Parker David: General Debates 
Parker David: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11936] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 One of the questions I have been asking myself recently is “Why has ACT’s poll rating collapsed to 1 or 2 percent?”. It is down from 3 or 4 times that amount and is now 25 percent of what it was. ACT has shrunk to having a mere 1 percent or 2 percent in the popularity ratings among the general public. Why is that? It is because people know that Dr Brash is ACT. When they hear Dr Brash speak they should think of Rodney Hide and Richard Prebble—Dr Brash means ACT. This is a mean and divisive picture—Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide. Dr Brash means ACT and that is why ACT’s vote has collapsed to 1 percent. 
Dr Brash talks about one standard of citizenship for all. Well does he mean building one fair and inclusive nation? I ask you! The kind and inclusive faces of Dr Brash and Mr Hide! Who are they trying to kid? A leopard does not change its spots and neither has Dr Brash done so. “One standard of citizenship” is his jingle but let us put a few more realistic suffixes on that. One standard of citizenship is tax cuts for the rich but no superannuation for those who are currently under 50. One standard of citizenship means the privatisation of publicly owned assets. We already knew that Dr Brash would flog off New Zealand Post. He would sell off Television New Zealand. He would sell off Radio New Zealand. He would finish off what Max Bradford started flogging off the electricity assets. He would sell Air New Zealand. 
But in the last day we have heard something extra. He would also sell Kiwibank.That successful business that was started up by New Zealand Post has more than 200000 customers. One standard of citizenship means “Flog off State assets.” One standard of citizenship—but abolish or freeze the minimum wage and abolish the pre-funding of superannuation to make it less likely that future Governments can fund superannuation payments to the elderly. That is Dr Brash’s agenda. It is no wonder he does not debate anything in this Parliament. It is no wonder he fails to talk about policy. He knows and we know that his policies would bring misery to millions. 
He would sell out New Zealand’s assets but what else would he sell out on? He would sell out our foreign policy—that is what. What does that mean? He would take his lead from President Bush. As far as our nuclear-free ships policy is concerned he has already said that it would be “gone before lunchtime”. It would be gone before lunchtime if he gets his way. Who did he say that to? He did not have the courage to say that in this Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That phrase is out of order and it will be withdrawn. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I withdraw and apologise. He did not say that to this Parliament. No—he did not even say it on television and to the audience there. Who did he say that to? He said that to a visiting United States delegation. He said that the nuclear-free ships policy would be gone before lunchtime. Cosying up to the US would typify his response on foreign policy. 
What about the biggie since we have been in Parliament this triennium? I have been here for 18 months the same time as Dr Brash. The big issue since I have been here was whether we should go to war against Iraq and whether we should send our young women and men to be killed or put at risk in Iraq in an unjustified war that was not backed by a United Nations mandate. What does Dr Brash say about that? He is unequivocal as the National Party was then unequivocal and as ACT was unequivocal—because National means ACT. What did they say? They said that the Government should send New Zealand troops to Iraq. 
 Even with the wisdom of hindsight that most wonderful of gifts that people sometimes try to use he still says that the National Government should have and would have backed the United States in the war against Iraq. Dr Brash believes and always will in the righteousness of his own austere and selfish ideology. ACT’s vote has collapsed because National means ACT—that is one standard of citizenship tax cuts for the rich flog off publicly owned assets and finish off what Max Bradford already started. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.