General Debate

Dr Cullen always gets angry if someone disagrees with him over the way that taxpayers’ money should be spent. Actually, what is so frustrating for him is that most New Zealanders now disagree with him over the way that taxpayers’ money should be spent, because after 8 years of arrogance and lost opportunities they want to decide for themselves. There is nothing that does our cause better than to see Dr Cullen on TV talking about tax.

The whole Labour Party must be wondering what is going wrong when it believes it has given out so much that it thinks is so good, out of the generosity of its social democratic instincts, and the public are so ungrateful. I will tell the Labour Party why that is. It is because the public believe it is their money. That is why. They do not feel obliged to be grateful to the pink centre-left for giving them back what they earned by their hard work and be expected to give some grateful vote for it. The public have now come to the conclusion, after 8 years of getting bits and pieces from a Government that now thinks it is the only one that can decide, that they want to make up their own minds about it.

We should judge Dr Cullen on his record. Labour members want to talk about everything, except what happened while Labour was in Government. We listened to the Minister of Housing today. One would think she was a member of the Opposition. One would think that Labour was not there when interest rates doubled, when houses became much less affordable than they have ever been, and when people who loyally voted for Labour now know they will never be able to buy a house. In fact, over the next 12 months people will find out that they will have trouble renting a house. So Labour has cooked up all these proposals. The Minister, like all of the Labour Party, mistakes announcements for action. Labour has announced some housing policies, but there has been no action.

But let us look at Dr Cullen’s record on tax cuts. “National’s dilemma … is that to cut taxes when the current account deficit is already above 6 percent of gross domestic product is to commit economic sabotage.” Who said that? It was Dr Cullen, in 1999. What is the current account deficit? It is 7.9 percent. Who is advocating tax cuts? It is Dr Michael Cullen. That is a direct contradiction of the position he used to have. Here he is again: “We are in the extraordinary situation of having large surpluses, high interest rates, and a large current account deficit. We are also told that the only way to avoid a recession is to boost consumer demand through tax cuts and that this is somehow evidence of responsible economic management.” That was Dr Cullen in Opposition, criticising National.

Let us look at Dr Cullen’s record. We now have the largest surpluses we have ever had; the highest interest rates, almost, that we have had in 15 years; and the largest current account deficit we have ever had. What did he say the other day? He said that he wants to cut taxes because that might boost consumer demand. When he was in Opposition he used to call that economic sabotage; now he calls it adjusting to the economic circumstances. That is his record.

Here he is again: “Voters are not fools. Dangle promises of tax cuts in front of them in an election year and they will think you are trying to buy their vote.” Do members know what? I absolutely agree. Hard-working, loyal Labour voters, who know that Labour’s record is one of lost opportunity, have now found that in election year Dr Cullen is going to dangle tax cuts, and they are saying “We’ll take your tax cut, but not you.” They do not believe that Labour is sincere. They do not believe, for 1 minute, that Dr Cullen has changed his mind. If he can find a way of describing these tax cuts as small, then he will cancel them if he ever gets re-elected, but there is very little chance of that.

That is what he did last time. He announced his tax cuts, then when he got back into Government he said “Oh, they’re small so I’ll cancel them, because I can spend the money on other things.” Why would he not do that again? Can anyone give us one reason why he would not do that again? We should look at his record and Labour’s record, which is that tax cuts are bad and spending is good.

It ill behoves Bill English to question the sincerity of others. That member was part of a Government that came into power in 1990 promising not to cut superannuation, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. That member was part of a Government that then imposed the most Draconian asset and income-testing that has ever been imposed on superannuation, and, specifically, that member, as Minister of Finance, in 1999 introduced legislation into this House cutting superannuation from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage. This Government, as a result of being re-elected, gives a married couple on superannuation $35 a week more than they would be getting if Bill English had stayed on as Minister of Finance or leader of the National Party. I say to the senior citizens of our country that it was Bill English who, last year, described the provision for retirement through superannuation schemes in New Zealand as too generous. He was being consistent with National policy, because it was National that froze the incomes of superannuitants for 3 successive years in the 1990s.

But it is not over now. On television on Sunday, John Key said that he would review the annual inflation adjustment for superannuitants. The senior citizens of this country know what that means.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is that statement not true but also the member knows that the Labour Party clipped the transcript in order to distort what John Key said, and it did so deliberately.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. It is a debatable point.

Let me help the member out. John Key, when asked whether he supported annual adjustments to benefits, said: “We are looking at those policies. I mean at the moment, um, some of them already have built in clauses, and others don’t. Ah, we’ll be reviewing those in due course.” The spin doctors of the National Party have failed, the mask has slipped, and that National Party, which has a track record of cutting the incomes of people who cannot defend themselves, is now on record as demonstrating that it will do that again.

I want members to contrast that with the fact that yesterday, yet again, Labour delivered for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. It delivered not only on superannuation, student allowances, and benefits, but also on the minimum wage. Let us contrast that with the hypocrisy of a person whom I can remember said that he stood for the underclass, yet over 9 years the National Party adjusted the minimum wage on only one occasion.

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member may think that he is free to repeat an error to the House, as he did before, but he is not free to use the “h” word.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the member did use that word, he is well experienced and knows that he should not do so. If he did use it, he should desist.

I remember one John Key saying that National stood up for the underclasses and would do something for them. National had 9 years in which to do that, and in those 9 years National adjusted the minimum wage once—once in 9 years. Yesterday those folk on the minimum wage got an increase to $12 an hour. That is the eighth increase under this Government for the people in this country who are the low-paid workers. Contrast the policies put into practice by this Labour-led Government with the rhetoric, the double standards, and the dishonesty of the National Party on that issue.

Yesterday was a red-letter day too because we introduced employer contributions to the KiwiSaver scheme. Bill English will not say whether National would preserve that scheme. There are 500,000 New Zealanders who have been encouraged to become savers, because they have had the opportunity to do so under KiwiSaver. Just as the elderly folk in this country are not safe and should be very afraid of what Bill English might do in that area, so too should those New Zealanders who, for the first time in their lives, have had the chance to save for their retirement because of the incentives provided by KiwiSaver.

If we want another example of double standards, it is the business tax cut that came into effect yesterday. It is down to 30 percent and there are 15 percent tax credits on research and development. The National Party voted against that. Its members voted against it. I suppose that is consistent, because in their entire history in modern decades they have never cut tax for the corporate sector—the sector that creates jobs in this country. They have not done what this Labour-led Government has done to promote research and development and to ensure that New Zealand remains innovative, creative, and able to market its goods to the world. Labour has delivered; National has not. John Key was called slippery last week; he has lived up to that reputation.

I have a very simple question for Mr Goff: why is it that a Labour Government has cut taxes for corporate companies, but not for the average working person?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has asked me a question; I am happy to answer it. Will the member yield?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is up to the member whether he wants to yield. If the member yields, then you can only answer the question and that is it. It is up to this member himself.

I seek leave for the member to take the next 5-minute call and have a second call so that he can answer the question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is the master of its own destiny. The reality is that you cannot seek leave for someone else.

I am seeking leave for the normal Standing Order that a member cannot take more than one call in a general debate to be suspended so that Mr Goff can take the next 5-minute call to answer the question on the minds of all New Zealanders, and that is why Labour will not cut taxes for ordinary workers.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member is a long-experienced member of the House. He knows the rules, or he should do by now. You cannot seek leave for someone else.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I moved a point of order asking the member to yield so that I could answer his question. That is a procedure that is possible in this House. You asked the member whether he would yield. He avoided, he skipped, he slithered his way around that question. Could we hear the answer to the question of whether he really wants the answer that he asked for?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to ask for a member to yield, but it is up to the member himself whether he does so.

I seek leave for the Standing Order saying that a member may not take more than one call in a general debate to be suspended for the purposes of this general debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the member clarify that that will give the Government side of the House an extra 5 minutes, in addition to the normal speaking time, or is he really trying to slither around it by saying—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is going too far. We are getting into semantics.

💬 Dail Jones: I happened to notice that the next speaker is meant to be Mr Field. If he is not here, that leaves a gap for someone to take the call. Would this work in well with Dr Smith’s suggestion, and therefore will it be a Labour speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Jones. I have it in front of me that the slot will be taken by Labour.

The problem for Labour members is that they want to talk about everything this afternoon bar their record. My colleague Bill English has pointed out their record in respect of personal tax. Labour members have given every excuse possible as to why they have put taxes up, but will not give New Zealanders a tax break. The last 8 years are something that Labour members do not want to be reminded of. They want to pretend that they have been somewhere different for the last 8 years when it comes to issues like the mess in health, or the lack of tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders.

I want to draw the attention of this Labour Government to its record on climate change. We have heard the aspirations that we are going to be carbon neutral. We have heard so many speeches about how climate change is the most important issue of our time. The question I ask is: what is Labour’s record? Let us look at greenhouse gas emissions. Have they gone down by the 20 percent that Labour promised? When Labour came to Government in 1999 its members said they would cut emissions by 20 percent by 2005.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What’s happened?

They have gone up by 20 percent. Was there a typo? Did Labour miss the minus and put a plus in its place? It is even worse than that. Let us compare New Zealand’s record of emissions to that of other countries. We can line up with Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard was accused of being a climate change sceptic. Under this “carbon-neutral” Labour Government, New Zealand’s emissions have gone up at twice the rate of Australia’s. Carbon emissions have gone up by 2 percent in Japan. They have reduced by 2 percent in the United Kingdom. They have gone up by 5 percent in the United States. But in New Zealand—this great carbon-neutral paradise—they have gone up by 20 percent!

💬 Hon Bill English: Could they have done any worse?

I have my doubts. Out of the 42 countries facing emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand is No. 38. Does that sound like we are a world leader on climate change? Does that sound like we are living up to carbon neutrality?

Let us go the critical issue of forestry. In every single year from 1951 to 2003 New Zealand planted more trees than it cut down. That is a record our country can be proud of. But in the last 4 years, 12 million more trees have been cut down than have been planted—a record that this Government conveniently wants to forget. Australia is on target to meet its Kyoto obligations, and New Zealand is not, because of the dumb forestry policies of this Government, which sees that appalling record.

Now we have the Government talking about its new aspiration. It says that 90 percent of power in New Zealand will be produced by renewable sources by 2025. Let us look at Labour’s record. In every year that Labour has been the Government, the proportion of our electricity produced from renewable sources has declined. It was 73 percent when it became the Government; in figures out this week it is now down to 66 percent. The amazing thing is that while those members talk about carbon neutrality and about a renewable energy target of 90 percent, 70 percent of new generating capacity has been thermal—70 percent. The Government has built the new Whirinaki oil power station with taxpayers’ money. Does that sound very carbon neutral? It built the new e3p generator at Huntly. It is the biggest new generating station since Huntly came online. That is a new thermal plant. Is it any wonder that we have seen our emissions go through the roof when we have had a trebling—a trebling—of the amount of electricity that is produced from coal? To members opposite I say that before they rave about climate change they should defend their record, because it is appalling.

I think it is a bit rich for National to mention climate change in a climate where its own individual party members are not willing to say where they stand on the issue. When asked about climate change at the Automobile Association’s annual meeting last week Maurice Williamson refused to answer, saying he wanted to stay a member of the National Party. I think that Guyon Espiner got it absolutely right on television when he stated “Politically, the problem for National is that this is another case of its MPs struggling to say where they actually stand. We have seen it on things like retaining state assets and on retaining the nuclear-free policy. We know there are quite a few of their MPs who don’t like those policies, but they fear if they don’t sign up to them then they are not actually ever going to be elected.” I totally agree with that statement. There is no principle standing behind National when its members make statements like that.

I am very proud to be able to stand in this Parliament the day after so many more of this Labour-led Government’s great policies came into effect. As Minister of Commerce I am very pleased to see the headline corporate tax rate fall from 33c to 30c in the dollar. This brings the headline rate in line with other jurisdictions. I know that those jurisdictions have other imposts on business that we do not have, but saying that the tax cut is now matched across the Tasman at the headline rate has been very well received by the corporate sector. I am surprised that the National Party does not support the reduction of the corporate rate. But never mind—we are not looking for consistency across the House any more.

Probably more significant though is the research and development tax credit of 15 percent. It was a Labour-led Government, I remind the House, that resolved the barriers to deductibility for research and development in the first place. I think it was in 2002 that the new rules took effect. That was certainly very warmly welcomed by industry. But, as Dr Cullen pointed out at question time today—and it was something that I saw Simon Power finally cotton on to—in order to enjoy the benefit of tax cuts people actually have to be paying tax. Therefore, fixing the barriers to deductibility is not enough to actually get the sea change that we need in investment and innovation in this country. That is what the tax credits are designed to do, and they have been welcomed from one end of the country to the other. Again, that is why it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that National voted against the tax credits for research and development.

With a projected cost of $630 million over the next 4 years, this tax credit will bring about that sea change in investment and innovation, and I welcome it as Minister of Commerce. We are anticipating that 2,500 firms will benefit from this. When we add to this the Fast Forward package that was announced as well, it means some real advances will be made in our primary production sector in respect of research and development. I was surprised that the National Party put its line in the sand over that issue. Its members said that National would not invest in Fast Forward or in research and development in the primary production sector. Poor old Eric Roy had to go down and explain that to the farmers in his area. But that is fine—we are not looking for consistency across the House, as I said before.

What about the workers? The minimum wage went up to $12 an hour yesterday. That is a $5 per hour increase since we came into Government. Every year the rate has increased under Labour. How much did it go up under National? It went up 87c in 9 long years. The minimum wage went up 87c. The other thing is that 18 and 19-year-olds were paid a youth rate under the former National Government, but not under a Labour-led Government—we dropped the youth rate provision and, in fact, just recently dropped the youth rate provision altogether. The freezing of the minimum wage and the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act were deliberately designed to lower wages in this country and they worked. When did the huge differential occur between New Zealand and Australian rates of pay, which the leader of the National Party uses as the justification for his concerns about people leaving New Zealand? It happened in the 1990s. It was a deliberate policy of the National Party—and we are still not looking for consistency across the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Last night Parliament lost one of its more distinguished members: Tumu Pūtaura—one of our security officers. Actually I never knew what his real name was until today, because like many others I just called him “Uncle”. Tumu was a real gentleman. He was always polite, always courteous, always pleasant, and always respectful. He came from the great city of Avarua in Rarotonga where he was one of the pioneers who helped launch Radio Cook Islands. He was also in a band back then, and noted for switching his radio station on to automatic so he could sneak off to whatever gig he and his band had booked for the night. Not long after that he moved to Aotearoa where he took up employment here in Parliament, and just last year he celebrated 20 years with parliamentary security. Tumu was one of that rare breed of men—very rare around here particularly—whom everybody liked and everybody respected. He was a humble man and never said anything bad about anyone—not even about us politicians. He never lost touch with his music and he was often heard quietly singing or humming around Parliament. So, uncle, haere koe, hoki atu ki tōu ūkaipō, hoki atu ki te okioki.

[Farewell, uncle, return to your earthly mother, to the place of rest.]

We love you, we miss you, farewell.

Tumu’s passing also made me think about how we are all affected in some way or another by the many personalities and experiences that make up this place. Today I would like to mention another one of them. Nandor Tanczos has been a real inspiration to me—a politician who lives by his principles and a man who cares deeply about the world and he stands by his love for Papatūānuku, and our role as caretakers of her future. He is famous for his dreads and being our first and only Rastafarian MP, Nandor has also taken a few knocks for indulging in the herb but he has always carried his beliefs with dignity and honour, never ramming them down anyone else’s throat but never apologising for them either.

When I first saw him skateboarding I laughed up large. I mean, who else here gets a kick out of doing things that our young people enjoy? Mind you, who else, for that matter, can even ride a skateboard?

Nandor has a genuine love for people, particularly those from the street, and his compassion for those in need has always warmed my heart. He argues passionately for peace and for justice, and has a long and proud history of confronting prejudice and fighting discrimination.

He speaks beautiful Māori. On Waitangi Day I recall him doing his whole mihi in Māori right after I had just welcomed everyone in English—shame on me and big ups to him! The thing about Nandor is that he does not speak Māori to get votes; he speaks Māori because his children are Māori, his friends are Māori, and his whānau is Māori—as well as Hungarian, South African, Khoi, Dutch, German, and Kiwi. Nandor shook up this place when he first came in here with his dreadlock turban, his hemp suit, and his crazy ways, and this Parliament is a better place for his having graced our presence.

Nandor and I had a good kōrero up at Parihaka about his leaving, and I respect his reasons for moving on. Parliament ain’t the centre of power in Aotearoa; it is just a place that passes laws. Real power lies outside these walls, in the hands of those who choose to either live by those laws or challenge them for a higher standard, and I wish my brother well in shaking up our world from the outside.

Tumu’s passing reminded me that we often do not get the chance to say what we really think about people who mean a lot to us, while they are still with us. Nandor’s leaving gives me the chance to change that. I am not sure when he is going but I am going to miss him when he does—his humility, his passion, his depth, his searching mind, his love, his humour, and the peace that always surrounds him in this world of madness and mayhem. His lovely daughter Pirimaia is going to be happy to have her daddy back, and if he is lucky, Sharney will be happy to have him back too. So go well, I say to my brother. He has a long life ahead of him and many challenges still to face. I say to him: “Fight the good fight, and never, ever forget to keep challenging us to remember who we are, where we have come from, and what our dreams are.”

There is one last thing, Mr Assistant Speaker. I say to mum: “Happy birthday. I love you too.” Kia ora tātou.

After 8½ years of a Labour Government it is perhaps time to have a look at a few scorecards—as we have heard here in the House this afternoon. Let us have a look at the Government’s scorecard on education. After 8½ years of a Labour Government, one in five kids leaves school unable to read or write or do maths at anywhere near their chronological age—one in five kids. That is 150,000 children—New Zealand children—which is the equivalent number of children of the cities of Hamilton, Christchurch, and Wellington combined. That is an appalling record for any Government and it is totally unacceptable.

What other mark would one give this Government but a “fail” mark? What did the Minister say about this when he was asked about the 20 percent tail of underachievement at a meeting on Saturday?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

I will tell members what he said. He talked about Schools Plus. Do members remember Schools Plus? That was the policy the Prime Minister announced at the beginning of the year. It was absolutely and universally canned, because the Government was going to keep kids at school until they are 18.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Now it’s a discussion paper.

Now the Government has reshaped it, rejigged it, and put it out as a discussion document. The Government has relaunched it. That is the Minister’s answer to those one in five kids.

After 8½ years of a Labour Government, two out of every three Māori children—only two out of every three—take part in early childhood education. Forty-six percent of Māori boys and 42 percent of Māori girls leave school without even the most basic qualification. This Labour Government is failing those Māori children. It is failing to provide them with an education that allows them to take a full part in this society. And what did the Minister say about this when he was asked at that meeting on Saturday?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

He talked about Schools Plus. He went on again about the policy to keep kids at school until they are 18 and about how that will fix it. But these kids do not want to be at school. They see no relevance for them at school. That has been proven time and time again, yet this Government continues to not listen. So there is another score of “fail” for a whole section of our community.

After 8½ years of a Labour Government, more than 25,000 young New Zealanders aged 15 to 19 are not in training, education, or work. The Labour Government set itself a goal of reducing that figure to zero. Well, it has absolutely failed. There are 25,000 young people out of training, education, and work. More than 13,000 teenagers are getting a Government benefit. They are locked in to a life of poverty and dependence, and this is at a time when employment is running at the highest levels. The latest household labour force survey shows us that 8,400 16 and 17-year-old New Zealanders are not in education, training, or work. What chance have those kids—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Have we got to your policy yet?

Actually, National does have a policy for it. Our Youth Guarantee programme will get those children back into education, training, and/or work. We have a plan, and I tell members that it is a much better plan than keeping them at school until they are 18.

What did the Minister say when he was asked what the story was for those teenagers on benefits and those teenagers who are excluded from any form of training out in our communities? What was the Minister’s answer?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

He talked about Schools Plus again. The Government is really trying to sell that policy, but it went down like a lead balloon.

So what about the teachers, after 8½ years of a Labour Government? What about the staff, those thousands of teachers out there, who work day after day and who are the most important people in the lives of our schools, as they make the difference for hundreds of thousands of Kiwi kids? In the latest collective contract we now have a two-tier system. You see, this Labour Government says that if teachers belong to a union then they deserve a better pay and conditions agreement than they do if they do not belong to a union. This Government has failed Kiwi kids and Kiwi teachers.

I briefly join the member for Te Tai Tokerau in the comments he made about Tumu Pūtaura, who passed away last evening. A lot of the people who work in these buildings and support us become like friends because we spend so much time in these buildings. I recall that when I came back from my first visit to the Cook Islands Tumu wanted to know every single thing I had done—he was so proud of where he was from, despite the fact that he had lived in New Zealand for so long. I think we were all upset and sad to learn of his passing last evening. So I thank the member for his comments.

This week the Government has been signalling the great new policies that have been starting under this Helen Clark - Labour-led Government. When we look at the policies that have come in that are benefiting a range of people, a wide cross-section of our society, it is clear that this Government has a plan for the future. It is a plan for the future that involves all our people being given the opportunity to reach their goals and achieve their dreams. This Government is not interested in just some people doing well, or just some people getting advancement, or just some people getting the benefit of things; this Government is making sure we can deliver to all communities.

My other colleagues have spoken about the changes in taxation around business taxes and research and development credits, and about the great work the Government has done for the charitable sector in changing the tax rules on charitable donations. Now that the cap has come off for charitable giving, it will hopefully unleash a wave of philanthropy amongst New Zealanders to help those delivering essential social services with the Government.

As the Hon Lianne Dalziel reminded us, the minimum wage has gone up. I want to put that on the record. The minimum wage is now $12 an hour, and this is part of our arrangement with New Zealand First. I know that the Green Party and the Māori Party are very supportive of that, as well. What the increase means for the workers at the bottom of the heap, the people who need the biggest hand-up from our society, is that they are $200 a week better off than they would have been if National had been in Government. They are better off because there has been a Labour-led Government. As we heard during question time, the only time the minimum wage was put up by members opposite, when in Government for over 9 years, was by 87.5c when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer.

One of the great things about this week is seeing the contrast. We see a Government with a plan for the future and with policies for all people versus an Opposition that is tired and is either recycling or hiding old ideas and being very, very slippery when it comes to telling us the difference between those two positions.

As Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, one of the things we have done this week that I am really proud of is that we have delivered to older New Zealanders. This week over half a million people receiving New Zealand superannuation get increases in their income as a result of that policy change. It is significant. A married couple will receive $27 extra a fortnight. This Government is listening and knows that there is a lot of pressure on basic food items and on things like petrol and electricity. We hear people saying they are struggling at the moment with those things—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They are.

—because we have very high international dairy prices, and so on and so forth. That means that those kinds of rises are necessary. I hear an Opposition member saying that, yes, people are finding it a bit hard with those basics rising in price. How do Opposition members think that people can get by, paying for the basics, if their income is being cut? There is silence now because they have no idea. Let me tell those members over there a little statistic that they might find useful. If the National members were sitting on the Government benches today, a married couple on a pension would be $34 a week worse off. We know that pensions get paid every fortnight, so that means those married couples would be $68 a fortnight worse off if there had not been a Labour Government. That just shows the importance of keeping these social development policies going. There is no way that pensioners can have a plan for the future if their income is being cut.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Don’t talk rubbish!

Tau Henare says “Don’t talk rubbish!”. He was a Minister—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: You were in nappies when I was a Minister.

He was a Minister who voted to let the floor of New Zealand superannuation fall to 60 percent of the average wage, and all he can do is make reference to how old I was when that happened. That does not excuse him for the crime of voting to cut the pension for older New Zealanders. What is worse is that today he supports National’s Minister of Finance, Bill English, who cut the pension for older people. What guarantee have we got that that will not happen again? Absolutely none, because yesterday when John Key was asked the very simple question about annual general adjustments for social security benefits and for New Zealand superannuation, he said: “Ah, well, um—we’re not sure.” He has no idea at all about anything to do with the machinery of Government.

But that is no surprise whatsoever to me, because we know that the National Party will leave a lot of blanks. We know that when it put up its health policy, it forgot to mention that doctors’ fees would go up. There is a word beginning with “s” and ending in “lippery” that probably goes with that. The Opposition party that is responsible for that policy will have to account for it as it goes forward. Those members really are a disgrace.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too pay my respects to Tumu Pūtaura. He was the first person I met on coming to Parliament in 1993. He looked after the infamous tight five in our time of need. My aroha and mihi go to Tumu and his whānau.

Let this go on the record: the Government, Darren Hughes, and the like are very keen to talk about what they have not done. They give us all this rubbish about what they have not done. They never want to talk about some of the statistics that face us after 8 years of a Labour Government. They behave like first-termers—full of gumption and philosophy about what they are going to do—but they should put their eyes at the back of their heads and look backwards at what they have done over the last 8 years—or not done, as the case may be.

Government members have bold goals for the future, but we have lost opportunities. They have squandered every opportunity this nation has had. They have had the best of economic times for the last 8 years. We are now heading into a time when things will get harder and harder for the working man and woman, yet all we hear about is what happened 10 years ago.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Last century.

Last century. Here are some of the statistics.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Deny you wouldn’t do it again.

That silly young man should be quiet. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Chaos may be the parent of creation but it will not be in this place—we will have some order. This is a place for full and vigorous debate. Contributions will be made while respecting the traditions of the House, as enshrined in the Standing Orders. I am standing because I crave your respect for those Standing Orders and your understanding.

In 2000, in relation to the average weekly income for all people aged 15 and over, Māori earned 82 percent of what European people earned. But in 2007 that figure had dropped by a massive 10 percent to 72 percent of what European people earned.

Let us look at homeownership rates. In 2001, 30 percent of Māori owned, or partly owned, their own home. That figure is now down. The figure for State housing usage is also interesting. In 2001, 3.2 percent of Māori lived in a State house. In 2007, the figure had risen to 3.4 percent.

What that tells us is that when this Labour Government came into power in 1999, Labour members were all gumption and all gung-ho about closing the gaps. There was no such luck. In fact, the heat got too much and the Labour Government decided to give its Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dover Samuels, the flick. Then it canned closing the gaps because the heat got too heavy. It could not handle the heat, it sacked one of its own people, and it even portrayed to the media that he would be back in that same position once all the swirling had finished. Well, 9 years later, we are still waiting for the kaumātua from the north to be reinstated to his position as Minister of Māori Affairs.

Labour has done nothing. What has Labour done in the last 8 years? Oh, that is right, it introduced the foreshore and seabed legislation. Boy was that a winner! In its own way it created another political party—the Māori Party. I say kia ora to my whanaunga and relations in the Māori Party. Labour has squandered its opportunities. It had the best of economic times, but it did not use those times to protect us from what was coming. We all knew that the subprime was going to happen. Most people who have mortgages knew that it was going to happen.

We have heard all about 1 April in this House today, when a raft of Government initiatives came into effect, but what we have not heard is that most of those initiatives have been about the Government making decisions for people on their behalf. They have not been about empowering people to make the decisions that will really make a difference to their lives. What this country needs—and there is a mood for this out in the electorate—is change. We need a change in this country, but not just a change of Government; we need a change in direction, a change of course. If the same old policies are wheeled out now and after the election, then things will stay the same. Helen Clark has given up talking about moving New Zealand into the top half of the OECD, firstly, because she has not been able to do it, and, secondly, because she has no idea how to go about it. We do not need the old failed policies we have been seeing, we need bold policies that will lift this country’s economic performance and have everybody better off, not just the chosen few that this Government wants to help out because they will vote for it come the election.

I asked a question today about taxation. Michael Cullen made it very clear today that this Government has absolutely no intention of removing the “envy tax”—the 39 percent tax that was not necessary in the first place. The tax has not stuck at the top 5 percent of taxpayers; it now applies to somewhere near 15 percent of taxpayers. Michael Cullen said that he would raise an extra $400 million a year for his new spending initiatives. We learnt today that in the 2006-07 year that amount has almost doubled to nearly $800 million, and for what?

Is education any better? No. We keep hearing the figures. Forty percent of school leavers leave with such poor literacy and numeracy skills that they cannot read a bus timetable. This country needs some bold policies to lift every child’s educational ability. ACT would give all students a scholarship so that they can attend the school that best suits their needs so they can achieve to the best of their ability. Our country does not want mediocrity, which is what the Labour Government wants for everybody—everybody doing well and nobody failing. We want excellence. Every child has the right to that, and every child should get a scholarship to make that happen.

An extra $6 billion has been poured into health over the last 8 years. Where has that got us? It has not got us anywhere. There is no better access for any patient. In fact, we now have such a two-tiered system that the people we cater for are the very unwell—those people who have heart attacks and car accidents and need immediate attention—and the wealthy who can afford to pay for health services themselves. What about everybody in the middle? What about the people sitting at home and paying year after year, who want to get back to work, to be of much more use to the community, and to be able to look after their families? Well, it is OK with this Government that those people just sit and wait. We need to make patients the focus of our health system, not the bureaucrats, not the 1,400 people who work at the Ministry of Health. Under this Government the number of people who work at the Ministry of Health has increased from 400 to 1,400. What has that achieved? It has not achieved anything. Doctors and nurses must be put back in the driving seat.

I come back to the subject that I started with—taxation rates. We need a much lower and flatter rate of taxation in order to benefit all Kiwis. That will lift New Zealand’s economic performance and put people in charge of their own lives. It will leave them to make the decisions that best affect their families. The 39c tax rate should be abolished immediately. If Michael Cullen sat down and looked at his figures he would see that he is now taxing 15 percent of people at that top tax rate and that he has now got in twice as much revenue as he said he needed. He would see that his wildest dreams have been completely exceeded. Michael Cullen sits there and reaps in all this money so that, come Budget time, he can spread it around like at a lolly scramble. He might think that he can hoodwink New Zealanders by doing that. He might think that that will make them vote for his party come election time, but New Zealanders are smarter than that. They know that the key to success for themselves, their families, and this country is to let people have more of what they earn, to let people make their own decisions about their lives, and to lift this country’s economic performance so that New Zealand competes on a level playing field with the other countries we like to compare ourselves with.

I have heard that member, Heather Roy, and other members in the House denigrating this Government for a lack of boldness. I will give them bold. Bold is when the minimum wage is $12 and we do not have youth rates—and I thank Sue Bradford for her bill. Her bill was supported by Labour, but National voted against it. We bring in good policies. I was with a business group the other day, and it was really great. It was 1 April, and I said to them: “Isn’t it great about the cut in company tax?”. They said “Yep.” They said they were really pleased that we were now talking with National and that together we had cut the rate for business tax. I said to them that National voted against it, and they said: “No, no, no. This is some sort of April Fool’s joke.” I said: “No, it is not. They voted against the tax cut for business.” National—the friend of business—did not support a tax cut for business in this country. It is appalling.

What are we looking forward to on 1 April? There are some pretty good things happening. One of those is the KiwiSaver employer contribution kicking in. So as well as the $20 a week tax credit that employees get in this country, they also get a 1 percent contribution from employers. Do we see employers in this country bleating and grizzling like the National members do? No, we do not, because they can see that this is good for their employees and good for New Zealand.

We also see superannuation going up under a Labour-led Government. Did that happen under a National Government? No, superannuation went down. We also see interest-free student loans. When Labour came into power it cut the interest on loans when students are studying, and then we got rid of the interest on loans when students graduate. Did National support that? No, National voted against it. And we hear Opposition members telling us to be bold and to bring in new things. We lowered doctors’ fees and prescription costs, but National voted against that. We brought in 20 free hours a week of early childhood education for every 3 and 4-year-old in this country, which about 90 percent of parents have taken up, and National voted against it. Working for Families I have talked about. We have brought in fairer labour laws, but National voted against them.

What did National do to accident compensation when it got into Government? It cut the lump-sum payment for accident compensation. National also scrapped the Apprenticeship Act. Those are the sorts of things that we saw under a National Government, and I know that people in New Zealand are only too aware of what National did when it was in Government and what it would do if it got into Government again. National members will not tell us. What do they say? They say that they do not have a personal view. I have news for the National members. We have personal views in our party, but our personal views—unlike some members in National’s caucus—are the same as our party’s views. That is because we have a vision of New Zealanders being able to reach their full potential. How do New Zealanders reach their full potential? They do it through good education, good health, and good opportunities in life, and that is what this Government has delivered.

We hear the Opposition members denigrating us but we have not heard even one policy from them, except to send kids to boot camp. That is all we have heard from National members in terms of policy. We say to National members “Bring it on!”. On everything it opposed, National is now saying “Me too!”. National vehemently opposed interest-free student loans. National members said that it was the worst policy and that is was irresponsible Government. What are they doing now?

💬 Jill Pettis: Having a bob each way.

They are trying to have a bob each way.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Until after the election.

What will they do after the election? What do we know?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was listening to Lynne Pillay’s speech and to the interjection from Steve Chadwick, in which they said “Bring it on!” and let us have an election. I seek leave for the House to be wound up and for there to be a general election.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, Dr Smith, you know that is a frivolous point of order. Please be seated. You know much better than that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the member, by “Bring it on!” we meant bring on a policy. We would love to see a policy of any kind.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that leads to disorder.

We would like to see any policy from the National Party.

I seek leave to pick up the challenge of Lynne Pillay and Steve Chadwick. I understand, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you did not wish the challenge to be taken up in the middle of a speech, but I now seek leave for the House to be wound up so that there can be a general election, as the Labour Party seeks.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member can ask for that, but the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? Yes, there is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apart from the fact that that is a really silly suggestion, we have very important legislation before the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order. Nice try.

I sometimes get very tired and bored when I am listening to debates in this House, because we hear the same old speeches all the time. A National member will say that the statistics for a certain group in society, when it comes to education, are going down and that wage rates are going down. Then a Labour member will say that if one does this or if one does that, then something else will happen.

Let us take education as an example. Speaking generally from my own experience—and I am actually an immigrant to New Zealand from Asia—one of the things that I have been noticing as New Zealand First’s education spokesperson is how well Asian immigrants seem to do when it comes to education. Many of them come to New Zealand not even able to speak English, yet often within 5 years they are at university and are often doing medical degrees. Why is that so? I have always put it down to something very simple: immigrants from Asia appreciate the wonderful education system in New Zealand. Regardless of which party is in power, neither party can damage what is essentially a wonderful system with a wonderful bunch of school teachers, who get denigrated in this House time and time again by each party when it abuses the education system.

My philosophy on education is simple: firstly, one should go to school; secondly, one should pay attention when one is there; and, thirdly, one should do one’s homework. The biggest problem we seem to have today is that children will not go to school. If a child does not go to school, there is nothing that any Government can do to force him or her to get there. With all due respect to National Party policy, we cannot send 5-year-olds to a boot camp, because they are only 5. But that is when the problem starts; it starts at a very early age. Boot camp policies are useless for children at that age, so let us get real. At the end of the day, as the ACT member Heather Roy was saying, we should put some responsibility on ourselves and put the responsibility on parents. Governments can really only interfere, and it is up to parents to accept responsibility, in all sorts of ways.

Of course, I have been out of Parliament for a little while, but I have come back. I was speaking to Peter Brown about what I should say in this speech. Peter said it was very important that I realise the things that New Zealand First has achieved since I have been away, some of which came into effect on 1 April. I thought: “Well, yes.” Then I asked Peter Brown what they were. He reminded me that—as has been mentioned today—the new superannuation increase has come into effect; the rate is now 66.2 percent. When I left Parliament in 2005 the rate was actually below 65 percent, but thanks to New Zealand First it has been increased by that extra 1-and-a-bit percent, due to our supply agreement.

I also say that I have noticed how well the agreement has worked between Labour and New Zealand First. There is respect on both sides, which is quite different from the situation that I understand existed in 1997 and, particularly, in 1998. New Zealand First has shown how an agreement can be carried out.

The minimum wage has gone up. Was it not New Zealand First that worked with Jim Anderton’s Progressive, which was talking about increasing the minimum wage—or was it the 4 weeks’ annual holiday? One of the things we did was make sure that workers can have 4 weeks’ leave. I think that members have forgotten that fact, and it should be asked of other parties in this House whether, if they came into Government again, they would put the leave back to 3 weeks. I understand that certain members voted against 4 weeks’ leave for all workers in New Zealand.

The company tax rate is down to 30 percent. When I was at the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) in Khyber Pass Road in about 2004-05, it said New Zealand First must support a reduction in company tax, and I am sure it said the National Party wanted one. So New Zealand First supported a reduction in the company tax, but what did National do? It opposed it. I am absolutely amazed, as a former National Party member of Parliament from 1975 to 1984, that National could possibly oppose a company tax reduction. That is quite amazing.

New Zealand First has done other things. I never go to race meetings but I know many people who do, and the things that New Zealand First has done for the racing industry are out of this world. I thank all those people in the racing industry for their support, and I look forward to that support on election day, in particular.

Looking ahead to the future, one of the things that I am working on as education spokesman for New Zealand First is our policy of a universal student allowance, which would make sure that students can go to university and not leave with a heavy debt load around their necks. New Zealand First has always had a student allowance policy. When I hear student leaders talk about the tremendous debt that students have to repay, I say to them: “Why didn’t you vote for New Zealand First? You’ve gone to university, you’re supposed to be very clever, you’re supposed to be coming out with these degrees, but has it ever occurred to you that one way of making sure that you will go to university and not have a debt is to vote for New Zealand First and support New Zealand First?”

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.