Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) Link to this

I move, That the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2007/08) Bill be now read a second time. This debate marks the final passage of the 2007 Budget. Let us remember what the key features of that Budget were. The first feature was KiwiSaver. There was a massive addition to the KiwiSaver scheme that means when we next release some data at the end of this month, when we will have the small employer returns, I am absolutely certain we will have 100,000 people enrolled into the KiwiSaver scheme. The National Party opposite, which cannot make up its mind, looks like it might be facing half a million KiwiSavers by the time of the next election—no wonder those members have three fingers up in the wind already on that issue.

The second feature was business tax cuts, with a cut in the corporate tax rate. Mr English attacked that as profligate spending, because he includes the cost of the business tax cuts in his description of the 2007 Budget. I would ask whether National members will continue to vote against those business tax cuts, as they did on Budget night.

Thirdly, there was the introduction of research and development tax credits. This measure is seeing interest coming from offshore, particularly from Australia, about shifting research and development into New Zealand, and it is extremely strongly supported within the New Zealand business community.

Fourthly, there have been tax cuts on savings, with the portfolio investment entity regime and a cut, in effect, on widely held savings vehicles to a maximum tax rate of 30 percent. This will be followed up by the new offshore tax regime, with the introduction of an active/passive distinction, and the legislation on limited partnerships, which may begin its first reading later this evening.

That is a massive series of measures about the improvement of this country’s economy, about taxation reductions, and about addressing the real issues of how to lift New Zealand savings over the long term in order to make us more self-reliant, to lower our long-term costs of capital, and to change the nature of our economic relationship with the rest of the world. In the meantime, the good news continues to flow forth.

Just last week the new employment figures showed 362,000 new jobs under this Government, with the highest participation rate in the labour force in New Zealand’s history, at 68.8 percent. We have a massively reduced unemployment rate compared with the situation under the previous National Government, particularly amongst Māori, where the rate has gone down from 18.6 percent to 7.6 percent under this Government. Not a single region of this country has an unemployment rate of over 5 percent, with Southland leading the way in that particular regard.

Secondly, the dollar is starting to correct and has fallen some 10 percent since the peak that it reached just a few weeks ago. Thirdly, despite all the gloom and doom, the latest numbers actually show that exports have grown strongly over the last year, which was one of the best years we have seen for export growth in a very, very long period of time.

And what does the main Opposition party, National, offer in distinction from that? It offers confusion and contradictions; it offers denial and deceit. That is all National can offer in opposition to the Government’s programmes in these areas.

Let us first of all deal with that dollar issue. When the dollar started coming back down from that peak of 81-odd cents, Mr Key proudly forecasted that it would go back up to 83c.

JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this

I have to say that I feel a bit sorry for Michael Cullen. He is leaving, and they did not even give him a gold watch; they gave him a red box. You see, Michael Cullen is the man who is meant to be defending the economy. He is the Minister of Finance. Less than a quarter of his entire caucus bothered to show up to listen to him, and, as we know from the opinion polls on Sunday night, the country not only is fed up with him but has given up on him. The country is not listening.

Dr Cullen had 10 minutes in which to get up and tell the people of New Zealand why they should have any faith at all in his economic management, and he did not use even 2 minutes of his time on that. He is electoral death to the Labour Party. The more he is on TV, the better it is for National. This is the man who is so confused about monetary policy that at one point he was going to suspend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, under section 12. That was until his boss came back and told him to sit down, calm down, and say a little bit less, “because what you’re doing, Michael, is you’re telling the people of New Zealand what they already know.” Labour has no answers. It is an economic basket case, and New Zealanders are paying for its economic mismanagement.

I want to talk about the economy, and let us get a few facts right. These are the facts that Labour does not want New Zealanders to know. We have the worst brain drain in the developed world. A million New Zealanders have left New Zealand. Kiwis leave at the rate of 760 a week. Do members know what happens when they get out to the airport and as they are having their passports stamped “goodbye”? Do members think they say to the immigration officers and the customs officers, on the way out: “I want to thank Michael Cullen for his economic management. He has done such a cracker job for us.”? No; they say: “I’m “outski”, I’m outta here, until these guys are gone.”

I come back to the leader of the Labour Party, Helen Clark. She came into office telling New Zealanders that New Zealand would go up in the OECD. We were 20th. Under Michael Cullen’s economic management, we are 22nd. We are not going up; we are going down. In 1988 they started measuring productivity in the New Zealand economy—and let us get a few facts right. In 1988 the average was roughly 2.5 percent. Well, let us ask Michael Cullen today what productivity is. People are at a standstill in traffic jams in Auckland. If people want to start up a business that needs a long-term power contract, they will not get one. If they want to get broadband around most of the country, they cannot have it. If people in mid-Canterbury want water, they will not get it. If people want to get on a train in Auckland, it will take an hour and a half to go anywhere. The answer is that productivity is at about 0.5 percent, and in the public sector it is negative. New Zealanders are putting in more money and getting less for it.

Let us get back to what Labour really cares about. Labour Party members want to talk about themselves. They want to talk about electoral law reform, about how they can change the rules to make it a bit easier to try to slip back into Parliament. They have no show of doing that. They want to talk about photo opportunities, but they do not want to talk about interest rates. I say to Michael that he does not want to talk about interest rates because the reality is that New Zealanders now pay some of the highest interest rates in the developed world. The Sunday papers are full of stories about New Zealanders who today are tossing up whether they can sell their house and be able to afford another one. That is the truth of it.

Michael Cullen could have done a good job of economic management. He had the chance. This is the Minister of Finance who wrote to his own Cabinet members and said: “Don’t overspend on your budget, because if you do interest rates will stay up longer and they will go up higher, and the exchange rate will go up.” He completely disregarded that and spent a billion dollars more, because he does not care. Those members care about themselves. They care about Labour. They are happy to trawl through fish and chip papers. The Minister of Finance was happy to use 2 minutes of his time in the appropriation debate talking about the economy and 8 minutes talking about me. Labour members are not interested in talking about the economy, because they do not have the answers.

Let us get a few other facts right. Domestic inflation in New Zealand is embedded under Labour. It is running at above 4 percent, and it has been doing so for 4 years. The only answer those members have is to spend more money, and while they are at it New Zealanders are stuck in traffic jams and have waited 8 years for a tax cut—only to be told that, miraculously, in 2008, election year, there is a chance that Michael Cullen might actually talk to them about that. But we do not really know.

Even if Michael Cullen does promise tax cuts, we know that the last time he rolled out a tax cut he never delivered on it. So if we want to get on to the issue of trust—well, he cancelled it. While those members are doing all that, New Zealanders will be working the longest hours in the developed world, other than Iceland. You see, these people have no economic policy at all. Actually, that is not true. Helen Clark has an economic policy, and she declared it in the New Zealand Herald. She said: “This is the way it works. We saved up money in the kitty, and then we spent it on Working for Families. Then we saved up money in the kitty, and then we spent it on early childhood education. Now we are saving up money in the kitty, but we have absolutely no clue what the bribes will be like yet, but don’t worry, we’re working on them.” My colleague Bill English has a description of that. It is called “lolly-nomics”. They save up the lollies, then spend it on someone else.

Here is a place Labour could spend it. Yesterday I received a phone call from a constituent of mine. She is a very good woman, and she is a member of a health trust. She rang to tell me this little story. Last Wednesday she went to North Shore Hospital at 10 o’clock in the morning. She had a small thing she needed to have attended to, but it was acute and serious, and she needed treatment. Did she get treatment? Actually, despite Labour doubling the amount of spending on health—and I will come back to that later—by 11 o’clock that night, she had not had an operation. Was she given a bed? No. She was given a trolley. She was upgraded to a trolley, with a drip, and they put her in the corridor. That is where they left her, until the next morning.

Do members know what happened the next morning? This is health under Labour, folks. The next morning the chief surgeon came down and spoke to the people on the trolleys—because she was not on her own. There were dozens of them there. This is what the chief surgeon said to the people on the trolleys: “If you know someone in politics, ring them up, because it’s a disgrace—health, under these people. It’s a disgrace.” [Interruption] I am happy to talk about the issues, I say to Michael Cullen. At exactly the same time, at North Shore Hospital, they were trying to treat people in an ambulance outside. My constituent finally got her operation. [] Yes, she did get it. It was a 5-minute operation, which she got on the Friday night. That is what happened—on the Friday night she got her operation.

You see, this is the deal. These people are now, annually, taking about $20 billion more in taxes off people than they used to. They are spending a billion dollars a week, but they do not know how to spend it, they do not know where to spend it, and they do not know what to get for it. But that is what they are happy to do. They spend so much money, waste it, then drive up interest rates, because they do not care about us and they do not care about New Zealanders—they care about themselves. They care about dishing out a few lollies, and they care about themselves.

Why did Michael Cullen not come down to the House and use his other 8 minutes to talk about the economy? Because he has no answers. Those members have no answers. There are no tax cuts, no reform of the Resource Management Act, no public use or private use of infrastructure, no decisions to try to fix up a failing infrastructure in New Zealand, no ability to change labour laws, and no interest to privatise and bring in more things like accident compensation. They have no answers.

I say that the people of New Zealand have an answer. They have had a gutsful of Michael Cullen’s economic management. They have had a gutsful of Labour. Mark my words. When Michael Cullen has gone in 12 months’ time and Steve Maharey is chancellor or whatever he is going to be at Massey University—chancellor or cleaner; one of the two—people will look back on the 9 years under Michael Cullen and say that an economic wave rode over New Zealand and those people failed to do anything with it. I say that the New Zealand public have an answer, and the answer is that they want rid of Labour.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) Link to this

I understand how those members have to keep up the morale. We used to have to do that sort of thing when Tuku Morgan was with us.

Today I want to talk about the good things that are going through the Parliament at the present time, the things that New Zealand First would like to see going through the Parliament, and the things that are not going through as quickly as we think they should.

I would just like to say, so that nobody is under any illusions, that the National Party has spent a lot of time—in fact, all during the last election period, and since then—talking about tax cuts and what they would do for the country. But people in New Zealand should know that the last tax cut the National Party gave the people of New Zealand was back in 1960.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this

I tell Mr Woolerton, who has just sat down after speaking on behalf of New Zealand First, that there is nothing like a good, solid partnership. There has been one between Labour and New Zealand First over the last little while, and when we lead the next Government I am sure that that partnership can continue and that Mr Woolerton will undoubtedly play a good part in it.

In talking of people who have come closer together, I will just take us back to Mr John Key’s speech earlier, and going on his tradition of not using the names that we are asked to use in the House I will just call him “John”. He called Michael Cullen “Michael”, so I will just call him “John”. Now I ask John: when did Mr Key leave New Zealand? Under a National Government—[Interruption] Oh, we do not like it now.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

You know, the hardest thing for a Government whose time has run out is for the people in that Government to recognise it. We know what it is like. We have been there. We gave speeches like that—speeches that were all about how the Opposition had no idea of what to do or how to do it, and the only people who could keep running the country was us. That was National in 1999. Of course, the truth is that the louder we said it the more we portrayed the sinking feeling we all had, which was that even our own supporters thought our time was up.

If there was ever a man whose time is up, it is Steve Maharey. Let us look at his one, big, workable idea that could be costed—in fact, he had two—the single core benefit. After $200 million of expenditure on investigating that idea, it has been canned. It has gone. It will not happen. Two hundred million dollars was spent on thinking about it. He also spent 8 years thinking about tertiary education. He is the man who spent $1 billion in 2 years on courses that no one finished. He spent $400 million on thinking about tertiary education, and they are going to try to implement that on 1 January.

Here is a simple idea for Mr Maharey. We will abandon his tertiary education policy. After 8 years of reform and 24 reports it has failed, and it has cost $400 million. We will abandon it. We will let the people who run tertiary education get on with running tertiary education instead of spending all their time coming to Wellington pleading for money. That is what Labour’s policy is now. It is about bringing people to Wellington to plead for money. I also want to tell Steve Maharey what Helen Clark’s description is of what her Government is going to do. This was the question to her: “You’ve been in power for 8 years. Is there any area of Government where you want to take some action but have not had the chance to do so?”. That question was asked by the New Zealand Herald in a wide-ranging interview with Helen Clark. Let us see what the answer was.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

The Budget is a long-drawn-out process. That is the way it is, and, of course, it makes it an accountable process. But people may have forgotten that the Greens are responsible for some of the good points in the Budget, so I thought I would remind my colleagues of some of those.

Today Nick Smith inadvertently drew some attention to one of the gains in the Budget, and that is in the area of energy efficiency. The Greens, through the Budget process and through the delegation of the energy efficiency portfolio to Jeanette Fitzsimons, are in the process of achieving significant gains in terms of energy efficiency in New Zealand. The National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which seems to rile Mr Smith, enables interest-free loans to people to put insulation in their homes and to develop cleaner and more efficient forms of heating. For new homes we are developing a new insulation standard, a code. It will enable New Zealand homes, which traditionally have been pretty poorly insulated, to be much better insulated in the future. One of the pluses that caught the imagination of the public was the announcement of the Home Energy Rating Scheme. When houses are bought and sold through real estate agents, each home will have an energy rating. If it has a good energy rating, then, rightly, that will put up the price of the home; if it is the other way round, then, rightly, that will lower the price. That is very good.

In the Budget there is $15.5 million towards the Greens-initiated solar water heating project, which is being developed around quality water-heating. Not every supplier will necessarily qualify. For each device there has to be a minimum standard. That will be a success, and is proving so already for new homes. Obviously, when new homes are built it is good to make sure they have a solar water-heating system installed. That is going ahead well.

One of the other successes of the Green Party in the Budget was in the area of restoring three of New Zealand’s foremost wetlands—that is, those in the Whangamarino, in the Waikato; the Ashburton lakes on the upper Rangitata River; and the Waituna Lagoon and the Awarua wetland complex, in Southland. New Zealand has so few wetlands that it is very important to preserve them, and this Budget funding allows great progress to be made in that direction.

Another achievement in the Budget that I personally have been associated with, as the official development assistance spokesperson for the Green Party, is the increase in overseas aid. In our post-election agreement with Labour there was a section on increasing overseas aid, and we were very pleased when the Budget announced a much greater increase than had been projected in the previous year’s Budget. Instead of overseas aid going from 0.27 percent of gross national income to just 0.28 percent, as had been projected in the long-term projections, the amount has gone up to 0.3 percent, and is projected to rise to 0.35 percent by 2010. We welcome not only the Government’s moving in that direction but also the way that other parties in this Parliament, such as New Zealand First—including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters—United Future, and the Māori Party all pushed for increases in overseas aid. There has been a big community movement for that over some years. Several MPs from various parties—New Zealand First, United Future, and Labour—were privileged to be invited to a ceremony and given little awards for our contribution to the raising of New Zealand’s overseas aid level.

We now have to look forward at how we get overseas aid to go from 0.35 percent of gross national income in 2010 to 0.7 percent in 2015. In those 5 years the figure would have to jump by a significant amount, so we must start developing a timetable now to achieve that. It would be good to have consensus in the House to make sure that, whichever Government happens to be in power through to 2015, that timetable is proceeded with, because the people of the world, particularly those in poorer circumstances who need development assistance, are looking for that.

Also in the Budget—we teased out the details post the Budget—is quite a significant development for public transport, particularly for rail, and, from the Auckland end, particularly for the electrification of the Auckland passenger rail system. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of passengers on the Auckland rail system, to over 5 million. It has been going up very rapidly, despite all sorts of problems, particularly on the western line. People are still hopping on the trains. Completing the double tracking of that line and the electrification will dramatically increase the patronage, and provide an infrastructural background for public transport generally in Auckland. The Budget allows for an infrastructure loan, which the region will pay for through a petrol tax. The details of all that are being worked out. The Greens were a bit worried that some, or a significant amount, of the petrol tax might go on just building new highways, which is not the priority. The priority is public transport right now. It seems that all of the Auckland civic leaders of the different local bodies are for the petrol tax being devoted to, particularly, the electrification of the rail system.

Another big achievement in the Budget is the $11.5 million for the Buy Kiwi Made programme. I was privileged to attend an Auckland launch 2 or 3 weeks ago. It was packed; the audience was a good cross-section of the industry. We do not often get all of the lead people together in the same room: the lead unionists, those in the manufacturing area, business people such as Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand, people from the Employers Federation, and various individual manufacturers who are producing good-quality, New Zealand - made products. It was a fantastic launch. I do not think I saw very many National MPs there. [Interruption] It is confirmed there were none. Sue Bradford has been delegated responsibility for that area and is doing great work.

The question looming large over everything, including the Budget, is climate change. The Greens are disappointed that the Budget does not make room for a carbon charge, but there are rumours afoot that the Government will come forward with some proposal in that area soon. I request that the Government be quite radical in its proposal, because the public mood has shifted. The public is open to serious taxes on scarce resources, particularly those that contribute to global warming, such as fossil fuels. The time has come for a carbon charge. For many years people thought the Greens were a bit funny talking about all these taxes on resources, but I think people now realise that resources such as oil are running out, and also that some of those resources are causing great harm and taxation is required to reduce their use. That applies to the carbon charge on any of the greenhouse gas emitters from the energy sector, from the transport sector, or from the farming sector—for methane. There has to be a contribution from all those sectors to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Another problem in the Budget is the huge increase for the Department of Corrections. The amount went up by about 20 percent in the previous 2006-07 year, and in this Budget it has gone up by another 15 percent. We have to look at those figures and ask whether this law and order competition between, in particular, Labour, National, and New Zealand First to see who can imprison people for the longest time, give the heaviest sentences, and all the rest of it is really helping our society. I think we should have another look at it. The Māori Party in particular and the Green Party are saying there are other ways, rather than increasing the budget in that way.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this

Today, in the imprest supply debate the Leader of the Opposition, John Key, coined another new phrase—“lolly-nomics”. Of course, he has a tendency to do this; whenever there is a major debate he comes up with a catchy little phrase that will, hopefully, make the TV clip that night as the sound bite. Mr Key and Mr English, and no doubt all National members, have all been asked to say the phrase in all their speeches today, so we will just tick off how many times they say “lolly-nomics”. I am quite happy to have the new name “lolly-enomics” because it means that we have to have some lollies to be able to spend. We have to build up some lollies to be able to share them with New Zealanders. We cannot share “nothing” with anybody. We have to be able to have something to share with the people of New Zealand, and what this Government has done has built up some lollies so we can spend them. So I thank National for that label. I suppose the opposite of it would be “Scrooge-nomics” and we suffered Scrooge-nomics under the National Government. I think it was called “euthanasia” at one stage, but it was “Ruthanasia”. It became—and I think it was—“Scrooge-nomics” and New Zealanders felt the effect of it, because there were no lollies to spend.

In fact, Bill English, as Minister of Finance, ran deficits. He was so good in his job he ran deficits. He wants the job again, I say to members of this House. He is begging for the job again, and his record is that he ran deficits, and people can only spend deficits if they borrow to spend the deficits.

It is like the household budget. People take out the old credit card, they go into New World, they buy the milk, the bread, the butter, and the meat, they stick it on the credit card, and they think they have actually paid for them—until they get the bill. Then they get the headache, because they now have to pay for what they have put on their credit cards.

I have to say that people could be mistaken in not knowing what this debate is about. It is the imprest supply debate, and it is the end of the Budget 2007 debate. A Budget is the implementation of policy. We heard Mr English say today that Labour has no policy. Of course, we do not have a Budget if we are not implementing something and spending some of the lollies on something. In fact, this party spends the lollies on policy—policy we told New Zealanders about, policy we believe in—and in a Budget we implement policy. Did we hear from Opposition members how they would implement policy? Did they tell us about a policy? They did not tell us about a single policy. In fact, it was the usual rant and rave.

Many New Zealanders may not remember this debate but they will remember that this Budget brought in KiwiSaver for thousands and thousands of New Zealanders. In fact, over 100,000 New Zealanders will be enrolled by 2008. This Budget brought in business tax cuts for New Zealand business people. The National Party—can people believe it—opposed that. They opposed a tax cut for business in New Zealand. I heard on so many occasions National members saying they believed that the businesses of New Zealand deserved to have the same tax rates as Australia. We heard that up and down the country for years and when the first chance came to vote for a tax cut for business in New Zealand, who opposed it? The National Party! That is as shallow as a bird bath.

Who can believe that that party ever believes in tax cuts, when the first chance it got to vote for them, it voted against them? Why did its members vote against them? I ask members to ask themselves that. Why would they vote against them? It can be for only one reason—pure politics. There was no rationale behind it, there was no reasoning behind it; it was pure, naked politics. That is why National members voted against tax cuts.

In this Budget, we also saw some of the last implementation of the Primary Health Care Strategy. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health on the work he has done in ensuring that this policy, which was put in place, has been implemented for the benefit of New Zealanders. I have to say I am particularly proud of that policy, because I have always believed—as this party has—that the first rung of the health ladder ought to be affordable for New Zealanders. We allow people to go to hospitals where it is free, but we say to them that when they want to go to their primary health care provider they pay top dollar.

We did have a subsidy for primary health care—New Zealanders will remember it—and we were subsidised for years, and years, and years. In the years of “Scrooge-nomics”, National members took away the subsidy for primary health care, they voted to take away the subsidy for primary health care, and gave people a “poor card”. If people were poor enough they got a bit of a help to go to their doctor, but if they had a dollar over the benchmark they paid full price. This current provision has brought back affordable primary health care to New Zealanders—not only primary health care, but affordable prescriptions as well. I am very proud that that was in this Budget implementing a policy that I know that many New Zealanders believe in. I know that many of the other supporting parties believe in it as well.

We also saw, in education, the implementation of 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Last Friday I had the privilege of visiting a brand-new early childhood centre in my electorate, called I-Kids. It is private early childhood education centre. If members drive around Greta Point, I ask them to have a look at a beautiful new building that has gone up there—it is spectacular. And do members know what that early childhood centre has done? It has signed up for 20 hours’ free early childhood education. It believes in it. It believes that it is good for the parents, it is providing a quality service, and it is one of many in my electorate. I say: “Good on you, I-Kids, and good on all those who have signed up.” They have put first the children of New Zealand—not raw, naked politics, as some would do because they think they might get the National Party a vote or two.

But one would have to say that the level of debate in this House in recent weeks has been more about getting rid of Ministers, dreamt-up scandals, so-called conspiracies, and a lot of innuendo that we have seen over the last few weeks, rather than sensible debate.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

I have quietly been a bit of a fan of Annette King for quite some time. I have always thought that she was a good politician and somebody who could deliver the goods when the pressure came on. I think I know Annette King reasonably well. I have watched her in operation for a long, long time: from back in the days when she was running the local economic development agency in the Manawatū, right through to her being a senior Cabinet Minister in this Government. I can tell the people who are watching or listening to this debate that I do not think she believed what she said over the last 10 minutes. Annette King did not have the old flair about her that we have come to expect of her. She just did not have the same commitment to delivering the message that she has shown in such a strident way for a long period of time. It was almost as though she knew something was about to change.

In the third reading today of the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill, which, as Darren Hughes pointed out to me, may be taken with an Imprest Supply Bill, I have only 10 minutes to speak so I thought I would spend my 10 minutes on outlining 10 things that could have been done a lot better in the Department of Corrections. I think it is well worth spending just a minute—[Interruption] I have only 10 minutes—one minute on each.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; tēnā tātou. I have been wondering what it is with the concept of one in 10. One in 10 New Zealanders live in Australia, making up the largest concentration of New Zealanders living in any other country. One in 10 European families and one in four Māori families fell behind in paying at least one bill for power, gas, or water in the year 2004, according to the living standards survey. Then there is the fact that over 10 percent of all households in New Zealand are experiencing mortgage stress. According to the economist Brian Easton, half a million New Zealanders spend more than 40 percent of their after-tax household earnings on their mortgage repayments. There is the fact that one in 10 boys and one in 20 girls reported being bullied at least once a week. Of course, the breaking news today is that the latest food price index shows that the price of a 2 litre bottle of milk rose by about 10 percent last month. All those indicators may appear haphazard or random, but there is a connection between them, and it is the silent violence of economic injustice.

As we conclude the third reading of the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill, the Māori Party seeks to remind the House of the gross wealth disparity across New Zealand that is reflected in persistent and growing economic desperation. Sure, the richest one in 10 New Zealanders have increased their net worth to just over 50 percent of the total median net worth of our nation’s wealth. One in 10 New Zealanders are in that position, and life is looking good for the top 10 percent. The figures show that those people are at least 21 percent better off in 2004 than they were 20 years ago in 1984. But we cannot ignore the fact that for the poorest 30 percent of New Zealanders, it appears that their real income is lower in 2004 than it was 20 years ago in 1984.

The impacts of globalisation have been particularly dire for Māori workers. It is Māori who have been cut and slashed by the sharp edge of the policies of the 1980s and 1990s to liberalise our economy and expose it to the forces of globalisation. With the removal of tariff protections and State sector restructuring, it was Māori workers who were disproportionately impacted on in the textile, clothing, footwear, car assembly, meatworks, and forestry industries, and in the railways. The price of global progress has been at great cost to tangata whenua. Statistics New Zealand’s household labour force survey gives even more room for despondency when it comes to describing the profile of New Zealanders who fall under the line and are classified as poor. Māori children are nearly twice as likely as Pākehā children to fall under the poverty line, and others, including Pasifika peoples, are nearly three times as likely to do so. We have consistently raised in the House the shame that this nation carries in entrenching hardship for the poorest of the poor: some 250,000 children who are still living in poverty.

People are impoverished when they are deprived of access to power and resources. Lincoln University’s professor of agribusiness, Keith Woodford, has told the nation that life will get even tougher, with further milk price rises this year and the cost of other grocery staples, like bread, flour, and meat, likely also to increase. But it is not just the material famine that concerns us. People are also suffering the impact of spiritual poverty: the lack of hope that a better future lies ahead. So although the current Government promulgates an endless mantra of working for some families, or offers to some people the prospect of being a KiwiSaver while excluding all those New Zealanders who are kept on poverty wages, far too little emphasis has been paid to the poorest of the poor.

Part of the problem lies in the lack of robust data for measuring the growth in disparities or policy failures in the area of monitoring. The Child Poverty Action Group has identified that virtually identical names have been transferred across family assistance strategies, yet those strategies now have vastly different eligibility criteria. What that means, as the Muliaga case demonstrated so tragically, is that with the radically changing criteria and the complexity of the family tax credit concept, many families are missing out on obtaining their basic entitlements as a result of the policy confusion.

The other issue is to do with the declining capacity of State agencies to adhere to a tight monitoring framework. In May the Auditor-General’s report on Te Puni Kōkiri’s administration of its grant programmes revealed shocking standards of legal risk and non-compliance, which is concerning for a Public Service agency. Instances of contracts signed before a legal clearance had been obtained, or where recipients had failed to submit progress reports as the funding contracts required, showed the devastating impact of running down the monitoring function of that agency. Just yesterday we revealed more evidence of the monitoring failure, in reviewing the first annual report that the Minister of Māori Affairs had tabled in 12 years on progress made—or not made—against Treaty settlements.

All across this House there would be unanimous agreement that the Government spend on Māori, across education, hospital and primary health care, and community probation or jail, and through the unemployment or sickness registers, appears high. Those appropriations are spent for and on behalf of the Māori partner, yet the Māori partner has little to say about how much the appropriation should be or about the nature of the design, development, implementation, management, and evaluation of the policies associated with that spend. Despite having little or no say, and often having very little dedicated funds allocated, the blame for poor performance in health, education, justice, and the social services is consistently sheeted home to Māori. What is worse, all evidence reveals that the gaps are getting worse and the injustice is becoming entrenched.

The Māori Party, the Tikanga Māori House in Parliament, has a suggestion to challenge the poor performance that parties often clash over in considering the Māori spend. There is no denying that Aotearoa possesses a dual economy: the New Zealand economy, and the Māori economy. The Māori-owned asset base has an estimated worth of $9 billion, of which Māori-owned land-based businesses and incorporations earn at least $1.9 billion annually in revenue, and Māori exports add up to a total of $1.3 billion a year. We know exactly where the spend is, and the estimated profits. For example, we can measure revenue owned by Māori, who own approximately 40 percent of the New Zealand seafood industry, own 10 percent of the forest estate, and produce 7.5 percent of the value added in agricultural production. But in the spend on Māori undertaken by the Crown, whether in education, health, justice, or Treaty settlements, the total amount spent on Māori, by Māori, is often submerged from view. Officials tell us that it is too difficult to aggregate such amounts.

As an example, it has taken the Māori Party an enormous search, involving some 107 written questions pertaining to kura and wharekura, and an additional 104 questions related to bilingual and immersion classes in mainstream schools, before we were able to obtain the information from the Minister about the spend on Māori education. During that search we found that funds previously allocated to kura and wharekura, in the 5 years from 2000-01 to 2005-06, have not been fully spent, with the total difference being $16 million. We are yet to find out where that money has gone. That will probably take another couple of hundred questions and another couple of months of waiting, and who has time to do that?

It is the firm view of the Tikanga Māori House in Parliament that the Māori partner needs better financial data to properly monitor the Government spend on Māori, and then to be able to assess that spend against the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. Long-term relief for tangata whenua from present circumstances will depend on the courage and commitment of the nation to be open to the possibility of a Māori-inspired solution. The 2007-08 estimates are not that. Thank you.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I would like to thank the previous speaker for his thoughtful remarks, and I will respond to them in a minute. But first of all, I will draw attention to the speech made by the leader of the National Party, Mr John Key. It is interesting that he was the first respondent to Dr Michael Cullen. The National Party finance spokesperson was not given the first slot; clearly, Mr Key wanted it, and fair enough. But one would expect, if that were the case, that Mr Key would then use his speech to give this House and this country some view as to how National would have approached the appropriations or the Budget of the land. One would expect that, and one would expect a bit of policy—or, if not a bit of policy, then a bit of policy direction, or a bit of an indication about how much those members would want to do on these benches, versus how little over on those benches. One would expect a bit about where those members see themselves on the political spectrum, and a little bit of a hint about what this National Party might do, now that it has completed almost 8 years in Opposition, should it ever take the Treasury benches.

But, no, we did not get that. We got the catchy stuff, but we did not get a glimpse of the general direction. We got “lolly-nomics”, and that was it. Mr Key had a significant opportunity in this House to make a significant statement, just as he did on Budget night. He did not do it. He did not do it, and time is running out. There is no indication of what National stands for in this Parliament.

We know what those members stand against—they stand against anything that furthers the benefit of New Zealanders. Here are some examples of the things they have voted against. They have voted against KiwiSaver. They voted against it, almost beyond belief, and it was one of the most extraordinary actions we have ever seen. We still have not heard whether they will support KiwiSaver, but they had better make up their minds soon because New Zealanders are supporting KiwiSaver in their droves.

National voted against Working for Families. I guess those members called it “lolly-nomics”. We call it addressing child poverty in our country, and they voted against that. They voted against 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and tried very hard to make sure it would not work. That is what they did about that. They probably call that “lolly-nomics”, too. We call that giving every New Zealander a good start in the education system as 3 and 4-year-olds. We also say that it is a good opportunity for parents to go back to work part time or full time, if they want to; to stay at home and look after the younger child, the 1 or 2-year-old, if they want to; or to get off the domestic purposes benefit. But those National members voted against that.

They voted against cheaper doctors’ fees. Mrs King spoke briefly about that. They voted against that. They voted against reducing the cost of a pharmaceutical from $15 per item to $3 per item. They voted against it. I do not know why they did that. They probably thought that was “lolly-nomics”, too. We thought that was making sure that the first rung of the health ladder is affordable. We knew that if we reduced the barriers of access to primary health care, then we would get an increase in access to primary health care—and we knew that we would end up with better health outcomes as a result. But those members voted against that.

They voted against the business tax cuts. I do not understand why they did that. Mr Key said Auckland’s roading needed to be fixed. Well, we are fixing it. But those members voted against that, too. You see, they vote against everything. So we know what they stand against—it is pretty much anything—but we do not know what they stand for.

Can I say to the colleague who has just resumed his seat that his comments about not being able to find out how much time and effort is going into Māoridom may be his truth, but it is certainly not mine. I can say that in the health sector, we are addressing the disparities in health between Māori and non-Māori with some success. We are not finished, not by any means, but, boy, are we making progress—and it is measurable. I can say without any hint of contradiction that Working for Families disproportionably advantages Māori, that having lower doctors’ fees disproportionately advances Māori, and so it goes.

I want to talk about the leader of the National Party, Mr Key. The received wisdom now is that the honeymoon is over and the scrutiny begins. Well, that is fine; so it should be. Any politician would respond to that by making careful and measured statements and by developing positions or position statements on this or that as they build up their portfolio of policy, preparatory to having a run at the job of Prime Minister in the forthcoming election. That is what any leader of the Opposition does, and in a sense Mr Key has done that. Mr Key has used the opportunity to change the National Party’s policy on, for example, the pre-saving for superannuation, the so-called Cullen fund. National members were against that, too, and they have gone the other way. They have said they are now for that. One could say that they are immunising themselves against changing the popular policies of this Government; that is a reasonable political thing to do. One could say that they are simply trying to make sure that they do not look as if they are terribly bad people, such as those that existed in National in the 1990s, or that they are trying to get away from the Don Brash image—whatever.

That is something Mr Key did. But that is what happened when he had the chance to change certain National Party policies. As soon as the spotlight went on Mr Key, we got a completely different kind of behaviour. Of course, the issue we are talking about is Iraq. Straight away, he lost his sure-footedness. It is true that he has made a number of statements about Iraq that have got him into trouble. He said back in 2003 that he was in favour of sending the troops. That is written down, and we know he said it. In 2007 we know he said he was not in favour, so there is the contradiction. Which way do we deal with this?

That is not, itself, the issue. That was the issue last week—that Mr Key had made a mistake and had contradicted himself in the space of his time here. That is now part of the written record. But what has not been made so obvious is that since then Mr Key has not clarified. There are a range of things he could do. He could say: “Back then I said that, and right now I am saying this, and that is because I was a junior, and now I am running the place.” But he said that once, and he did not say it again. In other words, he did go for that excuse, and then he backed off from it. He could have said: “I needed to clarify.”, he could have said: “ I need to change my position.”, or he could have gone anywhere to get firm ground. But he did not. Instead, what he did was to make it worse.

He went down to Dunedin on Friday and came up with a real doozy. He said that the National Party never said that it wanted to go to Iraq. The National Party’s history has now been rewritten by the current leader of the National Party, in Dunedin on Friday. That tells me that this man continues to obfuscate as soon as the pressure goes on him about what he feels. He does not give clarity; he gives another layer of confusion.

That is an interesting position, because if one wants to tell how a politician is going to do in general, then one needs to look at how the politician is doing under pressure. Under pressure Mr Key continues to obfuscate, even today. It is not as if he has gotten through this; he is still doing it. Not only has Mr Key made a contradiction of his position on Iraq between 2003 and last month, but he has now gone on and done it again. He said that his position is not as described. He said that the National Party’s position is not as described, yet he said that he was a junior, which means that it was as described.

It is not that we have such a riddle of contradictions; that is already understood. For me, the interesting thing is that, given a weekend to think about it, given a bit of time to come to a position, and given a bit of a chance to pick up the phone and say: “All right, from here on, this is going to be our position.”, he has not done it. He has simply tried to rewrite history. We know how he does it. He does it with those fast-flowing, clipped sentences that do not always finish. There is a lot of business-speak in them—often with the participles missing, but we will not get too fussy. He just goes to smooth and sooth, and on the radio, it sounds fine. But when we get the transcript and look at the English language written down in ink, then we know that we are dealing with someone who cannot get it straight, who cannot get a line and hold to it, and who actually writhes when put under pressure.

He writhes. He does not come to a position and stand his ground and defend it, good or bad. Instead, he writhes. He moves around. It is like nailing jelly to a tree. Frankly, a person who behaves like that cannot be a Prime Minister in this country, so Mr Key has two choices. He needs to alter his behaviour, the way that he deals with himself, and the way he views himself, and decide that he will stand on firm ground, here, for this issue, and on other firm ground, there, for that issue, or he needs to give the job back to Bill English.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this

Kia ora. This afternoon when we came into the House it was decorated with those red boxes with the Labour Party’s name over them. Mr Hodgson points to his one now, as if I had not noticed it. It was almost as if Labour members had a desperate need to create a feeling of festivity about themselves, so they festooned the party with these baubles, these decorations, these brightly coloured boxes. Most of them are empty, I note; they have clear ends and I can see that most of them are empty.

We know that behind all of this lies the desperate need for Labour to feel as though it is a team again, to get over the fact that it is in such terrible disarray from one end of the party to the other, and to somehow disguise the fact that at least 11 of its members are likely to exit this Chamber within the next 15 months. Further, we know that the prospects of any new members coming to replace them after the 2008 election is starting to look extremely slim.

It is extraordinary that we can also turn to Speakers’ rulings that make it very clear that one cannot have in the House any sort of decoration like this that obscures the Speaker’s view of a member. We have looked across the House today and it would seem that most of the Labour members must be sitting on cushions in order to prop themselves up a little bit and to give themselves a further boost to the ego. It is either that, or else they have been instructed by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen to get down in there and really feel like they are in the trenches.

Today in this appropriations debate we have not heard any proud claims about what Labour has done for the nation or any proud claims about what its policies delivered in the last Budget are doing for the nation, but rather a series of very, very personal attacks on the leader of the National Party, John Key. It is delightful for us that we can bask in the knowledge that if Labour members are attacking John Key, then they know just how deeply attracted the New Zealand electorate is to him. So we are delighted by these attacks.

We are a little saddened that we cannot get, I suppose one would say, a bit of information from Labour about what its aspirations are for the balance of its term. We know that some of those members cannot have too many aspirations, because we noticed also that red boxes were not given to all members of the Labour caucus. I am afraid to say, Mr Assistant Speaker, that we looked at a certain gentleman sitting on a sheepskin in the third row, one seat in, and noticed that there was no red box on his desk. If that is some sort of a foretelling of that particular gentleman’s future, then, in his case, we are saddened.

As for the rest, it is a little bit perplexing that there was no red box on Shane Jones’ desk. I cannot believe that that is because the Labour Government wants to get rid of Shane Jones—I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that he was not offered a red box. What I can believe is that Shane Jones said: “Do not be so stupid. Do not be so silly, guys. We do not need this. Why can we not be proud of what we are, and why can we not just get in there and do the business?”.

Well, we saw a perfect demonstration from Michael Cullen today as to why Labour members cannot do the business. He gave a 10-minute speech that never said anything about his view of where the economy is going in the next short while—nothing whatsoever. We had 8 minutes of Michael Cullen doing the sort of rant that he did last Wednesday, which I have had so many letters about over the last week it is incredible. I suppose that, on the one hand, people might say that if people are writing about someone, it is good for that person, but in this case, nothing those people had to say was particularly good. It is sad, because we know that Dr Cullen is a retiring member. He has been a great parliamentarian, and it is sad to see that, at the twilight of his career and as it is coming to an end, he is being forced to try to prop up the morale of the Labour Government by going on those sorts of seriously vindictive, nasty attacks that really only leave people with a bad taste about the person making the attack, Dr Cullen himself.

So why did the Labour members not talk about their policies today? Why did they not talk about Working for Families? Why did they not talk about 20 free hours? Why did they not talk about KiwiSaver? And why did they not talk about the business tax cuts, and everything else, in a way that expressed their pride in doing those things?

I will explain to the House why that did not happen. It is because Working for Families, 20 free hours, and KiwiSaver are all about taking choice away from New Zealanders. If there is anything that is characterising the current Government, it is the lack of choice that New Zealanders have under its leadership. We have Michael Cullen, Mr Hodgson, and various other speakers saying that Working for Families is the greatest thing this country has ever had, that more families are getting more money, etc., etc. But these statements belie the fact that Working for Families has created a situation where the Government determines the amount of income that anyone has.

It is the Government that puts caps and limits on people’s ability to earn. It is the Government that, through the structure of Working for Families, says to too many workers: “Do not do anything extra. Just accept what we are prepared to give you.” That is an unacceptable situation for many, many New Zealanders. We do not begrudge anyone that income, but we do think that there are much better ways to deliver it. There are much better ways to ensure the work that New Zealanders do is more productive. We need to see a rise in our productivity, because that is really the only way out of the current hole we are in.

The same applies for the 20 free hours arrangements. We know that some childcare centres are signing up for it. We know that many New Zealanders are availing themselves of it. Of course they should; we do not begrudge them that. But New Zealanders are being asked to sign up for the particular type of 20 free hours arrangement that suits the Government, without having any choice on their part. For example, if it were a tax relief for working mothers, or if it was perhaps even a straight payment or subsidy for the choices that people make, the important thing is that the choices would be there. Choices are not there under the 20 free hours policy as the Government currently structures it.

Then we come to KiwiSaver. No one would mount an argument to say that saving is a bad thing, but these days so many Kiwis face pressures in their lives that were not there some years ago in the general cost of living as it relates to the wages they earn. The Government says that if people want to avail themselves of KiwiSaver, then they need to sacrifice a certain percentage of their income, and that if they do that, then there will be some Government contribution. It will all be locked up for 65 years, without any great choice about when that money might become available to people. What is worst of all is the Government says to all those workers who cannot afford to get into KiwiSaver that they will continue paying through their taxes, as well.

If Dr Cullen wonders—in his Walter Mitty view of the world, which is so perfect—why New Zealanders are not switching on to what he has to say, then he need only ask himself why so many people are leaving the country. Why do we have an exodus of 760 New Zealanders each week? Why have we had a slide in our OECD rankings in the last 8 years? Dr Cullen talks about things like the health system. Why is it that in any part of New Zealand we can visit an emergency room that is under stress? If everything is so good in health, then why is that the case? Why, if everything is so good in education, do we have one in five young New Zealanders leaving school technically illiterate? These are the things that people measure Governments by.

Why are we becoming an increasingly violent society? Why do we so often have very, very bad circumstances presented to us on the news where New Zealanders have gone off the rails somewhere in a sense of madness? We saw this sort of situation with the young child who was murdered last week, and we know that that happens once every 5 weeks in this country.

Those are the reasons why New Zealanders are not listening. They are the reasons why the phone is off the hook. They are the reasons why people are saying they want to try something different. They are the reasons why the optimism and the forward thought of John Key are attracting so much attention.

I make the prediction that all the red boxes in the world will not make one iota of difference to the vote that is cast at the end of 2008. It could just well be that some of those wise people who did not display a red box in the Chamber today will end up winning anyway.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this

There are some things in this Budget that I am very proud of, from United Future’s point of view, that I want to highlight this afternoon and in so doing pick up the challenge that was implicit in the previous speaker’s address.

I am proud of the fact that as a result of our confidence and supply agreement we have delivered the biggest business tax cut since the 1980s. It is $3.4 billion, over the next 4 years, that will boost productivity and will retain New Zealand’s competitiveness with its nearest trading partner, Australia. I am proud of the fact that as a result of that change and the significant changes to savings vehicles’ taxation arrangements as well, we now have a top business tax rate of 30c in the dollar, and for a number of savings vehicles the rate is 30c in the dollar, as well. That will encourage people to invest more and to save more, and it is consistent with the themes of this Budget overall, which are about investment and saving.

I say to the House that were it not for the provisions of that confidence and supply agreement, these changes would not have been delivered. I am also proud of the fact that we will now see, from 1 April next year, all donations to charitable organisations made by individuals and corporates being tax deductible. That arises out of the discussion document we issued in October last year, again arising out of the confidence and supply agreement of the year before, and it is a very positive step forward that the philanthropic charitable and voluntary sectors across New Zealand will welcome. It will be a spur to their further development and ongoing contribution to the work and the life of this country. Again, that would not have happened were it not for that confidence and supply agreement.

I am also proud of the fact—and this is particularly topical, given the report yesterday from the Environmental Risk Management Authority—that we have in place a comprehensive review team, chaired by the Hon Margaret Austin, overseeing a review of pest management strategies when it comes to game animals such as deer, chamois, and thar, that will also take into account yesterday’s report regarding the future use of 1080 poison. The recreational sector tell us that the establishment of that panel is one of the most significant things to happen to it in recent years and it provides a positive way forward towards striking that balance between the management of pests in New Zealand and the promotion of recreation. Again, that is something that would not have happened but for the United Future confidence and supply agreement with this Government.

I am proud of being able to contribute to those achievements that this Budget delivers. They are ones that in time will have a significant impact on the lives of all New Zealanders. The changes to the business tax regime from next year automatically will trigger consequential changes to personal tax arrangements. That will be the nature of the debate from this point on, and I give notice that as a party we will continue to promote a low tax environment for New Zealand taxpayers. Next year, probably around March or April, we will have a discussion document coming out, again as part of our agreement, relating to income splitting for households and families, looking at the whole area of household taxation arrangements. Again, I think that will shape the tax debate for the future, moving forward.

Further work is being done in the charitable sector on some of the initiatives that the Budget contained, particularly moves towards the establishment of payroll giving. We will be making further announcements about that later in the year, again to boost the contribution to the voluntary sector in New Zealand, the charitable sector in its work, and to establish a culture of giving across this country to promote philanthropy and people’s involvement in it.

As a smaller party in this House, as one of the MMP parties, United Future seeks to be a party of influence on the Government of the day. It is a role we have performed for both major parties over the last decade. I am particularly pleased that this year, with the limited resources at our disposal, we have been able to deliver such significant change. Indeed, I say that if we took out many of the tax changes from this Budget, aside perhaps from the KiwiSaver initiative, there would not be a great deal left. I am very, very satisfied and proud to have played a role in contributing to that and, more important, to see a situation where New Zealand will benefit from these changes, where despite some of the ebbs and flows of political current, they will be sustainable, they will be beneficial to New Zealand households and families, they will be positive for investment, good for jobs, and they will create a beneficial and positive future for this country. That is why I am voting for this Budget this afternoon.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this

I would like to acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, the Hon Peter Dunne, with respect to the tax concession encouragement for charitable giving, which of course the Labour Party announced, having stolen the policy, word for word, from John Key. He announced it weeks and weeks before the Labour Party put it in its Budget. At the time that John Key announced that policy, what did Dr Cullen say? He said that it was Tory charity. But when he got to announce it, only a few weeks later, apparently it was a great new policy—something great for the community, and the way forward. I have to say that I think it is a good policy. It will turbocharge the voluntary sector of New Zealand, as John Key says, and I think that is absolutely vital.

But what is also turbocharged in this economy are the 700 New Zealanders who are leaving this country every week to go and live in Australia. In fact, I know of a young family in my electorate that is leaving New Zealand next week to go to Australia. This is a young man, and his family, who has worked for 20-something years in the New Zealand economy and has contributed well. He has a couple of young kids. He has decided that the lack of opportunity, the stifling political correctness, the high taxes, and the lack of incentive and reward for effort are sufficient for him to want to take himself, his wife, and his two young children to Australia to start a new life. He will be going to Brisbane and joining his brother who is there as well, with his partner and young child. They will be joining more and more New Zealanders who are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia.

What was in this Budget to make that young man and his family from Papamoa stay in New Zealand? Absolutely nothing. Where was the incentive of lower personal taxes, to help families work hard and get ahead? There was not one thing at all. Where was the commitment to improve the quality of our schools? Where was the effort to get trade training in our schools, so that our young people can be equipped to get into the community, as John Key has announced? Where was the commitment to improve the standard of care in our nation’s hospitals, to unleash the malignant spread of bureaucracy that is so stifling our health professionals in their desperate desire to help New Zealanders? Where was that?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

If anybody could understand about discharge, that last member who spoke would know well about it—the verbal rubbish that came out is really, really lowering the essence of this great bastion of cooperation.

I went to the great Otaki electorate the other day and saw Nathan Guy playing rugby with Shane Jones. He was sloshing through the mud in a tigerish example of going forward. I thought: “When that boy gets into Government in about 15 or 20 years’ time he will do well.” But he was charging forward, leaderless, and going forward with the support of everybody else.

I have listened to all this tirade of innocence on how great the National Party has been. So let us just reflect on some of those issues. Remember National in the 1990s? It increased the surcharge, and that member talked about a lot of these issues. Let us talk about trade training. Who got rid of trade training?

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

That Minister, who has just finished speaking, has just shown why he was chosen to be on the front bench of the Labour Party. What a stunning speech! I think that over here we are all gasping and wondering just how bad someone has to be, to be promoted in the Labour Party. And we have just seen it.

Today in the House we have seen a whole lot of people with little red boxes on their desks. It was very well pointed out by one of the other members in the House today that one of the stunning things about those little red boxes—which are obviously there to tell Labour members where they belong, and to help get themselves noticed on television—is that they are all paid for by the New Zealand taxpayer. On those boxes they have their little parliamentary crests, signifying that unlike the Māori Party, and even unlike New Zealand First on this occasion, they cannot buy their own little red boxes so that they can prove who has paid for them. Well, the taxpayers have paid for them, and that is where some of their money is going from this Budget.

One of the things I would like to talk about today—and it may not have escaped everybody’s notice—is the fact that we do have a new Minister responsible for social development. By the way, he is also the old Minister who was responsible for social development, because social development is of course the trendy name he gave it when he first came in as Minister of Social Welfare. He did not like that term and called it social development. We have Steve Maharey back on the boards, and it is fantastic to have the architect of the single core benefit here in the House, ready to answer some questions about what really ever did happen to the single core benefit. That, of course, was the main plank of Labour’s welfare policy in the 2005 election.

During electioneering we were promised on television—and I remember an interview that Steve Maharey and I myself had with Larry Williams on Sky television all those years ago, back in the 2005 election campaign—that the single core benefit would be rolled out in 2007, and that all the major benefits, all those working-age benefits, would be rolled into one and have multiple add-ons. I think there were about seven different add-ons to that single core benefit. Somehow, taking seven or eight benefits and turning them into one benefit, and having seven or eight different add-ons, was going to save a huge amount of administration costs. What has happened?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) Link to this

As Associate Minister of Finance and a member of the Government, I am very proud to stand in the concluding stages of this debate to speak about the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill. The member who preceded me made a very interesting couple of points. She said that the Government keeps challenging the Opposition to put out its policy. It is interesting to note that a couple of polls, one of which I think was on television last night, said that 67 percent of the people wanted John Key to put out his policy now. Ms Collins asked in her speech why the Government does not put out its policy. Well, I have news for Ms Collins: a Budget is part of a policy platform, and we have written eight Budgets. Our policies are out there. We are in the process of implementing our policies—policies like KiwiSaver, like superannuation, like removing the cap on charitable donations, like halving prescriptions down to $3, and like halving doctors’ fees. All those policies are out there in every Budget. Working for Families, as my colleague says, means that 350,000-plus families are now getting, on average, around $110 a week. That is our policy, and we have implemented it. Those families are winning. So our policies are all out there.

We write a Budget—I say through you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to Ms Collins—every year, and our policy is around, of course, 3.6 percent unemployment, compared with 6.5 percent unemployment when we took office. Our policy, for the edification of Ms Collins, is 362,000 new jobs created since 1999. The number of new jobs created since 1999 when we took office is 362,000. Māori unemployment is down from 19.5 percent when we took over—inherited from that crew opposite—to 5 percent, which I am advised is the lowest unemployment count for Māori since the time the figures were first surveyed. That is our policy.

We have just heard a good old-fashioned rant from the other side. I watch Facelift, which is not a bad little production, although I am more a McPhail and Gadsby type of bloke. The comedians back then were so good they did not need masks; they expressed it through their own character and own expertise. I do not know whether Judith Collins was actually auditioning to get a mask on . We know that Tim Groser has taken a starring role this week.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

If Mr Dover Samuels thinks that last speech was good, he has to be dreaming. Members on the other side are dreaming. It has been an extraordinary spectacle over the last 2 weeks in the House to see the desperate flailing around of Labour members. They know they are in decline. I have to be honest and say that National went through a similar experience, from 1996 to 1999, so we know the signs of terminal decay in a party. And the Labour Party is showing every image of precisely that. The real indication is when those members give Opposition speeches from the Government benches. That is what they have been giving in the last few days.

I saw an extraordinary spectacle last week. Mr Phil Goff, a senior Minister in the Government, gave the most bizarre speech. It was not just a vein-popper; we thought his head was literally going to explode. It was a classic example of an Opposition speech. Those members know that is exactly where they are going to end up—in Opposition. I have to say to the previous speaker, Mr Clayton Cosgrove, that I am sure he will make an excellent Opposition member of Parliament. I am pleased to see he is in training for that task already.

At this point, I say this country is ready for the new generation of leadership. New Zealanders are asking the simple question, as to what kind of country they want New Zealand to be over the next decade. The public have seen Labour and they are saying that this country can do better. To quote Judith Collins: “The Labour Government is so boring.” It is just extraordinary.

I want to indicate to Labour Party members how they wasted their years in office. The highest growth rates New Zealand has experienced were from 1994—and actually included some part of Labour’s time in Government—to around 2003. We were gaining on the OECD ladder, so when people said we would be in the top half of the OECD in 10 years, that was a credible proposition. We have only to go at around 0.7 percent of GDP, better than the average, and we would get there. I have to say that Labour lost its opportunity.

Back in 1999 this country was crying out for leadership. That is why the growth and innovation conferences were held. I went to those conferences, I listened to the debates, and I heard the focus. One of the themes of those debates, put together by the vice-chancellor of Auckland University, Dr Hood, was to try to energise the Government—to make it seize the opportunity that it could see was ahead of it. I saw the Prime Minister give her negative speech during those conferences. She gave negative press conferences and basically poured cold water on the idea that this country could drive ahead. Do members know what has happened? Those people have left this country. Professor Hood left Auckland University for greener pastures. I am prepared to say he would still be in this country if the right decisions had been made and this country had seized the opportunity to drive ahead.

Countries get critical opportunities. This country has had a huge opportunity around commodity prices, tourism, and globalisation over the last decade. This Government has rejected those opportunities. They are only little things, but cumulatively they add up. Why did the Government pass, for instance, the second part of the employment relations reforms in 2004? That was guaranteed to slow up reform. Why did it do nothing about the Resource Management Act, when it is a critical blockage to growth? Why has it loaded on compliance costs through the Transport Act? It is all of those creeping—

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition had no idea that one day somebody would ask National members what their policy actually was on any particular subject. What surprised him even further, which has become obvious after hearing some of the comments he has made, was that when he had answered, someone would go back and check to see whether those answers compare with comments he had made earlier on the same subject. Of course, someone doing that would find that there was, in fact, some conflict between the two.

I ask whether the Leader of the Opposition really thought that the honeymoon would last all the way to the next general election. It certainly seems so, from the Government side of the House. He thought that no one would take notice of the subtle but very real undermining that he is receiving from members on his own side of the House, going by some of their comments.

Let us look at Bill English. I just note my comment and throw that name into the ring. I think we should look at Bill English. He is a very disappointed and angry man, who wakes up every morning and asks: “Why not me?”. He has not really got over the fact that he chose Nick Smith to be his numbers man, which was probably not the wisest thing for somebody wanting to win to do. But anyway, let us look at what he says about his mate John Key—the person he is the deputy to. Gosh, I would not want someone this close to me with these views.

Mr English says: “I’m a stayer, he’s a sprinter. I grind away, John just bounces from one cloud to another.” What on earth does he mean by that? Cloud-hopping—how ridiculous! Then we have another comment: “John articulates a confident and aspirational view about the future, I focus on putting together the numbers and the programme”. Well, he is not very good at numbers; we have already noticed that. The last comment is: “The other reason [the Key-English team] works is that we complement each other. John is a terrific marketer, … and I’ve got the experience of government and policy.” That is what Bill English thinks about his leader. The bottom line is that John Key is rewriting history, he is rewriting his own position, and he is rewriting the positions of his party as well.

I actually knew that John Key would find the top job difficult when he could not remember what his position was on the 1981 Springbok Tour. Who else cannot remember what his or her position was on that tour? This is absolutely galling. What people do not understand is which constituency John Key is trying not to offend. That is the one that I have not worked out. Is he trying to avoid offending the pro-tour lobby because he was anti-tour, or is he in fact trying not to offend the anti-tour lobby because he was pro-tour?

I guess we will never know because, of course, John Key cannot remember. And this is the man who can remember what emails he did not read. I think that that is utterly extraordinary. This would require one to know that an email has been received and who it has come from so that one knows that one has not read it. It seems pretty extraordinary to me that this man can remember what emails he did not read, but he cannot remember his position on the Springbok Tour.

What we do know is that John Key has taken—I think I am allowed to say so—seriously diverging opinions on matters of interest to the people of New Zealand. I guess the focus has been on the Iraq war. The National Party’s position on it is that we go back to the Boer War, World War II, and the Viet Nam War, because National members think that the Iraq war is so long ago that the differing opinions that John Key has expressed on the issue are somehow of no relevance to the people of New Zealand. There are people dying in Iraq today.

I think the people of New Zealand have a right to know that National would have sent troops to Iraq. That is one of the reasons why Labour still sits on the Government benches. We have a leader who had the courage to stand up for her convictions and to express a view that was very strongly welcomed by the people of New Zealand—that we would not send troops to Iraq.

Let us look at the differing positions of John Key. In July 2007 he said: “We have made it quite clear we will not be going to Iraq. We would not have sent troops to Iraq.” In February 2003 he said that he would be prepared to commit any support requested by the United States for a war against Iraq, including SAS and combat troops.

Let us look at John Key’s position on therapeutics. On 1 August he said: “Today’s New Zealand Herald story misrepresents our position. The story correctly quotes me as saying: ‘If they came to us now with that proposal, we will sign it.’ ” The previous morning he said: “If they came to us now with that proposal, we will sign it. We sat there waiting for it to turn up.” So we have two different positions on therapeutics.

John Key said on climate change, in November 2006: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.” In May 2005 he said, “this is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—”. One just cannot hold all of these different positions.

But the one that I particularly want to focus on, because it is one that is near and dear to my own heart given the electorate I represent, is John Key’s position on housing. He told the 2007 National Party conference that he supports the homeownership aspirations of everyday New Zealanders. He then described what is happening in Hobsonville as economic vandalism. Hobsonville is an electorate that he represents in Parliament but will not even live in. He lives in Parnell, does he not? I do not know Auckland as well as he does, obviously, but I do not think one can even see Hobsonville from Parnell.

So it is quite interesting that John Key has taken the position of describing Hobsonville as economic vandalism. It is where 15 percent of the 3,000 new homes being built will be reserved for first home owners. I think that that is a good Government policy and that it ought to be supported by the member who represents that area.

I think the real reason John Key has taken this position on State housing is that he likes to run off the back of his own State house background. He is on the record as saying that he looks at his State house background as a great marketing ploy. That is what it is for him. It is a great marketing ploy. He can pretend that he is one of the good old guys, that he is one of the real people, and that he can really look after their interests. Well, I wonder whether that is how he felt about New Zealand when he was out there speculating on the New Zealand dollar.

I bet John Key was speculating on the New Zealand dollar when he was a money market trader. That would be a very good question for him to answer. Maybe he could answer whether that is just something one criticises after the event, when one is a long way away from him. Did he or did he not do that? I think the people of New Zealand have a right to know whether somebody who is criticising people for their actions actually lived up to that criticism himself before he came to Parliament. It would be very interesting to see whether he ever finally answers that question.

I will talk a little about State housing because, as I say, it does mean a lot to my electorate. I reflect on the history of the last time National was in Government. It has a sad and sorry track record on State housing: market-related rents with no market incomes to match. We saw the desperate poverty levels that people were driven to in different parts of Christchurch. It was not the part that John Key grew up in, I have to say. Bryndwr did not suffer like Aranui. I went to primary school in Bryndwr; I know the difference between the two suburbs.

National sold thousands of State houses. How many State houses did it sell?