Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this
I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. To my right is the given leader of the National Party, Mr Key, who wants a loose fiscal policy. To my left is the other leader of the National Party, Mr English, who wants a tight fiscal policy. The leader to my right wants large tax cuts now; the other leader, to my left, wants small tax cuts later. The leader on the right wants to ditch part of the Working for Families package now, to fund those tax cuts. The other leader, to my left, wants to keep the Working for Families package. The leader on the right, the given leader of the National Party, wants to review monetary policy. The other leader, the co-leader of the National Party, the person to my left, Mr English, does not want to review monetary policy. The person on my right, Mr Key, the given leader of the National Party, is in favour of the Reserve Bank intervening in respect of exchange rates.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
I am sorry to interrupt the member, but would members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly. Show some courtesy to the member trying to address it. Courtesy is contagious.
But the leader on my left does not think the Reserve Bank should have done anything like that at all. The leader on the right—the fellow who says he is the real leader of the National Party, Mr Key—does want taxpayer investment in broadband. The leader on the left says he does not want taxpayer investment in broadband. The leader on the right, Mr Key, the given leader of the National Party, does support 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and the leader on the left, the other leader of the National Party, does not want 20 hours’ free education. Finally, the leader on the right, Mr Key, does want to tighten asset testing for rest homes, and the leader on the left, the numbers man, does not want to touch the asset-testing regime at all.
We have the aspirational leader and we have the numbers leader. We have the hollow man and we have the angry man. We have “Mr Hollow” and “Mr Angry”—aspiration and numbers. That is what we have, and the divide continues to grow as they try to keep up appearances that there is no divide.
While all that is going on amongst two members of the National Party, from Sunday week this Government completes the roll-out of the Primary Health Care Strategy low fees programme. This is a remarkable package. This is a package that could have occurred only under a Labour Government. It could not have occurred had Annette King not started it. It could not have occurred had Helen Clark not been chair of Cabinet. It could not have occurred if the Minister of Finance had not been Dr Cullen.
On 1 July, Sunday week, 4 million New Zealanders will find that they have access to cheap doctors’ fees and, what is more, that their prescription fees fall from $15 to $3 in most cases. In most cases doctors’ fees will come down by about 25 bucks, and in most cases prescriptions will come down by about 12 bucks per script. That is the difference between Labour and National. National went into the last election saying it would not do any of that. National went into the last election saying it would double the fees. National went into the last election saying it would put the prescription fees up again. That is National’s policy: to reverse the single most important change in the New Zealand health system in recent times, which is cheaper access to primary health care, to general practitioner services, to practice nurses, and to all of the other people who work in the primary health care sector.
The reason that matters is that better health is the result. This is not just a subsidy. This is a policy change designed to ensure New Zealanders can get access to primary health care earlier and can go to a doctor more often, should they choose. For someone who needs to go to a doctor often—a person aged 65 or over, for example—the savings in that household will be significant: maybe from about $800 per annum on average, down to about $350. It will depend on the superannuation couple. Generally speaking, the aim is to ensure that better primary health care is delivered to New Zealanders in a timely and affordable way. Why does that matter? Because it means that there are fewer hospitalisations or that hospitalisation is delayed. It means that the severity of conditions is reduced. It means that management of chronic disease can occur in a more reliable way.
This is a significant policy change in our health system. It is one that has been put in place by a Labour Government over a 7-year period, and it is one that National—should it ever be elected to the Treasury benches—is on the record as saying it will reverse. Of course, Mr Key and Mr English may have different views on that, as well.
SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
The Green Party has been alarmed this week to hear new information about the prevalence of loan sharking inside New Zealand’s casinos. The Christchurch Press on the weekend did a sterling job with its revelations of the resignation of several senior staff, of loan sharking in the casino’s VIP lounge, and of allegations of irregularities in prize draws and discrepancies over gaming returns. Thealleged that loan sharks based at the casino were charging interest rates of 6 percent a week, and that there were connections with loan sharks in Macau and with the ownership of local brothels. That was bad enough, but since then we have learnt that loan sharking is endemic in casinos around the country, and even in some class 4 venues—that is, pokie parlours—as well.
For example, there are believed to be around 10 loan shark groups working at Skycity Casino in Auckland, both on the ground floor and in the VIP lounges. It has been reported to me that the minimum loan in the VIP area is $10,000 and that some gamblers are actually introduced to the loan shark by casino dealers. The loan shark has then visited the gambler’s home to ensure that he or she has a family that can be threatened. Any default on the loan or any late payment can lead to the person, or his or her family members, becoming seriously intimidated or actually hurt. Loan sharks also target Asian students on the ground floor of the Auckland casino, where the minimum loan is $1,000 to $3,000. When some of those gamblers get into trouble with their loans, they risk being recruited as agents for the loan sharks, thereby perpetuating the cycle. It is reported that the dealers in the casinos sometimes refer gamblers to the loan sharks for help to get the money to keep them going. I have also heard that women who get badly into debt have sometimes been forced to work in massage parlours owned by loan sharks or by their associates in order to work off the debt.
The Green Party has serious doubts about whether the Government is taking the nature and extent of this problem seriously enough. The responsible Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, has promised that his department will investigate accounts of loan sharking at the Christchurch Casino, as recently revealed in the Press. However, that is simply not enough. In relation to the pokie venues, in February of this year the Department of Internal Affairs gaming investigations unit was criticised by the Auditor-General for doing too few audits of non-casino gaming operators. In relation to the casinos it has also been reported, again by the , that according to someone with many years of experience in the casino business, all the departmental inspectors do is to “come in, eat our food (the inspectors eat for free in the casino staff canteen), read our newspaper, and then go home not having done very much”.
What is really needed is not another Department of Internal Affairs investigation but a full public inquiry, where the victims of the loan sharks and the staff and management in the casinos will have the ability to speak out freely, without fearing retribution from either the loan sharks or their employers, as the case may be. The Green Party remains concerned that perhaps the Government does not realise the nature of what it is dealing with here. The reality is that the profitability of casinos and pokie parlours comes in large part from desperate people who will do almost anything to get more cash in order to keep on gambling. All over the world gambling outlets—legal and illegal—are vulnerable to exploitation by criminals. Just because we are an isolated nation in the South Pacific, that does not make us any different from the rest of the world.
The Government must take action now to investigate fully what is happening with regard to loan sharking and associated criminal activity in casinos and class 4 venues. This inquiry should cover the whole gambling sector and the whole country, not just part of it—and not just the Christchurch Casino. Evidence should be invited from all affected parties, and people should be able to speak in confidence and in anonymity, for obvious reasons. The Government should commit to taking all necessary actions following such an investigation, to make sure that abuses are brought to an end and that casino and pokie operators are conscientious and careful in adhering to the Gambling Act and associated regulations. Dr Cullen told this House a few weeks ago that the Government has about $115 million invested in Sky City. Pending the withdrawal of the Government from investments of such a dubious nature, the least that he and his colleagues could do is to ensure that the company and other gambling operators here foster a gambling environment that is as scrupulous as possible.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
I am one of those old-fashioned politicians who believe that there should be an election to change the Government. But the more I watch Labour, the more I believe that its members have gone into Opposition already. They have gone into Opposition already, because the answer to every question about Government policy is that there is something wrong with National’s policy. Dr Cullen is conducting his whole approach to economic management as if John Key and I are running the Government and he is there to try to catch us out. Well, that is what it shows. I thought Labour members were getting ready for retirement, but they have retired in their hearts and minds already. Now the principal activity of Ministers is looking at the National website to see what our policy is, so they can criticise it.
I am also old-fashioned enough to believe that when Ministers say they will do something, the public have every right to expect that that is what they will do.
Simon PowerI have found out that I am very old-fashioned, and I have been going around telling audiences that we have found some Government programmes that consist only of a launch. There is nothing else; there is only a launch. I found out today that there is one—shared equity—that consists only of four launches, and it is still not happening. The pilot is being designed, and the programme may start at the end of next year. Yet that programme was one of the centrepieces of a speech Helen Clark gave one year about the ownership society. The homeownership pilot that has not happened yet, after four launches, was the centrepiece of her ownership society. What we see day after day here is the fundamental dishonesty and hyperreality of this Government—a housing pilot programme that was launched four times but still has not happened.
The single core benefit is apparently now in phase two. Phase one started in 1989—that is when it started—so phase one is 18 years long, and the benefit’s introduction still has not happened. Even after having 10 years to think about it while in Opposition, and 8 years in Government, Mr David Benson-Pope, who turned a bright future into a black hole, gets up and says that it is going to happen. Well, the news for David Benson-Pope is that not even his colleagues believe him. Worse than that, they are embarrassed by his restatement of an obvious stupidity. It has failed; it will not happen; and he should stop pretending it will happen.
And the same thing applies to the tertiary education reforms. At the select committee this morning, I asked Dr Cullen a simple question. There have been 8 years of tertiary reform, which has cost $400 million to think about, so has it started yet? No! It has not started. It will start on 1 January, when the person who was putting it all together will be hopping on a plane and going back to England. The chairman of the commission that is implementing it is to retire, and Dr Cullen, as the Minister, will be leaving soon after. Tertiary reform has taken $400 million to think about, and 8 years, but nothing has happened—nothing has happened.
But that is completely normal for a Government that says: “Free is what you pay for”. Now the “regulated standard” is the new term, and what is free is the regulated standard. So the regulated standard cheeseburger is the bread—it is the bun. The regulated standard is the bun, and that is free. If people want optional extras like cheese, want the bun to be warmed up, or want to have it in a box, then they are really unusual, because that is optional. People do not have to have cheese, let us remember. When we say that people have to pay for the cheese and the box, it is only because they have agreed to pay for them. If they had not agreed, they would have been given the bun with nothing in it. And the Government is going to launch that stupidity on our families! If they agree to pay for food for their children at their early childcare centres, then they will get it. If they agree to pay for food for their children who are aged 3, then they will get it. If parents do not agree to pay, their children will not get any lunch. Which parent will disagree with paying? You see, the free 20 hours policy is totally manipulative.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
That was the co-leader of the National Party talking about old-fashioned values. At the end of the day it is interesting, when he talks about homeownership, to think about who sold State houses in this country. Who did it—under whose steerage was it? It was under his. Who got rid of income-related rents? Who got rid of them? Bill English got rid of them—“Wīremu Pākehā” got rid of them. He talked about tertiary education. He was the member who was pushing make-believe diplomas and tohu. That is what he did, and he put a whole lot of people asunder.
At the end of the day it is fascinating to watch the two co-leaders, in the sense of the “tight and loose” paradigm. At the end of the day finance is fundamental, but the member for Rangitikei would not understand. If his party talks about tax cuts at the top end, all that does is help that party’s rich mates. I am fascinated that there is not a murmur. Winston was right—not a murmur.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
The Rt Hon Winston Peters was right. He was right in respect of the wine-box inquiry and those two people who are paying back $20 million. You know, I want to say to members of the press that if those people had been Māori, the press would have splashed the story continuously for 10 weeks. But because it is the mates of the rich, the press will not say anything.
I find this tussle between the two co-leaders fascinating in respect of the tax paradigm. One says that we have to tighten it. He parrots and mirrors what the great Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, says, and he tries to copy it. That is what he tries to do. He tries to stay tight, because he knows that Michael Cullen will be remembered in this country as one of the finest and wisest financiers, even above the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The policy of Labour has been quite simple: it is fundamental that the equity and the profit-taking in this country are shared with all peoples. The economy even tells us that. But the boys at the top end would deliver tax cuts, which their friends would get. There is some simple logic in this: the money has to be taken from somewhere. So the health area, the education area, and the housing area will suffer dramatically.
I wonder who works National’s figures out. I was asked a question the other day by Georgina te Heuheu. She asked what I had to say about the percentage increase in Māori unemployment figures. I think the co-leaders have been advising her on how to count and add up fiscal policy. I tell her that when Labour came into Government the general unemployment rate was 121,967. Of that figure, Māori numbered 24,640, which is about 25 percent. So she had those figures wrong. She said that the figure was 30 percent when we came into Government and that it has now climbed up to 31 percent. I say to Georgina te Heuheu that the Māori unemployment rate is a lot smaller, at 8,238.
At the end of the day, Fonterra is really happy with this Government. It knows that Māori are big single shareholders, and they are profiting well. All the dairy farmers are getting paid out. Farming is in a strong position, and on 1 July parental leave, which I know Katherine Rich is very, very supportive of, will increase. It will go alongside the great early childcare policy that this Government has brought in.
The question to ask, through the terrain of nonsense, is what National’s policy is. What is it? Where is National’s policy? It is nowhere. National is flip-flopping around; it really is. National voted against parental leave. That is disgraceful. People in this party and the Labour-led Government are keen on ensuring that mums and kids get a fair crack at being in a better position. At the end of the day, we have done that. So I find it fascinating that National has been tight, then loose, then maxing out on looking after the people in the upper echelon. We have increased the minimum wage seven times. National, in its time in Government, did not even increase it over a dollar. So here we have these people, who are like Tarzan swinging through the trees, talking a whole lot of rubbish.
KATHERINE RICH (National) Link to this
I just love listening to that member. No other member in the House has added more to parliamentary discussion than Parekura Horomia—to the terrain of nonsense, to the matrix of dysfunction. I am hesitant to ask what “tight, loose” and “maxing out” means, but I am sure the member will have an explanation.
Bill English was right. The Government side of the House has given up, because that speech was already in the past tense. That eulogy, delivered by Parekura Horomia, discussing Michael Cullen’s legacy and what he will be remembered for, is just another example of how that Government is already thinking about itself in the past tense. It is already packing its bags and imagining what it will be like in Opposition. It was the same in the select committee today. Steve Maharey thought he was in the Opposition. He started asking National members questions and was disturbed when we refused to answer him. We reminded him that his role as the Minister was to give us on that committee answers to our questions.
The 20 free hours policy is an example of how to spend $178 million and please nobody. I repeat: it is an example of how to spend $178 million and please nobody. Even those who are opting into the scheme are doing so reluctantly and pointing out all the problems with that policy. One of the things the Minister has refused to tell us, even though this policy is going live in only 7 working days, is how many centres have opted in. He likes to pretend that he does not know. Well, we know that those forms are sitting over in the Ministry of Education in a bit of a pile, and all the Minister has to do is have some officials count them and personally tell him how many centres are opting in and how many are not opting in. The Minister cannot tell us how many centres are opting in. He cannot tell us how many of the up to 92,000 children will actually get this service after 1 July.
But what he has confirmed to us today is that although some Kiwi parents will be angry to find out that the scheme is not being offered in their local communities, some non-residents, non-citizens, and, in some cases, long-term holidaymakers and overstayers here in New Zealand will be eligible, potentially, to get 20 free hours’ early childhood education for their children. That will be salt to the wounds of parents who find they cannot get access to the scheme for their kids because they live in the wrong place—a place that has no centre offering the service.
One of the things the Minister fudges, of course, is this whole issue of optional charges. He pretends that some families will have a say in what the optional charge will be, and that it will be for luxuries. Actually, it will not. I have not spoken to one centre yet that is not looking at levying some kind of surcharge for a luxury. They are doing it to cover day-to-day costs, such as books—like the centre that is considering putting in place a $100-a-week fee for access to reading materials.
Jill PettisJill Pettis might have come to Parliament to say to parents that she wants them to pay for books in early childhood education centres because they are a luxury, but over on this side of the House we believe that those kids should have access to books, and that that should be part of a quality service. And what does a “quality surcharge” mean? What does a “$7-a-day charge for musical appreciation” mean? Does it mean that someone’s child will not get access to the musical instruments, or will the classical music just be turned off when that child goes near the stereo? It is just not going to work. Centres are saying they will have to cut their costs and their quality. In some cases they have asked staff to take a pay cut.
There she is over there—a so-called representative of the workers of New Zealand. As a result of her Government’s policy, some early childcare workers are being asked to take a pay cut. Well, that is nice, is it not? It is representative of her party at the moment.
Back in the 2005 election campaign, members opposite promised that all 3 and 4-year-old children would get 20 free hours’ early childhood education. It was a lie. I do not know anybody who would think one had to make a payment for something that was free. Those members may have a definition of free being that a payment is made. Under this Government, “free” means paying a fee. That is why those members are so dark about it. On this side of the House we know that Labour is deeply disturbed. Some Labour members are saying that this policy is a dog’s breakfast.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that under Speakers’ ruling 57/3 interjections are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable. If someone wants to make a speech, then they can take a call and do so.
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this
This is a hallmark month for Labour. It is a month in which we are going out with policy, not spin, and it is policy that we developed well before we were elected into Government in 1999. We have centrepiece policies, not just spin over substance. Our policies are good for New Zealanders, especially families, from the cradle to the grave. Everybody in New Zealand is a winner with Labour.
I want to talk quickly about the primary health organisation roll-out. This completes policy undertaken in 2001, with 25 to 44-year-olds now paying low-cost fees when visiting doctors. That is the end of the cake. The scheme now extends right across the age spectrum in New Zealand, and I say “well done” to Pete Hodgson for finishing this work. It has taken $2.2 billion to make this happen. National members support raising fees for doctors’ visits in this age group. They said so in the last election campaign. They will do it again, and we will be out there reminding New Zealanders to be very afraid of their hollow promises.
I am just getting started. In my electorate of Rotorua, we have covered the entire district with low-cost access to doctors. It is wonderful policy, not spin. Everybody can get to the doctor for half of what it cost in 1999. In 1999 it cost $50 to visit the doctor; now, in Rotorua, visits to the doctor cost $22.
KiwiSaver begins on 1 July. People will get a $1,000 kickstart when they open an account. What a wonderful thing for New Zealand families. Young people in Ponsonby Road were asked after the Budget announcement whether they would join. “I’ll join up,”—they said—“I’d rather start a savings scheme now than have a tax cut.” That attitude is spreading like wild fire throughout New Zealand. Security in their old age and getting a savings mentality is what KiwiSaver will help people to get on 1 July. That is good for New Zealand families. It builds resilience for their children and opportunities for a secure future.
KiwiSaver adds to the superannuation scheme. It is designed as a top-up. National has already dropped hints about scrapping universal superannuation. The old-age pensioners and Grey Power remember when National cut the superannuation rates. National should come clean. If National ever gets the reins of power, people should be very afraid of what it would do to senior citizens in this country—lest we forget.
Labour’s policies are from cradle to the grave. From 1 July paid parental leave is rolling out even further. We have over 90 percent buy-in in this country now, and from 1 July parents are going to get an increase, from $372 per week to $391 per week. Is that not fantastic? The Opposition, and the women members in the Opposition, voted against paid parental leave. Women in New Zealand will never forget that. We women members of this Labour Government will make sure that every women’s group we meet in the country will be told about the Opposition’s hard-hearted approach to paid parental leave. What is wrong with parents being paid to be at home with their children until they are able to enter the workforce again if they choose to?
Now let us go to the next aspect of cradle to the grave, which is early childhood education. The comment from the Leader of the Opposition today, that it is “something for nothing”, is simply outrageous. We are laying the best possible foundation for our young children for access to quality learning experiences, with 20 hours’ free education. Paula Bennett is simply wrong on this one, and she knows it. We will make sure New Zealanders know it. This is exactly the strategy that the Opposition undertook with the primary health organisations’ roll-out and low cost doctors’ fees. Opposition members went around every general practitioner’s surgery to say: “Don’t join the PHO. Stay out of it.” It is the same strategy that they used then. Hello, when 30 percent of general practitioner practices in New Zealand joined the primary health organisations, the whole country tumbled and the Opposition hated it. Well, we are hearing the same rhetoric now about 20 free hours’ childcare. Those centres that have joined up—and good on them—have done their sums; they are joining up. Once we hit the 30 percent threshold, all the centres will be in there. Who is going to benefit from this? It is going to be our children, and our children’s future.
PAULA BENNETT (National) Link to this
I stand in this debate to deal with some of the facts, and to put them on the record when it comes to certainty of income for those centres that are opting in to the 20 free hours policy. Today I asked a question about school donations and how, if someone does not pay his or her school donation, it does not mean much and it does not have many consequences. However, if someone does not pay his or her donation to an early childhood centre, it is very clear that there is a good chance that a teacher may lose his or her job.
Let us clarify that a little more, because I am quite happy to back this up. If, as the Prime Minister states and as the Minister states, they are funding for the minimum standard legal requirements, and we have a centre that, say, receives funding for eight teachers but has decided to have an extra teacher, it will be going above the minimum. The centre says: “We are going to ask for an optional charge or a donation from our parents to pay for that ninth teacher.” If parents do not pay the charge, that teacher cannot be paid. It is as simple as that.
This Labour Government needs to front up and be honest with parents, and it certainly needs to be honest with centres. It should front up and let centres know that under the 20 free hours policy they will not have a certainty of income. Certainty of income is what they are asking for. They know how much it costs to run their businesses, and they cannot get compulsory top-ups to run their businesses on a week-by-week basis. They are relying on a donation, they are relying on an optional subsidy, and that will not work.
Parents want the subsidy. We make no bones about that. Who would not want a bit of extra money each week in their own pocket that they are not having to pay for childcare or childhood education? It does not take rocket science to know that. Members can ask a question in the House to try to make me look a little silly, by saying that parents want their childcare subsidised. That is not rocket science. However, it is not 20 hours free, and that is what the Labour Government promised New Zealand parents.
This Labour Government clearly promised parents 20 hours free, and they will not be getting 20 hours free. Parents are now asking: “What price will I have to pay for 20 hours free?”. Parents are saying: “What price do I have to pay for 20 hours free? Is the cost going to be the quality of the education that my children get? Is the cost of this going to be that my centre ends up having to close down?”.
UK centres have recently been closing. New childcare legislation was introduced in the UK in April 2006, and we have just had a report from a UK centre that said: “Underfunding, the ban on top-up fees, and masses of regulation, prompted me to make the decision to close.” It is happening in the UK. This Government needs to take a lesson from it and not see our sector going in the same direction.
Parents are saying: “Well, if I pay my optional extra or a donation am I going to be subsidising another parent next to me, who does not pay?”. The payment is not compulsory. How fair is it that some parents will pay the optional extra or a donation, but others will not? Why should those parents subsidise each other?
This Labour Government promised parents 20 hours free for all 3 and 4-year-olds, and it is not delivering it. That is a travesty, and it will come back to bite the Government. Parents are asking: “At what cost will I have to pay for 20 hours free? Will that cost be that I pay more for my under-threes? Will that cost mean that other parents perhaps who have under-3-year-olds are going to pay more for their 2-year-olds, so that I can get 20 hours subsidised from this Government?”. That ain’t going to be a cost that they will be prepared to bear for long.
Will there be a place for part-time education and care as centres move away from sessional care and into full-time care because that is the only way they can make this subsidy work? This Labour Government professes to care about those people who are disadvantaged and those people who are underclassed. This policy does not work for those people.
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) Link to this
One of the roles that United Future, as a modern centre party, seeks to perform is to hold the major parties in this Parliament to account. One of the other roles we seek to perform also is to ensure that when policy solutions to major issues are proposed, they are not in the nature of a knee-jerk or instant reaction. When we look at the current debate around housing affordability in New Zealand, we see many of those knee-jerk elements to policy being applied and offered as panaceas for the crisis that we face, particularly in terms of young people having access to their first home.
In this regard I refer particularly to the comments made last week by the Governor of the Reserve Bank in his submission to the Commerce Committee’s inquiry into housing, advocating the introduction of a capital gains tax. That is something we totally oppose. Capital gains taxes are unfair, they are largely unworkable, they are distortionary, and they will not achieve the objectives that the governor might seek for them in respect of the housing market in New Zealand. Other measures that have been floated over the last few months come into the same category. Members will recall the mortgage surcharge proposal that was floated a few months ago. Equally, I have to say that I am far from convinced about the merits of ring-fencing tax losses on properties, for the same reasons that the distortion they create is far greater than the mischief they resolve.
What lies at the heart of all these issues is that the short-term “let’s have a simple solution” approach outweighs the need to get to the bottom of the fundamental issue. In this instance I think that the big issue we are grappling with and need to confront is the way in which monetary policy is operated at the present time. We have a situation of an overvalued dollar because of high domestic interest rates, which are being imposed by the governor because he wants to curb domestic economic growth. All that does is simply to fuel more foreign investment, more growth, and higher interest rates. The difficulty is that the mechanism that we have adopted for the last 22 years, since the dollar was floated and since the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was introduced in the late 1980s, is a reliance on the interest rate mechanism as the way to control inflation. There are other steps available to the governor. I believe that what the current debate ought to be focusing on is the adequacy of existing mechanisms and whether other steps can be employed to equal effect. I refer to the ratios of cash that the banks have to hold back as an example.
The danger we face at this stage is that if we do not have that wider debate, we put in place a series of short-term measures that will ultimately prove to be ineffective and that will only ensure that at some point in the future we will have to unwind them and start all over again. I see the inquiry that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has decided to undertake into the operation of monetary policy as being a critical exercise here. It is very important that that committee is able to have a full and proper discussion of the issues, and is able to make some considered recommendations to the Parliament about the way forward. That debate is not being helped by some of the situations we are seeing at the moment.
I respect the autonomy of the Governor of the Reserve Bank; I respect his right to express his views. But the difficulty I have with the way in which the debate is being conducted is that, essentially, it is being sensationalised, and individual aspects of a package are being presented as total answers to a particular problem. That will not work. United Future will ensure to the best extent we are able that when we are looking at all of these issues, the totality of the issue is under consideration, not simply some of the symptoms around the edges. I know that my colleague the Minister of Finance and members from the other side of the House have been involved in discussion, and I think that process should be allowed to continue and to mature. But I do not want to see it hijacked by some of these short-term, external interventions—these knee-jerk reactions—that are being proposed, which simply ensure that nothing of substance will eventuate. So as we grapple with the problems of an overheated housing market, and an exchange rate that simply seems to show no signs of wanting to lie down and take a bit of a rest for a while, we need to take a more comprehensive approach.
MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this
1 July will be a very significant date for the people of New Zealand. It will be a very significant date for this Government as we deliver on promises that we have made and policies that we have developed over time, and 1 July will go down as a red-letter day for many, many New Zealanders who will, for the first time, be able to take up a number of opportunities.
In the short time I have I want to highlight a couple of those. I will deal first with our health policy and the primary health organisations. First of all, the cost to families of visits to the doctor will be cut in half. From 1 July all New Zealanders will be able to access affordable doctors’ visits and prescription drugs. This is a historic achievement that only a Labour-led Government could deliver. We have invested $2.2 billion to make primary health care affordable for all families. This investment has reduced doctors’ fees by around $25 and has lowered standard prescription charges from $15 to $3. Three million New Zealanders are already benefiting from lower fees, and they will be joined by people in the 25 to 44-year age group.
Nearly 4 million New Zealanders are now enrolled in primary health organisations. I do not want to shy away from the figures because they are significant, and I want to return to them at the end of my 5-minute call. Since last October primary health organisation practices that have agreed to maintain very low fees received additional funding. From 1 July this year that top-up will increase from 15 percent to 17.5 percent. This very low-cost access initiative currently involves 23 percent of primary health organisation practices and it benefits over 900,000 people. That is a lot of people, and many of those have high needs.
From 1 July a major milestone will be reached when the final stage of our $2.2 billion funding roll-out will take effect and apply to 25 to 44-year-olds. Standard consultation fees charged by very low-cost access practices will remain very low, at $15.50 for adults—that is, 18 years and over—and $10.50 for children aged 6 to 17 years. Fees will remain zero for children under the age of 6. Further funding announcements in primary health care can be anticipated later in this calendar year.
We have listened to more volume than content from the National Party contributions to this general debate this afternoon. It is legitimate for us, as a Government, to ask where those members’ alternative policies are, because all we get is a ringing silence every time we ask. What are the Opposition’s priorities in the health sector? Currently, as I understand it, National members are going around the country, trying to pick up some ideas so that they can develop a health policy and policies in other areas, because they have none of their own. Basically, they weigh positions of interest groups for vote weight and, if they think something weighs in well, then they will probably adopt it. Never mind if it is not the right thing, the fair thing, the compassionate thing, or the durable thing to do, they will just weigh the votes and then write it into their policy.
Will National members raise the cost of going to the doctor? Will that be one of their promises? Will they raise the cost of prescription drugs? Will that be one of their promises? In early childhood education, which is another policy area entirely and has been the subject of debate in the last few minutes, will they take away 20 free hours?
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) Link to this
18 June will go down as a “blue-letter day” from the point of view of National, and for all those people who will gain enormously from skills and trades being reintroduced into our curriculum. Only a National Government will be able to achieve this, because effectively we have witnessed over the last 8 years successive Labour Ministers of Education presiding over this portfolio, standing by, watching, and wringing their hands as the technology curriculum has descended into an abyss of confusion and theory. It has become the subject where one can actually draw a scone but can never get to bake it, and is described as being able to write how to make a cart but never being able to build it. The rhetoric of this Government around its educational aims, its glib answers, is overwhelming, and it gives me pleasure to inform the Government that New Zealanders are no longer prepared to swallow that level of rubbish.
It amazes me how a Government can deny New Zealanders and rob them of confidence and self-belief. We do not have to look too far afield to see just what a positive Government can achieve in Australia, for instance. Yet on this side of the Tasman we can see clearly that this Government prides itself on denying people their self-reliance and self-belief.
On that basis I wish to congratulate the leader of the National Party, John Key, on the form and measure in which he articulated the comments about introducing trades back into schools. It is very pertinent because we have seen such an abysmal performance from this Government. What did John Key, the leader of the National Party, say? He said: “It’s time to put hands-on, trades and industry training back into the heart of our [education] system.The National Part has a vision of doing this and of achieving this.” Let us contrast this sort of thing with the shameful legacy of Labour. Each week, 30,000 youth are absent from schools.
Anne TolleyThere are 30,000 children not attending schools. It is very interesting when we ask questions of the Minister as to the Government’s solutions for that. Those members say: “We’re implementing a range of policies.” It is a bit like saying the cheque is in the mail. When we look at the granting of exemptions from school before the official leaving-age, we see there were 4,000 last year. One in five children is not achieving level 1 of the National Certificate in Educational Achievement (NCEA). But probably the most disappointing performance from Labour, and horrifying fact for all New Zealanders, is that 53 percent of Māori boys do not achieve level 1 in NCEA. So Labour’s legacy around education is quite shameful. It has forgotten about an enormous part of New Zealand’s young.
What was John Key’s message about this urgently needed change? It was this: “We need to do a better job of exposing students early on to some of the hands-on industries that might fire up their appetite for education.” I can assure members that the message going around and the message given to us at meetings with various educational experts, is that teachers are crying out for methods to engage children. I would just like to make the point that we should not think that because somebody is interested in Macbeth, he or she will not be equally stimulated by trades and hands-on skills at school.
So what will National do? National will make it clear that schools must provide students with opportunities to learn practical, hands-on skills. It is as simple as that. After all this blather around the edges—social conversations and so on—what have we got? We have a disaster. Principals at these secondary schools are telling us to get the feel of the size of the resulting crisis. These are some of the ways they describe the shortage of technology teachers: “a nightmare”, “a major problem”, “almost impossible”, “a significant problem that will get worse not better”, “dire” and “the death knell for the technology learning area”.
SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this
Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call.
Yesterday my colleague Lianne Dalziel spoke at length about the development, promotion, and introduction of a new framework that will give people greater confidence when they pursue the KiwiSaver opportunity that their resources, funds, and savings will not be raided or vandalised. I stand with a great deal of pride after yesterday’s speech, and following Winston Peters and my senior colleague Lianne Dalziel, in sending a message to New Zealanders that, yes, we have a new savings scheme. That savings scheme will be bound by a robust set of frameworks, an enhanced set of rules and laws to deal with the security laws, so that people will not have to live through the heartache, shame, and embarrassment of the 1990s.
Yesterday Mr Bill English had an opportunity to stand, attack, and criticise the criminal wrongdoing associated with Michael Fay and David Richwhite, and his silence was thunderous. The burden of his shame was palpable given the very subdued speech he made. We should never forget that during that period—shameful in our recent history—when corporate larceny was at large, members of the National Party had an opportunity to correct matters. They chose not to do so. So I give Lianne Dalziel full marks for bringing forward this bill, which will be referred to our select committee.
Yesterday Mr Winston Peters was reliving a bit of history. He reminded members of the House—us younger members—and members of the public, about the ravaging damage that was visited upon honest families, shareholders, ordinary toiling Kiwis, as a consequence of the rorts that were allowed to prevail in the 1990s. He reminded us that we must never ever allow individuals such as Fay, Richwhite, and their ilk to believe that they are either more elite or, because of their wealth, in a higher class or entitled to dip into the public purse to enrich themselves. I give full marks to Mr Peters for having also given some momentum to these new rules and laws that are soon to materialise.
When I think of Mr Fay I am reminded of the meaning of the word “fey”. “Fey” means someone who has an interest in the supernatural or someone who is fated to die, is doomed. The people who were doomed were the honest New Zealanders whose shareholdings and minority interests were rorted and thrown on to the scrap heap of impoverishment as a consequence of what happened to our rail industry. We must never forget that, or that members of the National Party—who had an opportunity to challenge and correct that—were absolutely silent. The deputy leader yesterday stood like a broken, subdued figure and struck a pathetic stance. Boy, I hope New Zealanders never ever forget that.
There is another interesting thing about Mr Richwhite. And I must say I have never had so many emails and calls. Of course, one steps with trepidation outside this House to speak in quite the candid manner I have enjoyed the opportunity to do here. Someone who can write out a cheque for $600 million and still have $50 million in the bank is someone to be regarded with a fair degree of caution. But where I come from in Tai Tokerau there are two things at a place called Ngāwhā. One is the thermal pool—and in that thermal pool, apparently, is a taniwha—and the other is a jail. There is an empty jail cell, and on top of that jail cell is a sign that says “Rich white” because that jail is full of our people—young Māori males. Whatever their wrongdoing may be, the costs that they represent in terms of their wrongdoing pale into insignificance in relation to what Fay and Richwhite did to the reputation of our nation, to the confidence of families and ordinary, honest Kiwis in the capital markets and in the savings industry. Thank goodness we will have a set of laws and a set of frameworks that give people the confidence to move away from our fascination with housing and put their resources into KiwiSaver, which will be a Kiwi saver.
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this
It is an honour to follow my colleague Shane Jones from the far north, who spent most of his speech attacking the deputy leader of the National Party for not putting up what he would describe as a strong defence of National’s policies in the 1990s. I would remind the member that while he was in the United States studying at university in the 1980s, we had a Labour Government in this country, and that Government described the main industry in the area that the member comes from as a sunset industry.
We know when a Government is in its dying hours. We know because the only thing its members can do is to get up and attack a Government that was in power 9 years ago. They cannot promote any of their own policies. They are absolutely bereft of new ideas. Their programme is completed, and they have run out of new ideas.
When we look across at that tired Government, what do we see? We look across at the Hon Parekura Horomia and we know that consciousness is that annoying time between naps. That is what we see. When we look at the Hon Steve Maharey we know, as the Hon Steve Maharey says: “I have a degree in liberal arts, and of course I know that manual labour is the Mexican Prime Minister. Of course I know that.” Then we look and we see the Hon Dr Michael Cullen staring back at the Opposition, and we know that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said in his maiden speech: “I ripped the farmers off then, and I will get stuck into them again over the next few years.” And over the next few years, he most certainly did.
When we look at forestry, our third largest export industry in this country, what do we see as a legacy of this Government, particularly for the area of the previous speaker? What do we see? We see, for the first time in 50 years, deforestation. What do we see in the area of Minister Burton from Taupo, an area that is very, very dependent on the forestry industry? We see deforestation, for the first time in 50 years. What do we see? What do the figures tell us? In 1999, 68,000 new hectares of trees were planted. In 2006, the figure was minus 15,000 hectares; 15,000 more hectares were felled in 2006 than were planted. That is deforestation and it is an absolutely atrocious track record.
Who is the Minister of Forestry? The Minister is the Hon Jim Anderton. He is a sunset industry Minister, that is for sure, or is he just a sunset Minister in a tired Government? Poor old Jim Anderton does not know whether to throw his hat off or to just move away and retire. The Hon Jim Anderton is clearly one of those sunset Ministers.
I would ask this Government to look at what it is doing to some of our major export earners, such as the forest industry. It should look at what Labour did to those industries in the 1980s and learn from its mistakes. It should not rake up something that it thinks might be harmful to the National Party. The Government should tell us what it will do about its abysmal track record in the time it has been in office. It should tell us what it will do towards introducing something like personal freedom—one of the cornerstones of the National Party. This Government should tell us what it will do to give all people a fair go, because what we have seen so far is the major economic drivers of this country on their back legs, going nowhere.
Under this Government we have seen things that one cannot do. One of things people learn in this place when they come here is not only what one stands for but also what one stands against. We have seen from Labour Governments time and time again that they are consummate Opposition politicians. They are in Opposition even when they are in Cabinet. Their tools are petrol and matches, whereas National Party members generally come from a background where they have been builders, where they make things happen, and where they show people how to better their lives and to go forward.
What we see now, in the last 6 months of this dying Government, is an Opposition in the making. Labour members are honing their Opposition skills. They know what they stand against; they are good at what they stand against. They have always been good at what they stand against. But if we ask them what they stand for, we will get a desert, because there is nothing. They know that they stand against, for example, therapeutic medicines. They will not have them; they are going to regulate them out of business. They are absolutely opposed to complementary medicine.