Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Prime Minister’s StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement[Sitting date: 10 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1404. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That was a speech that rivalled the Prime Minister’s in that it was skeletal I think in its lack of substance. It was at best underwhelming; at worst barren of any plan or substance apart from a fleeting reference that life is good in New Zealand because we have had one hell of a good summer. And that is true—the weather has been great. Mr Groser even managed to take credit for that. I thought that belonged to the Deity and mother Nature and other powers that be but Mr Groser seems to think that the weather is within his gift to give.Mr Groser talked about the fact that the Government had been accused of “third-term-itis” and he asked for some facts to back up that thesis. Can I give him a few: Richard Worth Pansy Wong Judith Collins and the former member of Parliament Mr Sabin. I will say no more. They are facts that bear out that the standards that the Prime Minister went to the country with—and it is true he won a phenomenal election; he does have a mandate; his Government does have a mandate to govern—and people it would seem did and do believe the promises that the Prime Minister and the Government made. When the Prime Minister talked about higher standards when the Prime Minister talked about lifting Parliament beyond the place it had been for some time the community indeed believed him and voted for him. Sadly in recent days what we see playing out within our judicial system in respect of a former member of Parliament does not bear that out. It does not bear that promise out; in fact it is contrary to the commitment that the Prime Minister made. But I am sure the facts around that situation and around the various Ministers involved within it will come to pass as they always do in the cleansing nature that is the parliamentary Chamber.Mr Groser also talked about employment and waxed eloquent about how wonderful things were. He made a point which I thought was stunning in its arrogance. He said that people the communities do not understand the fundamentals of an economy. That was his thesis. A number of Ministers have made that comment over a number of years. I think that comment is made at their peril. People do indeed understand the fundamentals of an economy. They understand that fundamentally in order to gain security for your family and in order to gain wealth and have a good and decent life you need a thing called a job. That is a fundamental that the communities in New Zealand like the 46000 more people who are unemployed since this Government took office—there are 46000 more people unemployed since this Government took office—and the other thousands of people who are unemployed do understand very clearly that the fundamental thing you need to survive let alone prosper in our little economy is called a job.I note that our leader in his state of the nation speech was quite fanatical about the notion that the Labour Party—its very being—will be devoted to providing low and the lowest unemployment rate on our globe and I note that the last Labour Government of course achieved that. We had the lowest unemployment in the OECD from 2004 to 2008. That is a fact. That is not hyperbole; that is a fact. And that is something that Andrew Little has committed himself to return to not what we have today.Communities also understand the fundamental proposition that in order to survive and grow with your family and achieve wealth and have a decent life even if it may be a modest life you need a roof over your head—something called affordable housing. That is something that this Government has been in denial about since it came into office and we now have the grand plan in respect of housing which has a couple of elements to it. One is the special housing unit and Dr Nick Smith got up day after day last year talking about the number of consents that had been granted in respect of housing. That may well be a factual truth but of course a consent as Dr Smith would know is simply permission to build. It is not the completion of a built dwelling. We know that I think 15 houses—15 houses—have been built as a result of the Government’s special housing unit. By “built” I say for those opposite I mean built and certified so that people can move into them you know and not a piece of paper that says: “You may build a house developer.” and that developer or whoever else it is might sit on that piece of land for 2 or 3 years. A piece of paper called a consent I would argue would not keep the rain off like an iron roof on a built house would but maybe that is a fundamental that the Minister for Building and Housing does not quite get.So I would disagree with Mr Groser. People do get it. They understand that to have a good life fundamentally you need access to a decent health system when you need it. We know what is happening there and we know of the stripping of resources that has occurred over time thanks to the Government. We all know that because people come into our offices for assistance. It is very rare that people come into your office when you are an MP to dish out a bouquet of flowers and say that everything is wonderful. It is more often that people come into your office because they have an issue or because they have a problem. So fundamentally people know that if they are to survive and they are to prosper in you know the nation that Mr Key outlined—the prosperous society or whatever the slogan was that he used—they need a house. They need a job and a sustainable job. They need a job that does not allow them just to tread water—because I have never met people who say that this is as good as it gets; especially parents wanting better things as every generation does for their kids to be better. They need not just any old job but a job where they can grow where they can gain promotion and where they can gain a higher income. They want to do better in life. They believed this Government as far back as 2008 when Mr Key and his then shadow Ministers talked about the prosperous society ambitious for New Zealand—those sorts of things. That ambition seems to have crumbled into mediocrity crumbled into sort of treading water and lapsing into going from crisis to crisis bout of amnesia to bout of amnesia.The people who are lost in all of that in the internal machinations of the National Party as it embarks on “third-term-itis” off the back of yes a large mandate but “third-term-itis” has taken effect pretty quick are the people whom this Government and this Parliament are charged with serving and paid to serve—our communities the lost and lonelies and those people who struggle each day to survive. They hope that the promises John Key made over three elections will at some point come true if ever they leave their preoccupation with their own foibles their own discredited Ministers and their own MPs and former MPs who do not bring as we sit here today a great deal of credit to this Parliament.The Government needs to come up with a plan that is outward-looking not some sort of battle plan to hold the line as it has done since the election which is inward-looking and myopic. It does centre on jobs. It does centre certainly on housing. Cities and towns up and down this country—every night you watch the news and there is another series of stories about younger people and not so young people actually who just cannot get into that property market. What we hear from the other side is that the best shot for those at the bottom of the heap is to transfer ownership from the State system to the community sector or the private sector. Changing ownership from one entity to another selling a house from one entity to another does not build one additional house and it does not increase the housing stock one iota. It may do if the guarantee was that the proceeds from those sales all 100 percent of them went back into a regenerated housing stock. But we know and at least I suppose the Prime Minister has been honest about this that he has said he will in no way guarantee that the proceeds from those sales will go back into the housing stock.I suppose that is slightly better than the Bolger Government pre-1999 which sold thousands of them and never made any commitment never said anything and frittered the money away and not one dime went back into renewing the housing stocks. I suppose there is a bit of honesty. Now we know that the money is up for grabs. But I say this. I would like a member to explain to me how transferring the ownership of a house from entity A to entity B adds to and increases overall the housing stock one iota. All it does is relieve the Government of responsibilities and that seems to be the biggest policy plank—the relieving of responsibilities that we see time and again from this Government.