Roy Eric: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Roy Eric: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14154] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I too would like to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement which was delivered earlier today as the first part of the business in this sitting. My response could be summed up by saying I am totally supportive of the motion that John Key moved. We in the National Party say that we have no confidence whatsoever in this Helen Clark - led Government and there are numerous shortcomings and a number of reasons as to why that is the case. 
Quite clearly that was a prime ministerial statement that lacked initiative. It lacked ambition it was tired and it was bereft of ideas. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes those members opposite may be upset to hear that about their beloved leader but the time has come when people are saying: “We need a blueprint for the future. We need some ideas that will take us forward and we are sick of where we are. We are marking time and our young people are leaving and going to Australia.” This Labour-led Government has concentrated more on its own survival than on actually doing things passing legislation and presenting a vision that we can all engage in and look forward to with some optimism. 
I note that my colleague Lindsay Tisch mentioned that young people in his family have decided to set up and earn overseas. I currently have one of my kids in the same situation. Families all over New Zealand are separated because their young people are saying: “Yes I like the All Blacks. Yes I like New Zealand but I don’t actually want to work here.” If the Prime Minister’s statement was going to address some of these crucial issues then she should have been addressing that particular issue. 
Right now around New Zealand we are having drought meetings. A number of our primary producers the wealth earners of this country are in a rather serious and parlous state because of climatic conditions. That happens from time to time. What is really hurting them though is the viability of their industry when they now find themselves in a position where they will have to borrow cash to feed animals or they will not earn the revenue that they thought they would. So their cash flow situation will be severely impacted by the highest interest rates in the word. 
We cannot do anything about the climatic conditions and certainly not on a short-term basis. Climate change may deliver some changes; who knows. Right now the thing this Government should do—and it could have been set out in the Prime Minister’s statement—is have is a fiscal policy that will take us into an area where they could see some relief. But all they can see are increasing costs. The degree of difficulty in doing business is increasing and the cost of it is going up by the day with these high interest rates. If the Prime Minister’s statement was going to give us a blueprint that looked forward these sorts of issues should have been embraced in that statement. 
As I said this Government is more interested in its own survival than in setting out blueprints and this week we witnessed in Invercargill something that I predict will be a more regular occurrence. We had a situation where the Mayor of Invercargill got quite energetic about this. I must place on record that I had not spoken to him until last night so he was not motivated by anything I said about the bringing down of this Government; it was his own perception of what needed to happen to correct a very seriously anomaly. As I said he got quite energetic about this. And what was the result of this activity? It was pork-barrel politics. The Tertiary Education Commission handed out $6.56 million. This is what we are going to see on an ongoing basis as we near the election—pork-barrel politics. 
We all know that stashed away is a huge fund of tax surpluses. If the Prime Minister’s statement was to give us a direction that we as a nation would feel proud of and want to engage in so that we want to stay here it would have addressed the issue of taxes—not just in an election year but on an ongoing basis. It would not be holding a great pile of money for the “lolly-nomics” that we have witnessed this week in Invercargill. 
I want to say just a few things because I have never heard so much rubbish spoken largely by officials. I give the Minister credit in that he has in my view most probably been misled by his officials over the functioning of the Southern Institute of Technology and the reason that it is in Christchurch and the issue around how it presents its e-learning through SIT2LRN. A lot of claims have been made about the quality of the education the institute delivers and I have not heard of a single course about which criticism is justified. Certainly the institute has a very high standard requirement if zero fees are going to continue for each individual student—and they have to meet those requirements. 
The situation with Christchurch is this. I have heard rumours for example that the Invercargill Licensing Trust is funding the Southern Institute of Technology campus in Christchurch. That is simply not the case. The institute is in Christchurch for one reason only. It was invited to tender to deliver the education. 
This is what happened. The Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology was asked by the various trade organisations in Christchurch to present its courses and the costings. It came up with a figure that I think was $2750 per student per year. When it was questioned about that it was a “take it or leave it” situation and the trade organisations said particularly led by the Motor Industry Training Organisation: “Well hang on a minute we think we might just leave this. We’ll just have a look and see what could happen.” 
Out of that situation the Southern Institute of Technology was invited to tender and see what it could do. It came up with a figure of about $1700—about $1000 less than the first figure. Subsequently it found that it could deliver that quality education in Christchurch on zero fees. I would think that that would have been in the prime ministerial statement. There is a section in there on the importance of education but the vision is to keep kids at school until they are 18 not to deliver meaningful education. There is nothing about the costing. 
If this socialist Labour Government was seriously interested in assisting young people the factor of the cost of that education would have been an issue. The model of the Southern Institute of Technology at zero fees is one that it ought to be looking at not criticising. We have seen the situation where it wants to curtail the best performing institute of technology in the country. So it pulls back $6.2 million at least possibly $8 million. Then when the mayor stood up and said—[ 
Interruption 
] The member over there Lesley Soper instead of standing up and defending the best institute of technology in the country said this in Invercargill: “You should have known this was happening. You got a warning.” 
What are some of the conditions around this Southern Institute of Technology funding? 
Lesley Soper 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The free fee scheme at the Southern Institute of Technology has never been under threat and the member knows it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debatable issue. The member will be seated. It is not a point of order. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Speakers’ rulings whereby members cannot move their seats to better advantage barracking during another member’s speech. That member opposite who just raised what was not a point of order has been constantly barracking from a seat that is not her own. That gives her an advantage. I ask you to enforce those Speakers’ rulings. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I am aware of it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Assistant Speaker you will have seen right through the evening a number of members from both sides of the House shifting positions and interjecting. I think you have to consider intent and what has been clear is that the member has been sitting there—a number of members have been sitting out of their seats on and off—and I think given the nature of the comments that were being made it is not surprising that anyone sitting anywhere in the House would interject. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the members for their contribution and I just remind the member on my right to look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3. 
ERIC ROY 
: I wish to conclude with a couple of points. I respond to Rick Barker as well. He was very keen to promote the fact that Labour had done so well on lowering the unemployment rate. It is quite simple to lower unemployment. We get 70000 people to leave New Zealand permanently each year and unemployment will come down. That is another issue that should have been addressed in the Prime Minister’s statement. 
Quite clearly this is a Prime Minister’s statement that lacks any kind of vision for the future. Our leader John Key set out in his speech some vision some ambition and something that will engage New Zealanders and give them some hope for the future. Members ought to note that this Prime Minister’s statement was totally lacking in the vision that is required to take New Zealand forward and be competitive with our nearest neighbour Australia.