Dalziel Lianne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Dalziel Lianne: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3357] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The now tragic and very sorry figure of the Leader of the Opposition was only made more tragic and sorry by his faux pas in the House yesterday. Conceding the 2005 general election as far ahead as this is actually not a very good look for someone who is struggling to maintain his position. It does not help that everyone knows he is only holding on to the position of Leader of the Opposition because no one else is ready willing or able—“able” being the operative part of that triumvirate—to take his place. The party will have to look well down the pecking order before it finds its future leader. 
Darren Hughes 
: No. 26. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not know what number Mr Key is on the list. I suspect that he has a future ahead of him but not enough experience yet. He will have to bide his time before the rest of his colleagues realise he is the answer to the question they have been asking themselves since they made that fateful decision to move early on Mrs Shipley and to place a very unready Mr English in charge of the National Party. 
The only person they now have is Mr Bill English—and what a bewildered man he was on New Year’s Day! We saw the Leader of the Opposition on the first day of the year when several members of the Government were at the Tuatapere sports day. We received a rousing welcome from the crowd—in the heart of Mr English’s electorate. That is not of course why we chose to be there. We were exploring the glories and wonders of this fantastic country which is booming under this Government. We saw evidence of that everywhere we went. We travelled around the entire circumference of the South Island. We called into all the rural and urban parts on the way and we were able to really hear from the heartland as to how well people were doing. Heartland New Zealand is doing well. It was no wonder that there was a rousing reception for Jim Sutton Minister of Agriculture; Annette King Minister of Health; Paul Swain Minister of Transport; Rick Barker Minister of Customs; and myself.  
Bill English arrived after we had been there for some time. Therefore when we were all asked to enter the ring to choose the logs for the wood-chopping final the commentator said: “We’re looking for the local member—actually we’re always looking for the local member.” We had to remind him that the name of the local member was Bill English. However that statement struck some resonance because he was overheard telling one of the finalists in the wood-chopping competition that he had never been to the chops before. He has been the local member for that area for 12 years! I have to ask myself whether someone rang him and said: “The Government’s in your electorate. The Government is at the sports day. You had better head down there as quickly as you can and make yourself known to your constituents because it is certainly being noticed that members of the Government are there in force.” The commentator at the show did announce to all and sundry that in the past the local river had run only 3 days a week but that since Labour had been in Government it had been running 7 days a week and it was chocka!  
I have to say that that was a great start to 2003 for the Government. We felt really reinforced in terms of the work we have been doing up and down this country. Maybe it was a significant start for the year for the Leader of the Opposition as well but the significance would be for a different reason.  
I suppose we could also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on actually remembering to move his motion of no confidence. But even when he moved his motion of no confidence—which he forgot to do last time—he still referred to the wrong Government. He referred to the Labour - United Future minority Government. That is not the name of the Government. The Government is the Labour - Progressive coalition minority Government and we have the support of a good working relationship with and a confidence and supply agreement with United Future. In the context of this debate I want to recognise what an excellent support United Future members have been. We have been able to work together on issues of mutual concern and their contribution has been highly valued in all my portfolio areas. We have consulted extensively the party that gives us confidence and supply.  
Gerry Brownlee is the only one who is taking his leadership bid seriously. I love the fact that when he wrote that article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
about treaty issues he said it was because his constituents were demanding that he deal with those issues and speak out on them and that he put them out there in the public eye for his constituents to see. However the question I ask myself is why he sent it to the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I would send such a dissertation to the Christchurch  
Press 
 if I were a Christchurch member and if that particular assertion were true. I think there is something going on. Something does not sound right. But I do have to say that nobody other than Gerry Brownlee takes his bid for the leadership of the National Party seriously.  
I also want to comment on immigration. I have said that it is important that we debate immigration. It is very important that we do so and I welcome that debate. What I have insisted on about the debate is that the debate itself be informed rational and balanced. The only way I can describe the contribution of the leader of New Zealand First is as ill-informed irrational and unbalanced. I have described the member as having become utterly unhinged on the matter of immigration. He is obsessed with the issue of immigration. He finds it absolutely impossible to understand the clearest explanations of the different statistics that are collected. He is obsessed with permanent long-term and arrival statistics. He knows nothing about the difference between those statistics and immigration approvals.  
When I became the Minister of Immigration two things concerned me greatly. There were people in the country who had residence but could not get work; there were people in the country who had work but who could not get residence. The policy I inherited was focused on numbers. It did not matter what happened to people after they arrived in New Zealand. This Government cares about what happens to people after they arrive in New Zealand. I saw on television late last year an advertisement for Auckland. It was based on an extremely well-qualified medical professional with an Eastern European accent being interviewed as to why he wanted to come to Auckland—was it this was it that was it the America’s Cup a whole range of issues. He said: “No I want to drive a taxi.”  
That might be funny if it were not true if it were not based on reality. I have met a PhD-level agricultural scientist from Russia a pharmacist from Korea and an information technology specialist from India all of whom are driving taxis. I have asked them how they felt about that. That was before we were in Government. I took their answers with me—the embarrassment the humiliation and the feelings they brought with them of having been cheated into coming to New Zealand—into my position as the Minister of Immigration. We have set about resolving settlement issues. No Government has ever done that before. We have taken a number of steps to address those settlement outcomes.  
But I do want to make one point: settlement is a two-way street. It is not something that can be done to someone or for someone. It requires communities to work with new migrants. It does not need the kinds of comments that we hear from the leader of New Zealand First.