General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:630;Page:2285] 
General Debate 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. This coming Saturday 1 April 2006 will be yet another proud red-letter day for those members of this House who are members of the Labour-Progressive Government. I say to each and every one on the Government side of the House that we came here not for all the trivialities of the last few weeks that have been debated here; we came here to make a difference. And on 1 April 2006 we will make another huge difference to families in this country. Already because of Working for Families 200000-plus families in this country have gained more childcare more family support and more accommodation support. They live a much better life because of that package. Now on 1 April 2006 $900 million will be spread across people who need it for housing to support their children and to ensure that their children are in quality care while they go to work. 
I want to give some examples of the effect of Working for Families. Let us take Sale and Barbara. They have three children live on Auckland’s North Shore earn $52000 a year before tax and pay a mortgage of $385 a week. On 1 April this year they will get $116 more per week. When the whole programme is rolled out Sale and Barbara will get $245 per week. Let us take Kathryn who is a sole parent. On 1 April 2006 she will be better off by $200 a week. There is $60 coming from the new in-work payment. Her take-home wages by the time all of the package rolls out will be $634 versus being on a benefit of $434. She will be better off; it pays to go to work. On 1 April 2006 Tania and Andrew in Christchurch who have two children aged 4 and 11 and who work 60 hours a week and earn $37000 will get $103 from the in-work payment. When the whole programme is rolled out that family will be $211 better off every week. 
Why do we have the Working for Families programme? Let me skip through the reasons. Firstly the previous National Government left far too many New Zealanders in poverty. Thirty percent of all New Zealand children lived in poverty after 9 years of a National Government. The Working for Families programme alone will drive that figure down to 14 percent. Poverty lack of security and lack of opportunity—that was the legacy of that National Government. Why? Because National trapped too many people in welfare. Far too many people were dependent on welfare—415000 New Zealanders were dependent on welfare when National had finished with them. We have already driven down that number to 289000. 
Secondly we have driven unemployment down from 160000 to 48000 because we want people to have a chance. We are giving them an in-work payment now. We are making work pay. We are giving real opportunity and real security. 
Thirdly Labour supports families. The National Party thinks children are an individual lifestyle choice and parents should pay for them themselves. We believe that children are a shared responsibility. That is why there are public schools; National wants to privatise schools. That is why there is public health; National wants to privatise it. That is why we have family support; National would not give it to families. That is why we support new parents; National would not do that. 
The fourth reason is that under National the cost of housing became the single biggest contributor to poverty in this country. The cost of housing was the single biggest contributor to poverty. We have built State houses. We have had to replace 13000 of those lost under National and we pay an accommodation supplement for those living in private houses around this country. 
We have introduced the Working for Families package because we are here to assist hard-working New Zealand families. For decades they were told they would get nothing. The rich got richer and they got poorer. On 1 April they will get their fair share. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to talk today about the Iraq war. There has been an odd silence on this issue particularly given its great importance not only for Iraqis who are being killed and tortured in large numbers and having their homes destroyed but also for the world if we want peace and adherence to international law. 
Daily media attention is given to the killings the torture and the mayhem in Iraq. But unfortunately there is now silence from our Government as Tony Blair visits this country. I think these last couple of days were a golden opportunity for Helen Clark to say a few home truths to the British Prime Minister. If we are true friends of Britain as the Green Party is—as our Government is I hope—then we should be able not only to talk about trade but to talk about important issues like the Iraq war about which we strongly disagree. In doing so we will be strengthening relations with Britain because the overwhelming majority of British people did not want this war still oppose this war and want the British troops to be brought home. Tony Blair is standing out against the popular will in Britain as George Bush is standing out against the popular will of the American people. 
The war is clearly wrong and I want to indicate some of the lessons that could be taught to Tony Blair by our Prime Minister. I tried to convey these lessons to Tony Blair yesterday. I passed him an open letter that was signed not only by myself but by Marion Hancock Director of the Foundation for Peace Studies Aotearoa / New Zealand; Laila Harré National Secretary of the National Distribution Union; Edwina Hughes Coordinator of Peace Movement Aotearoa; and the President and the Vice-president of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Joan Macdonald and Megan Hutchings. In the letter we explained why it was important that the British Government withdraw its troops from Iraq. 
I will go over some of the lessons that our Prime Minister should be conveying to Tony Blair on this day. The first lesson is that politicians should tell the truth and not pretend there are weapons of mass destruction in a place like Iraq when they know there are not. It is interesting that this week a leaked memo was published in the  
New York Times 
 that described a meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush on 31 January 2003—prior to the invasion—where they agreed that the war would proceed whether or not weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. George Bush told Tony Blair that perhaps they should provoke a war. One of his suggestions in this official memo was to paint a US surveillance plane in UN colours and to provoke an attack so that the war could start. 
The second lesson is that we should not violate international law. Elizabeth Wilmshurst who was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Deputy Legal Adviser advised prior to the invasion that the unlawful use of military force on such a scale amounted to a crime of aggression. Yet the British Government and Tony Blair took no notice. 
The third lesson is that although nobody—particularly the Iraqi people—has any love for the deposed dictator Saddam Hussein no country likes to be subjected to a military occupation particularly a prolonged one. The fourth lesson is that when outside nations impose their will on another country it disrupts the process of nation-building. The memo that was in the  
New York Times 
 stated Tony Blair and George Bush thought that if the invasion took place in Iraq it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.”—and we all know how wrong that statement is. 
The fifth lesson that could be conveyed to Tony Blair is that the British and American forces cannot win. Their presence in Iraq only makes things worse and we saw even in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
how more and more of the country is going out of those forces’ control. The headline of the article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 states: “British soldiers sidelined as Basra crime gangs tighten grip on police force” and that is what happens when there is an occupation force. It produces only mayhem. 
The sixth lesson is that the violation of human rights by occupation forces is unacceptable. Violations by British troops have taken place and there have been numerous instances of that happening. Ben Griffin a member of the British SAS recently departed the force for that reason. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We all learn something new every day. I came down to the House today and learnt something very very special indeed. I learnt that a New Zealand family earning $385000 a year is still considered needy by the Labour Government. Labour considers a family earning $385000 to be in need of a tax cut. 
I am proud to be part of a National Party that campaigned and campaigned hard for the right of all New Zealanders from all walks of life to pay less tax and to keep more of what they earn. I am proud to be part of that party and I am proud to be in one of the parties that form the majority in this Parliament—one of the parties that voted for tax cuts. We are not in the minority like Labour which promised tax cuts to a chosen few who were selected in a last-minute electoral bribe before Labour went down the electoral gurgler. We did not promise one or two selected groups of people tax cuts as Labour did in a gasp of desperation before the Government was taken out. We did not select a group of people as Labour did because Labour had made such a hash of the Budget and had to make up for it. I am proud to be part of the National Party which campaigned for all New Zealanders to have a tax cut. 
I feel very sorry for those many New Zealanders who on 1 April will look across and miss out even though they earn so much less than some of the people earning as much as $385000 a year who will receive something. That package Working for Families should rightfully be named “Welfare for Families”. It is a policy based on a very simple principle—those who in many cases can afford to give the least are being asked to give money to those who very often need it the least. No one in this Parliament can argue that someone earning $385000 a year deserves to take the taxes of a young person earning $25000 a year. That is simply not right and it robs New Zealanders of a rightful and logical system. It also robs New Zealanders of their dignity. 
Overwhelmingly New Zealanders have responded in surveys to the fact that they want to keep more of what they earn. They do not want to become beneficiaries of the State and they do not want to risk being in debt to the State. They do not want to have to estimate their income and potentially become a debtor of the Inland Revenue Department. New Zealanders have asked for a simple thing: just to have left in their pockets more of what they work so hard for every day. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with people having the ambition and the goal of wanting to make the most of their lives? What is wrong with people believing that the skills they have the overtime they work the training they go through or their acceptance of more responsibilities in their jobs will lead to them having more in their pockets rather than being the pawns of Michael Cullen and Helen Clark who may or may not feel desperate enough to give them something on election day and that is it? 
Michael Joseph Savage would be turning in his grave if he believed that his treasured welfare State— 
Jill Pettis 
: He believed in families. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right the Labour members do not like it. But he would be turning in his grave if he saw welfare extended to a family living in an $800000 house in the wealthiest suburb in New Zealand where mum and dad are taking the milk out of the $4000 fridge while the teenaged daughter is playing the latest CD on her iPod and where mum and dad think it is value for money to text her to tell her that grub is up on the table. That is Labour’s idea of the extension of the welfare State. My deputy leader Gerry Brownlee pointed out to me that when Michael Joseph Savage rolled out welfare in this country he never intended for one moment that people living in $800000 houses would be trapped as part of the welfare State—never ever. 
Working for Families is a real “Maharey special”. It started as a mess it was completed as a mess and it will remain a mess the whole way through. It is easy to forget that just 18 months ago we were arguing the case rightfully that New Zealanders may have now forgotten about: that a family earning $38000 will get to take home only $2000 less than a family earning $60000 a year. That is wrong. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It is interesting to follow that member—a member who has eloquently stated the case. He was raised in a State house went to a State school and has dedicated his professional career to making sure that the next generation does not get the chances he had—which put him here in this House with a good education. I ask: what about the next generation of John Keys? Are we to use the excuse that social services rob them of their dignity? I see sitting opposite Tariana Turia who said she does not want to see a world where any Maori needs welfare and on the face of it I agree. But the sad thing is that we live in a world where not everybody yet does have the skills the qualifications the house to live in and the good job—and until people do we will stop Kiwi children from falling between the cracks. We will ensure that Kiwi children get the chance that John Key got. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Tell us about fixing the education system. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Gerry Brownlee said today that there is no such thing as an $11 billion cost to the tax package. Well that is very interesting because on Larry Williams’ show on 9 February— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I made no such statement today. I did point out that there is quite a difference between tax forgone and cost. If the Minister has not worked that out then he should take himself back to his office and do some study. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member will be seated. He knows very well that that is not a point of order; it is a debating point. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The unofficial transcript records the member as saying that a costing of an $11 billion package over 3 years was quite untrue. That is in direct contradiction to John Key’s statement: “Let’s understand you know from the last tax package which we had was um probably the largest single proposed tax plan ah I think New Zealand’s ever seen. I mean it was ‘$11 billion’ and the estimates are $3.5 billion of borrowing.” Borrowing for what? It was borrowing to give tax cuts to that member’s rich mates—men who bulldoze other people’s houses so they can build their tennis courts; men who dedicate their careers to ensuring that the next generation cannot get what they did. 
I want to talk about tax because on 1 April we are bringing in tax cuts worth about the same as taking 2c off the business tax rate—$1.4 billion. But the cuts are better targeted. They are targeted at the things surveys tell us that Kiwi businesses most want—things like not paying provisional tax off at the rate of last year’s earnings. Earnings go up and down and if people have a bad year they do not want to be paying tax off at the higher rate they paid the previous year; they want their tax rate to move with their income. And we have fixed it—we have fixed it in this tax package. Business told us that fringe benefit tax was a “pain in the rhetorical” so we have raised its threshold level to ease compliance costs. Business told us that PAYE was difficult to administer. Well the fix was something both parties supported so we have subsidised payroll agents to make it easy. We have also provided international recruitment benefits and new rates of depreciation for high tech. 
You know John Key thinks that the best way to make money is to buy a big house. Well maybe he will make money maybe he will not but it is not good if New Zealanders think their country will get rich through real estate. Hey we will get rich as a country when we build things make things and export things not when we speculate on property or foreign exchange! If we are to build and to innovate we need low depreciation rates on investment and technology and that is what we are bringing in on 1 April. We are bringing in low depreciation rates on technology—tax cuts for innovators. That is what is in this package. 
In this Parliament it is fair to say that some days are better than others. I can say to members opposite that 1 April will be a red-letter day for New Zealand and a red-letter day for the Labour Government. John Key said we had gone down the gurgler. Well I do not know whether he has noticed but we are still on the Treasury benches and he is still in the Opposition. He will be an old man before he gets out of there at this rate because we are governing in the interests of all New Zealanders and not just John Key’s tennis club. With the Working for Families package interest-free student loans an increase in the superannuation rate and the business tax package worth 2c off the business tax rate what a day it is for New Zealand and what a day it is for the Government! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 My colleague John Key has just interjected by pointing out that 5 minutes can be a long time when one has to listen to someone like Minister Cunliffe. This Labour Government’s Working for Families package is a serious issue. One of what the Government claims to be its main aims is exactly this: “Make work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work.” I want David Cunliffe to reflect on these facts—and I will quote figures from the annual report of the Inland Revenue Department—given that aim of making work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would be happy to seek leave to take a further call as the member suggested should he wish. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. The member should not interrupt other members’ speeches by making points of order that are not points of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I thought the member was asking me to seek leave and I am happy to do so in order to explain the point he raised. I seek leave to take a further call to explain the point the member raised. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I want that arrogant Minister to listen to this. If this policy is about helping people get into work then I want to explain these facts. Take a woman who has three children who is on a benefit such as the domestic purposes benefit and who is trying to get into work. At $10000 of earned income she will still receive most of her domestic purposes benefit. Very little of it is abated away. She will still get almost the full domestic purposes benefit if she is earning $10000. To be independent of the domestic purposes benefit and to really get into work where she will be independent of that benefit she has to earn over $25000 a year. So she has to go from $10000 of earned income to $25000 of earned income. It is then that she is really in work because at that point she is virtually independent of the domestic purposes benefit. 
I want David Cunliffe to tell this House how much he thinks that woman gets to keep of the extra $15000 she earns. I will tell him what she gets to keep. Of that extra $15000 she would have to earn to become independent of the domestic purposes benefit that member’s Government takes $13845 of it and leaves her with $1155—and he calls that helping poor people! 
John Key 
: He thinks it’s funny. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: He thinks it is funny—and he thinks it is going to be all right. 
I want the next Labour speaker to tell us how that is helping people get into work and making work pay. When people try to get off benefits and try to become independent of the benefit system and be in full-time work that Minister’s rapacious Government takes through that entire income range— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: We’re giving it away. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Giving it away? The Government is taking it from them! As those people work harder and harder to try to attain the dignity of earning their own income for their children that Minister’s Government through that entire income range from $10000 of earned income through to $25000 of earned income takes 92c of every dollar they earn. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier the member asked me to take another call then refused leave for me to do that. I wonder whether he is trying to ignore the fact that wherever the threshold is there will be an abatement effect—unless he advocates a universal benefit. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. That is not a point of order. It is a debatable issue and I remind members that frivolous interjections designed to break up a speech are out of order and will not be tolerated. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I know that members opposite are embarrassed about this because they claim to actually care about poorer working people. It is a disgrace. Someone mentioned debating points but the figures I am quoting are the Inland Revenue Department’s figures on this great Working for Families package. That is what this Government is doing. 
OK the Government might be going to give some of this money to someone in an $800000 house with kids who have iPods cellphones and what have you but if it cares about those poorer people on benefits who are trying to work to earn more so they can stand on their own feet then it is a disgrace to take that money from them. When those people go to all that trouble to earn the $15000 they need to get off the benefit and the Government takes almost $14000 of that $15000 from them leaving them and their children with just $1155 of the $15000 earned I think it is a disgrace. Labour members have gone quiet now because that is nothing to crow about. It is shameful. 
What is more the Inland Revenue Department’s figures show that it is not just the way the Government is taxing these people that is a disgrace; the churning and waste is also a disgrace. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 At the beginning of the year the Prime Minister said in her statement: “There is a world of difference between Labour’s “New Zealand way” of promoting higher wages based on higher skills innovation productivity and sustainability and the right-wing parties’ standard prescriptions of slashing the tax base in public spending cutting back on employees’ rights and protections sacrificing the environment and deregulating and privatising. That was the agenda New Zealanders revolted against in 1999 and have rejected ever since that time.” This is a day when we in Labour are very proud to be part of Labour because today we are talking about a fabulous range of policies that will be implemented on Saturday. We are proud to be members of a party that is progressive forward-looking and inclusive and that still believes in universality—as did our first Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage a man of whom we are very proud. 
I also remind members opposite of what their current but temporary leader Don Brash has said in the past that refers particularly to universality and I think it is particularly important to put it on the record again. In March 2004 he said: “I’m saying there are racial components in the allocation of healthcare and education funding—in that sense I suppose you can say I’m saying Maori are given too much.” Given the comments National members made this afternoon during question time and their obvious lack of enthusiasm during the debate this afternoon on the Working for Families package I ask them what parts will they cut? Which families will they cut income from? This is the Government that has got more people off benefits than any National Government did in recent years—and $11 billion worth of tax cuts would not deliver the kind of money this Government’s policies will deliver to working New Zealanders. 
Labour listened very carefully last year to what New Zealanders said they most wanted. They said that what they wanted most was more help for New Zealand families more help for working families and more help for people when they need financial assistance the most which is when they are raising their children. We all know that raising our children is the most expensive time of our life. Labour listened; Labour is delivering. And I am proud we are delivering. 
I am very proud to live in the Wanganui-Taranaki area and I am very proud of what we have done for families in that area. We are already providing $49 million extra in financial assistance to families who are working and helping to raise their families. We are also assisting more than 2500 families who are receiving $12 million in family assistance. Six hundred working families are getting more than $1 million through the accommodation supplement and 500 families and more are receiving assistance through the accommodation supplement. These are fabulous sums of money that are going directly into families’ pockets. 
Where are those families spending this increased income? They are spending it on their children and in their local towns. An example of how that is benefiting our local towns is that in 2001 Wanganui had 36 vacant shops. Today only eight are vacant and development plans are under way for five of those so now only three shops remain empty in the Wanganui main street business district. What has happened since 2001? We have had a Labour Government whose policies have provided a direct form of assistance to the whole community in which I live and to communities throughout New Zealand from North Cape to the Bluff. Families spend their money locally. Money is made round to go round as they say and this money is going back into the communities where families throughout New Zealand live. This is not just about assisting families through the Working for Families package; this is about a whole suite of policies that will benefit New Zealand. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 There are a number of things that one can prophesy and forecast in the world and at the time people do not listen at all and then many years later when those things happen everyone asks why someone did not say something about it. I can remember in the 1990s coming back from seeing some of the research laboratories in the United States that were looking at things like DVDs. I would go along to Cabinet and talk about those things called DVDs and everyone thought they were some sort of a disease that penicillin would cure. Now DVD is just a common everyday occurrence. 
I remember talking about the Internet. I had seen a trial of the Internet with email flowing into it. I came back so excited. I remember several of the senior Cabinet members saying that no one would even have a personal computer on his or her desk because it was so hot. The reason I am saying this is that I am sending another warning today and I hope it will be recorded in  
Hansard 
 properly so that the media and the talkback hosts will refer to this speech of mine made on 29 March about Auckland’s infrastructure deficit problems and the nightmare that people will face during all the years running up to but specifically at the time of the 2011 Rugby World Cup. I say that because the Prime Minister raced off to Ireland and gave assurances as part of the bid that infrastructure would be dealt with. So I want to raise with this House some specifics about what I think are the problems and how they will emerge. 
First I take members back to the Transit document of August last year. Remember this has been superseded by a new plan that wipes out half of that stuff and completely ridicules it but I will take Dr Cullen at his word: “We will find the money to go back to the August update.” 
John Key 
: He’s going to borrow it. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: OK we will take Dr Cullen at his word and assume we will go back to it. Even if we go back to this plan—the plan of August last year—I remind members what Auckland will be in the middle of when the Rugby World Cup is on. Here are the four biggies. The first is a second harbour crossing across the Mangere Bridge area. I have to say that while that is going on the disruption to traffic and so on will be catastrophic. If members do not know how important that is look at what happened when Transit closed the Mangere Bridge a while ago to do some work. 
John Key 
: On a Saturday. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes on a Saturday and it caused absolute mayhem. I shall give members the exact dates for that particular bridge project. The Mangere Bridge extension the Manukau harbour crossing will start in 2009-2010 and finish in 2012-2013 so it will be well and truly into the middle of the mess— 
John Key 
: That’s if you’re lucky. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is if one is lucky as my colleague John Key says. But I am taking Dr Cullen at his word. There are some other big ones. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is from Dunedin his predecessor was from Dunedin and the one before him was also from Dunedin and they do not understand Auckland’s transport problems. But I shall tell members about a couple of others. There is the Avondale extension of State Highway 20. Right now motorists come out of Auckland Airport head north down State Highway 20 towards the city cross the Mangere Bridge hit Hillsborough Road and there should be—and I am happy to pay for it—a sign that states: “You’re on your own from here suckers” because the motorway has just stopped altogether and motorists have to work their way through some little suburban street network to see whether they can get themselves to town. That can take an hour and a half or 2 hours and it is getting worse all the time. Is the Avondale extension of State Highway 20 which would take that motorway right through to join up to the north western motorway on the plan? Yes it is. It is on the plan for commencement in 2009-2010 and completion some 8 years later. So again it will not be built in time for the Rugby World Cup it will not be available; it will be just a major construction site causing more chaos and mayhem. 
How about the harbour bridge to city link? That is considered to be vital if we are to move transport from the North Shore in and out of the city. I have here the details of the harbour bridge to city link. This is better. Construction will start in 2008-2009 and finish in 2013-2014. So again the harbour bridge to city link will be halfway through its major construction when the Rugby World Cup is on. And here is the doozy of them all. I do not think that anybody who is not from Auckland really appreciates how vitally important the Newmarket viaduct is to the city. Until State Highway 20 is built the only north-south route through the city is via the Newmarket viaduct. During the day even at non-peak times it is crowded. It will be halfway through its refurbishment when the Rugby World Cup is on and that is an outrage. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate. National is obviously and clearly rattled by the Government’s Working for Families package the next stages of which are going to be rolled out on 1 April 2006. It is very amusing to be lectured on beneficiary numbers and how to get people off benefits and into work by a party that saw beneficiary numbers spiral out of control and saw those people who were living on a benefit pushed further and further into poverty. This Government has a phenomenal record of moving people off benefits and into work. I wonder whether the $11 billion worth of tax cuts that National promised at the last election would have come at the cost of cutting many of the good programmes. They might not suit National Party rhetoric but they are actually delivering results. At the end of the day that is what we are here for. 
But I want to talk today about the student loan policy because 1 April 2006 will be a red-letter day for students. This is something that students have fought for for a long time. It will benefit students who have already been through the system it will benefit students who are currently in the system and it will benefit future students. This Government thinks that one should definitely pay back the loan that one has borrowed but one should not be crippled by the burden of the interest that is charged upon it. I endorse that policy. I remember what it was like to be a student under Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who was so proud of his student support policy that he was climbing out of windows at universities to avoid talking to students about it. But I do hear in recent times that he has felt a little bit of remorse perhaps about the way the student support policy was introduced. Although I welcome that I say that it is too little too late. 
The student loan policy and the interest charged on student debt have caused a number of sociological problems that if not dealt with now will cause big headaches for Governments in the future. We make a number of presumptions when we look at issues such as superannuation. One presumption is that people will own a freehold home by the time they reach superannuation so that they can survive on the level of superannuation that we afford to all superannuitants. With the advent of the student loan debt we have seen young people—single couples or families—delaying first having a family and second buying a home to the point where there is concern that they may never own a freehold house and that that would severely impact on future Governments. I am very very pleased that this Government has decided to take charge and to make a bold move today to nip that in the bud. 
It is very interesting when one hears members on the opposite side of the House constantly bleating at the Government about the brain drain. They are constantly saying that we have all these people going overseas and asking what are we are doing about it. I have a lot of friends who are overseas. Most of them left during the National Government—I do not know whether that was deliberate; it was probably just because they graduated and went on their OEs if I am to be fair—but they have not come back. Why have they not come back? Because they have not set up student loan payments. This Government is putting in place an amnesty that will allow students without penalty to set up loan repayments from overseas. Many people I know who are overseas will do that. But what is particularly good is that they are talking about coming home. While they were overseas they could escape their student debt. 
Members opposite seem to think that graduates think more of tax cuts than they do of the fact that they pay 10c in every dollar that they earn straight over to the Inland Revenue Department. National has no idea about the incentives involved in repaying a student loan. The biggest incentive to repay your student loan is when you see that there is finally light at the end of the tunnel; when you make your repayments and you see— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! You are bringing the Speaker into it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sorry Mr Assistant Speaker. I know that you do not have a student loan. The biggest incentive for people to repay their student loans is when they see that there is finally a light at the end of tunnel and that the interest is not so burdensome that they are never going to get on top of it. Indeed in the 1990s under the National Government I thought I would never get rid of my student loan. I thought there was a very real prospect that for the rest of my life I would be servicing the interest by paying 10c in every dollar straight over to the Inland Revenue Department and that I would probably die with my student loan. There were many other students who felt the same way. 
Incremental changes over the years have made this a lot better and made a difference. I see Brian Donnelly putting up his hand and I acknowledge him. But we need a bold move; we need a bold change. Remember students do not have a choice about whether to pay back their student loans. It is not like they can suddenly decide that because there is no interest they will not repay them. They are compelled by law to pay 10c in every dollar. We say to them that we value the contribution that graduates make to this country. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Your mailbag Mr Assistant Speaker like those of many other members will I know be full of letters from New Zealanders appealing to this House to get away from malicious personalised attacks and to debate instead the many serious issues that confront our nation its families and its people. United Future wholeheartedly agrees with those sentiments. 
Today I want to utilise my time to talk about a number of those important issues. Following 21 consecutive quarters of economic expansion the New Zealand economy contracted by 0.1 percent in the quarter ended December 2005. That news coincided with the announcement that our balance of payments deficit was no less than $13.7 billion for the year ended December 2005 8.9 percent of GDP and coincidentally also the worst December year result since 1984 exactly 21 years previously. These figures should act as a wake-up call to every single party and every single member of this Parliament. We should be collectively applying our minds to work constructively and together towards the goal of improving and improving rapidly the strength of the New Zealand economy. 
I want to turn to a couple of specific examples. Last week a group of wool growers called by my office to report that in real terms the price of wool is now at an historic low. In addition the existing industry structures are they believe dysfunctional and beyond the point of no return. Indeed returns to growers are now so bad that they told me some wool growers have decided to change their farming practices because it no longer pays to worry about wool quality. Rather sheep are being farmed simply for their meat. 
I well remember that the meat industry was in a similar perilous state in the early 1980s. I was one of a number of consultants taken on at that stage by the Hon Bill Birch in his capacity as Minister of National Development to find a new pathway forward for the meat industry. Our conclusion was that it needed nothing short of a reformation. We called for that reformation action was taken and that industry has gone on to success. Nothing short of a reformation for the wool industry is now necessary. So today I call on the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Trevor Mallard to emulate Bill Birch’s example call together the best brains in the nation and build a cross-party consensus to undertake a total reformation of the wool industry in this country. It is tragic. We produce wool and our wool growers get less than 1 percent normally of the retail price of carpets or wool at the other end of the scale. It is simply still in the colonial era and needs to come out of it. 
Forestry is similarly in a slump. The current problems are again acute serious and urgent. We have a stand-off between the New Zealand Forest Owners Association and the Government at a time when the industry is already under pressure because of international wood prices. The stand-off is specifically about the Government’s Kyoto Protocol - driven deforestation cap which aims to hugely penalise forest growers if the cap is broken but steadfastly refuses to contemplate providing any incentive at all for replanting following harvest or indeed for new greenfields planting. That needs to change and change fast. 
In December 2005 the Hon Nick Smith wrote to the Hon David Parker then the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues offering National’s cooperation in a bipartisan approach to this issue. I am disappointed to learn that to date that letter has not even been acknowledged. That is simply not good enough. Today United Future appeals to both Labour and National to park politicking for a bit and agree to cooperate in a bipartisan and indeed a multiparty attempt to resolve the serious issues. 
In the late 1950s early 1960s in the United States of America Lyndon Johnson became very popular and subsequently became Vice-President because when he was leader of the Democratic Party he said: “We have some serious problems. I’m prepared to put party politics aside for a while and work with the Republicans for the good of our country.” It was immensely popular. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to interrupt the member’s speech and this is not aimed at the member but there is a very strong Standing Order to the effect that there must be a Minister in the House at all times. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There is? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mahara Okeroa is here. He is a Minister. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: That proves that cooperation in the national interest can also be good politics. I think that there may be people in the National Party who aspire to lead their party and become Prime Minister and I say to them that it will do their political careers no harm at all if at this point in history given those sad economic statistics they decide to cooperate with the Government on the sorts of issues— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the two members who are interjecting on one another that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected on has the floor. Neither of those members has the floor. Interjections are not permitted when they are directed at a member who does not have the call. I am sorry Mr Copeland but there was a criss-cross going on and it was disrespectful to you. Please continue. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I very much appreciate that intervention because I was trying to get this House to concentrate on the serious issues confronting this country. I was saying that if National is prepared to work with Labour then my appeal would be also to Labour members to get off their high horse. Sometimes humility is a virtue to take a nation forward. Sometimes parties need to decide to put their party political differences aside so they can begin to work constructively to take this nation forward. That is what the people of New Zealand are asking of us and I for one am listening. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 This current Labour Government is arrogant tired and out of touch. This current Labour Government is starting to resemble the socialist Governments of old but perhaps with a bit more lipstick. As a senior Labour MP said to me just the other day: “This is starting to feel like 1997 all over again but this time we’re on the other side.” Well I say: “My friend history has a tendency to repeat itself. The trend is your friend.” That senior Labour MP knows what is going on. 
John Key 
: The trend is your friend. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Yes the trend is his friend. After the next election which will be an early election the commentators will look back not particularly fondly on 7½ years or maybe 8 years of Labour-led Government. The legacy the current Labour Government will leave is a massive extension of the welfare State a massive extension of dependency a massive explosion in the size and influence of central government in our economy and a massive extension of social welfare into the homes of our families—welfare for families. 
The massive expansion of the State under this Labour-led Government has done nothing and will do nothing to increase our productivity. It has done nothing and will do nothing to increase our OECD rankings. In fact after the next couple of years a ranking of No. 20 in the OECD will become but a distant and fond memory as former Eastern bloc countries and former Third World countries pass us push us aside and push us down to the 30s in the OECD rankings. That is not good at all. That is not a good legacy. 
From the 1999-2000 to the 2005-06 fiscal years nominal GDP has grown by about 43 percent in spite I might add of the actions of the current Labour-led Government. Crown revenue has grown by 56 percent. That is the rope that suffocates the growth of New Zealand. That is the rope that suffocates the growth of our country. Ongoing unaccountable wasteful programmes make the headlines every other day as the Government transfers and redistributes hard-earned taxpayer funds into them. That is absolutely appalling. The latest GDP quarterly figures which came out the other day showed that GDP in the December 2005 quarter fell by 0.1 percent. 
John Key 
: What? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: It fell by 0.1 percent. If we have one more of those negative numbers we are in a recession. As Westpac recently pointed out New Zealand is in the cack—I think that was the word it used. 
But interestingly—and this contributes to that number—Government administration in the 2005 year grew by 10.3 percent. The Minister of Finance tried to fob that off by saying it was something to do with all the census workers who had been hired. Well if we look at the same statistics we see that 5 years ago there was not a great blip in Government administration. That is what is squeezing out the private sector and suffocating our growth. That shows again how tired and out of touch this current socialist administration is. 
Labour is not working. Labour has blown one of the best chances we have had in many many years. The Working for Families package comes in on April Fool’s Day. Sixty percent of New Zealand did not want that project; about 60 percent actually wanted tax cuts as indicated by the votes for the parties. Only 40 percent of voters roughly voted for Labour. The Working for Families package is not working to further families’ ambitions. Working for Families is not working for Maori families; it does not even go near to their average take-home pay. Working for Families is not working for hard-working New Zealanders who as we discovered today can earn only $480 gross per week before they have to contribute to families that earn close to and even over $100000 a year. Devastatingly the Minister in charge of that package said that was a fair outcome. 
Again I say the Labour Government is out of touch tired and about to fail. This issue is not just political. I am not here just to make a political speech. This issue is personal because the lack of ambition of the current Government affects my future and my family’s future. I take that personally. The Government is trashing the future that my children will inherit in this country by creating an environment where it is no longer OK to dream of becoming better—where it is not OK to dream to be ambitious or to try to better oneself and enjoy the rewards of it. People are being made into April fools but they will not be fooled again. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 What a pathetic contribution from that member! I have heard of wishful thinking but I have to say that that takes the cake. 
I am very very proud to be part of a Government that is making a serious commitment to families the low-paid those with children and those who are trying to get ahead. We are in Government to make a difference and up and down the country New Zealand families young and old will this weekend be celebrating the measures that this Government is delivering for a better New Zealand. 
The Working for Families package is one of the most significant poverty-reducing measures any Government has taken in decades. Bringing up the next generation is the most important thing we have to do as a nation and almost three in every four New Zealand families with dependent children will be entitled to extra financial support under our Government’s Working for Families package. On the North Shore for example 9000 working families are already receiving a total of $51.5 million in family assistance 4800 working families are getting $24.2 million through the accommodation supplement and 1100 families are receiving childcare assistance. That is $259.6 million in extra financial assistance going to thousands of North Shore residents and parents who are working to raise their families. From 1 April even more families will be able to get their share of Government support to help bring up their children. 
This Government has already delivered a lot to families. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. We have built more State houses and made them affordable. We have provided 14 weeks’ paid parental leave and we have increased the minimum wage by 8 percent from Monday of this week. We are also introducing 4 weeks’ annual leave from next year. 
We have taken some giant steps towards tackling the lingering social deficit from the 1990s when National’s policies were all about economic gains for the better-off at the expense of the not so better-off—and nothing seems to have changed. During that time there was no progress in recognising the costs and demands of raising families. New Zealand in the 1990s was one of the meanest countries in the OECD when it came to financial support for working families or families with children. Families increasingly found themselves on the wrong side of a growing divide between rich and poor with serious consequences for children. We remember the market rents from 1991 when the Housing Corporation progressively increased rents on housing from 25 percent of income to market rates which forced overcrowding sub-standard housing and Third World diseases. This Government has fixed that and we are delivering on our commitments to our country’s future. 
Another lost generation under National were students who if they wanted to improve their chances of a decent life through tertiary education had to mortgage their futures. On 1 April tens of thousands of students will welcome the scrapping of interest on student loans for those who live in New Zealand. That will reduce the debt burden on students and knock years off repayment times. It means that more families can plan for their children to enter tertiary education because Labour is making it more affordable. 
Of course there is more: 490000 senior citizens will receive a boost in their standard of living through the increase in the rates of superannuation and the veterans pension. As my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe said businesses will benefit from the biggest cuts to business taxes since the late 1980s. 
Meanwhile what is National up to? Its members have no new ideas. They continue to bang on about tax cuts but New Zealanders know that tax cuts do not deliver better education and improved health systems. They are so devoid of ideas that they have resorted to personal attacks smear campaigns and witch-hunts—and I appreciate the comments of my colleague Gordon Copeland on those matters—which are not what the people of New Zealand want to see. But National is doing that because it cannot think of anything new to say to the New Zealand public. I say that the public did not vote for the muckraking and character assassination that we have seen in our Parliament in recent weeks. People want to see us getting on with the serious business of building New Zealand and helping it succeed. 
Labour is making a difference. It is changing lives for the better and that is what responsible Governments do. We are in Government to deliver. I am proud to be part of a Government that is focused on its programme for families young and old for economic transformation and for our national identity. Through Labour New Zealand families are getting ahead and I feel privileged to be part of a Government that continues to deliver. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 There is an old mantra in this country—in this fine New Zealand of ours—in our communities and in our families and it goes something like this: when times get tough one pulls in one’s belt spends less works harder and looks for greater efficiencies. Times are tough in this country. The rate of growth has almost halved in the past year with pain now spreading from the export sector into the domestic markets. 
I will talk about the export sector for a minute. We have all known what the situation has been like in the horticultural sector and the fishing and forestry industries for the last 6 months to a couple of years. Now we are seeing farming being brought into that situation. We have seen dairying suppressed for 2005 and 2006 and the outlook for 2006-07 is bad as well. Sheep prices are down 25 percent. We will no longer be able to rely on those high commodity prices that this Government has depended on for the last 3 to 6 years. Tourism is also feeling the pinch. The number of visitors in the 3 months to January was down 1.4 percent on last year. Tourism is an industry that should be growing year on year. 
We now have solid data showing that the domestic market has slowed down considerably. Growth in retail revenues has stopped. The housing market has slowed if not stopped altogether. What is more overall economic growth has flattened out to nothing. 
Hon Member 
: It is negative. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is negative. In the last quarter ended 31 December we saw growth drop below the line into negative growth territory. So what are we doing? Are we spending less under that old mantra? No. Are we looking for greater efficiencies? No. Are we encouraging people to work harder? No. So what is this Government doing? It is undertaking a huge spend-up. It is spending millions more. It is increasing the inefficiencies with tax churned through the system. It is creating a disincentive to work rather than an incentive and it is doing that via a welfare package called Working for Families. As John Key said before it should be called “Welfare for Families”. That is what the Government is introducing. Let us not make any mistakes about that—it is simply welfare for families. Middle-class families complete with their iPods and their cellphones are now able to claim their entitlement. 
New Zealand was the first country in the world to introduce the welfare State which was a noble goal. The intention was to help those who cannot help themselves but now there are families earning over $100000 who are eligible for a State handout. From 1 April 348000 families—in effect three-quarters of all our families—will become beneficiaries. This is despite a  
Herald- 
DigiPoll stating that 60 percent of our nation do not want it. They would prefer a change to their tax situation—that is they want their taxes to go down. Bizarrely people who are deemed rich—those in the 39 percent tax category earning above $60000—at the same time are deemed poor enough to require a family assistance benefit. It is crazy. 
At a time when we should be pulling our belts in when other countries are trying to get people off the welfare system what are we doing? We are bringing 348000 people on to it. Nothing is for free. Families have to pay taxes for all those benefits. Much of the money is just being recycled straight back to the people who are paying for it in the first place. Let me make it clear: it is not the Government’s money; it is taxpayers’ money. I hear time and time again that people should feel honoured to be getting it back but it is their money in the first place. 
The Inland Revenue Department now has 470000 staff with an annual expense of $475 million. It is a tax army—an army of Inland Revenue Department merchants tax accountants and tax lawyers. It is now four times larger than our own land army would members believe. On top of that we have a TV advertising campaign to encourage those people earning over $100000 to get in there cap in hand and pick up their benefit. It is costing $21 million to do that. Would it not be easier to collect less tax and leave more in people’s pockets? 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a letter I mentioned in my contribution to the debate which is from the Hon Nick Smith to the Hon David Parker and dated December 2005 regarding National’s willingness to work with the Government on climate change issues. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.