Goff Phil: General Debate 
Goff Phil: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20672] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 It was interesting that National was led in the debate today by the Hon Bill English and that he got a clap from more than half his caucus. It was just under 3 years ago that Bill English led his party to the worst electoral defeat in the modern history of the National Party. It was not surprising that 8 months later he was stabbed in the back by the honourable or the less than honourable Don Brash. Everybody in National thought that Bill English was dead and buried but Bill English is now back on his feet and he sees a chance. He sees the chance created by Don Brash once again showing himself to be an inept leader. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We heard Mr Goff refer to Dr Brash as the “less than honourable Don Brash”. That is totally unacceptable. I am surprised he was not called to heel for that. I certainly took offence and I ask that he be made to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. Don Brash showed once again with his latest blunder that he is incompetent as a leader. He is not fit to lead this country. 
Last week we had the potential for one of the greatest disasters that could possibly befall this country—the threatened introduction of foot-and-mouth disease. If ever there was an issue on which there should have been bipartisanship in this House and in this country it was in defeating the threat whether it was real or a hoax of foot-and-mouth disease. Instead the honourable Dr Brash played politics with the issue. When asked by TVNZ what he thought of the Government’s handling of the issue Dr Brash said: “I am surprised that they made a public statement about it at all to be frank. If it’s only a hoax they have done a lot of damage to our reputation.” That was the most irresponsible statement that I can recall hearing in 23 years in politics. The week ended with Jim Sutton scoring 10 out of 10 for biosecurity and agriculture and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Don Brash scoring 0 out of 10. 
What did Don Brash think that a cover-up of foot-and-mouth in this country would achieve? He talked about reputation. He would have buried the reputation of this country as an agricultural exporter for all time. This would have been New Zealand’s Chernobyl. If members think that is an exaggeration I quote from Annabel Young. She is a former long-serving National MP and is now the chief executive of Federated Farmers. She said on television: “Even if you think it’s a hoax you still need to tell everybody because otherwise you are in a kind of Chernobyl situation where people will never trust you again.” That is what that man would have done to this country. The Auckland president of Federated Farmers Keith Kelly made the point that the issue of foot-and-mouth should never have been a political football and that Jim Sutton was giving 100 percent to the situation. “Mr Sutton’s advice” Mr Kelly said “will come from the highly competent people knowledgable people who realise that New Zealand’s biosecurity transcends politics.” But not Dr Brash. Of all issues Dr Brash chose to try to make a political football out of this one. 
If we had not been transparent if we had not been absolutely honest if we had not taken the people into our confidence how would we have stopped the potential spread the transfer of livestock and the risk to New Zealand’s biosecurity? How would we have had the credibility that we won from the international community? It saw that we were professional and transparent and as a result of the way this Government and Jim Sutton handled the issue not one country stopped our exports with the marginal exception of Mexico for a short period of time. The  
New Zealand Herald  
got it right. It said that honesty was the best policy and it has paid off. 
Don Brash would have destroyed this country. He is not fit to lead it. In the latest poll Don Brash at 15 percent as preferred Prime Minister is at the lowest point he has ever been in the leadership stakes. He fell 5 percent last month. Don Brash is on 15 percent and Helen Clark is on 41 percent. When the election occurs in this country—and the election is based on leadership—the New Zealand people will vote for Helen Clark who has given this country 6 years of competent and professional leadership as opposed to Don Brash who has blundered time and again and shown himself to be incompetent as a leader. That is why Bill English got the applause that he did in the House today because the National Party is desperate and is looking for an alternative. Don Brash is on borrowed time.