Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7483] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was a classic National Party speech in this debate—10 minutes long and not a single policy not a single positive statement. Let me say one thing to the member. If he had listened to  
Morning Report  
that day he would have heard Bill English say at 8 a.m. that it was an idea worth considering and say by 9 a.m. that it could not possibly be done at all. That was even for Bill English a quick flip-flop and it showed the clear choice that this country faces—on the one hand an experienced and effective Government with strong positions and policies for the future and on the other hand an unprincipled and weak National Party with a co-leadership of “Mr Empty” and “Mr Angry”. 
Let us deal with the Government first. We have a stronger fairer more confident nation than we had 7 years ago. One can visit any provincial centre and feel and see the difference. Tomorrow and Thursday Mr Key will be in Gisborne trying to make up for the fact that when the National caucus went there it spent all its time having a good time and not visiting anybody so he has to go back. I do not know what designer T-shirt he will wear in Gisborne; it will be interesting to see. 
We have had uninterrupted economic growth—the second-longest period since the Second World War. In employment we have created 330000-odd more jobs. We have the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. National said we could never get the unemployment rate down below 4 percent. In terms of skills we have Modern Apprenticeships and industry training and we have had a major revamp of the tertiary education system. The Working for Families programme is reducing by 70 percent the number of children living below the poverty line. New Zealand superannuation was increased in the first step we took as a Government and has been maintained at that higher level ever since. Through the primary health care system there are cheaper visits to the doctor and cheaper prescriptions. The total crime rate has actually reduced under this Government. 
Now we need to move to the next stage—the stage of putting in place in a range of areas key sustainability policies that will see New Zealand into the long term. We have done so in relation to New Zealand superannuation with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and now we need to move on the issues of the environment and climate change because our long-term goal must be to be carbon neutral. The Opposition has poured scorn on the long-term goal and asks when it will be: “Will it be 15 August 2010; if so how are we going to get there by that time?”. Well we have to be carbon neutral at some point. The Opposition does not seem to understand that particular very simple environmental point. We have to deal with the damage that has been caused over the last 50 years in particular and 200 years in general to our environment. That is a goal that all members ought to share; all National can do is try to make up its mind as to what it thinks about the issue in the first place. 
In the area of savings and investment KiwiSaver comes in on 1 July this year. We will need to think about further moves to ensure that we promote savings and investment in New Zealand. We have changed the tax laws already in order to reduce the overtaxation on low-income earners—those earning below $38000 a year—who manage to save and we have put in place a fairer offshore investment regime. We need to think about the next steps to build a stronger savings culture in this country. There is no point in whingeing about foreign ownership if we are not saving enough to generate our own investment in our own country. We need to build our national identity more which is not to build a midi-America but to build a better New Zealand. That is what this party in Government stands for. 
Against that is the empty rhetoric of the new co-leadership. Mr English of course claims to be the brains of the team but we can see that that is not a high claim to make when we look at the other half of the team. Mr English says that he does the policy and writes the speeches. He boasted that he wrote the Burnside speech because Mr Key did not know anything about social policy. Well going on what was inside the Burnside speech Mr English did not know much about social policy either. Mr Key is there to provide the veneer but beneath that veneer there is nothing. We used to ask in politics: “Where’s the beef?”; with Mr Key we ask: “Where’s the wood—what is actually below that veneer?”. He has an extraordinary ability to take no firm stand on anything at all. He is all veneer no wood; all surface no substance; all gloss no paint. That is Mr Key. 
In the Burnside speech he had two ideas. The first was to have a bit of coordination with the voluntary sector and to show how important that was he put in charge of it—who? Was it one of the front-benchers? Was it one of the key figures? No it was Paula Bennett a person unknown in the community at large—never heard of. Most people who come from where I come from probably think she is Gordon Bennett’s daughter. Secondly he had a food-in-schools programme—and then he did not have a food-in-schools programme because he discovered we already have a Fruit in Schools programme that he did not know about— 
Hon Member 
: Gone by lunchtime. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Gone by lunchtime indeed was the food-in-schools programme. The “Muesli Bar Kid” John Key vanished completely into the air never to be seen again in that particular respect. There will be a new T-shirt on a new visit a new issue a new photo opportunity. 
And what of the underclass? Mr Key ventured forth from his three sections in Parnell and discovered there was an underclass. There was no connection between one and the other no doubt in his own view of these matters. Well I could have told him that; there has always been an underclass in our kind of society. But what is his policy? From this Government on 1 April there will be a $10-per-week per child increase in family support to all families that qualify for the family support tax credit. Mr Key’s policy was to repeal that increase and to replace it with a tax cut for himself for me and for all members of this House. What does he want? Does he want 3½ sections in Parnell? Is that his actual approach to social policy for the future of New Zealand? There is no real substance. 
What did he say of Iraq? He said that it was too far away to judge the best course of action. This is from a man who used to bet millions if not billions of dollars of other people’s money in terms of Iraq’s international effects on the financial markets yet suddenly when he is the leader of the National Party Iraq is too far away to know what the course of action should be for a New Zealand Government. That gives people confidence about what kind of Prime Minister he might be! 
What of the 
 Hollow Men 
 conspiracies? John Key has claimed to know nothing. He knew so little that he has claimed he did not open the key email addressed to him that told him everything. It actually was headed with what it was about but he has said he deliberately did not open it. That was interesting and nobody followed that up. 
What does John Key think of climate change? He claims he did not say that it was a complete and utter hoax. What he did say was that he was somewhat suspicious of it—that he was not even sure there was a problem. Then he said only a year later that the risks were serious and that climate change had to be dealt with. 
What about the Springbok Tour? He cannot remember what position he had on that tour as a 19-year-old in New Zealand in 1981—give me a break on that one! What about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill? He led Tariana Turia and the Maori Party to believe he would vote for it then he said he would vote against it. What about all those new monetary policy instruments whereby he was first on one side and then on the other? 
His index finger is wearing away from the number of times he is licking it so as to stick it up in the wind to see what his opinion ought to be on every kind of issue. What connects all this is the fact that he does not want to be firm on anything in case he loses a single vote on any position he might take. One gets away with that for only a brief period of time. 
So we have gone from Mr English who became incredible for saying things he did not believe which were mad right-wing slogans to Dr Brash who became incredible for saying things he did not believe because they were centrist and he was a mad right-winger to Mr Key who is becoming incredible for saying nothing except for empty slogans that nobody is supposed to disbelieve. The ultimate thing he is trying to aim for is a slogan that no one will disbelieve but that adds up to a picture of nothingness—a sort of photograph of a white ghost in a snowstorm. That is his position on every issue. 
We are told by a senior member of the press gallery that Mr Key is still on his honeymoon and should not yet be asked any hard questions. Well that is a dodgy basis for a long-term relationship with the electorate. The truth is that there are no answers. Mr English is the puppet master but what Mr English has not quite realised yet is that there is actually no puppet. When he finally realises that he will utter again those famous words: “Why not me?”.