English Bill: General Debate 
English Bill: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10034] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am one of those old-fashioned politicians who believe that there should be an election to change the Government. But the more I watch Labour the more I believe that its members have gone into Opposition already. They have gone into Opposition already because the answer to every question about Government policy is that there is something wrong with National’s policy. Dr Cullen is conducting his whole approach to economic management as if John Key and I are running the Government and he is there to try to catch us out. Well that is what it shows. I thought Labour members were getting ready for retirement but they have retired in their hearts and minds already. Now the principal activity of Ministers is looking at the National website to see what our policy is so they can criticise it. 
I am also old-fashioned enough to believe that when Ministers say they will do something the public have every right to expect that that is what they will do. 
Simon Power 
: The member is old-fashioned. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have found out that I am very old-fashioned and I have been going around telling audiences that we have found some Government programmes that consist only of a launch. There is nothing else; there is only a launch. I found out today that there is one—shared equity—that consists only of four launches and it is still not happening. The pilot is being designed and the programme may start at the end of next year. Yet that programme was one of the centrepieces of a speech Helen Clark gave one year about the ownership society. The homeownership pilot that has not happened yet after four launches was the centrepiece of her ownership society. What we see day after day here is the fundamental dishonesty and hyperreality of this Government—a housing pilot programme that was launched four times but still has not happened. 
The single core benefit is apparently now in phase two. Phase one started in 1989—that is when it started—so phase one is 18 years long and the benefit’s introduction still has not happened. Even after having 10 years to think about it while in Opposition and 8 years in Government Mr David Benson-Pope who turned a bright future into a black hole gets up and says that it is going to happen. Well the news for David Benson-Pope is that not even his colleagues believe him. Worse than that they are embarrassed by his restatement of an obvious stupidity. It has failed; it will not happen; and he should stop pretending it will happen. 
And the same thing applies to the tertiary education reforms. At the select committee this morning I asked Dr Cullen a simple question. There have been 8 years of tertiary reform which has cost $400 million to think about so has it started yet? No! It has not started. It will start on 1 January when the person who was putting it all together will be hopping on a plane and going back to England. The chairman of the commission that is implementing it is to retire and Dr Cullen as the Minister will be leaving soon after. Tertiary reform has taken $400 million to think about and 8 years but nothing has happened—nothing has happened. 
But that is completely normal for a Government that says: “Free is what you pay for”. Now the “regulated standard” is the new term and what is free is the regulated standard. So the regulated standard cheeseburger is the bread—it is the bun. The regulated standard is the bun and that is free. If people want optional extras like cheese want the bun to be warmed up or want to have it in a box then they are really unusual because that is optional. People do not have to have cheese let us remember. When we say that people have to pay for the cheese and the box it is only because they have agreed to pay for them. If they had not agreed they would have been given the bun with nothing in it. And the Government is going to launch that stupidity on our families! If they agree to pay for food for their children at their early childcare centres then they will get it. If they agree to pay for food for their children who are aged 3 then they will get it. If parents do not agree to pay their children will not get any lunch. Which parent will disagree with paying? You see the free 20 hours policy is totally manipulative.