Carter David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Carter David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18277] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 That Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor had the audacity to come into the House and say that he has increased the funding for rural education. He should pay one of his infrequent visits back to his own electorate the West Coast – Tasman electorate and go to the communities where the Minister of Education has closed rural schools. If he went anywhere around rural New Zealand and talked to people he would find out what they think of the Minister for Rural Affairs. 
Yesterday I had the misfortune to listen to 50 minutes of drivel from the Prime Minister. During those 50 minutes I waited for her to once mention New Zealand farmers. Not once in her speech did she mention the contribution New Zealand farmers have made to this economy. Not once was there a vote of thanks for the contribution that hard-working New Zealand farmers have made to this economy over the last 5 years. Instead we heard a whole lot of words from the Prime Minister about how the Government has been responsible for New Zealand’s economic performance over that period. I say to the few Labour members who are sitting in the House today that they should acknowledge that the Government has not been responsible for our economic performance. Our economic performance has come from the backbone of hard-working New Zealanders mainly in the farming sector. But what thanks and support have the farming community had from the Government over the last 5 years? In all honesty I cannot name a single initiative that has been of any assistance to the sector to date. 
As Don Brash adequately told the House yesterday the gross income of some New Zealanders has increased over the last 5 years. 
Darren Hughes 
: Adequately? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Darren Hughes should dig deeper into those figures and should then acknowledge that the net income status of average New Zealanders has not increased one iota while the economy has performed reasonably well. That increase has not been delivered to hundreds and thousands of New Zealand houses although the Prime Minister attempted to claim both yesterday and in question time today that it had because the additional benefits have gone into the coffers of the Government. Dr Cullen sits on a huge $7.4 billion surplus. Sadly for New Zealand the Government has the ability to spend that money with absolute reckless abandon to buy votes in the forthcoming election. 
Helen Clark did not mention farmers and Mr Damien O’Connor the associate Minister barely mentioned them in his contribution. When Jim Sutton deigns to make a speech in the House he will probably forget to mention farmers. That complacency and ignorance is being noticed by the rural sector. Plenty of angst has been set off in the rural sector by the Labour Government’s debate about public access to private land. That debate has now been around for nearly 2 years. The Acland report was cobbled together in an attempt to make a problem where a problem does not exist around public access to private land. That report was presented to the Minister in August 2003. At that time the agriculture Minister the invisible Mr Jim Sutton said to New Zealand that he would table legislation in the House 6 months later—in other words in March 2004. So we waited all last year for the Minister of Agriculture to deliver that legislation to the House. Even though the legislation sat in the Minister’s in tray all last year finally he had the audacity to put it out to the public of New Zealand in a very surreptitious form 2 days before Christmas. On 23 December he said that that was the proposal whereby the Government would nationalise a huge portion of privately owned rural land. 
It was interesting to observe the back-down that occurred yesterday in the Prime Minister’s speech. Jim Sutton said on 23 December that the legislation on public access would be in the House this year in 2005. Then we went through the Prime Minister’s speech and found that the legislation was no longer mentioned. There was a little paragraph saying that the Government would progress its work on the public access issue. While Helen Clark was swanning around Europe skiing and being unavailable to New Zealand Heather Simpson managed to catch up with her and send her a copy of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 survey that reported that 79 percent of urban Aucklanders disagreed with the Government’s stance on public access. So all of a sudden we have seen another flip-flop from the Labour Party which now says the legislation promised by Jim Sutton on 23 December may not be progressed between now and the election. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Good! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to Doug Woolerton that the Labour Party can try to hose down the public access issue but the National Party will make it an election issue in rural New Zealand. I look forward to seeing the junior agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor on any hustings that he wishes to name. I will enjoy the opportunity to debate the issue because that issue is worrying farmers. [ 
Interruption 
] Darren Hughes can object and interject all he likes. He will not be here next time; Nathan Guy will take his seat. Where was that member when the helicopter issue was running hot in his electorate? He was hiding. It took Nathan Guy to get Ruth Dyson on TV and produce yet another flip-flop from the Labour Government—another back-down. The people of Otaki know the member. They do not trust him and Nathan Guy is on his way into Parliament after the next election. 
I assure Labour members that the biggest issue in rural New Zealand is that around public access. There is no problem with regard to public access in this country. It is given freely and willingly by New Zealand farmers; it has been like that for 150 years. But Helen Clark and her mates the socialists of this country want to take rights from private landowners in order to provide for a few trampers. The goodwill of 150 years will be totally destroyed. 
The final issue I want to touch on briefly is the Prime Minister’s discussion in her speech of the homeownership society. She had the audacity to accuse National again of dismantling State support for first home ownership—that is what she said. National did not dismantle the Home Buy scheme. Labour dismantled that scheme which was set up by the previous National Government specifically to encourage State house tenants to get out of welfare dependency by giving them the opportunity to buy their first home. Mr Maharey Helen Clark and Labour ideology could not allow State house tenants to own their own homes. That would have taken those people out of welfare dependency and let them achieve homeownership. We should not let Helen Clark come into this House and waffle on in the homeownership debate when she herself knows that it was the Labour Party that abandoned the very successful Home Buy scheme that allowed State house tenants to buy their first home. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They were bought by your developer mates. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I suggest to David Cunliffe that I take him to Christchurch and give him a list of the people who rang me after the 1999 election after the Labour Party had determined that there would be no Home Buy scheme. Those people were in my electorate office in tears because they had thought they finally had the opportunity to buy their first home and the ideology of the Labour Government took that opportunity away from them. David Cunliffe ought to be very aware that thousands of New Zealanders wanted to buy their own home and the Labour Government stopped them. It did so because it does not like people to get out of welfare dependency. The Government wants people to be welfare dependent because it works on the basis that if they are dependent on welfare they will vote for the Government. That is the most cynical vote-buying exercise I have ever seen in my time in this House. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How does owning a home get someone off welfare? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: A tenant of a State house is dependent on the State. Mr Nandor Tanczos should put the joint down and listen. Tenants had the opportunity under the Home Buy— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member knows better than to accuse another member of smoking an illegal substance in the House. Mr Carter knows what he said; it will be in  
Hansard 
. There is no other interpretation of what the member said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. The member at whom the reference was aimed took no offence. This is a robust debate but I ask Mr Carter to come to order. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not out of order. Your discussion of the rather stupid intervention from Mark Burton would suggest that I was not out of order so I am not about to come to order. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not hear the comment but I have just been informed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that David Carter told me to put my drink down and listen. Since I do not drink I am not offended. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh—he said “the joint”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member taking offence? 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I am because if the member was implying that I— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.