Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Dyson Ruth: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22253] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Going into the election campaign people in New Zealand will be looking at three things. First they will be looking at the record of this Government compared with the record of the National Party when it was in Government. Second they will be looking at the future commitments the parties are making and judging the value of those policy commitments. Third they will certainly be looking in the end at the difference between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. 
What is the alternative that is being offered? I and my Labour colleague candidates around the country will be very very proud to stand on our record in the last 5¾ years as the Government—our record based fundamentally on Labour values and on delivering those in policies particularly in jobs education health and housing. There are now 250000 more jobs in our country than there were when we were elected as the Government. That is six new jobs every hour. There are 100000 fewer working-age people on benefits. I have heard the National Party and the ACT party—a thing of the past almost—say that we have shifted people from one benefit to another. Well the facts are before this House and before the country: 100000 fewer working-age people are on benefits than when we were elected in 1999. Three hundred thousand families are better off financially because of our Working for Families package. Money is directed into their pockets so they can decide how to spend it—big money—whereas it would be $5 or $6 for average working families under National’s tax cuts. 
Paid parental leave which is a policy that National opposed at every step means that new mothers can take time out of their paid job look after their babies and get direct money to help them support that new baby. Paid parental leave will increase to 14 weeks at the end of the year and if Labour is elected to lead the next Government it will also be extended to self-employed people. 
The investments we have made in early childhood education and the compulsory sector have seen a significant increase in the number of teachers above that required for roll growth and supported our children to have high-quality education. 
In the health system nurses are finally getting fair pay after years of waiting. Through the primary health organisations our younger people—those under 18 years—and our older citizens aged over 65 years now have reduced costs when going to the doctor. For an elderly person going to the chemist the maximum charge for Government-subsidised medicine is now $3 compared with $15 under the previous administration which means $12 per item at the chemist that they get to keep in their own pocket. 
One of the things I am most proud of is reintroducing the apprenticeship scheme. We all know that during the 1990s our tradespeople were not New Zealanders who had gone to school here whose parents had paid their taxes and who had an opportunity for a trade. We were importing tradespeople from overseas because the National Government had pushed away all of those training opportunities. Our apprenticeship scheme is now up and running strongly supported by our Government. 
It is the same in housing. We remember during the 1990s the great sell-off of State houses up and down the country. The introduction of market rentals for those in State houses meant that people were paying over 50 percent of their income on rent. How can people afford to support their family if half of their income is going on rent? One of the first things we did was start up again a State housing programme whereby houses were built around the country and we reintroduced income-related rent. People on low incomes now who are in a State house have a cap of 25 percent of their income for rent. So now they can afford to feed and clothe their children properly instead of all of that money going out. Our record in health education employment and housing is one I will be very proud to take to this country. 
 That demonstrates the integrity and delivery of the commitments we made prior to the election. One of the most important things in a democracy is when a party can stand up and say: “Before the last election we said we would deliver on these things.” and 3 years later go back to the country and say: “Tick off those commitments.” The process with the commitment card that we put to the electorate in 1999 and in 2002 is exactly the same with this election: people can tick every one of those commitments because we delivered what we said we would deliver. 
But what about the integrity of the National Party? We are still waiting for National’s long- promised tax announcements. Every week the story is different. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It will happen. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Wayne Mapp says that it will happen. I am sure it will; so will Christmas! We know that it will happen; it is just a matter of when. Originally National gave the excuse that it did not know when the election would be so it would wait until that announcement. We all waited for the announcement and 8 weeks out from the election we got the announcement but suddenly the story had changed; Dr Brash said: “Oh we’re no longer waiting for the election date to be announced; we’ll do it soon.” Then 3 or 4 days later he said: “We’ll do it a little later.” And now: “We’re finalising the details; we haven’t quite decided.” Dr Brash recently said that he did not even know the details of his own policy. How is that for a leader who is challenging Helen Clark for the position of Prime Minister of this country? 
I say that the odds are pretty clearly in Helen Clark’s favour. In fact I do not think it is a fair battle at all. Don Brash should probably move over now rather than wait till after the election and give somebody a decent chance at running the campaign. If he does not even know the details of his own tax policy how can he possibly take it to the country with any integrity? 
The people of New Zealand will look very carefully at the record of this Government. We know the record of the 1990s under a National-led Government where everything that moved was sold. Our major infrastructure support was privatised. We had fewer teachers fewer nurses and fewer social workers. The most important social services in our country—namely health services education services care and protection and youth justice services—were all run down. That is now being portrayed by the National Party as “cutting bureaucracy”. It says that a National Government would cut the waste. We know where the cuts were made in the 1990s; the last time that that party had the opportunity to lead the Government nurses’ pay was cut and the number of nurses was cut; teachers’ pay was cut and the number of teachers was cut; social workers’ pay was cut and the number of social workers was cut. We know the alternative that is before us. 
So when the public hear the term “cuts in bureaucracy” they know that National is talking about fewer teachers fewer nurses and fewer social workers. That is what the National Party describes as bureaucracy. To me those services are fundamental social services without which New Zealand families cannot get by. That is the sort of social support that we should be giving as a Government rather than cutting services and describing it as bureaucracy. 
So the record of our Government compared with the record of the National Government is very clear and very different. The integrity of the parties is very clear and very different. The alternatives facing New Zealand for the future leadership of our country are very clear and very different. 
It is very hard to try to get any clarity from the National Party about any of its policies. Just what is the National Party’s position on Iraq? Who knows! My bet is with the original statements made by Dr Brash that we would have troops sent to Iraq “by lunchtime”; “before Christmas”; whenever. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is not a hypothetical question. That member knows that Australia has just done it. New Zealand under a National-led Government would be sending troops to Iraq. National members cannot deny it because they know that that is National’s policy. Who knows what would happen to our nuclear-free policy which has been a flagship of our country for two decades now? That would be gone under a National Government no matter how much members opposite squirm around and change things. We know that National would reintroduce bulk funding of schools yet that practice divided our education system up and down the country. It pitted teachers against parents and pitted teachers against boards of trustees. Why would we want to go back to that sort of division? 
We know the sort of racial division that would be created under National. We know the sort of intolerance that National creates by describing its own party as “mainstream” thereby excluding people whom they do not consider mainstream. I am not sure what mainstream is under Dr Brash’s definition but I bet that a lot of New Zealanders would feel excluded in their own country. What sort of intolerance do they want to create with that sort of description of their policies? 
We need a country that is led by someone with integrity and that is Helen Clark. We need a party to lead the Government that has a record of commitment where what it says it will deliver it will deliver so that the public of New Zealand can have trust in their leadership and trust in their Government. They will not get that under a National-led Government.