Cunliffe David: General Debate 
Cunliffe David: General Debate 
[Volume:652;Page:1631] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I acknowledge the member Rahui Katene who has just resumed her seat and I say that the Labour Party stands ready to participate in good faith in a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. We wish her and the National Government luck recognising that the Maori Party voted against the original legislation for principled reasons and that the National Party voted against it for principled reasons just different ones. National thought that the legislation gave too many rights to tangata whenua; the Maori Party thought that it did not give enough. So I say good luck with the review. We will be happy to participate in it. 
I want to talk about the Job Summit which has been widely heralded. “The future of Key’s Government hangs on the summit delivering outcomes. Concrete practical proposals …” stated Jenni McManus in  
Business Day 
. Labour also welcomes any process that will get good ideas on the table for real New Zealanders. We think that the problems of the international recession are bigger than all of us and as we have said many times on previous occasions we are prepared to take a bipartisan approach to finding solutions. We would have been happy to be in the room contributing ideas but the Government has put politics ahead of policy in order to keep us out. But that does not stop us now from taking the ideas that many good-hearted New Zealanders have provided and working with the Government to see whether we can make some sense of them. I will mention just a couple of them. 
But before I do that let us just reflect on the fact that those who were at the Job Summit represented not all but a section of the New Zealand community. Vast swathes were excluded including Pasifika. One participant reflected to me that it was kind of like the Remuera tennis club moving down the road to the Manukau TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre and that most of the 160 captains of industry—who were all boys and many of them King’s College old boys—were from a particular section of society. Actually that does not matter because it is the quality of the ideas that matter. 
Let us see what these people have come up with. The 9-day fortnight is a very interesting idea. As I understand and as the media were told it was an idea that would surface before the summit was even held. It was an idea that was developed by the Government and was if you like planted in the summit. Yet we have been told today by the Prime Minister that he still has no idea who will pay for the last day and that it is too early to say. I do not know whether the worker will pay the Government will pay or the employer will pay. 
Hon Annette King 
: It will be the worker I bet. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I suspect it will be the workers but let us wait and see. But if this is the lynchpin—the top idea from the top summit that will turn round the economy—then I think that members opposite are dreaming if they think this idea will do the trick. 
Intranational migration to remove barriers between employers is a good idea and we have been doing that. Keeping people in education—yes; that is what Schools Plus was about. Redundancy and transition support is a very good idea because it means that workers will not bear the full brunt of redundancy. Enhancing the use of Maori iwi assets is a good idea—Maori are an important asset-holder. But how? 
A freeze on rule-making by Government agencies has been suggested. Really? If we have no more rules on any subject will that turn the economy round? It sounds good—politically sexy perhaps—but really really silly if one is running an economy or running a Government. 
Boosting tourist traffic would be nice but how will we do it? Accelerating energy initiatives and environmental and water initiatives sounds wonderful but this is the same Government that is asking itself whether climate change even exists. Perhaps it had better make up its mind before it tries to sound green. 
Streamlining regulatory approval for major projects might have some potential. Levelling the playing field for New Zealand firms for local and central government procurement sounds good too—Swazi Apparel comes to mind. That measure was something the previous Government worked on. 
These ideas are not bad. The question is whether they can be formed into useful policy and whether taken together they will be enough in the light of the so-called rolling maul of dribs and drabs that is the antithesis of a strategic approach to a crisis that is the greatest in a generation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What would you do? Tell us what you would do. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What would we do? We would have a programme that sets out the boundaries of where we would go that said the total amount of stimulus that we needed and that said how we would get the most use out of it. 
The first thing we would not do is take tax cuts designed for working New Zealanders who desperately needed relief and give them to upper-income New Zealanders who will save a great deal of that money rather than spend it. Tax cuts for upper-income earners are the last thing that one does if one is trying to get stimulus in the economy. The second thing one would do is to give New Zealanders including New Zealand businesses a sense of where the long-term direction is rather than just short-term stabilisation. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The most interesting point that could be observed about that speech was the interesting dynamics between Shane Jones and Mr Cunliffe as the speech was under way. I am pleased to be able to take a call in the general debate in order to add my concern to the revelations from the Minister for ACC today that not only have New Zealanders had to put up with a deceitful previous Government hiding the facts regarding the true state of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) but also the books have got so bad— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure you heard the National member on his feet refer to a group of members in this Chamber in a way that is not consistent with the Standing Orders. I think he should be asked to withdraw and apologise for doing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I heard the member correctly he referred to a Government being deceitful. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In the Standing Orders it is clear that unparliamentary comments about a member or a group of members—in other words their party which is clearly what the member meant—is out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is a matter of public record that the Public Finance Act was breached and that two Ministers in the previous Government—namely Maryan Street and Michael Cullen—knew of the blowout and did not include it in the pre-election fiscal update. So I think it is perfectly proper for my colleague to make reference to that very important breach of the Public Finance Act. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have now heard sufficient on the matter and I accept the original point of order raised by the Hon Darren Hughes that using unparliamentary language about a Government is the same as using unparliamentary language about an individual member. Therefore I ask the honourable Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I withdraw and apologise. A previous Government was less than open and frank with the public about the information it held. It was absolutely clear that Dr Cullen knew and that he did not tell anybody about what was going on—that we are aware of. Did he tell the rest of Cabinet about the debt? No not a word. 
Nick Smith was able to reveal today that the previous Government’s mismanagement of the accident compensation scheme will cost the average New Zealand family $2400 a year—$46 a week—unless the Government takes action to stop New Zealanders from being lumbered with that liability. What has happened is that those members opposite when in Government failed to keep the costs under control so the burden will be visited upon hard-working New Zealanders through the increased taxes and levies they will have to pay towards accident compensation. As Minister Smith has said people are looking at paying a significant increase in the motor vehicle levy. A motor vehicle registration will cost $510 if action is not taken. There will be a charge of $510 in motor vehicle levies for an average household with two vehicles. There will be a $938 increase in the earners levy. These big amounts of money will affect hard-working New Zealanders and it is because of the previous Government’s mismanagement of the accident compensation system. 
Labour’s mismanagement goes beyond the numbers. One of the most important roles of ACC is to help workers get back into work and to become independent again as quickly as possible. It is a fundamental responsibility of ACC. We know that if people stay on accident compensation or on benefits for a longer time than is appropriate it is not good for them and it is not good for their families. That is why workers have always said that they want a strong focus on rehabilitation and on getting back to work and becoming independent. 
What is stunning appalling and dreadful if we look at page 6 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report is the fact that ACC is failing big time in helping accident victims rehabilitate and get back into work. One of the corporation’s fundamental responsibilities is to help workers get back into work and become independent. It is actually what Labour members used to go on about before they got comfortable after 9 years in Government and forgot about working people. They really forgot about working people in their 9 years in Government. 
If Labour members were really concerned about what was going on in ACC then why were they not dealing with the fact that workers were not getting quality rehabilitation and the chance to get back into work and independence quickly? There was not a word from Labour about what ACC should have been doing. Instead Labour was letting the costs get out of control making New Zealanders confront the fact that they might have to pay an extra $46 a week for accident compensation but there was not a word about the failing efforts of ACC to get workers back into work and independence. It is quite clear from this report from PricewaterhouseCoopers that the cost of not getting workers back to independence and back into their jobs which is where they want to be is substantial not only financially—it is estimated to cost about $700 million a year—but also in terms of the confidence and independence of those families which is more important. 
This Government says that the priority for ACC must be controlling its costs reducing the burden on hard-working families and providing decent support and rehabilitation for accident victims. What about getting them back into work and independence? I ask why that situation got worse during the best of times. That is what members opposite had when they were in Government. 
That failed Government had the best of times. That Government had 9 of the best years in New Zealand and if it could not get workers into work and back to independence after an accident then that is a shocking indictment on its performance. Labour members used to stand up and say that we need to focus on rehabilitation on services for accident victims and on getting people into jobs. But this PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that that party opposite failed the people whom it purports to represent.