Swain Paul: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Swain Paul: Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:649;Page:17818] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Of course Chris Tremain would like everybody to think and believe what he said. That might have been quite a good speech prior to the release of certain damning information coming out of the National Party conference— 
Jacqui Dean 
: That’s not true. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well it is true actually. If the member would like to watch television news she would see that the things that were said were true. Do members know who said those things? National Party members said them. Those things are not made up; they are direct quotes from National. 
The problem the National Party now has is that a message is going directly back to its caucus that basically says: “Houston we have a problem.” What happened is that National launched a brand new rocket ship on the weekend. It was going to be National’s big rocket ship that would lead them off into the election [ 
Interruption 
]. No this was the great launch. The great new idea was that National would borrow for infrastructure. It would not borrow for tax cuts because that would be really really bad. But it could borrow for infrastructure because that would be really really good. No one really explained during the conference why borrowing for infrastructure is really really good and why borrowing for tax cuts is really really bad. 
I have a little message for the National Party having been the Minister of Transport. The industry will not thank the National Party for coming out with plans that are not specific when it has no idea where the money will go. When I was the Minister of Transport the industry told me two things. First of all I was to make sure the funding was done in stages as part of a proper plan so that if the industry had to buy expensive equipment it could finance it over a certain number of projects. The industry also said it was really important that we did not exacerbate the supply problem particularly the skills supply problem of the construction industry. 
Now we have this waffly policy from the National Party that says it will somehow borrow for this infrastructure. No one knows how much it will borrow no one knows where the money will go and no one knows whether there has been any consultation with the industry itself. That was not the critical point of course because what has happened since the conference is that the rocket got into trouble. It is like someone had a balloon and suddenly let it go. The balloon floated around in the air and dropped to the ground. People are saying things that are a complete and utter embarrassment to the party. 
We will unpick the issues in a minute but the really big issue National has when it tries to talk to the public now is that the public cannot trust what it says. That is the big issue. The public cannot trust what National says. On the weekend a number of leaks came out. That is contrary to National Party strategy which was to say as little as possible say nothing controversial pinch Labour’s major policies in order to cauterise them or as Lockwood Smith said swallow dead fish. 
Darien Fenton 
: Inoculate. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: National will inoculate and then pledge a $50 tax cut on top of that. In other words people will get everything that Labour has done for them—all those good things—and National will put a 50 buck tax cut on top. That sounds attractive but the issue now is whether people can believe what National says. John Key has been on record as saying that National will say and do whatever it takes to get into Government—whatever it takes. We saw that on the weekend. The problem National has is that the public instead of weaselling around and trying to attack people who leaked the document want to hear what National actually believes. 
The National Party I knew and the National Party I grew up with was there for private wealth. It supported low taxes. It was very much in favour of privatisation—handing public good over to private wealth. And it was very much in favour of user-pays. Those were the basic things the National Party stood for. Apart from tax cuts do members ever hear those things mentioned now? No they do not. But we know that National still believes in those things. We know that National is desperate to talk about them. We know that National’s supporters are desperate to hear about them but National is too afraid to speak about those things because it knows that if it does so people will not vote for it and it will be in Opposition again. “Whatever it takes” said John Key. 
Now we have a situation with Bill English who when asked about selling Kiwibank says no but that National will sell it “eventually”. On  
Close Up 
 tonight John Key was asked what the National Party’s policy is. He said of the National Party’s policy: “We are not selling assets.” Actually that is not the policy. I remember what the National Party policy is. When I was in an election battle against a National Party candidate I always read the National Party policy because I knew that in a tight spot the National Party candidates would always agree whatever the question was and I was able to stand up and say: “Actually that is not the policy. I have it here and this is what it says.” The National Party policy on State assets— 
David Bennett 
: You sound like New Zealand First. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. The National Party policy on State assets is not that they will not sell them; it is that they will not sell them in the first term. Do members remember that? It was only in the first term. So already tonight John Key is saying that the National Party policy is actually not the National Party policy any more. He is saying they will not sell State assets but we all know what the policy actually is—he said they will not sell them in the first term. 
Tim Barnett 
: Can you believe that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of course we cannot believe that because Bill English knows deep down that Kiwibank for example should be sold. He knows that deep down and I think a lot of people over in the National Party do not think the State should be involved in a bank. I absolutely believe that—I believe they do not think this is an appropriate function for the State; they believe that it is private sector organisation that should be involved in banking. They are desperate to get rid of it. This is one of the basic philosophies principles and tenets of the National Party but can National members bring themselves to say it? No they cannot because they know that if they do because Kiwibank is so popular they will not get voted into power. So what they do is tell people in private when they think no one is listening what the policy really is. As so many people have said the National Party has been caught out telling the truth—caught out telling the truth again. 
You see the fundamental problem is that people are now not clear when they hear something from the National Party whether they should believe it. The events of the last few days have shown that in fact they cannot. I think we should just look at a couple of things as far as superannuation is concerned. John Key made a pledge: “Today let me make a pledge: National will retain all the superannuation entitlements and eligibility rules that our senior citizens currently enjoy. We will keep this pledge and I will resign as Prime Minister and as a member of our Parliament rather than break it.” It sounds strong and it sounds good. Compare that to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in 1990: “I Lockwood Smith hereby pledge to tender my resignation as Minister of Education if National having become the Government in 1990 has not implemented most of National Party policy as stated in 1990. In particular I pledge to tender my resignation if the $1250 tertiary tuition fee has not been abolished by this time.” What happened? Well of course the tuition fee was not abolished—not abolished! 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: So he must have resigned. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: One would think—as my colleague Ruth Dyson said—that Lockwood Smith would have resigned. Well here it is—it is signed “Hon Dr Lockwood Smith” and it is witnessed by Chris Thornborough the president of the Waikato Student Union in 1990. The problem the public has is that these pledges are not worth the paper they are written on. 
The difficulty National members have is that they desperately want to say what they want to do. But if they said that if they were honest if they were open and if they stuck to the old principles of their great leaders before the present ones and said what the National Party stands for and that they will do those things because they are National Party principles and philosophies the public would say “Good on you—because now we know what you stand for and now let’s have the proper debate between National and Labour.” 
But the problem is that National members say one thing but believe another and the problem the public has is that they have now found them out. That is the reason why this election will be very very good for the Labour-led Government.