Chadwick Steve: General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chadwick Steve: General Debate 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2007. Volume:643;Page:12665. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 It is not difficult to follow the heavy hitter—the previous speaker David Bennett—who demonstrated the Opposition’s obsession with looking at the refreshment on this side of the House and not coming up with one policy in the general debate today. How sad that is; what a waste of energy that is. I say to the member that he should hold his powder. Things are going to happen over here and he will be interested in watching them with great glee. 
Before I begin I just want to offer congratulations from this side of the House from this proud Labour team to the Hon Steve Maharey on his decision that it is time to move on. It reminds everybody in this House that one day they will personally face a decision about a time to move on and contribute to New Zealand society with the experience that one gains in this House. We wish him well. 
In 10 days’ time we are going to go out with our Labour conference and show that the Labour team has not collapsed and that we are actually continually refreshing ourselves. Our leadership is there to guide this team and to bring through new policies and new energy. We are continually developing as a team and working with our electorate branches around the country to bring through new policies and new ideas. We are bursting with these new ideas. We will show that we can build on the gains that we have made over the last 7 years which have been hugely significant. We now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We are the envy of the developed world with 3.6 percent unemployment and the longest run in continuous economic growth since World War II. 
The people of New Zealand vote on actual gains on experience and on what has happened over the last 7 years but they will also be watching for policy from the Opposition. I just want to mention one of its policy debacles. Actually it was the Hon Tony Ryall who seemed to love the term himself—the matrix of dysfunction. The launching of the Opposition’s health policy was a matrix of dysfunction. If ever I have seen those in the National health team look liked stunned mullets it was when they heard Tony Ryall. They said: “Yes he is right. John Key did not say he was going to take the cap off doctors’ fees. Tony Ryall is right.” He himself said today that that was rubbish. What Tony Ryall actually said was: “We don’t support Labour’s fee control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” 
To make matters worse John Key came in supported Tony Ryall and said: “Well the market will sort it out. They can go down the road if they don’t like how doctors are charging.” Well I wonder whether the leader has actually been out to Te Whaiti to Murupara to the rural heartland of New Zealand where people can go nowhere to visit another doctor. So where do they go for this? 
Standing behind Tony Ryall and the leader John Key were experienced doctors and people in the Opposition team who know about health. They looked absolutely stunned. It was not in National’s health policy. They did not know that this surprise was going to be launched that day; it was a ripper. Then Tony Ryall went on and got confused trying to justify this incredible blooper. He said: “I don’t think New Zealanders have GP costs as the top-of-mind issue in health.” Well I want to remind Tony Ryall that when we got into Government in 1999 it was one of the major issues that was at the top of their minds for New Zealanders and they have not forgotten. Lest they forget the privatisation by stealth went on for 9 years under a National Government and here we have Tony Ryall Bill English and Nick Smith still on the front bench. 
Leopards do not change their spots. The same people are there coming out with policy and forgetting what destroyed the National Party for 9 years in the 1990s—user-pays in New Zealand hospitals the break-up of the health system and the funder-provider split. Talk about bureaucracy in health when we had to deal with the funder-provider split! In 1998 and 1999 only half of Vote Health went to the public sector.