General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The other person in the running for the position of Prime Minister of this land is a person with a very, very unusual preparation for the bid. He wants the highest office in the land, but he has not yet, in his long life, won an election—not once. He has never won an election. About a quarter of a century ago, he managed to lose a blue ribbon seat whilst standing for National in Auckland.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Who to?

To Social Credit! Then, 3 years later, he did it again. He lost to the “funny money” party twice in 3 years, in a blue ribbon seat in Auckland. That is an unbelievable electoral record. He was appointed to the top of the National Party list—that is how he got into Parliament. The only election he has won since he has been in Parliament was one in which there were 29 votes, including his own—

💬 Darren Hughes: How many?

There were 29 votes, which were cast behind closed doors. He won by mistake, when the margin against him was considered too wide, and a number of his colleagues changed their votes without telling one another. That is the totality of his electoral history, and it ain’t going to get any better 53 days from now.

It is not just his electoral history that creates some sort of world record—it is also his political views, which are radical, indeed. This is the man who said of nuclear legislation that if it were up to him, it would be gone by lunchtime. This is the man who said that, frankly, he did not care who owns schools. This is the man who said about Iraq that he would have done what President Bush did. Those are startling and scary things to say. They are not mainstream viewpoints. Most New Zealanders want to keep their nuclear legislation. Most thought that this Government’s decision not to go to Iraq was the right one. Most New Zealanders want a State education system; they do care who owns schools. Those are unusual, swirly eyed views; they are radical things to say. They are off the wall, unsettling, and very strange. They are scary stuff.

We put those words on billboards on Friday, and over the weekend we put the billboards in prominent places. Do members know what Dr Brash said? He said that that was a personal attack, when all we did was use his words and put them on billboards. Did we misquote him? No. Did we quote him out of context? No. Might it be that Dr Brash somehow did not say those things? No. We simply took his words and put them on billboards, and he said that it was a personal attack. If members want to know what a personal attack looks like, they should go to the authorised biography of the man. There they will find the stories of the holey pyjamas. There they will find the stories about the corned beef and the peas. That is what a personal attack is. He scored an own goal in his authorised biography.

The guy is easily rattled because he has always been the boss. He is easily rattled because he has never had a job interview. He is easily rattled because he has always been in control. He has always had his views agreed to, and he is offended that these days his views are being challenged and even quoted.

This is not a personal attack. It is a series of quotes that Dr Brash made before his Aussie minders got to him and started to shut him down. That is why his language has changed over recent months. That is why he now has more positions on nuclear ships than he received votes when he became the leader of National. That is where Dr Brash the flip-flopper came from. On every topic imaginable Dr Brash has as many different propositions as one can imagine—one for every day of the week, one for every audience, one for every poll rating, and one for every mood.

In fact, today’s New Zealand Herald gave an interesting insight, because it quoted more National Party board minutes from last December. It said: “The issue of perceived flip-flops has to be dealt with professionally and efficiently…”. The National Party council could smell the trouble back then in December. It knew that it was in difficulties. The minutes go on: “The portrayal of National and its leader as being indecisive has to be reversed…”. Those are the minutes from the bowels of the National Party. It knew that it was in trouble. Of course, the important thing is that those flip-flops occurred because that guy was telling the truth then, and is now not.

It is no wonder that after that speech the Labour back benches are empty. The ninth-ranked Cabinet Minister came to the House and opened his speech by saying that the only person in the running to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand at this election is Don Brash. He is right—absolutely right. That is a concession. All those Labour back-benchers have scurried back to their offices and are on the phone to Michael Cullen to say that they think they should go on the list of those who will give a valedictory speech. That is what is going on at the moment.

They cannot be happy that the Prime Minister has gone out and said that this election will be about trust, integrity, and experience. Let us look at those three things. Voters trusted Labour with treaty issues, and Labour divided the public. They trusted Labour with education, and Labour ditched the system. They trusted Labour with health, and they got longer waiting lists. They trusted Labour with welfare, and they got a bigger bill. It is not a surprise, then, that voters are perplexed, scratching their heads, and asking why they should trust that woman.

Then voters start remembering “corngate”, “paintergate”, the Yelash allegations, the allegations against the Auckland surgeon, and the speeding incident in Canterbury—the 140-kilometre-an-hour dash across the Canterbury Plains, with the Prime Minister apparently having no memory of what happened. She is not being called into court. We wonder why that is, because we know that at the last minute, as the Prime Minister stepped into the Koru lounge, she told the policeman who was responsible for her safety that it had been a courageous trip.

💬 Hon Member: What was that?

She said it had been a courageous trip. The woman who sat in the back of the car, who had no idea how fast it was going, told the policeman that it had been a courageous trip. That was Helen Clark, the Prime Minister. There we have two examples of why Labour is in trouble—people cannot trust Labour members, and they have no integrity.

Then we come to experience. I want to say only one or two words to show how valuable experience is in the Labour Party. I say two words only: George Hawkins. That is what experience can do for us. I have another two words: Trevor Mallard. Members should have a look at the education system; it is completely botched. Here are another two words: Pete Hodgson. The taxpayer now has a $1 billion bill through sheer incompetence and the misleading of the country over climate change issues. That is what we have with that party. There can be no trust, Labour has no integrity, and has experience that we just do not want.

I move now to the issue of Māori Language Week. This is Māori Language Week. The National Party has made it very clear that it wants to support te reo Māori and promote tikanga, etc., but we will not tolerate some of the patronising programmes put in place by this Government. I want New Zealanders to know, and to be comforted by the fact, that today Inland Revenue Department offices throughout the country are doing some special things for Māori Language Week. On Monday all staff were given name badges with their names translated into Māori, however that might happen. All the Johns became Hone, and all the Stevens became Tīpene, etc. Then, today, the Inland Revenue Department stopped work for 2 hours—

💬 Rodney Hide: That’s good.

Mr Hide says that is good. I sort of agree with him on that. However, the Inland Revenue Department stopped work for 2 hours so that staff could all participate in and observe an acting out of Māori myths and legends. Then, on Friday, just to cap off the week and put a bit of a lid on the patronising way in which the department has dealt with this important subject, it will have a hāngi. But most of the Inland Revenue Department offices are in the concrete jungles of this country, and there is no way to put a hāngi in the ground. So it will bring in the big boilers, and will basically have a European-style hāngi.

That is the sort of thing this Government engages in all the time. A race relations Minister was going to deal with some of the nonsense around this stuff. There are a few more words that one can use there: no trust, no experience, and no integrity.

💬 Darren Hughes: Ka kite anō.

Goodbye Darren, hello Mr Guy.

After that tirade, I stand with a bit of trepidation to speak. Last Wednesday the Minister for Social Development and Employment dropped a bombshell on the horizon. His press release announced that a social report paints a positive picture of New Zealand life. We have had experience before of how much this Government values the truth. The Government has yet again chosen to paint its positive picture of a situation that otherwise provides some fairly sobering reading. Steve Maharey said that the report shows a largely positive picture: “New Zealanders are living longer, healthier lives. We are better educated, safer, and earn more than in the past.” That may be the picture they are trying to paint, but the truth is that the masterpiece is beginning to crack.

Why are there more people in prison than ever before? Why are people—mainly Māori and Pacific peoples—dying of a diabetes epidemic? It is because the Government refuses to invest the appropriate resources as recommended by PricewaterhouseCoopers. We heard the Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor claim to have improved resources for diabetes education and promotion, but the reality is that it is simply not enough. The Government continues to tinker around the edges as people continue to die and become disabled in horrendous numbers.

How does the positive picture of this nation account for the fact that we are experiencing greater numbers of people in poverty, in situations of deprivation and social stress, such as those caused by poor housing, overcrowding, and low incomes? Why will young Māori boys and girls born today still die at a greater rate than others? It is precisely because of that disparity that we are proposing shifting the age of entitlement for superannuation for Māori to be reduced from 65 to 60 years in order to fit with current Māori life expectancy.

How is it that the masterpiece this Government asks us to admire appears to have overlooked the ugly face of racism? One of the most concerning findings in the social report is that 78 percent of respondents thought Asian people were subject to a great deal of, or some, discrimination. Seventy-two percent of respondents thought that recent migrants were the target of such discrimination, and 70 percent thought that refugees were the target. Is it a coincidence that just 3 days after this finding appeared on the public radar, a rally was organised in defence of tolerance at the Aotea Square by the Council of Christians and Muslims?

The problem is that this social report is not about people of colour; it is about the fact that those who benefit most from the systems in place treat the rest of us as “the other”. The nation has had enough of pictures being painted that are dishonest and that hide the truth of the reality in front of us. It is a very well-known fact that the health of mature and civilised nations is measured by the health status of its most vulnerable groups—indigenous people, children, people living with disabilities, and other marginalised groups. This is the picture we must come to grips with before we go to the polls: a picture of poverty.

The Minister cannot put his hand over his heart and suggest that the report is a positive picture when the current level of poverty amongst children is at 21 percent. It is almost 50 percent higher than it was before the reforms of 1988, when the level was 14 percent. We should not forget that as at the 2001 census, 23 percent of all children under 18 identified as Māori, 11 percent as Pacific Islanders, and 7 percent as Asian. So the positive picture being painted by the Government does not include the reality of life for many children of colour. The Māori Party has particular concern about the fact that the proportion of children in sole parent families below the poverty threshold rose from 18 percent in 1988 to 66 percent in 2002. This group, more than any, know that recent Government decisions will disproportionately disadvantage it.

We have been concerned about the likely impact of the “Working Against Families” initiative on whānau that live well below the poverty line. About 300,000 children will miss out on the child tax credit. The Government’s package keeps the child tax credit in place only until 2006. Furthermore, the “Working Against Families” package removes the child-related component of between $17 and $21 in core benefits. This equates to 175,000 children being deprived of the child-related component of core benefits.

As we head out of this House and into the final phase of the 2005 election campaign, voters face some pretty stark choices. Will we see the return of a National-led Government, with all the dangers that that implies? Some of us certainly have memories of the early 1990s, which are not very far away. Or will we see a Green-Labour Government that can progress a whole range of workable and progressive solutions to environmental and social problems?

National talks a lot about tax cuts as its big promise, but I would like to warn people, particularly low to middle income earners, of the menace of rapid inflation and potentially huge job losses, especially in the State sector, that National’s cuts may well bring. The Green Party, on the other hand, is firmly committed to the sound and universal provision of health, education, superannuation, and welfare that is backed by a progressive tax system to pay for it. We do not want to see the kinds of job losses that we saw in the 1980s and 1990s. There is a big enough gap between rich and poor in this country already, as the previous speaker pointed out. Tax cuts that massively favour high-income people will only entrench this gap, and the desperation of those at the bottom will continue even further. At the same time, National’s blunt instrument of corporate tax cuts will principally benefit foreign corporations, not most Kiwi businesses.

When it comes to students and tertiary policy—another key issue in this election—again the Green Party would like to warn students, graduates, and their parents about the pocketful of meagre promises that National is offering. Tax rebates on student loans might sound good at first blush. In fact, National’s tertiary scheme is of considerable benefit to graduates in high-paid jobs here and overseas, but of no use to graduates at home who are bringing up children or who are out of the workforce for other reasons. Again, the well-off will do better; women, the unemployed, and Māori will miss out.

However, the Green Party applauds Labour’s tertiary education policy, which it released yesterday. It is great to see Labour acknowledging the desperate situation that faces such a high proportion of our population who are now living with a massive debt burden, and I commend Labour for scrapping interest on student loans. However, scrapping interest on its own will not prevent some graduates from facing a lifetime of debt. Students and graduates should note that the Green position on this goes a lot further than Labour’s. We are committed to a year’s debt write-off for each year that a graduate—in paid work, unpaid work, or bringing up children—stays in New Zealand. We also want to work towards a universal student allowance for all tertiary students, not just some of them. Fees need to be capped and lowered, too.

On another front, voters face some very clear choices, as well. A National - New Zealand First Government presents an acute and imminent threat to workers and unions in this country. National and New Zealand First threaten all the gains that have been made over the last 5½ years, and that raises the spectre of the demise of the Employment Relations Act, and the reintroduction of a type of Employment Contracts Act industrial relations environment.

National does not support 4 weeks’ holiday for all workers, and voted against hard-won improvements to health and safety in the workplace. It will again at least partially privatise accident compensation. Worst of all, National is keen not only to return to the conditions of the Employment Contracts Act days but, even worse, to introduce a 90-day rule that will basically mean employers can hire and fire at will in the first 3 months of a worker’s employment. Workers and unions need to be very aware that only a Green-Labour Government will continue to protect the gains made since 2000 to support ongoing improvements to wages and conditions, such as continuing to put up the minimum wage, extending paid parental leave and other family-friendly measures, and supporting the right of workers to organise and bargain collectively.

Another group of people who are also under desperate threat from a National - New Zealand First Government are the unemployed and beneficiaries. Both of those conservative parties have promised an immediate return to forced work for the dole for at least some unemployed people, as well as compulsory work-testing for domestic purposes benefit recipients whose children have started school. Work-for-the-dole schemes introduced in the 1990s manifestly failed in their goal of getting people into real jobs. Instead, unemployed people found themselves in second-class jobs, working for the dole plus $20 a week, despised by the regular workers and staff they worked alongside, and unable to dedicate themselves properly to seeking regular jobs. Full-time, full-wage jobs are the answer; not a return to the 1990s or the 1930s.

National will say anything to get elected. Nowhere is that more clear than in the area of trade negotiations. On the one hand, National is telling business audiences that New Zealand has a bipartisan trade policy. That is because the business community likes Labour’s trade policy. It is energetic and innovative, and in 6 years we have completed free-trade or closer economic partnership - type treaties with four other nations: Singapore, Chile, Brunei, and Thailand—the latter a particularly significant development for manufacturers and services exporters, as well as for our traditional primary product producers, because of high Thai tariff levels. And we have started several more such treaties with China, Malaysia, and the 10 ASEAN nations as a whole, and contributed to the successful launch of the Doha multilateral round.

In 9 years National started one free-trade agreement negotiation, and completed none—not one. But is National really bipartisan now, or does it just have a bifurcated tongue? National’s trade spokesperson, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD, as his friends call him, immediately scorned the China negotiation, which was the first between China and a developed country anywhere in the world, when this Government first announced it. He scorned it. He clearly subscribes to the black hat / white hat school of international relations: either nations are good—that is, they participate when invited to do so in the invasion of countries that are evil; or countries that are not good must be evil, so doing business with them should be avoided.

The Nats continued to withhold their support for a China - New Zealand free-trade agreement negotiation, until it became crystal-clear even to them that the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand business community is very enthusiastic in its support of this Labour Government initiative. Then, National got into line, or purported to do so. What is clear is that although National will say anything to try to get elected, it would never have launched a negotiation with China, and it could not be relied upon to conclude the negotiation if it were to become the Government. But of course we could rely on National to commit our troops, our young military service people, to war against the “black hats”, in order to get negotiating coin for a trade negotiation.

The reaction of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD, when the Prime Minister announced that New Zealand would not participate in the invasion of Iraq unless requested to do so by the United Nations, was to say: “Well, we can kiss an FTA with the United States goodbye, then.” That is what he said. National has confirmed that attitude by Dr Brash’s assurance to a visiting United States congressional delegation that if National becomes the Government the nuclear ships policy will be gone “by lunchtime” even. So much for bipartisan policy! I can tell the House that Labour will never commit young New Zealanders to war simply to gain negotiating coin for a trade Minister—never. We will never do that. We respect our young people; we do not go to war for that sort of reason. What is more, Dr Brash, of course, by that one thoughtless promise, ensured that the United States will not negotiate with New Zealand until the people of New Zealand have once again returned a Labour Government to the Treasury benches.

Well, that member summarises the problems of the Labour Government. He is in the process of turning a majority of 7,000 or 8,000 in his own seat into a loss on election night. And how has he managed to do that, I wonder? He has managed to do it because he has run out of energy, he has run out of ideas, and he gets tired and scratchy dealing with people who criticise the arrogance that he and his Government have. That is why he is going to lose the safe seat of Aoraki on election night, and Labour knows it. That member wishes he had retired, as quite a few members of the Labour Cabinet are wishing they had retired. The announcements of yesterday—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: I’ll send you this postcard—no interest on student loans.

I will talk about student loans. I went up to Victoria University at lunchtime today and talked to a large number of students about student loans. The Labour Government ought to be worried about what a good hearing I got. I put it to those students pretty straight. I told them that interest-free loans are cheese in the mousetrap. Of course they will have a go at the cheese, but they need to understand the trap. The trap is greater debt than they would otherwise have, and higher—

💬 Jill Pettis: Greater?

Well, it is greater debt. [Interruption] This is Labour. Labour does not understand that people do respond to basic incentives. If the loan is free, if there is no interest, more people will borrow, and the ones who can will borrow more. So the total sum of student loans will go through the roof. But I can tell members the question that really got the students exercised. I asked them whether they could tell me why the taxi-driver who took me up the hill—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: This is the Treasury man speaking.

Now, listen to this, because the students listened. I asked them whether they could tell me why Kevin, the taxi-driver who took me up the hill, should pay all the interest on their student loans. They could not tell me why he should pay all the interest on their student loans. Kevin the taxi-driver thinks there is a case for doing something to help students with their burden of debt. That is why we have done something—tax deductibility of the interest. But Trevor the taxi-driver—

💬 Jill Pettis: He’s called in! I’ve got the call here.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The quality of the interjections has been very low, but they have been consistent since I stood up. Interjections are meant to be rare and to the point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, you are absolutely right, and I was just about to intervene. There will be no repetition of that, please, from the senior whip.

Trevor the taxi-driver is already paying a fair bit.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Kevin!

Yes, Kevin. Well, there is one called Trevor, as well. He is already—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You just made a ruling, and the Government took no notice of it. So I ask that you now rule that the rest of my speech be heard in silence.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I do not need any assistance.

No, he just ruled. The member should stop questioning the Speaker.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: I am not questioning the Speaker. I am referring to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, I know what happened, and they were not interjections at all. There was laughter and mirth, and I cannot stop that. But the member has requested that his speech be heard in silence, and I think we can do that.

Nothing has changed. Labour will tax the middle-income New Zealander as much as it can get away with, so that it can recycle the money to pick off some sector groups. So Kevin the taxi-driver is paying a subsidy for the fees. He is paying all the student allowance that any student gets. Now Labour says to that voter—who is probably a Labour voter—that he now has to pay all the interest on the loan as well. Not only that—he has to pay a lot more to the highest-income graduates, because having interest-free student loans means that the medical students get the most. The people with the biggest loans and the biggest qualifications, with the highest incomes, get by far the largest benefit. So interest-free student loans are a transfer from the taxi-drivers, the construction workers, and the members of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union to the most qualified graduates in New Zealand.

Labour has lost all its moral claim to be redistributing to lower-income people. The civil service is angry with this policy because it was never asked about it, and it knows how stupid the policy is. Labour has decided to keep taxing as high and as hard as it can, and to recycle our money so that it goes to particular sector groups that it has tried to pick off. There will be another one. The next group will probably be general practitioners, for whom Labour will announce higher health subsidies. Well, we know what has happened to the $400 million it has already put in. Most of it has ended up in the pockets of general practitioners. They are not exactly the oppressed, the marginalised, and the poor, but that is where we are heading. Average, hard-working mainstream New Zealanders pay more and more tax so that Labour can recycle the money to its own sector groups.

What do we say about a Government that after 6 years has a Minister come into this House and refer to people who commit benefit fraud as “clients”? That Minister called them clients. They are not clients; they are criminals. Let us get back to what people who commit crimes against their fellow New Zealanders really are. They are not clients; they are criminals.

So what do we say about a Government that after 6 years has gone down that track? I say that it has lost the plot. The Government is hell-bent on grabbing as much of any higher income as possible in taxes, to the point where those on higher incomes will be an endangered species all of its own. What do we say about that?

The Government says that people on higher incomes are being greedy and do not need the money. But it is not for the Government to decide how much people are worth; that is for the market to decide. This Government has taken over $60 billion more in revenue than it needed to over the last 6 years, but it does not consider itself to be greedy—not at all. The Government will look at itself in the mirror and see itself as being fiscally responsible. But it has not been; it has been the greediest Government of all.

The strange thing about it is that this Government then turns round and says it does not have money for this or that. It certainly does not have enough money for law and order. It certainly does not have enough money to treat criminals as criminals but, rather, wants to refer to them as clients and look after them—in fact, it helps them along by passing legislation such as the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which applies the full force of the law in allowing people to cover up their criminal offending. People can lie with the State’s backing, and this Government has given that its blessing.

The Government is telling people that if they want to achieve, if they want to succeed, if they want to be on higher incomes, they have two choices: either they can grin and bear it and pay the contributions expected of them by this Government—contributions that are far in excess of what they should be paying—or they can leave the country. And 600 are leaving every week, because they can find better overseas.

That is sad, because those people are the engine for the future economy of New Zealand, but this Government does not value them. In fact, it sees them only as slaves to its socialist machinery, and tries to reclaim as much money from the slavery of their work as possible in order to fund its social engineering practices—its rearrangement of income based not on people’s contributions but on vote-gathering exercises.

Suddenly, the Government has found $300 million that it had not earmarked before. In fact, we heard in this House today that the Government did not have that money before. But, suddenly, when it found itself behind in the polls, it found the money for a $300 million shameless bribe to the students of this country, condemning them through an inducement to higher loans, the cost of which will be paid out and borne by hard-working taxpayers.

Income tax is considered by this Government to be equally a bribe. It is not; it is returning to people what they have created in the first place. How is that a bribe? It is a return of the money that this Government has thieved from them.

Let us look at some of the other legislation that this Government has or has not advanced. We did not see 92 percent of the population wanting anti-smoking legislation or civil unions. We did not see 92 percent wanting prostitution reform or even the bringing in of the Supreme Court. But, in a country that suffers from 4,600 assaults, 13,000 cases of child abuse, 95,000 burglaries, and 70,000 sexual assaults a year, 92 percent said that they wanted something done on law and order.

Yet this Government has turned van Gogh’s ear to them; it has been utterly and totally silent. It has done nothing. The much-vaunted 2002 sentencing legislation resulted in an average increase in incarceration time of only 6 months. So much for tougher sentencing—and most of that increase was at the high end, with people like Bell and so on.

So what this Government is actually doing is effectively thumbing its nose at the population and saying that, despite what people demand and want, the Government knows better and will do something else better. Come to think of it, when it comes to the reintegrative services the Government is so keen on pushing, why has the PILLARS evaluation still not come out?

The student debt problem about which voters—parents, students, and graduates—care so deeply is largely a result of Labour Party policy. It was Labour that came into office in 1999 saying to students: “We’ll give you free money, and we’ll tax you hard when you graduate.” And what happened? Well, students are not stupid—they are the brightest young people in New Zealand—so they borrowed more, and students who would not have borrowed, borrowed.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s not true.

It is true, and Jill Pettis can read it in the official report to this Government by the administrators of the student loan scheme. They said that the number of students borrowing went up by 10 percent and the average amount they borrowed was an extra 23 percent. They went on to say in that report that that was a consequence of the free money policy of the Labour Party, and now what has happened is that a few years down the track students are graduating with more debt than they would ever have had otherwise. [Interruption]

Jill Pettis can say that that is not true. She can deny the facts. She can also stand up in this House, I guess, and say that students are so stupid that they do not respond to incentives. But she will be totally at variance with what is happening in New Zealand if she does.

This just shows how desperate Labour is. Its first response, by Trevor Mallard, was to launch an attack on Don Brash, talking about Washington—completely made up. Then the National Party came along with an election bribe, saying to graduates that it would make their interest tax-deductible. That is what it said. What National should have done was to do what the ACT policy is—to get the tax down for graduates so they can pay off their loans, not make it cheaper to maintain loans.

What was Labour’s response? The very Government that earlier said there is no money for tax cuts—none whatsoever—and that any tax cut will mean more borrowing, within days came up with a $300 million bribe to graduates and told them they will not pay any interest. If one is starting out as a student, why would one not borrow the maximum amount of money for as long as possible, and why would a student voluntarily pay off any debt upon graduation? It is free money.

Let us think about what that bribe will cost. Yes, there will be $300 million in interest, according to the Government. But more students will be borrowing. They will be borrowing more, and when they graduate they will have no incentive to pay off their loans other than at the minimum rate. The estimate of the extra cost of that capital is $1.8 billion a year. There will be $300 million in lost interest, and an extra $1.8 billion going on to the sum of student debt. Bill English is quite right when he says that student debt will go through the roof. Rather than cutting down the debt, this Government is putting it up.

So what is the solution? This is what should be done. We should take the surplus this Government has and return it to New Zealanders. The Government should return the surplus to New Zealanders. If that were done, the top rate of tax would come down to 25c and that middle rate of 21c would come down to 15c. On average, $40 a week would be put into every working person’s pocket, and graduates could pay off their debt twice as fast.

Here is the good news. If the Government did that, it would not be just graduates who borrowed money who would benefit; it would be every New Zealander. Students would be left with an incentive not to load up on debt, graduates would have an incentive to pay off debt, and every New Zealander would benefit from a tax cut.

A real tax cut that brought down the top and middle rates of tax would mean more investment into New Zealand, more entrepreneurship, more business, more jobs, more wealth, and higher pay. We know that. Why? Because Treasury itself said that ACT’s tax policy would add 1 to 1.5 percent to growth in New Zealand.

I will not respond to that speech because it is not right to speak ill of the dead. But I would like to speak about the flip-flopping National Party leader, who is very rarely seen by members of the Government. This is the man who said on television the other day that he is a very good manager of people. That, he said, was one of his strengths as the Reserve Bank governor, and, of course, his comment brings to mind the names Katherine Rich, Lynda Scott, and Georgina te Heuheu. He is a great manager of people, that former Reserve Bank governor!

He said he was mainstream because he had been the Reserve Bank governor. Some members of Parliament can remember going up to the Reserve Bank. I am not aware of many mainstream New Zealanders who have their own chef and get everything brought to them on a silver tray in a wood-panelled room. But that must be mainstream, when one is Dr Brash. He says he will be the Prime Minister. He wants to be the Prime Minister. That jovial little fellow called Duncan Garner asked him a question: “There’s a war that’s broken out in Iraq. Can you tell us what you will do when you’re the Prime Minister?”. “No, I can’t. It’s not the issue today.”, said Dr Brash. “I’m here to talk about something different.” Does that not give us a great deal of confidence in the man who wants to be the Prime Minister! He is the man who says National has five different positions on that policy alone—on whether we go to Iraq! It is like the Karma Sutra—there are more positions on Iraq and on nuclear policy than there are in the Karma Sutra, when it comes to Dr Brash. He is unbelievable.

It is just extraordinary how many times he flips and flops. Do members remember that he was going to do away with the benefit for women who had more children? We do not hear much about that any more, but we have seen the departure of Katherine Rich and the introduction of that very warm human being, Judith Collins. Well managed, that one! That is someone who has a great personality. It is interesting that if we went out and asked the public who the front-bench members of the National Party are, Bill English would probably be the only one they could name. It is a pity he got booed and heckled at Victoria University when he talked about the taxi-driver who drove him up there, called Kevin or—who was it?

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Trevor.

Trevor or Kevin—he could not remember the name of the taxi-driver about whom he was so concerned that he wanted to give him a tax cut. Kevin, or Trevor, or whoever it was, might have family members who have a student loan and do not want to have to pay double what they would have to pay back if National were the Government, on the promise of a tax cut that nobody is allowed to see yet. We can see it in 4 weeks’ time. We are allowed only 4 weeks to look at the small print—because it is a con. National cannot give a tax cut and give students no interest on student loans. We cannot have more families saying: “You can go and study because we’re eligible for a student allowance.”

This Government says it is great policy. It is wonderful that National and ACT have studied it so intensely and have come up with their Treasury-speak that says: “People will go and borrow all this money because it’s there.” Oh, come on! They will use it to pay their fees so they can study and get a good job. Then they will pay the country back by staying here and working—the nurses, the doctors, the lawyers, the plumbers; all of those people who at the moment have to run away offshore to get their student loans paid. Is it not galling for the National Party and ACT that we have such a wonderful policy, which is there because we have run an economy that actually can afford to pay for it! Yes, taxpayers say we will spend more money on education and health if it is well spent. Well, it could not be better spent.

We also have a National Party leader who said he does not care who owns the schools. National does not care who owns the State houses because it will sell them too. National members want to sell our schools to pay for tax cuts. They are going to sell State houses, like they did last time, to pay for tax cuts. They will not build them up like this Government has done and will continue to do. That is how National funded tax cuts last time. National sold 13,000 State houses, threw people out on the street, and charged market rents to those who were left. That is how National will fund tax cuts. That is what we can expect if Dr Brash, the “mainstream New Zealander” with the chef, the silver tray, and the pyjamas his mother gave him—I must not get personal. Oh, no, we do not want to get personal. We must not have photos of the Prime Minister on the hoardings. Oh, no—that is personal.

It is not just the houses around New Zealand that are rotting; it is also the Government. We found out today that the agency that was set up by this Government to help those destitute families with rotting, unhealthy homes has been having expensive Pacific Island awareness days. Today the Department of Building and Housing has confirmed that it spent $6,679 so that 17 staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service would be more aware of issues facing Pacific Island peoples. Have members ever heard of such rot and such nonsense!

I just heard Mark Gosche say that this Government was all about spending public money wisely. Can any member of the Government tell me why the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service should fly nine staff from Wellington to Auckland, accommodate them at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, and then spend $392 a head on lunch, kava drinking, and hula dancing? Can members believe it? Three thousand families out there are in rotting homes, unhealthy from the mould, and staff of the agency set up to fix the problem are drinking kava and hula dancing!

Ladies and gentlemen, we only laugh because otherwise we would cry. I suspect that many thousands of owners of leaky homes are crying. In fact, people have committed suicide, and marriages have broken up. This is not a laughing issue, and this Government has provided no explanation and no apology as to why that department has, with public money, been having aeroplane theme parties, Wild West Cowboys and Indians theme parties, and Sound of Music theme parties, as well as having two Pacific Island awareness days. The Government says, in respect of the Sound of Music theme party: “Don’t worry, the Government didn’t pay their airfares to come down from Auckland for this party. They came down for a morning tea to farewell a staff member.” Well, that provides us with great comfort, does it not? That department is prepared to fly staff all over the country to party, while owners of leaky homes suffer.

💬 Janet Mackey: Not true.

Who said “Not true.”? Ms Mackey said it. Well, I have to tell her that a press release from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service confirms that all of this is true. Maybe Janet Mackey, the member for East Coast, will explain to owners of leaky homes in her electorate why kava drinking and hula dancing are occurring during work time amongst staff of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service.

This scandal goes to the heart of everything that is wrong about this Government. It is so politically correct that the public service thinks it is quite appropriate to spend $392 a head for a lunch at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. That is the culture of extravagance that this Government has had. No wonder it is opposed to tax cuts. It wants New Zealanders’ hard-earned taxpayers’ money so that public servants can have Cowboys and Indians theme parties and Sound of Music theme parties, and so that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service staff can drink kava and hula dance.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Aw!

New Zealanders, I tell Mr Cosgrove, have had enough. The Government is rotten. It will go.

That member and his party are developing a very, very strong reputation for two things. The first is for being weak. That is what that member is like, and that is what his party is like. The second strong reputation they are developing is for saying things that are not true inside the House, outside the House, at party political meetings, and at joint candidates meetings. At any opportunity they can, they say things that are not true.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice the member has accused us of saying things that are not true. I seek leave to table a statement from the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service that confirms that everything I said was absolutely true.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say that frivolous interjections—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is not frivolous. She has accused me of saying untruths.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member could have waited until the speech is finished. I am going to ask the Hon Ruth Dyson to start again.

💬 Shane Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have ruled—

💬 Shane Ardern: Members are not allowed, under the Standing Orders, to accuse somebody of lying in the Parliament, and that is what the member was accused of.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please be seated. If the member had listened to the debate, he would know that the member was not accused of that inside this House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to get clarification. The document from the Department of Building and Housing confirms everything I have said. Is it able to be tabled in the House? The member has suggested that somehow I was speaking an untruth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will put that question. The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

Let me give members an example of when that member demonstrated his weakness and his total inability to be consistent with the policy position. This is a man who wants to be a Minister in the next Government. I say to the member: “No way, Mr Smith, no way at all!”. On one of the key areas in the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill Nick Smith said: “When an SOE proposes a huge development the Government rewrite the rules to suit.” That was a direct attack on that bill and on this Government. But then, in the very next breath, when Transpower was the issue rather than the Waitaki he said: “The situation is so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so that lines can be installed.” Mr Smith cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that Transpower should have special legislation and that the Waitaki should not.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already warned the member about frivolous interjections raised as points of order.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The member cannot come to the House and just say things that are totally untrue. I challenge her to provide any evidence that I have ever said that special legislation should be passed for power lines. I have talked about direct referral to the Environment Court, but I ask the member to be truthful.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am asking the member on my left to look at Standing Orders 106(1) and (2) and Speaker’s ruling 35/3 regarding misrepresentation. If the member believes he has been misrepresented, then there is a proper course and time in which the misrepresentation can be clarified.

The member is clearly rattled, clearly rattled. At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table the National Party press release of 6 July 2004, from which I have just quoted, where Nick Smith, in direct contradiction to his previous attack on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill said: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so these lines can be installed.” That was a National Party press release of 6 July 2004. I will table that, and then Mr Smith will owe me yet another apology.

Nick Smith is not the only member of the National Party caucus who is excellent at changing his or her mind whenever it suits. Whenever the pressure gets a little too much they just topple over. Don Brash on Iraq has to be the best. Don Brash on Iraq is just fantastic. On 1 October 2003 Dr Brash said on Iraq: “I think I would have done what President Bush said.” When he was asked directly, just 2 weeks ago, whether he would send troops to Iraq, he said: “That’s not the issue today.” That was a very unusual answer. When the question was: “Will you send troops to Iraq?”, he said: “That’s not the issue today.” But then the reporter said: “Well, actually it is. Because that’s the question I’m asking you.” Dr Brash said: “Well, I’m sorry, that’s not correct.” The next day he said: “My personal inclination at that time was, in fact, to support involvement in Iraq, and I said so 2 years back.” Three days later he said: “Under almost no circumstances, I’m saying.” Under almost no circumstances! What is his position on Iraq? It is not a hypothetical question. It is not “not the issue of the day”. It is a very important issue in terms of policy, in terms of integrity, and in terms of credibility, and on those three points—policy, integrity, and credibility—Don Brash has got zilch.

He is exactly the same on National’s nuclear policy—something that has been at the heart of New Zealand’s pride for over 20 years. That member of Parliament, Don Brash, wants to take it away from us. In January 2004 he said: “If the National Party was in Government today we would get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime even.” That is a fantastic quote. In the middle of the year he said: “The likelihood is if we put a proposal to the Americans, which they find acceptable, and that, of course, would be after we became the Government, we’d seek a referendum for any change in the law.” That is a very interesting position—waiting to hear what the Americans say. Then he said: “I don’t know at this point what the solution will be that would be agreeable to New Zealanders, and acceptable to Canberra and Washington, and what I’m saying in my statement today is that we can’t resolve this question from Opposition.”

So that was another little slip-sliding-away flip-flop—and on something as basic as the nuclear-free policy, which was legislated for in this Parliament over 20 years ago. Don Brash cannot take a position because he is in Opposition! Well, that is a new one. That is a fantastic one. It will go down a treat at the election meetings up and down the country. I cannot wait. He then said, just a couple of weeks after that: “I can’t answer the question about what would trigger a decision for a referendum.” So now he cannot even work out what would make him have a referendum. The New Zealand Press Association said that Dr Brash said a referendum was still the most likely way of determining support for changing the nuclear-free status. But he also said that if his party campaigned on scrapping the ban and won the election, it would consider that a mandate for change, as well. So now he is slipping even further away. He is saying that there might not be a referendum, that National might just run that issue in the election campaign, and that it will then take that as the mandate. So the referendum has “gone by lunchtime”. That party cannot be trusted. It has no policy, no integrity, and no credibility.

This afternoon has been typical of what we are going to see, God forbid, for the next 7 or 8 weeks—however long it takes to get to the date when New Zealanders can exercise their rights. We will see the same old parties, National and Labour, attacking each other over their track records. And what track records they are! New Zealand First, on the other hand, will make it clear to voters not to forget the past. When voters make their choice, it will be in their own interests to look at the track records of those two parties.

We have listened to the speeches of National members going on about the treaty and about Māori issues—Gerry Brownlee delivered his speech and shot through—yet they have clearly forgotten that it was the National Party that gave Sir Douglas Graham his knighthood for all the work he did on settling treaty issues, and for incorporating into every piece of legislation the mythical “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. There is the reality.

New Zealand First has attacked those issues consistently for 5 years, but who put the issues in? National put them in. Law and order—we will get to that, but National is attacking Labour, up-hill and down-dale, as it should, over the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. But who brought that agreement to this House? National brought it to this House. National brought it into being.

Who is attacking everyone, all over the country, about civil unions? National is leading the charge, and United Future is also in there. But we should not worry about United Future. Everything that its members say on the election trail will be dismissed by one simple statement: the United Future party made it all possible by giving supply and confidence to this Government, and never ever once holding it to account by pulling the vote or even threatening to do so. United Future is dead in the water in this election on that sort of issue.

But who promoted civil unions? I remember National’s much-vaunted leader, Jenny Shipley, going to the Hero Parade in Auckland and telling the whole of New Zealand how it should be tolerant and inclusive. Then, on the other hand, she stood up and criticised and challenged this Government for enacting the legislation that National itself was quietly promoting at the time. We cannot have it both ways.

National is going to attack the Government on Agent Orange. I am a returned serviceman, and so is Bill Gudgeon of New Zealand First and many New Zealand First members. We know where the Agent Orange issue started, and where it was stopped dead. It was the Shipley inquiry, the Reeves report from a National Government, and the McLeod report from a National Government that gave us the appalling situation we are dealing with now.

And Labour? It asks us to trust it, to consider its integrity. We have not forgotten “paintergate”, I say to Ms Clark, nor has the rest of the country. When one autographs a painting and says one did it as the artist, gets caught out, and then stands by and says: “I didn’t know that my staff had bought the painting and burnt it.”, the rest of the country does not believe it.

She sat in the back of a car, on a cannonball run from Waimate to Christchurch, and then sat in this House and ignored the fact that the newspaper stated that five people were currently facing criminal charges. She did nothing to get them off the hook by saying: “It’s my fault. I’m the Prime Minister. I didn’t stop them.”

Instead, she sat in this House and said: “I had my head down, working, and I didn’t know what was going on or what speed we were doing.” We in New Zealand First know that that car was travelling so fast behind the lead car that it was repainted, because the stones that were flying up were striking the windscreen with such force it had to be replaced. But Ms Clark did not know anything about that. She was working in the back of the car, with her head down. Her knuckles were not gripping the holdalls on the vehicle as it rocketed down those gravel roads. She was not sitting there, as most New Zealanders would have been if they had had the privilege of sitting in the back seat of a car that was part of a Diplomatic Protection Squad convoy, with a trained driver, blasting its way through the countryside. Most New Zealanders would have gritted their teeth, held on, and thought: “Oh, Jesus, I hope these guys do it right.” But not her! She was engrossed in her work, signing documents. That is the sort of integrity that will be challenged on the hustings, believe you me.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

I seek leave to table the National Party press release that Nick Smith denied ever making, dated 6 July 2004, in which he states: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation so that these lines can be installed for Transpower.”

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am quite concerned that the member has been given leave to table a document. She says it is a press release from myself—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: The National Party.

No, she said it was from Nick Smith. She specifically said my name. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am listening to one point of order at the moment.

I want to make it very clear that I issued no press release on that day. I have checked with my office. Now the member has conveniently said that she does not have to table it for 24 hours. I think the House has been misled. We granted leave, in good faith, on the basis that what she said in the leave application was true and honest. So I seek clarification from the member as to whether what she said in her leave application was correct.

I will speak to Dr Smith’s point of order, and then I have a point of order to raise. I would like to quote directly from the document. I have 24 hours in which to table it, but I am happy to table it now. It is called “Consent Hassles Risk Delaying Transmission Wires—Press Release by New Zealand National Party at 3:51 PM, 06 Jul 2004” and states: “ ‘We cannot let resource consent delays block a long-term solution to the power supply problem at the top of the South Island’, says Nelson MP and National Environment spokesperson Nick Smith.” Three paragraphs down it states: “The situation is now so serious that Parliament should pass special legislation this year so these lines can be installed.”

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has asked for leave to table the document, and the leave has been granted by the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the earlier interchange, Ken Shirley accused me of lying. I take gross offence at that, and ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I heard that myself, and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. To say that a member is lying is absolutely out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said: “She’s not lying, is she?”. I was asking a question. From what we have heard—and hopefully it is true—she was not lying. But I interjected to say: “She’s not lying, is she?”. I did not make an accusation. I put the question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please be seated. To me, that still stretches the imagination. We have both been in this place a long time, and we know how the game is played. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

If the member took offence, then I certainly withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much. I have dealt with the issue.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Dr Smith’s dissertation, he alleged that my colleague Ruth Dyson had misled the House. He used those words. I think we will find them in Hansard. It has now been proved that she did not. He may be suffering from “Blumsky-itis” and cannot remember, but I think he should withdraw and apologise. He did say that Ms Dyson had misled the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please be seated. I am sorry, but the member has exacerbated the situation by making a personal reflection against Dr Smith. I think the score is one all, and there the matter ends.