Smith Lockwood: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Imprest Supply Debate — Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:498] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 We are now fewer than 2 hours away from the end of the first sitting of this new Parliament and we see a Government in disarray. [ 
Interruption 
] I can tell members that the last time I saw that—and Trevor Mallard was in the House at the time—was in the period 1987-89 when we saw a Labour Government collapsing. And that is what we have seen this week. When we looked around this House today we saw Labour Ministers with their mouths down and their faces long. This Government has the smell of death about it. I know it because I smelt it in 1989 when that Labour Government went out then just as this one is going out now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is the case in this House I think that when members quote people—and the member is quoting Simon Upton—they should at least give them credit for their words. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. The member knows—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I am dealing with a point of order. The member is lucky still to be here. The member knows that when I am dealing with a point of order there will be silence—and that includes him. That is not a point of order. The member will please continue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a tactic of Mr Trevor Mallard every time the Government is on the ropes and in trouble to take non – points of order. Previous Speakers have taken the view that repeated nonsensical points of order are dealt with by asking the member to leave the Chamber. I simply ask you as the Assistant Speaker to keep up the rulings that if members deliberately break up a very competent speech—like that of my colleague Lockwood Smith—the Speaker ensures that tradition of dealing appropriately with members who take irrelevant points of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: All matters that need to be dealt with will be dealt with by the presiding officers and they will make those decisions. It is not acceptable to break up a member’s speech as the member has said and it will be dealt with. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Do members know the other great parallel with that Lange Labour Government that met its death throes in the late 1980s? Business confidence this week hit the deepest low since 1987. That is the great parallel. A headline in today’s  
Independent 
 states: “Business in crisis”. Business confidence is now as low as it was when the Lange-led Labour Government was in its death throes in the late 1980s and this Clark-Peters Government looks sick this week. It has come to us today wanting this Parliament to vote it another $4.8 billion in this Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill at a time when Treasury is saying to the Government in its briefing papers that one of the biggest issues facing this Government is the “challenge of containing the recent growth in Government spending.” In fact in the executive summary Treasury said: “Future budgets must”—it did not say should—“involve less new spending than in recent years to stabilise the size of Government expenditure in the economy and to free up resources for growth-promoting initiatives.” 
At a time when Treasury is saying that Government spending is out of control this Government this Labour bunch comes back here and wants us to vote them another $4.8 billion of extra spending. That is something this Parliament should not approve of. Of course Dr Cullen says that he knows better than Treasury. He said its stuff was a 3-yearly ideological burp and in this House gave the derogatory comment that the 1980s lives on on The Terrace. But I would say to Dr Cullen that he is just like an alcoholic denying he is still on the bottle. Dr Cullen seems not to be able to face up to the fact that this Government’s spending is totally out of control. Three times in the last 3 weeks he has claimed to be running a prudent fiscal strategy. When the Reserve Bank gave its briefing Dr Cullen said: “Oh no. We are running a prudent fiscal strategy.” He used the same words when Treasury gave its briefing. But there is nothing prudent about this Government’s massive increase in spending—$4.8 billion in this bill for interest-free student loans and for expanding the Working for Families package that the ACT speaker said would bring another few hundred thousand into the benefit system and another billion for capital expenditure. 
No one can describe that as anything other than spending that is totally out of control. In fact we know that State sector spending has doubled in the last few years and as we look ahead we see that the increased requirement for spending just on the State sector wage bill is a billion dollars a year. This Parliament should say as we are now within an hour and a half of the end of this first sitting week that it will not grant this Government this money. Labour has to prove to this House that spending is coming under control. Business is in crisis— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Of course Clayton Cosgrove would not know because he has nothing to do with business. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that he should listen to what business people are saying. He should look at what the survey of business confidence has shown—that business confidence is at the lowest level since the last Labour Government. It is the lowest since the terminal days of the Lange-led Labour Government. Business confidence is in crisis and we are now seeing this Clark - Peters Labour Government in its death throes. 
The Government says that it spends to help people. I have heard Dr Cullen say previously in this House that this money is needed to help families through the expansion of the Working for Families package. I put a challenge in front of some of the Labour members sitting opposite. If they care about low-income people I want them to explain to me about low-income working families who stay off the benefit—families who do not go cap in hand to the Government to ask it for money but who actually try to earn their own living. There are 5000 of those families in New Zealand and if they try to work a bit harder to earn another dollar do members know what tax they pay on that extra dollar? I will tell members. I will make it easy and say that on each extra $100 that those 5000 families might earn they pay $101.20 in tax. They lose more money in tax than they earn. They are poor families—their income is only $10000 to $20000 per year. They are not on benefits. There are 5000 of those families in New Zealand and those Labour members opposite do not give a stuff about them. They are the forgotten families of New Zealand. They are poor families and this money—if we vote for this imprest supply legislation—will not go towards helping them. 
Labour’s election bribe in the Working for Families package will not help one of those 5000 families. That is a disgrace. We should not pass this bill until those Labour members opposite go away and come back with policy that will help those poor families and their children. However we have seen today that Labour members do not care one jot about children. David Benson-Pope is a Minister protected by Helen Clark. He has the same integrity and values as Helen Clark who fraudulently signs paintings. He has proven to this House today that he does not care about poor children. Clearly this Government with its Working for Families package does not care about children from poor families either because 5000 families in this country have been forgotten about. They face a marginal tax rate of over 100 percent. This bill should not be passed.