Smith Lockwood: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Smith Lockwood: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:629;Page:1177] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I was a little disappointed by that speech from the new Labour member Sue Moroney because the people of New Zealand have just become aware of probably the most serious corruption scandal in an election campaign—certainly for the eight elections that I have been part of. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 25/5 which is to do with allegations of corruption: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way”. That is by notice of motion. But “a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” That was Speaker Statham in 1934. I ask the member to be very careful how he couches his debate. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I would have thought that the party is not part of this Parliament as such. What we are referring to here is a scandalous practice which is seen to be corrupt by the public of New Zealand carried out by a political party. If members of this House are part of that party maybe—and that is what I would have expected from Sue Moroney—they might have tried to explain to this Parliament how they and their party justify taking $440000 of taxpayers’ money that does not belong to their party and spending it on things like this pamphlet that I have here. 
This particular copy arrived in my letterbox at home during the election campaign. It arrived during the last 2 weeks of the election campaign. Members should look at it; it is blatant campaigning. The photo makes one spew does it not? I have been in this Parliament for 21 years with Helen Clark. In fact she was at boarding school in Epsom just down the road from me when I was at Auckland Grammar so I have known her for many years. I must say I had to look at the photo two or three times to be sure it was her. But when one does read that document one can see it is blatant campaigning. I thought Sue Moroney might have given some explanation as to how she justifies taking taxpayers’ money. 
I guess that the good people of Piako had a look at that member and of course they rejected her and voted in my good colleague Lindsay Tisch. It is the same for so many Labour Party members in this Parliament who were booted out by their electorates but are back here on Labour’s scrawny party list. It is no wonder they have no future. I suppose the most scary thing about this scandal is that the Labour Party president Mike Williams said that it was all right that they had done it before. I got the pledge card although I am not sure which particular year it was from; it was one of the ones that Mike Williams claimed was paid for by taxpayers. But how would anyone know? No one on this side of the House ever dreamt that a party would so blatantly plunder the taxpayers’ purse to fund something like this. There is no parliamentary crest on this pledge card to indicate that it might have been paid for. At least this shocking pamphlet has the parliamentary crest on it. That is how we knew that that one was paid for by the taxpayers. But this little pledge card has nothing to indicate that it was paid for by the taxpayer. Mike Williams has the temerity to suggest that this outrageous scandal arising from the last election is all OK because they did it before and no one complained. No decent person certainly not on this side of the House would ever dream of plundering the public purse to pay for that pledge card. 
We should not be surprised that good New Zealanders are fed up to their back teeth with this and are leaving the country in droves. Just look at the figures for the last 3 years. The net immigration figures hide all of this. They camouflage what is actually happening. I have looked at the figures. What are New Zealanders doing? We have New Zealanders who live in New Zealand and New Zealanders who live offshore. Some New Zealanders who live offshore come back to New Zealand each year and each year some New Zealanders leave New Zealand for more than a year to live overseas. The figures from these last 3 years are staggering. In 2003 11200 more New Zealanders left New Zealand to live overseas permanently than the number of New Zealanders who came back to New Zealand after living overseas. There were 11200 in 2003. That figure went up in 2004 to 18000; it went from 11000 to 18000 in 1 year. That is the net difference in the number of New Zealanders who went overseas permanently. Last year that figure leapt to 25000. From 11000 in 2003 in the last 3 years under this disgraceful Labour Government that embezzles public funds the number of New Zealanders who are bailing out has leapt to 25000. That will change the nature of New Zealand society hugely. All those people are being replaced of course. Last year our net immigration position was 7000-plus. So we have replaced those 25000 New Zealanders who went overseas permanently with 32000 new immigrants who came to this country. Many of them are good people. Most of them I am sure are good people. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Just not mainstream aye? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: David Cunliffe may not think these things matter but it will change the nature of our society. Labour of course believes in that. 
Another thing I will talk about today is the advertisement that has been appearing in newspapers in the last few weeks about Working for Families. This package will also change the nature of New Zealand society hugely. It is a real talking point around town these days. People have looked at this ad and come up to me and asked whether it means that a parliamentarian can apply for a benefit under the Working for Families package. It is true. If we look at Labour’s— 
Sue Moroney 
: How many things have you got? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Sue Moroney may not believe this but the figures are in this ad. Let us say that the spouse of one of the members of this Parliament is not working. The parliamentary salary is what $122000 for a back-bencher? If a member had five or more dependent children he or she could apply for a benefit under Labour’s Working for Families package. New Zealand has to be the first country in the developed world I would think where the Government says that parliamentarians can apply for benefits. That is stark staring madness! Since when in the developed world has a Government said that parliamentarians should be able to apply for benefits under their country’s welfare system? It is shocking. But it gets worse. I said that this will change the nature of our society and it will because what this package does to our low-income families matters so much. 
People on lower incomes try to get ahead. People are trying to get off benefits. Let us take a person who is on the domestic purposes benefit. He or she may try to get off the benefit and start working. Let us say for argument’s sake that the person is not skilled and is working for only $10 an hour. The person may have no skills and gets a job paying $10 an hour. After that person has worked for 10 hours he or she will have earned $100 for the week or $5000 for the year. From that point on until that person works 40 hours this Government takes 92c out of every extra dollar he or she earns. Under this great Working for Families package—and I am using the Inland Revenue Department’s own figures—after working 10 hours a week a woman who may be trying to get off the domestic purposes benefit earning only $10 an hour trying to do something for her children so they have a better future will have taken from her by David Cunliffe’s and Sue Moroney’s party 92c in every extra dollar she earns until she works 40 hours a week. For every 10 to 40 hours a week of work the Government will leave her with 8c—actually not quite I tell a lie. It will leave her with 7.8c out of every extra dollar she earns. This Government is destroying the great New Zealand society with dopey policies like that.