General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I shall start by talking about the GDP figures released earlier today. The Government is obviously encouraged to see a 0.1 percent increase in the June quarter, following five quarters of contraction in the economy. That growth has come from activity in the primary sector, which has been driven mainly by the forestry sector—hard-working New Zealanders doing their best to get this economy moving ahead. This Government is encouraged to see export volumes up by 4.7 percent as we try to rebalance our economy around exports and investment and away from consumer debt. The real challenge for us as a country is to achieve sustainable jobs and economic growth in the longer term. It is a challenge dwarfed only by that challenge currently facing the members sitting on the Opposition side of the House.

The Leader of the Opposition is clearly struggling to connect with the public of New Zealand. It is the only way to describe the bizarre sight of him riding that motorcycle up to the Labour Party conference. This week’s Listener has depicted him as the Terminator, riding up in the leather jacket on the motorbike, and that does not do a lot to dispel the media perception of him as being slightly robotic, I might say. Maybe he was trying to emulate Jon or Ponch from the CHiPS programme in the early 1980s. In fact, it was one of the most popular television shows when he was first elected to Parliament in 1981. It was popular with me. I remember sitting on the couch and watching it as an 11-year-old. Those are the things that happened back then, and obviously not much has changed.

So we can see the problems the Leader of the Opposition faces. This picture I am holding comes from the Rotorua Daily Post. The Leader of the Opposition is pictured with some staff from the Rotorua citizens advice bureau. This is not unusual, one might think, yet it seems his profile is so low that the caption actually has to point out that the person second from the left is Phil Goff, despite the fact that he is the only male in the photo.

Mr Goff, unfortunately, is not the only person across the aisle who is suffering from an identity crisis. We know, for example, that Mr Cunliffe is still quietly claiming around the corridors of Parliament that he is Harvard University, and we wait to see what luminary insights that will provide. It is good to see that the Hon Chris Carter is in the House today. He has obviously worked out that reporting to check-in is required 20 minutes before departure. Trevor Mallard is here, and, clearly, he has too much time on his hands these days. He is furiously blogging away, hoping to become the David Farrar of the left. I am reliably told by people who do read Red Alert that from time to time his contributions can be amusing. There is even a rumour doing the rounds that Shane Jones is doing the numbers for the leadership of the Labour Party—at least, that is what Mr Jones is telling us. We also hear—and this rumour is very close to being confirmed, I understand—that George Hawkins is merely biding his time for a tilt at the leadership, believing he can provide a fresher face for the Labour Party as he was elected 9 years after Mr Goff was.

Despite Mr Goff’s “mea culpas” at the Labour Party conference, has anything really changed in the Labour Party? The short answer is no, it has not. We are still waiting for the long-awaited—promised in July—recession response package. Instead, the policy ideas we have heard from Labour go something like this: welfare for millionaires, and David Cunliffe being open to suggestions to raise the age of superannuation from 65 to 67 while our Prime Minister has made a commitment to retain the age of entitlement at 65. When Phil Goff was the Minister of Employment in 1988—my first year at university—he was asked to take action or resign, in a statement by the then President of the Labour Youth Council, a Mr Charles Chauvel. It seems that the sentiments remain the same today.

I congratulate Mr Power on acknowledging the good sense of the people of Mt Roskill, who have re-elected me nine times as their member of Parliament. They have indeed made a good choice. I found the attempted humour in the member’s speech to be really astonishing. He started off by wanting to talk about the state of the New Zealand economy and unemployment, and then he asked the Opposition what its response was to the recession. Well, I tell Mr Power that he is a member of the Government today, and we are waiting to see his response. It is important that the Minister actually makes a response. At the present time 140,000 New Zealand are out of work. People have been losing their jobs at the rate of 2,000 per week, and Mr Power asked the Opposition what its response is to dealing with that problem.

I tell Mr Power it is time that the Government stopped being a spectator. It is time that the Government got off the sidelines and did something about this problem. We are seeing internationally at the moment the return of an economic upturn. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are without security of employment. Many have lost their jobs, but many more are wondering how to meet the bills at the end of the week, because their real incomes are going down. They want to know what this Government will do to ensure that the international recovery translates into an improvement in their living standards, their incomes, and their job security.

Workers hear the Government saying time and again not only to public servants but also to the private sector that there will be no wage increases this year. That is the message from the National Government. I want to ask the National Government why it has been strangely mute in the face of this article in the Dominion Post this morning, reporting that the chief executives of four big companies in New Zealand have awarded themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay increases, while the profits of those companies have declined by between 40 and 60 percent. Why is the National Government not calling for responsibility on the part of the fat cats of this country and asking them to show some leadership and some restraint, instead of telling the ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders who are struggling to pay the bills at the end of the week that they must show restraint? Where is the leadership from the National Government, which gave its Prime Minister hundreds and hundreds of dollars each week in tax cuts, while those who earn under $40,000 and who have families got nothing? Where is this Government when it comes to fairness and giving the ordinary, hard-working New Zealander a fair go, some job security, and a better real income, rather than the cuts and the freezing of wages it has been calling for?

I want to talk a little about the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Bill English said it was crazy for New Zealand to continue to pre-fund superannuation. He said the fund is losing money. Well, I tell Mr English that in the last 6 months the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, proudly created by the previous Labour Government, has made $4.1 billion and has increased its worth by a third. I tell Mr English that his leader, John Key, told the country last year that there were only two choices: raise the level of entitlement to national superannuation, or pre-fund it. What did National do? It cut the pre-funding, but it will not own up and say the long-term consequences of doing that—maybe not so long term—are that people will lose their current superannuation entitlements. This year we have lost $1.65 billion from the New Zealand superannuation scheme. At the end of 10 years there will be a $35 billion hole. John Key admitted last year that the number of people in retirement will double in the next 20 years, to over a million. What is the National Government doing? It is saying the bill will have to be met by those New Zealanders who are under the age of 45. Instead of the baby boomers—people like John Key and Bill English, who should pay—paying in advance, the Government will put the burden on the younger generation.

Did anyone hear an apology in that speech from Phil Goff? Did anyone hear an apology for the state of the economy that this new Government inherited? Did anyone hear an apology to the mums and dads whose children are now living in Australia after being driven from this country by the previous administration? Did anyone hear an apology about the billion dollars that was written off from the purchase of KiwiRail? Did anyone in this House hear an apology for the things that really matter?

Today there are some positive, albeit small, signs of relief that the recession is starting to turn and that things may be improving: a 0.1 percent increase in GDP is a welcome and well-overdue sign. I am sure all members across the House are at least grateful that our economy may be stabilising, and I am sure they will all join me in my greatest hope that unemployment may have stabilised and will begin to decrease. I am quite sure that all members, regardless of persuasion, are quite hopeful of that.

We are still suffering from the global recession that hit New Zealand about 1 year earlier than most other OECD countries. One year earlier than those countries, the previous Labour Government drove New Zealand into recession, with all the hallmarks that a recession—a slow-down in the private sector—brings. We are suffering for that; we will suffer for many, many years to the tune of the decade of deficits that this Government now has to deal with. In fact, analysis has now shown that the private sector was in recession from 2005. It is just as well New Zealand kicked out the previous Labour Government in 2008. It is just as well New Zealand did not have to wait around for the mini-Budget promised by the previous Minister of Finance prior to the previous election, of which he would not give any details. By the way, he would never release any of the details around the rail purchase in response to any questions of any substantial nature. It is just as well New Zealand is not waiting for the recession response plan from the Opposition. What happened to it? It was promised months and months ago. We have seen nothing. We have actually seen promise after promise of more spending: it has announced $6 billion of extra spending thus far. It is still up to its old habits; I guess old habits are hard to knock off.

What have we heard from the Opposition members? We heard that their leader roared into the Labour Party conference on a Suzuki 125. Did he own that bike? That is an interesting question. The big announcement to come out of that conference was something about free condoms for all and some new ministry—a “Ministry of Social Inclusion” or something. There was no costing, no trail of funding; it was a matter of what sounded good, or would make a headline—anything to get in the papers. I note that today’s press release from the Hon David Cunliffe includes the Hon Phil Goff. Phil Goff is struggling for publicity so he is doing joint press releases with the guy who is challenging for his job.

There are massive imbalances in our current economy. To name one, there was massive destruction of taxpayer wealth under the previous administration. I laugh when I hear those members talk about the kick-up in the value of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund right now, particularly when they oversaw about $5 billon of write-off of taxpayer assets and over $1 billion of write-off in the private sector from failed finance companies. Those are a couple of imbalances that this Government has to try to address. The Opposition policy is still—as announced by press release—a position of $6 billion of extra borrowing and counting. Where would that come from? That amount of extra borrowing equates to about $400 million per annum of extra interest rate bills. What would the Opposition cut? What tax would it hike to fund these promises? How many jobs will be lost? How soon would New Zealand go back into recession because of the promises of the current Opposition?

It will take a long time to unwind the imbalances of the last 9 years. This Government has jobs and families at the forefront of its thinking in building a sustainable and growth economy that will start to attract New Zealanders home and put right the problems, the misdirected spending, the lack of transparency, and the lack of accountability of the last 9 years. Thank you.

All I can say after that speech from Craig Foss is that it is a shame the Labour Party did not have its free condoms policy in place when he was conceived.

I want to talk today about the emissions trading scheme, because that policy is a major concern to Opposition members. Billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is at stake. Minister Smith once famously said that this was a decision as big as the decision to introduce GST, yet we still cannot see the financial modelling that lies behind the changes to the emissions trading scheme that the Māori Party and National have agreed, and that is a shame. Phil Goff had to ask seven questions in Parliament yesterday, and I asked four. We tried again today; David Parker asked five questions, and I asked four. All we got was the selective tabling of documents by the Minister.

One document, purporting to relate to Rio Tinto’s costs, was apparently cooked up between the Minister’s office and the smelter itself. It is reasonable to ask, on behalf of ordinary Kiwis, how much and for how long we are going to subsidise multinational companies like Rio Tinto and Methanex, because both those companies are likely to be able to increase their emissions under the changes agreed to the emissions trading scheme while still attracting a massive subsidy from taxpayers under the deal that has been done.

Yesterday, when I asked Nick Smith about these matters he said, after some pressing from you, Mr Speaker, that he did not have a figure to hand for either of those major emitters. This lack of detail, with a potential cost of billions of extra dollars over many years to hard-working Kiwi families, for no environmental benefit, has to be of major concern. The Government is creating a financial black hole for Kiwi families, and those families deserve to know the details. Either the Minister does not know the answer—which would be a worry if this measure is a reform as big as GST—or he is too embarrassed to tell the public about the extent to which they will be forced to subsidise two massive polluters for a very long time to come.

Let us have a look at what Nick Smith did table in the House yesterday. It was a document that had no detail on that black hole in the out-years. It uses a much lower carbon price assumption, $25 or $50 a tonne, than the analysis that was used by the Government just last month to justify its weak 2020 pollution reduction target. In that document the assumption was $200 a tonne.

This is just a case of a Minister and a Government using figures to suit themselves, scrawled on the back of an envelope, in respect of national decisions that will have a massive, massive effect on New Zealand families going forward. In addition, that document, which was a snapshot of the first 4 years of the scheme only, fails to reveal that the National - Māori Party subsidy for polluters lasts a lot longer and is therefore much more expensive for taxpayers than would be the case under the existing scheme.

I have to commend David Carter, because at least he came clean on that in the Taranaki Daily News the other day. He said that Labour’s scheme would credit 90 percent of emissions and then phase that out by 8 percent a year, down to zero over 12 years, while the other scheme was proposing to move it at 1.3 percent over 90 years. That is 90 further years of massive subsidies to big polluters at the expense of ordinary Kiwi families. We have no idea how much that will cost taxpayers.

National has been misleading, because it will not reveal the true cost. Instead, it chooses to dribble out custom-made documents, often misdescribed, to discredit or try to discredit Labour and Green policies. But that is not the issue. The issue is what the cost of this deal will be to the nation. Basically, we do not know and we should know. We will be debating the bill tomorrow, yet we do not even know the costs and we have not seen the text of the bill. How can this be good government?

Dr Smith, in his answers to the House today, said that the changes to the emissions trading scheme will cost the taxpayer around $400 million. But that is the cost up to 2013 only, which covers the cost of the transitional measures for 4 years only. That money covers the cost of introducing a 50 percent obligation for the transport, energy, and industrial sectors. This means that the taxpayer picks up the tab for half the emissions in those sectors. It also provides the polluters with the option of paying the Government $25 per tonne for their emissions—$12.50 once it is halved—instead of having to purchase units to cover their emissions. Once more there is a massive subsidy on the bill for pollution. The Government did not have to have this scheme; it could have had a deal with the Labour Party.

Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare.

💬 Hon Mita Ririnui: Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, the Hon Mita Ririnui. If it is true that 5,000 Kiwis die from tobacco every year, it is also true that tobacco companies are directly responsible for the deaths of 100,000 New Zealand citizens in the last 25 years. That is why the Māori Party supports every effort to stop this appalling waste of life, and to break the cycle of addiction that blights our society.

There are 5,000 deaths every year from tobacco. It accounts for 25 percent of all cancer deaths in Aotearoa, and it is a major cause of blindness and respiratory illnesses, diseases of the urinary tract, pelvis, bladder, and the digestive tract. Forty-five percent of Māori, 32 percent of Pasifika, 22 percent of Pākehā, and 12 percent of Asians smoke. One in every three Māori dies from smoking cigarettes. That is why the Māori Party is doing everything it can to reduce tobacco consumption and to hold accountable those companies that are responsible for the deaths of those 5,000 Kiwis every year.

Following on from the World Health Organization recommendations of a mix of taxation, cessation, health promotion, legislation, and research strategies, Tariana Turia, co-leader of the Māori Party and the Associate Minister of Health responsible for tobacco control, has called for a review of smoking cessation programmes, an increase in tobacco tax, and a ban on the display of tobacco products here in Aotearoa. Such a law was enacted recently in New South Wales, and will be enacted next year in the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory, and in Victoria and Tasmania in 2011. Tobacco displays are a very devious and potent form of marketing a killer product, normalising cigarettes in the eyes of vulnerable kids and hooking them into buying smokes from a very young age. Banning displays works; we know that because when Saskatchewan did it smoking rates actually dropped 25 percent in just 6 years.

And just this morning the Māori Affairs Committee approved my request for a full inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. And for that, I thank the National Party leadership and in particular Prime Minister John Key, his deputy, Bill English, and the committee chairman, Tau Henare, for supporting this, because if they had not, it would have died on the table. This inquiry will be New Zealand’s greatest opportunity to have tobacco companies explain their actions of promoting and maintaining the tobacco addiction that leads to these horrific deaths. Select committee hearings will begin in 2010, giving us plenty of lead-in time to organise cancer patients, whānau, health researchers, health agencies, tobacco control groups, and the tobacco industry itself to come before the committee. We hope to call Associate Minister Turia as well, to hear about what she is doing and to get her advice on how best our work can dovetail with her plans. We will also be taking this inquiry on the road to make it easier for whānau to attend, and I have no doubt that by the time we finally get the tobacco company representatives in front of the committee we will have gathered enough testimony to really take them to task.

To be brutally frank, I would like to lynch these tobacco company executives. I have watched too many people die horrible deaths because of their addiction to tobacco, and I have seen too much pain and heartache in those left behind to want to be objective about this. I have heard too many chilling comments from tobacco executives, such as: “We don’t smoke this shit. We reserve that right to the young, the poor, the black, and the stupid.”, to have any respect for these people at all.

Hopefully, with the help of the people of New Zealand, the support of all my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, and the determination of the members of this House, we can finally bring an end to all this unnecessary waste of beautiful life. Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Why is the Opposition so grumpy that it cannot acknowledge a bit of good news? Today we have seen a spark in the New Zealand economy. The boat, or perhaps the bike, as Opposition members might prefer to call it, is going slightly faster, with GDP data showing that the economy grew 0.1 percent in the June quarter. Although it is a positive sign, it is really important that we do not get ahead of ourselves. For many New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders, the measure of a good economy is having a job to turn up to on Monday or a regular pay check for their family. That is why young Kiwis are taking up our Job Ops package. Over 1,200 young people are being offered opportunities as a direct result of that scheme. Today’s result is positive.

There are many builders, electricians, and insulators who are staying afloat as a direct result of the Warm Up New Zealand package. Over 8,000 homes have been retrofitted in the first 8 weeks of the scheme, and a further 172,000 homes are on the cards. That is a lot of work for builders and electricians who will be in jobs because of the Government. The Youth Guarantee is about saying to young New Zealanders that they should not go on a benefit and instead should take up one of the 2,000 places that our Government is offering to study and learn practical skills.

It is important, though, to contrast our commitment and approach to job opportunities with the Labour Party’s. Under the Opposition’s plan, debt would spiral from $6 billion to $18 billion by 2012. Other brainstorms include the “Donald Trump Welfare Scheme”. That scheme would not see New Zealanders who are most at need getting welfare; it would see millionaires on benefits. The Opposition has reverted to typical ideology in terms of its “Welfare for Everybody” policy. The Opposition also proposes a populist policy of no more dividends from power companies, after it conveniently forgot the $3 billion that those companies ripped off New Zealanders in the good times.

The contrast is very clear. We are seeing positive signs in terms of our economy. This is about delivering smart, solid policies aimed at reducing debt and getting people into jobs. The news today is good, but we will continue to work harder to get people into jobs. As the Labour Party cranks up its barbecues this summer and Phil Goff puts on his bomber jacket to ride around the country to hold on to his leadership, the National Government will continue its progress. There was a spark in the New Zealand economy today. The bike is going slightly faster, focusing on getting young New Zealanders and other New Zealanders into jobs. We are doing a good job and we are focused on what matters.

As I am sure many in the House have noted, employers around Aotearoa are increasingly going on the offensive in a bid to drive down wages and conditions and reduce the bargaining strength of unions. We are in a classic situation at the moment, with a National Government newly in power and rising unemployment combining to give some employers the confidence they need to try to suppress wage demands and undermine conditions. On top of that, Bill English and John Key have on occasion taken to trying to talk down wage expectations by making public comments about accepting only nil wage increase demands from some groups of public sector workers, such as firefighters, nurses, and teachers. This kind of dog whistling heightens the willingness of private sector employers to increase the pressures they put on workers in current bargaining rounds.

Today, cleaners working for contractors in schools, office buildings, and shopping malls are taking to the streets, seeking public support for their demands for higher wages. I sincerely hope they will get it. After all, these cleaners, who are on wages such as $12.55 an hour, which is barely over the minimum wage, are seeking a rise to $14.62 an hour, which is the rate already paid to cleaners in public hospitals and schools, yet their employers are offering only 25c extra an hour.

At Open Country Cheese in the Waikato, which is owned by Talley’s Group, a large group of workers has been locked out, with the employer refusing to accept that workers can actually choose to join a union and negotiate collectively. These workers are standing up for the right to have some job security and to not be forced into casualisation. In return, their employer is using so-called replacement labour to do their jobs, and one locked-out worker has even been physically assaulted by his manager, who slammed a sliding window on his head and put a whole lot of weight on it. The manager then said he would throw tomatoes at the worker next time round. Rather unsurprisingly, the union is following this matter up with the police. Open Country Cheese has also tried to stop workers accessing on-site union representation, and that comes on top of making false allegations of environmental vandalism or sabotage after sludge from the factory was poured straight into the Waitoa River.

In other areas, Bridgeman Concrete in Manukau locked out its workers last week, saying it would lift the ban on work only if staff agreed to a total wage freeze. Infratil in Auckland has threatened bus drivers with a lockout simply for trying to achieve slightly better pay and conditions in their current bargaining round. Over at the Warehouse a major restructuring programme called Project Invigorate is wreaking havoc on the personal and family lives of staff all over New Zealand, while at the same time the Warehouse chief executive officer Ian Morrice has had his income for the year lifted to $3.8 million.

Foodstuffs (South Island) made a profit of $227 million in 2008, and its chief executive officer is paid $920,000 a year, yet this company is offering workers on a take-home pay of $10.39 to $12.14 an hour, a zero increase in wages and conditions. Telecom New Zealand is making hundreds of its line engineers redundant as it hands their jobs over to Visionstream, which will take them on only as contractors. And guess what, Paul Reynolds, the chief executive of Telecom, gets around $7 million a year in salary and bonuses. That is a package 17 times greater than the one the Prime Minister receives.

These are not companies in trouble. In fact, these companies are doing pretty well for themselves. Their approach is in contrast to that of the unions involved in a number of situations where businesses have been threatened with closure and in which workers have gallantly offered to help out by moving to working 9 days a fortnight, for example. It is disgraceful that big, successful companies like these see the recession as being simply an opportunity to put the boot into workers and extract even greater profits from them.

On the one hand, we have a Government that talks about the need to raise incomes here so that they more closely match Australian incomes. Don Brash is leading a commission on the matter. On the other hand, we have John Key and Bill English saying that there must be nil wage increases for large groups of State sector workers, thereby indicating to private sector employers that it is OK to keep wages as pressed down as possible. Caught in the middle are many ordinary people on very ordinary wages, who are struggling to find the money to survive. The Green Party will continue to support the call of the Unite union and others for a minimum wage of $15 an hour now and for the right of unions to effectively bargain collectively on behalf of their members.

If there was any justification needed for the electoral decisions that the public made last year around jobs, then I think that was it; the previous speech from the member Sue Bradford really sums up the left’s approach to business. I tell members that I have been going around speaking to hundreds of business managers since the election. They tell me how incredibly hard they are working to maintain the jobs of their workers throughout this recession and how hard they have to work to squeeze every ounce of value out of each dollar spent. Frankly, although there will always be errant workers and errant employers, just as in a law-abiding citizenry there will always be people who break the law, the tail should not wag the dog. The overwhelming number of employers in this country work incredibly hard for their workers and try to maintain those jobs, because they know that this recession will end and they want to maintain those jobs for as long as they can.

I will also touch on the bagging that the organisation Rio Tinto has had in this House over the last few days. I have spent quite a bit of time with that organisation in the last couple of months, and I can tell members how incredibly hard all 750-odd members of its staff are working to maintain productivity and jobs through this recession. Not a single job has been lost in that period, and that is in the face of huge drops in aluminium prices and huge increases in electricity prices, which are thanks largely to the failure of the previous Government to maintain continuity of supply. The moment we had dry years, it would go along to Rio Tinto and ask it to switch off a line. Well, that is hardly conducive to jobs growth. I also have to say that all of that electricity is powered by renewable sources, and that organisation has made incredibly good progress in reducing its carbon emissions. So I think that it behoves this House and particularly members of the Opposition to go down to Bluff and explain to the people in that organisation why they seem so intent on bagging that organisation.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance. When I go around, a lot of people tell me how lucky this country is to have a National Government and a Minister of Finance working so hard through this recession. I think that this morning’s news around GDP was very promising. We are cautiously optimistic. Obviously we have had a number of policies that will take what we hope will be the sharpest edges off the recession, and the return to growth has come a good couple of quarters ahead of Budget projections. So I congratulate that hard-working Minister of Finance.

I was in the gym a few weeks ago and, I must say, I nearly had an accident when watching Parliament TV. I was on the treadmill and nearly fell off it, because I heard the member for Dunedin North, Mr Hodgson, say that the Labour Government was very responsible in its spending promises in the lead-up to the last election. Well, I just could not believe my ears. Members of the public who are listening will remember that the Labour Government tried to squeeze what was conservatively estimated at about $3.5 billion worth of unfunded new spending into a $1.4 billion fiscal envelope. We would think that Labour members would learn, would we not, because they promised us a Budget at the end of the year. They were thrown out, then they promised us an alternative Budget. We are still waiting, but we are hearing the promises, are we not? By the most conservative calculations, those members want another $6 billion of spending, including on the Waterview tunnel, welfare for millionaires, and now free condoms. Well, it is easy to make promises because those members know that they will never have to deliver on a single promise, not for the next 2 years, not for the next 5 years, and probably not for the next 8 to 11 years.

I am very pleased that we have the Minister of Finance we have, because I see the sharpest edges being taken off the recession, while at the same time we are being kind to employees. While we are on the subject of workers, I make no apology for a Government that expects the same level of productivity from the public sector as it expects from the private sector. Just as every ounce of value needs to be extracted from the business sector, I think that the obligation is even more on the public sector to provide as much service to the public. I do not think that there is any problem with setting that sort of expectation. This Government has been very pleased with the positive response that has come from the sector in terms of its willingness to improve productivity and to be fiscally prudent during the next few years. I offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance, and long may the good news continue. Thank you.

I absolutely agree with the previous speaker, Michael Woodhouse, that it is appropriate for Government services to be expected to act responsibly with public money and to save money where they can. I do not agree with the member that we should be respectful towards the current Minister of Finance, who he says is taking the sharpest edges off the recession. Well, that is true only of the Minister of Finance’s personal household, where the sharpest edges of the recession were attempted to be blunted by thousands of dollars every week.

I turn to another thing in respect of the Minister of Finance. He turns up in this House every day and he tries to rewrite history, as the previous speaker did, by alleging economic mismanagement by the previous Government. The reality is clearly otherwise. We ran Budget surpluses in a time of plenty, every one of which was criticised by the National Opposition that called for more unaffordable tax cuts that would have further fuelled the country’s consumption boom and property bubble. We reduced Government debt through the surpluses that the Labour Government ran and the National Opposition criticised, from 38 percent of GDP to 17 percent of GDP gross debt, and we got net debt down to zero for the first time for over 100 years. Far from mismanaging the economy, we did those things. Our rates of growth were the same as Australia’s growth rates. They were higher than the growth rates in the UK, the USA, and Japan, and higher than Europe’s growth rates on average.

We contrast that with what the National Government is doing. It is making short-term decisions with disastrous long-term effects. We need look no further than the effects in terms of the future funding of superannuation. We all know that the number of people reliant on superannuation will roughly double to about 1 million people in the next few years as a consequence of our ageing population. That causes an increased burden on the funding of superannuation, and it is credible that that can only be managed if we have some pre-funding of that obligation through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The National Government stopped funding that this year. As a consequence, by 2031, when the fund is meant to be being drawn down, there will be an estimated $35 billion hole—a $35 billion hole—because the money will not be there to fund superannuation.

We have Mr Key on record as saying that in order for superannuation to be funded for the increased number of people who will need it in the future, we will have to increase the age of entitlement, decrease the level of generosity, or pre-fund it. This Government has cut the pre-funding, but it still runs this myth that it will be able to maintain superannuation in the future. That is a myth. We know that it is causing intergenerational unfairness. The Government is expecting people who are currently young to be funding a great burden of superannuation in the future, whereas those people who are currently of working age and who are coming into retirement are not putting their hand in their pocket enough to fund their future superannuation. The Government’s short-term thinking on this issue is arrant nonsense.

We see mistakes being made with the emissions trading scheme. All the commentators are now unanimous on that. We have an unprincipled change that does not make economic sense. Emitters are being encouraged to increase their emissions at the cost of either taxpayers or other businesses, and this is no more apparent than in agriculture. No one disagrees that agriculture should not have some free allocation. We all agree that that sector needs generous levels of free allocation so that it can continue its current level of output without undue competition from countries that are not pricing emissions. But that is completely different to saying that the sector should be able to increase its emissions at the cost of either taxpayers or other businesses. That is what the Government is doing, and it renders the emissions trading scheme ineffective. It has an emissions trading scheme that will not work.

We have had unanimous views from Brian Fallow, Rod Oram, and columns in the Dominion Post—from all except the heavy emitters who want other people to pay their bills. This is another example of short-term policies from the National Party that help big emitters, especially in the agricultural sector, at the long-term cost of the New Zealand economy and of other participants in agriculture. Notably, as a consequence, the forestry sector will not be planting trees because it will not be able to compete against the higher land price in dairying. We have seen that sort of short term-ism in the failed decisions of superannuation, as well as in the emissions trading scheme.

Boy! I am glad that the Minister of Education is introducing standards and focusing on literacy and numeracy, after the contribution by the previous speaker, David Parker. Perhaps the Minister should also include history lessons in the curriculum, because, obviously, that member does not remember the last 10 years.

New Zealand is going through the worst recession since the Depression. The world is going through the worst global recession since the 1930s. To tackle that background, the Hon Bill English, the Minister of Finance, produced a Budget that was prudent and responsible. Yes, members on this side of the House like the two words “prudent” and “responsible”. You see, members opposite do not seem to understand the concepts of prudence and responsibility. We know this because the previous Labour Government, at a time when we should have been careful—extremely careful—managers of the economy, left this country with a legacy—

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Frivolous!

Yes, a legacy I like to call a decade of deficits. Its answer to fixing that awful legacy is to spend more. How much more? Six billion dollars more. That is how we have ended up in this pickle.

Labour’s idea of managing the economy is to borrow more, a heck of a lot more, and to spend even more. If I did that with my own finances—borrowed more and spent more—I hate to think where I would be. That kind of reckless economic policy from Labour would put New Zealand deeper into debt, make it billions of dollars worse off, drive up interest rates, and, ultimately, bankrupt this country. New Zealand went into recession under Labour’s watch. That is right—under the previous Labour Government’s watch. When that is combined with the global recession, it will put a big hole in New Zealand’s economy over the next 3 years. Somebody on the other side of the House talked about a big hole, but it is actually a $50 billion big hole, and Labour’s delusional economic policy of borrowing more is simply that—delusional. We do not need more debt; more debt is the last thing that we need. We are facing a cash deficit of $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 4 years. If we were to heed Labour’s delusional advice, the debt would spiral even more.

💬 Brendon Burns: How delusional were you as a candidate in Mt Albert?

That is right, Mr Burns; if we take your advice we will go into even more debt. So we will certainly not be taking Labour’s advice on how to improve our economy. Over the last decade Labour has proven that it cannot be trusted to manage New Zealand’s economy with prudence or with responsibility.

The Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Phil Goff, goofed up—probably he was on his scooter—when he announced in July that he would announce a recession response package shortly. I do not know about other members, but I think it has become a very long “shortly”. As far as I am concerned, “shortly” is something to do with urgency and soon. Perhaps that is the reason—the style of the previous Government—that the last decade has proven to be very bad. We are still waiting for Mr Goff’s response package.

But the Leader of the Opposition was very quick—guns ablaze, I will call it—when he came out and promised a gold-plated or perhaps diamond-encrusted social welfare system that would see households with millionaires receiving the dole. Although the Leader of the Opposition has now backtracked on this, it is interesting to note how he operates. It speaks volumes, in my view, that in choosing to highlight the case of a man who had lost his job and had nothing, Mr Goff could have been seen to do the responsible thing. But what speaks volumes is what he chose to omit, what he left out. He failed to reveal that the man had a number of investment properties. He is not someone who needed to go on the dole.

Mr Goff apparently apologised at the recent Labour Party conference for the nanny State policies of the previous Labour Government, admitting that it had got them wrong. Perhaps the prudent and responsible thing for Mr Goff to do would be to apologise to all of New Zealand—to all New Zealanders—for the decade of deficits and bad management of New Zealand’s economy. Perhaps then his popularity might improve out of the single figure ghetto that he is in at the moment.

The last thing I will say is that it is great news that, after five quarters of economic contraction, we have finally managed a small growth rate in the June quarter. It is in fact very small, but it is huge growth when contrasted with the previous contraction.

It is deeply concerning to the Opposition that the Government seems to be so economically illiterate. Members of the Government seem to have genuinely convinced themselves that somehow they are responsible for the fact that our unemployment is not as high as in the UK or in the USA. They stopped talking about Australia, because for the first time in 20 years Australia’s unemployment is lower than New Zealand’s unemployment, on their watch. So they do not talk about Australia any more. But they genuinely seem to think it was all their own work, despite the fact that they inherited from the previous Labour Government one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD.

💬 Hon Member: The lowest.

The lowest in the OECD. They also inherited one of the lowest Government debts as a proportion of GDP, and books that are in the black in terms of assets from the previous Government. They seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that somehow they have had something to do with the fact that we have weathered a recession better than most other countries. We have weathered it, and Treasury said that New Zealand was in a better position to weather the economic recession because of the way the previous Government left the economy for this Government in terms of unemployment and in terms of Government debt. We have seen other countries all around the world actually doing something about the recession; our Government has done nothing. It is purely thanks to Michael Cullen and his legacy that this Government is able to stand up and pretend to take credit for that legacy.

I want to talk about the emissions trading scheme, and the absolute shambles that we are seeing from the Government at this time. The Government talks about its Warm Up New Zealand policy. We know that it is not about home insulation, but is actually its climate change policy. That is what will happen. What is the point of having an emissions trading scheme that will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? I ask Mr Auchinvole what the point is. Exactly. We sometimes forget that the entire point of having climate change policy is to address climate change. And we want to do it in an economically responsible way. This Government has decided that lowering greenhouse gas emissions does not really matter, in which case we have to ask why it is even going through this sham of a process—this utter shambles—for a policy that will do nothing except move the cost from the polluters to the taxpayer. We have literally moved from a “polluter pays” policy to a “pay the polluter” policy. I think the Government should be honest with the people of New Zealand and tell them how much this policy of subsidies for big polluters will cost the ordinary taxpayer of New Zealand. I tell Ms Goodhew that that is what we are talking about. The member can shake her head as much as she likes, but the fact is that with this announcement we have seen a huge transfer of wealth from polluters, who can do something to mitigate their emissions, to taxpayers, who cannot do anything to mitigate the emissions of the big polluters. I wonder how New Zealand will be able to hold its head up on an international stage, given how important it is that we maintain this “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. Under National it is only “10-20% Pure New Zealand”, based on this Government’s greenhouse gas target.

The Prime Minister is currently in New York, and he is holding talks around climate change. He is talking up the new Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. I am a big fan of anything that creates more work for scientists in New Zealand. Let us be honest: the United States takes science seriously. It has seriously invested in science. Minister David Carter stood up in the House today and went on about how great National has been for science in this area. I will correct that, and I will quote from someone who knows about this area, because I know National members will not take my word for it. I quote from the president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists. This is what she said after the Budget: “many of us may have heaved a sigh of relief that it was not as bad for science as it might well have been, given that it was coming from a National Government”. I think that is a fair comment. She said: “A modest increase—of 2.5% to Vote Science—appears good news on the face of it, until you look at other countries who have announced funding increases in science of 25% or greater based on recognition of the role that science plays in sustaining and enhancing a nation’s economic basis, and then you couple that with the huge cuts faced by education. Sadly, it does not seem that this Government believes that science is a lynchpin to sound economic growth. Considering the education cuts further, one can be left in little doubt that science and society will suffer, because what underpins science more than education … ?”. That follows on from what my colleague Trevor Mallard was saying yesterday in the House about the cuts to science advisers.

Mike Berridge, who is a well-known scientist for those who know the sector, said: “Recently, a current Minister of the Crown indicated that the RS&T portfolio was seen as a fun portfolio, grouping it along with sport and recreation, and the arts. God save our nation if science and innovation are not taken more seriously than pastime entertainment and recreation,”. I cannot agree with him more.

Today I would like to concentrate on what this Government is doing to see New Zealand through these very difficult times. But first of all I will spend some time telling the House how disappointed I have been on so many occasions lately, as we have had to listen to the misinformation and scaremongering from members on the other side of the House. Have we heard those members’ alternatives? We have heard some of them, and I might add that some of them have been quite ludicrous, but I will come to that in a moment. Have there been any concrete alternatives to getting New Zealand through this recessionary period, or any economic policies? No, those members have not been forthcoming, at all.

Right now New Zealanders are telling me, and all my colleagues as well, that they are focused on us and they want us to be focused on New Zealanders’ well-being, entitlements, health care services, and education, and on this economy growing and being sustainable. But New Zealanders are not actually seeing that focus from the Opposition. I am disappointed because right now New Zealand needs its members of Parliament to work together on some things, if at all possible, instead of indulging in this petty politics of envy. We have heard about welfare for millionaires. That was a really good idea of Phil Goff’s. He is backtracking on that one, but probably not fast enough, because the damage has been done. New Zealanders do not like the idea of millionaires getting welfare. We have heard about welfare for property investors. That was a bit of a coup as well. Goodness gracious me! It is hard to believe that Labour would back, on the front page of the paper, somebody who had so much property, yet it was feeding him the idea that he was entitled to welfare. Another idea was free condoms for all. We have heard some demeaning comments here. I am really sad to say that we have heard some demeaning comments from the Opposition today about that policy. We thought that Labour would maybe be giving out free condoms for the good of all, but, no, we had silly suggestions instead.

There is also a suggestion about raising the age of entitlement to superannuation. That was a scary thought, and it did not come from this side of the House. The Prime Minister has promised that superannuation entitlements will remain as they are, and so too will the age of entitlement. That suggestion came from Phil Goff. What a ghastly thought. We have also heard here today that New Zealanders are not putting their hands in their own pockets enough. We have also heard from other members of the House that businesses are not doing enough to raise wages. Well, hello! First of all, people have to earn something before wages can be increased. When I talk to business people in my electorate I give them a big pat on the back and shake their hands if they are paying tax because, quite frankly, this country needs more people who are successful enough to be paying tax. I can tell members that we need this Government’s movement through this recessionary period for that to happen.

This Government is focused on addressing the tough questions, taking the best possible steps to address law and order issues, and putting infrastructure in the places where there are gaps, because that has hampered New Zealand’s growth. Our reform of the Resource Management Act will go a long way, as will the second tranche of our reforms, to getting this country going, and it is only when this country is moving forward that we will move out of this. New Zealand got to the recession before most of the rest of the world. That was a sad indictment on the 9 years of squandering of the economic good times by the Labour Government. New Zealand got there first. How sad is that? I say thank goodness we have seen a slight change—a 0.1 percent change—in this last quarter. We need this country to turn round. But we cannot thank the previous Government for having achieved the best possible growth out of the economic good times that it had.

This Government is focusing on front-line services, the services that see social workers, doctors, teachers, and nurses delivering on the front line. It sees Work and Income’s front-office staff sending at least one in three of the people who come through its door to get an unemployment benefit back out the door and into a job. That is the good-news story. If Opposition members believe that we can be in a recession and not have an increase in unemployment, then they are in la-la land. It just cannot happen. Of course unemployment will rise. We are focusing on the younger people who are on unemployment benefits. There are nearly 17,000 opportunities for young people. This was decried in the House this afternoon during question time, but, truly, there are 17,000 opportunities for young people. That is not to be mocked. That is not to be scoffed at. There are job opportunities happening in my electorate of Rangitata.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.