Mackey Moana: General Debate 
Mackey Moana: General Debate 
[Volume:657;Page:6811] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is deeply concerning to the Opposition that the Government seems to be so economically illiterate. Members of the Government seem to have genuinely convinced themselves that somehow they are responsible for the fact that our unemployment is not as high as in the UK or in the USA. They stopped talking about Australia because for the first time in 20 years Australia’s unemployment is lower than New Zealand’s unemployment on their watch. So they do not talk about Australia any more. But they genuinely seem to think it was all their own work despite the fact that they inherited from the previous Labour Government one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. 
Hon Member 
: The lowest. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The lowest in the OECD. They also inherited one of the lowest Government debts as a proportion of GDP and books that are in the black in terms of assets from the previous Government. They seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that somehow they have had something to do with the fact that we have weathered a recession better than most other countries. We have weathered it and Treasury said that New Zealand was in a better position to weather the economic recession because of the way the previous Government left the economy for this Government in terms of unemployment and in terms of Government debt. We have seen other countries all around the world actually doing something about the recession; our Government has done nothing. It is purely thanks to Michael Cullen and his legacy that this Government is able to stand up and pretend to take credit for that legacy. 
I want to talk about the emissions trading scheme and the absolute shambles that we are seeing from the Government at this time. The Government talks about its Warm Up New Zealand policy. We know that it is not about home insulation but is actually its climate change policy. That is what will happen. What is the point of having an emissions trading scheme that will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? I ask Mr Auchinvole what the point is. Exactly. We sometimes forget that the entire point of having climate change policy is to address climate change. And we want to do it in an economically responsible way. This Government has decided that lowering greenhouse gas emissions does not really matter in which case we have to ask why it is even going through this sham of a process—this utter shambles—for a policy that will do nothing except move the cost from the polluters to the taxpayer. We have literally moved from a “polluter pays” policy to a “pay the polluter” policy. I think the Government should be honest with the people of New Zealand and tell them how much this policy of subsidies for big polluters will cost the ordinary taxpayer of New Zealand. I tell Ms Goodhew that that is what we are talking about. The member can shake her head as much as she likes but the fact is that with this announcement we have seen a huge transfer of wealth from polluters who can do something to mitigate their emissions to taxpayers who cannot do anything to mitigate the emissions of the big polluters. I wonder how New Zealand will be able to hold its head up on an international stage given how important it is that we maintain this “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. Under National it is only “10-20% Pure New Zealand” based on this Government’s greenhouse gas target. 
The Prime Minister is currently in New York and he is holding talks around climate change. He is talking up the new Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. I am a big fan of anything that creates more work for scientists in New Zealand. Let us be honest: the United States takes science seriously. It has seriously invested in science. Minister David Carter stood up in the House today and went on about how great National has been for science in this area. I will correct that and I will quote from someone who knows about this area because I know National members will not take my word for it. I quote from the president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists. This is what she said after the Budget: “many of us may have heaved a sigh of relief that it was not as bad for science as it might well have been given that it was coming from a National Government”. I think that is a fair comment. She said: “A modest increase—of 2.5% to Vote Science—appears good news on the face of it until you look at other countries who have announced funding increases in science of 25% or greater based on recognition of the role that science plays in sustaining and enhancing a nation’s economic basis and then you couple that with the huge cuts faced by education. Sadly it does not seem that this Government believes that science is a lynchpin to sound economic growth. Considering the education cuts further one can be left in little doubt that science and society will suffer because what underpins science more than education … ?”. That follows on from what my colleague Trevor Mallard was saying yesterday in the House about the cuts to science advisers. 
Mike Berridge who is a well-known scientist for those who know the sector said: “Recently a current Minister of the Crown indicated that the RS&T portfolio was seen as a fun portfolio grouping it along with sport and recreation and the arts. God save our nation if science and innovation are not taken more seriously than pastime entertainment and recreation”. I cannot agree with him more.