Woodhouse Michael: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Sitting date: 26 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3382. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 In the previous call I heard Mr Williams interjecting that the Auckland super-city legislation was National’s fault. Actually let us just think about the consequences of that. Certainly North Shore’s loss is Parliament’s gain is it not? Were it not for the fact that that legislation was passed we would not have Mr Williams gracing us with his presence in the House waxing lyrical with such great lines as “Mr Spray and Walk Away”. He is indeed the gift that keeps on giving. That has been the sort of debate has it not? One of the more eloquent members of the Labour caucus described Mr English’s speech as “pure bollocks”. Well I think that is a measure of the sort of language that has been coming out of the Labour Party caucus in the last 24 hours. It is very unfortunate but people are listening. 
But what confuses me the most is how Labour Party members claim they understand the importance of an export-led open economy with our trading partners and then turn around and say: “The things that happen in Europe can’t matter to us. Why is the Government always blaming Europe for our woes?”. Well actually we are not. They are simply an environmental variable. But it is worth I think reflecting on the sorts of things that trading nations around the world are having to do including the very significant austerity measures that are being taken by those economies. The UK is facing cuts in nursing staff in National Health Service hospitals of up to 20 percent as part of a plan to reduce public sector workers by nearly three-quarters of a million. That is about one-third of our workforce and it is having to cut it as part of its austerity measures. We do not need to remind the House of what is going on in Greece and the very very real risk of the contagion effect of the European banks not continuing to support that economy. It was certainly a relief last weekend when some form of common sense prevailed by the voters of Europe. In Spain there is a very large debt challenge and it is one of our largest kiwifruit markets. So it is simply not possible to say that we are to pretend that we are an open trading nation and then not say that those things matter to this economy. 
Our tradable sector was in recession for years before National took back the Treasury benches. We faced 10 years of deficits unemployment rates targeted to achieve 7.5 percent inflation already 5.1 percent when we came to office and forecast to go to nearly 6 percent—and we have stayed below that despite increasing GST—and interest rates at an overcooked 8 or so percent now down to a much more moderate level. Yet still there is criticism from members on the other side for setting targets. Well I want to compare those targets with the rhetoric—or as Dr Clark said last night the “rhe-toric”; we have a “ple-thora” of “rhe-toric” from the other side of the House—and to remember what those “rhe-toric” comments were from the Labour Government. The knowledge economy—remember the knowledge economy? The tide went out on the knowledge wave did it not? Remember—this is the one I really like—the zero-carbon economy? Yet under a Labour-Green Government carbon emissions went through the roof. We lost 35000 hectares of trees. 
What else did we have? Closing the gaps—remember closing the gaps? The gaps widened. One of the reasons is that while those members talked in “rhe-toric” as Dr Clark would say not a single target was set. In the best of economic times not a single target was met. And do you know the best thing about not setting targets? You do not have to meet them. One does not have to meet them. There is no measure of failure. Well I think the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have set very ambitious and brave targets. They are putting themselves out there. I think this is a very very significant moment for politics in New Zealand because it is an edgy business. But it does definitely give some meaning to the substance of the policies that we are debating in this House and implementing. One of them of course is the mixed-ownership model. The Labour Party will say that it learnt from its mistakes in the 1980s—and it is true; it learnt. Actually so did the National Government because we would never sneak in asset sales under the radar of an electoral mandate as Labour did in the 1980s. We would never sell 100 percent we would never do it to a single purchaser and we would never do it under urgency. This was very fair it was well signalled it went through a select committee and it had a mandate. I think that is a very very good way to do it. This Government learnt. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can read the member’s lips. He will have to be louder. But anyway I will call the honourable member Denis O’Rourke.