Borrows Chester: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Borrows Chester: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14201] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to support the motion of my leader John Key who moved yesterday that this House has no confidence in the current Government. I support the motion because this current Government has run out of puff and out of ideas and now we find that its members are too tired to show up. 
When we listened to the Prime Minister—whom the previous speaker endorsed as a statesperson and an international giant—speak yesterday the hugely overwhelming thing to our side of the House was watching what those members of the Government were doing. They were staring at the floor and trying desperately hard to stay awake and that was what was recorded by the media when they had their say the next day in the morning papers. They found and they commented themselves of their own unprompted volition that there was no enthusiasm from the other side of the House until members were dragged reluctantly to their feet at the end of the Prime Minister’s statement. When one looks at the content of the speech one sees a whole lot of tired old drivel. We have heard it before and what do we know we are hearing it again. 
The point my friend Simon Power made earlier was that the first time the Prime Minister announced her victims’ charter was in a South Auckland Rotary club in 1994. This international giant—this stateswoman—has taken 14 years to do anything about an idea she had in 1994. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It takes time. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Good ideas take time apparently. However we cannot swallow that she has victims at the front of her mind in respect of Labour policy on the judicial process and it has taken her 14 years to get around to putting into practice an idea of a victims’ charter. That is why when she says she is so in touch the public do not believe her. That is why when she says she is caring and that she understands the public do not believe her. 
It is no surprise. Labour has no recollection of the past. It certainly cannot go back pre-1990. It was interesting today to notice in question time in the House that when she was asked a question around problems existing in today’s society she went back—and that will be her theme this year and good on her—to the “mother of all Budgets” as they labelled Ruth Richardson’s 1991 Budget announcement. She went straight back to there. New Zealand’s problems today are all sheeted back to the “mother of all Budgets” which was delivered in 1991. I find that hugely ironic. But then I would say that would I not because my memory goes back to 1990; it goes back to pre-1990. 
It is really interesting to look at some of those faces on the other side of the House and find out where they were in 1990 because 1991 was the first Budget delivered by the incoming National Government. Let us remember that it was Labour that delivered the 1990 Budget the year before. All of a sudden things have gone quiet on the other side of the House. Everyone is looking down reading and trying to remember just where they were in 1990. Well it is really interesting to have a look at just who was where in 1990. We know that Helen Clark was there—she was in Cabinet. She was the Minister of Health for those 3 years and managed to close 29 hospitals. What do you know the 30th hospital Patea Hospital was closed on 5 December 1990. It was run down it was earmarked for closure and it was going to close anyway—and there you go. 
But no that was not it. Hang on! Michael Cullen was there. Michael Cullen was the then Associate Minister of Finance as I recall. What was the story there? He was associate to whom? David Caygill. Who was he? He was the Minister of Finance in 1990. He was the guy who went into that 1990 election and promised for the first time in 15 years to deliver a Budget surplus if he got in. It was going to be a $0.8 billion surplus that year and extend out to $2.5 billion over the next year. What happened? The day after the election Jim Bolger—and of course Mr Mallard has just applauded him as being a man of integrity—was hooked in by the Labour Government and said: “We are in the poo. You are going to have to bail out the BNZ for a start. You are not going to be able to deliver on any of your policies.” Labour had to admit there was no dough—it had all gone. 
Every one of those people sitting over there including my good friend Jill Pettis who stood in 1990 stood up and defended the lie that a Budget surplus was coming. They kept their heads down for the next 3 years because they knew they had absolutely and emphatically lied to the public. It was no surprise to any of us the day after the election when we found out that the promises we had heard going in to that election could not be kept. I am pleased to say that I was a beneficiary of one of the promises that were kept which was 900 extra cops. 
Looking back on that tower the result of that election campaign caned the National Party. It caned the National Party because of those promises that could not be kept because Labour lied. The members are all still there. On the other side of the House there are four former presidents of the Labour Party. Every one of them was either president during the 1984-90 Labour Government or operating at a higher level within the Labour Party so they knew what was going on. The brown stuff that hit the fan after the 1990 election is splattered all over them too. They were behind the fraud. They were there and like it or not they are being forced to remember. 
I have not been here a long time—maybe coming up to 2½ years—and I have never ever heard anyone from the Labour Party reflect on the fact that Labour was in Government before 1990. So when we have Helen Clark standing up and sheeting home the recent homicides in South Auckland in January of this year to the 1991 Budget she should have the integrity and intestinal fortitude to put up her hand and say: “That 1991 Budget was a direct result of the lies we told in the 1990 campaign.” We cannot get over it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You may not use “lies” in respect of a party or members in the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Helen Clark cannot get past the fact that promises were made in the 1990 Budget and that running into the 1990 campaign Labour said there was money in the bank that was not in the bank. 
 When she claims that the 1991 Budget put up by the National Party was to blame along with the moon and the position of the sun for deaths in South Auckland this year she has to remember that there is blood on her hands. She has a lot of other things to remember too. She has to answer a lot of questions that have been put to her in the course of the debate on her statement in this current Parliament but we will never hear the answers. 
I look forward to seeing her response to the flip-flops made by her Government in respect of changes in policy. We have just heard about some of them. We have just heard about the funding for youth programmes dealing with young people and young offenders. It was only after National announced late last year that they would be fully funded that what do we know Labour has also decided they will be fully funded. I have a sheet with about 20 such programmes on it. I look forward to seeing their release over the next few days and to references to them this election year.