Rich Katherine: General Debates 
Rich Katherine: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15251] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 After the speech from that member I can only conclude he is jet-lagged. We had a member criticising another member by saying that he has not been doing an honest day’s work. Who said that? Trevor Mallard a Minister who recently returned from swanning around the world sipping champagne at the Olympics working on his tan and taking the credit for the Olympic glory of those hard-working Kiwis. He could not even get the haka right. It was an embarrassment. That Minister was talking about cheap political points and I have two words to say to that: Tuku’s underpants. Was that a cheap political point? 
It is very interesting that today the Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey led the debate. That Minister more than any other Minister in this House has been responsible for public money going down the drain. Tax and spend tax and spend—Michael Cullen collects the money and Minister Maharey spends it. What does he spend it on? Things like bread-tag earring projects. 
Simon Power 
: That worked. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That worked really well. I hear they retail at $2 a pair. Then there was the hip hop tour where someone had the opportunity to travel for 70 days to research how hip hop got to New Zealand. It included a Paris stop-over a nice wee stop-over in Fiji not to mention the chill-out period in Hawaii. Where is the report from the trip? We have not seen it. Labour is proud of those sorts of projects such as craft trips to Melbourne. Many New Zealanders would like to go on craft trips to Melbourne; the difference is we do not expect other taxpayers to fund them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is from the member who had 6 months off. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: There speaks that member once again. I wonder how his jet lag is. He had better work on that tan as it appears Athens was not hot enough for him. Michael Cullen has collected $34 billion more than he needed and Minister Maharey has spent it on a wide range of projects that have gone absolutely nowhere. So much for the “life of blameless excellence”! The life of blameless excellence is becoming somewhat tarnished as the result of a lot of hip hop tours dodgy projects and of course I must mention the bread-tag earrings once again. 
National has had a huge amount to say about these dodgy projects but I will spend some time looking at a report from the Government’s own officials. Let us look into the Government’s report on the capacity-building grants—which for members who may not recall used to be called closing the gaps before Helen Clark banned that term. These capacity-building grants have been fraught with difficulty. The report found that the guidelines for the grants were relaxed at the end of the financial year. Staff thought “Oh gee we have a whole lot of money that hasn’t been spent. Let’s start to dish it out.” Staff found that the guidelines were difficult to understand and unworkable. The grants were not supposed to be used to pay salaries but workers went out and told organisations that if they called someone a researcher a project manager or a facilitator then using the grants for that purpose was OK. These grants have been a joke. As for the Pacific organisational development funding the reporting was so poor that it is difficult to generalise about the results. 
The sad thing is we are not talking about tens of thousands of dollars; we are talking about millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money that has been spent on projects purporting to be about community development but do little more than furnish someone’s pockets. Yesterday in the House I raised an issue about a $19000 grant that had gone to the Aotearoa Rugby Football League. That $19000 was supposed to be put towards producing a business plan. No one has seen this business plan. I cannot find anyone who has seen it. Not only was the money not allocated to the many cost categories that were in the original application; there were just four neat payments to a Labour Party official who just happened to own the company that has made the most of that particular contract. Minister Maharey then called in KPMG. It was a whitewash. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I would describe that speech as a bit rich coming from that member. Katherine Rich comes from the party that says it stands for one law for all. She opposes paid parental leave for every woman and man in this country—every parent—except herself. She was happy to take paid parental leave when she had her children but she denies it to every other person in this country. I think it has been a little bit of “follow my leader” from young Ms Rich. Don Brash opposes 4 weeks’ annual leave for everyone except himself. He made sure that 4 weeks’ annual leave was in his contract when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes he takes a holiday every week. 
I was talking to a National Party supporter the other day who said that National had offered him no reason to vote National. He thought the Orewa speech would not have a lasting impact on public opinion because for a party to get into Government there had to be real substance behind the leadership. There had to be substance within the leadership but substance behind it would have been good as well. Unlike me this guy thought that Don Brash was an excellent Governor of the Reserve Bank. He felt that is where he should have stayed because he is making no mark on this Parliament whatsoever. This National Party voter expressed frustration at the lack of policy coming out of the National Party. He felt this had much to do with the deep divisions between Don Brash and the spokespersons on finance social development and education. Don Brash is at odds with his key spokespersons. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Did you hear what Katherine Rich said then? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was most offensive. She should apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Did the member make a derogatory comment? 
Katherine Rich 
: I think I did Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would you withdraw and apologise? 
Katherine Rich 
: I withdraw. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: And apologise if it was a derogatory comment. 
Katherine Rich 
: And I apologise. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Don Brash is at odds with his “Key”spokesperson as well as his “Rich” and “English” ones. It is this failure to resolve huge differences of opinion that has left National with nothing more than the Orewa speech and a law and order speech that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail and substance. 
There was also frustration expressed about the lack of depth on the National Party’s front bench. Someone else put it more succinctly when he said there was something wrong with a party when its old guard was as young as Tony Ryall Nick Smith and Bill English. He could equally have commented that it was odd that the new guard had been in Parliament for 2 years and would be eligible for superannuation next year. This is not the once-proud National Party where the old guard was old and the Young Turks were young. 
But that was not the real issue for this National Party supporter. He thought it was bad enough that National had no policy no depth in its front bench and nothing in its caucus to offer this country but he said that Don Brash had done something that even he could not accept. It was one thing to bag New Zealand inside New Zealand; it was another to bag New Zealand overseas. That was an absolute disgrace in his book and I agree. It was tantamount to economic sabotage and that man stands guilty as charged of economic sabotage of this country. 
The newspapers in what they have printed back that up. The  
Dominion Post  
said: “Dr Brash has no obligation to follow or promote a government line. It would be odd if he did. But nor is his role to go overseas and bag and belittle the country in which he wants to be prime minister.” The Christchurch  
Press 
 stated: “National should by now be giving more detail on what it would do differently if it came to power. It is all very well to carp and criticise but voters need more on which they can judge whether the party would be a potential alternative government.” In the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Fran O’Sullivan stated: “National’s leader would have made a much more useful contribution if he had spelled out where his party stood on the single market and other measures which will avert his prediction of a failed state. Instead his article reads as little more than a summation of why he came into politics. The net impression from the Brash article is that anyone who lives in New Zealand is a loser—investor or individual. What it doesn’t say is why he bothers to stay and what he will do.” 
And that is because he is the loser National is the loser and this country is the loser when an Opposition leader goes overseas and bags our country.