Mackey Moana: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Mackey Moana: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14292] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very proud to stand up and make a speech on the Prime Minister’s statement. First I point out the contrast between the speech from our Prime Minister Helen Clark and that of the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say about the speech from the Leader of the Opposition is that it is fine if we want a stand-up comedian for a Prime Minister in New Zealand someone who can read out funny jokes that have been written by his research unit—witty little plays on words—but if it comes down to serious policy on the serious issues that New Zealand is facing there is only one Government that can address those issues that tackles them head-on and that does not try to avoid them and that is a Labour-led Government. 
Above everything really is the economy. As Bill Clinton famously once claimed: “It’s the economy stupid.” A Government that manages the economy effectively that has a firm hand on the rudder means that we are able to do many of the things that New Zealanders hold very dear. We are able to provide for our families provide for our businesses and provide for our communities. It is interesting that recently we have seen that New Zealanders believe that it is a Labour-led Government that is the best Government to lead New Zealand through difficult international economic times. That is because of Michael Cullen and his performance over the last 8 years. It has not been an easy 8 years financially in terms of the economic and financial global markets. We have faced numerous challenges. We have had terrorism attacks. We have had a war in Iraq. We have had oil prices rocketing because of instability in the Middle East. We have had severe acute respiratory syndrome. We have had mad cow disease. We have had all those things. We are now going through a difficult international economic time but still we have seen the longest sustained period of economic growth since the Second World War. That does not happen by accident. 
We can compare that Government with National’s which had two recessions the last time it was in Government because unlike Labour National does not believe in governing for all New Zealanders. So long as its supporters are doing OK then that is all it cares about. Only a Labour-led Government with Michael Cullen in the finance role providing stability in our economy will mean that we are able to have an economy that has dividends for all New Zealanders. 
There were a couple of really key areas in the Prime Minister’s speech such as housing affordability. This Government has come out with a range of options and a range of tools. We can compare that position again with that of National when its own leader last year said that he thought the Hobsonville development was “economic vandalism”. This week he said that he thinks it is a good idea that National can probably support. He is swaying in the wind getting dizzy from the U-turns. 
I am really proud of the major funding boost for non-governmental organisations announced by the Prime Minister this week. Recently at the end of last year Ruth Dyson came to Gisborne and Whakatane and she met with a range of providers. As the new Minister for Social Development and Employment she talked about her vision being about sustainability in that sector. She said that the sector has now been built up and that one of the most important things for a Government to do first is to address a lot of the social issues—to put money back into the pockets of working families to provide 20 free hours of early childhood education and to make sure our teachers are paid properly so that people want to go into that profession. They are all things that reduce the work for the non-governmental organisation sector we rely on. They will help the people who were buying food for a large proportion of our families under a National Government. That is the first thing we have done. 
The second thing is that we have now partnered with that non-governmental organisation sector. We have built it up so that it has capability. We now need to give it sustainability and to say: “Well here you go here is the money and here is your long-term funding contract. You know that you have got a future. You know you can keep your staff employed.” That is what those people in Gisborne and Whakatane wanted and what the Prime Minister announced this week is a huge step forward in that direction. I congratulate her and Ruth Dyson on that. 
I will also talk about the Prime Minister’s recent comments about keeping students engaged in education until the age of 18. This is a fantastic idea and I find it astounding that unlike other countries where it is a normal expectation that students stay in the education system at least until they are 18 years of age or in training apparently the National Party thinks that it is a bad thing to expect our students to keep engaged in the education system and in training until the age of 18. But that will allow us to keep track of those students and to make sure they are getting all of the opportunities available to them. It is a long-term vision. It is great now to say that they could just go out and get a job and get experience on the job. Of course there are a lot of jobs around at the moment; the labour market is very tight. But God forbid there was ever a change of Government and we had another National Government with unemployment rocketing as it did last time. We had a 21 percent unemployment rate in Gisborne at the end of the 1990s. Those jobs will not be there and what will an employer say to a young person coming in to get a job? The employer will say: “Why do you only have NCEA level 1? Why did you drop out of school?”. Young people like that may find themselves missing out on a job because they did not stay engaged at that time and because they did not have put to them the importance of education and getting those qualifications behind them. 
Then we heard from the National Party that “The system just does not work for some kids so why should they be made to go to school?”. That is not good enough. If the system does not work we change the system. We make sure that the system fits our students and all students—not just the white ones that the National Party represent not just the ones who go to private schools but all students. Labour has been doing that since we came into Government. We have introduced the Gateway scheme which is for students who may not want to do all the academic subjects but who go out and work on the job then come back to school and get their qualifications. We have announced that we are moving the Modern Apprenticeships scheme into schools and Labour is committed to ensuring that our system works for all children because their parents are taxpayers and their parents are members of our community. It is not good enough for any party in this House to stand up and say that if the system does not suit some children then those children should leave the system. Labour says that we will change the system and that is what we are doing. 
We have had some extraordinary National Party speeches. National members keep trying to say that Labour is out of touch and clearly that is what they have been told in caucus to say. If that is so I want to know why they are copying all our policies if we are so out of touch. If we are so out of touch why are they stealing Labour Party policy and trying to claim it as their own? And it is not just that; I heard an extraordinary speech by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith earlier today. Not only was he stealing our policies he was actually stealing BarackObama’s campaign slogans. Lockwood Smith gave a speech about hope and inspiration and it was extraordinary. I am thinking that maybe he is sensing that his time is up in this House and he needs to move on to something else and that maybe instead of a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket we might see an Obama—Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD ticket running in the next election because clearly that was where he was aiming that speech. 
That brings me to the issue of interest-free student loans. This is a subject that I associate very closely with Dr Lockwood Smith because of course I studied at university in 1993 and he was the Minister of Education who brought in a lot of those reforms. The National Party has now been trying to convince students and their parents and families that it now supports Labour’s interest-free student loans policy. We can put aside the fact that this is probably one of Labour’s policies that National hated the most and this is probably the policy that it attacked the most. National said that it was corrupt that it would destroy the economy and that students were untrustworthy and would take everything out and invest it on the international markets. Because that is what National would do it just assumed that that would be everyone else’s priority too. National thought it was the worst policy ever in the history of the entire world. Then we heard a few weeks ago that in fact it now supports that policy. It is going to keep it in place. 
My comment to that is: “Yeah right!”. We have been here before. This is history repeating itself and as we often say: “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I remember in 1990 the National Party’s then spokesperson on education Lockwood Smith was out there on the campaign trial promising students everything just as National is doing now. They are promising students everything. I have a little blast from the past here. I am holding a policy pledge. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD was so committed to students that he even signed a document. I will read it out: “I Lockwood Smith MP hereby pledge to tender my resignation as Minister of Education if National having become the Government in 1990 has not implemented most of the party’s education policy by the beginning of the 1992 academic year.” Here is the best bit—“In particular I pledge to tender my resignation if the $1250 tertiary tuition fee has not been abolished by this time.” I am not sure and maybe the House can clarify this for me but I think that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD is still in this House. I do not think he resigned. 
I think that everyone needs to look very clearly. These are the same people on that front bench who promised New Zealanders the world in 1990—promised them the world. But what did they do the minute they got into power? They stood up and said that in fact they had not looked at the Government books—and we heard this earlier from Chester Burrows—and they did not realise that in fact there was not the money to do everything they promised. They will do that again. I can guarantee we will be seeing pledges like this and then if National does manage to win the election on dishonest pledges its members will stand up in the House and they will say that they thought the money was there but it is not and they are sorry but they are breaking all their promises. It will be history repeating itself.