Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mallard Trevor: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3440] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Normally when the House is nearing the close of a debate on a Prime Minister’s statement we expect to hear a rallying call from the Opposition. We expect people to be getting excited getting ready for a vote and getting tense about a situation. We expect people to be in the House and ready to debate things. I of course will not breach conventions by saying who is not in the House but I will say welcome to John Key; the member for Epsom Richard Worth; Mr Sowry and Mr Tisch. They are National Party people who are obviously not involved in whatever meetings are going on at the moment. I wonder what meetings are going on at the moment and what would be the subject of discussion. I could not believe that earlier in the week—I was absent from the House but I saw it on television—and so early in a term as leader Mr Bill English conceded that he would be in Opposition again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What did he say? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well he did not say he would be the Leader of the Opposition again. He said that this Government would be a three-term Government. He acknowledged that. Frankly I feel a bit sad for him. I am not absolutely certain that Bill English really wants the job now. It is very clear from what one reads in the Southland papers from the clippings over a period of time that there is a very strong woman in Southland who wants him to be leader. I do not want to matronise him or say that there is a matriarchal arrangement there but it is not clear from looking at Bill English’s eyes whether he feels good whether he feels strong or whether he feels on top of even the job as Leader of the Opposition. I have never heard a party so openly saying: “We do not want to compete in the middle ground in New Zealand.” Just think about that statement. What does that mean for a party that was once a great party? What it is saying is that they feel they no longer have relevance to middle New Zealand and cannot expect to get support. They want to move off to the right. They want to abandon the centre and probably a bit of the centre-right to the Labour Party. What does that mean? It means they cannot be in Government. They have given up. Maybe that is a realistic position.  
If one looks at the talent on the front bench of the National Party one gets a bit worried. I can understand that. I made the point on the first day of Parliament this year that although two male members on the front bench of the National Party were wearing blue ties four of them were wearing yellow. I do not want to overanalyse the situation and say there are deep psychological reasons that twice as many people on the front bench of the National Party were wearing yellow ties as were wearing blue ties but I do get the impression that members opposite are more than a tad worried. Frankly from a perspective of wanting to be a good Minister in a strong Government I am getting slightly worried about the effect that that might have on the performance of this Government. A good Government needs a good Opposition. We need to have thorough questioning. We need to have proper debate. We need to have some insight into the activities of the Government and we need people to be working hard on the other side and focusing and that just is not happening frankly apart from a few people in United Future who ask some questions not always well guided but really with intensity and care. In terms of interrogation I would much rather come to the House than go to my own caucus because it is only in the caucus and to an extent in Cabinet that it appears that the thorough in-depth discussion occurs with people who have thought about issues. As far as democracy is concerned and as far as strong Government is concerned I think that that is a real pity.  
I understand that over the Christmas holidays Mr Brownlee managed to burn off much of the support that he had for the leadership. He did not? I am not sure whether a member opposite said he did not—I do not know what to make of that. It is still my understanding that Mr Brownlee has burnt off much of his support and what that means is that it is most likely that there will not be a full leadership challenge over the next few weeks. I would not go any further than that.  
If I were in the National Party I would look at a couple of things pretty carefully. I would ask: “Who before Don Brash had responsibility for policy development? Who was responsible for that shocking piece of work—the National Party manifesto—for the last election?”. 
Darren Hughes 
: It wasn’t “Dippy Nick”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was Nick Smith. 
Jill Pettis 
: What about Annabel? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Nick Smith was the person responsible for that policy. Although I am invited to by members here I think it is probably not the best to go into the reasons that Nick Smith was the Minister in charge of the Budget that approved the money to Donna Awatere Huata and her family foundation. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And Trevor Mallard increased it! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This member certainly did not increase it. The one thing I will say is that this member insisted on thorough evaluation of that programme. At some stage that evaluation will be released and this member will ask some other questions. Did those members go to the fashion show? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That member did not. Richard Prebble did. He was one of the stars of the fashion show—and that sounds like a contradiction in terms. But Donna Awatere Huata paid for an ACT function—a fashion show in this Parliament—and that money has not been repaid. I want to know when will that money be repaid. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You attended. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did not attend that fashion show. I think it is outrageous that that sort of money—[ 
Interruption 
] I think as I indicated earlier that it is probably better because of knowledge I have that I not go further with this. But I do want to say that at some stage people will focus on Nick Smith. They will ask whether it is appropriate to give $800000-odd to Donna Awatere Huata in order to secure the ACT vote. 
Darren Hughes 
: The ministry would have recommended it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well my understanding is that the ministry first found out about it when it saw the Cabinet minute. There was no report.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No report to Nick Smith? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Darren Hughes 
: The ministry must have recommended it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I make it absolutely clear. It is very important that I as the Minister of State Services defend my officials in this matter. 
David Benson-Pope 
: It was Nick Smith’s idea. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not aware of whose idea it was but I know that Nick Smith was the Minister of Education when money was taken out of a contestable fund for kids who could not read and was given to ACT in order to shore up their vote. It is just an outrage and what it shows is something that in any other country would be called corruption.