General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Just a few short hours ago 700 apple growers, their staff, their families, and their supporters assembled outside on the steps of this Parliament to protest against the total inaction of one James Sutton, known to us all as Jim Sutton. For 6 long years this Minister has been asleep under their apple trees doing absolutely nothing, while their industry has been falling apart.

I say quite frankly that that industry is in dire straits because our nearest and best neighbour will not take our New Zealand apples. The science is right, the products are right, and everything our growers produce is right, but the politics are wrong. Jim Sutton has refused to take a case to the World Trade Organization—that is, until the growers visited me at my office a few weeks ago and asked me what they should do. I said they should protest about the Minister’s appalling lack of action on the issue and tell the Minister of their intention to protest about it. They did, and—guess what? Within a few days the Minister announced he was going to take a case to the World Trade Organization. That is the kind of politics that Jim Sutton engages in.

I will say that Jim Sutton—

💬 Jill Pettis: He will be here long after that member has gone.

GERRARD ECKHOFF:—was that the fishwife from Billingsgate again?—is making political history. This week three rural groupings will be protesting on the steps of Parliament. That is unparalleled in our history. In a New Zealand society, based on agriculture, we have seen apple growers today, and tomorrow we will see thoroughbred horse breeders and, along with Federated Farmers, I trust we will see hundreds upon hundreds of landowners in this country, coming to protest against the actions and inactions of one man—Jim Sutton.

He has achieved absolutely nothing during his tenure, which is fast coming to an end. Never before have five branches of Federated Farmers passed a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. Never before has a Minister of Agriculture actively promoted extra taxes against the sector he is supposedly advocating for. Never before has a Minister of Agriculture in this country sat on his hands as Jim Sutton has.

A few weeks ago in this House Winston Peters suggested that an Iraqi Minister of Agriculture was in New Zealand. Well, that makes two of them. I ask which one is the bigger threat to the New Zealand rural community? It most surely is not the Iraqi; Jim Sutton is the biggest single threat to that community.

When the protest occurs tomorrow—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I remind members of the convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary, and then only in a way so as not to disturb the proceedings. I urge restraint on honourable members so they respect the contribution of another member. It is good conduct and common courtesy; it is being considerate of others.

Tomorrow there will be another major protest, which is about the abuse this Government is going to perpetrate and perpetuate on private property. That is when Jim Sutton should stand in front of the farming community and say that the Government will withdraw this appalling legislation, this abuse of allowing the public to have access to private property.

I believe that the rural community will stand up tomorrow and say to the Minister: “We will not accept it. We don’t care if you pass legislation; we’re not going to accept it. We’re not going to accept the redistribution of New Zealanders’ property rights.”

I am not going to spend a lot of time commenting on the previous speech. I will just say that the member is flanked by two members who are going to have the ability, I think, to give a valedictory speech in a way that that member is not, in the not too distant future.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: When are those valedictories going to be?

Sometime before 24 September. I am not going to spend a lot of time on ACT, because it is polling at about 1.5 percent, so it is getting to the point of being irrelevant.

I do, though, want to focus on a lack of judgment shown by the Opposition, and, in particular, on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in a number of areas. We had the classic case in the House during question time when a suggestion was made that the current National spokesperson on education might consult his colleague who was sitting next to him, and Don Brash thought that was a terrible insult and should be ruled out. What did he do? He drew attention to something that he thought was a terrible thing to say, which most people around New Zealand would not have got too anxious about. The idea of consulting Nick Smith, I think, on occasions might be a good idea. I cannot think of the occasion, but it is a definite possibility.

💬 Darren Hughes: Not if one is buying a new rug.

No, he is not good on recognising rugs. He is OK with rug rats but not rugs.

I say also to the National Party that as we are tracking expectations of tax changes by the National Party—that is, the public’s expectations of the promises it is going to make—the expectations are going up and up. It is now at the point where most people are expecting somewhere close to $50 a week for people on the average wage as a tax cut from the National Party. A couple of weeks ago it was only $30. The problem is that the National Party has got itself into a trap. I see Maurice Williamson smiling in agreement. National members know they have got themselves into a pretty serious situation. If the position was the same as a couple of weeks ago—that is, $30 a week for the average wage earner, and obviously a lot more money for National’s mates—that would be an annual $3 billion to be found. We must remember that we are in a situation where we are very close, on a cash-accounting basis, to a deficit—very, very close. But what National wants to do, and what it knows it would have to do, is either borrow the $3 billion a year—$3 billion was the expectation a couple of weeks ago; now it is $5 billion—or make cuts. National has made clear where some of the cuts would be. Apparently superannuation—

💬 Jill Pettis: Health.

I am not saying it will make a cut in health care. I am saying that National will charge, because that is what Don Brash said. He said there is nothing wrong with health care that the price mechanism will not fix. We know the only way of invoking a price mechanism in health care is to charge Kiwis to go to the public hospitals. That is what National members want to do. It is what they were lining up to do in the past. It is Ruth Richardson all over again.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: And they are talking about selling assets.

Talking about selling assets, I have to ask: what about schools? Don Brash does not care who owns the schools. He has promised to transfer them to trusts that would be able to do what the electricity trusts did and on-privatise them. That is the National Party’s approach. Maybe in the first year or two it would not cost it any more.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Will they deny it?

No, National members do not deny it at all. Of course they will not deny it. That is their policy. One thing I can say is that Maurice Williamson is proud of that policy.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Yep!

He agrees with it, he is proud of it, and he has just interjected to indicate that that is the case, whereas the rest of the National Party does not have the backbone that he does. Those members will not stand up and say what their policy is.

We know that the Labour Government is in serious trouble when hit man Trevor Mallard is lined up to defend the case. The part I enjoyed the most about his speech was when he accused National of wanting to close schools. He is the man who rushed around New Zealand closing schools all over the country. He was rolled by his colleagues and now he is in a pickle on so many fronts that he is one of the most discredited members of the Government. Furthermore, it is interesting that he did not want to speak at all in defence of his Government’s record. He wanted to have a debate about tax. Members on this side of the House welcome the debate on tax. Bring it on! Labour members know that even two-thirds of their own supporters support tax cuts for workers. They know that ordinary New Zealanders are looking forward to a change of Government so that they can keep more of their hard-earned money.

But the problem for this Government is that it is rotten to the core. Government members have gone beyond even being upfront and honest. They are running scared. This afternoon there was a protest by 800 apple growers. They chanted: “Where’s Jim? Where’s Jim?”. Not even the Associate Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor, who happens to represent the vast bulk of apple growers in my area, fronted up, because—

💬 Darren Hughes: There was a fire in his electorate, you fool.

Well, Helen Clark said that it was more important to meet with the sheep than it was to meet with ordinary New Zealanders. That is how far out of touch this Government is, and how much it is running away from ordinary New Zealanders. Jim Sutton could not be bothered, Helen Clark could not be bothered, and Damien O’Connor could not be bothered. It is no wonder New Zealanders will not be bothered with them when polling day comes.

Then we had the disgraceful—

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During question time the Hon Phil Goff pointed out that Jim Sutton had previous commitments. Damien O’Connor is currently on the West Coast. There has been a terrible fire in a Fonterra factory, which affects the agricultural part of his electorate. It is quite out of order for the member to behave in that way when he knows that the member is representing his electorate. What a disgrace!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. I refer members to the Speakers’ rulings about referring to the absence of members or otherwise.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was very careful in my choice of words. I said that they had not attended the apple protest. That is completely within the Standing Orders. The point of order raised by Mr Hughes was completely out of order. I seek that my time start again. It is only a 5-minute speech. Speakers have been very strict in the general debate about members raising nonsense points of order, which that was, and I seek to have my complete speech.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Members on this side of the House have no objection to the time taken for this point of order being added on to the member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member seeking the leave of the House?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave if that is necessary. I had thought it was at your discretion not to take the time for this interruption out of the member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it will be added on.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already ruled on the point of order.

💬 Ron Mark: I know that you have, Mr Assistant Speaker, but this is a fresh point of order. I ask you to clarify this matter for the House. You have reminded us that it is improper, and contrary to the Standing Orders, for members to refer to the absence of a member from the House, but you did not speak at all to the junior Government whip who stood up and proceeded to tell the House and the whole of the nation precisely where every absent Labour Minister was today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, I did. I told the member that he was out of order.

So desperate has this Government become in trying to protect itself from the raft of scandals that if it is not messing up school examinations, if it is not sending cabs when it should have been sending cops, if it is not—[Interruption] Mark Burton pipes up. Perhaps Mark Burton, who says there is no room for tax cuts, might be able to explain to New Zealanders how he has been part of a billion-dollar bungle over the Kyoto Protocol. He told the people of New Zealand that we were signing up to Kyoto so that we could take hundreds of millions of dollars. The Prime Minister said it and Pete Hodgson said it. Are we surprised that Pete Hodgson has not been debating these issues this week? He has disappeared overseas, which is standard Government procedure, but it is all said in that piece by Colin James in the New Zealand Herald this week.

The wheels are falling off the Government on every side. We were used to George Hawkins making a mess of things, and Lianne Dalziel, but Trevor Mallard has been grossly discredited, Michael Cullen’s tax-cutting Budget was a disaster, and we even have Jim Sutton now on the ropes in terms of issues like apples. It is no coincidence that both today and tomorrow protests have been planned on the steps of Parliament by absolute key constituencies that Labour has abandoned. Labour has abandoned those constituencies. Labour has lost their support. It is on the way out. It is a decaying, rotten Government that is bereft of ideas, and the time is coming when it will be put out of its misery. New Zealanders are looking for a fresh change. They want to know that there will be a Government that believes in them spending their hard-earned money, not the Labour Party. It will be a Government that is upfront and honest.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: We’re first.

There will not be the skulduggery that we have seen from members like Judith Tizard. Judith Tizard is the member who said that changes to the Resource Management Act, like direct referral to the Environment Court, were evil and dangerous. That is what Judith Tizard said, and now the Government is in such a panic it has adopted those measures. The sooner this Government goes, the better.

It is really laying it on with a trowel very thickly for that member, Nick Smith, to come to this House and speak about credibility. For the record, he is the member who was summonsed to the High Court to answer charges against the High Court. It was a simple contest of belief. The member had made statements outside the High Court that the High Court said scandalised the court. The member then stood before the High Court and on oath told the story that he believed to be true. A member of the public stood before the court and told the story that that person believed to be true, and the High Court believed that person. The High Court did not believe a word that the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. The High Court of New Zealand found that Dr Nick Smith was not believable—that it could not believe him.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statement made by Mr Rick Barker is untrue and is not consistent with the High Court’s ruling, which has been tabled in Parliament. It has been the subject of a personal explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 35/3 and to Standing Orders 106(1) and (2). If the member believes that he has been misrepresented, then he has a time and a place to say so.

I have read the High Court ruling very carefully, and I saw the evidence is there. It is very clear. The court had the choice between believing Dr Nick Smith or the other witness, and the court chose to believe the other witness—and without doubt one can draw only one conclusion, which is that Dr Nick Smith was not believable.

I want to put the other issue to the test: the issue of credibility. When this Government came into office, public debt was about 35 percent of GDP. Public indebtedness is now 22 percent of GDP. Whereas unemployment was at record levels, New Zealand now has the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. For every 10 kids who were on the dole, having been put on the scrapheap by the National Government—thrown out with no hope of getting a job, and with no future—Labour has reduced the number by seven, to just three now. And we are going to get jobs for the rest; we are committed to do that. However, the National Party has been promising tax cuts—tax cuts that amount to over $1.7 billion a year. It says that it will not only cut taxes but also spend more money. It says it will spend another $4.5 billion over 10 years on transport, over and above what the Government says. National says it will spend an extra $540 million on the Waikato Expressway, another $120 million on northern roads, another $110 million on a toll-free harbour link in Tauranga, an extra $4 billion on defence to get us up to Australia’s level of expenditure, and then another $100 million on defence. It says it will spend another $722 million a year on law and order—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What about schools?

The member mentions schools. I have not got to that. National says it will spend another $300 million on the police, another $20 million on compulsory DNA testing, and more on teachers and schools. The list goes on and on; it is unbelievable. By election time, the National Party will be promising everybody tax cuts of $30-plus a week to $50 a week. And I bet that if it is up to the honourable Dr Brash, people like him will be getting $100 or $200 worth of tax cuts a week. In addition to that, National says it will spend billions and billions of extra dollars.

Well, we have seen those snake oil merchants before. We have heard that from the National Party before, and we think we have found the answer as to how National would do that. It would do it by State asset sales. It would have a big spend-up on public assets. Just in the last day or so National announced that it would sell Landcorp. Three huge farms in my area would be sold off to overseas investors. National would sell off Kiwibank, New Zealand Post, the Electricity Corporation, the Accident Compensation Corporation, and Television New Zealand Ltd. There would be a mass sell-off of State assets under a National Government. I say to the National members that there is no credibility in the New Zealand public’s eyes if the National Party promises to cut taxes and, at the same time, to spend more and more. But it will be a question of leadership.

Let us hear why the National Party has not released its tax policy. I say to the public that it is very obvious why it has not released it. We need just to look at the foot-and-mouth disease scare. What was there about that that was really quite extraordinary? Dr Brash said about that scare: “I’m surprised they made a public statement about it at all, to be frank. If it’s is only a hoax, they have done a lot of damage to our reputation.” In fact, what the National Party was saying is that deception is the best rule in these things—to deceive the public, not to tell it the truth, and to hide the truth. That is exactly what the National Party is doing with regard to its tax policy. It will not tell the truth.

The moment the Labour Government announced its Budget in 2005, it was in trouble. And the moment the National Party announces its tax cuts, it will be in trouble. Around this country the halls are filling up, wall to wall, and outside the doors. That tells me that a third horse is in this race, and that this election will be a three-horse race. All the bumf and talk from all the commentators and feel-good people can carry on, but I was at Te Awamutu the other day, where it was wall to wall. I thought to myself: “I’ve felt this feeling before. This is déjà vu, only it is déjà vu where New Zealanders understand just how hopeless the Labour Party and the National Party—the tired old parties—are.

Did members hear the argument today? It was just Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber, arguing about the same old things. The fact is, after 21 years of this economic experiment under both Labour and National Governments, we are at No. 40 in the latest per capita per income figures from the World Bank. We are not at No. 4; we are at No. 40. I asked people out there whether, when they voted for Labour in 1999, they really thought they would get a change. No one put up his or her hand. I asked them whether, if they were to vote for National in 2005, they really thought they would get a change. This is in Te Awamutu, which used to be sort of heartland National.

Last night I was at the Te Awamutu Rotary Club and at a professional women’s meeting—a big meeting, I might add—where I asked the question: “If you vote for Brash and National, do you really think you’re going to get a change?”. And do members know what? One old woman said she thought there might be a change. That was one person in a packed meeting. That tells me—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Was that Don Brash?

It was actually Don’s sister.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Use the member’s full name.

Excuse me, but there are no parameters to this debate. It is a free-for-all. I want the public freely to get to know—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is a longstanding member. He knows he must refer to a person by his or her full name, not by a nickname.

All right, it was Don Brash’s sister. The reality is that more and more New Zealanders, in growing numbers, realise that there is no hope for the old parties, or their Klingons, or their poodle parties, or their doormat parties. All the hope in 2005 lies with the party of principle that has never sold people down the drain, that says what it means, and means what it says, a party that has soul, a party that has heart and compassion. I will give an example. A man tried to kill—[Interruption]

Here is Mr Williamson, who believes in tolling. In 2002 National was fully for tolling. Now we have Don Brash running around the country saying: “No tolls.” A candidate for National in Hamilton is saying that a National Government would fix the road between Auckland and Hamilton. Why does that silly turkey not go for a drive up there? It is being fixed. Machinery is everywhere, and here is Don Brash saying: “No tolls in New Zealand!”

He is the biggest political hitchhiker and plagiarist I have seen. He stole our Waitangi policy, and he could not explain it. Every journalist knows that. He could not answer the first question, or the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth. He could not answer one of them. Then he looked at our policy on infrastructure and roading, and said: “That’s pretty good. I’ll steal that.” And here we have Maurice Williamson who went down to Queenstown and told people there they were going to have six private companies and toll roads. That is what he said. Now Don Brash is saying: “We are for all taxes for roads going into roading.” Yeah, right! People should go and look at National’s 2002 racing policy. It had none. We did.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: We did.

No, National did not. That is why, I say to Mr Tisch, he was moved to say at the racing conference that National had been working on it for a long time. Yes, exactly 24 hours! National had a meeting out at Trentham. Guess how many people turned up? Five people, plus Lindsay Tisch and Don Brash! They got the docile Dominion Post to publish a photo of them, after the meeting, with a horse. And their racing policy? The problem is that one could not tell which one was a horse.

That was one of the best comedy turns I have seen from that member. I congratulate him. I am particularly proud that he is now claiming to be fixing the roads between Auckland and Hamilton. I did not notice New Zealand First suggesting for a moment that we should be spending more on infrastructure. It is a Labour-Progressive coalition Government that does that. I am very proud of what this Government has done. I say to the New Zealand First Party that New Zealanders have not forgotten what it did when it was in Government—and that is what we expect it to do again.

We have heard a lot of nastiness today, in particular from Nick Smith, who is probably the nastiest member in this House. I want to put on the record the fact that Jim Sutton applied for leave on 28 April to go to the traceability session of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production conference and then to speak in Christchurch at the annual convention of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science. On 28 April Jim Sutton applied for leave, and this morning Damien O’Connor applied for leave to go to his electorate, because there has been a major fire at the Fonterra plant, a plant that is absolutely vital to the economy of the West Coast and, indeed, of New Zealand. But National members, those nasty, snivelling people on the other side of the House, would not care about that.

What I find astonishing is that National appears to be attacking us for taking action that had never been taken in 82 years. That is what they are attacking this Government for—for having the guts to stand up and say we are going to talk to our best mate, Australia, about its rotten apple policy. We are going to get up and do that, because Australia’s policy is not fair to apple producers and not fair to Australian consumers. Has anyone ever done anything like that before in this country? No, they have not. Nick Smith is sneering and deriding good Labour Ministers who are getting out there and doing the real stuff.

I want to say in this general debate that I am appalled at what the National Party is offering. Usually it offers no policy—or the two media statements from last year that make up its arts policy. No, I lie—one of them was this year. One was from last year and one was from this year. That is about the average from National on policy.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: It’s more than their defence policy.

It is more than National’s defence policy.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: They’re going to have a review.

Is that its policy? Jolly good. I hope the people of New Zealand are listening very carefully to what the National Party is saying. National is saying it will spend money twice. Actually, no—often it will spend it three times. We need to look at the history of that party. I have looked at the history of Don Brash, and as a New Zealander I will feel sick to my stomach on behalf of every hard-working family—every man, woman, and child—in this country if that man is ever able to put his beliefs in place. I am not talking about his policies, because he is not telling us those. There are no policies. I am talking about what he believes. He believes that tax cuts are the answer to poverty. He believes that tax cuts are the answer on housing. He believes that tax cuts are the answer for those who are losing out on education because they do not have a stable home. He says tax cuts are the answer on health. That is what he said.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He did not.

He said it on Morning Report last week. I am very, very happy to table the transcript. That is—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know what the member is going to say. I ask Dr Mapp to stand, withdraw, and apologise. He is a longstanding member. He knows he cannot use that terminology in the House.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I withdraw and apologise.

I assure the House that straight after my speech I will table the transcript of Don Brash saying all of those things. This Government is really proud to believe that New Zealanders deserve a fair go. We share New Zealand’s values. We believe in a fair go for everyone. We believe that the underpinnings of solid families are good, affordable, healthy housing, good education, and good health-care. This Government has spent more money on those underpinnings, put more training into them, and delivered more than any other Government in history. We believe in a decent society. We believe in people being able to work. We believe that they should go to their boss when they want a pay rise, not come to the Government saying they want tax cuts that would destroy everything New Zealand stands for.

I seek leave to table a transcript of a Radio New Zealand interview with Dr Brash, in which he said that tax cuts were the answer on all of those issues.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

The biggest mistake that last member made was to refer to good Labour Ministers. I want to look at Labour’s front bench, and my theme is a theme that was picked up by Colin James earlier this week. Every single one of them has failed. Mr Sutton will get two protests this week: one by apple growers, one by Federated Farmers tomorrow. He is a failure. Mr Mallard presided over the disgrace that is the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Mr Maharey presided over a $239 million bungle over Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. Mr Hodgson presided over a billion-dollar bungle over the Kyoto Protocol. Mrs King has health waiting lists that we cannot even see the end of. Dr Cullen is the man responsible for a 67c tax cut. Finally, there is Prime Minister Clark; she is presiding over failure.

The point is this: one cannot go to the country and say there is a marvellous $7 billion surplus, then on the other hand say that people cannot have a tax cut. The public do not buy it, the public do not believe it, and that is why this Government is going down the tubes.

Labour is now so desperate that it is using public money to boost union membership in the public sector. It has made a whole pattern of special payments to its Public Service Association (PSA) mates in the public service. Let us look at the recent record. Courts staff get a lump sum of $640 provided they are members of the union. The whole purpose of that, of course, is to get more members for the union. But it gets a lot worse than that. At Work and Income the bribe is $1,200. That is way more than the union fee. It says to members of the public service that the only way to get a wage increase is to join the union. That is the kind of corruption, the kind of bribery, that this Government is now indulging in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot allege corruption. He knows that is out of order. There have been a number of Speakers’ rulings on it. I ask the member to come to order.

I certainly allege there have been all sorts of incentive payments to boost union membership, and that is, frankly, discriminatory. But it gets even worse than that. Labour is now offering two extra leave days, to boost total holidays to 5 weeks—but only to union members. What kind of example is that for the private sector? No wonder Government spending is going through the roof!

Of course, Labour does get a pay-off. We have only to read in this month’s PSA Journal. This is what Labour’s union mates are now saying. The PSA says there is a neutral public service, but this is what it says in the June editorial: “…, I can tell you that the PSA executive board and congress believe the success and wellbeing of the union—and that is all of us—rests on the re-election of a Labour-led Government.” That is the pay-off, is it not? The Government pays extra money to its PSA mates, and it gets that kind of propaganda—paid for by public money. That is the kind of disgraceful behaviour we are seeing from this Government.

This whole magazine is shot through with propaganda. The Government members could not convince a single member of the public that the Budget was any good, so what do they do instead? They get the PSA to print seven pages of blatant Budget propaganda. To cap it all off, what does it do? It puts photos of Helen Clark in the magazine. Yes, it is all here, including special photos of Helen Clark—more propaganda. Finally, it caps it off with Mr Ross Wilson, that impartial member of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, praising the Government and criticising National.

That is the whole point; public money is being used for surreptitious, blatant Labour propaganda. Well, I say to those hopeless members on that side that it will not work. If the best they can do is get their union mates—because no one else will do it—to propagandise, they have failed.

All members of Parliament will have seen the recent survey of public opinion showing that 60 percent of young adults aged between 18 and 24 support the raising of the legal alcohol purchasing age to 20. It is not just a strong majority among young adults who want to raise the legal alcohol purchasing age—the age at which people can walk into their licensed corner dairy and buy alcohol. Strong majorities in every age group and in every region in New Zealand are in favour of action on youth binge drinking. The overwhelming message to us in this House of Representatives is that we must show leadership in order to turn the tide against the harm being caused by the misuse of alcohol by too many young teenagers and children.

My Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is before the Law and Order Committee. Submissions will close on 12 August. The bill tackles three issues that must be addressed as part of a much broader culture-change project. It tackles broadcast TV alcohol advertising, the rules we have in order to stem the supply of liquor to minors, and the minimum legal purchasing age. This is a public health issue, a youth mental health issue, a family policy issue, and a public safety issue, and New Zealanders have the absolute right to demand that their Parliament act. The question every member of Parliament has to answer is this: if many 17-year-olds easily accessed alcohol from their 20-year-old friends before 1999, did the 1999 law change make it easier for 15-year-olds to access alcohol from their 18-year-old mates? The opinion of public health professionals, many front-line police and welfare workers, and the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders is that the answer to that question is yes.

One of the main effects of the 1999 law change was to make access to alcohol easier for very young teenagers. People are demanding that their Parliament fix the policy error that Parliament itself made in 1999. The leader of the National Party, Don Brash; the leader of United Future, Peter Dunne; and the leader of ACT, Rodney Hide have opposed letting the public have a say on this vital public health issue. Don Brash, Peter Dunne, and almost every ACT MP voted against the bill even going to the select committee. If they had had their way, the people would not even have had the opportunity to talk directly to their employees, the members of Parliament.

I want Mr Dunne, the leader of the so-called family friendly party, to tell all of us why he does not think that the people of Ohariu-Belmont should be listened to on as vital an issue to real families as this. The Progressive Party will be holding a public meeting in Ohariu-Belmont on this issue, because we would like to hear what people in that electorate think. We will send the results to Peter Dunne. In fact, we will even ask him to come, although, given that United Future staunchly opposed the Progressive Party’s pro-family 4 weeks’ annual leave law change, I am not holding my breath that the results will have any effect on him.

The people of New Zealand have a right to hear from the National leader, Don Brash, as to why he opposes stemming the harm caused by alcohol to children. Don Brash gave the vital casting vote to liberalise prostitution law a while back. The Progressive Party disagrees with him on that, but we accept that he held a principled view on a complex matter, even if it was a different point of view from our own. But having given the casting vote in favour of short-term commercial sexual relationships, he went on to oppose civil union legislation that was designed to support loving, longer-term relationships.

For the majority of New Zealanders, Don Brash’s contradictory positions will make little sense. Now we know his stance on the alcohol purchasing age, and it confirms our worst fears. For the third time in a row, Don Brash is showing himself to be totally out of touch with the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders. Progressive Party candidates in this year’s election campaign will highlight Dr Brash’s position on the drinking age issue at every public opportunity we get. We want to know what his great alternative strategy to turn the tide against binge-drinking is. He must be hiding it up his sleeve, but he should share it with us. We want to hear it, the select committee wants to hear it, and the people want to hear it.

I want briefly to comment on so-called social liberals like those who inhabit the majority of the ACT caucus. Not only do the majority of ACT members oppose action on binge drinking but ACT’s entire caucus voted last week against the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), which was put forward by the Hon Jim Anderton. Social liberals apparently believe that 14-year-olds have some hitherto unknown, God-given, and constitutionally enshrined right to swallow benzylpiperazine party pills by the dozen. Next, the social liberals will be telling us that it is constitutionally wrong to deny 14-year-olds the right to drive motorbikes at 120 kilometres an hour.

This bill on the drinking age, the advertising of alcohol, and the supply of alcohol to minors in New Zealand is an issue that all New Zealanders are concerned about. There are many opinions on this issue, but the opinions that I suggest members of Parliament should listen to in the first instance are those of the experts in the various fields, and, certainly not last, those of the community itself. The Law and Order Committee will be the place that the experts and the community can be heard.

I believe, United Future believes, and, according to Saturday’s Fairfax-ACNielsen poll, 75 percent of New Zealand voters, including nearly 70 percent of Labour voters, believe that it is time for tax cuts. All the parties in this House, with the single exception of the Labour Party, also believe it is time to cut taxes. On this issue at least it would appear that the once-Teflon, Helen Clark - led Labour Government has been reduced to a 25 percent party. There is no doubt in my mind that New Zealanders should have a tax cut, that it should occur immediately, and that it is affordable.

It is clear that between now and the election date Labour will attempt to obscure those patent realities via a mixture of red herrings, smokescreens, and sophistry. That must not be allowed to happen. Let us today, however, in anticipation of Labour’s efforts, get some fundamental facts clearly put on the table in this House. New Zealand voters deserve no less.

Let me say unambiguously that the tax cuts proposed by United Future could be funded in their entirety from the surpluses contained in the Budget projections. Let us be crystal-clear about what a surplus is. A surplus is the amount left over after Government expenditure on health, education, police, superannuation, defence, Working for Families, etc. has already been taken into account. The media need to grab that reality and make sure it is conveyed to the people of New Zealand. I read, for example, a New Zealand Press Association article from 15 June that blandly stated that tax cuts worth $2 billion a year would require welfare benefits, superannuation, school classroom ratios, or health services to be cut. That is just plain wrong.

Here are the facts. The Government’s operating balance over the next 3-year period—2005 to 2007—will be around $17.9 billion before money is set aside for the superannuation fund. That will take $7.2 billion, leaving $10.7 billion. The cost of the tax reductions that United Future proposes for that same 3-year period is $2.5 billion—still leaving $7.2 billion available for capital expenditure. It is a modest and entirely affordable proposal.

Here is the way in which Dr Cullen tries to fudge this matter. He simply uses the word “expenditure” without defining what kind of expenditure it is. As I have mentioned, spending on education, health, etc. is revenue expenditure and is deducted before the surplus is calculated. But Dr Cullen then says that, in any event, he spends the amount of the surplus as well and is left with no cash in the bank. Here he is clearly talking about capital expenditure. If he wants to debate with me about how capital expenditure can be funded, then I simply say “Bring it on!”.

There are, in fact, myriad ways in which capital expenditure can be funded—private-public partnerships and borrowing being just two of them. In fact, funding capital expenditure exclusively and only from each year’s surplus, which is the way Dr Cullen does it, is highly unconventional. The only people who buy a new car or a new house and fund all of it from that year’s income are either super-rich or Lotto winners.

That is the debate we should be having. I say in this debate to Dr Cullen that an error repeated over and over again, ad nauseam, until the end of time, still does not constitute the truth. We should be on guard for significant errors that will be used to try to influence the way in which people vote in this year’s election. The people of New Zealand deserve to know the facts. They need to have the facts unambiguously explained to them. That is the whole point of my contribution to this debate today. I hope that, as Hansard will show, we have clearly put on the record that not only are tax cuts affordable but we do not have to cut expenditure on revenue costs like health, education, etc., or on the construction of new roads, hospitals, prisons, etc., to have tax cuts. It is simply a matter of some innovative and, in fact, rather conventional funding and financing, and of an ability to understand how to read a balance sheet and arrange a nation’s financial affairs.

I am very glad to have this call today. To use a baseball analogy, it is like being in the ninth innings with the bases loaded—batter up! Let us welcome the opportunity to put before the public of New Zealand and our listeners today a very stark choice, which is illustrated by a prominent National billboard that talks about National “cuts”, because that is, ladies and gentlemen, the choice that is before all New Zealanders.

I will say three things today. The first is that Dr Brash’s tax-and-spend policies do not add up and cannot be trusted. Secondly, they imply a return to the failed policies of the 1990s. I contrast that with Labour’s programme, which continues to work for a just and a prosperous New Zealand.

Let me begin by contemplating the desperate tactics on the other side of the House that we are seeing rolled out. It is like National members have rung every local chairman of the National Party in every regional organisation and said: “This is it, guys. It’s now or never. If we don’t crawl back into power now, we will lose a generation of MPs and never ever be the Government we want to be.” So today we saw the most bizarre spectacle in my political lifetime: apple growers criticising the Government for something the Opposition never had the guts to do when it was in power.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may never allege that someone lacks courage. That is a personal reflection that is out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. It was something the National Party never had the foresight to do when it was in power. We are taking our closest friend, Australia, to the World Trade Organization. It does not come tougher than that, and we are doing it because it is the right thing to do. But if the Waipukurau branch of the National Party wants to make an issue of it for the public, I say “Bring it on!”. National is clearly also calling in its chips with the Employers and Manufacturers Association. Thank God it is run by a failed Social Credit candidate called Alasdair Thompson, who is well known for his ham-fisted, club-footed approach that has got National’s transport billboard campaign slammed by such Labour friends as the Auckland chamber of commerce. I say to Alasdair that he can take his billboards and put them right up his deficit.

I turn to tax policy. The National Party does not have one. That is why no one can object to it. The National Party has rolled out about $7 billion worth of fatuous spending promises with no way to pay for them. Yes, it is a lot of fun dancing with a shadow, is it not? But my concern is for the people of New Zealand who might just, out of some sort of vain hope, want to believe those promises, and some of them might even be tempted to vote for them. As we saw with the double deficits in Ronald Regan’s America, which Clinton had to fix up, and as we are seeing now with George Bush’s voodoo economics, the chickens always come home to roost.

Under this Government, we have brought gross debt to GDP down to 20 percent, and next year net debt will be in credit for the first time, as I have said before, since Sir Julius Vogel borrowed to fund the railways. We have reduced unemployment to a record low—the lowest in the Western World. We have got growth up to about double the average that the National Party ever managed when it was in office, and we have family-friendly policies that United Future would not have dreamt of. We are rebuilding families by putting money in the pockets of people who had to choose between food on the table and taking their kids to the doctor. We are eliminating child poverty in New Zealand by 30 percent with last year’s Budget alone.

I ask members to contrast that with the 1990s—have New Zealanders forgotten what it was like? Have they forgotten the way the rich got richer—the top 10 percent only—the poor got poorer, and the forgotten middle class missed out? Have they forgotten the Employment Contracts Act that made the workers poorer and managed to drop Labour productivity at the same time? That is an achievement so amazing that it deserves to go down in history. National has already talked about resuming privatisation. This week it is talking about flicking Land Corporation Ltd and privatising accident compensation. What will it be next week? Will it be hospitals? How will it fund those tax cuts that it is promising but is refusing to detail? I ask members to contrast that with Labour. Under this Government, expenditure to GDP has fallen, debt to GDP has fallen, and we have a small surplus but a cash deficit. This is a good, prudent Government; it deserves another term.

Not long after the Greens came into Parliament in 1999, National, New Zealand First, and ACT MPs tried to discredit the Greens’ strong human rights policy by portraying me as a supporter of the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, and of his genocidal crimes. I assured the House that those accusations were wrong, but recently, with an election looming, both Winston Peters and Richard Prebble have been repeating those defamatory statements. I wish now to address the issue in more detail.

Thirty years ago, in 1975, the brutal, corrupt regimes in Saigon and Phnom Penh, which were backed by the American Government, were overthrown by insurgent forces. Most New Zealanders who marched against the Indo-China war—which included many MPs who are currently in the House; myself and Helen Clark, for example—welcomed the collapse of those regimes because it heralded the end of a very bloody war. The hope of anti-war New Zealanders, including myself, was that the new Governments in Saigon and Phnom Penh would be better than the regimes that they had replaced. We thought it would be hard for them to be worse. No distinction was made between the new Viet Namese and Cambodian Governments, and many thought that the Khmer Rouge was an adjunct to the Viet Namese communist forces. Some time later, the world found out that there was a difference, and that the Khmer Rouge was acting in a genocidal way, and we started to hear the name Pol Pot.

I was a young socialist activist at the time Pol Pot’s horrors were exposed to the world. I along with other socialists, like British journalist John Pilger, did what we could to stop the Western nations from giving him any support. However, we found that many Governments were determined to back Pol Pot. Those included the New Zealand National Government, whose MPs included the very Winston Peters who has been so quick to call me a Pol Pot supporter. That National Government was determined not to back the Viet Namese - supported Heng Samrin Government that had taken over Phnom Penh in January 1979. There was a cold war on, and the National Government, including Mr Peters, treated the genocidal Pol Pot Government as preferable to a Phnom Penh Government aligned with Viet Nam.

It is interesting that in the House on 11 December 1979 the then Labour MP Richard Prebble urged National’s Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Thomson, to “no longer recognise the Pol Pot regime”. But the National Government, no doubt supported by the younger National MP Winston Peters, kept on voting for Pol Pot to represent the Cambodian people at the United Nations and elsewhere. Unfortunately, when Labour came to power in 1984, Mr Prebble and his colleagues changed their tune and voted for Pol Pot themselves in the UN. This continued right through the 1980s. When I became NewLabour’s foreign affairs spokesperson, I debated with Labour’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Russell Marshall on National Radio on this very topic, and I pleaded with him not to support Pol Pot. He insisted that his Government would continue to do so. I have found no record that Richard Prebble ever disagreed with the Cabinet that he was in. I will table some documents on this history for the enlightenment of the House.

The basic problem we faced then, as we do today, is New Zealand Governments going soft on repressive regimes. Sometimes this has been because they see some short-term diplomatic or trade benefit, as when National and Labour Governments supported Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor or, in more recent times, when they played down human rights violations in ASEAN countries, like Malaysia and Singapore. Everyone knows that the Green Party has a consistent record of promoting international human rights, which it showed most recently during Pakistan President Musharraf’s visit and during Chinese leader Wu Bangguo’s visit.

The Greens also promote human rights clauses in trade treaties. Sadly, we have failed to achieve an effective clause in the recent one negotiated with Thailand. We also know that among some in the House there is still a subordination to the American administration. We do not hear National, ACT, or New Zealand First criticising the violation of human rights by the Bush administration in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo Bay. A National Government would subordinate its foreign policy to America’s in the same way that the Holyoake National Government did in taking New Zealand into the Indo-China war, and in the same way that the Muldoon National Government, including Winston Peters, did in backing the ruthless Pol Pot.

I seek leave to table a page in Hansard dated 14 December 1979, where in answer to a written question David Thomson, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, talks about “New Zealand’s continued recognition of the Pol Pot regime”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [Interruption] Points of order will be heard in silence.

I seek leave to table another document, a record of questions for oral answer dated 11 December 1979, where Richard Prebble, a Labour MP, asked the Government to “no longer recognise the Pol Pot regime”. That Government was the National Government that Winston Peters was in.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I seek leave to table a copy of the Dominion dated 21 November 1975 where the journalist, Richard Long, talked about the “public distaste for the continued recognition of Pol Pot” by the National Government, which included Winston Peters.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

💬 Ron Mark: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members of Standing Order 84/3, that points of order must be put tersely and only on the point of order raised, but also that points of order must be heard in silence. That point is also made in Speaker’s ruling 19/6.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I probably have a couple of points of order. In my recollection, Mr Peters was not an MP until 1978, but if that creates some problems for Mr Locke, he might want to clarify it later on—[Interruption] I am part-way through a point of order, so sit down!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Secondly, I seek leave to table the military wartime records of Keith Locke, Rod Donald, and members of the entire Green caucus, to show how staunchly they fought for the free world, to rid it of tyrants, despots, and dictators who consistently breached human rights and civil liberties.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The first issue is a debatable point. On the second issue of seeking leave, is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

💬 Keith Locke: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already warned members about silence during points of order. There will be a few yellow cards going out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mark said that the documents I seek to table did not apply to Winston Peters. All my documents were dated 1979, and Mr Peters was in the National Government, supporting Pol Pot, during that year.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, but that is not a point of order.

First of all, I note the contribution of the Rt Hon Winston Peters who noticed what the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, did not notice: huge progress is being made on the Waikato Expressway, because of strong lobbying from members of Parliament like myself, Dianne Yates, and Nanaia Mahuta, and from local authorities in that area, and because we have an integrated Government - New Zealand transport strategy.

The other compliment I want to hand out, with a very, very warm and strong bouquet, is to the Hon Matt Robson. I fully commend his speech to the House and, as a member of this Parliament, I want to encourage members of the public to make submissions with reference to his bill that proposes restrictions on the television advertising of alcohol and also proposes again raising the drinking age. That will be a time for members of the public and of community organisations to be heard in front of a parliamentary committee—not just the self-interested groups that hang around the lobbies of this building and make their living in this town. I say that as an individual member of Parliament. Obviously, I will respect the views of those groups as well, but this is a time for the community and the public to have their say.

Like the member, I have noticed public opinion on this matter. I also find it very curious that members of Parliament who claim to uphold family values—Dr Brash, Mr Dunne, and Mr Hide—are voting against this bill. I would say that one of the big issues affecting families in this country at the moment is the whole issue of alcohol abuse amongst our young people. I am not suggesting for one moment that the bill is perfect, but it is a good starting point for us at Parliament to re-evaluate that issue. I also want to compliment my colleague Dianne Yates on her so-far unsuccessful work to get advertising labels warning of health effects on to liquor bottles. Interestingly, the home of the free market, the United States, has those labels.

I want to talk today about Don Brash’s prescription for this country. I notice that in 1981 or thereabouts, he stood in the East Coast Bays by-election. He stood against one Garry Knapp, the Social Credit candidate. It seems to me that Dr Brash possibly absorbed some Social Credit theories and some Social Credit beliefs, perhaps unwittingly, because we have heard the formula. We keep hearing about tax cuts on the one hand, and on the other hand we keep hearing about a significant increase in Government spending. The two do not appear to go together. There are only two ways that can be funded. National can increase borrowing, so that the indebtedness of this nation is increased significantly, or it can do what Social Credit, I think, believed in and that is go down to the Reserve Bank, of which Don Brash was governor for a number of years, and print the money—write out more credit; social credit.

One of the other means, however, that National will attempt is to fund some of those so-called tax cuts—temporary tax cuts, as they will be—by the sale of assets. Again, in the words of Dr Brash, “minor changes at the margin will not do the trick”. Already, National has announced that it will hock off Landcorp, an entity that serves the Waikato region and a city that has a very proud record in terms of agricultural and horticultural research. I think that to hock off Landcorp would be a tragedy. I want to acknowledge the really good work that those farms, owned by the people of New Zealand, are doing in terms of research and best practice.

Next to go on the block will be Solid Energy. It will be sold to the lowest bidder, who will probably be overseas. Then on the block we will see the Accident Compensation Corporation being dismembered and dismantled. It will be sold to the lowest bidder—probably one of National’s local mates. Then, of course, National will put up on the next auction block other entities that it will start to get ready for sale—not immediately, but first will be Kiwibank. Kiwibank will be made ready for sale.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.