley was leader Bill English reckoned that it was not that bad. It was certainly not bad enough to repeal. 
Was it Maurice Williamson who said that the Budget made sense? No that was the honourable member Dr Don Brash. Was it Maurice Williamson who wrote a series of newspaper articles criticising National Party policy? Actually that was Gerry Brownlee. The fact that he did not understand what he was writing is not the point. The point is that he wrote them. 
So what was Maurice Williamson’s great sin? He told the truth about the leadership of Bill English. He said what Kiwis everywhere are saying about Bill English. He said that in business excuses don’t get accepted. In business they don’t care if you have been working hard and putting out lots of brochures and material. If your sales are slow you are not kept on. That seems fair; most Kiwis would agree with that. So let us see how Bill English’s sales have gone. Since becoming leader his sales have gone in only one direction—down. He has not polled over 10 percent this year. Mr Williamson went on to say that if Mr English could not get sales up to 30 percent by Christmas—35 percent by mid-2004—he should go. That is a good key performance indicator. 
 So what was Maurice Williamson’s solution? He said that any such company would be looking to change the management. He said: “We did that to Jim McClay. We gave him a year and then he got the chop; he wasn’t cutting it.” The amazing thing is that when we compare Jim McClay’s polling in 1985-86 with Mr English’s the parallels with this year are amazing. In both cases there are Opposition leaders polling less than 10 percent of the vote. In both cases there is someone else whom the people would clearly prefer as leader but whom the party will never choose. In 1986 it was Rob Muldoon and such is the bizarre nature of New Zealand politics in 2003 the people want Winston Peters to lead them—the leader of “Dad’s Army” the New Zealand First Party; “Captain Mannering” all the way from Tauranga. That is how bad the National Party is. 
Bill English will go down in history as the modern Jim McClay: he is a nice guy he tries hard and does his best but as Maurice Williamson says he does not cut it. National members are so angry because Maurice Williamson has uttered the unspeakable secret: the emperor has no clothes which is a terrible thought. Bill English has no support. Why does National not want anyone to know that? Because it knows that Bill English is as good as it gets and that has to be tough when one rocks up to caucus every Tuesday and has a Tory cup of tea in the break. It would be like visiting the village of the damned. There will be no ideas going on there and no policy.