General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One year ago this week Mr John Key ascended to the ranks of the leadership of the National Party and, 1 year on, that man’s star has started to wane. One year on, the guy has peaked, and we need to understand why that is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please be seated. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know that there was a lot of applause, but I cannot hear the member speak.

Let me start again.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I assume that the speech will start again from the beginning and that the time will start from the time the noise from the Opposition ceases.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a decision I will have to make.

One year ago John Key became the leader of the National Party and, 1 year on, his star has already peaked. Let me explain why. You see, when he became—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised the point before and I repeat it again. I assume now that the speech begins again and that the speech will start from the time that the Opposition ceases to make noise. This is, of course, a members’ day, so the Government is quite relaxed about how long this takes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. Point of order, Gerry Brownlee.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I was not seeking a point of order; I sought the call. The member had sat down, I sought the call, and I have been given it. So I am delighted.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. I was under the impression that the member was raising a point of order with reference to Dr Cullen’s point of order. I just say to members that the practice of engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling, and that it is entirely intolerable in the debating chamber.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reflect on the way you have just ruled. What happened here was that Pete Hodgson, the Labour Party strategist, stood to congratulate John Key on the fact that he became the leader of the National Party 1 year ago. The member’s claim that this was a great occasion was robustly responded to by members on this side of the House, who were very, very delighted to hear it. If, Mr Assistant Speaker, you are to rule against spontaneous applause for smart statements or clever statements made by the Government, then I think that would be a very, very backwards step for the House to take. Mind you, I would have to say that it would be a very unusual occasion for the Labour Government.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think that emphasises the importance of people not making lots of noise so that they can listen, because, of course, Mr Hodgson said no such thing. He merely pointed out that 1 year ago Mr Key became the leader. [Interruption] I think I will, perhaps, begin my point of order again. Mr Hodgson was not making a point in praise. He comes to bury Mr Key, not to praise him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that the Chamber is a place of listening and debate. I think we will all prosper if we show some courtesy. I have been quite tolerant.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to think about what actually happened there. Mr Hodgson sat down, and his situation has been retrieved only by the fact that you recognised Dr Cullen. Other than that, I should rightfully have the floor to speak in that spot.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It has not become the habit in this House, although it should, that when a member raises a point of order and the Speaker calls that member, the member who was previously speaking sits down. It is common for members opposite to remain standing while other people are seeking a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, and I was on my feet as well.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think you did not hear, Mr Assistant Speaker, but there is a member at the back, sitting next to the member for Tauranga, who was seeking your attention by way of a point of order earlier on. I am not sure of his name; it is that member there.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): A point of order, Mr Burrows?

💬 Chester Borrows: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to explain what appears to be a misrepresentation to the House. He initially raised a point of order saying that he could not hear what the Hon Pete Hodgson was saying. On a subsequent point of order, he stood up and proposed that he had heard what the honourable member had said, which was different from what Mr Brownlee had related to the House. So some clarification is due, and I offer him the opportunity to do that.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Of course, what I said emphasises the importance of people listening, because Mr Brownlee clearly had not heard what Mr Hodgson had said. I am afraid the member got that wrong. Again, presumably, with the amount of noise going on in the rear of the House, he could not hear, either.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I could not hear, either. I am now going to try to start the general debate again. I call the Hon Pete Hodgson.

A year ago this week, John Key became the leader of the National Party, and this week—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have had our fun.

—1 year on, it is already clear that his star has peaked and has begun to wane. Here is why. The public have been waiting for the next step. They have had the grin, they have had the nice little remarks, and they have been waiting for some substance to emerge beneath the style. They have been looking forward to some gravitas. They have been looking forward to some new thinking. They have been looking forward to a little bit of philosophy—they have been looking forward, really, to anything at all. What they have had is plenty of front but no body. They have had a guy who has been good for a laugh but is no good when the pressure goes on. They have had a guy who is good at one-liners but cannot stand analysis. They have had a man who is hollow, who is shallow, and who, as my colleague from Rimutaka would say, is all hat and no horse. John Key is all hat and no horse.

Three months ago, Mr Key’s deputy leader, Bill English, summed him up—he did not even mean to. In an interview Bill English said that he, Bill English, was the stayer and John Key was the sprinter. Bill English said he did the hard yards and John Key moved, flitted, and bounced from cloud to cloud. That, of course, sums up John Key in a nutshell. That guy cannot be held down to any position, to any philosophy, or to anything he said in history. He just bounces from cloud to cloud, and, a year on, the public of New Zealand are starting to realise that that will not do. If Mr Key wants to put in his nomination for the prime ministership of this land, he must be subject to some testing as to what he believes—if indeed, he believes anything at all.

Let us look at what John Key said on his very first outing 1 year ago, in November 2006. Here is a quote from John Key, the leader of the New Zealand National Party. Listen to this, it is stirring. He said: “My mission is to raise people’s sights, to be fearless and to be imaginative in policies.” Since then he has had two formal policy launches. One of them was on international affairs. John Key advised a surprised nation—and, indeed, globe—that the Iraq war was over. The other one was the 60-page think-piece on health that forgot to tell us that doctors’ fees would go back up again under National. So you see, 1 year on there have been two fearless policies. One was on foreign relations and said there was no war in Iraq, and one was on health and said that doctors’ fees would go up not down.

There was another instance in that same speech 1 year ago. It was Mr Key’s very first outing. He was in friendly territory; he was talking to the National Party on the North Shore. Again, this man is worth listening to. He said: “Let me be also clear that I make no excuses for saying those policies of National’s will be harvested from wherever.” Now, let us have a look at where he got them from. He said, in respect of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC): “We will introduce competition.” So his first policy, subsequent to that speech, was to privatise ACC. Next, he said that flexible labour markets are the way to go. That says he is back to the Employment Contracts Act way of thinking.

Then there was what he said on education. Do members remember that? He said there were plenty of opportunities to have the private sector playing a bigger role. Now, not even Don Brash went that far. Don Brash said he did not care who owned the schools. John Key says he wants the private sector to own the schools. This guy will get his policies from wherever, except that, so far, he has reached into one well only, and that is where the National Party used to get its policies from. So you see, so far we do not have too much from John Key. But then, we have a recent quote from John Key that is really interesting and pertinent to today’s undertakings in the House. John Key said: “Let’s confront the reality that Nicky Hager was right.”

Pete Hodgson appeared at the New Zealand Export Awards the other day. Did members read the report about what happened? I think he thinks he is still there. He was described as being discombobulated. That was what was said about Pete Hodgson. Everything that he was meant to say he got wrong. The next morning he arrived half an hour late at the breakfast and had no idea what he was doing. I think we have seen why, in the House this afternoon.

The Labour Government has had a big win recently. It does not get many wins these days, but it had a big win. Do members know what it won? It achieved a record in the number of people it has driven out of New Zealand. It is not quite an all-time record, but I checked, and for the last decade the highest number of New Zealanders were driven out—75,143 long-term migrants left New Zealand. I checked back another decade, and found that this Labour Government has driven the most people out of New Zealand for 25 or more years.

The problem is that we are losing our citizens; 30,000 New Zealand citizens, net, left New Zealand in the last 12 months. That was almost one-third more than the year before, and in the last 4 years the rate is up 200 percent. In the last 4 years of a Labour Government 200 percent more New Zealand citizens have got up and gone.

It is not hard to see why they are leaving. Most of them—87 percent—are going to Aussie. Across the Tasman the Australian Government has been cutting taxes and putting in place policies to increase economic growth. But in New Zealand the “Clark-Cullen Government” has been building the kitty. Do members remember that? Helen has told us that the Government has been building the kitty. What has happened to after-tax income as a consequence? When Labour came into office after-tax average income in Australia was 20 percent higher than in New Zealand. After 7 years of a Labour Government it has gone up to 31 percent higher in Australia—after-tax income is 31 percent higher in Australia. New Zealanders are now seeing more opportunity for them and their families across the Tasman, because in New Zealand they are in an income trap. If they earn more money, this Government taxes them. If they have dependent children over most of the income range, this Government now takes, with Working for Families, more than half of any extra dollars these people earn off them in tax.

But it is not just big Government taxing New Zealanders more and more that is driving them away. New Zealanders are starting to feel now that this Government seeks to control every aspect of their lives: controlling how they raise their children—Helen knows best—and controlling what children can eat through their school tuck shops. This big Labour Government knows best.

But the latest one is that the Government wants to control who can say what in election year. That is the latest one—who can say what in election year. If a developing country sought to control who could say what in an election year, we would say that was absolute corruption. If that were happening, in this country we would say that was just corruption. We would say that is something that President Mugabe would be proud of. If a dictator was trying to do what Labour is doing in New Zealand, we would call it corruption. But somehow, here in New Zealand, it is OK for a Labour Government to do it. It is OK somehow for this Labour Government to tell New Zealanders: “You cannot express your views in election year; you cannot express deeply held opposition to what your democratically elected Government is doing in an election year.” In any developing country we would say that was corruption, yet somehow Labour thinks it is OK.

The public does not think it is OK. The public in New Zealand have fought for the right to express their views freely. Our forefathers fought and died for the right to express their views freely, and people of New Zealand reject totally this Labour Government having the audacity to think it can tell New Zealanders what they can and cannot say in an election year. It is corrupt.

At the beginning of the debate my colleague Pete Hodgson got up and mentioned that it had been a year since John Key had become Prime Minister, and there was hysteria among the National members of the House. They must be very easily satisfied.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this because this is the first opportunity for us to do so. But I did note that the Minister just announced that John Key is now the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

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

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, but it would be a damn good idea!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. Frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech lead to disorder. The member will start again.

He is never going to become Prime Minister. When Mr Hodgson mentioned that it was 1 year since Mr Key had become leader of the National Party, hysteria broke out among National MPs. They must be very easily satisfied because I guess when one considers that Mr English, “Mr 20 percent”, who got the lowest result ever for National, and then Don Brash, the man who could never remember his conversations with the Brethren, when one compares them with Mr Key I suppose they would be a bit pleased. But he would never do for a Labour leader. This is the man who said: “No, we wouldn’t go to Iraq now.”, but just 2 years ago he said: “Yes, yes, we’d send our troops to Iraq.” This is the man who was a climate change denier; now he is a convert to climate change. He said he lived in Parnell, but he registered a vote in Helensville. This is the man who cultivates the Māori Party, but as soon as he gets in front of a National Party audience he says: “We’d get rid of the Māori seats.” This is the man who has told the New Zealand Herald reporters that he would sign the therapeutics legislation, but, of course, later on said: “No, I never said that.”, when Mr Ryall threw a little tantrum. Of course, the transcript was released and it was revealed that Mr Key had not been quite as truthful as he could.

But I guess, in the end, one can judge someone only when he or she is seen in action. I would like to tell the House about a very interesting meeting I went to in the Helensville electorate. At Marina View School in the heart of the Helensville electorate a public meeting was called by the ratepayers association. It was to protest against that fantastic development that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is doing at the old defence site at Hobsonville.

Mr Key is the local member, and he came along. Mr Key, we might remember in this House, was raised in a State house. He was sitting, with me as Minister of Housing as I was then, on the stage in this hall, crammed with some 500 people. The audience started to react to the redneck populist stuff that had been going on. People stood up and said: “State house tenants are thieves.” They said: “They will steal our washing from the washing line. They will be urinating in the streets. They will be leaving old bombs of cars in front of their houses.” Mr Key sat through all this. As this conversation became more and more racist, more and more prejudiced, did he intervene at any point? I, of course, drew the audience’s attention frequently to the fact that I am sure Mrs Key was not like that when she was a State house tenant. I would have to say that if we were doing a score card, we would give him an A for pandering to prejudice, and a D for leadership. He showed no leadership at all at that very bigoted, prejudiced meeting.

I would like to talk about the Big Gay Out. It is something that I think only Mrs Shipley and Mr Key have ever attended as National Party leaders. Mr Key arrived at the Big Gay Out in a pink shirt. He stood up and said: “Some of my best friends are gay.” But as he started to walk around the crowd, somebody came up to him and said: “Did you vote for the Civil Union Bill?”. He said: “No, no. I didn’t vote for the Civil Union Bill.” When he was asked why, he said: “Oh, because my electorate is very conservative.” Well, I represent the neighbouring electorate of Te Atatu. I have a 12,000-vote majority. At every election since 1999 my majority has gone up. How come middle-class Helensville is more conservative than working-class Te Atatū? It does not register, does it? I have to say that I would give Mr Key an A for having double standards, and a D for lack of integrity. He did not have the guts. If he did believe in—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw.

I withdraw and apologise. If Mr Key did stand by his comments to me personally and to many other people in this House that he supported the Civil Union Bill, why did he not have the courage to vote for it? I will say why. It is because he was pandering to prejudice. He was pandering to that right-wing, conservative, religious bloc in the National Party. Again, it is an A for double standards and a D for integrity.

Let me tell members about a visit to the Mahatma Ghandi Centre. For the last 5 years I have spent my weekends visiting ethnic events. Occasionally we see National members there, but not very often. Pansy Wong usually attends, but nobody else. Mr Key came to the Mahatma Ghandi Centre earlier in the year. He stood up in front of the very large crowd of mostly New Zealanders of Indian descent. He mispronounced the name of Anand Satyanand, our Governor-General, three times in a row. He said that he really loved the Indian community in New Zealand because of their great restaurants. Then he sat down. I have to tell members that people were very offended by that. They regarded it as patronisation. So it is an A for patronisation and a D for cultural insensitivity.

New Zealanders who are actually interested in the future of this country might be excused for thinking that the record exodus of New Zealanders from this country would constitute some type of wake-up call to this Government, but I fear they will be proven wrong. I do not believe that this Government—wrapped in its own bubble and in its hermetically sealed zone of ignorance, arrogance, and fantasy—is listening to New Zealanders any more. Whether it involves fundamental departures from our democratic polity, such as the introduction of a bill governing future elections, without full non-partisan consideration; whether it concerns the politicisation of the Public Service; or, in this case, whether it concerns the undermining of the economic sovereignty of this country, this Government lives in its hermetically sealed bubble and essentially is no longer listening to the signals that are coming to it. This exodus is a signal of paramount importance.

The Government believes that the good years from 2000 to 2005 were somehow miraculously associated with the election of Labour. That is totally ignoring the facts, such as that in the preceding year the growth rate was 4.3 percent. We had fantastic labour productivity growth rates of 3.5 percent from 1997 to 2000, which powered this economy along in the first 5 years after that. Not even the Labour Government was capable of eating into that growth dividend. But, eventually, with the cumulative impact of soft-core populist policies and of failing to put in place wealth creation policies, yes, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Our growth rate has tanked to 2 percent, while Australia’s growth rate is running at over 4 percent. It is 5 percent if we take out the negative effects of the Australian drought. Australia’s growth rate has accelerated above 3 percent. What is the consequence? The consequence is that New Zealanders are voting with their feet, in record numbers.

Rather than focus on the overall figure, I want to focus on the exodus of Māori from New Zealand. I want to focus on the disturbing but quite interesting exodus of Māori from New Zealand. If we go back and look at reports from the Australian Bureau of Statistics we will find that a mere 20 years ago, in 1986, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that there were 27,000 Australian residents of Māori ethnic origin. If we fast-forward 20 years—a mere blip in the history of any people—we find that there are nearly 100,000 Australian residents of Māori ethnic origin, or around 15 percent of the Māori population. Worse than that, the trend is accelerating. So even if we took the absurdly optimistic assumption that the number, if present trends continue, might only double, such that one-third of the Māori population of this country in 20 years hence will be living in Australia, that is the figure we start from.

There is another way of looking at it. Of the absolute increase in the Kiwi-born population in Australia, counting all those who are Kiwi-born, an astonishing 60 percent of the increase since 2000 are Māori. Why are they leaving New Zealand? They are leaving—and their exodus is accelerating—because this economy has slowed down. This Government has given up on the policies of wealth creation and gone down the tired route of the politics of redistribution.

This then leads to an interesting but disturbing thought. If we go back to consider the origins of the great migration of the indigenous people of this country, the tangata whenua, we know originally from Austronesian language links but now from DNA that it started in what we call modern-day Taiwan. Although we obviously cannot go back and interview those people, we can make the assumption that they began their great migration in the search for a better life. They did not set off 2000 years ago saying “Let’s go to Aotearoa.” They set off on a great island-hopping expedition that went through the Indonesian Malay archipelago over 2000 years, and the largest single number of them arrived in what we today call Aotearoa.

But has it ever occurred to people that perhaps this migration has not stopped, and that Aotearoa might not be the final landing place for Māori? The search for a better life is clearly continuing.

I think that speech is indicative of where the National Party is at today, when an ex-trade official gets up and raves on about the fact that people are leaving New Zealand, but does not talk about industry, or about wealth creation, or even mention Fonterra. One would have thought that the National Party would be most concerned about the potential loss to the country of this New Zealand - owned company. I know that many of the decent people in the National Party—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am aware that the general debate is a robust debate. Mr Woolerton had started his speech, he was proceeding down the track, and the bellows over there started blowing constantly, especially Mr Brownlee. We know there will be interjections, we know this is a robust debate, but a constant flow of interjections, and bellowing from that member, is just not on.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Both sides of the House are guilty.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: The fact is that when I was in the National Party many years ago, this concern would have been the No. 1 concern for the National Party. Those were the days when the honourable people in the National Party used to care about the farmers in New Zealand. They used to care about productive enterprises, and they used to speak proudly of them. They used to speak proudly of wealth creation; they used to speak proudly of the farmers who made companies such as Fonterra. We in New Zealand First carry on that proud tradition of course, and now it is left to us to speak up on situations like this.

We are really concerned that if this company, Fonterra, as is proposed is chopped off as a cooperative, shifted over in its entirety to another enterprise called Fonterra Ltd, then sold down—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Yes, flying cows.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: It does not surprise me if Mr Gerry Brownlee makes jokes about this. He would not understand it; he understands only the things he says that he despises, which are populist politics and a consumer society—and, man, does he know how to consume. But he does not know about wealth creation, he does not know about farmers, and, worst of all, he does not know about the roots of the National Party. He does not know about the people who made the National Party, because they were the same people who made Fonterra what it is today. They were prudent New Zealanders—New Zealanders who, by the sweat of their brow and by retained earnings, believed that rather than enrich themselves they would enrich a company for the benefit of New Zealand. And Mr Gerry Brownlee mocks those people by making a joke of the situation, and he mocks the National Party, the roots of which he knows little. It saddens me that what used to be a party that had men of honour within it now no longer is in that situation.

This company that is going to be formed from Fonterra will be sold down.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Will it be Fonterra? New Zealand First supports that.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: And that is how little those members know! They say it will still be Fonterra. They do not care. This company will take a vote and the farmers will decide, but we have a legitimate role in that debate, because this decision will require Government legislation. So New Zealand First and other parties in this House have a legitimate role in this debate; we will stand up to the plate and we will exercise that role.

If this company is listed, its control will go overseas first, followed by its ownership. That is what has happened in every other situation of this sort. All of the work from previous generations will be lost to this country. This company produces in excess of 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports, yet people in this House treat it in such a cavalier manner that they make jokes when we talk about the serious situation. This company needs to be kept in New Zealand ownership. It should not be listed, and we should cherish it and look after it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt the member’s speech, because it was not appropriate to do so. But he made a number of very offensive remarks in that speech, and I have taken offence at the suggestion that I was laughing at farmers. I was laughing at the fact that he was railing on behalf of farmers when New Zealand First, of course, is supporting the legislation that will break them up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Yes, that is a debatable issue. But while I am on my feet I urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. If they remember that, we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas.

This is a day of anniversaries, of course, and my colleague mentioned that it was on this day a year ago—and we will wait for the applause every time it comes—when John Key became leader of the National Party. It is also a very prophetic anniversary, because on this day a year ago Gerry Brownlee got dumped. We know that. And it is the anniversary, almost to the day 8 years ago, of when the Labour Government inherited an economic graveyard from the National Government—small businesses on their knees, and 8 percent unemployment, compared with 3.5 percent today. It was 8 years ago when the Labour Government inherited industrial archaeology from the National Government, and it was a year ago when John Key started to be slashed open by his own words. What do we now know about John Key? Let us see whether the National backbench applaud on this one. We now know that John Key supports the sale of State-owned enterprises. Where is the applause? Are they supporting this? Oh, no—there is silence from the backbench. Why do we know John Key supports the sale of State-owned enterprises? Well, I was given the privilege of being Acting Minister of Finance for a couple of days, and we slashed open Bill English when he admitted that he was in favour of selling State-owned enterprises—now National Party policy, of course—and of giving away a controlling interest. Do National backbench members now applaud that? Oh, no, of course they do not.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Stop telling lies.

And the bellows blow in the front row over there from Gerry Brownlee. We know, a year on, that John Key supports cutting the pension. We know why. Again, it is because Bill English, when I had a crack at him, opened up and said that the pension was too generous for our elderly folks. Do the National backbench members—the sort of battery hens at the back—applaud that one? No, they do not, of course, because they know, a year on from their great leader’s pontifications, that they cannot go back to the sticks, to their constituencies, and tell the punters that Bill English and John Key support the selling of State-owned enterprises, the cutting of the pension, and—the other playing out of the course—the funding of independent private schools. They know that back in the real world, in communities, no one supports that. So they stood up and the bellows blew, and they applauded a year on, yet they remain amazingly silent, do they not, when it comes to actually analysing the lack of policies articulated by John Key and Bill English.

Bill English, you know, was so grateful when he was rolled by John Key, because then somebody else had to be responsible and inherit the mess that was—and still is—the National Party. The contradictions remain, of course. Mr Brownlee notes that no one applauds those policies articulated by John Key and Bill English—no one applauds. National members think, of course, that they can sleepwalk through, “me, too” the Government on anything that is popular, and slide through, under the cover of darkness on the eve of an election, and no one will stop and analyse their policies.

Lockwood Smith, ironically, got up today and said that he supported families. Those members over there say that they support families, and a year on John Key says that he supports families. But they are so supportive of families that they are against supporting families through the Working for Families tax credits. We have 350,000 Kiwi families, mums and dads, some of whom are constituents of National members, who get $110 a week on average of their money back. National members are so supportive of families, but they do not support them in practice. That is the legacy a year on, from the foreign-exchange trader who made a lot of money and a lot of friends, trading down the New Zealand dollar on the junk-bond market. That is a fact. It is a legitimate occupation, I am told, in the financial transaction world, and no one over there, including the great blunderbuss in the front row, disputes that. I was talking about Mr Henare, not Mr Brownlee. That is the situation a year on. That is the legacy of John Key

Colin James has summed it up. We are now moving into an election year and the rubber is hitting the road. Now we will see whether the great man has any substance. “The war is over in Iraq.”, “We are for super.”, and “We are against super.”—the contradictions are everywhere. But no one on the National backbench is applauding the policies that John Key articulates. They know that in the real world, in communities, it ain’t a starter. Those policies have been rejected.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a long-held Standing Order that the word “lies” is unparliamentary. Mr Brownlee used that word several times during Mr Cosgrove’s speech. I did not interrupt his speech, but I take offence and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Under Speaker’s ruling 41/3, calling a member a liar is “an offence against the dignity of the House and the assumption that its members behave truthfully and honourably.” If the member was engaged in that, then I ask him to stand and withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I asked the member to withdraw.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Well, I won’t, because you’ve got it wrong.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member taking a point of order to clarify the situation?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was saying “More lies.” What is wrong with that?

Mr Brownlee had about three different phrases he was using, but all of them contained the word that Mrs Pettis reported to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. He was using it deliberately in the hope of breaking up Mr Cosgrove’s very fine speech. We did not do that; we waited until the end of the speech before we drew it to your attention. It is just unnecessary stuff and it is against the rules.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It depends on whether the member was actually accusing the member of lying. If that is the case, then that is out of order. The member knows that, as he is a longstanding member. If it were a throwaway line, then in that particular respect it is another matter. So I am relying on the member’s integrity.

I will take your advice. I said: “Stop telling lies.”, “More Labour lies.”, and “Don’t tell lies.” Have I breached the rules?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the member was implying that the member was lying—

Yes, I was.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, the member as a longstanding member knows that that is not permissible. I ask him to withdraw.

I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much. I call the member Lindsay Tisch.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s the long, the short, and the tall!

Well, that comment is better than being called “Stubby”, which is what the member called me last night in this House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just ask members to rein in themselves. They should relax and breathe through their noses. Too many personal reflections are occurring in this general debate.

I want to place on record that it has been a great year for John Key. It has been a superb year for the National Party and for this team, and I place on notice that that member over there will be gone on whatever day the election occurs. He will be gone, and that member over there, Jill Pettis, will have disappeared anyway. Those members will be gone.

I want to bring to the House’s attention the very serious nature of what is happening in the business environment. This Government prides itself on having done so much for business, but all the surveys that have come out show that the compliance cost regimes for business are actually getting extremely difficult and challenging for businesses to abide by. In the last 12 months the average New Zealand company spent 13½ weeks—13½ weeks out of 52 weeks—having to deal with compliance. If we look at the average working week of 40 hours and multiply it by 52, the number of weeks in a year, then we see that 2,080 hours in the year are available in the workplace. If we take 13½ weeks of that, that is 540 hours. A quarter of a year’s productivity is actually wasted on compliance.

You see, we do not have any productivity in New Zealand because we are having to deal with all the compliance issues that have been mounting under this Labour Government over the last 7 years. The cost for small business—that is, a business employing fewer than 10 people—is $2,400 per employee. For a business that employs 50-plus people, it is $780 per year. So I ask Labour members to tell us what happened to their policy to regulate only when necessary and ensure that regulations were fair and effective. If we look at the Quality Regulation Review, which was 15 months in the making—15 months—we see that it achieved absolutely nothing. Yet the Minister of Commerce, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, said: “Nothing of this magnitude has been attempted before but this is a government that has an appetite for working with business to address its concerns.” What a laugh that is. Those are bold statements, but it did not happen.

What happened to KiwiSaver, for example? It was only in the Budget that we heard that employers would have to make a compulsory contribution. Where is the consultation in that process?

💬 John Carter: There was none.

There was absolutely none. So here we have a statement in which the Minister said that the Government has an appetite for working with business to address its concerns, and out of left field comes the KiwiSaver scheme. What about the Electoral Finance Bill? That was meant to have cross-party consultation. There has been absolutely none. There has been no consultation at all. Then those members opposite say they are listening to the concerns that are so important to this Government.

What did the South Island business leaders have to say? They said that the New Zealand regulatory environment is a chief source of frustration and is the biggest impediment to future profitability. The Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey echoed those same sentiments. It talked about tax, about KiwiSaver, about the heavy toll on employment in the Holidays Act, and about the negative trends that are happening within business.

Why are so many of our talented and enterprising New Zealanders deciding that the pastures are greener in Australia? They are better off in Australia. Their prospects are better. They are better off whether they are employed or in business. As we have heard this afternoon, many of our talented folk are deciding to go to Australia. If in Australia they are better off by at least $5,000 a family, we cannot blame them doing that. No doubt there are members in this House who have family members overseas. I have two children who are overseas at the moment. They are living in the UK.

Because of compliance costs, we are not getting the productivity we were expecting to see from a growing economy. I have run out some figures here about the indirect taxes that have been imposed on business. There are four pages of these indirect taxes.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Shameful!

It is absolutely shameful. They are taxes that business has no control over. I will list a couple of them. One is road-user charges. Road-user charges came out of left field. The New Zealand Road Transport Association did not even know what was going on. There was no consultation. Here it is—road-user charges: increase in petrol excise duties. I will not go through them all, but in the last 3 years they have gone up every year. Accident Compensation Corporation levies are listed here. They are continuing to rise. We have the export education levy—$185 charged to institutions per foreign fee-paying student. This is the sort of nonsense with indirect taxes that is going on with this Government.

I want to say that I do think it was a shame that about a year ago that member, Lindsay Tisch, was demoted. I think it was an unfair demotion, because I have always thought him to be a good debater. Maybe Mr Tisch will tell us whether the National Party will get rid of all those things he has just complained about—KiwiSaver, road-user charges, excise tax. There is silence from Mr Tisch. You see, it is easy to stand up in the House and pick out problems; it is a lot harder—as the National Party has found out from election to election—to actually say what one might do in any given situation. I think that his silence speaks volumes. I say to Mr Tisch that if he wants any credibility, he needs to stand up in this House and tell the people of New Zealand what National tells its private financial backers behind closed doors what it will do after the next election if National becomes the Government—what policies it has agreed to in return for the anonymous donations that the National Party has always enjoyed and that it is fighting to hold on to.

A year on, nothing much has really changed in the National Party. We had the brave new hope of the brave new leader, John Key, and it has become clear that 1 year on, the National Party is no better equipped to deal with 21st century problems. This Labour Government has faced up to all the major issues, many of them created by that lot over there, who, although they cut taxes, also slashed benefits, slashed infrastructure spending, closed hospitals, and charged people to stay in hospitals. They cut the pension not just once, or even twice. They cut the pension, cut benefits, closed hospitals, and charged people to stay in hospitals—those that stayed open. They did not spend any money on infrastructure, but this Labour-led Government, with our support parties, has been working since it came into office in 1999—with a mandate, by the way—for an increased top tax rate in order to be able to address a lot of the deficits that were introduced by the National Party.

The National Party has not changed. We often get criticised in this House by the National Party for talking about the 1990s. Of course, the reason we do that is that its policies are exactly the same as they were in the 1990s. The failed policies of the 1990s gave us two recessions in the provinces, which just about killed provincial New Zealand, put cash registers on hospital doors, and slashed benefits. Now National members have the gall to stand up and talk about the children of the 1990 “mother of all Budgets” benefit cuts. Those kids were suddenly forced into poverty by a National Government, and the National members now have the gall to stand up and say that those kids are getting into trouble. Well, surprise, surprise! The Labour Opposition at the time told them that that would happen, and they went ahead and did it anyway—and they will do it again.

New Zealanders should take heed, because, as we know, it is pretty hard to get assets back once they have been sold. No one believes that National would only partially sell assets. The National members do not partially sell assets. They will sell 40 percent, then 45 percent, then they will claim that the pressure of the market has made them sell all of it and they will say it will be good for New Zealand and bring efficiencies. Well, privatisation certainly did not bring any efficiencies into our electricity sector. The promised cuts in costs, the promised efficiencies, and the promised better services—promised by Mr Bradford and the National Party—never came. They have all gone quiet now because they know that is true.

💬 Jacqui Dean: You’ve been in Government 8 years.

Jacqui Dean should just be quiet and drink her dihydrogen monoxide. She should know more than anyone else that we used to have an electricity sector that was responsive to the needs of New Zealanders. We used to have an electricity sector that New Zealanders could afford, until National smashed it into little bits because of its ideological obsession with privatisation. We know National would do that again.

We also know that Mr Bill English has said that current superannuation is too generous. We know that Don Brash, before him, said that anyone under 50 should not rely on being able to get New Zealand superannuation. Well, I say to the people of New Zealand that there is a way that they can rely on getting New Zealand superannuation, and that is to vote for the Labour Party. Labour is committed to the provision of New Zealand superannuation—absolutely committed. That is why, when we came into Government in 1999, the first thing we did was to reverse the cuts that the National Government made.

New Zealanders should not be fooled by the smiling face of John Key into believing they would not do it again. Earlier this year, there was a moment of truth in this country. There was a moment of truth when John Key’s smiling mask slipped, and the cold face of the market behind it was shown to all New Zealanders. He said we do not need to have caps on general practitioners’ fees because if people do not want to pay that much, they could just go down the road to another doctor. Well, they might be able to do that if they have millions of dollars and live in an area that has a lot of general practitioners. But many people know that that is not the reality for ordinary New Zealanders. New Zealanders should be very worried about having a Prime Minister who thinks that that is a reality for everyday New Zealanders. It is not.

It is normal for a person who takes the call to acknowledge the previous speaker, but I have to say that the only compliment I can make on that speech is to ignore it. Quite honestly, it was just a load of drivel.

This debate was started by Pete Hodgson. He complimented John Key on becoming the leader of the National Party 12 months ago. He was followed by Chris Carter, who said Mr Key was the Prime Minister! Well, if Chris Carter hangs around for another 12 months he will be absolutely right—not that he is likely to stay in this House, but he certainly will be able to go around and say that John Key is the Prime Minister of this country.

I want us to reflect on what has happened in the last 9 years and before. This country was a proud country. We were proud in many ways of our successes in many areas. One of the areas we were extremely proud of and successful in was sport. We were proud of our sports achievements. But I want to draw the attention of the House to what has happened this year. What happened to the America’s Cup? Fail. What happened to the rugby? Fail. What happened to the netball? Fail. What happened to the cricket? Fail. We did get one achievement. I understand that we got a record or something for texting. The point is that the only person in this country who will be happy—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Whose fault was it?

Well, the only people who will be happy about the fact we have dumbed down this country so much that instead of achieving we all have to be equal will be Helen Clark and the Labour members. We have finally reached the point where she wanted us to be—dumbed down so that the Government is in control. That is reflected no more so than in the sporting arena.

Earlier we heard Lockwood Smith, Tim Groser, and Lindsay Tisch talk about some of the things that have happened in this country, such as dumbing down and people leaving for Australia. I want to give this House one statistic today. I know that Doug Woolerton will be interested in this. In Northland this year—and this is not from me; the leaders of the Government departments will tell us this statistic—57 percent of young Māori males will leave school without being able to read and write properly. This Government says that that is OK. Actually, it is not OK. The impact on a place like Northland, and on New Zealand, is absolutely horrendous. Those kids have no option but to turn to crime and drugs. They will be part of the drug scene up there, and this Government thinks that is OK. That is not acceptable and it is one of the reasons why so many people are leaving this country.

On top of the Government dumbing down this country, it is now so unsure as to what will happen it has brought in a thing called the Electoral Finance Bill, which directs people on how to vote. Let me just read out an email I got today, because I think it reflects the issue around what will happen with the Electoral Finance Bill. The email is from someone running a campaign called NoMoreRates.com. Most members will have heard about it. The leader of the NoMoreRates.com campaign is concerned about the fact that this country has been over-rated, and there is a rates revolt. The Government’s response was that it will have a rates inquiry, and it did. It came out with a whole lot of recommendations, some good, some not so good, some useful, and some that will not be implemented. The issue is that the Government has now said it will respond sometime next year, probably during the Budget.

The impact, then, of the Electoral Finance Bill will be that the NoMoreRates.com group will not be able to comment if they do not like what the Government implements. They will not be able to go out and say: “We don’t think that what the Government is doing with regard to rates on this particular issue is satisfactory.”

💬 Gerry Brownlee: They’d be electioneering.

They would be electioneering.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They’ll be electioneering. They’ll be shut down.

They will be shut down; they will not be able to comment. The only thing they could do, of course, is register, but why should they have to register when they are talking about something to do with local government? This fellow over here, Doug Woolerton, wants to gag those people, and he has joined with the Labour socialists so that they cannot say anything.

I wonder about the Sensible Sentencing Trust. What does Doug Woolerton think about their not being able to make any comment next year? They are a group of genuine people who are worried about the crime level in this country and the issues around crime. What does Doug Woolerton do? What do the Labour socialists and New Zealand First do? They want to shut them down.

I follow my fellow Northlander, and I say that that young Māori boy up in Kaikohe Kawakawa, Whangaruru, or somewhere up there, boy he could teach that member a thing about how to deliver a decent speech. First he would tell him “I am the progeny of the ‘mother of all Budgets’.” Ruth Richardson slashed the guts out of our safety net, drove all sorts of costs down to the most vulnerable families in New Zealand, and selectively chose our young Māori families, and it is no wonder we have children today who are cut adrift. The member should not bring to the House stories that it is the fault of the mothers and the fathers. Those mothers and fathers were treated like offal. They were thrown aside in the early 1990s, but the Prime Minister had a vast strategy of investment to integrate those families back into society. So it is rich, it is shocking, that we should hear speakers from the other side of the House quoting stories about our young Māori men. They also want to celebrate and skite that our young Māori people are going to Australia.

They forget that Māoris have gone backwards and forwards to Australia since time began. Rather than being an indictment on policy and quality of life here, Māori go over there and enjoy the sunshine, play a bit of rugby, and do a bit of procreation—and so many of them drift back to Aotearoa. So National members should not put a negative, dismal, destructive spin on it, trying to draw in more voters for the votes next year—we look forward to that.

I want to tell members something. Even in Kaitāia, Awanui, Kawakawa, and Moerewa the sleepy voters have woken up. They could occasionally have been woken up to meet Hone Harawira, but unfortunately he is either in Asia or Australia. He does not know his own voters. He is “Ngāti Walkabout”. He has excelled. He has gone beyond the foreign affairs brief and is now talking to—I am not entirely sure—people under the pay of the Middle East about race relations in New Zealand. I tell Mr Harawira that he should go back to Moerewa to meet his voters as they do not know who he is.

However, I come back to the point that many New Zealanders have woken up to. It relates to the fact that National Party members have bitched and moaned and sought to create enough latitude within our electoral finance regulations so they can go ahead and suck in money from the Macquarie Bank and the other people—

💬 Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether that was an unparliamentary term that was just used by the member. I took offence at the word he used in the House, and I would like your ruling on that, please.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I did not take offence at it.

💬 Craig Foss: Do you know which word I am talking about? It was prior to the word “moaned”.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that I can imagine that the reference to a female type of dog may have caused the member from the Hawke’s Bay to suffer a rush of angst. I apologise and I withdraw that remark.

Let me continue as to why members from the other side of the House want donations; they want donations. My friend Hone Harawira got into trouble with koha. These National members are getting into trouble with donations. They want to keep the donations very secretive. They want a surreptitious cloak put over them so they can suck the money in, and then not be held accountable for the forces and influences that are driving them towards their failed policies.

Of course, we know what the first policy of a National Government would be. The first policy would be to prepare key assets for sale. The people who are unfortunately befuddling the farmers associated with the Fonterra issue are the same people who would drive the lesser souls occupying that side of the House to sell energy companies and bring in more privatisation to health. Fortunately, as a consequence of the transparency threshold, which will come into being when we pass the Electoral Finance Bill, they will not be able to get away with it.

Kiwis do not like that type of secretive funding for secret deals to sell our family silver. Kiwis do not like the fact that Auckland airport has been on the block, off the block, on the block, then off the block. Kiwis also do not like the shadowy influence of people from half-baked religions wandering around in the dead of night, furtively putting up posters and ripping down the very fine Labour Party photos of the candidate from the far north. It is unfortunate that the whānau did not find them at the right time.

The reality of why these people want to be anonymous is that their financiers are actually embarrassed by them. They will see, in a very short period of time after the next failure at the election, all these pakeke—all these tired, worn-out, mean, quibbling faces who occupy the front bench—disappear. The financiers are embarrassed about these people. Our friends from that party on that side of the House are uncomfortable to own up as to who they are in bed with. Actually, they are beyond tired. They are beyond jaded. They are approaching a rather decrepit state in life, and only the fall of life’s evensong will bring them to a suitable end.

However, the final thing I will remind us about is hidden identities. National members are trying to drive elections. They are trying to drive policies that will result in not only a worse tax burden for poor New Zealanders, a worse cost burden for the most vulnerable New Zealanders, but also assets flicked off to people who will look for a pay back; they will look for a pay back. We will have not only the hollow men again, but the whole debacle as to why assets were stripped out of Television New Zealand and sold to mates. We can see it written on the faces of the National members. Some of them are uncomfortable about that. Some of them do not want to go into the draughty halls and face up to the fact they are trying to run a crooked election. Kia ora tātou.

Some of our children will at this moment be walking or cycling out on to our streets to face the daily hazards of dangerous dogs, creepy strangers, and out-of-control bikes, not to mention rain and wind, in some cases for just $2.50 an hour or less. At the beginning of 2004 Caritas, the Catholic agency for justice, peace, and development, published a hard-hitting survey of nearly 5,000 children. The survey revealed that some as young as 11 were being forced to work to support their families, sometimes for incredibly low wages and, at times, in dangerous or downright illegal working conditions.

Earlier this week Caritas issued a second report called Delivering the Goods. I hope other members of this House will have had a chance to read the report, and, if not, I encourage them to do so. It contains detailed findings from an in-depth survey of child delivery workers in 2006, a group of workers who in some ways symbolise the ambivalent attitudes we adults have to the situation of child workers in Aotearoa today. This latest study shows that although many children delivering circulars and newspapers have good experiences on the job, many others are not faring quite so well. Many of these surveyed children, with an average age of 12½, were independent contractors, meaning that for them there are no holidays, there is no holiday pay, and there is no sick pay or other employment rights. Instead, their welcome to the world of employment includes the task of filling out an IR3 each year. Most of their pay rates fell somewhere between $1.67 and $6.25 an hour. Then, because these children are contractors, they can pay their expenses out of that $1.67—or whatever they are getting—for their bike maintenance, their carrying gear, their wet-weather gear, and their high-visibility vests, if they have them.

The survey shows that children who are in direct employment relationships rather than working as contractors do a lot better in terms of pay, support, clothing, bike allowances, and health and safety overall. But for those children who are self-employed contractors, most if not all of these protections are missing.

It is time we as a country stopped seeing some forms of work as child’s work, and thus below the radar in terms of employment rights. This not only devalues the work that children do but also may be helping to keep adult wages down, possibly at the expense of other children whom those adults are supporting. The increasing reality is that in some families children’s wages are actually propping up and supporting families’ incomes because our minimum wages are still far too low. Then again, the child who told Caritas he was earning $15 a week for delivering 88 papers a day probably is not able to contribute much to his family’s grocery or clothing bill. Another child had it written in his or her contract: “You will be paid approximately monthly.” Approximately? Is this child required to deliver to “approximately” the right addresses?

One-third of the children in the survey felt that their delivery work interfered to some degree with their school work. More than one-third expressed definite interest in joining a union for delivery workers, but of course this is hard when many of these children are contractors so have no access to a collective employment agreement. It is estimated that 31 percent of children aged 10 to 14—or 95,000—are employed or on contracts.

In 2003 the United Nations specifically recommended to New Zealand that it expedite the ongoing process of reviewing and strengthening legislation protecting all under-18-year-olds who are employed. Both the Ministry of Youth Development and the Department of Labour have acknowledged the ongoing issues about child labour and, in particular, the repeated calls from the United Nations for our country to sign up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Labour Organization core labour standards. Despite all this, it has now been 10 years since the UN first recommended that New Zealand pass legislation to protect children in employment. Since then, the Government has not introduced or passed any amendments to address this problem.

Child workers need and deserve fair employment rights. Working children deserve, at a bare minimum, at least the same employment rights as adults. Otherwise we are effectively saying that children deserve less protection than adults. We need to work with our children collaboratively, involving them in our consultation processes, to develop a framework that guarantees them these protections. Children who work should be entitled to a guaranteed minimum wage, guaranteed minimum conditions, requirements for direct employment relationships, job security, better health and safety coverage, and an opportunity to belong to a union.

It is my pleasure to conclude the general debate today. Each Wednesday, the House dedicates an hour for 12 members to raise matters that are of concern to them. They can choose any topic they like. Today, National members have talked about a range of issues—Mr Tim Groser spoke on immigration, and Lindsay Tisch spoke on the cost of compliance. Those are the issues concerning them. The matter that is of concern to me and that I wish to focus the bulk of my remarks today on is democracy. Democracy is New Zealand’s heritage. We were the first country in the world to give universal franchise to it. We are the sixth oldest democracy in the world. We were the first country in the world to give women the vote. It is not enshrined in law in terms of a constitution, so the custodians of democracy are the elected members of Parliament. That is our responsibility: to be the custodians of democracy.

Today, around New Zealand, grave concerns are being uttered by a range of groups—including the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society—and in editorials, on marches, and on talkback programmes. This matter has absolutely consumed talkback programmes. The issue before those groups that threatens the fabric of democracy, which we are custodians of, is the Electoral Finance Bill. The bill is of grave concern. We have heard over the course of the debate on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill, which passed its third reading this week, that when the Government does something it is driven only by the motive of doing good and that there is no connection to Labour.

I wish to relate to members an incident that I witnessed that gave me matter for grave concern and certainly dispels the purity of the utterances that Labour members have made. I came to Parliament in 1993, when Jim Bolger was the Prime Minister. As leader of our caucus he had one solid rule: if any member of Parliament or Cabinet Minister in the ruling Government of the time had a responsibility to hand out some money, they were not to do it; it had to be done by an official. There had to be absolute separation so that the issue of pork-barrel politics was simply not an issue. Last year, Invercargill celebrated the opening of a covered velodrome. It is one of only three in the South Island. It is a modest achievement for Invercargill, which is a leader in a number of things. The Prime Minister was present with the Minister of Internal Affairs at the opening of that event. The first thing I want to note is that the organisers of the opening event were given very clear and explicit instructions that no National members of Parliament were to be acknowledged from the podium, that they were not to be present in the official party, and that the only people to be on stage were the Prime Minister—

💬 Jill Pettis: Rubbish!

It is not rubbish. I was there; Jill Pettis was not. It is not rubbish. The only people of a political nature who were allowed to be in the official party were the Prime Minister, the Minister of Internal Affairs, and the named candidate for Invercargill, who lost the safe seat of Invercargill for Labour. He was extolled on the stage as the candidate. That all goes along very nicely. During the occasion, the Minister of Internal Affairs got to hand out a cheque for $1 million. This is pork-barrel politics of the very worst kind. It was quite clearly sold to those 2,000 people present that it was the Labour Party doing this and that it was the Labour Party’s money. That was the implication. How was this received by the good people of Invercargill? Let me give members just a little illustration. You see, it was the Prime Minister’s job to open the velodrome by cutting a ribbon. As she walked with pomp and ceremony towards the ribbon and on to the cycle track, some wit in the crowd called out “On your bike, Helen!”. I have to say that there was some applause for that statement.

The claims that Labour members have made through the debate on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill that there is no connection to Labour and nothing the Government does is actually attached to Labour is absolute nonsense. Labour has had a categorical and systematic function of doing it. I say “On your bike, Labour!”.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.