Hodgson Pete: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Hodgson Pete: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:11071] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I would like to thank the previous speaker for his thoughtful remarks and I will respond to them in a minute. But first of all I will draw attention to the speech made by the leader of the National Party Mr John Key. It is interesting that he was the first respondent to Dr Michael Cullen. The National Party finance spokesperson was not given the first slot; clearly Mr Key wanted it and fair enough. But one would expect if that were the case that Mr Key would then use his speech to give this House and this country some view as to how National would have approached the appropriations or the Budget of the land. One would expect that and one would expect a bit of policy—or if not a bit of policy then a bit of policy direction or a bit of an indication about how much those members would want to do on these benches versus how little over on those benches. One would expect a bit about where those members see themselves on the political spectrum and a little bit of a hint about what this National Party might do now that it has completed almost 8 years in Opposition should it ever take the Treasury benches. 
But no we did not get that. We got the catchy stuff but we did not get a glimpse of the general direction. We got “lolly-nomics” and that was it. Mr Key had a significant opportunity in this House to make a significant statement just as he did on Budget night. He did not do it. He did not do it and time is running out. There is no indication of what National stands for in this Parliament. 
We know what those members stand against—they stand against anything that furthers the benefit of New Zealanders. Here are some examples of the things they have voted against. They have voted against KiwiSaver. They voted against it almost beyond belief and it was one of the most extraordinary actions we have ever seen. We still have not heard whether they will support KiwiSaver but they had better make up their minds soon because New Zealanders are supporting KiwiSaver in their droves. 
National voted against Working for Families. I guess those members called it “lolly-nomics”. We call it addressing child poverty in our country and they voted against that. They voted against 20 hours’ free early childhood education and tried very hard to make sure it would not work. That is what they did about that. They probably call that “lolly-nomics” too. We call that giving every New Zealander a good start in the education system as 3 and 4-year-olds. We also say that it is a good opportunity for parents to go back to work part time or full time if they want to; to stay at home and look after the younger child the 1 or 2-year-old if they want to; or to get off the domestic purposes benefit. But those National members voted against that. 
They voted against cheaper doctors’ fees. Mrs King spoke briefly about that. They voted against that. They voted against reducing the cost of a pharmaceutical from $15 per item to $3 per item. They voted against it. I do not know why they did that. They probably thought that was “lolly-nomics” too. We thought that was making sure that the first rung of the health ladder is affordable. We knew that if we reduced the barriers of access to primary health care then we would get an increase in access to primary health care—and we knew that we would end up with better health outcomes as a result. But those members voted against that. 
They voted against the business tax cuts. I do not understand why they did that. Mr Key said Auckland’s roading needed to be fixed. Well we are fixing it. But those members voted against that too. You see they vote against everything. So we know what they stand against—it is pretty much anything—but we do not know what they stand for. 
Can I say to the colleague who has just resumed his seat that his comments about not being able to find out how much time and effort is going into Maoridom may be his truth but it is certainly not mine. I can say that in the health sector we are addressing the disparities in health between Maori and non-Maori with some success. We are not finished not by any means but boy are we making progress—and it is measurable. I can say without any hint of contradiction that Working for Families disproportionably advantages Maori that having lower doctors’ fees disproportionately advances Maori and so it goes. 
I want to talk about the leader of the National Party Mr Key. The received wisdom now is that the honeymoon is over and the scrutiny begins. Well that is fine; so it should be. Any politician would respond to that by making careful and measured statements and by developing positions or position statements on this or that as they build up their portfolio of policy preparatory to having a run at the job of Prime Minister in the forthcoming election. That is what any leader of the Opposition does and in a sense Mr Key has done that. Mr Key has used the opportunity to change the National Party’s policy on for example the pre-saving for superannuation the so-called Cullen fund. National members were against that too and they have gone the other way. They have said they are now for that. One could say that they are immunising themselves against changing the popular policies of this Government; that is a reasonable political thing to do. One could say that they are simply trying to make sure that they do not look as if they are terribly bad people such as those that existed in National in the 1990s or that they are trying to get away from the Don Brash image—whatever. 
That is something Mr Key did. But that is what happened when he had the chance to change certain National Party policies. As soon as the spotlight went on Mr Key we got a completely different kind of behaviour. Of course the issue we are talking about is Iraq. Straight away he lost his sure-footedness. It is true that he has made a number of statements about Iraq that have got him into trouble. He said back in 2003 that he was in favour of sending the troops. That is written down and we know he said it. In 2007 we know he said he was not in favour so there is the contradiction. Which way do we deal with this? 
That is not itself the issue. That was the issue last week—that Mr Key had made a mistake and had contradicted himself in the space of his time here. That is now part of the written record. But what has not been made so obvious is that since then Mr Key has not clarified. There are a range of things he could do. He could say: “Back then I said that and right now I am saying this and that is because I was a junior and now I am running the place.” But he said that once and he did not say it again. In other words he did go for that excuse and then he backed off from it. He could have said: “I needed to clarify.” he could have said: “ I need to change my position.” or he could have gone anywhere to get firm ground. But he did not. Instead what he did was to make it worse. 
He went down to Dunedin on Friday and came up with a real doozy. He said that the National Party never said that it wanted to go to Iraq. The National Party’s history has now been rewritten by the current leader of the National Party in Dunedin on Friday. That tells me that this man continues to obfuscate as soon as the pressure goes on him about what he feels. He does not give clarity; he gives another layer of confusion. 
That is an interesting position because if one wants to tell how a politician is going to do in general then one needs to look at how the politician is doing under pressure. Under pressure Mr Key continues to obfuscate even today. It is not as if he has gotten through this; he is still doing it. Not only has Mr Key made a contradiction of his position on Iraq between 2003 and last month but he has now gone on and done it again. He said that his position is not as described. He said that the National Party’s position is not as described yet he said that he was a junior which means that it was as described. 
It is not that we have such a riddle of contradictions; that is already understood. For me the interesting thing is that given a weekend to think about it given a bit of time to come to a position and given a bit of a chance to pick up the phone and say: “All right from here on this is going to be our position.” he has not done it. He has simply tried to rewrite history. We know how he does it. He does it with those fast-flowing clipped sentences that do not always finish. There is a lot of business-speak in them—often with the participles missing but we will not get too fussy. He just goes to smooth and sooth and on the radio it sounds fine. But when we get the transcript and look at the English language written down in ink then we know that we are dealing with someone who cannot get it straight who cannot get a line and hold to it and who actually writhes when put under pressure. 
He writhes. He does not come to a position and stand his ground and defend it good or bad. Instead he writhes. He moves around. It is like nailing jelly to a tree. Frankly a person who behaves like that cannot be a Prime Minister in this country so Mr Key has two choices. He needs to alter his behaviour the way that he deals with himself and the way he views himself and decide that he will stand on firm ground here for this issue and on other firm ground there for that issue or he needs to give the job back to Bill English.