Connell Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Connell Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1202] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 How does Darren Hughes do it? How does he hold his breath for 10 minutes take a drink and speak at the same time? It is quite extraordinary is it not? While we are on the subject of the member for Otaki I ask how a safe Labour seat with a big margin can be turned into a marginal seat? The answer is to give it to Darren Hughes of course. 
Labour owes the hard-working taxpayers of this country about half a million bucks—money that it stole to fund its election campaign in 2005. There is no point in pointing the finger at anybody else as the Labour Party speakers have done today because not one but two official bodies have said the pledge card was an election expense. So the advice for Helen Clark is simple: cough up; give the money back. Is that not what any decent reasonable person with a tiny bit of integrity would do—just simply give the money back? To do otherwise would be to tarnish the reputation of every member of the Labour Party caucus. I am tempted to give that advice but even I concede some people in that caucus do not deserve that reputation. It is simply a matter of doing the right thing. I ask members whether they remember the pledge card—“I signed it; I’m accountable for it”. Well that suggests to me that any reasonable person knows what the course of action should be which is that Labour does the right thing and sets the ledger square. 
But when it comes to matters of integrity it does not always go that way with our Prime Minister. Would it not be deliciously ironic if the Prime Minister used the excuse that she signed it but she did not actually draft it? Every member of the Labour Party to date who has stood up and taken a call has tried to spread the blame rather than take accountability for his or her actions. Labour members are working on the premise that if enough mud is thrown at the National Party some of it may stick. But rather than accepting accountability which is what the Prime Minister pledged Labour would do if it got back into power it is reverting to type and blaming everybody else. 
The problem with that approach other than that it is completely without honour is that the Labour Party and the Labour Party alone has been named as being in breach of the regulations—nobody else. The Prime Minister has been on notice on this issue since May 2005 when the Auditor-General finished a report sent it to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and asked to have an audience with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in order to deal with the matter and resolve it as a matter of urgency—to fix it for once and for all. But to her shame the Prime Minister declined that request and I have to say that on the evidence I have seen to date the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is complicit. 
At the steering committee this morning the chief executive of the department was asked when and by whom he was made aware of this issue. He responded in May 2005 or thereabouts and was advised by the Auditor-General personally. I asked whether he had briefed the Prime Minister. He said he had mentioned it to someone but he could not remember to whom. There was no file note. He had no recollection of the person he had spoken to and he was very clear that he did not brief the Prime Minister. That is despite Mr Wevers the chief executive writing the following in the department’s annual report regarding the second point of responsibility that the department has: “The second is policy advice provided across the range of issues that arise in the conduct of government business. As the political head of the government the Prime Minister requires a comprehensive overview of emerging policy issues and ongoing government activity as well as access to information on any and all issues that arise.” He steadfastly said that he did not think that this issue was important enough to brief the Prime Minister on yet he wrote in the annual report that providing such advice was one of his key responsibilities. It beggars belief. 
But what is more incredible is Winston Peters’ defence of this Government. Am I missing something or what? Was it not 2 or 3 months ago when Bob Clarkson kicked Winston Peters’ backside out of Tauranga that Winston Peters cried foul and said anyone who supposedly blew his or her budget was a demon who should be dragged before the courts and that due process should take place? Winston Peters tried to vilify Bob Clarkson and now he has the temerity to stand up and say that the Government has acted with integrity. 
Yesterday Mr Peters told the House that in Chinese culture this was the Year of the Dog. He would know would he not because he has become the Prime Minister’s personal pit bull terrier? He savages National at every opportunity regardless of the fact that his colleagues all around him are cringing. Mr Peters is an old dog who has slowed up somewhat. The wily old fox the Prime Minister has got him exactly where she wants him which is out of the country more often than not and with a job with responsibilities so that he actually has to do something. When New Zealand First does not have Winston Peters in attack mode it is only a shadow of its former self. Being preoccupied with that has drawn the New Zealand First members’ teeth. I say that Mr Peters has betrayed his caucus colleagues—it is about time that someone told him this—that he has betrayed his voting public and that I think he has condemned his colleagues to the political scrap heap come the next election. 
The argument has been put that this is a fragile Government coalition and it is—primarily because of the notorious volatility of Winston Peters—[ 
Interruption 
] He is a man who was attracted to the baubles of office but he is notoriously unreliable and unstable. He is like a pit bull terrier: people never know when he will turn on them. But I do not think that the Government will fall over. I think this is the proposition: because Winston Peters had his backside kicked in Tauranga by virtue of the great efforts of my colleague Bob Clarkson—a tremendous outcome against all the odds; an outstanding achievement—he was a man who was desperate for a lifeline and the Prime Minister who had her political instincts very well honed sensed that and told Winston Peters that if he supported this Government she would make him the ambassador to London when New Zealand First gets condemned to the scrap heap. That in my view is exactly what will transpire. Winston Peters being in a desperate state grabbed that offer in both paws. So when he stands up and gums the bones of the National Party I allow myself a wry smile because I reflect on a politician who was once a real firedog but who is now withering on the leash. 
One of my contentions is that it is OK for the Government to articulate how successful it is when things have been good but what is the strategy now that things will get tough economically? I was looking for some direction from the Prime Minister to address that issue and I believe the country was waiting for that direction as well and we were disappointed. We were not surprised but we were disappointed. We will be looking to take the Government to task over the next 3 years on that issue alone.