King Annette: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
King Annette: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1159] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 It is great to be back for another 3 long years in Government. I am still basking in the warmth of the support that the people of Wellington gave the Labour Party. I am also basking in the continuing endorsement by New Zealanders for Labour to lead this country for another 3 productive and happy years. 
It is great to be part of a caucus that likes each other. We can share a meal with each other and we can sit down at a table and talk to each other. We can laugh together we can work together and we know the value of working with other parties to ensure we have stable Government in this country. We have come back firing on all cylinders looking forward to the next 3 long years in Government. More important we have the privilege of being able to continue our policies for the good of the people of New Zealand. Over the next 3 years this country will see a number of things that were set out by the Prime Minister yesterday but let us just look at a few of them. 
There will be a major review of the structure of business taxation new initiatives to get faster Internet access at more competitive prices a rolling-out of major infrastructure programmes and a big extension to the Working for Families package by which 350000 families will be entitled to tax relief in 2006. There will be an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation for our older people and for our younger people no interest will be payable on student loans for those staying in New Zealand. There will be an improved rates rebate scheme and more affordable primary health care—something that New Zealanders will look forward to particularly those aged 40 to 55 who come into the net very soon under this Government. A thousand more sworn police officers will be on the beat in New Zealand over the next 3 years. That is just a few of the policies and improvements that we have on our agenda over the next 3 years. 
Now let us compare that with the agenda of the members opposite. Let us have a look at them. They have division dissent and despair. They are a disparate group of defeated deadbeats over there in the National Party and they are led by “Dead Man Walking” Don Brash and his supporters—he says—a cast of clowns opposite. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes “Dead Man Walking” Don Brash—that is his name. He is leading the National Party but who does he have supporting him in his cast of clowns? He has “Super Size Me” Gerry Brownlee. He is not a dead man walking; he is sleepwalking. Then we have “Farmer Boy” Bill English. Well he is leaking; he is one of the so-called leakers. Then we have sneering Tony Ryall who is still moaning and mincing about his defeat 7 long years ago. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I realise that the speaker on her feet is a member of very long years’ experience in this House but I would ask you to consider how any of her most recent comments in this House comply with the Standing Order that relates to personal reflections. Now most of us do not mind that sort of thing but it does seem to us on this side of the House that whenever we refer to Labour members or Ministers in a way that might be either colloquial or perhaps slightly derisory the Chair is pretty quick to shut us down. If we for example were to talk about Helen Clark in a manner that probably best describes her in our view then I think we would be asked to withdraw those comments. Now the member may well be having a bit of fun but she is a senior member of the Government. We have just heard the Prime Minister’s speech and it amuses us a little that that speaker would prefer to engage in this rather than try to defend the Prime Minister’s speech—which of course we all know was woefully inadequate. So Madam Assistant Speaker my question to you is this: how does that member’s speech comply with the requirements of the Standing Order that relates to personal reflections? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly judged that the member had used the names correctly and it is very common for a comment to be made about a member. There are a lot of times when the issue is raised and if we are going to get into ruling that out of order I think we will have a lot more ruled out of order. If that is what members want I will certainly reflect on it and discuss it with the Speaker. Certainly from what I heard I would not rule it out of order but I give the member an undertaking that I will look at it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I do not want to challenge you Madam Assistant Speaker but I just recall how swift the Chair was to shut down references to “Helengrad” and other references such as the “Baltic Beauty” which reflected on Helen Clark. They were completely ruled out and instantly so and I think quite correctly. But to sort of say that it is tolerable if one is a Government member to talk about Opposition members in a derisory way is I think the real issue here. What still leaves us staggered is why this particular Minister is not prepared to defend the abysmal speech of the Prime Minister. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no—that last comment was not needed. I said to the member that I would consider the matter but certainly I do not think we would have to look far back in  
Hansard 
 to see that references of that nature have been made on both sides of the House and quite frequently. So we will look at it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Is it not interesting? My speech is all about hypocrisy and not long ago we had Judith Collins talking about the “drawling Jim Sutton”. Of course that was OK for a senior front-bench member of the National Party. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At no stage did I ever refer to Jim Sutton like that. That is absolute rubbish. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: You did. 
Judith Collins 
: I did not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Members cannot argue that across the House. That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It will be very interesting to see just how many of them will be sitting in those benches in 3 months’ time. Will the faces change in 6 months’ time? Who will walk the plank in the next year? Who will be pushed? Who will be promoted? And where is “Dr Paul”? This is a continuing story of human conflict. I agreed with John Banks this morning. John Banks who is a National man through and through was speaking on “truth radio” as he does every day and I want to quote him. He said: “I can’t for the life of me ever see the National Party becoming the Government again.” He said: “Don Brash will never be the Prime Minister” and he should know. He knows that a loser never survives in the National Party. He went on to say that Helen Clark has got it all over the Opposition. I say: “Good on you John. Keep telling the listeners on ‘truth radio’ the truth because that is the truth.” 
The biggest piece of hypocrisy I have heard in this House for a while was when Don Brash gave his speech yesterday on campaign spending at the last election. This is a man who denied any knowledge about the vicious and lying Exclusive Brethren campaign and its pamphlets against the Labour Party and the Green Party. I can tell this House today that I know that Don Brash was told not to meet with the Exclusive Brethren. He was advised not to meet with them but he ignored that advice and that is why the appointment was not in his diary. It was not recorded in his diary. He went against that advice and met with the Exclusive Brethren. What was the purpose of that? The purpose was to mislead voters and cover up National Party expenditure by getting the Exclusive Brethren to stump up with the cash—no DNA no finger prints no “Dondruff”; just a sneaky little plan to defraud the public. Yet yesterday he accused the Labour Party of corruption. 
Well I know of only one corrupt practice that has occurred in this Parliament in the time I have been here and that happened in mid-1999 when National members were clinging to power by their fingertips. Money—taxpayers’ money—was given by a National Cabinet directive to a now-convicted fraudster Donna Awatere Huata to buy her vote. Money was passed over without tender without scrutiny and the transaction was covered up by the National Party until it found Donna Awatere Huata’s fingers in the till. The Cabinet papers came out and what did the Cabinet papers say? They stated in a National Cabinet directive that they would hand money over to Donna Awatere Huata for her vote. That is what it was for—for her vote and that was Pipi Foundation money not pin money. That is what Donna Huata got to keep the National Party in power. That was the “dollars for votes” scandal that we had in this House. If members want to talk about corruption they will hear that I know of no time in the history of New Zealand when money was passed over to keep a vote so a party could stay in power. Judith Collins talked about pamphlets. She said it was OK to use taxpayers’ money for pamphlets as long as one tells people that— 
Judith Collins 
: No I didn’t. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes she did. The member has amnesia. So I want to know whether Katherine Rich told the taxpayers in her letter of 29 August that they were paying for this letter which sets out what was going to superannuitants. 
Katherine Rich 
: 29 August was it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It was 29 August. The member has forgotten she sent it out. Thousands of letters paid for by taxpayers told people how they would benefit from the National Party’s policy. The letter gave guarantees about not cutting nurses about there being no means tests—blah blah blah. This letter was put out by a member just before the election—but it was OK if she had told them she had used taxpayers’ money. That member did not. Nowhere does it state: “This letter was funded with taxpayers’ money.” 
That member mentioned pamphlets that were paid for by the trade union movement. I have to say to Judith Collins that it proudly put its name on its pamphlets and it paid for its pamphlets. Who paid for the pamphlets that had the name of no one we know on them? The Exclusive Brethren pamphlets did not even come from real addresses. I would direct members to have a look at the health pamphlet that the Exclusive Brethren put out in support of National because the address that was written on that which I just happened to visit was an empty house. That is how honest they were—the address given on the health pamphlet was an empty house in Christchurch. Talk about transparency! What hypocrisy!