Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1259] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 What a typical National Party speech that was! What did that speech call for? It called for more spending on courts and more spending on lawyers. The legal profession is the only profession in the country that can print all the customers it can make. It is the only profession I know that can create whatever supply it wants to meet its demand. Now National members say the Government should spend millions and millions of dollars more on subsidising civil litigation in the courts and on subsidising legal aid for the very crims they say when they give these speeches in the House they want to lock up before they have even had a trial by and large. 
Yet members opposite have been saying the Government is spending too much money. Speaker after speaker gets up from the Opposition bench and calls for more money. Last night Tau Henare called for more money to be spent on kindergartens. Today Dr Richard Worth called for more money to be spent on lawyers and on courts. As if the poor man did not earn enough before he came into this House! He wants more subsidies to come from low-income taxpayers. National wants less money spent on low-income New Zealanders—as in Working for Families—and more money for lawyers. That is the National Party approach to social equity. I am sure Mr Finlayson will unburden himself of similar precise and precisely expressed views at some point during this Parliament. 
On this side we have a Government with a clear vision. First is economic transformation which means building this country growing productivity working harder and doing more—not like the Leader of the Opposition who since December has put out a total of four press statements. Jacqui Dean has done 2½ times as many press statements as the Leader of the Opposition and most people think Jacqui Dean is something one finds under a bush somewhere in Christchurch. Second is security and opportunity for our families young and old. Third is national identity which does not mean crawling on one’s knees all the way to the Pentagon or the White House to find out what one is supposed to do next. We want proud New Zealanders living in a country of security and opportunity that is the best country in the world to live in. 
 And what is the alternative? A stale tired Opposition with stale tired old policies. If we look at National now in terms of policy we see it is Ruth Richardson without the charm and Roger Douglas without the eloquence. One has to go as far back as that in our politics to find the policies that National is supporting at the present time. Where are all those new young eager MPs opposite like Mr Auchinvole who were bursting with enthusiasm and adolescence as they came into this place but already are tired jaded and taking on the impression of their own leader at the present time? 
All that National members want to do is cut taxes. Why? Because they will be better off if they cut taxes. When we put the tax rate up did they work any less? Unfortunately I have destroyed my argument—yes they did. But did anybody else in New Zealand work any less hard? No they did not. When National cut taxes in the mid-1990s did a single one of them work harder? No they certainly did not. 
National wants to deregulate everything in sight especially the labour market. Of course the main reason why Australians workers are better off than Kiwi workers is that they have a more regulated labour market and therefore a stronger ability to extract a share of the economy. New Zealand profits have risen at an enormous rate in recent years as the economy has grown and Dr Brash says that is bad. Well that is not why he was paid money before the election by his big-business mates and the Exclusive Brethren—to come in here and start parading some form of top-down socialism and to say we should actually be destroying profits in the private sector. 
 Then of course National members want to flog off State assets. They want to flog off every possible State asset they can get their hands on. They are supposed in the House to be concentrating on the economy. They said: “It’s the economy stupid.” looking in the mirror yet when they get in here they follow every little byway and highway the can find about State spending in terms of political publicity. They themselves of course have had their noses deep in that trough over many many years. 
But of course what we also find out is that National members have no principles at all. This afternoon Mr Brownlee produced a paper called  
National’s Relationship with Maori 
. National had a fourth principle. Their fourth principle was to bash ethnic minorities particularly Maori. They said: “Don’t worry about the Maori vote because no self-respecting Maori votes National.” Some used to. This afternoon a National member—I cannot remember whether it was Dr Brash or which one it was—was so ignorant as to start referring to Ngati Porou as though somehow they were traditional Labour Party mates. Well I have news for members opposite: Ngati Porou used to be strong supporters of the National Party by and large but it managed to burn them off. The last iwi left in terms of supporting the National Party is now—[ 
Interruption 
] I have to tell members that Api Mahuika turns up to Labour Party functions. Indeed some senior members of Ngati Porou are pretty active in support of my good friends Parekura Horomia and Moana Mackey in terms of the East Coast and we are working hard with them on foreshore and seabed issues. 
But now Mr Brownlee fresh from his long experience in te reo—he was the Maori teacher at St Bede’s College— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No he wasn’t. He was the woodwork teacher. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: He was the woodwork teacher but I understand that when they ran out of wood he used to teach a bit of Maori on the side as well. Is that right? I think that is what he claims these days in terms of his record. 
Mr Brownlee is not all that happy because although National used to go on and on about race-based funding and too much money going to Maori he has had a great road to Damascus experience. He has suddenly discovered that when one looks at the needy in New Zealand one finds they are disproportionately Maori. So if we are going to focus funding on the needy we end up focusing money disproportionately on Maori. This has been an epiphany—I think that is the technical word in this particular context. Of course we can see that that is stunning to members opposite. Mr Auchinvole thinks the needy are in fact business people and lawyers. He is a bit surprised to find out they are basically not Pakeha. This has come as a shock to him. He has acquired his accent after many years of practice having been born in Glasgow and now he finds out he has to speak with a slightly different accent because Mr Brownlee is telling him some different things about life. 
But also National members have been talking about the foreshore and seabed legislation. Do members remember what they said? They said it was to be opposed because it did not do enough to protect the Crown’s interest in the foreshore and seabed. But then after the election they started talking to the Maori Party and now they are saying some very interesting things. Mr Brownlee states: “The Maori party are talking about putting up a private members bill to repeal the act. I’m not convinced they will do it. However we need to consider public opinion and decide on our position.” So on the fundamental issue of New Zealand’s sovereignty the nature of New Zealand our identity and our right to access to the foreshore and seabed Mr Brownlee sticks a wet finger up in the air—hoping to miss some of his colleagues on the way—and tries to work out which way the wind is blowing and that will determine how National votes in this House. 
It is no wonder that when National members go on in this House about supposed misuse of public funds one is reminded that the National Party rests upon the fidelity of Mr McCully the loyalty discretion and silence of Mr Williamson the intelligence of Mr Brownlee the eloquence and rhetoric of Dr Brash and of course Dr Mapp. Since Christmas Dr Mapp has managed to put out one press statement and so far has not hunted down a single example of political correctness. This afternoon his colleague was burbling on about something to do with drownings and Water Safety New Zealand and I suggest that he should have been taken outside and dealt with like a mislaid puppy at birth because of his views on taxation. This is the arrogant National Party which supposedly thinks it can sleepwalk and dream its way back to power in 3 years’ time in the meantime having kicked to death every possible coalition partner and support partner in the House. It is confident that come an election they will recognise the natural governors of society and will come forth and ensure that National can subtract and divide because the one thing it can never do in this country is multiply.