Carter John: Budget Debate 
Carter John: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3385] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the member who has just resumed his seat and the one thing I would say about the Working for Families package is this. I am aware of the case of a young business person who because of the way in which that business operates is able to dictate the level of personal income to be declared. Of course since Helen Clark and the Labour Government brought in the Working for Families package that person has decided that the personal income is too high. That person will now reduce the level of income so as a consequence that person will now attract a payment under Working for Families. That person will now receive from the Government in excess of $12000 that he or she would not otherwise have been eligible for. Quite honestly if this Government thinks that the system will not be manipulated ripped off and misused then it is deluding itself. That will happen time and time again as it does with all benefits. The best thing this Government could have done if it wanted to help New Zealanders would have been to take people out of the welfare trap rather than entrapping them in it. 
I also want to reflect on some recent stories. We always know when a Government is on its way out—it is when we read stories about the fact that the leader of the Government is starting to say that this person or that person should go. Rather than let those people make that choice for themselves the leader starts directing who should and who should not be here. I have to say that people like Russell Fairbrother whom I have just spent a week overseas with actually is not a bad sort of chap. He deserves the right to make a choice and to not be dictated to by Helen Clark as to whether he—or Dianne Yates or Jill Pettis or Dover Samuels my old mate from up north—should stay here. What is wrong with the contribution Dover Samuels makes? It may not be good enough for Helen Clark but it has been good enough for Northlanders for a number of years. Members opposite know that when they reach the stage of starting to push people out of their party they are in trouble. National went through it between 1999 and 2002 and I have to say it was a shambles. I can tell this Government that if it is getting to that stage then it is definitely on its last legs. 
I want to talk a little about local government. In 2002 this Labour Government passed the thing called “power of general competence” to local government. Local government thought that was great and that at last it had a Government that trusted it—a Government that was going to let it do things it felt it should do for its communities. Local government thought it would be able to do the things its communities wanted it to do and that it was uninhibited at last. It thought that was marvellous. Since then this Government has passed 78 pieces of legislation that restrict direct inhibit and manipulate what local government can do; that cause more cost; and that add costs to ratepayers. The legislation restricts binds and dictates to local government what it should do to the extent now that local government has suddenly woken up and realised that the power of general competence is actually meaningless and does not stand for anything other than this Government manipulating and dictating what should happen through local government to ratepayers by a socialist Government. 
There is also this thing called the Local Government Forum where the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers meet with local government leaders three times a year. It is a forum in which they can talk about the wonderful powerful things that should happen in local government and in which the Government can ask how it can assist and what it can do to make things better. Boy it is fantastic! Local government people thought it was great that at last they would have the ear of the Government. Well that is the only thing they do get—and quite honestly who the hell would want an ear of this Government? It is all they get. It is just a talkfest. Nothing comes of it. 
Back in 2002 the Government started a review of the financial area of local government to see how it could better fund local government. The review was to come out in 6 months’ time sometime before the end of the 2002 financial year. But then it was postponed but that was OK because in only another 12 months the Government would have the report. Then in 2005 when the report had not arrived the Government decided that perhaps a time frame should be set. It did that and the date was set for January of this year. That has since been postponed until November of this year. I suspect that local government is starting to realise that actually this Government is just pulling the wool over its eyes—that it is not delivering much at all. To be fair a couple of things have happened. This Government has allowed for some subsidies for small rural areas that are troubled by the ability to install sewage schemes in tourist areas and that is commendable. But that is about the only positive stuff. 
What about things like our roading for instance which is an area of huge huge cost in for example Auckland? What about roading in our rural areas or in our other metropolitan centres or in our provincial cities? What has happened with that? Are those areas getting more money? Is that problem being sorted out? Can we drive straight through Auckland in the way we can drive through Melbourne now? Not on your Nelly! Not with this Government. This Government has actually done less for roading. It is interesting that it is now forecast that over the next 10 years local government in Auckland will spend $11 billion just to be as effective in 10 years’ time as it is today. In other words no progress will be made at all because this Government is not doing anything to fix the problems and to assist local government with the problems of roading. Quite honestly it is an absolute disgrace. 
In the short time I have left I turn my attention to an area that New Zealanders are suddenly starting to become more aware of—civil defence. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Civil Defence is sitting in his old seat the whip’s chair because quite honestly given what he has done for civil defence it would be a good place for him to go back to. About 2 months ago I put out a press release after discussing some issues with people involved in civil defence in New Zealand. They told me that it was a joke that nothing happens that there is no system communication or structure and that there is no cohesion at all. So I put out the press release saying that to my knowledge—because I was still finding out what was going on—things were not as tidy as they should be and that things were not quite right. I said that we actually had a civil disaster in New Zealand and that it was called “the Minister”. But I got a statement back saying that I did not know what I was talking about and that my head was in the clouds. I was told that I did not know what civil defence was about that everything was fine and that it was good. 
Since then I have been doing some more work—in fact the good thing is that in lots of ways I have not had to because the Minister has been presenting it on a plate. What happened with the tsunami warning we had recently? We were meant to have a system that allowed us to know what was happening but people had to listen to the BBC to find out what was going on. The Minister said there had been a bit of a hiccup. After another trial it has been found that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management does not actually connect with local government. 
Even more important I put down some questions to the Minister to find out what the structure was like. I wanted to find out what regional councils local government and the voluntary base were doing and I thought the person who would know all those things was the Minister. So I asked him: “How many staff are currently employed for civil defence purposes in each territorial local authority?”. Most members would think that the Minister would be able to give me some facts and figures. Well here is the answer folks: “I am advised that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is not responsible for keeping records of the number of territorial local authority civil defence staff. You would need to approach each authority to get complete records of the information you require.” Well bless my soul! He did not know about that but I thought he may know about volunteers because there is meant to be a volunteer structure. So I asked him how many volunteers there were. I got the same sort of answer—that he was advised that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was not responsible for keeping the records of who are volunteers. If the Minister does not know who does? This Minister is incompetent in the portfolio of civil defence and the best thing he could do for this Government in terms of civil defence is to go back to being a whip.