General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. What is going on in the Labour Party? What is going on? The big, deadly, dastardly attack fizzled out like Steve Maharey facing a hard decision. What has happened to the Labour Party? I will tell members what is going on. The deadline for candidate nominations was put back by the Labour Party to early November. Half the front bench are trying to watch the polls to decide whether to stand again. That is why they are preoccupied. At the same time, a Cabinet reshuffle is going on. How can Helen Clark reshuffle the Labour Cabinet when half the front bench cannot decide whether to stand again?

I will make some recommendations about who should stand again. I think Pete Hodgson showed himself today to be ably qualified to be a leading member of the Labour Government. He is the man who said we should not waste a dollar of taxpayers’ money paying rent to private landlords and that it should all go on services. It is just that he forget to tell us that one of the most recent openings he went to was a breast-screening unit at Palmerston North Hospital that is owned by the private sector. The district health board pays rent to the landlord—whoever that is. The Minister opened the breast-screening unit. He should stay. We want Pete Hodgson to stay.

Then we have Steve Maharey. He is the man who said we will die in a ditch over private money in public services. If he stays, then he will get the choice of which ditch to die in and on which side of the road. He was trying to curry favour in a last desperate effort to get the left wing of the Labour Party to tell him he had a future. It was killed off today when we found out that there are a number of exceptions to Labour’s position. That is why we need Trevor Mallard to stay, because he is the guy who seems to know the policy. He said we can sell assets. That is the first thing. Steve Maharey will die in a ditch over it but Trevor says we can do it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Every cloud has a silver lining.

Every cloud has a silver lining. Here are the exceptions: we can sell it if it is a spin-off, a joint venture, or a farm. In fact, they are selling so many farms that Michael Cullen told us last week that we need a system to stop them selling sensitive farms. Labour has just brought that in and paid Landcorp $50 million to stop them doing it. Then Trevor said they can sell it if it is a building, but Steve Maharey said we will die in a ditch over school buildings. Pete Hodgson said if we rent a building it is bad and that we would never do that, but Mallard says we can.

Then he came up with another new beauty—non-core assets. Helen Clark is trying to decide which one of them is not a core asset. Well, Michael Cullen has become a core liability. Steve Maharey is certainly a current liability. Trevor Mallard we never know about; he is a contingent liability every single day, because one does not know what he is going to come up with.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: He’s a non-current asset.

No, the Minister of Justice is the non-current asset. He will find himself, on the select committee, sorting out the Electoral Finance Bill.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s below the line.

He is below the line. Then we have the non-trading assets. We can sell a building, a non-core asset, a non-trading asset, a spin-off, a joint venture, and a farm; and that is just what we heard today.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: But we can’t sell assets.

We cannot sell assets. So what happened about Labour’s vicious attack on National from 2 weeks ago? Where has it gone? I do not know; it has just disappeared. Then we have Dr Cullen, and he is just as consistent as Trevor Mallard. Dr Cullen has ruled out big tax cuts; he has ruled out small tax cuts; he has ruled out rate tax cuts; he has ruled out a change to thresholds, which might bring tax cuts; he has ruled out tax cuts when the economy is growng fast; he has ruled out tax cuts when the economy is slowing down; he has ruled out tax cuts when there is a big surplus, and he has ruled out tax cuts when there is a bigger surplus, but now he is promising tax cuts in election year.

One of the things we know about the National Party is that when the leader is away, we get the best performances from its members. That was Bill English peaking. That was “peak” Bill English at his best. That was the signal to Mr Key, who would have heard that speech—given the volume—all the way from London. It said: “Don’t come back, because over the last few weeks you haven’t been doing too well, but I’m doing quite well.” Bill English would also be saying to John Key: “I’m no deficit; I’m a surplus. I’m trying to make sure that I’m stamping myself here in New Zealand while you’re away.” Do members remember the last National leader who got off a plane, and was met and then told: “No, don’t come back now.”? I think that is what Bill English is saying to John Key today.

One of the things I want to do today is ask a little question about youth apprenticeships. I think that the issue of youth apprenticeships, and the way the National Party criticised this straight away, goes right to the heart of the difference between the two parties. The National Party has told us over the decades that the main reason that it is in politics is the market. National wants to be in politics to set the market free. It ran policies like that throughout the 1990s on training, with devastating results.

Let me tell the House a bit about National’s training policy in the 1990s. National slashed the funding to Career Services, then privatised it. One could not get any careers advice, for love or money. National downgraded the technology area in the curriculum. It did not want it to be taught any more. It told the teachers of this subject that they were not valuable any more. It told them to go away. It told them that it was “yesterday’s subject” and not to bother at all. National did not do anything about the transition from school to work. Kids actually transited from school to unemployment, under the National Government. That was the transition policy—go from school to the dole. National abolished the apprenticeship system. It made sure that industry training was also downgraded. In other words, it said the market policy should be followed, and the market would provide. Unfortunately, through the 1990s we discovered that the market did not fill the gap: training collapsed, and we are still living with that problem today.

Members should contrast that with Labour’s approach. We believe that the market is a good thing, but it needs to be worked alongside a good, strong public sector. So what have we done? We have restored the funding to the Careers Service, and it runs great services for kids, right across the country. We have made sure that the curriculum has a strong emphasis on technology. The new curriculum will make it a real emphasis for young New Zealanders. We put in place things like the Gateway programme in order to ensure that young people—9,000 of them today—can make the transition from school to work. We have 13,000 young New Zealanders training in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, and 176,000 people now in industry training. We are rebuilding industry training—that is, skills. These are real, genuine policies.

I thought that the National Party had learnt about the faults of the market, and that it had eschewed all that. It has been haranguing us to death over the last little while, saying that everything Labour wants to do, National wants to do, too. But the National Party cannot change its spots. Members should look across the Chamber at Dr Lockwood Smith. We see the “market” sitting on the front bench—like Mr Maurice Williamson, who is proudly pro the market. When National got pushed recently to say what its policies were, it said: “Sell State assets”—not just sell them but partially sell them, so that mums and dads could get access to 20 percent of all these assets. We know what happened in the 1990s. Mums and dads did not get access; big business immediately got access—that is, people who support the National Party.

National has said: “Leave doctors alone. Let them set their own fees. Let the market decide on where people get a doctor from.” National has said it would make sure the system was run by allowing the market, across the country, to set the cost of going to a doctor. National has said: “Let us have more private schools. Let us have more funding for private schools. Let the private sector build, own, and run the property in schools.” That is the thing that Labour will die in a ditch over. We will not allow the National Party to destroy our public education system—the sixth-best education system in the world. We will not allow National to replace that with a competitive market, based upon people getting money out of our schools and sending it off to Macquarie Bank in Australia. We do not like that idea. New Zealanders do not like that idea. That is the problem.

The National Party has not learnt the lesson that the market does not deliver. But National is back again with that view, and when we scratch the surface we see that that is what it would bring back to this country, if it were ever in Government. That is what New Zealanders need to know. They need to have a comparison next year between the parties in order to decide whether they will take the record of huge success of the last 8 years, and of a balanced approach to policy that has led to things like industry training coming right, or whether they will return to the horrors of the market-led policy of the National Party.

I wish to address the issues raised by the police arrest of 17 people on arms charges, and possibly further charges to be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I first say that the Green Party is totally against the use of violence in the pursuit of political aims; one of the four principles in our Green charter is non-violence. The Green Party cannot pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of those charged. The evidence has yet to be brought before the court and tested there. However, we are concerned about talk of using the Terrorism Suppression Act in those cases. We opposed that Act when it was brought in back in 2002, just as we oppose the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that is currently before the House. Any offence that those arrested could possibly have committed is already covered under the Crimes Act or other criminal legislation. The Crimes Act covers everything from planning violent acts to criminal conspiracy, and to being a member of a criminal group.

To use the Terrorism Suppression Act is to say that those who commit crimes from a political motivation are doing a worse thing than those who commit the same crimes for pecuniary advantage, such as in an armed robbery of a bank, or for other selfish reasons such as in the violence and intimidation conducted by gangs. Also, to single out those who use force to achieve political goals and to charge them under the terrorism laws, which carry heavier penalties than if those crimes had been non-political, tends to tarnish those who are trying to achieve similar political goals by peaceful means. For example, both violent individuals and a peaceful group might have the same aim of saving a rainforest or helping Māori to hold on to some land.

Having a special category of politically motivated crime can also help to create an atmosphere of belief that very peaceful political groups somehow spawn violent extremists. The peaceful groups then find themselves facing unnecessary hostility, and sometimes undue harassment and surveillance by State agencies. Rather than being reservoirs of violence, community groups are the seedbeds for peace. The fact that we are nuclear-free today and did not go into the Iraq war are to a large extent due to many years of hard work by peace groups and by many, many community organisations. We must always welcome the diversity of issues groups, non-governmental organisations, and community organisations, of all sizes and complexions, in New Zealand. They are the lifeblood of our democracy. Parliament is an important platform for political debate and we are the technicians of legislative change, but the driving force of progress in New Zealand is our active civil society.

Now and again individuals who have been active in peaceful community organisations go off the rails, but that is not new, and it is in no way a reflection on the peaceful nature of community groups. It happened in the 1960s, when the Bower brothers went to prison for blowing up an air force depot in Auckland to protest against the Viet Nam War. It happened again during the 1981 Springbok tour, when someone sabotaged the microwave link used for broadcasting the rugby tests. Individuals from any political organisation, right or left, can go off the rails, but they are less likely to contemplate violent solutions if the institutions of the State are known for their respect and tolerance of dissent and for their respect for the work of community groups.

Over the past few days concern has been expressed by Tūhoe elders and leaders of community groups in Wellington and Christchurch that the raids were conducted in a way that did not show sufficient respect. The police have a bit of explaining to do as to why they inconvenienced so many Tūhoe in order to arrest the well-known public figure Tame Iti at his Rūātoki home. And they could have shown a bit more patience in Wellington before smashing glass and breaking into—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want to caution the member that charges have already been laid, and he can no longer make any further comments in relation to the subject he is narrating.

I am talking about the raids, not the charges.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I am cautioning the member. He needs to be very careful—

Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): —given the Speaker’s ruling yesterday.

Yes. I am not going to refer to the charges. The police could have shown a bit more patience in Wellington before smashing glass and breaking into 128 Abel Smith Street, which the police knew was a well-used community house. They also knew that it was the residence of Sam Buchanan and his family, Sam being a longstanding and respected activist on peace and social justice issues.

It is a real privilege to speak in the general debate this afternoon. My colleague and friend Steve Maharey mentioned the market madness of the National Party in relation to investment in training, particularly of our young people, through support of apprentices. New Zealand has a very proud history of supporting apprentices, except in the 1990s, when the then National Government said to leave it to the market and it would sort itself out. We ended up with a huge deficit in skills—a deficit that has cost New Zealand dearly.

When we introduced the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, National opposed it. As we expand that now, National again in the House today demonstrated its commitment to just letting the market take over. It does not work. The market will not make investments in skills, in infrastructure, or in the future needs of our country. Investment requires Government support and understanding. That is the big difference between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government.

National had another rash of market madness during the most recent non-contact time, in the last adjournment from Parliament. I am not quite sure whether National’s communications and public relations team were all at the beach, overseas, or just out to lunch, but we had an extraordinary outbreak of National Party honesty. Bill English said: “We’ll have privatisation of our education system.” John Key, announcing National’s education policy, said “Yes, we’ll have private commitment in both the ownership and management of our schools, and we will increase the amount of money that goes to private schools, because it is getting a little unfair that people have to pay such a lot to go to private schools.”

I noticed throughout this entire contribution from both Bill English and John Key that the National Party education spokesperson was silent. Katherine Rich, who stood up to the previous leader and got the sack, remained silent. When she was finally dragged in to communicate with the media, when she finally fronted up on Morning Report and was asked directly what her view was on this market position of the National Party and whether she supported it, she said: “I support the leader.” She would not answer the question. That is another sign of Katherine Rich being the only voice of sanity in the National Party, and that she is clearly overwhelmed by National’s return to the market.

Then we had the icing on the cake when Tony Ryall launched National’s health policies. He said: “We don’t support Labour’s fees control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” Why would National do that? Why would it stop the unjustified escalation of general practitioners’ fees? Once again, it is because it thinks the market will sort it.

John Key raced in to the defence of his poor old hapless health spokesperson, who came under huge siege from mothers, senior citizens groups, and ordinary working New Zealanders saying: “Wait a minute—we can finally afford to go to the doctor. Don’t do it. Don’t return to the market madness of the 1990s.” John Key, leaping to Tony Ryall’s defence, said: “In the end it’s called a market, and if they”—meaning the general practitioners—“decide to charge a lot more, then probably some [people] will go down the road.”

Which planet does that man get his policy advice from? People in some parts of this country do not have a general practitioner down the road who they can go to.

💬 Hon Member: They might not have a road.

They might not even have a road. They certainly do not have the sort of theoretical competitive market that would deliver fair prices for general practitioners so that ordinary New Zealanders—particularly the most vulnerable, the youngest and the oldest—can afford to get to their doctor when they need to.

That is the commitment this Labour-led Government has made. That is the commitment we have given. We know that in the 1990s too many people did not go to their local doctor, because they could not afford it. They did not have the extra money in their pocket. Mind you, people have a lot more extra money in their pocket since Working for Families came in, since the increase in the minimum wage, and since we have restored the level of superannuation to the level it was at before National Government cuts, and more. But under a National-led Government we will be back to the market madness, and back to most people missing out.

About 5 years ago this Labour-led Government passed legislation called the Land Transport Management Act. At the time of passing it, not only Minister Paul Swain but a number of Government members crowed about what a fantastic, new innovation the Land Transport Management Act would bring to the funding of roads. Mr Swain said that the bill would finally allow the private sector to be able to fund the building of roads, through public-private partnerships.

I say to Labour members on the other side of the Chamber that National fully supports the idea of the private sector being involved in the funding of roading, and we are very happy the Government is thinking along those lines—even though the Land Transport Management Act was very restrictive and prescriptive.

A really interesting thing happened earlier this month. Steve Maharey did an interview with Colin Espiner in the Christchurch Press about how dreadful it was for private sector money to be involved in things that the State should be doing. He said he did not want private sector money being involved in schools or hospitals. Then Steve Maharey got hoisted by his own petard, because when he was asked about the building of roads he said that the Labour-led Government was opposed to private sector funding for building roads. That is what he said; I have his statement here.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He didn’t say “building them”.

Yes, that is exactly what he said. He said that the Government is opposed to private sector funding for building roads. So then I asked Annette King in the Chamber on 10 October a question about whether she stood by her colleague Mr Maharey’s statement that the Government would not countenance private sector funding, even when it came to the building of roads. Poor old Annette King had no option but to support her front-bench colleague. She said that the Government had ruled out private sector funding for the building of roads. She said it was public-private partnerships for this Government, whereby the public sector funds it and the private sector goes out and lays the tarseal and scoria, and so on.

I have news for the Labour Government. That is how every road has ever been built in the history of road building. Michael Joseph Savage built schools under that model of the public-private partnership. The chippies, plumbers, and electricians who went and built those schools were all private, but the Government funded them. We did not need a Land Transport Management Act. We already had what Labour members now say is the public-private partnership model.

It gets really serious. One project in this country is now in grave danger of falling over because of that foolish comment by Steve Maharey: the Penlink project to put in a major road and a bridge out to the Whangaparāoa Peninsula. I have spoken today to the Mayor-Elect of the Rodney district—Penny Webster, a former member of this House—and she said that the people of Rodney are absolutely hanging on the decision, because the Government has been working with them to prepare this whole package. About a quarter of the funding for the Penlink project will involve private sector funding.

If the Labour Government hangs on to what Annette King and Steve Maharey said, then Rodney district has to say goodbye to Penlink. Here is the consultation document. It states that around a quarter of the funding will come from ratepayers and development levies; a quarter will come from the private sector funder, which will be a concessionaire on the project; and around half will come from the Government through Land Transport New Zealand. That document is what the Government has been out consulting on with the people of Rodney, and that funding is what the people are expecting.

I can tell the House that Penny Webster was gobsmacked this morning when I said that Annette King in the Chamber last week ruled out something that Paul Swain did—it was the right thing to do and I congratulate her on that—which was to enable the private sector to fund the building of roads. But, no, the obfuscation goes like this: “Well, what we meant by public-private partnerships is that the Government funds it and the private sector does the building of it.” So what was the need for a Land Transport Management Act? Why was that legislation passed 5 years ago? And why was there all the crowing of Paul Swain and others in Labour that this was a new world, a new venture, and a new way to fund it?

What they have done—and I am happy to say this—is create really serious concern in Rodney right now that a $160 million project, which is absolutely vital to getting the Whangaparāoa link, is hanging in the balance, because it is expected that the private sector will be a part funder in a public-private partnership. But Steve Maharey could not help himself in his interview with Colin Espiner on 3 October. He could not help himself but say: “I want to make it clear that even when it comes to the building of roads, we are opposed to private funding.” He ruled that project right out.

What a delight it is to finally hear from Maurice Williamson, the invisible National spokesman on information and communications technology. How many press releases has that member issued in the last year? Not one! How many good ideas has that member contributed to the broadband debate in the last year? Not one! How many supporters does he have in the sector? It is the same answer.

But if Maurice Williamson’s problem is that he is invisible, John Key has the opposite problem. It was once said of our former colleague Michael Laws that in his last unsuccessful race for member of Parliament he made one mistake: he ran a long campaign and the public got to know him! The same is true of John Key; he is flouncing around like an ageing fiancé who has had one too many first dates. He is starting to look a tad jaded. Bill English knows that, which is why in the House today he could not help himself—he could not get the bush out of his tail, he could not keep the grin off his face. Poor old John!

John Key’s dilemma is an old one: to tell or not to tell. He tried not telling for so long. He was an expert at turning up at the Hero Parade in a pink T-shirt, and at turning up at Waitangi with a “rent a poor person” under his arm, saying nothing but being full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. The trouble was that the press was on to him. Here are a few samples. An article from 3 August stated: “His focus is blurry.”, and “He says there will be more policy later.” An article in the New Zealand Herald from 8 August stated: “Key needs to be braver on policies.”, and “None of [his] ideas are exactly new or inspiring …”. An article from 8 August stated: “… the inconsistent statements and shift in positions have been on the rise.”, and “… National and its leader were a long way off magnificent.”

So John Key changed tack. He started to let out what he really thought, and that was just marvellous—“Marvellous!”, as John Campbell would say. What did National do? It said it would send troops to Iraq, then it said it would not, then it said it never would have. Well, which version of John Key’s thinking is the public supposed to believe? National said it would sell State assets, then it said that it would not. Then it said that it would as long as Labour did not, or that it would if its members thought of it first. What version of National’s State-owned enterprises policy are we to believe?

National will make people pay for the healthcare they have already paid for; it will take the ceiling off general practitioner charges. That will keep a few of National’s rich mates in the health system happy, but it will prove to be a turning point of the 2008 campaign. It will keep National where it deserves to be for the good of New Zealand, which is on the Opposition benches for another 3 short years until it gets another try at fooling the public that it has changed.

But the public knows better; the public knows that the “Hollow Men” are still in charge. The public remembers that John Key was the right-wing candidate, that Bill English was the centrist candidate, and that the right wing won. The right wing of the National Party has so much money it can hire the very best spin doctors to pretend that it is not what it is. The trouble is that the public knows that it is what it is, so one statement about flogging the family silver or market-based healthcare brings it all rushing back like a hangover—the 1990s when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, and when ordinary Kiwi families missed out. It has taken us a decade to claw our way back to a society that we can be half proud of now.

The problem is not that we can never countenance a National Government but that New Zealand cannot afford a 10-year experiment of going backwards. We cannot afford another mistake like the 1990s. For the good of our economy, and for the good of our society and community, we must face the future—and that means facing the future with an inclusive, progressive, and social democratic Government led by Labour. That is what New Zealanders have voted for the last three times, and that is what they will vote for again. They will vote for building coalitions with other parties in the House, showing real leadership, and using the power of the State for good. They will vote for active, progressive Government, not market-based Government—we have had enough of that. It has been tried and it has failed. The press is on to National and I think that some of the most recent comments are very instructive.

Conroy Removals is a nationwide removal company with its head office in Napier. It shifts furniture. It is a great business, and I might say that it is one of a number of fantastic businesses based in Hawke’s Bay. Do members know that right now they could have a truckload of furniture moved from Napier to Christchurch for $4,000? For $5,500 they could have that same truckload of furniture shifted to the Gold Coast. Do members know where most of Conroy Removals’ business is going to, from around the country? Unfortunately, it ain’t to Christchurch, as much as I would like it to be. It is going direct to the Gold Coast—to Australia. Do members know whom this removal company is moving? It is moving young, hard-working Kiwi families, with young kids, with big aspirations, and with big dreams. In fact, just recently a family from my son’s rugby team picked up sticks and moved their kids to Melbourne.

For Conroy Removals it has become a bit like Groundhog Day. One Kiwi family after another has been packing their bags and moving across the ditch. This has been exacerbated by Dr Cullen’s personal version of Groundhog Day. It is called “Tax Surplus Groundhog Day”. Last week Dr Cullen announced another huge surplus—$8.7 billion. This came on top of the $11.47 billion surplus in 2006, the $6.24 billion surplus in 2005, and the whopping $7.42 billion surplus in 2004. Over the last 4 years this Government has had tax surpluses of $34 billion. That equates to $8,450 per man, woman, and child in this country, based on a population of 4 million. According to Dr Cullen, much of the $8.7 billion has already been spent, with contributions made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and to the purchase of new infrastructure. That aside, even under the current Government’s policies there is still a $2.7 billion cash surplus available to give back to hard-working Kiwis—$2.7 billion has been unnecessarily collected off New Zealand taxpayers, which is $675 per man, woman, and child.

Under this Government, taxpayers have had no tax relief. Taxpayers now pay an average of $2,400 more in tax per annum than they did in 2000, despite their being no better off in real terms. National believes that, at the very least, that $2.7 billion cash surplus belongs to the taxpayer. It was unbudgeted; it should be given back. Tax relief is long overdue in this country.

I also believe that New Zealand needs to debate the management of the State balance sheet, particularly in regard to the use of the cash surplus to pay for our ongoing infrastructural needs. National has made it clear that the funding of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will remain unchanged—it needs to keep coming out of that surplus; there are no questions about that. But as a country we need to have a big debate about how we finance alternative ways of building our infrastructure, such as through new roads, new schools, and new hospitals, because right now we are paying for them with cash.

I ask members across the other side of the House whether they paid cash when they bought their most recent homes. Well, when I bought my last home I was certainly unable to pay cash for it, that is for sure. Take the example of a new road, for instance. Right now we are paying cash for it, but the value of that road will be of value to the country for 30 or 40 years. Yet under this financial management we are paying cash for it upfront to pay for the value of that road for many, many years, when it will return value to the country for years. I think the country needs to have a debate about whether future taxpayers should contribute to funding that level of infrastructure.

There is no doubt that a combination of the free cash currently available in the surplus, a potential change in our approach to the way we finance the purchase of infrastructure, and a reining in of the year-on-year increases to Government spending above the consumer price index will give our nation the headroom to implement tax cuts without there being a reduction in social services. Did members hear that? Without a reduction in social services!

I would like to contrast the Groundhog Day Budget surplus—the “no tax relief” experience in New Zealand—with the Australian regime. The philosophy could not be any more different. Australia, too, has enjoyed Budget surpluses in recent years—surpluses of around 1.3 percent of GDP, as opposed to our own surpluses, which are in the vicinity of 7 percent of GDP. They have simply been whopping. Philosophically, Australians have a totally different attitude to that of hard-working Kiwis.

It is a pleasure to stand in this House and acknowledge that there is a celebration going on at the moment in the union movement—20 years of the Council of Trade Unions and 70 years of the Federation of Labour. My gosh, what a pleasure it was to go to that celebration and to meet with the talented, committed people who are proud to have advocated for workers in New Zealand. It was a pleasure to be invited and to see other parties represented there. But was the National Party there? No, it was not. And I ask why not, when the National Party has been advocating so strongly for unions such as the Post Primary Teachers Association around the Electoral Finance Bill? National members have said: “We’re acting for unions. This bill is not in their interests.” So why, when they had that strong advocacy, were they not invited to celebrate with the unions? It is because every single one of those workers and unions know that every single one of the National Party’s policies is designed to deal to workers and families in New Zealand.

The Justice and Electoral Committee meets tomorrow. I suggest that Chris Finlayson listens carefully to the hearing, because he picks up nothing from the select committee and has to get all his information through questions in this House. But the majority of that select committee, and my good friend Charles Chauvel, who is sitting beside me, are working hard to ensure that the Electoral Finance Bill ensures that all organisations can advocate, lobby, and have their say, but—and I mean but—avoid the rorts of the friends of the National Party, the big money friends like the Exclusive Brethren. This party and, indeed, most of the parties in this Parliament, do not want to see a political system where those with the biggest wallets have the biggest voices.

💬 Jill Pettis: And cults.

That is right. I also find it really offensive that the National Party is going on about human rights, when it is on record that every single member of that party voted against the New Zealand Bill of Rights legislation. They voted against it.

To go back to the union celebration, I say that despite the National Party’s attempts to destroy the union movement, this was a time to celebrate all the things that the movement has campaigned for right through the gloomy 1990s on behalf of working people and Kiwi families. Many positives have been achieved: paid parental leave, early childhood education, apprenticeships, interest-free loans for students, tax credits for Kiwi families—and the previous speaker, Chris Tremain, spoke of there being no tax relief—4 weeks’ leave, health and safety laws, public holiday payments, getting rid of that ghastly, ghastly Employment Contracts Act, KiwiSaver, and cheaper doctors’ fees.

We are really proud of our policy on cheaper doctors’ fees. What did we do? This Government put a bucket of money into primary health, into subsidising health visits to doctors, and it has worked; people are healthier. Why are they healthier, and why are our children healthier? It is because we see that if we put that money into subsidising doctors’ visits, then our children will be healthier, our families will be healthier, and our older citizens will be healthier, because they can afford to go to the doctor and have very cheap prescriptions. What—after hearing nothing about what the National Party would do?

David Cunliffe spoke about the honeymoon period of all care and no responsibility, with not a policy to be seen but just a bit of rhetoric about how much National likes people. But what did the Nats say? Whoops! They said they would remove the cap on doctors’ fees. What does that mean? It means they will let the market decide. All the improvements that I spoke about before and all that has been campaigned for by workers and families and organisations in this country—every single one of them—was opposed by those people over on the other side of the Chamber. Why was it opposed? Because they will let the market decide. They say that the market will work it out. We know in this Labour-led Government that we cannot rely on the market to sort out things for people in this country, whether for families, for older people, or for our businesses. We are proud to be a Government that supports all those people.

As is now well known in this House, I left United Future to start a new party that will have a constitutional commitment to Judaeo-Christian values. I thought I would like to take the opportunity afforded to me by this debate today to talk about those values and give a few examples, because I get asked by so many people around the country: “What do you mean, Gordon?”.

I want to start with a list of things that flow from that tremendous values tradition. The first one is the equality of dignity of all people. It is something that is very much to the fore for those people who have seen the film Amazing Grace and know of the wonderful work by William Wilberforce and what was known as the Clapham Sect to bring about the abolition of slavery. Why did they decide that slavery was wrong? It was because it offends against that principle of equality of dignity.

Flowing from that, and with real significance for New Zealand—and someone who was in the film, as well—was the work of James Stephens, later Sir James Stephens, who, as the British Foreign Secretary, shaped British policy to bring into being the Treaty of Waitangi. When we read the Treaty of Waitangi we immediately see that it no longer treats indigenous people as inferior. It no longer suggests that indigenous people should be conquered, which was what the way of the world had been right up until that time. It is obviously a treaty drawn up between two peoples on the basis of their equality of dignity.

I would also like to mention Kate Sheppard and the tremendous work she did to extend the vote to women. As members know, we gave full voting rights to women in New Zealand—the first nation in the world to do so—in 1893. Therefore, I say on my international visits that we are actually the world’s oldest democracy, because any system that leaves out 50 percent of the population on the basis of their sex is clearly wrong. That, again, is a reflection of the equality of all human beings—male, female, whatever nationality, whatever race, whatever colour.

I move now to the Ten Commandments. Keith Holyoake, when he was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, always had in his House folder, every time he came into this House, a copy of the Ten Commandments. He told me personally that it was his reference point while he was Prime Minister to ensure that the laws being passed here did not breach those important commandments—now 5,000 years old.

I move to democracy itself. Moses said: “Choose unto yourself wise, respected, and understanding men and women, and I will appoint them over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties” etc. That was the model of democracy that all these many generations later we have managed to implement in some of the nations in the world, with many still to go. Many other things came out of that Jewish law: sanitation, education, etc. I commend to the House a book by Thomas Cahill called The Gifts of the Jews, which expands on that in great detail. I do not have time to do that today.

Let us now move to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enacted by the United Nations with strong support from New Zealand in 1948. It is known around the world as having its origins in Judaeo-Christian values. Indeed, some of the values in it, such as freedom of religion and the right to change one’s religion, are sometimes criticised by nations on the basis that it just reflects Judaeo-Christian values, not necessarily their point of view.

I want to move on to the churches’ great patrimony of social teaching. It rests on three foundations. The first is social justice. It was well understood by Michael Joseph Savage and, I would have to say, by parties on the left pretty much ever since. Michael Joseph Savage, in bringing in the first welfare provision in New Zealand, said simply that it was applied Christianity. It was bringing Christian values into policy, and, again, New Zealand was a world leader in that regard, and we can be very, very proud of that.

The second principle is solidarity—the solidarity of all people; the understanding that a prosperous and successful nation is simply the sum total of all the people who live in that nation. If their lives are prosperous and happy, then we will have a prosperous and happy nation. One goes with the other. That, I think, has been very much misunderstood and misapplied since I have been in Parliament. I refer particularly to the Prostitution Reform Act, which, in my view, is completely contrary to the whole concept and teaching of this tradition in relation to solidarity. It pretends somehow that private and personal actions do not affect society when they certainly do.

The third one is subsidiarity—the principle that political decisions should be devolved to the lowest practical level, starting with the family, going on to the community, then to the town, the city, and finally the nation, in that order. As the Catholic bishops pointed out, the anti-smacking bill was contrary to that principle. Then we can go on to perhaps the highest of all Christian values, which is love of one’s neighbour—love of spouse, love of children, love of neighbourhood, love of community, love of city, and love of nation. These are good values for the future.

I would like to direct my comments to Labour’s economic management because there are some very good things to say on this score. We have enjoyed the longest period of economic growth in this country for 30 years. Average growth rates since 1999 have been higher here than in Europe, Japan, the United States, or the United Kingdom. Company tax returns show that recent profit growth has averaged over 20 percent a year. Business is doing very well in this country.

New Zealand has also consistently been rating highly in international comparisons of openness, competitiveness, and ease of doing business. Again this year, in the ease of doing business measure from the World Bank, we were rated second in the world, and we came first in the world for transparency and lack of corruption in the recent survey in The Economist. Let us compare that to the dismal economic performance of the 1990s, which included two recessions. Labour, success; National, failure.

Let us also think about reduced unemployment. Labour-force participation and employment are at all-time highs. Unemployment is at its lowest level ever, at 3.6 percent. More Kiwis than ever are in jobs. Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the world, and it is the second-lowest in the OECD. I watched John Howard call the Australian federal election on Sky News over the weekend. One of the things he said he would strive to do if he were re-elected was to try for an unemployment rate that started with a “3”—the very thing that we have had here for the last 3 years. Again, we can compare this with the record of the 1990s when we had record high unemployment. Labour, success; National, failure.

It was interesting to hear Mr Tremain talk about tax earlier. I think we should consider the record of this Government, particularly in business tax reform. As we heard Dr Cullen note during question time, this Government has introduced the most comprehensive package of business tax reform in 20 years. The $3.4 billion involved in the business tax reform package included cutting the headline corporate tax rate, tax credits for research and development, and measures to help New Zealand companies grow their connections around the world. If we add that to the targeted tax reductions in the Working for Families package, and those under the portfolio investment entity regime, we see that there are now real incentives for private savings. These are sensible, targeted tax cuts, which this Government deserves credit for. We can compare this to the record of the 1990s when there were untargeted, irresponsible personal tax cuts under the National Government, and to the fact that Bill English is still promising, come what may, to cut taxes and fund that by borrowing. No wonder Jo Doolan in the Independent today has called for the National Party to release its true tax policy. No one knows what it really is. Again—Labour, success; National, failure.

Let us look at KiwiSaver. This Labour-led Government has established KiwiSaver to give New Zealand families greater security by helping Kiwis to save for their retirement and for their first home. KiwiSaver will also help fund New Zealand investment in New Zealand, and will reduce demand on other forms of capital, thus taking pressure off interest rates. More than 200,000 New Zealanders have already been helped with their personal savings. Let us compare the record of the 1990s, when there was no action to promote savings—Labour, success; National, failure.

Superannuation tells a similar story. There will always be New Zealand superannuation for people’s retirement, under a Labour Government. We have invested heavily in raising the rate of New Zealand superannuation for married couples, to 66 percent of the average wage. This year we removed discriminatory situations for those with partners in care, and we continue to phase out asset testing. Labour will not back down on its universal superannuation, and it will not let the level of superannuation fall to the shameful level of 60 percent of the average wage for the married rate, as it was in the 1990s. Again, this is Labour’s success in the economy, and National’s failure.

Finally, I come to the matter of keeping costs down. The consumer price index rose just 0.5 percent in the September 2007 quarter. Statistics New Zealand told us that the lower than expected result came from lower prices for pharmaceutical products, early childhood education, and general practitioner fees. This Labour-led Government has helped to keep down the cost of living. Our reduction in the cost of prescription drugs to $3 per drug, the introduction of cheaper doctors’ visits, and the 20 free hours early childhood education policy have had a significant impact on helping people make their dollars go further. Let us keep the country moving forward, not going back, under this excellent record of economic management.

Well, we have finally had it; we have been building up to it for the last couple of weeks. We were told when we came back from the adjournment that there would be big hits—that attacks from the left would be hitting the right. And we were told to brace ourselves for the moment when Labour members would come at us, at National, and that we should be prepared for that. So we fronted up on the first day after the adjournment. We came in and sat here, and we wondered where they were. The Labour members were not to be heard; they could barely be seen. In fact, they sat there, grey, dishevelled, and not quite sure what to do with themselves. So we have got through the situation. We have held them to account for yet another few days, and today I think we had the attack. I think today, I tell my colleagues, we saw the attack, and was it not like being hit with a wet bus ticket? Was it not actually just a little sad? The Labour members ran out a few lines—the lines had obviously been passed around them from the research people, and they had been told to mention the cap on the costs of general practitioner visits. We have just heard some good lines from the member who spoke before me, who said “Labour, one; National, tired” or something a bit like that.

But the fact that we all have to accept is that the Labour members over there are nervous. They have a Cabinet reshuffle coming up, they are not sure about their jobs, and no one knows who is standing. We have members of Parliament who ran for councils, with some getting in and some not getting in. We can ask who will be standing as Labour candidates next time, and the announcement of that has been bumped backwards. Then we have a Cabinet reshuffle to be announced as well as that. There is too much on the minds of Labour members for them to be worried about what is actually going on over on this side of the House. So the attack has been all on. We have had “Angry Ruth Dyson”, and Ruth Dyson does “angry” pretty well, we have to say. Well, I think it was the best we could see.

But I am going to enter into this debate by saying I make absolutely no apology for demanding, on behalf of New Zealanders, that they get some of their own money back. And I will stand up here—and I stand here proudly on behalf of the National Party—and say I make no apology for asking for some of New Zealanders’ money to be put back in their own pockets. Quite frankly, they deserve it. Australian workers have received their share of the Australian Government’s Budget surpluses and back-to-back tax cuts, and now it is New Zealanders’ turn. There should be no more “chewing gum tax cuts”: no more taking tax cuts away from people when they wanted them, and no more thinking that something can be dangled before people in an election year and made to count.

The arrogance of the Labour Party is starting to trickle through. So we hear some Australians will be receiving only 20 bucks a week. Let us talk about what average New Zealanders—perhaps parents with a family of two—could do with $20 a week. The reality is that with that sort of money they could buy three loaves of bread,—which would equal $5.49—500g of butter, a bag of apples, and some peanut butter, and they could feed their family lunch for a week. A couple could feed their family their school lunches for a week. That is what some of those families might choose to do; those families might choose to do that for themselves. But at no point does this Labour Government think that it can have a sense of trust in people—that people could spend that 20 bucks for the benefit of themselves and their own families. At no point is there a level of respect for the fact that New Zealanders might actually do what is best for themselves and their own families.

We stand in front of New Zealanders today and say to them that welfare dependency is not fair on them. We stand in front of New Zealanders today and say to them that they know what is best for themselves and their families. Even some of those who are currently welfare dependent, and even some of those who are struggling from week to week, will look us in the eye and nod in agreement with that. They know that they can do better for themselves if given the chance, and if given a little bit of respect. So I say: “Give the money back!”. It is not rocket science; it is not very hard to do, although one would think it was. One would think Dr Cullen had to reach into his own pocket and hand out his own money. It is time that a timely reminder was put to the Labour Government that the money is New Zealand taxpayers’ money, and that the Government should take only what is needed in order for it to get by. The issue is as simple as that.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; tēnā nō tātou. As this general debate concludes, out at the Police College in Porirua a group of 27 Maori wardens from around the country will be saying their farewells to police staff and to one another, following a 3-day training course that was intended to assist the wardens in their work of caring for their respective communities. The feedback I have received clearly indicates that the wardens and others involved are all speaking highly of the experience and its value to all involved, and saying that the experience should be continued. The course is the first of a number intended to provide similar training to all Māori wardens.

Members in this House might ask what the significance of this is. The significance is that this is happening because of New Zealand First. Budget 2007 set aside $2.5 million to fund wardens, and this fund will be further extended for ensuing years. Today sees the beginning of this funding start to kick in, for the benefit of not only the wardens but this country. I regard Māori wardens as being amongst the unsung heroes of this country. It is no coincidence that New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government required enhanced funding for wardens, and I am very pleased to have been part of the process that has achieved this outcome. I take the opportunity of acknowledging that our Labour Party colleagues have kept their word, unlike those members in previous agreements we have had with other parties.

One could rightly describe the New Zealand First Party as being the “Postman Party”. Why? Because we deliver. For Māoridom we have done just that in regard to Māori wardens. I might say that, unlike other parties in this House who also take pride in representing Māori, we deliver. In previous years our leader, Winston Peters, has been responsible for ensuring that regular annual funding was made available to both the Maori Women’s Welfare League and to kapahaka. It seems strange that Māori wardens, and the contribution they were making to our society and our communities, were not being recognised. This $2.5 million over the next year, with further funding in excess of $4 million over the following 4 years, is in recognition of that contribution. The Māori wardens have their legislative responsibilities set out in the Māori Community Development Act 1962. Māori wardens are appointed for a period of 3 years, and are specific to the district in which the warden resides. Although the Act was passed in 1962, the initiatives of working with other organisations in their communities are not new but have evolved over a long period of time, to give Māori a degree of self-management in their own affairs.

I want to take this opportunity of acknowledging the contribution of a former colleague of ours, Mr Edwin Perry, to the work of the Māori wardens in his particular community. But I also want to congratulate him on his recent election as a councillor in the Masterton District Council. Māori wardens work in close association with Māori committees and with the police in their areas. Their role is to promote respect among Māori people for the standards of the community and to take appropriate steps to prevent any threatened breach of law and order. Māori wardens play an integral role in our communities, working with both Māori and non-Māori to keep our streets safe. Although most work done by the wardens is voluntary, the Government recognises its value, and this funding should ensure it is continued. Just as important, it will provide much-needed resources to assist them in their role.

The Māori wardens are indeed an asset to the community. The role they play has certainly changed from the time when Māori migrated from their homelands to the cities, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s, when this country witnessed a great migration of Māori families from rural areas into the towns. The contribution that Māori wardens made to help assimilate members of their Māori community in those areas was huge. Can I say that during my time working in the South Auckland area, and in particular in Ōtara, I can recall a number of Māori wardens patrolling the streets of their communities at 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning, in the hope of helping their families to assimilate into the towns.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.