Jones Shane: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Jones Shane: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:17813] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tuatahi e te Whare tena koutou katoa. E te Kaihautu o te Whare i tenei po tena koe. E taku hoa Lockwood Smith ka aroha ki a koe. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Firstly greetings to you all the House. Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker this evening. To you my fellow colleague Lockwood Smith I pity you. Greetings to us all. 
] 
I give greetings to members and to my fellow Northlander Dr Lockwood Smith. I never thought I would see or hear a proud man of the Kaipara say he had to scurry through a French opening. I never thought I would have to go back to Whangarei Dargaville Kaitaia Kaikohe and Kerikeri and confuse—or join—the notion of Northland manhood and the concept of French. I ask Dr Lockwood to please spare me and all our people of the north from hearing any more of those references. 
But of course I have followed Mr Tim Groser with his burlesque-like performance that is a gross imitation of being a politician. Every time the man stands he reminds us that he has not yet made the transition from being a paid talking protracted rhetorician in the issues of trade. I tell him that this is a debate that lies at the heart of why Labour will continue governing and why the crowd that he is a part of is definitely losing its way. 
Let us just look for a start at what we enjoyed last week. We were forced to suffer the spirit of triumphalism around this House. We saw Mr Key followed by the sight of Mr English quietly sticking a dagger—if not verbally then figuratively and possibly physically—into the back of his leader. They were promenading on their way to victory but fell at their own party conference. National members found that even amongst themselves they could not tell the truth. No they had to remain with one surface reality in this House and then try to destroy dislocate and distract the fresh minds of young people as per Bill English. I ask those members not to come to this House to promise that they will simply keep the policy mix of Labour going while at the same time they are telling the Australians and other corporate backers that as soon as they get in here after they have consumed smoked fish dried fish rotten fish fish heads fish guts— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Am I wrong in this? This is the third reading of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. What is the focus that the member is bringing to bear on the title or content of the bill? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: All right I think I will settle this debate. We have looked at a variety of things reported from Mr McGee but I will read to members from Speaker’s Ruling 120/5: “Whilst the second reading debate”—and one presumes a third reading debate—“on the Appropriation Bill containing supplementary estimates may be quite wide-ranging it is not another Budget debate. As far as possible the debate should be relevant … However it is the winding-up debate of the financial year and may therefore cover an overview of the policies for which the Government has sought …”. That is a reference to appropriations and this is the third reading of the Appropriations Bill and the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill. There is a further reference other than the one we have taken out from McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 page 476: “As is the case with the Address in Reply and Budget debates in practice there are virtually no limitations to this debate on the grounds of relevancy.” 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I would seize on that word “relevancy”. From an earlier comment you made it seems to me—and I am sure the member is going to come to this—that relevancy will dominate the remaining comments he makes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think I have almost made the point. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I agree with you absolutely and I do not challenge your ruling but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is indeed. I would say that we have had on not less than three or four occasions members of the National side of the House deliberately raising the same point that you have been good enough to rule on. It is a deliberate attempt. We had another one there from the “member for Monaco” in a deliberate attempt— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Oh— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: —a deliberate attempt—to break up members’ speeches. That has not been reciprocated but it can be if they continue to cause disorder. I invite you to advise them on the appropriate course of action because it is not appropriate to break up people’s speeches after you have ruled. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I have heard the points of order. I think we have clarified the situation by reference to McGee—and there are further quotes that say that the field is virtually wide open and that it would not be proper for me to intervene. These are other quotes from previous Speakers. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am honoured to be called “the member for Monaco” but it is inappropriate— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Totally. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: —and it is wrong and the member should desist from that. These are childish games played by a childish person. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you—be seated. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Far be it for me to suggest what that contribution had to do with the price of fish! But if we are to come back to the content of the Budget and the appropriations I must repeat what the man from Waimakariri had to say: that it covers the wages the costs and the expenses incurred to pay for Australian experts etc. Of course there is one sitting not very far from the member but that matter is for another time; that is why it is totally relevant. 
In the course of today we have had Mr Bill English stand and talk about Kiwibank and about a host of other issues. If National members are going to sell those if they are going to privatise them and corporatise them I ask them just to own up. Then we will get into the campaign—and frankly I cannot wait for it to start. Then we will debate the merits the vices and the virtues. Of course Bob will not be with us. Bob—sorry Mr Clarkson—will not be with us. 
Winston Peters most certainly will be. Winston Peters does not have the word “quit” in his name. Winston Peters realises that far too many of his erstwhile colleagues are now in what was once a proud organisation but is now one that has fallen into disrepute as a consequence of finding it a strange experience to be accurate and to be faithful to its original tenets. At least if National members had stood and fought in the way Winston did when he was a part of that party—perish the thought—then they would have stood very firmly for unfettered private gain and unfettered bouts of capitalism. But they are fearful of doing that. What they hope to do is slowly but surely blend together what they have with what we represent. But of course Winston Peters can see through that. He knows that their agenda is to drive him out of this House and mistakenly they think they are going to end up with all his votes. 
Let us come back to a couple of key things. In the context of this appropriations debate I say that National hopes in the future to waste money when it enrages every iwi in the country by wiping out the Maori seats. Unfortunately for Maori voters now and again our friends from the Maori Party in what must be the cream of jests decide to acquiesce with that. But the Maori seats will never disappear until the voters on the Maori roll determine that it is time for them to go. They will never disappear as a consequence of Don Brash Muldoon’s mokopuna Bill English or anyone else vainly thinking that an edict can be issued from the National Party and the seats will disappear. Not only will disharmony and discord flow but those members will be permanently on the benches of their turangawaewae—the Opposition. 
Let us continue on the subject of MMP. In an attempt to decrease the number of women—of course it is possibly not a bad idea on that side of the House—and to decrease the number of Maori National is now going to try to liquidate MMP an additional cost. MMP exists on the spirit the strength and the belief of our young people. Our young people want to see a House of pluralism. They want to see a House of diversity. They do not want to see the monolithic social studies teaching of Rangitoto College and that sort of homogeneity. No no! They want to see some tangata whenua and some greenies—irrespective of whether we agree with them all the time. Pasifika people do not want to see the milk-reared kids of the 1950s. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You’re only here because of MMP. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I say to Mr Clarkson that that is why the members are all clapping! Mr Clarkson is going home. He will drive over the bridge that Winston Peters developed and paid for through taxpayers as a consequence of his parliamentary advocacy. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Back to the rest home. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No I cannot say that Mr Clarkson is going back to develop rest homes or to occupy a rest home but I wish him well because during the time that Mr Clarkson has been here not a single workable suggestion has been put on the floor of the House as to how to fix the Building Act. I unwisely invited him to bring me suggestions. I unwisely suggested that he meet with officials. I unwisely told him to write and distil what he thought could be done. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Bit of a stretch—bit of a stretch! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No no. Apparently he even approached my colleague Clayton Cosgrove at one stage who realised that unfortunately Mr Clarkson came not only with a little scribbling pad but with instructions: “Come here turituri te mangai; say nothing—say nothing!” So I say “Bring your not inconsiderable wealth and kia kaha Mr Clarkson. You have been a successful man in that wealth and you will be going back to it.” I tell Mr Clarkson that his political wealth here is zero. His political wealth here is in very very bad territory. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Who pays you? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No no—I tell Mr Clarkson to go home and enjoy that. 
The other thing that our friends from the other side of the House are proposing and quietly hoping to do is not only to come into the House without admitting one single new idea but to ape everything while preparing for more privatisation in education proposing more privatisation in health and proposing to strip away Mr Peters’ new foreign affairs budget—and shame on Mr Hayes for wanting to strip that away; that is dreadful! The budget is set at $600-700 million as a part of our geo-political international beachhead to burnish our credentials and ensure that our status ranks with the highest and most fine nations in the OECD. But the penny pinchers—the Micawber-like penny pinchers on that side of the House—are sitting there ready with the shaving knife thinking they will find money by reducing the endowment and the fine works of Mr Winston Peters. But that will not happen—no no that will not happen. 
Not only is National hoping to shrink the size of the budget but it is hoping now to disembowel school teachers. We know what Mr Peachey is up to which is why that man will never be given anything to do with education other than an old strap and a cane for self-application. National members know that not only will there be riots but we will have the vast worsening problem of our rangatahi our young people fleeing from school the moment that Bill English and John Key are possessed with the notion that their policies can be accurate faithful and lucid to the people of Aotearoa. Kia ora tatou katoa.