Collins Judith: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Collins Judith: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11540] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That was a most amusing speech from the soon-to-be former MP for Otago because once Katherine Rich goes in there he will be out. 
This year’s Budget will be known as the vote-buying Budget. Labour is in a desperate situation. Its caucus is in disarray. Its Ministers are talking about joining other parties. It has to look to its old foe Winston Peters to try to help it out in question time against the National Party—and he is always happy to help out. Its race-based rhetoric is being thrown to the winds its Ministers have contorted themselves inside and out through U-turn after U-turn—and having listened through Mr Parker’s speech boy we can see U-turn following U-turn. 
What is the Prime Minister doing? What is she going to do for ordinary New Zealanders in this Budget? This Government’s Prime Minister is going to try to show that not only are she and her Government gay-friendly but now they are traditional family - friendly as well. Not only is she atheist-friendly but now her Labour-voting bishops in the Anglican and Catholic churches are rushing to show she is also God-fearing - friendly as well. My goodness she is friendly! She is rushing to appease the anti-immigration vote and enlisting New Zealand First to help out—and bringing in their ridiculous new policies—and at the same time she is rushing to appease the migrant vote particularly the migrant women’s vote. 
How has this self-proclaimed popular and competent Prime Minister tried to achieve that? I will tell members. She employed in her electorate office a person whose job is described by the Labour Party as an ethnic coordinator. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: A what? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: An ethnic coordinator. I thought New Zealand First would like to hear that. That is the same electorate office that supposedly sent the— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While there is a tradition that these debates are relatively wide ranging it is quite clear that many of the matters recently raised by the member have absolutely no bearing on the Budget Policy Statement at all. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debatable matter but I would ask the member to come to the point. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Speaking to the point of order I just mention that this point is about the Budget and of course about the use of Parliamentary Service taxpayers’ money in the Budget. 
That is the same electorate office that supposedly sent the “guinea-pig” letter—not once not twice but three times to the parliamentary office of Lianne Dalziel. 
The ethnic coordinator is Farida Sultana. She worked in Helen Clark’s electorate office signing up migrant women to the Labour Party. It is alleged she was setting up a migrant women’s Labour Party branch at the same time as running the Shakti migrant women’s centre and merging the two. I want to know whether that sort of behaviour will be acceptable under this Budget. Has this woman working in Helen Clark’s office been setting up a migrant women’s branch of the Labour Party and has she been paid by the taxpayer through the Parliamentary Service? This House is entitled to know. Ms Sultana has told the media they can check with the Parliamentary Service but of course the service has refused to answer the media because of privacy issues. 
It is because of Helen Clark’s own knowledge of her staff member’s purpose that she has done her very best to keep her friend Ms Sultana out of the limelight. This is the same Ms Sultana who has now come out and said that her group was the conduit for the “guinea-pig” letter—that it is her organisation with its access to the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre that somehow got the letter. But Ms Sultana would have us believe that not only did she pass the letter to Helen Clark’s electorate office but that somehow she got it from the girl’s lawyer. Now we are expected to believe that not only do pigs fly but guinea pigs do too. The lawyer never did have that letter. We know that. 
The plot gets murkier. Now we have not one not two but three of Helen Clark’s office staff involved and all the time the Prime Minister wants us to believe she did not know what they were doing. That is not one not two but three people employed by the Prime Minister’s electorate office—three of her closest friends—who are involved in this matter. Helen Clark is up to her eyeballs in it just as she was up to her eyeballs in this Government’s money-for-race schemes just as she was up to her eyeballs in the Prostitution Reform Bill and just as she is up to her eyeballs in plans to take taxpayers’ hard-earned money and spend it up in trying to keep this Labour Government in power. 
I seek leave of the House to table a copy of the Labour 2003 directory showing that Ms Sultana is a member of Helen Clark’s staff. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Could I please clarify something? I am seeking clarification as to whether that document has a list of phone numbers as well. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It does. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Well I object to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will put the question again. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.