Budget Debate

This is the final day of the Budget debate, and in about 2 hours and 11 minutes there will be a confidence vote in this House on the Budget. I want to come particularly to the role that United Future will play in supporting the Government in that confidence vote. But before that, I want to say that this Budget did nothing for growth. This Budget really backed up the Prime Minister’s abandonment of growth targets. The Prime Minister wrote a foreword and signed it off for a document that had growth targets in it, yet now she cannot even remember writing that foreword. She now denies she signed it. We are told that probably she was not even conscious at the time that the foreword was sent.

An interesting thing has happened today. Today the US trade ambassador came out with the statement that New Zealand has done some things recently that would make a free-trade agreement hard to carry in the US Congress. What are those things? What can they be? They can be the Prime Minister’s gratuitous remarks about the Iraqi war. They can be the Prime Minister’s remarks about snuggling up to a French-German, reaching-into-the-Chinese, sort of axis. Those comments, and her comments about how different the United States would be if Al Gore were President, have cost us New Zealanders the opportunity of a free-trade deal.

It is interesting that on the day that that story broke, the Prime Minister could not be found. The media of this country were trying to track down the Prime Minister, who was obviously away from the House on urgent public business, for the seventh or eighth day of the 9 days of this session, and could not be found. I thought that Helen Clark was, by her own spin, the most available Prime Minister this country has ever had. She is the same Prime Minister who sprinkled her cellphone number like confetti around the press gallery. Those in the gallery who were chosen could ring her at any time of the day or night, and the phone was answered. That is amazingly good access to the Prime Minister—except when she makes a mistake.

When the issue is probably the most major issue that this nation will face in the next 20 or 30 years—that of not getting a free-trade deal at the same time as the Australians—the Prime Minister is suddenly not available. Then, she is nowhere to be found, the cellphone does not work, her staff do not know where she is, and the media cannot find her. That is an appalling situation. That says to the groups in the community, to the innovators, and to the people working hard at creating jobs and producing goods for this country that the Prime Minister has sold them out and she does not care about that—she is not available, and she is probably not conscious. That is probably why the media could not reach her; she was probably not conscious at the time. It is a tragedy for this country that we have a Prime Minister who cares so little.

It is also a tragedy for this country that in about 2 hours and, now, 5 minutes, the United Future party will give its vote to Labour. Those members will to vote with Labour to keep Labour in Government. This is the same United Future party from which, yesterday, one MP—I think he is an MP—Mr Larry Baldock, issued a statement that the Government is raiding the petrol excise taxes, that that must stop, and that he is here to stop it. Well, I say to Mr Baldock that if he wants to stop that, he should not vote with Labour in 2 hours’ time. Let me give this House a prediction. My prediction is that Mr Baldock and the other United Future members will vote with Labour in a couple of hours’ time, and his statement will be worthless. That statement has no credibility at all, and the public know that.

Why would the public support the United Future party, when they can have the real thing by voting for Labour? That is why the United Future party is in such trouble. I know that behind the scenes United Future members are running around, trying to ditch the Christian element and to bring some non-Christian people on to the board. They are trying to juggle things around and to roll out a few members of Parliament. I think that Mr Baldock is one of them. I think the other United Party members have seen through Mr Baldock. They realise just how silly he really is, in that he thought he could fool New Zealanders by going out there yesterday and saying it was outrageous what Labour was doing with Vote Transport—but he would still vote for it.

I say to Larry Baldock that Vote Transport suffered a cut in the Budget. There was a reduction in expenditure for that vote, and Mr Baldock obviously does not realise that. But if he had bothered to meet the mayors from the South Island who came up here to Parliament yesterday, he would know that. Was it not interesting that all the mayors from the South Island, the biggest delegation ever to come at one time to this Parliament to talk about roading issues, went and saw the Minister? They were not very happy. I cannot talk about what they said at that meeting, but they came and saw us, as well. Did they go and see Mr Baldock? No. Were they interested in going and seeing him? No. They do not think that he will have any influence; he will not be here long enough to have any influence on roading policy.

I say to Larry Baldock that he can redeem himself in a couple of hours if he chooses to vote for what he believes in. He either votes for what he believes in or he votes to keep Labour in power. That is the test. This will be the United Future party’s first Budget vote in favour of Labour. From tomorrow onwards, it will be no good for Mr Baldock to go out there and tell the people of New Zealand that he is opposed to something, because he will have just voted for the programme, in total. He will have voted for the roading cuts, including the cuts in subsidies to the Tauranga District Council for the maintenance of its roads. That subsidy has been cut. Does Mr Baldock support cutting that subsidy? He does not move a muscle; he sits silent.

Well, I tell Mr Baldock that I have been in Tauranga. I have met the mayor and the people in Tauranga who are very concerned at that cut in roading. Not one of them expected Mr Baldock to lift a finger about that. I told them that they were wrong. I said he would lift a finger—to support Labour. That is the only finger he will lift. He will not lift a finger for the people of Tauranga, to replace the roading money that Tauranga District Council is losing. But he will put out a statement that that is terrible and something must be done about it. He has been putting statements like that out for months. I say to Larry Baldock and the rest of the United Future party that there is a time in this House when members are judged by how their party votes. That time is nigh for the members of United Future. We will see then whether they will vote for growth and new initiatives that can get this country going, or whether they will vote with the Labour Government, a Government that has just botched up the free-trade agreement.

We have a Prime Minister who spends less time in this House than any Prime Minister has ever spent in this country’s history. She has been in the House twice in question time in the last 4 weeks. She got caned and kicked around in question time, and has not come back. Today no one can find the Prime Minister. Where is she hiding? Why is she hiding from the press gallery today? Why does she not climb out of her hiding place today and answer her cellphone? Why have the cellphone numbers that were spread around like confetti now disappeared? The Prime Minister is hiding because she has botched things up. She has ruined this country’s prospects—[Interruption] The Government member, before she lays an egg, should understand that the voters in Whanganui will not like a Prime Minister who has messed up that free-trade agreement.

That speech was a leadership bid from a man who never gets to ask a question in this House, let alone will ever have the opportunity to answer one as a Minister, because he cannot even get a vote in his home town. He was beaten by Judy Keall and by Judy Keall’s secretary; next he will be beaten by Judy Keall’s housekeeper. That man could not fight his way to Australia, let alone—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is quite wrong to refer to Mr Hughes as just a secretary and a housekeeper. All members are honourable members in this House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: But I do not think that a member should bring another member into disrepute, just because that person happens to have been a secretary. It is not a profession that many males do, and I think the member should stand up for Mr Hughes, rather than criticise him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

That man, who became apoplectic yesterday on the deep political importance of knitting in the House, should not talk about denigrating people on the basis of their gender.

It is truly pathetic to see that the National Party is not even able to put up a decent programme for government. We have National Party speakers saying we should spend more on immigration, education, and health. But what is the answer from the Opposition’s spokesperson on the economy? He says the unemployed should line up at post offices.

💬 Jill Pettis: But National closed them.

It closed the post offices, so that is a bit of a problem.

It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this Budget debate as part of the Labour-Progressive Government, which is supported by United Future. This Government is working for economic growth, and improvements in education, so that we will have a successful and an innovative society. This Budget is about opportunity and security, which are the keys to success in a society. It is about keeping New Zealand safe. It is about promoting and protecting our environment, our culture, and our heritage. This Budget celebrates and confirms 4 years of economic and social progress in New Zealand, under a good Government that does listen to New Zealanders and does work in partnership with local government, with businesses, with iwi, with the community, and with the voluntary sector, rather than sneering at and deriding them constantly.

We have seen, under this Labour-Progressive Government, 4 years of prosperity, of recovery of spirit and energy, of enterprise, and of innovation. There have been 4 years of planning and investment in the basics like health, education, housing, jobs, and exports, and of building infrastructure—the physical infrastructure of roads, railway services, and public transport. There have been 4 years of innovation and investment in the human infrastructure in health, in welfare, in job training and apprenticeships, and in education and training. There have also been 4 years of investment in the environment—in our physical environment, in our sustainable cities, in liveable urban environments where we focus on the needs of our young people, in the needs in terms of housing for the future, and in looking at issues like air and water emissions that cause sickness and death in this country. This is a good Budget, and it is a result of the Government having talked about the issues and listened carefully to people’s views on what New Zealand is and hopes to be.

This Government has kept its word. We have clearly said what we stand for, and what our vision is as New Zealanders who are citizens in the world. We have had an important message for our people here at home, and for the world: New Zealand has always stood for an inclusive, tolerant, and just society where everyone gets a fair go. When we look at this Budget we see more New Zealanders are in work than ever before. We see fewer people of working age as beneficiaries than we have seen for many, many years. We see reduced costs for primary health-care, more security for superannuation, and more investment in secondary schools, in primary schools, in industry, and in small businesses. We see more training, with 5,102 people having taken up Modern Apprenticeships. The apprenticeship system was destroyed by Roger Sowry and the pathetic little bunch now over there on the Opposition benches, when Bill Birch and Ruth Richardson abolished it in the “mother of all Budgets”. We have seen strong, stable Government with a responsible, careful, fiscal plan and a good Minister of Finance, a great Prime Minister, and a party of people who are determined not to get into the stupid, vicious, mean-minded, personal carping of those people in the Opposition.

I want to say, on a very personal note, that 10 years ago today I was diagnosed as having major invasive cancer. The public health system of this country—the cervical-screening programme—was the reason that that cancer was diagnosed. The service I received at Green Lane Hospital and at Wellington Hospital, in follow-up visits over the following 5 years, has been an extraordinary experience for me, as it is for every New Zealander who has a serious illness. I am proud of our health workers, just as I am proud of all those people in pre-schools, primary schools, kōhanga reo, kura, and universities who are providing those basic services that all New Zealanders need.

I say to members of the Opposition that I made a major and life-changing decision when, after 3 years in this Parliament, I became a patient with cancer. I made a decision that I would spend my energy positively. I do believe that this is the greatest country in the world, and that it is an honour to inherit the vision, passion, kindness, and the services that our ancestors believed we needed in a civilised society. I watched with great grief for 9 years while those people now on the Opposition benches—in the belief that if we cut back those services we could make people work harder—destroyed the underpinning of the New Zealand welfare State. For me, the most important thing in this Budget is that this Government is making a commitment to New Zealand now and for the future, because we are the beneficiaries of the investment in services, in infrastructure, and in the young people of this country.

It is very, very important to understand what makes a good society. It is my honour to be the MP for Auckland Central. I have worked very hard for Auckland all my life, and I am proud to say that this Government is working in partnership with local government. We have produced the Auckland regional economic development strategy, which is a fine strategy that looks at the combination of public services, housing, health, education, and job support that businesses and families need in order to build strong communities. I look at the astonishing progress that we have made with the provision of public transport. I look at the work that we have done to get “Spaghetti Junction” being developed and State Highway 18 being built, and also to get the Puhinui interchange and the North Shore busway. It is very exciting to see the progress that we have made in Auckland.

I will finish by talking about some work that I have done with a man called Richard Florida who came out to New Zealand for the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference, where he said that the key fact of our age is that more of us than ever are doing creative work for a living. His basic argument was that access to talented and creative people is absolutely essential to modern businesses, and that those creative people want to live in, and are attracted to, tolerant, stimulating, energetic cities where they can get a creative life across their lives—lives that lead to prosperity where highly skilled, creative people cluster. All the policies of this Government in our growth and innovation work, in our arts, culture, and heritage work, and in our industry and trade work, focus on that development of New Zealand as a creative, tolerant, inclusive place where people can work and live in the best possible way to the full extent of their ability.

The role of creativity is a fundamental source of economic growth, and every time that I hear those people from the Opposition sneering at what this Government is doing for music, film, small businesses, industry, growth, and exports, once again I think that they have failed to understand the absolute basics of prosperity, of social cohesion, and of this country’s heritage. It is our job to build a country that is tolerant and diverse, and that is open to and encourages creativity. That is where we want to live and that is where people—we—can make prosperous businesses with greater numbers of better-paid jobs and with higher-value exports. That is also why our voice will be respected internationally, whether it is on the matter of free trade, trade agreements, or the sort of society we and the rest of the world want to live in.

When there is a Budget that says nothing and does nothing, we get a Minister who says little and certainly does nothing about standing up to defend it. That is what we have just heard from the Hon Judith Tizard, one of the junior Ministers of this Labour Government. When I say one of the junior Ministers I say that expressly, because there are very few people on the Government side of the House who are not junior Ministers. Labour has 52 members of Parliament, and only five of them are genuine back-benchers. That is how Helen Clark clings to power; that is how she manages to stay as the queen bee in the Labour Party. She simply gives everyone in her caucus a bit of a job that gives them a little extra status and a lot more salary. That is Labour’s recipe for staying in Government. I tell members that it will not work for long, because the cracks will soon show in a caucus that is traditionally as factionalised as the Labour caucus.

I notice the new Minister, the Hon. David Cunliffe, sitting across on the Government side of the House.

💬 Brian Connell: Where is he?

He has been here for 3 years. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment, but something inside me will not let that happen. When ministerial appointments are given out like confetti, as Helen Clark gives them out, then their value and their contribution to New Zealand are significantly downplayed.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: At least it wasn’t on merit.

My colleague makes a very good point. At least the Prime Minister was bold enough to say that in appointing people to the ministry she was not doing it on a merit basis.

That was a very, very strong leadership statement from Helen Clark, a leader who, in the last 24 hours, has gone into hiding. She is a leader who has just disappeared off the radar screen in the last 24 hours. Every day we receive Ministers’ diaries, so we know where they are and what they are doing. Quite a few of them—four or five, maybe—are doing good, hard work for New Zealand each day.

💬 Simon Power: Name one.

I ask the member not to challenge me. The Prime Minister has just disappeared today. I am worried that a sort of Bermuda triangle effect is starting to appear in the Beehive. We know that earlier in the day another Minister was on his way to the House to answer questions and he disappeared, as well. At 10 past 2 he was on his way to the House, and by 3 o’clock he had gone; he had disappeared. That all points to a Government that came into the House last week touting a Budget with a massive surplus of some $6 billion, if the superannuation contribution is thrown in—taxed out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders—told everybody how good it was, and then, as soon as the going got tough, disappeared.

As soon as the going gets tough, Helen Clark gets going. She has disappeared and is unable to answer the questions about why the US trade secretary, Bob Zoellick, has said today that there are a few problems in the way of New Zealand getting a free-trade agreement with the United States. We know that the big problem is Helen Clark. We know that her attitude to the United States and to the Western World is the problem. New Zealanders will continue to pay dearly for this country’s inability—or, more importantly, the Labour Party’s inability—to secure a free-trade agreement with the United States.

New Zealanders standing here today, man, woman, and child, are, when measured by our per capita wealth, at least $200 a week worse off than our counterparts across the Tasman in Australia. That is an extraordinary figure.

💬 Brian Connell: How much?

At least $200 a week. In a city like the one I live in, that is a couple of hundred million dollars a week that New Zealanders are worse off by than the Australians are. That is why we have trouble funding everything we want to in education and in the health services. It is why we cannot get a single road built in the South Island by this Government for the next 10 years, and it is also why elderly New Zealanders have to huddle in those sorts of big sack blankets they buy from the Warehouse in order to try to stay warm this winter during the power crisis. People cannot even have a warm shower, and, what is worse, they cannot even have a quiet tipple with a bit of sherry without the Government having taxed the “zeets” out of that, as well.

Why have we had a bland document like this Budget last week, touting how wonderful everything is, suggesting that New Zealand is in great shape, and that the Government is very capable and can do whatever it wants, when outside the Budget process we have had two major tax announcements on either side of the Budget? First there was the alcohol tax, and then earlier this week the announcement of the $200 million so-called reserve capacity electricity tax. New Zealand is being asked to fork out $200 million a year so that we can have some reserve generating capacity for electric power over and above the ordinary capacity.

I have a simple question because, as many people will tell the House, I am a fairly simple fellow. New Zealand needs 150 megawatts of new electricity generation every year just to keep up with increasing activity in our economy—increasing population, and more activity that requires electrical energy by way of new technologies, and other such matters. We need about another 150 megawatts a year for that. The Minister came into the House on the day that he announced this big tax and said that under existing conditions and pricing structures, and under the whole regime that we have in place at the moment, the generating companies are about to invest in 850 megawatts of new generation that will be available to us by 2005. But he then said he would still have to tax us $200 million to have a bit of extra capacity. The question is this: where does the ordinary increase in electricity generation that he talked about stop, and the new stuff start?

I would have thought that if we have electricity generation capacity, the best thing to do would be to run the lot—reasonably, where we can—and to produce the greatest amount of electricity, in order to drive the price down. Yet this Minister has said no, we are to have an upward price path for electricity, and the Government will ensure that, by taxing us to make it happen. When that extra capacity is needed, the Government will charge us even higher prices. That was in the Minister’s press release and in all his public relations stuff around that release. That is no solution at all. I wonder whether the strange logic that says one can make New Zealanders more secure by taxing them harder came from the new “Ministry for Innovative Thinking” headed by the Hon David Cunliffe. At the moment the Minister shows no innovation in the energy policy.

The most irritating thing is that we now have Helen Clark, when she is available—and conscious of what she is doing—going to various radio stations and small newspapers around the countryside, and saying the Government did know that there would be difficulty this year because of the dry conditions, but it did not like to frighten the horses too early. Would it not have been so much better if the Government had acknowledged last January, when it was plain and clear that we would have a bad winter, that we should start to save a little electricity at that stage? It is much easier for older people, particularly those living on their own, to save electricity during the long summer nights, when there is a lot more warmth. No, we have a mean-minded Prime Minister who simply said the Government would just hang people out there and, when things became really tough, it would put the boot in and tax people so as to make them pay more, and, as well as the tax, it would then tell them to turn the electricity off, anyway.

This Government does not have any idea of how to progress things for this country. Its members previously spent all their years in Opposition mired in the philosophies of the 1970s, because Labour was trying to escape the 1980s. Then, having sort of put in place one or two very minor things in the last couple of years, the Government has suddenly started to feel the wheels fall off the bus. When the Government reached its most desperate position, what did it do? It promoted David Cunliffe. That is the worst thing that could have happened to this country.

It is quite interesting that Opposition members say that we should be giving tax cuts. The Sydney Morning Herald, dated Tuesday, 20 May, asked its readers whether they wanted a tax cut. Twenty percent said they did—20 percent always take it—and 70 percent said, no, that they wanted better services. That is what this Government is delivering. We are in touch with how people—[Interruption] Of course, that group over there is having its own troubles. We had good old Roger Sowry making a speech, then Gerry Brownlee. They are competitors for the deputy leadership.

I tell Roger Sowry that he has almost gone. He is ineffective. I think Gerry Brownlee will get there. The other possibility is that Dr Brash will get there. However, one thing is certain: Bill English’s time as leader of that party is really running out. The time for the brat pack has come and gone. Two of the brat pack have been demoted on the list, and Roger Sowry is hanging on for all he is worth. Of course, when he gets beaten by a young politician and is so comprehensively thrashed at the polls, members of his party know they cannot keep him there. They know it and he knows it. His day is coming. Do they want a different leader? When I was in the deep south, I talked to volunteer firefighters, who told me that they had not seen Bill English for a long, long time. They thought that was pretty good, and they are glad he has shifted to Wellington. They do not want him back down there.

The brat pack’s days are gone. They resort to all sorts of tactics. Tony Ryall, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, said in the Whakatane Beacon on 13 May: “Recently I wrote to the local community groups to let them know that the Government was planning to centralise in Wellington the distribution of money collected from gaming machines.” Of course, it was not. If members had turned up at the Lotteries Grants Board this morning they would know that he was wrong. We passed the budget today—but, no, they know that, and they are running around the countryside spreading what they know is untrue. They know that that is not a fact. Of course, people only do that when they do not have any hard information with which to attack the Government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not get questions any more, and Mr Brownlee gets up on points of order so he can keep his face prominent. I think that is quite interesting. One after the other, he raises points of order that are not points of order, at all—just so he can keep it there.

I want to talk briefly about my own electorate, and then I will talk about the police. Manurewa is very lucky, because it has a member of Parliament who gets things for its constituents. At the moment we have a brand-new secondary school being built at Alfriston, which is costing somewhere between $17 and $18 million.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: What’s it called?

It is Alfriston High School. There is probably a job for Mr Brownlee there, teaching woodwork, if he would like to return to teaching—although we do have fairly high standards and he probably would not get the job. However, Manuwera High School has a new technology block. James Cook High School has a new block being built. Manuwera Intermediate has new construction, worth $2 million.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What about the police?

We will talk about the police in a minute. We are just getting on to the good news. We have a centre for young criminals being built—young criminals that other communities in this country do not want in their patch.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Who approved it?

The Labour Government approved the siting of it. That failed National Government, as it was, could not get a site for the centre, but we have been able to. We will also have the women’s prison there, because we take our responsibilities very seriously. We are getting two new fire stations and another new police station, and I will tell members a bit about that in a minute. The people of Manurewa are very, very happy, which is pretty good. They are pleased that they are now in a primary health organisation, because their doctors’ bills are going down. Instead of paying $35 or $40 to go to the doctor, they are now paying $15 to $20—and boy that is money in people’s pockets! People can now go to the doctor and not worry how to pay for it. That is really good.

One of the real sad things is the way members of this House are targeting the Asian community in terms of crime. I am very proud of the Asian community. Yes, there are people in that community who commit crime, but it is proportionate to the general population. Generally, they are law-abiding people—but not always, and there are high profile crimes that do get noticed by members, who then play on them. I think New Zealand First members do so for political reasons, so that they can make a point about the Asian community. They also do it in the areas of immigration, and law and order, and that is an absolute disgrace. But the good news is that crime is being handled really well in this country. Gone are the days of 1996 when there were 477,596—

💬 Hon Member: How many?

I will repeat it: in 1996, the number of crimes reported to the police was 477,596. In 2002, 440,129 crimes were reported to the police. That is a significant drop of some 30,000 crimes. Yet we have people in ACT talking about parking tickets. They even talk about speeding tickets. Their leader got upset that 100 tickets were given in Taihape in 1 day. The fact is that the community wanted the police to work for them and clean up the speeding problem. That is really good news. Roading police in New Zealand do an excellent job. The highway patrol—something that this Government brought in—is having a real effect. The road toll is on a downward trend. The highway patrol is doing a good job. Everyone around the country sees those highly visible cars and knows what is happening.

This Government is also really looking after Auckland. There are some 74 English police officers in training in Porirua who will be going to Auckland, along with a whole pile of New Zealanders, including some Asian people, who are training to be police officers. There are large numbers of Māori, Pacific Islanders, and women in training. That is the police force changing, and mirroring the whole community, and it is something that this country has long awaited. We as a country are lucky to have a commissioner like Rob Robinson, who is doing a fine job and who realises that police must reflect the community they work in.

Various districts are working in cooperation with each other. The other night 170 police were out after boy racers and cleaning that situation up. Of course, when that happens, we see the members opposite whingeing and moaning, as they are now. The members on the front bench opposite whinge and moan because they do not have anything to offer. People have told us that they have been able to get some sleep at night now that the “boy racer” bill has gone through. I congratulate Clayton Cosgrove on his efforts in that area.

Is not what we hear from the hapless George Hawkins remarkable? He cannot even get his police and crime figures right. Let me ask the Minister which Government was in office in the 4 years he quoted—1996-2000. I have news for the hapless Minister. It was the National Government. We were very pleased that he acknowledged our success in crime reduction. I guess he had to do that because, in the last 4 years, violent crime has gone up. He knows it. He cannot account for it, so he would sooner talk about our success.

The other thing one has to remind the Minister of—and that was a good illustration—is the reason he is losing ministries. Everyone knows that during the leaky homes crisis, this Minister did not just preside over the scandal; he himself was the scandal. That is extraordinary.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: He tried to cover it up.

That is right. What New Zealand is facing under this Government is a foreign policy train-wreck. Who is in charge of the foreign policy train wreck? It is the Prime Minister herself. She is the driver, and she is driving this country down. We could hardly be in a worse position. Australia is going to get a free-trade agreement next year, and New Zealand is not. Those were the simple facts given to us yesterday by the Americans themselves, and no amount of sophistry from the Minister this afternoon can cover up those facts.

It has been said that New Zealand could gain $1 billion in extra trade. The worst of this is that we will lose trade. Farmers up and down the country know full well that their sales of beef and dairy products will be reduced because American buyers will now have the opportunity to buy from Australia. Why on earth would one buy from New Zealand when one can buy the same product more cheaply from Australia? So when the Minister of Finance talks about a 2 percent growth rate next year and an increased unemployment rate, he is telling the truth. Things are getting worse under Labour’s jurisdiction. That will happen even more, because of the loss of that free-trade agreement. That is the price of Government incompetence.

History tells us the real story. I shall go back to 6 months ago. In November, New Zealanders were optimistic about a free-trade deal. We had been described as a very, very, very good friend. Straight after the first resolution on Iraq, back in November, New Zealand announced the deployment of a frigate, an Orion, and a Hercules in Operation Enduring Freedom.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Did they ever get there?

They did. Coincidentally, just 2 days after that announcement Robert Zoellick wrote to Congress saying that the United States was going to start negotiations with Australia, and he asked whether New Zealand should be included. He was asking Congress’s opinion as to whether it would like to include New Zealand, because it had been seen that we were doing something OK. Real commitment—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: On the doorstep.

We were on the doorstep. That is what one gets from good relationships: security, trade, and prosperity. The Government seemed to understand that. It was making the moves. What has happened in the last 6 months? Frankly, Helen Clark blinked. What did she do as we got closer to war? The first thing she did was to say that we would not support the second resolution. This is a Government that told the United States, Britain, and Australia to go to the UN. They went to the UN, but when they asked for help from the UN, what did our Government do? We did not just say “No” in New Zealand; we had to instruct our ambassador to the United Nations to go along and make the point that New Zealand could not possibly support Britain, the United States, and Australia in the UN. We had to oppose them. We were proud, in the eyes of Helen Clark, to align ourselves with France.

💬 Simon Power: Why didn’t she just keep quiet?

Why did she not just keep quiet? It is a pretty logical thing, is it not? As a matter of good faith, our friends and allies had gone to the UN, and we turned our backs on them. When the war started, the military expert, known as Helen Clark, decided it was bleedingly obvious that the war was going badly and that if only her good friend Al Gore had been President, things would have been OK.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: That was popular.

That was really popular. She was asked to apologise. She apologised—3 days later. Did she apologise for what she said?

💬 Opposition Members: No.

No. She did not apologise for what she said. She was asked in question after question for 2 consecutive days to apologise. Did she apologise? No. She apologised only for the offence taken. The Americans were saying it is not a very good situation, and one would think at that point that a little bit of a lesson might have been learnt; after all, Robert Zoellick had this to say on 19 March—and I want to quote this because it is important: “ ... there’s not many times that a country like the United States has to ask for help from others. And when we do, it matters when friends stand by us, so we thank you for that, we appreciate it.” He said that to Australia in relation to a free-trade agreement. The lesson could hardly be clearer.

What was our response? Well, the Prime Minister went to Europe, and decided to add a little bit extra, just in case the point had not been fully received. This is what she said in Europe: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia link-up with good links through to the Chinese against what we have which looks like a small Anglo/American group—it shifts the whole dynamic.” She said that after the war had been won—and no one could even work out who had won the war at that point, so that was really foot-in-the-mouth stuff.

So what have been the consequences of that stunning diplomacy? Six months ago we were in line for a free-trade agreement. We were at least on the doorstep. We now know what 6 months of diplomacy has done. When asked whether New Zealand would be linked into an Australian-US free-trade agreement, Robert Zoellick said: “That is not my present expectation.” Members should remember that this is a man who, 6 months ago, was asking to include New Zealand in the free-trade agreement, and today he is saying “No”. We know that the cause of that is Helen Clark, because when he was asked why that would be the case, he said that America was disappointed by recent actions by New Zealand—and I guess he was not thinking of George Hawkins when he said that; he was probably thinking of the Prime Minister. On this side of the House we have been saying that as long as Helen Clark is Prime Minister of New Zealand there will be no free-trade agreement with the United States, and today the Americans confirmed precisely that fact.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Vision.

This is what I have to say to the senior Government whip, when I hear him say the word “vision”: all New Zealanders will pay the price for the Prime Minister’s foolishness in lower living standards, fewer jobs, and shattered relationships. To quote Helen Clark herself, she is no longer conscientiously working hard to look after our interests. She is driving a train-wreck. It is time to change her.

I offer warm Pacific and Asian greetings from my electorate of Manukau East, which is an electorate that has 165 different ethnic groups residing within it, making for a rich tapestry of cultural vitality, energy, and excitement. It is an area that I am proud, pleased, and glad to represent—whether it be Papatoetoe, Otara, East Tamaki, or Howick. Manukau is often seen as the face of the future, which was a designation given to it by the former Governor-General, Sir Paul Reeves.

Unaccustomed as I am, as Assistant Speaker, to taking a call in the debate—because I believe in the convention of non-partisanship—it has become necessary today for me to vacate the Chair. It is therefore a pleasure to speak in support of our Government’s Budget. As an electorate member of Parliament, firstly for Papatoetoe for 9 years, and now, in my third term, for Manukau East—which includes Papatoetoe—I have witnessed, and been part of, many Budgets in this House. Some have been good, and others not so good, but, then, that is the nature of politics: what goes round comes round.

💬 Rodney Hide: What was the best one?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I tell Mr Hide that I would not like to say, because it might backfire.

My interest and training has always been in the commerce area, particularly in productivity, human resource management, and small business, and the Government has done well in those areas by implementing a growth and innovation framework for business, which is an area that can be a legacy for this nation and for this Government. That is the way forward in terms of creating an innovative, dynamic, and growing economy, which has been inspired by the leadership given to the business area by the Government, but I want to talk about that a little bit later.

In my electorate my interests have been education, health, and housing. Why? Because Manukau East is a microcosm of New Zealand today and into the future. In that electorate we have the most challenging areas and the most successful areas. We range from decile 1 schools to decile 10, from the low-paid to the millionaire. It is an area that truly is a microcosm of New Zealand.

The Government is keeping its word, and I want to mention four particular areas in which it has done so. Firstly, I will discuss employment. There are now more New Zealanders in work than ever before. There has been an increase of more than 132,000 since December 1969.

💬 Rodney Hide: Does the member count himself?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I ask Mr Hide to please not interrupt; a payback time will come when I am up the top there. When we have people in work, it provides them with security, a sense of well-being, and the opportunities to go forward.

The second very important area in which the Government has kept its word is in reducing the cost of primary health-care through the 34 primary health organisations that have been established throughout the country. My colleagues who represent the area of south Auckland, the honourable Mark Gosche, the Hon Taito Phillip Field, and the Hon George Hawkins, well know the problems that we face.

The third area is education. The Gateway programme for secondary schools and industry will benefit work-based learning. In the Manukau East area we have Otahuhu College, in which Mark Gosche has been working; Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate Senior School, with principal Robin Staples; Tangaroa College, with Mike Leach, where I have been working; and new ones this year that have come on board—James Cook High School in Manurewa, Mangere College, and Papatoetoe High School where the principal, Peter Gall, has been doing outstanding work.

The fourth area is Modern Apprenticeships. There were more than 5,000, as at 31 March this year, and the scheme is on track to reach the target of 6,000 by December 2003.

The Government has kept its word in those four areas. It has made the commitments, it has made the promises, and it has delivered. As a member of this Government, I am pleased and glad that we have been able to do that.

I turn now to implementing the growth and innovation framework. I very strongly believe that that is an area where we can really do something in this country. We live in a globalised world. We need to be good at what we do, we need to niche market, and this programme, put in place by the Government, can certainly lead us in that direction. The initiatives include $140 million over 4 years for research, science, and technology, which are absolutely vital—any good business person will say that. There is $73 million over 4 years to promote overseas trade—again, another absolutely essential ingredient for us to remain internationally competitive. There is $19 million for the pre-seed accelerator fund, which is for projects that have moved beyond eligibility for grant-funded research, but which are not yet at the stage where they might attract venture capital or other forms of private sector financing. It is a step up, and we are providing that.

There is also $6.4 million to increase the highly successful business incubator programme. We say to the House that those incubators are really good. The Icehouse incubator in Auckland has been really successful. I graduated in business studies last week from Massey University, and the Icehouse was one of the incubators that I researched for my graduation. It really brought home to me just how much work goes into the incubation system, and into the funding that the Government has provided in order to provide a way forward and a pathway for our young, innovative, creative entrepreneurs who want to go somewhere. That is a very important programme.

There is $110 million over 4 years to respond to the recommendations of the task force on biotechnology, design, screen production, and information and communication technology, which are areas where the Hon Steve Maharey has been most instrumental.

There is $1.84 million in 2003-04, and $960,000 in each subsequent year, to support the small and medium-sized business sector. That is my favourite—I love the small-business area. It is the engine room of growth, often referred to as the locomotive. That is where employment can be created, and it is where people do so much—often on the smell of an oily rag. Everything goes into the business—even the kitchen sink—but small-business people are toilers and battlers, and in some cases I do not know how they survive. It is because of the entrepreneurial spirit that they have that they work and continue to do so. Under this Budget, those people have something to look forward to.

Another initiative is the $200,000 a year for a 2-year pilot programme to establish an employment relations and occupational safety and health advisory service for small and medium-sized enterprises, and $9 million over 4 years for a mediation service. Human resource management is absolutely crucial in the development of intellectual capital within our small-business sector, and we need to ensure that management has that expertise in order to bring out the best in its employees. There is $9.825 million over 4 years to improve the calibre of senior management in the State sector. If the State sector runs harmoniously, and if we have professional, well-trained management, it makes the job of being the Government so much easier. It is important that we continue to improve the calibre of senior management, because there is always room for improvement. One of the things that happens with productivity is that there is always a better way, and it is the same with management. We need, and should continue, to upgrade and upskill ourselves; and that has to be a good programme, both for the Government and for senior management.

An additional $1.504 million has been allocated for the Pacific Business Trust. Representing the area of Otara, which is one of the most challenging, I never cease to be amazed at how versatile some of our Pacific Island families are. I have to go to the Otara market every Saturday. I usually sell raffle tickets to raise funds, but in doing that, I see the vitality of that market, which was initially organised by Pacific Island people. Originally, it was all Pacific Island people, but now we have a lot of Asian and other nationalities competing there. They all want to work together, and the Pacific Business Trust is a way of helping more people into business. I commend that.

There is $15 million over 3 years to promote New Zealand tourism in the USA, which is another key growth industry.

There are so many things that I could go on about, especially in the health and education areas, but I realise that my time has come. I want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak.

This was a Budget of disappointment and lost opportunities, and in no area is that more so than in the area of education. I had great expectations, given all the spin before the Budget, that there would be some meaningful initiatives in that key area. But the more I have looked at this Budget, the more I think that the education sector and the people who have a passion for the next generation will be bitterly disappointed. I want to concentrate on a number of the announcements, because I can now see why this Government has such a strong interest in ensuring New Zealanders do not have basic numeracy skills. There is in this Budget, I have to say, one con job after another, in respect of the spin not matching up to the substance.

I come to the first great release in this Budget from the Minister of Education. He said we were to have a major boost to literacy in this Budget—a major literacy bid. And I thought that was good, because I was ashamed, as a New Zealander, to read the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study released last month, which showed that New Zealand’s results were second to the bottom in the English-speaking world. So when the Minister announced there would be a major new literacy initiative, I had the hope that we might do something to address that key issue. And what do we have? We have $15 million over 4 years.

If people do a little mathematics—I know Government members may struggle to do so—they will find that that works out to less than $4 million per year for the 380,000 students in years 1 to 8 that it is meant to help. That works out at 18c per student. I ask the House, and particularly the Government members, whether we really think we will be able to lift the literacy standards of New Zealanders and get this country back to where it was 30 years ago, at the top of the league tables in terms of literacy standards, with the 18c per student funding that is in this Budget. If that is not a joke, I do not know what is.

It is interesting that the Government is even to spend more money on treaty education than on literacy. Rather than teaching our young New Zealanders how to read and write, this Government is to put more money from this Budget into treaty education—political correctness.

💬 Edwin Perry: $6.5 million.

$6.5 million. I ask the member who interjected—a Māori member—whether that money would not be better put into basic literacy and numeracy skills.

💬 Edwin Perry: Hear, hear!

“Hear, hear!” he says, and he is right. Members on the Opposition side of the House say that putting money into the basics like literacy and numeracy should far exceed the sort of political correctness that is to be stuck down the throats of New Zealanders with the proposed $6.5 million for treaty education.

Now, anybody who is involved in secondary education will know that it has been a huge struggle for schools to meet the costs of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). In fact, we had an Education and Science Committee inquiry into that, and the unanimous recommendations of the committee were that schools needed some funding and resources to be able to implement that new qualification. So when I looked in the Budget I thought, yes, maybe the Labour members of the select committee, the Government, or the United Future party had been able to recognise the huge extra costs that there are. We heard at the select committee that the cost of implementing the NCEA would be about $50,000 for an average-sized secondary school.

When I looked in the Budget at how much money had been allocated for schools to implement that qualification, I saw it was $1.8 million. That works out at less than $1.80 per student per year. Does anybody in this House believe that less than $1.80 per student will meet the costs to secondary schools that have come about because of the implementation of the NCEA? Does any member of the Government believe that that is true? That sum is less than 1 percent of what was estimated in the evidence to the select committee inquiry into those costs.

But megabucks are being provided for the bureaucracy. While the schools receive $1.8 million, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is being provided with $36 million. That is the same authority that, over two years, has doubled the NCEA fees met by parents. So the Government members are saying there should be megabucks—$36 million—for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and $1.8 million for schools. Does that not speak volumes about how the Government is investing in its bureaucrats, and saying “Stuff the teachers and the students.” That says so much about this Government.

Then I saw a bold announcement in the Budget that all 15 to 19-year-olds are to be in education by 2006. Is that not an interesting year to choose? It is just after the next election, so that the Government cannot be held accountable. Well, before I will believe that this Government can get all 15 to 19-year-olds into education, I say let us get all those children into education who are required to be there by law. We know that 4,048 students were reported as long-term truants last year. That is a tragedy. There are another 7,407 students on the Correspondence School roll because they have been expelled from school. Does anybody in this House believe that a student who has been expelled from school—in some cases, from multiple schools—will receive a meaningful education by mail? I believe not; it is a joke.

Is there anything—is there a penny—in the Budget for dealing with that truancy crisis? There is not one bean or one dollar. In fact, over the last 4 years the funding in real terms for the truancy services provided in this country has been reduced by $3.8 million. I ask this Government where its priorities are. It should not tell us that it will get all 15 to 19-year-olds into meaningful education when it cannot even meet its legal obligation to ensure that all those of school age are, in fact, at school.

Then we come to the bold announcement that $61 million extra will be provided for schools’ operating grants—the subtext is that that is over 4 years. Is that not a great trick? The Government must believe that New Zealanders cannot do maths, with those sorts of sums. The rate actually works out at 2 percent. What is the Government’s official inflation rate for the last year? It is 2.5 percent. So what does that mean for the funding in our schools? It means they are going backwards. At a time when we have a $4 billion surplus, real funding for schools per pupil is being cut, and I say that that is a shame.

I also want to refer to some of the local con jobs in this Budget. The Minister of Housing stated in the local newspaper in my electorate on Monday that there was a solution to the biggest constituency issue in my area, the huge 35 percent increase in housing costs over the last year. He stated that all the answers were in the Budget. He stated that the Government had great new housing initiatives and would be providing $69 million for community initiatives, so that local government and iwi organisations may be able to provide housing. It sounded pretty good, and the local branch of the Labour Party said it sounded fantastic. Well, let us look at the detail. We can see it is spread over 4 years. That works out at $16 million per year. If that is divided amongst 76 local authorities, it means my area will get about $180,000. That is one house! I have 169 people sitting on waiting lists in Nelson. Does that mean it will take this Labour Government 169 years to provide houses for those people in my electorate?

💬 David Benson-Pope: How many houses did that member’s party sell in Nelson?

Yes, indeed. In fact, I have a letter. “Mr Benson-Dope” says he was—

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

He must have been a very difficult fourth-former, that young boy.

💬 Rodney Hide: He was not as bad a pupil as you were a teacher.

I remember many of the people who taught Mr Hide, so I would not go down that road too fast, or too far.

I rise to support this stable, well-balanced Budget. In the address I wish to make, I want to cover a number of issues: New Zealand overseas aid expenditure, some environment expenditure, some work in the area of adult education, and the advantages to Wellington. In terms of New Zealand aid overseas, the interesting problem we face is that we were party—as was almost every other country in the world—to signing up to the millennium goals. Those goals set out quite strong targets for the provision of clean air and water to the peoples of the world; the provision of sanitation, so that children do not die of diseases caused by lack of adequate sanitation; and the provision of literacy around the world. It was recognised that those goals would be met only if we all pulled together. The goal was that by 2015 the countries of the world would each provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income. New Zealand is producing only 0.23 percent, so we are a long way from meeting the millennium goal of 0.7 percent of gross national income.

Just recently, a piece of research was done on world aid programmes, listing the countries in order. Normally one would expect to see a country like Norway, which gives out 1 percent of its gross national income to aid, near the top of the list, but it ended up 11th.. New Zealand was fourth. That is because New Zealand has an extraordinarily high record in the intake of refugees, and our record in terms of trading with developing countries is equalled by almost no other country. Then comes our direct aid overseas, which, I have to admit, is not all that great. It is nearly 12 months since we established a semi-autonomous agency, NZAID, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We met the desired needs as we restructured and looked at where we were going. We said we needed to concentrate on our near neighbours in the Pacific, and on the elimination of poverty. We have met that goal, one step at a time. In this Budget we have increased our overseas aid by 9 percent, with $20 million extra a year going in.

Why the Pacific? The Pacific has some of the most appalling pockets of poverty, and we ignore that at our peril. There is self-interest in aid, and I am always upfront about that when I talk overseas. New Zealand operates in partnership with the countries to which it gives aid. We do not give countries what we determine they ought to have; rather, we work with them to determine what they might want in terms of health and education. Papua New Guinea has some of the worst statistics. It has the lowest standard of living of any country in the Pacific, the lowest average life expectancy, and the highest maternal and infant mortality rates. In the Solomon Islands, only 500 jobs are available each year for the thousands who leave school. Over 16 percent of people living in Kiribati are not expected to survive to the age of 40. In Vanuatu, more than 66 percent of adults are illiterate.

That is what New Zealand aid work is about. It is about working with Papua New Guinea, the Solomons, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa, Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tonga—devising programmes so that the children get into schools, so that diseases like TB, malaria, and HIV/AIDS are tackled, and so that women and young people in rural areas get a chance to earn a living. Working with AusAID and the European Union, we have a major regional initiative to develop basic education across the entire Pacific. It is called PRIDE. We work to create opportunities for peace in the Pacific, particularly in Papua New Guinea and the Solomons. Members know the relative success we have had in Bougainville. We do not want more Bougainvilles, because that is more cost to us as a country. That is why 45 percent of the new funding will target governance.

But New Zealand aid does not focus exclusively on the Pacific; we also have significant programmes in Asia and smaller programmes in Africa. In this Budget, we have also put aside a further $10 million, if it is needed, to help rebuild post-war Iraq. That is on top of the funding we have already given to that country.

Finally, I am pleased to announce that we are increasing the funding for non-governmental organisations in New Zealand—our very good partners who are often in the front line of delivering aid to some of the poorest areas in the world. Some of those partners are organisations such as Rotary, which has been out there raising funds. We have met Rotary dollar for dollar, and more, in its worldwide work to defeat polio. I am proud of that 9 percent increase. I am proud of the extra $20 million that we have given to NZAID.

In the area of the environment, the one I particularly want to mention is increased money—$1.8 million over 4 years, or the $450,000 a year that was asked for—to support the New Zealand Landcare Trust. That trust, which is made up of eight groups, including Federated Farmers and Fish and Game New Zealand—who work together in the same room, which is always interesting—and Rural Women, has done extraordinary work with the rural community, particularly on the question of biodiversity on private land. For instance, there was an absolute explosion from Banks Peninsula farmers over defining significant natural areas. Landcare Trust worked with the farmers and the Ministry for the Environment, and together we found some money whereby we could actually work with the farmers to put up fences at the top of Herbert Peak, so preserving some of the flora and fauna there. It was not the rabbits that we were preserving. I am delighted to announce that extra $450,000 a year for the New Zealand Landcare Trust. When I became the Minister for the Environment, the trust had begun receiving that money on a year-to-year basis. We then asked it to go out—and it went, I think, to Transfund and got money from there. We have now said that that money is permanent, it is baseline, it is in there. The trust has done really good work in terms of working with the community, particularly in the area of biodiversity.

Regarding adult and community education, I heard the previous speaker talking about illiteracy in the community. This Government is the first to ever acknowledge the fact that with many people in our schools we have failed, and that they need to be given, and supported in, second-chance education. We have called that both adult and community education, and foundation education. Part of the problem is that in adult and community education, there is a whole range of providers. I can go to some towns and find that REAP does not know what a private training establishment, or the Workers Educational Association is doing. Through the Tertiary Education Commission, we have set aside $2.8 million for the regional networks—for quality assurance, for setting priorities in that area, and for actually helping them to adapt as we face the new commission—so that we do not leave people all on their own. Through the Ministry of Education, we have also set up 4 years of work for foundation learning, which is dealing with some of the industry training organisations, students straight out of school, and the Gateway programme.

Finally, I want to end with a bit of pride at what the growth and innovation fund is doing for Wellington. There is work there to help the task forces, particularly in screen and production. We are hoping that over the next 4 years $110 million will come out of the fund for projects here in Wellington. Extraordinary work has happened in terms of education. The Wilton Playcentre in my electorate is one of the six centres of innovation that will be used to build a strong research base for informing and developing best models of teaching practice in early childhood education. We are putting in somewhere in the region of 236 new teachers for the 2004 teaching year. In the Wellington region we will also have 7,000 new industry trainees. That is what we want for a growing economy.

What a sad day it is today! New Zealand has been excluded from a free-trade agreement with the United States.

💬 David Benson-Pope: You’re making it up.

The senior whip says I am making it up, yet all the media reports, even from the embassy today, are saying that New Zealand has been isolated. We stand alone; out on the side. We are not a team player, and we have been excluded from a trade deal that the United States is prepared to sign with Chile and Singapore. Where is New Zealand? We are not even considered. We are on the scrap heap. We are missing out on a billion dollars of trade because this Government has come out said: “We are not going to support our traditional allies—the United States, Britain, and Australia. We know better. We are going to stand apart.”

Six months ago, in December, Robert Zoellick, the US Trade Representative, said that there was possibly an opportunity for New Zealand to be included in a free-trade agreement along with Australia. What has happened since that time? We have seen the New Zealand Prime Minster standing out to one side, saying: “We don’t want to be a part of it. We don’t to support our traditional allies.” So what has the United States done? We have said time and time again that trade is linked to our traditional relationships with our trading partners and friends. In testimony before the US House of Representatives agriculture committee on 21 May, Zoellick said that negotiations for a free-trade agreement with Australia, which President Bush aimed to complete in 2003, would not extend to New Zealand.

The senior whip said I was making it up. This is straight from the embassy, which says that the free-trade agreement will not extend to New Zealand. “That is my present expectation,” Zoellick said. “Citing one challenge, he indicated that US farm groups would be likely to oppose increasing imports of New Zealand lamb and dairy products, diminishing support for such an agreement in the Congress.” He also said: “New Zealand has taken some actions recently that would pose problems for congressional passage of a New Zealand free-trade agreement.”

That spells it out—this Government is responsible. This Government does not have the foresight to see where we need to position ourselves. No wonder Treasury said that there would be only 2 percent growth next year. We now know why. It is because we have been excluded from that very important free-trade agreement. Zoellick said he expected to be signing a free-trade agreement with Chile very soon, as well as Singapore. But where is New Zealand? We are left out.

I represent a rural constituency—the Piako electorate. We are a nation of farmers. That is where the growth in New Zealand comes from. What does this actually mean to the farmers, the people I represent in my area? Well, we are not going to forget this day. We will not forget the cruel blow that this Government has dealt to the prosperity of all New Zealanders in the cities and the towns. That free-trade agreement with the United States was something we could have hung our hats on. We are an exporting country, and most of our wealth comes from the rural sector. It is the rural sector that has given us growth and buoyancy over the last couple of years. Export prices, commodity prices, low interest rates, high prices overseas, and the weather have all contributed to buoyancy in rural New Zealand, and that prosperity has flowed through to the cities. This country has had the ability to capitalise on that; it not due to anything that the Government has done. But today the Government has put a nail in the coffin of any future growth, because this Budget is a no-growth Budget.

Certainly, the announcement today that New Zealand has been excluded from a free-trade agreement is something that this Government will have to bear. At the next election, Labour Party members will be hanging their heads in shame that they did not support our traditional allies when the time came and they asked New Zealand to stand beside them. But our Government said: “No way. We’re going to isolate ourselves and put our support behind those non-aligned countries.” We could not go out there and say to our friends—the Americans, the UK, and our Australian colleagues—that we were prepared to stand beside them.

This Government oversees “New Zealand Incorporated”. The mission of a Government should be to provide a very prosperous economy and an environment in which businesses can grow. Every year, about 44,000 new businesses are created in New Zealand, and about 45,500 of them fall over. The rate of births and deaths of small businesses is amazing, but it is a natural progression. Small businesses in New Zealand are going to be hard hit by the Government policies of the last few years. Nothing in the Budget actually said to small businesses that the Government thinks they are important and will help them out. This Government will form a committee to advise the committee on another committee. This Government is all about forming committees; it is all talk, no action. If we want growth in the economy—and most of the growth in the economy comes from small to medium-sized businesses—it follows that we have to remove those compliance costs and regulatory barriers. Since this Government has been in power, that regulatory creep is causing a real problem in terms of the way New Zealanders do business.

I shall quote some statistics to show the importance of small business to New Zealand: 92 percent of Kiwi businesses employ fewer than 10 people, and, specifically, 80 percent employ fewer than five people. We are a nation of small businesses. Of course, an owner-operator or owner of a business is obliged by law to comply with complex regulations and laws and pay tax. Some very interesting statistics have come out in recent times. The extra compliance costs for a business employing 20 people in February 2002 was estimated at $26,000, but in December 2002 that figure was $43,877. That is a huge increase in compliance costs, and New Zealand businesses are carrying the can. We are not operating under a cost-plus mentality now. Prices are driven by the market: they are whatever people are prepared to pay. The National Party is saying that we have to get those regulatory barriers and compliance costs out of the way, so that business can get on with the job it does best—growing the business, employing the people, making the investment. That is where growth comes from. Businesses create growth, not Governments, but this Government would not know that. It wants to empower the bureaucrats. That is where this Government thinks growth comes from. It says: “Tax the people, tax businesses.” That is the way it thinks it can fund its operations, but it does not work.

I want to mention a couple of measures, because they are huge hindrances for business. The first is the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill, which is being proposed by the Hon Matt Robson. He might stand and say something about it, but I say that the increase from 3 weeks’ annual leave to 4 weeks’ annual leave will also create relativity claims, because those getting 4 weeks’ leave will want 5 weeks. Small businesses cannot afford that sort of compliance cost. Then there is the matter of payment for statutory holidays and holiday pay. If staff work on a statutory holiday, the employer will have to pay time and a half—penal rates. A lot of businesses do that anyway, but at the same time they have to give a day off in lieu.

A real challenge is the 3-day bereavement leave provision. What does that mean? It is not 3 days per year; it is 3 days if a close relative dies. We will see a multiplication here. A businessperson whose company employs 53 people came to see me. If this bill is passed in its present form, that company will pack its bags and go to Australia, because of the huge compliance costs this Government is going to impose on business. There is no incentive to be in business today—none at all. Those huge compliance costs are causing employers to say: “Why should I bother? I might as well put my money in the bank.”

As well as that, there are sick leave provisions that say that employees do not have to produce a doctor’s certificate for 4 days’ illness. That is open-ended, and I know what will happen—there will be an abuse of the system and small business will carry the can. There is also the extension of paid parental leave from 12 weeks out to 14 weeks. We have union negotiations; we have this thing called “stress in the workplace” Heavens above! I wonder what that means. Employers cannot insure against it. Then there is “mental fatigue”. I wonder what that is. Members opposite probably suffer from mental fatigue all the time.

I now know that to be a member of the National Party—and it probably goes for the other right-wing parties; ACT and New Zealand First—is very easy. They can be lazy. They do not have to do any thinking. They do not have to develop their own international policy. All they need to do is go into www.republicanparty.org.usa and take a photocopy and spread it around—then they have their foreign policy. Nothing has changed from when I became conscious of international politics and the war in Vietnam was waging. The National Party of the time did not have its own foreign policy. It supported an immoral, illegal war, which killed millions of people, and said: “We’re doing it because it’s free trade, and we’re doing it because of our traditional allies.” In other words, “Easy—don’t think.” [Interruption] On 4 weeks’ leave, one can shift to Australia. I tell Mr Tisch that in Australia 4 weeks’ leave is normal for workers, and most of them have 5 or 6 weeks.

This is the fourth progressive Budget from the centre-left coalition, first elected in 1999. The Budget shows a net cash surplus of $4.2 billion from core Government operations as at 30 June 2003, which lets us invest $1.2 billion net investment in physical assets like schools for the benefit of the nation, and $1.2 billion is to be invested to partially fund known future pension liabilities. That is responsible centre-left rule for the benefit of current and future generations. That is progress. It is the rebuilding of New Zealand. Budget 2003 permits us to build further on the framework put in place in the past 3½ years to facilitate economic development, jobs, and safer communities. It builds after the wreckage of the policies of Roger Douglas through the 1990s, of the National minority Governments.

The need to have a framework in place to facilitate the creation of high-paying jobs for all of our people is all the more necessary because the international environment is so uncertain. Yesterday we had a frank insight into why the United States does not want to enter into a fair trade deal with New Zealand—a deal that would facilitate job opportunities, certainly, in New Zealand export industries. The reason it will not lower its punitive barriers on our exports has nothing to do with our independent foreign policy, which puts New Zealand’s interests first. US trade representative Robert Zoellick yesterday told it as it is. He dashed hopes of a fair trade deal between our two countries by citing too many objections from Washington-subsidised United States corporate agricultural interests in dairying and sheep meat. The anti-fair trade policies of the rich economies of the United States, Europe, and Japan are against New Zealand’s national interests, which seek a fair multilateral rules-based system. Their practices also cost lives and living standards in the developing world. But that is the world we live in, and Dr Cullen has to manage the coalition finances with a view to having the most positive impact on the New Zealand economy within the context of the hard cold facts of the international environment.

Despite the uncertain international scene, Budget 2003 builds on the steps taken since 1999 to foster intelligent partnership with industry sectors and regions, and between business and Government agencies to leverage more out of the business expansion opportunities in New Zealand and overseas as they arise. In particular, the Progressives are pleased that this Budget provides for policies that are dear to our hearts. There is another $85 million for industry training schemes. We will have 100,000 in training by 2005 because of that. There is another $56 million towards getting all youth under 20 into jobs, education, or training by 2007. That is the way in which National should attack the dole problem. Also in this Budget is $37 million over 4 years for a long-term trade development strategy, and $400 million over 4 years is being added to the existing $112 million for industry and regional development funding. This is investment in the future. It is a vote of confidence.

There will be more for children getting cheaper or free doctors’ visits, the elderly can look forward to cheaper health-care, and there is more for early-prevention programmes. Next year, when an even more progressive Budget is introduced, low-paid workers will have a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave as an extra bonus. The coalition has acted on drug abuse. The Labour and Progressive parties will not agree on everything. The Progressives, for example, will continue to advocate for no fee increases for any tertiary students, and we hope that that policy will come to fruition. We also recognise that that will mean a reduced Government surplus, or that cuts to other programmes of lesser priority than education need to be put in place. The challenge for those voting against Budget 2003—National, New Zealand First, ACT, and the Greens—is to put up a coherent alternative upon which they can all agree. But they cannot agree on anything except to promote negativity and promise the earth. They stay silent on how they will develop the economy, or what tax regimes they will put in place.

It is a pleasure to talk about the advantages this Budget has brought to the whole country, and in particular, to the people of Otago and Southland. Education in my home territory, and in the south, has considerable increased funding. For example, people in Clutha-Southland, Dunedin North, Dunedin South, Invercargill, and Otago have an even distribution of another 72.5 new teachers this year above those required for roll growth. Next year there will be another 63.7 new teachers above those required for roll growth. We have $1.16 in extra operational funding for our schools in Otago and Southland. In industry training the Budget contains an $85 million package that will significantly boost the number of businesses and workers involved. I am pleased to tell the House that, currently, nearly 9,000 young people are involved in industry training in the southern region. In health, $656.9 million has been allocated for major hospital developments. A substantial amount of that funding—which is much welcomed by the people in the electorate of my colleague, Mark Peck—will go to the new Southland hospital.

A wonderful initiative for rural areas suffering so badly under the depopulation, encouraged and left alone and ignored by previous Governments, is that just under half a million dollars will be allocated over the next 2 years in rural roster relief funding to help those 11 primary health providers in those areas. That money will help relieve doctors and nurses working in those onerous and remote parts of New Zealand. It is part of a total of nearly $3.5 million to be allocated over the next 2 years to the rural health services, which are so important for the health of those communities.

The Budget provides, in rural and agricultural affairs, more than $30 million to sustain the Sustainable Farming Fund for another 3 years, which will, in my territory, enable support for another 80 to 90 projects a year. Already, the Sustainable Farming Fund has provided support for more than 180 community and partnership-based projects, of which 160 are still running. It is hard to think of a better example of the partnerships that this Government is determined and so successful in forging with all the sectors of our community.

That positive achievement happens without the butchery the Brash policies would bring to our communities, and without the sad and failed policies of those mean people on the Opposition benches—people described in the current Listener, even by their own supporters, as “leaden brat packers”. This Budget invests wisely in the future of New Zealand, continuing the directions begun by this Government in 1999—directions that the community continues to applaud.

For those silly enough to believe the Opposition rhetoric that there is nothing in this Budget, let me detail spending changes in some key areas. In the area of social services, the Budget includes an extra $582 million this incoming year. The Budget includes an extra $737 million for health services in the new year. In education, the incoming Budget includes an extra $481 million. In housing there is an extra $41 million. In arts, culture and heritage—one of our most creative and productive work sectors—there is $28 million of extra spending. This spending is welcome everywhere.

On the East Coast, in the south, in Northland, in enterprise, industry, and regional development—which would be done away with by those members on that side of the House—there is an increase in spending by an enormous $76 million. Members should compare those commitments to the promises of Dr Brash, who is now in charge of policy development for the Opposition. Dr Brash wants to “scrap the unemployment benefit and minimum wage laws, and reinstitute work camps.” He said that on National Radio on 29 January this year. He wants to allow employers to sack staff more easily without fear of recourse to the Employment Court. He said that in the Press on 5 April this year. He wants to privatise health and education services. He said that on 18 August 1999. Dr Brash also wants to slash Government spending per capita by 20 percent. He said that in the Press on 5 April this year.

Dr Brash also wants to end affirmative action programmes for Māori. He said that on the same occasion. Dr Brash also said in the Press on 5 April that he wants to increase spending on defence. Most interestingly, Dr Brash wants to bring in tax relief for the richest New Zealanders—that is, a flat tax and a capital gains tax based on housing gains. He said that in the Independent on 27 March 1997. Dr Brash also wants to raise the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. He said that at the knowledge wave conference in August 2002, and he wants to continue the programme of asset sales. He said that on 17 May 2002. As I have just mentioned, Dr Brash, the one who is developing the policy for that party, wants to abandon regional development and Industry New Zealand. He said that on 15 July 2002 on Wellington television. That is what Dr Brash, National’s leader-in-waiting, believes. That is why no one in this country will miss the irony of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word “Brash”, which is that it is a noun: “A slight attack of sickness; esp. one arising from a disorder of the alimentary canal.”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is all very well, but that can lead to unfortunate repercussions. Members are entitled to their name and to have their name used. I suggest the member moves on.

Those policies that I have detailed will certainly have a most undesirable effect on most New Zealanders. I wonder whether that is the reason for the extraordinary poll released in today’s New Zealand Herald The poll shows that National voters—even though more than half of them insist that the leadership of the party should be changed—are getting worried. More than half of National voters—and the only figure that comes anywhere near that figure is the cross-population all-party support for the leader of the Labour Party, the Prime Minister, Helen Clark—are starting to worry. Although they know that they have to change their leadership, they worry about the extraordinary policies being developed in their country.

What I am asking the National Party to do is to come clean. I am asking Dr Brash to come clean about what he actually believes. I am also asking Mr English to come clean about the new Māori policy. Does that member’s new Māori policy to “out-Peters” Mr Peters really mean the logical consequence that National will stand no candidates in the Māori seats in 2005? I am asking Mr English: does that policy mean that we would see Māori being selected by that party in winnable electorate seats, which will clearly be fewer in 2005, anyway? I do not think so! And does that policy mean that any Māori list candidate could have an expectation—any Māori list candidate stupid enough to climb aboard the National shipwreck—that anyone, let alone anyone Māori, could be elected from the list given the appalling polling of that party?

Members should compare that attitude with this Budget’s commitment to innovation, to growth, and to jobs. There is $140 million over 4 years for research, science, and technology—that area so long ignored by preceding Governments. There is $73 million over 4 years to promote overseas trade. There is $19 million for the pre-seed accelerator fund. This Budget is about a Government keeping its word. It is about a Government that has seen more New Zealanders now in work than ever before—an increase of 132,000 New Zealanders employed since we were first elected in 1999. This is a Government that has reduced the cost of primary health-care through the establishment of 34 public health organisations throughout the country. It is a Government that has made superannuation more secure by the establishment of the fund. It is a Government that has funded 5,102 modern apprenticeships, which is nearly at our target of 6,000.

It is a political truism that when the Government has good news to release, it times it for the television news in the evening. When it has bad news, of course, it hides it in the dead media time of the weekend. When it has really, really bad news, it releases it the day before Christmas or the day before Easter, so that it gets hidden when people are too busy going on holidays to even read the news. And so it was with the economic impact report on genetically modified organisms and their impact on the environment. By the time it became public it was already yesterday’s fish and chip wrappers. So was this a success for the spin doctors, or was it something really quite sinister?

That economic impact report makes very chilling reading for rural communities. Farmers should be afraid—they should be very afraid. If I can summarise the report very briefly, it states that keeping New Zealand free of genetically engineered organisms is good for the rural economy, and embracing genetically engineered organisms is disastrous for the rural economy. So what is this report? Is this the work of the rabid environmentalists—the anti-science, anti-progress people? No it is not. This is the work of Business and Economic Research Ltd. It was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment, and Treasury. This was part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. This is a formal document.

It is a curious document, though. It is curious because what is in the text is very different from what is in the executive summary. Why is it, I wonder, that that is the case? The answer is that what is in the text is absolutely damning for the direction that this Government is taking. It is not even listening to its own advice.

There are only two ways to embrace genetic engineering (GE) that can have a positive impact on our rural economies. The first is if we embrace GE and there is an increase in productivity—a very large increase. That is the assumption that underpins all the positive scenarios in this report. The only problem is that there is no example of increased productivity from the use of GE anywhere in the world. There are no examples of it. The other way we can increase the performance of the rural economies is to remain free of genetically engineered organisms.

We are a market-driven economy. We must be responsive to the needs of the consumers who buy our products, and the message from them is unequivocal. It says that our consumer markets do not want GE-free produce. If we increase the demand for our produce, then the returns to farmers go up. If we increase our productivity it is equivocal because—

💬 Jill Pettis: More people will not be able to afford to buy!

I tell Mrs Pettis, that quite apart from anything else, if one increases the amount of product that is on the market, then the price goes down. So increasing productivity does not necessarily increase the farm-gate return.

So why is the Government trying to hide this information? Why do we have, and I hesitate to say this, an otherwise astute Government that is clearly flying in the face of common sense? It is doing the opposite of what the population of this country wants. It is doing the opposite of what the farmers of this country want. Why did the Minister of Rural Affairs, in answer to a question I asked him yesterday, dismiss an academic research poll that showed that 80 percent of farmers do not want GE, as just another poll—it was off-hand? Why did the Minister for the Environment not read the report? She got as far as the executive summary, and that was good. But it does not reflect what is in the text. Why does David Parker, for instance, think that farmers want GE? I tell Mr Parker that they do not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Mr Key, could I say that he has 9 minutes before the Minister calls in reply.

The Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, promised that the 2003 Budget would be a boring and predictable event. For once in his life he under-promised, and he over-delivered. This was a big surplus—a whopping $4 billion. That is $4 billion earned on the hard work and good economic policies of the 1990s introduced by a National Government. That is why the surplus is there. There are also a couple of other factors: a low exchange rate, high commodity prices, and good times down on the farm. There was a $4 billion surplus on the back of the hard work by the National Government, and what did the Minister do? Did he stop for just a moment and consider the hard-working people of New Zealand, the small businesses up and down the land, the corporates, the backbone of this country, who produce the jobs and pay the taxes? Did he consider them for just one moment? No, he did not.

We on this side of the House waited, and waited very patiently I might add, for Dr Cullen to pull a nice juicy rabbit out of the Budget hat. If he pulled a rabbit out of that hat, it must be a virtual rabbit. I am still waiting to see that rabbit, because this Budget produced nothing, absolutely nothing, for the hard-working businesses and people of New Zealand. It is no wonder the Government has found this to be an arduous debate over the last 14 hours. It is no wonder the Minister did not get a single clap during his speech. I reviewed the tapes and looked at the Hansard. Even Bill Birch, not known for being the most animated Minister of Finance, often had members in raptures when he delivered his Budget. He had them on their feet, roaring and cheering him on. There was not a single clap for Dr Cullen, even though the Labour members were under orders to do so. Not a single cheer came from the Government benches.

It is no wonder Susan St John gave that Budget a D minus. Dr Cullen has never had a D minus in his life. Susan St John delivered Dr Cullen a D minus. In a time when he had the opportunity to send the growth message, and when he had the opportunity to give cuts in taxes and compliance costs, what did the Minister deliver? The Minister delivered a subsidised bean counter. That is what he said to small businesses: he told small businesses that the Government would not do anything about compliance, but that it would give them a subsidised bean counter to help them fill out the forms. That was an anti-growth Budget. That is what that Budget delivered. But I ask what it did not deliver—because the list of what it failed to deliver is so much longer than anything it delivered. It did not do anything for the roads of my home town of Auckland. Not a single dollar of extra spending went to fix—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Not a skerrick.

Not a skerrick! There was nothing for those poor Aucklanders, many of whom will be stuck in a traffic jam right now. They are ruing the day they read this Budget. They are asking where the extra spending is for them.

What about the corporates? Was there a tax cut for them? Was there anything to say: “Good on you for doing a good job! Thanks very much for producing a $4 billion surplus. Thanks for everything you do for us, day after day after day.”? No, sir. There was nothing.

What about the entrepreneurs? Where was the message they should have got by cutting the top personal tax rate and saying: “Get out there and do it again for us. Get out there and bat again for the good old home team, New Zealand.”? There was nothing there.

What about the Defence Force? Whenuapai Air Base—as long as it lasts—is in my electorate. Was there an extra dollar of spending for defence? Despite the fact that the world is undergoing one of the most tumultuous times in terrorist activity worldwide, there was not a single dollar for defence spending.

Was there an apology to the sherry and port drinkers around the country who had $18 million snatched from their pension-books a few days earlier? No, there was no apology to the sherry and port drinkers. What about a helping hand for those suffering from the energy crisis—in other words, the whole country? What about those people? They got their message a few days later, when the $200 million energy tax was announced. That is what they had delivered up for them. What about growth? Was there anything in the Budget to make us rise in the OECD? Was there anything to help us compete, relative to Australia? There was absolutely nothing.

What did the 2003 Budget—of predictable stability—deliver? It delivered more money being thrown hopelessly at the health system into primary health-care, which has failed to deliver. It gave an additional $34 million for a boat race in Auckland, despite the fact that it will be held in the Northern Hemisphere, and despite the fact that the Government could give it only $5 million when it was held here in the Hauraki Gulf in our own backyard. It gave $6.5 million to the political spin machine to spin just a little faster on the Treaty of Waitangi. That is what the Budget delivered.

This Budget was very quick to point out that the world that we live in is a rapidly changing environment. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), a killer virus, is in play at the moment. There is worldwide terrorist activity, and plummeting confidence in global equity markets. The solution from the Government is to send $1.8 billion to the New York stock market. It does not matter that worldwide equity prices are going down. Do not worry about that. Do not worry that the Prime Minister would not give support to our traditional allies, because the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, will step into the breach and send $1.8 billion over to the New York stock market? It has not fooled us in the Opposition, and it did not fool Robert Zoellick, the trade negotiator, when he told us that we are so far off the table it is not even funny. That was what he said. Why did Dr Cullen not give some of those hard-working businesses, corporates, and entrepreneurs—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: He’s saving it up.

Exactly. Why did he not give them any money? Because he is saving it for the biggest lolly scramble that members have ever seen in their lives.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Bribery!

I do not want to use that word. A huge lolly scramble is coming down the pipes. He called on the caucus and said: “Please don’t criticise me. I don’t mind if you don’t give me any applause. I don’t mind if you don’t clap. Don’t worry about the fact that I’ve done absolutely nothing for Auckland roads. Don’t worry about the fact that this is the most anti-growth Budget that has been delivered for some time in this House, but please, please, just stay at bay because, don’t worry, in 12 months’ time I’m going to spend everything that’s in the cupboard, and some. I’m going to try to buy our way in for a third term.”

It will not work. Hard-working New Zealanders will see through that. They will not fall for that stuff. They are sitting in their cars at the moment ruing the day they read this Budget.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: His last cue.

It probably will not be his last Budget, but it will be nearing the end of his term. This Budget has been a failure for New Zealanders. The Labour Party has squandered a wonderful opportunity earned by the National Party through its good stewardship of the economy in the 1990s. The Labour Party has a lot to thank us for and I will wait for Dr Cullen to deliver that thankyou and gratitude personally, of which the National Government was so deserving in the 1990s.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I call on Heather Roy, who has 20 seconds.

This Budget shows the Labour Government in its true light. It shows it for what it really is: an arrogant Government that is out of touch with New Zealanders. We object to this Budget. We will not be supporting it. The $4 billion surplus is an indictment on this Government. The money that was earned by the workers of this country should be given back to its rightful owners: the workers who deserve tax relief for their fine efforts in producing the goods for this country.

It is a pity that that member did not read some of the Australian newspapers today, because Mr Costello gave some tax cuts, and only 20 percent of the Australian public supported that. The great majority would rather the money had been spent on more health and education. I want to start with that, because ACT has invented a whole new form of economics. Mr Prebble says that if one has an operating surplus of $4 billion—it was actually $1.36 billion, but never mind—on accruals accounting, one can spend the lot.

Let me run through, for the simple minds on the back bench of the ACT party—they are all back-benchers there—the simple facts of accruals accounting. Let me give them my simple car example. Suppose a person’s income is $30,000. That person spends $20,000 on the ordinary cost of living, and buys a car worth $10,000. The ordinary person would say there would be no money left. Accruals accounting would say that the money spent was $20,000 plus the first year’s depreciation—say, $2,500. That person has made a profit of $7,500. Mr Prebble says that one spends the $7,500. How can one do that? One has to borrow the lot.

So at the end of the year, one still has a car, but one now has a debt of $7,500, and one then repeats the performance, year after year. That has a name, and it is what Sir Robert Muldoon used to do as a form of government. He ended up borrowing to pay for the groceries. Where does that lead us? By 1984 and 1985 it led to one tax dollar in four being spent on interest payments on servicing the Government debt, and that is now the ACT party’s version of neoclassical economics. My God! Adam Smith and all the rest of them must be turning so fast in their graves that if we could stick two wires into them, we would not have a power crisis this winter in New Zealand. But, of course, National is more subtle. When I was asked before the Budget what the reaction would be, I said, “You can guarantee what it will be: business will say it doesn’t do what they want”—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I am cutting off the member is that an ACT member was cut off. We had an undertaking that we would be able to speak, and we are now told that the ACT member of Parliament cannot speak on the Budget. The ACT party’s rights in this House have been cut off, not because of points of order—the ACT party has not been raising points of order and objecting to the Budget—but because of institutional racism. One can now get up, speak in Māori, get double the time, and thus cut off the ACT party. If we are going to allow that, then the ACT member of Parliament should have been able to give a speech. It is absurd that we are now in a position where mainly Government MPs can get double the usual length for a speech, and speak in Māori as much as they like, knowing that the effect of that will be that a legitimately elected member of Parliament is not able to speak to the Budget. The Government should have allowed Heather Roy to speak, and I want to record the fact that it is a complete outrage that that has been allowed to occur.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Heather Roy did have a very short speech—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Not the time she was entitled to.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I understand that, but I did call the member. I am bound by the Standing Orders on page 95. I have no room to manoeuvre. At the end of 13 hours and 50 minutes, I must call the Minister in reply.

When I responded, I said: “I know what the National Party will say. It will say, ‘We should have surpluses and be responsible. We should spend more money on nearly every vote, and we should cut taxes.’ ” And what did it do?

💬 John Key: What’s wrong with that?

Mr Key asks what is wrong with that—Mr Key, who has pretensions to replace Mr Carter, who has pretensions to replace Mr Brash, who has pretensions to replace Mr English. What is wrong with that is that it does not add up—six into two does not go, in the kind of arithmetic we do in Budgets. Post the Budget, every little back-bench National spokesperson rushed off and said: “What a mean, miserable lot the Government are for not spending lots more money on my bits.” Then Dr Brash said: “We should run good surpluses. It is very sensible and very conservative in this situation.” Then the business spokespeople said: “We should have big tax cuts, starting with those with the highest incomes.” That was the National Party’s form of fiscal management. It was not quite as lunatic as the ACT party’s form of fiscal management, but it was pretty close to it. It wants surpluses, more spending, and lower taxes—it wants everything!

It is no wonder that Mr English is the last of the baby-boomer generation. He is demand-fed, and wants everything instantly at every moment. He was brought up in that atmosphere, and he will carry on with it for the rest of his life. What a dreadful speech he gave when he got up, after me. It was a dreadful, appalling, whingeing apology for a speech, as his eyes crossed round as he wondered what on earth he was saying, as he does, time after time, in this House and outside of it.

What was National’s position? The Government had betrayed students by putting a limit on fees! When he was asked what the National Party policy was, he said there should be no limit on fees at all, and that they should be able to go as high as the institutions want to put them. I have a feeling that students would rather be betrayed by us, than completely shot in every different part of their body by members of Parliament opposite me.

What is National’s position on electricity? The principle of the great market-orientated National Party is that electricity should be free. If we need more generating capacity to have a margin, the extra should be free. Father Christmas is going to come down early for Christmas and build us some more power stations, for which I say thank you to Father Christmas, the fairy godmother, the tooth fairy, or Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith—whoever it may be in that particular case. I have always thought of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith as the tooth fairy. Then we had Mr John Key—who is supposedly National’s new, bright young spokesperson on finance—

💬 John Key: If I do say so myself!

He does say it himself in every press statement. He said: “What do you do with management of funds? Invest at the top of the market.” John Key’s measure for success as to how to make a million is to buy when the market is at its top. I have to tell Mr Key that that is not how George Soros got there. It is not how the successful ones have operated.

The National Party showed in this debate that it still has no idea of what it stands for. It believes that it is the natural party of government, but everything about National is totally unnatural. There is nothing natural about it at all. I repeat that Mr English looked like a rabbit praying for a rifle and a searchlight to put him out of his misery. The thought among National members is that they should swap him for Dr Brash, and the point of doing that will be about as useless as feeding a dozen oysters to a eunuch.

So what is National going to do? It is waiting for the next generation, but Mr Simon Power is the silent member of the front bench. He scarcely rises to his full bulk and speaks forth in the House. He has gone and disappeared, so now maybe Katherine Rich will come forth at some point in the future and be the new leader of the National Party.

Then we had the wonderful pro-family policy that said: “If you are a low-income family, and your kid doesn’t go to school, you should have your income cut.” What a brilliant idea that is! That will really encourage family life amongst low-income New Zealanders! National said we should also give a tax cut to the rich, because, as we all know, when a tax cut is given to the people at the top, for some reason they all go and work harder, whereas if they get a tax increase, they work less hard so that their income can go down even faster.

I have never understood why the National Party thinks people on high incomes are so stupid that if they have to pay a slightly higher tax rate, they will decrease their income level faster to get their own back on the people who put the tax increase in place in the first instance. It has not worked. We were told we would create no jobs; there are over 100,000 new full-time jobs. We were told that the economy would not grow; it is one of the fastest-growing in the OECD over the last year. I was across in Australia yesterday, and they were very complimentary about this Government and about New Zealand—about what is happening in this country. I have here the latest Macquarie research handout talking about the new tradition in New Zealand of responsible fiscal policy. That is the external view of this Government, and I am happy to be judged by those international standards.

The question was put that the following amendment to the amendment to the amendment in the name of Rod Donald be agreed to:

that all the words after “has no confidence” be omitted, and the following words substituted:

in the Labour-led minority Government because of its failure to invest in achieving a self-reliant economy, its refusal to properly nurture a just society and its unwillingness to seriously protect the environment.