General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Violence is not acceptable in any shape or form. It is a plague that haunts our communities, and violence against the vulnerable, and our children, is totally abhorrent. I say that as a mother and as a politician. That is why we have laws that are explicit about violent behaviour and that impose punishments on those in our society who choose to inflict violence on others. The anti-smacking bill, the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, was promoted as the solution to the terrible abuse suffered by too many children. Details published around these cases—the Kāhui twins, “Lillybing”, and far too many other children—were so repugnant that I could not read them.

But the anti-smacking bill is not the answer to stopping child abuse. The debate has relied on emotion rather than reason. The unintended result of the smacking ban has been to criminalise hundreds of thousands of good parents. Those who beat their children to a pulp have never paid attention to the law and never will. The police have been told to use their discretion when complaints are made, but that makes a farce of the laws. Laws must be clear, enforceable, and routinely enforced to be effective, and that is not the case we have now.

What really surprised New Zealanders during the anti-smacking debate was the flip-flop of the National Party. It did a complete U-turn, opposing the bill all the way through and then supporting it at the last minute. National MPs did not even support the very excellent amendments of their own MP Chester Borrows. In the first instance it was only the ACT Party that voted in favour of Chester Borrows’ amendments. It is only the ACT Party that believes that intrusion of the State into the homes of good parents is unacceptable. It is left to the ACT Party to reintroduce Chester Borrows’ amendments to this House as a member’s bill in the name of my colleague John Boscawen. This bill will not take us back to when people could beat children with a weapon, a tool, or an implement without being prosecuted. Under this bill, parents can give their child a light smack for the purpose of correction, as long as the result is no more than transitory or trifling. More than 300,000 people signed a petition to hold a referendum on the question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. It is a question that has divided the country, not 50:50, not even 60:40, and it has split the New Zealand Parliament from the rest of New Zealand; a Parliament that voted 113:8 in support of the anti-smacking bill and ignored polls that showed the public opposed the bill by a ratio of 4:1.

It is no wonder the people of New Zealand think that politicians do not listen. ACT supports this referendum. We support the people of New Zealand having a say. We support democracy. We do so because this Parliament has refused to listen to the people. Prime Minister John Key has dismissed the referendum as an irrelevance and said that the result will not change his mind. I ask him to reflect on those statements and consider the anguish and the confusion that the anti-smacking bill has caused around the country. Proponents of the law say that it is working because it is reducing child abuse. Thirteen children have been killed in 25 months since this law was passed, so I do not think that is a success. This law targets the wrong people. The thugs and bullies, the child abusers, the real criminals, not good parents, will continue to assault and murder children. It will not stop the James Whakaruru’s or the Delcelia Witakā’s from being abused or killed. What it does do is frighten, confuse, and prevent loving parents from parenting. The ACT Party is the only party in this House that opposed the anti-smacking law; we were the only party to publicly support the referendum to allow New Zealanders to have a say; and we remain the only party committed to reforming the law to protect loving New Zealand families.

I have found myself worrying in recent days. I have been worrying about the state of the Opposition. I have been worrying about the state of the Opposition because something does not seem to be working over there; something is not quite right. What is going on over there? Is the Hon Trevor Mallard the shadow Leader of the House or is Darren Hughes the shadow Leader of the House? I see that my old friend Darren Hughes has changed his hair to look like Steve Maharey, but there is only so much one can do, if one is Darren Hughes, to look like Steve Maharey.

I am very concerned about my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. What has happened to Clayton Cosgrove? For a while there he was leading the charge for the Opposition, asking questions every day, and beavering away on his research. In fact, he asked 12 oral questions in the months of February and March, but since then there has been a total of only three. What has happened is that Ruth Dyson and Maryan Street have been coming to the fore to ask questions during question time. I have a theory: the left in the Labour Party is striking back and putting the centre-right boys back in their place, back where they belong.

I want to know why it is that the Labour backbenchers always sit on the front bench when they ask questions. What is going on with the stability of the front bench of the Labour Party? Why has Phil Goff stopped asking all the questions about Richard Worth and sent the issue off to Pete Hodgson? What is Labour’s polling telling it about pursuing that particular inquiry and what it is doing for the Hon Phil Goff? Why is it that George Hawkins seems to be the most effective member of the Opposition at asking written questions and making Official Information Act requests? What are the rest of those folks over there doing?

I am troubled. Where is Grant Robertson? He started with such a hiss and a roar—it was a promising start—then he was dragged down by the old guard, which did not like how well he was doing in those early days. I want to know many cars Iain Lees-Galloway has hired without knowing whose name was on the contract. It is those sorts of questions that are troubling me. Is Rajen Prasad’s subzero profile a cunning bid to get reappointed to the Families Commission? What about the rumours about Annette King standing for the mayoralty in Wellington, my friend Lianne Dalziel in Christchurch, and Rick Barker in Waipukurau? Where are those rumours coming from, and are they true or not? These things are worrying me. Is Ross Robertson finally coming into his own after getting only a third of the way through his career? Has Ashraf Choudhary finally made up his mind? These are things that plague members on this side of the House.

Why is it that I have just asked more questions in this House than most Opposition members have in the last 7 months? I am worried that democracy will suffer from this lack of drive on the other side, from its lack of coordination, and from its state of confusion. On this side of the House we have a driven Prime Minister, a united team in Cabinet and caucus, and a raft of legislation and policy on the way. We inherited a bit of a debacle but we have got unions, businesses, and the Government together. We have delivered $3 billion in boosting health over 4 years.

Members opposite should spend less time blogging and more time concentrating on their day jobs. They should spend less time twittering and more time concentrating on what is going on in the Chamber and how they can—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Hey!

That is exactly my point. The fundamental fact is that democracy in this country is suffering because members opposite cannot make up their own minds about who is leading the charge, who is the Leader of the House, who is in charge in the Chamber, and who will be asking oral questions on a daily basis.

Trouble is brewing. I can see that the members on the left in the Labour Party are starting to take control. My old nemesis the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has been sidelined for some strange reason. I am backing him to get his own back, but members on the left in the Labour Party are after him. The information he used in his question today was a week old. What choice did he have when he has not had the chance to ask an oral question since, basically, the start of May? I have been troubled about the lack of application by Labour members to the task at hand. It is time they realised that democracy needs them to get their act together.

I want to use the opportunity of today’s general debate to tell a story about somebody who completely turned his life around. This is a story of a man who, as a young person, left school the day he turned 15—on his 15th birthday. After drifting from job to job, he settled down and started a career working on the New Zealand railways. Ultimately, he became a train driver. He saw the writing on the wall in the 1980s—he must have known what Richard Prebble was up to—and he decided that he needed a career change. But he had a problem; he had left school at 15. He enrolled part-time at university to do a certificate in liberal studies. He then enrolled in the school of law at the University of Canterbury as one of 10 quota students. These were students who did not have formal qualifications to take them into law school, but based on submissions and supporting documentation, they were determined to become qualified and be able to contribute something back to their communities.

This man completed his law degree. It was not easy; he was educationally disadvantaged. His marriage had broken up and he was caring for his two children on the domestic purposes benefit. But he had two things going for him. Firstly, he had preferential entry to a degree course at a university, and, secondly, he could receive the training incentive allowance. He now has his own law practice and he has served on a number of community boards in a voluntary capacity, paying back to his community what they had offered to him. His sons have successful lives, and he is married again—to me. This is my husband’s story.

It is a story of considerable hope, and it has been repeated in universities and polytechs from one end of New Zealand to the other. The only difference in my husband’s story to those of many people who have similar success stories is that the vast majority of those people who benefit from the training incentive allowance are women, and that includes the Minister for Social Development and Employment. So what has the Minister for Social Development and Employment done to the training incentive allowance? She has made sure that no one can use it for a diploma or degree that is level four or above. Why? She has not given a reason other than to blame the recession, yet she did her own degree during a recession. Besides, I thought that John Key said that National was ambitious for New Zealand. So why would he not invest in people like his own Minister, who had an investment made in her, and like my husband, who had an investment made in him—those who wanted to get ahead?

The decision to cap the training incentive allowance at level three says that it is OK to use the allowance to do a certificate in aged care, but that it is not OK to use it to become a nurse. Does the Minister for Social Development and Employment forget the difference in pay between a residential care worker and a fully qualified nurse? Does she forget the difference for so many women in this country between a job that represents a dead end and a career that has promotional opportunities in abundance? We need nurses in this country now. So many young mothers would make fantastic nurses, but they are being denied the opportunity of using the training incentive allowance, which the Minister herself used, for a step-up and a ladder into the future. I did not think that we would be cutting off an opportunity for jobs, real jobs, that are needed in this country, and that would have been a win-win for the individuals, for their families, and for the country as a whole. Why on earth would we make this the choice?

I think that there is a name for people who pull up the ladder behind them. There is a name for people who take advantage of a programme for their own personal benefit and then deny that benefit to those who come in the future.

💬 Hon Member: Say that word then.

Well, it is not a name that I am allowed to use in this House, which is probably a shame, because I will certainly be using the name outside the House. There is nothing outside this House that prevents me from using the word “hypocrite”. That is a word that fully describes what has happened here.

I would like members of the Government to reflect on what has been a very significant decision, which was not mentioned during the Budget debate. It was sneaked through by a simple amendment made to the website, which said that if people had not had their courses approved before 29 May this year, they would be out of luck. I think that is a shame. It is a shame on the Minister herself, a shame on the Government, and a shame on the Prime Minister, who said that he was ambitious for New Zealand, to say that people cannot get a qualification, such as a degree or a diploma at level four and above, simply because they are denied access to the training incentive allowance. That allowance allowed my husband to have a career that he is proud of, and he is contributing to his community. I think that everyone should have the opportunities that were made available to him, and that were made available to the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

It is not often that I get a round of applause before I start speaking, but I very much appreciate getting that applause from the Labour Party.

To me, the Labour members seem depressed, really. They are depressed, because all I hear from them is constant complaints. They complain and they complain. I remember when John Key floated the idea of a national cycleway, and they complained that it would never happen. Then John Key said that he would put $50 million towards it, and they complained that the money would never see the light of day. Then we announced that there would be $50 million in the Budget for the national cycleway, and they complained that it was not coming soon enough. They complained that the cycleway was not a good idea, until the rest of the country—right throughout the provinces, and even in the metropolitan areas, where people knew it would be good for the provinces—said that it was a great idea to have a national cycleway, a series of great rides throughout New Zealand. Everyone in New Zealand, except for the Labour members over there, who are very depressed, thought it was a great idea. Labour complained.

Labour complained about the upgrade of State houses when I announced that I was upgrading them because they were in a slum condition. I said that I did not want this Government to be a slum landlord and that we would pour a whole bunch of money into State houses across the country, and Labour members complained about that. When I said that we would sell State houses to the tenants if they could afford to buy them so that they could go into home ownership, Labour complained about that and said that we were just selling down the housing stock. I said that we would use the money for replacement houses so that we would not run down the housing stock. Labour members complained about that, and said that the money would not stimulate the economy. I said that we would put the money from the sale of the State houses into building replacement houses and that it will be a new build. It will be a new build so that the construction industry will get work out of it. Labour members complained about that. They said that we would end up building houses in the worst areas of the country. I said that we will build State houses in the areas of high need. Now they are complaining about that.

We are upgrading State houses and we are selling State houses to tenants. We are getting replacement houses, we are making sure that they are new builds, and still Labour complains.

I was delighted when Gerry Brownlee announced the $323 million package to insulate, top and bottom, private households right throughout this country, and also to subsidise home heating. One-third of a billion dollars is being put into upgrading private houses right throughout the country, with no income caps.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Don’t tell me Labour whinged again.

Labour complained about it, but worse still, the Green Party complained about it. Today I announced that we will increase the number of State houses over the next 3 years, including this current year, and the Green Party is complaining about that too.

Why are those members so depressed? I think they are depressed because they are taking the wrong drugs. They are simply taking the wrong drugs. No longer is Trevor Mallard taking his anti-anger pills; he is actually taking pills that are depressing him. So they complain, complain, and complain.

I will tell members the biggest shock for New Zealand. When National was voted in and it decided and announced to the country that it would fund Herceptin, did Labour complain? No. There was a big long silence. Do members know what that silence said? It was Labour members wondering why they did not think of doing that. Women are dying of cancer and families are suffering. Why did Labour members not think about doing that? When National funded Herceptin, Labour did not complain; there was a big long silence. Labour members asked themselves why they did not do the right thing. It was because they had lost touch.

The reality is that every week John Key and the team announce a new step forward, a new solution to problems young and old, and all Labour members do is complain, complain, and complain. They whinge. They are the worst of Oppositions. They are not putting up alternatives; they are just complaining about what the National Government is doing. I think those members are philosophically in tatters. How can it be that a National Government can put more into State housing than a Labour Government?

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā koutou. Picture this: a Dunedin 10-year-old develops a cost-benefit analysis of solar power versus wind power as energy sources for his school; a Pukerua Bay school wins the Enviroschools Green-Gold Award for sustainability, which includes building a native tree nursery with a local revegetation trust; and a bilingual young student welcomes MPs to his school in te reo and English. Then there are young Libby and Matt, who made a butterfly garden, a worm farm, and a vege garden at their Tauranga school, and the little boy who made his own sandwich from a lettuce he had grown himself and pronounced it the best he had ever eaten. How does stifling such a sense of achievement and self-responsibility and an embryonic interest in primary production further this country? There are 212,870 children now participating in similar programmes across the country, so why—to use a wonderful English expression—are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? A face with the nose cut off is certainly an image of considerable horror, and people who deliberately do that to themselves might be considered very bizarre indeed, and equally so a country trying to manage an economy during a world recession and ecological meltdown. This is not a time for self-mutilation; it is a time for wise investment.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: When is the time for self-mutilation?

I ask Maurice to answer that.

Children and the environment sound like motherhood and apple pie. Educating children to value and understand their natural environment and how to work together to value and protect it sounds even more wholesome. It is just the sort of thing the Green Party would consider core to the curriculum. We did, and it is. In 2002 the Green Party negotiated $13 million over 4 years for the development of the Education for Sustainability advisers. Their role is to help teachers integrate programmes for sustainability into the curriculum. In 2005 the Green Party secured funds from the Government for the advisers programme, the kura kaupapa Māori programme Mātauranga Taiao, and Enviroschools. Six hundred and eighty schools are active participants in Enviroschools, with more than 212,870 children learning literacy and numeracy, science and innovation, planning and social studies, and culture and biology through the lenses of sustainability for their future. There is also a waiting list of 210 schools and early childhood centres that want to become part of this great project.

As John Key said to the Enviroschools students in that video in 2007 to the inaugural Enviroschools YOUth Jam, our clean, green image is extremely important, and we need to share our brand with the world. Enviroschools listened hard to his suggestion, and in addition to developing the fabulous programme at home, they are exporting their model to the world. Enviroschools is being promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a small but profitable export of educational excellence. Chile in particular has benefited from the relationship with our Enviroschools. People are passing on their expertise to teachers in Chile and exporting their innovation to benefit kids everywhere. However, there were Budget cuts to all environmental education initiatives funded by the Ministry of Education, including the Enviroschools Foundation; Education for Sustainability advisers; Mātauranga Taiao, which is professional development for teachers in kura Māori; and the environmental education guidelines review. Together the four programmes constituted less than 1 percent of the education budget, but the budget for them is all gone.

So why are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? And why did the Prime Minister tell this House that these programmes can survive on no money whatsoever? Enviroschools meet a range of priorities dear to the current Government’s heart, but far more fundamental, Enviroschools meet a kaupapa of human survival on planet Earth: the need for all our children to be deeply reconnected to the relationship with natural resources and the Earth. Why would one cut this funding unless one does not actually want children to grow up with an understanding of what it means to be green? Hūtia te rito o te harakeke, kei whea te kōmako e kō? If we rip out the heart of the harakeke, where will the bellbird sing? That is the question that we put to this House when we talk about Enviroschools, which is one of the most powerfully successful programmes by anyone’s definition. It is now cut, destroying the hopes of children who are participating in those schools, because a Government cannot see that investing in these things will actually provide a future for these children and for this country. It is a sad day when we are being lobbied constantly by the parents, teachers, and kids. Members will hear more of this, because this programme is about a kaupapa that really makes a difference to children. Kia ora.

This National-led Government is calmly and pragmatically tackling the effects on New Zealand of the global financial strife.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Cowardly? Did she say cowardly?

Aha! They are waking up. Unfortunately here in New Zealand we got a head start on the recession, which is surely a sign that New Zealand had not capitalised on the economic golden weather that the previous Labour Government had the benefit of. Members should make no mistake: Labour did not deliver nor did it capitalise on that economic golden weather. Instead it squandered it. But what did National and its support partners inherit on 8 November last year? Here are a couple of examples of exactly what we inherited: falling economic growth, rising unemployment, high inflation, a rising current account deficit, and annual productivity growth that was only 1.1 percent between 2000 and 2008. That is stunningly unbelievable given the golden weather experienced by the Labour Government in those 9 long years. Add to the picture deteriorating fiscal deficits, a sharply rising Crown debt, an economy on a negative credit watch, and a promise of unaffordable tax cuts in 2010 and 2011. It is a horrible inheritance, is it not? Who would ever want it? It is a will the family would not want to read.

What did National inherit in health? District health boards with projected deficits of about $160 million over the 2008-09 financial year, and with potentially up to $200 million deficits in the 2009-10 financial year. And then there was more than $600 million worth of capital requests from district health boards. Sadly, elective surgery was not keeping up with population growth. There is a severe workforce crisis. There were some 54 workforce reports under the previous Government, yet the crisis just got deeper. There are shortages of nurses, shortages of midwives, shortages of doctors, and, in particular, shortages of some specialists.

Let us then talk about the Immigration Service. It is so dysfunctional. It has a failing computer system. It has a Pacific division with serious deficiencies. In education, we now understand that there were schools in desperate need of repair. They had leaks and mould, and National has certainly addressed that. Stack up that dismal record against the record of this National-led Government. We have not rested on our laurels. We have not basked in the glory of winning the election on 8 November—no! It was really important that we did not allow New Zealand to drift depressingly downwards. Right now, business confidence will take New Zealand out of this recession.

Let us contrast what we inherited from Labour with the future under National. It is a stark contrast. What has National done so far? Well, actually, it has done heaps. We moved to ensure that interest rates do not rise because of a credit downgrade. Many New Zealanders underestimate how important that move was, and, in particular, the Opposition seems to have no conception of how important it was. Higher interest rates would remove money from the pockets of every New Zealander who has a mortgage, who pays rent, or who has an overdraft or a credit card. What is it that the Opposition cannot understand about this? This Government is focused on what matters. Certainly the polls should be telling Opposition members that fact, but maybe they are not watching or listening.

We have delivered a job support scheme to soften the blow for those who lose their jobs. We have introduced a package to make life easier for small and medium sized enterprises. We have got the Government, unions, and businesses all on the same page, working to take New Zealand out of this recession. We have delivered a boost of $3 billion for health over 4 years. I tell members that that is not easy to do at a time like this, in this recession. We are focusing on the front line, and we will ask the hard questions about what that front-line service will deliver. Who are those front-line people, and how do we get more people into the health sector? How do we get more health practitioners into the front line?

We cannot blame the member Jo Goodhew for the speech she has just delivered; it was written by the National research unit, and it is the standard old line that, unfortunately, is about as far from the truth as one can possibly get.

Simon Power got up and told us that we had a driven Prime Minister; he did not tell us who drives the Prime Minister. That is a question we will continue to ask. Which of his rich mates, which of the people on the Business Roundtable, drive the Prime Minister? We have been told that we are facing the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. We have also been told that this Government—the National-led Government—cares about what happens to people and that it cares about jobs. It called the Job Summit in the hope that it would solve everything. Well, what has that Job Summit done? Since that Job Summit we have lost 16,000 jobs in this economy, and 16,000 New Zealanders have gone on to the scrap heap of unemployment. But the Job Summit saved 345 jobs. That is the total number of jobs saved through the initiatives from that massive Job Summit, and, I believe, on top of that, 32 jobs have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight. It is an absolute disgrace. The cycleway, which is the other big initiative to come from the Job Summit, has created one job that I know of, and another one has been advertised for the next 6 months. That is how pathetic it gets.

But I have to say that some jobs have been created. Whom have those jobs been created for? Firstly, a job has been created for Christine Rankin, who is a well-known National Party supporter. She has received a job. A job has been created in the Lotteries Commission for Judy Kirk, the president of the National Party. That is another job that has been created. Another job has been created for Jim McLay as the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Seven jobs have been created in ministerial offices for the likes of Graham Scott, who is an ex - ACT candidate; for Doug Martin; and for Kevin Jenkins, to tell Ministers what should happen. Those are the kinds of jobs that have been created under this Tory Government. Stephen Franks, a well-known ACT member, also had a job created for him.

What about the poor New Zealanders, the more than 1,000 people every week who are losing their jobs? Well, the reality is that this Government simply does not care, although I have to say that one of the smartest initiatives has come up for welders. There are new opportunities for welders moving forward because they will put together the containers that will make up the new prisons, under the new Minister of Corrections. But the word “container” is an oxymoron, because I can tell members that it will not contain the prisoners who will be put in them. Other jobs will be created for people training police dogs, which will be needed to run round after those prisoners who will escape from the containers.

This Government has no vision and no idea about what it should do for New Zealand or New Zealanders in the face of 1,000 job losses every single week. It is a disgrace! When National members stood up on the hustings they said that there would be less of everything and that there would be more of everything. Well, what we got, or what they promised, was less of everything. There would be less of the Resource Management Act. There would be less Government bureaucracy, except this Government then said it would cap the numbers of Government officials, not cut 1,400 of them, as has happened—1,400 Government officials have gone since this Government came into office. Members opposite said there would be less tax, except that that applies only if someone earns over $40,000 per year. For the rest of us there has been no less tax. They said that there would be research and development money. Well, they said there would be less of it, in fact, because they called Fast Forward an absolute hoax.

But what happened? While promising less of everything in those areas, National came into office and delivered more of nothing. What has it done? It has cut the money in the crucial area of adult and community education. The Government has cut jobs in the Public Service, as I have said, and it has cut tax, but only for those earning over $40,000 per year.

I questioned the Minister of Fisheries the other day about what he considered was a responsibility in the new 2030 strategy. He said that jobs for New Zealanders were not part of the objective for the fisheries strategy moving forward. That is it, is it not, I ask the Minister. He said that jobs—

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said no such thing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order.

That Minister clearly stated that New Zealand jobs were not a key objective of the new fisheries strategy to 2030.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to disturb the member’s speech, but I point out that during the term of this Government that member got a job.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member is trifling with the Chair. Points of order are not debating points; they are about a process of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to come in, especially in the circumstances of the last couple of days—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member is not going to transgress too, is he?

—but members, generally, when they have made out-of-order comments like that have been required to withdraw and apologise. There was no requirement placed on the member Phil Heatley then.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): It is up to the Speaker to exercise his judgment about that, and I have severely admonished the member. He is on a warning.

Every New Zealand Government that fails and is thrown out of office by the people carries with it a millstone round its neck. Probably the greatest millstone in New Zealand political history is the one carried by the 1957-60 Labour Government: the moniker of the Black Budget. The previous Labour Government defeated on that great and glorious night in November 2008 will also carry a moniker. It will be that it was a Government that had lost its moral compass.

It is worth reflecting on a couple of things. Firstly, I ask what the 1957-60 period told us. It told us that whenever a Labour Government is in trouble, its only answer is taxation, taxation, taxation. Members of this House might like to reflect on what the 2009 Budget would have looked like had it been written—heaven forbid—by a Labour Minister of Finance. We would have suffered a credit downgrade, and Treasury has advised us that a downgrade would have resulted in a 1.5 percent interest rate increase. That means that a New Zealand family—an honest, hard-working family—with a $175,000 mortgage would be paying an extra $30 a week on their mortgage payments. That is what a Labour Government, had it survived, would have done to ordinary New Zealanders. We can only imagine how much more New Zealanders would have been paying when Labour dealt with the recession by driving up taxes, which is what a Labour Government does.

Let us think about the first 6 years of the previous Labour Government: 1999-2005, which were some of the most sustained, prosperous times in our history. What did that Government do? It squandered those times; it took from New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that New Zealanders did not need to pay, to meet the core expectations of Government. Some like myself believe that any dollar more than the Government absolutely needs is theft, and although I cannot in this House accuse that Government of theft, I can certainly make the statement that taking more than is required from the taxpayer amounts to theft.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: What’s a deficit then?

What did it do with that money? It bought the 2005 election. The member who was interjecting before might like to recall what it cost for his narrow majority—the majority that he lost in the 2008 election. Sometimes I think members opposite need to think a little more carefully before they put their mouths into action and interject across the floor.

We need to think about this: not only did that Government build up a holding of the taxpayers’ money that taxpayers need not have paid, and not only did they buy an election, but also they corrupted the New Zealand political system—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a robust debate—being the Wednesday general debate, most things go—but to accuse any party in New Zealand of corruption is way over the top. I think that is just not helpful to what otherwise is a free-flowing debate. One cannot say “corruption”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Certainly one cannot accuse a member of corruption. I have to confess I was not applying as much scrutiny to exactly how the member phrased that as I perhaps should have. I ask the member that he does not bring us into this kind of debate by the way in which he uses that word.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The Electoral Finance Act denied everyday New Zealanders opportunities to participate in our system of democracy. That is what happened. When I talk of the moniker that the 1999-2008 Labour Government will carry, I am talking about the loss of a moral compass. For years to come they will be remembered for that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have had time to reflect on the point of order, and it is probably timely for the House to look at Speaker’s ruling 51/3, which says that it is unparliamentary to accuse a party in the same way as it is an individual. The House needs to note that.

It was interesting to listen to Allan Peachey. He seemed to me to be like a palaeontologist scraping over the dry bones of Governments long gone—back to the 1950s and 1960s he went—and I think he did not really have much to contribute.

I welcome Cam Calder to the House, and I hope Dr Calder has a good time in this Parliament. He stood against me at the last election and he worked every day; from March to election day he was up there knocking on doors. He increased the National vote by a few hundred, which I think is better than any of his colleagues have ever done. But he is an interesting guy. I listened to Morning Report the other day and I saw him on TV where he said that he had never seen a saint or an angel. That is because he is in the National Party; that is the reason why. If he wants to redeem himself he should stop going to so many Tory meetings and meet decent people.

It is sad the way he came here. Richard Worth was a person whom I used to sit at the airport with, perhaps waiting to go to Auckland, and talk to. I am sure that this is a very cruel place and it is very easy to forget the contributions that various people make. Richard Worth was not like Cam Calder; he was not a door knocker, which provided an opportunity for Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide was able to get the Epsom seat almost by default. Can I tell Rodney Hide that if Cam Calder decides to stand in Epsom he will be knocking on the doors, and he will be reminding people that Rodney and John Key stole Auckland and took Auckland away from them. Of course, I would be able to back up Cam Calder if he gets out there and wants someone to help knock on a few doors to help get rid of Rodney. I am sure I can find a team of people who will help; not National people though, Labour people, because I think if Cam Calder cuts the vote from the ACT Party it could become a Labour seat. We are already starting to look at the seats we can get. We are looking around to see who has a majority of less than a couple of thousand. Those Tories are gone; they are history. All they will have to do is sit around, collect their cheques for a couple of years, and then they will be on the dole queue. They should remember that unemployment is getting worse and worse and they are going to join the queue.

In my electorate I see very many poor people. They are losing their jobs; even worse, a lot of them have lost overtime. Where they used to do 10 hours’ overtime a week for $20 an hour, it has gone. That means their kids are going to school hungry. Their kids do not have lunches. As I go around the schools in my electorate the principals are telling me that the situation has got really bad. You know, it is always the socially deprived areas that feel these things worse. These people are really hurting quite a lot. It is all right for the Prime Minister to get up and say how many jobs the Government has created and how many have not been lost, and it is all very well for Labour members to take a swing at the jobs lost, but the reality is that these are families, these are families who are hurting, these are young kids who do not have any say and who hope that dad has a job and will bring home the money. That is not happening. South Auckland, I believe, is bearing the brunt of this more than anywhere else. What is happening and where are these people getting help? The queue outside Work and Income has got larger. People come to my electorate office seeking help and, of course, they want jobs.

There spoke a true Labour battler. Much of what George Hawkins said I agree with, because I see it in my own electorate where 60-odd people lost their jobs in Greytown a couple of weeks ago. I reflect on why those jobs were lost. They were lost because of the profligate, incompetent management of the previous Government for the last 9 years. Why are we having such a significant problem, and having to pay high interest rates? It is because the Labour administration over the last 9 years spent far more money than it owned, and it took from our pockets. We see this in areas like accident compensation, which I pointed out to the House yesterday—a $2 billion black hole. We see it in the energy area, where that Government had promised but unfunded home insulation, in rising electricity prices, and in a transmission network that was in need of significant repair. We see it in the district health boards, including the Wairarapa District Health Board, where there is a combined debt of $160 million for the 2008-09 year. The previous Government was an incompetent bunch of managers. We see $2 billion worth of deferred maintenance in State houses, and we see a totally dysfunctional immigration service. I point the bone in the direction of Lianne Dalziel, who for a period took responsibility as Minister of Immigration. What problems did she solve? None.

Given that this is a general debate, I would like to record the passing last week of a significant New Zealander, Ron Crocombe. His memorial service was held in Auckland yesterday and his funeral will be held in Rarotonga later this week. Ron was a great New Zealander and a significant Pacific scholar. One of the things he pointed out was China’s ravenous appetite for resources. He notes in his research work that China’s arable land is being converted into factories and urban sites so China has gone into outsourcing, for example to the Philippines where Chinese minorities run most of the economy in that country. If we think about China’s extension into Indonesia, where it is becoming a Chinese reef, then if Indonesia is becoming a Chinese reef, certainly the Philippines is becoming China’s rice paddy.

Ron Crocombe pointed out that Oceania is the second ring in Chinese strategy: its strategic desire to acquire resources and ultimately to support the activities of its blue-water navy. China does not have to conquer the small island countries in the Pacific; it just buys them. We are seeing that happening every day. Evading investment restrictions is no problem for Chinese State agencies. They just buy up the means of production and distribution through, for example, financing mines, financing infrastructure, and developing railways. In Papua New Guinea, I think it is fair to argue, China has accelerated the deforestation of virgin jungles, and it is doing exactly the same in the Solomon Islands. Where is that timber ending up? It is all ending up in China, and by 2030 all of the virgin forests in the Solomons and Papua New Guinea, the tropical rainforests, will have been depleted.

It is interesting to reflect on Crocombe’s thesis that China is exactly targeting the same parts of the Pacific that Japan did in the Second World War: Papua New Guinea, Polynesia, and Micronesia. For example, it has just built a satellite tracking station in Kiribati to monitor its State space programme. I think we need more Ron Crocombe’s.

On Budget day, when the House was sitting under urgency, I participated in the debate on the Budget. I enjoyed that speech. To a large extent I enjoyed the way that members opposite interjected, interrupted, or otherwise tried, in whatever manner, to make it more robust and more interesting for me to deliver the messages I wished to deliver.

One important message was in relation to jobs, and it is worth reiterating that the biggest challenge facing New Zealand’s economy is worsening unemployment. In the week before the Budget more than 1,250 Kiwis joined the dole queues. National’s Budget does not set out a coherent plan to keep Kiwis in work. It fails to take action for vulnerable New Zealanders who are on the brink of losing their jobs. It fails to adequately invest in skills training and investment to create new jobs. It fails to set out a clear path that will lift New Zealand out of the current economic downturn. Prime Minister John Key said this week that about 1,000 people a week are losing their jobs, and finance Minister Bill English said yesterday that he thought the number was higher than that. As recently as this morning the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, told the Social Services Committee that there was “no escaping” the effects of the recession on the economy. The Government is well aware of the situation—that the number of New Zealanders receiving a benefit has risen to 302,000, the highest level since 2005.

What has the Government done, then? Since the Budget, Prime Minister John Key has made 13 statements and speeches, but only one of them has been related to jobs. The speech was on the home insulation fund, which was not even his idea. Minister of Finance Bill English has made two public statements since the Budget. One attacked Labour’s stance on superannuation, and the second one defended his tax cuts to adult and community education. Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, has made three public statements, none of which have related to job creation.

Since the Budget nearly 4,000 people have lost their jobs—that is, 1,000 people a week are going on the dole. We have heard today from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that another 60,000 Kiwis are expected to lose their jobs. The Press reported that the Government had denied it had a new plan to deal with the surge in unemployment, so let us have a look at its plans.

The Job Summit—yes, the Job Summit—was hailed by the Government as its flagship. The 9-day working fortnight headed the Government’s top 20 list for keeping people in work, but it has saved just 345 jobs, so far, with 25 firms applying to join up. When pressed by the Dominion Post earlier this week, Prime Minister John Key was unable to say how many jobs the 9-day working fortnight had saved. However, Mr Key could confirm, and indeed did confirm, that another Job Summit proposal, of a Government-subsidised “grab a seat” style promotion to lure long-haul airline travellers to New Zealand, had “largely been rejected” because evidence from other countries showed that it did not work. The 9-day working fortnight had been pitched as an opportunity to upskill New Zealanders, with training on the 10th day, but the training component has been dropped.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Disappeared.

It has disappeared. Meanwhile, as reported in the Dominion Post, 2,800 apprentices have been laid off. Nothing has been done since John Key’s Job Summit in February.

We are in the midst of the worst global recession since the 1930s and, as the Hon George Hawkins correctly pointed out, New Zealanders are hurting. They are worried, and they are concerned. Of more concern is what this Opposition does. All it seems to do is scoff at, mock, and scaremonger about all the good things we are trying to do to help all New Zealanders get through these tough times. The job of any Opposition is certainly to hold the Government to account, but it also has a responsibility. It has a responsibility to act in the best interests of New Zealanders, and this Opposition is not doing that. It is failing. It is not in the country’s best interests to incorrectly scaremonger, to scoff, and to mock the good things happening, on which we are trying to work together in order to get all New Zealanders through this recession with the least possible pain. Admittedly, we have heard that Labour is trying to sort out its own internal conflicts, but it should put those internal conflicts aside and concentrate on the bigger picture. It should concentrate on the issues that matter, and focus on what is in the best interests of New Zealand.

I mention something said by the honourable member who has come back to Parliament, Damien O’Connor. He talked about new appointments made. If he were suggesting that those appointments have been made based not on competence but on politics, then I think that that suggestion is a bit rich. He should look at Labour’s appointment of Dianne Yates to the board of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, when her only interest in food is that she eats it. The Labour Government insisted last year that the vacancy on the board be filled by a member of the Labour caucus, so it was filled by a person whose interest in food seems to be only that she does, indeed, eat it.

We have heard of Labour messes, of Labour’s legacies, and of squandered opportunities. Those members have left a pretty notable legacy. Productivity collapsed under the Labour legacy, the economy was put on a negative credit watch under the Labour legacy, and we had rising unemployment in the midst of great economic times under the Labour legacy. We had falling economic growth under the Labour legacy, we had high inflation under the Labour legacy, we had a rising current account deficit under the Labour legacy, and we had sharply rising Crown debt under the Labour legacy. I think that is a mess. We know that we are in the worst global recession, yet despite that the National Government has maintained benefits. Despite the mess that Labour left us in, we have maintained benefits. We have maintained student support, we have maintained Working for Families, and we have locked in national superannuation at 66 percent of the after-tax average wage, despite Labour’s scaremongering, and despite the mess and the legacy that Labour left us last year.

It is interesting that members opposite mock the fact that our credit rating was not downgraded; they mock that. I am disappointed, because I thought that they would have been more responsible than that. I thought they might have had the economic nous to realise what that meant to all hard-working New Zealanders who have a mortgage, and who are paying interest on that mortgage. The fact that that credit rating was not downgraded means that New Zealanders have more money in their back pockets. That is a good thing; that is not something to be mocked. It is something concrete and tangible that this Government has managed to achieve, and it has had an impact on every New Zealander. But those members have mocked it. They still mock it, and they scaremonger and they scoff.

We have managed to get unions, businesses, and the Government working together, talking together, and conversing together, but those members do not like that either. They do not like the fact that we are prepared to listen, to have a conversation, and to work together to achieve something that is in the best interests of all New Zealanders in order to help them through the recession. National has been successful despite the messes we have been left with by Labour.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.