Hutchison Paul: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hutchison Paul: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3331] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a time in the term of a Government when it becomes palpably arrogant if not intolerant. When I read in the paper this morning that the Prime Minister said with regard to the Prime Minister’s statement that if it were up to her she could not be bothered I knew that that time had come for Helen Clark. Indeed most New Zealanders have had a taste of Helen Clark’s arrogance and intolerance and perhaps under a bit of stress and strain when John Campbell has been interviewing her we could forgive her. But then what about when she said up in the peace and beauty of that wonderful historical site at Waitangi: “I’m not a morning person. I’m not turning up to the dawn service.”?  
The setting out of a Government’s programme in the prime ministerial statement is part of the Standing Orders. It should be an incredibly exciting moment for a Prime Minister to outline her vision. But what did she say? She said: “If it were up to me I couldn’t be bothered.” Not only is that downright arrogant but also it looks as though she might have become bored—that she does not feel the huge excitement that should go along with any progressive Government’s programme. Progressive this Labour Government is not when one looks at the welfare dependency it has created in just 3 short years. As the Prime Minister indicated it is likely that the economy peaked at 3.9 percent as set out in the economic review released the other day. It is certainly likely that she too has peaked. Let us just look at the economic review I picked it up on my way from dinner tonight. I certainly accept that economic growth in the last year has gone from 2.1 percent to 3.9 percent. But I remind the House that 3 years ago economic growth was 4.2 percent and the conditions have been good. We know that commodity prices have been high. We know that the exchange rate has been low and we know that there has been good weather.  
But let us go on a little further. What about unemployment? It was 5.2 percent at the beginning of last year; this year it is 5.4 percent. The rise is only marginal but it has gone up. Let us go further on. Inflation was 1.8 percent at the beginning of the year before; it is 2.7 percent this year—a massive 50 percent increase that probably has not taken into account the incredible effect of the massive house prices right around New Zealand. The current account has gone down even further from 3.6 to 3.7 billion. A year ago interest rates were 4.86 percent. By February 2003 there was a 20 percent increase to 5.94 percent. We have enjoyed relatively good economic conditions in New Zealand over the last 3 years—not because of the Government but despite it.  
I took great note a year ago when Helen Clark outlined her innovation and growth programme. The Government reasonably correctly decided that it would focus on three things—biotechnology information and communication technologies and of course creative industries. Let us just look at biotechnology and see what the Government did in reality. It brought in the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and made it harder for researchers to go through the application process. It was going to cost more take more time and the bureaucratic hurdles were undoubtedly much tighter in the vital fields of horticulture and agriculture that are so important to us. Tomorrow we will hear a statement from Marian Hobbs. That statement will be pivotal in terms of whether this Labour Government really means what it says about focusing on biotechnology. Unless it is conscious of the huge hurdles our researchers have to overcome in New Zealand compared with the international community then there will be an exit right across the board.  
What else has the Government done in biotechnology? It presided over a large number of jobs being lost in horticultural research in the very area of plant genomics it professed to be supporting. That is the reality. Even further in December last year the Ministry of Research Science and Technology said that the stated Government policy in research and development was to try to achieve 0.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) spending on science by 2010. What has the Labour Government done? It has gone in the other direction. It has gone from about 6.63 percent to 0.6 percent in 3 years. A Labour Government that professed to focus on research development innovation and change has created hurdles and barriers.  
Finally I want to talk about the tragedy we have seen in the last few weeks relating to dangerous dog attacks. It is not just the last few weeks. Over the last 2 years 300 people per year have been admitted to hospitals as inpatients as a result of such attacks. That compares with about 180 in 1988—and that is not to mention thousands who have been treated and gone home. The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)—the dog control bill—has been languishing on the Order Paper for 3 years. It had 54 submissions and was reported back to Parliament in late 1999. Today Dr Cullen moved a motion to send it back to the select committee. I say to Dr Cullen that that is just not good enough. That bill should go as top priority on the Order Paper. We have the evidence. It is time to increase dog ownership responsibility and monitoring. The system must be tightened up. The powers of dogcatchers must be strengthened. The penalties must be made palpably deterrent. I say to Dr Cullen that it is quite simple—that bill can be the template to do what is necessary. The evidence of the last 10 years shows an increase in dog attacks and the Government must act. The Prime Minister did mention a change to the dog laws in her speech. But when? “Some time at the end of the year” was what I heard. That would mean another 300 preventable attacks—40 percent on children.  
The Prime Minister’s statement should be important but what did she say? She said if it were up to her she would not be bothered. The National Party will hold this Government to account on economic growth. It has had a holiday over the last 3 years but things are getting tough and this will be the test of its ability. The National Party will be holding this Government to account to ensure it progresses bills like the dog control bill expeditiously because this Labour Government has demonstrated that it has become arrogant intolerant and quite lazy. The Prime Minister has peaked and so has her Government. They are on the way down—the indications are there. The Prime Minister and her Government are now past their use-by date. We look forward to seeing a very strong emergence of and an accountability kept by the National Party.