Twyford Phil: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Twyford Phil: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19548] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in the debate on the Appropriation (2010/11 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2011/12) Bill. It is good to follow Chester Borrows one of the more moderate and open-minded members of the National caucus. He often makes an interesting contribution to these debates.  
I would like to respond to some of the comments made a little earlier this afternoon by the Hon Tau Henare. He said—well it is a little bit hard to know exactly what he said but I feel it deserves a response. He is my neighbour in Te Atatu peninsular. I feel the need to set straight the record because he painted a picture that was not entirely conversant with the facts of what happened on Sunday afternoon as the rain pelted down in Te Atatu peninsular.  
I was there in my raincoat delivering leaflets for Kelvin Davis’ by-election campaign for Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin Davis is a candidate who has clearly got the momentum now. The Prime Minister thinks he will win. I saw in the news that even Mrs Turia thinks that Kelvin Davis will win. His support is growing by the hour.  
So there I was delivering Kelvin’s leaflets in Tawa Road in Te Atatu peninsular and who should emerge from out of his house but the Hon Tau Henare wearing his pyjamas at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. The hard-working National list member based in Te Atatu had I think just been watching the league on television still wearing his pyjamas. But there we are—that is life in Te Atatu.  
The Hon Tau Henare did say something that deserves a serious response. He was speaking about the rates that are being levied on West Auckland businesses. He said that this was very unfair. He said in the House a few days ago that it was a constitutional outrage that West Auckland businesses are paying 40 percent more than businesses in other parts of Auckland. He laid the blame at the door of Labour and of the Mayor of Auckland Len Brown.  
This is a prime example of the kind of convoluted confused and woolly thinking that we have come to expect from the National benches. This member Tau Henare voted for the National Government’s legislation that established the super-city last year and explicitly prohibited the Auckland Council from bringing in a unified rates regime which could have been in place for the financial year we are just about to enter. That would have tackled the rates differential and would have put in place a level playing field so that West Auckland businesses would not be paying more than their fair share.  
West Auckland businesses should not be paying more than businesses in other parts of the super-city but because of the silly law that Tau Henare and National members voted for they are forced to pay more. It was put in place so that Aucklanders would not face a rates increase on the eve of the general election. Tau Henare does not seem to have comprehended that. He is on the rampage—he is out there now—campaigning up and down West Auckland against this terribly unfair rates rise.  
That is not the only example of confused thinking. If there is one issue that is on the minds of the nation right now that illustrates as my colleague Maryan Street put it earlier in this debate the poverty of thinking of this National Government it is asset sales. As we get closer to the election we are starting to see the elements of the National Government’s agenda emerge. What do we see? We see a punitive approach to welfare reform that seeks to drive mothers with young children back to work at a time of record unemployment.  
What else do we see? In the last few days there have been pretty clear signals from the Prime Minister of a further undermining of the rights of workers in this country to bargain collectively for a fair share of the wealth they produce. It is not enough to sell our labour laws to a Hollywood corporation when it comes asking for law changes and it is not enough to impose on New Zealand workers a situation where they can be fired at will in the first 90 days of their employment. No; there is more to come. It may be youth rates—who knows what else—but there is something that the Prime Minister tells us the unions will not like.  
What else have we got? Well we have cutting—cutting KiwiSaver cutting research and development and cutting Working for Families. Members on that side of the House deny it but up to $50 a week will be taken out of the household budget of a two-parent family with four children earning up to $80000 a year—$50 a week will taken out of their household budgets.  
We can have a proper debate about Government spending. We can have a debate about what the right priorities are for our nation. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But these cuts are not a plan. They do not offer any kind of rational strategy. They do not give people any hope that this Government has a plan to grow the economy to get the New Zealand economy moving again and to build our prosperity.  
What else have we seen? Tax cuts were weighted to the top bracket of income earners. That is just another example of trickle-down economics. The country is borrowing $2.5 billion this year to fund the share of John Key’s tax cuts that went to the top 10 percent of earners. That is $2.5 billion put on the tab for future generations of New Zealanders to pay so that John Key could deliver to the National Party base his promised tax cuts. This is the tired old hack thinking we have come to expect from National.  
The Government has nothing say about growth and nothing to say about building this country. Where is the thinking? Where are the ideas about innovation? How will we as a country grow a dozen more LanzaTechs? How will we make sure that the brilliant ideas coming out of our universities are captured and developed by New Zealand firms so that New Zealand shareholders get the long-term benefits?  
What is this Government doing having gone to all the trouble to amalgamate eight councils into one in Auckland to ensure that our nation’s largest city becomes a hub of high-value high-tech export firms generating value for our economy? We have seen nothing—no ideas no policy no strategy—in that area. How should we address the skills deficit and put the 70000 unemployed young people into work and into training to make sure they have the skills and the qualifications to drive forward our firms and so that they can have secure high-value well-paid jobs for the future?  
The Government’s plan to import Irish builders and tradespeople to rebuild Christchurch and its intention to import skilled labour from overseas to do the fibre rollout for ultra-fast broadband are two examples of an utter indictment of this Government’s failure to plan properly and to invest in our own people. Instead of wittering on for the last 2 years about cycleways and taking the sharper edges off the recession they should have increased skills training rather than cutting it. 
The Government should have taken the cap off polytech funding and encouraged polytechs to open their doors and bring more students in. It is better to have our young people in training rather than sitting at home on the dole. New Zealanders know this; I hear this every week on the doorstep in Te Atatu. But for some reason this Government has no idea about the practical steps it could take to actually get this economy moving.  
The problem lies not only in what the Government will not do—it is not going to invest in skills training increase research and development or seriously address the savings crisis—but in what it will do. The Government’s big idea is to sell off our most valuable and our best-performing State assets: the energy companies and Air New Zealand. It is sad but true that this kind of thinking is emanating out of National’s brains trust. One can imagine Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee sitting around the table with the boys from Crosby/Textor and trying to think up how they will sell one of the most unpopular policies the New Zealand public has ever had foisted upon it. How will they sell that to the voting public? How about mixed-ownership models? How about partial sell-downs? This is the best they can do. They want to sell the family silver. That is the only plan they have and New Zealanders have seen it coming a mile away.