Parker David: Address in Reply 
Parker David: Address in Reply 
[Volume:628;Page:358] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Who’s this guy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The speaker is actually David Parker if Mr Brownlee does not know me. 
First of all I would like to pay my respects and welcome new members on all sides to the House. I hope that it is a rewarding experience for them and that they go about their duties wisely. It is certainly a privilege to be here. I congratulate the Speaker Margaret Wilson on her reappointment. I congratulate Clem Simich on his elevation to the role of Deputy Speaker which I am sure he will fulfil very well and also H V Ross Robertson and Ann Hartley on their appointments as Assistant Speakers. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When are the lights going out? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Probably when that member speaks next. When Mr Muldoon left power in the mid-1980s New Zealand’s economy was in tatters. Government debt totalled 70 percent of GDP and one dollar in five of tax collected was spent on interest. Indeed had it not been for the substantial restructuring of the Labour Government the following year it is predicted that the amount would have ballooned in short order to one dollar in four. So when Mr Muldoon left this economy in tatters it was up to the Labour Government’s wise fiscal and economic policies to pull us out of the mire—and they have. This Government has reduced Government debt substantially to under 25 percent of GDP and now instead of one dollar in five of all tax revenue being spent on interest it is one dollar in 20. 
 Against that background I was very surprised that for the first time since Mr Muldoon left this economy in tatters a major New Zealand political party was promising unaffordable tax cuts that would have required on its own figures the Government to increase Government debt— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that I am not able to hear the member on my right and I will not allow that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I trust that that will not come out of my time. A major political party was promising such extreme unaffordable tax cuts that it would have meant even on National’s own numbers that Government debt would have increased by billions of dollars and perhaps more important as a proportion of GDP. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have cut us off from interjecting on this member. I understand that he is new and needs protection but I do feel— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should come to the point then. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The point I make is that although it is appropriate in a debate to introduce debating material and therefore to have considerable interjection when that material becomes a little bit difficult for people to take I suggest that this member might help himself if he read the Treasury briefing papers that completely refute everything he has been saying for the last 3 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I make the point that the Speaker will not allow a member to be drowned out. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In dealing with that not-a-point of order we just heard Mr Brownlee’s denial of the truth that National’s unaffordable tax cuts would increase Government debt by billions of dollars. For his information I will quote from an interview between Mr Key and Alistair Thompson on 24 August: “On the numbers we put out last week we would borrow $3.3 billion more.” That would be over the first 3-year term. So I tell Mr Brownlee to go and check his numbers; he cannot even add up billions. 
In any event it does not hurt to pause and remind ourselves that we are one of the most privileged nations on earth. On virtually every OECD measurement New Zealand is near the top. Be it for the quality of our health services the educational attainment of our school leavers the longevity of our people the cleanliness of our environment the sustainability of our superannuation arrangements our high growth rate or our low unemployment rate we rank at just about the top of the developed world. Many people from other parts of the developed world look to us as an example—as a country with low and dropping crime rates and with moderate rates of taxation which is a topic I will return to. 
That does not mean we should be complacent but it does mean we should consider whether radical change is necessary. Members should make no mistake: what National was proposing at the last election was radical change. Whether through unaffordable tax cuts or a foreign policy blindly aligned with the United States’ on issues like Iraq or nuclear matters Dr Brash’s agenda was to move New Zealand radically to the right for the benefit of a few at the cost of the many. 
But what did voters want? Voters asked themselves that question. Did they want tolerance or intolerance? How did those voters—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would like members to look at Speakers’ ruling 57/3. I think it might help the debate to progress in an orderly manner. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are going to bring out Speakers’ rulings then you will also understand that when a member poses a question in his or her speech that is so patently stupid there can only be an expectation that it will be refuted. This is the Minister who will preside over the lights going out in this country and over industries probably having to close because he has his mind closed to the problems of his own ministry yet he asks these dopey questions about whether the country would have been better off with a National Government. Everyone knows that it would have been. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speakers’ ruling 45/7 relates to the matter of asking questions of members on the other side of the House who do not have the floor. So I just caution the member about the way he addresses the House. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the member is making allegations that are completely and blatantly wrong and misleading you must expect that our members will want to bring a fair perspective to the truth and reality. That can be achieved only by interjections and if you stifle interjections from this side then it becomes blatantly unfair. If the member wants to bring some accuracy fairness and equity to the debate then he wants to stick to the facts as opposed to making up things that become debatable issues. So I ask that you instruct the new member over there to get his facts right otherwise there will be interjections from this side. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again refer members to Speakers’ ruling 57/3: “Interjections … are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable;” relevant and restrained. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you might want to check with the Minister about whether he actually does want to be heard in silence because as you will be aware he is not giving interviews on any of his portfolios. He does not want to be heard at all by the media and if he does not want to be heard by the media I would be surprised at his wanting to be heard by the Opposition. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order and the member knows it; he has been here long enough. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be a fresh point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It will be very helpful to the House. I think that the National Opposition should hear this man in absolute silence because we want the nation to hear what an incompetent he really is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member will be seated. The member has a senior position; he knows better. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Speaker I take it that this is not coming off my allocation of time? There has been more time spent on points of order—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It has not been taken off your time. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: National does not like it but voters did have a choice. Did they want tolerance or intolerance? Many voters felt threatened by the foreshore and seabed legislation. Labour steered a course that preserved everyone’s right of access across the foreshore and seabed and we avoided violent protest—some would say just. 
Given that recent controversy I would not have pushed race relations hard yet National proposed to. That did not seem prudent to me. Dr Brash was willing to risk race relations by unilaterally abolishing the Maori seats which have existed for over 100 years. What motivated that? Was it because Maori did not fit Dr Brash’s view of mainstream New Zealanders? Let us think about that. What did he mean by mainstream New Zealanders? Were they low-paid or middle-class workers? No no. Were they widows relying on the domestic purposes benefit? I doubt it. Were they superannuitants just getting by on superannuation? I doubt that too—the rich or the poor the tolerant or the intolerant? 
I think we can judge from the links between Dr Brash the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren—those links that Dr Brash was forced to admit he had told inconsistent things about and was forced to apologise for. What was he hiding? What was he ashamed of? 
Of course the Exclusive Brethren is not a moderate church group. It has been fairly described in one of New Zealand’s leading newspapers as the Taliban of New Zealand’s religious sects. It is true. Its rules state that its members have to marry within the sect that they must not watch television and that women are not permitted to work outside the home. Its members are not allowed to go to university and they are not allowed even to read novels. That the National Party’s agenda suited the Exclusive Brethren rightly worried voters as much as it worried me. 
Against that background we really have to wonder how desperate National members were to try to buy their way on to the Treasury benches with unaffordable tax cut promises. They admitted that their tax cuts would cost $7 billion more than Labour’s would. In fact Mr Key in the interview I quoted from before said the National Party admitted that on its numbers it would be forced to borrow $3.3 billion more over the first 3 years. What did the commentators say? Economist Brian Easton stated: “Labour’s tax cuts are not only smaller but they are probably within the acceptable fiscal parameters … But if Labour’s cuts hover just out of the imprudence range National’s are much larger. They admit they are going to have to borrow to finance them. … The fact of the matter is that National’s tax cuts will raise its borrowing faster than GDP growth.” It was not me or the Labour Party saying that—it was an independent economist. 
The excuse National used is that it would borrow for capital expenditure. What a nonsense! Every Government has capital expenditure every year—for new hospitals new classrooms new hospital equipment and new roads. The fact of the matter is that National’s budget did not balance and that it would have had to borrow more money than would otherwise have been required. 
In contrast Labour’s tax cuts are focused on families. They deliver more than $100— 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is reading from a document written by an independent economist to back up his speech and I was wondering whether he could table the Labour Party pamphlet at the end of his speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already dealt with it. 
Darren Hughes 
: There have been six points of order during this speech: three from Mr Brownlee and one each from Mr Key Mr Tisch and now Mr Heatley as well. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that the Opposition has to borrow to make up those numbers but we know numbers over here. 
The point I am trying to make is that none of the points of order have been proper points of order. They have been deliberately designed to break up my colleague’s speech which is disorderly of itself. I do not know what happened over the dinner break in the National Party caucus but if those members want to show off to one another how about they find a better place to do it than Parliament? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I wonder whether that member can count not only to six but all the way to 328—the very thin majority that he managed to hold last time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am on my feet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He certainly could not count to 5000 or 6000—the number of votes he lost to Nathan Guy in the last election. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. The member has his first yellow card. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Our tax cuts were focused on families with children. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that Mr Brownlee got a yellow card for talking while you were on your feet but while Mr Brownlee was on his feet making a point of order Darren Hughes levelled an entire stream of abuse at Mr Brownlee. I think it is only fair that he receives a yellow card—just as three All Blacks did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. If Mr Hughes did that during a point of order I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Darren Hughes 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you it has been noted. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Our tax package was focused on families with children because the gap— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have looked through the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 and just as a point of clarification I cannot actually find reference to the yellow card in there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The member should know better as he has been in this House before. This is a first warning to Mr Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It is a legitimate point of order that two of my colleagues have apparently been yellow-carded. I respectfully say that nothing in the Standing Orders states that a member can be yellow-carded. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The figure is wrong. There is one and it is only a figure of speech. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Labour’s tax package is focused on families with children because the gap between the well-off and the poor grew markedly during the 1990s. Only the top 20 percent of households went forward—the middle 60 percent stayed where they were and the bottom 20 percent went backwards. In New Zealand which was once known as the land of plenty thousands more families were having to use food banks every week. That is another reason why tax cuts ought to be focused on families with children—as ours are. Despite that history National’s tax cuts would give more to those who are already well off by borrowing billions that could be repaid only by either taxpayers’ children or the tooth fairy.