Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
[Volume:672;Page:18341] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The two earthquakes that we have experienced in Christchurch have led me to read a lot of the international literature about something called recovery. Reading the lessons about that has taught me that the lessons are just as relevant to economic recovery post recession as they are to disaster recovery post the disaster that we have had in Christchurch. We need a plan we need milestones and we need key performance indicators. All the literature says that about recovery and that is what we should have in New Zealand for economic recovery post recession. In fact I would have thought that John Key would want key performance indicators unless they would highlight to those who are not mesmerised by the smile that never quite reaches the eyes that there is no plan and there never has been. 
Never from day one since that Government was elected to office has there been a plan for our economic recovery. In fact I remember the Job Summit. Does anyone remember the Job Summit? What came out of the Job Summit? I remember. A cycleway! And what went into the Job Summit? Yes a cycleway. It was a predetermined agenda from National. John Key was to lead New Zealand into recovery with a cycleway. I will not get on that particular bike. The man who has come to politics from the very profession that gave us the global financial crisis thinks that a smile and wave can substitute for a genuine economic recovery plan. I say it cannot. A genuine economic recovery plan must be sustainable and it must make us more resilient as an economy and a country in the long term. 
John Key is the man who promised to turbocharge the economy yet all he has managed to do is to kick the tyres. Now he is kicking the tyres of New Zealand’s assets. We know that when we kick the tyres of something it is because we are checking to see whether it is something that we want to buy. The tragedy is that John Key is using the Christchurch earthquakes as an additional excuse to sell our country’s family silver. His friends in the international financial markets are delighted to see that New Zealand is back in business but actually they are much more delighted to see that it is now up for sale. National campaigned at the last election that it was saying no to asset sales in its first term and would seek a mandate for that at this election. That is what this election is all about. I think we should name this election for what it is. It is a referendum on the sale of our assets—nothing more and nothing less. A vote for National is a vote to sell our assets; a vote for Labour is a vote to ensure that they are not sold. 
On this side of the House we believe that we will win this referendum. We will win this argument and we will win this referendum because I have not met anyone—not one person—who thinks it is sensible to sell an asset for a short-term benefit and ruin the long-term gain that it represents for the economy. This is right across the political spectrum. These are National voters and Labour voters. It does not matter where they sit on the political spectrum apart from the— 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really regret interrupting my colleague but the interjections from Paul Quinn mean it is impossible to actually hear what my colleague Lianne Dalziel who is located a mere 10 metres away from me is actually saying. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a fair point of order. I ask Paul Quinn to be more reasonable with his interjections. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: This is right across the political spectrum—these are National voters and Labour voters—except for the extreme right. Of course those on the extreme right are now positioning Don Brash to come back in order to finish off what he started in 2005 and was unable to finish because of the wisdom of the electorate. That is why I believe this year’s election is a referendum we will win. 
The tragedy now for Christchurch is that we will be blamed for the sale of these assets. We will be told that there is no alternative. What has happened in Christchurch is a disaster of huge proportions but it presents us with a chance to become a more resilient city. Actually if we play this right it could make us more resilient as a country as well. Rather than see Christchurch be blamed for the reimposition of the failed economic prescription we have seen from that party over and over again and for the sale of our country and now potentially our city’s assets as well I ask why Christchurch’s legacy cannot serve as a symbol of how we can turn disaster into opportunity sustainably secure our economic recovery as a nation and own our future once more.