Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Worth Richard: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14237] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I think we have been very privileged tonight because we have seen Labour on parade—not scintillating not in step not in tune. I was particularly interested in the comments of the previous Labour speaker when she said in words I certainly will remember in the future: “Labour owns up to its mistakes.” Does it? 
Tonight in what is a full House and a crowded gallery I would like to say that I support the motion of John Key which moves that this House has no confidence in the Helen Clark - led Government and why is that? The reason is that it has failed to make significant improvement in the areas of real importance to New Zealanders because it lacks ambition because it is tired and bereft of ideas because it has lost touch with the people who put it in power and because under Labour our country has become a story of lost opportunities. I think it might be the case as previous speakers on this side of the House have said that as time has gone on Labour has concentrated more and more on its own survival and less and less—sadly—on the issues that matter to the people who put those members there. As others may also have said Labour has squandered New Zealand’s economic inheritance by failing to build strong foundations for the future. 
I would like to go from there for a moment and just contemplate that on 7 February we started in Chinese in Korean and in Japanese terms a new New Year—the lunar new year—the Year of the Rat. I have chosen eight questions because in those countries eight is very much a lucky number and I will pick up the theme of that number in a moment in looking at some other issues that directly touch this present Government. I believe we can ask eight questions tonight that reflect manifest failings by those who have the privilege for a short time further to sit on the Treasury benches. 
The first question I ask is why after 8 years of Labour are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Surely that cannot be right. Here is another question. Why under Labour is the gap between our wages and the wages in Australia and other countries getting bigger and bigger? Here is a third question. Why under Labour do we get a tax cut only in election year when we really needed it years ago? Why are we being treated to this sophistry of tension between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance where one wants tax cuts and the other for ideological reasons can scarcely contemplate that possibility? 
Here is a fourth question. Why is it that our children who are determined to achieve cannot buy their own homes? Why is it that one in five children is leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? Why is it that when Labour claims it aspires to be carbon neutral our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate? Why is it that the health system has not improved when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it and we hear comments from an independent auditor that there is a huge and significant problem in our public health service? Why is it that violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continues to soar and why is Labour unable to do anything about it? 
These are the sorts of challenges that those who sit opposite us should address in the context of the comments the Prime Minister made yesterday and I ask why they will not. I say that they will not because they cannot face the reality of what has been a wasted stewardship in the last short period. We in New Zealand should be blessed with a Government that is fresh vigorous and sustainable and what do we have? We have a Government that is stale febrile and unsustainable. There is nothing in the way of new ideas. 
But let me come back to that in just a moment and talk now about an issue that has occupied the time of this House in the last few months in a way that I as a New Zealander find truly worrying. What am I talking about? I am talking about the flight of quality people from this country and also about the refusal of the Government the reluctance of the Government—perhaps for ideological reasons—to confront that problem. 
The numbers are actually quite frightening. In the context of measurement they are hugely sobering. For example do members know that in November 2007 75000 permanent and long-term departures which were the highest for the decade occurred? One month on in December the record was broken again. In the 12 months to the end of November 76000 people left New Zealand. We can ill afford to lose that resource and what is the response of the Government to that issue? I think it is a deadening silence. I do not see any initiatives that are either in place or planned to deal with that exodus of people. 
Among the statistics are some alarming figures. For example the exodus of New Zealanders to Australia is up almost 70 percent since 2003. It is not just new migrants who are posting out—turning round and leaving—we are seeing the highest number of New Zealand citizens leaving for Australia in a decade. The net outflow to Australia is in fact the highest in 19 years. 
Some members on that side of the House are shouting out in an ill-mannered fashion as I make these comments and I am not the slightest bit concerned by that. Where are the ideas? Where is the plan? Do we accept at face value what the Prime Minister would have us accept—that there are some bold new vision statements? Well it is very interesting. 
I will pick up that theme of eight that I offered a moment ago and look at eight illustrations where Labour has snaffled and snatched National Party policy. I do not have enough time to deal with all those but I will certainly deal with some of them. It may be the case that I ask and I am sure it will be forthcoming for leave to continue for a further short period on these very important issues. Let me just take eight examples. I will summarise them pretty quickly. 
Let us look first of all at the plan of Labour to remove the cap on charitable donations. Is it a new idea? No; it was announced by National on 27 February 2007 and then announced by the Government in the Budget of 2007. We can take a second example: all payments that reimburse volunteers for actual and reasonable expenses will be tax-free regardless of the amount of the payment. That was announced by National on 16 May 2007. What happened then? The Government released a discussion document later in time on 1 November 2007. The third example: a greater emphasis on trades training in schools giving schools more flexibility to offer their students trade and industry training opportunities. That was announced by National on 18 June 2007 and announced by the Government on 30 January 2008. I take another example: giving the police the ability to issue time-bound on-the-spot protection orders to protect families. That was announced by National on 1 November 2007. What was the Government’s response? It was a follow-on response. The Government copycatted that announcement in mid-December 2007 with the issue of a discussion document. The fifth example is: committing all fuel tax revenues to the National Land Transport Fund. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s a good one. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Mr Williamson will know this; it was National’s 2005 election policy. Labour announced it on 25 July 2007. 
This is not a Government with fresh ideas. This is a hopelessly failed Government.