General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:653;Page:2297] 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Yesterday we saw the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister describing a Minister of the Crown as being “stupid” and “unwise”—stupid and unwise. Those are his words not mine. Today the country is asking the question as to why a person who is stupid and unwise continues to hold a ministerial portfolio. The answers given in the House yesterday by Dr Worth were at the very best ambiguous. There is a murkiness around that private business junket using the Minister’s title and the perks of office that has not yet been explained by Dr Worth and he should explain. 
Yesterday the Prime Minister was at pains to defend the Minister of Trade Tim Groser for failing to resign from the directorships of two commercial enterprises that were clearly a conflict of interest with the role of Minister of Trade. I have been the Minister of Trade. I know that one has inside information that one is privileged to hold. One cannot hold a commercial directorship and carry out the functions as Minister of Trade. Although Mr Key was at pains to defend Mr Groser for taking 3 months to resign from those directorships it took Dr Worth just 2 hours when he was caught out on his junket and conflict of interest. What Mr Key never told the House was that as he was answering the question Mr Groser continued to hold shares in the company the Indian Overseas Trade Group. Mr Groser continued to hold those shares which is something that was revealed only last night when the media put that question to him. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has matched the high standard that he promised he would set for his Ministers. Do members remember what it was? It was “one strike and you’re out”. There have been many strikes; no Minister has yet resigned. 
Very fortunately New Zealand has a strong reputation as a country that has a high level of integrity and as a country that is intolerant of corruption. One reason that is the case in Government is this manual. It is called the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and it works very clearly to prevent conflicts of interest. Every one of us on our appointments as Ministers was required to fill out a checklist against which we could judge whether there were conflicts of interest. If that was not enough we then had a personal and confidential interview with the Cabinet Office to make sure that there were no conflicts of interest. Mr Key must explain to this House how having had those checklists and confidential interviews two of his Ministers failed to recognise or disclose conflicts of interest and held those conflicts of interest in Dr Worth’s case until he was caught out and in the case of Mr Groser’s directorships for 3 months followed by his failure to disclose a shareholding. 
I accept from Mr Groser his word as an honourable member of this House that that was an oversight but an oversight is not acceptable. David Parker resigned from his portfolio because he could not remember the facts surrounding an allegation that was made against him. He had the integrity to say: “I don’t remember. I therefore resign because the demands of this office and the importance of this office are such that I should do so.” He was cleared entirely of any wrongdoing but he did the decent thing and one has to ask when Dr Worth and Mr Groser will do the decent thing in this House. 
Dr Worth went on a trip using his ministerial title and was facilitated through the airport. Mr Key said yesterday that that did not cost any money. That is rubbish. It did cost money and Mr Key knows that. Dr Worth took the whole delegation through. He went there on a private business junket to promote an enterprise in which a company of which he was a director was in joint venture. That is clearly a conflict of interest. He was asked whether he paid for his own trip. He said yes. When he was asked more closely and in more detail he gave a very ambiguous answer. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 That was an interesting speech from the Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Was it? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I found it interesting because at the end one or two of his caucus members applauded. That is quite unusual for this particular Leader of the Opposition. The two words that are out there in the minds of New Zealanders at the moment if they notice and if they are interested are why the Leader of the Opposition is so invisible and so ineffective. We have seen today some examples of exactly why that is. It is because the Labour Party team is not even slightly united behind its leader. 
I refer to these apparently bogus Twitter entries on the Twitter website. I accept the statement made by David Cunliffe that it was not his work because I know that anything that is good David Cunliffe claims and anything that is bad he does not and this is very very bad. It indicates that there are people out there who are presumably close to him and who want to promote him or to put it about on Twitter that he is the man to replace Phil Goff. What was absent this afternoon was the question about Mr Clayton Cosgrove. Apparently Mr Clayton Cosgrove also has a Twitter webpage. On that webpage he makes a number of comments that indicate he is also waiting in the wings for Mr Goff to trip over and fall in the hole. The talk on Twitter around the Labour Party is that it is just a matter of time for Phil. We will say goodbye to Helen Clark and to any other senior members who might be on their way and then we will have a massive and bloody spill. 
Here we are on 1 April a day when the Government is doing serious good things for the people of New Zealand that will make a difference in strapped economic times and all we can get from Labour members is the holding up of a Labour-National poll that shows the rapid incline of National’s support among the voters of this nation. It is no wonder that the incline is so steep. We have personal tax cuts coming into effect today. Members opposite can say that the tax cuts are not big enough or good enough or that things could have been better. Of course the other half of them say that there should not be any tax cuts at all. I know that at a time when the commodities that households require are on an upward price-path these tax cuts will be very much welcomed. 
Today also sees the start of the small-business initiative for the raft of small-business enterprises in this country that employ so many New Zealanders. That package totals some $480 million and is designed to make business a little easier for those business people so that they do not have to be consumed by the day-to-day inanities of their businesses and can focus instead on growing them and providing the work opportunities that so many people will need. 
Then there is the extraordinary situation where Labour members are saying that it would have been better to not raise the minimum wage rather than just put another 50c on it. How pathetic is that? Everybody working in those minimum wage jobs will be very happy to get their extra 50c an hour. That is another example of the fact that even in tight times the National Government is very attuned to the needs of those at the bottom end of society. 
Day by day businesses are having to face the difficulties of redundancy and the Government has packages in place so we have to ask why the Labour Party is so upset by programmes that might help those people through the Restart programme the 9-day working fortnight and the various other interventions designed to help people through difficult times. It is also interesting to note the criticism that comes from Labour members about the Government’s huge boost in infrastructure investment in New Zealand. A $500 million programme has been outlined so far. We also have the big broadband roll-out. That $1.5 million programme is designed to ensure that when New Zealand like the rest of the world reaches better times the ability to participate will be so much better. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 We have just heard a speech on Twitter from Parliament’s biggest twit. His speech ended with just a tweet. I have to say that it was one of the weakest speeches I have ever heard from that member. The only thing he could say was “Look at our big broadband.” Well I invite him to say that to the people of the West Coast. Mr Joyce said that people who live up the end of a long road—the farmers—will have to wait some time. I tell the National Government that actually there are people on the West Coast who live in towns. Quite a few thousand of them actually live in towns. They are asking where the broadband is for them. 
We learnt today on 1 April April Fool’s Day that the National Government’s tax cuts are the “more is less” tax cuts because the people who get the most get more and those who get the least get nothing. That is what these tax cuts are. They are the “more is less” tax cuts. It is probably a red-letter day and a black-letter day for New Zealanders. It is a red-letter day for those who are lucky enough to get the tax cuts and I say good on them. People will welcome those tax cuts. When people are struggling they will be happy to get a few extra dollars in their pockets. I am pleased for them. I say that for those who do not get the tax cuts it is a black-letter day indeed. It is a black-letter day for many many New Zealanders. 
Let us look at my own electorate where 62 percent of the people do not get the tax cuts that were announced today. It is an ordinary electorate. I know that people there vote Labour and probably do not deserve to have a tax cut under a National Government but 62 percent of people in my electorate get no tax cuts. In fact right across New Zealand 71 percent of people do not get these tax cuts. 
We know that the 3 percent who get most of the money in New Zealand will get a third of the cash in their pockets. Is that fair? Is that what these tax cuts are about? I have to tell members that I believe this is a defining moment for National. I hope that the Maori Party is listening to this speech. These tax cuts define National’s idea of fairness. National believes that fairness is giving the most to those who already have it. We are not saying there should not be tax cuts; we are saying that the Government should give tax cuts to those who need them. Why would they want to give more to the chief executive officer of Telecom who is already earning over a million dollars— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: $5 million. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is $5 million. Well he will get $500 a week more from these tax cuts but the family that is on under $40000 a year—the struggling family with kids—will not get anything. It is also a black-letter day for all those people who have just lost their jobs because they will not get a tax cut. They will not get anything with these tax cuts. We know that the number of people losing their jobs is accelerating by the day. Almost 2000 people signed up for the unemployment benefit in just 1 month. We know that the number of people going to Work and Income for assistance is climbing rapidly. There is little assistance for those people unless they meet a very narrow range of criteria. 
There is nothing new from the Minister for Social Development and Employment. In fact Paula Bennett has spent 5 months as Minister working out what she will do for the non-governmental organisation sector. Today we know that the tax cuts ought to be given to charity according to Mr John Key the Prime Minister. I suppose charity will give the money to the non-governmental organisation sector because it is not getting any joy out of that Minister. She crows that she called in people from the non-governmental organisation sector for a meeting to talk about it but we know that those people are talking about what they are not going to get in this Budget. The Pathways to Partnership programme is on the skids. It is on the skids because the Minister cannot provide funding for the non-governmental organisations to be able to continue to provide the absolutely crucial services that New Zealanders need at this time. It is a black-letter day for them and it is a black-letter day for thousands and thousands of taxpayers in this country. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Aside from the dubious maths that we hear from members on the other side of the House can we just have a look at what they have been spending their time on over the last several weeks in the House. They have spent a lot of time on who attends select committees which is a very important topic of discussion. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why don’t you look us in the eyes Mr Joyce? That’s right; we’re the Opposition. Here we are. We’re just here. Look at us. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I know the members over there are trying to make themselves relevant but it involves more than Mr Cunliffe waving his arms around. They have been twittering away and focusing on who attends select committees making mountains out of molehills about Government procedures and most of all mourning the loss of their own poorly performing programmes. Opposition members spend a lot of time mourning the loss of their own programmes. We get a lot of that in question time. They ask: “How could you possibly change this programme?”. They do that all the time. But what do we hear about the big issues? What do we hear about getting ourselves out of the decade of deficits they left us with? The answer is absolutely nothing. What do we hear about improving productivity? What do we hear about that? We hear absolutely nothing. What do we hear about improving our foreign exchange deficit? We hear absolutely nothing. All we get is a list of programmes that they may or may not support. 
Opposition members have also made statements on the tax package—either: “It is not enough.” “Why are you borrowing to cut taxes?” “I personally support it.” “The tax cuts should be cancelled.” “We need more fiscal stimulus.” or it is: “You need to show more responsibility.” Which statement on reducing taxes so that people can work hard and get ahead is the one Opposition members believe? They do not have a position. 
Do they have a position on the 9-day working fortnight? Yes they oppose that I think. Do they have a position on the tourism initiative—the cycleway? They are not sure; they are still thinking about that. Sometimes it is OK; sometimes it is not so good. What about the ReStart package? They oppose it. What about short-term infrastructure funding? They are not really sure about that; they have not been able to count it yet but they mostly oppose it. What about personal tax rates? We have been there. They are opposed to them; maybe they are in favour of them; they are not really sure. They ask for more fiscal stimulus or maybe not. 
What about helping small businesses with the small to medium sized enterprise package? There may be a little bit of support for that. They are not really sure about that one. They think they might have done something along those lines themselves but they cannot really remember. What about transport infrastructure? They oppose it I think. What about broadband infrastructure? They say it is not enough or it is too much. I think David Cunliffe said it was too much and Clare Curran said it was not enough. What about reforming the Resource Management Act? Labour members supported the introduction of the bill to reform that Act. It will be interesting to see whether they will actually get us to the end. What about moving public resources into front-line services? They definitely oppose it. 
These are all things that will help to improve New Zealand’s productivity. My question for Opposition members is that if they oppose most of those things what are they actually proposing to solve their own decade of deficits that they left the Government with when they left power? Or will they be obsessed with trivia over the next 6 months? Will they spend their time dealing with a whole lot of stuff that is not relevant and talking all the time about who attends select committees and who does not which the public of New Zealand do not care about? The public of New Zealand want to know how the New Zealand economy is going to grow stronger and how it will grow more quickly out of the global recession we are in. In order for that to happen they will want to know how we will improve the country’s productivity. That is what members of the public need to know but we hear absolutely nothing at all from Opposition members on those topics. 
My challenge for the next speaker who might be the Hon David Cunliffe is to tell us which of the initiatives that I have just listed they are prepared to support and if there are not any then where the initiatives are that they are prepared to support. Where are Labour’s solutions on productivity? Where are Labour’s solutions on improving our balance of payments deficit? Where are Labour’s solutions on encouraging growth? We need to know and the country needs to know and until Labour members come up with some solutions instead of twittering away on a whole bunch of irrelevant trivial stuff then the country will continue to ignore them. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Normally when one challenges an Opposition one at least looks the members in the eyes. One raises one’s head and one’s sights and one eyeballs them rather than having one’s chin in one’s lap and looking like a crash helmet on legs. The reason that bloke is called “Re-Joyce” is that he is so glum about governing. He wants a suggestion for improving productivity so I will give him one. National should adopt Labour’s broadband plan. That will save at least half a billion dollars and get more broadband in the ground. That would be a good start. 
Today is April Fool’s Day and Mr Key has gone back to his office to kick the butts of the staff who got him to try that silly question about Twitter. Not only have I never posted a tweet but that Minister obviously was not informed that the same person who set up a bogus site for me has also done so for three other Labour members. At least as early as Monday of this week a notice posted on Twitter made it clear that the site was false. But wait; there is more! It turns out that the person who set up these four bogus sites is actually a right-wing blogger. 
Why would someone not have told Mr Key that one of his own whanau was responsible for this gimmick? Was that person trying to make Mr Key look like a tweet on April Fool’s Day or does it come naturally? Perhaps he or she was trying to take attention away from the great “Robin Hood in reverse” tax swindle. That is where one borrows a billion dollars and gives a third of it to the top 3 percent of income earners. Even Roger Douglas can tell that it is nonsense to borrow a billion dollars give a third to the top 3 percent and ensure that 71 percent get nothing—nada zip no income tax cut. Seventy-one percent of Kiwis get nothing 3 percent get a third—and it is borrowed money. 
That is why John Key has been on radio and TV in the last week saying: “Well you know those tax cuts next year—we’ve really got to try to be clear that the conditions will allow it.” That is why Mr English was talking them down in the media. That is why Ganesh Nana from the Business and Economic Research Ltd said today that he does not think it will happen. That is why the press gallery knows full well it will never happen. 
What does that mean for New Zealanders? It means that almost all the people underneath that blessed top 3 percent will be worse off under this Government than they would have been if a Labour Government had enacted the legislation it had set out in Budget 2008. It is not just the 71 percent who miss out today—April Fool’s Day—with these April Fool’s Day tax cuts; it is almost everybody outside the top table and outside the big end of town. It is payback time for the donors to the National Party who insisted on the top personal tax rate being cut. 
As well as being grossly inequitable and highly unprincipled that is really stupid economics because—and I point this out in case someone did not explain it to the Prime Minister—we are in a recession. What do people do in a recession? People spend money in such a way that it stays in circulation. One has the highest possible multiplier and that does not come from the people at the high end of the income scale. It comes from the people at the lower end of the income scale because they need it. They are credit constrained and whatever relief they get they spend. They spend it at the corner dairy they spend it at the supermarket they put a new tyre on the car they pay the school donation for their children they buy their children books or they take their kids to the doctor—if they do not qualify for the free stuff that Labour has already put in place. 
Families need it and that is why Labour put in place the Working for Families package and that is why members opposite have done a political gimmick which even the Minister of Revenue disagrees with with the independent earner tax credit. That is a $10 a week gimmick that is available to people who do not have kids and it is meant to make them feel a bit better. But the people with children are the ones who are shelling out for so many of the necessaries. People at the bottom end are suffering. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The member who has just taken his seat David Cunliffe decided he would talk about eye contact and how important that is yet he spent his 5 minutes performing nicely for the camera. It was all about him trying to run his show and trying to make his bid for leadership. We know there is nervousness over there and we know there is a twitter in the Labour ranks as its members watch their leader performing so badly. Mr Cunliffe stood up performed nicely for the cameras and spent his whole time with his eyes on those and the gallery while trying to make some pretty minor points. 
I will talk a little about wilful blindness: it is a legal term for people pointedly ignoring something they should have known about. That is what the previous Government showed last year. It saw that the economy was starting to do something and if it did not see that then it was well and truly a case of wilful blindness. The previous Government saw unemployment numbers rising for three consecutive terms. 
Chris Tremain 
: And what did Ruth Dyson say? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We heard that having 29000 unemployed people was not a bad thing. What did we see in three consecutive quarters from the previous Government when it came to addressing the issue of people losing their jobs and being out of work? Absolutely nothing! As early as the beginning of last year commentators were predicting trouble. With an eye on America those commentators could see that it was happening. Did we see anything from Labour on that? We saw a programme of spending leading up to the election. We saw a dying Government gasping for breath and making reckless promises that it did not fund. We saw an accident compensation fund that was quite frankly in trouble and that the National Government is now having to fix up. We heard nothing about the concerns that needed to be addressed. The previous Government was so focused on trying to win an election that this country became tired; it had had enough. There were no new ideas and as a consequence the people spoke. Labour was raiding workers’ piggy banks in the weeks leading up to the election. It sneakily brought forward the family tax adjustment just weeks before the country went to the vote. It really amazes me that the former Minister had the gall to then go and give those people their own money back. 
This Government today is raising the minimum wage to $12.50. I am thrilled for those people who need it most and that even in these tough times this Government has seen the need for something and is raising the wage. I stand up proudly and say that this Government is helping over 900000 Kiwis get extra payments in their benefits today. Our superannuitants and our veterans will be seeing an increase in payments of at least 3.38 percent on their main superannuation. People on other benefits will be seeing an increase too which could be up to $13 a week; that will make a difference for them. 
In National’s first few weeks in Government it introduced the ReStart scheme and over 1200 people are on ReStart already. We are unfortunately seeing more redundancies and that number will increase but this Government is prepared to step up for those people and be counted. The Job Support Scheme is allowing companies to work with their staff in order to keep people in their jobs while they are experiencing short-term difficulties. We have had over 30 companies contacting us and wanting to be a part of that scheme and we are in discussion with them. 
So what did Labour do to help those most vulnerable people they keep spouting on about? Actually its track record is not so good. It did a lot of banning of stuff. Do members remember the Government banning showerheads and saying what kind of showerhead people could have? It banned some light bulbs and tried to make people have the most expensive ones. It decided what children could eat or not eat in schools and it made a whole lot of other rules. I loved the thing about parents becoming caregivers and guardians—we had a lot of that sort of language. Beneficiaries were turned into clients and that is what the focus was on. Members will be pleased to know that I am discovering a lot of impact seminars—whatever they are. I constantly read in reports from the previous Government about collaboration fatigue and I have come across some truly astonishing pieces of research. There was a lot of navel-gazing and a lot of hand-wringing but what we did not see was actual action for the people who needed it most. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As Annette King said today is a truly defining moment in this Parliament. Just before I continue with my speech I point out that the previous speaker Paula Bennett asked what we did for people. When we left office we gave New Zealanders 3.4 percent unemployment. We left office with a legacy—[ 
Interruption 
]—and those members do not like it—of 365000 jobs created. I think this is a defining moment. In my electorate of Waimakariri 72 percent of the families and folks on a median income of $24000 a year get nothing. I can remember the candidate who stood against me and others. Do members remember the slogan of the National Party? I agree that the people voted for the party; at that time they accepted the slogan “You can be ambitious for New Zealand”. I think the slogan to the people of New Zealand was: “You can have fairness in New Zealand. If you want it choose it”. And the people did. I think John Key’s tag line was “Just choose it”. Well people thought they were choosing that. They were told there would be fairness and they were told there would be equity. They were told they would get one hell of a tax cut. Again as Annette King said we are not opposed to tax cuts. National members will whinge and whine and say it took us 9 years— 
Colin King 
: It took you 9 years. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well there they go. There is the parrot at the back of the Chamber. We had a few other priorities like 365000 jobs and paying off the debt of the legacy we got. 
So what did the people actually choose? They thought they were choosing fairness and they thought they were being to quote Mr Key ambitious for New Zealand. Now 72 percent of my electorate in Waimakariri are scratching their heads tonight. When they get their pay packets they will be asking how ambitious it is that Mr Key gets $124 a week in his pay packet and then some. The member who stood against me Ms Wilkinson smirks. In fact I think I was called a liar on the campaign trail when I said the National Party would get up to its old tricks. Maybe we did not do as well as we should have but we did try to tell people warn people and convince people that the National Party would do what it has done for 100 years—or however long it has been here—and that is that it would provide the wealthiest like Mr Key with 124 bucks or the substantial 30-odd percent of the tax cuts and that those earning under $40000 a year would get nothing. I was called a liar by that member on the campaign trail was I not? Oh yes. Ms Wilkinson said that would not happen. 
Well now today of course we have a cathartic moment in Parliament because the divide has moved back the clock has been turned back and I say to colleagues that this is of course a traditional— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Is this a leadership bid? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Is that the best Ms Wilkinson can do?Why does that member not get on her feet and justify what she said before the election? Why does she not get on her feet and justify what she told people in my electorate—that there would be fairness and that they would all get a slice of the National tax cut? That is what that member said. That is what every one of her colleagues over there said. I look forward to her and her little mates who write letters to the editor—and I have the quotes from them—getting up and trying to defend the fact that she said to every constituent in my electorate that there would be fairness. Today 72 percent of my electorate of Waimakariri and 71 percent of New Zealanders in this country with families will get nothing. 
I ask the National members as they crow about what the Labour Government did or what our policy was how these tax cuts are fair. I can remember being in Government and hearing speeches where Ms Bennett said National members did not want the Government talking about what they did. We asked National members for a policy and they refused to give one. I just ask National members—because this is a defining moment—what they will say to their constituents when they open their pay packets in the next couple of weeks and find that 71 percent of them get nothing. How is that ambitious for New Zealand? Well it is ambitious for some people. It is ambitious for those earning in the top 3 percent because they get one-third of it. That is very ambitious; that is fantastic ambition! 
It is not ambitious if people are struggling out there in the recession and 1000 jobs are being lost every week—and no one celebrates that. Maybe those members over there celebrate that but we do not. How will they explain to those people who have lost their jobs that they get nothing? How do they explain to the family earning under $40000 a year that they get nothing? They believed the National Party. Maybe we should have had a stronger—well I do not know what we should have done. But people believed the National Party members when they talked about ambition when they talked about fairness and when they talked about equity. Nick Smith interjected on one of our people during question time and parroted “Politics of envy.” Is it envy to say that if I was on a salary of $40000 I would want a fair shake because that was what I was promised by National? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the member Clayton Cosgrove. It is clearly a sign of a frustrated politician when the bulk of a member’s speech consists of harking back to the salad days of the previous Government. There is a sense of political impotence about a member who whines about what the people of New Zealand have constructively voted for and are now getting. But the one point I did agree with him on is that today is a defining moment. Today 1.5 million New Zealanders are getting a tax cut and $1 billion is being injected into the New Zealand economy. That is what this country voted for at the last election. There was a debate; Labour lost it. People voted for what they are getting today. I think there will be widespread celebration throughout the country at what this Government is delivering. This Government delivers on its promises. 
The Opposition is really caught in a lose-lose situation because whatever happens is bad for Labour. We see that Helen Clark is leaving Parliament—she has had a wonderful career; it was a great achievement to get this UN job—and Labour is weaker. Phil Goff is staying in Parliament and Labour is weaker with Phil Goff at 3.8 percent in a poll for preferred Prime Minister. So whatever happens Labour cannot win. It is lose-lose for Labour when one looks at what will happen in the Mt Albert electorate as a result of the by-election. If Labour wins the seat—it has been a safe Labour seat—Judith Tizard will come in. But if Labour loses the seat it is a disaster. It needs to win the seat by a crushing majority or it will look bad for Labour in Mt Albert. It is a lose-lose situation. 
This is similar to the tax situation that we have heard about today. All Labour can do is criticise the situation. It has nothing to put up in response. The fact is that the people of New Zealand voted for the pragmatic popular policies of John Key. He is a Prime Minister with the vision and the leadership that appeals to people across party lines. Labour is not able to get any traction in response. Whatever policy promises National delivers on—for example with broadband or moving services to the front line—it is pretty hard for Labour to do anything but try to deflect the debate. Labour members try to do this by having minor discussions about what happened in a select committee and discussions about what trips people went on and these guys do this because substantially they have lost the debate. There is a lot of discontent in that camp over there—Labour members do not know where to turn next. 
One of the funniest things on television over the last adjournment was watching the Labour caucus go down to the West Coast to ask where it went wrong. If ever there was a lose-lose situation it was that one. If Labour does not go to the West Coast then it is accused of not fronting up but when it does go the West Coasters actually get to meet the Labour caucus and are reminded why they did not want these people in Government in the first place. Labour members are in a very very difficult situation. Throughout the country there are many seats like the West Coast seat and the more often Labour members are sent there the less likely it is that Labour will be able to take those seats back. 
I agree with the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that today is a watershed day. But it is a day on which New Zealanders will actually receive the fruits of the choice they made last November. They will see the promises being delivered on. Whether it is about promises on health tax or education these guys have lost the debate. They got a thrashing at the polls and they are getting a thrashing now in the opinion polls. It is all downhill for Labour and I cannot see it coming back anytime soon because New Zealand now has a popular Prime Minister who delivers on his promises. He is a man who is pragmatic and who is moving away from that political prism through which Labour delivered whatever it tried to deliver over its 9 years in power. There is an electorate that will go for John Key’s type of leadership an electorate to whom it appeals and frankly an electorate that will back this Prime Minister for a long long time to come. When the Prime Minister says he is going to do something he actually does it; it is delivered on. 
It is a great day for New Zealanders today. Today 1.5 million New Zealanders will be getting a tax cut and 630000 single people without children who have never had anything in 9 years from a Labour Government will get an extra 520 bucks a year in their pay packets. I was talking to an ex - Labour supporter on Saturday night. He said: “Look I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Labour at the last election because for 9 years as a single person without children I never got anything.” That is the problem Labour is facing: it has never delivered on its promises; it was never up to it. Labour has lost; we are delivering. The electorate is happy. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I wonder—and this is a test for members—what country Robert Reich a former US Secretary of Labor under President Clinton was referring to on 2 March when he said that a budget would “represent the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than 40 years. … We can basically say goodbye to the philosophy espoused by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.” Was he referring to England? Potentially. Australia? He could have been. Most countries in the Western World? Probably. It could be nearly every country except New Zealand because the economic philosophy of the National Government is rooted in the discredited theories of last century. 
It is no coincidence that the current National Minister of Finance is the same Minister of Finance who got it so wrong the last time there was a mini-recession in New Zealand—last century. He is still getting it wrong—yes he is. These tax cuts are simply a nasty farce. Here we are in times of economic hardship when by the National Government’s own admission unemployment will double—if we are lucky. Yet these tax cuts deliver 30 percent by value to the top 3 percent of taxpayers. Is that fair? Seventy percent of all New Zealand taxpayers will miss out on a tax cut. Is that fair? Seventy percent of New Zealanders who have children will get nothing. Is that fair? Not at all! The Prime Minister—National’s wonderful Prime Minister—will get an extra $120 a week in his pay packet yet those from McGehan Close will end up with nothing. Is that fair? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
STUART NASH 
: No it is not. This supply-side economic philosophy as practised by Mr English’s National Government was discredited last century. No longer do the majority of economists central bankers or finance Ministers believe that paying the wealthy more stimulates the economy; the less fortunate have no money to spend on increased goods and services because they are concentrating on trying to make ends meet in places like Rotorua. The tax cuts introduced today are not stimulatory because in times of recession the wealthy tend to either retire debt or save; they do not go out and spend money. The trickle-down theory simply does not work. 
Mr Obama—with whom the tweeter Key compares himself—the Labour Party and the vast majority of Governments around the world now know what Mr Key and Mr English do not know: Keynesian economic theory is now recognised as the only philosophy that can mitigate the risks of this growing recession for global citizens in which group New Zealanders are included. This philosophy of social democratic Governments around the world is about delivering tax cuts to those who need them as per that quote by Robert Reich. By creating demand through the provision of money into the pockets— 
Colin King 
: What about people keeping more of what they earn instead of taking it out of the provinces? 
STUART NASH 
: Who did Economics 101? Did Colin King ever do Economics 101? He should go back and read his text books and should go and talk to his constituents about what they think when they find out that 70 percent of them who have children will get nothing. Equity does not just signify shareholding in a company; equity is about delivering services in a fair and just manner to all those who require them. I tell Colin King to go and talk to his electorate and see what it has to say. 
Not only have Mr Key and Mr English robbed—I say “robbed”—70 percent of New Zealanders of their fully deserved tax cuts but they have also robbed this country and its citizens of an optimal future by slashing the provisions of KiwiSaver. It is unbelievable. Employers who were going to contribute a maximum of 4 percent of an employee’s salary to top up their KiwiSaver accounts will now have to pay only 2 percent of that employee’s salary. That means that any KiwiSaver participants who are earning under $50000 will have to top up their accounts voluntarily in order to receive the maximum Government contribution. Shame! Once again the ordinary Kiwi battler who works hard to put food on the table has been screwed. Parents will have to say: “Sorry son there are no rugby boots this year because there are no tax cuts there is no increase in my KiwiSaver contribution and there is no food in the cupboard.” 
I say to the mothers and fathers of New Zealand that they will have to wait only 2½ long years before they get a chance to change this Government. Let me ask the people of New Zealand again: 70 percent of all New Zealand taxpayers will miss out on a tax cut; is that fair? 
Hon Members 
: No! 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 E te Mana Whakawa i runga i nga tikanga o nga tipuna kua mihi tenei Whare ki te rangatira a Helen Clark i tenei ahiahi. E tautoko ana ahau nga mihi mai i te Pirimia a John Key huri noa i te Whare ki a Helen. Na reira e tika ana e tu ana ahau ki te mihi ki a ia hoki. 
It is appropriate in our customs to support the greetings that have been given this afternoon to the former Prime Minister Helen Clark on achieving this magnificent position at the United Nations Development Programme so I support the words of our Prime Minister the Hon John Key and all of those who have spoken this afternoon. It is appropriate in our tikanga that we greet the kaupapa of the ra and then we talk of those that have gone before. 
Well what has gone before? We had 9 years of the best of economic times before we got a tax cut. We had 9 years of the best of economic times yet we saw squandered opportunities. We had 9 years of turning up to hui before we got any actual Treaty settlements. We had 9 years of turning independent people into people dependent on the Government. We had 9 years of changing our vocabulary for the traditional relationships which we understood to “caregivers” and “facilitators” as my colleague said earlier this afternoon. We had 9 years of ideology rather than real investment in sustainable change. We had 9 years of a Government that thought it knew better for New Zealanders than New Zealanders themselves. That is why it is a shock to have a Government that actually respects that people can make up their own minds about the quality of life they want and respects that they have the ability to make choices and to be accountable for those choices. This Government believes in New Zealanders and it believes in their right and opportunity to make choices for themselves. 
Now we turn to the present. There has not been much different from the Opposition members today. They have focused on jeering and gossip while we are about jobs and growth. We want to focus on real and sustainable change. It seems to have escaped the Opposition members’ notice that we are part of a global recession. This Government understands that we have to soften the edges for New Zealanders who are experiencing tough times. We are a Government that understands that there is no single response to the multiple challenges that face us. [ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps if Opposition members took the opportunity to actually listen for a change I would finish a thought and then we might get an intelligent response. Let me continue. We are part of a global recession. There is no single response to this and that is why members see laid out before them by this National-led Government a comprehensive approach. Understanding that tax cuts are part of that approach we have not waited 9 years; we have understood that we have to stimulate the economy and that we have to take an approach that says that we need tax cuts.  
Sue Moroney 
: For the rich! 
Hon Member 
: They get to keep more of what they earn. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: They get to keep more of what they earn—thank you. 
We understand that what motivates people is how they personally experience what is happening to them. We understand that people who do not have children nevertheless want to benefit from our economy. That is why this Government has introduced the independent earner tax rebate. Those people therefore—630000 of them—will enjoy that opportunity. There are 1.5 million people who will get the benefit of our progressive tax system and its cuts—another conceptual methodology that the Opposition members seem incapable of understanding. We have a progressive tax system and therefore it progressively affects people in different ways. We propose a comprehensive approach. New Zealand is a diverse community that responds to different incentives. We understand that we need to take a short medium and long-term approach. We keep our word. 
In the short tem in our first 100 days we delivered absolutely everything that we said we would. We are now focused on the medium term: our jobs and growth plan. We have cut personal taxes. Speaking as a former small-business owner I say that we have focused on how we encourage motivate and incentivise the real earners of New Zealand to stay in business to keep their employees to continue backing themselves and to invest in their small businesses. We understand that the compliance regime that they have laboured under makes it too difficult for them so we have moved to ensure that they get greater opportunity. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. It gives me great pleasure to follow Hekia Parata and the great speech that she has just presented to the House. I do not want to talk about tax cuts and those things important though they are. I am far more interested in investing in our young people and I will talk about young people. 
The former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan once said: “No one is born a good citizen; no nation is born a democracy. Rather both are processes that continue to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from birth. A society that cuts off from its youth severs its lifeline.” We can help our young people evolve into future leaders exemplary citizens and devoted parents—the shapers and thinkers of tomorrow. We must as a moral obligation to the future generations invest well in youth potential and create the positive opportunities that will encourage them to demonstrate leadership as a matter of course. 
I recently shared in the celebrations of a youth centre in Wellington called Evolve. It is a one-stop health shop employing doctors and nurses—great people doing a great job. The youth support worker for that organisation Josh Briggs had just been honoured with a World of Difference award and the difference that he and Evolve have made to the lives of the young people they work with was absolutely evidenced. They had created an innovative activity space with everything from kick-boxing yoga movie-making dance creative writing and employment skills with art and music therapists and even a Narcotics Anonymous. 
It seems to me that the youth health services—the one-stop shops like Evolve—are exactly the types of programme we need to invest in to nurture the future potential of our young. Another programme I have been really excited by is Nga Kanohi Marae o Wairarapa which the previous Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia will be well aware of. This project is supported by 11 marae in Wairarapa and I am telling the House that to get that level of support from all of the marae in the rohe is pretty significant by itself. Their whole focus is on developing opportunities for the people of Wairarapa by developing marae as centres of potential. 
They started off with a couple of goals in mind. One goal was to teach their rangatahi the trade skills they wanted to learn and the other goal was to upgrade and maintain their marae facilities. The programme therefore allows youth to be taught trade skills while undertaking maintenance and development work on the marae. The programme targets primarily youth of 16 years. It is fee-free and based around the whare tapawha concept of holistic wellness. As well as building construction and allied trade skills there are cultural and life skills such as te reo waiata haka whakapapa tikanga kawa Te Tiriti o Waitangi computer training numeracy and literacy to mention but a few. 
I want to draw attention to these two initiatives because I think they demonstrate the type of investment that will lead our young people onwards to be fully rounded global citizens. I contrast that with a decision that was made just before Christmas to cut an alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre in the Waikato. I received an email from a researcher shortly after that decision and I want to share it with the House: “I have seen met and talked with youth that go through the services of Rongo Atea. Our youth have the right to have access to support that will understand their world view and empower them to move forward. There are three things that I wish for my children and all of our children: Health Happiness and a world to live in that accepts them as the precious taonga that they are.” 
Rongo Atea provided specialised mental health services for youth children and their families within the context of comprehensive community-based mental health services. The community that Rongo Atea served was absolutely aghast when the decision was made that Rongo Atea alongside six other community-based child youth and adolescent services—which included Parentline—within Hamilton City would be cut; that the community that was in effect supporting their young people was being turned away. 
I return to the thought that a community that cuts off its youth severs its lifeline. We spend so much time in this House talking about how to get tough and how to exert control and discipline over our young. Why not do something new? We must be positive. We must actually give opportunities and we must invest in the potential of youth. It is a challenge that I am willing to live up to. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 There is no doubt that like the All Black team and the New Zealand Maori team this finely tuned National Party team has hit the ground running. Like all high performance teams there are many aspects to our winning ways. Before each game we take time to examine the opposition we are going to play. We carefully analyse their performance—we look for areas of strength and we look for areas of weakness. We plan to nullify their strengths and we prepare to attack their weaknesses in order to score the winning runs. 
The starting point for any analysis of course is the leadership team. Let us look at “Captain Goff”. The problem with the captain is that not only do we know he is on shaky ground but also unfortunately Opposition members know that he is on shaky ground. How can a team have confidence if the captain is not an automatic selection in the team? To have confidence one must know that the captain will always be an automatic selection. But this is not the case. He is always looking over his shoulder. He will not have any problems from “Vice-Captain Annette” because—now what is that saying about a sinking ship? Is it something about rats and mice? No it is: “Women and children first.”—that is right. Of course she will be diving off to prepare for her Wellington mayoral campaign; she will be out of here at a rate of knots. 
The other key member of the leadership team is “Coach Cullen”. Let us look at “Coach Cullen”. The critical job of a coach is to get the team ready to get it to a level of preparedness so that when it goes into battle it can go into the game with confidence. The problem we believe is that “Coach Cullen” is probably the Opposition’s weakest link. The reason is that he has not analysed the real issues confronting the team. Members will recall that during the adjournment debate “Coach Cullen” expressed the view that the reason Labour lost the election was the “underwear principle”. Do members recall the “underwear principle”? Until “Coach Cullen” realises that New Zealand decided that the stench of 9 years of unchanged nappies was too much and just got rid of them and until he plans to address that issue Labour has no chance. 
I now turn to my dear friend and colleague Parekura Horomia. He is the cornerstone of the scrum; the Carl Hayman of the Opposition; the man mountain of the front bench. The trouble is that he bleeds a lot and takes regular trips to the blood bin. We think that our tactic of a fast-paced game will run him out of breath. The advantage for our team is that as he makes regular trips to the blood bin to take in oxygen and to recover Labour will be in serious trouble as it will have to send on “Old Moper” and “Clodhopper” from the reserve bench as replacements. Both Mr Mallard and Mr Cosgrove are easily niggled. The difficulty for them is that they regularly spend time getting yellow cards—they have a real problem. In fact we have come to the conclusion that there is a glaring weakness in their front row. Old Charles Chauvel is thrown in as hooker and Grant Robertson at loose-head prop and they are backed up by Pete Hodgson and Chris Carter at lock. What a front five! I actually feel sorry for the front row. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.