Pillay Lynne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Pillay Lynne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7394] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am quaking in my boots following that really deep absolutely meaningful presentation. I think it is really significant that the member Sandra Goudie spoke about her grandchildren but not about her great-grandchildren—and I know looking at that member that she has great-grandchildren. I know there are other generations that follow on. What a puffed-up load of rubbish! 
And who is the leader of those members opposite? It is dear old John Key. I was in Waitakere the other day amongst people who were talking about the leader of the National Party. Some asked who the new leader was and they were told that it was Bill English. Oh Gosh that was a bit of a mistake! But we corrected them. “No no no!” we said “It’s John Key.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It is Bill English. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Oh it is Bill English! It is a moving feast. When I told them that the new leader of the National Party was John Key they asked about what he says. I told them that he went from Parnell out to the poor people the underclass and found they were lacking. They said: “Gosh it is really really sad. Suddenly someone—the leader of the National Party—has found there is someone poor in ‘New Zilind’.” Have members noticed that on the other side of the House—and I want to acknowledge the previous speaker—the new term is “New Zilind”. It is not “New Zealand”—that is so uncool—but is “New Zilind”. And that has come straight from the leader. He said: “We in ‘New Zilind’ realise there is an underclass in ‘New Zilind’.” I can see Chris Finlayson over there looking jubilant. Those members are excited. They are members of the select committee I chair and they love it there. We are a happy group. 
Anyway this “New Zilinder” jumped in his car and went out from Parnell to find some poor people from the underclass. We were talking about this and the people in Waitakere then asked where this guy came from. I told them that he was the member for Helensville. They lived in his electorate but they did not know that! They said that they thought their MP was Chris Carter and they asked whether we were telling them that this guy from “New Zilind”—because they were from New Zealand—was actually a Westie. We said: “No no no. He is not a Westie; he just pretends to be a Westie. He lives in Parnell.” That is why at the age of 55—or is he younger—he has only just discovered some poor people because he did not know there were poor people. 
Members will die when they hear this but John Key was brought up in “New Zilind” in a State house. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: No! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He was! He said that he was brought up in “New Zilind” in a State house but that “We’re not going to have any of those in the future. My good mates sold most of them off. Now someone wants to put some in Helensville but by gosh we’re going to oppose that!”. 
I want to talk about the matter of 4 weeks’ holiday because John Key is a family man. Do members know that that guy from “New Zilind” kept the cab waiting? He was on his way out to get in it when his son said: “Dad you haven’t been in the spa with me.” They were just doing that father-son thing I am sure but he kept the taxi waiting—he kept our fuel running—while he jumped in the spa which is what they have in Parnell and romped around with his son. He did that because he is a caring dad. I ask members why that dad from Parnell and from “New Zilind” does not support 4 weeks’ holiday. I can see Chris Finlayson nodding. Members opposite are feeling sick with guilt. Why would that guy not support ordinary Kiwi families having 4 weeks’ holiday? When I asked John Key why he opposed it he said: “Lynne people in ‘New Zilind’ and England would rather have the money. I know because I interviewed young people and they said that they would rather have the money than an extra week’s holiday—and if they didn’t I wouldn’t have employed them.” That is the sort of guy we are dealing with. 
He also said there was an underclass but he opposed paid parental leave 4 weeks’ holiday minimum wages and Working for Families. I find it a bit rich coming from that member. I have to say this—I do not want to be unkind but to me that member has serious credibility issues and that is serious. 
 I am not having people insinuating things. [ 
Interruption 
] I am very respectful of that member’s problems but to do “Ugh!” to us is just not acceptable—not to “New Zilinders”. How do we feel as “New Zilinders”? 
Hon Member 
: Not happy. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We are not happy—OK. I will ask John Key where he was when apprenticeships were happening. [ 
Interruption 
] What is it with you guys—you are all so bald! That is that Bennett fellow; it is not the other fellow. That Bennett fellow is interjecting. Come on! Why is it that those members are so opposed to ordinary— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a well-known fact in this House that when members refer to another member they refer to his or her full name. I would just ask you to point that out to that new member over there. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that the member has pointed that out well enough and I thank the member. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just ask the member to correct that statement. He is the new member; I am the older member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes you are an old member. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I do not look like it though—I still have my hair mate! 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think a number of members tonight have tried to mimic other members or to make comments about the way other members appear or maybe about imperfections in things that they say or in the way that they say them. It is coming close to personal reflections but I think both sides have had a bit of fun with it so we will leave it at that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I would really like to talk about the concerns of the leader of the National Party about poverty or about the underclass. I would like to ask why the National Party did not support the most innovative way of supporting families in New Zealand—through Working for Families. That is what I ask. And I ask that really genuinely because I think maybe we can work together on this. Working for Families provides support for families. Certainly on these benches we accept that the answer is not to give tax relief to people who earn a considerable amount of money; we do not want to. If we want to support our families then Working for Families works. I ask why when the member for Parnell—sorry Helensville—has been out and seen some poverty he would not support the minimum wage workers’ rights Working for Families or paid parental leave but would suddenly present himself as the champion of the underclass. It just does not gel. 
I also ask members opposite where that member was when we returned apprenticeships that the National Party had annihilated. Where was that member? He was very quiet. Why did he not stand up and say: “Yes we made a mistake. We were wrong. We should train. Our industries need tradespeople.”? Why did that not happen? I can hear the people now saying: “You are right. It should have happened.” It should have happened and they are hanging their heads in shame. But I say now that it is not too late. They should talk to Hon Bill English or John Key—whoever the leader is because it is a moving feast—and tell them that they think apprenticeships for tradespeople might be a winner because their policy is a bit like playing squash. They back the winner. If they back training education and early education for young kids they will have a winner. Then I think we might work towards a win-win. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.