General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One of the issues that have been of great interest to the House in today’s question time has been tax cuts. What is extremely important to remember—and this is New Zealand First policy—is that, first, people have to have jobs before they can pay tax. New Zealand First supports a policy of high employment and good wages. If the economy ever does get into any trouble, tax cuts usually take second place. First of all, as earners we want to make sure we have a job, and it is only if we have a job that we then have to worry about paying tax. Some members who go on about tax cuts should remember that high employment and a well-paid job are the things that are of most importance to all concerned.

In keeping with the issue of high employment, the question arises about the proposed New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement. The leader of New Zealand First said today, at a meeting in Stratford: “Let me be clear—our policy position has not changed, we do not favour FTAs with low wage economies. We have not seen the full details of the proposed China FTA—so we cannot respond in detail. But we would make this point—both Labour and National have already nailed their colours to the China FTA mast. When we look at the China FTA we will ensure that retirees are not caught in the cross-fire.”, and I would add that we will ensure that New Zealanders’ jobs are not placed in peril as a result of the crossfire. If people do not have a job, there is no point talking about tax cuts, because they are not paying any tax, at all.

The issue that I really want to speak about today is the problem that arose with the first major analysis of our schools’ National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) marking system, which indicates there are grave deficiencies in the way in which many of our children are being treated by the NCEA system. Some students have been given over-exaggerated marks, and others have been given lower marks that have potentially prevented them from obtaining university entrance. The wider community, including employers, must have confidence in the NCEA system. The deputy chief executive, qualifications division of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Bali Haque, is frank about the situation and has identified a number of reasons why schools may have had better than expected or worse than expected results. Included in these reasons are that teachers did not mark to the national standard for the internals.

He was also frank in indicating that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will contact schools, through the school relationship manager, to discuss assessment practices in the subjects for which there were outliers, and provide advice, guidance, and monitoring, if appropriate.

Of course, the situation is very much in keeping with New Zealand First’s policy at the last election, when we made it clear that we need to conduct an immediate inquiry into, and maintain an ongoing review of, NCEA, its assessment systems, and, in particular, the setting of standards and management of the assessment processes by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Our policy has been very clear, and it has proved to be correct on this issue, as our policies are on many occasions, bearing in mind, of course, that our policies are often copied by other political parties.

New Zealand First believes that education is a critical, social, and economic investment in our country. In the formative educational years of New Zealanders, from early childhood education through to compulsory schooling, NCEA is the zenith of our schooling system. It should be a system that is totally beyond reproach. It should be a system that works fairly for all New Zealanders, so that no one is disadvantaged, or advantaged, by the manner of its operation. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority, of course, is to be congratulated on undertaking the assessment so early in the life of the NCEA exams, and in keeping with New Zealand First policy; and it is to be equally congratulated on supplying the information upon which the criticism is based. We hope that we can also congratulate the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on the assessment process that takes place to make sure these difficulties do not arise in the future. I see in the latest Education Gazette that it is appointing additional moderators—I think about 33 moderators—to help with reducing the problem in the future.

New Zealand has a high standing in the educational world, and those people who are interested in sending their children to study here will appreciate that there is a rigorous overview of NCEA and the New Zealand education system generally. That overview ensures that we are transparent and will take all necessary steps to ensure our education system and the education industry are scrutinised and adjusted to prevent any question of favouritism or other more severe criticism. As I say, we want to make sure that in New Zealand we have high employment and that people actually have jobs. It is only then that people will be paying tax and worrying about tax cuts.

One wonders how much more detail the Minister of Foreign Affairs needs to establish that China is a low-wage country. We will see. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a remark that I think most New Zealanders would regard as one of the least informed, most offhand, and most out-of-touch comments a Prime Minister could make in the current economic environment. She airily tossed off this comment to the journalists: “Mortgage rates are not going through the roof.” Well, there has not been a time when that comment could be more wrong. That is how we know that Helen Clark is completely out of touch with what is happening to New Zealanders who own homes, have mortgages, have credit card debt, and run overdrafts. For all of those people, interest rates are going through the roof.

I will give the Prime Minister some of the figures. These are the Reserve Bank’s figures. In December 2006 the average 2-year fixed rate was 8.18 percent. In December 2007, which is just 4 months ago, the average 2-year fixed rate was 9.5 percent. The best advice that we have from bankers and economists is that the 2-year fixed rate, which a lot of New Zealanders are on, is heading to over 10 percent. One has only to look at the information published on financial websites all over the world about what banks are paying for the funding that they are obtaining in the market, to see that interest rates are going through the roof. In fact, there has not been a time when mortgage interest rates have been going up faster, and there has never before been a Prime Minister who knew less about it, has cared less about it, or has said less about it.

How much difference do interest rates make to an average New Zealander with a mortgage? I will tell members how much difference they make to average New Zealanders; a difference that they do not make to Helen Clark. According to the Reserve Bank, the average floating rate in December 1999 was 7.04 percent, and it was actually about the same in 2005. The floating rate just 3 months ago was 10.4 percent.

How much difference does it make if one’s floating mortgage rate goes from 7 percent to 10.4 percent? [Interruption] Well, Labour does not care, either. All Labour is worried about is wasting the money that comes from the pockets of taxpayers who have a mortgage of $250,000. Do members know how much difference the rate increase makes? We need to tell Helen Clark because she does not know, and we need to tell her that she should care. The difference it makes is $133 a week on a mortgage of $250,000. According to Helen Clark that does not matter—it does not matter if the cost of servicing the mortgage went up by 25 percent. It is by far the single biggest outgoing in any household budget of any homeowner who has a mortgage, and it has gone up by 25 percent in that period. And Helen Clark says that mortgage interest rates are not going through the roof!

But why should we be surprised, when the Minister of Finance is saying that we are to have a recession and Helen Clark does not seem to know that the economy is slowing down. She says that everything is fine. Well, I would invite Helen Clark to talk to a few average, ordinary New Zealanders.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: She wouldn’t do that.

No, she would not do that, because she might find out the legacy of this Labour Government. What do members think people are talking about over the morning tea table now? They are talking about the price of butter, cheese, petrol, and milk. For the benefit of Labour members, it is not a discussion about those prices going down; it is a discussion about those prices going up. Guess who is paying those prices? It is people whose mortgage interest rates are going through the roof.

The member asked what people are talking about. They are talking about the fact that 1 April is coming and every superannuitant in New Zealand will be celebrating the fact that on 1 April they will get $38 net, for a married couple, more than they would have got as a result of Bill English’s action on 1 April 1999 of slashing the rates that superannuitants got, from 65 percent to 60 percent. The member knows that to be a fact. He promised not to cut superannuation, but he did.

People will be talking about the fact that on 1 April the minimum wage will go up to $12 an hour. People know that the minimum wage has been lifted every year under this Labour Government. We do not talk the rhetoric of people being in an underclass situation; we walk the walk. Under the former National Government the minimum wage was increased by 87c on average.

But let us get to the topic of this debate. “Slippery John” was the label that the media gave to Mr Key.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a nickname. Under Speakers’ rulings 26/6-7, the member will not refer to the member by that name. It is a personal reflection under Standing Order 116.

Well, I will refer to him as John Key. Why did he get that nickname—a nickname that was given to him by the media? He was asked, eight times, a very simple question—it had a “yes” or a “no” answer. John Key was asked whether he would allow a strategic asset like Auckland International Airport to be sold overseas. Eight times he dithered. Eight times he slithered around the question. At no time did he answer that question. One has to ask whether that was indecisiveness. One has to ask whether that was because Mr Key is not good unless he is working to a brief and because he did not know what to do. Well, that has some credibility. Or is the explanation rather more sinister than that? Did we see the explanation in those emails from the National Party that were never meant to be made public but were leaked in the book The Hollow Men? That is closer to the truth, I think.

I believe that National Party policy is to see the sale of strategic assets overseas. I believe that the policy of the National Party is to sell off what we will still have in terms of community-owned enterprises. Bill English has indicated that. National has already sold the railways once at a fraction of its value, and if we get that back into the community ownership again, Bill English has already said he would sell it off—and Air New Zealand and all of the rest of them. That is what The Hollow Men taught us about the National Party.

What National members say in public is different from what they say privately. In public they were telling us that they were in favour of the nuclear-free zone. In private they were telling the senators that it would be gone by lunchtime. Why would anybody believe the National Party, given the long history that that party has? Anyway, Mr Key went into last week determined to be decisive. He told his caucus on Tuesday morning that he would be decisive. And he was—decisively wrong.

The Labour Party came out with a bold new plan to promote New Zealand’s food and primary sectors—$2 billion for research and development, a partnership between the public sector and the private sector—determined that New Zealand would be able to have the label of being sustainable, innovative, and at the top of the value chain. And everybody came out in favour of it.

💬 Hon Members: Except John Key.

Except John Key. Fonterra was in favour. So were Meat and Wool New Zealand and Dairy NZ. John Luxton was in favour. John Luxton was an honest Tory. He was a decent Tory. We do not get many of those these days. He came out in favour of that, as did those other organisations, because it made a lot of sense. Even the normally National Party publication, the Trans Tasman, said that the plan fleshes out the claim that Labour is the only party advancing policies of substance for the future—the only party advancing policies of substance for the future. Is that not true! The National Party either has no policy or will not admit to its policies.

Well, that speech was a vigorous defence of a sinking ship. We have seen today in this House during question time a Government whose supporters are bailing out on it day after day. We already know that United Future is following its own path. It dumped on the Government over the Electoral Finance Bill and it is trying to get onside with National on the MMP issue. In respect of New Zealand First, Winston Peters gave a speech today in which he said he would go with whichever was the biggest party. It is “Goodbye Labour!” from Winston Peters.

Then in the Chamber today Michael Cullen, a man whose very existence in that chair opposite depends on the support of Keith Locke, humiliated him by making absolutely outrageous claims about him and his involvement with the Khmer Rouge, which brought Mr Locke almost to tears by way of his personal explanation with the support of his colleagues. But Michael Cullen thinks he is able to count on Keith Locke.

Michael Cullen has seen yet more bickering between the Government’s coalition partners. It is a sinking ship: United Future is making its own way, New Zealand First is saying it will go with the biggest party—“Bye, bye Labour!”—and the Greens have been insulted. They are the bunch of people who have loyally toadied up to the Labour Party—

💬 Hon Member: 9 years, 9 years.

—for 9 long years. Yet members should look at how Michael Cullen treats Keith Locke. He brought the guy almost to tears when talking about his family. That is what Michael Cullen did. I say to the Greens that if those members are their friends, I hate to think who their enemies are.

That is what ordinary New Zealanders are asking today, as well; they are asking who their enemies are when it comes to trying to keep their household budgets intact. I will tell them: it is the Labour Government. Interest rates are going through the roof, and this Government does not understand and does not care. After 9 years on a Prime Minister’s salary, Helen Clark does not care about the pressure of interest rates on ordinary New Zealanders. She does not care either about the price of cheese going through the roof.

💬 Hon Bill English: She doesn’t know.

She does not even know. I bet you, she does not even know. This Prime Minister, who when asked about interest rate increases and the pressure on New Zealand families, could say only that interest rates were not going through the roof. That is all she had to say. But they are going through the roof; they have gone up by 25 percent in the last 2 years, and that is absolutely incredible. For people on a mortgage of $250,000, Bill English says that means an extra $133 a week. That is an awful lot of money.

In talking about health issues, we want the Auditor-General to look at what has been going on at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, because the report is a whitewash. It does not deal with the involvement of management, it does not deal with Annette King’s involvement in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board issue, and it does not deal with the whistleblower’s concerns.

But I tell members that there will be further investigation into this matter. It will be just like the “lying in unison” inquiry whereby Mr Buwalda carried out an investigation and said “Oh no, nothing has been going on.” Then the Ombudsman investigated and said that nothing was going on. But in the third investigation the Ombudsman discovered that there had indeed been “lying in unison” in the Immigration Service under Lianne Dalziel.

We can look at the Ingram inquiry. Do members remember the Ingram inquiry? The first inquiry of the three was the New Zealand Immigration Service inquiry, which stated that there had been a lot of inquiries but nothing to worry about in terms of Taito Phillip Field’s electorate office. Then we had the second inquiry—the Ingram inquiry, about which the Prime Minister said it found nothing but a person trying to help others. That is what she said, that the report found nothing but a person trying to help others. Then the third inquiry on this matter, with Taito Phillip Field, was referred to the police, and now we know that criminal charges are following. So under Labour, there always has to be three inquiries until the facts come to light.

We have had the McKernan inquiry on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. We know there was a McKernan inquiry, because Mr McKernan, the Director-General of Health, met with members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and told them that the file had been gone through but that “nothing remarkable” had been found. That was the McKernan inquiry; the director-general concluded that “nothing remarkable” had been found.

I will begin today by reflecting on the definition of a word we often use but sometimes do not think about. It is the word “integrity”, which comes from the verb to integrate or to keep together, to join up, to be one whole. It is a word that nobody is using about John Key, because John Key simply cannot take a position and stick to it.

💬 Lesley Soper: Slippery.

He is slippery. He is slippery, but let us understand why he is slippery. He is slippery because he does not do strategy. He is a position-taker; he is a trader. It is OK for people to change their positions, but if they do not have a consistent strategy then others will not trust them. We live in turbulent times; we had Bear Sterns go to the wall last week. Who does the public want to trust? Do they want to trust people like Helen Clark or Michael Cullen, who have their heads right across the portfolios of Government, and who ooze integrity? Or does the public want the phone to go at 3 o’clock in the morning and to have a bloke pick up the phone who did not know what his position was when he went to bed the night before? Slippery John—let us give—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No—

That was a quote, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I do not care whether it was a quote. The reality is that it is a personal reflection, under Standing Order 116, and also under Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 as it can be referred to as a nickname. The Minister will use the member’s proper name.

Mr John Key has been described as slippery by the media, and with good cause. He slipped up on New Zealand’s Fast Forward programme, for two reasons—firstly, he cannot tell a core constituency if he falls over it, and, secondly, he cannot tell the difference between interest payments and a capital drawdown. He said that it was interest-only, even though the policy was that “We will spend the lot on agricultural research.” He needed to be more decisive, so he took positions on Air New Zealand and on Auckland airport. But it took him eight goes to get to “Um”—eight goes to get to “Um”. He is not the kind of guy people want to pick up the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning when there is a global meltdown: “Oh, Bear Sterns has gone to the wall—um.” If he was to be asked what he would do to free up liquidity, his answer would be: “Um.” When he was asked whether he would have gone to war in Iraq, he answered: “Um—well, no; well, yes.” Here is the bit I like: “No, that was never my position.” That is interesting, and that is different, because it crosses the line between position-taking and forgetfulness—which is kind of forgivable—and that word we started with today, which is “integrity”.

Integrity is what the public want, at the end of the day. They do not ask much of politicians. They want someone with half a brain who works hard and who is basically honest. John Key has half a brain, but he really, really tests the honesty test when he slips and slides over the truth like that. Well, at least he is doing better than Tony Ryall—Tony “the mouse” Ryall. Why is the media calling him “the mouse”? It is because he has been leaking confidential reports inside the House for the last month. And what is he doing outside it? He is slamming his office door in the face of TV cameras and hanging up on Radio New Zealand National journalists. Do members know that Tony Ryall has been banned from Radio New Zealand National for 2 weeks? Its journalists will not interview him, because he will not pick up the phone and answer their calls. Why? It is because he is afraid that he might be asked—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the Minister, despite the brilliant eloquence he has been engaged in for the last 3 or 4 minutes, knows that bringing a member’s courage into question is outside the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It was borderline, but I will ask the member to desist, because if he does bring in courage, then it is a personal reflection.

I withdraw the word “afraid”. But I would like to go to the integrity of the member’s position, because so weak is his case on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—which, by the way, everybody, including the people of Hawke’s Bay, now knows because there is 200 pages’ worth of proof on the table—that the best arguments he can muster about that district health board come not from the independent review but from the Ingram inquiry. That is fantastic—it is the wrong case. That was to do with Taito Phillip Field; it was not the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. I do not think that Taito has ever been to Hawke’s Bay—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use the member’s full name.

I do not think that Taito Phillip Field has been to Hawke’s Bay, and that matter is totally irrelevant. Let us compare Mr Ryall’s position on the Hawke’s Bay matter and his denigration of the Director-General of Health with the National Party’s position on Madeleine Setchell. In the case of Madeleine Setchell, did National members say that it was OK to denigrate a neutral civil servant?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Oh no, it was terrible.

No, it was terrible. But is it OK to denigrate Stephen McKernan?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: And Ian Wilson.

And Ian Wilson? Oh, those members say that doing that is fine. I say to Mr Ryall that he, like his leader, should get some integrity.

I will start today by reading the comments of a principal with 20 years’ experience who is retiring from education because of the bureaucracy in the system. He stated: “I am well qualified to tell you what is wrong with the system because it is not doing its job any more.” He talks about the Ministry of Education staff hiding in their big, new offices and delivering less support to schools than they did 20 years ago. He says that the ministry is four times larger and delivers less, that the Government bureaucracy increases the cost of running our schools, and that the ministry does not trust schools or principals.

I want to talk today about the mess that this Government has put its payroll services in—that is, the payroll services that pay our teachers up and down the country for the fantastic job they do. What does it say about an organisation when it cannot even pay its staff correctly and on time? Six of my local principals contacted me 2 weeks ago. One had sent in information about seven staff to the payroll people in December of last year, and was told that the emergency pot had run out. So many other people had had to go to the emergency pot because the payroll services were so poor that the emergency pot had run out. The solution suggested was that the principal should break the law and pay the staff out of the school’s operations grant, with no guarantee that that money would be refunded.

This Labour Government is all about growing the number of public servants. It is about growing processes and growing forms. It is not about growing public services, and that is what National is about. Since the year 2000 the number of teachers has increased by 12 percent, but the number of bureaucrats has increased by 40 percent. What do they do? [Interruption] That member says that we need them. Well, I ask what they do. I have emails here from principals who say they are at their wits’ end over this continual paper war. Once they would have had to send in one piece of paper to change a staff member’s pay, but now there are 28 forms—28 forms! They have to spend their day ticking boxes and sending forms backwards and forwards. One principal told me that he had to submit his form seven times. Another principal stated: “We are now in week 7 and as yet have not had one accurate staff payroll run.” What are those 40 percent extra Ministry of Education bureaucrats doing if they cannot get the payroll services for their staff right?

Principals are tearing their hair out up and down the country. What is the Government’s response? What will it do about it? Do members know what the Government has said? It has said that it is easy, and that it will set up a payroll reference group to consult with the sector to see what it can do to fix it up. I ask where the Government is saying that it is terribly sorry, that it will get the pay right next week, and that it is very sorry because these people have mortgages and bills to pay and are relying on that salary to feed their families. No, there is none of that. The Government says that 99 percent of teachers have been paid correctly. They may have been paid correctly, but for some of them it has taken 7 weeks to get it right.

What the Government is doing with all those extra bureaucrats is creating 28 different forms. Principals tell me that if they miss ticking one box on one of those forms, then no one is there making a decision about that. No one is there saying that this is a primary teacher’s form and the principal has not written the “P” in the box that designates it as a primary teacher’s salary, so the ministry sends it back and the principal has to resend it after filling in the box with a “P”. None of these bureaucrats uses any discretion. This Government is all about growing the number of bureaucrats. It is not about looking after the man or woman on the street, and it is certainly not about looking after its own employees. I ask what business in this country could get away with not paying its staff, and what business could ever get away with not paying its staff correctly or on time. What business would get away with not paying staff correctly for 7 weeks? Would the unions not be in there and be down on that business like a ton of bricks? I ask where the unions are here. Where is the Government looking after its employees in this case? This is an outrage.

I seek leave to table the list of education service payroll forms that principals now have to fill in for payroll purposes.

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

Yesterday Parliament debated the current situation in Tibet, and I thank the Prime Minister for initiating that debate. New Zealanders have been horrified by the Chinese regime’s crackdown on Tibetan protesters and they want our Government to speak out strongly against it. I want to query one of the Government’s reasons for not taking a clear stand on the side of the Tibetan people, and it is confusing the issue. Phil Goff on Television One last night, when debating with me on Close Up, said that he had seen reports of Chinese nationals and Muslims being stoned and stabbed to death and that the violence had to stop on all sides, and he used that as an excuse for not taking a clear stand on the side of the Tibetan people.

Of course, no party in this House favours violent protest. The Dalai Lama has, rightly, spoken out against it, including as recently as yesterday, and has even threatened to step down as the recognised leader of the Tibetan movement if it continues. But it is very disappointing that Mr Goff used the fact that there might have been violence against ethnic Chinese as an excuse to take a neutral stand over whether to put himself firmly on the side of the Tibetan people when looking at the situation as a whole. We cannot put a ruthless, one-party regime—which China is, as it does not brook any dissent—on the same level as some Tibetan protesters getting out of hand and conducting violence, after decades of being abused as Tibetans and having their culture crushed. Back in the times of apartheid it was clear that the black movement, wrongly, used violence on many occasions. But the Labour Party at the time was clearly on the side of the black people and against those apartheid rulers. The same would be the case in many other parts of the world—for example in East Timor. The Fretilin movement also committed atrocities during its liberation struggle. But now when we look back on it—and the New Zealand Government was not too good on that at the time—most people would probably think they should have been clearly on the side of the East Timorese people, the people of Timor-Leste, and against the Indonesian occupation.

That is why a lot of New Zealanders got rather upset, because there is a huge reservoir of support for the Tibetan people in New Zealand. The Buddhist religion is growing, and a lot of it is from the inspiration of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan culture and religion. We have to be clearly on the Tibetan side and use the lead-up to the Olympics—and people around the world are doing this—to focus on human rights in China, including in Tibet. I think we can actually bring about change.

I am actually quite optimistic, because I know that within China there are many millions of Chinese chafing under the one-party rule of the Communist Party of China. They do not like their Internet being censored or their emails being surveilled by thousands of members of the State apparatus, etc. We can force change, in terms of helping workers to get labour rights, for example, which is quite important, because if the Chinese society and economy are to develop, then they need more independent trade unions, more democratic management of the economy, less corruption, and more transparency—all of those sorts of things that go with a democratic, accountable society. We can help that by putting pressure on China during the lead-up to the Olympics.

Signing a preferential trade agreement during this period is particularly wrong. I do not look forward to seeing the images of our Prime Minister and the Chinese Prime Minister shaking hands and smiling together, if the backdrop is truckloads of Tibetans being carried away. I refer to this morning’s Dominion Post where it states: “Dozens of Tibetan prisoners were paraded on military trucks in the Tibetan capital, with their heads bent and wrists handcuffed behind their backs, as soldiers from China’s People’s Liberation Army tightened their grip on the city.” That is not the backdrop we want for our Prime Minister in China in the lead-up to the Olympics, which is why the Green Party is calling for a reconsideration of that April signing of the free-trade agreement.

In question time I talked about some of the horrific examples of human rights violations in China, some of them relating to the Olympics, like the case of Ye Guozhu.

As I am wont to do from time to time, I have looked around the old Collins English Dictionary. My colleague Mr Cunliffe has a penchant for quoting definitions, so I took up the challenge. I wanted to find out the definition of the word that is used by media about an individual: “slippery”. I am allowed to quote from the Collins English Dictionary. I do not think there is a Standing Order that prevents me from doing that. The definition of “slippery” is “liable to slip from the grasp, a position … not to be relied upon; … a slippery character. … liable to change; unstable. the slippery slope … a course of action that may lead to disaster or failure;”—and my personal favourite—“cunning and untrustworthy.” That is the Collins English Dictionary definition of the word.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would refer you to Speaker’s ruling 41/3, and in particular to the point about implication. I think we all know what the honourable member is trying to imply. I suggest that we will be in for months of disorder in this Chamber if this tone of debate continues. Mr Assistant Speaker, I invite you to look at that Speaker’s ruling and to consider carefully whether Labour members speaking in the debate today are indeed making an implication about a member. We know the member to whom they are referring. I invite your ruling, but I say that if this continues, then things will get very hot in this Chamber for months to come.

I have not referred to anybody by name; I simply read out a definition. If I am wrong, then I will heed your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I would be grateful if you could point out where in the Standing Orders it states that one cannot refer to something out of an innocent and benign document such as the Collins English Dictionary. If we are about to rule out anybody referring to a dictionary definition of a word simply because that member over there—pedantic though he is—does not like it, then I think we are in serious trouble.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: The key point here is the point of implication. Although the honourable member says that he is not referring to a member by name but just to a dictionary quotation, if we look at Speaker’s ruling 41/3, we see that the key point in that ruling is that there is an implication. There is a clear implication being drawn by the continued reference to terms in dictionaries about a specific word. Members opposite are trying to draw an implication about the leader of the National Party, and I warn you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that things will get pretty hot if they continue to do so.

I thank the member. I have looked at Speaker’s ruling 41/3 and it does not state anything about implication; it is referring to something else. But I caution the member on my right who is speaking, because it is an imputation. Members cannot get around the rules against unparliamentary language by a circumlocution, and that is what the member is trying to do. I ask the member to be very careful, because it leads to disorder.

💬 Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I also want to give another quote. I hope we will not rule out the Bible, because going back—as Mr Swain reminded me—to our joint Catholic roots, I am reminded of the Book of Proverbs 26:11. I hope that we are not going to rule out the holy book, but National members might have a crack at doing that. The proverb states: “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” Today we have concentrated on and seen the proverbial return to his foolishness time after time. We have seen National members opposite who have flip-flopped, back-flipped, um and ah’d, tripped, belched, and done a few other things, I suspect, to try to prevent themselves from answering any particular question.

Let us look at the record on KiwiSaver. We did not rule out the good book; that is great. The National Party and Mr Key—whom the media have referred to by various guises and various names, but I will not use them out of politeness towards the member opposite’s sensitivity—voted against KiwiSaver 40 times. They said: “It is a terribly designed system.” Then Mr Key said that National would keep KiwiSaver if it was in Government.

Then, not 24 hours ago, the other conga eel of the National Party, Mr English, said that National may tinker with the people’s pension scheme—that is, KiwiSaver—but National is so smart, so smug, and so arrogant that its plan is to not tell people now so they can scrutinise what it will do. Oh no, he put a bit of petroleum jelly round that one. He said in a smug and arrogant way that National will tell the people what it plans to do with the people’s KiwiSaver scheme, if it becomes Government, at 5 minutes before midnight before election day. What is the plan?

I have to tell those geniuses over there that the communities are not silly or stupid. If National members think they can slip their policy under the carpet 5 minutes before election day and that people will not scrutinise it and know what their plan is, then the members on that side of the House are very ignorant and silly people.

Then we have the other one, which is Mr Key’s comments about wanting to raise Government debt. But of course Mr English, on the other hand—using a conga eel routine again—slides out of that one. Mr Key has called for a raising of Government debt to 25 percent of GDP, even though it is 20 percent today and it was 35 percent under the previous National Government. He called for it in a Scoop interview on 16 June 2006, but then Mr English came out in the Press on 8 March 2008 and said that raising Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP “has never been one of our policies”. Yet not last week, I think, Newstalk ZB caught him with the proverbials round the ankles in political terms. He said: “We have always said that we have a credible programme of tax cuts, which we phase in to match macroeconomic conditions, ah, we have always said we aren’t that worried about, um, whether the Crown needs to borrow a bit of money.”

I ask members to tell me whether a bit of crude oil has not been applied to some of these arguments. The old stunned mullet over there is now very quiet. It is the old routine about the turkey with its head cut off. Those members should try to tell me whether a bit of the crude oil has not been applied. But, you see, the people and the communities are not silly. They know about the weasel words; they know that Mr Key and Mr English talk out of both sides of the mouth. What the people want is for them to up the ante. “Old Smug” is over there, grinning away like a Cheshire cat. I challenge the old cigar smoker over there to get on his hind legs and tell us what they will do and to allow people the privilege of challenging and scrutinising their policy.

In no coincidence to the previous speaker, I looked in the Oxford Dictionary and I see “strut: pompous or affected”, and that is proceeded by “strudel: a confection of thin pastry rolled up round a filling and baked”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I would just like to ask the speaker to consider that he too is using an imputation, and members cannot get around the rules against unparliamentary behaviour or language by circumlocution. I also refer him to Speaker’s ruling 51/4. Mr Cosgrove might like to look at that as well.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling, absolutely. But could I make a plea that you allow the member to continue with what he is saying, because it is reasonably hilarious and it shows him up for what he is. I take no offence, and I encourage him continue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is trifling with the Chair.

I will not continue along that vein because it is clearly futile, but I add that the next word is “struthious: of or like an ostrich.” Despite that, over the last 8 years we have seen reform after reform in tertiary education perpetrated by this Labour Government. We know that on average those reforms have been called every 2 years and they have been associated with the most extraordinary waste of money that New Zealand has ever seen—about $1 billion. There was twilight golf, homeopathy for pets, pendulism, and the singalong. They were mainly brought in by former Minister Maharey, but were presided over by none other than Minister Cullen. Not only were those excesses, but also the bureaucratic costs of those reforms were calculated at about $419 million and totalled $1 billion of precious education resources wasted.

What does the Labour Government do now after it has run out of all these reforms? It has brought in some more reforms. We are deeply concerned about them. At select committee this morning 2006-07 was described as the busiest year ever for the Tertiary Education Commission, yet in that year the Tertiary Education Commission had a staff turnover of 25.5 percent. This is the organisation that the Labour Government has charged with bringing in the biggest reforms ever in tertiary education—reforms it says are so crucial—yet the commission has a staff turnover of a quarter of all personnel. Not only that, but also we have seen the chairman of the Tertiary Education Commission leave, the Minister for Tertiary Education has left twice, and the chief executive officer of the Tertiary Education Commission is about to leave in a couple of months’ time. There is no one left to take responsibility or accountability for these reforms that the Labour Government regards as being absolutely crucial. This is utterly typical of a Labour Government in disarray—a Labour Government that has failed to institute good governance or good succession planning in an area that it suggests is absolutely vital.

Let us take a look at the so-called tertiary reforms themselves. The Government has just announced that it is going to undertake a review of land-based agricultural education. I am sure those members on the Government side of the Chamber will know that skills in agriculture are badly wanting. But this Government has decided that before it brings in the review it will take away hundreds of equivalent full-time employees from some of our specialist educational polytechs such as Tai Poutini Polytechnic, Aoraki Polytechnic, the Southern Institute of Technology, and Telford Rural Polytechnic. It is totally illogical to have the review after the Government has caused disarray in the sector. What is even worse is that these very important agricultural equivalent full-time employees are going to institutions that are not necessarily going to use them in agriculture, even though there is an incredible need. We have had no confirmation from the Labour Government that that is the case. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but would the members on my right please look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3.

Even further, we have a situation that defies belief where we have specialist agricultural institutions such as Telford, which the Tertiary Education Commission says is actually doing a good job, losing their agricultural equivalent full-time employees to institutions such as the Western Institute of Technology up in New Plymouth, which has been chronically failing, has been under a Crown commissioner, and gave up agricultural teaching 4 or 5 years ago. It is totally and utterly illogical.

Kia ora nō tātou. Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to all of Aotearoa. The man who just sat down has a new career, possibly in Hawke’s Bay or in the medical system, dispensing anaesthesia. The man is incapable of holding an audience. He has just given a dissertation on the combination of dung and manure in South Island pasture. He is an expert on it because he embodies those qualities, and although his rhetoric was very dry it will be capable of putting people to sleep up and down the country.

When John Key inflicts himself again on my Ngāpuhi whanaunga and wanders around rubbing noses with Tame Iti, Ngāpuhi will have a new waiata for him. It is a waiata that belongs to the social progressive justice movement of the United States of America, and comes from Simon and Garfunkel. It is called “Slip Sliding Away”. Line one: “Slip sliding away”; line two: “Slip sliding away”; line three: “You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away”.

John Key mistakenly thought that by wandering around the country, tacking as if he is looking for foul wind or a clear wind by emulating and filching our policies, he would convince the average Kiwi that he had a future leading our country. Boy, has he fallen flat and disappointed a number of people—not least the shadowy influences that brought him into politics. They believed that he represented a fresh, affable, personable countenance, but lurking deep down are the monsters that really drive the position of the party opposite. They are people who are reflected in the stories of The Hollow Men.

John Key is wandering from one post to the other. What a contradiction. He endeavours to flatten his nose in the company of Tame Iti one week, and then he is cuddling Roger Douglas the next week. He has two options, and that is what our people need to bear in mind. Firstly, he will be trying to seduce our average Māori voter into believing that the Māori Party has a future by cuddling up to National. What will be spawned—the mokopuna, the name, the breed—beggars the mind. And if that is not good enough, he is quietly happy that the ACT party is endeavouring to practise something that belongs in theology—that is, rising from the dead—by bringing Roger Douglas back into this House. The majority of the voters were not even out of school when Sir Roger Douglas was practising his politics. His positions—his politics—belong in a chapter of our history that has long since gone.

There is a person who I feel does deserve mention in this House this afternoon and that is the member who currently holds the seat of Rakaia. Now to the Ngāpuhi-s the word “rakaia” means to lock up, and Mr Connell has definitely been locked up. But let no one forget his doing in bringing Don Brash down—of course Don Brash was down in another fashion, but that is another story—in delivering the head of Don Brash to his former friends Mr English and Mr Key. And what did we hear? Poor Mr Connell expressed the sentiments of a large number of parliamentarians and invited a journalist to go rapidly to the toilet. No, the man is derided, the man is embarrassed, the man is attacked by Mr English who disingenuously complains that he is not showing good form in his connections with the media.

In actual fact, Mr Brian Connell was the single politician who brought to the attention of the media and the nation the nature of Don Brash’s activities, etc. And how is he being rewarded? OK, he is going away on a tipi haere overseas, but boy, what a very sad chapter to his final steps. I really liked the guy; he enjoyed our company overseas and I wish him well, into the future. But he is learning a story that one cannot trust either of those two guys. After doing the hard man’s job he has been sent out either to grow onions or to study the pasture and dung combination reflected by the former speaker.

A lot of the ideas that we will be taking forward to our voters are being purloined and misrepresented. Of course we have Paula Bennett, who is sitting just behind the seat generally occupied by the “pink batt”, wearing green today, reflecting the fact that she is solidly behind Lynne Pillay’s bill to save the moths, the bugs, and the various other ngārara occupying the Waitakere Ranges. She has actually forgotten that hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families have flocked to make use of the 20 hours’ free preschool care, and the value of that outstrips any tax cut that John Key or Bill English could ever deliver to those needy New Zealand families. Paula Bennett disgraced herself and now she is embarrassed by what she said. Kia ora tātou.

The member opposite who has just resumed his seat should spend less time studying the words of popular music and more time studying the dates when various policies were released. If he did so he would realise that many pages of policy releases have been made first from the National side of the Chamber and not from the Labour side. In fact, National loves the way Labour loves our policies. I have a list of such policies in my office and I will share it with him if he wishes. There are 11 or 13 policies; I am not sure which.

Yesterday we started the financial review debate, and it was very timely because last week we heard from John Key about the growth of bureaucracy in the last 8½ years. The Ministry of Health’s financial review states there are now 1,263 fulltime-equivalents in the ministry, and since 2000 there has been an amazing growth in the number who are paid over $100,000. Back in 2000 there were 94 being paid more than $100,000; now there are 194. And how do the taxpayers of New Zealand feel about that? I will tell members how they feel; they feel really ripped off. They do not personally know these people in the Ministry of Health but they hold them accountable for the care they are not receiving, they hold them accountable for the fact that waiting lists are not getting any shorter, and they hold them accountable for the fact that they find it hard to enrol with local general practitioners.

Let us have a look at the workforce issue. For example, New Zealand is ranked highest in the OECD—wait for it—for the proportion of overseas-trained doctors. That ranking is not for our own doctors but for the proportion of overseas-trained medical professionals. Foreign-born doctors number 47 percent of our medical workforce, foreign-born dentists number 30 percent, and foreign-born nurses number 23 percent. We have a huge reliance on immigrant health professionals. But wait—there is more. We are also near the top of the leader board in our export of nurses, and that is handy because we have 7,698 foreign-born nurses working here. It is a wonderful match—wait for it—for the 7,564 New Zealand-born nurses who live overseas. What a huge loss to New Zealand—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

What effect is that having? Down in Dunedin 28 beds have been closed, not because there is no one to fill them but because there are no nurses to look after patients. That is happening not just in Dunedin; it is happening in Wellington as well. Forty beds are closed in Wellington Hospital because there are not enough nurses, yet we hear about doctors making up beds in Auckland. We hear about junior doctors being in short supply in the Wairarapa, and in the Wairarapa we find that nurses are being trained to do doctors’ work. There is $5 billion extra, but the Government can claim it is raising numbers in the bureaucracy, not in the front line. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I again ask members on my right to look at the clauses of Speakers’ ruling 57/3, especially the one about a running commentary of interjections. If members wish to make speeches, they can do so later.

It is clear that I am hitting a nerve over there. Labour members do not want the public or other members to know this about the Labour Government. They do not want New Zealand to understand where the money is going to. It is going to the bureaucracy, not to the front line.

Again and again New Zealanders will tell us they cannot get a general practitioner. They cannot get dental care for their children, and dental decay is worsening all the time. They cannot get into hospitals because waiting lists are getting longer and longer. We hear stories all around New Zealand that make us realise that our reliance on overseas-born professionals has got way too high. It makes us realise that this Government should stop growing bureaucracy and start growing the front line much, much more.

The high and mighty attitude of this Government, and the Minister who sits over there, is certainly a head-in-the-sand attitude as well. It is an attitude that causes New Zealanders not to see the health system as a good use of their taxpayer money. They do not see the health system through the same rose-tinted spectacles that the Minister wears. They see an exodus of those health professionals who have been wonderfully well trained here in New Zealand, and they know that New Zealanders would prefer to be cared for by New Zealanders.

I will talk a little bit today about KiwiSaver because it is a policy that I am really proud of. It was a great thing to be able to sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and watch KiwiSaver Mark II come through that committee into this Parliament. It is fantastic to see the take-up and the success that that policy is enjoying amongst New Zealanders. We heard today that nearly 500,000 Kiwis are already saving through KiwiSaver, and over 100,000 young people have joined KiwiSaver despite the Leader of the Opposition’s confident predictions that they would not join it. So that is a wonderful thing. Also, the KiwiSaver scheme has just had an evaluation report released last Thursday that shows it is attracting members from across all age groups, all ethnicities, and all income brackets, and Kiwi savers are expected to become even more diverse as more of them join the scheme through automatic enrolment when they start a new job. It is very significant that on 1 April employers who are not already contributing will start to contribute to the fund at 1 percent. That really marks the sustainability point for this scheme because it is the point at which it becomes truly tripartite, and that is a very important thing.

I ask the National Party what its policy is on this fantastic scheme—KiwiSaver. Bill English backed away from issuing a policy at a superannuation conference yesterday. He was supposed to be giving a speech that was advertised as an opportunity to hear National’s policy stance on KiwiSaver. But what did the National Party’s spokesperson on finance say at the beginning of his speech? He started his speech by saying there would be no announcement on his party’s policy on this popular scheme. National’s slippery stance on KiwiSaver is looking more and more foolish by the day. National has voted—I have counted the votes in Hansard—40 times against KiwiSaver. It is the Muldoon years all over again. John Key predicted a low take-up, but it was explained that he was always for KiwiSaver—despite him saying back in 2005, during the election debate, that it is a terribly designed system. Well, now he is not sure whether he supports it. That is just more indecision from Mr Key. What he says about the scheme will depend on whom he is talking to. What Kiwis need is clarity on the question of retirement savings, not slipperiness from the National Party. We have put in place a sustainable scheme that is good for this country’s future. I call on the National Party to do the right thing and follow the nearly half a million New Zealanders and sign up to the scheme.

I will talk about debt as well, because that is the other interesting debate that is going on at the moment. I am very proud of the fact that Labour has reduced debt to prudent levels. We have had the longest period of economic expansion since World War II. The Government has been able to use that expansion to reinvest in public services and infrastructure, to deliver tax cuts for families, businesses, and savers, and to drive down Crown debt. As Clayton Cosgrove said earlier in this debate, Crown debt now stands at less than 20 percent of GDP. That is down from over 35 percent 8 years ago, when we were paying $2.3 billion per annum that we did not need to pay and could have been spending on schools, hospitals, roads—and we are spending it on those things now—just to service debt. That is why it matters. At the same time that we have been getting debt down, we have been investing heavily in health, education, roading, public transport, and in providing over $4 billion per annum in tax relief for families, businesses, and savers. We have pursued a low-debt policy because we want to build a buffer against fiscal shocks in case we are entering darker economic times, and we want to protect future generations. In providing that safety net, that is exactly what we have done. If a downturn does occur, Labour will not have to cut superannuation, as Bill English did when he was the Treasurer on 1 April 1999.

We need to know what the National Party’s policy on debt is. Mr Key has called for the raising of Government debt to 25 percent of GDP, but Mr English says that that has never been one of National’s policies. He says that lifting Crown debt to 25 percent of GDP, which is what Mr Key says he is comfortable with, is not something National would regard as compatible with competent economic management—and it is not, because lifting Crown debt to that level would add around $700 million a year in finance costs alone, which is about what the Government has invested in new health services for each of the last 2 years. It is the Labour-led Government’s commitment to keeping our debt levels low, and our refusal to borrow for today’s consumption, that best demonstrate our belief in what New Zealand is truly capable of. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.