Hodgson Pete: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hodgson Pete: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7347] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Having been gently challenged by the member who has just resumed his seat to make a few comments about the generation of electricity in this country I am able to advise him as follows. Under this Government wind energy has risen from fewer than 40 megawatts to approximately 200 megawatts with a further 100 megawatts coming on in the next 3 months. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much coal? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has taken his time. He has posed his question. I said I would answer him. He would do well not to talk through the answer because I can get on to my speech any time I wish. 
I would just tell him that within the next couple of months resource consents will be lodged for the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere to be built not far from where I live. If that were to proceed it would take us from fewer than 40 megawatts to somewhere in excess of 600 megawatts over the next year or two. That is the sort of thing that can happen when a Government decides that it is going to change the law to make renewable energy easier and when it is going to use the Kyoto Protocol process to get carbon credits to those wind energy companies in order that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You cancelled them. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No we did not cancel them. They have been cashed up. That is how the wind energy system got started. That is how it took off. That is why 80 megawatts happened on one side of the Manawatu Gorge and 90 megawatts happened on the other side of the Manawatu Gorge. The member needs to check his facts and he needs to tell the whole truth not the bits of the truth that suit him. I could of course go on about geothermal. I could of course go on about small and medium hydro. 
I think I have answered the member’s question clearly enough and I am pleased to be able to get on with my contribution to the Prime Minister’s statement and say that the member’s party is unhappy. Three months ago the member’s party would have felt a little happier. It had just had the release of 
 The Hollow Men 
—that awful book that decided that the member’s party was probably about as underhand as anyone could believe a political party could be. But the reason National members were happy 3 months ago was that they got themselves to thinking that they could draw a line under that terrible terrible period of its politics and ditch their leader who was in a phrase a liar and a misfit who could be removed from the job— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a tactic by Government Ministers to accuse both past and present leaders of the National Party of lying. I think that tactic is grossly inappropriate and you should require Mr Hodgson to withdraw. Dr Don Brash has retired from the House and I think we should show some respect to retired members. Members on this side of the House are not about to get up and accuse David Lange Geoffrey Palmer or other previous Labour leaders of lying and equally so Pete Hodgson should show some basic respect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that the use of the word “liar” is absolutely forbidden in the House when it relates directly to those who are elected current members. The same privilege does not exist to those outside the House and the way in which a member wishes to address issues to the House is really a personal matter for that member. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not intend to repeat the phrase. I have said what I needed to say. I think the member felt pretty much the same way when he read  
The Hollow Men 
 unless of course he was complicit in it or unless of course he was there or thereabouts with all of that stuff—the question is whether he was or was not. 
National members were happy 3 months ago because they had given themselves the idea that they had got themselves a bright new thing for a leader that they had a carefully planned start to the New Year and that they were going to really recollect their position and march off to more electoral success just as Kevin Rudd had done in Australia and just as Mr Cameron had done in the UK. Well it has not happened. Mr Cameron 3 months into his job as leader of the Conservative Party in the UK had damaged Tony Blair considerably. The polls had changed dramatically. Kevin Rudd who is the leader of the Australian Labor Party has eaten into the lead of the existing Australian Government considerably; in fact he leads the polls in Australia by a country mile. This does not appear to be the case in New Zealand where the last three polls all show a move to Labour and all show Labour in the lead. 
The National Party is no longer happy because it had placed all its bets on this swanky new show pony and so far it has gone nowhere. What is more the National Party divisions which have been legion have of course not yet disappeared. It is not difficult to come upon chatter in this place which shows that uncertainty within the caucus persists. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh rubbish! Tells us why. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
:I will tell the member why. His mate Bill English stood for the leadership of the National Party 3 and a bit years ago and on the night before the leadership vote the current leader of the National Party John Key said to Bill English: “I am with you.” Bill English and his mates including the member who has just interjected on me then went out and celebrated because the member who interjected was doing the numbers. The member said: “We’ve got this one sewn up!”. 
By the time the following morning came— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve got it all wrong. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If I have got it all wrong why was a celebratory dinner held the night before Bill English was rolled? How is that the case? Why was a celebratory dinner held on the— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is a big hit! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a matter of public record. The member cannot call it a big one—they were photographed and reported having their celebratory meeting. The next day the object of their celebration was nobody. He had just been shafted by the person who is currently the leader of the National Party. So the deputy leader of the National Party sits next to a guy who 3 and a bit years ago shafted him in a way that no politician ever forgets. Do not tell me that there is peace and harmony between the various factions of the National Party. 
Why is it that yesterday in this House the Rt Hon Winston Peters said he had a few more emails and then named a couple of members? 
Judith Collins 
: They were stolen documents that’s why. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: OK so they had been stolen—as if the leaks are not continuing still! 
The member Nick Smith wants to know about “Watergate”. That member in January put out a statement about water saying he thought the quality of New Zealand’s water was no good. His own colleagues said there was nothing wrong with the quality of water in New Zealand and voted against legislation to improve it. I want to know whether the member who continues to have a running interchange with me is going to change his vote and vote for the Government when the legislation comes back into the House or whether he is just going to put out press statements saying one thing and votes that say another. I suspect it will be the latter. 
Let us look at what that member’s leader had to say on the issue of whether National would have gone into Iraq. Would National have led this country into Iraq under his leadership? He said: “I don’t know. Iraq is too far away.” That is leadership! Did the member John Key the current leader of the National Party hold a view that was for or against the Springbok Tour? The current leader of the National Party said: “I can’t remember.” Is there anybody else in this House who would say now that they cannot remember whether they were for or against the Springbok Tour? Which members cannot remember their position? No hands have gone up. The only person in this House who cannot remember his position on the Springbok Tour appears to be Mr Key. 
So it goes with the mortgage levy. The situation with the mortgage levy is that in November of last year Mr Key said to Dr Cullen at a select committee that he was very happy to have a discussion on what was a substantial issue. In fact he wrote to Dr Cullen a week later to confirm that he was very interested in having a meeting to discuss the options. When the meeting was held a few weeks later Mr Key outlined how such a system could work. This is the same Mr Key who is running from the idea as fast as his little legs will carry him. Why? Because Bill English said so. Because Bill English is the policy wonk in the National Party. The underlying reason for that is that Mr Key does not yet know how to write policy which is why of course the National Party does not have any policies. 
National does not have any health policies for example. Every other party in this House has an interest in health policy. If one looks at the Progressive party one sees that it is interested in drugs and in the suicide issue. If one looks at the Maori Party one sees that its members are obviously interested in Maori health and in diabetes. If one looks at the Green Party one sees that its members have a huge interest in a range of issues concerning food: obesity healthy eating and healthy action. If one looks at United Future one sees that its members have a continuing interest in a range of issues but particularly in pharmaceuticals. If one looks at the ACT party one sees that even it has a spokesperson who has some knowledge of and interest in health policy. But not the National Party. National members do not have any interest in health policy which is why as they enter their 8th year in Opposition they have yet to produce any. They have no health policy. Why is it that a major party in this Parliament can enter its 8th year in Opposition and have no health policy? Its members are not fit to stand for Government.