Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill be now read a second time. This legislation is introduced against quite an interesting economic background at the present time. Nearly every developed country in the world is facing very similar problems at this stage. The environment is the most challenging global economic environment that we have seen in at least a decade and, in some respects, for longer than that. We are facing, first of all, the consequences of a subprime mortgage crisis in the United States—a classic example of a divorce between risk and return—and then the cleverness of those in the financial markets who created pyramids of derivatives, which then collapsed like decks of cards once in fact those risks started to eventuate.

We have seen the pressure on global food prices coming from the growth of demand in the great economies of China and India—the emergence of substantial middle classes—and also from some ill-judged policies around the world, including restrictive trade practices and unwise policies in promoting inefficient forms of biofuels in the United States and elsewhere. We have seen extraordinary increases in the price of oil over recent months, also as a consequence of the growth of those great economies of China and India and the instability in the Middle East and in Nigeria, and, again, because of the actions of speculators in the financial markets. The combination of these factors has bitten deep into the pockets of ordinary New Zealand families and individual New Zealanders.

These challenges are very real. As I said to the select committee last week, the combination of these challenges, plus the effects of tightening monetary policy over the last 3 years, plus the effects of the drought that had a very substantial impact upon rural New Zealand in the first few months of this year, will almost certainly see a negative GDP figure for the first quarter of this year. But it is not a time, necessarily, to be totally gloomy; in the longer term New Zealand is in a highly favourable position. We are in a highly favourable position for a number of reasons. Firstly, we have had a Government that for some years has adopted prudent fiscal policy, which has meant that debt is now much smaller as a proportion of GDP and the money we spend on servicing that debt has been much reduced. It means that we have built up a pile of cash assets that we will be able to draw down over the next few years to help keep the economy moving along without excessive borrowing leading to rising debt—a burden, therefore, upon our children and grandchildren.

We also face a much more favourable long-term environment globally than we have seen for the last 50 to 60 years, or more. Firstly, we are seeing successful trade negotiations for New Zealand in terms of China, and now there are the prospects of India, South Korea, Japan, and elsewhere. But, ironically, the global food crisis will also probably give an added spur to the success of the Doha round of talks, which will remove some of the barriers for New Zealand’s trade that have been so strong. It is often said in New Zealand that we love to beat our breast and to blame ourselves, and say that we have slipped in terms of our relative standard of living—but not our absolute standard of living. My goodness me, I remember my parents bought a black and white television set in 1961. It took about 8 weeks of my father’s pay to pay for what I think was a 16-inch black and white television set. Our standard of living is immeasurably higher than it was 50 years ago, although it has slipped in comparison with some others. But we have been competing in a highly unfavourable international climate where almost every other developed economy, whether in Europe, America, or Japan, has actually discriminated against the things that we do best. Almost the entire developed world has been in a kind of trade conspiracy against New Zealand in relation to the things that we are capable of doing best in this country.

That is why we are a country that follows a strong trade liberalisation policy, and now, of course, we are seeing our trade liberalisation opening up in the agriculture area. On top of that we are seeing—for the first time, perhaps, for 150 years, or more—relative price movements moving in favour of food exporters such as New Zealand. For the last 50 or 60 years we have tended to see our export prices reducing in relation to the prices of other goods that we have to import, but in more recent years we have seen those terms of trade moving around. So New Zealand faces both improving terms of trade and a more favourable trade environment over the next 20 or 30 years, on top of which we are in a better position than almost any other developed economy—other perhaps than Australia—to deal with the challenges of an ageing population over the next 25 to 30 years. And that is not by chance; that is because of good planning by this Government.

Yes, the year 2008 will be a tough year economically. I do not believe there will be a recession, but there will be a negative first quarter. Yet in the longer term this country has better prospects than many other developed economies around the world, and we need to stop flagellating ourselves and, instead, recognise the options that that will open up.

To take advantage of the situation we must continue to address the issues that have been concentrated on by this Government—that is, issues of skills development and of making sure we are producing the skills we need in this country. We need to bring in as New Zealanders people who are skilled rather than those who are simply in the “other” categories that have dominated immigration policy until more recent years, and we need to invest in our infrastructure—our roading, our soft infrastructure, our water and sewerage schemes—all those elements of infrastructure. This Government has massively increased capital spending as a proportion of GDP, and restored it to the levels of the 1960s and the 1970s after a long-term period of decline in our capital spending and capital investment. We need to address issues of saving and investment. I could pretty well guarantee now that we have passed the total of 700,000 people who have signed up for KiwiSaver, and we are already getting comments about that feeding the growth of capital markets within New Zealand. That is what we are doing in this Government—all of those things and many more besides, and, particularly, the long-term agenda of sustainability, which is crucial to our success.

So what does the Opposition offer? This afternoon we heard what it offered. It offered that we should not do things about light bulbs—that it is some kind of nanny State thing to say we should actually assist people to buy more efficient, more effective, and cheaper light bulbs in terms of usage, because that is some kind of intrusion into personal freedom. We should let everybody consume whatever they like, and then try to provide the energy required to sustain that! Indeed, that offering led to the joke: how many members of the National Party does it take to change a light bulb? The answer, we know, is zero, because they like to keep us in the dark. That is certainly the answer to how many National MPs it takes to change a light bulb, because what is the National Party telling us about its plan for the future? Its plan for the future is to do whatever it takes—that is the plan. To do whatever it takes to bribe the electorate—that is the policy.

Telecommunications was offered a big bribe, but what of the detail? That will come after the election. When will we know National’s tax policy? Well, maybe before the election, but we cannot be sure. Will there be borrowing? Well, probably. What about the selling of State assets? Well, actually, yes and no, but maybe; who knows—possibly. Certainly there would be privatisation of accident compensation; we will come back to that later on, but certainly the desire is there to do that. Would there be changes to Working for Families? Well, yes and no, and maybe—they are not sure; they are still trying to make their minds. What about education policy? Well, National members say they stand for standards. Well, that is great, is it not? Goodness me, Nick Smith, who is semi-illiterate, stands for standards in education in New Zealand!

Look at the National front bench! Mr Ryall has had one policy announcement in the entire time he has been spokesperson on health—releasing the cap on doctors’ fees—and he had to backtrack on it in the space of about 3 or 4 days. Mr Power is supposed to have a policy on law and order, but nobody can find the press statements in which he has actually said it. Mr English does not have a fiscal policy except that he has said that he is confident about New Zealand’s future. Well, that is great to know. And Mr Key has no policy, at all. He just wakes up in the morning and thinks about his Merrill Lynch shares, but over the last 6 months he has gone back to bed again because the story has been so bad at that particular point. Who else does National have? Mr Brownlee’s energy policy is to use expensive, inefficient light bulbs. That is the National Party’s energy policy.

The party opposite thinks that it can sleepwalk to victory. It has no policy and no ideas, but, of course, it does have a hidden agenda. We know what it wants to say and what it wants to do. It wants to say it will go back to the Employment Contracts Act, it wants to say it will sell State assets, it wants to say it will drop the tax cuts for those on lower incomes and transfer the cuts to those on higher incomes, and it wants to say it will promote private health-care and say “Be blowed!” to the public health-care system. It does say that it will give no more money to public schools but double the money going to private schools—that is its one bit of policy. We are really waiting for the guts of this election campaign in October or November this year, because we are waiting to hear when National will finally produce a single policy.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : I think the story that Dr Cullen and Helen Clark have been telling their caucus for about 18 months is: “We’ll just wait for another couple of weeks because then some rabbit will jump out of the hat.” Well, the bad news for the Labour caucus is that not only is there no rabbit but there is no hat, either. One of the reasons there is no hat is the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance got up in the House today to lecture us about fiscal policy. Actually, fiscal policy is not that complicated, but Dr Cullen has managed to make it very complicated. He is the man who has spent 8 years saying that anyone who offers tax cuts to New Zealanders is reckless, and, furthermore, anyone who offers tax cuts—and therefore has to borrow more money—should be taken outside and have his or her head pushed under the water and held there because that person is so stupid. Of course, after 8 years and 6 months he discovered that the public were right and he was wrong. So, what did he do? He turned around and offered significant tax cuts, and the effect of that is that he is now going out and borrowing almost all of the money he will need for those tax cuts.

That is why, however elegant and sophisticated his analysis sounds, no one believes him. People do not believe him because he did not believe himself. He said that he would never do it, that it was bad, and that it would wreck the economy to offer tax cuts, but he went and offered tax cuts. He said that any attempt to borrow another dollar would downgrade our credit rating and wreck our economic future, yet according to his current Budget he has gone out to borrow $13 billion. That is why no one believes Dr Cullen—he never believed himself.

He is also suffering from the delusion that every member of the New Zealand public thinks the Government knows how to take advantage of the economic opportunities that are offered to New Zealand. Well, the track record of this Government in recent weeks has shown New Zealanders why they should not trust those people in Labour to make the important decisions that need to be made so that New Zealand can take those opportunities. Yes, National stands for standards in education—unashamedly. And do members know what? We do not stand for more “Wassup!” in education. That is the difference. The hugely literate Dr Cullen has a strategy for lifting standards in education, which is the distribution of badges with “Wassup!” written on them. That is his strategy. Another badge says “I love Māori success”; as if any Māori 15-year-olds will look at that and feel that the Government has deep respect for their capacities—of course they will not. That is the difference between National and Labour. Yes, we stand for educational standards, and now it is absolutely clear that Labour does not. It stands for wasting taxpayers’ money, patronising people who it thinks are dependent on it, and leaving progress in education to hand-wringing and counting the failures.

I do agree with Dr Cullen about the big opportunities that New Zealand has, but did members not notice that when he introduced this bill and talked about the opportunities ahead for New Zealand, he did not mention anyone except the Government; it was as if he thought the only people who would grasp these opportunities were those in Government. Well, that shows a big difference between National and Labour. Labour sees the future as being about what the smartest politician—and Dr Cullen thinks it is him—can dream up. We see the future as being about enabling millions of New Zealanders who are innovative, who are enterprising, and who are self-reliant to get on and grasp those opportunities. We think the Government should be less of an influence on the future, not a growing influence on it, and that is the difference. Dr Cullen talks about the redemptive power of the State, and we talk about the power of the people. That is the difference.

Our economic policy is unashamedly based on creating the environment where business, individuals, and organisations can get on and seize opportunities, because they are there. The terms of trade are shifting in New Zealand’s favour. The weight of international economic activity is gradually moving towards us. These things are the best news since Britain went into the European Common Market and left us pretty much on our own. But taking advantage of those opportunities will require the use of the talents and the innovation of every single New Zealander.

Let us look at a policy where the Government does talk about infrastructure. New Zealand is the only country in the developed or semi-developed world that has a bizarre objection to the use of public-private partnerships in the building of infrastructure. Public-private partnerships are important not only because someone else supplies some money for investment in infrastructure but because they enable the Government to harvest the disciplines and skills of the private sector—in managing risks in particular, in taking a long-term view about investment, and in bringing those skills into the substantial public investment in infrastructure that any Government has to do. Why is it that Labour does not do it, will not do it, and has refused to do it, and regards anyone who even suggests that it does it as some kind of extremist maniac? I do not know the answer to that question—

Hon Member: They don’t, either.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and I do not think that Labour knows. It is just that that is something Labour believes in. A couple of weeks ago I had the good fortune to spend some time talking to two Australian Federal Labor Ministers from the new Government—Mr Lindsay Tanner, Minister for Finance and Deregulation, and Mr Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure. I have to say that if they gave the same speeches in New Zealand as they give in Australia, they would be accused by Dr Cullen, Mr Duynhoven, and Annette King of being Roger Douglas extremists. They talk openly—openly—about the virtues of profit, the benefits of private enterprise, the need for a Government to harvest the best of private enterprise—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: So do we; what’s wrong with you?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, that is what they do. That is why that member is going to struggle to hold his seat, because in New Plymouth they have a strong sense of the potential of New Zealand and they have an even stronger sense that the Labour Party and the Labour Government stand between themselves and the potential that could be realised.

Infrastructure is just one example where the Government has shown that it is just unsuited for the challenges ahead of New Zealand, because those challenges are going to be considerable. We have an economic downturn, and the public know that Labour is the “party” Government. Those members in Government had a good time while there was a party, but now there is a hangover they have all got bad-tempered and want to keep their toys away from everybody else. Helen Clark in particular has been caught flat-footed. They do not know how to deal with an economic downturn, except to complain about it and to say that the Government has done something to make it not as bad as it might otherwise have been.

National is unashamedly forward-looking with its economic policies. We will be outlining to the electorate our plans covering tax cuts, infrastructure, and standards in education. We will also be unashamed about our ambition for New Zealand. Most New Zealanders are ambitious for this country, but the problem is that the Government is ambitious only for Labour. It is ambitious only to try to get Helen Clark’s name in the history books for a fourth term. But New Zealanders actually have more important things on their minds. That is all this is about; it is now all about Helen Clark while two million New Zealand households out there are trying to make ends meet. The public know that the Government has taken a much bigger share of their income than it should have. They know that the Government books are in great order while theirs are running overdrafts. They know that 80,000 people left New Zealand last year.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Tell us what your policy is.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We meet people in the street every day who say that if Mr Duynhoven gets back into power, they are certainly going to leave. I can understand that. Some say: “I’ll stay, because I think it is important that we see him off.” That is what people are saying out there. That is why the Government—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: You are a liar, Bill. Not one person has said that to you; not one.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not one—the member is right. In New Plymouth we cannot find one person who says: “I’m keen to vote Labour.”, and I can tell that member that we have looked very hard. There are some who will vote Labour because they always have, but none of them really want to.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) : Labour has set out our agenda in terms of Budget 2008. New Zealanders know what we are planning to do and what we stand for. We continue to build a sustainable economy, to invest in health and education, to provide additional support to our old folk, and to invest in our infrastructure in a way that has not ever been seen in this country.

I am talking of transport infrastructure, and I take issue with the comments made by Bill English. You see, National members have had a conversion on the way to the ballot box. They are now great promoters of the panacea for infrastructure—public-private partnerships. But National was in Government for 9 years, and I am told by Maurice Williamson that Ruth Richardson said he could not have any money for transport, and that is why National could not invest in transport. So why did National not turn to the private sector and use public-private partnerships from 1990 to 1999? We are told that National is a great believer in public-private partnerships, but it never put in place legislation to enable public-private partnerships to take place. Which Government did that? It was a Labour Government in 2002. The National Government never took the opportunity to put its mouth, money, and policies together.

Now National members are great supporters of public-private partnerships. Bill English said that we would not even entertain public-private partnerships and we refuse to even look at them. Where has he been? Is he so busy, running around drumming up support for a party that cannot even give New Zealanders a policy, to know that Labour has set up a public-private partnership steering group for the big Waterview Connection project? Who is on that steering group? There are people from Business New Zealand, the Auckland chamber of commerce, and the private sector working with the Government sector to look at the feasibility of a public-private partnership on our biggest roading project in New Zealand. Did that come from the National Government? Could National have done that when it was in Government? Of course it could, but it did not. We cannot trust National, because what it says now does not back up its record in Government.

I believe it is now time to turn the spotlight on a would-be Government, National. Today I want to raise some policy questions—questions the National Party has refused to answer, but New Zealanders deserve a response to them. It is time for the National Party to stop treating the public of New Zealand as if they are dumb or as if they are sheep that are able to be led to the slaughter at the ballot box. That is what National is doing to New Zealanders now. It will not give them policy answers until 3 or 4 weeks before the election because, it says, other people might steal its policies. There is nothing to steal from the National Party, because it does not have anything to steal. It is sleepwalking to victory. The arrogance of that party is palpable every day of the week.

I want to ask some questions of the National Party about policy. What will that party do about climate change? What is its policy on climate change? Who was the person who said climate change was a hoax, then said he had always believed in climate change, and only a few weeks ago he took the steps back saying we should not be leading the pack; we should wait to see what happens? What is National’s policy on climate change? It is time its members told the people. I believe there will not be an emissions trading scheme in place if the National Party gets into Government. Three years will go by and there will not be an emissions trading scheme in place. We know what that will do for New Zealand’s economy at the end of the day. When the countries that receive our exports look at New Zealand and say that it is not taking climate change seriously, they will say “Let’s take some action against that country because they are big polluters.” That is what we will face. I predict now that if National gets into Government, there will not be an emissions trading scheme, because it does not have the conviction to carry through its “great” commitment to climate change.

The next question is what National will do with asset sales. Its members tell us that there will be no asset sales in the first 3 years. What a funny thing to say: we will not have them in 3 years, but give us a chance and we will get ready for them. I have listened to the speeches made by National members on the buy-back of rail. They absolutely opposed the buy-back of rail. They opposed the buy-back of Air New Zealand. They said it was a dismal failure, it would not work, and it would be bad for New Zealand. Air New Zealand is performing incredibly well, and has been bought back by this Government. That buy-back was opposed by the National Party in Opposition. Its members opposed the buy-back of rail, but National will sell rail. There is no doubt about it. I believe that National’s asset sale agenda is submerged, it is hidden, it is secret, but it has not changed from what its members have always believed.

Let us look at KiwiSaver. Will the National Party keep KiwiSaver employer contributions at the same rate and in the same time frame as they are now? You see, the truth came out. Kate Wilkinson let the truth out. I think she is an honourable member. She believed she was talking about the National Party’s policy, because it is National’s policy. When she mentioned it in a speech and it became public, once again the women in the National Party had to be suppressed. They were not allowed to speak the truth. We have seen that before. Kate Wilkinson told New Zealanders the National Party’s policy on KiwiSaver. National will get rid of it—listen to that, New Zealanders. Around 700,000 New Zealanders have now joined, and the National Party will not support it. Kate Wilkinson let the cat out of the bag. What about energy? What is the National Party policy on energy? Will it privatise again, by stealth, the remaining energy companies and infrastructure in New Zealand? National sold Contact Energy. It is proving to be a disaster for this country. Will National do it again? It did it before. The answer is yes.

What about education? Why is it that the National Party wants to create a two-class system whereby children will be unable to go to their local school, because National wants to remove zoning? I know that in my own electorate there are many, many children who, if zoning is taken away, will not be able to attend their local school. But does National care about the kids who live in the neighbourhood? No, it does not. National’s philosophy is that kids should be able to go to school where they like, and to hell with the consequences for those who live within those communities. What about health? Where is National’s policy on health? It has one policy on health, and that is to take away cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper prescriptions. National is going to take away the $3 prescription charge. When Tony Ryall was caught out putting out the policy, National rushed in and changed it because otherwise it might lose a few votes. I say to New Zealanders that National’s policy is what its members said it is. Do not be fooled by the cover-up that is going on.

Then we come, finally, to tax cuts. National will show us the size of its tax cuts just before the election. Why? It does not want any genuine scrutiny on them. It does not want people to really know the impact of what it wants to do. How will it pay for the tax cuts? Here is the doozy of them all. National is going to pay for its tax cuts, which will be bigger and better than anybody has ever seen, by getting rid of public servants. I tell this House that work has been done on what the size of National’s tax cuts would be if we got rid of a few public servants. I can tell New Zealanders that if we got rid of 1,000 public servants, we can look forward to tax cuts of 58c a week. That is what we would get, by getting rid of 1,000 public servants. So let us get rid of 10,000 public servants, and have $5.80 a week. That is what we would get by getting rid of public servants. But then, what if we do not get the services we want, because we have got rid of good public servants who are there to provide the services?

It is time the National Party fronted up on a policy position. We are in a debate around a Budget. National did not disclose a single piece of policy when its shadow finance spokesperson spoke today—not one. He said “We’ve got a great economic policy.”, but there was not one piece of information about that policy. The time is now—

Nathan Guy: You wait.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is not a matter of waiting. Those members should stop treating New Zealanders as fools, stop treating them as dumb, and front up to what their policy is, so there can be a real policy debate in this country.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : New Zealand First agrees with Dr Cullen, and with the Hon Annette King for that matter. We would like to see some policy from the National Party, as well. But that is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about some of the things that Dr Cullen mentioned when he talked about a great future. I believe, as he does, that we have a downturn at the present time. We have a downturn in front of us, but Dr Cullen does not believe it will be a recession. I say that is yet to be tested, but it will certainly be a downturn. But following that, things are looking great for our exporters. He said, and I think he was very, very positive, that we are looking better than we have looked for 150 years. I am not quite as old as Dr Cullen, obviously, but I have to say that in my lifetime the situation has never looked better than it does at present on the exporting front.

In New Zealand First we have a concern, because we will not be the only people who can work that out. We know that the people in China and India—people with whom we have no problem; we are not anti-Chinese, anti-Indian, anti-Russian, or anti any of those sorts of people—do not intend in the future to pay world prices for their food. They do not expect to pay world prices for their inputs into food, or into anything else. They intend to come out here and, one way or another, take control of the source of supply. In New Zealand First we say that is what we would do too if we were them. So our concern is that New Zealanders—New Zealand farmers, New Zealand producers, New Zealand exporters, and New Zealand citizens—enjoy the fruits of their labour and enjoy the benefits of the profits that are before us. We must resist at all costs those countries coming over here just when things are going to get good for us and taking a slice of the action for themselves. We in this House must always remember that we are elected on behalf of New Zealanders—not on behalf of the Chinese, the English, the Americans, or anybody else, but just New Zealanders—and that that is whom we must represent.

We in New Zealand First are also concerned—and it was interesting to read the Reserve Bank of New Zealand forecast, which is quite gloomy, and which brings to the fore an issue that we have been on about for many years—about the changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. I have quite a big report here from Business and Economic Research Ltd, which states that we could be looking at job losses in the region of 95,000 in the next 3 years, and we could be looking at losses to the economy in the vicinity of $7.4 billion if we just keep the focus on inflation and nothing else. Business and Economic Research Ltd says, as we say, that we are missing out on the benefits of our hard work. Many of the benefits of our hard work are going to overseas lenders and overseas investors and, in fact, if we are not careful, they will go to overseas owners of our sources of production and to the people who manufacture our products at the final stages.

Sue Kedgley: That’s quite right.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I recognise Sue Kedgley, who says that I am right. I agree with her—she has been saying similar things.

We must make changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, and the Business and Economic Research Ltd report states that we should ensure it is not just inflation that we are worried about in this country but also employment, exporting, and the cost of our dollar—in other words, the level of our dollar apropos that of the currency of the countries we are exporting to. If we do not take into consideration those issues, other people will reap the rewards of our hard work. We have not been through the hard times that I have seen in my lifetime, and that others who are out there beavering away have seen in theirs, to see the benefits flow offshore. We, like the Greens and like Sue Kedgley, are sick of seeing substandard products—agricultural products, for Heaven’s sake—coming into this country when we ourselves can produce those products at a better quality and at a better price, and can ensure that our people actually know what they are consuming. We have backed legislation in that regard, and we will do so into the future as well.

I heard Dr Cullen talk about the extraordinary rise in the price of oil. I do not see anybody in this country going across to buy a chunk of the oilfields, be they in Canada, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else. I suggest to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to the House, that if we tried to do that we would not have a snowball’s chance of getting in the door, because those countries know that the way to maximise one’s profits and maximise the benefits to one’s country is to wrap it up tight and not let anybody else in. We are at the wrong end of that situation, but we can be at the right end of the coming boom in agriculture and food products—not to rip people off, but just to make sure that we, as a low-cost provider, can do that, ship our products to foreign markets, and provide the very best that we can offer those markets at a reasonable price. But that price is going to be far better than it has been in past years.

This Business and Economic Research Ltd report is quite sad, in so far as it paints quite a dismal picture in the short term. It criticises those things that have made that come to pass. It states in black and white that our concentration on one target for the Reserve Bank is costing us in this country big time. We have said that, and it is pleasing to see that stated in a report of such depth and length. We say that if we continue in that way, we will not be as wealthy as, potentially, we could be. Even today we are not as wealthy as, potentially, we could have been. There is no reason for us, with the coming boom just around the corner, to be shedding jobs. We should not be looking at a downturn of the magnitude that I think we are seeing here. We have seen an economy that favours importers, we have seen an economy that favours consumption, and we have seen an economy that punishes exporters and producers. That cannot be right. New Zealand First intends to continue the fight to get the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act widened so that it can be more favourable to our exporters, thus returning better profits to our producers and, through them, to our citizens, God bless their souls.

• Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : We are here tonight to debate the Imprest Supply (First for 2008/09) Bill and also the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. When reading through the bills, as I did over dinner, I found that the pity of it was that it is the same old, same old. It is the same stuff; there is nothing new. The Government will give itself the authority to spend more taxpayers’ money and impose more costs on to ratepayers. The ratepayers and taxpayers, of course, are the same people. The Government has its hands, via central and local government, in both pockets. The pity of it is that we will end up with more of the same old nanny State stuff. And what a pity that is. For the last 8 or 9 years, as a consequence of the foundation that was left by the previous National Government, this Government has had the best economic times that one could have dreamt of. This Government had the opportunity to give the people of this nation the right and the freedom to stand on their own feet and start making decisions, creating job opportunities for themselves, creating opportunities for people and their communities, and creating opportunities for their children and their grandchildren. But what have we ended up with? Sadly, we have ended up with a country that is dominated by a left-leaning, socialist Labour Government that wants to control every facet of the lives of everybody in this country.

Lindsay Tisch: And redistribute our money.

JOHN CARTER: That is quite right. Instead of allowing people to create and build wealth, and to have a better community, the Government wants to take it off them, put it in its pocket, and control everything from finances to social lives to what people do on the sporting paddock.

The Government wants to control the lives of New Zealanders. Let us look at some of the ways in which the Government has done this. Just recently the Government introduced a bill into Parliament called the Public Health Bill. One would think that nothing is wrong with that; there is some stuff in there that needs to be addressed. But one of the areas that will cause more cost for the taxpayers, and for the ratepayers, is the issue around hairdressers. One wonders why the Government—

Lindsay Tisch: We won’t go, will we?

JOHN CARTER: I have to say to Mr Tisch that he and I are probably not people who frequently attend the hairdressers.

Chris Tremain: Neither does Mr Tanczos.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, one or two others in this House are of the same ilk. The point is that up until now the hairdressers in this country have got on and done their job for people. They have even had a go for people like Chris Finlayson.

Christopher Finlayson: What about Nandor?

JOHN CARTER: We have already talked about Nandor. The fact is that those people have got on with their lives and got on with the job. They have cut hair and done hairdressing, and they have made people more beautiful. I have to say to Ron Mark that in his case and mine that job has been more challenging for them. Nevertheless, the fact is they have got on and done the job that people have expected them to do. Now the Government has decided that that is not good enough, that there are too many risks around allowing people to be hairdressers, and that they have to be controlled. So the Government will spend some of this money on ensuring that there are more controls and regulations around hairdressers, and they will also tell local government that it has to police this. What we will now have is not just more taxpayers’ money being spent, and the health department looking after rules and regulations in respect of hairdressers; we will now have the local authorities going down and spending more ratepayers’ money on issuing permits so that people can be hairdressers. I have to ask where it will stop.

Let us look at the Department of Building and Housing. This seriously is a major worry. The costs that this department imposes on taxpayers, and on to ratepayers, are unbelievable. In 1999, 31.5 full-time equivalents were employed in the Department of Building and Housing. Last time I looked, just a few weeks ago, 389 people were employed in that department. The Government is now going through the accreditation of local government. It has now accredited a good number of the local authorities in New Zealand, to allow them to issue permits and carry on being involved in building, but this is at a cost to ratepayers of at least $8 million. This is some of the crazy stuff that the Government is doing.

Just recently I learnt that the Department of Conservation has about 300 huts—generally in parks, up the sides of mountains, and in places that people like to visit. These are not places that one would expect to be able to just walk into; some of them are a bit challenging. The Department of Building and Housing has issued rules and regulations about all sorts of things. One of them is about how to cope with people with disabilities. There is nothing wrong with making sure that there is proper access—there should be; in fact, this is one of the things that the National Party absolutely supports. But I have to say there is a limit when the Department of Building and Housing writes to local authorities to ask whether they consider it necessary for wheelchair access to be mandatorily put into a Department of Conservation hut that is 3,000 feet up the side of a mountain. I have to say that if someone is capable of getting up to that hut in a wheelchair, the last thing that person will want or expect or demand is wheelchair access or disabled toilets. Yet the Department of Building and Housing is spending our taxpayers’ money, and putting costs on to ratepayers, by asking whether this should be something we have to do mandatorily across the country, in the 300 Department of Conservation huts. We have to ask ourselves where this nanny State stops its control. It is just unbelievable that we would have that sort of thing.

The other day I was in a rural village where there was an outlet for farmers. I was talking to the shopkeeper, who told me that all sorts of stuff was sold that one would expect people in the farming community to purchase, such as grain, weed spray, machinery—all sorts of different stuff. An occupational safety and health inspector went in the other day. The shopkeeper has a warehouse around the back, with a certain variety of goods in it. On one side he has grain and food for the stock, and on the other side he has weed spray, so that the farmers, if they need to control their weeds, can purchase that and do whatever they need to do to control the weeds. The inspector told him that it was very dangerous to have stock food on one side and weed spray on the other, and that a farmer could get very confused. The inspector came up with the following solution—and the shopkeeper had to do this. He said that on one side of the warehouse footprints going towards the stock food had to be painted in blue, and on the other side footprints in yellow going towards the weed spray had to be painted. So when a farmer came up to ask for some weed spray, the shopkeeper would have to say: “Yes, but when you go out the back, you must follow the yellow footsteps to get the weed spray, and please don’t follow the blue prints to get the food stock, because you might get mixed up and feed your cows weed spray instead of food stock.”

Lindsay Tisch: What happens if he is colour-blind, though?

JOHN CARTER: There is a problem. I am not sure what happens if he is colour-blind. That is the sort of nonsense we are talking about. If somebody can tell me that a farmer cannot understand the difference between weed spray and food stock, then I have to say that that person is not capable of farming. It is that sort of stuff that this country has had to put up with.

This Government is wondering why 80,000 people left last year to go over to Australia or further abroad permanently. This Government is wondering why people have become sick and tired of supporting it. This Government is wondering why we are having outbreaks of crime that we have never seen before. This Government is wondering why people in this country are dispirited. This Government is worried about what it has done to this country, and the only people who cannot see the problem are Helen Clark and her Labour-led Government. The fact is that this country has got sick and tired of being told what to do. This country is built by people of initiative. This country has tonnes of people with fire in their belly. This country has tonnes of people who want to have the opportunity to get on with their own lives. The people in this country do not need to be mollycoddled. The people in this country do not need to be controlled by nanny State. The people in this country just want a Government that will get out of their lives and let them have the opportunity to carry on building and rebuilding this nation. I say to the people that they should just hold on a little longer—hope is on its way.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I wish to speak on the supplementary estimates relating to intelligence services that come under the name of Vote Communications Security and Intelligence, for the Government Communications Security Bureau, and Vote Security Intelligence, for the Security Intelligence Service.

Nandor Tanczos: That’s an oxymoron.

KEITH LOCKE: Yes, my colleague behind me said that security intelligence is a bit of an oxymoron. I am particularly interested in the Government Communications Security Bureau because three very well-motivated and moral people from the Ploughshares Christian group, Brother Peter Murnane and a couple of his colleagues, visited one of the Government Communications Security Bureau establishments at Waihopai near Blenheim recently. They thought they would go inside and have a look, but happened to pop one of the two big balloons that were there. Members might have seen the photographs in the newspaper. They have not been charged with any serious offences, because I think the Government does not really want a court case that brings out the true purpose of that spy base, which I think relates to the problems in the estimates. I thought: “Well, let’s find out what this Waihopai spy station is all about. It comes under the auspices of the Government Communications Security Bureau, so let us have a look at the estimates and the supplementary estimates, and see what sort of money is spent on that and what it’s all about.”

When we look at the estimates and the supplementary estimates, which are just a few lines long, we see there is just one figure. There is no breakdown whatsoever, and this is consistent with the estimates and supplementary estimates in previous years. There is no breakdown of the figure into wages, capital expenditure, and different departmental costs. There is certainly no breakdown of what the Waihopai satellite communications interception station costs. All there is is one gross figure of $39,288,000 for the Government Communications Security Bureau, which was expended last year, and then the supplementary estimate of $1,057,000, making a total of $40,345,000. This all comes under the one heading of “Advising and assisting government departments and agencies on matters related to the security and integrity of classified or sensitive information processed, communicated or stored by electronic means, and information to meet the national intelligence requirements of the New Zealand Government.” That is the whole shooting box—there is no breakdown whatsoever. As I said, that is consistent with previous years.

In the Budget this year we notice that the total budget for the Government Communications Security Bureau, which was $42 million in the year ended 2007, went down a bit to $40 million last year, but in the current Budget it is going up to nearly $49 million. Surely Parliament, if it is an open society and responsible to the people, and the people’s watchdog, should know a bit about the nature of that $9 million increase, but there is no explanation, whatsoever. I had a look at the latest annual report of the Government Communications Security Bureau. That has only one figure in it, too, with no breakdown of figures for the past. All it says in its statement of purpose—and this may relate to Waihopai, although it does not actually say—is: “providing foreign signals intelligence (SIGINT) to support and inform Government decision making;”. It says nothing about the fact that Waihopai spy base operates mainly for the purposes of a foreign power—namely, the United States—and most of the information that is collected there, which is filtered through key word systems and origin and destination phone numbers and fax numbers is sent to the National Security Agency in America. That is the dominant intelligence partner in the five-nation Anglo alliance that runs the Echelon network, of which Waihopai is a part—the Anglo nations being New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Britain, and America.

None of that is in the documents; all we are given is one bald figure. Of course, we have a watchdog body called the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is not a select committee; it comprises appointees of the Labour and National parties. Last Wednesday it tabled a couple of reports in Parliament on communications security intelligence—that is, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and security and intelligence, which is the Security Intelligence Service. Both are two-sentence reports, with no explanation whatsoever, stating that the committee recommends the appropriations in respect of Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence, etc., be agreed. So we have, in the Government Communications Security Bureau, a completely opaque institution.

Lately I have been thinking about the Bill Sutch case that has been in the news recently. One good thing that the Security Intelligence Service has done recently, under its new head, Warren Tucker, is open up some of the files in relation to the Sutch case in the mid-1970s. There is an article in the latest Listener where Graeme Hunt says that he still thinks Dr Sutch was a spy. But two questions came into my mind. What secrets would Dr Sutch, who was a social and economics expert, have had to give to a foreign power in an open society like New Zealand where virtually everything is open? Dr Sutch would not have had access to defence secrets. I am on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and virtually nothing in the Defence Force is a secret. So what secrets are there for any so-called spy to give to a foreign power?

Then I thought, well, no—secrets are not about the real secrets that cannot be disclosed internationally; the real secrets in New Zealand are the things that the people of New Zealand cannot be told about. The reason why they are not told about Waihopai is that if they really knew that Waihopai is operating for George Bush’s foreign policy, according to what I have read—if they really knew that—they would be very upset. So who is the real security danger in New Zealand? Who is hiding things from the people? Who is undermining our democracy and accountability, not only in the financial terms we are discussing tonight but in general terms? It is agencies like the Government Communications Security Bureau, and parties like National and Labour that will not tell people the truth about what is going on in these agencies.

David Lange, in his introduction to Nicky Hager’s book Secret Power, said that he was in charge of this agency—the Government Communications Security Bureau—and they never told him what Waihopai was really about. So even the then Prime Minister was not fully informed, and unfortunately did not delve seriously into finding out while he was Prime Minister. It appears that other leaders of our great nation, and the leaders of National and Labour, have likewise just accepted that it is in New Zealand’s interests and we do not need to know much more about it.

I think that is a bit of a disgrace, and I ask this rather toothless Intelligence and Security Committee—which meets for only about 3 hours a year, according to the information I have received through written questions—to do its job a little better if it is going to justify its existence. Its members should not go there just for coffee and to listen to the Security Intelligence Service head, Warren Tucker, or the Government Communications Security Bureau head, Bruce Ferguson, give a little briefing, sign everything off, and go away. We deserve more.

In overseas jurisdictions, like the United States, for example, there is a much more thorough accountability system, and people would not get away with that level of lack of scrutiny. So in that respect I think the United States is a better model for us to follow for more accountability, even though, as I said, I object, and the Green Party certainly objects, to our having a spy station here that is basically in the interests of the Bush administration, which, as we know, is engaged in a war in Iraq that we do not agree with, and the betrayal and undermining of the human rights of people in places like Guantanamo Bay. It is not that sort of foreign policy that we should be helping through the Waihopai spy station. Thank you.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I am pleased to stand tonight to support the motion before Parliament that the supplementary estimates be approved so that the Government can continue spending public money to try to make New Zealand a better, fairer, and more inclusive and decent place to live. I am really proud of this Government. I am proud of the things we have achieved working together with the country over the last nearly 9 years.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I don’t think New Zealanders would agree with you, Darren. New Zealanders would have a different view.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I am proud of the fact that when we took office from people like Dr Wayne Mapp, 161,000 people relied on the unemployment benefit every week for their income, yet now fewer than 19,000 people a week have to rely on a dole payment for their income because we have lowered the unemployment rate so significantly in this country by putting people back to work. This Labour Government has been focusing with energy on getting people back into work, and we have been rigorous in our approach to make sure that jobs are an opportunity for every family in New Zealand, that their own income is the result of their own labour, and that they are making a difference for their families. That is what I am proud of.

I am proud of the fact that the 130,000 children who used to live in poverty when Dr Mapp was a member of the previous National Government do not live in poverty today. Those kids now grow up in homes where they do not pay a market rent for their State house, and where their parents go into jobs where the wages go up every year, not down. That is not just because wages have gone up 3.4 percent in the last year, but because this Government has taken the minimum wage from $7 an hour right up to $12 an hour—an increase of $200 a week for the poorest workers in New Zealand.

When Dr Wayne Mapp was a member of the previous Government, when National ruled this country, those members could not even get the minimum wage up by 80c an hour over 9 years. We have put it up by over $5 an hour over 9 years. I would ask Dr Wayne Mapp whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. I want to know whether Dr Wayne Mapp supports the minimum wage increases of the last 9 years.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why have 80,000 people left New Zealand?

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Oh, he cannot answer that. He has been interjecting in that staccato way since I started, but he cannot tell me why, when he was in Government, he saw the minimum wage increase by 80c an hour. In Opposition he has opposed it being raised by $5 an hour, and his only contribution was to try to sack people after 90 days. Well, he should be grateful that that law did not apply to members of Parliament in the 1990s, because his career has been such an utter, dismal failure that after 90 days in 1996 National would have wanted to get rid of him.

Ron Mark: His wage went up.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Mr Mark is quite right. The wages of the National Party MPs have gone up every single year that Labour has been in Government—every single year. Their taxes get cut on 1 October.

Some of those members have business interests, and those taxes went down on 1 April. I know that Mr Tisch is a businessman; I know that he has business interests. Mr Tisch voted against taxes coming down for businesses. Mr Tisch ought to do one decent, honourable thing: he should get out his cheque book, write out the difference in the tax rates, and pay the 33c rate on his business tax this year, because he voted for a higher rate of business tax in this Parliament than a Labour Government will achieve. So Mr Tisch should be honest about it and pay the difference, seeing that his vote in this Parliament did not follow his financial interest.

Right around the world Governments, populations, and communities are facing troubles. This is true. Oil prices are making an impact on the country and on communities, food prices are hitting people, and it does not matter whether the masthead on the newspaper is in the Kapiti Observer, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Washington Post, the Guardian, or even papers throughout the Far East or Asia—all of the headlines are the same. Food and fuel prices are causing problems. During those times people look to who has the experience, who has the judgment, and who has the record to lead them through those periods.

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s absolutely right, Darren.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Dr Mapp is interjecting like crazy. I want to know why he is busy in Parliament tonight interjecting on me, instead of being upstairs at a seminar on the role that traders are playing in keeping food and oil prices high. I think that he knows somebody quite well who could give him an explanation about why some of these commodity prices are being kept artificially high for ordinary working people. Those involved in the financial scene and the global economy are making a lot of money at the present time off the back of these future markets. I wonder whether that is a question, a discussion, a debate, or a raised eyebrow that might have come up from time to time in the National Party caucus. I think that those members know one or two traders who know one or two things about trading in these commodity items, and I think they ought to look at that.

One of the big things we hear about at the present time is National members going around the country saying that it is time for a change. In this debate we have 3 hours where we have a wide-ranging debate. Our ordinary business is suspended so that we can talk about the financial state of the Government and the financial affairs of our country. One would think that during that time the National Party could answer this one question that Labour MPs have for them: change to what? That is the key question that we put to the Opposition.

Dr Wayne Mapp: More growth, more jobs, and more prosperity.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Dr Mapp says “more jobs”. More jobs have been created under this Labour Government in 1 year than were created under 9 years of the right-wing ideology that confronted our country when National was in power. National went down the track of the far-right ideology that they would return to again.

I know that the National Party likes a little bit of copyright fraud. I know that it likes to play the occasional song from a Coldplay DVD that does not quite line up with international copyright laws. But those members are going a step too far when, in effect, they corrupt Senator Barack Obama’s message. He is out there saying “change you can believe in”. The National Party is going out there saying “change you cannot believe in”, because nobody can believe that the change the National Party is talking about would benefit working families in our country, at all. How do I know that? I know that because the policies that have been the most popular in this country, and that have had the biggest effect on this country in terms of making it a better, fairer, and more inclusive place, have all been opposed by the National Party in the beginning.

I ask Dr Richard Worth, who is sitting in the back row—which seems an appropriate place for him—whether he voted against the KiwiSaver 40 times.

Shane Ardern: No; definitely not.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Yes, he did. Yet the National Party will in the end, presumably, turn up at the election with a policy in favour of KiwiSaver. I tell people not to believe it, and here is why. Bill English has started changing the tone of his language, and we all know what a great strategist Bill English is. Bill English is the great man of the National Party. The “born to rule” arrogance of 21 percent and falling is what Bill English achieved, but somehow he has those members in his grip again. How National members fell for it the first time was a mystery to Labour, but, like the sheep they are, they have fallen for it a second time. They have allowed Bill English and the folks that surround him to colonise the National Party once again. It is a delight to watch. Once again we saw in question time today, which was delayed because of the Zimbabwe motion, that the Leader of the Opposition could not ask his own question, so he got Mr Bill English to ask it. We saw again those glory days—2001 to 2003—and why that man could not be the Leader of the Opposition.

However, Bill English, somehow, has control of the internal National Party machine again. He said that the current world economic situation creates an opportunity for a Government to look at things afresh again. I thought to myself, as a student of political history, that we have heard that before. The National Party in 1990 campaigned on one set of policies, and then it got into office and said: “Well, woe betide me. Things are a little different from what we thought. We will have to have a 180-degree different policy agenda to the one we just campaigned on.” Bill English is laying the bones of that right now with the strategy of having National members not mentioning any policy lest they scare off anyone by telling them they will raise doctors’ fees, like Tony Ryall did last year. Those members are hiding all of that because it might not be very popular.

Then National decided to adopt the approach of saying that the world economy creates a position for an incoming Government to look at things a little differently. That puts KiwiSaver at risk.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Rubbish!

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Oh, Dr Mapp says “Rubbish!”. Well, let us wait and see what happens. Just because Kate Wilkinson told the country the truth, it does not necessarily mean that the rest of the caucus plans to do that.

The Working for Families package, which means that a lot of this country’s families pay no tax on their income at all so that they can do the most important job of all, which is to raise children, is one of the things that our supplementary estimates will support in this bill. We have cheaper doctors’ visits. If Labour had not become the Government in 1999, then doctors’ fees would be double what they are today. Yet National members put out a discussion document where they said that doctors’ fees would go up because they would remove the cap. Then they did not want to talk about that any more, and they have gone silent at the moment.

Then the granddaddy of them all was interest-free student loans. Let me ask Dr Mapp whether he campaigned in favour of or in opposition to interest-free student loans at the last election.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I didn’t campaign on that issue.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: He says that he did not campaign on that issue. That will not be correct. I will be asking the North Shore Times what he said about that, and for fun I will take it to the Privileges Committee—for fun alone I will drag it to Parliament’s powerful Privileges Committee.

Let me ask Chris Tremain about this. Chris Tremain is the kind of MP who would follow the book entirely. I can guarantee that Chris Tremain would never think an original thought of his own. He would follow whatever head office said. I ask Chris Tremain whether he was in support of or in opposition to interest-free student loans at the last election.

Chris Tremain: I was against it.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: He was against it at the last election. At the next election will he campaign for it or against it?

Chris Tremain: You’re not here to question me.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Oh, he said he was for it. He is in favour of it for this election. This is great.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why don’t you talk about your policies?

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Interest-free student loans are our policy, I say to Dr Mapp. That is the whole point. This policy is the Labour-led Government’s policy. The National Party in Opposition, bereft of any ideas or principles, turns up holus-bolus at the xerox machine to copy Labour’s policy. I tell those members to show us the whites of their eyes. We will have a campaign on that, and we will beat them fair and square.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : Was that not a brave face from a lost soul over there? He said he is proud to be in a Government that is going down the tubes, has lost the confidence of New Zealanders, and has squandered its opportunities. This Government has no idea about what makes the world go round. It has no idea about innovation, about entrepreneurship, or about growing the cake so that some of it can be redistributed. It wants to do its redistribution after it has taken taxes from people.

I want to refer to an organisation set up by this Government some years ago—namely, the Small Business Advisory Group, or “SBAG”, as it is called. On 26 March I asked the Minister when the Small Business Advisory Group would present its 2007 annual report. His reply was: “I am advised that the Small Business Advisory Group does not produce an annual report.” Technically that may be right, but on 7 April the Small Business Advisory Group put out its 2007 report. It is a very, very comprehensive document. It contains 16 recommendations, which it put before this Government for its consideration. It came out before the Budget, not since. And guess what—not one of those 16 recommendations are included in the Government’s Budget.

The previous year the group had 19 recommendations. But guess what—not one was implemented by this Government. Last year when the group decided it would critique the performance of this Government, it gave it 4.5 out of 10. [Interruption] We are just waiting to see what the group’s critique on the Government will be this time around, because now that the Budget is out and now that we have the group’s report, I can say, having spoken to many of those who are part of the Small Business Advisory Group, that they are not impressed one little bit with this Government. So why set up an organisation whose purpose is to advise on matters pertaining to small business?

We are a nation of small businesses. We have close to 450,000 small businesses. That is a big segment of our community. We have a Government organisation made up of people who are in business, who know what it is to invest, and who know how to take the hard knocks. They want to make an impression on, and a commitment to, their communities, and they want to employ staff, yet this Government just kicks them in the teeth. The Small Business Advisory Group made 16 recommendations, and not one of them has been implemented.

Here I have an article from NZBusiness which states: “It’s time for action.” It gives some of the recommendations that were articulated at the time. But I think it is very salutary to note the last comment in this document. It says that the Small Business Advisory Group provides a useful voice for small to medium sized enterprises, and that it is, however, limited in scope and influence. It goes on to say that it is better than no voice at all, since New Zealand politicians rarely talk openly about the importance of small to medium sized enterprises to the country, whereas in Australia and the United States, for example, senior politicians discuss the importance of them often. It also says that the lack of open support for small to medium sized enterprises is a sad indictment on our politicians and shows up the woeful level of business knowledge and experience in their ranks. Well—that article sums up where this Government is. It does not understand—

Chris Tremain: Minus four.

LINDSAY TISCH: Yes, it will get a score in the minuses.

I have here an article dated 22 May, which states: “Small business calls on Government to do more”. The cries are coming out for this Government to take notice of this very important part of our community. If we want to grow the cake and have wealth so that everyone does better, and if we want to lift New Zealand’s living standards, instead of dropping from number 20 in the OECD to number 22, then we have to be enterprising in what we do. That did not come out in the Budget.

The previous speaker talked about reducing the business tax rate to 30 percent. Well, most of those 450,000 small businesses are not companies. Sure, the company tax rate came down from 33 to 30 percent, but most small businesses are sole traders or partnerships. What happened to them? Their tax rate stayed the same. It stayed at 33 percent or 39 percent. So when the previous speaker tells people to write out a cheque because they are in business, I can tell him that maybe companies might do OK with a reduction to 30 percent—that is what Australia has. But we have to remember that as a nation of small businesses most of our small business entrepreneurs are actually sole traders or partnerships.

So here we are trying to lift New Zealand’s living standards, and our performance has to be smarter than in the past. Australia and Ireland have moved their living standards up. Dr Cullen said in the Budget debate that we needed 4 percent growth. Then he acknowledged that we will get only 2.5 percent over the next 4 years. How can we have growth of 4 percent when he acknowledges that will be only 2.5 percent?

Chris Auchinvole: It’s a failure.

LINDSAY TISCH: It is a failure. That is evidenced today by so many who are deciding to make their fortunes offshore. Every week 800 Kiwis are deciding to go to Australia.

Chris Auchinvole: I wonder why.

LINDSAY TISCH: We know why. The reason is that this underperforming Government does not take notice of or recognise the contribution these people can make. Another 40,000-odd have decided to go elsewhere. There will be many in this Chamber who know of folk and young people who have decided to go offshore. Both my children live and work in London. They are not just on an OE; they have decided that that is where they will make their home. I want them back here. I want them to contribute. They are part of the brain drain. You see, of the 80,000-odd who have decided to go offshore, 80 percent are under 40 years of age. They are the ones we should be retaining. They are the great contributors to any economy. They are the ones who have decided to go offshore. Out of that 80 percent who are under 40 years of age, 40 percent have tertiary qualifications. They are the ones the taxpayers of the country have put through our tertiary institutions. We have become the nursery for the world. We are the ones who are providing the people with the wherewithal, and they are going to make their contribution elsewhere.

National believes that these people are important. We want them back. Our policies will be around making our environment globally competitive. That is what we want. We want an economy that will prosper and grow the cake. That is what we want. We want to have a tax system that is fair and equitable. We want a tax system that caters for people across the board, not just for a few. We want higher standards in education. If we are to grow and prosper, then we must have higher standards in education. We want to build opportunities for everybody. That is what we want. We want that fairness and equity.

I am ambitious for New Zealand. National is ambitious for New Zealand. We have a great future ahead of us. We have lost the opportunities of the last 9 years. This Government is down the road. People are looking for some new ideas, for some energy and commitment, and that is what they will get from a National Government in a few months’ time.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. In my electorate of Tamaki Makaurau the appropriations that relate to the expenses incurred and capital expenditure for 2007-08 are not what people are talking about. The loss of three lives in South Auckland in as many weeks is what is on their minds. What is on their minds is the impact of the number of liquor outlets, the pervasive harm inflicted by P—methamphetamine—the hopeless grip of unemployment for some, and the relentless fear of street violence and gangs. If it is not the wave of crime that occupies their waking thoughts, it is the skyrocketing price of petrol, rising food costs, and the prevalence of loan sharks and pokie outlets that prey upon the more vulnerable members of their communities. It is the struggle to survive, the pressure of housing costs, and the impact of fuel poverty, where households need to spend at least 10 percent or more of their income to keep their homes warm. For these people a contestable fund for deployment of marine energy devices will mean little in their day-to-day lives, nor will the projected movements in net assets for each department and Office of Parliament. That is not to say we in the Māori Party should not be scrutinising the appropriations, by which Parliament authorises the Government to incur expenses and capital expenditure. Indeed, the situation and environment in South Auckland propels us even more strongly into ensuring that Parliament is authorising what the people need.

In schedule 3 of the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, we find the Community Partnership Fund, under Vote Community and Voluntary Sector. Will this new investment enable the community change we require? Will it address what editorials have described as the signs of a deep social malaise, the dangers of our indifference? How will the Community Partnership Fund restore hope to those inhabiting the suburban wastelands, those individuals whom we describe as brutally alienated people? Tapu Misa challenges us to all consider these suburban scenarios with more compassion, taking up the collective challenge to care. She said: “It’s easier not to care for those in prison, for the children of beneficiaries, for the poor, if they look different from us, if we can blame their failings on race or define them as the underclass.” Is this where we have come to as a community, as a nation—that we withdraw from one another, each becoming the nameless, faceless, and feared stranger to the other? It is easy to dismiss, blame, reject, and imprison; easy to rob, harm, and kill.

What will allow us to reconnect? What will allow us to care about other people’s children as much as we care about our own; to care rather than simply stop and stare? We protest against the thugs on the mean streets. We talk up large on zero tolerance. We call for tougher sentencing, we create petitions to allow parents to physically assault their children in the name of discipline, and still we complain that New Zealand is too soft on offending. The Māori Party will not collude in the fierce battle as to who can be tougher, meaner, and more punitive in dealing to crime. We truly believe that the answers lie in working together to make our homes, streets, neighbourhoods, and communities safer. The solutions lie in creating more caring places in which to live. Our urban jungles, fenced off by high walls and thick bushes, leading into dead-end cul-de-sacs, make for great places to hide and even greater places to fear. Of course better environmental design would have helped, but we cannot wait for the town planners and the architects to make the change we know is necessary now. Our care can make our communities more caring. We need to restore faith in our suburbs, that we have the resources within ourselves to watch out for each other, to keep our kids safe, to strengthen the sense of community. If the Community Partnership Fund can do that, the investment will be well spent. A community leadership fund might be even better.

The other key appropriation in this light is to Vote Internal Affairs, with the Significant Community Based Projects Fund. The Māori Party is committed to supporting what we call opportunity communities. Opportunity communities are those that have never had the opportunity to reach their potential. Opportunity communities, of course, are not just those in our urban suburbs that are subjected to high levels of poverty and then left to deal with the fall-out. Opportunity communities also respond to the short-sighted policy that stigmatised some 259 locations throughout Aotearoa as limited employment locations or no-go zones. The limited employment locations policy introduced in 2004 was primarily to instigate sanctions against unemployment beneficiaries so that if they move to such locations, they may risk losing their benefits. Yet, as research from Gabriel Kiddle revealed, one of the primary findings of a case study based in Ōpōtiki was that for Māori beneficiaries who chose to move to these so-called limited employment locations, the importance of home was uppermost in their motivations. For these beneficiaries, the opportunity they were seeking in returning home was a desire to maximise their living standards, and to take advantage of the social, family, and cultural networks of their whānau, hapū, and iwi. The series The New Migration,currently on Māori Television, explores in depth what a younger generation is seeking when they leave homes and jobs in the cities and return to their roots, to their tūrangawaewae, and also the very real contribution they make to their tribal communities and to future generations. Yet, ironically, the opportunities they desired were being denied to them through decisions made at the centre, to punish them by means of economic deprivation.

When the Māori Party comes to the supplementary estimates bill, we seek a commitment that community-based investment can be used to advance opportunity communities. We seek an assurance that the unique social and cultural resources of communities may be considered as providing the viable infrastructure for developing greater economic potential. It was pleasing yesterday to learn of the support of more than $400,000 being promised by the New Zealand Bankers’ Association to help fund a trial programme on financial literacy in schools. We would hope that the Community Partnership Fund and the Significant Community Based Projects Fund could come alongside of the country’s banks to enable a more comprehensive community-owned investment in financial education.

Finally, I was saddened by an article published yesterday in The Aucklander entitled Neighbourhood Botch”, which demonstrated how people are losing their sense of security by the reality of neighbourhoods facing inwards and failing to watch out for each other. A member of the Manurewa Crime Watch Patrol, Toa Greening, remarked that trying to make a difference out there on the streets is like a drop of water in a raging ocean. If I could say one thing to all our brave heroes out on the street, our caring neighbours, our watchful whānau, it would be to remind us of the expression: “Tērā tātou te pōhēhē, he patuwai noa iho tātou i te moana o te ora engari, tērā taua moana te memehā iho mō te kore o aua patuwai; there are those of us who believe that we are just drops in the ocean, but that ocean would be nothing but for those drops.” Each tiny drop makes a difference—it does make a difference. The challenge on us all is to make sure that it receives the support it needs to change the tide and to make the difference that we all seek and desire. Tēnā koe.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I am glad that Mr Ardern is looking forward to my speech, as well—but probably not quite as much as I am to giving it. I was interested in Dr Cullen’s opening remarks, where he described the New Zealand economy as beginning to feel the effects of what is quite clearly a challenging global economic environment. He described the global increases in commodity prices—the cost of food and petrol is increasing significantly here at home and internationally—and obviously there are fears that those increases could impoverish tens of millions of people in developing countries. There is the continued fall-out from the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States and the resulting global credit crunch. Those have led to higher mortgage rates and a weakening of the housing market domestically, squeezing the budgets of existing homeowners and reducing household spending and investment growth.

Two other factors are worth noting. One is the weakness of the US dollar, which has been an important driver of a very strong New Zealand dollar until very recently, and that has made life very difficult, as we know, for some exporters. Finally, farmers have been battling drought in a number of regions, and GDP growth will clearly have to slow as a result of that phenomenon in particular.

Although those challenges are not of New Zealand’s making, they are clearly affecting a wide range of New Zealanders today. The challenges we face are significant, but the New Zealand economy faces them from a position of remarkable, and one might even say unprecedented, strength. Our recent Budget enhances the public investment in education, health care, the social agencies, and other important services, and I am very proud of it. Through that Budget it can be said quite fairly that we are addressing both the pressures of today, which I have just described in part, and the needs of future years.

This Government has managed the public purse responsibly, and it has not squandered resources in times of great optimism. [Interruption] It is always a pleasure to have Dr Mapp agree with my sentiments. We have seen 345,000 more jobs created. We should be very proud of that record, I say to Dr Mapp; there are 345,000 more jobs, giving more families a stake in our economy. Unemployment has fallen by more than half, and it has stayed at below 4 percent for over 4 years. One hundred and forty thousand fewer people are relying on a working-age benefit, child poverty rates are falling dramatically, and inequalities in health outcomes are finally starting to narrow after the 9 years of investment that this Government has made in that sector.

All of that strong economic growth has now allowed us to fund increases in superannuation that have seen married pensioners more than $30 a week better off. That means that fewer of our seniors are living in poverty, and that is a very good thing. We have also been able to reform the welfare provisions in order to promote employment, and that, combined with the strong economy that we have enjoyed over the last few years, has seen us achieve the lowest unemployment ever recorded and a 25 percent increase in real household incomes. Those are achievements to be very proud of and they have allowed us, as a Government, to reduce the cost of seeing the doctor and getting a standard prescription, to expand access to health services, screening, and immunisation, to provide 20 hours’ free early childhood education, to control the cost of tertiary education; and to build thousands of new State houses while restoring income-related rents for them.

We have also begun a major assault on income inequality in retirement, through using KiwiSaver, which has seen huge numbers of young and low-income workers start to save for the future—never mind those predictions that there be middle-class capture of that programme; we are seeing Kiwis from all walks of life enrol, which is something to be incredibly proud of. The total number of people in KiwiSaver has now passed 67,000 after just 10 months of the scheme’s operation.

Shane Ardern: Will they be able to afford to keep paying?

CHARLES CHAUVEL: “Will they be able to afford to keep paying?”, asks Mr Ardern. Let us hope so, because the more people we have saving for their retirement, the better it will be for them and for the country.

Hon David Parker: It’s less likely if National cancels the employer contribution.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: That is right. If we saw the employer contribution cancelled, which we understand is the policy of members opposite, what a devastating thing that would be to KiwiSaver.

It is useful to contrast the record I have described with that of members opposite. I was really interested to read what Gordon Campbell had to say on the Scoop site yesterday. I want to read a little of what he had to say. John Key says National has its first 100 days in Government planned out should it win the election. What exactly does John Key have planned? Because he is not telling Kiwis. Campbell says: “Economic uncertainty is National’s latest rationale for why they are not releasing their main policy positions and costings until the election campaign has virtually begun. Off hand, it is hard to think of a serious pretender to government in any other modern democracy that could get away with concealing the nature and cost of their policies for so long, merely because it suits them tactically to do so.”

Campbell goes on to observe: “A week ago … as No Right Turn pointed out the NZ Herald” hadMr Key “being voted the country’s sexiest politician and … Nelson MP Nick Smith getting engaged by writing his ‘Will you marry me?’ proposal in the sand with a stick. Spare us. Early this month, National claimed to have already released some 14, count ’em, 14 policies. Yet apart from its $1.5 billion promise to roll out broadband by 2012, none have any costings attached—a rather essential ingredient if voters are to judge how affordable the ‘policies’ are, and the levels of debt that may be required to finance them. Counted on the list of 14 is the vague promise that by 2050, National will (somehow, no details provided) reduce New Zealand’s carbon emissions to half their 1990 levels by 2050”—never mind the opposition to the emissions trading scheme—“and equally vague promises to adopt Labour’s nuclear free policy and to continue … [the] policy of targeting aid to the Pacific.”

Campbell says: “Given the virtual information blackout National has imposed about its plans, it would be surprising if fears about its hidden agendas didn’t arise. Frankly, it seems (a) scary and (b) infuriating to be this close to a possible change of government without National being willing to tell us how it proposes to care for the sick, fund schools and universities, manage the workplace, protect the environment, and run the economy. Just what has it got in its policy kitbag that it needs to hide?”

In conclusion, all I can say is that I hope Kiwis do not get too caught up in the media’s promotion of the “time for a change” agenda, because with National and its policy vacuum all that would mean would be the taking of a great leap into the dark.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : It is a pleasure to rise tonight to take a call on the Appropriations (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, particularly following after one of the “brightest stars”, to quote various newspapers write-ups when the member who has just resumed his seat came into the House. I say to that member that he came about 5 or 6 years too early, because he is destined for a long period in Opposition and he would have been better serving his time back in his law practice.

I say to the House that I have searched the Estimates to find the new initiatives and investments in the areas relating to the portfolio I am in charge of as the National Party spokesperson—biosecurity and forestry—and I have not been able to find them. In the past 5 years there have been 254 new incursions of unwanted organisms into New Zealand. In 2007 there were 157,467 biosecurity-risk goods that were seized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. That is good; we know they have caught those ones. But they themselves will tell us that at best, in their own audit, 10 percent get through. There were 4,669 fines issues and 71 percent of those were given to visitors to this country. So where in the Estimates was there any extra funding to stop this flood of biosecurity risks coming into New Zealand? Where are the initiatives to raise instant fines to a level that shows we actually take our clean, green environment and the protection of our health and economy seriously? I have not been able to find them. I am sure someone will take a call after me and explain where they are—they are simply just not there.

I say to the member who has just resumed his seat, Charles Chauvel, that the reason we have seen the growth rates that he spoke of in this country is simply because of the growth within the primary production sector of the economy—the agricultural sector—which is so vulnerable to these incursions.

There is no money in this Budget for combating didymo. It looks to me that this new organism has been given immigration clearance to settle in New Zealand. Ninety-four waterways in the South Island are confirmed as being infected by this organism. That is the latest information that I have been given. I would not have a clue as to whether that is accurate, but the figure is likely to be higher because of the way the organism has travelled across the country. Treasury estimated some years ago that eradicating didymo could cost $285 million. I suspect that if didymo hits the North Island, the figure could double or even treble—who knows.

As for the varroa mite, well, that is a fiasco if there ever was one. While the Minister procrastinated about whether to try to eliminate varroa in the South Island, Rome was burnt, so to speak, and it spread at a rate that the Government could not keep up with. The line in the South Island moved steadily down the island, and, as was predicted, the cost has now exceeded $300 million. Cabinet said to the Minister for Biosecurity that there was no guarantee that he could stop this movement at the border so it would just have to accept that this would spread across New Zealand. And it was right, because if we look at this Minister’s track record in this area I think we see that Cabinet made the right decision. His record is woeful.

Styela clava , or sea squirt as it is commonly known, is now being discovered in the new Marsden marina, and it is widely established in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf. Is there any money for dealing with this in the Estimates? Well, I cannot find it; it is not there—it definitely cannot be seen. Apparently there is no hope that this Styela clava will be cleared up. It appears to me that there is an open border for many of that family’s relatives to be imported into this county and to be established here.

I looked seriously at this Budget in regard to training money, because this is a major area in biosecurity. We have had a mass exodus of skilled and trained personnel in this area—in science, and in other aspects of our biosecurity portfolio area—and nothing has been allocated.

We recently had the fiasco of coco peat from Sri Lanka, where 28 new weed species were imported into New Zealand and established throughout the nurseries in our country. This will come as a surprise to the Labour Government, but we are a pastoral nation. We depend on our ability to grow pastures in this country in order for a large part of our economy to be competitive, and here we have 28 new weed species that are likely to require huge amounts of chemicals and other such substances to control them. Yet when we look in the Budget to see what was allocated, we find to our surprise that in 2002 MAF Biosecurity conducted an assessment of this proposed import health standard—that is, for importing this coco peat into New Zealand from Sri Lanka—and it found that there was no import health standard as such. It found that there was no reason as to why the status quo could not continue. If that is not short-sightedness in the light of the recent incursions, then what is? Here was a chance to address the problem, and nothing was done. It is a mess, and the appropriations for 2007 will not help for the simple reason that one needs a Minister for Biosecurity who actually takes the matter seriously. At the moment we are clearly lacking in that area.

A question was asked about whether the allowances for biosecurity surveillance and incursion response within Budget 2008 were expected to be adequate, based on current expected activity levels. It is an important question because there is an expectation that under Minister Anderton there will be more incursions—hence the need for more incursion-response money. There will be a need for more surveillance because it all seems to sit around what can be found at the border before it takes hold here. The reality is that there is a little bit of extra funding there, but it is so minuscule in relation to the increased trade and activity going on in this area that clearly it will be inadequate.

That leads me to another portfolio that Minister Anderton is in charge of, which is forestry. I would not be surprised if he did not want to remember he is the Minister of Forestry, as he does not have a proud record to be remembered for. Here is an example of the headlines: “Worst deforestation figures in 50 years revealed”. “The worst ever loss of 13,600 hectares of forest last year is a disaster for the environment and makes a mockery of Labour’s climate change commitments …” to being a carbon-neutral nation. It continues: “New Zealand proudly planted more trees than it felled every year from 1951 until 2003, building a forestry resource of 1.9 hectares of trees.” Then what happened? The Government made a policy announcement that it would drag this industry into an area where there was huge uncertainty in terms of investment and we had what has been dubbed the chainsaw massacre of 3.4 million trees, with no sign of any abatement in that. What steps in the Budget—

Hon David Parker: Yes, it has. It’s virtually stopped this year.

SHANE ARDERN: The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues says that it stopped this year. He said in the House about a week ago that about 250,000 hectares of new forest would be planted. I want to know where in the Budget there is anything that will bring about that kind of massive change. When I speak to members of the industry about what has brought about this massive deforestation they say that they have tried to set up new processing plants here but they come up against the Resource Management Act. They say they look at how they could get around that and invest in this country because they can grow pine trees and other exotics here quicker than anywhere else in the world, but there is too much uncertainty and too much cost and delay under the Resource Management Act process and in terms of depreciation levels compared with other nations. They say there is too much unreliability in the energy supply, and when they proposed putting in cogeneration using the waste material from their own industry there was, once again, too much cost and delay under the Resource Management Act. The list goes on, and the Minister says: “Well, we’ve halted the chainsaw massacre.” It used to be that this country grew more trees every year than it cut down. I ask the Minister what happened to that proposal.

This Government has failed in both of the portfolio areas I have mentioned. Its ambition to become carbon neutral is nothing more than the same hollow rhetoric we heard when the Prime Minister said that she wanted to lift New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD, yet we have gone down. The Government’s approach to the economy, full stop, not just in the two areas I have spoken about, is absolutely woeful, and we know that when we hear member after member trying to defend what cannot be defended, as we have heard in this House from recent speakers in the debate. This Government is tired, it is on its way out, and the election cannot come soon enough.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise to speak on behalf of United Future in this debate, and in the 5 minutes that I have I want to focus on looking at the money that has been announced for tertiary students. The Budget contained $130.8 million worth of additional funding over 4 years to improve access by tertiary students to a living allowance. One of the things that has amused me over the last few years is that most of us currently in this House represent the generation that got its tertiary education pretty much for free. In fact, some of us were paid to be trained. We are now the generation that chooses to impose quite enormous costs on our children and the following generations for the very selfsame privilege.

New Zealand tertiary students are the only sector in society that is required to borrow to live. This discrimination is not based on age, gender, or race but is based on the intention of an individual to improve his or her contribution to New Zealand society. People who go on to the unemployment benefit are not asked where they live—whether they live at home with mum and dad, or are out on their own. No one will ask them how much their parents earn. We are very happy for people to fill out the forms to provide them with a living allowance. But as soon as people want to do something productive for their future and the good of the country, then we sting them hard. One other interesting factor is that the parents of these students are not entitled to Working for Families credits, even though they are still financially held accountable for their upkeep.

I want to be clear that United Future’s overall policy is for a universal living allowance for students, although we acknowledge we are not the only party in Parliament that would support that change. This year, as part of our supply and confidence agreement with the Labour-led Government, we negotiated a lowering in the age limit for student allowances against parental income testing by 1 year—from 25 years to 24 years. That change will benefit about 5,000 students in the first year, and about the same number each year. That change for students was not the only one announced by the Government, and we acknowledge the other additional gains. There was the welcome 10 percent increase in parental income thresholds for full student allowances from 1 January 2009, but in respect of that policy gain we have to recognise that, eventually, it will be overtaken by inflationary creep. So students will be back asking for those thresholds to be readdressed. But when we drop the age limit we put in place something that is much more long term and will not be undermined by things like inflation.

For United Future that is a step towards a principle that we believe in, and we believe it to be in the best interests of New Zealand. It is also a step towards a long-term solution, which we believe would be a universal student living allowance. We believe also that future Governments could explore much more the way the country should invest in the long-term outcomes of New Zealand tertiary students, and, ultimately, to see a better return for taxpayers. Currently, taxpayers are trying to reconcile the number of graduates exiting New Zealand against workforce shortages, which are a concern. We think there are a number of attractive options around bonding and debt write-offs that should continue to be explored and used, particularly if we want to reduce the workforce shortages in essential professional services. We believe also that we should be looking strongly at the accommodation allowances given, and we need to make sure that those are better matched to the rental environments in each separate university city.

United Future welcomes this additional money but believes that it is merely a step in the right direction and that much more must be considered.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise members that the call for the member will be 5 minutes.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe ki a koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e hoa mā. I rise to contribute to this debate by referring to Vote Treaty Negotiations. In doing so, I acknowledge the importance of this moment, set between the first readings of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill earlier today and the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill tomorrow. It is indeed a day to be thinking about the effectiveness of the departmental output expenses, the policy advice, the Waitangi Tribunal representation, and the Crown contributions.

Since the settlement process began there have been grave concerns about the process itself, the terms of settlement, the amount set aside for the settlements, and the agency charged with managing settlements. Those concerns have come from nearly all claimants and their lawyers, from all parts of the country. This afternoon, in the case of Te Arawa, I spoke of how the preservation of tribal relations was adversely affected, how hapū were in contest with other hapū, and how the interests of overlapping hapū were threatened. That clearly is not a fitting outcome for the Crown’s investment in Treaty negotiations. We also heard about the results of the departmental output expenses. The tribunal found that the Office of Treaty Settlements failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiations process. The Office of Treaty Settlements was shown to have failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties. It was noted that the Office of Treaty Settlements did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith. That, too, is clearly not an effective use of the Crown accounts. But the good news is that the landscape has changed with Dr Cullen’s approach, and that is to be applauded.

A huge amount of emotion comes with reaching a settlement: the power and the passion of the people in having finally achieved a point in their long journey towards self-determination. We understand that as with Te Arawa today, there is a wish to move forwards, and we in the Māori Party fully recognise that desire. We know that the divisions and the conflicts of the settlement process have taken an enormous toll—and because of it, the longing for resolution is intense. Our people yearn for the restoration of respectful relationships to repair the damage that has been done. But the healing will not occur when there are still groups left behind or forgotten. Healing will not occur when the Crown alone determines the rules under which negotiations take place. Resolution will not result when some negotiators have felt the Crown has used its dominant position to control the entire negotiations process and had an adversarial approach.

So we in the Māori Party look to a different future, a future where the Māori Party has the influence and impact on the Treaty settlement process that our people are calling for. And what would that look like? For a start, we would promote the concept of sitting kanohi ki te kanohi—face to face—and having discussions chief to chief. Negotiations should take place between equally resourced and informed parties, ideally on a level playing field with full disclosure of information at the outset of proceedings. Another bone of contention has been the inadequate level of resourcing that is associated with the negotiations process. The fact that all groups are required to pay for their own mandating expenses before the Crown even agrees to negotiate with them creates a level of injustice and hardship before one even gets to the table. Claimant funds should be reviewed and increased so that the opportunity for development is indeed not compromised.

The questions of who has permission to enter discussions with the Crown and of who purports to speak for the hapū before and during negotiations are of huge interest for hapū and iwi. That needs to be sorted out early. Similarly, where there are issues of cross-claims we believe that those can be sorted out by discussion and before we get to a settlement, so they do not come back to haunt the process later on down the line. There have been other issues with regard to the Crown negotiating directly with large natural groups of iwi and hapū, to the detriment of smaller hapū whose claims have been lost or ignored by the larger claim.

The Māori Party looks forward to being able to put our experiences of being on both sides of the table—as members of Parliament and as members of whānau, hapū, and iwi—to good use after the next election, in the interests of the durability of future settlements and the long-term path to nationhood. Kia ora tātou.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : While hard-working Kiwis throughout New Zealand have struggled, this Government has become a bloated bureaucracy. Over the past 8 years the Government bureaucracy has grown out of all proportion to those parts of the State sector that actually serve the public. That is a real concern and a very real issue. How do we know that? I will give members some examples. Since 2000 the number of teachers in State primary and secondary schools has grown by 12 percent, and that is a good thing, but over the same period the number of people employed in the various educational bureaucracies has grown by 40 percent.

Hon David Parker: That’s wrong.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Clearly, those on the Government benches are sitting up and taking notice. We have a figure of 12 percent as opposed to 40 percent, and things are not getting any better. Last week the Government spent $52,000 on badges; one of them says “Wassup!”. The schools said it was an absolute disgrace and a totally incompetent use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money. These Government benchers are fiscally irresponsible.

Going back to more about bureaucracy—[Interruption] The member can say whatever he likes. Since 2000 the number of doctors and nurses employed by district health boards has grown by 28 percent, but over the same period the number of people employed in the Ministry of Health has grown by 51 percent. It is no wonder patients are lining up in hospital corridors, for days on end in some cases, and not being seen and not having their needs addressed. The Government is failing those people in our health system. It is more interested in people producing plans, rules, and more and more paper that other people have to fill in, just to justify their positions. The bureaucracy is incredibly bloated. Also, since 2002 the service delivery part of the Ministry of Social Development, namely Work and Income and Child, Youth and Family, has grown by 23 percent. That is the service delivery side, and we are talking front line. But over the same period, the policy analysis, research, and corporate units of the ministry have grown by a whopping 109 percent.

Judith Collins has expressed her concern, and the concern of National, time and time again in this House about the loss of front-line staff as the Government builds up the bloated bureaucracy in Government departments. We are losing all those good people who deal with those much-needed cases, who work at the front line, and look after those people on the front line. Does this Government care? No, it does not care because it keeps on doing it. It just cannot seem to get it under control. Treasury reports show that between 2000 and 2006 employment in Government departments that mainly provide services grew by 34 percent, while employment in policy departments grew by 72 percent.

Talking of policy departments, let us take the Ministry of Education. I received an answer from the Minister of Education to a parliamentary question. He said that yes, it does have common sense and adherence to policy. Quite frankly the ministry cannot do both, and it is quite clear from the changes the ministry is proposing to the school bus run from Tairua and Pāuanui to Thames, for the students who go to Thames High School. Right now, at no extra cost to the ministry, the bus goes about an extra 10 kilometres to pick up students to take them to Thames High School, and the ministry wants to can that. Why would it want to do that? The ministry is being saved money because the bus company, out of the goodness of its heart, is taking on the extra cost.

The bus picks up students from Tairua, rather than somewhere out in the wop-wops on a State highway, where the speed is 100 kilometres an hour. Bearing in mind the safety and the convenience, the bus goes into Tairua to pick up these students. What is happening? The Ministry of Education wants to change that. It wants to stomp all over that. It wants to deny those parents and those students their place of educational choice. The ministry is now thumping all over it, and the Minister says “Oh yes, we consider common sense and adherence to policy.”, in the same breath. What a load of codswallop. How fiscally irresponsible is that? We really have to wonder whether the Minister knows how to add.

We can talk about lots of percentages all over the place, but to get a picture of the whole State sector we need to look at survey data from the quarterly employment survey and that shows that since 2000 the number of bureaucrats has grown from 26,200 to 36,000. That is tantamount to around 10,000 more bureaucrats in Government between 2000 and 2008. If that is not bloated bureaucracy, I do not know what is. This Government just cannot seem to get a handle on that. It thinks it knows how to manage money. We would not see householders doing that, because they are struggling. They could not afford that bloatedness. They are appalled at the growth in bureaucracy. That growth in the number of bureaucrats represents a 37 percent increase. Over the same period, the number of other State sector employees grew by only 10 percent.

In addition, this survey shows that the number of jobs in the economy as a whole grew by 22 percent, which means that bureaucrats are increasing as a proportion of the total New Zealand workforce. We now have a situation where one in 50 workers in the economy is a bureaucrat. I do not see that as productive; how does that help us here in New Zealand? How does that help the small businesses that my excellent colleague Lindsay Tisch talked about before? How does that help them? How does it help the schools? There are more people in the Ministry of Education than there are out there on the front line, teaching. What do they do? They create more bits of paper for the schools to fill in, to justify the existence of those bureaucrats back in the departments. Why do they have to keep doing all of these safety assessments around the school buildings—how often is it, every 6 months, I understand? Why cannot that be dealt to?

What is it about this Government that it just cannot seem to address that bloated bureaucracy? It is dreaming up more and more ways to pass costs, paperwork, and red tape on to every single organisation, entity, business, and person. It is definitely out of control. It is not just the number of people in bureaucracy that has grown out of control, it is also what they are paid. Kiwi households are tightening their belts and it is way past time that this Government tightened its belt as well. It needs to curb its excess of bloated bureaucracy, but I cannot see any will on the part of this current Government to do that.

That is something National will certainly do. We will make a difference, and we will certainly curb that excess growth in Government bureaucrats. We will address the issues around compliance costs and red tape, which are absolutely crippling small businesses and also crippling the ability of educational providers to provide the education they want to, without constantly having to fill in bits of paper. We will certainly support the education sector, and all of those people on the front line who provide those services. They are the ones who really matter, not the ones who are sitting back in the office, trying to justify their existence with more and more bits of paper. We will not be spending money on putting out little badges that say “Wassup!”. Schools are in dire need of extra funding, and the Government has spent $52,000 on little badges saying “Wassup!”. How good is that? What benefit is that? I agree with my most excellent colleagues Shane Ardern and Lindsay Tisch that we cannot wait for the election to come forward. Why does the Government not just announce the date and get it over with? We will all be happier. Then those members might get to hear some of the policy, which they are absolutely hanging out for.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : That was like listening to an unmuffled chainsaw, and about as interesting too. I ask that member: what do those 37 people, paid for by the taxpayer, in John Key’s office do? What does the webmaster do? Are they doing policy in that office, or is it just spin? We would like to know, and the taxpayers who fund it would like to know.

I think I did hear a policy at the weekend, from Simon Power of all people. He has been disallowed from saying anything since he made those stupid comments about the Americans. He said that the National Party is going to build a prison. That is a policy.

Hon Paul Swain: Where?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: He did not say where, but that is a good question. I remember that when I was the Minister of Corrections I went to three different parts of the country. I remember the National Party MPs raging against the building of prisons anywhere near those places. Maybe those 37 people are thinking up policies that their mates will oppose.

They try to be tough on law and order, but we all remember the 540 jobs they were going to get rid of because of a certain failed computer system.

Hon Paul Swain: Were they bureaucrats?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: No, no, they were front-line police. Of course, cardboard cut-outs would have been just as good, and a computer that did not work would catch the crooks!

So when we think about National members saying they are hard on law and order, we remember them opposing the prisons in the South Island and the North Island—everywhere there was a prison to be built. We were building prisons at the beginning of our term of Government, and the National Party members were opposing that and leading campaigns against them in their local communities. But no, Simon Power, let loose on the media at the weekend, announced that National’s big answer to the law and order problems in New Zealand would be to build a prison somewhere. But he will not tell anybody where because people would oppose it and his mates in caucus would oppose it.

I heard earlier in this debate some quite serious comments about the law and order issues. They were aimed in particular at the South Auckland community, the place I was born in. It is a place I represent and am very proud of. I just want to point out that in this Government’s Budget we have been looking at communities like that, and we have been doing some very serious things in our Budget. The $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts will help those communities. We are not like the National Party, who would give the money to the rich. We are spreading it through the poorer paid New Zealanders, the middle-income people, and the families. That is why there is $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts. That is why there is $1.1 billion worth of increases to the Working for Families package. And we do not forget the elderly. We have a superannuation increase coming in October and in April, and that will see a lot of superannuitants, who rely on that Government superannuation for their everyday living, better off by $45 a fortnight.

We do not stop there. I heard a previous speaker going on about education. Well, what is this Budget and this debate about? It is about our future. It is about what we spend in educating our young people. So whilst there was a bit of a complaint coming from some schools about the increase in the operations grant, which is 5 percent, what did we hear from the National Party spokesperson, Anne Tolley? I ask that previous speaker over there to listen to this. Anne Tolley has said that there will be no extra funding for education on top of the cost of living. Is that 5 percent? Is that the 5 percent that we have not just promised but delivered on in this Budget? No, it is not 5 percent. We know that it will be less than 4 percent.

National members speak about the need to spend on education for the coming generations, but we know—if they are to be relied upon, and we cannot always do that, because they change their minds so rapidly when they announce policies—that schools would have their funding cut under a National Government. We have given a 5 percent operations grant in this Budget, on top of the significant funding increases that have gone in over the last few years. But the National Party is promising to do less. However, it will give more to the private schools. It will be at the cost of our public sector schools. National will take money off them and give it to the private sector.

Well, I am waiting for the North Shore principals to say something about that. I am waiting for them to come out and roundly abuse the National Party for promising a cut in the operations grant, because it would only be fair for them to do that. The schools have said that there is not enough money. I have been a board of trustees chair, and I know there is never enough money. One is always wanting to do more for one’s school—for more computers, new buildings, new this, and new that. That is why one gets elected to boards of trustees. That is why teachers and principals are in that profession. They want to do better. Let us be fair. If it is a case of 5 percent versus less than 4 percent, I think that most people out there with any basic education would say that the better deal is coming from Labour.

It does not stop there. We have a growing economy. We are up against some trends in the world that are very difficult. The whole world is suffering from the cost of oil, the food shortage, etc. But what is this Government looking at? Well, we have a skills package of $168 million to lift literacy, language, and numeracy skills amongst the existing workforce, as well as things such as apprenticeships and investment in tertiary education. We are saying that we want to invest in people who may have missed out along the way but who are badly needed in our workplaces. That is excellent spending, I believe, in terms of investing in the people from my community.

So when I look at the issues in South Auckland and the crime that is in the headlines from time to time—which, quite rightly, upsets people—I think about what the Government is doing for those community organisations that are doing the work at the grassroots level. What is the Government doing for them? Well, $446 million has been promised, and some of that money is already on the way. We are making sure that those community organisations who deal with our young people, our elderly people, and those people in the community in need, particularly in communities such as South Auckland, will get fully funded for the first time in their history.

That is what this Government is about. It is about growing the economy, investing in the future through education, and looking after those in need. Those communities that need more will get more from this Government. There is an extra $3 billion for health spending, and $30 million is going into Healthy Homes. There is $180 million more for police, and I can say that in communities like mine when someone picks up the telephone and says: “Look there are young people drinking in a park, there’s a liquor ban there, can you get out there and attend to it?”, it happens. I can say that in my community that happens. In the community I represent the police are now resourced sufficiently to be able to get out there and do the work. They are out there lowering the crime figures in my community. They are dealing with some pretty tough streets and some pretty tough people, but they are giving confidence back to a community that was low in confidence after the 1990s.

We have more people in work and fewer people on benefits, but we still have to mop up generational problems that have come through from the 1980s and 1990s because of economic reform and under-investment in the basic things such as education, health, and policing. One does not fix up those problems overnight. This Government believes in getting alongside the community, using the police force to work with the community, and helping the schools that struggle with low-income children who come to school without the best resources and without the best family background. We are succeeding, and our communities in South Auckland are proud of what we are achieving. We do have our problems, but they know they can count on this Government to give them the policing they deserve, the housing they deserve, the health services they pay for, an education system that moves them upward, and an economy that can withstand the buffering that is going on at the moment.

I am proud to be part of this Government. I am not proud of the Opposition members who sit over there, making up stories about the number of bureaucrats and attacking the Public Service as if it is evil. I know why we did not get anything built in the 1990s. It is because those members ran the Public Service down to the point that when I became the Minister of Transport I was told I would have to wait 3, 4, or 5 years for the policy to be written, let alone implemented. That is what one does when one runs down the Public Service—the infrastructure suddenly collapses, and the education system falls apart. We saw that in the 1990s. We will never repeat that mistake.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I am pleased to be able to take a call on the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and I am pleased to add my thoughts to a wide-ranging debate. But as this is also a bit of a reflective exercise, looking back, and a bit visionary, looking forward, I am also pretty disappointed—for this reason.

For most of this last decade, which has had the governance of this country in the hands of Labour, we have known prosperity in New Zealand for a sustained period like we have not known probably since the gold rush of the 1860s. In terms of a period of sustained economic growth, we have had an excellent opportunity. That is all it was, it was an opportunity, because what has happened now? Can we ask, if we are being reflective, what the governance of this country has done to lock us into a future of prosperity? We had all those slogans about moving to the top half of the OECD, but they were merely slogans because nothing has been done to grow the economy. Oh yes, the Government has grown its size of the operation. Since it came to power in 1998 it has shifted the Government spend from—

Hon Darren Hughes: 1999.

ERIC ROY: Sorry, 1999.

Hon Darren Hughes: All the facts are wrong in this speech.

ERIC ROY: No, they are not. The member should check this one out. When the Labour Government came to power, its spend was just under $37 billion, and today it is about $62 billion. The Government understands that more money growth in its economy does things, but why has it not mirrored that in the wider economy?

I will give Labour a bit of advice. It is a bit disconsolate at the moment about where it is at in the polls.

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, no!

ERIC ROY: Well, it will probably get worse unless the Government makes amends. Let me tell members why that is. During all of the period where we had excellent growth, Labour members said: “It’s all us. It’s all what we’ve done. It’s our hand on the tiller. We’ve delivered this. We’ve lowered the number of unemployed. We’ve created this economy.” But now, when it starts to go to custard, we hear that this is due to external factors.

The electorate that answers questions in the polls is not silly. People are simply saying that Labour cannot have it both ways. I am essentially disappointed that we have not locked into the New Zealand economy a growth mentality and put in place those things that reward individuals, create ambition, and create pathways to wealth that would set this country going for the next decade or so. That simply has not happened.

What we get on a regular basis from Labour is: “Where is your policy?”. Well, whenever we release policy Labour ignores it or adopts it for itself, if it is any good—

Hon Paul Swain: Oh, no!

ERIC ROY: —like it did with the charitable donations policy, I say to Mr Swain. Let me give members one piece of policy right now, and then I will expand on it. I have just listened to the Hon Mark Gosche asking where we will get the extra money for education. You see, one of our policies is smarter and better Government spending.

I will give members one little example that I am aware of, in terms of how to get extra money for education. In my electorate of Invercargill, right on the border, there is a school called Dacre School. This school received a visit from the education people, who wanted to make sure that everything was tickety-boo there. They assessed the school and found that the administration block of the school was under code. That meant that there was not enough room for the people who did the administration. So architects were brought in, and they drew up plans, got a consent, and built an administration block that was up to code. They spent $143,000 on this.

That is wonderful, but we need to know that the school roll had been declining for about a decade. So eight pupils were at Dacre School, and $143,000 was spent. The people from the education department said not only that the administration block was under code—and that this was not helping their children learn—but that they had looked at the boiler, it was sadly in need of replacing, and that would cost another $53,000. The board of trustees at Dacre School comprised pretty laconic, good rural business people. They took their hammers, their leavers, and their chippers, and they looked at the boiler. They looked at the welding and the pipes, and they said that there was nothing wrong with the boiler and that they would not waste taxpayers’ money. Then the education people said that if the board of trustees did not spend that money and the boiler broke down, they would not fix it. So the education department, in round terms, wanted to spend $200,000 on eight kids. This is factual.

About 4 years ago, the Hon Trevor Mallard, when he was the Minister of Education, did some terrible things in Invercargill without consultation. Someone on the ninth floor told him that he would not be closing any more schools in Southland, because he had done it all wrong. So $143,000 was spent on Dacre School, and they asked: “Why not spend another $53,000?”. Then the part of the education department that managed school transport said it would not renew the bus contract. So the money had been spent, and then the school had to be closed because the transport department would not provide transport to bring the kids to school. This is factual; it actually happened.

But it does not end there. I am not sure whether the school was technically closed, because the board of trustees said that this was a nonsense and that a better environment had to be found for kids to learn in than at this shrinking school. The education people said that the school had not yet closed, and that a principal needed to be appointed for 4 months so that if someone came they could be told that the school was not taking pupils. This is absolutely true.

Then we had the whole process after that 4 months where it was decided who would receive the assets of the school. The school had received big contributions from the local community that helped to build the covered swimming pool, and provide for all of those things that happen in a rural school. And the Hon Mark Gosche stands up and asks where we will get the money from to deliver these extra things in education! I can tell the member quite clearly. It is funny, but it is sad. We have a governance system that has completely lost the plot, and that has been totally ruled by bureaucrats who either have not been getting instructions or have been telling the Government what to do. When we say we will deliver in education and we will do so in a smarter way, with wiser spending, Labour members ask where the money is coming from.

Hon Darren Hughes: One-off spending.

ERIC ROY: It is not. I can give the member more examples. If this happened at Dacre School, I can tell members that it is happening on a much wider basis.

Hon Darren Hughes: Are you going to reopen the school?

ERIC ROY: Of course we are not. The school should never have had the $143,000. If it had not been for the resilience of the local community that said: “You’re not spending any more money. You’re not spending the $53,000.”, it would have all been much, much worse.

Do we have any policy? We sure have heaps of policy. We will be able to fund most of it through smarter spending. The bureaucracy is out of control as a result of a Government that either does not understand, does not care, or does not have the business nous to actually run business. We are ambitious for New Zealand. We want to see that growth. We want to lock in the things that will give us an advantage and make our kids find that this is the place they want to invest in, do business in, and buy homes in, rather than head overseas. We have heaps of policy.

This has been just a very short speech that has given us one little example of where only one of the Government agencies is severely out of control. When we look at estimates, appropriations, or an imprest bill it is timely that we reflect on a Government that either does not know or does not have the will to know how to spend its money properly.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : Four words describe that speech: “Bring back Mark Peck.” The entire increase in education spending funded by National will be fixed by saving a boiler in a school in Dacre! That is how it will all work: it is simply a case of taking out a boiler and saving that money, and that will fund all this increase in education. “Bring back Mark Peck” I say, and I bet that is what people are saying down in Invercargill.

This is a wide-ranging debate. I am old-fashioned, having been here a little while. What is supposed to happen is that we are to compare policies. What happens is that the Government puts out its policies and looks towards its vision. Then the National Opposition is supposed to say a few things in order to compare its policies. The problem is that the debate has been one-sided, because we have not heard a dicky-bird about what National will do. The Labour-led Government, of course, has done heaps. The previous speaker, Eric Roy, said that there has been great prosperity in New Zealand over the last 8 years, and that is true. I will come back to talk about that in a moment.

But it is true that people are feeling stressed at the moment. It is true; that is the case. We have rising oil prices, primarily driven by speculation in other parts of the world. We have food prices—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Oh, rubbish! Demand’s driving it.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Oh, the member says that demand is driving this. I was almost going to bring somebody into the debate, which I am not allowed to do, but the member says that demand is driving this. Speculation is driving price, and most people who know anything about this would know that. Food prices are rising, driven by a shortage. On the one hand, that is good for our farmers, but it is affecting consumers. And, of course, interest rates are rising due to the subprime mortgage situation in the United States and the credit crunch. We recognise that people are facing these difficulties.

The National Party has railed against this, so I ask what National members would do about the rising oil price. Let us start with Simon Power. What would Simon Power do about the rising petrol price and oil price?

Ron Mark: Buy Saudi Arabia.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Buy Saudi Arabia. Well, we would love to hear at least one little policy. What about Chris Finlayson? What would Chris Finlayson do about the rising world food price?

Christopher Finlayson: Your rhetorical devices are so boring.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The member says that our rhetorical devices are so boring, but do we hear an answer? That is all we want; we just want to hear an answer, such as National would do X, or National would think about doing Y.

Let us try one other one, then. What would National, if it were ever in Government—fortunately, not in my lifetime—do about the rising international pressure on interest rates?

Simon Power: That’s easy—wasteful Government spending.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Here we go—back to the boiler in Dacre. That is what it is all about. It is back to the boiler in Dacre. Well, this simply will not wash; it will not do.

It is the case at the moment that there is a general feeling and a mood around for change. There is no question about that. Members on this side of the House are asking, a change to what? Let us look at a change to what. Let us look at this, because National members will not say what they would change. Do members know what? It sounds to me as if the hollow men are still at work—that is, say nothing before and then do it all after.

Let us look at a couple of things that Labour will do. The Labour-led Government has introduced tax cuts to come in this year, in October.

Simon Power: That took 8 years.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, it is good news, because we adjusted and made sure that some of the basic infrastructure in health, education, and transport was fixed in those first few years, we squirreled some away for the difficult times, and we are now handing it back in tax cuts. That is the way it should be done. So there are tax cuts this year, in 2010, and in 2011.

You see, the National Party has criticised the tax cuts. That party called the Budget the “block of cheese Budget”. Does the House know what the most surprising thing for National members was? It was that cheese comes in blocks. They did not realise that cheese comes in blocks until someone actually said so. They thought that it came in round packets with names on them from France. That is what they thought. So when they heard “block of cheese”, they all rushed out to the supermarket. “My word!”, they reported back to the caucus. “They are right; cheese does come in blocks. How long has it been like that?”, they asked. That is because those members are out of touch. Cheese comes in round packets and in blocks.

Given that the Labour-led Government has said what it will do, let us ask Sandra Goudie how much people will get—here is a simple question—under National’s tax cuts.

Simon Power: Wait and see.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Oh, I am to wait and see? No, I want to hear from Sandra Goudie.

Hon Darren Hughes: Simon does not know.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No; the member says that he knows, but I do not think that he does know.

Hon Darren Hughes: He’s on the outer.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I think he is on the outer. There is the kitchen Cabinet and then there is the outhouse Cabinet, which I think, unfortunately, Simon Power is in. [Interruption] His stocks have slipped suddenly, but, to be fair, I think they are coming back a bit. But I do not think he knows what the tax cut package is, and I think that New Zealanders deserve to know. Why will the National Party not tell people?

Lesley Soper: Because they don’t know.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Oh, well, they do not. One thing is that the members do not know, but then again maybe it is also that the cut is not as big as what they thought they might be able to promise, when they look at the books. Those members do not want to go into an election saying “Well, as we have done with all the other Labour policies”—just photocopied them all and handed them out—“the tax cuts will be about the same as the cuts Labour gave.”

Let us look at some of these other things. Let us look at some of these other policies.

Hon Darren Hughes: KiwiSaver.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: What will the National Party do about KiwiSaver? There is a simple question. Lockwood Smith is probably in the inner Cabinet, do members think? Or is he—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Just resign and we’ll show you.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, no. Well, maybe he is—

Hon Darren Hughes: He’s on an outer planet.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, I do not think he is on an outer planet, to be fair. I think he is actually further away from the outhouse. He is probably way, way down the backyard. But let us ask Lockwood Smith what the National Party will do about KiwiSaver. Well, there is no answer—no answer on KiwiSaver. I thought that what would happen was that the employer contribution would be scrapped. Who said that? Kate Wilkinson said it. But then John Key said: “Oh, no. She is only the employment and industrial relations spokesperson; she doesn’t know anything. She is not even involved in the policy.” There she was, trying to be frank and give people a bit of a view.

What will happen to Working for Families? Well, let us ask Chris Tremain. What will happen to that? No; there is no answer. What about cheaper doctors’ visits? Did Tony Ryall not say that they would be scrapped? Then John Key came out and said: “No, no. We did not mean to say that. No, that is not true.”

And what about 20 free hours of preschool education? What about asking Georgina te Heuheu, who has always been a frank, open person. What will happen, for example, to kōhanga reo and 20 free hours’ early childhood education? What will happen there?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Don’t worry about that.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The member says we are not to worry about that. I am worried about that, because I want to hear the answer. What about the minimum wage? I bet we will not get any answer to that.

You see, this should be a debate where we say what we are doing, and the National Party should respond. They are the hollow men. They will not say what they will do right up to the last minute, and then they might not even do that. Then they will say that they promised no asset sales, but that the economy is so bad they will have to sell a few. The public will not wear it.

As it gets closer to the election, the public will demand some answers, and we will find the slippery slope of the National Party when either it will not be prepared to commit or, if it does, it will try to say things similar to what the Labour Party is saying. So I ask, a change to what? Well, that is the whole point of this—that in the end people will say that they will stick with what they know. They will say that they will stick with what they know, rather than trust the slippery, shadowy faces of the hollow men under the National Party. It will come down to a very simple choice, and Labour is well on the way.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : That was not quite vintage Paul Swain; it lacked a certain finesse. I have a message for the Hon Paul Swain from the office of the Leader of the Opposition: Stop sending us your CV. We have six copies and that is all we need. We have it on file, just leave it alone.

We are dealing here with the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and it is worth starting the discussion with a round figure that members will be more than familiar with that came out of Treasury in the 2002-03 year, and which is the latest official statistic we have in this particular area. What we know from Treasury is that in that year the cost of crime to the economy was $9.1 billion. Listeners at home might be saying to themselves: “Well, that makes a bit of sense. If you include the court system, the prison system, and the police in that then maybe it is $9 billion.” But, no, two-thirds of that $9 billion is made up of private money. Two-thirds of that is dollars that have to be spent to remove graffiti from walls, to have car doors knocked out and re-panelled to take dents out of them, to replace goods that are stolen from homes in burglaries, and to have insurance premiums increased because houses have been robbed yet again—two-thirds of $9.1 billion. Dear old Paul Swain asks where we would make some savings. Well, if we could cut the crime rate in this country we would have far more surplus moneys for meaningful investments like education, health, and the like.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are fond of saying that crime is tracking across all categories at a reasonably steady level. That is true, except for one area—violent crime. Since this Government took office, violent crime has risen by 43 percent. We know that since this crowd took office, youth violent crime has increased by 47 percent over that period. This is the same Labour Party that, in its first pledge card—I am not sure who paid for that one—said it would attack crime and the causes of crime. Well, there has been a 43 percent increase in violent crime across the board.

When we talk about supplementary estimates and a Government’s ability to spend money and to budget properly, we know that in the law and order and justice areas this Government has been incapable of doing even the most basic things. The Government has had six Ministers of Corrections in the last 8½ years. They budgeted $400 million to build four new prisons, which turned out to cost over $1 billion—a $600 million budget blowout. Paul Swain gets up in the House and asks where the National Party would save money. Well, I say to Mr Swain that I have a few ideas where we can save some money—the $11 million to landscape those four new prisons. That money could have been spent on work programmes, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses in our prisons. Instead—and it would not have happened under Paul Swain, if he were still the Minister of Corrections—the Labour Party goes out and spends $11 million on ferns and pavers. I say to Mr Swain that I can find plenty of areas to save money in the justice area, and plenty of good places to put it.

We have policy coming out of our ears in the law and order area. As my friend Darren Hughes alluded to, the justice policy was delivered up to the leadership of the National Party on 1 November last year, and we have seen four announcements so far in that area, with another three or four to come before the election. We have seen policy announced in the areas of police, gangs, victims, and youth crime, and the Government—and we are flattered by this—is adopting those policies like they are going out of fashion. In the area of gangs, when a document was approved by Cabinet on 9 July 2007, or thereabouts, the Government sat on its hands and did nothing while Mark Burton played around with the Electoral Finance Act. The Government put rorting the electoral system ahead of dealing to gangs in New Zealand. The Minister of Justice’s priority was rorting the electoral system in favour of the incumbent, rather than dealing with the gangs and violent crime that were going on in New Zealand. That is what this Government’s priorities are. It is looking after its own neck and not worrying about the New Zealand public having to face down the massive increase in violent crime that we have seen since this Government took office.

Two points out of our four-point plan on dealing with gangs have hurriedly been adopted by the Government in the last week in a way that just reeks of desperation. So quick was the Government to try to quell the growing public concern over its inability to deal with violent crime that when the Organised Crime (Penalties and Sentencing) Bill came to us to tick off it still had Mark Burton’s name on it. He has not been the Minister of Justice for well over 12 months. This was badly prepared, terribly reactionary, and badly thought through. We say to Labour members that if they think our policy is so good, they should adopt the other two points from our four-point plan for dealing with gangs. Let us see getting surveillance and interception orders from the court made easier. Let us see the Local Government Act amended to make sure we can storm gang fortifications on the basis of reasonable expectation that a crime has been committed on those premises. While we are at it, let us adopt National’s police policy, which is also a four-point plan. Let us adopt National’s victims policy, which was widely endorsed by third parties when it was released earlier this year. While we are at it, let us adopt National’s platforms for dealing with youth crime and changes of youth sentences.

I sit here and listen to the Labour Party members talking about lack of ideas and lack of policy, so let us have a debate about ideas and policy in the justice and law and order areas, because we are winning this debate hands down. It is a debate that is being won on ideas and policy head-to-head. We are winning that debate. My colleague and friend Dr Cullen scoffs; it is his Cabinet that is adopting our plans as if they are going out of fashion. I just wish that as Leader of the House he had reminded Annette King to change the name on the front of the bill from Mark Burton to Annette King when she decided to introduce a paper that had been ticked off by Cabinet in July last year. Mr Burton was too busy dealing with the Electoral Finance Act to worry about gangs and violent crime in New Zealand. So when we talk about Government spending and waste and the policy debate that this country will have leading into this general election, let us have a debate about law and order, justice, corrections, police, and youth crime issues—anywhere, any time. National has a plan and we are announcing it, Labour is adopting it, and it is going extremely well.

LOUISA WALL (Labour) : Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. It is my pleasure to add to the kōrero about the Appropriation (2007/08 Supplementary Estimates) Bill as a member of the Labour-led Government and in support of Dr Michael Cullen.

Dr Cullen is a man whom we all love on this side of the House—and I know that the Opposition is envious of us for having such a brain in our ranks because it does not have anyone like him on its side—for his brilliance in his role as Minister of Finance, and for his deeds today and tomorrow as Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. Michael is loved not just by his whānau in Labour but maybe by iwi leaders, who, in light of the massive deals brokered under Dr Cullen, have recently called for future Ministers of Finance also to hold the Treaty of Waitangi negotiations portfolio. I think it is more about Michael and the way he operates than merely about his holding these dual portfolios.

Labour is still delivering for our country and it has so much more to do. We know what we want to do. We do not just tell people what they want to hear; we talk to them and tell them what we believe in—no slogans, just good and substantial policy. I admit we do not have 14 policies; actually, we have hundreds of policies. In fact, we like to announce these every day. We will not be waiting until after the election like the Opposition.

I note that in the last week Maurice Williamson has said that the detail of National’s supposed broadband policy will not be released until after the election. Brave, are they not? Not even! And what about Anne Tolley on education funding? To the North Shore principals she gave a commitment to a 20 percent increase in operations grants, costing up to $370 million. Then in the Oamaru Mail it was reported she “made no pragmatic commitment”, and to the Auckland Primary Principals Association breakfast on 19 June, she said there will be no extra funding for education on top of the cost of living. So it was more money for one; oh no, better keep it the same for another; and oh no, actually, you are going to get less for the third. That is what is called great and principled National policy.

That is what happens when people do not know what they stand for and when they adjust their speeches to fit the audience. We know that National’s real intention is privatisation. John Key has been clear that he wants more money for private schools. He said on Agenda: “—look I’m not gonna put a number on it today but maybe it’s 30 million you know that sort of range I don’t know the exact number.” Oh, yeah! And, on the sale of State assets, he said it would not be “in the first term of the National government”, but the public does not want to hear that, so maybe it would be not at all. Yeah, right! National is all about user-pays and looking after oneself, not about caring about one’s fellow Kiwi, and certainly not about caring about workers.

So I come back to our policy, because Labour has plenty and a plan for the future. What have we done recently for workers? Here is some good policy announced by Minister of Labour Trevor Mallard at the weekend. To better protect casual and temporary workers, he has committed the Department of Labour to developing a code of employment practice for casual and non-standard employment, which will make it easier for employers to understand and comply with their obligations to casual and temporary workers. This will help to better clarify whether a worker is casual or permanent and what entitlements he or she can get. I quote the Minister: “The proposed changes demonstrate the government’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable members of the workforce and to providing an employment environment that is conducive to all parties conducting their relationship in good faith.” Not bad, Trev! That is in addition to raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour. I note again that when we became the Government in 1999 the minimum wage was $7 for adults and $4.20 for under-20s. Today it is at $12, and it will not stay at that level.

On Labour’s watch we have seen 345,000 more jobs created, seen unemployment fall by more than half, and seen it stay below 4 percent for 4 years. What other policies of ours can I highlight? What about the reduction in the cost of seeing the doctor and getting a standard prescription; 20 hours’ free early childhood education; and the expansion of access to health services, screening, and immunisation? Not bad.

But wait, there is more! Let us look at a runaway success—in fact, a policy that would be a six in any politico’s playing field—and that is the mighty KiwiSaver. We will ensure that employer contributions and employer tax credits continue, because we believe in workers and their families saving for a future, and in their employers contributing to this, which is contrary to what the National Party believes. More than 670,000 Kiwis love the scheme. As I have noted before, National members voted against it not just once; oh no, they voted against it 40 times.

So what is National’s plan for the future under the leadership of John Key? I do not think National mambers know, but I know that he loves our policies. About our student loan policy John Key said in November 2005 that it was unaffordable and an irresponsible cost to the country. But in January 2008 he said: “We will keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students.” Labour has the policy; National has none. About being nuclear-free, John Key in October 2003 said it was bad news for economic growth and for our job market. John Key said in September 2007: “we’re going to stick with the anti-nuclear legislation.” Labour has the policy; National has none.

Now I want to highlight someone else who thinks that Labour has the policy. In the Salvation Army’s May 2008 press release, it said of our Working for Families tax credit and income-abatement increases: “Lower-income working families will really benefit from the changes to tax thresholds such as the new lower 12.5 per cent rate for income up to $14,000 as well as increases to Working for Families. This is good news. … It is pleasing that the Government has been able to fund these initiatives while at the same time protecting existing social investments.” That is exactly what we aim to do: to continue to add value to, and enhance public investment in, education, health care, social agencies, and other important services.

Finally, I want to comment on what Chris Tremain said in the House during the debate on the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts, Annual Rates, and Remedial Matters) Bill, when he said: “I am a relatively new boy to this House. I am from a generation of people who are not interested in the political battles of the 1980s and 1990s—the debates over the Viet Nam War or the Springbok Tour.” He says this not as a representative of those of us who were still at primary school at the time—I was 9 and he 12, by all accounts—but obviously as a member of the National Party under the protection of a leader who cannot remember what position he took on such issues.

We know where Labour stood and we know where we stand on these issues. We can all remember, because our actions then and now are based on principles of fairness and justice, and on ensuring that the rights of those who are most vulnerable are protected. And, yes, we believe in being part of an international community. And, yes, we did not go to Iraq because of the same principles and values that made members on this side of the House fight those political battles of the 1980s and 1990s, and that have relevance today.

Finally, I have faith in Kiwis. The media are championing “Time for a change”, because our leadership is stable and consistent and knows where it is going. But, just like last time, we are the underdogs, and from the viewpoint of our collective national psyche, there are no better winners than those who had no chance.

Election 2008: may the best team win. Kia ora.