Power Simon: General Debates 
Power Simon: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4981] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is a sad day for the Opposition when one sits down here in the House awaiting the big heavyweights of the Labour Party to come and give one a bit of a serve over what has been a difficult 7 days and who did we get? We got Paul Swain the “Junior Minister for Lunches”. He kicked off the offensive for the Labour Party. That was a sad sad attempt. Then we had Trevor Mallard who is half the man he used to be. Trevor Mallard is stuck in the corner of the Chamber under the eaves where he yells away. He was done over by the G3s and the Post Primary Teachers Association. He is half the man he used to be with nowhere near the previous firepower. And then there is Lianne Dalziel. She is nice but sad. Lianne Dalziel came here to speak on how not to get ahead in the leadership. She will never appear on the front page of  
Time.  
She keeps her ambitions to herself. 
Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First leapt to his feet to get a piece of the action—that from a member of the political party that during the Committee stage of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill voted for the title and against the rest of the bill. That was from a party that liked the title to the bill and then voted against the entire rest of the bill! I was expecting the men in the coats that buckle at the back to walk in and carry him out halfway through his speech. What a sad sad attempt that was by Brian Donnelly. We do not want Winston Peters back here; we have no need for him. The biggest problem that New Zealand First has is trying to find the man at the present time. 
Who did we get next? We got Annette King who is clearly worried about the health portfolio. 
Hon Member 
: She’s got a good reason. 
SIMON POWER 
: She has very good reason. She had to pick on poor Dr Hutchison who as a medical doctor was quite rightly doing his job by asking searching questions. 
During all of that we missed out on what was going on in the real Shakespearean comedy “The Apologies of Helen”. Helen Clark is a woman who prides herself on detail and who knows every little thing that is going on in her Government every moment of the day. What are those phrases that we hear so often? They are: “I do not recall.” or “Not to my recollection.” As my colleague Gerry Brownlee said she is quite happy to apologise for things that she did not do. But we do not in this House hear an apology for the things that the Prime Minister did do. She is quite happy to apologise to the Samoan community for a flu epidemic and to the gay community for discrimination but is reluctant to apologise where she alone has made a mistake. 
Now of course it is foreign affairs officials who are to blame for the apology to the US. Helen Clark did not see it—it had nothing to do with her. We are supposed to believe that the Prime Minister who prides herself on her attention to detail had nothing to do with that apology and had not seen it. Let us remember that Helen Clark is the woman who followed the emails of Kit Richards—and now we are supposed to believe that she did not see an apology that was sent to the US! I just do not believe that—not for one second. 
Members should look at where we have been when we have been unable to grapple and grasp with an apology. The OECD goal that never was—do members remember that? We are not going to get into the top half of the OECD by 2011 though we were going to until that did not suit the Government any more. Or let us look at “paintergate” which my colleague Gerry Brownlee has already referred to. The Prime Minister forgot that she had signed a painting but was not clever enough to use Jim Anderton’s line which would have been that she had not signed it but had autographed it. She did not get that line out early enough and thus had to deal with the responsibility of having put her “John Hancock” on that painting. We have seen today through the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s contribution in question time that “corngate” has opened itself up again. We will see a lot more action on that particular point over the next few days. 
I worry about the massive damage that has been done by the Prime Minister to our long-term relationship with the United States. It would seem as though we are no longer very very very close friends with the US. In fact we are well and truly in the dog box. The US Embassy was forced to regard and comment on the Prime Minister’s comments as “regrettable”. In “diplo-speak” that is a very serious matter indeed. What concerns me most is the fact that Ministers and members of that Government simply move where the moment goes with no consideration whatsoever for the long-term implications of the statements they make on behalf of this country. That is a disgrace.