Woodhouse Michael: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5679. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call but before I do I would just like to remind Damien O’Connor of Speaker’s ruling 135/2—in particular— 
Hon Annette King 
: No that’s the Speaker’s job. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well I am very sure he did it extremely well. In a general debate it is a general custom not to interrupt a speaker particularly with a personal explanation until the end of it and I am sure Mr O’Connor knows that. But it was even more interesting and more insightful to see exactly what he had to say—in fact the half of a story that he wanted to say. He knows and wants to say deep down that he supports Bathurst Resources and he supports its efforts to create hundreds of jobs on the Denniston Plateau. He did not want to say it. I find that a bit sad really. 
I want to go back to what Mr Parker said about the mining policies of Labour and the monetary policies of Labour. He said two things. He said that the Labour Party’s mining policy is very clear and that it has been unequivocal about it for years. Yet he spent 5 minutes confusing us all about what that policy might be. All Mr O’Connor and Mr Parker had to say was “We support Bathurst.”—three little words that say they support new jobs and growth in jobs on the West Coast—but oh no they could not bring themselves to say that. They are probably standing in line with the Greens who want a $67 million subsidy to help out Solid Energy in these difficult times. We had a very clear explanation about why Bathurst can succeed where Solid Energy and Spring Creek Mine would struggle. 
I want to turn now to the second part of Mr Parker’s speech on the Monetary Policy Statement and on the monetary policy that Labour has not actually revealed yet. It has been 2 years since Labour said “No we’re going to unhook ourselves from the monetary policy accord.” We have absolutely no idea what Labour’s policy is. However we do know what Mr Parker thinks about inflation—that he thinks it is not the evil it used to be and that we can perhaps somehow broaden our inflationary parameters. I want to explain that I worked for a bank giving retail loans for mortgages in the 1980s when the rates were 19.5 and 20.5 percent. 
Scott Simpson 
: I had one. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Do you remember those days? Do you know what the exchange rate was then? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Does the member know what the exchange rate was? 
Scott Simpson 
: What was the exchange rate? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I have absolutely no idea and nobody remembers but they do remember what interest rates they were paying and what inflationary pressures created the spiral of higher interest rates higher inflation even higher interest rates and on and on it went. Mr Peters believes that he can intervene in the exchange rate by taking an economic— 
Dr David Clark 
: The world changes—1980s policies of selling assets are no longer the answer. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The member says “1980s policies”. Who was in power in the 1980s? 
Scott Simpson 
: That member wasn’t born. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well he probably was to a National family I understand. How many of the fourth Labour Government’s policies did the Clark Government reverse? 
Scott Simpson 
: All of them? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: None. Not a single one. It disowned the Labour Government of the 1984 to 1990 period but did not reverse a single one of the monetary fiscal and asset sales policies. In fact it continued them by stealth I suggest. 
I want to go back to Mr Peters who says that an economic crapshoot is possible and that all we have to do is invest in the New Zealand dollar. He referred to an example that was done in 2004 or 2005 I think— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: 2007. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —was it 2007—where $497 million was made. What are the chances that $497 million could have been lost? It is about fifty-fifty. It was an economic crapshoot that the Reserve Bank came out on top of and has not repeated because it realised the folly of trying to do that in the face of the major economies that print money. Do you know which economies print money? The United States and Zimbabwe. The United States has a tanking dollar and Zimbabwe has hyperinflation. 
I suggest that any move from the very fair and tight monetary policy framework we have would damage not only our export growth but also jobs. And that is the purpose of Government: to create jobs and growth and to steer the economy through very challenging fiscal times. I think this Government is doing an excellent job. We hear a lot about the losses and there will be losses even in the best of times. There will be changes in manufacturing infrastructure technology and food production but there will always be jobs gained. There are I think 57000 jobs already created in the last couple of years with more to come. I think the Government is very much on track in that regard. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.