Volume 649 Week 82 - Wednesday 6 August 2008 
Volume 649 Week 82 - Wednesday 6 August 2008 
[Volume:649;Page:17751] 
Wednesday 6 August 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill 
Procedure 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be read a second and third time to be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Debt to GDP Ratios—Decrease 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the statement she made yesterday in relation to debt to GDP ratios that “over the forecast period of the Budget that the Labour Government has delivered these debt to GDP ratios are consistently falling”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by the fact that over the forecast period the ratio falls from 17.6 percent of GDP to 16.8 percent of GDP. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that net core Crown debt which is the key measure of the Government’s debt position will actually rise from 1 percent of GDP to 6.2 percent of GDP over the forecast period which means it is going up? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I find it interesting that the member is not interested in the net core Crown debt position including the New Zealand Superannuation Fund financial assets because of course the net position on that score moved into positive territory in 2007 and further stays in a very good net positive position of around a 6.2 percent ratio right through the forecast period. 
John Key 
: That is correct; it is going up from 1 percent to 6.2 percent. Can the Prime Minister further confirm that the Fiscal Strategy Report shows net debt rising as a percentage of GDP every year from now until 2016-17 at which point it will have reached 12 percent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member well knows that it makes no sense to use a figure without including the New Zealand Superannuation Fund assets which shows a net position. This Government has moved the Crown into a very positive net position. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Labour Government of which she and Michael Cullen were Ministers increased net debt from 31 percent of GDP in 1984 to 49 percent of GDP in 1990 and that it was the subsequent National Government that did all the hard work and brought the net debt down to 20 percent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not think time would permit me today to give the lecture that would be necessary on the follies of the Muldoon Government and the big-borrowing programmes. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the fiscal position was so bad in 1984 that the then National Government could not write a Budget; that when the first Budget was presented the Government at the time was in fact running an operating deficit of 8 percent of GDP; that debt servicing was rising to $1 in $4 of tax revenue; that in fact that was the position that had to be brought under control; and that that was under the Prime Minister that Mr Key admired in his adolescence as the great Prime Minister of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I remember the events very very well. I remember the calling of the “gin and schnapps election” by a Prime Minister clearly under the influence of certain substances at that time. It is correct therefore given the National Party’s new position of borrow and hope to truly call Mr Key “Muldoon’s mokopuna”. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is taking a step down memory lane does she remember that in 1989-90 she was Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand and not only did she undertake asset sales of $4.9 billion but also for the record when she left office Labour told the country that the surplus was $89 million—from memory—and it actually turned out to be multiple billions; but I guess that is the way Labour undertakes economic management? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I well recall the spin that Jim Bolger and the previous National Government put on the Crown accounts. I am aware that that spin led them to do things they never told the truth about to the electorate. I remember “No ifs no buts no maybes; the surcharge will go.” and they put it up. I remember the cuts to benefits the charging for going to the public hospital and the market rents for State houses. I remember all those things and what I say to Kiwis is to be afraid—be very afraid—when the National Party says one thing in private and another thing in public. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the light of that last answer can the Prime Minister confirm that she has seen a report stating that the reason Mr Key is so sensitive today is that Mr English and Dr Lockwood Smith have been caught out telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I suspect that that is right and that of course is what is leading to the billboards going around stating: “We won’t sell Kiwibank. Yeah right!”. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm whether she thinks that a debt to GDP ratio of 22 percent is prudent; if she does not think it is prudent can she just explain why her Minister of Finance thought for a very long time that ratios much higher than that were prudent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I do not think is prudent is borrowing for tax cuts which is clearly the member’s intention. He cannot be borrowing for infrastructure because he has not been able to list a single piece of infrastructure that is in his programme. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that even during the Asian currency crisis in 1997-98 when we were losing 60 percent of our markets we still got debt down and where else in the world would we find a conservative party with any idea of its ideology talking about increasing debt? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think the answer is that it would be very hard to find anyone else in New Zealand apart from the National Party wanting at a time of global economic uncertainty to quite deliberately stake out a debt to GDP ratio that is significantly higher than our Government’s because they know they would have to borrow for tax cuts which is plain crazy. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is so confident about her economic management why does she not just name the election date and we will have this debate in front of the country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said yesterday the revelations about the National Party’s secret agenda mean that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in a later date rather than a sooner date. But can I say that my confidence in the management of the Kiwi economy is entirely shared by Standard and Poor’s which has confirmed today the very strong credit rating it gives New Zealand. 
New Zealand Superannuation—Government Actions 
2.  
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What action has the Government taken to restore and increase the level of New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 One of the first things the incoming Labour-led Government did after the 1999 election was to restore the level of New Zealand superannuation to 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple. It had been cut of course by the previous National Government in which Mr English was a Minister of Finance. Since then and subject to the agreement with New Zealand First that floor has been lifted to 66 percent of the average wage. We have also set up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to ensure the affordability of New Zealand superannuation into the long-term future. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has he seen any reports indicating support for the current superannuation system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen a report stating that Mr Key has pledged to resign if there are changes to superannuation policy in the unlikely event of a National Government. That of course is reminiscent of Dr Lockwood Smith’s famous 1990 promise to resign if we did not remove tertiary fees which then of course were massively increased. And of course there was the famous “no ifs no buts no maybes” promise to remove the superannuation surcharge which was then increased in the subsequent Budget by the National Government. But perhaps as Dr Smith said this is one of those “bloody dead fish you have to swallow” in order to do “some useful things that way that may not be policy right now.” 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister confirm that if we do not continue to save money through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund taxes on the current generation of young New Zealanders will have to increase in order to keep superannuation payments at the same level that they are at today or conversely if we cut savings in the Superannuation Fund and we do not increases taxes superannuation payments will have to be cut in the future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. One of the great ironies would occur if a potential National Government reduced contributions to the Superannuation Fund in order to pay for tax cuts because the long-term effect of that would be to increase the tax rates that have to be paid in order to support New Zealand superannuation. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Has he seen any reports on the desirability of the current levels of New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have seen reports from the Hon Bill English that describe the current provision of retirement income as “too generous” and speculate about the need for Australian-style income or asset testing. That is not surprising. Mr English is the man who cut the level of New Zealand superannuation— 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not true that Mr English cut the level of New Zealand superannuation in 1998-99? He has forgotten the legislation that cut the floor for superannuation payments to 60 percent of the average wage for a married couple down from 65 percent. He has forgotten he was part of a Government that froze New Zealand superannuation for 3 years out of 9 and that in only 6 of the 9 years gave an increase in superannuation payments. 
Political Parties—State Funding 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the Government’s policy on State funding for political parties? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This Government is in favour of State funding for political parties. This is something that is opposed by National because it wants to be able to spend the millions it has salted away in its numerous trust accounts without any public accountability just like its use of parliamentary funding which is hidden. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Labour-led Cabinet signed off on a system in March that would have allocated $2 for every vote up to 20 percent of the vote and $1 for every vote from there up to 30 percent and can she confirm that this would have meant that for the 2008 election campaign Labour was about to allocate itself around $1.1 million of taxpayers’ money for the administration of the Labour Party and the campaign? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This is not some secret tape-recording or some leak that the member is trying to say he has. This is in official documents released to him on the work that was done by the Labour Party when looking at State funding—something that was not introduced in the bill—and funding that the Labour Party would have received through State funding. Interestingly enough Bill English does not mention what the National Party would have received because it was State funding for all political parties. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why then did Cabinet on 14 May rescind its previous decision to introduce State funding given the fact that the Budget bid for the money to be included in the Budget just 2 weeks later had been approved and the $3.1 million of funding for all political parties had been signed off? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because there was insufficient support for State funding at that stage. The National Party did not want it; it wanted to be able to spend the millions it had salted away in the Waitemata Trust the Ruahine Trust the trust called the Holland Memorial Trust and other trusts. National members were ready to spend those funds and did not want State funding. That would have stopped them using their money. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that having abandoned State funding of political parties after Cabinet had confirmed it and it had been put in last year’s Budget Labour set about covertly using State funding—as confirmed by the Electoral Commission which last week made a decision that the Budget pamphlet put out by the Prime Minister’s office is an election advertisement and will have to count as an election expense—and that therefore Labour has achieved its objective which is to make the pledge card legal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not think the member knows the meaning of covert because what he is talking about is a document about the Budget that everybody we hope has read so it can hardly be covert. The document has an authorisation on it and a parliamentary crest—as has the  
Green Times 
 which is allowed and as has the ACT document. It is not covert; it is open. What is covert—and Bill English knows this because he is part of it—is the spending of parliamentary money for Crosby/Textor for National’s consultants and for the 36 people who work in Mr Key’s office and outside Parliament. None of that is accountable to the taxpayers but every penny of it is parliamentary money. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that the National Party gets more than $7 million from Parliamentary Service; second that Mr Key has more people in his office—38—than the entire staff for New Zealand First in this Parliament and outside of it; third that National will take the lion’s share of the broadcasting moneys this year for the election campaign; and what does she call that? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Unfortunately I cannot tell the member what I would call that but I can confirm that the National Party does not get $7 million; it gets more than that. It spends about 82 percent of what parliamentary money it gets. National spends more money than everybody else but not a penny of it has to be accounted for because its members are not transparent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree that when the Green Party initiates citizens’ forum meetings to consider issues of election funding they as a group of impartial citizens will be free to consider election funding issues without being beholden to political parties fishing and racing interests expatriate billionaires and mysterious trusts? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm all those points. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that all four parties that supported the Electoral Finance Act have been found in breach of it that three parties are going to be investigated by the police that at least two parties that supported the Act to bring transparency to donations took large donations from a foreign billionaire— 
Hon Member 
: Aw! 
Hon Bill English 
: Well that’s a fact—and can she now confirm that the Prime Minister’s office is using her parliamentary money— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the umpteenth time that member is making an allegation that is totally false; I know that the people involved know that yet the member repeats it—like some members of the media who cannot get their heads around simple facts. New Zealand First did not get 1c from the so-called billionaire whom the member speaks about. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a point of debate not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If Mr Peters has never made it quite so clear in the House before does he now wish to inform the House that he personally received it by way of a bill. It should have— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order either. Please be seated. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now confirm that the four parties that supported the Electoral Finance Act have been found to have breached the law—that is they could not reach the standard they set for everybody else—and that two of the parties that campaigned so hard against large business donations—[ 
Interruption 
] In the case of Labour it took a large donation from a foreign billionaire and in the case of New Zealand First it is still a mystery what happened to the money; and can she now confirm the Prime Minister is using her parliamentary budget of taxpayers’ money for Labour’s election advertisements? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I can confirm is that there is only one party in this Parliament that has not honoured the undertakings to pay back its money after the 2005 election and that is the National Party. It ripped off the taxpayers for over $100000 of GST that it did not pay back to the taxpayers of New Zealand. It still has not paid it back and National members opposite sit there holier-than-thou pointing the finger at every other party. Well there is a name for that and one day I think somebody is probably going to say it. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: When the proposals for State funding of political parties were being developed did she consult with all parties in this House about what the content of a State-funding regime might be; if she did not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As the member is aware I was not the Minister of Justice at the time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Aw! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well it is the truth and the member is never going to be the Minister of Justice. He is never going to be so his big “Aw!”— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is quite right. She was not the Minister of Justice at the time but there was a Minister of Justice and the responsibility the question implies rests with the position not with the person. So I think that a more complete answer could have been forthcoming. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Just to continue because I was interrupted by the noisy member opposite me— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because you were ducking for cover. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would never duck for cover from that member because if he threw anything he would miss. I was not the Minister of Justice at the time. I would not like to recall what happened at that stage. I believe that most parties were consulted but I am not sure if all were. 
Work and Income—Treatment of Beneficiaries 
4.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government’s current policy on how Work and Income staff should treat beneficiaries? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The Work and Income service charter tells clients what they can expect from Work and Income. It includes prompt and efficient service; all relevant information to be presented in a user-friendly way; to be given a fair non-judgmental service; and to be treated with courtesy and respect. 
Sue Bradford 
: What steps then is the Ministry of Social Development taking to prevent a repeat of the recent incident in Rotorua where Tara Marks was told to “fuck off” by a smirking case manager as she with a baby in her arms applied for a food grant? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That allegation and all allegations and complaints are taken extremely seriously. I have confidence in the integrity of the chief executive to make sure that those allegations are investigated appropriately. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the flow of the question but the quotation that the member referred to in the first supplementary question introduces a new standard I would have thought for what is acceptable in parliamentary debate. I ask you to reflect upon whether the use of the words the member described is acceptable in a parliamentary sense even if a quotation is being referred to. Otherwise essentially now anything goes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will look at the matter. 
Judith Collins 
: Will the Minister be calling for an independent inquiry—I note she has just said she will have something investigated—because we have an allegation of appalling bullying in Rotorua; if so when will it be reported back? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Does the Minister have any indication as to the overall quality of the performance of Work and Income staff? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Of the 1.5 million face-to-face interviews conducted by Work and Income staff over the last year there were 147 complaints relating to individual staff behaviour and service. That is less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the total number of interviews. In addition I have received numerous letters praising the service of Work and Income staff including a very appreciative and appreciated letter from Dr the Hon Nick Smith. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate for the staff of the Work and Income office in Kawakawa to treat two kaumatua who are on a sickness benefit in such a way as to cause them great stress including regularly making them wait for from half an hour to 1 hour for appointments letting security guards manage reception and photocopy their confidential records and having them witness verbal abuse; if not what will she do to respond to those concerns? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If those are the facts then I certainly do not support them; they would not comply with the service charter. There are appropriate procedures within Work and Income for dealing with complaints and allegations. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware of a recent incident in Gisborne where a woman on the unemployment benefit felt so bullied by three case officers picking on her at once that she now feels too frightened to enter the local Work and Income office even though she knows she has to report there if her benefit is to continue? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I am aware of that allegation. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister realise that the cases that have been raised in the House today by my colleague from the Maori Party and me are not isolated; and will she consider the option of using skilled beneficiary advocates to help in the training of Work and Income staff as one way of ensuring that there are positive changes in the way that beneficiaries are treated by departments throughout the country? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have outlined to the House that there were only 147 complaints involving staff behaviour. I think that is a very small percentage out of 1.5 million face-to-face interviews. But I take up the point the member makes and I will ensure that the relationship between the Ministry of Social Development and the beneficiary advocacy group means that the group’s skills are used to continue to improve the service. 
Pacific Region—Governments 
5.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What further action if any has he taken since I first asked last week to ensure Governments in the Pacific region are honest transparent and accountable? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 As I travel around New Zealand many people say to me: “Winston you’ve been in politics a long time; you must know some good political jokes.” and I say: “Rodney Hide.” The fact of the matter is that National members gave this question over to Rodney Hide today—I say to those thousands of people who are watching this broadcast from Parliament—because they were not prepared to ask it themselves. He might be impersonating a canary in this House but National members should be wearing the yellow jackets today of course. I have asked my officials to keep promoting democracy and accountable government in the Pacific. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs take the opportunity he has now in advancing honesty and transparency in Government in the Pacific to put on record in this House what he told the public of New Zealand—that New Zealand First has received no donations from Simunovich Fisheries contrary to what the  
Dominion Post 
 claims today? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Anyone who read the  
Dominion Post 
 today saw in paragraph 3 a barefaced allegation. There was not one fact and there was no evidence and no proof but the media in this country were happy to follow him regardless of his not giving them the courtesy of one detail to back up the allegation. It is drivel—typical of the last allegation as well when they talked about $120000 being in one or more cheques. They did not provide the evidence. There were no facts and no substance—just allegation. Anyone can see that this is the allegation of a campaign financed by certain people in this country who have been about this for a long time. I am bound to give members the good news—those people are not going to succeed. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister now take the opportunity to deny in this House what he told the public of New Zealand—that New Zealand First has never received a donation from Simunovich Fisheries; if he will not deny it what is the reason? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members well know that questions must be addressed and related to ministerial responsibility. The way in which that supplementary question was framed meant that it was to the Minister in his capacity as a party leader. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can say this though on the question of honesty transparency and accountability—particularly in view of the need for sartorial standards—I have spoken to some people in Epsom and told them not to elect a member who represents a party that has for many years secretly channelled millions of dollars from big business through trusts such as the Cargill Trust which paid $2.9 million to ACT in one year. When the leader of the ACT party was questioned about the trust he said that he did not know about it until he read about it in a newspaper article. 
Rodney Hide 
: What can the public of New Zealand conclude about the credibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who says: “No New Zealand First received no money from Simunovich Fisheries.” but is not prepared to advance— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that this is a stalking horse for another campaign; it is so obvious. But he is not going to go outside the law—inside this House or outside it. Therefore I am asking you to bring him to order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. All I am asking members to do is to comply with the Standing Orders when asking their questions. Those questions should relate to ministerial responsibility and not to the roles other members have outside this House. Ministerial responsibility is the key. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why will the Minister not enhance honesty transparency and accountability in the Pacific by repeating in this House what he told the public of New Zealand—that New Zealand First has received no donations from Simunovich— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—the first part of the question is fine but the second is not. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I have ruled on this matter. Would both of you please be seated. You may think this is a circus but I do not and neither do the people of New Zealand. There are rules here. If you want to debate other matters you can do so outside question time. It is your right to do so. Here we have questions and those questions relate to ministerial responsibility. The first part of the question is fine; the reference to other roles is not. So I ask the Minister to address the first part. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is like taking candy from a baby. The reality of it is that I have been at pains to point out how transparency and democracy work around the Pacific. But more particularly I have some good examples. The following quote is from the previous leader of the ACT party who said when he was asked a question— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You cannot shut down Mr Hide from asking a specific question about a matter that has been before this House—the matter has in fact been before the Privileges Committee—and then allow the Minister to rehearse a whole lot of answers that have nothing to do with his ministerial responsibility no matter how thinly he might couch his associations— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: If Mr Brownlee could be slightly patient he would see in the words of these quotes why this is relevant. The quote begins: “In a free society …” and that is what we are talking about—free and open democracy. I want to give members the quote. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If this were a free and open democracy the Minister would not be worried about hiding behind the Standing Orders so as to not answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister address the question. As I heard the Minister got as far as giving examples before there was a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The audience was stunned I might add when I gave this quote which reads like this: “In a free society people should be able to donate to whatever cause they like. If it is their own money it is nobody’s business—no business of the public.” That statement was made by Richard Prebble in respect of the $2.9 million in the Cargill Trust. [ 
Interruption 
] We are talking about the laws that applied then I say to Gerry—pay attention! When he was asked why that money had to be secret Mr Prebble added: “How am I supposed to answer that question?”. A lot of New Zealanders do not particularly want to be on the front page of the newspaper— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It would be an interesting I think piece of information you might give the House about how any of this answer relates to the Minister’s responsibilities either as the Minister for Racing or as the Minister of Foreign Affairs to whom the question is set down. He should not be allowed to get away with this Madam Speaker when you have been so very hard on Mr Hide. You did not allow Mr Hide to raise issues with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that are relevant about the way in which financial transactions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard enough from the member. I am not being hard on any particular member; I am being hard in the sense of trying to ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with. The member asked a very broad question and the Minister was addressing that question—the exchanges were both broad; I accept that. We could rule them out of order but I have not done so because I think there is an element of ministerial responsibility in terms of the approach that has been taken. The Minister was responding with quotes on that so that is the situation we have. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could clarify for me Madam Speaker in relation to the premise of the question: since when was the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for the honesty and transparency of Governments in the Pacific? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has a responsibility about matters that relate to Pacific countries and those matters in previous questions have also related to Government policy there. Of course the member is right in terms of the strict sense of that that the Minister is not responsible. But in terms of the way in which the questions have been framed I think they have so far come within ministerial responsibility in a broad interpretation. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the Minister not conclude that in the past week there has been a backward step in accountability transparency and honesty in the Pacific because to take an analogy we have a Minister who tells the people that no donation was received from Simunovich Fisheries— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry—the member knows. He will please bring the question within ministerial responsibility. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If Mr Peters can use an example—an unintelligible example actually; Lewis Carroll would have been better—to try to answer his question why cannot Mr Hide use the same process for getting an answer to his question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Because the first question drew matters to a role that is outside the Standing Orders in terms of responsibility in question time. Analogies are used and I know— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet! Would members please just stick to the Standing Orders both those asking the questions and those answering them—I have stopped both of you at times. 
Rodney Hide 
: Would the Minister consider with his vast experience of foreign affairs and the finance of political parties that it would be a backwards step in a Pacific nation if a political leader and Minister were to deny ever receiving a donation when the newspaper in the capital city said that that member’s party did and when given the opportunity in the nation’s Parliament the member refused to repeat the denial because we have learnt from this experience in this far-flung nation of the Pacific that “No” means “Yes” “Yes” means “No” and he is an “Alice in Wonderland”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That reminds me of nothing so much as the old English saying: “I shot an arrow into the air; whither it landed I knew not where”. You see the kind of thing that we saw in the  
Dominion Post 
 today is typical of a sleaze campaign. Let me tell members this. I take the story of Bob Jones. The only independent witness Professor Malcolm Wright said “One I was not in the room; two I was angry when I came into the room and found out that the subject had been raised; and three I was not present when there was any cheque paid out.” That is the story gone and dusted. Mind you it was in “Granny Herald” of course after 5 days of rumour and innuendo. 
Rodney Hide 
: What would the Minister conclude about a far-flung island nation in the Pacific where a Minister was quite happy to deny political donations but when asked in Parliament— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was hoping that a gracious providence would intervene but I have to resort to asking you to do so. This is ridiculous shameful and disgraceful. No one should be allowed to make such an idiot of himself in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: People are free to present themselves however they like as long as it is within the Standing Orders. Have you finished your oration Mr Hide? 
Rodney Hide 
: Hardly started Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is the problem. Be seated! You are turning this place into a farce and it is not in the public interest to do so. Questions are to be short and succinct—not speeches—and answers are to relate directly to the question. We will have that now—a short and succinct question and a short answer please. 
Rodney Hide 
: What would the Minister conclude if in the Pacific a Government Minister would go out in public and deny ever receiving a political donation but would not make that denial in Parliament where it mattered? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Frankly the ACT party should change its leader if that is the best it can do. The member has come to this House he has not provided one shred of ammunition or evidence yet he demands I give answers to allegations made by a fish-and-chip throwaway newspaper and a rather follicly-challenged lying editor. I will tell members what that editor did about democracy. We had a candidate once a doctor— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on where the answer is going here. It was a very succinct question from Rodney Hide I thought after your direction to him. The Minister is making no attempt to address the question asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to address the question succinctly. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will. This doctor a New Zealand First candidate was accused on the front page of the Christchurch  
Press 
 of rorting the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)—on the front page. I demanded an ACC inquiry and 4 days later it exonerated him and said that rather than ripping off ACC he had delivered four times the services. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This question was not about the editor of the  
Dominion Post 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know. You are quite right. Would the Minister just address the question. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will—precisely: I am not going to respond to a dirty underhand media campaign. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Peters was simply asked to respond to a legitimate question from Mr Hide that related to how he as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Pacific would view the activities of another Foreign Minister in the Pacific who was prepared to say outside the House that he did not receive a donation but was not prepared to say so inside the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I get the point. But the Minister did address the question; we should be grateful for that. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports of a lack of honesty and transparency in the South Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes most certainly. Yesterday I tabled a document but I did not mention the man who signed it. His name was Sir Bob Jones. He was alleging that $20000 was paid by him to the ACT party and never declared. Why would not one media person be interested in that? Well the media has a spurious campaign going on against one party and its leader which it is bound to lose. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is there any other action the Minister needs to take to ensure accountability in the South Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes. I saw a coterie of New Zealand’s richest men secretly bankroll a political party in 1996 in a scheme set up to avoid disclosure of their identity and the amount of their donations. Over $2.8 million was paid into an undeclared trust now known as the Cargill Trust. This dwarfs—massively—any donations made to New Zealand First. But of course it went to the dwarf. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment was uncalled for. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister give us another example of transparency and accountability in the South Pacific? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Most certainly. When it is alleged in an electoral court that push-polling took place by a whole lot of Exclusive Brethren and it is denied by legal counsel but it is later admitted to by the very candidate who was a beneficiary of that and who would not be here had that cost been put on to his account then we are looking at perjury—a most serious crime for which one is capable of getting 5 years in prison. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you for that. I think that actually we did have an answer to my question. It took a while but I think the answer was very clear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not for you to judge. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Justice and asks—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether Mr Clarkson heard what Mr Peters just called out but I can tell you Madam Speaker that it was absolutely unparliamentary. I think Winston Peters should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I did not hear what was said. I was too busy concentrating on the question. Did Mr Clarkson take offence and does he ask for what was said to be withdrawn and for there to be an apology? 
Bob Clarkson 
: Madam Speaker I did not hear it so I will let him slide this time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I also just remind members that if they make comments that lead to disorder they do occasion a breach of the Standing Orders. In future I will be asking members to leave the Chamber when that occurs so that we can proceed with business. 
Sentencing—Sentencing Council and Guidelines 
6.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What reports has she received on the establishment of the Sentencing Council and the creation of sentencing guidelines? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have seen the Law Commission’s report that noted there were substantial inconsistencies throughout the country in the level of sentencing imposed on offenders for the same offence and that the work of the sentencing establishment unit in drafting guidelines has confirmed that conclusion. I have also seen a report that notes that National will abolish the Sentencing Council which indicates that rather than looking to improve the fairness of the system for both victims and offenders National is happy to leave in place a system that treats similar offenders in quite different ways depending upon the particular court and judge dealing with the case. That is not fair to victims of crime. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has she seen any other reports relating to the Sentencing Council? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen comments made by Simon Power of the National Party that National would get rid of this level of bureaucracy—the whole five non-judicial members of that council. No doubt that would be enough to pay for a tax cut of a fraction of a cent for all taxpayers. In fact the National Party’s policy would cut out the public from having any input into sentencing levels at all because one of the requirements of the Sentencing Council is to consult the public before any guidelines are brought to Parliament. I know that the National Party does not want the public to have a say in anything; things have to be done secretly behind closed doors. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does she disagree with former Minister the Hon Phil Goff who said: “The principles and considerations spelled out in the Sentencing Act 2002 provide the guidelines to encourage consistency and transparency in sentencing’’ and there was no need for a Sentencing Council; and why does she not also agree with the National Party that spending nearly $6 million to second-guess what Parliament decides and what the people who vote for members of Parliament decide is a good thing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am aware the member made up at least half of that. The member is probably not aware— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If the member is saying that I am making things up she should explain which bit of Mr Goff’s 2002 comment is not correct. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. If we just let the Minister finish her answer we might be able to resolve the issue that Mr Brownlee wanted to be addressed. But does the Hon Phil Goff wish to add something? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What the member supposedly quoted from cannot possibly be right. In 2002 there was no suggestion of a Sentencing Council so I could not have been commenting on it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister clearly misunderstood what I said. I spoke about the Sentencing Act which is mentioned in Cabinet papers in 2005. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That’s true. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Now he agrees; he thinks it is a load of rubbish too. So why does the Minister not listen to Phil Goff and Simon Power and do something— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. My original instincts were right. If we just hear the answer to the question then that would be useful. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That member has just displayed that he does not know what the Sentencing Council is or what it is meant to do. He talked about the Sentencing Act; he talked about something that was not in place. I suggest that maybe he should go off and read the  
Law Journal UK 
 because he does not believe anything that happens in New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Too hard. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of course it is too hard for him. But if he did read it he would find it says that what New Zealand is doing in terms of the sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Council is the way ahead and is worth taking account of. 
District Health Boards—Management and Administration Staff 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can he confirm that management and administration staff at district health boards increased from 8250 at 30 June 2001 to 10236 as at 31 December 2007 as per answers to written questions; and is this in line with Government policy? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can confirm that under this Labour-led Government there has been a greater increase in front-line health workforce numbers. We are increasing our investment so that Kiwis can get the kind of health care they deserve. The percentage of district health board staff employed in management and administration has actually decreased from about 20 percent in 2001-02 to less than 19.5 percent today. The real question is how many of those extra front-line staff is National going to cut or does the public have to wait for Tony Ryall to slip up again just like he did on general practitioners’ fees before we find out what National’s real agenda is. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why will the Minister not confirm that the number of managers and administrators in the district health boards has increased by well over 2000 during Labour’s term in office and what action has he or any of his predecessors taken to halt this relentless growth in bureaucracy? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: If the member wants figures then let me give him figures. The increase in management and administration personnel was 1362—that is less than 2000 for the member’s information—medical personnel grew by a whopping 47 percent or 2188 and support staff actually declined by 199 or 8 percent. As I said at the start the proportion of front-line personnel went up; back-office personnel went down. What is the member’s problem? 
Lesley Soper 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the number of medical personnel employed by district health boards? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The latest report I have shows that under this Labour-led Government there are over 2300 extra medical personnel and over 3000 extra nursing personnel employed by district health boards than there were back in 2001. That is over 5700 more front-line staff. Again for the member’s help the proportion of front-line staff has gone up and the proportion of management and administration staff has gone down. Unlike the National Party we are proud of our policies. People do not have to wait for someone in Labour to leak to find out what those policies are. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Have any of the extra managers and administrators employed at the Capital and Coast District Health Board explained to the Minister why that district health board has today reported a $40 million budget deficit why a new hospital is being built without enough beds and why its emergency department is unable to cope with the needs of this city? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Some people always see the glass as being half empty. The fact is that Capital and Coast District Health Board does have a difficult transition time at the moment. It has a new regional hospital that is all but finished and it will be into it by the first half of next year. Of course it is under stress and it has had some historical problems. That is why this Government has put in a new chairman and Crown monitors and why there is a turn-round in progress. When we have problems we front up to them we fix them and we move forward. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Have any of the extra 150 managers and administrators employed at the Canterbury District Health Board explained why Christchurch Hospital told a woman who was 36 weeks pregnant to go back home across the Southern Alps on a bus with a $40 McDonald’s voucher why it has a budget blowout of $15 million and why it has admitted providing substandard cancer care to South Island patients? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On any given day hundreds of thousands of services are provided to New Zealanders the vast majority of which are of a high standard but that one was not. The chairman of the West Coast District Health Board has publicly given his regrets for the way that woman was treated and I would add that it does not meet my expectations either. 
Paula Bennett 
: Have any of his hundreds of district health board managers told him that this weekend while the Waitakere Hospital emergency department was closed patients who went to nearby White Cross found that there was no doctor there; and how can it be that after the Government has spent millions on bureaucracy our fifth-largest city has an overworked and closed emergency department and there was not a single doctor on duty anywhere in the city? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Let me repeat the facts once more for members. The facts are there are 3283 more nurses since 2001 there are 2188 more doctors since 2001 and there is a higher proportion of front-line staff today than when the National Party was in office. What is wrong with that picture? Nothing. We have invested across the board. We are bringing better health services to Kiwis—hey which is why it is on our top ten list and not National’s. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should address the specific question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Waitakere Hospital’s accident and emergency services are a matter for the district health board to manage. Waitakere is very clearly under the impression that after-hours care is a matter that we are interested to see extended during its budget process and that is an ongoing conversation. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why was Waitakere Hospital’s emergency department closed 52 times in just 5 months of this year; and would not the money be better spent on our emergency department and after-hours care instead of on 146 extra managers at the Waitemata District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The National Party just cannot help being slippery with figures can it? The first half of the question talked about Waitakere Hospital and the second half talked about the Waitemata District Health Board. As anyone who spent much time in the west would know unlike the member the two are not the same thing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did not address the question. Would he please address the question. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is impossible for me to make a meaningful comparison between statistics quoted from Waitakere Hospital compared against the Waitemata District Health Board when Waitakere Hospital is only one sub-component of that district health board. That is an answer to the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister of Health prepared to admit that in quoting the numbers about additional doctors since the year 2001 he has failed to admit to the House that the Ministry of Health has changed the way that it counts the numbers of doctors in the public health system since that time such that it inflates the number by over 1000 places? If he wants to talk about being slippery he should come down and admit he has just deceived the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: What I consider to be slippery is the fact that when the member has access to the exact same information that I do—I know because I have sent it to him in answer to a written parliamentary question—he quotes an increase in management and administration personnel which is true but omits the fact that the number of support staff has decreased and he omits the fact that medical staff numbers and nursing staff numbers have increased by more and that as I understand it the statistics are on the same basis throughout which is consolidated numbers. The fact is that the National Party is just trotting out an alleged growth in bureaucracy for one simple reason. It is because Crosby/Textor has told National that it is a good key line for the campaign. The fact is that it bears no relationship to the truth. The truth is that the proportion has gone down. The member should admit that he is misleading the House and get on with life. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that the number of district health board managers and administrators has grown by over 2200 since— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table information that shows that the number of support personnel in district health boards has decreased since 2001. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table information that shows that medical personnel numbers have increased by over 2000 or 47 percent— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table information that shows that the level of allied health personnel has grown by nearly 2000 or 22 percent since 2001. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table information that shows that nursing personnel numbers have grown by 3283 or 17 percent— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table a board report from August 2005 that clearly states that the Waitemata District Health Board is contracting services to White Cross— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table confirmation from the Ministry of Health that it has changed the way it counts— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table an article entitled “The Scampi Affair” which has Mr Peters saying “I’m saying no”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a report showing that New Zealand First in fact did receive money from Simunovich Fisheries. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could Mr Hide explain why he did not seek that leave when Mr Peters was in the House and why he sought leave when he knew that Mr Peters had had to leave the House— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No no. If we had explanations as to why people do not do things in the right order we would get nothing else done. Members know that they should seek leave at the appropriate time but sometimes they forget and that is human. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you suggesting that somehow I did it in the wrong order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. Normally if members have documents they wish to table they seek leave at the end of the question. We have moved on from the question but sometimes members remember later that they wish to table a document. There is no problem with that. It happened in this case and members had the opportunity to decide whether leave should be given. 
Tertiary Education Policy—Transparency 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports if any has he received on the importance of transparency in tertiary education policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Transparency in policy development and implementation is very important especially in tertiary education. For example when the Government pledged to remove interest on student loans in 2005 we did just that. It has not always been so. An earlier tertiary education pledge was to abolish student fees altogether and the politician involved even pledged to resign if the fees were not abolished—one can see his saying it on YouTube. The fees were not abolished of course; instead they were doubled. The politician did not resign of course; he is still here—just over there. He is the same politician who was caught out last weekend saying: “There’s some bloody dead fish you have to swallow … to get into government …”. Some things never change and I congratulate the member on his consistency. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the fashionable pledging to resign if tertiary education policy promises are not kept ever happened? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well no not in recent times not in tertiary education. Elsewhere the pattern of making such pledges is re-emerging from none other than John Key who has pledged to resign if he cuts superannuation or changes the eligibility rules. Unfortunately for Mr Key his party already has a track record of signing pledges up and down the land then gaily ignoring them. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister in the interests of transparency and given that we know that the costing has been done rule out any announcement between now and the election concerning the introduction of universal student allowances or a timetable for the introduction of universal student allowances; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a pleasure to repeat afresh the policy of the Government. The Government’s policy is to move towards but not directly to a universal allowance regime. This continues the pattern of nine Budgets in each of which there has been some improvement large or small for the student population. That contrasts with the 9 years prior to that; every year the fate of students the financial pressure on them got progressively and inexorably worse. If members want to know which party in this House takes care of affordability in tertiary education they should do no more than consult history. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw to your attention that my question was very specific: would he rule out an announcement between now and the election campaign in the interests of transparency etc. You will rule that he addressed the question but he did not actually answer it. I point out that if in fact— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I will just point out to the member that that is what the rules require and I will say it again— 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can I— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry; I get your point of order. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I have not finished— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. Points of order should also be made succinctly. The Minister may not have answered the question but the Minister did address the question. If he wishes to add to his answer I invite him to do so. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Madam Speaker let me repeat my answer and then you can decide whether I merely addressed the question or answered it. Government policy continues to be that we will move towards but not directly to universal student allowances. What clearer answer than that does the member want? 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister accept that the New Zealand First policy to abolish universal student allowances will do a great deal to retain young people in New Zealand and stop the drift of young people— 
Hon Member 
: Abolish? 
Dail Jones 
: —sorry the New Zealand First policy to remove— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Was that the revelation of a secret agenda which we shall see played on TV3 later this evening? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. We will have this question in silence because I cannot hear. Has the member got a supplementary question? 
Dail Jones 
: Yes I am trying to give it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would you please ask it succinctly? 
Dail Jones 
: I am trying to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister accept that if students receive universal student allowances that do not have to be repaid and therefore become student debt that will encourage young New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand and stop the drift of people overseas? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure that I got the entirety of that question but I can say that in general the Government finds itself well supported by the Greens by in particular United Future and now by it seems New Zealand First in ensuring that the affordability of tertiary education gets better and better in this country whereas the history of the members on the other side of the House is precisely the opposite. 
Drug and Alcohol Abuse—Assessment and Treatment Programmes 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied with the current availability of drug and alcohol abuse assessment and treatment programmes in New Zealand; if so why? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware of reports that in Christchurch addicts wait for an average of 8 weeks for a specialist assessment the first step for entry into detoxification programmes and does he think that is satisfactory; if not what is being done to shorten the waiting times? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I am aware of that. The national average for waiting times for assessment is around 4 weeks and Christchurch happens to be the worst area in the country. At any one time of course about 22000 people are in treatment using services from 97 providers and about 130 sites are funded of course through district health boards around the country. The Government now spends 50 percent more on this area of treatment than it has in the past. I congratulate and thank our support parties including New Zealand First for assisting us to do that. In return for that the waiting times for services have dropped. As I say it takes on average 3 weeks to get into community assessment programmes and about 1 month for residential care. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What provision is the Minister making for the massive increase in demand for residential programmes to treat P addiction and does he understand that many many working families just cannot afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for private treatment at the Pakuranga facility? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: P of course is an addictive methamphetamine and there are many other varieties of it but the treatment for addictive substances is basically the same. The number of residential facilities for that treatment has expanded rapidly under this Government. During this year in the last 3 to 4 months I personally have opened two more of those facilities in Christchurch alone. That would be 200 percent more than National ever opened in its term of office. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware that only one kaupapa whanau drug and alcohol programme exists in the whole of Aotearoa—Te Whanau Manaki o Manawatu—which does an incredible job with insufficient resources and when will he be taking action to address that deplorable situation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Unfortunately because of the level of alcohol abuse in New Zealand I have no doubt that there will always be gaps in the services. I understand that but I have to point out that since 2001 we have increased the funding for residential and other treatment for drug and alcohol abuse from $65.6 million to $94.7 million. That is the largest increase in this area of service in any Government’s record. I suggest to the member that this Government is at least addressing the problem which was never addressed before. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware of comments made by a longstanding Christchurch defence lawyer that “[Crime] is very intimately linked with the abuse of alcohol and drugs. If it wasn’t for the drugs and the alcohol I’m sure we wouldn’t have the crime level we are currently grappling with.”; is that not a compelling reason to increase the availability of drug and alcohol treatment nationally? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes it is. I have said many many times that in my experience—and I am sure in the experience of any member in this House—alcohol is the most serious drug abused in this country by a very very long way. For example Christchurch had a youth drug court but no residential facility for the treatment of young criminals. That has now been fixed and there is now a residential treatment facility there. It was opened this year. That is typical of the measures that are being taken throughout New Zealand. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the incidence of problems with regard to P other drugs and alcohol in South Auckland what are some of the Government’s initiatives concerning offences related to those problems in recent times in terms of partnership—real effective partnership—with communities on the ground with regard to that issue? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I would like to be able to say that the abuse of alcohol and drugs and criminal offending as a result of that were restricted to one or two regions in New Zealand. But unfortunately they are not; they occur right across the country. In Manukau City in particular I am aware of many initiatives that have been taken by the police in that community. We have in fact two community action groups on drug and alcohol for young people that have been established there for 2 or 3 years and they are doing very good work indeed. But we would not have to be rocket scientists to work out that all of this is extremely complex and we cannot say in any way that we are satisfied with the results. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What will the Minister do to address the ongoing concerns expressed by Maori communities about the lack of Government support for kaupapa whanau drug and alcohol abuse assessment and treatment programmes; and how does such a failure to act sit alongside the National Drug Policy which states that drug and alcohol problems in Maori communities may be addressed more effectively when targeted approaches are developed by and for Maori? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I have said the waiting times for both residential treatment and assessment have been reduced. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not want to waste the Minister’s time by his going through that answer again because that is not what the question was. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I was asked whether the Government was concerned about treatment. The member has a specific commitment to Maori; I have a commitment to the whole population— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am speaking particularly about kaupapa whanau alcohol abuse assessment and treatment programmes. They are not the same as individual treatment programmes and I am offering the Minister an opportunity to answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well maybe we will let him answer fully. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I mentioned there are a number of community programmes—actually 25 of them—throughout the country and many of them are specifically aimed at Maori young people throughout New Zealand. They are based in the community and have very well-known leaders in the Maori community leading them and as far as I know in respect of the national hui that will take place this month in Wellington they are all very impressed and satisfied with the way in which those services are operating. 
Work and Income—Communication with Beneficiaries 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement that “From 1 April 2009 Work and Income will talk to their clients in a much more generic way about their income support. The focus of discussions about income support will be on ensuring full and correct entitlement to financial assistance rather than making any reference to specific benefit type.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Judith Collins 
: How can she justify issuing a ministerial directive to dictate the words that Work and Income staff must use when talking to beneficiaries including banning mention of the type of benefit people receive; and how is this going to work in practice when the benefit types remain in force within the Social Security Act but staff are not allowed to refer to them? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is actually the point of a ministerial directive. 
Judith Collins 
: How silly is it to attempt to ban staff from referring to benefit types when presumably beneficiaries are still permitted to refer to the type of benefit they receive; or is she going to try to ban that as well? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The aim is to treat people as individuals with specific needs and ensure that those specific needs are recognised and supported so that the person can move off a benefit into a job. 
Sue Moroney 
: What are the advantages of taking a more generic approach to the provision of income support to clients? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The aim is to treat people as individuals with specific needs rather than lump them into categories. We should move away from stereotypical and derogatory terms such as that used by the Opposition Leader John Key when he referred to sole parents—mothers on the domestic purposes benefit—as “for want of a better term breeding for a business”. 
Judith Collins 
: What is it that the Minister thinks is going to be said when someone comes into a Work and Income office and says he or she would like to get on to the domestic purposes benefit because of need; is that person not allowed to talk about that now? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That person will get his or her full and correct entitlement unlike when that member’s party was in Government and people had to argue every inch of the way. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does the Minister not put some effort into the important issues such as the ever-increasing sickness and invalid benefit numbers which now total almost 132000 instead of this ridiculous attempt at PC nonsense of banning members of her department from referring to the benefit that a person is wanting to get? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am delighted to inform the member that yet again she is wrong with her figures. Between June last year and June this year the number of people on a sickness benefit actually declined. I am not able literally to make them well but I have often recommended to people who are feeling sick to stop listening to the member who asked the question. 
Judith Collins 
: How ashamed is she that after almost 20 years of announcements re-announcements and name changes the single core benefit—also known as phase 2—has been reduced to nothing more than a bossy and absurd attempt to control the rules that come out of people’s mouths; what is next a ministerial direction on what people at Work and Income are to think? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When that member’s party was last in Government Work and Income staff were forbidden to put any photos of their family in their offices and they were forbidden to have any personal items on their desk; that is PC gone mad. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the relevant page of the Cabinet paper “Special Needs Grants Core Benefit Changes and Further Work”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table the statement in which National Party leader John Key referred to sole mothers—sole parents—as “breeding for a business”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the latest combined sickness and invalid benefit numbers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Liquor Licensing—Communities 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What is the Government doing to give communities more say in liquor licensing decisions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government has today introduced the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which will give community members the ability to object to licensing applications that affect their communities and will also give licensing authorities the power to take social impact into account when making licensing decisions. Most important we are giving real teeth to local alcohol plans by requiring licensing authorities to give effect to them. That means that if a local alcohol plan has a set closing time or a one-way-door policy then it will become a condition of all licences in that area. I have also today announced a Law Commission review of the sale and supply of liquor which will give a say to all stakeholders including the community and industry. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why did the Government decide to include some measures in the bill and others in the Law Commission review? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Apart from the new provisions I mentioned before the bill contains provisions that were the subject of earlier work and have broad-based community and industry support. It is important to progress those and also to address the problem of licensing being issued to dairies by another name despite Parliament voting in 1999 against the extension to dairies. The Law Commission has been given a very broad brief; in particular it will look at such matters as the proliferation of specific outlets the age at which liquor can be purchased the application of competition law to the sale of liquor and the management of risk around licensing and enforcement. With Parliament having a conscience vote on liquor issues the report will give an evidence base for good decision-making. 
Police—Numbers 
12.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by the Prime Minister’s statement prior to the last election that “It is not credible however to promise thousands more new police when the capacity of the police college and the labour market conditions in a strong economy mean that such numbers could not be recruited and trained without seriously compromising standards and quality.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes because that quote was in response to a proposal to double police numbers in 5 years which would mean training 1691 sworn staff every year. The considered and realistic approach taken by the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to recruit an additional 1000 sworn officers over 3 years is on target and it is being done without compromising standards as shown by the Cerno report on police standards and assessment practice released in October last year. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm calculations from the Police Association that show that although there is one sworn officer for every 510 people nationwide the ratio in the Counties-Manukau Police District is 1:646 making it the second worst in the country; and is that ratio acceptable when violence in the Counties-Manukau Police District has increased by 64 percent since Labour took office? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm to the member that in the allocation of the additional staff the first priority was the Counties-Manukau Police District and we continue to put officers into that area. But as the member knows the districts in the Auckland area support each other district so although there are a certain number of police in the Counties-Manukau Police District that district has the resource of the whole Auckland area to call on to help it as has happened to deal with some of the tragedies in that area lately. 
Chester Borrows 
: Is the Minister satisfied with staffing in the Counties-Manukau Police District when an internal email last month from the regional Police Association representative Detective Senior Sergeant Dave Pizzini reveals that there are “senior investigators in this district who are nearly falling over” and that “workplace stress in this district is not peculiar to the CIB.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Counties-Manukau Police District has had a lot of serious issues in its area and the officers there are under stress which happens in any district when there are a number of homicides. But I know that the Commissioner of Police will ensure that extra staff go into the area when they are needed. Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) staff can be taken from any part of New Zealand to back up the work being done by those officers. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Is the Minister able to tell the House the increase in the total number of full-time equivalent police staff since 1999? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There has been a 28.3 percent increase in the total number of full-time equivalent police staff since 1999. I would like to compare that situation with the National policy in 1999 under the then Minister of Finance Bill English to cut 500 sworn staff. He was prepared to do it then and I believe he would do it again. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the first 6 months of this year up to the day of the murder of Navtej Singh there were 53 aggravated robberies of commercial premises in Manukau but only five have been solved because there are not the staffing resources to do the basics like checking registration numbers and following up on descriptions of offenders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that that is the reason but I do know that aggravated robberies as the member knows are not easy issues. First of all the robbers have to be found before they can be arrested. But I can tell the member that in that same area where there have been a number of homicides and around the rest of New Zealand the police record in catching murderers and ensuring they are locked away is almost close to 100 percent. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that of the 103 CIB staff working in the Counties-Manukau Police District 81 are not qualified and 43 started in the last 12 months making an attrition rate from the CIB of 40 percent? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that. I would like to know what the member’s definition of “not qualified” is because as the member knows officers undertake CIB training in different districts and work with those who are qualified. One has to go through training to become a detective and no doubt it takes some time to do that—at least 2 years I believe. The fact is that officers who are in training work alongside other officers and that happens all around New Zealand. But if the member is saying that the CIB officers are not up to the mark I disagree with him. I think the CIB officers in New Zealand are very good and their record is second to none. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Does the Minister have confidence in the police when concerns have been raised in recent times in relation to poor judgment by the police and even cowardice when it comes to their lack of attendance at some calls involving violence? That concern has been expressed in the community. Does the Minister have confidence in the quality and the training of the police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have confidence in the quality and the training of the police and I reject the suggestion that our police are cowards—they certainly are not. They face the most horrendous criminals out on the streets 24 hours a day every day of the week 365 days of the year. They are not cowards. There certainly are a lot of criminals out there who are cowards. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister agree that the measure of success of the law and order policy in this country is how policing is done in South Auckland in terms of public expectation and unmet needs in relation to police response and investigations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The success of policing will be measured right around New Zealand because although there are problems in South Auckland a sole officer working in the backblocks of Otago is under immense pressure as well. Those officers need to perform their jobs just as officers in urban areas need to. The measure of success is how well our officers come up to the mark. I believe they do an extremely good job and they have my full support. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister accept that now she is well down the track towards implementing the National Party policy of increasing the number of police staff there is still a long way to go to meet public expectation and need and that she should reject Treasury advice that it is undesirable to continue adding extra police staff past the current target of 1000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to the member that if he ever gets the opportunity to be Minister of Police he should make sure he never has a report carried out by a consultant who then tells his party’s Minister of Finance to cut police numbers by 500 because that is what happened under the National Government. The only reason the numbers were not cut is National was dumped from office and Labour became the Government. 
Ron Mark 
: Would it surprise the Minister to know that New Zealand First highlighted publicly the disparity between police staffing in the Counties-Manukau Police District and staffing in other areas some 6 months ago; and that although New Zealand First in its time in Parliament has negotiated to have 1750 extra police National has slashed police numbers bought a computer and cut police numbers to pay for it consistently told the public that recruiting an extra 1000 police was simply a gimmick and shown a solid track record of not supporting the police when it gets to Government? Who does the Minister think the public believe will look after police interests—us or them? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the public will go by the track record and the track record of the National Party is appalling when it comes to supporting the New Zealand Police. I say to Chester Borrows that when he is railing against the number of police he ought to remember what he said back in May 2007. He actually questioned the sustainability of an extra 1000 police. If National members question the sustainability of an extra 1000 police I can only assume that there is no way that that number of police would be recruited if National were in Government. 
General Debate 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. This week we have finally heard some policy from the National Party. What was it? National will sell Kiwibank. That is National’s one policy alongside its policy on tax cuts and it will sell Kiwibank to pay for them. It is irresponsible to sell the family silver to buy the groceries. If selling Kiwibank was such a good idea why would National not tell the public first openly and plainly? This has an eerie resemblance to the infamous response of David Lange when he was asked why he had not told the public of New Zealand about the secret policy agenda of the then Labour Government. He answered with extreme honesty: “They wouldn’t have liked it.” That is why Bill English was telling someone privately and not publicly. We have heard this before. This is a return to the hollow men and to the failed policies of the 1980s and 1990s where Governments got into power by saying one thing and then doing exactly the opposite. 
So what does National say now about Kiwibank? Well members should not take my word for it; they should take the words of the esteemed political journalist John Armstrong in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 this morning. He said that National has not just one policy on Kiwibank but five—all at the same time. The first policy is that “National has no plans to sell Kiwibank”. Well that seems clear enough; that is policy No. 1. The second policy is that “National will eventually sell Kiwibank” which is a bit confusing. The third policy is that “National will not sell Kiwibank”. The fourth policy is that “National is unlikely to sell Kiwibank”. The fifth policy is that “National will not sell Kiwibank in its first term in government.” Which of those is the real policy? I do not have the faintest idea. But somebody who talked to Bill knew and Bill said he did say it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Mr English said he knew and the policy was that National would sell Kiwibank eventually. But he should not have said those words; they were “mis-spoken”. I have heard that before—it was a “mis-speak”. The trouble is that Mr English having admitted that he said it faced the incredible humiliation of having Mr Key come out and say “No no he didn’t really say it even though he said he did. The tapes have been doctored.” Mr English did not come out and say the tapes had been doctored; he said “I said it.” National cannot even get that story right. Mr English and Mr Key were standing together outside the caucus room; Mr English was saying “Yeah I’ll fall on my sword—I was an idiot; I said all that stuff.” and then his leader went on  
Morning Report 
 this morning and said “No he didn’t. The tapes were doctored.” Why did Mr English not think about that? I cannot believe it. When Mr English thought no one was listening he really told the truth. So in actual fact he was caught telling the truth: National will sell Kiwibank eventually. Of course National has to sell the assets of New Zealand to pay for its tax cuts. Where have we heard that before? Plenty of Governments in the history of this country have sold New Zealanders down the river. 
Where have we heard the statement that National is “almost certainly likely” to sell Kiwibank? Where have we heard that statement before? Actually we heard that from Mr Key. You see National members have their lines taught to them but they get them mixed up. Mr Key has been told that when he says something he thinks might be unpopular he should qualify it. The words are “almost certainly likely” so National is likely to sell Kiwibank eventually. But when Mr Key was asked whether National would sell the Accident Compensation Corporation he thought about how he had been taught to qualify things and he said it was “almost certainly likely” that National would sell it. 
This is a party that wants to govern New Zealand. But every time someone hears National members say something it is either five versions of the same thing that all mean something different or it is “almost certainly likely” that they might do something if they ever get around to it. And people are supposed to trust them! I say to this House that it would be a piece of economic sabotage at a time of international financial uncertainty to sell the only New Zealand - owned nationwide bank we have and National stands indicted on that. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 This afternoon I asked the Government some questions about the way in which at least some officers and some individuals within Work and Income continue to abuse and harass people who come to them for assistance. Although I had been aware of ongoing issues over the years I had hoped perhaps naively that after so many years of a Labour-led Government with a relatively benign approach to welfare things would be improving in comparison with the attitudes and culture so rampant in the Department of Work and Income in the late 1990s. 
However I felt impelled to take action after I received reports last week from two different districts. The reports highlighted the fact that for some Work and Income case officers the idea of treating the people who come to them for help as customers worthy of anything approaching the kind of respect a retailer would show a real customer is a total nonsense. For example a beneficiary from the Rotorua district whom I spoke of earlier Ms Tara Marks was told by a smirking and laughing male case officer to “fuck off”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member should know that one cannot get around the Standing Orders by quoting from other documents. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for using that profanity in the House. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Speaker said she would come back with a ruling on this matter. I had not realised—she seemed to take a different approach from you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I am in the Chair at the moment and I have taken this approach. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I withdraw and apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] I would comment that if the House finds this language so offensive— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand from the point of order the member raised that the Speaker had been asked to rule on this matter. That is a bit puzzling. You have just given a ruling Mr Assistant Speaker that I think all of the House would agree with but do we take it from the member’s comments that before the member started her speech she gave the Speaker a copy of her speech notes with the quote including the profanity and was somehow led to believe there would be a ruling on whether the profanity could be used? Is that actually the case? If it is the case we need to know whether that is a new procedure—that members can have their profanities pre-approved just in case they are able to use them. If it was the case that a profanity had been pre-approved then the Speaker in the Chair would need to know about that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I am not aware of that but I have made a ruling. At this stage that ruling stands unless it is changed. Thank you. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I just make the point in relation to this matter that this is an offensive phrase and the House—justifiably—finds it offensive. I ask the House to consider how offensive that phrase is when it is addressed by a Work and Income case officer to someone who is at his mercy and in a very difficult situation in her life. 
Although the facts of the situation in Rotorua are in dispute it seems that the local Ministry of Social Development accepts that the case officer did make this remark. I hope the strongest possible message is sent to that office and to all case officers around the country that such language and the underlying attitude it represents has no place in today’s Work and Income offices any more than it has its place here in this Parliament. 
The second case of this nature involved the Gisborne office where a woman reported a very high level of harassment and bullying from staff to the point where she is now too frightened to go to the office. Of course that is something she has to do on a regular basis if she is to continue to receive the benefit upon which she is dependent for survival. From Murupara comes a further report of a case manager screaming right into the face of a beneficiary whom she is supposed to be there to help. That manager is evidently still employed. 
Beneficiary advocacy groups and other local people advise that cases like these are far from isolated. Not only front-line case officers but also security guards are being used to intimidate people who are already totally at the mercy of the State. The Minister for Social Development and Employment advised earlier that beneficiaries have the right to complain to the department about how they are being treated and that she sees the number of complaints as being very low. Well I would ask her to consider how hard it is for people who often have language and literacy problems and who are often living in poverty and in ill health to take complaints against what seems to them to be an all-powerful Government department. It is really worrying that in a period of low unemployment and with fewer people on benefits overall we are seeing a continuation of this kind of harassment. I hate to think what will happen when unemployment goes up again as it is bound to do and I hope the department will do everything it can to continue to work to change the culture of the 1990s which still seems to exist among some staff. 
Yes people who are on benefits or trying to get on to them can be difficult to work with. Anyone who is struggling to survive from one end of the week to the other who may be suffering from health problems and who lives at the mercy of the State tends to be stressed and finds it hard sometimes to negotiate calmly with the case officer. However this is all the more reason that staff should be trained and competent. Work and Income should have an ethos of public service that understands and acknowledges the realities of the lives of the people with whom it works. 
I call on the Government to do three things. First the Ministry of Social Development should do everything it can to end this culture of abuse wherever and whenever it occurs. Second skilled beneficiary advocates should be involved as a matter of course in training front-line case workers. Third Work and Income should apologise to all those people who have been humiliated intimidated and harassed in some of the ways I have outlined and others and start again with a new ethos of respect and empowerment rather than of intimidation and humiliation. The ministry has talked at length recently about dealing with the problems of doctors being bullied into writing forms for sickness benefits. Well I think in all fairness the ministry should also do everything it can to train and support its staff members to cease their own bullying tactics. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Yesterday it became official that the New Zealand economy is in recession. 
Jill Pettis 
: It became official that you were white-anting your leader. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is typical of the point I am about to make. The economy is in recession interest rates are at a record high— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: They’ve just come down—didn’t you notice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well they have not actually—has the member not noticed? That is another example. The member is so out of touch that he does not know mortgage interest rates are going up not down. It took 15 seconds for Labour to show why it is completely irrelevant to the issues that matter. Its front-bench next leader believes mortgage rates are going down. I invite that member to go door-knocking in Mt Roskill and talk to the people who have mortgages and to ask them what is happening to the interest rate notice for their mortgages. They are going up. 
What else is happening? House values are dropping. Investment funds are closing up. We have got used to it—we have got so used to it now that we do not regard it as unusual when a brand like AXA Guardian Trust or AMP shuts down funds because of the risk that people will lose their money. That is happening. Business confidence is through the floor and inflation is headed for 5 percent. If it turns out—as most economists are picking—that there is no growth this year none at all in the economy then we could be heading for the worst recession in 20 years. Of course it is not affecting all people equally. If one is in the provincial areas particularly farther south things are moving along not too badly. But if one is in the suburbs of one of our big cities and in anything to do with the construction retail or financial services industries then one is in real difficulty. What will happen next? What will happen next is that the Reserve Bank’s forecast of 6 percent unemployment may come to pass—that is almost double what it is now. 
What is Labour’s plan? Well it has two plans: the big plan which Helen Clark talked about on  
Agenda 
 on Saturday and which of course has nothing in it; and the other plan which is the dirty tricks plan. The dirty tricks plan involves the covert bugging of private conversations everywhere and anywhere so that all politicians are on the record 24 hours a day; push-polling where Labour is ringing up people with pollsters it has had for 20 years and asking questions like “Is John Key slippery?” and “Will National cut public services by $10 billion?”; taxpayer funding of its election advertisements confirmed officially by the Electoral Commission last Friday; and of course its hardy annual of email theft. That is Labour’s plan. 
On Sunday John Key announced National’s infrastructure plan which was greeted by the world’s least qualified prime ministerial economist Helen Clark as being laughable and reckless. When asked to explain why she said it is because National is planning to borrow some more money. The debt levels that John Key specified are the same ones about which as recently as 2006 Dr Cullen claimed: “We are satisfied debt has reached a prudent level.” So by their own yardstick it was prudent 2 years ago but now apparently it is reckless. Dr Cullen said that it was among the lowest debt levels in the developed world and he is right about that. He also said that it is low enough that if we face a financial shock it is not a big problem. That was at 23 percent of GDP debt—John Key specified 22 percent. So that is laughable. 
The question for Labour is what its plan is apart from dirty tricks. What is it? What are the big plans that Helen Clark talked about? Barry Soper has said that he has been told things by the Prime Minister that would be very damaging in public. What things is she saying to journalists behind closed doors that would be very damaging in public? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 National members put on a show now but they were not clapping Bill English in caucus this week. One has to be in the House to see the body language and the faces of the Opposition this week. They were very arrogant and cocky last week but now that has changed with this simple headline on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
—there it is a picture of Bill English and the words “Caught out”. That is the truth; Mr English was caught out. He talks about plans and not having plans—we now know what the plans are because Bill English for the first time put it on record that National intends to sell Kiwibank. 
Bill English talks about dirty tricks secret recordings and stolen emails. What is he complaining about? He is complaining about the fact that he was caught out saying one thing to his National Party supporters when his party was saying something quite different to the public—telling the truth to the party but not telling the truth to the New Zealand public I say to Mr English. Kiwibank has 600000 customers. They made the decision to put their money into a bank that was New Zealand - owned and controlled and they will be appalled at the admission that Bill English made. 
I am not condemning Bill English because he was telling the truth. The people I am condemning are the people on the National Party benches who time and again go out in public and do not tell the truth about what they intend to do. There is Dr Lockwood Smith. He said he would swallow the dead rat of accepting popular Labour policies before the election but that after the election the National members would change that and do what they really want to do. We know Dr Smith is telling the truth because Dr Smith stood on an election platform beside me in 1990 and said he would abolish student fees. He then signed a pledge at Lincoln University saying he would resign if he did not. Do members know what that dishonest member did? National doubled the fees yet he did not resign. That is a lesson in terms of what we can expect from the National Party—saying one thing in Opposition before an election and doing exactly the opposite afterwards. 
We know now from those tapes where National MPs went off the Crosby/Textor script that those National members admitted to what they really want to do. We know that the National Party intends to sell Kiwibank. It does not have the courage of its convictions to tell the public that before the election but now the public knows that. 
Then there is John Key who says there will be no changes to Working for Families. But what did Bill English say? He said National cannot say anything now but it will have “a bit of a sort out” after the election—it will do it then. There are 370000 New Zealanders who benefit from Working for Families and who know that their payments will be put at risk because Bill English calls the shots not John Key. There was the derogatory comment made by Bill English that John Key was simply the nice face the man who bounced from cloud to cloud while Bill English did the real work. Well we know it is Bill English who calls the shots and we know that Bill English was the man who cut national superannuation in 1998. We know that Bill English is also the man who in the last couple of years has said superannuitants are being treated too generously and so too are schools in low-income communities. That is what Bill English said; it is on record. The member knows that is what he said and the member knows that a Tory party in Opposition will pretend to be something that a Tory Government has never been after it has been elected to power. 
New Zealanders know they cannot trust the National Party which says something to its own supporters in private but says something different in public in order to give a public spin that the party is what it is not. So we have the paranoia that the National Party conference has been infiltrated and that its emails have been stolen. What we do not have from National is the honesty to admit that what National members say to each other about what they are going to do is quite different from what they tell the public. The public will not put their situation at risk. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 It has been a wee while since we have seen a vein-popper speech from Phil Goff. But we know that is just a bit of an audition for the Labour leadership post-election. That is all that is. Of course the saddest thing for him is there are very few of his colleagues here to watch him. 
This week Treasury has told the nation that we are officially in recession. So the difficulties that so many in our economy have been feeling for months now are finally acknowledged by Treasury. Treasury has finally caught up. When we have that acknowledgment given by Treasury we would think the Government of the day might come into the House and have something to say about how it might guide the nation through this difficult period. But no in the House today the Labour Party asked itself questions that were designed to embarrass the Opposition. This is an extraordinary thing. Normally the Opposition asks questions to embarrass the Government but the Government has slotted into this pre-election sort of role. So we had a question relating to Mr English and the time when he was Treasurer prior to 1999. We had a question about justice relating to sentencing prior to 1999. We had a question from Dr Ashraf Choudhary to Lockwood Smith talking about pre-1999— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Pre-1990! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In fact pre-1990 my colleague reminds me. Labour members went all the way back those 18 years. Then the final such question was to the Minister of Justice and once again it went back to pre-1999. 
So what we can see is a party totally bereft of ideas and a Prime Minister who went on  
Agenda 
 last Sunday and talked about the big plan. But the big plan has nothing in it; it is just a big plan. There is nothing in it. Then Labour members come into the House this week having decided in caucus: “We’ll simply scare the voters back to us.” That is their plan: scaring voters back. They have said: “We’ll fight the 1999 campaign.” They have also determined that if they cannot get hold of the voter by fair means then use foul. One thing that is an absolute fact is that much of the support that appears to be there for the National Party at the moment is given to John Key because people trust him. Labour has used a polling firm called UMR Research for years and UMR has done the work and people responded to its poll and said: “We trust Bill English.”—sorry “We trust John Key.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: What is wrong with that? Of course they trust Bill English. And they have said: “We trust John Key.” 
Labour members have said: “We’ve got to break that up.” So last weekend the Labour Party sent some hopeless little scrotes into our conference all geared up with the recording gear to try to get some mix and match stuff for the dirty tactics the Labour Party has applied this particular week. 
We might ask ourselves what sort of person actually gets into that sort of clandestine activity. Why could the Labour Party not gear itself up with some secret recording gear and go to a business around this country and ask why life is so tough? Why does the Labour Party not go to the households that are struggling to pay the mortgage and find out how life is so tough? Why does Labour not go to the households where people are struggling to put food on the table and pay school costs then come back with all that information and come up with something to put in that big plan? 
Last weekend while the Labour Party was putting together its campaign by infiltrating a conference and starting its dirty-tricks campaign John Key outlined 10 points for lifting the stakes in this nation. If anyone asks who is focused on the future of this country the simple answer is that it is National it is not— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I am getting to the stage where I cannot hear him. I refer members on my right to Speakers’ rulings 57/3. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will start again with your permission Mr Assistant Speaker. How long do I have? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Half a minute. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is enough time to reiterate the point that the Labour Party started this dirty-tricks campaign and if its members over there laugh and say that it is not them why is the Prime Minister not able to say that she disagrees with this sort of tactic? Why is the Prime Minister not prepared to say that Labour disagrees with that sort of tactic? What we get from Helen Clark is shiftiness and comments like: “Well it wasn’t us.” Well they would say that. She will not go that step further and say that it is dirty tactics because that is what it is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today we move from  
Alice in Wonderland 
 to  
The 
Wizard of Id 
 taken appropriately from the  
Dominion Post 
. One can see the town crier saying “6 o’clock and time for lies distortions and half-truths”. The bystander says “What happened to the news?” and the town crier says “This is the news”. For once a newspaper is right but it is not in the news columns. Fair-minded New Zealanders are outraged and appalled at the concerted effort by the mainstream media to usurp the democratic process. The media certainly have a part to play in informing the public but seldom has the fourth estate sunk to such depths as it has in the past few weeks. We have seen the least accountable group in society—the media—take upon itself the combined roles of police judge jury and Parliament as well as that of the electorate. Chris Trotter who is not a New Zealand First supporter has put his finger on the heart of the matter— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just tell us where the money went. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —the member should take his Valium—and I quote: “Their purpose is not to see him punished for past wrongs (the time for prosecuting any such breaches of the Electoral Act has long since expired). No what Mr Peters’ enemies want to make sure of in the here and now is that no one steps forward to fund his 2008 campaign. They want to drive him and his party out of Parliament. That is the real story about Winston Peters and New Zealand First.” In other words the hidden purpose of the onslaught on New Zealand First is to undermine our democracy. They are trying to put us away in the vain hope that a certain political party can govern on its own after the election. It is a certain political party with a hidden agenda that keeps popping up out of the shadows; a certain political party that hides behind a yellow coat when it comes to question time. 
The sheer effrontery and hypocrisy of my accusers is breathtaking. We all know that in this House on display over the past 24 years have been some of the best political parties that big business can buy. Do members remember 1996 when ACT got nearly $3 million through a secret trust? Look what they have ended up with for $3 million. It was no bargain. They could have done better down at the Warehouse or The $2 Shop. 
I want to make something clear about the news that has been published about Bob Jones. Only one account of about a dozen published or broadcast was the truth of this matter. The  
New Zealand Herald  
on 29 July which was 5 days late of course published from Professor Malcolm Wright who was the only independent witness in the room the facts—and he confirmed them—which are that I was not in the room at the time; second I was angry upon my return when I found this matter had been raised; third I was not present when a cheque was written; and fourth advice to me confirms that any donation intended for New Zealand First from any source reached New Zealand First in compliance with electoral law at the time. 
Those are the facts not the spurious nonsense that I am putting up with from certain journalists in this country who will not share the so-called devastating information with even one other colleague. Kitchin will not even provide the cheque. Audrey Young will not even give over the emails—no she expects us to believe her. I gave her a chance to look at our books. She would not take me on and neither would her editor because she would have to resign when it was over. 
Chris Trotter confirmed something we had been told earlier from different sources. All of them are very reliable—in two cases right from the horse’s mouth. We were told New Zealand First was going to be taken out of this election; that big money was being offered for “any dirt on Winston Peters”. The facts do not matter in this smear campaign of innuendo; it will keep going until the election. They want us gone because we oppose foreign ownership. They want us gone because we do not want the lifeblood of New Zealand being sucked dry by leeches overseas. They want us gone because we want the elderly to have a pension they can live on. It is true just as the words from  
The Wizard of Id 
 are true: at 6 o’clock it’s time for the lies the distortions and half-truths—except that in the Land of the Long White Cloud they go round the clock. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In my electorate we have just had the biggest closure and loss of jobs in the history of the region of Nelson with 320 people losing their jobs; and we have the Reserve Bank expecting that New Zealand unemployment is headed for 6 percent. If we look at the cost of living increases that our families are struggling with we have the highest increase in food costs that New Zealanders have seen for more than 20 years. We have thousands of New Zealanders whose nest egg of money is in finance companies like AMP and Guardian Trust—organisations they thought they could trust—hearing they have lost their money. We have a record number—80000—of New Zealanders who are leaving for countries overseas and departing this land. We have the highest interest rates in 15 years and what is the Government saying? Government members have absolutely no response to those issues facing ordinary New Zealanders other than their own exercise in dirty tricks. Labour has so misgoverned this country that its only hope of electoral survival is to use scare tactics and dirty tricks in this election campaign. 
At the weekend National set out a 10-point plan a blueprint as to where to take New Zealand forward. It is an ongoing programme of reducing taxes bringing some discipline into Government spending reforming the Resource Management Act addressing the issue of educational standards growing the amount that we pay in terms of superannuation holding the referendum on MMP that the public long thought there would be and launching an attack on gangs and on P. Those are the issues that New Zealanders are concerned about. Then what do we have from Labour? We have the exercise in dirty tricks and New Zealand being taken down a very negative path in terms of politics and elections. Firstly we had Labour stealing $800000 of public money to steal the 2005 general election. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you heard what the member said and you should take action. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear what the member said. I was distracted at the time. But if the member has said something to which offence has been taken then the member should desist and withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I simply said what the Auditor-General had said and that was that Labour stole $800000— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the Auditor-General did not do that; and the member knows that he cannot make allegations like that in the House. The member will desist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please be seated. The member on my left knows that when there is a point of order on the floor there is silence. The member has been here a long time and he should know better. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You required the member to withdraw. He then repeated the assertion. I ask that you ask him to withdraw and apologise now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did ask the member to withdraw so I would appreciate it if he would do so. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. What happened is that Labour took $800000 of public money wrongfully and unlawfully and then passed a law to make that action lawful. 
Then we have the sneaky latest dirty tricks of the Labour Party at the National Party conference. I want to tell members what happened to me. At the cocktail function on Friday night a guy who purported to be a Young Nat approached me. He actually looked surprisingly like a Young Labour youth and he kept asking and asking me what National’s view was on nuclear power. He pretended he was a big fan of nuclear power. I reflect on the events that have occurred since and think it was just the Labour Party plant who was attempting to entrap. What is really interesting is whether that is where New Zealand politics have got to. Is that where Labour wants to take us? Why is it that no members in the Labour Party can bring themselves to say that it is wrong to sneak around party conferences under false pretences illegally taping private conversations? I say that is wrong; it shows a decline of political standards in New Zealand. 
We should be able to have good open debate in our conferences without sneaky members of the Labour Party running around with tape-recorders trying to catch people out and to entrap them. When we see that behaviour alongside the Electoral Finance Act when we see that behaviour alongside the rorts that Labour is taking on the public purse for the election campaign this latest dirty trick just shows us the desperation on the Government benches. I challenge members opposite simply to start focusing on the job losses that ordinary New Zealanders have on the huge increase in food prices and on the record interest rates. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Articles 8 and 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child include this wording: “State parties”—New Zealand is one of those State parties—“undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity including nationality name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.” They also state that State parties “shall upon request provide the parents the child or if appropriate other members of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family”. 
Currently in New Zealand a court can recommend that a DNA test be carried out only when there is a question about the identity of a child’s father. If a male is named as a child’s father on a birth certificate and he is unconvinced of that fact there is no way that that male can take advantage of DNA technology to confirm whether his suspicion is well founded without the permission of the mother who named him. In 2005 the Law Commission published report 88 titled  
New Issues in Legal Parenthood 
. The recommendations in that report are wide ranging but one of the most straightforward is recommendation 4: “The government should ensure accessible efficient accurate and ethical DNA parentage testing services are available in New Zealand”. The report lists four things that are needed: developing standards and accreditation for laboratories developing a legislative framework informing the public about testing options and implementing the testing options. 
How urgently needed is that provision? Well this week a report was released from the United Kingdom where DNA testing for parentage has been available and monitored since 1998. Last year nearly one in five paternity claims handled by its Child Support Agency resulted in the revelation that the mother had either deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father. The 2004-05 financial review of our Inland Revenue Department reported by our Finance and Expenditure Committee included in its report to Parliament this comment: “We … raised with the commissioner the possibility of using DNA testing to establish the paternity of the many thousands of New Zealand children whose birth certificates we understand have no father’s name recorded. The commissioner said that while it was not the role of the department to run a DNA testing regime to determine paternity Inland Revenue would take an interest in any law change that saw DNA testing used more frequently for this purpose.” 
In March 2006 Ruth Berry reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the Government was considering making provision for enforceable court-ordered DNA tests and here we are in August 2008 no closer to a just outcome except for the fact that I have a bill in my name now on the Order Paper but that bill is unlikely to see the light of day before the election. I accept that the Attorney-General has signalled that my bill may need to have some strengthening in order to determine for instance whether a child could instigate at the court the call to determine who his or her father is if that is possible. United Future supports any attempt to strengthen what we have included in the member’s bill in my name. 
We know that our child support system in New Zealand has a large number of people who have for various reasons absconded from their responsibility to make payment—as the National Party has been pointing out regularly during question time. But I would suggest that included in that number is a large number of fathers who have remained unconvinced to this day that they are actually the father of a child despite their having been named on the child’s birth certificate. It currently seems a huge injustice that those fathers have no way to clarify that situation in court. 
The work on this issue has been done very conscientiously by the Law Commission. It has made a wide-ranging list of suggestions for the Government to consider. Those suggestions have been around for a very long time and if we shelve the more complicated matters around new birth technologies and the donor status of fathers this issue on its own seems to be a very straightforward one. We have the technology. I have been led to believe that there are accredited laboratories in New Zealand currently that would be well able to legally perform these tests and supply the court with robust information that would be able to be used for legal purposes. Therefore all that remains now is for the Government to take action. I have offered my bill to the Minister for Courts on two occasions. Once was during the consideration of the births deaths and marriages bill because there was an opportunity for this issue to be included in that legislation. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Today we saw the Crosby/Textor-ised version of the National Party did we not? But at the weekend we actually saw the natural National Party. We saw what those members really believe in and was it not revealing? But today we saw the Crosby/Textor-ised version of the National Party. What was it? National members think that the New Zealand public is foolish enough to be distracted from the real issues by their coming out with the Crosby/Textor approach of talking about dirty tricks. That is what Crosby/Textor has told them to say. They think it will distract the New Zealand public from the real issues which were displayed out there for everyone to see at the National Party conference during the weekend. I would invite National members to have a conference every week because they always make a complete hash of it. 
I think New Zealand voters have learnt a lot over the course of the weekend. They have learnt it not because National members have been prepared to get out and debate what they really truly believe in; they have learnt it because they found out about private discussions that were held behind closed doors. National members do not want New Zealand voters to know what National truly believes in. If National members truly believe that they have the best plan for New Zealand and that their ideas are the best I ask why they do not put them up for public discussion. Why do they keep their true views and values for private discussions behind closed doors? The election should be about a contest of ideas and if we are to have a true contest of ideas then National members should be up front and put what they truly believe in out for public debate. Let us bring it on. Let us have a debate about who really has the best ideas for this country. But no those members pretend that what they truly believe in is not what they want to do. 
So let us look at what those members genuinely believe in. On the issue of Working for Families what did they say before they got Crosby/Textor-ised? Well in May 2005 John Key said about Working for Families: “The next National government will redesign this complex bureaucratic and costly welfare monster”. That is what he said in his natural state—that is what John Key truly believes. 
John Hayes 
: This is a very well-researched speech. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I say to the member that this is his leader so he should listen up. John Key stated in May 2005: “Much further down the track though I actually want to go and have a really good look at Working for Families and the whole structure of welfare in New Zealand.” 
John Hayes 
: No definitely got that quote wrong. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is a direct quote from John Key. That is what he said before he was Crosby/Textor-ised. Of course after he was Crosby/Textor-ised he came out and said that National wants it too that it will keep Working for Families. But that is just Crosby/Textor speaking; that is not the true heart of the National Party. 
What did Bill English have to say about Working for Families? Well on the weekend it was very revealing because Bill English said about Working for Families: “So later on we’ll have to have a bit of a sort out. Yeah we’ve gotta do something but we can’t do it now.” Why is he not prepared to stand up and debate that issue in public? I ask why he does not tell us what his view—his genuinely held belief—is on the Working for Families package so that we can actually engage in a proper democratic debate and we can have a proper contest of ideas when the election campaign comes on. 
What about superannuation? What have National members said about superannuation? Their view is just as slippery. Before they were Crosby/Textor-ised on this one John Key stated: “I don’t think there is any doubt that the single biggest way to reduce that liability”—he is talking about superannuation—“is to raise the age of eligibility.” That is what John Key said in November 2003. In August 2004 John Key said on superannuation—again before he was Crosby/Textor-ised—“there is likely to be a modest increase in the age of eligibility.” That was what John Key said in 2004. What about what Bill English had to say about superannuation? Well before he was Crosby/Textor-ised he stated that it was too generous. That is what Bill English had to say about superannuation but what are National members saying about it now? John Key said after he had been Crosby/Textor-ised that he would resign if there were any changes to superannuation. That is what he said because Crosby/Textor told him to say it. But that is not what he truly believes—we heard what he truly believes earlier on in the equation. 
Lockwood Smith seems pretty honest but have members noticed that he is always honest behind closed doors? Lockwood Smith gave us the “gone before lunchtime” comment about the nuclear-free policy. “Gone before lunchtime”—that was in a discussion behind closed doors as well. Lockwood Smith also reminded us that many members of the National Party caucus do not believe in climate change. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 If there is one person left in the country who thinks we should not have a referendum on MMP then I invite him or her to consider that speech from the member Sue Moroney. For goodness’ sake! We need a referendum in order to have some good members come in for the Labour Party because that member certainly is not good. 
Unfortunately this country is in recession. But have we heard a scrap on that today from Labour members? Have we heard even a word about what their plans are to do anything about it? No! What we have heard all afternoon are personal attacks on members of the Opposition front bench; personal attacks on John Key personal attacks on Bill English personal attacks on members of Parliament on this side of the House. Members opposite have been using words like “Crosby/Textor” “slippery” and whatever else Mike Williams’ focus groups have told them to say. 
Last weekend John Key was outlining a 10-point plan to get this economy going. He was looking at having a 10-point plan to reverse the trend of 80000 people leaving this country every year; a 10-point plan of aspiration of moving forward and of not looking back 40 or 50 years and whinging and moaning; a 10-point plan with which we can move forward and deal with the things that people care about. I have news for Labour members: people around the country in Auckland Christchurch and Dunedin do not care about those members’ personal attacks. What they really care about is having the ability to pay the mortgage to get a great education for their children and to stay in this country which is the country of their birth and the country they love. All we get from Labour is a group of extremely coarse-voiced women screaming out at members on this side of the House and frankly they could all do with some elocution lessons. All those members have done is engage in dirty tricks. 
During the weekend we saw the Labour Party flunkeys who work on The Standard the weblog that Labour has—which is paid for with taxpayers’ money because the people who work on it are employed by the Labour Party and Parliamentary Service—secretly recording personal conversations while making out that they were Young Nationals. They were doing the dirty work for Helen Clark. Helen Clark has been asked to front up and condemn that behaviour. Has she? No she has not because they were doing the job that Labour wants them to do. That is what they were doing. They have been engaged in covert bugging and they have been engaged in push-polling which means ringing people and asking “Do you think John Key is slippery?” and if people say in reply “Oh well um I—” they are recorded as saying yes. 
Labour has been engaged in dirty rorts of the pledge-card type. Instead of having the pledge card rort this year we now have the great brochure rort. It is the same rort but just bigger. That is Labour. It has been involved in email thefts. It has received stolen emails and used them for its own advantage. It has destroyed people’s reputations. Look what Helen Clark did to Peter Doone. There were secret little conversations with the media—“I’ve got dirt on him.” The Prime Minister of our country did that. Labour people have gone through rubbish bins. They went through John Key’s rubbish bin before the last election trying to find the tax package. That is what they will do; that is what they will stoop to. 
Do members remember what they did in the last week before the election? They sent out a letter under the names of David Benson-Pope and Pete Hodgson to all the State tenants in the country telling them that National was going to sell their State houses out from under them. It was a dirty filthy little lie of the kind that we expect from the people who signed that letter. That is what they did and they did it to the most vulnerable people in this country just to scare them. We cannot trust the Labour Party. Its tactics at this election will be the dirtiest filthiest tactics that this country has ever seen and frankly by Labour’s standards that is saying something. 
This is all at a time when inflation is heading to 5 percent and we are moving towards the worst recession we have seen for 20 years. This Government has no answers. Sickness beneficiary and invalids beneficiary numbers now are at a record level—132000 people. That is what we have from this Government and what can its members say? All Labour can do is get its flunkeys over there to stand up and give little quotes that the Labour research unit people—all of whom probably work for The Standard as well—give them about attacking John Key attacking his credibility. John Key is a credible person. John Key is an extremely credible person unlike any member on that side of the House. Labour has those harridans over there scream and carry on screeching and abusing everybody but there is not one word from them about policy. I have this question for them: when is the election? Why is Helen Clark not fronting up on that issue? 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 One of the fascinating things about politics and what happens in Parliament is not always so much what is said but the body language. When Bill English was up on his pins this afternoon the body language of those National MPs who were sitting there was fascinating. They looked embarrassed. They looked like they had been caught out. 
Mark Antony was not the only politician who betrayed his leader. Bill English is on record as saying “I’m a stayer he’s a sprinter. I grind away …”. Bill English is grinding away all right. He is grinding his teeth in resentment because John Key has the job that Bill English wants. Bill English is envious of the position that John Key holds. John Key has Bill English’s job. It is clear to anyone who has studied politics and is aware of the egos that exist around this place—this place is full of egos; we all know that and if he were honest he would admit it—that Bill English’s ego is seriously bruised. He is a bitter and resentful man. 
I suggest that there is more to come. There are more revelations to come out about the National Party conference in the weekend. Who will be next? Who will be the next to be busted? When will we learn the inside job? When will we learn who is the author of all of these revelations? National is not a happy little party over there because its members’ feet are on sand. Their foundations are built on sand. Mr Brownlee’s very words this afternoon were if one can’t get it by fair means try foul. I thought that was absolutely illuminating. There is more to come. 
Crosby/Textor is having a huge influence on those Tories over there. I suggest that they are incredibly confused about what they are allowed and not allowed to say. Last year John Key spoke to an audience of National supporters in Christchurch. He said that they would have to get used to hearing him saying things that they would not like. But he told them to hold their nerve. He said he would have to say some things just to get elected because to say what he really wanted to do would mean that he would not get elected and that National would not get elected. He said that National supporters were just to hold their nerve until the election. 
Then in the weekend we saw Lockwood Smith being caught out on his real agenda as well. Lockwood Smith has been here for years. He is not a boy in political terms— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Really? 
JILL PETTIS 
: That was a slip. He is somebody who has been here for a very very long time. Lockwood Smith needs to be like the secret squirrel in the cartoon in my local paper this morning and come out of the closet and reveal National’s real agenda to sell Kiwibank and to get rid of Working for Families. 
It is not only Lockwood Smith who is intimating things like that. Also in my local paper this morning were two comments from Simon Power who knows how to articulate a thing or two. Twice in Simon Power’s column he expressed concern about Working for Families. He said firstly: “Though National has long been concerned about just how far up the income scale Working for Families stretches” and in his final paragraph he said: “Though we continue to hold some concerns about the system.” Why is a senior front-bench person who is fourth in ranking expressing concern about Working for Families twice in one column if National is not going to do something about it? Of course National will cut back Working for Families and here is a senior National Party MP telling us that it will. National is a party that aspires to be in Government and it simply cannot be trusted. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The only thing I can say about that speech is that if I was in the habit of wearing make-up and I am pleased to assure the House that I am not—I am not Chris Carter; I am John Carter—it would have been stripped off. 
Over the last 3 years members of the National caucus under the leadership of John Key have gone round the country listening to talking to and discussing with the public of this nation their aspirations their needs and their desires. We have been formulating policy over the last 3 years and over the last weekend John Key our leader announced 10 things that the next National Government will achieve under his leadership. It was a good positive conference. We all felt proud to belong to and be part of the National Party. 
This caucus will continue to be proud to be part of the National Party. We will be proud to be led by John Key because of the positive things that he and we have to offer this country and its people. For example he spoke at great length about the need for development in infrastructure. This Government has failed this country. It has done little to get on top of the backlog of infrastructure in this country. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Ha ha! 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Minister of Finance might laugh but why does it take him so long to drive through Auckland? He knows that he and his Government have failed this country in Auckland and in other areas because they have not invested in infrastructure in the way that it needs to be invested in. The incoming National Government will certainly address those sorts of issues and I am proud to say that National members will be part of this country surging ahead as we make inroads into the infrastructure deficit in this country. 
The difference between this party—whose members are proud to stand up and say they are the National Party and they will represent the people of this country—and that lot over there is that they have failed this nation. Not only have they failed this nation but they have got to the stage where they are absolutely desperate to hang on to power. One can smell the dying corpse of the Labour-led Government. Let me tell members that I know that stink I know that smell and I know how it stains because I was there in 1999. No matter where one turns or where one looks and no matter how confident one pretends to be in saying that things are going to be all right there is always that smell. It is like the smell one finds when one lifts up one’s arm after one has been haymaking; it is always there and one cannot get it out of one’s nostrils. Labour members cannot get the smell out of their nostrils. 
So what are they doing? They are turning to the dirty tricks. Labour members are right into the dirty tricks. They are into it donkey deep bugging speeches at the National Party conference so that they can then go to the media and say: “Look what we’ve found! We’ve found this extraordinary thing that will be the downfall of the National Party. The public will rail against it and votes will surge back to the Labour Party.” Well I tell those members to forget it. This country hates dirty tricks. It is not interested in dirty tricks. The public is not interested in things like Labour getting a polling company to start push-polling. They do not like the Americanisation of our politics. They do not like the way in which this Labour Government is using dirty tactics to try to get support from them. The public are not interested in that sort of stuff. They do not like people asking them whether they think John Key is this and whether they think John Key is that. 
What the public are actually interested in is hearing about positive policies. They do not want to know about a Government that is propped up by the New Zealand First Party whose leader says to the Prime Minister: “Oh no it’s all OK.” and the Prime Minister says: “Oh OK then. That’s good as gold. Don’t explain any more; I’ll just accept that.” Well of course somebody who signed a painting and said she did not would accept that sort of thing. The people remember the issue around the pledge card. This Government will never get away from that smell. It is like pulling off that old dirty sock every time one has been in the cowshed. This Government has that stink about it does it not? The people remember that sort of stuff. They understand that one cannot get away from the dirt and the stink. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Imprest Supply Debate 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill be now read a second time 
. It was a former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson who once famously said that “a week is a long time in politics” and this week is proving a very long time in politics for the New Zealand National Party. Its members went out to their conference all beautifully orchestrated and with not a hair out of place. Everything was perfect; every blow-wave was perfect on every National Party MP—not counting its president actually in that particular case—and then what happened? Suddenly the wheels fell off—summarised today by Mr English walking down the travelator pushing and shoving with the media having a shouting match with the media trying to protect Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and hide him away from the media because suddenly it had all gone wrong. And of course what was the answer? National puts up a paranoid conspiracy theory about the Labour Party! Unfortunately for National two of its MPs had already told us their view as to who it was who was recorded in the conversation. One told us he was a National Party activist and the other told us he was a person who held a joint ACT - National Party membership. I find the latter actually very credible in terms of the nature of the questions being asked. 
Those theories were the dirty tricks of a party that in 2005 had the Exclusive Brethren running a front campaign of a couple of million dollars on its behalf and that had the Exclusive Brethren and other funny types having private detectives following around the Prime Minister myself and various other people trying to find out an interesting life that could be exposed in the media. These were dirty tricks of a party that was very happy to use an illicit recording from the Labour Party conference for weeks on end. Mr English feasted off that with question after question every day. These were dirty tricks from a party that has 36 people working for Mr Key on the public tit sucking away and working on behalf of a National Party hoping to be elected as Government. These were dirty tricks from a party that engages in any form of attack upon the incumbent Government—Mr McCully with his disgraceful little blog and its remarks about the Prime Minister and indeed any other woman within the Labour Party. Dirty tricks from us? What compared with that? What is it all about? Well what it is all about Alfie is that National members have been caught out telling the truth which is the one thing the National Party can never forgive of its membership in the build-up to an election campaign. “Never be caught telling the truth” is the National Party slogan because we know what the strategy has been. 
Despite what we have just heard from one of the retiring members from the National Party—or he should be—the public like the major policies that this Government has put in place. They love KiwiSaver. They loved buying back KiwiRail. They love the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. They love Working for Families. They love the fact that we have the biggest investment in infrastructure that we have seen for 30 years within New Zealand. The public love all of that so the National Party policy has been: “We’ll do all that. We believe in all of that. We believe in the Labour Party policies just like we believe in tax cuts.” That is the new holy writ from the National Party. But we will add a bit more. What Mr English calls the “Labour-plus voters” the people who love Labour in terms of the policies say: “I want a bit extra in my pocket.” and that is what Mr Key promises them but no of course he would never borrow. He is borrowing for everything else but he would not borrow for tax cuts even though he said that they had spent all the money in next year’s Budget. I have never been able to add that up. If National has spent all the money in next year’s Budget how can we have tax cuts without borrowing for them on top when in fact we do not have cash surpluses any longer in this country? 
We found out that the National Party does have beliefs and it got caught out. One of its own activists engaged in conversation and said: “Why aren’t we saying National Party things Bill? Why aren’t we standing up and saying ‘I’m proudly National Party and here’s National Party policy.’ instead of saying ‘I’m proudly National Party and here’s Labour Party policy.’?” which is a pretty strange thing to be saying really when one thinks about it. If I went around saying “I’m proudly Labour and I support the National Party policies.” my colleagues would think I had gone stark raving bonkers. They would decide it is finally time to put the old stallion out to pasture and hope he could still enjoy life in his retirement in that particular respect. But no Mr English was caught saying that yes he wants to sell Kiwibank eventually. Then he said: “I mis-spoke” which I think is a loose interpretation of saying “I didn’t use my words carefully.” Well either one believes in selling Kiwibank or one does not and Mr English believes in selling Kiwibank. He thinks Kiwibank— 
Hon Member 
: He agrees with it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No he does not. He totally opposed it. He said it was stupid to have— 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s not worth anything. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh it is not worth anything so we should not sell it. Well if it is not worth anything then why would not one get rid of it? After all they got rid of Brian Connell. If that is the reason for not getting rid of people why did Brian Connell have to get out of the caucus in that particular way? No; Mr English believes that the State should not be owning Kiwibank. He believes that the State should not be owning KiwiRail. He believes that the State should not be supporting private savings through KiwiSaver. But when he was caught saying it he had to suddenly pretend: “I don’t believe this.” He had to do a humble apology. His face was like an entire series of dairy cows in Southland running around in little circles not knowing what to do. It was in such confusion. I mean talk about body English; that was facial English. That particular one was the most extraordinary picture of a man sitting there looking like a little boy in the dock saying: “I didn’t use my words very carefully when I said I thought Kiwibank should be sold eventually. I don’t think it should be sold.” If anybody believes that then they really must be joking. 
Bill English also said that National will sort out Working for Families eventually when it gets the chance. National promised to touch it not at all but to sort it out at some point down the track because when all the money has been blown on tax cuts and it has run out of options it would have to start finding some other things to do. That is when just like Mr English in 1998-99 those members opposite will discover they have to do some things—like cutting New Zealand superannuation which they did in 1998-99 because Mr English has said that retirement income provision in New Zealand is too generous. Mr Key has said that the age of eligibility should be raised. Mr English and Mr Key have both attacked KiwiSaver. They should not tell us that they have had some sudden conversion. They have to go on the road to Damascus before they can have the conversion and in this case neither of them has bothered to actually travel that road. They think all they need to do is to hire a publicity agent to draw a map of a road to Damascus and that is sufficient to announce a conversion on that basis. Nobody believes in that rubbish. 
People believe that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD and Bar did actually say that he thought they would want to adopt policies that were National Party policies. They know that in 1990 Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith promised to abolish the student tertiary fees and he promised he would resign if they were not abolished. He promised to remove that toll gate on knowledge and he built it higher and higher every year. They also know that National promised to remove the superannuation surcharge—“No ifs no buts no maybes; the surcharge will go.”—and National increased the New Zealand superannuation surcharge at the earliest opportunity. National promised to look after health care and tried to privatise it unsuccessfully. It promised not to touch beneficiaries and it cut benefits. It promised not to cut wages and the Employment Contracts Act cut wages and conditions for many New Zealanders in 1991-92. National promised and promised and promised and it broke and broke and broke those promises the last time that it ran from Opposition and became the Government. And if National ever got into Government again it would break those promises again and revert to type because it is in the National Party DNA. 
Mr Key’s motto is: “Whatever it takes.” and whatever it takes is any promise. Mr English thought he was writing the policy. He thought Mr Key was just a smiling front man. What he has now found out is that Mr Key is starting to get a bit worried about all those plans. It has all gone wrong. The wheels are falling off. Mr English is fighting the media in the corridors Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is being hidden away to gaze at his own photos of himself for next year’s calendar and Mr English appears in front of the public to make some kind of Stalinist show trial confession about his errors. What a pitiful few days this has been for the National Party. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 What is in the National Party’s DNA is sound and fair management of the New Zealand economy. That member of course should be slightly more humble about the enormous benefits he enjoyed from the extensive work National did in getting this economy into shape in 1990—work started by his party when Dr Cullen was a member of Cabinet and continued by National. It was politically controversial work that led to a change in the electoral system. But Dr Cullen has been the person who has benefited most as the Minister of Finance from the hard work done turning this economy into one that could hack it in the global environment. 
Of course Dr Cullen needs to account for some of the things he has been saying. On Monday he was saying that John Key’s plan for more infrastructure was terrible because it meant increasing borrowing from foreigners. I thought that that sounded a bit odd. Dr Cullen actually figured out it was a bit odd because today when Standard and Poor’s put out its credit outlook for New Zealand now the problem is that National is going to “flood the market with New Zealand denominated debt”. Well they cannot both be right. On Monday the Minister of Finance in charge of this economy says that the big problem is borrowing from foreigners then today the big problem is borrowing from New Zealanders. He cannot make up his mind. So I went and looked at his record on borrowing from foreigners which apparently is really really bad. Dr Cullen accuses other people of borrowing from foreigners while he is doing the same thing himself. Every year he has been the Minister of Finance the portion of our debt borrowed from foreigners has gone up. Every year it has gone up. The one thing we know about Dr Cullen is that he will always accuse people of doing something that he is doing himself. 
Here is a simple question for Dr Cullen. He has just told the House in question time that Labour has the biggest infrastructure investment programme the country has had in 30 years. In fact he just mentioned it in his speech. He has spent the last week or so saying it is absolutely reckless to borrow for infrastructure. Here is a simple fact: the 2008 Budget shows that the New Zealand Government is short of cash. So how is Dr Cullen paying for his big infrastructure— 
Jill Pettis 
: National’s borrowing for tax cuts. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will come back to that. How is Dr Cullen paying for his big infrastructure projects if the Government has no spare cash? He is doing it in two ways. One is by borrowing and the other is by selling assets. 
Dail Jones 
: Oh! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member from New Zealand First does not realise what is happening. What Dr Cullen has been doing and has not told anybody about is this sequence of events. Labour has opposed tax cuts relentlessly for 7 years because it said that anyone who cuts taxes is reckless. I think at one stage Dr Cullen said that people who make such suggestions should be taken out and drowned. When Dr Cullen was not cutting taxes he had big surpluses. He had so much cash he did not know what to do with it. Then in the 2008 Budget he decided to cut taxes. Now a curious thing happened when he decided to cut taxes. It turned out that the Government was going to be short of cash and was going to have to borrow. Are these coincidences? I do not know. Dr Cullen said that taxes should not be cut in case we had to borrow. If we read the 2008 Budget we see we are $12.8 billion short of cash over the next 3 years and we are going to borrow half of that. So he had the tax cuts and now he is borrowing. Did Dr Cullen know that was happening or does he just pretend he is not doing it when he says everyone else is borrowing for tax cuts? 
Let us come to the other half of the story. He is selling assets. The Government is $12.5 billion short of cash. It is going out to borrow $6 billion of it. That is in the Budget. That is what Dr Cullen is doing— 
Jill Pettis 
: We’ve just bought back the railways. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
:—whether or not that member likes it. The other thing he has done is that during the times of large surpluses the Government accumulated short-term financial assets. Now it is selling them. 
So let us get this clear. The Government has got a tax cut programme. That is in the Government’s books and it says: “We are selling $6 billion worth of financial assets.” That is what the Budget says. It does not matter how moralistic and worked up Dr Cullen gets it is pretty simple. The Government has a big tax cut. It has an infrastructure programme. It is $13 billion short. It is borrowing $6 billion of it and it is selling $6 billion of assets. Dr Cullen had the choice of putting that spare cash into reducing debt and he did not. He did not do it; he chose to keep it as an asset because he knew that if he had tax cuts he would have to borrow a whole lot more money. So he hid it in the Government’s books. 
Let us get it clear: there is an infrastructure programme and there are tax cuts under Labour. Labour is borrowing $6 billion and it is selling $6 billion of assets. That is the accounting reality; that is in the Budget. When Dr Cullen goes on about reckless borrowing I just have to laugh. It is like the thief who goes around saying everyone else is a thief to make sure they are not looking at what he is stealing; that is what it is like. 
Let us come to the next issue which is prudent debt levels. The Labour members will I hope read the Standard and Poor’s outlook for New Zealand’s credit rating. We have had discussion with Standard and Poor’s—it is the responsible job of an Opposition party because it is an international credit-rating agency—and we have talked to it in general terms about the plans that National has. Its verdict for the outlook for New Zealand is that it does not matter whether the Government changes the fiscal management will be responsible. I think that is very generous to Labour—very generous—because it is promising to live on a Budget of about a half in fact less than a half of what it has lived on for the last 4 years. It makes it absolutely clear that the public debt levels in New Zealand which are among the lowest in the developed world are reasonable and prudent. 
It does not matter how much the new great economist Helen Clark says she is talking rubbish. I will tell her what her 2006 Budget said. I ask members to remember that John Key has advocated 22 percent of GDP as a prudent and conservative debt level. That will allow us to borrow a bit more money—in the middle of a recession for Lord’s sake—to get a few things up and going and unclog the arteries of this economy. He advocates 22 percent of GDP. In 2006 the debt level was 23 percent of GDP and this is what the Government said: “Our assessment is that gross debt at 23 percent of GDP has now been reduced to prudent levels.” So in 2006 it was a triumph of fiscal management that our debt “has now been reduced to prudent levels”. Yesterday Helen Clark said it was hilariously reckless. Why would we believe her? What would she know? I bet she did not read the 2006 Budget. Then the Labour Government said this: “We came to this view because we believe that gross debt is no longer a constraint on the capacity of fiscal policy to ‘look through’ temporary economic shocks;”. What does that mean? It means that when debt was 23 percent Labour thought it was sufficiently prudent that if we were hit by an economic shock it would not be a problem. 
Well we have got a shock—it is called the recession. In Wanganui it is a recession in Hamilton it is a recession and in Auckland it is a recession; that is Labour’s gift to New Zealand. That is why National has plans to get this economy up and running again. We believe that with prudent and conservative debt levels— 
Jill Pettis 
: Why do you need to be borrowing more then? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is because it is at the level that Labour said was prudent. I ask the member to read the Budget—that is the problem—I ask her to read the damn thing. What it actually says is that a debt level of 23 percent of GDP is prudent and we can withstand an economic shock. National agrees. I agree with what Dr Cullen says about public debt in his official documents not in his rants in the media. I agree 100 percent with what he says about public debt in his Budgets. National’s plans are prudent and reasonable but more important they show a bit of vision when this country is plunged into recession. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Earlier today there was a great deal of mention of what happened in 1984 under the Muldoon Government. When I was listening to the previous speaker the Hon Bill English he reminded me so much of Roger Douglas—in the sense that Roger Douglas would speak for 20 minutes and one never understood a word he said. That really goes for Mr English who tends to confuse everything so dramatically that one is left totally floundering afterwards. There is one similarity perhaps as Mr English has already indicated: we all remember that Roger Douglas said before the 1984 election that he would not devalue and straight afterwards he did. It seems to me that there are many things that National Party members are saying they will not do but it is very clear that they will do. The main point of course is that they are now admitting before the election that they will break their promises even before the election has been held. 
However as far as New Zealand First is concerned I could refer to the many things that New Zealand First has done. I could refer to the tremendous amount of infrastructure especially in roading that has been brought about as a result of New Zealand First’s intervention—especially for example in John Key’s own electorate of Helensville. As a person who used to live in Helensville and who uses the Upper Harbour Highway I am very pleased that so much money has been spent to build a second Upper Harbour Bridge. 
I could talk about the increase in police numbers. I was very pleased to read today that Mr Broad the Commissioner of Police has stated that in so far as support for key operational parts of the police service are concerned it has reflected the growth in staff numbers rising “from 9874 three years ago to a projected 11800 by the end of the current financial year.” That is an increase of almost 2000 in police numbers. So if anyone says there will be a further increase of 1000 then that appears to have already been done although that figure is obviously for police and support staff. Thanks to New Zealand First’s intervention in working with the Labour Government police numbers have risen dramatically. 
I could talk about New Zealand First’s support for KiwiSaver Kiwibank and suchlike which we will want to keep and see expanded. There has been an increase in New Zealand superannuation to 66.2 percent of the net annual wage for married couples. I could also talk about what we want to see in the future by way of an increase in New Zealand superannuation to 68 percent. We want to see a decline in GST and in tax rates. 
However what I really want to talk about today might be a terribly boring subject for all of us in the House as we continue along with our comfortable salaries and comfortable way of life but tens of thousands of New Zealanders are in dire straits today because of the problem arising in the finance sector which this Parliament has failed to address. I am not aware of any other party that has been willing to discuss this issue but thousands of New Zealanders out there are in trouble—superannuitants students families— 
John Hayes 
: Give them a donation from your trust fund. 
DAIL JONES 
:—and all the National Party can say is “Give the superannuitants and the students who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars a donation.” That is from the National Party. Mr Hayes from Masterton said: “Give them a donation.” He said that we should give all those people who have lost their money a donation. That is a cynical National Party interjection. 
I tell Mr Hayes from Masterton that these people cannot pay their medical bills they are struggling with their rent they cannot pay for groceries they are struggling to clothe their children and they are struggling to clothe themselves. Often they get no interest from finance companies to make a contribution to their grandchildren’s upbringing. They are having to pay for leaky homes with money that they thought they had put safely in a finance company and they are not getting that money back. Many of them are struggling to survive and the National Party says: “Give them a donation.” Gosh even Marie Antoinette would have been embarrassed with that type of statement. 
These finance companies and mortgage funds are getting away with daylight robbery in my view and all that Mr Hayes and the National Party can say is: “Give the people a donation.” What absolute rubbish! How uncaring can the National Party be? How can we describe the actions of people who are holding on to people’s funds as anything other than daylight robbery? 
The  
National Business Review 
 as far as I can see is the only magazine that has tried to look into this issue to any great extent. It stated quite clearly in the recent issue: “Panic is destroying the country’s financial structure. At last count 27 finance companies have ceased to function. The destruction of wealth is high—some $4.5 billion”—I say to Mr Hayes—“has been lost or frozen.” 
What are we doing about it in this Parliament? I have sat here from the beginning of this debate today and I have heard a couple of speeches that were confused totally by Mr English and Dr Cullen has quite clearly set out the Government’s position in so far as recent events are concerned. But I would ask members to think in this debate about those people out there including students and people across all age groups who thought they had a good nest egg but who cannot get their hands on their money. What will we do? 
New Zealand First has suggested—and the Rt Hon Winston Peters suggested this at the New Zealand First conference—that we should be setting up some sort of a Government fund. The  
National Business Review 
 makes the point that it is a question of liquidity. The country has been very liquid with all of the money that has been floating around. I say at the outset too that I congratulate the major trading banks on the way that they have been dealing with the situation. They are clearly sound. Of course all those people who put their money into these borderline activities must realise that they have to take some responsibility for trying to get just an extra 2 percent. But it is still a problem that this country this Government and this House must consider. After all we are talking about $4.5 billion. It is no wonder that the  
National Business Review 
 says it is a liquidity problem. It is no wonder that we are heading into recession. It is all very well for the National Party to say that we are heading into a recession but what will we in this Parliament do about it? 
A total sum of $4.5 billion is tied up. Probably $1.5 billion has been lost but $3 billion is tied up. Who are the people who have tied up this money? We know that some people have borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars from these companies and that millions of dollars even tens of millions of dollars have been taken by some of the directors and shareholders of these companies. So what is being done about it? What is being done visibly about it? 
I suspect that something might be done about it behind the scenes in terms of various legislation but this House should be doing more about it. We should be talking more about it and offering solutions. The obvious solution would be to set up a select committee urgently next week to consider what should be done to save people who are struggling to survive and to pay for their medical bills their children’s modest schooling charges and suchlike. But it seems that no other party in this House except New Zealand First is interested in this issue. It is a vital issue. 
As a student in the 1960s I saw crises when our company law was changed because of Australian problems. As a lawyer I saw problems in the 1970s and in the late 1980s. Fortunately the 1990s were not too bad but now we have probably one of the worst crises in the financial sector ever known to New Zealand. I ask what this Parliament is doing about it. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure that Mr Hayes will get the chance to repeat to everyone that these people who are struggling should get a donation. We should be doing more about it instead of making some of the comments that have been made in the House tonight and the Rt Hon Winston Peters has already made a suggestion. 
Well I say to those companies that stand up blandly now and say—it seems to be an excuse today—that their company is in trouble that their fund is in trouble and that they will have a moratorium and all we seem to do is to stand around and clap that is pretty useless. Are those people business people? They all get well paid and they are using the money of poor struggling New Zealanders. Some of them are very well off and might have a lot of money but the country deserves better than that from these businessmen. 
Those businessmen should front up and at least pay the interest that is due to people from the mortgage funds—and we are talking about the second sector; not the finance sector but the mortgage fund sector—so that they can pay their medical bills and suchlike. If those business people will not do that then we have a responsibility in this Parliament to do something about it. Otherwise we are shirking our responsibility and New Zealand First says that something needs to be done. We should at least set up a select committee to look at the issue and try to come up with a solution. 
Of course people have to realise that if they go for extra percentages then they will always have a problem. In the old days we used to have solicitors’ mortgage funds and suchlike which never really failed unless a solicitor did a bunk with some money in which case all of us had to shell in and people were protected. That sort of protection does not exist today and we may have to see the establishment of a special fund where a certain amount of the money deposited in these accounts is put aside to at least cover interest for a certain amount of time. New Zealand First says to the members of the House: let us face up to this issue and let us do something about it. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 What a difference a week in politics makes! A week ago National Party members were swaggering up and down New Zealand telling anybody who would listen to them that they had the election in the bag and that “Everyone loved that nice man John Key.” to quote Bill English. Some of them were so arrogant as to ask what sort of self-drive ministerial car they could have and where the ministerial houses were. I have no doubt that some of them have already bought the smart new ministerial suits and that those suits are hanging in the wardrobes right now. 
National Party members have felt very bitter about their long wait to get into power. They are the ones I call the “ageing-in-place members”—the Tony Ryalls the Bill Englishes the Nick Smiths the Murray McCullys. Well they have put many New Zealanders on notice. They have said it is payback time if they get into power. They have said: “Look out public servants because you are for the chop.” They have said they will not sack those people but there will not be any jobs for them. They have said they will lower the lid on public servants. They will not replace them when they leave. So when a social worker leaves that person will not be replaced. When a prison officer leaves that person will not be replaced. But those jobs will not be cut out. They have said to their opponents to students to workers to beneficiaries to tenants of Housing New Zealand to outspoken elderly and to Labour-friendly businesses: “Look out!” They have said: “Look out!” to all those who have slighted them over the past 9 long years. They have said they will soon be in power and they intend to use it. 
Well something went horribly wrong at the staged National Party conference and we are seeing the continuing fall-out from it. I could have predicted that something was going to happen because I got a taste of it on Friday. I was walking past the Wellington Town Hall when I was stopped by two beautifully dressed blue-rinse National Party delegates. They stopped smiled at me and said “Hello. Are you going to register? Could you show us where to go?”. I asked them what they were registering for and they said “The National Party conference.” I said it was the wrong conference for me. I said I was a Labour member of Parliament. So I suspect that they were still trying to work out who people like Craig Foss were because they had no idea although they certainly knew then that I was a member of Parliament. 
It was written on the wall that it was going to be a conference where there would be problems. This was the conference where delegates were told when to smile when to clap and when to give standing ovations and most of all when to keep their mouths shut. They were told it was not a conference where they could speak out. They were told they were there to look pretty and to smile when they were told to. But the minders—the Steven Joyces the Crosby/Textors the Murray McCullys—did one thing wrong. They forgot to tell the loose-lipped caucus members that they had to button up. They forgot to tell them that they ought not to be saying anything; they were told to leave it to that nice Mr Key. 
They forgot to tell delegates to turn off their tapes as well. And they forgot to tell the deputy leader Bill English not to disclose the real agenda. They forgot to tell Bill English not to tell the truth. That is what they forgot to tell Bill English. I have a message for the National Party and Bill English: they cannot unscramble this egg. They cannot put those words back in their mouths. They cannot apologise their way out of this. Bill English does believe in selling Kiwibank. He said that National would sell Kiwibank eventually. I want to remind Bill English of something. He was in this House week after week asking questions of me about a secret tape recording of Mike Williams at our Labour Party conference. He said that Mike Williams should resign. A secret tape was disclosed in the media and Bill English said that Mike Williams the president of the Labour Party should resign. But I am saying to Bill English that he should resign. If he has standards and if he believes in what he said he should resign. The truth is that he did not believe in what he said when he apologised yesterday. He did not believe in that apology because he does believe in selling State assets. He got caught out; he had loose lips. In fact in my view it was a candid moment when Bill English told a delegate he thought he could trust what he intended to do. 
Now we have John Key the leader of the National Party and the would-be Prime Minister running around New Zealand having press conferences and telling the media that the Labour Party is to blame for taping National members’ conversations at their conference. Let me put this scenario to members: Labour Party members were so clever that they were able to evade tight security and the cordon around the National Party conference; get themselves dressed up in twinsets and pearls; get the blue rinses the invitations the passes and the delegate credentials; pay the money to go to the conference; get through the door; and get up close and personal with National members of Parliament at their cocktail party. Labour Party members were able to grill those innocent National members of Parliament about National policy but all the while nobody had noticed those Labour Party infiltrators who had managed to get into the National Party conference who had shown their credentials and passes and who had paid their way in. Not a soul had noticed it. They were able to smuggle out those secret tapes and give them to the media. 
I suppose that we can take it from that that Labour Party members had secretly taped the Labour Party conference and then had gone out and given the tape to the media so the media could beat up on Labour as well! That shows members how ridiculous John Key was out there in the media today when he said it was dirty tricks from the Labour Party. I say to John Key that he should listen to himself—just listen to himself! Why is it that when things go wrong with John Key it is everybody else’s fault—his indecisiveness his flip-flops his lack of principles his memory loss his confused statements his insecurity his secret dealings with the Exclusive Brethren and his own comment about the stealing of emails from Don Brash’s office which he tried to blame on the Labour Party? The police said the theft was not by the Labour Party and Diane Foreman—who should know—said it was much closer to home than that. But now Mr Key is blaming the Labour Party for exposing the truth about what National’s agenda will do. He is lashing out at absolutely everybody. 
I believe that the exposé actually came from the National Party’s own supporters. They are appalled. They are appalled at National’s retreat at the double to traditional Labour Party policy. They are appalled at a party with a proud long history giving up everything it believes in to get into power and to quote John Key “doing whatever it takes”. It does not matter whether it is principled and whether it is good or bad; National will do whatever it takes to get into power. 
We are now told that the comments of Bill English and Lockwood Smith do not reflect what the National Party intends to do. Perhaps we could have believed that if there had been only one person and only one occasion. But wait there is more. Some of us remember earlier this year that Maurice Williamson made it clear at the Automobile Association conference at Mount Cook that climate change was a hoax as far as he was concerned. A few days later Lockwood Smith said the same thing. Both of them were told to close their mouths and their denials floated through the air like confetti. There is a pattern there. The National Party’s policy is to lull the public into believing that nothing will change under that nice Mr Key. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: You just made that up. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Lockwood Smith is interjecting. Well I suppose I made it up that he said: “But wait. We wait until we’ve swallowed a few of those bloody dead fish.” 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Those are not my words either. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes those are the words on the tape. I suppose the tape was doctored by the Labour Party! But that is what he said. This whole debate around the issues that have been raised by Mr Key and Mr English is nothing but a smokescreen because we know that National will sell State assets the minute it gets the chance. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 This is supposed to be the appropriations debate where senior Government Ministers stand up and defend the record they bring to this Parliament. It is a little bit rich for Annette King to stand up in this House and talk about National’s plan to sell State assets. What about her sale of State assets when she was a senior Minister in the previous Labour Government? She is the Minister who sold Telecom the Shipping Corporation the Government Printing Office and Government Computing Services. She can leave the Chamber but the list of 17 State assets that Annette King wanted to sell— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member knows that it is out of order to mention a member’s presence or absence in the Chamber. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well actually he mentioned neither. He said you could leave the Chamber. 
Hon Annette King 
: He did not say that. He said I was leaving the Chamber. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No he did not. He said you could leave the Chamber. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Is the member disagreeing with the Speaker? Is she denying his ruling? 
Hon Annette King 
: Yes I heard what you said. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh OK. One thing she cannot deny is that she was a Minister in a Government that sold billions and billions of dollars of State assets. She does not want to participate in this debate any more. What about the $4 billion of Telecom sales? What about the Government Printing Office? What about the Shipping Corporation of New Zealand? What else was there? When that Minister was last in Government she sold 17 other businesses and she was also the architect of the shameful Electoral Finance Act. 
This is the appropriations debate. It is all about the role of the Government in the New Zealand economy next year and I would like to spend my contribution focusing on the things that matter to New Zealanders. Whereas the Minister opposite could have taken the opportunity to talk about this Government’s plan of action for the next year which is in this document she instead decided to focus on things that are irrelevant to the importance of living in New Zealand today. There was not a word from the Minister about the Government’s plan to deal with the economic pressures that ordinary New Zealand families are facing. 
I would like to share with members a quote from a maiden speech that I think is quite apposite for this debate. “For most people in my electorate the past few years have brought falling living standards. Although gross incomes may have kept up more or less with inflation real wages have not. Taxation slices heavily into average and below-average income today. Then out of that reduced net income our people must pay even more for their daily needs. Rents are up mortgage interest rates are up and so are food prices and Government charges across the board. Free quality public education is fast becoming one of those memories of the good old Labour days as is adequate public health care.” Does that sound familiar? That was Helen Clark in 1982. This leader spent her whole history campaigning to try to improve the lot of working people and there is not one difference from what she said in her maiden speech in 1982. 
Families are still under pressure in New Zealand today mortgage interest rates are higher and the cost of living has gone up. Does the Prime Minister even know the price of a loaf of bread or a pound of butter? Does she know the cost of a block of cheese? Does she know that ordinary families are struggling in this country today? Does she know the difficulty of trying to make ends meet with high mortgage interest rates? Does she know the difficulty that families are finding with high petrol prices? Those are things that she was concerned about in 1982 when she was a new member of this House but 26 long years later she is very much out of touch with the concerns of ordinary New Zealanders. She does not focus on the things that matter any more. For example instead of her Government dealing with the concerns of ordinary families about making ends meet what is she going to do? She has instructed Work and Income staff that they are now no longer able to refer to benefits by name. How will having benefits that dare not speak their name like the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit help anybody get off a benefit? Judith Collins asked an excellent question today. What happens if someone comes in and says that he or she wants to apply for a sickness benefit? Well Work and Income staff cannot actually say “Yes I can give you the forms for the sickness benefit.” All they can say is “I can give you the forms for income support.” Is this not ridiculous? How politically correct a nanny State is it? 
Sue Moroney 
: It’s Tony Ryall’s fairy tale. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Sue Moroney says that it is ridiculous. Well it is actually happening in Work and Income offices today. Staff are not allowed to mention the name of the benefits. 
What about the “Wassup!” badges? Instead of trying to encourage young Maori to do well and to admire the great leaders that they have the Ministry of Education gets them walking around with badges that say “Wassup!”. That is not important; that is not focusing on the things that matter. What about this other thing the Government is doing with the Public Health Bill? That is nanny State on steroids. Do members know what it is doing now? Ministry of Health officials came before the Health Committee and said that this bill will allow them to set up codes of practice for what parents should put in their children’s school lunch boxes. The Government will set up codes of practice for what parents can put in their children’s school lunch boxes. I think Mrs Turia was there when the officials said that they were the sorts of things that codes of practice could be set up for. Do members know what will happen? If the Ministry of Health does not think that parents are obeying a code of practice it can regulate to make parents obey their code of practice. 
This Government does not focus on the things that matter. One thing that matters is rewarding hard-working New Zealanders through lower personal taxes giving people the opportunity to get ahead by keeping more of their pay in their pocket every week. This Government said for 8½ years that New Zealanders could not have tax cuts because it would mean cuts to health and education. Well what has happened? Dr Cullen has all of a sudden said that there are tax cuts. We ask where the cuts to health and education are. The fact is that New Zealanders can have tax cuts—they can have more tax cuts—without diminishing our important public services. 
What about educational standards in New Zealand? Is the Government happy that so many young New Zealanders leave school without being able to read and write to their chronological age? One in five young New Zealanders are leaving primary school without being able to read and write to their chronological age. That is the thing that matters. There is nothing in this appropriation bill about national standards or about supporting families to help their kids get more skills in reading writing and maths. There is nothing in this that does anything about that—there is nothing about national standards. 
What about Helen Clark’s speech where she talked about inadequate public health care? Does anybody in this House really think that the New Zealand public health service is all that it could be? Does anyone think that the public health service is all that it could be? I am not one of these people who stands up and says that the health service is as good as it gets like that Minister of Health there and the Ministers in the failed Health Ministers’ graveyard do all the time. Our health service could be doing a lot better because we have fantastic medical staff and fantastic health staff who need to be released from the huge shackle of bureaucracy that has grown up around the health service so that they can care for patients. We heard in Parliament today that since the middle of 2001 over 2000 new district health board managers and administrators have been employed. We will find in the House tomorrow—when the Minister of Health comes down and admits that he was comparing numbers that cannot be compared to try to say that we have more doctors in New Zealand—that we actually have fewer new doctors in our hospitals than managers and administrators who have been employed over this time. 
These are the matters that really make a difference to ordinary New Zealanders: the chance to get ahead lower taxes making sure that kids have a good education and making sure that there is a good quality health service so that they do not have to go the emergency department and wait 3 days on end. Will people being treated on hospital trolleys in corridors actually become the standard of care in New Zealand hospitals? That is what is happening today. What about the code black at Dunedin Hospital? Staff were simply unable to deal with people coming in the door. There was a code purple in Auckland where staff were unable to deal with patients walking through the door. Is that the sort of public health service that New Zealanders want? What is in the appropriations bill about that? What has been in the speeches of members opposite about providing for New Zealanders the quality health services and the quality education service that they need and the chance for their families to get ahead through lower taxes? 
Helen Clark spoke about those in her maiden speech in 1982. She talked about the fact that ordinary people were struggling to make ends meet in the face of higher charges and higher prices. She cared about it then—what does she think 26 years later? Is she focusing on the things that matter? Is she focusing on what will help families get ahead? No. She is too busy focusing on getting re-elected solely for the purpose of having a fourth term—solely for the purpose of being able to say “Been there done that.” She is not focusing on what she could achieve for the people of New Zealand and that is the failure in this appropriation bill. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I start by thanking the taxpayers of New Zealand. None of what is proposed in this Budget—or in any of these Budgets—would be possible without the taxpayers of New Zealand actually paying their taxes. I think it is forgotten that we are spending money that they give over—admittedly forcibly—but nevertheless they are contributing in order to make this country a better place. It is important to remember that taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society. There is nothing ideologically wrong with taxes. Sometimes when I listen to members particularly National and ACT members talk about taxes it sounds as though they think there is something evil about taxes. There is nothing wrong with taxes in principle. I think it is more a question of how we use taxes. Obviously we can use taxes better or worse we can be more efficient or less efficient and we can waste them or we can use them well. But it is important to remember that the idea of taxes and the idea of a civilised society are really at the core of what is in this Budget and of trying to achieve what is in this Budget. 
One of the problems with this Budget from the Green Party point of view is that sometimes when listening to Labour and National members and looking at the Budget I feel it is like watching someone run into the future while facing backwards—rushing rapidly into a maelstrom while looking backwards the whole time at what has already passed. Building a roading programme on the basis of oil being $60 a barrel—or whatever the latest low figure that Transit is using is—is rushing rapidly into the future while facing backwards and imagining the future will be like the past. The future will not be like the past. We live on a finite planet and on our finite planet we are running into real issues of resource depletion and limits to the ability of the planet to absorb our pollution and wastes. That if nothing else is really the defining reality of our age. As we go into the 21st century the defining question is how we as a species that is completely addicted to exponential growth of resources and pollution change our behaviour so that we live within the ability of the planet to continue to support us. 
In the Green Party’s view this Budget fails to tackle that fundamental problem and that fundamental challenge facing reality. Many manifestations of that challenge are already starting to occur. It is extraordinary but true that we are now living in the era when resource depletion is already starting to be seen. It is obvious in the price of oil—the era of cheap oil is over; we will never go back to cheap oil. The price of oil will go up and down but the long-term trend is only up. In our view this Budget still fails to come to terms with that reality. When we look at the price of food we see that it is heavily influenced by the price of oil and is also heavily influenced by the amount of agricultural land and what other competing uses that land is used for—obviously biofuel production is one of the problems. But also we have a global problem whereby we have an exponential growth in population but not an exponential growth in arable land. In fact the amount of arable land is declining so it is not surprising that the price of food should go up. 
Water is probably the defining environmental issue of our country. We have only a limited amount of clean fresh water. There is not an infinite amount of it yet we have an agricultural sector—in particular but other sectors as well—with exponential growth in its demands for that water. The result is enormous competition for that water and declining quality of water. Water is a finite resource; there is not an infinite amount of fresh water in New Zealand. Yet the way our economic system is behaving it pretends that there is and we are running into resource depletions. We have the same problem with fisheries. New Zealand’s quota management system is often lauded. Obviously there are worse systems but we know that the quota management system has resulted in the collapse of fish stocks. It has not worked as a sustainable way of managing fish. Of course the final and global issue we face in all of this is the global problem of climate change. The planet has a finite ability to absorb our greenhouse emissions without fundamentally altering the climate. 
Those are the key challenges we think this Budget fails to address. It makes progress in some areas yet things are getting worse in others. There are a couple of issues I want to pick up on. One is public transport. 
Peter Brown 
: Say something positive. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: There are some positive initiatives about public transport coming out of this Budget. However the truth is that the average figures coming out of the strategy projections released yesterday show there is a 5:1 spend on roads versus alternatives to roads being projected into the future which seems to me not really to be coming to terms with the fact that the era of cheap oil is over. We have been pushing for some time to change the balance in spending between roads and alternatives to roads such as public transport walking and cycling. That seems to me to be the key thing. 
The next thing we need to do in terms of future-proofing our society and economy and one of the things there has been some progress on in the Budget relates to insulating houses. We think we probably have about 300000 uninsulated or very poorly insulated houses in New Zealand which has tremendous impacts on health as well as energy use. One of the key things we want to see is much greater investment in retrofitting and insulating houses. We think that would make quite a big difference to people’s quality of life and cost of living and have environmental benefits in terms of increasing energy efficiency. Tied into this in terms of the rising cost of living is that if we invest in alternatives to road use and private motorcars that is one way to reduce people’s cost of living and make it much more affordable as the price of oil continues to go up. It saddens me that both sides of the House propose investing in roading infrastructure which seems to be locking in a dependence on a commodity whose price can only go up. So those people who are on the edges of our big cities and towns are going to be dependent on cars with ever-rising oil prices to get themselves to work and back. That is a fundamental mistake. 
One of the things that is not in the Budget but would be good to have in is a levy on water particularly on commercial water use. The Greens think we have to transform our tax system so that it moves away from taxing wages and towards taxing resources and pollution. We want to use a tax system that actually improves things rather than one that taxes the things we want more of like work and productivity. 
I would also like to mention health because there have been some very odd comments about health. The comments that keep coming about the nanny State and health are ridiculous. Is National proposing that we start smoking in our offices again? National would say it is because of the nanny State that right now in this House we are not allowed to light up a cigarette. That is clearly the nanny State. We are not allowed to have a cigarette in our offices or a cigarette in a restaurant because of the evil nanny State! It seems to me that those are all really positive measures. I cannot believe that when National gets into Government it is proposing to reintroduce cigarette smoking into restaurants and bars. Is National proposing to put cigarette smoking back in restaurants and bars because it is the nanny State that stops us from smoking there? I think that is ridiculous. They were excellent health measures. 
If in the long term we want to reduce the price of our health system we have to invest in primary and preventative health. Public health is the best investment we can make in the long term in terms of reducing the cost of health. Why would we oppose measures that reduce the long-term costs on our health system such as measures to try to reduce smoking which National calls nanny State but which I think are really good public health measures? I will be very interested to see National’s response to that. 
In this Budget the Greens have about $100 million over 5 years for a number of packages and I would like to talk a little bit about those packages. First we have about $50 million over 5 years to retrofit insulation into State housing. That is another 21000 uninsulated State houses that we will be able to retrofit with insulation. We are extremely proud of that. It is only a tiny drop in the bucket of what we need to do but it is a real gain and it is one the Greens fought hard for. We got about $10 million over 4 years for the Community Organisations Grants Scheme which can give financial support to not-for-profit voluntary and community-based organisations. This is a devolved funding scheme to community groups and non-governmental organisations and we think it is tremendously important that we support the community sector. 
We also have about $4 million to look at a citizens’ jury to consider the funding of elections. The Greens have always taken the view that the best body to look at the funding of elections and all the rules around them are actually not the people in this House. It should be away from political parties and away from all the vested interests that are making donations to goodness knows who. A citizens’ jury which has been used in Canada would be a much better way to go. We also got about $8 million over 4 years to support five major research projects on climate change and conservation land and we think they are really important. We got the National Community Biodiversity Fund which is $4 million over 2 years to fund restoration projects to protect indigenous biodiversity on public land. The national antibiotic resistance surveillance scheme is the last of our projects that I would like to mention. There is a heap of others but this scheme is a classic preventive health measure. If we can stop antibiotic resistance developing we can reduce the long-term costs to the health system. 
The Greens will be abstaining on this Budget as we do but we take credit for those particular measures and we encourage members on both sides of the House to look at the long term to look into the future and at the impact of a finite planet on their Budgets. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging some of the comments made by the previous speaker Russel Norman of the Greens. I agree with him that we need to spend more money on public transport and I thank him and his party for the support they have given to those measures. I think it is true that the Greens have been influential in ensuring that more of the land transport budget is spent on public transport. Although it might not be as much as the member wants it is a fifteenfold increase on where it was 9 years ago. It is a very substantial increase and we are starting to see results from that in Auckland in particular where improvements to the bus service on the Northern Busway and rail improvements are starting to bear fruit with increasing passenger numbers. This is good for people because it gives them affordable choices for getting to work and it also reduces the environmental impact on the planet. 
It is pleasing to see that other parties like New Zealand First are increasingly recognising the importance of public transport as evidenced by its support for these measures. Indeed the introduction of off-peak free travel for senior citizens who are using public transport was at the behest of New Zealand First. I think there is a growing consensus across the Government and within the Greens. I also note that the Maori Party is supportive of measures that reduce our reliance on fossil fuel modes of travel. 
I would like to talk more generally about infrastructure. There has been a lot of debate about infrastructure in the papers in the last week because National has proposed as one of its election planks the idea that we spend more on infrastructure. National members say that that is the reason why New Zealand should increase its borrowings as a percentage of GDP. National members pretend that the need to fund infrastructure would cause them to borrow more money but we know they would be borrowing for tax cuts. 
I thought I would illustrate why that is true but before doing so I thought we should remind ourselves of the lessons of history—lessons that most of us in the House remember. It was in fact a National Government under Sir Robert Muldoon that left this country on its knees virtually bankrupt. We had the highest Government debt to GDP ratio in the OECD. It was 60 percent of GDP. This meant that in those days $1 in $5 that was collected in tax was spent in interest. If the ship had not turned within a year or two it would have risen to $1 in $4 of all tax being collected being spent on interest. The predecessor to this Labour Government the previous Labour Government started to get that under control— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: No it increased debt hugely. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No; as a percentage of GDP it got debt down. There was a short period following taking over from Mr Muldoon when of course it was impossible to turn that round overnight because we were left with the settings from the previous National Government which included an $8 billion Government deficit. An $8 billion deficit way back then was absolutely enormous; I think it was 6 percent of GDP in the last year of the Muldoon Government. It was just enormous. Subsequent Governments have brought that under control and we now have debt down to 18 percent of GDP. This Government has an ambition to keep it at 20 percent of GDP or below. National is going into the election campaign saying it will increase the debt and its excuse is that it will do so in order to pay for infrastructure. 
I thought I would give the House some information as to what in this Budget—and in recent Budgets—is going into infrastructure. We know there has been an unprecedented school building programme and it is about more that just new schools—and there have been plenty of those. Capital infrastructure in existing schools has had more spent on it in the last 10 years than has been spent on it for many decades and in this Budget it is projected to continue. 
In respect of hospitals it is the same. We have built new hospitals from Invercargill to Kaitaia and in many towns and cities in between. That has been funded while we have been reducing debt. 
Peter Brown 
: What about roads? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Brown asks about roads. In addition to having a fifteenfold increase in spending on public transport much of which has been spent on new infrastructure roading has had a significant increase in spending. I think there has been a doubling of the amount spent on new roads and there has been a very significant increase in spending on capital works generally in respect of roading. Again that has been funded without increasing debt. 
On the energy front transmission expenditure was running at an average of less than $50 million per annum under the National Government in the 1990s. It is now this year $450 million. It increases over the next couple of years to about $750 million in a year before dropping off a little bit but going forward it levels off at about $250 million to $300 million per annum. Again that is being done without increasing New Zealand’s debt levels. 
If we look at power generation we see that last year more than 500 megawatts of electricity were added to the system. That is more than 3 years’ demand growth. This year 400 megawatts of renewables alone are being built against demand growth of around 130 megawatts per annum and we are on our way to achieving our target of 90 percent renewals by 2025. There is an estimated 1400 megawatts of new capacity coming onto the system in the next 5 years and more than half of that is geothermal and just about all of it is renewables. Again the point is that all this extra infrastructure is being built without increasing Government debt. 
So I have covered education I have covered health I have covered transport and I have covered energy. In all those areas unprecedented new infrastructure is being built. and we are not increasing debt to do it. That proves beyond any doubt that a National Government would not be borrowing for infrastructure; it would be borrowing for tax cuts. In the process in order to achieve that it has to increase Government debt. Why a Government would do that at any time I do not know. It is not a good idea. Why a Government would do that now is particularly silly given the international financial situation and also given the high levels of private debt in New Zealand. We have high levels of private debt so why we would take a risk and add to that higher level of Government debt I do not know. 
An interesting question was raised in the House today by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He asked what other conservative Government in the world would be talking about increasing debt levels at the moment. I thought about that question and I thought about the prime comparison I would make between Mr Key and the National Party and overseas conservative Governments. Who is doing that overseas? President George Bush in the United States is doing that. That is a country that has rapidly escalating differences between the rich and the poor and deteriorating social services for those who are most in need yet that is the model a National Government would adopt for New Zealand. It would borrow for tax cuts. It does not need to borrow for infrastructure; we are doing really well on infrastructure. 
What else would National do? It would have to stop putting away money for the superannuation fund that we need in order to fund superannuation for the increasing number of people who are reaching retirement age. The OECD has said that what we are doing now is the best practice in the world and that we should continue to do it. The National Government would stop putting sufficient money into that fund. Does it care about that? No the Opposition spokesman on finance was a Minister of Finance under the previous National Government when it cut the baseline for superannuation from 65 percent of the average wage for a married couple to 60 percent. It was letting the rate go down. National increased the rate of superannuation only three times in its 9 years in Government so the amount went back every year by the rate of inflation in those other years. That same person Mr Bill English is on the record a couple of years ago as saying that New Zealand’s superannuation is too generous—that we are too generous to our older people. He is on the record as saying that; there is no doubt that he said it. 
We need to be contesting the sincerity of people’s comments as we go into an election by judging what they have told people in recent years and what they did last time they were in Government. There is no need to borrow for tax cuts as National is proposing. It makes no economic sense. We do not need to do it for infrastructure reasons. The final comment I would make is we hear National saying it would change the Resource Management Act in its first 100 days in office. That entire infrastructure that I talked about has been built under the Resource Management Act and consented to under that Act—every bit of it! It either did not need a consent or it got one. I will leave the issue there. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to this appropriations debate in 2008 I would like to quote from a very important Labour Government document which states: “This year the Government is budgeting for a financial surplus of $89 million. In cash terms we are budgeting for a surplus of almost $5 billion. This cash surplus includes the revenue from the sale of Telecom and the Crown’s commercial forests.” That document is the Labour Government’s Budget in 1990 when Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister; when Michael Cullen a former Associate Minister of Finance was Minister of Social Welfare; David Caygill was Minister of Finance; and Phil Goff was Minister of Education. After the election when the books were opened this Government document was shown to be a lie. One of the reasons why this Budget document in 1990 was a lie when Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister and Phil Goff was Minister of Education is that Phil Goff—and I know about this personally—and Michael Cullen for that matter spent money unlawfully leading up to the 1990 election for which there was no appropriation in this Budget at all. Phil Goff was Minister of Education at the time and the Ministry of Education was having palpitations. It was being directed to spend money leading up to the 1990 election to try to save Helen Clark’s skin. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Before the dinner break I was reading from Labour’s Budget document of 1990 when Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen was Minister of Social Welfare and Phil Goff was Minister of Education. The Prime Minister and those key Labour Ministers of today were absolutely at the heart of the 1990 Budget. I quoted from that Budget: “This year the Government is budgeting for a financial surplus of $89 million. In cash terms we are budgeting for a surplus of almost $5 billion. This cash surplus includes the revenue”—listen to this—“from the sale of Telecom and the Crown’s commercial forests.” When Helen Clark was Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen a former Associate Minister of Finance was Minister of Social Welfare and Phil Goff was Minister of Education Labour was selling $5 billion worth of State assets and claiming an $89 million surplus. As I said before the dinner break that Budget was a lie—an absolute lie. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make two points. One relates to the unparliamentary language that has just been spoken. I do not think that calling people liars is parliamentary. The main point I raise is that as far as I am aware this is the imprest supply and appropriations debate for this year not for 1990. But I think my substantive point has been usurped by the language the member used. He used a very very unparliamentary term. I cannot find a Standing Order that says we can call other people liars. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: With all due respect to the member I think I heard the member say that the Budget was a lie. I do accept that this is a debate on the current Budget. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I will not spend a lot of time on this but it is important. The 1990 Budget was a lie because when the books were opened the claimed $89 million surplus was proven to be a deficit of more than $1 billion. It was a deficit of something like $1.5 billion which would climb to $3 billion and then $5 billion if nothing was done about it. 
One reason why that Budget was a lie was that key Ministers particularly the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Hon Phil Goff spent unappropriated money in the period leading up to the 1990 election. I know that because I followed Phil Goff as Minister of Education and the Ministry of Education was having palpitations about the illegal spending that Phil Goff had ordered it to make. I will repeat that to get it absolutely on the record of this House: Phil Goff the Minister of Education in 1990 ordered his Ministry of Education to spend money to try to win votes in the lead-up to the 1990 election. When the skids were under that Labour Government Phil Goff ordered the Ministry of Education to spend money unlawfully. Phil Goff knew that it was unlawful but still he ordered it to be spent. How do I know that? Because when I became the Minister of Education I had to make legal the unlawful spending that Phil Goff had ordered while trying to win votes in 1990 when the skids were under Labour. 
Those were the kinds of dirty tricks that Labour played then. Labour just ignored the law and spent money unlawfully. Ask Jenny Shipley who followed Michael Cullen as Minister of Social Welfare. She can give chapter and verse on making lawful Michael Cullen’s illegal spending and I can give chapter and verse on making Phil Goff’s unlawful spending legal. That is what Labour members did when the skids were under them. That was their dirty tricks campaign in 1990. They spent taxpayers’ money to try to win votes. It did not matter whether there was any appropriation in the Budget for that money—it did not matter a damn. But Phil Goff never had to account for it because he was thrown out in 1990. He never had to face up to the fact that he had spent tens of millions of dollars—more—unlawfully; money for which there was no appropriation. 
This time when Labour is on the skids again Labour Party members who claimed to be Young Nats entered a private function and illegally recorded private conversations. Labour members think that that was good. If that is the standard they think is acceptable they should just say so. If they think that it is acceptable for a person to pretend to be a delegate at a private conference and to record private conversations unlawfully then let us hear it. If Labour members think that that is OK let them condone it—because the public of New Zealand think that it is disgraceful. That the Government of our country has sunk to that level shows just why this Government has lost any idea of what New Zealanders think as they look ahead. 
I see Clayton Cosgrove sitting opposite. I want to talk a bit about this Labour Government’s performance in immigration. In April last year the chief executive officer of the Department of Labour James Buwalda discovered that unlawful decision-making had been going on in his department. He briefed the Hon David Cunliffe in April last year that he suspected that unlawful decision-making had been going on. He established an inquiry into that unlawful decision-making. By the time the inquiry was completed Graham Fortune had taken over as acting chief executive officer of the Department of Labour. He briefed the Hon David Cunliffe again in August last year. 
The Hon David Cunliffe knew that unlawful decision-making had been going on at Immigration New Zealand and he covered it up. He uncovered it then covered it up. Again Labour was trying to play dirty tricks. He covered up the fact that his department was making unlawful decisions. When the media heard about this in December last year they sought information under the Official Information Act. Immigration New Zealand and the Department of Labour under this Labour Government fought for 4 months to keep it covered up. They tried to keep it covered up from December last year until April this year and were finally forced to release the information on the Thursday evening before Easter weekend. 
The cat was let out of the bag that the Hon David Cunliffe had willingly and knowingly covered up seriously unlawful decision-making at Immigration New Zealand. Government policy was being breached and unlawful decisions were being made. We know that David Cunliffe knew that. Labour Ministers know that David Cunliffe knew that. There has been a cover-up and the Auditor-General will uncover that. Finally the public will get the truth on this. This is just more from a Labour Government where anything goes. Illegal or not it does not matter; it will cover it up if it can get away with it. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I will focus tonight on what the Maori Party believes that the Government has not done so well. We acknowledge that the Government can get out and tell the public what it does well so my job is to point out what things I think have not gone so well. 
Treasury tells us that we are in a recession. July was bleak not only in terms of the weather— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Would members from the major parties—the noisy parties—let the member from a third party speak. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The monthly overview of the July economic indicators was also dreary. Two quarters of GDP contraction are considered a technical recession but there are other signs that shaped the June quarter: business activity declined consumer confidence deteriorated retail sales were soft the housing market remains weak exports fell and the only thing that rose was the consumer price inflation. 
However the droopy economy is not evident just in Treasury statistics. Indeed the appropriations for the 2008-09 estimates were crammed full of doom and gloom. It is not just the economic indicators that are declining. According to the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on Vote Climate Change in the last 8 years the proportion of electricity generated from renewable resources actually declined from 72 percent in 1999 to 66 percent in 2007. There was not much of a transformation. Yet while the Government has invested $10.4 million in the public sector in its efforts to inspire leadership on climate change the emissions of the Ministry for the Environment have risen by 22 percent in the past year. 
Other areas of the 2008-09 estimates are equally dismal. Vote Education sang the praises of Schools Plus the new flagship policy that will kick in in 2011 but for those of us who are worrying about the ongoing issues of systemic failure today 3 years is a long time to wait. For Maori students even the Ministry of Education’s own research tells us that the educational system of 2008 is more aligned with “schools minus”. “Schools minus” can be seen in the kotahitanga project in terms of the experiences of year 9 and year 10 Maori students in mainstream classrooms which identified that “deficit theorising by teachers is the major impediment to Maori students’ educational achievement for it results in teachers having low expectations of Maori students. This in turn creates a downward spiralling self-fulfilling prophecy of Maori student achievement and failure.” 
The Maori Party has brought to the House week after week the evidence around “schools minus” as it impacts on Maori: the high rates of exclusions early leaving exemptions and the national tragedy that only one in every two Maori boys leaves school with a National Certificate of Educational Achievement qualification. But there are other aspects of “schools minus” over and above the achievement and participation crisis. Last week a worried father approached me to tell us of the shameful life that his boy is enduring as a result of bullying at school. According to the Youth 2000 survey of 10000 secondary school students one in three students are bullied at least once during the school year and 3 percent of all students stay away from school at least once a month because they are afraid of being bullied. The father whom I spoke to was insistent that he not be named his son having implored him not to make it worse for him. 
We must ask ourselves the hard questions. Why are our Maori students leaving in such high numbers? Why is school such a hard place to be and what can we do about it? We need to bring back meaning to what is fast becoming a myth—that school days are the best days of our life. The Maori Party believes that our young are the fresh hope of our future. We must invest in them we must protect them from harm and together we must work with them to plan a strong future. The estimates describe Schools Plus as a transformation of secondary schooling and that is all good. But no matter how flash the systems are to monitor truancy it is more than a matter of keeping children in school; it is about having a vision and belief now that inspires every student to aim for success. 
During this debate we in the Maori Party have consistently raised the issues around poverty. We have brought attention to the issues around price hikes in fuel food and power while at the same time exposing the huge holes appearing in our safety net. But there is a particular edge to our understanding of child poverty that must take us past what the former Commissioner for Children Dr Ian Hassall calls the “sterile self-centredness and acquisitiveness” of a society that disregards the interests of children. Every day we are reminded of the links between poverty poor nutrition overcrowded and damp housing and preventable infectious diseases. These are the families whose lives are always lived in a recession. 
We now have one of the highest rates in the developed world of children admitted to hospital yet according to the Minister of Health health expenditure has doubled in the past 9 years and New Zealand is beginning to see results from this investment. If that is the case then let us see who the beneficiaries of this expenditure are. Are the beneficiaries of the increased expenditure the disproportionately high numbers of Maori and Pasifika children who are struck down by respiratory diseases and pneumonia? Are the beneficiaries of the increased expenditure those patients who are being charged up to $250 to see a doctor after hours? A recent survey revealed that more than 40 clinics were charging high fees of more than $45 for children aged 6 to 17. 
Health and well-being have been significantly eroded by a Government content to discriminate against children on the basis of their parents being in paid work. As our communities know only too well 150000 of the poorest children in our land have been left behind and the most affected of this group are Maori and children from the Pacific. How can it be said that they are the beneficiaries of increased expenditure? 
Are the beneficiaries of the increased expenditure the numbers of sleepers on the streets—those people having difficulty finding appropriate and affordable accommodation? We heard this morning that the number of homeless who sleep within a radius of 3 kilometres of Auckland’s Sky Tower has jumped from 65 last year to 91 this year and unfortunately over half of those people are Maori. No matter how generous the cash surplus or how affluent the wealthy no one can describe New Zealand as a prosperous nation when still so many suffer severe and significant hardship. 
There are some immediate and tangible steps that the Maori Party would want to see brought to the nation. We are seeking to extend the formula applied to the in-work tax credit to ensure that all families with children can benefit from support to provide a universal child benefit to set a deadline to eliminate child poverty so that progress can be achieved to exempt from income tax those who earn up to $25000—we do not believe it is important that those on high incomes should have any tax exemption—to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and to remove GST from food. 
We believe that opportunities must be provided for every person in this land to achieve to the highest levels of his or her potential regardless of the person’s ability to pay. Opportunities must be provided to ensure we give full regard and respect to the well-being of all people as a priority for our social and economic planning. We are tired of the false dichotomies that perpetuate inequality—rich versus poor Schools Plus and “schools minus” the well and the unwell and those in work and out of work. The welfare of each person is bound up in the welfare of us all. This is not a choice that we can opt out of. Kia ora. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have a lot of pleasure in speaking in this debate and in following Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. He gave us a very interesting history lesson about the 1990 Budget. I will make an observation: the National Party has switched. First its members attacked us. They did not want to talk about any policy because they do not have any. Then after the last 48 hours they are so desperate that they have to go back to 1990 and wheel out an old Budget document—which I think has faded from red to orange because it is so old—and talk about that. 
I want to give Dr Smith a history lesson. He talked about integrity broken promises and all those things. I just say that over on that side of the Chamber sits a man who broke his word in writing to every tertiary student in the country. Do members know what he said? He pledged to get rid of tertiary fees. He pledged to resign—we have heard those words from someone else; I think it was Mr Key—if he did not keep his word. He said he would resign because people need to have trust in politicians. He broke his word. That member was chased out of a room—I think he leapt out of a toilet window. He did not go out the front door like a man. He was chased out like a scared child and leapt out of a toilet window because he could not face the people whom he had broken his word to. Yet that member has the temerity to get up in this House— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. One is faced with a dilemma. I know you will say this is just a debating point but if I raise a privilege issue it will get nowhere. The member just claimed that I climbed out of a toilet window. I actually went through a French door that the students themselves in the engineering department use continually to go in and out. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is not a point of order. I tell Dr Smith that that is a point of debate. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did sign a pledge in 1990 and my dilemma is that if I raise an issue of privilege it will not go anywhere. One has to defend one’s rights. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member has raised two debating points not points of privilege. A lot of things are said in this House that either side wants to debate. This is a robust debate. I heard you in your speech make points that could have been debated against and the member is taking them up. We will continue the debate. I am sorry but that is not a point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Speaking to the point of order I ask whether my time is being adjusted for the points of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes it is. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Let me correct the record because I would hate to get it wrong. Dr Smith has told us that it was not a dunny window; he ran like a scared child out of a French door— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Up high. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Up high. It was a French door on a window ledge up high. He ran like a scared child from a bunch of university students because he had broken his word. I remember that great show  
Dad’s Army 
; remember that? Was it Private Frazer who said “They don’t like it up ’em.”—the old cold steel? Well that describes that member. He does not like it when his own history is reported back to him. 
Now we get to the good bit. Dr Smith tonight talked about dirty tricks. I will say that I am against people taping other people’s conversations—as is every member of this Government. It is not right. That member got up of course with a smokescreen. What was the first thing he and his leader did? They blamed the Labour Party. We heard it tonight. That member over there said the man was a Young Labour or a Labour Party member and that it was a disgrace—he blamed the Labour Party. Of course he never addressed the fact that he had been caught with the proverbials around the political ankles. That is why he blamed the Labour Party. 
But Dr Smith has a problem tonight: I invite him to go and look at tonight’s episode of  
Close Up 
. That learned journalist Mr Hosking did a sort of political rotisserie—to quote Paul Keating “did him slowly”—on his leader Mr Key. I wrote this bit down because I thought it was a classic. Mr Hosking said to Mr Key that he knew that it was not Labour. “You’re flying a kite.” Mr Key’s answer: “Ah yeah OK.” He said: “Ah yeah OK.” He admitted tonight that he knows that it was not a Labour Party member. He admitted that tonight because at 6.05 p.m. on TV3 Duncan Garner confirmed that he had gone back to his source and asked: “Are you a Labour member? Are you a National member? Are you a member of any political party?” and the answers were “No.” Dr Smith does not like that but I will quote the words again. “You’re flying a kite.” The answer: “Ah yeah OK.” So I say to Dr Smith— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: So what? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “So what?” he asks. Well I invite him to go to his leader’s office and say to his leader “So what?” because he does not believe his leader. 
The truth is that nobody accepts dirty tricks but today we have seen the ultimate depth of dirty tricks. John Key without a shred of evidence—he now admits he did not have any—tried to protect “Dumb and Dumber” over there Bill English and Dr Smith and Nick Smith too who has been caught out again now that he has got out of the clinic. John Key immediately blamed the Government and accused it of dirty tricks. That is what he did. The reason he did that—and now he has had to retract it and we will probably read that in the papers tomorrow—is those members got caught out. 
I want to read a quote from a member of Parliament who occasionally resides in my electorate called Kate Wilkinson. Here is what she said about National Party principles on 25 January 2007 in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “We’ve got core National Party principles and philosophies and that’s what we were founded on and I don’t think we should depart from those principles. Having said that we also have to have policies that are wanted by the voters so it’s important to get that balance right without departing from those core principles.” Well my word have we seen a departure! They are in the departure lounge all right. They have departed from every core principle they ever had. 
When Mike Williams was taped—it happened to us and we did not accuse National—National demanded his resignation. As Hosking said on TV tonight the National Party ate off every headline. Well I ask which of Huey Dewey and Louie over there will resign for the comments they made. Will Mr Key get up and sack one of them? Which one will resign? They called every day for Mike Williams to resign. He had done nothing except make a statement. 
Well those people of course made statements. On  
Close Up 
 tonight Hosking asked Mr Key: “You will not sell Kiwibank full stop?”. Mr Key could not get the answer out; he could not confirm it. Mr Hosking on  
Close Up 
 even said this: “See this is where it gets slippery.” Those are the words he used. Then at the end of the show—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh they do not like it. The old tumbleweed over there does not like it does he? The old cold steel is moving vertically. He does not like it. Then at the end of the Hosking show when he could not get an answer out of Mr Key about Kiwibank and Mr Hosking— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 107 “Relevancy” in the debate tonight. This is an experienced member of the Labour Party and a Minister in the Cabinet. This is a significant debate on appropriations and there are a lot of pages in the bill that the member can refer to and a lot of policy that he would be able to talk to about in terms of taking his party forward. He is 5 minutes into his speech and so far we have heard nothing relevant to the appropriations debate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This is the second reading of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill and the third reading of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. Either of those debates is as wide as any general debate before the House. All topics can be considered and unfortunately for the National Party that includes the National Party. 
Chris Tremain 
: Our speakers have been pulled up. In fact on that note Madam Assistant Speaker you pulled up Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and asked him to be tighter in the debate. That is in conflict with what the Leader of the House has said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry but I did not ask Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to be tighter. I made the comment that he had been speaking about another Budget and I was trying to be even-handed between the two members at that stage. That was a 1990 Budget. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Part of the appropriations is to pay these geniuses’ wages so that is what we have to hold them accountable for. That was the rearguard action of the National Party. That is the best those members can do. The best they can do is send out that young fella—a nice chap; I thought his dad was a magnificent rugby player—to defend Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. 
The problem they have apart from his breaking his word is that he got caught. But to give him credit because we cannot say that someone is speaking an untruth—and I would never say that—it was his speaking the truth. Mr English did as well and we caught them. I was on radio with Gerry Brownlee this morning and this issue was debated as one can imagine. Did Gerry refute any of the allegations? Did he try to defend his mates? He did not refute one allegation because he knows they are completely indefensible. I invite Dr Smith as he recounts history to recall the history of no ifs no buts no maybes on the pension when he broke his word again; of the student fees when he broke his word again; and of the Apprenticeship Act which he abolished breaking his word again. He stands up in this House as a man of credibility! 
Well I want to know from Dr Lockwood Smith—and Nick Smith admitted on his sort of  
Larry King Live 
 show that Crosby/Textor is used by these people—first whether Crosby/Textor faxed over the lines for that speech from Australia. If so he should ask for his money back. Secondly who paid for it? Was it the taxpayer or the National Party? Those members would not talk to us about Crosby/Textor. There was denial after denial and they would not tell us. Well Nick Smith has done it for us. 
I think we should give Dr Lockwood Smith another call. I reckon we should get him on his feet again because that member has absolutely no credibility. The only thing of relevance that he said tonight was that it was not a dunny window but a French door. He ran through a French door like a scared little possum away from those terrible university students—threatening as they were. I remember being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when they brought him in a cake. Mark Peck was the chair at the time. They brought that member a cake to mark the debt that he had put upon students and he ran like a little boy. He scuttled out of the room because he did not want to take the cake. So that member has no credibility. 
The real dirty trick that we are into now is that the member John Key on no evidence accused the Government. He admitted that. I call on him to apologise. This will be a test of his mettle and this will be a test of his leadership because we know he has a hollowed-out group that stand behind him. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 Madam Assistant Speaker putting aside your own ruling on the relevancy of the speech we have just heard from Mr Cosgrove I want to tell you that I personally enjoyed it. I enjoyed it in spite of the fact that in the brief time I have been in Parliament I must have heard that speech about the student riot—a speech attacking the member who 18 years ago was a National Minister of Education—about six times. 
It is understandable if people are mistaken but what we are meant to be debating is the Budget strategy of a Government that is into its eighth year. Let me say this: I have decided to look at this positively. I am no longer going to refer to this Government as being of 8 years’ standing; instead I am going to put my glass down on the table and declare it to be half full and I am going to start referring to the fact that there are only 100 days left of this Government. For Mr Cosgrove the member who was speaking about the National Minister of Education of 18 years ago there is actually some good news about this. I predict that although some of the Ministers may be shattered by what happens when the New Zealand electorate is finally given its head to talk about and deliver a judgment on this Government I think Mr Cosgrove will be one of those Ministers who will take to being in Opposition like a duck to water. I think he will actually find himself in hog’s heaven because he will have a real live actual Minister of Education to attack instead of having to drag through this eternal story. It is a story that I have heard only about six times but God knows how many times other members who have been here longer than me have heard it. He will come in here with his little finger wagging in the air with his phoney sense of outrage and he will be in hog’s heaven as an Opposition MP. We can see it very clearly. So I think that for Mr Cosgrove it is not all bad news. 
There are only 100 days left before we deliver Mr Cosgrove into the Opposition and I am afraid that I think those 100 days will be pretty ugly. This Appropriation Bill is a statement about the Government’s overall economic strategy and we have to look at this in the context of where we have been during this period. It strikes me that it has been a bit like a long school holiday as we remember it in our youth. The first 5 years were like those glorious first 6 weeks when we as children could look forever into the endless summer holiday and we thought that time would stand still. In fact we realised as we grew a little bit older that we would sit up one day and find: “My God time has passed by. We have only a few weeks left.” This Government spent the first 5 years of its time in office having walked in—with all the arrogance that the famous or infamous phrase “We won. You Lost.” implies—in golden sunny weather. We had the best terms of trade for a quarter of a century inflation was at 2 percent unemployment was falling and there were low interest rates for mortgage holders. Everything was looking great and those members opposite had the opportunity to pick up the ball run with it and take this country forward. But no that was not their political choice for reasons that anyone who is familiar with the internal political history of the Labour Party from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s understands. They set about building a coalition. That was their priority. 
Labour made its choices and now in the autumn of this Government we can see what the real situation is. Violent crime is out of control in what Labour members would have considered to be a Labour Party stronghold in South Auckland. They have the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. The rubber has hit the political road out there in the mortgage belt of New Zealand as New Zealanders struggle with these realities. We have the financial companies collapsing around our ears. We have productivity that has tanked. Inflation has gone well out of control. We have had a situation where inflation in the non-tradable sector has been out of control throughout the life of this Government. Absolutely nothing has been done about it. Fortunately for this Government until recently the tradable sector aided by a high exchange rate and a cost-reduction process—coming in primarily from China—has kept the headline rate under reasonable control. What has happened now is that the chickens have come home to roost. What has happened now is that on top of a problem that was never addressed in any serious way by this Government we have inflation coming in from the external world and we are now looking at inflation of nearly 5 percent. We are looking at a situation where our people are struggling out there. And what has been the Government’s response? Well we will not find it inside its Budget strategy. It has been politics pure and simple: first rort the electoral laws of this country; second try to attack the personality of the Leader of the Opposition and as soon as these attacks are launched they evaporate within an hour. 
The third step which we have seen in a very ugly way is to start engaging in dirty tricks. This is the Labour Party political elevator: “Come in. We are going down. This is going to get ugly.” In contrast National has put forward a programme that actually identifies what the real issues are. We will tackle violent crime. We will tackle the underperforming sector of our education that produces 150000 kids who are barely literate and barely numerate after years of compulsory education. We will not shy away from these tough problems. We will attack the taxation structure with a determination and an understanding of how crucial it is to reincentivise middle New Zealand. We will put controls over Government spending while maintaining the actual frontline services that New Zealanders want absolutely intact. We have given an unconditional guarantee to our superannuitants that we will maintain all the entitlements and all the rules. Nothing could be stronger than an explicit statement by our leader that he would personally resign as Prime Minister and from Parliament if there is any going back on that promise. You cannot get a clearer political commitment than that. 
National will reform the electoral finance rules. Although some people—and I might be one of those people—would want to put the Labour Party on the political naughty mat for a time once we have repealed that Act we will get together all the political parties and try to forge a multi-partisan understanding of how we can have a fair contest. The next leg in this double is that we will ask New Zealanders finally what type of electoral system they want so that people will have a choice going forward. 
National will deal with our infrastructure issues. We all know what the problem is for New Zealand: it is a lack of productivity and a growth problem. That is why 80000 New Zealanders are leaving our shores every year—80 percent of whom are under 40 the people this country can least afford to lose. That is the problem; debt at 20 percent is not the problem. We will address the real issues. This will be a welcome contrast to what is set out in the Appropriation Bill by this Government. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tuatahi e te Whare tena koutou katoa. E te Kaihautu o te Whare i tenei po tena koe. E taku hoa Lockwood Smith ka aroha ki a koe. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Firstly greetings to you all the House. Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker this evening. To you my fellow colleague Lockwood Smith I pity you. Greetings to us all. 
] 
I give greetings to members and to my fellow Northlander Dr Lockwood Smith. I never thought I would see or hear a proud man of the Kaipara say he had to scurry through a French opening. I never thought I would have to go back to Whangarei Dargaville Kaitaia Kaikohe and Kerikeri and confuse—or join—the notion of Northland manhood and the concept of French. I ask Dr Lockwood to please spare me and all our people of the north from hearing any more of those references. 
But of course I have followed Mr Tim Groser with his burlesque-like performance that is a gross imitation of being a politician. Every time the man stands he reminds us that he has not yet made the transition from being a paid talking protracted rhetorician in the issues of trade. I tell him that this is a debate that lies at the heart of why Labour will continue governing and why the crowd that he is a part of is definitely losing its way. 
Let us just look for a start at what we enjoyed last week. We were forced to suffer the spirit of triumphalism around this House. We saw Mr Key followed by the sight of Mr English quietly sticking a dagger—if not verbally then figuratively and possibly physically—into the back of his leader. They were promenading on their way to victory but fell at their own party conference. National members found that even amongst themselves they could not tell the truth. No they had to remain with one surface reality in this House and then try to destroy dislocate and distract the fresh minds of young people as per Bill English. I ask those members not to come to this House to promise that they will simply keep the policy mix of Labour going while at the same time they are telling the Australians and other corporate backers that as soon as they get in here after they have consumed smoked fish dried fish rotten fish fish heads fish guts— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Am I wrong in this? This is the third reading of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. What is the focus that the member is bringing to bear on the title or content of the bill? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: All right I think I will settle this debate. We have looked at a variety of things reported from Mr McGee but I will read to members from Speaker’s Ruling 120/5: “Whilst the second reading debate”—and one presumes a third reading debate—“on the Appropriation Bill containing supplementary estimates may be quite wide-ranging it is not another Budget debate. As far as possible the debate should be relevant … However it is the winding-up debate of the financial year and may therefore cover an overview of the policies for which the Government has sought …”. That is a reference to appropriations and this is the third reading of the Appropriations Bill and the second reading of the Imprest Supply Bill. There is a further reference other than the one we have taken out from McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 page 476: “As is the case with the Address in Reply and Budget debates in practice there are virtually no limitations to this debate on the grounds of relevancy.” 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I would seize on that word “relevancy”. From an earlier comment you made it seems to me—and I am sure the member is going to come to this—that relevancy will dominate the remaining comments he makes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think I have almost made the point. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I agree with you absolutely and I do not challenge your ruling but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is indeed. I would say that we have had on not less than three or four occasions members of the National side of the House deliberately raising the same point that you have been good enough to rule on. It is a deliberate attempt. We had another one there from the “member for Monaco” in a deliberate attempt— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Oh— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: —a deliberate attempt—to break up members’ speeches. That has not been reciprocated but it can be if they continue to cause disorder. I invite you to advise them on the appropriate course of action because it is not appropriate to break up people’s speeches after you have ruled. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I have heard the points of order. I think we have clarified the situation by reference to McGee—and there are further quotes that say that the field is virtually wide open and that it would not be proper for me to intervene. These are other quotes from previous Speakers. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am honoured to be called “the member for Monaco” but it is inappropriate— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Totally. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: —and it is wrong and the member should desist from that. These are childish games played by a childish person. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you—be seated. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Far be it for me to suggest what that contribution had to do with the price of fish! But if we are to come back to the content of the Budget and the appropriations I must repeat what the man from Waimakariri had to say: that it covers the wages the costs and the expenses incurred to pay for Australian experts etc. Of course there is one sitting not very far from the member but that matter is for another time; that is why it is totally relevant. 
In the course of today we have had Mr Bill English stand and talk about Kiwibank and about a host of other issues. If National members are going to sell those if they are going to privatise them and corporatise them I ask them just to own up. Then we will get into the campaign—and frankly I cannot wait for it to start. Then we will debate the merits the vices and the virtues. Of course Bob will not be with us. Bob—sorry Mr Clarkson—will not be with us. 
Winston Peters most certainly will be. Winston Peters does not have the word “quit” in his name. Winston Peters realises that far too many of his erstwhile colleagues are now in what was once a proud organisation but is now one that has fallen into disrepute as a consequence of finding it a strange experience to be accurate and to be faithful to its original tenets. At least if National members had stood and fought in the way Winston did when he was a part of that party—perish the thought—then they would have stood very firmly for unfettered private gain and unfettered bouts of capitalism. But they are fearful of doing that. What they hope to do is slowly but surely blend together what they have with what we represent. But of course Winston Peters can see through that. He knows that their agenda is to drive him out of this House and mistakenly they think they are going to end up with all his votes. 
Let us come back to a couple of key things. In the context of this appropriations debate I say that National hopes in the future to waste money when it enrages every iwi in the country by wiping out the Maori seats. Unfortunately for Maori voters now and again our friends from the Maori Party in what must be the cream of jests decide to acquiesce with that. But the Maori seats will never disappear until the voters on the Maori roll determine that it is time for them to go. They will never disappear as a consequence of Don Brash Muldoon’s mokopuna Bill English or anyone else vainly thinking that an edict can be issued from the National Party and the seats will disappear. Not only will disharmony and discord flow but those members will be permanently on the benches of their turangawaewae—the Opposition. 
Let us continue on the subject of MMP. In an attempt to decrease the number of women—of course it is possibly not a bad idea on that side of the House—and to decrease the number of Maori National is now going to try to liquidate MMP an additional cost. MMP exists on the spirit the strength and the belief of our young people. Our young people want to see a House of pluralism. They want to see a House of diversity. They do not want to see the monolithic social studies teaching of Rangitoto College and that sort of homogeneity. No no! They want to see some tangata whenua and some greenies—irrespective of whether we agree with them all the time. Pasifika people do not want to see the milk-reared kids of the 1950s. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You’re only here because of MMP. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I say to Mr Clarkson that that is why the members are all clapping! Mr Clarkson is going home. He will drive over the bridge that Winston Peters developed and paid for through taxpayers as a consequence of his parliamentary advocacy. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Back to the rest home. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No I cannot say that Mr Clarkson is going back to develop rest homes or to occupy a rest home but I wish him well because during the time that Mr Clarkson has been here not a single workable suggestion has been put on the floor of the House as to how to fix the Building Act. I unwisely invited him to bring me suggestions. I unwisely suggested that he meet with officials. I unwisely told him to write and distil what he thought could be done. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Bit of a stretch—bit of a stretch! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No no. Apparently he even approached my colleague Clayton Cosgrove at one stage who realised that unfortunately Mr Clarkson came not only with a little scribbling pad but with instructions: “Come here turituri te mangai; say nothing—say nothing!” So I say “Bring your not inconsiderable wealth and kia kaha Mr Clarkson. You have been a successful man in that wealth and you will be going back to it.” I tell Mr Clarkson that his political wealth here is zero. His political wealth here is in very very bad territory. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Who pays you? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: No no—I tell Mr Clarkson to go home and enjoy that. 
The other thing that our friends from the other side of the House are proposing and quietly hoping to do is not only to come into the House without admitting one single new idea but to ape everything while preparing for more privatisation in education proposing more privatisation in health and proposing to strip away Mr Peters’ new foreign affairs budget—and shame on Mr Hayes for wanting to strip that away; that is dreadful! The budget is set at $600-700 million as a part of our geo-political international beachhead to burnish our credentials and ensure that our status ranks with the highest and most fine nations in the OECD. But the penny pinchers—the Micawber-like penny pinchers on that side of the House—are sitting there ready with the shaving knife thinking they will find money by reducing the endowment and the fine works of Mr Winston Peters. But that will not happen—no no that will not happen. 
Not only is National hoping to shrink the size of the budget but it is hoping now to disembowel school teachers. We know what Mr Peachey is up to which is why that man will never be given anything to do with education other than an old strap and a cane for self-application. National members know that not only will there be riots but we will have the vast worsening problem of our rangatahi our young people fleeing from school the moment that Bill English and John Key are possessed with the notion that their policies can be accurate faithful and lucid to the people of Aotearoa. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
Tihei mauri ora. Whakataka te hau ki te uru whakataka te hau ki te tonga kia makinakina ki uta kia mataratara ki tai. Kia hi ake ana te atakura he tio he huka he hau hu. 
Let me tell the members what that whakatauaki means: cease the winds from the west cease the winds from the south let the breezes blow over the land let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air a touch of frost a promise of a glorious new day. The reason I began with that whakatauaki is that it is about time that this country experienced a glorious new day in politics. 
Tonight we have sat here listening to Mr Cosgrove and to Mr Jones. Both have stood up in the appropriation debate and they have had the opportunity to speak loud and proud about the policies of their Labour Government to speak to New Zealand about where they are taking this nation forward and to tell New Zealand what they stand for and where they are going. And what have we heard tonight? We have heard personal accusations and personal attacks day after day. They have been hitting our guys and not coming through with their policies. Tonight I would like to take the opportunity to share with the House some of the key policies that New Zealand will have the option of choosing within 100 days as we come to the next general election. If National is fortunate enough to be the next Government then in 365 days’ time National members could be standing here in an appropriation debate putting our policies into action. It is those polices that I want to focus on today. 
New Zealanders are faced with a clear choice at the moment as they get nearer to the next election. They are faced with a choice against the background officially announced by the Reserve Bank yesterday of a recession. Interest rates are up. They are some of the highest in the developed world. We have some of the highest food prices domestically rammed up by 5 percent inflation. Mortgage rates are going up and people are going onto higher fixed interest rates. House values are dropping equity is coming out of people’s homes and many are faced with mortgagee sales. Many of their hardworking mates are fleeing to Australia—80000 last year. Investment funds are closing up here. Kiwis are now concerned about strong brands such as AXA New Zealand Guardian Trust and AMP. Business confidence is at its lowest ever. Kiwis are faced with a big decision at this election. They will look at that background and they will consider the policies of the two major parties. There was an opportunity for the two Ministers to get up tonight and tell New Zealand what they stand for. But all we heard were personal attacks. It is these things that the New Zealand public will decide on. The reason those Ministers did not use this opportunity to speak on policy is that they know the New Zealand public have stopped listening to them on policy. 
At the weekend National’s leader stood up and laid out a programme a plan to go forward which New Zealanders can buy into and follow. It was a five-point economic plan which begins with reining in Government spending. Hardworking Kiwis are faced with that very issue right now. They have to look at their own budgets line by line. They have to look at the cost of their petrol their food and their mortgages and on every line they are having to make decisions about what they can keep and what they cannot keep. John Key will take into Government the sorts of policies that can deal with those issues. That is what National will be fighting this election on. National will keep control of that spending and make sure that every dollar counts. That is what is happening in small business too. If we walk around my Napier constituency and talk to small businesses we will see that they are finding it tough. They are going through every line every item—whether it be photocopying or stationery they are having to make tough decisions about spending. That is the type of Government that National will bring. 
Secondly in terms of bureaucracy John made it clear that we will cap the bureaucracy and not allow profligate growth in that area. The members opposite who are in constituency seats will know that small businesses are struggling out there. Motor vehicle sales are down by 19 percent furniture sales are down by 18 percent speciality food sales are down by 13 percent and appliance sales are down by 6 percent. It is tough out there. Small businesses over the last 7 or 8 years with bureaucracy of their own are looking at ways to reduce internal costs. My own businesses back home have had to look at customer services and marketing hard and clear because it is damn tough. Unfortunately we have had to try to take some of the fat out of the equation and that means hard yards. So National has a policy around capping that bureaucracy and making sure that every job in the bureaucracy is focused on something that is going to deliver a result for this country. That is why John’s focus is on front-line services on nurses on doctors and on police. 
The third area that we spoke about was education. There is a raft of policy that has been rolled out already that I can talk about tonight. For example National has a clear policy on national standards in education that will help the 25 percent of kids in our country who are not making the grade. It is a fantastic policy. National also has a youth guarantee that will keep 16 and 17-year-olds in education. That focus may not be on mainstream education because those kids may not be focused on that but it is about keeping them in education and off the dole and giving them a future. It is another great policy to take this country forward. Our trades in schools policy is another fantastic policy that was delivered months ago. New Zealanders are turning on and listening to our policies which—if we are lucky enough in 365 days’ time—we will be appropriating for at the next appropriation debate going into the next Government. 
Our leader spoke about our taxation package. I added up the billions of dollars of surpluses that this Government has had in the last 8 years. It has had $48 billion of surpluses. It has taken this side of the House to push this Government to the taxation-cut altar and push it to start giving hard-working Kiwis some incentives to get them back up on their feet working hard and trying to take this country out of the recession that it is in now. Our policies are about progressive long-term taxation cuts that will give hard-working Kiwis the incentive to get out there and work harder. That is absolutely fantastic and I am proud of that. 
The last thing I want to talk about is our policy on infrastructure. Did we hear anything in the appropriation debate from two of the key Ministers over there Shane Jones and Clayton Cosgrove on their infrastructure policy and where their vision on that will take them into the future? Our leader John Key announced a major policy platform: a $1.5 billion roll-out of fibre-optics. There was a further roll-out of infrastructure policy over the weekend. Mr Key quite transparently agreed that we will need to borrow to achieve it and that we will need to increase the borrowing as a percentage of GDP from 20 percent to 22 percent. Yet we have a document from the 2006 Budget that states that 23 percent of borrowing against GDP was considered prudent. The Government signed off the document saying that that was a prudent level of debt. But here we have a Government that thinks our vision of a ratio of 22 percent debt to GDP is profligate and not prudent. Well that is ridiculous. The National Party has a fantastic policy on infrastructure. It is something that will help to grow the economy and to get New Zealand out of the recession. I know from being in business that when the times get tough one actually needs to invest in the future and have a vision for the future and to get out there spend a little money and borrow it too. We are talking about borrowing that money off Kiwis and having infrastructure bonds in there to make that happen. 
All up I am proud of the policies we have put out there into the New Zealand market place. I think the New Zealand public will be voting on the policies of this Government and I am looking forward to the election. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Of course Chris Tremain would like everybody to think and believe what he said. That might have been quite a good speech prior to the release of certain damning information coming out of the National Party conference— 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s not true. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well it is true actually. If the member would like to watch television news she would see that the things that were said were true. Do members know who said those things? National Party members said them. Those things are not made up; they are direct quotes from National. 
The problem the National Party now has is that a message is going directly back to its caucus that basically says: “Houston we have a problem.” What happened is that National launched a brand new rocket ship on the weekend. It was going to be National’s big rocket ship that would lead them off into the election [ 
Interruption 
]. No this was the great launch. The great new idea was that National would borrow for infrastructure. It would not borrow for tax cuts because that would be really really bad. But it could borrow for infrastructure because that would be really really good. No one really explained during the conference why borrowing for infrastructure is really really good and why borrowing for tax cuts is really really bad. 
I have a little message for the National Party having been the Minister of Transport. The industry will not thank the National Party for coming out with plans that are not specific when it has no idea where the money will go. When I was the Minister of Transport the industry told me two things. First of all I was to make sure the funding was done in stages as part of a proper plan so that if the industry had to buy expensive equipment it could finance it over a certain number of projects. The industry also said it was really important that we did not exacerbate the supply problem particularly the skills supply problem of the construction industry. 
Now we have this waffly policy from the National Party that says it will somehow borrow for this infrastructure. No one knows how much it will borrow no one knows where the money will go and no one knows whether there has been any consultation with the industry itself. That was not the critical point of course because what has happened since the conference is that the rocket got into trouble. It is like someone had a balloon and suddenly let it go. The balloon floated around in the air and dropped to the ground. People are saying things that are a complete and utter embarrassment to the party. 
We will unpick the issues in a minute but the really big issue National has when it tries to talk to the public now is that the public cannot trust what it says. That is the big issue. The public cannot trust what National says. On the weekend a number of leaks came out. That is contrary to National Party strategy which was to say as little as possible say nothing controversial pinch Labour’s major policies in order to cauterise them or as Lockwood Smith said swallow dead fish. 
Darien Fenton 
: Inoculate. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: National will inoculate and then pledge a $50 tax cut on top of that. In other words people will get everything that Labour has done for them—all those good things—and National will put a 50 buck tax cut on top. That sounds attractive but the issue now is whether people can believe what National says. John Key has been on record as saying that National will say and do whatever it takes to get into Government—whatever it takes. We saw that on the weekend. The problem National has is that the public instead of weaselling around and trying to attack people who leaked the document want to hear what National actually believes. 
The National Party I knew and the National Party I grew up with was there for private wealth. It supported low taxes. It was very much in favour of privatisation—handing public good over to private wealth. And it was very much in favour of user-pays. Those were the basic things the National Party stood for. Apart from tax cuts do members ever hear those things mentioned now? No they do not. But we know that National still believes in those things. We know that National is desperate to talk about them. We know that National’s supporters are desperate to hear about them but National is too afraid to speak about those things because it knows that if it does so people will not vote for it and it will be in Opposition again. “Whatever it takes” said John Key. 
Now we have a situation with Bill English who when asked about selling Kiwibank says no but that National will sell it “eventually”. On  
Close Up 
 tonight John Key was asked what the National Party’s policy is. He said of the National Party’s policy: “We are not selling assets.” Actually that is not the policy. I remember what the National Party policy is. When I was in an election battle against a National Party candidate I always read the National Party policy because I knew that in a tight spot the National Party candidates would always agree whatever the question was and I was able to stand up and say: “Actually that is not the policy. I have it here and this is what it says.” The National Party policy on State assets— 
David Bennett 
: You sound like New Zealand First. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. The National Party policy on State assets is not that they will not sell them; it is that they will not sell them in the first term. Do members remember that? It was only in the first term. So already tonight John Key is saying that the National Party policy is actually not the National Party policy any more. He is saying they will not sell State assets but we all know what the policy actually is—he said they will not sell them in the first term. 
Tim Barnett 
: Can you believe that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of course we cannot believe that because Bill English knows deep down that Kiwibank for example should be sold. He knows that deep down and I think a lot of people over in the National Party do not think the State should be involved in a bank. I absolutely believe that—I believe they do not think this is an appropriate function for the State; they believe that it is private sector organisation that should be involved in banking. They are desperate to get rid of it. This is one of the basic philosophies principles and tenets of the National Party but can National members bring themselves to say it? No they cannot because they know that if they do because Kiwibank is so popular they will not get voted into power. So what they do is tell people in private when they think no one is listening what the policy really is. As so many people have said the National Party has been caught out telling the truth—caught out telling the truth again. 
You see the fundamental problem is that people are now not clear when they hear something from the National Party whether they should believe it. The events of the last few days have shown that in fact they cannot. I think we should just look at a couple of things as far as superannuation is concerned. John Key made a pledge: “Today let me make a pledge: National will retain all the superannuation entitlements and eligibility rules that our senior citizens currently enjoy. We will keep this pledge and I will resign as Prime Minister and as a member of our Parliament rather than break it.” It sounds strong and it sounds good. Compare that to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in 1990: “I Lockwood Smith hereby pledge to tender my resignation as Minister of Education if National having become the Government in 1990 has not implemented most of National Party policy as stated in 1990. In particular I pledge to tender my resignation if the $1250 tertiary tuition fee has not been abolished by this time.” What happened? Well of course the tuition fee was not abolished—not abolished! 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: So he must have resigned. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: One would think—as my colleague Ruth Dyson said—that Lockwood Smith would have resigned. Well here it is—it is signed “Hon Dr Lockwood Smith” and it is witnessed by Chris Thornborough the president of the Waikato Student Union in 1990. The problem the public has is that these pledges are not worth the paper they are written on. 
The difficulty National members have is that they desperately want to say what they want to do. But if they said that if they were honest if they were open and if they stuck to the old principles of their great leaders before the present ones and said what the National Party stands for and that they will do those things because they are National Party principles and philosophies the public would say “Good on you—because now we know what you stand for and now let’s have the proper debate between National and Labour.” 
But the problem is that National members say one thing but believe another and the problem the public has is that they have now found them out. That is the reason why this election will be very very good for the Labour-led Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I take the next call can I clarify whether you are doing a 5-minute call? 
David Bennett 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: You are doing a 5-minute call. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call in this debate. It was a special day yesterday because two people shared their birthdays: the great leader of the National Party John Key shared his birthday with Barack Obama. Both of those people represent the new leadership of this world. They represent the great leadership that will come to this region. They will bring change to a region. They represent the new vision for the world. Barack and John—they are the new leadership team that members will see which will drive the growth of this world. 
What do they have in common? They are both taking over economies that are in trouble. The New Zealand economy is in deep trouble. It has had 9 years of a Government that does not know how to make money does not know how to support its people and does not know how to give opportunity to New Zealanders to grow and progress. The Labour-led Government has suffocated the New Zealand people for far too long it has suffocated the New Zealand economy for far too long and change is coming. Change will come before the end of the year because John Key will lead a progressive Government that will deliver change a Government that will believe in New Zealanders a Government that will give New Zealanders the hope and aspiration to achieve their goals and a Government that will provide the resources for New Zealanders to go out there and be successful players in the world. 
That leadership has been shown over the weekend. John announced some great policies in regard to infrastructure and development of the New Zealand economy—growth that will come through the kick-start given by Government investment in infrastructure. For far too long we have seen a Government that wishes just to spend money on creating and buying votes at election time. We need to see a Government that will actually invest in assets that will build this country stronger—the assets of education for our people and the assets of infrastructure so that our economy can grow. Those are the kinds of investment attitudes that John Key brings to this country brings to this Parliament and brings to the people of New Zealand. They are yearning for that kind of leadership. They do not want to see a Prime Minister who dips her head at question time when she is told about all the State assets she sold when she was in Government. 
Jacqui Dean 
: 17! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: She sold 17 assets. They want to see a Prime Minister who stands up there with a vision for the future a vision that will provide a great difference to this world. He will be known as one of the great leaders of our generation. As a leader he will provide inspiration and that inspiration will come through investment. Whenever the world has been in tough economic times it has not got out of those tough economic times by sitting back and looking at what has happened in history. If we look at the history of the world—in the 1930s what got the major economies out of the Depression? It was investment in infrastructure building dams in America and doing those major infrastructural projects that provided jobs and security for the people of that country. 
This country will face high unemployment because of the policies of this Government. There will be at least 6 percent unemployment by the end of next year according to the Reserve Bank projections. That is simply not good enough in an economy based around an Asian growth hub that delivers some of the best growth prospects in the world. The National Party wants to set up this economy and set up our people so that we take advantage of that potential. We are positioned in the right place in the world. We need the right leadership so that our people can take advantage of those opportunities and John Key will provide that leadership. He will provide that leadership economically socially and morally. Voters will not see the gutter tactics of the Labour Party in the National Party—they will not—because we will fight on policies and we will fight for what people want. The people out there have had enough of a Government that does not care about them. They want change they want aspiration they want inspiration and they want leadership; and they will get that at the end of the year just as we have seen throughout the career of John Key. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am told that that was the third speech David Bennett has made in the House. I understand he comes from Hamilton which means Hamilton East which means Sue Moroney is going to beat him come election day. That member has made three speeches in 3 years in Parliament. The people of Hamilton have a proud record going back to Tony Steel and Bill Dillon and other members with integrity members who were not afraid to stand up in this House and debate every now and again. What do we have now? We have someone who we can tell thought there was an outside chance of National winning the election and he greased up to John Key in an attempt to be allowed to shine his car because that would be about the only job that member would ever get within any Government. 
What we know of course is that John Key is about the hollowest man who has ever held the position of Leader of the Opposition. If we talk about strength and strong Leaders of the Opposition even his mentor Jim McLay was seen as—no he was not seen as being strong. I agree with Colin King who indicates that John Key is not as strong as McLay and that it is an unfair comparison to make on Jim McLay. It is an unfair comparison because Jim had a good history in Government and he stood up to Muldoon in those times. 
What I know is that John Key would not stand up to Muldoon in the way that McLay did. John Key would never stand up for New Zealand in an international situation. When it came to Iraq he would have said: “How many troops do you want President Bush?”. “Where America goes we go.” is what the front bench of the National Party says and we know that Crosby/Textor will not let National members say it now because Crosby/Textor is dictating and scripting every speech that National members are meant to give. 
But the trouble is that every now and again there is an outbreak of the truth from the National Party. We got it from Kate Wilkinson on KiwiSaver. Oh National was going to release employers from their contributions! But now we know from the leaks coming out that that is exactly what National is planning to do. Releasing employers and stopping the Government contribution to KiwiSaver is how National proposes to finance tax cuts. That is the National Party’s proposal and it is a clear proposal. But members on the Opposition benches are all asking themselves which member of Parliament was recorded saying that? They are all looking at each other. They are all wondering who is on the tape with that particular bit of policy. Who was honest enough amongst the National Party— 
David Bennett 
: Why aren’t you on the front bench? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member knows particularly well why I am not on the front bench and the member also knows that I am a Minister in a Government and I intend to continue to be a Minister in a Government which is something that he will never be in his entire lifetime because he is a clown. 
Let us go back to John Key. John Key is now suffering from a group of honest members in his caucus. Lockwood Smith is an honest member Bill English is an honest member Kate Wilkinson is an honest member and Shane Arden is an honest member. What we are seeing is a group of people who say: “We just can’t continue telling lies. We want to tell the truth at least occasionally at least in the privacy of the National Party conference.” They think they should be allowed to tell the truth every now and again even if John Key says it is the wrong thing to do. 
I understand that Richard Worth has been very forthright in an area of policy. I welcome the fact that Richard Worth is being open in an area of policy related to State-owned enterprises. I think it is good that Richard Worth the “Earl of Monaco” who is Monaco’s representative in New Zealand is being straightforward in these matters. I also think it is great that John Key was full and frank when he briefed Merrill Lynch. I think it is a pity that he could not do this in New Zealand that he could not do it openly and that he could not put out his speech notes to the New Zealand media even though he gave the speech in Sydney. But at least he was honest with Merrill Lynch about accident compensation. 
So all of the National members are leaking. There are outbreaks of honesty all over the place but what we are asking for is a bit more consistency. 
Bob Clarkson 
: You can talk! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says that we can talk. The one thing the New Zealand public says about this Government is that we under-promise and we over-deliver—and we do not tell lies! We do not go around saying in public that we will not sell Kiwibank but saying in private that we will. We do not go around saying in public that we will not sell the Accident Compensation Corporation but saying in private that we will. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Bob told the truth. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What did Bob say? [ 
Interruption 
] I actually quite like Bob because he cannot help being honest. He cannot help being straightforward. It is a wonderful contrast with many of his colleagues. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to mention that it is no wonder I am leaving this place if I have to listen to this bunch of crap. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not want to refer to a point of order that you have dismissed Mr Deputy Speaker but by way of response to what I will regard as an interjection I have to say I have never heard a member of Parliament who on being described as honest says it is crap but that is what the member has done. 
But I commend the member. He may have caught the Tauranga lawyer for perjury. I think Winston Peters could well be right. If someone says something under oath when it was untrue and the person he was acting for knows it was untrue and did not intervene—and did not tell the truth at the time— 
David Bennett 
: Why didn’t you stay in Hamilton? Why didn’t you represent the people? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I lost an election. I had two terms. That member will have only one term as a member of Parliament. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This gentleman—I would not call him a gentleman actually—is insinuating that I have perjured myself in the High Court. I do not think I am very happy about that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Deputy Speaker I make it absolutely clear that I certainly did not intend to do that. I think the member caused someone else to perjure and he did not put his hand up. The dishonest thing is that at the time Bob Clarkson did not put up his hand and say: “My lawyer has lied in court.” 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It must also be exceptionable that the member is suggesting that someone has been a party to perjurious dealing. The member should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If a member suggested that someone was a party to it or was the principal perpetrator or offender then you would be quite right. But that is not what he said. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly was not saying that but what I am saying is that an honest person a person with integrity would put up his or her hand and say— 
David Bennett 
: You lost! They threw you out of town and that’s what they’re going to do again! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Richard Worth lost his seat too. If David Bennett wants to talk about people who lost their seats he should look one place to his left. If he wants to talk about people who cannot take the heat he should look one place to his right. If he wants to look at someone who is going to lose this time he should look in the mirror because Sue Moroney has got that member’s number. She is knocking on doors and people are saying they wish they had Dianne Yates back. I tell those members that retaining the seat of Hamilton East could be a bit of a stretch for the member and he knows he will have particular problems retaining it. I know that seat well and the people of Hamilton East are doing very well. 
To get back to the point why is John Key using the salaries of 38 staff members who comprise his personal public relations team in the way that he is? Why do the media not get the point that he has 38 people in his office working on his image? Those people are so bad that I would sack them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a matter of appropriation. It is very clear that in this appropriations legislation we are financing a pack of lies from John Key’s office. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It will not be lost on the people of New Zealand who are listening in tonight and who are watching on television that we are debating the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. This evening the people of New Zealand have heard three Cabinet Ministers of the current Government and one former Cabinet Minister of the current Government stand up in the House and not defend their party’s policies or public spending plans and show no respect at all for the taxpayers of New Zealand because every dollar in this bill is taken from another hard-working New Zealander who could better spend it than the Government can. All we have had from Mr Cosgrove Mr Jones less so Mr Swain but certainly from Mr Mallard is a string of vituperation. We have heard bitter poisonous sour vituperation aimed at this side of the House and I have sat here during the debate asking myself why. 
I will tell this House and the people of New Zealand why. It is because the Government which has been in office all but 9 years has finally come to the realisation that it will be leaving New Zealand in a far worse condition than it found it in 1999 and it has come to the realisation that it has been strangled by Labour’s own failed ideology. It is incumbent on this House—and I call on the minor parties—to vote this Appropriation Bill down to take away from the Government its legal authority to spend taxpayers’ money. Let us go to an election now. That is what the New Zealand people want. They do not want to see more taxpayers’ money being wasted by that profligate crowd on the other side of the House. So let us do it. Let us vote this bill down and go straight to a general election. 
I was very interested to listen to Mr Mallard talking about under-promising and over-delivering. When he said that did he mean that after 9 long years of he and others being in Cabinet New Zealand has squandered the best terms of trade it has had in a quarter-century? Is that what he meant by saying the Government under-promised and over-delivered? Let us look at interest rates. Under-promised and over-delivered. Interest rates are higher now than they have been for many many years. It is harder now for a young family to get their first home than it has been in 50 or 60 years. Is that what Mr Mallard calls under-promising and over-delivering? Unemployment is on the rise. 
Darien Fenton 
: It is not. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It is now official; New Zealand is in a recession. Is that what those Ministers opposite mean when they talk about under-promising and over-delivering? 
The very least the people of New Zealand could have expected from this House tonight and from that Government is an open wide-ranging debate on the Government’s policies and the alternative policies that other parties in this House have to offer. But no we got policy from just one side. We heard very fine speeches from this side of the House. All we heard from the Government as I have said before and will repeat again was bitter personal poisonous vituperation. If the best that Mr Shane Jones can do is throw personal insults across the floor of this House at people like myself then I am happy to let the electorate the people listening in and watching to form their own judgment and ask themselves whether they want people of that type of character in control of taxpayers’ money. 
When I spoke in the Committee stage I put three questions to the Minister of Education. I invited him to agree with me on three points. I invited him to agree with me that it is wrong that we have some of the least fortunate children in this country on waiting lists for special schools; being on that waiting list means waiting for another parent’s child to pass away. I asked him to agree with me that it is wrong that parents go round on a merry-go-round looking for a school to accept their child. I asked him to agree with me that it is wrong that children with special needs are too often being told to stay home from school. He chose not to do that. He chose instead—no doubt learning from his Cabinet colleagues on the other side tonight or maybe they learnt from him—to get into a belittling personality-based response. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent every year by the Government supposedly on the education of our children. 
Let us leave aside special education for a moment and look more broadly. One of the most significant far-reaching policies that will be introduced by the next National Government is national standards in reading writing and mathematics. We have to end this cycle of the failure of a quarter of our children to learn. I wonder whether that is what Mr Mallard meant when he talked about under-promising and over-delivering because this Government is certainly over-delivering on the failure of our children in our schools. 
The point about national standards is that it is not about testing. A lot of testing goes on in schools at the moment. The problem is that the Government says: “Tick the box that you have tested and you have done your job.” whereas National members when we get into Government will look at education policy in New Zealand and at what we do with the information we have gathered to ensure that a greater percentage of our children are actually learning. That is the key to national standards. That is the significance of the great step forward the New Zealand schooling system will be led towards by the National Government that will shortly be elected to office. 
I come back in my remaining moments to where I started. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Finance can rabbit away as much as he likes but the fact is that he will very very soon be a former Minister of Finance because the people out there understand that this House this week has the opportunity to vote down this Appropriation Bill and take the country to an immediate general election. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I understand that I have a few minutes with which to conclude the debate and it is a privilege to be able to do that. I will talk a little bit about superannuation. Everybody is very clear about this Government’s position on superannuation. Everybody remembers that we have restored a decent level of superannuation payment to ageing New Zealanders so that they can live in dignity and that is something we can be very very proud of. Mr Peachey may not be grateful for that particular pledge being fulfilled but he really ought to be. Through the Cullen fund and through KiwiSaver we have also taken steps to deliver a sustainable retirement income to New Zealanders in the future. Those are achievements that I am incredibly proud of. 
On the other hand National has no credibility whatsoever on superannuation. We remember that in 1999 National cut superannuation and blamed economic conditions. Just 3 days ago what did Mr Key say at the National Party conference? He said: “Today let me make a pledge: National will retain all the superannuation entitlements and eligibility rules that our senior citizens currently enjoy. We will keep that pledge and I will resign as Prime Minister and as a member of our Parliament rather than break it.” Well he will never have a chance to deliver on that promise. 
We all know what promises from the National Party are like because we remember Lockwood Smith’s promise in 1990 to resign over student fees. Well what happened then and what was that promise worth? It is just the same as the promise Mr Key made at the National Party conference. 
Of course Mr Key is trying to allay concerns about National’s position on superannuation after Mr English threatened it only a year ago. Let us remember what Mr English stated in July 2007: “If you compare ourselves with Australia—and it’s not too much different with any other developed country—we are starting to look pretty heavily committed to retirement income.” Then he stated: “The Australian pension is tightly income- and asset-tested and at a lower income … Ours is the highest level of the public pension that you will find anywhere and paid to everybody … There are a few other pensions that are pre-funded but none as generously as us.” Then he stated: “We are looking at a more balanced approach that focuses on growth prospects for our economy in the next five to 10 years not solely on saving.” and: “Savings are good but they are not the only thing and we can’t win the hearts and minds of 20-year-olds by telling them that the best thing about New Zealand is retiring into a plush rest home.” So Mr Key was trying to quarantine the National Party from those words of Mr English only a year ago. 
But were Mr English’s comments just a little too close to the real National Party policy? Let us remember what Mr Key stated in September 2004: “It is likely that there will be a modest increase in the age of super eligibility.” A year earlier he stated: “I don’t think there is any doubt that the single biggest way to reduce that liability is to raise the age of eligibility. I don’t think it is an impossible ask to look at doing that gradually and gently over time.” 
Well we all know Labour’s policy on superannuation and on all the other matters about which National is trying to talk out of both sides of its mouth. Superannuation is just one; fiscal policy is another as are tax cuts monetary policy interest rates exchange rate intervention broadband—the list goes on. But the people of New Zealand deserve to know the National Party’s policy on these matters if National even knows what it is. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been following this debate very closely tonight. Things got a little confusing when ACT and United Future did not turn up to take their 5-minute calls. We took the opportunity to take those 5-minute calls; I spoke with the Assistant Speaker at the time about taking those calls and it was allowed. I have been following this debate very closely and there is still a 10-minute slot available for Maurice Williamson. I am very sure about that; I have been following the debate very closely. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There have been points of order during the debate and this is not a debate with a set number of speeches. It is a debate of a set time which is 3 hours and the time for the debate has elapsed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Tremain and Dr Cullen for raising that issue. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to have another 10-minute speech. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member can do that in a moment but I just want to say that Dr Cullen is absolutely right and I was right—the 3 hours has expired. But you may seek leave for anything at any time. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I seek the leave of the House to have a 10-minute speech which I believe we had arranged for. I seek the leave of the House for that extra 10-minute speech for Maurice Williamson. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave following the conclusion of this debate to proceed directly to the third reading of the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill and for there to be a further 10-minute speech on this debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill read a third time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill read a second time. 
Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2008/09) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a third time. 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Clause 4 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 23 July. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill with the intent of bringing the debate in the House back to the issues at hand. Having listened to a number of serious personal attacks in the debate on the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill I am keen to bring the debate in the Chamber back to a piece of legislation that National will be supporting tonight. 
This bill is enormous. It is not quite comparable with the volumes that Sir Ivor Richardson had brought to the House late last year whereby we rewrote the entire taxation Act. It became a doorstop for many of my accounting friends around New Zealand including those in Hawke’s Bay. This bill brings in some new policy in areas that National supports. We have policy out there that a number of New Zealanders particularly in the voluntary sector have been very pleased to see. Tonight I will just briefly cover some of the things that are in the bill. 
Firstly we are seeing a reform of tax rules for controlled foreign companies and for life insurers and a whole lot of base maintenance measures in the form of a widening of the “associated persons” definition. Secondly we are seeing quite a few tax simplification measures in the form of a number of tax filing threshold changes. That is good because we will see a reduction in compliance costs. For a number of small businesses out there the changes will mean that the threshold they need to reach before they are required to file certain tax returns is higher than it is currently and that will mean they are left out of that regime. That will lower their compliance costs and that is a good thing. We will also see changes that allow payroll deductions for charitable giving and for payment of volunteers which again I think is a good initiative. There is also an assortment of technical changes including remedial and tax rewrite amendments. The bill confirms the changes to the international tax rules that were previously signalled. The new rules are intended to take effect in the 2009-10 financial year. 
The key question though is whether this bill will make a step change towards lifting New Zealand towards Helen Clark’s goal of getting us into the top half of the OECD. As we count down the days to the general election we have to ask ourselves whether there is any policy on the legislative agenda that this Government is trying to drive through that will initiate innovate and get us up the OECD ladder which this Government promised to do at the commencement of its reign. One would think there was an opportunity to continue to do that. However tonight we have heard four key Ministers speaking in the appropriations debate take personal pot-shots across the Chamber when they had the opportunity to speak to the appropriations and to talk about their supposedly wonderful policies that they keep telling us about. But no they did not use that opportunity. 
We need to ask ourselves whether this Government is using its last days to address the key issues that New Zealanders are currently facing. And there are some key issues. Just a couple of days ago there was an official announcement that we had moved into a recession. We are seeing interest rates as high as they have ever been in a decade; they are seriously high. We are seeing a lot of New Zealanders rolling out of fixed-interest mortgages and into mortgages with higher interest rates and that is hurting. We are seeing high food prices and we are seeing a 5 percent inflation rate at the domestic level which is huge. We are seeing mortgagee sales for the first time in many years. There are a lot more than we have seen for a long time. We are seeing that the situation generally is a lot harder for New Zealanders. One therefore asks at this point in time what this Government is doing to improve the lot of New Zealanders. 
It was great therefore to be at the National Party conference last weekend and to hear a range of policy rolled out that will genuinely have a positive impact on the lives of hard-working Kiwis whether it be putting a cap on bureaucracy making sure that every item of Government spending is being used effectively or our education policies. We looked at the Trades in Schools programme that we are planning to roll out and our Youth Guarantee policy which is a fantastic policy aimed at keeping 16 and 17-year-olds in education for longer. Our policy of national education standards is a fantastic policy which we will be able to add to. Not only that; wonderful policy in terms of infrastructure was rolled out over the weekend adding to the $1.5 billion spend that had already been announced by John Key earlier in the year. We saw a robust transparent infrastructure policy that is aimed at helping to take New Zealand out of the tough times that we are currently facing. We have to understand that in business and in Government when the times are tough we have to invest in order to get the economy out of the doldrums and to help take it forward. 
None of those sorts of issues has been addressed or will be addressed in the speeches from Government members tonight on the appropriation legislation and this taxation legislation. 
The bill addresses some minor issues that will help in the area of volunteers and in the area of compliance costs by lowering the thresholds for small businesses. As KPMG said about the bill the amendments change business and investment tax results. It says that some of the changes are welcome and even overdue and others will adversely impact on taxpayers. There is a range of amendments as I have discussed but few will make the step change necessary to get us up the OECD ladder—to achieve the goal that Helen Clark set many many years ago. 
I want to focus on two amendments in the bill: firstly the implementation of one of National’s core policies which was announced last year and which deals with payments to volunteers—I do want to talk about that one—and secondly the tax simplification and the changes to the various thresholds. With regard to payments to volunteers that is a policy that John Key rolled out earlier and it has been picked up by the Labour Government. Labour has taken that great policy and we now see it being rolled into legislation. National is in the process of rolling out a range of innovative policies which I have talked about before—a raft of different policies—and the volunteer policy is one we are seeing delivered here tonight. 
Volunteers are a hugely important part of our community. If I look at my own seat in Napier I suggest that if those volunteers were not there the community would almost grind to a halt. Volunteers are a key part of any community and I acknowledge the volunteer sector. Craig Foss and I were privileged to hold a volunteers’ luncheon recently. We were able to acknowledge the hard work of 40-odd volunteer groups and everything they are doing in the community. It is great to have them there. It is good to have policy that supports them. National has always recognised the value of volunteers and has announced policies to support them. In this legislation we are seeing some of that policy coming to fruition and I think that is a good thing. I tell listeners out there that in the 2009-10 tax year these initiatives for the volunteer sector will be in play. 
Here are some examples of what will happen. Firstly all payments that reimburse volunteers for actual or reasonable expenses will become tax free regardless of the amount of the payment. That is a good initiative. Secondly honorarium payments will be tax free up to an amount of $500 per year. That is a good situation. It will help to increase the number of people who are involved in voluntary work. There will be opportunities to reduce compliance costs for community groups and also there is an opportunity to investigate a venture capital fund for community organisations. The removal of the cap on personal tax rebates for charitable donations is I think one of the most important things in this legislation. It will encourage more charitable giving from business and individual taxpayers. It will encourage more payments to the volunteer sector. I think that is good policy. 
I appreciate that my time is up. In summary what we are seeing here is a taxation bill that makes some amendments. National Party members do not see it as a step change that will have a big impact on New Zealand’s wealth or get us up the OECD ladder. There are some things in it that National supports particularly the changes to compliance costs and the changes in terms of the voluntary sector. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e te Whare. When I applied for a job some years back they asked me whether I knew what I was looking at when looking at a financial spreadsheet. I said: “Of course I do.” because I wanted the job. They said: “Well what do you see when you look at one?”. I said: “Well I look down in the bottom right-hand corner and if the figures have brackets around them then the business is in trouble; if they haven’t got brackets around them leave it alone.” So on the basis of that I have been nominated by the Maori Party to be on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and to speak to this bill and I certainly hope never to speak to this bill again. 
The current situation of making companies earning up to $200000 a month file PAYE returns twice a month sounds like a plan to keep bureaucrats in work and bury business enthusiasm beneath piles of pointless paperwork. This bill to change things so that companies making up to $250000 a month will have to file returns only once a month is going to come as a nice surprise for many small businesses such as Te Ropu Pakihi in Horowhenua; Te Kupeka Umaka Maori Ki Araiteuru down south probably in Dunedin; Manaaki Solutions up in the Bay of Islands; and hundreds of small Maori businesses all over the country. It will also be well received by Maori business networks like Te Awe Wellington Maori Business Network here in Poneke Te Waka Umanga o Whangarei up north and even the new network launched up in Gisborne today to “inspire motivate and connect Maori business people throughout Rawhiti”. 
It is important to note that the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor reckons that 73 percent of Maori see starting business as a good career choice while only 60 percent of the rest of the population think so and that Maori have higher expectations of job creation than non-Maori—characteristics that Maori seem to have big doses of: positive thinking; risk-taking; the pursuing of ideas; and big aspirations. All of that ties in with a recent report of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research entitled  
Te Wa o te Ao Hurihuri ki te Ohanga Whanaketanga Maori 
 which called Maori entrepreneurs “irrationally exuberant”—probably because of the fact that although Maori rate very highly in business optimism we also crash and burn more often than non-Maori. Despite our best intentions and notwithstanding our irrational exuberance Maori business survival rates are very much lower. Maori businesses will really appreciate having to go through the PAYE rigmarole only once a month thereby saving time and money and hopefully being able to focus on the business. 
Another key area in the bill is the updating of the petroleum mining tax rules to encourage greater investment in oil and gas exploration but also to safeguard our taxing rights over our own petroleum resources. For Maori that is important because looking back into our own history we see that Maori still had legal title to petroleum here in Aotearoa right up to 1937 and that as a result of the loss of that title a number of Taranaki iwi took a case to the Waitangi Tribunal for recognition of their rights and settlement of their petroleum claims. The Waitangi Tribunal ruled that Maori had a Treaty interest created by loss of legal title to petroleum and that whenever that Treaty interest came up Maori would have a right to remedy and the Crown would have an obligation to provide compensation. Yet the Government refused to pay up making it very very frustrating for Taranaki iwi to have to sit and watch everybody else clicking the ticket and maximising the bucks from the Taranaki oil and gas fields while the iwi got nothing. Although we recognise that this bill introduces changes to ensure that New Zealand gets its fair share of the benefits from the petroleum mining industry we call on the Government to also recognise how those benefits derive directly from resources stolen from tangata whenua and to consider how full and proper ongoing compensation might be made to iwi in the future. 
The key focus of the bill though is on changing the rules for taxing the offshore income of Kiwi businesses in order to promote growth and to enable them to compete more effectively in foreign markets. That all sounds good but business growth also brings its own set of problems including a culture that values growth at all costs quantity over quality and profit above people. That is why the Maori Party thinks the time is right for a national dialogue about the genuine progress index reforming the tax system regulating growth to achieve a sustainable economy and ensuring that growth leads to real and measurable prosperity taking into account the impact of business activity on people’s well-being health jobs lifestyles energy use resource use and attitudes to the environment—like making big polluters pay up first rather than giving them a big holiday while the ordinary folk have to cough up for that pollution in more ways than one. 
One final thing: we hear reports that the changes to how we tax overseas income may lead to a $50 million loss of tax revenue. Well our calculations suggest that it might be a lot more than that so we are looking to the select committee for a more thorough analysis of what that loss might actually be. Kia ora tatou. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak tonight to the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill is having its first reading and as I said it is a pleasure to stand here and support it. 
I will give a bit of a background on what this bill is about and I want to look at one little part in particular—that is the payroll giving section. This is really all about charities and about allowing money to be channelled much more effectively into charities in New Zealand. In fact in the 2007 Budget the Government announced plans to look at several measures aimed at laying the foundation for a stronger culture of charitable giving in New Zealand which sounds really wonderful. 
Unfortunately it has taken the Government a long time to get to this point in terms of encouraging people to donate to charities. In fact this measure has come on the back of National Party policy which was announced last year on community groups and turbocharging community groups. It is surprising that it took National to come forward with such an initiative before the Labour Government actually thought of doing this and putting something in place. The Government waited 8 long years—until National came out with a discussion document and some policy around community initiatives—to get this legislation to where it is today. 
National’s policy is to introduce the following measures in order to promote the growth and vitality of our community groups. It is about removing the cap on personal donations in order to encourage more people to donate to charities in New Zealand. The cap on personal rebates for charitable donations will be removed. Donations of any amount up to an individual’s total net income would be eligible for the rebate. So if a person wanted to give $30000 for example he or she would be able to get a rebate of $10000 at the end of that year. This is absolutely a great initiative that we put out in our policy paper. 
The other policy is the removal of the cap on business donations. Every business will be able to claim a tax deduction for any level of donation up to its total net income for the year. This will encourage businesses to support groups doing good works in their communities. It is very important as well that we get businesses involved in donating to organisations and charities around New Zealand just as individuals do. Hand in hand individuals and businesses can make a huge difference to the charities in New Zealand. 
Then of course we went on to expand it a little bit further—which this bill does not do—by having tax-free reimbursement for expenses. Payments that charities make to volunteers to reimburse their expenses will be tax free regardless of the amount of that payment. Currently if a charity reimburses a volunteer for his or her costs it has to be declared as income and income tax should be paid. Some charities have an historical arrangement with the Inland Revenue Department to waive this tax but most do not. That just is not fair. 
As members can see National has gone ahead and addressed many of the issues around donations and giving to charities which this Labour-led Government has not yet got around to. Maybe it will put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to reflect some of our good initiatives and that may happen as we go through this debate. Also National brought out in its policy the fact that honorarium payments of up to $500 per year per person will be tax free. At the moment if a charity makes an honorarium payment to a volunteer it is seen as a taxable income. That is something that really should be looked at and adjusted. 
National went on to say that bureaucracy and compliance costs will be reduced. When the Government funds a community group to provide a service then that money should go towards helping out on the frontline not towards filling in forms that Government departments often do not read anyway. So we can see that National’s policy on communities goes a lot further than this bill even looks at going in terms of businesses and employees working together to give more money to charities. 
National went on to say that when the Government wants to run a community-based programme and there is a competitive tendering process community groups will be encouraged to put in bids that reflect the full cost of delivery including all relevant overhead costs. National policy then went on to talk about a venture capital fund. National is investigating developing a venture capital fund to boost organisations that have capacity to do more want to do things in a different way or are new to the community sector altogether. 
I find it really interesting that the Labour members of Parliament who are sitting in the House tonight have just let me read word for word National’s whole policy on communities and not one person has got up to say that this is not relevant to the bill. As we can see National members of Parliament are listening to the debate and are actively inputting into it. Labour members though are obviously not particularly interested in this legislation—I have just managed to read out National’s policy word for word. Listeners tonight have just heard some fantastic policy from National as we talk on the taxation bill. 
I am trying to work out what other policy announcement I should make while I am standing up here because we know that everybody wants to hear policy. [ 
Interruption 
] Would Labour members like me to read this to them again? I am more than happy to start from the top of this policy document. They were not listening earlier but now I have their attention and they are more than interested in listening to what I have to say about our community groups policy. If they had been listening at the beginning of the speech they would have heard me say that National produced this discussion document before the Government put together this legislation. 
I turn again to the payroll giving section which I started speaking about earlier on. It is a very very good initiative. It is about employees and employers working hand in hand to give to charities and organisations and it is a better vehicle for getting money to them. What is does is quite interesting. There is an onus on the employer in terms of the employee giving. It is fantastic that we have this vehicle whereby people can give through their payroll if they want to but there are some catches in this legislation. 
One of the catches is that people can give through payroll giving only if their employer does electronic returns. So there is an onus on employers to be electronically set up with the Inland Revenue Department and not every employer is. Those poor people out there who are still on dial-up—because this Government has not got its act together on broadband across New Zealand—will not be able to log on to the Inland Revenue Department site because access is too slow. For them access to any website with graphics will be slow and the Inland Revenue Department has a lot of graphics on its site so employers with dial-up most probably cannot offer payroll giving to their staff. 
I ask Chris Tremain to hand me National’s broadband policy. I would not mind reading it out right now; as I said Labour members are not actually listening. National’s broadband policy will allow people to do online giving. I will quickly tell members how. If employers are on dial-up they cannot offer employees this option because they will not be able to dial up to do electronic banking. National has said that we are slipping right behind the rest of the world in where we are on broadband and that we can do much better. In fact National is talking about taking broadband to 75 percent of the country and installing— 
Chris Tremain 
: Fibre to the home. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: —fibre to the home; that is it. Fibre to the home will mean fibre to businesses and that will mean everybody’s access is much much faster and there should not be any excuse for 75 percent of New Zealand not to have broadband. 
That will mean that all those businesses that cannot dial up into the Inland Revenue Department and cannot offer payroll giving—I see we have some Young Labour members sitting up there. It is good to see that you made it here tonight. Did you enjoy the National Party conference? That is what we want to know. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is to be no discussion with people in the gallery. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I wanted to welcome them into the House tonight. 
I come back to payroll giving. There are some drawbacks in the payroll giving system. The first is that the employer has to be able to file electronic returns with the Inland Revenue Department. The second is that the tax credit is calculated on a set rate which I suppose makes it easier to work out but it also means that there has to be another part of the form that will allow payroll giving. 
The one thing do I wonder about is how this will be policed. Once the donation has been taken out of the employee’s account how do we know that the money has then been handed over to the organisation it is meant to go to? I am worried about how this will be policed and I am worried about the fact that there is more onus on the employer. But overall I think it is a good initiative. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Policing Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I very much welcome the opportunity to go into the Committee stage of the Policing Bill because this bill contains some of the most significant legislative proposals on policing to come before this House in the last half-century. Fundamentally this bill is about renewing the New Zealand Police mandate to protect life and property to maintain law and order to prevent and to detect crime to minimise crashes and to prosecute offenders. 
As a Government we have invested heavily in giving the New Zealand Police the resources needed to act on this mandate. We now have a record number of New Zealand Police officers and more are on the way. They are operating out of over 34 new or refurbished stations around New Zealand and they are backed by new protective equipment. We have also encouraged a focus on tackling the root causes of crime by early intervention and by trying to stop the cycle of crime by stopping offending before it begins. 
The police as we all know have a critical role to play in trying to keep the criminals off our streets and ensuring that we keep people out of the criminal justice system. I believe that the New Zealand Police do a tremendous job. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.