Barker Rick: General Debates 
Barker Rick: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8126] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I want to put in some facts which is unusual for this debate. In October 2001 the National Party was polling at around 33 percent. The National Party was so desperately worried about its future that it decided to dump Jenny Shipley and replace her with Bill English. It saw the future of that great party on a slide. It was slipping from being a major party to being a minor party. The facts are all bad even now and getting worse. In July 2002 Bill English was seen by 44 percent of respondents as being a capable leader. In August 2003 he was seen by just 27 percent as being a capable leader. To the question “Would he be good in a crisis?” in 2002 41 percent said “Yes.” In 2003 that figure went down to 31 percent. The National Party leader has slipped on every figure—and it is little wonder. Did we see him get up in the House today and hear him ask a pointed question? No we did not. Did we see him get up in the House today and take the spear to the Government? We did not. There is a complete absence of leadership in the National Party. 
I have a great deal of respect for the Opposition. The Government deserves a good Opposition. I am prepared to put the offices of Work and Income New Zealand to work to assist the National Party. I am prepared to have them advertise a position—a vacant leadership position in the National Party because Mr English would like to get out of it. But no one is prepared to take the job. No one wants the hot potato. No one wants to have on his or her CV: “Led the National Party from ‘leading the Opposition’ to ‘number three in the Opposition’.” Everybody has been asked to be the leader of the National Party but no one will take the job. That is what all the meetings are about. Trevor Mallard has got it wrong; it is a question of who will take over from Bill English because he wants out. 
The first requirement we would have in the list of job qualifications is that the person will be able to read a speech. He or she does not need to be able to give a speech just to read a speech because that will be better than what we have currently. The Leader of the Opposition will need to have the quality of being able to ask a question. There will be no need to be able to answer a question—National will be in Opposition for a long time so there will be no requirement for the leader to be able to answer a question. The leader will also have to be prepared to spend a lengthy time in Opposition. He or she will not need to have any policy skills—that will not be required for the National Party—and will also have to be able to take a joke because there are lots of those around them. He or she will not need to be able to run an electorate office because the current leader does not run an electorate office. The new leader will not have to worry about that but will have to have the personal quality of being able suffer fools gladly because he or she will be surrounded by them. 
The other thing is that the new leader will have to have a good constitution for wining and dining because the current one does not. I understand there was a meeting of seven people last night—four had steaks one had fish and two had venison. And the new Leader of the Opposition will not have to worry about paying the bills because I am well advised that the current one does not. So there are no worries about this at all. It is a very good little job and I am prepared to help the National Party Opposition with that because the Government does deserve a good Leader of the Opposition. 
But if it is bad enough for the National Party now with its lack of leadership it will be even worse for National Party members when they go on the hustings because we find yet again the deep abiding hatred that the National Party has for its senior citizens. The reports show quite clearly that when the National Party cut superannuation the last time from 65 percent down to 62.5 percent it actually had intentions of cutting the floor of superannuation to just 50 percent. That represents a cut of over $50 per week to every superannuitant. 
 These people here have no heart for our elderly; they have no heart at all for the people who built the schools made the roads and built the hospitals. As far as National Party members are concerned once people are over 65 they are on the scrap heap. They do not care because we all know that the National Party thinks: “We’re wealthy; we can take care of ourselves.” The National Party’s position on superannuation is absolutely disgraceful. Members opposite said some time ago that they would sign up for the first part of the superannuation deal—guaranteeing 65 percent at 65 years of age. What do we have in the House today but a chiselling escape from that by their spokesperson on this issue Don Brash who said: “Well the Government’s scheme is only going to pay for one dollar in seven.”