Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:653;Page:2304] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As Annette King said today is a truly defining moment in this Parliament. Just before I continue with my speech I point out that the previous speaker Paula Bennett asked what we did for people. When we left office we gave New Zealanders 3.4 percent unemployment. We left office with a legacy—[ 
Interruption 
]—and those members do not like it—of 365000 jobs created. I think this is a defining moment. In my electorate of Waimakariri 72 percent of the families and folks on a median income of $24000 a year get nothing. I can remember the candidate who stood against me and others. Do members remember the slogan of the National Party? I agree that the people voted for the party; at that time they accepted the slogan “You can be ambitious for New Zealand”. I think the slogan to the people of New Zealand was: “You can have fairness in New Zealand. If you want it choose it”. And the people did. I think John Key’s tag line was “Just choose it”. Well people thought they were choosing that. They were told there would be fairness and they were told there would be equity. They were told they would get one hell of a tax cut. Again as Annette King said we are not opposed to tax cuts. National members will whinge and whine and say it took us 9 years— 
Colin King 
: It took you 9 years. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there they go. There is the parrot at the back of the Chamber. We had a few other priorities like 365000 jobs and paying off the debt of the legacy we got. 
So what did the people actually choose? They thought they were choosing fairness and they thought they were being to quote Mr Key ambitious for New Zealand. Now 72 percent of my electorate in Waimakariri are scratching their heads tonight. When they get their pay packets they will be asking how ambitious it is that Mr Key gets $124 a week in his pay packet and then some. The member who stood against me Ms Wilkinson smirks. In fact I think I was called a liar on the campaign trail when I said the National Party would get up to its old tricks. Maybe we did not do as well as we should have but we did try to tell people warn people and convince people that the National Party would do what it has done for 100 years—or however long it has been here—and that is that it would provide the wealthiest like Mr Key with 124 bucks or the substantial 30-odd percent of the tax cuts and that those earning under $40000 a year would get nothing. I was called a liar by that member on the campaign trail was I not? Oh yes. Ms Wilkinson said that would not happen. 
Well now today of course we have a cathartic moment in Parliament because the divide has moved back the clock has been turned back and I say to colleagues that this is of course a traditional— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Is this a leadership bid? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Is that the best Ms Wilkinson can do?Why does that member not get on her feet and justify what she said before the election? Why does she not get on her feet and justify what she told people in my electorate—that there would be fairness and that they would all get a slice of the National tax cut? That is what that member said. That is what every one of her colleagues over there said. I look forward to her and her little mates who write letters to the editor—and I have the quotes from them—getting up and trying to defend the fact that she said to every constituent in my electorate that there would be fairness. Today 72 percent of my electorate of Waimakariri and 71 percent of New Zealanders in this country with families will get nothing. 
I ask the National members as they crow about what the Labour Government did or what our policy was how these tax cuts are fair. I can remember being in Government and hearing speeches where Ms Bennett said National members did not want the Government talking about what they did. We asked National members for a policy and they refused to give one. I just ask National members—because this is a defining moment—what they will say to their constituents when they open their pay packets in the next couple of weeks and find that 71 percent of them get nothing. How is that ambitious for New Zealand? Well it is ambitious for some people. It is ambitious for those earning in the top 3 percent because they get one-third of it. That is very ambitious; that is fantastic ambition! 
It is not ambitious if people are struggling out there in the recession and 1000 jobs are being lost every week—and no one celebrates that. Maybe those members over there celebrate that but we do not. How will they explain to those people who have lost their jobs that they get nothing? How do they explain to the family earning under $40000 a year that they get nothing? They believed the National Party. Maybe we should have had a stronger—well I do not know what we should have done. But people believed the National Party members when they talked about ambition when they talked about fairness and when they talked about equity. Nick Smith interjected on one of our people during question time and parroted “Politics of envy.” Is it envy to say that if I was on a salary of $40000 I would want a fair shake because that was what I was promised by National?