Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
Chauvel Charles: General Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9059] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I make a contribution to the debate today by saying how proud I am to be a member of a Government that actually delivers on its promises. Since the election of our Government in 1999 people have known what we stand for. People understand our programme which is based on prosperity openness and fairness. The problem for members opposite is that nobody actually knows what the National Party stands for these days. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It changes every 2 minutes. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That is right; it changes every 2 minutes as Ruth Dyson says. But I am not talking just about National’s policy flip-flops that other speakers have mentioned today in respect of keeping the mechanism of Working for Families supporting 4 weeks’ annual leave keeping New Zealand nuclear-free and now we understand adopting our interest-free student loan policy. It was interesting though to stand on platforms during the election campaign and hear how bad those policies would be for New Zealand from National Party members. It was depressing to sit there listening to a litany of new-right thinking during those election campaign meetings. 
We were told that Working for Families would be middle-class welfare and that it would be a terrible thing that would sap people’s sense of self-reliance—never mind that it has been done in the UK and that John Howard’s Government is doing exactly the same thing in Australia; the same mechanism is being adopted in comparable liberal and social democracies. National candidates were telling us during the election campaign that it was a terrible thing just as 4 weeks’ annual leave would bankrupt all the employers around the country and be a terrible thing for the economy that would bring New Zealand down. Well now National is adopting that policy as well. National members said that maintaining a nuclear-free New Zealand would freeze relationships with the United States forever that it would be a terrible set-back for our foreign policy and that we would never recover from it. But now that policy has been adopted by National. Of course National members said that the interest-free student loan policy would bankrupt Treasury and that it was simply vote-buying by Labour—intergenerational theft was one expression that was used at a meeting I was present at. 
Well in a way I am glad that these policies are now being adopted by the National Party because they are good policies for New Zealand. 
The student loan policy the latest one to be adopted by National is a good way to bring young Kiwis back to New Zealand after they have done their OEs. That policy has cost less than it was budgeted for as opposed to the wild predictions that were made about its cost. It has actually been a very sensible policy and I congratulate National on adopting it—and I do so in respect of those other progressive policies that are good for New Zealand. 
But there is a problem for the National Party if it is trying to shrug off its image as the nasty party. As I said at the outset no one actually knows what the National Party stands for. It was interesting to hear Bill English talk about taking a tough line on spending. He is doing that while other members are promising to spend up large because it is what they think people in their electorates want to hear. 
I was also interested to hear Tim Groser talk about John Key’s 10 points for the future direction of the National Party. We heard only four of them but it is instructive to look at them. First there was the ongoing commitment to tax reform and not opening the cheque book. But at the same time principle No. 3 is all about a commitment to sensible spending. I want to know how one reconciles those two policies. What about policy No. 2—a sustained commitment to infrastructure? Well one can either spend or cut taxes; it is very difficult to do both. This is what the electorate found out about National’s policies at the last election. If this dichotomy continues it is what people will continue to say about the National Party in the present. 
It was interesting also to hear Mr Groser talk about a sustained commitment to what he called rolling back regulatory creep. He mentioned the Resource Management Act conveniently forgetting that a National Government enacted that legislation—but never mind that is clearly an inconvenient fact of history. He neglected to remind the House that New Zealand is the fourth-easiest place in the world according to a latest survey in which to do business—not just to start a business but to do business. 
I spent 2 years working in Australia. I remember having to advise New Zealand companies wanting to start up over there about the over 160 taxes they would have to learn to be compliant with at state federal and local level. There is nothing like that level of compliance requirement here and people should be very careful when they compare the two regimes and jurisdictions about idolizing Australia. That is simply not right we have a lot going for ourselves here and we should remind ourselves of that.