General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Labour is rebranding. It used to be the “Tax and Spend Party”; now it is the “Tax, Spend, and Borrow Party”. I looked through the big list of qualities that it wants to attribute to the Labour brand, such as funky, cool, and—what else was there?

💬 Chris Tremain: Edgy.

💬 Hon Members: Retro.

There was edgy, retro, creepy—[Interruption] Boring, that is right—and intelligent. I did my own survey of members of the public. The one thing the public knows—and probably the only thing, because members of the public do not quite remember the name of the Leader of the Opposition and they certainly have never heard of the Opposition’s finance spokesperson—is that Labour wants to borrow money, and borrow big.

I have been looking at what Labour members say about their policy. Debt is a serious issue in New Zealand, and I will tell members why. There is any number of ways we can measure it, but let us take net debt. The dollar amount of net debt for the financial year ended 30 June 2009 was $17 billion; that was the Government’s net debt. By 2016 it will be $65 billion, and that is under the careful, considered management of this Government. It will go from $17 billion to $65 billion, and that sits alongside a broader picture for New Zealand where the total amount of debt owed by New Zealand—by Government, households, and businesses—in 2000 was $90 billion. New Zealand’s net debt today stands at $170 billion, and it was heading to $250 billion by 2014.

Why is that potentially a problem? We have only to see what is happening in world debt markets, as we speak, with regard to Greece. Who knows; Portugal may be next. We are entering a decade where Governments with high debt levels will be scrutinised more closely than at any time since before the Second World War as to what they are doing to make sure that the people who lend money will get it back. Greece is finding out that if a country does not do enough, people will stop lending to it and then it will have a real problem.

In that context, Labour’s brightest star—according to him—David Cunliffe, says that debt is not a big problem. What is more, he has backed up that assertion not just with poetry but also with policy positions. There is no doubt that the policy positions are pretty clear-cut. Labour wants to borrow a whole lot more money to put into the superannuation fund, to put back the research and development tax credits, and to make up for all the low-quality spending that we are shifting around. Labour has made its position on debt pretty clear. Labour does not think it matters much. Those members think it is fine to borrow a lot more, when borrowing is already going up far too fast. They simply do not care about the people who will come after them who would have to pay back $65 billion worth of the net debt that New Zealand would have.

But at least we know what Labour’s position is on debt—that is, borrow a lot more money. We have no idea what Labour’s position is on tax.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Nor do they.

And that is exactly the point. The reason it is hard for us to tell is that Labour does not know. GST is not a new subject. It has been kicking around for 9 months. Labour members’ position seems to be that they are against GST, but they cannot promise not to do GST because they are not sure whether they can carry out that promise.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Because they don’t know what they are doing.

Because they do not know what they are doing. They are worried that all their spending promises might need GST to pay for them. They are against GST, but they will not roll it back. But it is absolutely clear that Labour is in favour of borrowing more and more money.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, and happy Pink Shirt Day. It is a day when we focus on stopping bullying, so let us start with each other and the Earth. I hope that the Minister for Economic Development is not playing favourites when it comes to facilitating mineral exploitation. The Green Party was deeply worried this week after seeing the Minister on the Greenpeace video. It said that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has fallen for “sexy coal” and was losing interest in gold. Of course, it is pretty hard to tell because the Cabinet papers contradict the consultation document that the public is trying in good faith to respond to. Perhaps we need to communicate more deeply with our Prime Minister on this issue. I know he is getting quite a few letters on the subject.

How does the Prime Minister feel about gold bling? After all, it is shiny and popular, and one can access about a teaspoon of it for every tonne of earth dug up, crushed up, and then piped or trucked to a toxic waste dump. Then there is the acid mine drainage from the mines themselves, as well as from beneath any tailings dumps. This effect is not as pretty as gold, and the drainage is still leaching its orange toxic slime into the Hauraki Gulf from numerous small mine sites from 100 years ago. The Government has budgeted $17 million to try to clean up a small mine on Mount Te Aroha. The mine closed in the 1970s and is still leaching 5,000 kilograms of heavy metals per year into waterways and the Hauraki Gulf.

It is curious how the traditional goldmining areas have experienced a total collapse of their economies and have had to develop other, more sustainable industries. West Coast and Waihī streets should be paved with gold. Of all the towns in the Coromandel region, Waihī should be thriving on the vast profits and so-called sustainable jobs that Martha Hill mine and Favona underground mine have delivered to the citizens. It may surprise the advocates for so-called modern mining to realise that Waihī has just hit the bottom rung of the Ministry of Social Development’s deprivation index. It has slipped from level 9 last year to level 10 this year. I do not think that being literally at the bottom of the heap is that sexy for the people of Waihī, who have no higher education services after high school in their town and have high levels of drug, alcohol, and mental health issues.

But the people of Waihī have a tailings dump containing 40 million tonnes of toxic tailings, which are heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and mercury. The Waihī tailings dump is 300 times bigger than the Tui mine tailings dump, so just imagine what it could cost to clean up in 60 years’ time. Newmont Waihi Gold, which is an “ever-responsible” citizen, has put aside $10 million for the lucky local trust that will own this toxic dump when it has left town. This trust, which consists of tangata whenua and local authority people, will be responsible for any problems with water quality or dump collapse in the foreseeable future. That $10 million will not cover the scoping report let alone the clean-up of some of the drains and ditches polluted by that vast dump.

I say to the Prime Minister that gold is really sexy, is it not? Seventy-seven percent of the world gold resource above the ground is used in jewellery, and gold jewellery is the symbol of real value. When all those financial markets get shaky, which of course has nothing to do with greed and financial speculation, there is always gold. I ask the Prime Minister whose gold it is. Several hui this week with Hauraki tangata whenua raised the matter of their whakapapa, which connects them from the top of the sky to the centre of the earth in places where they hold mana whenua. Hence they state unequivocally that the Crown does not own the gold; in fact, the gold is owned by them. They have never received any royalties for that gold extracted in the previous goldmining days, and they will not be receiving any gold in the future. So if they say that the Crown does not own it, how can the Crown do a stocktake and sell it off? Not only is this a concern, but we are also concerned about the fact that the goldmining industry is being facilitated by a Government that does not understand even the real cost-benefit analysis. It has been happy to admit in this House that it never did a cost-benefit analysis of the real price of gold.

No wonder Labour needs to re-brand itself! We have heard reports on Labour’s very expensive, taxpayer-funded “Axe the Tax” bus tour. The Nelson Mail said: “Labour’s ‘Axe the Tax’ roadshow drew just a handful of supporters—mainly union representatives and party stalwarts”. The Taranaki Daily News reported: “Phil Goff was out and about in Taranaki yesterday—but the crowds weren’t.” No wonder Labour needs to use taxpayers’ money to re-brand itself! But it will all be a waste of money, because everybody still remembers Labour’s brand: tax-and-spend envy politics.

Let us look at some of that record. In 2000 Labour took office and immediately increased the top personal tax rate to 39c—an “envy tax” rate.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: How much?

It was 39c. For the next 5 years, while New Zealand was enjoying one of the best growth periods because of the world economic situation, Labour refused to cut tax despite the massive surplus. In 2005 Labour announced a “chewing gum tax cut”, only to reverse it in 2006. Finally, when it was staring at defeat in the general election, it grudgingly brought out a tax cut.

But Phil Goff, back to form, immediately announced that he will set up a top tax threshold to punish rich people. He will impose the highest income tax rate on people who earn over $70,000 a year. I thought that I had better find out who these rich people earning $70,000 a year and who drew the ire of Labour are. Apparently, they are 11 percent of our hard-working workforce. Let us look at those people. Those 200,000 workers include 8,000 teachers, 1,700 machine and stationary plant operators, 1,200 forestry and garden workers, and—guess what—4,000 labourers. Is that not incredible? Labour is not backing labourers. It is a waste of taxpayers’ money for Labour to try to re-brand the so-called Labour Party. Its members should just own up and be proud of their high-tax, envy-politics party.

It is such a privilege and a delight to be the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, because on the other hand our ethnic communities are hard-working, aspirational people. Every day I meet members of those communities, they walk up to me and tell me that the Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, and my Government are doing a very good job backing them wanting tax cuts as a reward for hard work. Ethnic New Zealanders are aspirational. They want to do better. They want to create wealth. They want to create jobs to contribute to this country of paradise. For a very long time ethnic businesses have concentrated their business dealings largely within their own communities. Now my good Office of Ethnic Affairs is championing the cause by providing a platform for our ethnic businesses to utilise their international relationships and their business skills to benefit New Zealand. The Office of Ethnic Affairs has hosted the ASEAN Business Forum.

What a wonderful couple of own goals from Bill English earlier today. First off, he said that New Zealand has too much debt, but today in question time he confirmed that the previous Labour Government had cut net debt to zero and it was only 5 percent when he took office. He has been in office for 18 months; New Zealanders think it is time that he grew up and took responsibility. Then he claimed that New Zealand was like Greece and Portugal. Well, talk about selling one’s own brand down the river as they are the most indebted countries in the OECD. New Zealand’s debt is only one-third of the average, so we cannot be the same as them. I say to Mr English that he should get his figures right. Then, to top it off, he said that Labour was fiscally profligate but that it would not promise to put down the rate of GST. Talk about a self-contradiction in one sentence. There were three own goals from Bill English before lunchtime.

The difference between our two parties is that Labour does not want New Zealand to be a raw-log economy. Labour does not want to see a country so dumb that it earns $14 billion from the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand, then mines its own national parks and drive away tourists. We do not want to see our primary industry, dairying, being sold off, paddock by paddock, to Fonterra’s competitors so that they can undermine Fonterra by getting their hands on the milk supply. Todd McClay, the rising star of the National Party, wrote in his column this week: “As a country we must be focused on tilting the playing field towards productive investment, exports, and new jobs. We need a balanced programme to achieve this… .” We agree, but what is the Government’s record? Do members remember the Job Summit? It produced—wait for it—a cycleway, which might get 200 jobs. What about the 9-day fortnight? It was such a miserable failure that the Government canned it in the middle of the recession. What about the rolling maul? That was a kind of Clayton’s plan—I say with no offence to Mr Cosgrove. It was a plan one has when one does not have a plan.

What about catching up with Australia by 2025? The plan was dead on arrival as soon as it left Don Brash’s hands. There is no target for 2025, 2020, or 2015, and not even 2010, because the Government does not talk about catching up Australia any more. Why not? It is because it does not have a plan. It is a Government adrift in a sea of focus groups and public relations spin. It is a Government led by a man who would sell his mother if he thought there were votes in it. It has a Minister of Finance with all the imagination of a Dipton farmer, the vision of a Treasury analyst, and the good judgment to claim housing allowances for both his houses at the same time. A series of short-term bits and pieces does not an economic plan make. That is why Exporter magazine said: “Just digging up raw minerals or growing a few more sheep isn’t going to get us to the high wage, high value economy that we need.” High-tech exporters are going broke while those guys are too scared to change monetary policy. Instead it drives them out of business with high exchange rates. The country’s leading sustainable businesses—the 100 percent plan—have been turned away by this Government, rather than it getting behind clean jobs and clean technology.

Ordinary Kiwis know in their guts that things have not been fixed. They feel increasingly insecure about their jobs and their families. Ordinary Kiwis know that if we are going to turn round this boat, we have to pay our way in the world economy. To do that, we have to fix the underlying triple deficit that is holding us back. New Zealand does not export enough, it does not save enough, and it does not innovate enough. That is the underlying problem with this economy, but Bill English does not get it. He thinks it is all about the Budget deficit, and his recipe for that triple deficit is just to cut, cut, cut social spending and hurt the most vulnerable New Zealanders. It is the wrong question; not only is it unfair but also it is bad economics because it does not go to the heart of the problem. Instead, this is a Government with no answers. It stands idly by while Kiwis borrow from overseas banks to bid up each other’s house prices. It watches while we paper over current account deficits by selling assets and building up long-term debt. It is a Government with no answers and no hope.

My friend, colleague, and bench mate David Cunliffe has outlined very clearly to this House the challenge this Government has presented to the country: the challenge of having a Government that has no plan, no ideas, no vision, and no action. The challenge for New Zealanders is getting harder every day.

In the health area every week we have further reports of new health cuts. Front-line health services are cut, patients are going without any services at all, and the Minister, who promised the country that no front-line health services would be cut, and who promised to move resources and health from the back room to the front line, now stands up in this House and washes his hands of all ministerial responsibility. I say to the Minister that if it is good enough to take the credit for the hard work that doctors and nurses and the health bureaucracy deliver around the country, then it is good enough to take responsibility when things go bad, and they are absolutely going bad in health.

This afternoon in the House I asked the Minister of Health about Bill English’s comment that the Government was going to cut low-value services. I asked the Minister of Health whether the 3,000 elderly people in Otago and Southland who have had their home support cut have been getting low-value services. Those services are not low-value to them. Those home support services provide 1½ or 2 hours of home help for older people in their own homes. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, this is in your very own part of the country—that great part of the country, Southland—and in your next-door neighbour, Otago. For those older people, those services are the difference between being safe and well in their own homes and having to move into a rest home. The Minister of Health has cut those services. He has cut home support for 3,000 people in that region of Otago-Southland.

In Nelson, where the Minister of Health’s bench-mate has been elected until the election next year, mental health services have been cut. It is very obvious to everyone that mental health is not an area where we have excess services. We do not have a lot of spare capacity in mental health; if anything, we need more resources and support going into mental health. In Nelson, those services have been cut.

In Palmerston North—and soon in Levin—for the first time that I can recall we have actually had nurses laid off. Nursing positions have been disestablished while those people are in their jobs. It is an outrage that the people in Levin who fought so hard to ensure that the services were retained in the Horowhenua Health Centre are now being told that all the work and all the commitment they put into getting a deal with the Government of the time is now being ripped up and thrown out. All that passion from the people of Levin, Ōtaki, Waikanae, and Shannon, and those surrounding areas has been thrown in the rubbish bin by Tony Ryall.

I tell members that things are going to get worse in the Budget next month. I have figures provided by the district health boards about what they expect their increases to be in the Budget this year. If we think it is bad now, wait until we see the Budget. In the last Budget Canterbury District Health Board got $51 million. It is expecting just over $36 million this year. That will not allow it to stay still, let alone offer any improvements. MidCentral District Health Board, in the area I have just referred to, is already cutting front-line health services, cutting nurse positions in Levin, taking away all the assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation beds at the Horowhenua Health Centre, and cutting out district nursing for terminally ill Palmerston North citizens. Last year it had an increase of $26.5 million; this year it will get $11 million. That is a cut, and Tony Ryall, the Minister of Health, will have to justify that. The South Canterbury District Health Board is just managing to hold things together in its area. There are 5,000 fewer people going through its emergency department. Last year it got an increase of just under $6 million. This year in the Budget it will receive an increase of less than $5 million.

The manifesto of the National Party should say health cuts, not health services.

John Key’s National-led Government is principled, pragmatic, and keeping its promises. What were those promises? They were promises that we would implement policies that offer a brighter and more prosperous future for all New Zealanders. That is in stark contradistinction, of course, to the late, unlamented, lacklustre, and lackadaisical Labour administration, which was an administration that recoiled from making decisions. It shrank away from the hard calls; to resile from meaningful action became its default position. It was the new black among the old reds, so often was it overcome with torpor, languor, and lassitude when hard decisions needed to be made. Somnolence and solipsism characterised its caucus. A hard decision or new idea was as rare as a spit roast at a vegetarian feast. They were as rare as a spit roast at a vegetarian feast.

It is a very similar situation today, in fact. That was then and this is now, and nothing has changed. As the French would say: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” There is a long legacy of 9 years of supervised neglect of New Zealand’s well-being, and of our nation’s prosperity and future. In a statement seemingly made from a parallel universe or, alternatively, from the vantage point of a separate reality—possibly from alongside Animal, Miss Piggy, or Kermit—just today on breakfast television the Hon Phil Goff reiterated that Labour would reverse any tax cut made by this Government in the forthcoming Budget. I say again that Labour would reverse any tax cut made by this Government in the forthcoming Budget. So, if perchance we should reduce the tax rate from 38c in the dollar to 33c in the dollar, Labour would raise taxes and take more money from hard-working New Zealanders. Labour’s mantra has never changed; Labour will raise taxes. As Churchill observed: “for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” If the previous Labour Government had any economic policy at all, it could be summarised as: “If it moves, tax it; if it continues to move, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidise it.”

John Key leads a Government that is, as I said, principled, pragmatic, and focused on finding solutions. What are some of these solutions? Some of them include a stocktake of New Zealand’s mineral resources. We have had hysterical grandstanding on this issue from members on the other side of the House, but let me say that a good housekeeper knows what is in the kitchen cupboard. As a boy from the Naki and a proud New Zealander concerned for the future of my children and the children of all New Zealanders, I offer my thanks to the perceptiveness and farsightedness of those people in the 1950s and 1960s who did a stocktake of the North and South Taranaki Bights, which enabled $2.8 billion from oil to come into our economy last year. It is the third leg in New Zealand’s major exports.

This Government is reshaping the mesh in many areas and at different levels. What are some of the other things we are doing, but which were ignored by the lacklustre previous administration? Of course, we are looking at benefit reform. National believes that a fundamental dignity and right of being is the ability to work. Our future-focused package aims to reform our welfare system by unashamedly putting the focus on work. How will we do that? We will bring in some part-time work-testing, and shift the focus on to what people can do rather than what they cannot do.

One would think that Labour was still in Government. Every Government speaker to date has spoken about what Labour is doing, not what National is doing. One would think Labour was still in Government. This Government has no plan and no idea, and, in fact, it does not know what it is doing. That is why it has to talk about Labour. People listening to this general debate will be very, very disappointed by the fact that National members refuse to talk about their own ideas. Why do they refuse? Because they are ashamed. We have just heard that a good housekeeper knows what is in the kitchen cupboard. The problem is that when National was last in Government it left the cupboard bare, so people know what they will get when they get National.

I will talk about and highlight a concern that is very dear to my heart, and that is what is happening within our whānau and our communities with our rangatahi. I am concerned about the lack of jobs for young people, and especially for Māori and Pacific youth out there in our communities. When we look around, in every community we see young people who are full of hope and creativity. They are looking for opportunities, but, sadly, this Government is letting them down. Māori youth unemployment has gone up, and that is a tragedy. Pacific Island youth unemployment has gone up, and that is a tragedy. Youth employment per se throughout the whole country has gone up, and I want to know what this Government is doing about it. It should be doing more.

In fact, while Government members are posturing on the other side of the House and talking about Labour, they should be being accountable to the many young people to whom they are promoting the politics of aspiration. When we look at the unemployment rate, we are concerned. In 2008, under Labour’s watch, unemployment was at 4.7 percent, and that figure has increased to about 7.3 percent under National’s watch. Currently 168,000 people are on the unemployment benefit.

💬 Sue Moroney: 168,000.

I repeat: 168,000. That is the highest it has been in 10 years, and it has occurred under National’s watch. Since National took office, unemployment has increased by a huge 54.7 percent, or 60,000 in the last eight quarters. Those figures represent people all over New Zealand, many of whom want to work, but the simple fact is that the jobs are not there. Why? Because the Government has no plan to grow the economy and create the jobs that are needed so that our young people and those who want work can get it. There are just not the jobs available. The Government should be doing more on that front. Government members should be telling the House their plan to grow the economy and create jobs, but, sadly, they do not. Instead, they quip at Labour as if it were still the Government, and they refuse the responsibility they currently have, which is to provide real opportunities and real jobs to the many young people who are out in our community. The Government is full of symbolism, but there is little action. It provides empty promises and hollow gains. That is what the Government is currently doing.

More important, the shocking numbers of young people who are unemployed in our communities are staying at school longer. That is the feedback we are given. But what those same communities will tell us is that even if young people stay at school longer, the reality is that we cannot pathway them into jobs in their communities, because the jobs are simply not there. We need better vision, better hope, and better opportunities at a community and provincial level. That is the type of feedback I get from schools in Morrinsville, Te Kūiti, Taumarunui, and Huntly. This Government should be doing more on that front.

We hear about Community Max as a Government response, but many of the providers who have gone into that initiative are saying that it is a short-term fix to a long-term problem. The real investment has to be into education and training for our young people. It is about building their career pathway and linking them to learning, opportunities for life, and better job prospects. But, again, we need a thriving economy with jobs out there so that the young people can get into them. Community Max is a short-term fix to the long-term problem of sustainable employment for our young people.

We hear about the Youth Guarantee and better transitioning of young people to training and employment initiatives, linking them up with business and tertiary education providers. Even in the linking up, provincial towns tell us that where transport is an issue, and where they have difficulty in transporting people 30 kilometres to get to where they need to, things are not working. This Government has done little.

This is my first contribution in a general debate. From time to time I will continue to express my views in this esteemed House. People in the Indian community have been telling me that they are fortunate to have the Hon John Key as the Prime Minister of New Zealand to take them through these difficult times. I tell this House that the Indian community is very happy with the change of Government. People feel more confident, safer, and more comfortable.

While I was interviewing young candidates to represent me in the Youth Parliament 2010, one entrant from Manurewa told me that she and her friends felt much more confident while walking back from school than they used to a few years ago. When I asked why that was, she said it was because she and her friends now encountered more police on the streets in South Auckland. She mentioned that the mere fact that people saw more police walking around neighbourhoods, and police cars driving around more frequently, made them feel safer, as they believed criminals would think twice. She also mentioned that her parents are more confident with the economic situation. They think that the country will improve significantly under this Government—more than it did under the previous Government. That seems to be the recurring theme when I speak with many Indian families.

I shall now talk about the small and medium sized businesses—the majority of which are dairies, liquor shops, petrol stations, and vege shops—that are owned by ethnic people who have migrated to New Zealand. We have a history of more than 120 years in this country. We started from cutting bush in the King Country and the Waikato region, but now we own businesses from dairies around the corner to multi-storey office buildings in the central business districts of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. When I talk to these people, they say: “Thank God Labour is gone!”.

We have had good times in the past, but opportunities have been lost. The previous Labour Government did not capitalise. The Opposition is talking about flawed tax policies by this Government, but the latest Roy Morgan New Zealand poll shows that there is no decrease in support for National and that the confidence rating is up by 6.5 points. Sixty-one percent of people think that the Government is going in the right direction. The Indian community is thus doing well on the economic front.

Another thing of importance to this community is education. Indians believe that education is the most important thing. It is something exceptionally important and valuable that no one can take away. This is why ethnic students do very well at schools and at university level. On this note, I inform members that the Indian community is very pleased with the introduction of national standards. They feel that they will be more informed and that their children will get a very good education. On my last visit to Papatoetoe High School, I was told by the principal that more than 40 percent of the students are of ethnic origin. In the upcoming Youth Parliament we will have seven youth of Indian origin and six from other ethnic backgrounds.

Unemployment among Asians is very low. That is because our community commenced by being employees and, gradually over the years, we have developed and expanded our horizons by buying small businesses. That is why so many small businesses are owned by members of the ethnic community.

As an incentive towards growing our economy, the Government will announce beneficial tax changes in the Budget, the outcome of which will be more jobs and higher incomes for families, especially those on lower and middle incomes; beneficiaries; and our senior citizens. Income tax cuts across the board will also generally bring about an increase in purchasing power, thereby improving the lot of our shopkeepers and communities as a whole.

Another thing that concerns our community is safety. The unfortunate deaths of Navtej Singh, the liquor shop owner, and Hiren Mohini, the taxi driver, struck fear into many taxi drivers.

Just 3 weeks out from the Budget there are clearly no plans or ideas from the Government benches. We are only 3 weeks out and all we are hearing is the Minister of Finance, Bill English, preparing this country for cuts. That is about as visionary as it gets from the opposite benches: preparing people for funding cuts in this Budget. That is what it is all about. New Zealanders are starting to ask themselves how that Government has got this country in such a big mess so quickly. Those members have hardly been on the Treasury benches, and suddenly we are facing big Budget cuts.

The other question people are asking—and Mr Quinn might want to listen to this—is why other countries are recovering much more quickly from the global crisis than New Zealand. That is the question that New Zealanders are asking as we lead into Budget 2010. The penny is starting to drop. New Zealanders are starting to work out that that Government has no plans and no ideas, and that everything it has done to date has actually put us in a worse position than we started from. Members should not forget that this country had 9 years in which a Labour Government ran surpluses. Even when that party was baying for tax cuts to happen, what did Labour say? It said no; they were going to save it for a rainy day. That rainy day arrived, and when it did, National was in Government. It has now put us in a very bad position, even though Labour had us in a position where we had saved for that rainy day.

New Zealand started ahead of the pack in the OECD when the global crisis hit, yet we are coming out at the end of it in a much worse position than when we started. Bill English and John Key have to stand up and be accountable for that, and in about 3 weeks’ time they will. What will their response be? It will be to cut funding. Which areas will funding be cut to? It seems in the last week we have learnt that it is early childhood education. Early childhood education was once a high priority for that Government. That is what John Key used to say. All of his speeches used to say that early childhood education is a high priority for the National Government. But suddenly that sentence has dropped out of all of his speeches, and what has it been replaced with? It has been replaced with Bill English saying that actually it is too costly. He says we spend far too much on early childhood education in this country, and something has to be cut. Well, that is the slippery slope for early childhood education.

There is no point in that Government going on about improving standards in education while cutting costs in the early childhood education sector. The Government keeps saying that it wants to improve participation in early childhood education, so how come this week Bill English is suddenly saying that he wants to contain costs? How on earth can that Government grow the sector and contain costs?

💬 Paul Quinn: Hell on earth will freeze over! That is the full saying.

I think Paul Quinn ought to be asking these questions in his caucus meeting. People in his area will suffer.

It cannot possibly be true that the Government will improve participation in early childhood education and contain costs, without the costs shifting to parents and to families. That will be round two of this Budget. We already know—it is already well signalled by the Government—that families will face increasing costs with GST. GST is going up 20 percent. There will be a 20 percent increase in terms of the taxation on everything families pay for. Now parents are starting to learn that they will face increasing costs in early childhood education, yet the Government will not come clean on it.

I do not think it is acceptable, 3 weeks out from the Budget, for the Minister of Finance to say that there will be cuts, but not to tell the country what those cuts will be. Families have to make decisions, and I do not think the National Government understands this. Every week in this country families make decisions about what they will spend their money on. Will it be the food bill? We know that that is increasing. GST will be up; the taxation is going up by 20 percent on every single food item. Will they put more money into the mortgage? Will it be the rent? [Interruption] I do not think they are even thinking about holidays under this Government. Every penny will count, and now they do not know what increasing costs they will be facing in early childhood education.

Boy, am I glad that I do not have that member managing my finances! The Labour Opposition’s definition of “saving for a rainy day” is $65 billion in the poop. Is that saving for a rainy day? No, that is not my definition of “saving for a rainy day”. We must earn before we spend—we must earn before we spend. Even my 11-year-old son knows that; he has been doing it since he was 4 years old. He has had to do his chores and earn pocket money so he could send it to his sponsored child since he was 4 years old. He knows that we must earn before we can spend. But Labour members do not seem to know that; they have forgotten it or they just do not get it. Saving for a rainy day is not being $65 billion in the red. They continue to want to borrow, and to spend big. To achieve that they want to have higher taxes and more debt, in order to spend big to win votes. That is the only reason for it.

I wonder whether individual members on the opposite side of the House are so irresponsible with their own finances. I doubt it. So what makes them think they can be irresponsible with this country’s finances? Labour would mortgage our families’ futures with a borrowing programme that would leave our children with a legacy of debt and deficits. New Zealand must realise that, and make sure that we never go back to that dangerous situation we have just managed to get ourselves out of that we call the 9 long years of Labour Government.

Today I will take a little moment to talk about the Korean people, and to bring a Korean perspective into the House. The history of Korean people in New Zealand is not as long as that of my colleague’s Indian community, which has been here for more than 100 years. Korean migration to New Zealand began only back in the 1980s, and now the population is about 40,000. The motivation, however, for moving to New Zealand has not really changed. Most Koreans in New Zealand have lived in Korea. They were born there, they had a professional busy life there, and they did not want for many things. But they had a desire for New Zealand and for what there was plenty of in New Zealand: clean air, wide open spaces, and a more relaxed lifestyle than what they had become accustomed to in Korea. When Koreans settled in New Zealand, however, families were separated. Often mums and children would live in New Zealand, but the fathers had to go back to Korea to work because they could not find jobs in New Zealand. I will address one thing that a previous speaker said. I think it was Nanaia Mahuta who asked what the National Government has done in terms of providing employment. I ask the Labour Opposition what it did, when it was in Government for 9 years, for those migrant communities whose members were leaving New Zealand, and for all of our young people who were leaving this country because they could not get jobs? Labour members talk big now that they are in Opposition, but they did nothing then.

A lot of Korean people are in small businesses, but some have contributed greatly to the New Zealand economy, even without any English and with a lack of New Zealand experience. The desire to achieve a better standard of living and a more prosperous, engaged, and active life is something that is very, very strong in the Korean community. Koreans are very excited that we have a John Key - led Government and that National is in Government, and they are very excited for New Zealand because they feel that New Zealand has finally become aspirational. Let me give the House an example of one of these people. John Chung is someone I do not really know very well, but I have heard about him over the years. Back in 2003 he purchased a Gisborne sawmill. The business was in receivership and had been closed down for 8 months, and all the workers had been made redundant. He re-employed 50 people who had been made redundant by the closure of that mill, and invested in and upgraded the facilities and machinery. Those improvements significantly improved the quality and quantity of wood that was produced, and Mr Chung successfully established a market overseas and sold 70 percent of his production offshore. He turned that company into a profitable one.

The whole House agrees that we need to grow the economy; the question is exactly how. We want a skilled labour force, we want an innovative economy, we want a knowledge-led economy, and we want something that is value-added rather than commodity-led.

In the last few days we have seen the real colour of this Government’s money when it comes to putting money behind research, development, and innovation. The Primary Growth Partnership is the flagship of the Government’s push for research behind agriculture and other commodities. But what do we find? After 18 months of this Government being in power, that partnership has yet to give out any money to AgResearch, to our Crown research institutes, or to our universities. Yes, we have given about $3 million or $4 million to the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, but we have not given anything else in that area.

It is the most vital area of New Zealand’s economy. How do we grow our economy? It is through research, through science, and through technology. The Government put up $30 million, which was to be matched by the business community: the business community is putting up $30 million in return. But no money has gone out; $60 million is sitting there waiting to be used and unable to be used. Can we imagine that situation in any other sector? Can we imagine it in the education or health sectors? Sixty million dollars unable to be used—what a complete waste! Andrew West from AgResearch said: “There’s been a lot of talk about extra money in the last few years but there’s been no serious allocation from the Primary Growth Partnership”. The article continues: “Jobs will also go”—he is talking about the jobs that have just gone in the wool and meat area—“in dairy foods, food safety, parasitology, reproductive biology, developmental biology, protein structure, biomembranes and bioprocessing.”

This is an appalling state of affairs. This area is where New Zealand earns its living. It is where New Zealand has the competitive edge; it is where New Zealand is able to make its way out there in the world. What is the impact of that, and of other cuts? Last week we lost 36 jobs in AgResearch. They were in the wool and meat industry areas. The wool industry, a $700 million industry, now does not have the research it needs in order to grow that industry. Elizabeth Tennet of Textiles New Zealand says: “It’s not good enough to say because farmers voted down their wool levy, this justifies destroying the innovation and research and development in the wool industry in which New Zealand has been a world leader. Anyone can cut and burn, it takes leadership to build.” It takes leadership to build. We have heard a lot today from the John Key - led Government about John Key’s leadership. But in this vital area we have seen the wool industry left stranded without the research and development that it needs in order to develop. The future of the wool and garment industry requires and relies on innovation, design, and branding, and on marketing our natural, “clean, green” image, as Elizabeth Tennet states. It relies on developing the quality textiles, carpets, and lifestyle products that we are becoming famous for. That has gone. It has disappeared as a result of Government cuts, the Government’s inability to stand up and lead, and its inability to put money behind the wool research that AgResearch desperately needs.

The Government’s research effort has no leadership, no plan, and—we are about to see—no money. We can contrast that with the Fast Forward Fund, which the previous Labour Government put up in its last year of office. It was $700 million that was transferred into the Government coffers. It was no fiction, unlike what Mr English likes to point out; the fiction is the Primary Growth Partnership.

What an enjoyable debate this has been, over the last hour or so! I have been listening to members from both sides of the House. I can sum it up pretty quickly. On this side of the House there is direction, confidence, and a plan for action. On the other side of the House—well, we will come to that in a moment.

Members opposite are very, very confused, are they not? We have heard members opposite talk about tax, spend, and borrow. That is all they have for the New Zealand public. After 9 years in Government we are still hearing the same old thing—tax, spend, and borrow. Of course, we did hear about the re-branding that Labour is going through. Not only is it about going out and listening to everyday New Zealanders; it is also about re-branding. How do Labour members want to brand themselves? They want to be funky and they want to be cool. There is a bit of metro in there, and certainly a lot of retro. They said they needed to be creative as well, but they left out the words “desperate” and “lost”. After the results of the last poll I see a bit of depression amongst them, and certainly they look a little bit sad.

What we get from members opposite is “borrow big and hope for the best”. If they ever found their way back into Government, their “borrow big and hope for the best” strategy would lead to bankruptcy—not just for everyday New Zealanders but for the Government’s accounts. The poll results of the last few days tell us that New Zealanders recognise that fact, but the last people in this country to work that out are the members opposite. Long may that continue, I suggest to them.

I want to talk for a moment about taxes. As I said, Labour members have said that if Labour came back into Government it would raise taxes and borrow more. No amount of cosmetic surgery can hide the fact that Labour’s reckless economic policies are stuck desperately in the past. But I will give Labour a little bit of credit where it is due. Labour has a twin-pillars policy for the economy—that is, more debt and higher taxes. I say to the House, and to anybody else out there who may be listening, that if Labour came back into Government it would put taxes back up.

In Labour’s 9 years in Government it promised to give tax cuts. It did not deliver, although it gave us the “chewing gum tax cut”, which was enough to buy some chewing gum. But then it took that tax cut away, as well. At the very end of its 9 years, when the last bit of life was almost dragged out of the old dog, almost at its very death, it gave us a tax cut, but that was too little, too late. The Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, and his finance spokesperson would mortgage our families’ futures to pay the bills—it is all about borrowing.

After 9 years in Government Labour was dragged, kicking and screaming, into giving tax cuts. Members opposite have reverted back to type extremely quickly, and they are calling for taxes to be increased. On Breakfast this morning the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, said that Labour would reverse any tax cuts that the National Government delivered. I repeat that Labour would reverse any tax cuts that the John Key Government delivers. It would leave GST at 15 percent and would continue to borrow. What a strategy! What a policy for disaster!

Earlier in this debate Pansy Wong spoke about ethnic New Zealanders. She said they are aspirational. The ethnic New Zealanders in my electorate are aspirational, and the polls show us that that is the case. She told us that ethnic New Zealanders want to do better, they want tax cuts, they want a fairer society, and they want rewards for their hard work. They are getting that from this Government, and the polls are telling us that things are very good for the Government.

Cam Calder also spoke about the previous Labour Government. He was right in part, but I want to correct him slightly. He said that if something moved, Labour members taxed, if it continued to move, they regulated it, and if it stopped moving—well, he was wrong. If it stopped moving they gave it welfare. There was a lot of stoppage in our country over those 9 years. This Government is focusing on what New Zealanders can do, not on what they cannot do. We are backing everyday New Zealanders and helping them to get on with their jobs.

Kanwaljit Bakshi spoke about the Indian community in New Zealand. He said they feel they have a secure future. They are confident in John Key and our Government. They recognise that we have done a lot of work in the area of law and order. They know we will do a lot more. They are confident that the economy and the economic future of New Zealand will get better. Mr Bakshi quoted them directly. They said: “Thank God Labour is gone.”, and, by golly, it has gone.

I want to talk for a second about Labour’s “Axe the Tax” bus trip. Phil Goff used taxpayers’ money to drive all over the country in a big red bus, and the slogan was “Axe the Tax”, but it should have been “Keep the Tax”.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.