Goff Phil: Address in ReplyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Address in Reply[Sitting date: 09 December 2008. Volume:651;Page:32. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I moveThat the following words be added to the Address: “and expects over the next 3 years to see a closing of the wage gap with Australia; reduced serious crime including family violence; reduced waiting time for elective surgery with twenty new dedicated elective surgery theatres; fewer people on working-age benefits; lower greenhouse gas emissions; increased investment in infrastructure including rail and public transport; the extension of the fibre network to nearly all homes; all sixteen and seventeen year olds in education training or employment; no cuts to public services; expanded availability of subsidised medicines; a police to population ratio of 1:500 with all new sworn police officers committed to general duty roles; a doubling of the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment; and the settling of half of the remaining historic Treaty of Waitangi settlement claims”. I moved that motion because those were the expectations raised by the National Party when in Opposition. I say to Mr Key that we on this side of the House will be holding him to account to deliver on the promises that formed his mandate for Government.There was a time in this country when successive Governments could get away with making promises in order to be elected and later disavowing those promises. One of the things about the fifth Labour Government of which I am the most proud is that we honoured the promises on which we were elected. We not only honoured those promises but we in fact after each election over-delivered on promises that were made. We under-promised and over-delivered. The challenge to this new National Government is to do likewise. I say to Mr Key that he will be judged on his ability to do that.I congratulate the new Government on its election and I take a moment to congratulate the two new members of Parliament who moved and seconded the Address in Reply. I acknowledge the quality of their contributions and I wish them well in this House. I tell the new Government that Labour has left National an economy that is well-placed to deal with the impact of the international financial crisis. Members opposite can laugh at that statement but that is not a statement that was made by this Opposition; that was a statement made last week by Fitch Ratings the international credit-rating agency. It gave this country a AAA credit rating.This is what Fitch Ratings told New Zealanders about the record of the outgoing Government: “the longstanding record of fiscal prudence marked by reductions in the general government debt and net public external debt will leave us well-placed to weather the economic downturn.” That is the legacy that the Labour Government has left for the incoming National Government. Under the fifth Labour Government we did not squander the good years by simply spending the surpluses. I utterly reject the empty political rhetoric that Mr Key put in the Speech from the Throne that talked about missed opportunities.I will tell members about some of the missed opportunities. The Labour Government under Michael Cullen reduced Government debt from 35 percent of the GDP down to 17 percent. As Mr English borrows heavily to deal with the downturn he will be very grateful for the sound fiscal management of Michael Cullen the former Minister ofFinance. The same former Minister of Finance put into the Cullen superannuation fund $14 billion which the National Party is now so keen to invest. That was what the Labour Government did. It was opposed by the National Party but National is very grateful for the legacy it has received.Then we had the lie in the Speech from the Throne that talked about the fact that we did not achieve the same growth rates as other countries. Mr Key I refer you to the document presented to your Government and your Minister of Finance by Treasury—the briefing document for the incoming Government.Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is an experienced member and knows he cannot address the Chair in that way.Mr SPEAKER: Mr Goff I just mention that you did use language that is not very helpful a few moments ago but I let it pass. I just warn you.Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Key will see from reading the document presented by Treasury—unless as Judith Collins says about the police Treasury is a Labour-loaded organisation; and that would take some imagination—that in terms of growth rates over the period of time measured New Zealand was in fact ahead of Australia ahead of the United States ahead of Japan and ahead of the average of the OECD countries. The legacy we have left to the National Government—but more important to our country—is a country well placed to deal with the international economic difficulties.We have left other legacies that may be under threat from this new Government. One is KiwiSaver. It is the single most effective saving programme in New Zealand’s history with 827000 New Zealanders having signed up to it. It is a programme that has been more successful than any action by any Government over 30 years in ensuring that New Zealand acquires a savings record which enables and motivates New Zealanders to save and ensures that we have the money to invest in the future of this country.The incoming National Government talks about investment in infrastructure. I remind that Government that we increased the investment in infrastructure by 190 percent—190 percent in the rail networks the electricity generation and the roads and that can be seen all over New Zealand. What is more we promoted the creation of a 21st century economy with lower corporate tax rates. [Interruption] I say to Mr English that we were the only Government in 30 years to lower corporate tax rates and to create tax incentives for research and development.One of the threats we see from this incoming Government is the threat to demolish the 15 percent tax credit for research and development. At a time when we want to create an economy that is innovative creative and can compete in the world research and development is essential. Yet the incoming National Government is promising to slash the basis on which we can achieve that innovative and creative economy.One of the things that we are all proud of on this side of the House is the fact that Working for Families—the programme that Mr Key said was communism by stealth—has lifted out of poverty tens of thousands of New Zealanders and children. What I expect from the incoming National Government is all the rhetoric in McGehan Close all the rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne about the underclass to be translated into action that does even a fraction of what the outgoing Labour Government did which was to lift our children out of poverty.I noticed that Melissa Lee in her speech talked about the appalling rate of child abuse in this country. It is appalling but to stop that abuse from happening we will have to do a lot more than simply double the prison sentences for abusers. One way we can stop abuse from happening is to create an environment in which each and every child in our country can grow up in a family that has the economic means and the social skills to provide that child with a stable secure caring and loving environment.I say to Mr Key that among the other missed opportunities must have been of course the rescuing of our national airline. Air New Zealand was bankrupted by the private sector board that National put in charge of it. It is now a thriving and viable national carrier for New Zealand. I could mention too Kiwibank. The bank that was opposed by every National member is now providing lower mortgage interest rates and performing better than its Australian-based competitors. We gave New Zealanders the choice to go to that bank instead of a foreign multinational. I could add of course bringing back KiwiRail to ensure a sound and properly integrated national transport system.One thing that the National Party did give credit for—although not explicitly to the outgoing Labour Government—was this year the achieving of the basis of market access to our key international markets: the signing and bringing into effect of a free-trade agreement with China the fastest-growing market in the world; the conclusion of a free-trade agreement with the ASEAN countries a $4.6 billion market for New Zealand; and just a couple of months ago the initiation of negotiations for a free-trade agreement involving the United States and New Zealand.I say that there were no missed opportunities. We are very proud of what the Labour Government under Helen Clark’s leadership created for this country. The record is clear and no amount of obfuscation by National in the Speech from the Throne will deny that record—independently commented on by Treasury and by credit-rating agencies—as leaving New Zealand in a strong position.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the Electoral Finance Act.Hon PHIL GOFF: Labour left a positive legacy for the incoming Government and one I say to Dr Smith that the National Government should not squander. Labour’s commitment in Opposition is absolute in terms of working to protect and promote the jobs the living standards the social services and the well-being of everyday Kiwis in this country. We will work to preserve the legacy of a fair and inclusive society that provides opportunity for all.We reject the ideological Treasury prescriptions for New Zealand which were put out in its recent document. It is totally unacceptable for a Government agency to talk about slashing the tax rates of the wealthy and the most affluent at the same time as it advocates the undermining of minimum wages and working conditions in this country and promotes a “fire at will” legislative provision which the National Party has picked up.My challenge to Mr Key is this. He talks about opportunity for all and he talks about the underclass. Will this National Government do better than its predecessor National Government which over 9 years raised the statutory minimum wage by 73c? It was raised by 73c I say to Mr Key. I would like an indication from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance as to whether the rhetoric is empty and meaningless.Will the National Government continue to protect those hard-working New Zealanders who go to work every week in our factories our hospitals and our offices or will it again leave those people to languish on a wage that they cannot possibly live on? I think we know the answer. I say congratulations to Mr Key on his Christmas present to New Zealand workers who are under stress and in fear of losing their jobs—he is saying to New Zealanders that in the first 3 months of their employment they can be sacked and that they have no redress to challenge the validity the legitimacy the fairness of that sacking.That policy was not outlined by the National Party as a priority for its first 100 days. It did not even find its way into the Speech from the Throne. It was not mentioned by National Party members as they campaigned on television during the election period. It was hidden away. That longstanding and fundamental right of New Zealanders will nowbe repealed under urgency by this Government without notice and without ordinary New Zealanders having the ability to come to a select committee at Parliament to say what they think about the legislation.Mr Speaker you will know that there is scarcely a bill that comes before this Parliament that does not go to a select committee. Every member of this House knows the value of putting legislation before a select committee. It is to find out the flaws in rushed legislation and by God we have seen flaws from this Government in just 2 weeks—flaws that cost it $700 million over KiwiSaver and flaws that left New Zealanders stranded in Bangkok. We could go on and on. I believe that this is an ominous sign for the future direction of the National-ACT Government.Those National and ACT members opposite when in Opposition talked so much about the right of people to be consulted and the right of New Zealanders to come to their Parliament to make submissions on vital legislation. This National Government is denying the right of every New Zealander to have his or her voice heard on legislation that takes away the rights of every New Zealander. That is what Geoffrey Palmer would once have said was a constitutional outrage. It is a sign of how quickly that Government has become arrogant. It is a sign of the future direction of the National Party which when campaigning was keen to persuade New Zealanders that it was benign and that it would do what Labour was doing but rather more nicely. The real face and the secret agenda of the National Party I say to Mr Key is being revealed in this House over these last 2 days.That legislation will be strongly opposed by the Labour Opposition and I suspect by other Opposition parties in this House because it denies New Zealanders the rights that they properly deserve. In this last week we have seen the case of two New Zealand women who were sacked because they were pregnant. They had the chance under existing law to put in a claim for unfair dismissal and they won. They will in future not have that right in the first 90 days of their employment and that is simply a disgrace.The other legislation that will be rammed through Parliament is the tax bill. From what I have seen of the intent of that legislation it is legislation that will benefit some people in our society. People like Mr Key will get $120 a week out of it—I am sure it is needed. The chief executive of Telecom New Zealand will get $500 a week out of it. But if we do the figures we will see that a person who is on a low income will be worse off under that legislation. Let me give an example of the sort of person who will be hurt by it. I will mention the person by name. His name is Hada Robadi.He works in a factory in Porirua. His income is $35000 a year. His wife works as a hospital cleaner. She earns $22000 a year. They have three grandchildren. They have custody of them and responsibility to care for them. Under National’s tax plan that family will lose $14 a week.Hon Members: What?Hon PHIL GOFF: They will be $14 a week worse off. I do not care that John Key gets $120 a week more under this plan. That does not worry me too much. I do care that this family—on a low income with both people working and contributing to New Zealand through their work and through their care of their grandchildren—will be worse off under this tax bill which is meant to make New Zealanders better off. That frankly is unacceptable.Every one of the people who have joined KiwiSaver will be worse off because National wanted to rip $3 billion out of savers’ accounts—which would in the long term and medium term be good for New Zealanders—to meet short-term tax cuts. I cannot believe that the ACT Party’s Sir Roger Douglas would support that programme. Everything I thought that member stood for was about long-term planning not short-term electoral bribes. Yet we see in this legislation a short-term electoral bribe at theexpense of the long-term need of this country—that is for savings. This is absolutely unacceptable. A low-income family with a child earning $50000 a year and saving with KiwiSaver will under the National Party’s tax plan lose up to $70 a week.Hon Members: What?Hon PHIL GOFF: A low-income family on $50000 will lose $70 across that family. How is that equitable for the everyday New Zealander?I hear today that National has a new plan and that is to transfer the cost of the KiwiSaver plan—which the Government is meeting as an incentive for people to save—and load that on to the saver. That means a further $200 million will be ripped out of the savers’ accounts to meet the Government’s costs. That is a case of robbing Peter to pay Bill English and it is simply not good enough.Labour members when in Government worked over the last 9 years to advance positively the interests of Kiwis and a fairer society. In Opposition we will continue to do so. We will hold this National Government to account expose its inadequacies and oppose any secret agenda—which we have already seen emerging over the last couple of days. Mr Key the Prime Minister might have had a plan for being elected but the Speech from the Throne offered no vision no plan and no carefully developed mechanism for dealing with the challenges facing New Zealand or for seizing the opportunities ahead. The Speech from the Throne indicates that there is no plan to protect everyday Kiwis from the potential risks they face caused by the international economic situation. To the contrary all we have seen out of this Government to date has been backward steps.Let me direct this comment to the Minister of Housing Mr Heatley. When he was the Opposition spokesperson on housing he stood on this side of the House and condemned Housing New Zealand for failing to meet the housing needs of 10000 New Zealanders on the waiting list. We did point out that that may have been because 13000 State houses had been sold and not replaced under the last National Government. Yet Mr Heatley in his first pronouncement as Minister of Housing now says that National is going to stop adding to State housing stock. What about the 10000 New Zealanders about whom he was crying crocodile tears just a matter of months ago in this very Chamber? At a time when the building industry is at the lowest point in housing construction in 16 years surely one would take advantage of that unutilised labour and resource to build the houses that children and needy families require.Mr Key talked about infrastructure but I tell him to start by making sure that New Zealanders can be housed at a time when at last we have the unutilised capacity to house them. If that were not enough the big announcement made by the National Government on being elected was that it would scrap the $1 billion investment in retrofitting houses so that New Zealanders could have more comfortable safer and healthier homes. They have scrapped that programme—in the very week when the Business Council for Sustainable Development said that such a programme would save $4.75 billion in wasted energy over the next decade.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the money?Hon PHIL GOFF: Dr Smith asks where the money is. That is the cost accountancy approach of the National Party—it knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.The Business Council for Sustainable Development said that that programme by Labour and the Greens would each year have kept out of hospital 18000 people suffering from respiratory illnesses caused by damp and unhealthy homes. That would have stopped 180000 absentee workdays each year because people were living in unhealthy homes.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where is the money?Hon PHIL GOFF: That would have saved $4.7 billion over a decade and Dr Smith keeps prattling on about the money. Not only would that measure cut ordinary New Zealanders’ power bills and keep them healthier out of hospital and in work but it would also be an investment in a job-rich scheme. That is the very sort of scheme that is needed at a time when the international economy poses that challenge to New Zealand. There are two examples.The last example I want to give is about the Government’s suspension of the emissions trading scheme. I remember—and every New Zealander remembers it—Shane Ardern driving his tractor up the steps of Parliament because the National Party was fundamentally opposed to a carbon tax. The National Party went into the election campaign promising New Zealanders that it would have an emissions trading scheme but with a few alterations. Within days and because of the ACT-National agreement National has dishonoured its promise about the emissions trading scheme and started talking about the carbon tax which it told the country it was fundamentally opposed to.Mr Brownlee might know about the Kyoto Forestry Association. He used to talk about that in very high terms of regard. I tell Mr Brownlee that the Kyoto Forestry Association said the move by the National-ACT Government cost—immediately—$125 million in investment and scores of jobs across provincial New Zealand. The National Government talks the rhetoric about stimulating the economy and has so far done exactly the reverse. Its Housing New Zealand policy its insulation policy and its emissions trading scheme policy have cost this country the investment and the jobs that we need.I wind up by saying that the Government has been elected on expectations of what it promised to deliver to New Zealanders. We will hold this Government to account for delivery of those things. Where it acts in a positive way on behalf of ordinary New Zealanders and their well-being you will see constructive support from the Opposition. Where on the other hand you break your promises you have hidden agendas and you work contrary to the needs and well-being of New Zealand you can expect this Opposition to absolutely hold you to account for what you do.