Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Smith Nick: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:670;Page:16601] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This political year got off to a decisive start with Prime Minister John Key setting out a very ambitious and focused plan for how we can shift this economy and secure the sort of future we want for New Zealanders by getting out of the debt and consumption cycle and moving to an economy that is based on productive investment and exports. In contrast what we have heard from Phil Goff and from Labour’s most recent speaker Grant Robertson is all that stuff about big spending and about the borrow-and-hope policies that actually got New Zealand into the pretty fragile position we are in today. It is noteworthy that in the month of January Labour spokespeople promised over $5 billion of new spending. The cash register was ticking over in bulk as Grant Robertson just gave that speech. I will give an example. Mr Robertson has said: “Free after-hours care for all New Zealanders.” I have a simple question for Grant: where is the money coming from? Where is the money coming from? Can Mr Robertson and Mr Goff tell us where their money tree is? Where is their money tree? There is absolutely no fiscal credibility in where the money is coming from to fund the extravagant and unsustainable spending commitments we are seeing from Labour members across the board. 
Grant Robertson 
: Do you not believe in free care for under-sixes? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You see during Labour’s years in office I remind Mr Robertson sure Labour doubled the amount of money it spent on health yet there were negligible additional services. Labour members can go on about the care of children but the reality is that Labour had an appalling record on something as basic and important as immunisation. I congratulate my colleague and benchmate Tony Ryall on achieving the highest-ever level of immunisation of children in this country and particularly on the high levels for Pacific Island and Maori children. They are the things that count and that show that this John Key Government is serious about getting good-quality public services but not a bloated Public Service. 
The biggest growth in health during Labour’s years was in the number of bureaucrats in the health ministry. I make no apologies for being part of a National Government that wants to focus our public services on the front line on our police on our nurses on our doctors and on our teachers. That actually will make a material difference rather than the bureaucrats whom Mr Robertson always wants to see getting a bigger slice of the funding. 
I will focus also on some of the issues relevant to my portfolios that expose the contradictions in Labour’s approach. Let me take employment. In 2009 we had the Job Summit. A big concern for a large number of employers and councils around this country was the ridiculous air-quality rules the previous Labour Government put in place that would see 17000 New Zealanders—17000 New Zealanders—lose their jobs. Let me tell members why. Despite the fact that our biggest problem with air quality is actually households and cars the only people to be punished under Labour’s air-quality policy were going to be those in industry. You see it is very simple for Labour; they are anti-business. It does not matter what the problem is. If there will be punishment it has to be businesses that pay. What they do not understand is that those businesses employ the very New Zealanders whom it is more important than ever we keep in jobs. I was pleased to announce at the Bluegreen conference in Akaroa the new air-quality standards that will save 17000 jobs—a policy change that is backed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who said that Labour’s policy unfairly targeted business. I say to members opposite: “Don’t stand on your feet and talk about jobs when the very regulations that you passed and you continue to support to this day would see thousands of New Zealanders in cities all over this country lose their jobs.” 
Then there was the other contradiction. I heard members opposite crying crocodile tears about the cost of living. Let me take just one example. On 24 December Labour made an announcement on climate change policy. Labour said it wants to move the emissions trading scheme to full obligation immediately—immediately! Let us be honest about what that means for the cost of living. It means that it will put 3.5c on the price of both petrol and diesel immediately. It means an extra 5 percent on the price of power. So I say to members opposite: “Don’t cry crocodile tears about the cost of living when you are at the same time announcing policies that will push up costs for ordinary New Zealand families.” I make no apologies for members on this side of the House having a sensible balanced emissions trading scheme that has reduced the costs that Labour’s scheme would have imposed on families and on businesses. 
Let me take another area. I was interested today to get advice about what sorts of things would happen to the cost of living for families under Labour’s ACC policies. Let me put it simply. For the first time in years this National Government said: “We’re not going to put the ACC levies up on motor vehicles on earners and on businesses.” We have been able to do that because we as a Government have been able to get on top of the costs that were occurring in ACC. Those costs were going up by 12 percent every single year from 2003 to 2008. If there is a 12 percent increase each year in claim costs who pays that? It is ordinary New Zealanders. When they register their vehicle and every week when they receive their pay those ACC levies are taken out. If we had let those costs continue to grow those levies would have had to rise by $200 per New Zealand family. In other words every single New Zealand family would have had to pay another 30 bucks when they registered their car if we had allowed Labour’s policies to continue. 
Every New Zealander on the average wage would have been up for another $150 a year—another $3 a week—in terms of the earners levy if we had allowed those costs to continue to rise at 12 percent per year. Members opposite talk as though they are concerned about costs on New Zealanders but during their period in Government over and over again they had policies that simply drove up costs. Those costs end up falling on households and businesses. The changes that this Government has made are consistent. 
I make one further important point. The Prime Minister started this year with a very bold call on the mixed-ownership policy in respect of State-owned enterprises. That policy will extend the investment opportunities for New Zealanders who are being burned off the finance companies. They do not want them investing more and more in residential property. We will provide opportunities for them to invest in good New Zealand companies. But I want to expose the double standards of that. I quote David Cunliffe the Opposition finance spokesperson from 25 November 2010 who said in a very important speech at Victoria University: “We can unleash State-owned enterprises—” 
Hon Member 
: Unleash! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Unleash—“to create and grow new businesses with private partners and private shareholders.” That was from the speech made by Mr David Cunliffe the finance spokesperson for Labour members opposite. 
I have a simple challenge for Phil Goff and the other members of Labour’s team who have ranted and raved against this policy. Well why did they not rant and rave in November? I will tell members why. It is because they are absolutely hollow in their vision for New Zealand. They want to play politics with the issues that are so important to this country: getting efficient public services reorienting our economy towards exports getting quality education services and making sure that our environment policies are supporting the growth and the jobs that New Zealand needs as well as in areas like agriculture where my colleagues have made big announcements about the Primary Growth Partnership. 
This Government has a positive plan for New Zealand whether it is for jobs whether it is for the cost of living or whether it is for mixed ownership for State-owned enterprises. The mixed signals the confused policy and the straight pure politics that we see from the Labour Opposition show that Labour is into opportunism but it has absolutely no idea what is required to make New Zealand strong.