Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14323] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was the rounding up of the National Party on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. We do not know whether we have given any gongs to funders of the National Party. Why? Because we do not know who the funders of the National Party are. They are even more anonymous than most of its caucus. The previous speaker Maurice Williamson may be confused. Mr Glenn gave a chair to Auckland University. The National Party gave its former president a table in London. I know which will be put to better use for the purpose of this country. 
The start of this debate summed up what has happened and it sums up this election year. The Prime Minister gave a speech of substance and content. Mr Key opened with a one-liner and then exhausted by his pre-prepared second-hand wit forgot to say anything else for the next 20 minutes. On the one hand we had the Prime Minister Helen Clark a leader of international stature; on the other hand we had Mr Key whose proudest moment of 2008 so far is to hongi with Tame Iti. 
There were major policy announcements in the Prime Minister’ statement. There has been a massive increase in funding for the Pathways to Partnership programme which will put much of the community or voluntary sector on a sound financial basis into the long-term future. It was not mentioned by the National Party. 
There was further explanation of the Schools Plus programme. It is not a programme like National’s policy which was: “Let us find something for the school failures to do and pass them on to the polytechs and private training establishments.” It is not about the 3000 16 and 17-year-olds who are on benefits 1000 of whom are on the invalids benefit for a start. Members should think about which 16 and 17-year-olds we are talking about in that regard. Instead Government members are talking about those people who are not succeeding at school and about how we will change our schools so that every kid goes into the third form and wants to stay at school to succeed through to the age of 16 or 17 and to pass into the remainder of our education system—not how to validate failure but how to create success within the education system by multiple pathways towards that success. 
Then there was foreshadowing of further major housing policy announcements. All of this followed on. 
We have a strong economy—the longest phase of economic growth for a generation or more. National presided over the worse recession in our modern history. In employment we have seen the growth of 377000 extra jobs and we have the lowest rate of unemployment ever measured in modern surveys. KiwiSaver is an outstanding success. I will come back to that again in a minute. Working for Families is reducing the legacy of child poverty that we inherited from National whereby one in three children was being raised in poverty under the previous National Government. 
The Prime Minister discussed infrastructure spending. There has been more than a doubling of spending on roads and a twelvefold increase in spending on public transport under this Government. 
The policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education was pooh-poohed by National members. They sent Paula Bennett round the country to try to destroy it. It is an outstanding success. In primary health care there are now cheaper prescriptions and cheaper doctors’ visits for all New Zealanders. 
Business tax cuts and research and development tax credits were discussed which National voted against. Indeed National when it could voted against all of those measures—every single one. Even now it cannot spell out its position on KiwiSaver. Let me update them. There are now getting on for 450000 people in KiwiSaver. There are now more KiwiSavers than there were people who voted for the National Party in 2002 when Bill English was the leader. There are more KiwiSavers than the total vote for National in 2002. I ask National Party members to think about that. They are running out of time for a flip-flop on that one and it will be a real problem for them unless they move very quickly. They will be in terrible trouble if KiwiSavers see a National Party promising to take the money away from them. 
We are building a stronger future despite the current economic uncertainty. Who has created the current economic uncertainty in the world at large? This economic uncertainty has come out of the subprime mortgage market crisis in the United States. Who were the people who created the subprime mortgage market crisis in the United States? It was the smart alec shonky financial manipulators inventing new credit instruments who were not worried about anything except how to create money out of money rather than creating money out of anything else—how to manufacture money by simply shifting money around and playing clever games with it. 
Who does that remind members of in terms of a member of this House? Who made his money out of moving money around? Who is familiar with that kind of shonky financial market manipulation? Who is the shonky member in that regard? John Key is the shonky member in that regard. It is not surprising that those two names have to rhyme. Even now he goes around telling the country that debt is no problem and that we can borrow whatever we want to carry out whatever promises he has to make to try to win office. That is what he is saying all around this country at the present time. 
John Key says that his one issue is the wage gap with Australia. In 1990 wages in Australia were 19 percent higher than in New Zealand. In 1999 they were 29.5 percent higher than in New Zealand. Today they are 30 percent higher than in New Zealand. Do members notice when that wage gap occurred? It occurred under a National Government. At the same time as poverty was increasing real wages were falling behind those in Australia. If that is his issue then he has the wrong issue to be running on in this particular election. 
We know John Key is opposed to the minimum wage. What is his real policy on wages for New Zealanders? Does he support— 
Hon Member 
: More! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well how come then that in an interview in Whangarei when he was asked about comments that the trade union movement—and indeed the Labour Party—would like to see wages rise he said: “We would love to see wages drop.” Because he said wages could only come from productivity increases—and so they can—but who invests in those productivity increases? It is business and what will encourage business to do that? Tax cuts for business and research and development tax credits will. And what did Mr Key do on those? He voted against those mechanisms for increasing productivity and for lifting real wages. Instead he goes right back to the 1990s and says: “How do we strive for stronger economic growth and efficiency? Let us cut ordinary New Zealanders’ wages. We would love to see wages drop.” 
Here we are dealing with a man of no fixed principles only fixed ambitions. John Key is a man who his caucus colleagues tell us is shallow. They tell us he will do anything to win. He is a man who will say anything to anybody to try to win support. 
Just last week in Southland John Key promised a suspensory loan for the Alliance Group to fund its proposed mega meat-company. This is 1970s politics. He is trotting around the country promising loans and beneficial moves to anybody who cares to put up his or her hand. He says: “Please say ‘Yes’ and I will say ‘Yes’ before you even say ‘Please Sir’.” That is the approach he is now taking around the country. 
Against this Labour offers substance it offers success it offers experience it offers cheaper prescriptions pills—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Smith—and the policies that people actually support. This is going to be a fun election year for this Labour-led Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The time for this debate has expired.