Cosgrove Clayton: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3695] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For the uninitiated out in the real world that was John Key who currently sits beside Bill English. As we know they are both auditioning. That was audition No. 1 for the leader’s job and I bet we also have a speech from Bill English which will be audition No. 2. I am told that the only reason Don Brash is still sitting in the leader’s seat and Gerry Brownlee is sitting in the deputy’s seat today—or maybe Mr Brownlee is sitting in both seats; I do not know—is that no one in the caucus neither John Key nor Bill English can get a majority. Neither of them can get there and the caucus cannot make up its mind. 
After listening to that speech I have to say that the “$50 million man” who talks about what the message for workers is is no further ahead. Dr Cullen said something very profound in that speech and John Key agreed with him. The first thing the pretender to the throne of the National Party leadership and the man who would one day be Minister of Finance thinks about is not the people of New Zealand or the message to the workers whom he talked about in that speech—oh no! It is numero uno. It is he who is No. 1. It is him and his personal wealth. 
What he did in that speech was try to ridicule a number of people who if Dr Cullen were to be hit by a bus—which ain’t going to happen—could take his place stand in for him and do a very credible job. I have two messages for Mr Key. The first message is that Dr Cullen is not going anywhere. The second message I have is could he stand up and say whether if National were ever returned to Government—heaven forbid—he could name two people on his side of the Chamber who could replace members on that front bench if they were to be hit by the proverbial bus. The answer is no because those members are hollowed out they are bereft of talent and also because people like Dr Lockwood Smith who is yesterday’s man did his time in Cabinet and still has not got over being bumped back to the second row. 
I say that the message to the workers of New Zealand today is that this Government is delivering and members opposite cannot get over it. This Government is delivering to 350000 working families today. That is three out of every four families in this nation. They are not the greedies whom John Key represents but 350000 families—three out of every four families—who are receiving on average $88 a week of their money back. The difference is quite clear. Three out of four families—hold this thought—are receiving $88 on average a week. Then we have the Opposition’s prescription for growing the economy. It is simply this: John Key adds to the $50 million he already has by $91 a week. That is called a Brash tax cut. Under National most other Kiwis including those 350000 working families would receive on average about $10 a week. So that is the stark contrast. There are 350000 families out there who can add up who are smart and who understand economics because they go to the grocer’s shop every week and balance their money and who are receiving on average $88 a week. 
But of course I am sure John Key could spend his extra $91 if Don got into power. He is good at spending; I am sure he could spend it. I am sure he could add to the $50 million he already has. He would wake up even happier in the morning knowing as he thought about his personal wealth that Don had given him in an across-the-board tax cut another $91 to go out and buy a few more bottles of pinot gris. That is the difference between the parties that is what an election was fought on and that is what New Zealanders know. 
I say we should look at Labour’s achievements. Dr Cullen outlined them. It is a fact that 313000 new jobs have been created. Apprentices have been brought back—and I know that every time I say that Dr Lockwood Smith grins. He is the man who destroyed apprenticeships and who pulled the rug out from under every young person in New Zealand when he got rid of the Apprenticeship Act. He always says that yes he did it. He is always proud of having done that. Well I am proud of the fact that we have backed young people and we are bringing up the number of apprenticeships—from 9000 on the go now to 14000 by 2008. We campaigned on that at every election. We campaigned on that issue in 1999. It was one of the most popular policies—and Dr Smith’s only legacy was to not train a young person or not provide any assistance to a young person. That is why we still have a training gap today. We have some of the lowest unemployment in the Western World. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: He’s telling lies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that that is not a parliamentary term. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that this place is pretty lax about what people can say in it but blatant untruths are actually outside the Standing Orders and history will show— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been here long enough to know that that is a point for debate. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: But Madam Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the issue. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The truth is he cannot hack it. The truth is he cannot handle history. History will judge him. It is a fact that National abolished the Apprenticeship Act. That member cannot handle the history. That may be his legacy. That may be what he tells his grand-kids—that his greatest accomplishment in this Parliament was to do away with and destroy apprenticeships. Well he did it and that is a fact. 
John Key had the audacity to stand up and talk about borrowing. Well let us look at the National Party prescription for growth which is that we borrow excessively. In fact John Key who talked about our programme stated on 16 June in a  
Scoop 
 transcript with regard to borrowing: “We did some calculations prior to the election. You may remember we originally had said we thought over the first term or over the period of the first term of the National Government”—and this bit is a cracker—“we were likely to borrow $3 billion more than the current projections had been for a Labour Government.” 
 So he was going to use the old “think big” mentality and give a big tax cut of $9 billion or $10 billion—the rich would get more; the poor would get sold out. And how would that have been funded? It would have been funded in three ways: borrow and hope; slash social spending and anything else he could have got his hands on—because of course it would not affect Mr Key; and then sell assets. He was going to borrow $3 billion and even today some of his colleagues are still going around the country trying to deny that. 
I have to say that the election was good. Do members know why? It reinforced my view that Kiwis are smart and fair-minded. They saw through that mentality. They know that if money is given away and revenue goes down then spending has to be contracted and cut. That is how a household works. Kiwis know that if spending is put on the American Express card as Mr Key wanted to—to the tune of $3 billion—the economy will be crippled. I ask whether National could have delivered to 350000 families after it had cleaned out the cupboard of money. No it could not have; that is a fact. Mr Key will never be able to resile from the fact that he wanted to engage in what bluntly was good old-fashioned Muldoonism—borrow and hope. That is what he said he would do. Then he tried to dress it up by saying National would borrow for infrastructure after it had given a tax cut. 
Well the sad thing for Mr Key is that that simply does not add up. Those people in the National Party have no credibility. The last time they were in Government—and we ought to remember it—they were the ones who produced the “mother of all Budgets” and old “Colgate-man” Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is grinning away. He was one of the ones who produced that Budget. He and his Government cut the pension three times and since then we have had an election campaign where Dr Brash mused about whether he would lift the age of eligibility for the pension to 70. He mused about the fact that if a person were 50 today that person would not get a pension under him. I believed him. I believe him to this day that that is the hidden agenda. How do I judge that? I base my judgment on the history of those people in National cutting the pension three times—again pulling out the rug from another sector in our community. 
That party broke all its promises and made massive welfare cuts in the 1990s. What happened to the economy? It imploded. What did National do in terms of infrastructure? If we look at roading—and National has not denied this—we see that Maurice Williamson went into an election saying basically that National wanted to sell roads. Why would National want to do that? Well any responsibility for infrastructural development that that Government would have as the Crown would therefore be abrogated and those members would be able to raise up their hands and say: “Not our fault if the roads aren’t getting fixed. We sold them; we got rid of them.” That is how they would fund their tax cuts and their social programme. 
I say to National that as Bill English and John Key go down to the wire like a couple of—I was going to say thoroughbreds—donkeys ready to audition for the jobs of Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee we are prepared and we are ready to go. We will remind people not only of the legacy of Bill English in Government but of the legacy of John Key in Opposition—the promises made the broken promises and the bizarre things that were said. We will also remind people that he was going to be a younger version of Rob Muldoon and borrow and hope.