Peachey Allan: General Debate 
Peachey Allan: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4594] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Every New Zealand Government that fails and is thrown out of office by the people carries with it a millstone round its neck. Probably the greatest millstone in New Zealand political history is the one carried by the 1957-60 Labour Government: the moniker of the Black Budget. The previous Labour Government defeated on that great and glorious night in November 2008 will also carry a moniker. It will be that it was a Government that had lost its moral compass. 
It is worth reflecting on a couple of things. Firstly I ask what the 1957-60 period told us. It told us that whenever a Labour Government is in trouble its only answer is taxation taxation taxation. Members of this House might like to reflect on what the 2009 Budget would have looked like had it been written—heaven forbid—by a Labour Minister of Finance. We would have suffered a credit downgrade and Treasury has advised us that a downgrade would have resulted in a 1.5 percent interest rate increase. That means that a New Zealand family—an honest hard-working family—with a $175000 mortgage would be paying an extra $30 a week on their mortgage payments. That is what a Labour Government had it survived would have done to ordinary New Zealanders. We can only imagine how much more New Zealanders would have been paying when Labour dealt with the recession by driving up taxes which is what a Labour Government does. 
Let us think about the first 6 years of the previous Labour Government: 1999-2005 which were some of the most sustained prosperous times in our history. What did that Government do? It squandered those times; it took from New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes that New Zealanders did not need to pay to meet the core expectations of Government. Some like myself believe that any dollar more than the Government absolutely needs is theft and although I cannot in this House accuse that Government of theft I can certainly make the statement that taking more than is required from the taxpayer amounts to theft. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What’s a deficit then? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: What did it do with that money? It bought the 2005 election. The member who was interjecting before might like to recall what it cost for his narrow majority—the majority that he lost in the 2008 election. Sometimes I think members opposite need to think a little more carefully before they put their mouths into action and interject across the floor. 
We need to think about this: not only did that Government build up a holding of the taxpayers’ money that taxpayers need not have paid and not only did they buy an election but also they corrupted the New Zealand political system— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a robust debate—being the Wednesday general debate most things go—but to accuse any party in New Zealand of corruption is way over the top. I think that is just not helpful to what otherwise is a free-flowing debate. One cannot say “corruption”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Certainly one cannot accuse a member of corruption. I have to confess I was not applying as much scrutiny to exactly how the member phrased that as I perhaps should have. I ask the member that he does not bring us into this kind of debate by the way in which he uses that word. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The Electoral Finance Act denied everyday New Zealanders opportunities to participate in our system of democracy. That is what happened. When I talk of the moniker that the 1999-2008 Labour Government will carry I am talking about the loss of a moral compass. For years to come they will be remembered for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I have had time to reflect on the point of order and it is probably timely for the House to look at Speaker’s ruling 51/3 which says that it is unparliamentary to accuse a party in the same way as it is an individual. The House needs to note that.