Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Fairbrother Russell: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7316] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I have just listened to a suicide speech from a man who had hoped to be Minister of Housing if the National Party had ever come close to the Treasury benches. We have just heard the reason why that man will be demoted from the lowly position of spokesman on housing: he is a man who does not know how to use figures. He is a man who ignores totally the 13000 State houses sold by National the last time it was in Government. He is a man who does not understand waiting list figures. He is a man who has not bothered to inquire why 40 percent of the people on the waiting list want to change their State house accommodation. Before he gets up here and waves figures around he should have some dependence upon accuracy. That man’s speech shows why he will not remain the spokesman on housing.  
He also went into the mortgage levy debate—a very very silly step indeed. If he had bothered to read a document that was tabled today by the Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen—and tabled without objection; obviously its contents were accepted as correct by that man’s leader—then he would have discovered that the debate about mortgage levies was put on the table by John Key himself. The issue first arose in April 2006 when the Reserve Bank and Treasury published  
Supplementary Stabilisation Instruments 
. 
 It was there that such an initiative was mentioned. It was next raised at the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 8 November 2006 when John Key opened the discussions about problems with monetary policy by asking Dr Cullen: “Are you frustrated with 82 percent of mortgages fixed? The bank is really struggling to have their impact.” Dr Cullen responded by calling for a cross-party conversation on alternative monetary policy instruments. John Key said he was “very happy to have that discussion. We actually concur with that view that there is a substantial issue now.” 
But that is not all. John Key then followed it up 8 days later by writing to Dr Cullen to say he would be very interested in meeting to discuss options. On 12 December 2006 the meeting took place with Dr Cullen Trevor Mallard John Key and Bill English present. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Chatham House Rules of course. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Oh no not Chatham House Rules because that document has been tabled with National’s consent. 
 During that conversation Mr Key took the floor to outline how a variable interest rate levy on mortgages could work. He did it so enthusiastically that he gave no impression of opposition to it. He certainly expressed no opposition to it and there was no demur from Mr English. So the mortgage levy debate was put on the table by National and its leader John Key. 
How does this affect Napier? On this same Finance and Expenditure Committee was the current member for Napier and he did not demur from the excitement of John Key for a mortgage levy debate. But of course when he returned to Napier he did not advocate that because his website advertises that his business is the largest real estate company in Hawke’s Bay. It is so large in fact that when one of his staff complained that money had been taken from his account illegally and got no truck from management he went to the local MP only to be told lo and behold: “We can do that because I’m part of management.” So that very disheartened former employee who feels that several thousand dollars were wrongly taken from his account is frustrated and angry in the extreme. The end of it has not yet been heard. 
The speech of the Prime Minister today which we are debating—as well as responding to a no-confidence motion—is a speech of leadership and values of values that are intrinsically linked to the concept of leadership and to the leadership provided by the Prime Minister in this country. That is a pattern of leadership that this Labour Party has shown. As the Prime Minister pointed out we can follow the strength of that leadership from the nuclear issue that was destroying the world two decades ago. Labour led in this country on that and in just the last few months the National Party has finally timidly come in behind. So the leadership of this Prime Minister has been acknowledged by the actions of the National Party. 
But let us get to the issues of values and leadership. This is a country where we do have people who are earning low incomes and are struggling to survive—there is no issue about that. The Prime Minister acknowledged that in her speech when she said: “Can we do better and move to eradicate child poverty? That is certainly my dream—but let us not dismiss the huge progress that has been made in that direction.” 
That progress is not made by the rampant capitalism of some of the National Party backbench MPs. Their existentialist policy on social issues is bereft of any value judgment as was shown just in the past week by again the current member for Napier. A young solo mother with a 10-month- old baby had employment that required her to work casual hours at night-time when no childcare facilities were available so she was forced to leave her 10-month-old child with flatmates somewhat transient flatmates. If there had been any misfortune at all she would have been heavily criticised and possibly faced criminal charges. When she went to Work and Income to describe the difficulty they explained that she was better off being a full-time mother because she would receive adequate payment from the benefit and would have certainty of income which casual work in a pizza parlour could not provide. 
So what did the current MP for Napier say? This is from his press statement headed “Small business hit by benefit message”. “We all know working is about more than just take-home pay. It’s about building a work history getting into good work habits developing confidence and getting ahead under your own steam. Taxpayers will be shocked by the message Work and Income is sending.” So too will Katherine Rich. So too will Judith Collins. So too will those who care for the children of our country. The current member for Napier concluded by saying: “This”—this care and concern for a 10-month-old child—“is simply unacceptable. The Minister should put an immediate stop to this kind of advice coming from his department. It’s no way to deal with the skills shortage.” It is certainly the proper way I say to that member to deal with raising children of 10 months of age. It is certainly the proper way to deal with the needs of bringing up our young children so that they can enjoy the benefits of an education in this country. 
Debate interrupted.