Dyson Ruth: Address in Reply 
Dyson Ruth: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1214] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Last November New Zealanders voted for a change of Government. The National Party was elected to lead the Government and I want to acknowledge our democracy and congratulate National on having that privilege for another 2 years 8 months and 3 days. The public of New Zealand have quite high expectations and had anyone stayed awake for the 10 minutes that has just been used up by the member who fortunately has just resumed her seat he or she would be very very despondent. We did not hear anything about a plan. We did not hear anything about a solution to address the problems that not only New Zealand but every nation in the world is facing. All we heard was the fierce competition that is now going on between members of the National Party caucus to see how many times John Key can have his name mentioned in a 10-minute speech. 
I give the award for this evening to the person who used to be the star of a radio show—the older members of the House not young Nathan Guy will remember this—that used to end with “Tune in next week for a further episode in this great drama of human conflict.”: Dr Paul. Probably no member of Parliament is actually less likely to give us any drama or human conflict than Dr Paul Hutchison but this evening he exceeded even the Crosby/Textor expectations of a National Party member. John Key is not just the leader of the National Party; he is not just an extraordinary phenomenon of a Prime Minister; he is now New Zealand’s answer to Nelson Mandela! Dr Paul Hutchison came into this Chamber having dismissed Barack Obama as not being good enough to be compared to John Key. He tried to do that except that Barack promised change that people could believe in which is quite different from what John Key promised. Tonight we had the extraordinary occurrence of Dr Paul Hutchison saying that John Key was New Zealand’s Nelson Mandela. What a disgrace! What an embarrassment! 
What happened to the National caucus over summer during those hard-working days? It must have been pretty hard work sunning it up in Hawaii and wondering which flavour of pina colada to have in the afternoon whether to turn over or go and sit in the shade whether to snorkel or go for a swim and whether to go to lunch early. The leader of the National Party had to face those stressful decisions while other New Zealanders were figuring out what the backbench of the National Party had not figured out prior to Christmas which was that the long-awaited tax package that was promised up and down the country by the National Party was not actually for the people who most needed an increase in their take-home pay: low-income earners. 
In fact the lowest income earners ended up with an increase in their tax rate. I had National Party backbenchers asking me about that over the dinner break when the Government rammed through that legislation with no select committee scrutiny and no opportunity for the public to look at it. I had new backbench members coming to me saying they had heard Labour members say National was putting up the marginal tax rate and asking me whether that was true. I said “Yes. Read the legislation.” They had not even had the legislation presented to their caucus. Yet like sheep and lemmings—Amy Adams is a lemming from Selwyn—one after another the National backbenchers said they would vote for that legislation. They did not have a clue what was in it. It is just extraordinary for Amy Adams a person who was well regarded in her previous profession to put all that integrity aside come into the Chamber and say she does not know what is in the legislation. She is competent. She is far more competent than many of her colleagues. She is able to read and understand legislation but she did not even bother to do that thinking she would just put her name beside it. That is not what New Zealanders voted for. It is not what their expectation was in my view. 
We will certainly as my colleague Winnie Laban has just said hold this Government to account for the expectations it raised amongst New Zealanders. New Zealanders should expect to see a narrowing of the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. I look forward to seeing that. New Zealanders should expect to see a reduction in serious crime particularly a reduction in family violence and I will be watching to see that very very carefully. New Zealanders should expect to see a reduction in the waiting time for elective surgery. We should expect to see fewer working-age people on a benefit. We should expect to see lower greenhouse gas emissions—[ 
Interruption 
]—and that member could contribute to that by not contributing any more to the debate. We should expect to see given what National promised during the election campaign an increased investment in infrastructure. We saw the first little dribble of that today. 
I want to thank National for its commitment to Lyttelton Main School. That commitment is in the infrastructure package today. It has been brought forward by about 5 months it will be warmly welcomed and it is well deserved in Lyttelton. The transport infrastructure investment the only other major investment in Christchurch has been brought forward by 16 whole weeks. I heard Steven Joyce—I think he is the Minister for something—in the House today say David Carter wrote to his colleagues in Canterbury in 2004. It was the last letter we received from him; it was the first and only representation that I have heard of. That investment 16 weeks early is the only other major investment in Christchurch. 
I have just heard the member who resides somewhere in the North Island say every part of the country will benefit from the infrastructure package. But south of Canterbury there is not one single infrastructure investment so how is Amy Adams going to explain that to the good people of the Selwyn electorate? How is she is going to explain that her colleague from Wellington said every single person is important and every single town and city is important but that there is nothing south of Canterbury? I am sorry; there is one State house per electorate. I do not think that is what the people of New Zealand thought they were voting for. 
My colleague David Parker also referred to the other significant dismissal of the South Island. That was on 6 February when South Islanders as we always do commemorated the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. This year the commemoration was held in Bluff. For the first time in my recollection not a single Government representative was present at that commemoration and that will be very very strongly felt by the people of the South Island. None of the local members of Parliament not even a new backbencher could bother to make the effort to attend and there are several of them in the nearby vicinity. One of them is Jacqui Dean the financial whizz who explained to us all that we are not borrowing money but are just getting it from overseas so I am sure she will be the Associate Minister of Finance within the next little while. We also have Jo Goodhew and Amy Adams—just to name three. Bill English is actually a local member of Parliament from not very far away as is Eric Roy. Not one of those members of Parliament thought it was good enough on 6 February to share the commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi with the South Island in Bluff. It was the first time in my recollection that there has not been a Government representative at that commemoration. I am not sure how the National members’ colleagues in the Maori Party would view that but I think it is an insult. 
I conclude by saying it just adds to a long list of insults. We have had the scrapping of the research and development tax credit we have had the reduction in the KiwiSaver contribution rate and we have had the scrapping of the Fast Forward Fund. We know that we have lost significant investment and real jobs because of John Key’s dithering over the emissions trading scheme and his appalling reversal of the biofuels legislation. This is not what people voted for this not what people expected and we will be holding the Government to account for their disappointment.