4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement “This Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens”?
Hon JOHN KEYDoes he still consider the people living at McGehan Close to be the underclass of New Zealand; if so, why after saying the vulnerable will be his priority in Government has he failed to deliver on his promise to improve their lives, leaving many of them disillusioned and underwhelmed?
Actually, things have improved, as the article in the Sunday Star-Times made quite clear, and in a moment, probably in answer to some of the other supplementary questions, I will go through the list of what this Government has achieved in a short space of time.
Does he agree with social worker Vince Tuisamoa that “His biggest mistake was coming here. … He’s used the street, this is the street he names all the time and yet the street is still the same, we haven’t got anything.”; if not, why not?
No, for two reasons. First, I front up when I make statements, and second—[ Interruption] Actually, I do. Second, let us just quote from the article so we can get a few facts—quoting directly from the article, and not making it up. The article states: “some things have improved on the street. There is no outward sign of the street gangs that had plagued the area—residents say they have disappeared … There is less graffiti and a brand new footbridge … And the homes are looking smart. One woman, who would give her name only as Mary, showed the Star-Times new carpet, curtains and bathroom she has received through a state housing upgrade programme.” That was part of—and I congratulate the Minister—the $125 million upgrade undertaken by this Government.
Why did he exploit Joan Nathan and her daughter Aroha for political purposes; and does he agree with Joan Nathan, who said that she feels used by him, that he has not made things better, and that her daughter does not want anything more to do with him?
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the language of that question and whether it is appropriate to insert the word “exploit”. A question that starts by asking why a member exploited a particular person is a bit like asking: “Have you stopped beating your partner?”. An unfounded allegation is being put forward by the member asking the question; it is not a factual question.
Mr SPEAKERI hear the point the member has raised. Certainly, on a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders I would have to agree with the honourable member. I felt that the Prime Minister was probably capable of handling the question, and I did not want to insert myself as Speaker into this question and answer exchange too much. But I must acknowledge that on a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders that kind of assertion should not be built into a question. It gets a bit technical; if it is essential to convey the meaning of the question, then one could argue that it does fall within the Standing Orders, and that is why it is a fairly tricky area. I accept the thrust of the point being made, but I invite the Prime Minister to answer the question because I do not believe that it was intended in a particularly unacceptable way.
All I can say is that I would encourage the member to go and speak to Joan directly, take with her a journalist with a tape recorder—and be prepared to play the whole tape—and ask Joan those questions directly. I have not spoken to her for the last 10 days or so, so I have no vested interest in it, but let us just see whether the member is right. I would make one other comment, and that is to repeat a direct quote from Joan in that article. She said: “I could have voted for Labour, and we’d be going through the same old bull—” excrement.