Hughes Darren: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hughes Darren: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak against the confidence motion that was moved by the Prime Minister yesterday. Now more than ever New Zealand needs a Government for the many not a Government for the few. The speech we heard yesterday from John Key was all about governing for the few in our country at the expense of the many. We need a Labour-led Government in New Zealand that can make sure there is a plan for the future in our country not just a gimmick for tomorrow morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 or  
Dominion Post 
. We need leaders in this country who understand that prices are going up faster than wages whatever statistics dodgy as they may be the Government chooses to put forward. Families in this country know that when their wages come in every week they are being outstripped by the prices that are going up at the supermarket the petrol station and in so many other areas where families need to be able to spend money. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s not true. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: When the member for North Shore says that that is not true we know how far out of touch Government members have become when they believe that prices are not going up faster than wages. They are and if we ask anyone in a supermarket they will tell us that that is true. It is absolutely true. [ 
Interruption 
] Hekia Parata stood in the Mana by-election and was all in favour of low and middle income families just last November but within 6 weeks of being in Cabinet she now says it is untrue that prices are going up faster than wages. But people listening to this debate know that instinctively. It is true in their eftpos accounts it is true in their cheque accounts and it is true as they struggle to pay off the credit card they are having to put their groceries on. It is staggering how out of touch this Government has become. 
We need higher incomes and better jobs in New Zealand and we need to put children at the centre of our social policy. The re-election of the Prime Minister should not be at the centre of what Government policy is about. We do not need a Government that is cutting the social wage as this Government is and making a mockery of the Kiwi idea that we should all be able to get a fair go. What is clear from this debate and from the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday is that after 9 years in Opposition and 2 years in Government the party opposite has no plan for what to do with and for New Zealand. The results are in; having no plan has failed. On the key social and economic indicators that people know are real for their lives—not on opinion poll results—indicators such as unemployment figures wage-increase figures and cost of living pressures having no plan has failed our country and it is failing our people. Stumbling from gimmick to gimmick might have got the Government through the first 2 years but it will not get it through this year. We need a Government for all the people. 
The only ideas that were in the Government’s plan yesterday were either more gimmicks or ideas that went back to the crypt back to the idea that we should sell off our assets one more time just in case we were not totally convinced of the failure of doing that the first time around. It pays to have a memory like an elephant when it comes to our country’s assets and members opposite have forgotten just what a disaster those things were. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: All you’ve got is memories. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I hear Dr Mapp speak up. It is no wonder he is retiring because he is embarrassed about being part of a Government without a plan. He thinks it is a disaster. 
I listened to the Prime Minister tell us why asset sales would be a good idea. Apparently Kiwi mums and dads could then own the assets. I thought every single Kiwi mum and dad did own them along with every brother sister aunty uncle grandma grandpa and cousin—every single person in this country owns them. But there was the killer: John Key said that the Air New Zealand model was what we should base our asset ownership on because that gave us the best of both worlds. But which party opposed the buy-back of Air New Zealand? It was National which here in this Parliament fought tooth and nail against the buy-back of Air New Zealand. But it turns out that if we are prepared to wait just 7 years National can tell us whether it is in favour of buying back an asset. The problem is that we have to check in for our flights slightly before 7 years; we have to check in for our flights 15 minutes before we go. Being in Government is about making tough decisions and when that tough decision was there National opposed the buy-back of Air New Zealand. Today of course—just stop and wait—7 years is how long it takes the conservative forces in New Zealand to catch up and say that the Air New Zealand model gives us the best of both worlds. 
We are now told by the Government which has spent 2 years making appalling choices for our country and our people that we are back to “tina” which means “there is no alternative”. Speaker after speaker from the Government is standing up and saying that the Government is having to do things because it is borrowing money it has made all those bad decisions the economy is in the cart and it has to carry on now with its economic and social decisions. National MPs say “tina”; well this is New Zealand this is Aotearoa and in this election campaign Labour members say “tama” which means “there are many alternatives”. The alternatives being put up by Phil Goff Annette King and the Labour team are the sorts of things that can make a major difference to the lives of New Zealanders up and down this country. We can now see the effect of having no plan at all. 
First of all we were going to be the international hub for financial services. That was the first thing we were going to be but that sort of fell apart. In fact the last time we heard John Key talking about Ireland he was saying we should model New Zealand after Ireland. That is what he said. He went up and down the country saying we should be the “Celtic tiger of the South Pacific” and of course National MPs got up as they do unthinkingly and repeated all those lines from the research unit that John Key had said. We were challenged as a Labour Government to make sure we were like Ireland and that we were following the Irish model. Now I sit here in this debate and listen to the same MPs—or to a few new ones who know nothing about political history—get up and say that we cannot run New Zealand like Ireland because that would be a disaster and that we would go to hell in a handcart if we followed Ireland. But that was exactly what National members had said should happen. 
Then there was going to be a cycleway; we were going to cycle our way to success. Well that has been a complete disaster so now our economic recovery is based on the brand new idea of privatisation an idea that has never been heard of before. We will privatise our way to success. That will stop all the problems that we have in our country and power bills will go down because we will sell power companies. Yeah right! There is not a single person who can honestly say that power prices will be lower for families and pensioners as a result of privatising our power companies. What the Government is saying is absolutely ridiculous. 
We are listening to members opposite say that taxes are a major issue for the campaign. In fact that party opposite reduced the entire economic debate in our country to one that was simply about taxes. It cut taxes more than we could afford as a country and now we are borrowing money because of its decisions. Eighteen months ago I used to listen to the same speech 58 times over when members opposite complained about borrowing $250 million a week. That was a terrible figure and nothing more could be done in New Zealand because we were borrowing $250 million a week. Now the figure is $300 million a week which is $2.5 billion extra a year. What is the difference? It is the tax cuts that the National Government put in place and that we could not afford. Now the Government is saying that $300 million a week is the ceiling and that we cannot afford any more than that. As this economy continues to go down the gurgler we will have to borrow more because of that Government’s decisions and because having no plan has not worked for our people. It is like saying that we should extend the mortgage buy more new items put more on the credit card and get more hire-purchase agreements then go and ask the boss to pay us less in salaries and wages to pay for those things. 
Members opposite inherited a Government net debt of zero. Do members know when that had last happened in New Zealand? Never! From 1854 when we started having a Government to the time of the Clark-Cullen Government there had never been a net debt of zero but that is what National inherited. Those members on the other side of the House also inherited the lowest unemployment rate in the world but they have ruined both figures. Yet they get up in this Chamber and try to argue that nothing else can be done that there is no alternative and that although 68000 people are out of work it is their fault. They say that Labour created jobs only by hiring people in the public sector. Is that how 68000 people have been added to the dole queue since the last election? Have 68000 extra people all come from the public sector? I do not think so; I do not think the National Government is aware of what it is doing. 
It is in education that we see the party opposite making bad choices for our country. Education is in a mess. Cuts in early childhood education have been hitting families this week and last week with families having to pay more per week per child. The best single start we can give any young New Zealander is a quality public education that invests in our people to make sure they can reach their potential and unleashes them for a big brave world in which they can as individuals achieve and be the best they can be. Members opposite have a timid view; they believe in cuts and they believe that early childhood education is baby-sitting. I tell National members something: parents are involved as volunteers at primary school as well so under the logic that we are hearing from National members which states that because parents and grandparents are involved as volunteers in early childhood education we need to have only 80 percent qualified staff we might as well have only 80 percent qualified staff in primary schools. When the Rugby World Cup comes along later this year we would never say let us have only 12 qualified professional All Blacks and three really interested and avid fans of rugby to help them out and make up the full 15. We want 100 percent qualified All Blacks to win the Rugby World Cup later this year and we should have 100 percent qualified staff working with parents and grandparents to start making sure that kids get the best start at ages 3 and 4 if we want to make this country the cleverest it can be. But members opposite are not interested in that; they see early childhood education as baby-sitting. 
The Government is putting costs on families prices are going up faster than wages possibly can and the social wage is being broken. Education will be a big issue in this campaign because Labour has a vision for a bright future.