Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill

JOHN KEY Link to this

I think Pete Hodgson needs to take blood pressure control pills, not Tamiflu.

This Government is not on top of its game. Its members were tired and really lost for direction during the entire election campaign. Their only policy during the campaign was not to let National get on to the Treasury benches. They were devoid of ideas when they started their campaign, and it is the same now. That is probably reflected in the fact that the Dominion Post took the opportunity this week to score Michael Cullen at zero out of 10 for his performance. I know that Michael Cullen is not very happy about that, but the good news is he can only go up from zero.

Very interestingly, in the Speech from the Throne the Government stated once again that getting into the top half of the OECD was one of New Zealand’s primary goals. Well, it is no wonder that the Government did not like it when Treasury, in its briefing note to the incoming Minister, made the point that for New Zealand to get into the top half of the OECD we would have to grow at a rate of around 4 percent. That is double the 2 percent growth rate that we have had.

I took a moment to reflect on New Zealand’s position in the OECD. We are, as members are probably aware, 21st out of the 30 wealthy countries in the OECD. But that does not tell the story that is worth our having a discussion about today. We should look at New Zealand’s ranking in per capita terms in comparison with the world, because it is not just the OECD that we need to think about. One of the things we note in this regard is that Australia is ranked as the 17th wealthiest country in the developed world—with average income at about $30,000. I note that countries with a low tax regime, which is advocated by Treasury—Ireland and Hong Kong—ranked well above Australia, at fifth and ninth. Countries that have had the good sense to build offshore banking entities, like Luxembourg, Jersey, and others, rank well above us. So members can imagine my surprise when I took the opportunity to note that New Zealand is ranked 40th—and the Government says it wants to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD! That sort of shocked me until I found out that we are behind the Falkland Islands, which is 36th, behind Liechtenstein, behind Brunei, and behind Spain. We are two places ahead of the Faeroe Islands, which are coming our way, three places ahead of Guam, and four places ahead of Slovenia. So if anyone thinks this country is on the right path, he or she need only look at the list. In fact, we are further behind Australia than Puerto Rico is behind New Zealand. This country needs a change of Government. Another election cannot come soon enough.

It is no wonder that the Government is a little down in the mouth this week. Not only are its Ministers performing extremely badly; poor Michael Cullen is Acting Prime Minister, and when Helen Clark comes back to New Zealand Michael Cullen will become “Acting Minister of Finance”, because he does not actually make any of the policies that go through the Government any more—he just parrots whatever Helen Clark tells him.

When, a couple of weeks ago, Michael Cullen did get a chance to do a little meddling—and he quite enjoys that—he came out with a doozy: he intends to look at intervention in the housing market. New Zealanders will be concerned, because most of us know that our most substantial asset is our house. I was a little bit surprised to find out that, he said, the terms and conditions for this review had been set by Mr Alan Bollard and Treasury. The only problem is that in 2004 Alan Bollard gave a speech where he detailed the exact same terms and references, and he rejected them. He went through the list of things that Michael Cullen is asking him to report back on—he will report to Michael Cullen in just a few weeks’ time—and he rejected all of them. All of them were likely to send New Zealand in the wrong direction. Many of them had very large risks indeed, and were likely to backfire.

That is the economic leadership that is coming from this country. I think Michael Cullen is really lost for ideas in this economy, and that is why he did not like it when Treasury came out and told him the way things were. That is why he did not like the way things were going.

I want to make reference to the part about the growing State sector wages bill and the growing size of the State sector, because if anything differentiated Labour and National in the last election, it was this. National had a view that New Zealanders knew how they wanted to spend their money. National had a view that New Zealanders could get further ahead. National had a view that New Zealanders could build a strong economy. But Labour members do not have that view. That is how we saw it, because after 5 years in office the Government has doubled the size of the State sector wages bill—from $2.2 billion to $4 billion in 5 years. I know that business confidence is at an 18-year low, but that is not the case in Wellington, and I will tell the House why: because it is the only part of the country that is growing above about 3 percent now, and that is because the Government is fuelling the boom in Wellington. The Government is out there hiring people and paying them more than they would get in the private sector.

All of that might be OK if we got value for money, but Michael Cullen does not seem to be too worried about that. Treasury has a whole different view. The first thing it said was that for all of the bureaucrats and all of the money being spent, there was not any information of note coming out of the State sector on how things were going, and that what little information there was frequently gave Ministers and the public a surprise, because they were surprised by such poor performance.

So why is Michael Cullen intent on lifting Government spending to a level that it is way out of control and way beyond what this country can afford? Why is he prepared to do that? Because Michael Cullen thinks he knows best. That is the future for New Zealand under Michael Cullen. It is a future where he knows best, a future where he realises that intervention in the housing market will be the best thing—in the same way as he told the country that intervention in the currency market would be such a good thing. We may remember that only about a year ago Michael Cullen convinced the Reserve Bank that it was a great idea to intervene in the currency market.

JOHN KEY Link to this

Well, he gave the Reserve Bank billions of extra dollars, and the moment he did so Alan Bollard got up and said that never, in the 18 years since the currency had been floated, had the bank used the exchange rate provisions. We have now had an all-time high for the New Zealand dollar—just under US75c—the export sector is on its knees, and the intervention provision has never been used. And now Michael Cullen wants to intervene in the property market! That is the leadership coming out of the Labour Government. It is no great surprise at all that we are on an 18-year low for business confidence.

The one thing that came out of this report, loud and clear, was that Treasury is under no illusion that growth will occur in New Zealand only when we have a competitive tax regime, and only when we are prepared to give New Zealanders the right incentives to get ahead, and the right belief that they can make a difference to their lives.

JOHN KEY Link to this

I say: “Take the Tamiflu, Pete; you’ll do all right.” I assume he is on the list for Tamiflu.

Treasury quite rightly pointed out that when New Zealanders face effective marginal tax rates of 60, 70, and 80 percent they cannot get ahead in life, and they cannot make a difference to their own lives. When they face those tax rates and are on less than the average wage, they cannot get ahead. I am not surprised that business confidence is on a slow, I am not surprised that Treasury has slated the policies of this Government, and I am not surprised that this Government is down in the mouth, and happy that an adjournment is coming next week. This Government performs worse and worse, and it is desperate to head away with its tail between its legs. It is not enjoying its current position, and its Ministers do not turn up in the House—there are only a couple of them here, and their combined IQ is not very high. It is a tragedy that this country is looking to these people for leadership. It is no wonder that business confidence is on a slow. It is no wonder that this Government is falling in the polls. It is no wonder that it is all over for the Labour Party.

HEATHER ROY Link to this

I thank Mr Mallard very much for making that point. I stand to outline the ACT party’s lack of confidence in this Government. It is very sad that the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill has been dogged by trivial speeches—in particular, speeches made by members on the other side of the House—whereas, there are matters of great importance for us to debate in this forty-eighth Parliament. The ACT party sees these issues in three categories: firstly, the need for tax cuts; secondly, the Labour Party’s denying of them in favour of welfare for families, sometimes referred to as Working for Families; and, thirdly, the huge and considerable problem that welfare is in this country.

At the moment Wellington is abuzz with rumours that company tax rates are about to drop.

HEATHER ROY Link to this

Yes, apparently. ACT campaigned hard on that issue—[ Interruption] I hope it is not, I say to Mr Henare, and I hope it is the truth. Treasury briefing papers to the incoming Minister recommended cuts to the 39c and 33c rates of income tax, but I do not think we are about to see that happen. ACT campaigned for those rates to drop, and it was the only party to do so. Average families in New Zealand are no better off today than they were in 1999. Any increase in wages has been offset by legislation put in place by this greedy Labour Government. What would really help New Zealand families significantly today—and would have helped them for every day of the last 6 years—are tax cuts for every Kiwi worker.

ACT will continue to campaign, as will other parties on this side of the House, to lower company tax rates and personal tax rates. The House should note seriously that 60 percent of voters in the election supported parties that promised lower taxes. Instead, we have a Labour Government that steadfastly refuses to budge the personal taxation rate and, at this point, the company tax rate. What do we have instead of tax cuts? The Labour Government has to introduce legislation to accommodate interest-free student loans, which will make more people dependent on the State, and to institute an expanded welfare for families package—sometimes referred to as Working for Families. In effect, instead of making people less reliant on the State, this will turn another 350,000 families into State beneficiaries. When the Working for Families package was first instituted, the Labour Government turned an extra 150,000 families into State beneficiaries. The expansion of the Working for Families package, as promised by the Labour Government and about to be put in place by legislation, will turn another 350,000 families into State beneficiaries.

Welfare in this country is already a huge problem. We have seen steadily increasing numbers of sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit. Unemployment may be dropping, but we know that the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has increased steadily over the last 5 years. Over the last 5 years the number of people on the sickness benefit has increased by 35 percent and on the invalids benefit by 41 percent. The question is: have we suddenly become a very sick nation? No, we have not. What we are seeing is a movement of people, a massaging of statistics, from the unemployment benefit directly on to sickness benefit and invalids benefit. We need to do something about it. Welfare does nobody any good—not the Government, and not the taxpayer who has to fork out money to provide welfare for people. We should have a safety net; instead, we have a safety hammock—a hammock that has become so distended that we cannot tell the truly vulnerable trapped within it from the people who are there because the incentives that have been put in place allow those people to take advantage of them—people who are able-bodied and should be moving into the workforce and contributing to New Zealand, to the New Zealand economy, and to New Zealand society in the meaningful way that many of those people would like to do.

So this is about incentives—incentives that the Government should be encouraging, and that the Government has the obligation to provide for New Zealanders. We should be encouraging hard work, and we should be encouraging independence from Government. We know that most people want to work, and we know that we have some very vulnerable people in our society. But, by making people dependent on the Government, we take away their independence—and their ability, ultimately—to provide for themselves and their families. Yet we know that children who grow up in families that have one or two parents working are ultimately much better off. The reason that ACT does not support the incentives and initiatives the Government has put in place is that they are not the right ones. We want the Government to put the right ones in place. We want initiatives that encourage hard work, we want people to be led by example, and we want people to be independent of the Government. That is what is best for New Zealanders and that is what is best for each and every one of us. The Government has the ability and the responsibility to provide that for New Zealanders. The best way of starting that process is to provide tax cuts for New Zealanders. The surplus we have is absolutely outrageous. The only thing that the huge surplus we have at the moment should tell New Zealanders is that this Government is incapable of sorting out its Budget properly. It is taking more from New Zealanders than it needs to.

HEATHER ROY Link to this

The member is quite right. It is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money that is being spent for them. Instead of being able to use that money themselves, as they should, that ability has been taken away from them. The people who know how to spend that money best themselves are New Zealand working families. That ability should be given to them, and it is not at present.

Hon BILL ENGLISH Link to this

So it goes on. I want to say to that young man, whose name I do not know, that Labour members are out to get him. They are out to get him because they think that is a fair price that that young man should pay to save the career of David Benson-Pope. What has that young man done to deserve this? Well, he might have done some things that are wrong. Many young teenagers have. What we do know for sure is that David Benson-Pope, in a position of adult and professional responsibility, did do something wrong. We have the police to tell us he did.

So let us think about what might amount to a fair go here. Trevor Mallard and Dr Michael Cullen, two of Labour’s more vicious operators, are pursuing a young man who, 22 years after the incident, still felt compelled to complain to the police. Of course it mattered to him. That is the red corner—No. 2 and No. 4 in the Government. And in the other corner is the victim, who, after 22 years, still felt so disturbed that he sought—

Hon BILL ENGLISH Link to this

Trevor Mallard’s “dirt file” is full again. We have heard about the “dirt file” in this House before.

Hon BILL ENGLISH Link to this

All that is going on here is the intimidation by senior Labour Ministers of some young New Zealander. He is now getting three warnings from Trevor Mallard today. The reference to Tuku Morgan simply reinforces that this young man can expect the same kind of public exposure, kicking, and vicious compassion that only those two Ministers can hand out, and it is a disgrace. It is the crowning disgrace on a very bad start to the history of this Government and its term.

Hon BILL ENGLISH Link to this

It is scary. Let us bear in mind the position that David Benson-Pope holds. I understand that legally Ruth Dyson is the Minister in charge of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, but David Benson-Pope is the Minister for Social Development and Employment and he actually has equivalent legal powers. When we look at the Ministry of Social Development briefing—which is rotten with meaningless “Mahareyisms”—a few of the words that stick out are about violence. Actually, the Ministry of Social Development identifies, as the top social priority for Government policy, lifting the level of achievement of those children who are underachieving in school. That is the briefing that was put on David Benson-Pope’s desk.

Is Labour so bereft of political and administrative talent that that man should stay in charge of the department that looks after New Zealand’s vulnerable people? The answer to that is yes; that is why he has to stay there. He is only the fourth to be investigated by the police. The Government cannot put the other three in there.

Is this Parliament so bereft of compassion for those young New Zealanders who were victims that we will stand by and let that happen? The answer to that is no. The Government can expect more questions on this matter. David Benson-Pope should show up and answer. He should come out of hiding and take responsibility. As Rodney Hide pointed out, the conflicting evidence in front of the police consists of one piece of conflict, and that is David Benson-Pope maintaining that he never did it. He told this Parliament he never did it, and that is serious. Parliament takes that very seriously. If members say they never sped or missed the plane, that does not matter, but if the Minister says he never beat up the kids, but all the other kids say he did, and the police say he has a case to answer, then he absolutely has a case to answer in this Parliament. He will struggle mightily to answer the case to the public; he will try to hide from it. But he must answer the case in this House. He absolutely must do so, because he said on his word in this House that he did not do it.

Actually the dishonesty—if that is what it is—is only the secondary consideration. The primary one is that he maintains a position of responsibility at the grace and favour of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who of course knows all about prima facie evidence of criminal activity. It is the deep empathy between the two that keeps him there.

Who is left to answer the questions on it? It is Dr Cullen. I might say that I think Dr Cullen’s misjudgments today reflect the pressure that Helen Clark and the Labour Government are putting on that man. He is now “Mr Fix-it” for everything. Tertiary education is his next one, and I will tell him now that it will be more difficult than the foreshore, even if it is less controversial. He is the man who had to answer all the questions about the stupid arrangement between Winston Peters and Helen Clark. He is the man who will have to answer more questions if David Benson-Pope does not come to this House. I say to Dr Cullen that he is being taken for granted. He is the last credible Minister in this Government, and, given the way pressure is being put on him, that credibility will not last if he keeps giving the kinds of answers he did today.

Occasionally this Parliament must take seriously what MPs say in here. David Benson-Pope said that he did not abuse young children. He is in charge of a department whose fundamental responsibility is for exactly the most vulnerable of our young people. He must come here, he must explain himself, then he must go.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

I used to call Mr Mallard the No. 1 bully in the Labour Government. I now have to call him the No. 2 bully. He has definitely been out-bullied by David Benson-Pope. It is not just the individuals who make up this Government and the parties that make up this Government, but it is also the policies that make up this Government that are seriously lacking in credibility.

I have before me here the Speech from the Throne, which refers to the wonderful shape the New Zealand economy is in after 6 years of this Labour Government. It discusses a thriving, knowledge-based economy and society underpinned, would one believe, by values of fairness. I ask Mr Mallard what sort of fairness we saw this afternoon from the Attorney-General, when he attacked one of the victims of the David Benson-Pope tennis ball exercise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

That is not a point of order. It is just a desperate tactic by a desperate Minister to try to interrupt this speech, because he is trying to defend the indefensible. [ Interruption] Can the Minister who is shouting and interjecting explain this for me: why did the Speech from the Throne refer to a booming, wonderful economy in exactly the same week in which a business survey showed the lowest level of business confidence in 17 years? Is it, I ask Mr Mallard, that the business sector does not understand? Is it that somehow the survey has got it all wrong? Or is it simply that the Minister cannot explain it? The Speech from the Throne has no credibility.

And then we have the issue of—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Mr Mallard, the man who has been sacked as Minister of Education—every portfolio he touches ends up in trouble—tries to interrupt the debate. I would like the Minister—the former Minister of Energy—to explain this. Meridian Energy’s Chief Executive, Keith Turner, has stated that: “The New Zealand electricity grid is so overworked that lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing. That is unheard of in the Western developed world.” Who was the Minister who was in charge of our energy sector? It was Mr Mallard. So Mr Mallard, according to Dr Keith Turner, has been in charge of a system that is involved in things that are unheard of in the Western World. [ Interruption]

The Associate Minister of Energy, Harry Duynhoven, interjects and says we should not believe Dr Keith Turner.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Well, what did the member say? He should tell us what he said.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

No, he did not say that at all. Dr Keith Turner is being paid $1.3 million a year by this Government. He happens to have a PhD in transmission, yet he says to Mr Harry Duynhoven and Mr Mallard, the responsible Ministers, that our grid is so overworked that some lines—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Let me quote: “The New Zealand electricity grid is so overworked that lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing. That is unheard of in the Western developed world.” That is a disgrace. That Minister there is responsible for that mess, and it is highlighted in one briefing after another.

I have a briefing here from Treasury, which states that our electricity networks are seriously under-invested in. Well, who has been responsible for the investment? Who has made the decisions for the last 6 years that have led Treasury to state that the Government is guilty of serious under-investment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Mr Harry Duynhoven interjects and wants to roll the clock back. I say to Mr Duynhoven that power consumption has gone up by 20 percent since he has been in Government, and the network has not changed since then. So a basic bit of engineering mathematics would suggest that Mr Duynhoven had about a 20 percent freeload or surplus when National left office that has been undermined during his time in this Government—he has failed.

But, even further, the Government has also under-invested in the area of transport—another area where Harry Duynhoven has failed. The briefings from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development again highlight roading as an area where this Government has failed. The briefings state that, in that area, current Government policy is not working. Even more interesting is what Treasury has to say about roading policies under this Government. It states that we need a clean, transparent system for funding. Well, that is a code for saying it is not clean and transparent at the moment. Treasury is stating that the system has become one of pork-barrel politics, and that was even before the dirty deals that this Government has done with regard to United Future and New Zealand First over roading in Ohariu-Belmont and in Tauranga. One even has the Treasury stating that there is a confused mess of policies in respect of roading.

Then one comes to the Treasury briefing on the Resource Management Act. If there is any issue that members on the Opposition side of the House have given so many speeches on as almost to bore themselves with, it is the need to reform the Resource Management Act. And what does Treasury state? It states that National is absolutely right. It states that the Resource Management Act represents a significant impediment to dealing with the roading and electricity issues that this nation faces. It goes even further, and I quote: “There is a need to review the balance between development and protection in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.” And what does Labour say? Labour says that it will not change it. It refuses to make any amendments to the Resource Management Act, and particularly to Part 2, in direct contradiction to the recommendations of Treasury. That is a recipe for guaranteeing ongoing difficulties with the basic items of infrastructure, such as roading and electricity, that New Zealanders are waiting for.

But even in terms of the little issues that annoy New Zealanders—it is one of the reasons that there are 24 new National colleagues sitting in this Parliament—I say New Zealanders have had a gutsful of the petty, silly regulation that comes from this Government. No better is that illustrated than in the ruling that the “bra fence” in Otago requires a resource consent under the Resource Management Act. Does Harry Duynhoven think that is sensible law?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Oh well, good! I now have an admission from a Minister in the Government that he does not think it is sensible law, under this Government’s policies, that a resource consent is needed for a “bra fence”. So I ask Mr Duynhoven what he is going to do about it. Well, the response is deafening.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

My colleague asks whether Mr Duynhoven is going to wear that one. I simply ask Mr Duynhoven whether he is committed to the reform of the Resource Management Act.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Oh, it is interesting, is it not? We have all sorts of weasel words from Harry Duynhoven, and the simple view is—[ Interruption] Well, the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act says that it will not be reformed, yet that member says it has been.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Harry who, indeed! We have so many different views—confusion within the Government. We have no clear view, even about a policy as fundamental as the Resource Management Act, and the need for reform in that area.

It is little wonder that that tired, decrepit Government looks, with each day of the House, more and more as though it is on death row. Whether it is the machinations of Trevor Mallard or the whimpering from Harry Duynhoven, with each day that goes by the Government looks more and more decrepit. Whether it is individuals like David Benson-Pope—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this

Oh—can Mr Harry Duynhoven explain why we would have—

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH Link to this

Do members know the other great parallel with that Lange Labour Government that met its death throes in the late 1980s? Business confidence this week hit the deepest low since 1987. That is the great parallel. A headline in today’s Independent states: “Business in crisis”. Business confidence is now as low as it was when the Lange-led Labour Government was in its death throes in the late 1980s, and this Clark-Peters Government looks sick this week. It has come to us today wanting this Parliament to vote it another $4.8 billion in this Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill, at a time when Treasury is saying to the Government in its briefing papers that one of the biggest issues facing this Government is the “challenge of containing the recent growth in Government spending.” In fact, in the executive summary, Treasury said: “Future budgets must”—it did not say should—“involve less new spending than in recent years, to stabilise the size of Government expenditure in the economy and to free up resources for growth-promoting initiatives.”

At a time when Treasury is saying that Government spending is out of control, this Government, this Labour bunch, comes back here and wants us to vote them another $4.8 billion of extra spending. That is something this Parliament should not approve of. Of course, Dr Cullen says that he knows better than Treasury. He said its stuff was a 3-yearly ideological burp, and in this House gave the derogatory comment that the 1980s lives on, on The Terrace. But I would say to Dr Cullen that he is just like an alcoholic denying he is still on the bottle. Dr Cullen seems not to be able to face up to the fact that this Government’s spending is totally out of control. Three times in the last 3 weeks he has claimed to be running a prudent fiscal strategy. When the Reserve Bank gave its briefing, Dr Cullen said: “Oh, no. We are running a prudent fiscal strategy.” He used the same words when Treasury gave its briefing. But there is nothing prudent about this Government’s massive increase in spending—$4.8 billion in this bill for interest-free student loans, and for expanding the Working for Families package that the ACT speaker said would bring another few hundred thousand into the benefit system, and another billion for capital expenditure.

No one can describe that as anything other than spending that is totally out of control. In fact, we know that State sector spending has doubled in the last few years, and as we look ahead we see that the increased requirement for spending just on the State sector wage bill is a billion dollars a year. This Parliament should say, as we are now within an hour and a half of the end of this first sitting week, that it will not grant this Government this money. Labour has to prove to this House that spending is coming under control. Business is in crisis—

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH Link to this

Of course, Clayton Cosgrove would not know, because he has nothing to do with business. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that he should listen to what business people are saying. He should look at what the survey of business confidence has shown—that business confidence is at the lowest level since the last Labour Government. It is the lowest since the terminal days of the Lange-led Labour Government. Business confidence is in crisis, and we are now seeing this Clark - Peters Labour Government in its death throes.

The Government says that it spends to help people. I have heard Dr Cullen say previously in this House that this money is needed to help families, through the expansion of the Working for Families package. I put a challenge in front of some of the Labour members sitting opposite. If they care about low-income people, I want them to explain to me about low-income working families who stay off the benefit—families who do not go cap in hand to the Government to ask it for money but who actually try to earn their own living. There are 5,000 of those families in New Zealand, and if they try to work a bit harder to earn another dollar, do members know what tax they pay on that extra dollar? I will tell members. I will make it easy and say that on each extra $100 that those 5,000 families might earn, they pay $101.20 in tax. They lose more money in tax than they earn. They are poor families—their income is only $10,000 to $20,000 per year. They are not on benefits. There are 5,000 of those families in New Zealand, and those Labour members opposite do not give a stuff about them. They are the forgotten families of New Zealand. They are poor families, and this money—if we vote for this imprest supply legislation—will not go towards helping them.

Labour’s election bribe in the Working for Families package will not help one of those 5,000 families. That is a disgrace. We should not pass this bill until those Labour members opposite go away and come back with policy that will help those poor families and their children. However, we have seen today that Labour members do not care one jot about children. David Benson-Pope is a Minister protected by Helen Clark. He has the same integrity and values as Helen Clark, who fraudulently signs paintings. He has proven to this House today that he does not care about poor children. Clearly, this Government, with its Working for Families package, does not care about children from poor families either, because 5,000 families in this country have been forgotten about. They face a marginal tax rate of over 100 percent. This bill should not be passed.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

Indeed, I accept the member’s word on that; I am aware of what Treasury said. But I also ask the member whether he is suffering from déjà vu and advise him to get some treatment for it. If we look at the National Party’s spending package that it went to the country on not a couple of months ago, and would have implemented—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this

The member has gone troppo; he should just calm down and relax. The National Party’s proposed campaign platform—we will deal with spending in a moment—in essence, promised a $4 billion tax cut, of which most New Zealanders would get zip and most members in this House would get about 100 bucks per week. If we add to that $5 billion worth of spending promises, which I will get to in a moment, and $3.7 billion worth of borrowing, does that suggest that National members have any credibility to be able to get up in this House and talk about fiscal prudence? This was the Opposition that, in the dying days of the last election campaign, wanted to drop petrol by 5c—not for any ethical, philosophical, ideological, proper, right, or professional motive, but because it wanted to. It would have done that for, what, 6 months, just to try to scrape over the line with a few extra percentage points of the vote. Well, people found National out. People know that National has no credibility when it comes to spending.

After having heard that pious, vein-popping speech from Dr Smith, who talked about pious fiscal prudence, let us look at what National would have done had it become the Government. National’s transport policy involved an extra two hundred million bucks per year. A National Government would have spent an extra $1.864 billion on defence, $300 million on law and order, $124 million on hard labour, $20 million on compulsory DNA testing, and $319 million on the environment. It made spending promises totalling $5.27 billion, combined with the promise of a $4 billion tax cut for its mates. We on this side of the Chamber, however, are not single-issue obsessives. We choose to back working families, not many of whom would vote for that mob over there. I talked in the Address in Reply debate and was stopped—this is telling—by the Mother Teresa of the New Zealand Parliament, Judith Collins, who yawned when I talked about reductions in child poverty. That lot over there do not give a rats about reducing child poverty. Those members do not give a damn about helping those who are in need. National proposed—and it has the audacity to talk about fiscal prudence—$5.27 billion of spending. Maybe Dr Smith was doing an audition to become finance spokesperson again, I do not know. But he had the audacity to lecture this House about prudent fiscal management after having promised a $4 billion tax cut and $5 billion of expenditure based on $3.5 billion of borrowing.

Then there is Dr Brash, the carcass with a coat and tie on. If any member in this Chamber has a smell of death about him, to use Dr Smith’s words, it is that gentleman—although, judging by John Key’s speech, Bill English looks good after today’s effort. If anybody has the smell of rigor mortis around him, in a political sense, it is Dr Brash after that awesome Address in Reply speech. That crew over there should pull out its own manifesto and reflect on it, and on its own campaign promises, and consider how fiscally prudent it would have been had it got into Government. There are two propositions to be advanced from that. The first is that it would have spent the lot, as it proposed to do, and financed its tax cuts through borrowing, as it proposed to do—and as some of its members did throughout the campaign when they went around the country contradicting John Key, who admitted time and time again that National would borrow for tax cuts. In order to replace the revenue it would lose, it would then either cut expenditure or sell assets. Well, it did a lot of the latter last time.

So the question is: would National have honoured its election promises? Maybe it would not have. Maybe Dr Smith is being honest and telling us today that National went to the country telling porkies and that had it got to the Treasury benches it would have backed down on every bribe and every commitment it had made. Well, I thank Dr Smith. He is an honourable person, he has told the truth, and now the people know: they cannot trust that crew—the National Party—either way. What would National have been forced to cut? It would not talk about that during the election. In fact, the biggest thing I remember about the general election campaign is that when we fronted up to meetings and asked National candidates what they would do in education, they stood up and said, for instance: “I believe in high-quality education.” Nobody disagrees with that. But the problem was that they would not finish the sentence. They would sit down, because there was nothing—not a shell of a policy or a framework of a policy. It was hollowed out and there was nothing to it.

I too remember past elections. I remember the 1990 election when Labour did lose. The truth is it went down the gurgler. But I also remember the National Party tactic in that election of promising anything—anything went. If we put out a policy, involving, say, $100 million, National would run it off the Xerox promising $200 million. It would not give any detail on its policy, because it takes the community for granted and believes it is stupid. It is not stupid. The community is smarter than that, and in the last election it saw through National. Either National is prepared to stand up in the House and honour its promises, and say that it would have spent $5.27 billion, that it would have been fiscally imprudent, that it would have given $4 or $5 billion in tax cuts, that it would have borrowed $3.5 billion to do it, and that it would have cut expenditure, or it has to stand up today and say: “We hoodwinked you. We told you what you might have wanted to hear, but had we got on to the Treasury benches we would have sold you out like we did the last time we were in Government.”

National cannot have it both ways; it cannot stand up in this House and pontificate about fiscal prudence and suddenly have amnesia and forget its own manifesto, its own spending promises, its own hoodwinking over petrol tax, and in other areas—it cannot forget that. Suddenly, there is a bit of silence on the other side of the House. Is that not telling? Suddenly the truth has rubbed in. I invite National members to go back and make the same explanation that Dr Smith attempted to make, and to go back to the stump and to the communities and tell them what they would have done. They either would have sold the people out or would have kept their promises and spent the lot. They cannot have it both ways.

This Government is about backing working families. This Government is about backing our teachers. I remember in the election campaign when National members got up and said they wanted to get rid of all those public servants. They stopped saying that after we calculated that the public servants who had been employed—the vast majority of them; not the policy wonks—were police, teachers, and nurses. They were front-line people who look after those in most need. I ask them again about that, because they would not front up on that. I remember that wonderful statement by Dr Brash: “Not one teacher will lose his or her job. Not one nurse will lose her job.” Rubbish! It does not add up. If National cannot add up, and if it does not know the difference in terms of depleting revenue and how one has to make revenue up either through spending cuts or selling assets, then it has no credibility in this House.

I support this Imprest Supply Bill. We will build on what we have done in the last 6 years. We have the lowest unemployment in the OECD, which is 3.4 percent. We have seen 100,000 people come off welfare and go into jobs. We have created 300,000 jobs. National hates it when we say that, because then we compare that with National’s legacy. We created 300,000 more jobs than that crew, and we have been in Government for just on 6 years. National had 9 years. It needs to stump up, get real, and demonstrate some credibility, instead of continuing with the spin and the smoke and mirrors it is using today.