General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Everybody has heard the saying: “Bread today and jam tomorrow.” Well, as we lead up to the 2008 election, a cocky, arrogant National Party—its members boasting about their poll ratings around the halls of Parliament, squabbling over which ministerial house they want, choosing their ministerial staff, and selecting their new cars—is not interested in building for the future for a better New Zealand. It is all about “Jam now and to hell with the future.” The jam, I have to say, is for the National Party and its mates. Its mates are those people who have kept their opinions very quiet for the last 2 years but who are now emerging out of their very comfortable offices to praise, to plot, and to prepare for the return of a National Government—a Government, they have been told, that will implement their agenda.

Their agenda, I have to tell the people of New Zealand, would rip the heart out of workers’ rights here in New Zealand. It is an agenda that would see a return to the master-servant relationship that was promised to the Exclusive Brethren in 2005. Already we have National members of Parliament going around speaking to business groups and telling them that they have big changes in mind for the Employment Relations Act.

It is an agenda that promises a referendum on MMP. Who is asking for a referendum on MMP? The public of New Zealand are not asking for a referendum on MMP. The only people who want a referendum are the big backers of the National Party—those who have the money and who want to change the voting system here in this Parliament so that the small parties represented here will not be here any more. The first payback for the big backers of the National Party is John Key’s announcement that there will be a referendum on MMP. In respect of that referendum, today I read in the New Zealand Herald that “National might remind themselves a majority favour the present system”. This referendum will be a $3 million payback for the National Party’s big backers—the Business Roundtable, Mr Graeme Hunt, and others—who want to get rid of the small parties in this Parliament so that the National Party can once again become the “natural” party of Government.

And then we have the sale of assets. It will be back on the agenda—mark my words. Of course, National members are going to spend 3 years preparing themselves to sell the assets of New Zealand, but they are going to get rid of them; there is no doubt about it. Rail will be gone, Air New Zealand will be gone, Television One will be sold, our energy generation will be sold, the Accident Compensation Corporation will be gone, and many, many more will go. People like Bill English, Maurice Williamson, Lockwood Smith, Murray McCully, and Tony Ryall are gagging at swallowing this political rat. What they are really promising the people of New Zealand is that they will be a non-Government for 3 years, because they will change nothing and do nothing. They will just get ready to do it in their next term if they are elected.

John Key has determined that he will win by doing whatever it takes—flip-flops, bluster, and ballyhoo. He will neutralise any issue, he will mis-speak, and he will fabricate. He will do anything to neutralise any political issue if it is going to lose a vote—and it does not matter even if it is a bedrock National Party policy. Of course, the edict to National Party MPs is: “Don’t worry about principles. Don’t worry about policy. Don’t worry about integrity. Don’t worry about honesty. Win at all costs.” Their mantra is to win at all costs. And what a huge cost it would be to the people of New Zealand—people who look to a Government to ensure they are looked after. For 8 years this Government has been doing that with Working for Families, KiwiSaver, paid parental leave, 4 weeks of holidays for Kiwis, and affordable health care. The list goes on, but now we have John Key promising everybody $50 a week in tax cuts.

The hearts of people around the world have gone out to the families of tens of thousands who have died in two recent, major disasters. These are the typhoon in Burma and the earthquake in Sichuan, China. Last week Parliament unanimously backed a resolution that I moved, extending our heartfelt sympathy to the Chinese Government and people. This resolution also acknowledged the efforts of the Chinese authorities in mobilising people for the rescue effort, which is continuing. To their credit, the Chinese leaders are also allowing foreign aid teams to assist.

By contrast, the world has watched in anguish as the Burmese junta has let thousands of people die rather than relax its grip on every aspect of Burmese life. Firstly, the junta did not tell the people in the Irrawaddy Delta that a major cyclone was coming. This cyclone was very much in the international media. I remember watching TV myself day after day as the typhoon approached Burma. Then the junta pretended that there was not much damage, and it largely sat on its hands, using helicopters mainly for sending bigwigs in and out for photo opportunities in an attempt to show the Burmese TV audience how compassionate the ruling generals are.

For some time, foreign relief teams were shut out of the country, their presence being seen by the junta as a threat to its rule. The generals have also spurned assistance from US, French, and British warships that sit 100 kilometres off the coast with helicopters and plentiful supplies. Even now, 18 days after Cyclone Nargis, overseas relief bodies do not have access to many of those people in need. Foreign aid workers still find it hard to get visas. The rulers of Burma, by allowing thousands of people to die of exposure, starvation, and disease when they could have been saved, have committed a major crime against humanity. It has demonstrated to the whole world the ruthless nature of the generals’ rule, which has been 46 years of misery for the Burmese people. Hopefully, this latest callous betrayal of the Burmese people will tip many of its remaining supporters—middle-ranking civil servants, for example—right over the edge and into outright opposition. Any Government that so disregards the people’s welfare deserves to go and go quickly.

Let us discuss what New Zealand’s response should be. The first thing, which we have done, is to offer emergency aid for the post-cyclone relief effort, mainly through respected international aid bodies. Our Government has advanced around $1.5 million for this purpose. The second thing is to be active on the diplomatic front to twist the junta’s arm to allow aid in. Our country is a dialogue partner with ASEAN, of which Burma is a member. More pressure needs to be exerted on ASEAN not only to help get aid in but, in the longer term, to help the Burmese people get the junta off their backs. The ASEAN Secretary-General, Dr Surin Pitsuwan, admitted yesterday that ASEAN has been too slow in taking action post the typhoon.

We should also be pushing for political action by the United Nations, which would help to counter the efforts of Russia, Viet Nam, South Africa, and China, to stop this from happening. China has been the Burmese junta’s main backer for several years, providing it with arms and supplies of all kinds. We must continue to expose the Beijing Government’s bad role in supporting dictators in Burma, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere, particularly in the lead-up to the Olympics when the Chinese Government is so desperate for good press. Hopefully, the Chinese rulers will see that being a bit more open and supporting ordinary people taking their own initiatives, as has happened in the Sichuan earthquake relief effort, actually wins international plaudits.

Thirdly, we should put a greater squeeze on the Burmese junta. We should go beyond the present travel ban on junta members and freeze any assets they have in New Zealand, as other countries like the United States have already done.

The two big disasters in Burma and China also remind us of our responsibilities as a good global citizen. We probably could have been a bit more generous if our overall aid budget had been larger. From July our aid will be 0.32 percent of gross national income. That is an increase but it still leaves us less than halfway towards the international target of 0.7 percent by 2015, with only another six Budgets to make up the difference. We can do better.

One of the interesting things is that the public of New Zealand has observed the mayhem among the current Government members. It is the sort of situation where no matter what they do, it seems to turn bad for them. It is a situation where things that they think will go well for them, go badly.

One of the interesting things to observe amongst that mayhem has been the increased public scrutiny of the Hon David Cunliffe, and, what is more, the increased respect he appears to be growing among the commentariat as the most likely successor to Helen Clark when she is defeated in this year’s election. They are saying this in coffee shops. They are saying this at bus stops. They are saying this in workplaces all over the place. But we know he is getting cut through when the Prime Minister comes to the House and refers to him as “David Conloffe” as she tries to knock him off his perch a little bit.

But we also know he is getting a lot of traction when a very experienced politician like the Hon Phil Goff, who has been here 25 years after first entering Parliament in 1981—he had a short stint out of Parliament but overall he has been in this House for 25 years—made the sort of comment he did on Alt TV the other night. He was not exactly up against a hard interrogator in Oliver Driver. This was no Lindsay Perigo, no Mark Sainsbury, and no Paul Cutler. It was Oliver Driver, and many people will not even know who he is. I did not even know who he was until I heard about the interview. It was an opportunity for Phil Goff to express his long-held desire to lead the Labour Party. But, more than that, it was an opportunity to knock off all those near rivals. He had read in Trans Tasman, which apparently is now a sort of cheer sheet for Clayton Cosgrove, that there are two contenders in the Labour Party—Mr Cunliffe and Mr Cosgrove—for the future leadership, and he thought: “I haven’t been here for 25 years to have my chance knocked over by those two upstarts.” So he went out there and put himself right in it. It was fascinating to watch. Rather than backing off once he knew he had the media attention, he simply announced: “It’s time for a change. The public want it, and when it happens I’m available.”

Why, then, are we in this situation? It is largely because Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have not been listening to what New Zealanders have been saying for a very long time. They have not been into a supermarket and seen what it is like to buy the weekly groceries.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You’ve been into a supermarket!

That is right. I go to a supermarket very often. I tell the member that I am a big buyer and I know the price of cheese. But Helen Clark does not. Helen Clark has no idea what it is like to ration the milk on the cornflakes in the morning for the kids—no idea, whatsoever. She is out of touch, and that is why the environment has arisen whereby Phil Goff can start to contemplate replacing her after the election.

The interesting thing, though, is that when we look at how things are shaping up, it is clear that Annette King will be his running mate. But after her speech today I would say that he needs to look around and think about his other options. I noted the warm congratulations she received from other team members, Darren Hughes and Rick Barker. But the confusing thing is that when I look at the Cosgrove team, the Goff team, the Clark team, the Cunliffe team, and at the outlying Shane Jones team, I see that Rick Barker is in all of them. He is a remarkable man; he is in every one of them, so I do not think I would rely too much on him.

Another interesting thing is that Rick Baker recently announced that he will write a book when he leaves politics. A further interesting thing is that he has already announced the topic—“20 Years in Politics: What I was doing when all that was going on”. I am sure that will be a great read, but it somewhat typifies where Helen Clark has got herself to right now, and where Michael Cullen has got himself to right now. They are not in touch with what New Zealanders are thinking, and we will see a big demonstration of that tomorrow.

I will finish my comments this afternoon by asking a very important question: is Phil Goff advising Clayton Cosgrove and David Cunliffe on how to manage their involvement in the immigration fiasco? I saw my colleague Lockwood Smith questioning them in the House today, and I saw the shifty looks on their faces as they danced around the answers, evaded what was the obvious, and looked furtively towards Mr Goff, who had a most impressive grin on his face as he saw them both squirming under that sort of questioning. So I think Mr Goff is advising his two near rivals on how to handle that particular matter.

Tomorrow we will have a Budget read by the Government. It will not deliver what New Zealanders want.

We now know some interesting facts, and I am gratified for that somewhat light but entertaining and jocular speech. I was wondering, but I now know, partly, why the price of cheese has gone up. It is, of course, because of international commodity prices and the international situation, but Gerry Brownlee gave us an astounding fact today. He said that the price of cheese has gone up because he eats a heck of a lot of it. He also told us—and I take him at his word—that he visits a supermarket very, very regularly. But we also know this: Gerry Brownlee talked about various teams and all the sort of fictitious stuff that he goes on about, but we know a couple of facts about the National Party and one is that there is no Gerry Brownlee team. There is no Gerry Brownlee team for anything.

Secondly, we know that Gerry Brownlee will never be in line for anything. No, I stand corrected—I am advised that he was in line for the tuck shop at St Bede’s on many occasions. There is no Gerry Brownlee team. We know all about the succession planning that goes on over there and the myriad of five leaders they have had and whom Helen Clark has disposed of.

Let us look at this thing called tax that my colleague Annette King talked about. We now have another revelation from Mr Key. He says everyone, not just the top end and not just the bottom end, will get a $50 a week tax cut. That is a lot of blocks of cheese, including the big 1 kilogram jumbo size, for our friend Gerry Brownlee. According to John Key, everybody will get a tax break from National of a minimum of 50 bucks - plus, a week. If we do the sums—and I know that is a bit difficult for Gerry Brownlee, but he could use all his fingers and toes—we have to ask how that will be paid for. Then we have to ask ourselves what will happen to inflation, especially given that the IMF has come out today and said there needs to be a measured approach to economic management and the issue of taxation. But the old “50 bucks - plus” wonders over there are promising that amount to New Zealanders.

The question is what will happen to inflation and interest rates. What will bank managers do to the mum and dad battlers out there in the mortgage belt once they get, on one hand, 50 bucks - plus per week, and then the bank manager will be on the phone and saying to them: “Hey, your interest rates are going up. Let’s take a lot more than that back from you per week.” I can see that Mr Brownlee is having palpitations as he tries to get to grips with the facts.

Then we should talk about Mr Key’s flip-flops. I want to read a quote from Tracy Watkins in the blog Inside the Beltway of 20 May: “Key”—that is, Mr Key—“suggested his north of $50 comment was in response to me”—that is, Ms Watkins—“asking him about our poll questions … Actually, we hadn’t got on to those poll questions at that point in the interview.” The quote goes on: “I’ve spoken to Key”—that is, Mr Key—“about this and he says there may have been some confusion as he had been aware from an earlier discussion in the week that we were polling on this question and thought that was what I was asking about.”

So, hang on, Mr Key is confused. It is a bit like how Mr Key seems to be confused about everything. On 5 March he said about asset sales: “We wouldn’t have changed the rules, as they have, to preserve New Zealand’s strategic assets.” Then in April this year he said: “In the first term of the National Government there will be no State assets that will be sold.”

We have to ask, because people are not silly, how National would pay for such massive promises as every New Zealander—every mum and dad, every pensioner, and everybody else—getting a tax break of in excess of $50 a week. Would it sell assets? Possibly. Would it cut expenditure? Possibly. Would it borrow? Possibly. If National is not prepared to say that it would do one, two, or all three of those things then I ask those members, with their high intellectual capacity in economics, to tell the New Zealand people how they will pay for a tax cut of north of $50 per week, per head. If National members are not prepared to sell assets—not in the first 3 years for these boys—if they are not prepared to borrow, even though they said they would borrow half of it last time, although not for schools, not for hospitals, not for roads, but for tax cuts, and if they are not going to cut any expenditure, then it is voodoo economics and they know it.

That speech was made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. He used to be good.

Phil Goff, the man who is about to take over the Labour Party, was selected for the Labour Party when Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. It is hard to believe that this man is the future of the Labour Party. One thing I have noticed today and over recent days is that Labour seems to have decided it is in trouble. National knows that there is a long way to go, but Labour seems to have decided it is in trouble. Phil Goff is a politician of some 25 years’ experience—I am just wondering when the gravitas will kick in—yet he went on nationwide television and, essentially, said that he was in the race. The problem is that somebody forgot to tell Helen Clark that there was a race.

Of course, David Cunliffe sees himself as being well and truly at the centre of that race. On this side of the House we are reliably informed that David Cunliffe’s internal popularity will in the end drive him over the threshold for the deputy leadership; that the high personal regard his colleagues have for him and the way in which he has modestly and humbly conducted himself in caucus over the last 9 years will ultimately see him pushed into the deputy leader’s spot!

We know that the other MPs in the Labour Party—the smart ones—are quietly smiling to themselves, and they fit into two categories. One is the category of Jill Pettis, Paul Swain, and Steve Maharey. They are quietly smiling to themselves. Mark Burton should have been in that category but he forgot.

At the same time there is another category of MPs who are also smiling and it is the category that I think is most interesting. It is the Ross Robertson, George Hawkins category. It is the category that beat the internal Labour Party machine that was determined to get rid of them. Alongside Phil Goff, they are the young, youthful faces of Labour, taking that party forward into the next century. They are the men who outwitted the internal Labour Party machine and survived the purge. Other talented members like Ross Robertson—well-known to you, Mr Assistant Speaker—are George Hawkins and Harry Duynhoven. They are the survivors; the people who will get through the next short while.

I have to say that having David Cunliffe driving around BP stations filling the gas bottles for Phil Goff is not going to help. Having Clayton Cosgrove wandering off to The Mad Butcher to collect the sausages and steaks is also not going to help. In the meanwhile George Hawkins, Ross Robertson, and Harry Duynhoven sit quietly smiling to themselves—on the weekends joining Phil Goff in his caravan—waiting, waiting, waiting for their opportunity to take over the reins of the Labour Party.

Why is it, though, that after 25 years in Parliament the Hon Phil Goff still shows that sort of boyish, vein-popping enthusiasm in his presentations in this House? What happened to the sort of statesmanlike, gradual gravitas that one would expect from someone of that many years in politics? The Labour Party knows that this issue will not go away, nor will the issue with Toll Holdings, the immigration scandals, or the fact that the emissions trading scheme is in a shambles, violent crime is skyrocketing, the real estate reforms have stalled, the Financial Advisers Bill has stalled, and the Electoral Finance Act is in a shambles. Indeed, Labour’s own members have been pinged for infringing it. Well, it seems that Phil Goff has all the answers.

The curious thing about all of this is that the Labour Party itself has decided it is in trouble, and we know that no one fights internally like the Labour Party does when the pressure comes on. We know that there is more to come, and that even David Cunliffe’s immense popularity within his own caucus will not save Labour members from tearing each other’s throats out. He may well stand, next week, in the caucus room and give a Martin Luther King - type speech to the caucus about how they have to hold together in these times of trial and tribulation. The problem is that people have stopped listening to him.

But National knows that Clayton Cosgrove is doing the numbers for David Cunliffe. We know that the two of them are closely in alliance and beavering away for the next generation of Labour leaders to come forth. The corridors are awash with rumours about how close those two are, and their plans for the future. They have given up, themselves.

The previous speech may have been a very witty diatribe from a member of the Opposition trying to work out what is going on, but we say “game on”; this is a serious time in the political cycle. It is game on for this Labour Government, while we watch the Leader of the Opposition going around the country determined to be just a small target, just a little target, saying whatever he wants to direct to that audience, what they want to hear, or what the polls are telling him he should say to that audience, but actually not coming out with any policy. When he does try to come out with a policy, we see him slipping and sliding and changing that policy at the first opportunity when he comes back to face reality.

We expect to see more depth from a leader, or someone who thinks he is going to be a leader of a Government, and we are not seeing it. If we go down one or two levels below the rhetoric and the smile of John Key we cannot see any political depth, at all. We are even starting to see a bit of a swagger. It is a worry when we see a bit of a swagger from someone, and some of his junior spokespeople, who go around Wellington saying: “When I’m a Minister you’ll be with me as my political adviser.” It all comes back to us. We are hearing the stories. They come straight back to us. We hear who has contacted people to say: “When we’re in, you’ll be there beside me.” That is not going down, very well.

We need a vision from the Opposition. We are not seeing it; we are seeing an impoverished view of “New Zealand Inc.” We heard it again today on net migration. Whereas we have an immigration gain, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it, he seems to want everybody to go over to Australia. He seems to be saying that Australia is a better place, and telling people to “go forward”. If that is someone who wants to lead, that is not a very good vision for New Zealanders who are looking at where they hang their hat. When things go wrong with his media statements he blames the journalists. He is already falling into that trap.

The Opposition is not supporting those fantastic initiatives—building new classrooms, lowering the teacher-pupil ratio, more surgery funding—announced this week. Tony Ryall was really rattled. Is the Opposition intent on keeping the investment in more elective surgery over the next 4 years for 5,000 New Zealanders, as well as giving tax cuts, which, at the moment, stand at $50-plus a week—because that is what the polls tell National that people will expect. I am not sure about that. New Zealanders will start to stack it up.

I want to talk about John Key’s position on climate change. It is deeply worrying, considering I am off to Germany for a conference on biodiversity, to say that our Leader of the Opposition, an aspirant to lead this country, once thought that climate change was a hoax, then he became leader and supported the emissions trading scheme, and now he has changed his mind again. Imagine the world leaders hearing that in Bonn next week. It will be deeply worrying, internationally.

We also saw his call on the therapeutics bill. He was all over the place. What a fool he has made of himself there. The Opposition panned the therapeutics bill, and voted it down but John Key, the leader, has said he is prepared to reconsider it and that as soon as they get in they will change their minds on that one. We tell him to come clean with the public of New Zealand and to stop playing politics on the big issues that matter to New Zealand’s economy, as we are seeing.

I want to talk about slips over policy that look good when he is here at home, because they are what people want to hear, but look dreadful when he goes overseas. New Zealand’s reputation overseas really matters to us. In terms of health, will the Nats take the cap off the general practitioner fees and pull the veil on yet another policy? Of course, they will. They have sidelined two of their three doctors in their health policy, who stood there looking like stunned mullets. They are not even in the health team; two doctors were sidelined while Tony Ryall, who has no credibility in the health sector, went out and led on health policy. It is considered a farce out there. What did Tony Ryall come up with this week? All he could do was pick holes in the capital plan to improve dental services.

I want to take this Parliament back to just over 12 months ago, when the senior private secretary of the Hon David Cunliffe would have knocked on his door, come bowling into his office, and said to him: “Minister, I’ve just had a call from the Secretary of Labour. He wants to see you urgently.” The Minister would have said: “OK then. Find a time.” Later that afternoon the Secretary of Labour would have come across to the Minister’s office and said to the Minister: “Minister, I’ve got to tell you that we’ve just discovered that it seems some unlawful decisions have been made in our department. It’s so serious that we’re going to appoint an independent investigator to have a look at this. I’m suggesting that we actually get the former Secretary for Justice to have a look at it. You need to know, Minister, that it actually involves the family of the workforce deputy secretary.” Naturally, the secretary did not bring any officials across with him, because to tell the Minister that the head of Immigration New Zealand was under investigation for illegal decisions in the department for which that Minister was responsible is not something one would have the officials involved with.

That issue would have been something that James Buwalda would have spoken to David Cunliffe about, personally. He would have said to David Cunliffe: “Minister, I have here the proposed terms of reference.”, and I can just imagine David Cunliffe saying to James Buwalda: “Oh, no, James. I don’t want to see those. Don’t. I want to be able to say that surely this is just an employment matter. Don’t show me the terms of reference.” It defies credibility, when a Minister is told an investigation involves the head of Immigration New Zealand, for the Minister to say: “I have no interest in seeing the terms of reference.”; it has to be untrue.

I will take us forward a further 4 months. This time it is Graham Fortune; James Buwalda has gone, along with many other senior people in the Department of Labour. That is a scandal in itself—the number of people churned through that outfit. This time it is the acting chief executive who makes the same call and asks to see David Cunliffe, Minister of Immigration. Graham Fortune comes across, this time with the Oughton report in his hand. The first finding of the Oughton report that Graham Fortune would have had to tell David Cunliffe about was that there were, in fact, serious outcomes in respect of immigration policy, which David Oughton uncovered. People who should have got residence did not. The reason why they did not get residence under the special residual Pacific access quota for Kiribati was because some unlawful decisions were made involving the family of the workforce deputy secretary, the head of the Immigration Service. Graham Fortune would have also told the Minister that David Oughton recommended that this has to be dealt with, and the only way this can be dealt with—because it is an exception to policy—is for the Minister to take it on and deal with it.

It is not credible for us to believe that David Cunliffe said to Graham Fortune, the acting chief executive of the Department of Labour: “Look, Graham, I don’t want to hear about this. For goodness’ sake this is just an employment matter. Surely you can find a way of dealing with these people who missed out on getting residence without having to involve me. I realise under the law it’s only me who can make an exception to policy, but surely there’s a way. Just go away and deal with it. Just go and bury it.” That is what this Labour Government and David Cunliffe expect us to believe. This is the Oughton report in my hand here, and the very first finding in the cover letter from David Oughton to Graham Fortune spells out that there is a matter that has to be attended to, and that the only person who can attend to it is the Minister himself, which the Minister would have known. The Minister took no—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Stop making it up!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I ask Lianne Dalziel to read the Oughton report. It makes it very clear that there is a special treatment required for the people who have missed out because Mary Anne Thompson’s family got unlawful decisions in its favour. The only person who can make exceptions to policy is the Minister, and the Minister swept these things under the carpet.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare nei. I wonder whether those senior citizens who are watching and listening to this debate have noticed that there has not been one mention about what the parties each of the previous speakers represented would do for them. That is one of the many things that make New Zealand First different from other parties in this House. The contribution of our senior citizens is immeasurable. We believe that in return, our country has a duty to acknowledge that through adequate superannuation, and adequate health-care and social services. In most other parts of the world, and indeed in other cultures, age is respected for its wisdom and enlightenment. New Zealand First supports that philosophy.

Well, it is Budget time, and every New Zealander will be asking the question: what is in it for me? We know many senior citizens are having trouble making ends meet, with the dramatically rising cost of food, power, and transport. So too, are many families. We are not fair-weather friends for seniors—unlike some parties in this House. Thanks to New Zealand First, superannuation is now paid at the rate of 66 percent of the net average wage for a married couple. On last election night the rate was just over 63 percent. We will push for a 68 percent rate after the next election, because the way that superannuation is calculated means that senior citizens are always playing catch-up. The Government has promised tax cuts in this year’s Budget, and we have had concerns raised with us at the impact of those cuts on the rate of superannuation.

Let us turn to progress on the SuperGold card. This card was launched about 8 months ago, and the number of business partners has risen dramatically from 188 businesses at the launch of the card to nearly 800 business partners, with over 4,000 business outlets, now. That indicates just how significant and how popular the SuperGold card has been seen to be, not only by the businesses of this country but by those for whom it is intended—that is, our senior citizens. In just over 6 months the New Zealand SuperGold card has now become larger than the cards operating in several Australian states, and they started well over a decade ago. Businesses are on board, there are tens of thousands of people using the card, and it is making a real difference for our senior citizens. The SuperGold card was never designed to replace local discount booklets but to complement them, and I believe that it has certainly done that.

The time has now come for Government services to be enhanced. Budget 2008 will contain $18 million of funding that will ensure that SuperGold cardholders will travel free on public transport during off-peak times during the day. New Zealand First has also secured a significant funding boost of $4.5 million in this year’s Budget to ensure greater access to hearing aids. The response of a member from the National Party during question time certainly is an indication that that member would benefit from having a SuperGold card and the assistance it will give in terms of hearing aids.

Both Labour and National have missed the boat when it comes to tax cuts. If New Zealand First was presenting the Budget tomorrow, we would introduce some quite radical changes. These are difficult times, and they require measures that are both simple and effective. We would introduce a tax-free threshold for the first $5,200 of income earned.

💬 Dail Jones: How much?

Five thousand, two hundred dollars. People who get up to $100 a week through a part-time job, or whatever else they may be doing, would get that tax-free. But, most important, it represents a tax cut that everyone would benefit from. You see, with that tax-free threshold in place, married couples on New Zealand superannuation would receive an extra $21 a week while those on other rates would receive between $12 and $14 a week.

💬 Dail Jones: How much?

Between $12 and $14. This is a tax cut that would really make a difference.

We would also bring in an incremental reduction in the level of the goods and services tax on all products. GST started at 10 percent; we want to gradually move it back to that figure over 3 years. In the first year we would drop it by 0.5 percent in conjunction with the tax cut mentioned previously, and then drop it by 1 percent a year for the next 2 years. The total cost over 3 years is about $4.5 billion, but that is less than the cost of the tax cuts that have been promised now. We actually believe it would be less than $4.5 billion, because the money returned to people on low and fixed incomes would be recycled, creating more tax revenue. The combination of a tax-free threshold and lowering GST to 10 percent would have the effect of increasing people’s purchasing power and lowering their living costs.

Malo, Mr Assistant Speaker, and members of the House. The political discussions throughout Manukau City by ordinary people, by workers, by citizens—the hard-working citizens of that city—in the last few weeks have been generally centred on three themes. The first theme is around who is going to be the better leader. Who provides strong leadership? The second theme is around sound, responsible, and robust policies—policies that are real, policies that have substance, and policies aimed at taking everyone with us so that no one is left behind. The third theme is around which political party is going to be able to form a Government come election time this year.

When it comes to leadership, let me say a few things. Manukau residents know well how hard working the Prime Minister is. They know her commitment and her dedication. The diverse communities of Manukau—and we have about 184 groups—admire her strong and decisive leadership style. Leadership is the key to our communities throughout Manukau. Leadership provides a vision of a better tomorrow. Leadership enables people to stand together in hard times and provides hope and aspiration to the younger generation. Leadership is about uniting our communities and going forward.

I was asked by one or two of my friends at one particular discussion last week what National was like. They asked me what National’s leaders were like. Frankly, I had to say to them, with the greatest respect to my colleagues on the other side, “They are hard to pin down.” One young man said to me: “It must be like trying to catch eels.” That is exactly what it is like. These young people understand when we say that National does not know what its policies are. And it is policies that are the other matter that will be important in addition to leadership—good leadership, strong leadership, and leadership that unites our community.

So I come to policy. Policy is significant, and the health policies of this Government have improved the livelihoods of many in our communities, from young people, to middle-income earners, to the elderly folk. That is something that we celebrate and are grateful to this Government for. It is interesting that in this coming Budget this Government has more money to put into cancer treatment, immunisation programmes, and for patients to receive elective services. These are the kinds of policies that resonate with our communities in Manukau.

One has to ask what sorts of policies the National Party will have in terms of health. What is its policy in terms of health care, in terms of prescription costs, and in terms of elective surgery? What is its policy on those issues? What is its policy on housing? Many of our communities have benefited from the income-related housing policy of this Labour-led Government. But we have to ask National what its housing policy is. Will it go back to its policies of the 1990s and sell off housing stock to its friends—its rich friends, its business friends? What is its policy on industrial relations? We have not heard anything, and workers throughout Manukau City will be listening for that kind of policy and whether National has one. What is National’s policy on State assets? We heard at one point in time it was prepared to sell off State assets. Then it said no, then it said it would sell them off and maybe in its first term. What is its real position on that? Again our young people are going to say that dealing with the National Party is like trying to catch eels.

What is National’s policy on Pacific affairs? What is its policy on Māori affairs? As I look across at Georgina te Heuheu I feel sorry for her, particularly given National’s policy of abolishing the Māori seats.

The last theme is about the team—the team that will be able to form a Government. The Labour Party was able to form a Government because of its working relationship with New Zealand First, the Greens, and United Future. It is the only party that has been able to show our country what leadership is about, and how to provide a Government under an MMP system. Members on the other side of the House are talking about getting rid of MMP—oh no, I forgot, they want a referendum first.

The newest member of this House raised the issue of leadership in his speech, and the issue of leadership in the Labour Party is about who is going to lead the Labour Party. Labour does not have to worry about leadership anywhere else but in the Labour Party. I want to give that member a history lesson. Let us go back to 11 June 1996. On that fateful day a number of senior front-bench Labour Party MPs—actually, five front-bench MPs—went to Ms Clark as Leader of the Opposition, as she was then, and asked her to resign. Guess who was part of that famous five group? Mr Phil Goff led the challenge. He has wanted to be the leader of that party from day one, when he first came into this House. In 1996 he showed his cards. He went in with Cullen, King, and a few others, and went for that job, but he did not get it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use members’ full names.

Mr Goff is now trying again. This is another time for him to have a go.

Let us look at what was said back then, in July 1996, about Mr Goff. He met Ms Clark on 28 May to suggest that, with Labour’s poll rating at around 16 percent, she might like to reconsider whether she was the best person to lead the party. Do not those words sound familiar to the ones we heard a few days ago? Mr Goff said that he believed he did nothing wrong and has no regret for what he did that day. In fact, Mr Goff was quoted as saying: “You will find nothing on record from me during my time as a member of Parliament where I have said anything that might embarrass any leader who I have served or any party of which I am a member.” Is that right? Well, I am sure he embarrassed his leader last week.

He also said: “I have said nothing to you but the truth.” Well, the truth is that he wants the leadership position. The truth is that Labour is in trouble. It knows it has problems, it knows it needs a new leader, and he is standing up because he wants to have that job.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Will he get it?

Well, he did try again. In 1999 another takeover bid for Ms Clark’s job resurfaced after Mr Goff had invited MPs to his Auckland house for a barbecue. But no, Ms Clark was not invited to that barbecue was she—the so-called party at Phil’s? However, it did not lead to any challenge—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has been here long enough. He should know that he must address a person by his or her full name, title, or portfolio.

I was just quoting from the article.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member cannot get around the use of what is considered to be unparliamentary or the other use of titles by trying to ride over Speakers’ rulings, and there are Speakers’ rulings on that. The member will use full names.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that ruling, which we agree with. But the other point is that when you are on your feet the member whom you are addressing should be seated, not standing. I would like to bring that to your attention, as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Swain. You are absolutely right. When the Speaker stands the member should be seated.

The so-called party at Mr Phil Goff’s did not, however, lead to any challenge and in that year there was no challenge to Clark.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. The member has done it again. He has one more chance, or he will have a yellow card. The next time his speech will be terminated.

Mr Goff has shown a history of wanting to have leadership of the Labour Party. He has gone out there on numerous occasions since 1996 wanting to become the leader, and this is just another example of that. Mr Goff is presenting himself as the natural leader for the Labour Party. Labour has to be asking some tough questions at its caucus meetings, because it is in real trouble. It is backtracking on some of its big issues. It is backtracking on the emissions trading scheme. It is making legislation in name only, with no practical implementation in the first couple of years. Labour is backtracking on its petrol taxes. It is not having any petrol taxes next year because it knows it is going into an election while people are hurting. Why are people hurting? It is because this Government has sat around for the best part of 8 or 9 years in good economic times and done nothing to build an economy that will progress this country through what we will come into over the next couple of years. This Government has sat through an increase in the debt levels in New Zealand, high interest rates, and a commodity boom that means it is difficult for New Zealanders, with our low incomes, to purchase goods on the international market, and it has not given anyone a tax cut. It has not given anyone a chance to go out and progress his or her own business and make a go of it in this world.

Unemployment will rise over the next year under this Government. It has already started in the first quarter of this year, and will continue for the remainder of the year. The property market downturn has started and the Labour Party is just sitting back looking at that. Labour’s Budget tomorrow will not deliver anything for hard-working New Zealanders. Any tax cuts will be just a token effort by the Labour Party to try to neutralise any policy that National will come out with later in the year. Labour knows it is in trouble. Labour knows that it has a leader who is not performing and it has Mr Goff sitting in the wings, wanting to take over.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague who was just speaking, David Bennett, had a few problems getting members’ names correct, and I acknowledge that. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that when you were on your feet you said that you would use a yellow card. I have just taken the opportunity to look through the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and Speakers’ Rulings, the booklets that guide us through proceedings in this House. I wonder whether you could explain to the House where I could find a yellow card mentioned in one of those booklets.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is actually a figure of speech, but for the member’s benefit I think I might actually have one. It means that the member is on a final warning; he gets one chance.

I know that the member for Hamilton East, David Bennett, deeply regrets being unable to mention the wonderful city of Hamilton in his speech. The member was supplied with compulsory speech notes from the Opposition that deliberately excluded the city of Hamilton from his speech. If he had been allowed, he would have wanted to say: “Isn’t it wonderful that we had the Minister Pete Hodgson come up recently to announce the extension of the Waikato Innovation Park?”. That is what Mr Bennett wanted to say. Mr Bennett also wanted to acknowledge the very good work of my colleague Sue Moroney, along with the other Government members of Parliament from Hamilton, in bringing that about.

What Mr Bennett also wanted to say, which the research department in the whips’ office deliberately and cynically prevented him from saying, was: “We are delighted to be looking forward to the opening of the new campus improvement of the Waikato Hospital in the near future, which will reinforce its role as a major, significant, tertiary teaching hospital in our region.” That is what Mr Bennett deeply wanted to say. Mr Bennett wanted to observe the Waikato Times reports of the still very positive consumer figures coming out of the Waikato in spite of international economic challenges. Mr Bennett also wanted to acknowledge the great leadership of Phil Goff and Helen Clark in signing the free-trade agreement with China, and the implications this has for Fonterra, farmers, and milk powder producers.

Mr Bennett was also talking about leadership. I know that in his heart of hearts he has some serious reservations about the in and out, revolving door leadership of the National Party over the last 12 years. I asked the whip how many leaders National has had. There have been five or six. If it is a revolving door in terms of the leadership of the National Party, it is a spinning door—a wheel of gravity—in terms of the deputy leadership. In fact, I believe that in the whole parliamentary history of this country we have never had such a spinning door as we did when Dr Nick Smith was the deputy leader. For how long was he the deputy leader? That has to be New Zealand parliamentary history’s shortest term of deputy leadership of the two major parties. To even equal that kind of performance, I think one would have to go back to the Liberal Party, the Reform Party, or probably even back to Governor Grey’s term, when he served as Premier of this country in the 19th century. I know that is what Mr Bennett wanted to say in his speech, but he was prevented from doing so. I know he wanted to give an objective account of leadership.

If we talk about leadership, let us talk about National’s leader, Mr Key. Let us talk about his incredible leadership on a number of issues, and the series of flip-flops. To speak about Mr Key in terms of leadership, I will quote him from May 2005: “This Kyoto Protocol is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. … even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it …”. That actually sounds like Maurice Williamson; I think he still has those views. A year later, in November 2006, Mr Key said: “I firmly believe in climate change, and I always have.” There we go. That is leadership. That is consistency.

In the time that I have left I will talk about the mooted MMP referendum. I say to the smaller parties in the House, particularly the Māori Party, that it is very obvious what that means—with Peter Shirtcliffe pushing for it, there will be a referendum on MMP. The plans are very clear: some people want to go back to first past the post. That means there will be an absolute dictatorship of one of the major parties in this House, as opposed to there being the diversity of opinion and viewpoint in our modern democracy that is offered by the range of parties that is now represented. There is a very clear subtext on that agenda, and I hope all parties and their supporters take very close note, because what this says is very clear. These are coded words, in the end, for some people wanting to go back to the old days where they can have it all their own way.

What an extraordinary couple of weeks and an extraordinary couple of days we have had, all set against the background of a winter that can be best described as one of discontent. There have been 1,700 job losses in the last couple of months. Business confidence is at an all-time low. People are leaving New Zealand in droves for Australia. Food prices are up, petrol prices are up, and interest rates are up. And what has this Government done? Well, this Government seems to have given up. Just 5 months out from an election, it feels that it is in trouble and is losing its nerve.

We have a Government that is imploding and disintegrating in front of us. There is not just a bit of rearranging of the deck chairs; there is full-scale chaos in the Labour ranks. This Government is on the ropes. It has lost its nerve and just given up. This Government has had more prima facie cases credited to it than any other Government in living memory. This Government has had to fire or demote an unprecedented number of Cabinet Ministers.

This Government brought us a State-funded pledge card in 2005. This Government brought in the Electoral Finance Act, which is vile, despicable legislation that is designed to get Labour re-elected, no matter what. This Government will bring in tax cuts only in an election year. What a surprise! This Government is without morals or principles. It will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It is a desperate Government that has run out of ideas and is running out of time. It is out of touch with the people of New Zealand. It has decided to give up. This Government, faced with an economy that is failing and discontent in its own ranks, is throwing in the towel.

Let us talk about the extraordinary behaviour of Phil Goff. Here we have a disciplined career politician of some 25 years who gave an extraordinary interview on Alt TV. What was he thinking? Did he think that no one would be watching? Was it intentional? Was it deliberate? Was it a lapse of judgment? Well, that is the question on everyone’s lips, and certainly it has been in all the major newspapers. The New Zealand Press Association said recently: “Phil Goff utters the ‘d’ word”. Articles in the New Zealand Herald recently were headed: “Goff turns clobbering machine on”, and “Goff’s gaffe—blunder or power play?”. A recent Press headline states: “Helen Clark v Phil Goff: is Labour cracking?”. [Interruption] Those members do not like it. The Timaru Herald talks about Labour speculation, and a headline in the Dominion Post states: “Phil Goff drops leadership denials”.

The inside information I am hearing is that it was intentional. Phil Goff is not the sort of person to have a lapse of judgment. It was deliberate positioning. The MP for Mt Roskill has been grooming himself for the No. 1 job for many, many years. In fact, this started in 1999 at Phil Goff’s barbecue, when he first fired it up. Other members of Parliament joined him to discuss leadership. He has not retracted the comments he made on the Alt TV interview. He has been qualifying the comments by saying: “There is no question about leadership at this moment.” Well, we all know what “at this moment” means. That is code for “It is going to happen—not just now, but it will happen.” The Alt TV interview by Phil Goff was deliberate positioning. He was letting his supporters know that he is in the game. You know, Phil Goff knows about timing. Timing is everything, and he knows his time will come.

Then we had the extraordinary case of Mary Anne Thompson and the Immigration Service. What a strange story has been emerging! [Interruption] Government members do not like it; they are squirming on the other benches. We have seen Cabinet Ministers ducking and diving, taking no responsibility, and denying any knowledge of the mess that has happened. They have had lapses of memory, and they have been blaming officials. I want to know why there was no action in December last year when both Minister Cosgrove and Minister Cunliffe were briefed about the serious concerns in the Immigration Service. Why did they not act immediately to rectify the situation?

Today my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith revealed that he has had 27 written questions signed off by the previous Minister of Immigration, confirming that there has been fraud and corruption in the Immigration Service. He has also had 16 written questions signed off by the current Minister of Immigration. That is absolutely astonishing and astounding. It seems amazing that they are denying any knowledge of the Mary Anne Thompson case and the fact that she helped to bring her family members into New Zealand under the strangest of situations, and the only reason there is an inquiry now is that they got caught out.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.