Goff Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Goff Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1155] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 What a bitter twisted little speech that was from a member who is now entering his seventh year—his third term—in Opposition. He represents a National Party that has never performed worse in the history of this country and that has not one but four pretenders to its leadership. He is the member who claimed just a few minutes ago that Labour was the first party to be referred to the police for overexpenditure. Members will remember that just before Christmas the National Party was referred to the police for overexpenditure in breach of theBroadcasting Act. That member cannot get a basic fact right. In fact he cannot lie straight in bed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He is not straight! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: He cannot be straight. I have learnt one thing in politics and that is to be wary of the claims and the rhetoric of the self-righteous. That member is as self-righteous as any member in this House about everything from sex offending to you name it. We know a few things about the self-righteous. We remember the saga of Graham Capill the most self-righteous of all the leaders of political parties and how hypocritical his self-righteousness was. 
We have just seen a piece of hypocrisy and self-righteousness about overexpenditure. I have in my hand here the National Party pamphlet from the last election entitled  
What National Stands For 
. What is important about it is that it has a parliamentary crest on the back and that parliamentary crest shows that this pamphlet was paid for with taxpayers’ money. This pamphlet—doing exactly what the Labour pledge card does—is paid for by the taxpayer and it was put out in a little bag before the election to all constituents. That is a classic case of double standards and of hypocrisy. 
If only it ended there but we have seen much much more of that. Three weeks before the election Katherine Rich put out a statement under the parliamentary crest asking for the support of superannuitants on the basis of the National Party policy on tax cuts paid for by the taxpayer and again in breach of what National members have just been talking about. Is this National Party which is complaining about the funding of Labour pamphlets the same party that had billboards—paid for by the taxpayer—go up all over this country? Is this the same National Party? Is that another example of hypocrisy? Of course it is an example of hypocrisy and there is so much more we could use by way of example. National Party members put out a questionnaire to constituents and asked them to send back a letter in the reply-paid envelope—paid for by the taxpayer—telling them how they were going to vote. The questionnaire asked constituents who they were going to support in the next election. If that is not politicking what is? And who paid for it? It was the taxpayer. That is an example of more hypocrisy. 
But hypocrisy is not just a feature of the National Party. When I came to the House yesterday Rodney Hide was on his feet talking about the Government plundering taxpayers’ pockets. I have here an advertisement that appeared on 15 September 2005 in the  
Dominion Post 
. That was 2 days before the election. The advertisement states: “What ACT brings to Parliament”. That was put out under the parliamentary crest and paid for by the taxpayer. What hypocrisy we have heard from the Opposition over the last few days! If that were not enough I have another advertisement here showing an image very similar to Rodney Hide leader of the ACT party which is the two-person party in this House. One could reflect on this picture and put some black crosses through the photos that appear on it. There were eight members but there are not as many as a while ago. This advertisement does exactly what the pledge card does. It sets out what ACT stands for and its promises on tax crime health and so on. 
If those members do not like the rules that exist in the House on expenditure then we should change the rules and we should change them for everybody. But let us not have any more of the double standards and the hypocrisy of saying that what Labour is doing is wrong when in fact those members have been doing the same thing time and time again to even greater levels. 
We saw another example during the campaign in the secretive and surreptitious campaign of the Exclusive Brethren in support of the election of the National Party. I know why the National Party wanted to keep that secret. Who in that party would want the public to know that a small group of religious extremists—a sect—was supporting their party for Government? The National Party did not want the public to know to the extent that Don Brash said to the listening audience of Newstalk 1ZB that he did not know who had put out the pamphlets. He said he did not know. Two days later he owned up on student radio that he had known all along. He had been meeting with representatives of the Exclusive Brethren on several occasions. They had told him they were putting the pamphlets out. Don Brash deceived the public of this country. He was caught out. He was not telling the truth. Those were dirty tactics. That was an attempt to steal the election. But the attempt was not good enough because that dismal National Party remains in Opposition. 
When one looks at the National Party one sees what a dismal party it is. It is a party that is reduced to trying to talk down the country and to talk up recession. No wonder Don Brash was decried by the  
Sunday Star Times 
 as “Dr Doom”. This is the man whose only contribution to his own country was to try to talk it into recession and talk down how well it has been doing. The National Party is in an appalling situation. Just look at it. John Key was at the Taupo meeting. He told the media that one of his senior colleagues had been dumping on him saying he was ambitious for the leadership. What naivety! I ask Gerry Brownlee who that was. It was Gerry Brownlee who was doing it. But it was not just him; it was also Bill English. It was the two of them. But then I might be falling short because that great friend and ally of the National Party Rodney Hide said there were three or four traitors in the National Party. 
Is this an Opposition that is preparing itself for Government? Is this an Opposition that is trying to work out forward-looking policies? Is this an Opposition that makes even the least attempt to be a genuine Opposition? No this is a group of dismal introspective people who are worried only about trying to seize the reigns of power within their own party—a party that is going nowhere. One cannot blame Gerry Brownlee or Bill English because it was Don Brash himself who said that one does not get a second chance when one is a loser; one goes. And no loser survives in the National Party. Of course Don Brash could take heart from the repeated denials of John Key that he is after the leadership. But was it not Don Brash who in April 2003 said he was right behind Bill English? He was right behind Bill English—with a big knife! That is what is going to happen to Don Brash. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. But who will wield the sword? Will it be Gerry Brownlee? Will it be Bill English? Will it be John Key? Or is there another pretender? 
Some of the back-benchers sitting over there must watch with sinking hearts the incompetence of the National Party leadership and shadow Cabinet. They acknowledge that their nuclear policy was a disaster that it was confusing and that it lost them votes. But are they prepared to change it? Murray McCully wants to but Lockwood Smith does not. Lockwood Smith stood up at the caucus meeting in Taupo—Gerry Brownlee was there; he heard him say it—and said that if the policy was changed then he would resign. Well that is another reason to change the policy. That would be a very good thing. 
Finally I come back to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Prime Minister provided us with a clear vision and a detailed policy agenda for the next 3 years. She made the point that we are not a status quo party and we are not. We are here to make a difference. We are here for a better stronger more prosperous fair and inclusive New Zealand. We will do that by transforming the economy. We have made a good start. We are doing it in my portfolio of trade and I hope that the National Party will be supportive of that. We are doing it by building a country that has regard to the need for the security of families and for opportunities for them. We will also see further progress on the Working for Families policy. We are creating a country where we can be proud of our national identity and our culture proud of being an inclusive and harmonious multiracial society and proud of the role that we as a country play in the world.