Heatley Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Heatley Phil: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18309] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Before I embark on directly addressing the Prime Minister’s idea of a vision speech I would like to address three issues raised by the Hon Marian Hobbs. The first issue regards the generosity—as she put it—of the Labour Government in relation to the tsunami appeal. She made it sound like Helen Clark had written out a personal cheque from Helen Clark and Labour Party colleagues and given it to those suffering overseas. There was absolutely no acknowledgment of the fact that it is actually taxpayers’ money that has gone to help those in need and not Government or personal Labour Party money. 
Does the National Party support the tsunami appeal in its various forms across this country? Absolutely! Do we acknowledge all those organisations that individually have contributed? Yes we do but we also acknowledge that taxpayers have also contributed and I would add gladly. However many taxpayers are quite cynical about the Government claiming that that money was its own. No it was earned off the backs of hard-working New Zealanders and gladly given to those suffering overseas. 
The second issue I would like to raise about Marian Hobbs’ speech was her comment that she was overseas quite a bit in the last 12 months. Interestingly enough quite plainly she has taken a leaf out of the Prime Minister’s book. I can track the Prime Minister’s trips overseas by looking at the newspaper. Every time a serious issue blows up in New Zealand our Prime Minister is on the first Qantas flight overseas. And who is left behind in charge? [ 
Interruption 
] No Jill Pettis is not in charge. Michael Cullen is left to fend off the wolves from the door to deal with the problems back home while the Prime Minister racks up her chances for a United Nations job overseas. We have seen that time and time again. 
The third issue I would like to raise as the Labour Party’s paint stripper peals out comments from the other side of the House is the issue regarding the Prime Minister’s and Labour’s goal of getting every mother in this country into work. Mums and dads who choose to stay at home to look after their children are working a lot more than the Prime Minister and the Labour Government would presume. They are not working an 8-hour day or a 16-hour day they are working a 24-hour day and it has absolute value. Women who go into paid employment add value to our country. Women who stay home to work in the home for their children add value to our country. Men who go to work every day in paid employment add value to our country as do men who choose to stay home to look after their children. I am concerned at the liberal snobbery— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague Phil Heatley. Members on this side of the House have had to endure in some pain Chris Carter and Marian Hobbs making contributions to this debate. We largely kept quiet through those contributions and allowed them to make their contributions with a measure of dignity. The chief Government whip has indulged in a constant barrage against Phil Heatley since he stood to take a call and I ask you to bring her to order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. It had concerned me too and I tried to bring the interjector to order. However I thought that Phil Heatley was in fact thriving on the interjections. I may have been wrong. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: As I said all those parents male and female alike who choose to stay at home to look after their children full time add value to our country just as wage earners and salary earners do. I am very disappointed as many New Zealanders are disgusted that Helen Clark and the Labour Party’s vision for all women is that liberal snobbery that they actually have to earn a wage packet to add value. In fact they should be able to choose how they best add value at various stages through their lives. 
Returning to the Prime Minister’s idea of a vision speech it has been said more than once in this House that if it was a vision speech the Prime Minister clearly needs spectacles. She clearly needs binoculars or a magnifying glass. She has no vision for this country because first of all she is unable to identify or confront those issues deep in New Zealanders’ hearts that are concerning them. 
Last year we had Dr Don Brash raise the issue of racial preference in this country in its various forms. Whether it was factual or not there was a clear perception in New Zealanders’ minds that the pendulum had swung too far. The Labour Government denied that there was this general feeling in New Zealand as did the mainstream media at that time and then we saw 6 months of New Zealanders—Kiwis themselves—indicating clearly to Helen Clark and her Government that no they were concerned about that issue. So clearly Helen Clark had no finger on the pulse back then. 
We had the second Orewa speech only a few weeks ago addressing the issue of social welfare and welfare dependency and where it can head in terms of family life when people are virtually addicted to getting some sort of benefit. Of course the Prime Minister and the Labour Government indicated that there was no concern in this country of ours about that issue. They were wrong again. New Zealanders will spend another 6 months convincing the Labour Government that that issue is a concern in this country particularly when the unemployment rate has come down. 
We continue to see the numbers of those on welfare benefits grow grow and grow some more but the Government denies that. Numbers on the invalids benefit and the sickness benefit are growing. We see fruit rotting in orchards sharemilkers unable to get staff and on it goes throughout the country; yet we see those welfare payments expand over time. 
With unemployment going down the Prime Minister claims the Government has somehow carefully orchestrated the surplus. Yet in 6 years all we have seen is an attack on the opportunity for New Zealand to do better. Whether it is in the OECD rankings or in some sort of opportunity to do with work or trading markets overseas the Government has undermined it. We will see that because when the good times move on it will be laid bare—accident compensation occupational safety and health the Resource Management Act the Holidays Act taxes going up petrol taxes and on it goes. 
What have we seen in 5 years? The economy is lifting and unemployment is down because of everything the Government has not done. It has not influenced the dollar and the dollar was low during much of the first 3 or 4 years of its term. International demand for our commodities was high over those 5 years. The Government had no effect on that. There was generally good weather throughout the country every winter and summer tended to be mild in most areas of the country although there have been some exceptions to that rule and the Government had no effect on that. Generally we have seen an economy grow and unemployment go down simply because of those factors which were completely outside the Government’s control and we thank providence for that. 
Just think if those factors had been in the Government’s control what would have happened to unemployment and to the economy! We have a Government that has ridden on luck for 5 years and it is luck that is fast running out. We will see that in the next 6 months leading up the general election. This country can have a vision for New Zealand in the form of Dr Don Brash and his National Party team. 
Debate interrupted.