Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Last Tuesday afternoon in this Parliament the next Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr John Key, moved a motion that states that this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government. People throughout the land have said “Hear, hear!” to that, because after 8½ long, failing years—years with no vision, years of no ability to see the good in New Zealanders and their ambition to do better—this House this afternoon has the opportunity to end those long 8½ years. And that is what the people of New Zealand want. They do not want to see this Government, in its self-interest, stumble along for another 8 or 9 months and then be thrown out of office. The message from the people of New Zealand is: “Go now, Labour. Get out of the way, and let a John Key - led Government begin to work on the issues that need addressing—the questions that New Zealanders urgently need leadership on.”

Why is it that, after 8½ years of that Labour Government, New Zealand interest rates are the second-highest they have ever been in New Zealand? Why is it that as a result of 8½ years of that Government, the generation to which my four children belong cannot dream or aim for homeownership? That is not acceptable to New Zealanders, and that is why New Zealanders expect members of this House this afternoon to vote in support of Mr Key’s motion—that this House has no confidence in that Government.

It has been very interesting to listen to Government members defend themselves. Probably the most disappointing speech of all came from the Minister of Education. We have just seen, in the final question for oral answer, just how lacking that Minister is in his knowledge and understanding of the education portfolio, and, most important of all, we have seen his lack of ambition for the children of New Zealand. Under his watch, and under that of his predecessors, over one-fifth of our children are not learning to read, to write, to do maths—to have a place in a successful, growing economy. That is the legacy of that Government.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Watch out: they’re coming!

I suggest that Mr Jones just sits quietly and listens for a change. He, like other Labour members, will be held to account by the electorate. In fact, I invite Mr Jones to do the decent thing and vote in support of Mr Key’s motion, so that we can sort this out before the country now. One-fifth of our children are not learning to read, to write, and to do maths.

But it is worse than that. Under the watch of that Minister of Education, children with special needs—the most vulnerable of our children—are being sent home from school and denied their right to a full education, because the children do not have enough teacher-aide time. I invite Government members to get up on their feet and tell this House that that is acceptable. I see that their heads are down on the other side of the Chamber, and so they should be—in shame and in despair.

Why is it that in some areas of New Zealand, parents with special-needs children who need placement in special schools are having to wait, sometimes for 4 or 5 years, until the loved child of another set of parents dies? That is what is happening. I will repeat that, because I want to make sure that the members opposite hear me, and then have the opportunity to get up and defend their Government. Why is it that parents of special-needs children who need special school placements have to wait for the child—the loved, special-needs child—of another set of parents to die before they get a placement in a special school? That is what has come to New Zealand as a result of 8½ years of a miserable, mean-spirited, unimaginative, non-visionary socialist Government.

New Zealanders throughout the land have worked out that the Labour Government is more interested in ideology than in doing the best for New Zealand. Why is it that the Government, outside the secondary teachers’ collective employment contract, is paying more money to those teachers who choose to belong to a union than to those who do not? Why is taxpayers’ money being used to pay a bonus, which I understand is in the realm of $750, on the basis that a teacher belongs to a union? I ask whether that is right. Is that sort of behaviour on the part of a Government acceptable to this House? I say to this House that if it is not acceptable—and it is not acceptable to members on this side—then members should vote in favour of Mr Key’s motion of no confidence, because this will be the best chance we have during the next few weeks to get rid of this crowd, and start to give back to New Zealanders their sense of a future and give back to our children the expectation that they will be able to learn, regardless of where they live.

Members on this side of the House will not tolerate all the excuses that members opposite make for not meeting their obligations to the children of New Zealand—for there not being enough special school spaces, and for special-needs children having to be sent home by schools and denied their full entitlement to education. Children are not learning to read, write, and calculate because members on that side of the House prefer to keep a section of our population trapped in poverty. New Zealanders understand. Those members on the other side who groan and moan and just keep their heads down in despair need to realise that the people who have stood loyally behind them in election after election have finally had enough.

At long last Labour’s natural constituency is appreciating that, in John Key, New Zealand has the Prime Minister of the future. In John Key, New Zealanders can have confidence in knowing that at whatever point they start in life, they will have every opportunity to be successful. The schooling system will work for them. The housing system will work for them. The clean-up of the streets to make their communities safe will occur under a John Key - led National Government.

That is why this afternoon it is time for this House to say that members opposite will be held to account. I urge every member of this House, whatever his or her political persuasion, to recognise that out there, in New Zealand, the people have had enough. The people want this House, this afternoon, to vote in favour of John Key’s motion so that the Labour Government can be gone.

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātau ngā mihi nui ki a tātau i te tīmatanga o tēnei tau hou ao Pākehā nei.

[Greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us, and a huge one, at that, at the start of this new year of the Pākehā world.]

Ten days ago, some 8,000 expatriate New Zealanders celebrated Waitangi Day in London with a rendition of that famous haka “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!”. That action demonstrated their difference from others who live in London and it reminded them of who they are, where they are from, and the home from which they come. But if we were to believe all the reports that come across our desk, we would all be wondering what sort of home it is that we inhabit here in Aotearoa.

The month of January, as we know, was not good—enough, perhaps, to make people want to pack their bags. We heard about a shocking crime wave, which provoked a list of causes and explanations ranging from the adverse effects of alcohol to Christmas stress, a hot summer, a full moon, and so on. As we lower the microscope on our nation, the public picture has been quite frequently negative. What sort of home are we offering when seven of the 10 people killed in the first month of this year were under the age of 30? Well, the Salvation Army is just one group that provides a view on Aotearoa. Its State of the Nation Report described us as a nation that is “chronically indebted”. It details how homeownership rates have dropped and incomes have risen only modestly. These are the sorts of facts that we cannot ignore, and we need to address them.

But we should also acknowledge some of the positives, and they may not have anything to do with what we do here in Parliament. For example, there is the number of kura seeking to nurture new ideas, to stimulate creativity, and to inspire the generations of tomorrow; and there are the achievements of health and social service providers who value family and community ties. I do not wish to minimise the trauma and brutality that are associated with the impact of violence in our community. I welcome the commitment made to community groups working to address these issues, and I commend the community and voluntary sector for its dedication in building a safer society. But we must not ignore the greatest majority of our young people, and the greatest majority of our families, with a focus on, and preoccupation with, the noisy exceptions.

Of course we must address the causes and consequences of boy racers, violent offenders, taggers, and others on the margins of our community, but it is vital that we pay heed to those who have the answers—those involved in our communities, those who hear the dreams, and those who care. To that end, the Māori Party calls for a genuine progress index, which would count the social and environmental costs and benefits of economic activity. It would evaluate the impact of an economy that delivers on tax cuts but may, at the same time, be incurring hidden losses such as depleted fisheries, dirty rivers, gridlocked cities, and damaged families.

As an example, a full cost-accounting analysis of the brand new plan to build 3,000 new homes on Housing New Zealand Corporation land in the Tāmaki suburbs of Glen Innes, Point England, and Panmure reveals a range of issues other than the desire to create the affordable home. As the Housing New Zealand Corporation chair, Pat Snedden, himself admitted, a couple would need to earn at least $70,000 to service a mortgage on some so-called affordable homes. What appears to be overlooked, however, in this bright new plan is the fact that the average household income for Māori families living in Tāmaki-makau-rau, based on 2006 data, is $60,000—that is, $10,000 short of the magic threshold. Barriers to Māori owning their own homes include not only low incomes but also the high levels of debt that people are accumulating, poor access to information about home buying, difficulty raising a deposit, and, of course, rising house prices. For many Māori and Pasifika peoples, this housing is not affordable housing, yet these are the very people who need the new housing the most. Who will benefit most from this proposal? Will it be Māori and Pasifika families, or private investors, who will reap the rewards of improved property values? How does the sense of community identity fare in the decision to hand over parts of Tāmaki to developers?

The Māori Party would be one of the first to acknowledge the desire for progress, the call to stimulate better employment and economic opportunities, and the wish of the people to take advantage of health and educational opportunities, and to live in safety. True progress will allow people to benefit from better access to homeownership, while also maintaining community values and harmony. We want to know that our homes are protected, and, indeed, that the land we call home remains ours and is not up for sale to the highest bidder.

New Zealanders are either thinking about leaving New Zealand or wishing they could, and that is a tragedy for this country. The current Government is the reason, and we know that the number leaving each year is about equivalent to the size of Rotorua—about 70,000 people. They are leaving because the current Government is not addressing the issues that face New Zealand today.

I am proud to support the motion of John Key that the House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government because it has failed to make significant improvement in the real issues facing New Zealanders, which are important to them; because it is tired, lacks ambition, and is bereft of ideas—that is why it keeps pinching National’s policies, and everybody knows that—and because it does not have the leadership that our country deserves, and has failed to capitalise on the opportunities that have been available for nearly 9 years. This Government has done next to nothing about them. It has concentrated more and more on its own survival and less on the issues that matter to the people of New Zealand.

This Government has squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future. It seriously has. We see squandered opportunities when we look at the issues raised by my colleague Bill English in recent press releases such as “More gruel please Dr Cullen?”, where he stated: “… Finance Minister Michael Cullen has described workers’ approach to tax cuts as an Oliver Twist mentality—they will just come back for more.” Dr Cullen has a disgraceful attitude towards the people of New Zealand.

Bill English said also that Helen Clark must front up over the Owen Glenn donations. But those members have not done that. Gerry Brownlee said: “Labour is in denial as electricity prices loom large”, but has Labour done anything about that over the last 9 years? It has done nothing. Another National Party headline states: “Labour kisses goodbye to single core benefit”. Again this Government has failed to achieve any outcome in the last 9 years. It has introduced policies but has then canned them, because they just do not work. Press releases by Phil Heatley state: “Promises on housing looking empty”, “Fisheries staff blowout…”, and also “Labour’s affordable homes not so affordable”. That point has been recognised by most members of this House, except for those on the Government benches.

We have only to look at what Tony Ryall is achieving in the health portfolio to see the failure of this Government to achieve anything in nearly the last 9 years with regard to health. The Government has spent billions more, but the health system is getting worse and worse. New Zealanders know that, and no amount of rhetoric or spin from the Government benches will convince New Zealanders otherwise. The health system is failing.

I will state the questions that Kiwis really want answers to. Why, after 8 years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages and wages in Australia and other parts of the world getting bigger and bigger? Why, under Labour, do we get a tax cut only in election year and not when we really needed it—years ago? We need only look at Dr Michael Cullen and his attitude towards New Zealanders, and we understand why.

Why can our hard-working kids not afford to buy their own house? Once again, we can understand why when we look at the policies of the current Government. Why is one in five Kiwi kids leaving school with totally inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? That is an absolute tragedy. Why has the health system not improved, with billions and billions of dollars being spent on it? Labour cannot answer that one; well, we can. Why is the rate of violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar, and why is Labour unable to do anything about it?

This parliamentary year is a good opportunity to look ahead and consider the challenges that New Zealand faces in 2008. I can tell the House that there are plenty of them. There are interest rates, children leaving school, and the nearly 800 Kiwis who leave New Zealand every week for Australia. There is a breakdown in our health system, and collapsing finance companies are wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

A drought is affecting many parts of the country, and our electricity supply is in a shaky state. Those two are actually inextricably linked. Right now there is a drought crisis, and I am sure that the current Government is probably failing to take into account what that really means for New Zealand. Right now, as of last Thursday, the Matamata-Piako District Council said that the Morrinsville township had, at that point, 3 weeks’ water supply left, and after that it would have to truck water in. There is a soil moisture deficit of minus 133 millimetres.

💬 Sue Moroney: Well, that’s the council. The council does water supplies.

That might be a council matter, but where is the Government in a drought crisis situation? What is it doing to support farmers throughout the country? This is a $500 million loss to the economic situation of New Zealand. This will filter from our country’s rural areas right through to the cities, and they will feel the brunt of that. Families are hurting; where is the support from this current Government? Does it really know or understand that if we are looking at an electricity crisis, it will be hugely compounded by the serious drought situation we are in, up and down this country? The Government should be taking notice of the alarm bells being rung by Gerry Brownlee. But it is not; it is not taking the situation seriously, at all.

In the speech at the start of the parliamentary year, the Prime Minister had a chance to address many of the issues we have talked about. She had the chance to be bold and visionary, to reveal how she would deal with the problems many New Zealanders face, and to lift the performance of her Government. By gee, that is needed; after 9 years in power there has been literally no performance, whatsoever. We have not seen any change to the economic and social problems in New Zealand. We have seen that all of those problems have only got worse.

The Prime Minister did not take the opportunity. She announced two new ideas—mostly, some initiatives for non-governmental organisations, which borrow from the policy on turbocharging community groups that National announced last year, and a plan for affordable homes that calls for more Government-led housing schemes, like the Hobsonville development in Auckland. But we know that that will not deliver. Unfortunately, the Hobsonville development will not be a glittering success. It has taken at least 8 years to get off the ground, and last week the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation, Pat Snedden, admitted that a buyer would have to have about $70,000 to be able to afford such an opportunity.

Well, unlike Labour, National will focus on the real issues facing New Zealand, and we will not fixate on the tired old debates from 20 or 30 years ago. Unlike Labour, we understand why Kiwis are demanding change. They are demanding change because they think it is time for a Government that says no to mediocrity and expects more for New Zealand. And that is what National will do.

National will lift wages by driving economic growth, investing in infrastructure, having ongoing tax cuts, and monitoring the quantity and quality of Government spending—and boy, that cannot come soon enough! We will create safer communities by taking the brave steps needed to address this country’s growing crime problems. We will ensure that our education system delivers real opportunities for our young people. We want to give Kiwis confidence in the public services they rely on, and we are more interested in building performance than in building bureaucracy.

We will build a more confident and proud New Zealand, and we will uphold the democracy and freedoms that Kiwis enjoy today. We will not allow Kiwis’ democracy and freedoms to be undermined by legislation—like the Electoral Finance Act and the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill—and we will continue to oppose any moves this Government makes in that direction. What this current Government is doing to the freedoms and democracies of New Zealand is an absolute disgrace, and I think it is an absolute tragedy that we have to continue to put up with this current tired old Government. We are proud of John Key as the future leader for New Zealand.

Last week this House was treated—and that is the appropriate word—to a very fine speech, indeed. From a New Zealand First point of view, it was tinged, dare I say it, with some sadness. The speech I refer to, of course, is the valedictory speech of my colleague and New Zealand First MP the Hon Brian Donnelly. We will miss Brian. He was a good colleague, a hard-working MP, and a man who not only played a significant part in the workings of Parliament but played a very prominent part in the workings of the New Zealand First Party.

💬 Hone Harawira: And a good Northland man.

And a good Whangarei man, a Northland man.

But today we have his replacement. He is another old friend, making his third venture—is it—into the House, his third appearance in the House. He is a man of good humour, who is very competent and very experienced, and he will be an asset to New Zealand First. On behalf of my colleagues I formally welcome Dail Jones to this Parliament and to the New Zealand First parliamentary team.

One of the things that the Prime Minister stated in the opening part of her speech was a series of facts that pleased New Zealand First no end. She spoke about unemployment levels. She told us—and I believe these facts to be absolutely true—there are 377,000 more jobs in the economy than there were a relatively short time ago, and that the unemployment rate hit a new low of 3.4 percent in the December quarter, which is the lowest level since the household labour force survey began 20 years ago. Those are achievements. She went on to say that the labour force participation rate is the highest ever recorded in the survey, and that the total numbers of those of working age on benefits are down by almost 140,000 on the numbers that the Labour Government inherited in 1999 when it came to power. I have not heard one National MP give any credence to those facts or those figures, yet they are huge, huge achievements.

From the point of view of New Zealand First, when we put this party together, when it was formed, one of our priorities was to address the unemployment level in this country. It was a major concern, for a number of reasons. First, we believe that people working play a much more positive role in the community, feel part of the whole scene, and lead much more productive lives. I think that unemployment was our first planning priority, if I recall correctly. My colleague Doug Woolerton is nodding, so he agrees with that. That the unemployment rate has gone down carries a lot of weight with us. We compliment the Labour Government on that achievement, because it is no mean feat.

Of course, when unemployment goes down, further pressure is put on immigration, on the people who come to this country. The Immigration Bill is going through Parliament, and is before a select committee at this very moment. New Zealand First makes no apology for taking a tough line on immigration. We believe that the people who come to this country must be law-abiding, be of good character, have good health, have a job, speak English, and be prepared to integrate into this society. This is a country with values worth protecting, and this is a country that gives everybody a fair go. We will welcome people here but they have to fit in.

When we get immigration wrong—certainly, in terms of numbers—it has an adverse effect on our social infrastructure, and it has an adverse effect on our physical infrastructure. We just heard Sandra Goudie telling us what is wrong in terms of some of the physical infrastructure, and, indeed, some of the social infrastructure. It is important that we control the numbers of people who are coming here. It is equally important—perhaps even more important in many ways—that we control the types of people who are coming here. I recently asked a written question—

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Tell us who let the poms in, Pete.

I will disregard that remark, I say to Dover. My question was about the criminals who come here. I will read the answer that I received back. This document that came back from the Department of Corrections was headed “Breakdown by most serious offence resulting in incarceration for prisoners currently held in custody who identified their citizenship as non-New Zealand at the time of reception”, and there was 558 of them. That is not very good, I might add. When I got this answer, I thought “Well, what’s the worst offence?”. Ninety-seven of these people either raped a female aged 12 to 16 years, raped a female over 16 years, or raped a female under 12 years. Ninety-seven of the non - New Zealand people are guilty of that. Then I went through all the sexual crimes. There are crimes here of murder, burglary, and goodness knows what. Of the 558 crimes, 190 are sexual crimes.

Do we need these people here? Did we need them here in the first place? Do we need them here now? The answer must be a resounding no. I hope that when these people come out of prison, they are put on the first plane out of New Zealand. I hope there is nobody in here who will defend them. New Zealand First will not. We will book their tickets out of New Zealand, if we are given the opportunity. This is a shocking indictment on our immigration policy—letting in these sorts of numbers of people who commit these sorts of offences.

An area of concern that the Prime Minister did not refer to but that has been raised in this House, and it certainly has been raised by New Zealand First with the Minister of Transport, the Minister for Transport Safety, and the Associate Minister of Transport, is society’s concern about people who drink and drive on a regular basis. New Zealand First has put up a series of ideas to those Ministers, and to the Minister for Transport Safety in particular, and we are hopeful of seeing those ideas adopted. As yet, they have not been incorporated in the bills that have been put before the House, but people driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a serious issue.

The Government is going to tackle the drugs issue, and we compliment it on that move. But we not only want the alcohol and drugs problem to be addressed; we also want to address the attitude that some drivers have that they can continually get in a car, drive while under the influence, get caught, get slapped with a wet bus ticket, and drive again. The guys who have been disqualified care nothing about the disqualification. They continue to get in a car and drive. That is a major concern for society in general, and it is an issue that New Zealand First will be promoting very, very hard.

One other area of concern that was not mentioned by the Prime Minister, and that is close to my heart—and I was expecting there to be something on it in the statement—is what we are going to do about the shipping industry. That issue has been raised time and time again by me and by New Zealand First over the last 10 to 12 years. We have come close; the Minister of Transport issued a booklet on it. But there was nothing on it in the Prime Minister’s statement. I say that this is an island nation and we have to come to grips with the fact that we need a shipping service—we definitely need a coastal shipping service. I have to say that it is a personal disappointment that this matter has not been proceeded with with a little bit more haste.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Sunk without trace.

No, it will not be sunk without trace, because we are going to keep it afloat, but it is getting that way. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

It is my pleasure and privilege to rise to speak in what is supposed to be the debate replying to the Prime Minister’s statement. Certainly there was everything to reply to, for the Opposition. I have to say that I would have been disappointed if the member who has just resumed his seat, Peter Brown, had not mentioned shipping. It would have been out of character. I have to say also that I do not agree with a lot of what the member had to say. But this is a debate, and I want at least to acknowledge that he entered into a debate. He had ideas, he delivered them calmly and reasonably to this House, and he put them forward for consideration, and I want to compliment him on that.

What a stark contrast to the efforts we have had from most of those members opposite. We had one from Sandra Goudie previously. I do not know how she can keep a straight face while regurgitating over and over again those same notes that we have now seen in the hands of 30 or so Opposition members, repeating things that are simply untrue. Maybe in her case she simply does not know.

I have to say that the rot started on day one. John Key got up. He had a great opportunity. This was the great opportunity to get up and deliver real substance. What did he do? He did nothing; absolutely nothing. He made jokes that we had to have a rent-a-crowd audience to laugh at. What did Colin Espiner say? Let us be fair. Colin Espiner is not someone who jumps instantly to the defence of the Government. Colin Espiner said: “Key failed to rise to the occasion yesterday.” That was his view on John Key’s performance in this all-important election year debate. He went on to say about this man who wants to be Prime Minister, and I quote him again: “He failed to deliver. There was no substance and little in the way of new ideas or a vision for the country.” No substance, no vision—and that was the best that the National Party had to offer in this debate. Since then it has been downhill from no vision and no substance.

This Government has a big-picture policy set. We have rolled it out for 8 years. We have delivered on working New Zealand towards sustainable, prosperous, and long-term opportunities, and secure futures for all New Zealand families, whether they are young or old. That is the sort of work this Government has been about on behalf of New Zealanders and, most important, with New Zealanders for the last 8 years.

Just as a few examples coming out of the last 12 months, I say that 2007 was another year of major achievements, such as widely extended affordable health-care and the introduction of 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds. Despite the daily efforts of members opposite, that has been a resounding success from one end of this country to the other. Tens of thousands of young children are seeing the direct benefit of that policy.

KiwiSaver is another one of those numerous areas. I could spend my 10 minutes going through the list of flip-flops we have seen from that side of the House, and particularly from Mr Key, and KiwiSaver is just one of them. In a matter of months, well over 400,000 Kiwis have joined KiwiSaver. It is an amazing success, and of course that is why John Key has done one of his now daily flip-flops.

There is a plan under way for a long-term, genuinely sustainable New Zealand, such as support for economic development through things like the business tax package. Interestingly, what did the National Party do when—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Voted against it.

Its members voted against it. The National Party voted against tax relief for business. That is the track record of the National Party in 2007.

There has been massive economic development, such as telecommunications deregulation, massive infrastructure investment, and tertiary reforms. That is what ambition is about. We have only just begun. So much has been achieved as we have worked together as New Zealanders over the last 8 years with the sort of visionary leadership Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have provided that New Zealand can be proud of, but there is much more to do.

When I hear the word “ambition” come out of John Key’s mouth, and its repetition by his caucus members, one after the other, it really makes me choke, because we have not heard a single word—a single word—of ambition for New Zealand in any sense that matters. There is no substance, no meaningful policy, and no direction, only bumper sticker one-liners. Well, it simply will not do. This Government, and this Labour Party, have major ambition for New Zealand, not only over the last 8 years but also going forward.

What a wonderful example we saw of that in the Prime Minister’s address, with a major funding boost for community-based organisations. This is not only because of the almost half-billion dollars of funding to be injected into that sector over the next 4 years but also, and perhaps most important, because of the long-term predictability and security of funding arrangements. There will be engagement with the sector to ensure the financial stability it needs, the removal of unnecessary impediments to it getting on with the job will be locked in, and there will be adjustments when costs hit the work being done. All of those things are built into that package. That is one of the most revolutionary steps forward for this sector in living memory, and once the implications work their way through, I think people will start to get some serious sense of what the word “ambition” means for New Zealand.

Another area is the Schools Plus programme—creating and building schools for our future. They are not the sorts of things Mr Allan Peachey got up to say that he wanted to drag back to the future. That man must be feeling so bitter. There is he with all the ideas—not that I like his ideas, but he does have some.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: He hasn’t got any.

Oh, yes, he has. To be fair, Mr Peachey has some ideas. He wants to drag back bulk funding. He wants bulk funding. Even if they are old ideas, at least he has some. The alternative is that National puts up someone who does not have a single idea for education. But then she is consistent with the National front bench; I guess she fits right in there.

The B4 School checks are another major focus on the well-being of our young children. There have been so many policies over the last 8 years.

This Government is not standing still; it is focusing on greater rights for victims of crime, building on the work that has been done over the last 8 years. We also have the plan to increase the supply of affordable housing. I choke every time the National spokesperson gets up, talks about housing, and challenges the Government housing—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I bet you do. It’s because of your track record.

The record I am talking about is that of the National Government during the 1990s, when it sold 13,000 houses. This Government has built houses.

While I am talking about building houses, I must say that one of the great flip-flops of the last little while has been the project in Hobsonville, around the area where Mr Key comes from. Mr Key now claims to be supporting that development. He said: “But if you look at Government land well Hobsonville is in my electorate, they’ve identified that as a place where affordable housing could be built. I agree with them …” That is what he said on 13 February this year. But as Duncan Garner noted: “Key’s position on Hobsonville is at its best much weaker than a year ago—at its worst, Labour can rightly argue that he has flip flopped.” That, probably, is one of this year’s great political understatements.

John Key is the man who described putting State houses in his electorate as being “economic vandalism”. We should never let that man stand with a straight face in this House, talk about State housing, and say he is proud of where he comes from—the hell he is! That is what John Key thinks of people who live in State houses. He does not want a bar of them in the heart of his electorate. He wants that piece of land carved up for the rich and affluent, and no one else. The developers who are the friends of that man and the National Party want that.

Well, I say to John Key that he cannot have it both ways. This Government believes that every Kiwi of this generation and the next generation deserves a fair start and a good chance—the sort of chance that previous Labour Governments provided for Mr Key. That is the truth of the matter. Like so many of his kind, he wants to pull up the ladder after he has enjoyed the benefits of that opportunity. The difference is plain: the ambition for New Zealand and New Zealanders resides firmly and clearly on this side of the House.

A great deal of politics is about credibility and whether the public can actually believe what one is claiming. In the last few days this country has seen a series of events occur, by which Labour’s credibility will be eternally tarnished. I refer to the issue of Owen Glenn and funding, and of “cash for honours”. I will take the House through a little bit of the history of the facts, then I will ask members in this House to say whether they think there is even a tinge of concern about the timing.

For example, Mr Glenn has been an incredibly successful transport entrepreneur for many, many years, but when did he get his gong? Did he get it 7 years ago, 9 years ago, 12 years ago, or 15 years ago? No; he got it the year that he gave the Labour Party a $100,000 interest-free loan. That is right. So there is the first question on credibility. Did the Government say it honoured Mr Glenn for his contributions to transport policy? Well, if that was the case, then there were many other opportunities in other years for it to have happened. But no; just as the moon and the stars aligned for Annette King’s problem of violent crime in Auckland, so they aligned for Mr Glenn to get his gong at just the same time he had given the Labour Party $500,000 for the 2005 election.

Let us track through the timing on this issue. If we go back to 31 December—the time of the gong—we see that Mike Williams, the Labour Party president, rejected any suggestions that Labour had rewarded the man who was also its largest donor. He said: “I know it will be interpreted in that fashion, but I think he richly deserves it. He is a generous man.” That is what Mike Williams said—that he richly deserves it and he is a generous man. Well, I understand why Mike Williams would say that. I understand exactly why Mike Williams would say that.

Mike Williams went on to say that Mr Glenn had not made any donations to the Labour Party since 2005. So the next question of credibility is this: who in this country believes that the president of any major political party that was in receipt of a $100,000 interest-free loan would not remember it? I ask members in the House to put their hands up if they think that the president of a major political party could forget that, especially given that the party received $500,000 from Mr Glenn at the election before. There is not a mutter—not a murmur.

It goes on and gets better. I know that Helen Clark learnt a number of things from Tony Blair. She learned lots about the third way, and all that fuzzy, Steve Maharey stuff. But I did not know that she had learnt about the “cash for honours” stuff as well as she had. When one listens to the timing of this issue with regard to Mr Glenn’s original claim, one finds that he had been offered the job as Minister of Transport. I ask members to listen to the timing of it. I mean, poor old Harry Duynhoven must be absolutely spitting tacks over this. For 21 years he has been there, wanting desperately to be the Minister of Transport, and not a mutter nor a murmur comes his way. The Prime Minister meets Mr Glenn at a yachting function—that is very Labour-ish, is it not; it was at a Kawau yachting function over some chardonnay—and suddenly it was all on. Mr Glenn was offered the portfolio.

I ask members to listen to the Prime Minister’s response to this claim on 15 February, because it is really worth listening to. I have all of the newspaper clippings from her interview if members want to see them. She said that it never happened. In response to the question of whether Mr Glenn was offered the transport portfolio, she said it never happened. But then 2 days later that got changed a bit. She said that if it had happened, then she did not remember it. Well, how can she say that it never happened and then say that if it had happened, she did not remember it?

Hang on; there is a third option. We then get to the third option, which is that she did not remember it, but if it had happened, then it would have been said in jest. Who believes that? Again, members who believe that sequence of events should put their hands up. There is not one hand. That is dead right. The credibility on this issue is shot to pieces.

In politics, timing is everything. I know that when an issue breaks on this side of the House that we need to deal to, it gets dealt to really quickly so that we do not let it linger. When the Mr Glenn issue about the transport portfolio was broken on 15 February, one would have expected that if it was not correct and needed to be corrected, then about an hour later the actual correction and the realignment would have occurred. But it did not occur on 15, 16, or 17 February. Only yesterday, at 1.37 p.m., did Audrey Young report on her blog that she had just been told by Mr Glenn that it was a facetious comment taken out of context. Again, I ask members whether they believe that. If that is what it had really been, then he would have said so straight away at the time, 5 days ago, when it blew up to be an issue.

I have to say that when the Prime Minister says she was saying it in jest, then it has to be the funniest line, because she is really well known for her humour. She is really well known for being a bit of a larrikin and for throwing these jokes around at parties, is she not? Oh, yes! I am sure that when she said to David Benson-Pope: “We are kicking you out of Dunedin South.”, he saw the funny side of the joke, and said: “Prime Minister, you are great with that humour.” I am sure she is well known for her funny lines at parties. Mr Glenn should have known that he was dealing with a Prime Minister who, when she goes to parties, just tells one-liners and funny jokes, because that is what it was said to be. But we do not believe that, because there is even more to come. Yes, wait, there is more.

Now we are talking about some sort of an honorary position in Monaco that Mr Glenn not only thinks he should be getting but also says he has been promised. He said he has been told that. He said—and I am sorry to use the word, but it is a quote from him—he will be given it “If Winston ever gets off his arse”. That is what Mr Glenn said. I know he will have a long wait for it to happen, but that is what he said.

New Zealanders are disgusted at this sort of behaviour. They are really disgusted, because there are heaps of New Zealand business leaders who more richly deserve honours in this country and who have done some stunning things for this nation, but who have not been rewarded. I put it to Labour members that the only reason that has not happened is it is suspected—I do not know, but I think it is suspected—that those people might have been contributors to the National Party in the past, but not Mr Glenn. Members should again remember the timing of this.

There is another thing about timing that I love. Mr Glenn said he gave the $500,000 during the 2005 election campaign. He said that what really riled him was the “sneaky” way in which the Exclusive Brethren had reportedly tried to hide the fact it was behind the campaign. Actually, Mr Glenn is again being economic with the truth, because he gave his first $200,000 of the $500,000 a year before the Exclusive Brethren had even been heard of. I had never heard of the Exclusive Brethren; I thought they were called Plymouth Brethren or something. I did not know there was an Exclusive Brethren. When Mr Glenn gave that money in 2004 the Exclusive Brethren were not even an issue. The issue had never been raised. We had never heard of them. There were no pamphlets.

So when Mr Glenn said he gave his money to the Labour Party only to balance up the campaign from the Exclusive Brethren, it was a lie. It was an absolute, outright lie. Let us look at the timing. The timing was that he gave the money beforehand.

Here is a sneaky bit about timing. Members will love this one. The Cabinet paper that covers the Electoral Finance Bill stated: “We will ban any offshore donations to political parties.” That was in the original bill and in the draft that came to this House. Then, suddenly, Mike Williams went out publicly and said that, yes, the Labour Party had accepted money from this man—a $100,000 loan—and that it would accept money again at the next election campaign. Members should guess what happened. The legislation was changed so that expat New Zealanders living overseas can now make donations.

I say to this House that it is not acceptable that this Labour Government passes such legislation. Some foreigners out there, like Julian Robinson, have done more for New Zealand in terms of progressing things like a free-trade agreement with the United States. I do not know whether he has given money to the National Party; I can swear before a lie detector that I do not know that. That man has done more for New Zealand, but, no, he will not be seen as being a mate. But what is Mr Glenn seen as being? It is corruption of the very worst sort and it will be Labour’s biggest downfall.

That was the rounding up of the National Party on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. We do not know whether we have given any gongs to funders of the National Party. Why? Because we do not know who the funders of the National Party are. They are even more anonymous than most of its caucus. The previous speaker, Maurice Williamson, may be confused. Mr Glenn gave a chair to Auckland University. The National Party gave its former president a table in London. I know which will be put to better use for the purpose of this country.

The start of this debate summed up what has happened and it sums up this election year. The Prime Minister gave a speech of substance and content. Mr Key opened with a one-liner and then, exhausted by his pre-prepared, second-hand wit, forgot to say anything else for the next 20 minutes. On the one hand we had the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, a leader of international stature; on the other hand we had Mr Key, whose proudest moment of 2008 so far is to hongi with Tame Iti.

There were major policy announcements in the Prime Minister’ statement. There has been a massive increase in funding for the Pathways to Partnership programme, which will put much of the community or voluntary sector on a sound financial basis into the long-term future. It was not mentioned by the National Party.

There was further explanation of the Schools Plus programme. It is not a programme like National’s policy, which was: “Let us find something for the school failures to do and pass them on to the polytechs and private training establishments.” It is not about the 3,000 16 and 17-year-olds who are on benefits, 1,000 of whom are on the invalids benefit, for a start. Members should think about which 16 and 17-year-olds we are talking about in that regard. Instead, Government members are talking about those people who are not succeeding at school and about how we will change our schools so that every kid goes into the third form and wants to stay at school, to succeed through to the age of 16 or 17, and to pass into the remainder of our education system—not how to validate failure, but how to create success within the education system by multiple pathways towards that success.

Then there was foreshadowing of further major housing policy announcements. All of this followed on.

We have a strong economy—the longest phase of economic growth for a generation or more. National presided over the worse recession in our modern history. In employment we have seen the growth of 377,000 extra jobs, and we have the lowest rate of unemployment ever measured in modern surveys. KiwiSaver is an outstanding success. I will come back to that again in a minute. Working for Families is reducing the legacy of child poverty that we inherited from National, whereby one in three children was being raised in poverty under the previous National Government.

The Prime Minister discussed infrastructure spending. There has been more than a doubling of spending on roads and a twelvefold increase in spending on public transport under this Government.

The policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education was pooh-poohed by National members. They sent Paula Bennett round the country to try to destroy it. It is an outstanding success. In primary health care there are now cheaper prescriptions and cheaper doctors’ visits for all New Zealanders.

Business tax cuts and research and development tax credits were discussed, which National voted against. Indeed, National, when it could, voted against all of those measures—every single one. Even now, it cannot spell out its position on KiwiSaver. Let me update them. There are now getting on for 450,000 people in KiwiSaver. There are now more KiwiSavers than there were people who voted for the National Party in 2002 when Bill English was the leader. There are more KiwiSavers than the total vote for National in 2002. I ask National Party members to think about that. They are running out of time for a flip-flop on that one and it will be a real problem for them unless they move very quickly. They will be in terrible trouble if KiwiSavers see a National Party promising to take the money away from them.

We are building a stronger future despite the current economic uncertainty. Who has created the current economic uncertainty in the world at large? This economic uncertainty has come out of the subprime mortgage market crisis in the United States. Who were the people who created the subprime mortgage market crisis in the United States? It was the smart alec, shonky financial manipulators inventing new credit instruments, who were not worried about anything except how to create money out of money rather than creating money out of anything else—how to manufacture money by simply shifting money around and playing clever games with it.

Who does that remind members of in terms of a member of this House? Who made his money out of moving money around? Who is familiar with that kind of shonky financial market manipulation? Who is the shonky member in that regard? John Key is the shonky member in that regard. It is not surprising that those two names have to rhyme. Even now, he goes around telling the country that debt is no problem and that we can borrow whatever we want to carry out whatever promises he has to make to try to win office. That is what he is saying all around this country at the present time.

John Key says that his one issue is the wage gap with Australia. In 1990 wages in Australia were 19 percent higher than in New Zealand. In 1999 they were 29.5 percent higher than in New Zealand. Today they are 30 percent higher than in New Zealand. Do members notice when that wage gap occurred? It occurred under a National Government. At the same time as poverty was increasing, real wages were falling behind those in Australia. If that is his issue, then he has the wrong issue to be running on in this particular election.

We know John Key is opposed to the minimum wage. What is his real policy on wages for New Zealanders? Does he support—

💬 Hon Member: More!

Well, how come, then, that in an interview in Whangarei, when he was asked about comments that the trade union movement—and, indeed, the Labour Party—would like to see wages rise, he said: “We would love to see wages drop.” Because, he said, wages could only come from productivity increases—and so they can—but who invests in those productivity increases? It is business, and what will encourage business to do that? Tax cuts for business, and research and development tax credits will. And what did Mr Key do on those? He voted against those mechanisms for increasing productivity and for lifting real wages. Instead, he goes right back to the 1990s and says: “How do we strive for stronger economic growth and efficiency? Let us cut ordinary New Zealanders’ wages. We would love to see wages drop.”

Here, we are dealing with a man of no fixed principles, only fixed ambitions. John Key is a man who, his caucus colleagues tell us, is shallow. They tell us he will do anything to win. He is a man who will say anything to anybody to try to win support.

Just last week in Southland John Key promised a suspensory loan for the Alliance Group to fund its proposed mega meat-company. This is 1970s politics. He is trotting around the country, promising loans and beneficial moves to anybody who cares to put up his or her hand. He says: “Please say ‘Yes’, and I will say ‘Yes’ before you even say ‘Please Sir’.” That is the approach he is now taking around the country.

Against this, Labour offers substance, it offers success, it offers experience, it offers cheaper prescriptions pills—[Interruption] I say to Dr Smith—and the policies that people actually support. This is going to be a fun election year for this Labour-led Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The time for this debate has expired.