General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I first acknowledge the people of Christchurch, and the difficulties they are experiencing in the face of continuing aftershocks. At times like these, the public look to their leaders for assurance that these challenges are at the front of their minds. This is where I neatly segue into my next point, which is that that is why I was perplexed to hear Phil Goff on the radio this morning defending his leadership over the handling of the Darren Hughes issue. I suppose that “proactive” is one word to describe this approach. But it demonstrates two things. The first is that Opposition members do not know what is on the top of the New Zealand public’s mind, and the second is that Phil Goff does not know what sort of leader he should be. Trevor Mallard seems to me to be quietly hitting his stride in recent days—and I will come back to that shortly. He is looking just a little bit more comfortable in his skin.

Phil Goff, in the first 2 years of his leadership, struggled to get control over his caucus, and I can think of several examples of that. In June 2010 Raymond Huo blogged about China freeing Tibet from the notoriously cruel system of serfdom imposed by the Dalai Lama, despite having earlier travelled to China, with Mr Goff, where Labour’s stance on Tibet was made clear. In July 2010 Steve Chadwick proposed, without checking with the caucus, a new law to legalise abortion on request for women up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. Winnie Laban accepted a job at Victoria University before she told Phil Goff. Ross Robertson announced in January 2011 that Labour’s new top tax rate would kick in at “less than the top rate in Australia”—the rate there is 45 percent—despite Mr Goff stating that the figure and threshold had not yet been decided.

But then there was a change. Mr Goff decided a new approach was required—after 30 years in the House he is nothing if not a quick learner. He turned the tables on his caucus by unilaterally declaring that he will not work with Hone Harawira. Why the change? It is because the leadership aspirants are already marking their run-up. Grant Robertson is being constantly compared to David Lange—mostly by himself—and it reminds me of those annoying people who invent nicknames for themselves.

But then there is the mystery of why Trevor Mallard spoke on behalf of Labour at a press conference, leaping over David Cunliffe, David Parker, Ruth Dyson, Clayton Cosgrove, and Maryan Street, who, although not as senior as Trevor Mallard, are ranked ahead of Trevor Mallard. Dare I say that he looked authoritative and authentic? I have to say that he started to look just a little bit like a future Leader of the Opposition.

In an odd way, Mr Mallard’s accident has liberated him from the important business of pushbikes so that he can focus on his hobby of politics. It seems to me that he has come back far more comfortable. While others on the front bench were starting to squirm, looking down during the Budget debate and not paying attention to what their leader was saying, Mr Mallard was busy sitting there looking content and at ease. I am sure it was not actually the bike accident that has brought about this change—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it was the drugs afterwards!

It was not the drugs afterwards, I say to Mr Mallard. He is looking in control, energetic, authentic, not doing too much too early but playing the long game—a very long game. This man knows that if he can just wait Phil Goff out, the opportunities to take back the reins are there for him.

I think Trevor Mallard has found his mojo in recent weeks. I think Trevor Mallard knows that it is only a matter of time before that long ambition he has held will come to realisation as Mr Goff stumbles from the mistake to mistake, accident to accident, and misspeak to misspeak. We know that those around Mr Mallard—look, they are already coalescing around him in that corner—know that power is where power lies, and they know that Mr Mallard is on the rise. He is a young man at heart with a lot yet to offer. If the gossip I am hearing in the corridor is anything to go by, he is a man with quite a promising future—unlike the current Leader of the Opposition.

Before I begin, I join the Hon Simon Power in expressing my deepest sympathy for the people of Christchurch in this really trying time. I was in Christchurch on Monday when the big earthquakes hit and it was a pretty unsettling experience. But today I want to speak about the follow-up from Pink Shirt Day. I notice that the Hon Simon Power is again wearing pink and it really states his commitment to stamping out bullying wherever it should occur. Members from most parties joined me in April in wearing pink shirts to take a stand against bullying wherever it should occur. But I am particularly concerned about the experience of young gay, lesbian, and transsexual people, particularly in schools. The Youth’07 survey, a major survey of the health status of young people in this country, found that that group of young people was three times more likely than their heterosexual peers to experience bullying. Recently two organisations, Rainbow Youth and Q-Youth, took the initiative of encouraging young people, especially, to write to the Prime Minister about their experience of bullying or to express their concern about the issue. As a number of them copied their letters to the Prime Minister to me, I know that that some of those letters were extremely good.

Over 3,000 letters were sent to John Key, and I express my thanks and appreciation to the Prime Minister for his subsequent action of agreeing to meet with representatives of those two organisations to hear their follow-up concerns about the issues. I have been heartened by that and was particularly pleased by the comments of those organisations that they felt that they had a good hearing from the Prime Minister.

As an adult gay man and someone who came out early in the 1970s, my observation would be that my life in these days now is immeasurably better than the life I would have led as an adult gay man in the 1970s. But recently I have been saying that for the young person, the 14-year-old boy, who is just starting to realise his difference now, that person’s experience is not greatly different from the experience I had in the 1970s. When I think about it, that young person, that 14-year-old, still lives with expectations from all around them—from their family, from their school, from wider society, from their friends—that they will, in fact, be heterosexual.

That experience is still pretty tough, and when I speak to young gay, lesbian, and transsexual people nowadays and ask them where their role models are, actually there are precious few. They can name for me Ellen DeGeneres, the TV show host. There is a character in the television programme Glee. Every now and again Shortland Street has a gay or lesbian character. Usually they are in the story for a little while and then they get killed off at the end of the season, or move away to Australia, or something like that. The role models that are accessible and available to those young people are pretty few and far between, as well.

It is simply not good enough. The reality is that the feelings of fear and isolation experienced by those young people lead in turn to damaged self-esteem, and that psychosocial risk factor itself leads to a real risk of plenty of health concerns and other consequences. It underpins, for example, drug and alcohol abuse, it underpins the risk of depression, and it underpins the risk of suicide. That same survey, Youth’07, found that the rates of suicide attempts amongst gay and bisexual young people were five times those of their peers. That is simply unacceptable, and I am certainly looking forward to the Prime Minister’s programme of change to counter those issues.

The thoughts of all of us are with the people of Christchurch. It is very frustrating that so many people’s properties have suffered further damage. Many people are back to square one and are now faced with the task of cleaning up and starting all over again. Once again we witnessed the courage of the people of Christchurch and Lyttelton. For every picture of destruction that we see on our televisions, we also see people helping neighbours, cleaning up, and getting on as best they can with their lives. Unfortunately, both cathedrals and the Arts Centre of Christchurch have sustained more damage this week, and very, very sadly the Lyttelton Timeball Station is in total ruins. Some people who were working on heritage buildings were injured on Monday, and we are all very, very grateful that no one was killed.

This Government is 100 percent committed to Christchurch. On top of the billions of dollars that we have committed to rebuilding Christchurch, it too will benefit from the plans laid out in Budget 2011 for a strong, growing economy, a return to surplus, and getting on top of national debt. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are tackling the serious issues of our times that face our country, and these are indeed serious times. But wherever we look, it seems that some parties are just not interested in grappling with these serious issues. Former justice Minister Annette King was last seen engaging in what young folk call a flame war with New Zealand’s top blogger, David Farrar, and the MP for Hutt South is currently training for a cycle race against another blogger. This follows a war of words last year between senior Labour and Green MPs about who unfriended whom on Facebook. They say people find their own level in life. Well, these folk have certainly found theirs.

Last month Chris Hipkins tried to smear the Prime Minister with the scoop that two separate legal entities both had the letters “BMW” in their names. Well, “NCIS Rimutaka” this was not. It seems that Pete Hodgson has bequeathed to Chris Hipkins his filing cabinet of unsolved cases, including old carpet and curtain cleaning bills, the secret of the H-Fee conspiracy, and the possible whereabouts of the “Ashburton Panther”. This is Opposition in a nutshell. Labour is the “Yahoo Party”, the “Once-Over-Lightly Party”—it is not the “Serious Party”.

The Greens recently pulled their “Gone off Phil Goff” ads from the internet. Russel Norman said they were an unauthorised experiment by one of the Greens’ campaign team. The obvious question is how one can have an unauthorised decision in a party where everything is done by sharing, caring, and consensus. But, more likely, the Greens’ focus group suggested that just like Labour voters, none of the Greens’ supporters knew who Phil Goff was.

My message to the Labour Party today, to those in Labour who are serious about politics, is to stop the rot. Take back control of the once-great party of Peter Fraser—although if Peter Fraser were alive today, he would be a member of the National Party. The truth is that they have already gone off Mr Goff in Labour. The truth is that his successors in Labour simply do not have the nerve to topple him before the election. Safe in their high places on the list, they are happy to see people like my friend Mrs Chadwick, at No. 35 on the Labour list, take the fall when the votes are counted. To paraphrase John Milton’s Paradise Lost, Mr Robertson, Mr Cunliffe, and Mr Jones have decided they would rather rule in Opposition than serve in Government.

I too would like to add my words of concern and express the fact that my heart goes out to the people of Christchurch as they wrestle yet again with more damage and disruption. I would also like to pay a tribute to Kevin Hague for his speech a few moments ago, which I endorse completely. I thank him for bringing that subject to the House.

Today I want to talk about the fact that families are cracking under the strain of increasing prices and the increasing cost of living in New Zealand. The cost of fresh fruit and vegetables has gone up by 17 percent between May 2010 and May of this year—17 percent. It is 16.9 percent to be accurate, as I do not wish to exaggerate. People are not getting ahead under this Government. They are falling behind. I am doing a cost of living survey in Nelson at the moment. People are quick to fill it out. They want the Government to know how hard they are finding things. They want the Government to say what its plans are for relief from these incessant increases in everything that people require to provide for their families, from food to fuel. Let me give the House some of the results to date out of the returns on my cost of living survey. In Nelson 88 percent say that their household income is more stretched than it was 3 years ago, 60 percent have put off visiting a doctor because of the cost, 82 percent expect stronger action by the Government on rising power prices, 79 percent worry about whether they can save anything for their retirement, and 93 percent think the Government is out of touch on cost of living issues.

Let me quote a Nelson resident who responded to a Facebook entry of mine recently—and there is a place for Facebook, despite Mr Finlayson’s condescension. She said “I haven’t been to the doctor for over a year, as my husband has to go a lot. We cannot afford for both, and I should be going every 3 to 6 months. It’s funny because people say we must spend our money on junk and going out all time. I don’t remember the last time we went out. My hubby and I talk a lot about how things used to be before the Nats got their way. We had sort of a life. You know when the costs get bad when your kids are asking to buy the things we used to buy. Why don’t we do the things we used to do?”. The Government is certainly out of touch with this Nelson family’s situation, and there are plenty more people where they come from.

Let us look at the distribution of food parcels in Nelson, which is a place most people associate with sunshine and an abundance of good primary food products. In March of last year 168 food parcels were distributed; in March of this year 247 were distributed. In April of last year it was 148 food parcels; in April of this year it was 213. In May of last year it was 181 food parcels; in May of this year it was 223. Families are going backwards under this Government. This is nothing short of scandalous. The Government thinks Labour’s policy promise to take the full 15 percent of GST off fresh fruit and vegetables is comical. I tell this House that that will make a difference to the family I have just quoted. It will make a difference to families like them. This Government is, in fact, making no effort for hard-working families who are struggling to get by. It has given the lion’s share of the tax cuts to the wealthy, while constantly cutting away at middle and low-income Kiwis. There is no point in Government members saying they gave tax cuts to low and middle income earners, beneficiaries, and superannuitants. All of those people know that their tax cuts were gobbled up by the increase in GST.

There is no plan to contain power prices. The Government simply wants to sell off power companies so that we have no levers to use to get power prices down. There is no plan to create jobs. There is simply the repetition of a number in the Budget. There is no plan and no demonstration about which sectors of the economy will be used to provide these jobs. There is no plan to improve New Zealanders’ standards of living. There is no vision for a better New Zealand. The Government is working for its wealthy friends and for foreign interests, not for hard-working Kiwi families. That is why this Government has to go in November.

Like other members in this debate this afternoon, I also acknowledge the pain, suffering, and loss in Christchurch. On behalf of the ACT Party, I say we should not lose sight of the fact that we have now had the third $1 billion - plus earthquake in Christchurch in the last 8 months. Tragically, another life was lost as a consequence of the most recent earthquake.

We face serious times—we face very serious times. How interesting to be reminded of that by the Hon Christopher Finlayson this afternoon. He talked about the serious times we face, and he talked about the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister addressing those. Well, I am pleased they are, Mr Finlayson, because you certainly were not. All you could do—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members do not refer to “you” doing this or “you” doing that.

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I say this country is in serious difficulty, and what have we had today? We had an attack on the Labour Party. What this Government should actually be doing is addressing the serious issues.

We cannot afford to overlook the fact that we have a deficit of $16.8 billion—$16.8 billion. We are borrowing over $300 million a week. I do not know how many times the ACT Party needs to remind the people of New Zealand that we are in a very serious situation. What will it take? What will it take, I ask Mr Finlayson—a fourth earthquake, a fifth earthquake, or a sixth earthquake?

Last week in question time I asked the Minister of Finance about the Government’s rosy forecasts. The Government is forecasting to get the deficit back under control by 2014, and it does that based on growth of 4 percent and 3 percent in 2013 and 2014. That is based on forecasts by Treasury that have been shown to be grossly over-optimistic over the last 6 years.

In the House this afternoon we heard Louise Upston, who has put out a press release in the last month pointing to the massive increase in early childhood education funding. She pointed out that despite massive investment—an increase from less than $500 million to $1.2 billion—we have seen an increase in the participation rate in early childhood education of less than 1 percent. When we questioned the Minister of Education in the House this afternoon, what did she say? She said she was setting up a task force. She is setting up a task force. It has taken 2½ years to set up a task force. Rome is burning while Nero fiddles. Rome is burning. New Zealand is in a serious situation while John Key and the National Government are simply painting. The reality is that we actually have to address these serious issues.

We have to address these serious issues. We have a deficit of $16.8 billion this year, which looks to be just under $10 billion the following year, and we will not be back to breaking even until 2014. We have to look at how we can better target the $1.2 billion to be spent on early childhood education. Why, for example, did it take until this year’s Budget to reduce the massive subsidies on KiwiSaver? Yes, the KiwiSaver scheme is good, but it is taxing low-income earners—the people who can least afford to contribute, and who can least afford to get those subsidies. It is a tax on low-income people to subsidise those who can afford to save.

I could say the same thing about interest-free student loans. John Key called that policy a massive bribe prior to the 2005 election. What has National done about it? Basically, it has done stuff-all. It has cut back the entitlement for trainee pilots who want to learn to fly. It has said that those who go overseas and move out of the system have to start paying interest after not 3 years but 1 year.

We need to look at how we can better target Government expenditure. How do we actually grow the economy? How do we actually grow the jobs that our party keeps referring to? We need to reduce taxes, we need to get Government expenditure under control, and we need to provide incentives. We need to provide incentives to grow the economy, for people to work, and for people to save.

We heard this afternoon from Maryan Street about the cost of living. I say good on her for raising the cost of living. She said people are concerned about the price of electricity. It is a pity she did not also tell people this afternoon that her Government passed an emissions trading scheme that will subsidise foresters to plant trees, to the extent of $350 million a year. That is not subsidising foreign investors, and that is not subsidising the wealthy, I tell Maryan Street. That is subsidising people who will plant trees, and every New Zealander pays for that in massive electricity price increases.

A number of members from various political parties have spoken very eloquently and sincerely about the aftershocks, and there is no question that everybody’s heart is with the people of Canterbury. But, of course, one also thinks about the economic consequences of these great natural disasters. I would like to make the very obvious point in regard to our No. 4 trading partner, Japan, and our No. 1 trading partner, Australia, that they too have seen the huge economic consequences of their own tragedies not just in appalling human terms but also in economic terms. In Australia we have just seen the worst GDP quarterly output figures for 20 years as a consequence of the floods and the tornadoes.

Unquestionably these great acts of God can influence the real economy, and we are very conscious of that. But at the end of the day the question remains of whether we have got ourselves on to a pathway where, structurally, we can look forward with a certain degree of optimism to our future. In my view the answer to that is unquestionably yes. The foundations, in spite of these shocks, in spite of the global financial crisis, are being laid, as Mr English has pointed out on numerous occasions, for a more sustainable growth trajectory for New Zealand: one that is not based on debt-fuelled consumption or on structural Government programmes that support unsustainable jobs and wealth creation but on a true basis of reinforcing the competitive strengths of the New Zealand traded sector and earning our way in the world. That is the basis of the policy structures we are putting in place, and that is why I believe New Zealanders should have confidence that we are on a trajectory to a sustainably more secure future.

Could we get back to surplus faster than the projections that we have on the table? Yes, of course we could, but that would require a far faster and far more brutal adjustment by firms, by farms, by households, and by the Public Service to the circumstances I have outlined. So we have taken deliberate decisions. I do not think we have taken unreasonable decisions. Some of those decisions have been quite tough but we now have a pathway to get New Zealand back on to a sustainable trajectory that I think people should have great confidence in. We have taken reasonable but balanced positions and, in the process, maintained welfare programmes to support those in difficulty, and we have fully compensated people on superannuation for the structural tax changes.

Once again we have just heard in question time, as we hear every question time, attempts to find one individual or one company in hard times. Out of 4.5 million folk one can always find a case study to wave in front of people, but the reality is that we have to advance our society using measures that look at averages. What we know is that in terms of the direct impact on the pocket, in the 9 years to September 2008 for the after-tax average real wage—that means adjusted for inflation—we saw a 4 percent increase over 9 years. We have more than doubled that, as there has been a 10 percent increase since September 2008. So although there will, of course, always be folk who for their set of individual reasons get themselves into trouble, and we all feel for them, the reality is that the position of New Zealanders has, on average, advanced more than twice as much in little over 2½ years as occurred in the entire 9 years of Labour.

In the meantime we are proceeding with a structural agenda of reform that will build that sustainable economic future. We had a concerted attempt to get better value for money out of our public services. The days have gone when truckloads of money would arrive through the front door of Government agencies for which there was very little accountability—as long as it had the right label, it got a big tick. We are now starting, in a very reasonable way, to advance our agenda.

I join my colleagues from around the House in paying my condolences to the people of Christchurch for what they continue to endure, to all the workers in Christchurch who are helping those families, to all the volunteers who are heading there again—I see that Federated Farmers and the student volunteers are arranging to go back—and also to our Christchurch colleagues from all around the House, who I know are working very hard to make sure that their constituents are looked after as best as they possibly can.

That contribution from the Hon Tim Groser was extraordinary.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It was great, wasn’t it? I agree.

Jonathan Coleman says that it was great, but I say that it was very telling. If there was ever a demonstration of just how out of touch this Government is on the cost of living and its impact on Kiwi families, it was that speech. What a load of bureaucratic gobbledygook! While he stands there talking about structural imbalances and unsustainable requirements, people cannot put food on the table, they cannot keep a roof over their heads, and they cannot buy for their children what they could have bought 3, 4, or 5 years ago. That is the reality. Maybe if National Ministers and our Prime Minister visited a food bank once in a while, we would not continue to be subjected to these offensive speeches that say that it is all the fault of the unemployed that they are unemployed, and that the Government will just bring in tougher welfare measures, because what those people need is a kick in the pants. That is what Paula Bennett and John Key have said, instead of accepting the reality that for 2½ years our Government has done nothing.

Our Government has no plan for dealing with the recession. Our Government has no plan for helping families cope with the spiralling cost of living. I thought it was very interesting when the member talked about averages and the average wage. The reason that the average income has gone up is because poor people have lost their jobs and wealthier people have become even wealthier. That is why the average has gone up, but National members continue to defy the laws of mathematics. When Labour was in Government we had, at one point, the lowest rate of unemployment in the world. That meant that a number of people came into the workforce, and a lot of them were on low incomes in lower-paid jobs. So we had more people employed. They had jobs, but, yes, the average wage was slightly lower because so many more people were employed and a lot of them were on low incomes. National members are now saying: “Let’s just get all low-income people out of work.” I think we are now seeing the plan—we are seeing the plan.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Just leave John Key with a job.

That is right. If the only person in New Zealand who had a job was John Key, then our average wage would be in the millions—the tens of millions. So that is National’s plan, and it worries me deeply that National members continue to stand up and say that this is a good thing whilst ignoring the fact that more and more New Zealanders are unemployed, and more and more New Zealanders cannot cope with the current cost of living.

Tim Groser said that Labour can always find a case study to wave around. I could find thousands of case studies to wave around; I actually visit my food banks and my budget advisory services. When it comes to the budget advisory service in Gisborne, I tell members that it is so overrun at the moment that staff are having to meet people in the hallway. It does not have enough space in its offices to meet people because of how difficult it is, and because of some of the changes that the Minister has made, which are just ridiculous and which have no extra funding. The Minister promised all that extra funding, but the budget advisory service has not seen any yet.

I want to tell members about one case I heard, which I thought really summed up how dire things are for so many of our families. This is the case of a solo mother in Gisborne. Work and Income made an error and put more money into her account than she was entitled to. In a rush of blood to the head—and she should not have done this—she went out and spent the money. She then came back to the budget advisory service in tears, saying that she knew she would have to pay back the money. She was upset about what she had done but it was not often that she had had money in her account, at all, and she acknowledged that she had made a mistake. The service managed to sort that out and someone went around to see her. Do members know what she had spent that extra money on? It was on non-perishable food. She had stocked her pantry. She did not spend the money on alcohol or cigarettes, as National members would have us believe, and she did not spend it on going out. She saw an opportunity, for the first time, to fill her cupboards with non-perishable food. When food becomes a luxury in New Zealand, that is a sad, sad day.

I join with colleagues in extending my condolences to the people of Canterbury at this time. It is a very tough period that people down there in Christchurch and Canterbury are going through, and, as the Prime Minister said on Monday, the New Zealand Government and members right across the House are firmly behind them. That city has a great future and will be fully supported by this Government.

Is it not great to have New Zealand’s favourite political punching bag, Phil Goff, back in the country, fresh back from “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, where—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to that reference to a member’s family.

There was no intended reference to a member’s family, and that member knows that that was not intended.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: My concern about this is that I do not want to be endlessly ruling out things. I did not believe that it was a nasty comment. Well, I hear plenty of—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Keep families out of it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think we must come to it. It is my fault that we have got to this stage, and I think it is good advice that families should be kept out of it. That is good advice, and I ask the member to do that.

Families were never included in that comment, quite frankly. It is great to have the favourite punching bag back in the country. The first thing he had to do when he got back here was to start explaining his handling of recent political affairs. Explaining is losing, and that is what he has had to do. Phil Goff has the survival instincts of a lemming and the hunting instincts of a sheep. We had a fantastic zero Budget—the first ever—and all Phil Goff could do was leave the country. As soon as he got back, he had to start explaining. This is a man who cannot ram home a political point.

The guys on the other side of the House think they are in touch with New Zealand. I can tell the House where I think the Labour Party has gone wrong. These members are no longer representative of what they take as their core constituency. I ask the members over there to show me who has ever dug a drain, driven a bus, or worked full-time in a shop. They have not. There are teachers, union hacks, and activists. There are two business people sitting over there, but the point is that if they think they are in touch with the people in west Auckland, the Hutt Valley, or Porirua, then they are sadly mistaken. That is where the Labour Party has gone wrong. The good news is that there is absolutely no respite for Labour members. I think they will be in that situation for a long, long time. The faces are down there. I do not think the next Labour Prime Minister is even in Parliament, quite frankly.

Moana Mackey made some points before. She thinks that by going on and on and saying that there is no plan, the public of New Zealand will believe her. I can say that I do not think that list MP, a person without constituents, can understand what is happening out there in New Zealand. New Zealanders get it. They know there is a difficult financial situation that this Government has had to deal with. As my colleague Tim Groser said, we have had to make some real changes that will be better for the long-term future of New Zealand.

If members want something to sum it up, I tell them that next year we are halving the deficit, the year after that we are halving it again, and then it will be gone. By 2014 three countries in the Western World will be back in surplus. It will be us, Australia, and Korea. If Labour gets in, I can tell members that it will continue to roll out the unfunded promises and it will continue to borrow. The borrowing will be higher, the debt levels will be higher, and our children will be paying for it forever.

I hope Phil Goff learnt one thing in Greece. He might have learnt—because he is very much influenced by the last person he talks to—that borrowing and borrowing and never paying back the debt does not work. It does not work. At the end of the day, it means that countries go bankrupt.

If one looks at a financial illiterate like Trevor Mallard, who, criminally, was an Associate Minister of Finance—if that man ever gets his hand on the books again—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not going to have “criminally” used in relation to a member. The member needs to be more cautious than that.

I think you will appreciate the subtlety of that term. I was not suggesting that despite being—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second time you have ruled against that member and he has commented on your ruling. You know that that is against the Standing Orders, and it lacks a bit of taste, as well.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We do not need that. The member’s point of order was fine until that last point. The member should not be commenting on a ruling. I accept that there may be different contexts of referring to another member behaving criminally, but it is simply not allowed in this House to refer to another member behaving in that way, and the member must not comment on that.

Sometimes there is a point in distinguishing between the metaphorical and the literal, but what is literal in this case is that Labour does not have a plan to get New Zealand out of debt.

💬 Hon Members: Ha, ha!

It does not. If it does, let the next Labour speaker get up and lay it out. It has to be more than taking GST off fruit and vegetables. That will not cut it. I can tell members that these guys have spent way too much time in the beltway. When they do occasionally get out, they go and talk to party activists. That is where Labour members get all their information from. If they actually got out and spoke to people in real New Zealand, they would hear from those people that these are tough economic times but they can see that John Key has the plan to get New Zealand ahead.

As I tell you, we will halve the deficit next year and halve it the year after, and then it will be gone. You saw those Treasury predictions. I can tell anyone who doubts Treasury that they are the most conservative economic people you will ever meet. If you look at what we are doing and if you look at the initiatives that are happening around the convention centre, you will see that there are 1,000 permanent jobs. There is a clear plan there. New Zealand is going in the right direction. I reckon Kiwis will continue to put their trust in John Key and the National-led Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member I say that senior members should know they should not say “you”. Members who have been in the House for some time should know that, unless they do not know what they are saying.

I join with the other speakers who have shared their condolences and expressed their concern for the people of Christchurch at this time. Otherwise, I have heard nothing consistent coming from the Government during this debate. In fact, from the last speaker, Jonathan Coleman, the overwhelming message I just heard was that the Government does not have a plan, so “Can we hear the Opposition’s, please?”. Perhaps he is willing to poach some of our ideas. We have shared plenty of them, I tell Mr Groser. In particular, I want to highlight the absolute denial of reality that has come from the Government during the debate today not only from Minister Coleman, who stated that Labour was listening too much to the people of the beltway and not talking to real New Zealanders, but also right through to Mr Groser, who tried to claim that we were talking in anecdotes.

What is anecdotal or beltway about 10 percent unemployment in Northland? What is beltway about that, I ask the Government? What about the individual cases we have heard that are simply a representative cut of huge swathes of unemployed people in particular regions? We heard the story of two young men in Northland who have been desperately seeking work and have sought to upskill themselves, but they are still in the dole queue. Those are the people who will not be helped by welfare reforms, as the Government claimed. Those are the people who are sitting and waiting desperately for the Government’s plan, which is represented by interest rates—classic trickle-down. Can the Government tell me how long it will take for those people to benefit from its trickle-down economics? How long will that take? At the moment, it is not just 10 percent in Northland; 27 percent of young people are currently looking for work—27 percent. What is anecdotal about that? What is beltway about those figures? That Government is completely out of touch.

I listened carefully to Bill English in question time today, when the Opposition asked him about the cost of living. He continued to use the Government’s classic rhetoric: the success of the tax switch, the sharp edges of the recession, and that somehow the Government has protected the most vulnerable with its economic plan. I ask how that matches with the reality of this situation. Let us cut through the rhetoric. Let us cut through the supposed anecdote and look at the cold hard facts. Some of the people who are most vulnerable in New Zealand are those without secure housing. It is something that our spokesperson on housing talks about at great length. A large number of people in New Zealand, and increasingly young people in New Zealand, are dependent on rentals in order to put a roof over their heads. There has been a 32 percent increase in rentals since this Government has been in charge. That averages out to about $20 per week for the average person in Auckland, where a large number of families are reliant on rental properties for their housing. That is not an anecdote; that is a cold hard fact.

What about the impact on those other vulnerable people who are on fixed incomes? I include in that not only the elderly but also those people who, for instance, are trying to better themselves, particularly in a recession, by going back to university or into skills and trade training. Those individuals in tertiary education have experienced a 16.5 percent increase in the cost of study, and that is before we even look at the increase in costs for those in our compulsory sector of education. The Government’s response to that problem has been to make it more difficult to access loans in order to survive, and if someone is 55 years or older, they can kiss goodbye to their opportunity to even study at all.

What about those older people who are trying to retrain? They might have been in vulnerable job areas such as manufacturing, in particular, which is experiencing significant job losses because the Government will do nothing about the high dollar, and as a result we are losing jobs. What about the older people in the manufacturing sector who may wish to retrain? What are the opportunities for those older people? Labour has already said—we have laid out the challenge—that the consensus on monetary policy is over. It is time to acknowledge that the high dollar is causing Kiwis to suffer. We are losing jobs because of the Government’s inaction on this question. What about other fixed costs? Power prices have increased by 10 percent over the past year.

I also extend my sympathy and condolences to the people of Canterbury in the wake of the recent earthquakes. On the back of the September earthquake and the more recent ones on 22 February, which caused massive destruction, these recent earthquakes are yet another body blow to the people of Canterbury. I tell the people of Canterbury that we are all with them; they are not alone. My colleague Nicky Wagner, who is doing a wonderful job in Christchurch, told me there was huge relief when, after the earthquakes, the Prime Minister announced that he and the Government were just as determined as ever to rebuild Canterbury and get it back on its feet.

This Government has a plan to get our economy back on track, and Budget 2011 will do just that. The Budget was carefully considered and it will do just that. It is not based on borrow and hope; it was well-thought-out. It firmly sets out the next steps to build faster growth and create jobs, savings, and productive investment. It is about ensuring that the Government gets into surplus by 2014-15. It will effectively halve our deficit next year and halve it the year before—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You mean the year after.

—the year after. Then we will be on track.

We are a Government that is focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We are not focused on the little things such as paint jobs at Premier House, and we do not get distracted by the BMWs that were bought by Helen Clark. We are a Government that will not be spending up large on a lot of uncosted policies. We are about investing significantly more in health and education, while continuing to protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders.

As we promised, we will be setting this policy out very clearly so that New Zealanders can decide on 26 November. There will be no lolly scramble. It would be irresponsible to engage in a big spend-up, thereby putting our economy at risk, when New Zealanders are working so hard to pay off their own debt. Equally, the Budget is not a slash-and-burn exercise. It is about building faster economic growth around higher national savings, setting a credible path back to surplus, repaying debt, and, importantly for the people of Canterbury, rebuilding Christchurch over the next few years.

We are planning to extend the mixed-ownership model to our four State-owned energy companies and reduce the Government’s majority share in Air New Zealand. We plan to offer investors shares in Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis, Solid Energy, and Air New Zealand. This will free up between $5 billion and $7 billion to pay for new public assets such as schools and hospitals. Importantly, we have set the bottom line that the Government must have the majority stake. That way we will keep ownership of those companies.

We asked whether New Zealanders, if they had the choice, would want a stake in failed finance companies or a stake in these rock-solid companies. I think we all know the answer to that question. We know that many New Zealanders are keen to invest in solid, productive assets that have the potential to pay good dividends. Our mixed-ownership model puts New Zealanders at the front of the queue when it comes to buying shares.

We are also determined to ensure that this mixed-ownership model will not disadvantage New Zealanders who rely on the services these companies provide. We have looked carefully at the rules governing these companies, and we are satisfied that they will protect New Zealanders from unprecedented, excessive increases in power prices. In fact, we think there is very, very strong evidence that this type of model will benefit consumers. It will be good for the business and for consumers.

The mixed-ownership model will free up billions of dollars for the Government to spend on important assets such as schools, hospitals, and public infrastructure. It will guarantee Government control over these five important companies, boost New Zealand’s sharemarket, give more Kiwi companies the opportunity to grow, and give Kiwis a fantastic opportunity to invest in this country’s future. Mixed ownerships will achieve those things while ensuring that our country does not get deeper into debt. It is a smart policy, and it will strengthen New Zealand’s economy. A stronger economy is the only way we will create jobs, boost incomes, and provide the high-quality public services we desperately need.

I join with the rest of the House in expressing my sadness and condolences to the people of Christchurch. It is just unimaginable what they are going through. It is good that we can all share our condolences, work together, and stand beside the people of Christchurch. I just wish we could do it on other occasions, because New Zealand is going backwards under John Key’s National Government. National has no plan to get the economy going.

New Zealanders are hurting. I was very interested to hear some of the speakers in this debate—or at least one of them—talk about the “odd folk”, as I think he called them, who are struggling. We meet a lot of those people because, as my colleague Moana Mackey said, we go to food banks, we talk to people in their homes, and people come to talk to us in our various offices.

I will tell the story of a family I met in west Auckland in Paula Benefit—that was a genuine mistake—Bennett’s electorate of Waitakere the other day. They told me exactly how tough life is. This is a really nice couple. They are desperate to pay their way. They have always worked hard, and they want to take responsibility. They have grown-up children, so they want to be able to help their children as well, but they are really struggling. They are struggling because the wife was made redundant in 2010, with no redundancy pay, of course, because the boss said he could not afford it. This Government thinks having minimum redundancy pay and entitlements is a luxury. She searched and searched for other work. She has been to Work and Income, and she has done the job seminars over and over. She has tried to upskill on her very meagre income, but there is no job for her.

Then there is her husband. He was working and he lost his job too. There was no redundancy, and both were on the scrap heap with a mortgage to pay, and facing increases in the costs of living such as power, petrol, food, and other costs. The husband, like his wife, was very determined to find work, and he went looking. He finally found some work in South Auckland. From where he lives that is a very long way to go. The job is in a factory stacking tyres, and he is getting paid $14 an hour. Getting to work costs him $100 a week in petrol, so there is not much left in their pay each week. As is inevitable in that sort of job—an awful job—he was injured, so the Accident Compensation Corporation paid him 80 percent of $14 an hour, then said he was fit for light duties. He has gone back to that awful job, where there are no light duties. He has gone back before he should have because that is the only way they can at least pay their mortgage. His wife told me that some days they eat, and some days they do not—some days they eat, and some days they do not.

This is a tragic story. I was just appalled. I did not know what to do. I will go back and make sure they are receiving their entitlements, but I make it clear that despite all of the Government’s assurances about protecting the vulnerable from the sharp edges of the recession, this couple, and many like them, are not being protected. They are struggling. These are good people. They are good people; they have always worked when they can. They have always worked hard when they can find a job. They are not being protected. As I said, there are many like them. They are not bludgers. They are not bludgers and they do not deserve what has happened to them.

This Government is a disgrace and should be ashamed of stories like this one. I know that Jonathan Coleman does not think that these people exist, but they do. The Government has turned its back on hard-working New Zealanders in its determination to look after its mates and big-business interests. This Government has no plan for job creation. As I said, Kiwis want to work. Many of them are desperate to work, but not enough jobs are being created, and there are not enough jobs where people can make ends meet.

The price rises announced this week will not surprise struggling Kiwi families like this one. They reinforce the need for Labour’s policy of removing all GST from fresh fruit and vegetables. That will make a difference to the couple I met the other day. But it is more bad news for these low and middle income earners, these Kiwi families, under this Government. Unfortunately, John Key’s Government chose to hand out billions of dollars in tax cuts to better-off people and to the wealthiest New Zealanders, and most families are finding it harder.

One thing that we learn when we door-knock is that we will hear some of the most personal stories. We learn about what is happening on the ground. I have a conversation very regularly with people that goes like this: “Why is Labour so out of touch?”. The conversation goes like that because people understand that it has been a tough couple of years, but they also understand that they need to have a Government that will put in place policies that will secure their future. People understand what National was handed. They understand that we had a major global recession. They get it that we have had several massive events in Canterbury—we have a $5.5 billion bill there. They understand the blowout in ACC. They understand that the Opposition has unfunded policies. I understand some of the situations that have been raised by the Opposition, but I tell those members that some of the people who come through my office—and I have had 7,000 constituents do so—get it. They are smart, intelligent people, and they want to have a Government with a plan and policies that will ensure their futures are guaranteed—and they have that.

Let us talk about our plan. What we have done is massive in the time that we have been in Government. We have reformed the taxation system. We have significantly reduced regulation with the reform of the Resource Management Act. We have reduced regulation in the building legislation. We have been aggressive in terms of free trade with Hong Kong, Malaysia, and now India. We have done a significant amount in terms of the reform of governance within Auckland. We have done a whole lot of things that are all about improving the economy in New Zealand, because we know that it is not the Government that creates a whole lot of jobs; it is actually the small businesses out there that do so. We know that improving the economy is the best thing that we can do for some families.

I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House care just as much as the members on the other side of the House. The difference is that we know that people out there are smart. They are intelligent, and they understand that our policies add up and that we have made some really hard decisions to help some of our most vulnerable people.

I will just briefly touch on Christchurch. It is really tough down there. This is huge for our country. The Labour members stand up and give speeches about Christchurch, but how can they stand up and give those speeches when Labour has not actually said how it would pay for the rebuild of our second-largest city? My biggest request to those members is that they explain that. We hear them talk about $5 billion worth of spending policies, such as taking GST off fruit and vegetables, the $5,000 tax-free policy that David Cunliffe has announced, and all sorts of other things. I say people are smart. They understand that we cannot afford those things, when we are trying to do the basics just in order to rebuild our second-largest city.

My message for the Labour Party is that the biggest thing that people say to me is that those members are stuck in a time warp. They are living in 2004; they are not in 2011. Their policies are all about spending. They are not prepared to make hard decisions in terms of reforming our economy, reforming our social welfare system, and ensuring that we have standards in our education system so that we do not have a whole lot of young people who are unemployed. But we have here a very clear contrast. We have a very intelligent electorate, partly because of social media. People can actually look at the costs of parties’ policies. People get it that the members on this side of the House are prepared to make really hard decisions in the social area, about education, and about the economy in order to ensure that we turn this country round, which we have started to do, in one of the hardest periods our country has seen. I can tell members that it does not matter whether I talk to constituents in Grey Lynn or in the central business district; they get it. They understand that we care just as much as the Opposition does, but that we have the policies to turn this country round.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.