Goff Phil: General Debate 
Goff Phil: General Debate 
[Volume:646;Page:15056] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The member asked what people are talking about. They are talking about the fact that 1 April is coming and every superannuitant in New Zealand will be celebrating the fact that on 1 April they will get $38 net for a married couple more than they would have got as a result of Bill English’s action on 1 April 1999 of slashing the rates that superannuitants got from 65 percent to 60 percent. The member knows that to be a fact. He promised not to cut superannuation but he did. 
People will be talking about the fact that on 1 April the minimum wage will go up to $12 an hour. People know that the minimum wage has been lifted every year under this Labour Government. We do not talk the rhetoric of people being in an underclass situation; we walk the walk. Under the former National Government the minimum wage was increased by 87c on average. 
But let us get to the topic of this debate. “Slippery John” was the label that the media gave to Mr Key. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a nickname. Under Speakers’ rulings 26/6-7 the member will not refer to the member by that name. It is a personal reflection under Standing Order 116. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well I will refer to him as John Key. Why did he get that nickname—a nickname that was given to him by the media? He was asked eight times a very simple question—it had a “yes” or a “no” answer. John Key was asked whether he would allow a strategic asset like Auckland International Airport to be sold overseas. Eight times he dithered. Eight times he slithered around the question. At no time did he answer that question. One has to ask whether that was indecisiveness. One has to ask whether that was because Mr Key is not good unless he is working to a brief and because he did not know what to do. Well that has some credibility. Or is the explanation rather more sinister than that? Did we see the explanation in those emails from the National Party that were never meant to be made public but were leaked in the book  
The Hollow Men 
? That is closer to the truth I think. 
I believe that National Party policy is to see the sale of strategic assets overseas. I believe that the policy of the National Party is to sell off what we will still have in terms of community-owned enterprises. Bill English has indicated that. National has already sold the railways once at a fraction of its value and if we get that back into the community ownership again Bill English has already said he would sell it off—and Air New Zealand and all of the rest of them. That is what  
The Hollow Men 
 taught us about the National Party. 
What National members say in public is different from what they say privately. In public they were telling us that they were in favour of the nuclear-free zone. In private they were telling the senators that it would be gone by lunchtime. Why would anybody believe the National Party given the long history that that party has? Anyway Mr Key went into last week determined to be decisive. He told his caucus on Tuesday morning that he would be decisive. And he was—decisively wrong. 
The Labour Party came out with a bold new plan to promote New Zealand’s food and primary sectors—$2 billion for research and development a partnership between the public sector and the private sector—determined that New Zealand would be able to have the label of being sustainable innovative and at the top of the value chain. And everybody came out in favour of it. 
Hon Members 
: Except John Key. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Except John Key. Fonterra was in favour. So were Meat and Wool New Zealand and Dairy NZ. John Luxton was in favour. John Luxton was an honest Tory. He was a decent Tory. We do not get many of those these days. He came out in favour of that as did those other organisations because it made a lot of sense. Even the normally National Party publication the  
Trans Tasman 
 said that the plan fleshes out the claim that Labour is the only party advancing policies of substance for the future—the only party advancing policies of substance for the future. Is that not true! The National Party either has no policy or will not admit to its policies.