General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today Opposition members indicated in select committees and public statements that they are more concerned about whether macroeconomic forecasters are kept busy revising weekly their forecasts than they are about whether people who have real jobs get to keep them.

Although the forecasts about the economy will unfold as economic events unfold, I want to cast our minds back to the economy that this current Government inherited. It is gospel among Labour Party members that they left everything in fine form. I will quickly run through a few pieces of information that indicate that before the world financial crisis occurred, the New Zealand economy had very significant challenges. This Government has the job of dealing with both the effects of coordinated recession in our trading markets and the accumulated problems resulting from a decade of misdirected economic policy.

First, we were left with twin deficits. There were cash deficits on the Government’s books. The 2008 Budget showed that the swing from surplus to deficit occurred well before the world financial crisis, not after it or as a result of it. Under the previous Labour Government, large surpluses disappeared. In the 2008 Budget, its members forecast cash deficits of $3.5 billion on average for the next 4 years. In the pre-election update, those cash deficits blew out from $3.5 billion a year to $6 billion per year—in the pre-election update, not the post-election update. The second deficit that we were left with was the balance of payments deficit. Despite a decade of rhetoric from the previous Minister of Finance about how he was going to fix it, we ended up in 2008 with about the largest balance of payments deficit that we had had for two decades. In fact, it was around 8 or 9 percent of GDP for the last few years of the previous Government, despite all the rhetoric about setting about to fix it.

The balance of payments deficit sums up the vulnerability of the New Zealand economy to its foreign liabilities. The previous Government actually left the New Zealand economy vulnerable to exactly the kind of shock that has now occurred. The balance of payments problem is not something that happened after the world financial crisis or after the election of this Government; it was already well locked in and embedded, and is the product of 9 years of misdirected policy. If we want final proof of that, by the time of the election the New Zealand economy had been in recession for 9 months; it had already been in recession for 9 months. It was a recession driven by adjustments that had to follow growth that was based on debt, high inflation, and very high interest rates because of unbalanced economic policy. So the New Zealand economy was left vulnerable to exactly the kind of shock that has occurred.

Here are some more indications of it. In the 9 years ended September 2008, New Zealand’s overseas debt more than doubled. What is our biggest problem now? The ability to finance and maintain that stock of debt. The New Zealand banking sector had its net foreign liabilities grow by five times. The Labour Government inherited a banking sector with about $15 billion of foreign liabilities and it left us with a banking sector with foreign liabilities of $75 billion. That, again, is the vulnerability that this Government will have to manage for the New Zealand economy.

What about unemployment? Labour members believe that unemployment kept dropping until the day they left office, and started rising on 9 November. Well, they are wrong. Unemployment rose by almost 30 percent through 2008.

It is a bit rich for that member to come into the House and talk about twin deficits, when this country was running a surplus and Michael Cullen was, very prudently, paying off the Government’s sovereign debt. That member, in Opposition, said we should be spending the surplus and we should be blowing out the economy. He must thank God every day that he inherited a situation from Michael Cullen whereby he has the third-lowest sovereign debt ratios in the OECD. He said that himself in the Budget Policy Statement when he said that he had inherited a situation whereby New Zealand has had consistently in the last 9 years one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Western World.

He must be thankful that he inherited from the previous Government a sound banking situation and that guarantees were brought in at the right time. He should thank the Labour Government that sensible decisions to deal with the economy’s structural problems had been introduced by way of things like KiwiSaver. The only thing the National Government has done to KiwiSaver is to gut it. It has done so against the advice that was given to the Minister of Finance by his Treasury advisers, which he did not have the honesty to release at the time the debate was happening in the House. He was so frightened of his own department’s advice that he suppressed it for 6 weeks after he had released almost every other piece of information.

There is no doubt that New Zealand faces an economic crisis that threatens the jobs of literally thousands of New Zealanders. The Minister’s own Treasury advice is that unemployment could rise by as many as 68,000 people over the course of this year. New Zealanders do not blame this Government—or, for that matter, the previous Government—for the problem of economic recession. We know that New Zealand is a small player in the world and we deal with the cards given to us. But what New Zealanders will hold this Government responsible for is the response to that economic situation. I think it is important that this National Government does not squander the very powerful position it has inherited in each of the areas I have outlined.

I say to Mr English that as an Opposition we are more than happy to work constructively to support measures, provided they are effective and provided they are fair. Mr English needs to acknowledge to this House that of the much-talked-about stimulus package that National is parading up and down, 75 percent of it was brought in by Michael Cullen in the Budget in May of last year. That is what he needs to acknowledge. Unfortunately, what he does not acknowledge is that since the Budget last year, and since the end of last year, the international economic situation has continued to get worse. National is putting in place stimulus measures designed to deal with the economy as it was seen by almost everybody in the middle of last year, without responding to keep pace with how far that situation has deteriorated.

What I regret about what the Government has done is that so much of it has been counter-productive. Everybody knows that if we want a stimulus package, giving funds to those who are at the bottom of the heap—low and middle income families, low-income earners—means that those people will go out and spend those funds immediately when they receive them. They will pick up goods and services, which in turn will keep businesses afloat and jobs intact. What did Bill English do last year? He slashed three-quarters of a billion dollars out of the pockets of low and middle income families, where each dollar spent as a stimulus would get the most cost-effective return, and he gave that to members on the front bench in this House and to those on higher incomes who will pay down their mortgages and spend it internationally.

We know that there is not a bottomless pit of money. We therefore know that the money has to be spent most effectively. That Government did exactly the wrong thing. It got advice from its own economic advisers that it chose to ignore. Everybody who knows anything about how to get sustainable growth knows that the last thing we should do if we want innovation is to slash research and development tax credits. The last thing we should do is to pull apart the Fast Forward fund, which would have kept innovation in our vital primary sector. The last thing we should do is to put superannuation funds at risk, which the Minister has done as a result of the changes he has made.

I was hoping to hear an apology from the Leader of the Opposition for the appalling state in which he left the Department of Corrections, which was clearly identified yesterday in the damning report from the Auditor-General. I heard on radio this morning Clayton Cosgrove demanding accountability from Judith Collins for the performance of the Department of Corrections between May 2007 and May 2008. Who was the Minister between May 2007 and May 2008, when New Zealanders were put at risk by the probation staff of the Department of Corrections not ensuring that even the minutiae of procedures were followed in respect of the management of dangerous prisoners? That Minister was Phil Goff, and he owes the people of New Zealand an apology for his incompetent management of that department. I say to Clayton Cosgrove, opposite, that he should hold his leader to account for that awful state of affairs.

💬 Hon Bill English: He will!

My colleague Bill English says that he will. I think that day is coming.

This Government is responding both sensibly and responsibly to the most challenging economic times our country has seen in at least 50 years. In just 3 months this Government has delivered a very substantive tax package for New Zealanders, which will take effect on 1 April. This Government has delivered a substantive package worth over $500 million for small and medium sized businesses, including provisions that will hold back on provisional tax and allow our small and medium sized businesses to find a path through this difficult period. This Government is helping families through this difficult period with the ReStart package, which will provide well-targeted support to those families caught up at the hard edge of the recession. This Government also is committed to providing hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure spend to ensure we provide jobs and necessary infrastructure through this difficult patch.

The other part of what the Government is doing is very important regulatory reform. I look forward to introducing the resource management amendment legislation, which, frankly, should have been passed during the good times. The previous Government received advice from across the board that the Resource Management Act was holding New Zealand back, and my only disappointment is that key elements of infrastructure that should have been built were not built. Key parts of business, like aquaculture, had real opportunities that were squandered by the previous Labour Government, and we are missing out on those opportunities.

It is also, in my view, timely to review this Government’s first 100 days in office. We are keeping our word. That is something that Labour does not know about—keeping one’s word. We said that we would repeal the Electoral Finance Act, and we have done it. We said we would bring in fresh start legislation, and we have done it. We said we would bring in legislation to help support victims of crime, and we have done it. We said we would bring in laws to provide for the latest DNA technology to be used in solving crime, and we have done it. We said we would crack down on gangs and organised crime, and that we would introduce new laws to tackle that, and we have done it. We said we would introduce changes to the bail laws, and we have done it. We said we would introduce a package of tax reductions, and we have done it.

I say that for just 3 months—of which a considerable period was the Christmas period—that is an outstanding record of a Government in its first 100 days. I say to members opposite to get with the programme, because in times of recession the last thing this country needs is a moaning, whingeing, unambitious Opposition.

Next week the Government hosts one of the key components of its celebrated rolling maul—the employment summit. Not being on the guest list for this illustrious occasion, the Green Party awaits the results with interest. I am truly hopeful that it will not be a repeat of the mid-1980s predecessor where a large number of people assembled for a very similar job summit, and did a lot of talking, but from which very little eventuated apart from the then Labour Government’s going on to enact policies that saw the loss of many tens of thousands of jobs.

Unemployment is already rising. We hear of more closures and potential closures every day—sadly. During the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development at the Social Services Committee this morning, the chief executive, Peter Hughes, said that his ministry is looking ahead to there being 60,000 people on the unemployment benefit—currently the figure is about 34,000—although he said the figure may rise to 100,000 and that “it is a very difficult situation.” The household labour force survey number, our international comparator, has already gone up to 105,000.

In this context, it has therefore been quite dispiriting to read in the media over the last couple of days about Government plans to trim numbers across a range of departments. Mentioned so far are the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, the National Library, and, of course, the Ministry of Social Development itself. There are deep ironies, indeed, in the Prime Minister saying, when he launched the employment summit: “My Government is determined to show decisive leadership to protect New Zealanders’ jobs as we head into tougher economic times.”, when at the same time the pressure is on across much of the Public Service, it appears, to reduce staff numbers. By how much, and in what areas, is of course the big question. Mr Key should understand that keeping people off the dole is not just about new jobs; it is also about retaining existing ones.

When I questioned Mr Hughes this morning about the impact of the proposed cuts to Ministry of Social Development staff numbers—the very ministry that has to deal front-on with the rising numbers of those who are losing their jobs—he assured the select committee that in fact most positions would be lost through attrition. That is great; however this was only in relation to a possible 5 percent decline in the ministry’s job numbers, not the 10 percent that has also been mooted. The Green Party hopes that the National leadership, in its new-found concern for the unemployed and for those who are about to become so, will revise the slash-and-burn approach it is bringing to the State sector, and mount a much more constructive response in the weeks ahead.

I turn briefly now to another high-risk area for unemployment; the difficulties in which Fisher and Paykel Appliances currently finds itself have highlighted another pressure point in the economy. The Green Party finds it interesting that—so far anyway—it is only ACT that stands right outside any need to consider the possibility that in the times ahead the Government may have a role to play in helping at least some parts of our manufacturing and productive sector to survive. From a Green Party perspective, whether Fisher and Paykel Appliances—or any other company, for that matter—should get taxpayer help remains an open question, but we would like to offer some criteria that we think should apply before any company, at all, gets taxpayer assistance.

For example, we believe that help should be considered only when a company closure will result in substantial job losses, and will have a significant broader downstream economic impact as well. Any help should be in the form of an equity stake with director powers attached, not through soft loans and suchlike. Government shareholding should also be conditional on caps being set on chief executives’ and directors’ fees, on jobs being kept in New Zealand and not taken offshore, and on minimum protections and help, with training or retraining being offered and set in place for all staff. Without conditions like these, New Zealand risks repeating the mistakes seen in the United States, where the first round of massive bail-outs mostly ended up in the pockets of those who caused the crisis in the first place rather than helping to keep or create jobs.

Sadly, our country is only just beginning to see the impacts of what is coming at us. It is imperative that the Government takes the unemployment crisis seriously on all fronts, not just on some of them. I certainly hope that next week’s employment summit will result in ongoing and useful activity, and will not go down in history as just another failed public relations exercise.

It has been a long, long time since Labour has been down to seven members in the Chamber for a general debate, but I guess that pretty much sums up where that mob is at the moment. Frankly, after that insipid, uninspiring speech from the Leader of the Opposition people would feel like going off for a coffee to perk up.

When we look at where Phil Goff is at the moment, as the temporary leader of the Labour Party, we can see that the future does not look too good. That leader opposite has been reduced to tabling blog sites and asking minor questions about staffing numbers while he leaves the big questions on the economy to David Cunliffe to address. There is no question that the “Phil-in” will soon be filled in. Phil Goff is the fall guy. He must be the biggest mug in New Zealand politics.

When Labour wants someone to take the tough job—to fall on his sword—it is Phil. When Phil Goff was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Labour had to move someone out of the way to make room for Winston Peters, it was Phil Goff. When Labour needed someone to take the hospital pass, the corrections portfolio, whom did it line up for that job? It was Phil Goff. When it needed a new leader after a crushing defeat, who was the one person silly enough to actually take the job? It was Phil Goff.

I can tell members what will happen next. Labour will sack Phil Goff, because there is no doubt that there is a lot of unhappiness in the Labour corridors. If we look to members opposite we see a pretty dispirited, disunited lot. There is a little left-wing faction down the corridor and it is built around Ruth Dyson, Maryan Street, and Charles Chauvel. They are grinning over there, but they know it is absolutely true. They are not going to put up with this shocking performance for too much longer. Then we have the main faction, the faction of one—but it has enough for a whole caucus—David Cunliffe.

David Cunliffe is the man who now insists on asking the big questions in question time. He will not trust his leader to actually ask the questions. And then we have Shane Jones over there. Shane is in hibernation at the moment. He has got the Bill Liu stuff he wants to get out of the way. He is getting over the negative stuff about the shower-head stuff. But he will be back. He is biding his time. He is trying to decide whether he should leave Parliament now, but, no, things look bad enough with Phil. David Cunliffe will be so uncomfortable for the party that Shane Jones could well come to the fore. So it is a very uncomfortable time over there.

The running sore from the last Government was the Department of Corrections. And who was responsible for that department for the whole year that this Auditor-General’s report was based on? It was Phil Goff. I have some very interesting quotes here from Mr Goff. This is what he said when he was the Minister of Corrections: “Our corrections system has improved significantly over the past nine years …”, and “I look forward to working with Corrections staff and with anyone prepared to offer constructive solutions to meeting the challenges within the corrections portfolio …” And there was his quote about parole—that he required the safety of the community to be the paramount consideration. Well, frankly, Phil Goff failed miserably in that portfolio. But he started this term pretty chipper. Those members have been up to it in the House.

I can tell members, though, that if they were at the lantern festival in Auckland on Waitangi Day, they would have seen a major turning point. When John Key got out of his car, it took him 30 minutes to walk the 200 metres from his car to the stage. I do not think anything like that has been seen before in New Zealand politics. It was truly a 21st century Kiwi Camelot. Then we saw Phil Goff. We saw him realise that the tide had turned. We saw a dispirited, hesitant man stumbling over his speech. The reality is that there is a sea change out there.

What Labour—which was the previous Government and is now the Opposition—will have to face up to is the fact that we have a very popular Prime Minister who is the right man for the times. Those guys in Opposition are facing a Prime Minister who will put the interests of New Zealand first, not the interests of the National Party. That is the major change now, compared with the last 9 years, and the glum faces over there know it. But worst of all for those guys is the fact that the public knows it.

People would not know from that speech that 87,000 more New Zealanders are going to lose their jobs this year, and that a quarter of a million New Zealanders live in families with an unemployed person, because that speech was all about some fantastical picture of the inner politics of the Labour Party.

Well, it is a great honour that Jonathan Coleman spent time talking about the Labour Party, but, actually, it is not about us and it is not about the National Party; it should be about New Zealanders. We face one of the greatest crises New Zealand has ever faced—the equivalent of the Great Depression or the Great War—and National is playing petty politics with New Zealanders’ futures. You know, you have 3 days left to show leadership. It is going to be an amazing 3 days, is it not? I suppose you will not do it tomorrow, because the House will still be in session. That gives you 2 days.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will not be doing it.

Sorry, not you, Mr Speaker; the Government has 2 days. That gives the Government days 98 and 99 to show us the 100-day plan of action, which has been cunningly hidden until the last possible moment in order to reduce opposition to it.

One can only assume that in the next 3 days we will see the National Government’s real package for small and medium sized business, not just the stuff the previous Government did, which ACT opposed as being insufficient, and that this Government said it would go past—or perhaps not. We will see a real infrastructure plan, not just a rebranding and retiming of a few rats and mice that were already in the pipeline—or perhaps not. We will see an honest and detailed disclosure of the latest forecasts for the economy—or perhaps not. We will see tax relief that benefits all New Zealanders and that does something more than transfer three-quarters of a billion dollars from below-average income earners to chief executives and politicians—or perhaps not. We will see a strategic framework for innovation and productivity, something that really underpins our businesses that are trying to make and export goods and services—or perhaps not. All this Government has done is to can research and development tax credits and now pick winners of individual companies.

We are nearly 100 days in, and I will reflect on what National started with. It started with a few raw numbers that now sound like they are from a forgotten age: a 25 percent real increase in personal incomes; 377,000 more jobs, not 87,000 fewer jobs; significant increases in the minimum wage, each year, every year, not just keeping up with inflation; 130,000 children lifted out of poverty, not consigned back to it after some people left; 12,000 new State houses, not a bogus increase of 69 at the same time as canning the Hobsonville development and the Home Ownership on the Public Estate programme, cutting 2,000; and 137,000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit.

It does not take long for summer to fade, does it? It does not take long for the chill winds of winter to sweep across our economy. New Zealanders do not blame National for all of that.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: They blame Labour.

They certainly do not blame Labour for it, because they know they had a much better time in the previous 9 years. But they do ask that there is honesty, that there is clarity, and that there is strategic coherence in the response.

It cannot be just a so-called rolling maul of dribs and drabs. We want to pack down together as a country in a tight scrum, and it has to be the Government that leads that charge. It has to be the Government that leads that pack, and at the moment it is not.

National has 3 days to live up to its pre-election rhetoric of 100 days of action. It was not 100 days of rebranding the previous Government, not 100 days of repeating and double-counting, not 100 days of obfuscating, and not 100 days of dribs and drabs. Uncertainty leads to under-confidence, and, principally, we have fear itself to fear in this time of recession. Fear is our greatest enemy, and this Government can help New Zealanders if it provides a plan. Ninety-seven days in, we have yet to see it.

The Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins, just yesterday asked the State Services Commissioner to establish who was accountable for the serious failings identified in the Auditor-General’s report on the management of offenders out on parole. The damning report looked at the case files of 100 offenders on parole between May 2007 and May 2008. Of the 100 case files examined, the audit found that in most of them the Department of Corrections did not follow one or more of its own sentence management requirements. I ask members who the Minister of Corrections was at that time. The answer is Phil Goff. This is what Phil Goff had to say in 2007—

💬 Paul Quinn: The Leader of the Opposition?

Yes, he is the Leader of the Opposition. Phil Goff had this to say in November 2007: “As Justice Minister I promoted tough sentencing and parole legislation, which imposed much longer sentences on the worst offenders, and for parole required the safety of the community to be the paramount consideration.” Well, I think the report of the Auditor-General, released yesterday by our own excellent Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins, puts the lie to that. Do members know that Labour has had 9 years to fix the problems in the justice area and in the corrections system, yet nothing has been done? To hear Clayton Cosgrove on Radio New Zealand National calling for Judith Collins’ resignation is a joke. Clayton Cosgrove should look in his own backyard for someone to blame. He should look squarely at the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister of Corrections. Who is that man? The man responsible is Phil Goff.

You know, we live in extraordinary times. We are facing the most serious economic conditions that we have seen for several generations, and this new National Government recognises the economic challenges we face. Unlike Labour, which was asleep at the wheel for 9 long years, we have a clear understanding of the economic challenges we face. We are focused on finding solutions. As a careful economic manager, National has put together a strong economic management plan that will provide the fiscal stimulus to lift us out of recession and boost economic growth over the long term. Labour was in denial, but the National Government has a 100-day action plan.

Let me just run through some of the things that National has achieved in the first 98 days of our 100-day action plan. We have acted swiftly and decisively to provide temporary relief to those made redundant with our excellent ReStart assistance package, which has been very well received by the people who need it. We have passed legislation to reduce taxes. That measure will put more money in New Zealanders’ pockets; it comes into force on 1 April. We have introduced a 90-day trial period for new employees, making it easier for small businesses to hire staff. “Hallelujah!” was what I heard from small-business owners all around New Zealand when that measure was brought in. The National Government is working to bring forward the infrastructure spending it has announced, and it is working to promote economic growth with the reforms of the Resource Management Act that will be introduced into the House this week. I hear “Hallelujah!” again, particularly from my own electorate of Waitaki, where the Resource Management Act has been a vexatious issue for many people who wish to get things done. The National Government is a Government of action and we are true to our word.

The National Government has talked about its 100 days of action, which is coming towards its final phase. Part of the 100-day plan is the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which will be introduced later today, and part of that bill is ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy. I stand to speak on this issue in this debate, even though I will speak again later, because I want to give members the benefit of the doubt. I have heard all sorts of comments from both sides of the House, I am afraid I must say, that the bill is a terrible idea because shoplifters could go to jail for 25 years. I heard the Prime Minister say that during the election campaign. I know that he now understands that that is incorrect. I want to leave members in no doubt about what this bill will do, so that they cannot make that excuse to their constituents.

I raise the matter of constituents because the people whom I mix with are actually, funnily enough, mostly Labour-voter types. People at the Kaukapakapa pub, where I have a beer on the way home most days—out the back there among the smokers, although I do not smoke—ask me: “Why are you giving them three strikes? One’s enough.” That demonstrates how out of touch with its core constituency the Labour Government became. People do not want three strikes; they want one. Those are the people who used to be Labour’s constituency.

New Zealanders believe in fairness. No one wants to see an Act that locks up people for 25 years without giving them a chance. I certainly do not, and I do not think anyone in the House does. The bill that will be introduced later today does not do that. I have heard references to systems in California from the usual suspects, like Kim Workman, Peter Williams QC, and all the other bleeding-heart liberals, and those people are just dishonest. They are either dishonest or they have not read the bill. There are only two choices. What we have drafted is not—I repeat, not—California’s bill, nor anything like it. I went to California in 2007 specifically to find out whether it was indeed possible for people to go to jail for life for shop-theft, and whether it was possible to prevent that from happening. That is what we have done. When I say “we”, I should say that I was the original drafter of the bill. It has now been worked on under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice, but the essentials are all still there. The essentials are that it is simply impossible for someone to go to jail for life for shoplifting, theft of another kind, or burglary. I will say that again: it is simply impossible, the way this bill is drafted, for anyone to go to jail for 25 years to life imprisonment for theft, burglary, car conversion, or any offence like that. It is impossible. Any member who stands up later in the debate to say it is possible simply has not read the bill, or he or she is giving the alternative, which we are not allowed to say in the House.

The reason it is impossible is simple. The bill lists a number of serious violent offences. Those are the strike offences, or what are now called qualifying offences. They are serious offences of violence. They are listed in the schedule of the bill—in, I think, section 84A—which is to be added. Those are the only offences for which a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment can be imposed. I will say it a third time. No one can go to jail for 25 years for theft, car conversion, or burglary. I am saying it three times because I have already heard it claimed 10 times on the radio and on the telly that that is possible. That simply is not true. The way the bill is drafted makes that impossible.

Here is how it will work. One of the serious offences listed in the bill is aggravated robbery, a serious violent offence that is all too common. We saw the results of one such offence in the dreadful tragedy concerning Navtej Singh in South Auckland. In that situation, some mongrel armed with a gun went into a liquor store, and now someone is dead. Well, let us leave the death out of it. If that was just an armed robbery, and I should not say “just an armed robbery”, and no one had died—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt, but the member’s time has expired.

I have a message for the National Government, and I think the media is also ready to deliver the message. The message is that it is time to stop trying to rewrite history. For the last 100 days, the greatest consistency of message that we have seen from National members is in their attempts to rewrite history to insinuate that the Labour-led Government was a poor manager of the economy, and that it left the economy of New Zealand on its knees and in a poor state of affairs. That is patently not so.

At the meeting of the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, I thought we saw Bill English getting over himself in acknowledging that he has inherited low unemployment. Indeed, he compared New Zealand’s low unemployment of 4 percent with some overseas countries that he said have now entered double-digit inflation. He acknowledged that the Government debt he inherited was now at 18 percent of GDP, and he contrasted that with many overseas countries. Many OECD countries are now facing budget deficits, but the difference between those countries and New Zealand is that they have been running budget deficits even during boom times and, as a consequence, already have quite high levels of Government debt. He even acknowledged that in the past 6 years or so, New Zealand has had high rates of economic growth. Those were his words—“high rates of economic growth”—not mine.

I was somewhat surprised when Bill English came into the House for the general debate and reverted to the line he has been trying to parlay around New Zealand for most of the last 100 days, which is that the National-led Government has inherited a difficult set of affairs. Patently, the National Government is trying to paint a false picture that portrays the outgoing Labour Government as irresponsible managers of the economy, and falsely suggests that, because of the last Government, the National Government has inherited a difficult set of cards to play with and therefore should be excused for underperformance in its term of Government. National members want to be able to come to the next election and say that “It was all the previous Government’s fault, it’s all been very hard, we’ve done as well as we can, and give us another chance.” The reality is that the Government inherited low debt of under 20 percent of GDP, compared with 38 percent of GDP when Labour took Government. It also inherited the lowest unemployment rate in the world over the last couple of years, swapping that position with South Korea and, even now, sitting at only 4 percent unemployment, far lower than the 7.3 percent unemployment inherited by the last Labour Government from the then National Government.

National members talk of the Government’s stimulus package and vaunt it as some incredible achievement on their part. The extra amount that the Government is spending on infrastructure is a mere fraction of the increase on infrastructure spending made under the last Labour Government. When the last National Government left office, it was spending 1 percent of GDP on transport investment. When the Labour Government left office, that was already up to 1.6 percent of GDP—an increase of more than 50 percent. To put it in dollar terms, the per annum amount spent on transport and communication by the Government was just over a billion dollars in 1999; it is now $3.5 billion. The major part of that spending was in roading expense. If we look at electricity infrastructure, we see that transmission expenditure under the last National Government was running at about $50 million per annum. It was up to $500 million per annum under the last Labour Government, yet the National Government heralds an extra one-off $100 million of expenditure it is bringing forward as the answer.

The last thing I say in my limited time relates to the balance of payments deficit that Mr English referred to. He complained that the deficit is a large amount and that it should have been lower. It was his party that said we should not run surpluses. It was his party that said we should have tax cuts that would have further fed consumption, further fed the property bubble, further worsened the balance of payments position, and further created inflationary pressures that would have increased interest rates. For him to turn up and say the balance of payments problem is a legacy that was the fault of Labour is not wholly truthful. There are huge imbalances in world trade at the moment. There have been for a number of years; there are huge surpluses in countries like China, and deficits in the USA and in New Zealand. National’s prescription in recent years would have made that worse, not better. Mr English should not try to rewrite history. He has inherited a good set of fiscal positions.

It is the sort of muddle-headed thinking shown by the previous speaker that sank Labour. The inability of the members on the opposite side of the House to actually read public opinion is why they were chucked out of the Treasury benches. I want to deal with their leader. Those of us who were in the House over the last 3 years saw the total dislocation of the Government members. We saw their inactivity, their infighting, and their disaccord. What reveals a lot about what is seen today is a report from the Auditor-General on the way that parole was managed. We know that it is quite a glaring indictment upon the Labour Government that during its watch New Zealand had such heinous things occurring.

Who was the Minister in charge at that particular time, in November 2007? It was Phil Goff. When one stops to think about it, that is quite interesting. There is a general theme of ineptitude when one looks at Phil Goff’s actions over the last 3 years. Sure, he was the Minister of Trade, but he was also the Minister of Defence. When I stop and think about it, I realise one of the enduring photos I have in my mind of Phil Goff was in the Christchurch Press—which never lies; it tells the truth. It was of Phil Goff walking away, with two C-130J Hercules in the background. That has carried on today. When we go to Marlborough, the enduring monument to Phil Goff as the Minister of Defence will be 14 Skyhawks put out to pasture, fenced on pasture, and wrapped up in white cladding. He was going to sell them for $120 million to $140 million.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Did he sell them?

No, he did not sell them. They have not sold. Now let us move on to Project Protector. The notion was a fantastic concept, but where is Project Protector today?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Where is it?

It is still languishing at Whangarei Harbour because parts of it cannot get its marine survey. It is not working.

A consistent theme here is that the Leader of the Opposition does not deliver, and that message will be coming through loud and clear already to the other would-be contenders, be it Cunliffe or whomever else. They will be awaiting their time. As previous speakers on this side of the House have alluded to, it is only a matter of time before there is a change over there. There will be discord and disjointedness as we have not seen before because Phil Goff’s track record is not great. Just after the Government changed, we were looking to see what state of readiness the Boeing 757-200s were in. Where were they? They were both out of the country. One was undergoing major repairs, and the other was unable to be sent to Asia to bring back New Zealanders. Such were the poor organisational structures under Phil Goff. I want to put that on the Table. I sympathise with the burden he has to carry. Not only was he part of a dysfunctional Government over the last 3 years but now, with that track record, he has to try to pull together a pretty ragged bunch.

However, on a more positive note I point out that this Government is doing a stunning job. This Government is in the real world. Its 100-day programme is fantastic. We will hear members on the other side of the House ranting in line with their silo-type thinking and saying that tax cuts benefit only the rich and go only to chief executive officers. I can inform those members that tax cuts are one of the best ways of leaving money in Marlborough and reinforcing the economies of the provinces, and I say: “Hallelujah!” to that. I think that this Government under John Key, with Bill English as the Minister of Finance, is doing a stunning job. So does the public of New Zealand. The stimulus package of about $9 billion is equal to, if not better than, any other in the world.

I would just like to conclude by mentioning the stunning effort of Anne Tolley and her ability to pick what needs to be done in education. In the very last days of the Labour Government we saw 3 years of inactivity where more than 20 percent of people left school unable to read and write. They did not have a very good experience. The Southern Cross Campus in Auckland is a decile 1 school. Anne Tolley has had the wisdom to inject $6 million into that school to help with hands-on skills.

I make it clear to the people of New Zealand that the member who has just resumed his seat is Colin King, who is, I think, the member for Marlborough. I think he used the word “stunning” seven times.

💬 Colin King: I would like to correct that member. I seek leave to correct the member.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to correct a statement made by the honourable member. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Colin King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The House has dealt with that point of order, Mr King. Is it a new point of order?

💬 Colin King: Yes. I want to inform the member that I am the MP for Kaikōura.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not actually a point of order, and it is not good to interrupt a member.

I think the member has just made the point I wanted to be made. I wanted him to be identified to people who are watching television and, more important, listening to the radio. He used the word “stunning” seven times. I think he should take some advice from John Carter as to whether it is an appropriate word to use so often in the Chamber. Mr Carter’s experience with that word has not always been positive.

I ask the Prime Minister why he is so afraid to front up to what he has been saying about Fisher and Paykel Appliances. During question time today—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is not afraid of fronting up to anyone in this country. If the gentleman who is giving the speech cares to know just how much New Zealanders appreciate Mr Key’s outward nature, then he will learn of that later this evening.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point, and it is well made. The honourable member on his feet cannot in any way impugn the courage of members of the House. He cannot imply that anyone is afraid to do anything.

The Prime Minister appears to be considerably reluctant to repeat in the Chamber the comments he made to Radio New Zealand. He dismisses Radio New Zealand transcripts as being blogs because they have come from a blog site.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We call them “Radio Labour”.

Did he say it or did he not? Did he or did he not say that he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse? All we want from the Prime Minister is the truth.

In the Chamber earlier today he said that because the transcript was on a blog it was not true. I say that when a transcript from Radio New Zealand is on a blog—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Breathe through your nose.

Let us just get the facts. Why will the Prime Minister not back his courage on Radio New Zealand with similar courage in this Chamber? Why will he not be consistently courageous? Why does the Prime Minister hide when he is in the Chamber but when he is outside it he is prepared to make statements?

He said he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse. Did he say it once? Yes. Did he say it twice? Yes, he did; he said it twice. We want to know who got to the Prime Minister. Was it Bill English who got to the Prime Minister and said “Look, you can’t just go around making comments.”? Maurice Williamson is putting up his hand. Was it Maurice Williamson who got to the Prime Minister and said “I remember something about Telecom or something, which means that you can’t make comments that could well affect a share price.”?

Did the Prime Minister’s comments affect the share price? It only went up by over 30c, following the Prime Minister’s comments. Were those events directly related? Did the people of New Zealand who were investing in the sharemarket listen to the Prime Minister and then bid the price back up by 30c, or did that happen as an absolute coincidence? I think the problem is, unfortunately, that in this particular case some people did believe the Prime Minister when he said he would not let Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapse.

Whether or not Fisher and Paykel Appliances collapses is not the issue here; it is the fact that we must have a system that has clear criteria if firms are going to be supported. It is something that has to apply—

💬 Paul Quinn: Speak up Trevor; I can’t hear.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD:—to smaller firms, as well as to bigger firms. The member obviously has a problem that causes that. We have to make sure that the criteria apply to firms that have people who work in New Zealand—certainly the balance of their workforce. We need to consider questions of research. What is the effect on research and development in New Zealand of having particular firms here? Presumably, we want to have questions of ownership considered as one of the factors. If all the jobs are offshore, all the research is offshore, and all the ownership is offshore—or the majority of all of them—is that the sort of company that we want to put taxpayers’ money into?

There are clearly a lot of areas where criteria have to be developed, and for the Prime Minister to say he will not let a particular firm collapse is something he should not do until those criteria have been developed.

As a new member in this House I look at the older members—I say “older” because they have been here longer than I have—and want to be inspired. I have no idea what the member who spoke before me, Trevor Mallard, was talking about, apart from the fact that I agree, in some way, with what he said about owning up to what members have actually been saying. Perhaps he should look to the leader of his party, who was once the Minister of Justice. Let me quote the Minister: “As Justice Minister I promoted tough sentencing and parole legislation, which imposed much longer sentences …”.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What?

Let me repeat: “As Justice Minister I promoted tough sentencing and parole legislation, which imposed much longer sentences on the worst offenders, and for parole required the safety of the community to be the paramount consideration.” That was Labour’s leader, Phil Goff, in November 2007.

I will quote to members some of the headlines taken from the period under Labour’s watch: “Burton a ‘walking nightmare’ inquest told”, and “Survivor of RSA murders can sue Corrections”. Further headlines included: “Alarm ignored for nine minutes during inmate’s escape”, “… Corrections dossier found on street”, “Many offenders fail to finish work-term sentences”, and “Millionaire prisoner involved in drug ring”. I will read members some more headlines: “Three prisoners escape in Hamilton”, “National grills Govt after axe killer on garden work escapes”, and “ ‘High risk’ violent criminal escaped from home detention”.

Labour had 9 years to fix these problems yet it did nothing. Nothing was done about them, so we had to introduce legislation. It has been a very, very busy 3 months since the new National Government took power in New Zealand with the biggest majority in the history of MMP. Did I say the “biggest majority”?

💬 Paul Quinn: The biggest? Absolutely.

That is right—the biggest. The people of New Zealand have said that National needs to do something about these problems. Our Prime Minister, John Key, formed working relationships very quickly and very effectively with parties that had worked with the previous Government. I wonder why that is—perhaps those parties saw the light and moved from the dark side to the light.

These are difficult times. We are facing the most serious economic crisis that I have seen in 21 years in New Zealand. All I can say is that the response from the Opposition has been moaning, whingeing—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: That’s all.

That is all. Do members know what that response is doing? It is eroding the confidence of the public in the Government’s response to the economic crisis.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Indecision erodes the confidence of the public.

Members opposite can throw a couple of lines in my direction, but I say that they did nothing—absolutely nothing—for 9 years.

This Government, unlike the previous Labour Government, has moved very swiftly—yes, swiftly. I will tell members how swifty this Government has moved. The previous Government took 9 years to give New Zealanders a tax cut—New Zealanders had to be very, very patient. This Government, however, introduced a tax package before Christmas, only a few days after National became Government—only days. That is how swift we were. Mind you, the previous Government was pretty swift, too. When it took office 9 years ago it also did something within days—it was very swift. But what it did was to raise taxes. That is the difference.

I tell members that one of my passions is law and order. We want to make New Zealand a safe place; I mentioned that in my maiden speech. A raft of legislation has been introduced in this House. We have introduced legislation to remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole. We have introduced legislation to clamp down on criminal gangs and their drug trade. We have introduced legislation to toughen the bail laws, and I can give members anecdotal information on the workings of this, because I was recently on the North Shore of Auckland talking to the police.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.