General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One knows one is on the way out if one is ever given the transport portfolio by the National Party leadership, because it has become a geriatric holding pen for either the clapped out or the soon to be chucked out members opposite. Poor old hapless Maurice Williamson. His political career was once a stellar one—he was Parliament’s techno whiz-kid, he was a political insider, and he was a mover and a shaker full of vim and vigour. He has been reduced to a token seat on the front bench of the Opposition with responsibility for transport, which he has to share with the junior MP for Hamilton East, whose enthusiasm for the portfolio makes Maurice look like he is actually waiting for God. He has been told that in a National Government transport will have no priority; it will have piles of platitudes and heaps of hypocrisy, and Bill English, as the Minister of Finance, would not give him any money anyway. So what a future to look forward to! It is no wonder poor old Maurice Williamson has lost his mojo. He has thrown in the towel. He is defeated. He is demoralised. He is downcast. Someone said to me today that his tarseal is cracked and he now has a hole in his pot.

Well, I have to say that this is a problem for the wannabe National Government-in-waiting, because Maurice Williamson does not have that problem on his own. With 16 months to an election, I think it is time that we had a look at the alternative Cabinet. It is time to put the blowtorch on the wannabe Ministers sitting opposite. If the media does not want to scrutinise them yet, then I think everybody else in this House should.

Today I want to give members the first instalment of what will be many instalments in the months ahead. Let us start with the Deputy Prime Minister in waiting, Bill English. Well, Mr English is a very angry man because he has spent the best years of his political career fighting with his colleagues to stay at the top of the greasy pole. He reminds me of a crocodile—just watching, just waiting, ready to pounce. It is only a matter of time. His prey dangles just there in front of him; a little, slight stumble and he will devour the affable Mr Key. Mr English has some scores to settle. In fact, a leadership role in Government would divide the National Party; it would not unite it.

Then let us turn to Tony Ryall. Unfortunately, this is a man riddled with bitterness. He went from being an affable, friendly Minister when he was in Government to a festering member on the Opposition benches. Now he is full of hatred and he wants revenge. I am reliably informed that half National’s caucus dislike his political tactics and the other half are scared of his acid tongue and his snitchy behaviour. I have to say that his stewardship of health would be a disaster, and the sector is already ridiculing his lack of health knowledge and bad manners. Dr Paul Hutchison is the real deal. But he would not even become an Associate Minister in a National Government, if it ever got to power.

Then we have Nick Smith. He is increasingly operating at the margins. He follows funny causes. He makes wild claims. He frenetically scurries around New Zealand. He would be a real risk in Government.

Then we have Gerry Brownlee. Gerry Brownlee, I have to tell this House, is very able. He worked hard as the deputy leader of the Opposition, and I believe he was badly treated. He was a good deputy leader in a deeply divided caucus, and changing his position has only deepened and shifted the division within the National Party. Gerry Brownlee has an enduring dislike for Bill English. He can see no light at the end of the tunnel for his career. All he can see coming is the one great big train heading straight for him.

Then we have Murray McCully, the Tony Soprano of the National Party. He arranges the political assassinations, but he has never successfully carried a portfolio load in Government.

That speech was one of the saddest things one will ever see in Parliament, because it was made by a senior Minister—someone who has given 12 years of ministerial service to successive Labour Governments—who is fighting to get off the managed exit list. That Minister, Annette King, was hauled in by the Prime Minister and given the bad news yesterday. Along with numerous others, she was told that she was on her way. Did any members here notice that her comments were that Bill English was the Deputy Prime Minister in waiting, that John Key was the Prime Minister in waiting, and that National is the Government-in-waiting? We thank her for that admission.

Who else is on the managed exit list?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Who else?

Well, it is a long one: Di Yates, Russell Fairbrother, Ann Hartley, Rick Barker, Dover Samuels, Jill Pettis—no, Jill Pettis is not on it. That is the surprise for the Cabinet reshuffle. We know about it; we have heard. The list continues: Mita Ririnui, Lesley Soper, Darien Fenton, Dave Hereora, Moana Mackey, and one Judith Tizard. I had to read the list because I have never met most of them. We now know that yesterday the Prime Minister hauled a few people in and gave them the bad news, then last night, at a swanky Wellington restaurant, they sat down to have what might be called the last supper for that group.

How does a Government that goes out with a cornerstone of its election promise—20 hours’ free early childhood education—and says: “Here is something for free.”, get itself into so much trouble trying to give something away? It is pretty simple; it is because it is not free. New Zealanders are sick and tired of the diet of garbage they are being fed by the current Government. If everybody were to take a good look at the situation, they would see no political parallel anywhere in the world. The Government says it is 20 hours’ free, and no one wants to believe it. That is why it is in trouble.

Then, of course, Government members are out there saying: “We can do better for you in a range of areas. We can tell you all sorts of things that you must do—you have to do—and when you should do them. You can’t eat pies at the school tuck shop, but, by the way, you can vote.” They talk about all that sort of stuff. It is total control. In the meantime, Government spending is wildly out of control. Wasteful spending is wildly out of control. And who pays? It is the mortgage-holders of this country, the people who are trying to get a roof over their head for their families, and the young people who are trying to get into homeownership. They pay because this Government does not trust New Zealanders to do more for themselves. This Government is hell-bent on control at any particular point.

When we see the Government in a tight spot, what does it do? It reverts to kind by going out and saying there will be more legislation that is about the Government poking itself into people’s lives. That is where the free early childhood education policy has got the Government into so much trouble. People who are making a choice are saying: “Yes, we’d like to have a subsidy. We’d like to have some assistance. We’d like to have some tax rebate. But we don’t want to be told: ‘That’s the place you go because they’re the ones that have the tick. That’s the place you go because Steve Maharey has decided that’s the early childhood education you should have for your child.’ It’s all about control.” That is why this Government is in trouble. That is why a sad Minister like Annette King has had to come down to the House today to make a speech that supposedly gets her off the managed exit list. It is why Mike Williams says there are 10 others to go very, very shortly. I acknowledge the contribution made by Annette King, and that is the reason why John Key is the Prime Minister in waiting and National is the Government-in-waiting.

Michael Fay and David Richwhite are bullies armed with money that rightfully belongs to the people of New Zealand. For more than a decade they have been able to buy the silence of those in power in New Zealand. That is why we now need a wide-ranging inquiry to set the matters right, once and for all. In 2003 the Securities Commission faced intimidation. The head of that commission may say that the threats were inconsequential and not a matter for the police, but I say that a threat of this nature is serious. We also had the campaign by the National Business Review to denigrate Jane Diplock and others on the Securities Commission. Has anyone bothered to ask why this was so? Whose errand was that paper on?

We even have John Key shamefully backing those two crooks. What is it with the National Party of New Zealand? We all heard the Jamie Mackay interview of John Key on Thursday last week. He was as apologetic as ever, like his former National Party mates before him. Why is John Key backing these two crooks? What does he know that we do not, or is it just that merchant banking has a form of solidarity? Does John Key really believe that we would receive $20 million from Fay and Richwhite if they had done nothing wrong? People have been waiting for John Key to make his first big mistake, and he has just made it. By siding with Fay and Richwhite over ordinary New Zealanders he has shown his true colours—once a banker, always a banker.

But there is much more to this case. Threats were made against those who stood up. Threats were made to their careers. Some of those involved will not come forward; they do not want to place themselves at further risk. This type of intimidation is not new. Some of it has been documented over the years and some of it has not. For example, at the time that I first revealed that I had the wine-box documents, phone calls were made to a broker, Stephen Lunn, threatening the life of his children, and much worse than that happened, as well.

The Weekend Herald last week catalogued their $438 million profit from having stolen $271 million from the New Zealand taxpayer and investors. But it is far worse than that. The real story of the wine box shows further very serious frauds on the investing public of New Zealand. The most recent episode is part of a long-running saga that has never been truly addressed. Before anyone trots out the disgraced report of the former Chief Justice, let us listen to a few facts. We sought funding to call Tony Molloy QC as an expert. Sir Ron said no, because, he told my counsel, the transactions were “grand larceny”. We went to the High Court, then to the Court of Appeal to win the right to review the drivel that Sir Ron had produced over 3 years of investigation. We won at the Court of Appeal. We then had a trial at the High Court. The wine-box report on the key Magnum transactions was quashed. Why? It was because the transactions are grand larceny. So why did Sir Ron change his mind? It is simple. Someone got to him.

National members stood in this House, and day after day, week after week, crowed about this. The full story is in the submissions filed by my lawyers in the wine box. One counsel assisting Sir Ron quit, calling him, to his face, corrupt. The Court of Appeal described the Magnum transactions as prima facie fraud. Sir Ron knew that. He told my barrister Brian Henry that it was grand larceny—his own words. He then ignored page after page of evidence. This is the indictment: they never thought we could work out what had gone on.

Capital Markets is a classic transaction. The wine-box transactions cooked the BNZ’s books by $40 million. Fay Richwhite used the BNZ’s falsified profit to justify and pay a dividend to its listed company, Capital Markets. Capital Markets was propped up by the fraudulent BNZ dividend. Capital Markets then sold a group of assets to Fay Richwhite, a private company—their company—using a profit to earnings ratio of 2.5. Then Fay and Richwhite sold part of the same assets back using a profit to earnings ratio of 7.5 on the same day, less the valuable assets, but, incredibly, they were worth over three times the value they had in the morning. It was a $100 million gain to Fay Richwhite. Tony Frankham, their puppet accountant, told us that this was all OK. It was not. It was simple theft, and I say that we need a full inquiry into these matters. There is no statute of limitations, and now is the time to act and to tell those who are protecting those crooks that the day has finally come when New Zealand will stand up to financial thuggery. That is why so many of us were so delighted with the Securities Commission finally being the first and only agency in this country to do its public duty.

Those who have aided the cover-up for the last decade must also be prosecuted, for they are as bad as those they protected. We need a full-scale, independent inquiry if this country is ever going to clear its name and have a financial market that we can respect.

I seek leave to table the relevant submissions on this matter in respect of the Capital Markets deal.

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

I seek leave to table the Weekend Herald article listing Fay and Richwhite’s financial dealings, written by Brian Gaynor.

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

I seek leave to table an interview with John Key on Gore radio last week, backing Fay and Richwhite.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

💬 Gerry Brownlee: It doesn’t exist.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is there an objection? No.

Mr Brownlee said it does not exist. I am holding a copy of it right here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): There is no objection. It can be tabled.

Just for the sake of the leader of New Zealand First’s historical record, I point out that on 29 June 1990 Sir Michael Fay was knighted by the then Labour Government. The question I ask is: why the hell, after all these years, would that member back a Labour Government? Why would he back a Labour Government, when it was the one that gave Michael Fay his knighthood?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You don’t know a darned thing about it. Sit down.

He tells me to sit down, but never mind that—it is called déjà vu. We have been there, we have done that, we have bought the T-shirt, and let us move on. Twenty million dollars—well, we got that from Michael Fay and David Richwhite, as well.

I will talk about interest rates for a moment—

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, how generous.

—while she parks the broom where it should be parked. Very shortly hard-working New Zealanders will be hit by their new mortgage payments, which will go through the roof. This Government is responsible for hurting those in “Strugglers’ Gully”—those on “Battle Street”. What has made interest rates rise as quickly and as high as they have done? Darren Hughes laughs. I was at a dinner the other night with his friend John Tamihere—yes, that one—who mentioned a little name, “tug-muscle”, regarding Darren Hughes, Clayton Cosgrove, and all sorts of people from the Labour Party. It is no wonder he is not in the House today, and he most probably will not be ever again.

Among the things that send interest rates skyrocketing is Government spending. The issue is not so much the actual spending; it is the quality of that spending. Let us look at some of the quality of the spending this Government has either earmarked in the Budget or made over the last 6 years. In Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, millions of dollars have gone into contracts. But what do we find from the Auditor-General? He looked into that spending and found no monitoring whatsoever of any of the contracts. There was no monitoring whatsoever of millions and millions of dollars of Government money—taxpayers’ money, actually.

The Auditor-General made 16 recommendations to the Ministry of Māori Development, and so far only eight of them have been put in place. The other eight Te Puni Kōkiri is working on. How can it continue to work on recommendations from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General? I will say this. It is a situation of poor management, poor decisions, poor spending choices, and poor leadership by the Minister of Māori Affairs, by the Prime Minister, and by those who continue to prop up a dying, stinking, rotting Government. They will go the way of that Government on the other side of the House.

I am talking about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, Te Puni Kōkiri, and the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa health programme. There we have $12 billion of Government money going into the Ministry of Health, and still it does not know what the outcomes are. In terms of the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme for diabetes, no one on the Government side of this House can tell us, when we ask, how many people in this country suffer from that debilitating disease. Government members cannot tell us how many people are on that list. So how can the Government pour good money after bad in trying to fix a problem, when it does not even know how many people are on that list?

I could go on all day, and I am sure the House wants me to. Then there is “free for a fee” early childhood education. We got 20 hours free all right, but the poor mums and dads in “Strugglers’ Gully” were told it is free for a fee. It is the biggest hoax that has been perpetrated on parents, on mums and dads, since 1935 when Labour was first elected.

I say that there is a way out for the Government, and that is to feel the fear. Government members have to feel the fear, and they have to embrace that fear, because what they will do then is to wave ta-ta to the Treasury benches.

What an absolute insult that speech was, not just to this House and not just to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who spoke immediately prior to him, but, more than anyone else, to Georgina te Heuheu. What has Georgina te Heuheu ever done to deserve being treated as that member’s deputy? How insulting it is to a longstanding, highly respected member of this House to be a deputy to that member!

Tau Henare made an accusation against the Rt Hon Winston Peters of his moving from party to party and supporting different parties. I have just about run out of fingers on this hand to count how many parties that member has been a member of. The first one was the Alliance, as a member of the Mana Motuhake o Aotearoa party.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Liar.

Then he came into Parliament as a member of New Zealand First—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What a liar.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows he cannot use that term. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise.

Then he came into Parliament as the very loyal and doting deputy of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Talk about a jilted lover’s resentment! It just oozes from him every time he takes the call.

Then he left that party. I cannot remember which party he was supporting at the time, because it is very hard to keep track. Then he started his own party, Mauri Pacific, so he could be a leader. Then he came back as a National member of Parliament. I know that the front-bench members, particularly the Hon Maurice Williamson, took great pleasure in the addition to their caucus of the Hon Tau Henare.

Following his political career is like picking up mercury with chopsticks. It is just extraordinary. But his was a better contribution than the very sad, although dignified, contribution of Gerry Brownlee. He is attracting more and more sympathy from this side of the House as his demotion is becoming less and less deserved. Every day in the House, as we see the contribution that Gerry Brownlee makes, we realise how unfair that demotion was. But he does put on a very brave front.

This Sunday is 1 July, and not only will we see the start of a new month but we will see another package of roll-outs of the Labour-led Government’s policies. Of course, one of the biggest and most significant is mark II of KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver will give future generations financial security, it will promote a savings habit, and it will help New Zealanders better save for their retirement. Those are three very critical, very important areas. I pay tribute to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for his work and his huge contribution, not just to the present but to the future of our society. It will mean that we have a larger pool of domestic capital with which to promote New Zealand investment in our own country. It will reduce demand. It will take pressure off interest rates accordingly, and it will help our companies to attract and retain the skilled workers we need. That is a huge contribution to New Zealand and New Zealanders, and the National Party opposes it. National has said it does not support the extension to KiwiSaver—

💬 Hon Paul Swain: What’s their policy?

Well, it is very hard to tell what National’s policy is. It shifts about as often as Tau Henare’s party political membership. It depends on whether we are talking to the numbers man, the programmes man, or the spokesperson on whatever the policy issue is.

It is exactly the same in early childhood education. What does the National Party have against free early childhood education? Quite a lot. Its members have opposed it from its very instigation. They have tried to drive its price up, particularly for the private providers, by undermining it. They know if they are ever elected to lead the Government of New Zealand, that policy will go. So not one single family would benefit from free early childhood education under National, because it does not support the policy.

Free early childhood education is the biggest contribution to education since the first Labour Government introduced free secondary education, and I am very proud of it. We can do a huge amount for the future opportunities of young New Zealanders by helping them to get access to quality early childhood education.

On Sunday we also see the final stage of the roll-out of the primary health care affordability strategy. I commend Pete Hodgson and his predecessor, Annette King, for that work. We know that the most important thing for people’s health is to ensure they can get access to a primary health specialist as early as they need it. This strategy helps to deliver that policy.

That Minister, Ruth Dyson, stands up and she has a genuinely perplexed look on her face as she wonders why the public of New Zealand do not believe in Labour’s 20 hours free policy. It is quite simple. You are out of touch; you are utterly and completely out of touch with the public of New Zealand. They are turning around and they are telling you that now. You are out of touch—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. I let it go the first three or four times, but the member knows that she cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.

I am sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker; I did not mean to do that. This Minister will simply hear those voices saying this Labour Government is out of touch.

This Minister herself stood up yesterday in the House and questioned how I could question that there was a blowout of 288 extra staff in the Department of Labour in the last financial year, that 118 temps were used in the department, and that over $8 million was spent on consultants. This Labour Government has forgotten that that is taxpayers’ money. This Labour Government has forgotten that every time it overspends, every time it does not look at every dollar it wastes within its departments and on itself, it is costing New Zealanders. This is costing New Zealanders. This is costing taxpayers as their mortgage rates increase, and it is costing them as they struggle day to day to actually pay those interest rates.

I am pleased that that Minister and Steve Maharey stood up today. They kept talking about National and its policy on 20 hours’ free education, and if I can be so bold I would like to paraphrase the Minister. The Minister is constantly telling my colleague Katherine Rich that when it comes to how many children are actually going to receive 20 hours’ free education, and when it comes to how many centres will have it, perhaps she should “just relax”. So when it comes to National’s policy, I say to the Minister: “I know that you are looking forward to it. I know that you are anxious. I know that you are worried.” In fact, I know that the Minister is optimistic for us. I know that the Minister is quite excited about what National might be doing in early childhood education. But, believe it or not, National will bring its policy out on its own agenda and not on the Labour Party’s.

The National Party will take the time to talk to and listen to New Zealanders; not doing so is a fatal, fatal mistake that the Labour Government has made. As this Government moves, it is out of touch and does not recognise the daily struggles of New Zealanders as they face interest rates that are just increasing and increasing, which means that week by week they have less money in their pockets. This Labour Government continues to spend recklessly, and has made no acknowledgement of that actual week-by-week spending that is costing New Zealanders so much. The mistake that this Government makes daily is that it is treating people as if they are stupid. It is treating people as if they do not know what is best for their families and for themselves in their own lives, and this Government will be punished for that.

In the House today we touched briefly on beneficiaries and those who receive a Work and Income subsidy. That is perhaps an example of how out of touch this Government really is. Those very people, whom this Government keeps on trying to tell us it is looking after the most, are the very ones who, yet again, are going to miss out under this Government’s policy. If they opt in to 20 hours’—supposedly—free education they will be worse off; it will cost them more on a weekly basis, because they will get no assistance when it comes to optional charges. They will get no assistance when it comes to those optional charges that are going to cost them extra, and that they are currently not having to pay. So their Work and Income subsidy will not pay for their childcare costs. Parents have written to me, and in one case someone has said it will cost an extra $30 a week for this “20 hours’ free”. Another is saying it will cost $15 a week, thanks to this 20 hours’, supposedly, free education.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. In 1972, Stanley Cohen created a term to describe the media coverage of the mods and rockers in Britain of the 1960s. That concept—moral panic—is most frequently seen in the way in which crime statistics are manipulated and misconstrued in a peculiar blend of media hype and political opportunism. In Aotearoa in the last few months, the gang culture has been targeted in the latest moral panic. Rather than creating space for a discussion about how we care for our alienated and our ostracised, the nation has been embroiled in a fierce debate over how dangerously deviant and socially threatening they are, and, indeed, the intolerable presence of gangs in our community has been condemned.

This is not a new debate. Indeed, nearly three decades ago Jane Kelsey and Warren Young described 1979 as the “year of the gangs” in their analysis The Gangs: Moral Panic as Social Control. It was a year that galvanised a string of subsequent strategies and reports: the 1979 report of the parliamentary committee on violent offending; the report of the 1981 inquiry into gangs, known as the Comber report; and the 1987 commission chaired by Justice Sir Clinton Roper. And here we go again, except there is a difference. Out of the Comber report grew the Group Employment Liaison Scheme. That was a scheme that the now Minister of Māori Affairs is still remembered for in terms of the influence and commitment that he had in pioneering a community development approach, whereas now the consistent response to the challenge of the gangs is focused on the sharp end of social control, the promulgation of a public relations campaign promoting authoritarian regimes, and an approach of retribution and vengeance—ban the patch, banish gangsters from the central business district, and kick them out of town.

Yesterday the Māori Party was honoured to host and welcome Professor Angela Davis, who is renowned for her scholarship as presidential chairperson for the African-American and feminist studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. One of her leading statements is that we have to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society. Indeed, if we are truly seeking a revolution of the heart, a movement for change, and the liberation of communities, we must respond to the call that is coming from gangs themselves to find their own solutions. What the moral panic creates is a perception reinforced by the media, the police, the judiciary, politicians, and Government departments that gangs are completely out of control. It becomes the key distraction from—say—rocketing interest rates, bureaucratic bumbling, or insider trading. Instead, the energies of the community become focused on singling out gangs for censure. All that such tactics do is to incite more resentment and rage from those who already feel positioned on the outskirts of society. Any suggestions that gangs themselves may come up with are rejected, and are tarred with the brush that comes from the tactics of suppression—suppressing their own initiative, creating new walls, and refusing to talk about it.

We have to be open to the ideas of others outside our own environment. The advice from Professor Davis to talk about liberating minds as well as liberating society would be reflected in our being prepared to listen to the ideas of gangs about how they can change intergenerational habits. What are the ideas they are thinking about when they consider the future for their children, and what is their purpose for change? The key lies in getting people engaged. Parekura Horomia knew that, when he worked with the guys in the Group Employment Liaison Scheme. Rob Muldoon knew that, when he looked for accommodation for gang members or encouraged gangs to contract through work trusts. With the advice of key leaders such as Dame Whina Cooper and Sir Graham Latimer, he gave particular priority to working with Māori gang leaders, and supported initiatives to give them alternatives in order to turn their lives around.

Those are but a few of the politicians and the political strategies that have been adopted in the past to overcome the moral panic of those times, and we can do it again. We can liberate minds and we can liberate communities; all it takes is the political will to make a difference in the lives of those people. Kia ora.

We have heard from prior Labour speakers who have listed some of the important initiatives that will be rolled out as of 1 July this year, and I will recount those briefly before I move to what I see as the big threat to those highly valued programmes. But before I list those, I think we should reflect on the other important things this Government has already delivered, including very substantial tax cuts to families with children—very, very substantial tax cuts for those families. In addition, we have seen the restoration of the rate of superannuation for superannuitants, which was cut by the previous Government. That has now been further increased, pursuant to the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First, for a married couple to 66 percent of the average full-time wage. In the last year that was an increase to superannuitants of approximately $20 a week for those in that situation.

On 1 July we are seeing the roll-out of KiwiSaver and the very significant tax credits that will flow through to employees in addition to their own contributions, in order to encourage New Zealanders to save so as to provide additional funds for the New Zealand business community to grow our economy and, as well as that, to ensure a better level of income in retirement for those who do save. The early childhood sector’s 20 free hours of education for 3 and 4-year-olds is being rolled out, and of course there is the completion of the roll-out of primary health organisation subsidies, making doctors’ visits cheaper now for New Zealanders—all New Zealanders. The latest cohort to be added is that of 25 to 44-year-olds, so now all New Zealanders will have cheaper doctors’ visits and prescription fees.

Of course, there will also be extensions to paid parental leave, and also important extensions to the thresholds that will be free from asset-testing for people who are in long-term care. All of these things have been achieved by a Government that has reduced gross Government debt to 20 percent of GDP—a very prudent figure.

But I would like to focus on the reality that that would change if there were to be a change of Government. Then there is no doubt that National could fund its main policy only, which is substantial—and, I would say, unaffordable—tax cuts. How would National fund it? A National Government would be no different from any other Government. It cannot turn water into wine; it cannot turn one loaf and one fish into loaves and fishes for multitudes. Somehow it would have to get the money to fund tax cuts. Of course, there are only three ways in which that could essentially be funded, and I think that a combination of all three would be required. Firstly, National would have to substantially cut services. You cannot cut services in a minor way to achieve the level of tax cuts that the National Party proposes; you have to cut core votes. We in New Zealand have only three very large votes—that is, the money voted by this Parliament to spend on health, education, and superannuation. I think you have to look beyond the rhetoric and look at history to find—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, because I was actually listening pretty closely to what he was saying. But for the point of consistency you may want to note, Madam Assistant Speaker, that the Minister has used the word “you” three times in the last 30 seconds. You did not intervene on him but were quick to do so on Paula Bennett. I just ask that we get the same ruling across the House, thanks.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): OK. The member is correct, and I will just remind the Minister.

I take the point.

The only votes that would give rise to substantial savings, through significant cuts, would be education, health, or superannuation, but National would go further. National would have to go further, and it would have to either raise debt or flog off State-owned enterprises. I think that National would do a combination of both. It would raise debt above its sustainable level of 20 percent of GDP, and it would, effectively, borrow to fund tax cuts. Further, I think we would find that National would flog off some of the State-owned enterprises—probably the electricity companies. Maybe that would not be a hundred percent of those electricity companies, but it would flog off part of them—

💬 Hon Paul Swain: And the next generation pays.

Hon DAVID PARKER:—and the next generation would pay. National would be selling New Zealand’s silver in order to fund tax cuts today. Of course, it would be doing that in an environment where that would push up interest rates. We know that New Zealanders know that that would not be a wise way to go. I think that by the time we get to the election, this will be a central issue for the campaign. How will National fund the substantial, unaffordable tax cuts it proposes? Here, I think, we should look past rhetoric and look at conduct. Why do I say that? Well, in the last week we have seen what Dr Nick Smith has been saying in his local paper, the Nelson Mail. He is on record as stating in that paper, in a letter to the editor published on 13 June—I will read it out because it is very short—“Sir, Last Saturday your correspondent, Boris Leegwater, claimed ‘Nick Smith stated that we should pull out of Kyoto.’ This is grossly untrue. I have never stated this.” Of course, we in this Parliament know that Dr Smith has said just that repeatedly—not once but hundreds of times in this Parliament, and to the media. It is interesting, of course, that he made those very comments to the Nelson Mail. That paper had a headline at one stage stating: “Smith: National would opt out of Kyoto”. Now, here he is in the paper saying the opposite. He is not to be believed.

As I look across the House I see—and it is there for all to see—the remnants of failed socialism. There are a dozen members with bull’s-eyes on their foreheads, waiting for their leader to come and say goodbye. And that group represents itself as a Government worthy of governing this country.

💬 Jill Pettis: Listen, sunshine, that socialism kept you in jobs for years.

I invite the former member for Whanganui to perhaps listen and screech a little less, because one of the foreheads that has a bull’s-eye on it is clearly hers. You know, when those members are over there amongst themselves they talk in highfalutin terms about being democratic socialists. Do they not realise that in many quarters the term “democratic socialist” is actually a euphemism for Stalinist? I myself prefer to call it stupidity. Let me tell the House about the impact of the stupidity of that Government, of the behaviour of Labour members and of their ideology, on the lives of ordinary New Zealand families. The impact of the policies of that Government has brought home to New Zealanders the reality of the relationship that exists between low-level, poor-quality, excessive Government expenditure and rising interest rates.

New Zealand family after New Zealand family is paying a double price because of the behaviour of that Government. Firstly, families are paying far higher taxes than they need to pay and, secondly, their after-tax income is being ripped apart by high mortgage interest rates, which are the direct result of low-quality, low-level, excessive Government spending. I say to the families of New Zealand, like my own family, who have mortgages and who are experiencing rising interest rates, that the next time that letter comes from the bank they should not bad-mouth the bank. They should look at how much their interest rate has gone up, and say to themselves that that has happened because of the behaviour of those socialist politicians in Wellington who think that all they have to do is to tax and spend without responsibility and everything will be all right in the world. That is why people’s interest rates are going up.

Is it right—can it ever be right—that an increasing number of New Zealanders are being excluded from homeownership as a result of the wasteful expenditure of a Government? Is that right? It is there for everybody to see. The Reserve Bank and Treasury are both warning the Government of the consequences of increasing low-quality spending. But those Government members over there would rather see ordinary New Zealanders be punished, while they spend needlessly and endlessly instead of applying a little bit of common sense. Over 8 years, hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered in what the Prime Minister calls “improving the capability of the public sector”. The only impact of that wasteful expenditure has been to enable the State to frustrate and strangle the individual initiative and sense of self-responsibility of decent, hard-working New Zealanders.

💬 Darren Hughes: All those wasteful nurses.

I suggest that the junior Government whip—after the next election, when he has been defeated by Nathan Guy—sits back and reflects on some of the stupid things he has been saying in this House.

I want to talk about the Government’s policy roll-out on 1 July, but I just want to make a comment in relation to two of the previous speakers. Firstly I respond to Mr Tau Henare, and just place on record his comments surrounding the situation of monitoring in Te Puni Kōkiri and the reports and recommendations from the Audit Office. The Māori Affairs Committee was concerned about the level of monitoring in Te Puni Kōkiri, and we have decided to foster a better relationship with the agency and therefore invite Te Puni Kōkiri officials on a regular basis back to the committee for that purpose. So it is about the committee getting involved and also making sure that we are nurturing the process through in order to live up to the recommendations that the Audit Office has indicated.

Secondly, I just want to talk about the comments from Paula Bennett in relation to the 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and her comments about the Government being out of touch. I have a copy of the latest New Zealand Educational Institute magazine, and I want to quote a few comments made in this magazine. “ ‘We’re really excited about it!’ says Kay Harland, supervisor of the Otatara Children’s Centre in Taradale, summing up the overwhelmingly positive response NZEI Rourou has found to the introduction of the 20 hours free early childhood education on July 1.” So I cannot work out how Paula Bennett thinks we are out of touch, because that magazine represents over 40,000 members and they are endorsing the policy.

Furthermore, the article states: “It surprised me when we worked out how much the average family would save!”. Families are able to save under this policy, and I am really not quite sure why those members are not supporting it. Finally, the article states: “Families who could only afford to pay for one day for their child before will be able to afford three days now.” Well, is that not better? Pray tell me, who is out of touch here? Is it us or yous? I am of the opinion that it is probably yous.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just want to remind the member that this afternoon we have been pulling everyone up for bringing the Speaker into the conversation, so just watch the—

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I just want to add to that previous comment a comment about Māori participation rates in early childhood education. The most recent statistics show that the number of children reported to have participated in early childhood education, on entry to school, was 90 percent for Māori, up from 84.8 percent. That is great. Finally, we have a good participation rate for Māori, so the policy must be working. How out of touch can that be? I want to move on—

💬 Anne Tolley: It hasn’t started yet.

Well that is right; it has not. It is going to, and it is going to work.

I want to move on to 1 July, when workers from all income brackets will be better off with KiwiSaver, as opposed to National’s proposed tax cuts. Low-income earners stand to gain the most once the scheme comes into full effect—members should listen to this—with minimum wage earners capable of being five times better off under KiwiSaver than they would have been with a tax cut. We know that that area, particularly, is represented by mostly Māori and Pacific Islanders.

💬 Anne Tolley: How do they get it?

How do they get it? They get it through tax credits that match individuals’ contributions into KiwiSaver, up to a maximum of $20 per week. That will be paid into members’ accounts after the end of July each year from July 2008. So there is a lot of enthusiasm out there, particularly from workers, to finally have the opportunity to get in and share in what a lot of people in this country have been able to share in—getting into a long-term savings scheme. It can only be good for us and it can only be good for the country. I reiterate that KiwiSaver will give future generations security by promoting savings habits, helping Kiwis to save for their retirement, and developing a larger pool of domestic capital to promote New Zealand’s investment in New Zealand. It will reduce demand, taking pressure off interest rates, and it will help New Zealand companies to retain skilled workers.

The other area of change that happens on 1 July relates to paid parental leave. Paid parental leave is a policy that I understand the National Party opposed and continues to oppose. So I am wondering what is behind that. Why is the National Party opposing it? It is good for families.

We have just heard from one of Labour’s bright young things. It is great to see Dave Hereora, who is actually—to be fair—one of the nice people in Labour. Dave is a nice enough bloke. He has never offended anyone, because he has never done anything. One of the great things about Dave is that he is one of the bright young stars of Labour. We do in fact support paid parental leave, as long as it is fair, and that is why we did not like it the first time. It excluded self-employed women, and we did not think that was fair. It was not fair, and now Labour has seen the error of its ways.

It has been great today to hear from some of the people in Labour in particular. There is not much that I agree with Helen Clark on, except, maybe, that it really is time for rejuvenation in Labour’s ranks. We heard from my colleague Gerry Brownlee today about the last supper that was held last night for the Labour people who have been told that, frankly, there is not a lot of point in having them around. Let us look at some of those people. Marian Hobbs—what was Marian Hobbs’ crime? Well, Marian Hobbs just could not stand the thought of years and years of Opposition. She just could not stand it. So, as she is a smart woman, she decided to go off and do a bit of retraining, and leave the country. But she is still here, by the way, being paid by the taxpayer. [Interruption] Yes, I say to Mrs Tolley, she is still here.

Dianne Yates—what is wrong with her? What has she done wrong? Well, she lost to David Bennett—and why would she not lose? David Bennett is a bright young man. He is coming through, he did well, and he took Hamilton East.

Jill Pettis—her crime is that she lost Whanganui, and to Chester Borrows, who has been absolutely fantastic with his section 59 of the Crimes Act work and his police work. Of course, she just lost to a better person. Poor Mrs Pettis used to be the senior Government whip. She is the only senior Government whip never to have become a Cabinet Minister—the only person. For goodness’ sake, Labour promoted Benson-Pope, so its standards are not very high.

💬 Anne Tolley: And Rick Barker!

And Rick Barker, as Mrs Tolley says.

Russell Fairbrother—what has he done wrong? Well, he has now been sent to Timor-Leste. I think it is because he is checking out what the accommodation will be like in the ambassador’s residence. It is very important that he do that, because we are being told that another smart young thing—Stuart Nash, apparently his name is—is coming down from Auckland to take Napier away from Russell Fairbrother. But, of course, Russell Fairbrother was yet again beaten by, guess what, a better man—Chris Tremain.

What has Dover Samuels done? Well, we know what Dover Samuels has done, so we will not go there! Frankly, it is not good enough for good company. What about George Hawkins? He has done nothing wrong, actually, apart from being the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs over the agent orange issue, and denying the existence of the map that showed exactly that there had been agent orange sprayed on our troops. But, at the end of the day, George is a survivor, and my pick is he is going to stay in Manurewa, because he is a pretty smart old boy when it comes to things like boundary changes, and I reckon he has got it sussed. No matter what Helen Clark thinks, George is going to stay. I do not mind that, because currently he is one of my constituents, and I always like to look after my constituents.

Paul Swain—well he has got a life, and one has to congratulate him on that. I say “Good on you, Paul.” He is leaving. What about Rick Barker? Well, what can we say about Rick Barker? This is a man who stood up in the House and said he had faith in Veterans Affairs New Zealand. He is absolutely confident it is doing well. The trouble is, he forgot about the little report that the Defence Force did into Veterans Affairs New Zealand—in fact, in March this year. Apparently, Rick is waiting to be given a copy. All he has to do is to ring my office. I will send him a copy, because, frankly, one fell into my lap, and I have made sure that people know about it. What we know about Rick being in charge is that he does not know how many veterans there are, and he does not know who gets a veterans card. He does not know anything. He is the most useless Minister, even in a useless Labour Government.

What about Mark Burton? We have heard a lot from Mark today, calling out from the sidelines. What has he done? Well, he has almost lost Taupo. We know he is being undermined day in, day out on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I tell him that right now he is being undermined by his own people, and, unfortunately, there is someone who has him in their sights. I tell him right now, his days are numbered in justice.

As to Mita Ririnui, people ask: “Who is that?”, and I too say: “Who is that?”. Apparently, his days are numbered. But what about Steve Chadwick? That poor woman; she had Health Committee meetings going day in, day out just to suck up to the Prime Minister, but she has been thrown back to the backbenches where she belongs.

I have sat and listened to that speech from Judith Collins. I have not heard one word about National Party policy. Not one word! She has just denigrated our hard-working and conscientious caucus. There was not one word about National Party policy. Where do we find anything about National Party policy? The only place we see anything is in The Hollow Men. I have never seen any policy anywhere else.

But I am not going to waste my time by denigrating that rather sad party. I am going to talk about what is good about being in this Labour-led Government. I am going to talk about the roll-out of policies on 1 July, which complement all the other policies that we have been proud to introduce. I shall start with KiwiSaver. That will come into effect on 1 July, and will be fabulous for hard-working Kiwis. They will get $1,000 in their accounts to kickstart KiwiSaver, a $20-a-week tax credit, and employer contributions phased in over 4 years. That means all Kiwis will have the opportunity to have superannuation savings that will complement their Government superannuation, which is guaranteed under this Labour Government.

Then we have the 20 hours’ free early childhood education per week. I cannot understand why members on the other side bleat, whine, grizzle, and criticise, because we are putting a bucket of money into early childhood education for our children. In primary health care we have the final roll-out of cheaper fees, for 25 to 44-year-olds. Now, every age group of New Zealand is covered. I say to those bright young things on the other side that this roll-out will not affect people in the National Party, because most of them are in the 45 to 65-year group. That is the average age of most of its members.

Also we now have changes to paid parental leave. The National Party opposed that policy. That subsidy goes up to $390 a week, from 1 July, for every mother or father who wants to stay at home with a new baby for the first 14 weeks. Also, funding for asset testing goes up again, and superannuitants can keep $170,000 before they lose anything. The previous National Government brought in asset testing, but the National Party voted against this increase. Our rates rebate gets rolled out again this year, and many of our superannuitants will benefit.

All of these things are good; they are all good for hard-working Kiwis. But members on the other side know nothing about those people. They are very out of touch. What did National do for hard-working Kiwis? National cut benefits; it introduced the Employment Contracts Act, which cut working conditions; and it cut superannuation rates. Now those members bang on about how they care about Kiwis in this country. They are trying to make their perception a reality, and it is just simply not cutting it. They should tell us just one National policy: one that National would put up that would help Kiwis in this country. Save your famous tax cut policy, because all that will achieve is to push up inflation and cut public spending. But, of course, you would be able to give tax cuts, because you would cut, presumably—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): We are going to be consistent this afternoon. We are stopping the use of the word “you” and the Speaker being brought into the debate.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I apologise for that. National, and I should use that reference far more, probably would have more to spend on tax cuts. Why? Because it would probably cut everything brought in by this Government that National has voted against. It would cut things like paid parental leave; Working for Families; no-interest student loans; the Employment Relations Act, which brought in fairer labour laws; improved health and safety laws; the removal of asset testing; and guaranteed superannuation.

We read in The Hollow Men, which is where we read about National Party policy, that the main policy is to push out the age of eligibility for superannuation. That is the plan, but, as the spin merchants say: “Play it down. Don’t say too much about that. Play it down.” Those things are not being talked about in the public arena, but we know they are on the National Party’s agenda.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.