General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:672;Page:18786] 
General Debate 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Twenty years ago a song was released by David Grace that has become known as the anthem of Tuhoe. It gives focus to the refrain “Rua Kenana Tuhoe prophet of the Urewera”. In doing so it encapsulates the pride of the people in the leadership of someone who believed that Tuhoe could and should be self-determining. 
At the turn of the century Rua established a thriving community in Maungapohatu where land was owned and farmed collectively and all proceeds shared according to need. A community bank was established and the people gathered around. In 1916 Maungapohatu was invaded by a troop of some 70 police in what the Supreme Court later ruled as an illegal assault. Rua was charged with sedition. His trial in the Auckland High Court lasted 47 days and was the longest trial in New Zealand’s history until 1977. Of the eight charges laid against him the jury found him guilty of only one morally resisting arrest yet he was sentenced to a year’s hard labour and another 19 months’ imprisonment. At his sentencing Chief Justice Frederick Chapman told Rua: “The arm of the law was long … That is the lesson your people should learn from this trial.” 
A century later one wonders whether history is repeating itself. On Monday 15 October 2007 more than 300 police carried out dawn raids on homes and premises throughout Aotearoa. The focus of the raids was in response to what was allegedly “concrete terrorist threats”. People had supposedly attended training camps in the Urewera ranges. 
The latest twist in the trial of these defendants is that it now appears unlikely to go ahead as scheduled on 30 May. Some are speculating that with the Rugby World Cup and an election in sight the timeliness of such a controversial trial has come under scrutiny. But the question we in the Maori Party ask is if there is such a focus on one law for all as some parties in this House would have it how is it that the Tuhoe people continue to suffer the long arm of the law without so much as a murmur in this House? Why has it taken between 4 and 5 years to gather evidence on what is now nothing more than an arms charge? 
Three weeks ago 150 prominent Maori social justice activists and academics came together in support of a submission to the Solicitor-General sponsored by lawyers Moana Jackson and Professor Jane Kelsey. In that letter Moana Jackson spelt out the impacts of this sorry episode stating: “The accused their whanau and the whole of Tuhoe have had this hanging over them for almost four years unable to live a normal life. They already carry the label of ‘terrorists’ forever”. Waiariki electorate MP Te Ururoa Flavell has spoken frequently about the lifelong consequences of the original raids on Ruatoki and the never-ending saga of a prosecution that has been delayed for nearly 4 years. 
Of course although there are dire and traumatic impacts on human lives there are also some very real financial costs of a 12-week trial in Auckland. I cannot ignore the echoes back to 1916 when Tuhoe had to bear the substantial legal costs of the trial against Rua Kenana as well as the indignity of being billed for the costs of the police expedition—which remember was illegal—amounting to over £900. To address these huge financial burdens Tuhoe was forced to sell land. 
We are at a time in our nation’s constitutional history when we are attempting to build bridges and learn from our past. Iwi across Aotearoa in a substantial gift of generosity to this nation have settled claims amounting to an equivalent of 1 or 2 percent of the true worth of what they are entitled to. Our concern with the tragic case against the defendants in the Urewera is that any progress we make in nation-building is hindered by justice delayed. The lives of the people charged as a result of the police’s Operation Eight have been on hold for too long. Due process of law surely requires the right to a jury trial in an expeditious time frame. The human impact has been enormous. Further delay is unjustifiable. It is unfair. It is unacceptable. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The facts just like his electorate are seldom visited by David Cunliffe. He was caught out today badly spanked by Bill English as he tried to make out that there was a great hole in the tax story that National has been laying out over the past 3 years. Mr Cunliffe neglected to say that National’s tax changes have been fiscally neutral funded by a tax switch that is quite transparently laid out in the Budget documents over the past 3 years. Mr Cunliffe has been badly undermined today by his spokesman on revenue who has scooped the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
off him. He will be livid about that. 
He is being badly badly exposed for a lack of a plan. If one reads his column in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today one will see there is a lot of guff a lot of unfunded stuff and no specifics. Three months ago David Cunliffe was telling the electorate that he had fully costed spending promises. Where are those promises now? Nowhere to be seen. It is a moving feast. Do members know why? The fact is that David Cunliffe does not want Labour to win the next election. That would be the worst possible thing that could happen to that member’s career. He knows that if Labour wins he is finished and his goal to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand will never materialise. 
Meanwhile poor old Phil Goff is stumbling out of the Takanini Countdown at the weekend absolutely shocked at the price of lamb chops. He seemed like a man who was trying to pretend that he goes to the supermarket every week when in actual fact it is completely transparent that he went in there only for political purposes so that he could make out that he is a man of the people and that he is really in touch with how tough it is for the average New Zealander. Once again Labour failed to visit the facts—that is that food prices went up under that Labour Government far more than they have in the last 6 months under this National Government. Those members can run cost of living arguments and they can have the chief well poisoner Trevor Mallard go on about BMWs painting houses and all that sort of stuff but until they come up with a plan for the electorate they will have no credibility. 
I can tell members that it has got to be better than slogans. You know it is all very well having slogans like “Higher incomes; better jobs.” Who could be against that? But there is absolutely no substance to the whole thing. What there is though is $5 billion of unfunded promises that Phil Goff has been rolling out. He has promised to find $5 billion. The other main plank of those members’ economic policy is removing GST from fruit and vegetables. That will not get the economy going ahead. 
In the Budget tomorrow we will find a firm plan for getting New Zealand back into surplus—a firm plan for reversing the damage that Labour did to New Zealand over 9 long years. It is a plan that actually targets Government payments to people in need and in terms of KiwiSaver and Working for Families will make a difference for those who really need it. I can tell members that these tax changes and this Government’s economic plan have been very very popular with the electorate. This Labour mob is getting absolutely no traction out there. 
Of course Phil Goff is out there at the front by himself. This other lot do not mind; they are sharpening the knives for Phil. In actual fact those members do not really want to win. Phil Goff will be stuck out there. David Cunliffe does not want him to win. David Parker has his head down. He knows that if Phil Goff wins that is the end of his career as well. I do not think Trevor Mallard wants Goff to win either. Otherwise those members would be pressing Phil Goff to come up with a credible plan for getting the New Zealand economy ahead. 
We know that this economy really needs the re-gearing that the National Government is bringing it. It is absolutely essential because those members blew years and years of record surpluses and wasted $1 billion on buying a trainset. At the end of it they handed a hospital pass to the incoming Government and we have been left to clear up the mess. 
I think that when the New Zealand people see this Budget tomorrow they will know that it is a prudent path back to surplus. They will appreciate the pressure that this Government has been under. They know the damage that the last Labour Government left as its legacy. Quite frankly I think they are very very thankful to have John Key as Prime Minister and I have no doubt that they will return him come November. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The final veil of John Key and Bill English’s Budget dance will be lifted tomorrow and according to Bill English all will be revealed. Everything will be laid bare; it will be there for the whole country to see. For weeks now we have had the teasing we have had the blame-shifting and we have had the National Government softening us up to expect a zero Budget—a zero Budget that has been forced upon it by the global financial crisis by two earthquakes by floods and droughts and biosecurity and by borrowing and borrowing. 
John Key has told some New Zealanders that they will have to tighten their belts a few more notches. They have been told that they will have to pay off the $16 billion deficit mountain that we now have. It is a mountain that has all been clocked up in 2½ years of a National Government. It has been clocked up after this Government was left with a historically low level of debt by the last Labour Government and—unlike what was indicated in the comments of the previous speaker Jonathan Coleman—with books in a good shape. They were in such a good shape that Bill English said that the previous Government had put away for a rainy day. 
The deficit was clocked up by John Key and Bill English. They decided to borrow $2.3 billion a year for tax cuts that we could not afford tax cuts for those who already had the most. A $350-a-week tax cut has gone to somebody on $393000 a year and a $28-a-week tax cut has gone to somebody on $48000 a year. When were those tax cuts given? They were given after the global financial crisis hit this country. They were recklessly given by the Government. Having told us that everyone had to tighten their belts because of the global financial crisis it ignored that advice and gave out tax cuts that we could not afford. It gave out tax cuts we could not afford when unemployment was growing at an alarming rate. Month after month unemployment figures were going up. 
We are now told by many commentators that the so-called tax switch is a failure and has failed thousands of New Zealanders. The Government clocked up a deficit because it did not have any sort of plan to address our current or future economic and social problems. The deficit was clocked up by a Government that thinks short. Everything it does is thinking short. I have to say that it is selling this country short. 
Tomorrow is Judgment Day for this Government’s Budget. A few questions will be asked by hard-working New Zealanders. They will ask whether this Budget will set out a coherent long-term strategy to fundamentally change the economy of this country and give hope back to Kiwis that they will have a future and one that they own themselves. Will this Budget be bold? Will it really make the tough but fair decisions that will see all people pay their fair share but also get their fair share? Many New Zealanders must have woken up today looked at the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
 
and asked how it could be fair that they pay so much tax but there are people out there who pay so little. 
They will ask whether this Budget will promote innovation and use research and development to diversify our businesses and lift our exports to ensure that we create more wealth. Will it reduce unemployment and will it give the over 60000 unemployed young Kiwis a chance to get a job in this country or will there be more platitudes about how young Kiwis are our future? What future will young Kiwis get out of this Budget? Will there be an opportunity for them to get skills training and apprenticeships? Will there be an opportunity for them to get a decent income and stay here in New Zealand? Will it encourage savings? No I think we will see a Budget of lost opportunities. There will be backwards-forwards backwards-forwards decision-making. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I must pull up the previous speaker Annette King. The tax changes that this Government brought in have been fiscally neutral. In fact there is one point I will agree on: that is not quite right because they are fiscally positive over the forecast period. They are not fiscally neutral but fiscally positive over the forecast period. On the tax switch which was one of the biggest changes in New Zealand’s taxation system over the last 25 years I have a question to pose to Labour members: which bits will you un-switch? Will you cut GST? Will you hike income tax? Will you hike— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Excuse me Mr Speaker. Will Labour hike business taxes? 
I would talk about the Budget a bit longer but today we have had a very very important announcement from Labour. Today a quite strategic move by the Leader of the Opposition Mr Phil Goff seems to have been missed. Today on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
he totally shattered and shafted any chance whatsoever that the Labour Party president Andrew Little had of winning the New Plymouth electorate seat. The announcement of the “Taranaki turnover tax” the tax on dairy farmers and farming turnover will absolutely obliterate any chance whatsoever that Mr Little had of even making any gains in New Plymouth or in Taranaki. For that matter any chance whatsoever that Labour had of making gains in any provincial or rural seat has been blown away by what was on the front page of the paper today. 
I thought that the announcement might have been a mistake and that maybe Mr Nash had got a bit ahead of himself as he is wont to do. But at question time today in the House Mr Goff continued with it. I say to Mr Goff that the point is not that the data are wrong; it is the way you interpret the data. That is very revealing of how they— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although the member might have a point I think he cannot bring you into the debate. If we criticised you in that way we would be in trouble. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is alleging that the member on his feet was using the word “you” then he is correct; Mr Foss should not do that. But I did not hear Mr Foss use that word. I do apologise. I had already pulled him up. [ 
Interruption 
] The House will come to order. That petty to-ing and fro-ing across the House will stop. The member should be careful about using the word “you” because it refers to the Speaker. Debate across the House should not be in the second person. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a clarification I understand that that member Trevor Mallard was not in his regular seat and he was leaving the Chamber when he called the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can call a point of order from anywhere in the House. We are not too pedantic about that. But the member Trevor Mallard is now—oh no he is still there. Members should resist interrupting other members’ speeches unless there is good reason to interrupt them. I am not sure that the reason there was quite as strong as that. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: There was a brutal attack with the “Taranaki turnover tax” on Taranaki Hawke’s Bay New Zealand provincial and rural farming families and jobs associated with farming. At least Mr Nash has front-footed it. Perhaps that is how Labour intends to fund some of its $7 billion of unfunded promises so far. 
I guess the rest of Labour’s tax policies will continue. It has the turnover tax a capital gains tax and perhaps a payroll tax coming and perhaps an increase in income tax which it seems to be talking about more and more. OK fair enough Labour has said it will take GST off veges. OK the GST rate is 15 percent—funnily enough veges have gone down by 15 percent in recent months. Mr Nash’s speech was a brutal attack on business and on business confidence but I congratulate him on and thank him for providing certainty about Labour policy about Labour’s tax intentions and about Labour’s ambitions for New Zealand. 
It is interesting that not too long ago the Labour Party was calling the farming industry a sunset industry of New Zealand—in the early 1990s. Today we have the proof of the pudding. As Labour’s tax policy starts to roll out we see that it wants to kill off farming for good. Perhaps some of the Green members might be fans of that but I for one value farming. I value rural New Zealand and I value provincial New Zealand. It is the heartbeat and the engine room of the New Zealand economy. I cannot understand it: I was going to give Mr Goff the benefit of the doubt that this move was a mistake but his question today revealed Labour’s true intentions of a turnover tax a capital gains tax an increase in income tax and perhaps a payroll tax. I posed the question very early on as to which of the National-led Government’s tax switches that we announced earlier and put into place in the last few years would be un-switched if Labour was ever to form a Government. But to be fair to Mr Nash I congratulate him on at least giving us some clarity as to how Labour will fund its promises. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Tomorrow is Budget day. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need that kind of mindless interjection when members get to their feet. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Accurate as the description may have been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need that kind of comment either. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Tomorrow is Budget day and the most interesting thing about the Government members’ speeches today has been that they are saying hardly anything about what the Government might want to do. There is a picture of a desperate Government where the backbench lacks confidence in its own ministry. Those members would rather talk about us than their own plan to get New Zealanders out of the mess they have created. 
Let us deal with some real porkies up front. The first is that National has been tax-neutral. Well here is the table from the previous Budget that shows on page 70 a $1 billion hole over the first 4 years because of the tax cuts. That is the net figure. The gross figure for Budget 2009 and Budget 2010 was—wait for it—$23 billion of tax cuts. Much of that went on the top marginal rate going down from 39c to 33c. Some people benefited hugely from that and some did not. That was a rosy-glow picture that $1 billion hole and it was based on GDP being 3 percent higher this year than last year. That was the red line. What happened? The black line is way below the red line and that shows that the rosy glow did not come off. The economy is stuck in a hole and the Government does not know what to do about it. What it has not done is make everybody pay a fair share. When Mr Nash got the answer to the parliamentary questions about dairy farmers I thought there must have been a mistake. Surely the average dairy farmer pays more than $1500 a year in tax when beneficiaries pay more than that. Well no a multimillion-dollar business is a great way of sheltering income is it not? It is a great way of sheltering income. Look at the farmer on the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Bennett is an accountant from Hamilton. He is complicit in some of these rorts. Wait and see: the Labour Government will clean up this mess and we will be fair to all New Zealanders. 
The National Government has created a multibillion-dollar deficit the worst in New Zealand’s entire history—the debt mountain is worse than it has ever been in our lifetime—and it has the gall to tell New Zealanders who are already struggling to draw their belts in while the belts of certain constituencies that traditionally vote National have been let out another few notches. And that is not right. That is why we will fight these folks right to the line and it is why we will be the Government in November 2011 when we will set about getting New Zealand back on the road to recovery. How does one do that? There are four simple tests. First get New Zealanders back to work and build a strong economy by innovating and by exporting with the help of modern monetary policy that does not put the exchange rate through the roof. Secondly save more—do not cut KiwiSaver but save more so we own our own future. Do not throw it all away and sell off assets. Any granny knows that if we sell the family silver there is nothing to serve tea in tomorrow. National wants to sell the family silver; they have given it away to their rich mates. That is wrong and that is why National is like a McDonald’s special—for a “limited time”. The “limited time” ends in November 2011 because we are throwing them out. We are throwing them out because Kiwis have had enough of being told one thing that is not true. 
The great untruth of this Budget is that National is not breaking any promises. John Key said before the last election: “We will not cut KiwiSaver.” What has National said this week? It has said it will cut KiwiSaver. National said: “We won’t touch Working for Families.” What will it do tomorrow? It will change the abatement rate on Working for Families. It will put a new one on. It will cut Working for Families. “We won’t touch student loans.” National said. Wait for tomorrow. It will. All of those are broken promises just like “We won’t raise GST.” What is the excuse this time? “Oh the changes won’t take effect until after the election—you can throw us out.” Well then why not put it in next year’s Budget after National has campaigned on it? Why put it in this year’s Budget and legislate for it before the election? Because it does not have the moral courage of its convictions. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise it is towards the end of the member’s speech but one cannot question the courage of members in any way shape or form or allege anything like that of other members of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Objection was taken. I ask the member to withdraw that last statement. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I would not impugn the integrity of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is all the member needs to do. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It is clearly Mr Cunliffe’s day today to give the vein-popping “flirting with delusions of grandeur” speech from the other side—full of hollow platitudes. It is always interesting watching Labour members speak to see whose day it is to make the leadership bid. Clearly today was Mr Cunliffe’s day and I have to say it is no surprise to hear that he addressed his entire speech to the gallery because none of his colleagues were paying any attention whatsoever to a word he had to say. So I hope he got a better response from the gallery because his colleagues all had their heads down and could not have shown any less interest in what he had to say—pretty much like the rest of New Zealand. 
Tomorrow is Budget day and I am pleased the members opposite have realised that. It is the closest they have come to saying anything useful all week. The Budget this year will be yet another brick in the rebuilding of this country’s economy. 
Hon Members 
: Come on! 
AMY ADAMS 
: That is what it will be. It will be yet another step in turning round the complete hash that the last Labour Government left the economy of this country in. It is election year but this Government will not use the Budget to recklessly throw around money in a desperate grab for votes in the way the Labour Government did. We will not do that; we are fiscally prudent. We know that a Government has to walk the talk. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Tell us about the farmers’ tax. 
AMY ADAMS 
: I tell Mr Cunliffe that anyone can say the words; this Government is delivering. We know that a Government has to earn the money and has to support the people who earn the money before a Government has anything to spend. Labour Governments are great at spending but this Government gets in behind people who are actually earning the money. This Budget is about a couple of things: it is about controlling Government spending and getting the books back in shape and it is about investing in infrastructure and skills. Those are the sorts of building blocks we need to get this economy going. Most important in my view it is about rebuilding my province of Canterbury and that will cost over $15 billion. We know we have to play our part in the rebuilding of Canterbury. New Zealand knows that the Government has to make changes in order to pay that bill. 
This Budget will do that; it will keep us on the path to rebalancing the economy. It will get the books back in order and get New Zealand back into surplus. Then we can have choices create productive sustainable jobs and provide better incomes for New Zealanders. Anybody can talk about that stuff. The National-led Government is the one delivering that stuff for everyday New Zealanders and that is why New Zealanders will continue to back us. That is why every single poll shows us that the only lot of people they want on the Treasury benches is the National-led Government. There is no interest in Labour no interest in the Greens no interest in the “Hone Heke” tax. The National-led Government has shown time and again that this is the party of fiscal responsibility. New Zealanders are supporting us. 
In between Labour’s squabbles and factions it tries every now and then to come up with a big bright idea. It tries to land a couple of blows on us. What have we had this week? There is so much to choose from but my favourite has to be David Cunliffe’s website poll. That was great. Two days before the Budget he was polling his faithful sheep on what they thought about the Budget. Best of all by the time he pulled down the website there was an 88 percent support rate for the National Budget which was so good that more than 24 hours before Bill English delivered it the country already loved it! It showed 88 percent support for the Budget which is pretty much the support I think most polls will show. But what about the front page of today’s  
Dominion Post 
 which shows Stuart Nash finally dropping the veil and admitting his complete financial incompetence by suggesting we should tax businesses on their turnover. That shows brilliance! That story had to be one of the most moronic pieces of thinking I have seen in a long time. Labour went out and suggested that $500000 turnover was the same as the same amount of salary. Does that not tell us how few Labour members have ever had a productive job in their lives? If any one of them had run a business and had even a basic grasp of how business works they would know the difference between turnover and profit. If I get this right Labour’s plan is to tax us on money we do not earn. Is that right? It would tax us on money we do not earn. I have an earth-shattering piece of news for members opposite. Maybe farmers are paying tax on what they actually get to keep. That would be radical. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 106 it is required to wait until the end of a member’s speech before seeking a point of misrepresentation. The member has grossly misrepresented the Opposition who has never suggested— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Standing Order provides for a member who has been grossly misrepresented not for a party to claim gross misrepresentation. If the member wishes to come back into the debate it has to be that he has been misrepresented. If that is the case I will hear from the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to your ruling Mr Speaker I appreciate that it must be a personal reference to a member. As the party’s finance spokesperson I do take a personal inference from the suggestion that we and therefore I—I am responsible for this area of policy—have advocated a turnover tax. That is certainly not Labour’s position. It was not contained in the Leader of the Opposition’s questions today. If a journalist writes that on the front page of the newspaper we cannot be responsible for journalism. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have had sufficient on that. I have allowed the Hon David Cunliffe to do this. There is some question though as to whether I perhaps should have but I have allowed it on this occasion. [ 
Interruption 
] That is not helpful from the honourable deputy leader of the Labour Party. I will not take it any further because I do not want it repeated. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I will pick up on David Cunliffe’s point of order and say that Phil Goff Leader of the Opposition never once said that New Zealanders are going to tax farmers on turnover. Never! What Mr Goff has said repeatedly is that the tax system has to be about fairness. Mr Goff has said that every New Zealander has to pay their fair share. So Labour took the figures that had been provided by the Inland Revenue Department and by the Minister of Revenue and the figures said that the average dairy farmer paid tax of $1500. That is what the figures said and that is what the statistics from the Inland Revenue Department said. So the question Mr Goff posed was whether that was fair. That is the question he posed. He asked whether it was fair when hard-working New Zealanders hard-working salary and wage earners are paying a significant amount of tax that dairy farmers are paying $1500 a year on average. That is all he was asking. If Mr Key had a different answer then he should have given it. The figure may be slightly higher—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have just had confirmed by the deputy leader of Labour that in fact they have been talking about the $500000. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need any further assistance. I will hear from the member shortly. I ask the member to resume his seat because a point of order was being called and heard and I was about to deal with it. While that point of order is being dealt with we cannot have another point of order. Let me make it very clear to Mr Quinn that was not a point of order. If the member wishes to raise a further point of order I will hear it. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members are not to use points of order to break up a member’s speech. I object to that member’s point of order on two grounds: firstly it was not a point of order and secondly it was a point of order taken deliberately to break up that member’s speech. I ask you Mr Speaker to defend our members’ rights to have an uninterrupted flow of speaking. 
Amy Adams 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I will not take any further on this matter. What is difficult for the Speaker of course is that when someone calls a point of order I cannot foretell what the issue might be but as soon as I could hear what the member was doing I went to sit him down just as the honourable member himself as soon as he heard what was going on sought to stop it as well. But I do say to members that points of order must not be used to disrupt another member’s speech for no good purpose unless it is an issue of order. I will not tolerate that and if members do that repeatedly there will be a consequence. I call Stuart Nash and I apologise for what happened. 
STUART NASH 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the sum of $1506 may be a little low. I had a look at the figures I went through them and I could not determine a proper figure—there may be stuff held under other tax codes. But Mr Goff asked whether it was fair that according to Inland Revenue Department statistics the average dairy farmer pays about $1500 in tax when a person on the average income pays about $8000. 
I would also like to take umbrage at Mr Foss’ comments. Mr Foss is chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and he stood up here and said the Government’s tax cuts had been fiscally positive. There has been $23 billion worth of tax cuts. Mr Foss has himself heard the Governor of the Reserve Bank at the Finance and Expenditure Committee say there has been no economic stimulation whatsoever from $23 billion worth of tax cuts. The tax cuts have had no positive effect on the economy. 
I will tell the House about a woman in the electorate I live in who is called Raewyn. Food that a year ago cost her $85 now costs her $115. She has two children who play sport and belong to sports clubs. Her husband drives to work in a car. He earns above the average wage which 75 percent of New Zealanders do not. She has taken time off work to complete her PhD. Raewyn and her family are the sort of family we want: good and hard-working. She is bettering herself and she will become a very productive citizen. Raewyn admits she is not poor but her family is finding it very very tough. In Napier and around this country budget services are stretched food banks are flooded and social services are overrun. I ask whether this country is the sort of place we want to live in. Is this country the sort of place we want our children and grandchildren to inherit? It is a country with a working core who struggle hand to mouth and where the very wealthy just get richer. Those who earn $1 million a year last year received a tax cut of $1000 a week. Someone on a median wage in Napier received about $10 a week. Is that fair? 
Amy Adams 
: Crocodile tears. 
STUART NASH 
: Amy Adams does not care about the people of Napier. All Amy Adams cares about are the very wealthy who got $1000 a week in a tax cut when the vast majority of New Zealanders received less than $10. Is that fair? No it is not. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I asked a member not to make inane interjections when a member first got to their feet and I say it again to members on the Opposition benches this time. There is nothing wrong with interjections but let the member speak first and have something to interject about. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Today we have seen the true Labour. It has envy and hates people making money. It does not want to see this country progress; it wants just to take people down. A Labour member comes in here with an article in the paper and thinks it is God’s gift to the world to get on the front page of the paper for once. Labour members come in here and ask questions about it. Labour’s leader Phil Goff is so keen to get the tax on farmers argument going yet they pull away. They have pulled away within 2 hours of question time. We heard Stuart Nash talking about how the numbers might be a little bit low now. They are pulling away from the argument because they know they have lost. Stuart Nash is trying to win a provincial seat by going out there and saying that businesses should pay tax on their income or turnover. That is never going to get anywhere and Labour will never get anywhere doing that. 
Let us give Labour members a history lesson and a lesson in accounting. Revenue minus expenses equals profit. That is what people are taxed on. We are not taxed on revenue or expenses; we are taxed on profits. It does not matter what business people are in—whether it is farming forestry fishing retail industrial manufacturing or any business—if you want to do that to farming you do that to the whole industry in New Zealand. Tax everybody on revenue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour wants to tax everybody on revenue. Let us see how long that lasts. Labour members should go to South Auckland and tell those businesses that you are going to tax them on revenue and you will see how many people are still in work at the end of that day. That will be the true test of Labour. Labour members do not know what they are talking about. If you want to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is it that the member does not understand about the word “you”? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I know. I understand. If Labour wants to tax revenue then it can do so. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a good point of order. I have just dealt with the issue about the member using the word “you”. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is a separate issue. I seek your advice. On a previous point of order in respect of the same matter you advised that if personal offence was taken and if an explanation was given that it was not our intent to have a turnover tax then that should be accepted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member was not given leave to make a personal explanation. I allowed the member under Standing Order 106 to clarify in a point of order a matter in respect of his own speech. That is a debating matter; it is not the same as a personal explanation. Other members are perfectly at liberty to refer to the matter again unlike with a personal explanation. Leave has not been granted for a personal explanation. A point of order was allowed for the member who claimed misrepresentation. I have allowed that. Members have heard the explanation and the matter is being debated further. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is another example of Labour retracting in their points of order to say now that they will not have a turnover tax. You talk to your leader who came into this House today and— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just ruled. He immediately went back to bringing you into the debate. He has been here many many years. Surely to goodness he can get through a 5-minute speech without— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just remind the honourable member that she interjected using the word “you” only a few short minutes ago. I did not pull her up on it. Interjections cannot use “you” either. I do not want members to interrupt other members’ speeches. The Speaker will deal with minor matters like that. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour members want to break up this speech because they know they are getting a lesson in accounting and they do not like that. They do not like the real truth. 
Let us have a look at what happened in farming in the last couple of years. It is in the most difficult times. It happened when the payout came down. They were difficult times. There was high debt and a low payout. Many many farmers nearly went to the wall. Mr Cunliffe has been at a select committee where the Reserve Bank has come in and questioned the debt levels of farmers. He really knows what is going on if he would only admit it. That is the reality of the situation. Labour members are then comparing payouts in high years with payouts in low years. It is very very naughty of Labour members and the media to do so. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How come there’s no profit on a record payout? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Well that is the thing; Mr Cunliffe does not understand that revenue minus expenses equals profit. He thinks that revenue is profit. That is the difference. That is what Labour wants to tax; it wants to tax New Zealanders on revenue. It wants to go to every business in New Zealand and tax on revenue. I want to see Labour go out and do that. Let us see you put that in your manifesto Mr Cunliffe. That is the great Minister of Finance you want to be. You will tax the country on revenue. The Green Party members are also talking about introducing a capital gains tax. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking a point of order? It had better be a genuine point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Under Standing Order 106 the member has transgressed again and gone to the extent of using this member’s name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has already had the chance under Standing Order 106 to argue that he has been misrepresented. Unlike a personal explanation it is not a matter that cannot be referred to again by the House. Members are at liberty to debate the matter further. The member had the chance to argue that he has been misrepresented. The House has heard that I allowed that but it is not like a personal explanation where members cannot refer to it again. I do not want to have speeches interrupted lightly. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Cunliffe will not seek a point of order and make a personal statement because he will not go out there and say he does not believe in taxing revenue. He does not have the guts to stand up in this House and say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now I will interrupt the member. This is serious; the member will wipe the grin off his face. The member cannot allege that another member lacks courage. We had that earlier on today. In fact I asked the Hon David Cunliffe to withdraw and apologise. Now I ask this member to get to his feet to withdraw and apologise—and I want him to do so seriously—when I have sat down. He will sit down now and when I have sat down he will get to his feet and do it with some sincerity. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I withdraw and apologise. The member over there had the chance then to make a personal statement and deny that Labour will have a revenue tax but he did not. He sat there and just let it go. The Green Party talks about a capital gains tax in regard to farming. Well there is a capital gains tax in regard to farming and it is that if you sell a property within a certain period of time the profit on the sale can be taxed. Also you have a yearly capital gains tax on farming unlike in any other business where you are taxed on livestock and that is a capital gains tax. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member not understand how to use the English language to avoid saying “you” all the time? The member has just said “you” three times in succession “If you do this you do that.” “If that is done” is the way to do it. The member should use the other part of speech. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The Green Party needs to understand that when there is taxation in the farming sector there is a livestock tax and the livestock tax is a capital gains tax. That is something the Green Party tends to forget. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Frankly all I have seen today from the Government benches is an utterly embarrassing display. To be frank it began when the Prime Minister rose today. You would not have known that we— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just corrected a National member. Let me now pull up a Labour member. Every time the member says “You would not have known” she implies that the Speaker would not have known. I can assure her that the Speaker does know. Members should debate correctly in this House. The reason why we do not use the word “you” is that not only does it refer to the Speaker and the Speaker must not be brought into the debate but also it personalises the debate. The reason for not using that part of speech is to avoid personal attacks in this House—“you did this” or “you did that”. I tell members that it is a longstanding tradition. I do not want to be unfair to Mr Bennett by allowing Miss Ardern to get away with it. Members should not do that. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Strike one versus strike 200 is the only point I would make. 
From the Prime Minister’s contribution today we would not know that we are on the verge of a zero Budget. The display we saw from the Government almost implied that what we will be presented with tomorrow will somehow be a joyous occasion. I saw an empathy-free comedian of ashamed proportions on that side of the House today. When did a $16 billion deficit become funny? That is the question I have for the Government. When did 6.6 percent unemployment become a joke? The point I wish to make today is that at no point should we assume that the Budget that will be presented to us tomorrow is by any means a default Budget. Choices have been made in the lead-up to the Budget that will be presented tomorrow that have led to the situation where we are now considering making significant cuts in areas like Working for Families student loans and KiwiSaver. All of that is as a result of choices. 
The Government is very likely to make the claim that the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquake are somehow the sole reason why we will be seeing these cuts tomorrow. Let us be honest; that is simply not the case. 
Paul Quinn 
: Because of the mess that the Labour Government left it in. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I can tell Mr Quinn that political commentary from Television New Zealand is one of the few areas where I have seen the acknowledgment that the economy was stalling well before the first Christchurch earthquake. That is for sure. We knew that. The reason is that the Government never had a plan not before and not after. There was never a plan for growth. Let us also be honest about the three areas the Government is now targeting. Before National came into Government it described Working for Families as communism and student loans as a bribe. It had never been a fan of KiwiSaver. So it is not enough for National members to stand here and tell us that by default the Government has no choice but to make the cuts it is making. It had a choice to present this country with $2.5 billion worth of tax cuts. That was its choice and it made it. Now we as a country are paying the consequences of that with the cuts we will see tomorrow. Let us also be clear about the cuts to the areas it has chosen. National members are not wringing their hands over them. These are ideological choices that they are making under the guise of being forced to make them by the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquake. 
Let us also look at the impact that this lack of growth has had. I do not want us just to assume that it means that they have had to make a few tough calls. It has had very real consequences for the state of our economy. The Prime Minister crows about projected growth in wages and employment levels. He has not told us what proportion of that growth is simply down to redeployment around the Christchurch earthquake. There is 6.6 percent unemployment and 27 percent of our young people are now looking for jobs which is the highest number we have on record. There are 77000 young people who are not in employment education or training. If members on that side of the House do not know I can tell them that that is an increase of 34000 since they took office. They can crow as much as they like about all the reasons why that has occurred but at some point the excuses need to end and there has to be a plan for growth. A tax cut first was not it and second made it worse. 
What have we seen the Government present around employment? There have been three attempts to tackle the issue. The Job Summit was the first. How many jobs did the Job Summit create? Mr Cunliffe indicates a handful. There were hundreds at best. Secondly we had Job Ops. Half of that package was canned after the Government recognised and acknowledged that all it created was short-term make-work schemes. All we got out of that were pumpkin patches—short-term employment. Thirdly we had the employment plan. The Government was going to invest $55 million in skills which it has already cut. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand and speak in the general debate. I have heard a lot of the arguments from across the Chamber. From the speakers we have heard today the difference between the Opposition and this Government is clear. It is clear that the Opposition is all about negative tactics and pointing out the things that are going wrong. I have not heard one Opposition speaker point out a vision for this country. I have not heard one Opposition speaker talk about the issues that matter. 
In the 2½ years our Government has been in office we have been talking about the issues that matter. We have been talking about national standards for kids. We have been talking about raising the achievement level for our children particularly for the tail end of kids who leave school without being able to write and read which is very sad. 
Opposition members have not talked about the increase in the number of elective surgeries that has happened under this Government. They have not talked about the integrated health-care services that are now being rolled out across this country as part of a vision for bringing more convenient more timely and more effective health services to our communities. They have not talked about the infrastructure investment that this Government has put forward in terms of rolling out broadband and the type of road infrastructure that has certainly impacted on my community of Maungakiekie where the barriers to trade and commerce lie in infrastructure bottlenecks. 
What we have heard from the Opposition has been about BMWs that they purchased all of 4 years ago. What we have heard about from Opposition members has been about the painting of a house but the previous Government spent millions of dollars on infrastructure such as the Governor-General’s residence and the Prime Minister’s residence. We have heard vile personal attacks made against the Prime Minister from Opposition members—vile personal attacks made against the Prime Minister. I believe they are doing that because they are worried. They are worried because when the Prime Minister and I visited Onehunga last Friday he was given a standing ovation when he walked into the Onehunga Workingmen’s Club. You know that the Labour members are worried about that. When you go to afternoon teas where— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no— 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker—350 senior citizens of all shapes sizes and ethnicities turn up and they support the Prime Minister and welcome him for his positive attitude to bringing about change in this country you know— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Speaker into this. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
:—no no—that Opposition members are worried. 
This Budget will bring about change. This Budget will be measured and it will be responsible. It will be about making changes to some of the $5 billion a year in spending on Working for Families and student loans as well as KiwiSaver. That much has been canvassed. But it is also about the $54.5 million that will go into improving the safety and quality of maternity services in this country. Women go through a major transition in their lives in giving birth to our children and this Government is committed to supporting them. It is about the $55 million that will go towards supporting young people into jobs; that is what it will go into. It is about supporting those young people because they are our future. 
The party opposite is obviously divorced from reality. You have the Leader of the Opposition shopping in Takanini. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Why is the Leader of the Opposition not shopping at Pak ’N Save in Mount Roskill? Mr Nash is committed to taxing incomes and taxing the turnover of businesses. Mr Nash is a bright man but he is sadly mistaken in his conviction to tax those revenues of businesses. It is sad that you have not heard about the good things in our community. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I just wish to advise members for their benefit that every time a member uses the word “you” the member is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to a Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “that member”; that is in the third person. I refer members to Standing Order 103. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. Two nights ago along with maybe 500 other concerned Wellingtonians I attended atmospheric physicist and National Aeronautics and Space Administration director Dr James Hansen’s lecture on climate change. Dr Hansen is in New Zealand to highlight the risk of climate change to our planet and to future generations. He says our global climate is nearing the tipping point. Changes are beginning to appear and there is potential for explosive changes with effects that will be irreversible if we do not rapidly slow the growth of fossil fuel emissions over the next few years. In particular Dr Hansen is here to raise awareness on coal which he describes as the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet. Coal is the biggest threat because it is the largest source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the one easiest left in the ground. 
Dr Hansen’s tour coincides with an important point for our New Zealand future. The Government is actively encouraging through its draft energy strategy the hugely expensive think big plan to destroy valuable Southland farmland to dig up dirty lignite coal which will destroy our climate credentials and our valuable “clean green” brand. Over the last 10000 years the Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable fluctuating by less than 1 degree centigrade over that period. This has enabled civilisation to develop in a safe constant environment. This has led to the society we see today. Preservation of life as we know it on this planet requires us to stabilise emissions at or below 350 parts per million. We are currently at 391 parts per million and rising by two parts per million a year. This Government has an inadequate emissions reduction target of 50 percent by 2050. However even this lowly emissions target will be impossible to meet if the Government allows the lignite plans to proceed. This is the height of irresponsibility and as Dr Hansen repeatedly points out climate change is a scientific issue but more important climate change is a moral issue requiring us in New Zealand to keep the coal in the hole. 
What does all this mean for New Zealand? We market ourselves as clean and green on the world stage. However Dr Hansen says of New Zealand that the fact the Government is even thinking of digging up the lignite shows there is a huge gap. Lignite is at the coalface of the New Zealand environmental crisis. It is estimated that New Zealand has around 6.2 billion tonnes of economically recoverably lignite. The trouble is lignite is the most inefficient and amongst the most polluting types of coal there are. Nevertheless Solid Energy and others are pushing their proposals to mine it ignoring the critical report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that claims mining just is not worth it. We are dismally failing our current climate change target and allowing the lignite conversion to go ahead will signal to the world we have given up on our emissions reduction targets and our valuable “clean green” brand. If the proposed lignite mining goes ahead our emissions look set to rise drastically—as much as 20 percent of our country’s emissions from one lignite-to-diesel plant. Lignite trashes our “clean green” brand and our international climate treaty credibility. 
Under this National Government’s emissions trading scheme the plans could potentially cost the taxpayer $275 million a year from carbon credit subsidies the miners would receive. Over a lifetime the cost of just one lignite-to-diesel plant is likely to be in the order of billions of dollars. It is clearly bad for the Government’s books and bad because it locks in polluting industries. In oral questions today the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources attested there would not be subsidies. However either she has not read the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment or she has changed the rules without telling anyone else. Lignite coal has environmental costs fiscal costs and also significant opportunity costs. The capital invested in these projects should be going to cleantech greentech projects that are greener cheaper and will last us for ever. 
Dr Hansen is in New Zealand and is talking about his grandchildren as his motivation for tackling the climate crisis. By the time my son Arlo who is now 3 years old starts school we could have an ice-free Arctic in summer. By his 10th birthday we will have likely increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations more than in the preceding 150000 years of natural emissions. By the time he starts high school we could have lost more than 3000 cubic kilometres of ice from Antarctica and Greenland. I want my son his children and the children and grandchildren of everyone else in this room to grow up in a world with a stable climate. In this Chamber we will not be the ones to bear the impact of our irresponsible actions; it will be our children and their children and every generation to come not to mention every other species with which we share this our only planet. Kia ora. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I start by referring to the lunacy we have just heard from the Green Party member Gareth Hughes. Last night I sat in the Banquet Hall along with the member from the West Coast Chris Auchinvole and heard a great presentation from a West Coast mining group. It pointed out that mining on the West Coast produces about $700 million to $800 million a year of export income and with a little bit of help and a little time it could produce another $1 billion of export income for New Zealand. That mining produces jobs and taxes which produces the real wealth for New Zealand. 
This is the problem that we have with the Opposition. Opposition members either cannot count or do not want to understand how real wealth is created in New Zealand. Last night in this Chamber we heard Clare Curran trying to subtract 800000 from 1.6 million. She got 83000. This morning we see in the  
Dominion Post  
that a journalist for whatever reason has pointed out that an income of $500000 which was the revenue turnover of a business should be the basis for taxation. At question time today we heard the Leader of the Opposition Mr Phil Goff point out and reaffirm that a turnover tax in some shape or form is the way to go. I am surprised. 
I look across at members on the other side and I give them credit. I look at Mr Cunliffe. He is a smart man. He has spent some time advising major corporations around the world—so I thought. I thought that no way would that man come up with an idea like this. Well it turns out that maybe we were wrong. Mr Nash came up with that brilliant idea. It would take $5 billion to fund the hole that exists in Labour’s expenditure programme—$5 billion. Fonterra has a $60 billion turnover. I know—let us tax them at 10 percent. That will be the solution! That will solve everything! 
When we go through the process it is like that old political saying about cows. We have two cows we look after the cows and they produce milk. The Labour Party has a view. If the farmer has two cows then take a cow produce the milk and throw it away. That is the Labour Party’s focus. We heard from Jacinda Ardern that jobs in places like Pumpkin Patch are not real jobs. I say to the member who pointed that out that people working in retail—the thousands of people up and down the country working in shops for 8 or 10 hours a day like my family does—are working in real jobs. They produce real value for New Zealanders. 
That is what Opposition members do not understand. People have to create real wealth. They have income they deduct their expenses and that is called profit. That is what we tax in New Zealand. There is nothing imaginary. There are no pixies at the bottom of the garden creating wealth that we can just throw at projects for the Opposition’s great grandiose plans. 
We have heard over time some of that craziness from Labour members. They told us that we would have an 11 percent unemployment rate; we have 6.5 percent. They told us we would have 20000 people unemployed in Christchurch alone but that was absolute rubbish. They tell us that the solution is to borrow more money so we can save it right now. Well right now New Zealand has a mortgage an overdraft and a credit card balance in deficit and its creditors are banging on its door. It would be absolutely ludicrous to go and borrow more money just to put it on a lottery that is the sharemarket we are seeing right now. 
Those Labour members seemingly believe that National members have no idea. Well I point to last year’s Budget. We released an investment plan to outline for the first time ever the way we would spend more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. We were the first Government in the history of New Zealand to do that. It is a plan to invest in our infrastructure in the smartest way possible and it has never been done before in the history of the New Zealand Parliament. But what credit do we get from members on that side? They ask where the plan is. I tell them that tomorrow they will see a plan. They will see a plan outlined to bring the Budget into balance. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I hope so—for New Zealand. 
AARON GILMORE 
: We cannot carry on spending more money than we earn I tell Mr Cunliffe. We cannot go on borrowing $300 million a week and spending the $5 billion that that member and his party wants to continue to spend to bankrupt not only me not only my family but this whole country. That is what Labour’s spending would achieve. Thank you. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.