Cosgrove Clayton: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21289] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As my colleague Harry Duynhoven said the previous speaker for the benefit of those who did not know this was one David Carter the former failed finance spokesperson who was sacked by his leader sacked off the front bench twice— 
Darren Hughes 
: Twice? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Twice. And now in theory David Carter is National’s spokesperson on agriculture and the leader of the C-team within the National Party. I first want to address a couple of points that Mr Carter made. He talked about the accident and emergency department at Wellington Hospital bursting at the seams. Well there is a reason for that I tell him as he scuttles off like a paddle crab. There are not enough beds in the emergency department because the department is not big enough. We can ask why that is. I am not a medical practitioner but I assume that when an emergency department is being planned one projects out on a population basis and finds out what the demands will be over the life of that building over the next 10 or 20 years. But when the planning approval was given for that building in 1999 by the previous National Government of course it did not make provision for enough beds in the department nor for enough room in that department to put in those beds. That is why sadly the accident and emergency department at Wellington Hospital as the member read from the headline in the  
Dominion Post 
 is bursting at the seams. National could not run a bath let alone set up the planning and project it forward for an appropriate medical facility for the people of Wellington. That is the truth. 
Then we come to the issue of leaky buildings. My colleague Mr Duynhoven reminded me that before I arrived in this place the warnings were there. One can just ask any builder in my electorate. I talked with one last week. He said the warnings on the leaky homes issue were around for 10 years before 1999. There were warnings about the Rockcote the polystyrene the lack of gaps and the lack of ventilation all causing leaks in houses. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Why did George Hawkins refuse to acknowledge that? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The previous speaker got up but before Mr Catchpole or “Tadpole” or whatever his name is was in this place— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Please withdraw that comment. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Before that member was in the House so he should zip up and listen for 10 years before 1999 the building industry was warning Nick Smith and the then Government about leaky homes. The question I have for Mr Carter as he embarks on his road to Damascus - like experience is what the devil did he do or Nick Smith as Minister do in 10 years to correct that problem? They did nothing. 
In addressing the appropriations I want to touch on Mr Hide’s speech just briefly. I know that the Minister of Health has commented on it. But what a sad speech it was from a very very sour member. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Wang needs to read the Standing Orders. This is a wide debate. What a sour speech that speech from Rodney Hide was. That was Custer’s Last Stand—or maybe from “Old Yeller” it was “Custard’s” last stand—because the great delight I will have at the next election when I stand up on the stump—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Tisch should stump up and give us a policy. When I stand up on the stump I will debate our policy of providing $83 a week for Sue and Nick who have a couple of kids and earn $32000 a year—which would take a 9c in the dollar tax rate if one was to do so under a slash-and-burn policy like National’s. 
The one thing I will take great delight in after we do win this election is that that crew over there which includes Mr Wang and the so-called leader of the ACT party will not be here. That cancer in political terms will be excised and cut out of this place—and I say that not in a disrespectful way. That wound will be excised from this Parliament. Gone will be the days of wading through the political sewer and bringing this Parliament and its members into disrepute. I say to Mr Hide that he should remember when he is outside this place as a citizen in the free world there will be 120 of us who will be inside and then we may see that member and a few of his mates called to account. I look forward to that day. “Old Yeller” will be right outside this place and we will hold him to account. 
I want to go back; I have digressed. This debate on the appropriations goes like this: National members want a tax cut that by their own figures if one dumps in excise cuts cuts to company tax cuts to personal tax—you name it—will add up to in effect $5.5 billion which is half the Health vote. They say when asked how they will get the dough that they will cut out all the so-called waste in the Government. If we look at the figures when National was in office we see Government expenditure was 33 percent of GDP. What is it now with that so-called waste? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: 30! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thirty percent my colleague says. What is it forecast to be once the Working for Families package is fully implemented? 
Darren Hughes 
: 32! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thirty-two percent—1 percent lower than when the National has-beens were in Government. I ask those members how they would do that because $5.5 billion is half the Health vote. That is not cutting waste out of the Health vote; that is gutting health. There will be no health system if $5.5 billion is cut out. The question is: which hospitals would they close? I say Mr Tisch should stump up with a policy. Which hospitals and which pre-schools in my electorate would he close? Would National do what it threatened to do in my electorate before I became the member in 1999 which was to gut and close Rangiora Hospital and Oxford Hospital—are the National members going to run that up the flagpole? By God I will enjoy defending those hospitals. I will be in the trenches defending them if ever after the election National managed to implement that particular policy. 
I was on CTV with Gerry Brownlee—there was not much room on the screen I have to say. I asked him where he would get the money for tax cuts from and he could not answer that. He said to me in the advertisement break that it was a bit like treading water—that until National announces its policy it has to keep treading. National members have bleated on and some may sink like deadweights. I say to them that they should get the tax policy out. If they are so proud of it they should do two things: first announce it today; and second put it before the Finance and Expenditure Committee system that even National signed up to unanimously whereby Treasury would gain a consultant—which it has done—who could cost all the political parties’ tax policies. Even the ACT party dipped into that one and submitted its policy—Mr Prebble must have been in charge that day. The Green Party submitted its policy. United Future submitted its policy. Labour’s policy is out there. It has been picked over trodden on booted around and chewed around for years. Which party did not submit the tax policy that it is so proud of? That crew—the National Party. We have done one costing and now there is a second round. Treasury does not get involved in politics. It has hired a reputable economic consultancy firm. But why will National not have its policy costed? 
I predict that National will announce its tax policy but that in no way will National go anywhere near anybody who would independently cost that policy. National will not go near anyone to have that done because it knows the hidden traps that are in its policy. The hidden traps are that every member of Parliament including Mr Wang over there on the Opposition benches will get a couple of hundred bucks a week I predict out of a Don Brash tax policy. Mr Wang and a few others talked about hard-working Kiwis. Well what would they know about hard-working Kiwis? What would every battler on $32000 or $37000 a year get from the so-called tax cut? Nothing. What would Nick and Sue in Oxford in my electorate get? Members should hunt them down and talk to them because they are now receiving $82 a week as of this year but under a National Party tax cut they would get nothing. If I am on $55000 a year what would I get from a National Party tax cut? I may get $5 a week. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear an interjection from over there in the Opposition. Mr Hide says our policy would only buy a stick of gum. I suppose $5 would buy a triple meat burger for Rodney Hide. But a family of four kids and two parents earning $55000 under our Working for Families system today and given their rent and other costs gets $150 a week. I said before that it would require a drop to a 9c in the dollar tax rate to give a family on $55000 a year the equivalent of $150 a week—and I assume that at that point so little tax would be coming in that it would be a case of “the last one out switches the light off.” 
That is where the debate will lie for those working people. After this appropriations debate at the appropriate time that is what we will go out and debate at the election. Then we will match Labour’s record with National’s record. The only record National can stand on is what it did last time it was in Government in respect of the pension. I ask where National would make the cuts—in health in hospitals or in the police? Where would it do that? The people want to know and National should be honest enough to stump up and give them a tax policy.