Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7762] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That was Lockwood Smith. He gave a wonderfully eloquent display did he not about his career as a former Minister of Education who also had responsibility for tertiary education. What a wonderful dissertation it was. But I say to him that he has a very selective memory of history. I say to that member that he might want it both ways but he cannot have it both ways. This is the member of course who told us that with 15 staff—and he has confirmed the record in the House today—he managed to destroy apprenticeships in 1995. He killed them off there were no more—the Apprenticeship Act was gone. He managed to put every tertiary student into mortgage rate debt with a shonky student loan scheme that he is proud of still. I say that we are in the presence of an absolute genius. That is his record. 
When I became the member of Parliament for Waimakariri in 1999 I visited the 40-plus schools in my electorate. This genius over here that wondrous former Minister of Education with only 15 staff managed to put principals in the back of Skyline garages. A Skyline garage doubled as a library at the school at Ohoka where I met my first school principal. He had books stacked up around him as walls in his office. This was all because this former Minister of Education ran down school funding. He managed to run down operational funding in our primary schools and our secondary schools. 
I ask any member of Parliament on this side of the House—and I include our coalition partners who do go out and visit schools—to remember when the rain came through the roof. It was not because the roof was leaky but because that genius over there Dr Smith as the then Minister of Education refused to fund schools. There was no 5-year property plan. No he just ran down the assets of schools with a view ultimately I believe to selling them off. 
Dr Smith talked about roading. I challenge him or Tim Groser the other so-called superstar to get up. Mr Groser came in here with Mr Blumsky and Mr Finlayson and they were determined they should be on the front bench of course. The problem was that the dead wood—or in their case the dead kindling—was in the way. Mr Blumsky of course is now saying: “I’m out of here. No one cares about me. I’m gone.” I challenge those members to get up today and tell us whether Maurice Williamson’s stated policy of privatising roads is still on the books. 
That member Dr Smith is a huge contradiction. He got up and talked about fiscal probity—tight fiscal management. He accused us of spending everything. In a moment I will read out some of the promises from his own people. Before that we heard from the organ grinder. There was no monkey of course—John Key never spoke. We heard from Bill English. I am told that he got up in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and lectured the treasurer about tight fiscal management. So we have the tight man Mr English over here and then we have John Key wandering around the countryside promising along with his National Party colleagues anything to everybody. 
I will read some of the National Party’s promises. Do not take my word for it—look at the evidence. Here we go. Katherine Rich wants more money to develop the Beachheads programme for economic development. Tony Ryall wants more places for medical training. On education John Key says he will bring back bulk funding—more dough there. Question: “Will National fund at the top rate?”. “Absolutely.” said Mr Key. We know about the charitable deductions and the policy that Mr Key has rolled out with regard to food in schools but it is at what cost? Then we have law and order. Chester Borrows another genius from the National side wants more police and Wayne Mapp endorses that. “Abolish parole.” those members say but at what cost? They want compulsory DNA testing for convicts—and the list goes on. There will be more community law services in parts of the country and electronic signage in transport according to somebody called Colin King. I would have thought a static sign would do the job if one could read but maybe not. 
So on the one hand Mr English stands up and says: “I want tight fiscal management. The Government spends too much.” Yeah we spend on teachers school halls classrooms libraries nurses and State housing—sinners though we are. But Mr English says: “No cut expenditure.” On the other hand every National Party MP candidate and whoever else up and down the country is promising expenditure after expenditure. I estimate that spending at over $1.5 billion to date. How is National going to get the money? 
Yet again National members stand up and treat the outside world and our communities as if they are stupid. Doug Woolerton made a very interesting comment. He talked about the Superannuation Fund. We all know what the hidden agenda with the Superannuation Fund was under Dr Brash. Dr Brash said: “We’ll bump it up to age 70.” then he backed off. Then he said—an amazing statement: “Anybody who is around 50 there won’t be a pension for you. Don’t come Monday.” I pose this question to the National Party geniuses over there. If mum and dad could balance their housekeeping expenses and their grocery bills and if they knew their wages were to be cut by a certain amount what would they do? They would have to contract their expenditure in the same way that if we dish out tax cuts revenue goes down and we have to make cuts somewhere. 
I also challenge National on this point. If mum and dad out there are smart enough and know there is a big expense coming up—they need a new set of tyres for the car or new things for the kids and they know this is on the way—what do they do? They budget. They start putting aside money each week to meet that expenditure. Why can the National Party not be as smart as the average Kiwi out there? 
What have we done with the so-called Cullen fund? We know that a bubble of elderly folk is coming through and we know when the baby boomers are coming through. We know when we will have to plan for a big wad of expenditure so what do we do? We start squirreling money away; we reinvest it in our economy and around the world at world’s best practice to make provision for that in the future. Why can those members over there not be as smart as the average Kiwi who balances his or her cheque book and housekeeping expenses every week? The truth is that those members are not as smart; they are arrogant and conceited— 
Dianne Yates 
: And desperate. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says they are desperate. Those members think they will do the tried and true National Party thing. They think that because Labour has been in office for three terms—and we are going for our fourth—they can just promise the world to anyone. What do people want? National says it will give it to them—it will double it treble it no problem. National said that in 1990 but when it got into office it pulled the rug out from under all New Zealanders whether they were beneficiaries in the benefit cuts whether they were superannuitants in the multiple superannuation cuts or whether it was our Defence Force in the biggest defence cut in the force’s history. National pulled the rug out from under everybody. 
But I have some advice for those members. People have been bitten once. People out there are smart. They scrutinise policies. They know we have enjoyed the best period of employment for 30 years—we have the second-lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. They know despite Dr Brash’s saying all through the election campaign that the economy would go to hell in a handbasket and his praying to the Exclusive Brethren or along with them that it would that the economy slowed—there is one member praying over there—then it bottomed out and then it moved up again. We are targeting 2 percent growth and further economic growth in the future. Over 350000 jobs have been created and the number of people on welfare is going down. Why? Because people are getting into employment. 
I tell the National Party to treat the people of New Zealand as fools as its peril. Dr Lockwood Smith should have stood up and told the world that he and 15 others in his office almost destroyed our primary secondary and tertiary education systems. That is what he should have said. He is proud of getting rid of apprenticeships and he is proud of putting students into debt. Well I challenge him to get out on the stump at the next election and go to a student rally or to tell some of the 9000 apprentices we now have how proud he was when—in 1995 I think it was—he abolished the Apprenticeship Act. I would love to be at such a meeting; I would really love it. It would be a cracker. And it would be good if he went out to pensioners— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Don’t tell lies to Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he cannot call out and accuse a member of lying. Would he stand withdraw and apologise. The member knows he cannot call out that another member is a liar. Please withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When members get up in this House and speak blatant untruths they invite challenges across the House that they are in fact—I cannot use the word. The records show that the numbers of New Zealanders involved in industry training climbed every year through the 1990s. What the Minister is saying is simply not supported by the records or the statistics of this country. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member has done two things. First of all he has contested my ruling. Secondly it was not a point of order; it was a point of debate. The member will withdraw and apologise. He will withdraw and apologise to the Speaker. He contested my ruling when I had made the ruling about withdrawing the comment he made which was quite proper. The member should not have referred to it. I ask him to apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I warn the member that he cannot contest the ruling again. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Madam Assistant Speaker I can assure you that I am not contesting your ruling. I sought your advice as to what remedy a member has when a member on the other side of the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No—the member is doing it again. The member has been here a long time; he clearly knows that the matters raised were matters of debate. The Speaker cannot rule on those matters; they are matters of debate. Again the member is contesting my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think semantic debate just occurred a few seconds ago—the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We can ask any young person who was sold out by that member. When I came into Parliament I had a mother and father in Kaiapoi come to me and say that they had saved $30000. They were going to go to the local mechanic beg him to give their son an apprenticeship and pay for it. Why? Because National pulled the rug out from under our young people. Members do not have to believe me; they can go and ask the young people whom National dealt to. They can go and ask the pensioners—and he has been found out—whom National dealt to. Members can get the people of New Zealand to compare our record with National’s and they will be able to judge. Whether Dr Smith and I disagree whether he tries to weasel out of his history and whether he is proud of his history that member will be judged by the people of New Zealand—and I look forward to it.