Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Cosgrove Clayton: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:645;Page:14843] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For those who are not aware who that last speech was from it was from the desiccated coconut of the National Party. What I am told happens to the desiccated coconut is that the insides are torn out— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member cannot— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member’s point of order is about. It is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Mr Key is not the only slippery political version of a conger eel on that side of the House. Mr English is in a very very difficult position. He has to stand up and try to articulate some sort of National Party policy when his leader cannot even get it straight. 
But in fairness we should not focus just on Mr Key. I am going to talk about asset sales. I am not going to talk about the particular sale of Auckland International Airport Ltd because I have some responsibility for it. I will confine my comments to State-owned assets. Mr Key is not the only slippery individual in the National Party. I find it ironic that Mr English finished the last part of his speech by accusing us of saying that we will say anything to win. Well we have had a litany from Paul Swain today of the flip-flops the greasiness the slipperiness and the movements. “We do not believe in climate change.” Mr Key said. Then he changed his mind. “We do have a date for Treaty settlements.” then it was “No we do not.” And on it goes. But these issues are not confined just to Mr Key. 
I will read as we talk about State asset sales from a transcript of the  
Agenda 
 programme on 23 September 2007. Guyon Espiner asked: “Are there any state assets that National thinks should be sold?”. The response from Mr English was and this is a cracker: “Well if the nation says we want to retain control of these state assets then we can’t expect to be a government and say we’re going to go and head off in the opposite direction …”. Now not a day later not an hour later not a minute later but about three paragraphs into the transcript later Mr Espiner asked: “What about the electricity companies they’re big assets and what about giving Kiwi mums and dads a shot at owning some shares in those?”. Mr English said in response four paragraphs later: “Well I mean I wouldn’t exclude any”—he was talking about the electricity companies—“clearly those kind of assets are very topical at the moment …”. Then we go to a day later I think it is 24 September on National Radio Mr English said: “So partial sell-downs of SOEs is one way the Government can build this savings culture.” 
So what we do know is that the conger eel of the National Party “old slippery” over there is but only one. Mr English has flip-flopped more times on asset sales than anyone can count. 
Then we fast forward to last week’s proceedings on another particular issue concerning an asset which I will not talk about. We know what the National Party’s position is on that. Mr English—and people ought to be reminded of this—is the man who tried to have it both ways. He said “Well we will not sell the country’s assets because we got in the poo last time and it is unpopular.” Then he said “Well actually we do believe in a partial sale of State assets.” We asked what that meant and he said “Well this KiwiSaver the superannuation fund and these funds are trawling around looking for assets so here is an opportunity for good old Kiwi mums and dads to buy those assets and have them invested.” 
Mr Swain said that there is one problem with that though—and he is right. Kiwi mums and dads through the ownership stake that the Crown has in those SOEs have already purchased them through their tax. Mr Key and Mr English would then have them sold off and recycled through the system regardless of whether there is a Crown stake to generously—says the National Party—give these Kiwi mums and dads the wonderful opportunity to spend their own money for a second time buying back through the superannuation fund or whatever what they already own. 
I would ask members how many ways we can slice the State-owned assets onion. How many storylines do those members think people will or will not believe? I think it was Mr Swain or another speaker who made this point. We cannot go down to one end of the public bar and say one thing to a group of folk then go down to the other end of the public bar or the workingmen’s club and say the opposite and not be stupid enough not to realise that those two groups will probably get together over a beer and have a chat and compare notes. The communities are not silly. 
We ought to remind the communities of what this Government inherited when we came into office in 1999. That crew over there left behind a moribund inward-looking industrial graveyard when it came to the New Zealand economy. There was high unemployment low growth and low investment. Then they say to us desperately looking for doom and gloom that they believe employment rates will go up. We know of course that Mr Key got caught—ankle tapped or crash-tackled—by the Whangarei  
Bay Report 
 newspaper when he admitted he would like to see wages go down. The facts are that he said it it was proved and then in that petroleum jelly slippery kind of way he tried to back out of it. He tried to get around it. He tried to say that it did not happen. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Like your hairdo. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There is the low-altitude flyer of the National Party Mr Finlayson. He is the man who came here as a superstar. He is a barrister of course who was denied being appointed a Queen’s Counsel and has never got over it. He has never come anywhere closer to the front bench than he is today. 
But National left this country an industrial graveyard—industrial archaeology. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in over 20 years— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Here we go. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they do not like it. “Poppa Smurf” from the West Coast does not like it and old “Albert Tatlock” does not like it either. But we are going to say it anyway. We have the highest and longest period of sustained economic growth since the Second World War and some of the lowest Maori unemployment we have seen for years. Then those members stand up and say they are for families. The National Party stands up as if its members know something about families that no one else knows. They say they are for families but what they are against is having any support for those families. 
What National is for is an $11.5 billion tax cut and I could not believe my luck when Bill English started talking about borrowing. In the last election Mr Key as Opposition finance spokesperson admitted on the record on the radio that half of the $11 billion for the tax cuts was to be borrowed. We know that last week Newstalk ZB got Mr English on the record admitting that he would borrow for a tax cut. He would not borrow to build a hospital. He would not borrow to build a school. He would not borrow to build a road or a public transport system. [ 
Interruption 
] Let them go Mr Speaker. They make fools of themselves every time they open their mouths. 
Mr English would not borrow for infrastructure. But oh no he would borrow for a tax cut. That is National’s stated policy. That is what its members said last time. That is what they will go with this time. 
Let us compare the record. National abolished the Apprenticeship Act—I think it was in 1995. Apprenticeships were denied. Every young person was denied a chance at trade training. What is our record? There are 14000 young people in Modern Apprenticeships now—a year ahead of time. 
Bill English talked about pensions. I forgot to read out one quote on asset sales. Of course the National Party would like to hoodwink the pensioners and ensure they forget about the three cuts that National made. Graham Stairmand the national president of Grey Power when quoted on 27 September 2007 about Mr English’s admission that he would sell assets said: “This will seal the fate of the National Party … Nobody will be naive enough to believe that this is not going to be a step to full privatisation.” I do not know what Mr Stairmand’s politics are but I think he has summed it up. Of course it was National that cut the pension three times. It is Labour that has restored it and increased it. It was National that pulled the rug out from under every elderly person in the country. 
So we know today that the low-altitude flyers are over there. Mr English squirms every time Mr Key opens his mouth because Mr Key does not know in which direction of policy he should go next. Mr Key thinks that he can say anything to anybody and that they will not know that he talks out of both sides of his mouth. But the point today is that he has a deputy leader who is on the record off the record and all over the record on one primary issue that is central to the hearts of Kiwis—that is asset sales. We now know what the agenda is. He does not want to admit it but he would sell the family silver and sell out every New Zealander like he did last time.