RON MARK (NZ First) : And is that not sad? That is becoming the template of this Government. We can play the great spin doctor—

Jill Pettis: Ron, this is for the big boys.

RON MARK: That, I tell listeners, is the plaintive cry of an about-to-become- extinct parrot.

Jill Pettis: I don’t think so.

RON MARK: Well, if they want to throw it around, it has got to come back—boomerangs have a habit of doing that. This Government has a habit—

Jill Pettis: What seat do you represent?

RON MARK: Oh, here we go! This is the arrogant, elitist Labour Party. If the Government wants to know, if the public wants to know, and if the Labour Party wants to know why it has become so detached from its membership, there is the perfect example; the air of arrogance, the air of “We won. You lost. Eat that!”, the air of “I am a victim of my own success as a most popular and competent Prime Minister.”, the air of Jill Pettis running around saying: “Oh, New Zealand First is so unsophisticated.”, and the air of a Labour Party whose members would rather attend a symphony concert or an art show, or be seen at the World of Wearable Art Awards in a costume—doing the very things that it ridicules the National Party and supposedly its supporters for doing: flitting and flirting in high society but being so out of touch with working-class people that we end up with Ms Pettis uttering across the House: “What electorate do you represent?”.

Well, the message for Ms Pettis is this: one is not superior, I tell the member, because one has an electorate as an electorate MP. Every MP in this House stands here on equal terms. Georgina Beyer, the person who sits beside that member, will no doubt be a list MP after this election. She is worth no less than Ms Pettis’ pompous, arrogant, selfish self. That member should get the message now, because paid-up, card-carrying members of the Labour Party are sick of her arrogance and her elitism, and they are sick of her being out of touch. She displays all the airs that ooze from her Prime Minister—that she would rather mix in high society with academia and the elite, rather flit through art galleries, than go and sit in a pub and talk to a working-class New Zealander who drives a bulldozer, or sit somewhere on the West Coast and talk to an unemployed seamstress who is redundant because a business has folded. Ms Pettis now, through Hansard, is immortalised in her arrogance, and we will carry that flame for her in the next election.

I want to go to Ms Marian Hobbs and Mr Mallard, who sit here and champion the handling of the economy by their Government by proudly stating that they have created more work—more employed and fewer unemployed. When I say that there are far more casual workers, and that the vast majority of the people they boast of as being employed are only casually employed, Ms Hobbs says: “Oh, but we have casual workers doing 50 hours a week and three jobs.” She is proud of that? Labour is proud of that? Labour is proud of the fact that working-class New Zealanders—

Hon Marian Hobbs: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

RON MARK: You had better make it damn clear.

Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to be intimidated like that across the House. Can that speaker withdraw and apologise for threatening me across the House by saying it had better be “damn clear” I make it clear? May he withdraw that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask that the tone of the House ease a little bit. There was fault on both sides. The member is concerned about misrepresentation, and action about that can be taken only at the end of the speech. I ask Mr Mark to come to order, please.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but we find ourselves in a slightly tricky situation. If the Minister is saying that she has taken offence at Mr Mark’s comments, then the Standing Orders deal with that in a very specific way. If she is not saying that she takes offence, then the manner in which you have ruled is, of course, absolutely correct. I think for the sake of creating the tone you desire, Mr Assistant Speaker, we should ask the Minister which of those camps she falls into.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Can I clarify it, Mr Assistant Speaker? In the first place, the speaker on the floor misquoted me. I stood to say that, and he said, in a very threatening tone, for me to make myself clear. It was that that I took offence to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The first part concerns misrepresentation, which is covered by Speaker’s ruling 35/3. The second part is that one parliamentary indiscretion does not justify another. So there was fault on both sides; it is one all.

RON MARK: We live in a day and an age when Peter Brown stood in this House when the Employment Relations Bill was being passed, and tried to get this Government to incorporate within that bill recognition in legislation of, and protection for, casualised workers. Marian Hobbs voted against the Supplementary Order Paper, and Steve Maharey voted against that Supplementary Order Paper. Right now, Labour is boasting; Mr Mallard stood there and said that 50 hours a week of casual labour is a good job. Well, excuse me, but the average Labour voter thinks it sucks that people have to do three jobs to get 50 hours’ employment a week—with no protection from the Employment Relations Act, with no redundancy agreement, and with no holiday pay. It stinks! It stinks that Labour—Ms Hobbs and Mr Mallard—can interject across the House and tell members of New Zealand First that that is acceptable. It is not acceptable in this day and age. It is not acceptable that supporters of Labour, a party once led by Mickey Savage, Norm Kirk—“Big Norm”—and Mike Moore, should have to sit back and listen to those MPs in a Labour Government say that casual employment is a good thing. [Interruption] Ms Soper knows of what I speak. It is an abomination that Labour voters all over this country are working casual hours, and Labour says that unemployment is down.

Hon Marian Hobbs: I didn’t say that.

RON MARK: Well, Ms Hobbs, tell the House how many people are casually employed today.

Hon Marian Hobbs: A lot are casually employed.

RON MARK: No, how many? Do you know why you do not know, Ms Hobbs? Because you have vetoed—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

RON MARK: No, I said “Ms Hobbs”. Stop protecting her, Mr Assistant Speaker. Do you know why the Government does not know? Because it vetoed Peter Brown’s—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might not—

RON MARK: Oh! It hurts.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member on my left well knows that when a point of order is being taken, it is to be heard in silence. I know what the Hon Harry Duynhoven will say, and I can say that I was not intimidated.

RON MARK: I know that the pattern that is emerging of interjecting and taking points of order is intended to shut me down, because I am hitting home. Labour voters all over the country know that this Government does not care about the number of people who are casually employed. Marian Hobbs says—[Interruption] Did she just call me a liar? Marian Hobbs knows and has admitted that she cannot say how many casual employees there are, because the Government vetoed Peter Brown’s Supplementary Order Paper that would have required the keeping of statistics on exactly that. I have only to ask Labour why. I ask Marian Hobbs why Labour vetoed that. Why? There is still no answer. I will ask Marian Hobbs again. Why did Labour veto that Supplementary Order Paper? That is the point.

Jill Pettis: Pōrangi!

RON MARK: What does that mean? Does that require a ruling from you, Mr Assistant Speaker? I will move on, because Labour members are simply trying to use up my time.

In terms of Vote Police, what we are dealing with is exactly what I started my speech with: the silent innuendo. The Prime Minister was asked questions in the House today about the “Waimate Run”—the equivalent of the “Cannonball Run”—which has resulted in five police officers and a civilian facing charges. She sat there in the sanctity and security of being the Prime Minister, totally above it all. What did she say in response to the questions that were asked? She said that the requirement is to tell the truth in the House. By implication, she said that she can say what she damn well likes on the street. She can go out on the street and say that she was totally oblivious to what was going on, because she was so busy working, because she had her head down in the back, reading Cabinet papers. Yet we in New Zealand First know that that motorcade would not have done what it did if she had said stop.

We in New Zealand First know that five police officers’ families—Dianne Yates just gave a big sigh. I will tell Dianne Yates this. This involves six families who have sat by and watched their partners and parents go through the stress and trauma of an investigation. Now those wives and children must watch those people go through the court procedure. Now they must sit there and wait, and wonder whether their families will have a job and an income. They know that one person could have put an end to it. But Dianne Yates’ answer—it is in Hansard, and, boy, are we going to use it—is a sigh; she is bored. We will let the six families know that Dianne Yates is bored by our questions about what this Government thinks of their situation.

There it is again. What a lovely way to finish! I started speaking of the arrogance that has permeated Labour. I was once a proud member of Labour, but I do not look with pride upon the arrogance and contempt that came out of Jill Pettis’ mouth earlier, and Dianne Yates’ mouth just then. It reveals the underbelly of Labour. The underbelly of Labour is: “We’ve been in Government for 6 years, we’re going to be there for another 3, and we’re above it all.” Well, it is not above it all, and chances are it may not be in Government again. When that happens, Labour members will have time to sit on this side of the House and reflect on the utterances of those two women and the comment of the Prime Minister that she is required to tell the truth in the House only; that she does not have to fess up and support those police; she can sit by and watch them hang, when she knew precisely what was going on, when it was being done for her, and when she could have stopped it. It is just a repeat of “paintergate” and of her being a “victim of her own success as a popular and competent Prime Minister”.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : As we move towards the end of this Parliament, with questions finishing today and people doing valedictory speeches, people are looking forward to getting out on the hustings. Mrs Coddington told us that she wants to leave Parliament because she has no anger any more. I think Mr Mark was telling us that he wants to stay because he is about as angry as he could possibly be. That was a fairly angry, passionate, committed speech from him. I look forward to seeing Mr Mark out there on the hustings, telling people what he is actually committed to. The speech he gave really did not get to the heart of what this election will be about.

I think this election will be about a very, very clear choice. There will not be a lot of parties left in this House after this election. MMP has got to the point where it is now maturing. People are starting to settle on what their choices will be. It seems to most pundits that the National Party and the Labour Party will offer people two different approaches to the future. I want to come back to that.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I offer my sincere apologies to Mr Maharey for interrupting his speech, and I hope he believes me when I say that I am not doing this to interrupt his speech. Mr Speaker, I have just had a conversation with the Hon Marian Hobbs, who made it very clear to me that the comment she made across the House was not in support of the fact that New Zealanders, some of whom she knows, are working for 50 hours a week as casual labourers. She is not proud of that. She told me so, and she made it clear to me that my comments upset and offended her. I wish to offer the Hon Marian Hobbs an apology. I accept that she is an honest person, and when she says to me that she is not proud of that fact, then I accept that wholeheartedly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for that. I let you carry on. It was not a point of order, but—all right.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On behalf of Ms Hobbs, I pass on that that was a noble act from somebody who obviously saw that there was a different way of looking at the issues. I was saying that I think that with MMP maturing the way it is, we are going into an election after which we will not have the same cast of characters back in this House. It is clear that Mr Nandor Tanczos and the Green Party are running reasonably well out there in the electorates, but when we look around the rest of the House we see, obviously, the demise of ACT, some deep trouble for United Future, and probably a reduced position for New Zealand First.

The contest will come down to two big, major pictures for the future. Those pictures really—and it is good to see John Key in the House this evening—will be driven by the choice in relation to a tax cut - driven agenda, which Ken Shirley, quite rightly, is spitting tacks over. He himself—the ACT party—drove the notion that tax cuts were the only way forward. Unfortunately since the arrival of Don Brash, the National Party has taken on that mantle, so ACT is irrelevant and Mr Shirley is on his way to one of his last drives back to the airport as a result of that. What we have in front of us is the tax cut agenda, which we know means cuts to social services, and borrowing—exactly what happened last time a Government drove that formula—versus what I would call the investment agenda: the agenda of the last 6 years. The investment agenda is about investing in health, investing in education, and investing in the things New Zealanders care about, like good housing, regional development, the police force, and all the things that have led to the stunning headlines around the world concerning this country. What does the OECD call us? It calls us a “jobs miracle”. What does Lonely Planet call us? It calls us a “hot country”. What are we known as in the cultural and film world? We are known as virtually the world centre of arts and culture, whether it is in fashion, film, or music. All of those things add up to this little country of 4 million people having a staggering reputation all around the world for its economy, its society, its environmental leadership, and its cultural leadership.

The National Party is offering to change that. Let us imagine really sensible people sitting down and asking themselves what they should offer New Zealanders at this election. We have a country that is running hot in the eyes of virtually every other leading country in the world, and National says to New Zealanders that it wants to take them in a radically new direction. That is after 6 years of amazing success, following decades of failure. Do people remember that incomes in this country fell every single year from 1972 until 1998—and then what happened? Labour was elected. People should remember that incomes fell every single year. I am not sure whether Murray McCully is the National Party’s strategist. I know that the great Liberace of the Opposition side of the House, the “lounge Lothario” Mr McCully, no doubt thought National’s agenda up himself, as he thinks he is in touch with New Zealanders. He thought National should go out as the Opposition and offer to change everything.

I just want to tell people that I am a local, provincial MP, as are Mr Darren Hughes and Ms Soper, who are sitting behind me. We are simple folk in the provincial centres. All that we want is to have evidence of what works. I would ask Mr Hughes whether that is not right. We do not want to hear fancy arguments from the sharebroker from London. We do not want all that market-speak. We do not want to hear all the stuff that comes from the eggheads across the road from Parliament. We do not want to hear all the stuff that comes from rich boys who live in huge houses, because the people we represent simply want to know what difference it would make to have this Government or to have another Government.

Let us look at my province and at Ms Pettis’ province, the Manawatū-Whanganui region, with regard to jobs. Basically, at the end of the 1990s, after the National Government had finished with us in the Whanganui-Manawatū region, we were arguing over who would turn the lights out when we left, because there was no growth. There were no jobs. Our biggest enterprise in the Manawatū-Whanganui region was to export people out of the region. What is it like 6 years later? We went from an unemployment rate—queue, if you like—in the city of Palmerston North of 11,900 people. Do members know how many people are unemployed and on the unemployment benefit in Palmerston North today? There are 715 people. If we take businesses in Palmerston North, we find businesses were leaving in droves in the 1990s, one after the other. Light manufacturers were going somewhere else. When people come through and look at our city at the present time, they will see that EziBuy, a large mail-order fashion company, is pouring a concrete floor the size of about five football fields for its new factory. The largest refrigerator in the Southern Hemisphere is being built by Kapiti Cheeses, which also produces ice creams and so on, in the Manawatū. That growth is happening in Palmerston North right now, and in Simon Power’s electorate. He is very grateful to the Labour Government for stimulating the economy so that he has an electorate where things are absolutely happening.

Darren Hughes: He’s a Labour MP at heart.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is what is being said at home. People are saying that Simon Power is a Labour MP because he backs growth and jobs, and he welcomes the fact that 500 more businesses are operating in Palmerston North since we came to power—500. In the 1990s businesses were leaving; now they are coming. Those businesses have created 6,900 new jobs in Palmerston North in the last 6 years.

Let us take an area like training. There are 10,000 people training in the Manawatū-Whanganui area right now because of this Government. Modern Apprenticeships are giving young people a route into industry and a real job. Crime dropped by 15 percent in Palmerston North in the last year alone—it is 15 percent down. We can walk through our square now; it used to be a place where people did not want to go. It is now a place where people want to go, because there is no crime for them to worry about when passing through that square. If we look at health, we see the spending on health is amazing—and we have a base hospital. We are a place with a lot of retirement homes, and money has been flowing through that area—$42 million has been budgeted for older care alone in Palmerston North. A tsunami of money for health has been coming through our region. It is the same in education. We also find that in the defence area it is the same. We are the defence capital of the country, and Simon Power knows that, as a former defence spokesperson. We are the defence capital of the country. There is $4.6 billion for defence, a large amount of which will flow through the Manawatū region, because of this Government.

That is all that Darren Hughes and Lesley Soper say when they are out on the hustings, and that is all that Ashraf Choudhary says. We say to people that they have a simple choice at this election: a tax cut agenda, with spending cuts, borrowing, and all the things we saw in the 1990s, or a track record of stunning success for our regions. We will not turn the lights off now. The lights are burning incredibly brightly in provincial centres like mine, because of this Government and its investments. In every meeting, when I finish, I ask people which box they will tick, and they say they think they will tick Labour.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : What an incredible lot of crowing we have just heard from the Labour Government! Government members do not realise they have been picking the low fruit of the hard yards of the reform that was done through the troubled times of the 1980s, and that was carried on by Ruth Richardson in the early 1990s. They inherited those benefits, and are plucking the low fruit while they waste and squander the period of prosperity we have had.

Who really believes that Jim Anderton and the Labour Government turned round the Southland economy? Time and time again we hear the Labour Government claiming credit for it. It had nothing to do with its policies, whatsoever. The international dairy price and investment in dairying turned the Southland economy round, and Government members forget that point time and time again.

But let us come to taxation. This has to be the meanest Government this country has ever seen. We actually have a rich Government but poor people, because this Government is taking the money from them. Government members think it is their money. If we talk to these folk, we find they actually believe that it is their money. They do not recognise that Governments do not have any money other than the money they take from hard-working people under the pretence that they can spend it better than those people. The hard reality is that they cannot. I do not know of any bunch of bureaucrats or politicians who can make better decisions on how money should be spent than those who worked for it, and can get a better outcome.

But this Government believes that doing that is its right. If we look at Australia, across the Tasman, we see that Australians have just been given a comprehensive tax reduction across the board.

Darren Hughes: $6 a week.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The Australian Government could afford it, I say to Mr Hughes. That Government could afford it, having a surplus. It could afford a comprehensive tax reduction on the basis of having a surplus of 1 percent of GDP. The Labour Government in New Zealand is sitting on a surplus of 4 percent of GDP—a $7 billion surplus—and it says it cannot afford it. The Government just wants to take more and more money.

What does it spend it on? Let us look at some of the things the Government has spent it on—for example, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. Last year alone, $239 million of hard-working Kiwis’ money was gouged out of them and just thrown out, and this Government was totally culpable for that. Its tertiary education policy was a sham and a farce—an absolute sham and a farce. Anyone could enrol in any course. There was no measure of quality, no check on the numbers, and no integrity. People just turned up and were bums on seats. The Government threw taxpayers’ money at the wānanga; it threw it out of the window. That is the trademark of this Labour Government: it just shovels taxpayers’ money out of the window with gay abandon.

Well, I have news for the Labour Government. Global economies go in cycles, and we have had the good times. The Government has chewed the fat, wasted it, and not carried on with the reforms that were desperately needed in this country. When the cycle turns, who will we be blaming? Successive generations of New Zealanders will look back on this Labour Government; sure, it got two terms—that is quite a record for a Labour Government in itself; it does not happen very often—but it is the culprit. Its members were the ones who squandered the opportunities through the good times, on bad spending and a lack of courage or vision actually to carry on the reform processes that were urgently required.

If we look around the world at all successful economies, we see that not one of them has become successful by increasing taxation. Essentially, only one OECD country has increased taxation in the last 6 years, and which one is it? Let us have a guess. It is New Zealand. New Zealand is the only OECD country that has increased taxation. If we look at the miracle economies of the former Soviet bloc that are experiencing growth and progress—Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, and the Czech Republic—we see their tax is down at 12 percent. They are former Soviet bloc countries. They learnt the lesson of the big State—that central command policies do not work. They have gone to 13 percent tax. Investment is flowing in. They are getting significant growth, and their people have rising prosperity.

Here we have a very wealthy, flush Government, but very poor people. New Zealanders are not any better off than they were 6 years’ ago, in spite of the so-called good times, because this irresponsible Government has squandered it—absolutely squandered those hard-earned reforms and the benefits that flowed from them.

Let us look at the energy sector in this country. What an absolute mess! There has been no significant investment in new generation. There has been no investment in the national grid for 10 years. It is right at the end of its limits, and this Government—this outgoing Labour Government—has made a succession of policy decisions that are fundamentally against the better interests of New Zealand, such is its eagerness to rush in and sign up to the Kyoto Protocol. Finally the chickens are starting to come home to roost. What a stupid thing to have done! We are the only Southern Hemisphere country with a Kyoto obligation. We are the only ASEAN country with an obligation. Only two other APEC nations, Japan and Canada, have the obligation that we have imposed on ourselves.

I put it to members that if we look at the New Zealand economy, we see that we have three advantages compared with other nations. One is actually climate. Our moist, or relatively moist, temperate climate is actually what underpins our biological economy and our production. The second key factor has been a relatively well-educated population, and I think we are sliding there. The third factor has actually been an abundant supply of competitively priced energy. The policy of this Government is actually to drive up the price of energy so that its chosen renewables, be it wind or whatever, become competitive. That is a recipe to destroy the New Zealand economy—an absolute recipe for destruction. Yet this Government is proud of the fact. It wants to drive up the price of energy. New Zealand’s energy supply is one of our key comparative advantages as a trading nation; fewer economies are as dependent on trade as we are, yet the Government is hell-bent on destroying and throwing away that comparative advantage.

The ACT party does favour low taxation. We always have, right from day one. When we came to this Parliament in 1996 we were advocating lower taxation. We were the only party doing that then. We could not get the then National Government to move. It did not see the wisdom of lower taxation. Fortunately, National has now come to its senses and has recognised the meaningful nature of lowering taxation to get investment and growth in the New Zealand economy.

But I think the outgoing Labour Government will be most condemned for the way that, on the social side of policies, it failed to carry on the reforms that were required. It had the opportunity, it had the money, and it had the good fortune to inherit the structure that gave us a time of prosperity, and it squandered it, wasted it, and flushed it away.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) : The member who has just resumed his seat has a bible. It is called “Unfinished Business”.The business remains unfinished. The party will be finished. The low-tax policies that are promoted by the ACT party have fallen into disfavour to an extent, and just the same the member continues to promote the idea that the electorate has rejected. I must say that the ACT party is consistent. It has been consistent from its outset, and it has been consistently wrong.

The ACT party is not of much concern to me, but Ken Shirley, who resumed his seat, did make some interesting comments about energy. He said that there was no generation going in, and that there was not enough investment. He said that we had put up the price of electricity in order to get our favoured wind generation away, etc. Then he went on, in a remarkable admission in the same speech—actually, it was within 1 minute of that—to say that one of our great advantages as a nation was a reliable, equable, mid-latitude island climate. That is what the Kyoto Protocol is about, and, yet a minute or two earlier that gentleman had spoken against Kyoto, even though it is easily the best opportunity we have to protect that which the same member holds dear.

Here are a few facts about the energy scene. The price of Māui gas was set about 30 years ago in a contract, and it has risen by half the rate of inflation for all of those 30 or 35 years, which is why gas out of Māui is worth $2 or $1.80 a gigajoule. It is a subsidised fossil fuel, and the Māui gasfield, unsurprisingly, is running out. That is what happens when one subsidises the price of anything. The replacement gas is not $1.80. It is about $6.50 or $5.50 a gigajoule, depending on the gasfield involved. That, more than anything, is what has been driving electricity prices in this country. Wind generation has another story to tell. Wind generation in this country got under way because of carbon credits, which exist because of Kyoto. Without the protocol there would be no credits, and no wind energy. The member should get that. There was a loop to be closed there, and this Government did it.

But as far as the National Party is concerned, one would never know what its policy was on energy. National has had a different energy spokesperson about every 6 months. It has never recovered from the disaster of Max Bradford, who decided that a person who owned a lines company could not own an electron flowing through it. The remarkable restructuring that took place at that time did this country no good at all. That man said that on 1 April 1999 electricity prices would fall, and they did not. They rose, and Max Bradford left politics as a result of that. That member made a mess of the portfolio, and the subsequent National Party energy spokespeople have never got their heads around it. That is why National continues to change its energy spokesperson.

Hon David Cunliffe: Who is it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not know whom the present energy spokesperson is. It used to be Pansy Wong. It used to be Roger Sowry, but he gave his valedictory speech today, so it cannot be him. It used to be Gerry Brownlee, but he found energy too difficult and took up Māori affairs instead. I do not know whom the spokesperson is. It may be Simon Power, but I thought he was the whip. The point is that the National Party does not have a good policy on energy.

Actually, National does not have much of a policy on anything. It has a tax policy, which is yet to be released. It has a nuclear policy times nine, it has an Iraq policy times seven, it has an issue about the ownership of schools times five, and it has a view about health organisations times three. It depends on the time of the day, it depends on the audience, it depends on the mood, and it depends on the poll ratings—it depends on those things. The National Party will not be able to print a manifesto, unless it is one that has so much sandpaper over it that one will not know what National stands for. The National Party does not know what it stands for, and if one does not know what one stands for in politics, one should not stand. Yet the National Party has decided to contest this election by saying that that kind of platitude, generalisation, and vagueness will get it through. Well it will not, because the democratic process is about close scrutiny—close scrutiny on television, close scrutiny in the town hall, and close scrutiny in the newspapers. Close scrutiny will result in people seeing the National Party for what it is: a bunch of flip-floppers—a bunch of people who have a point of view that changes at every occasion.

That is not the fault of most of the National caucus. The fault rests with the leadership. The fault rests with the leadership, because National’s leader has, in earlier times, spoken freely and given his mind. There was Dr Brash’s comment on nuclear ships that they would be “gone by lunchtime”, his comment that “Frankly, I do not care who owns the schools”, and the idea that he would have followed President Bush into Iraq—those three will do. There are plenty of other examples, like: “If a person was associated with the local marae, I probably wouldn’t employ him.”—a further statement by Dr Brash. As the heatwave has come on Dr Brash—as the blowtorch has gone on him—he has found himself changing his position, to make it less unacceptable. He has said things like: “These are irrelevancies.”, “This is not the issue of the day.”, and “We will have a referendum on the nuclear issue.” A referendum on the nuclear issue—called by whom, I wonder? Would it be called by the National Government, if there were ever to be one? There is silence on that. Would it be called by the Americans? Well, we know that Lockwood Smith wanted the think tank to come and soften us up, but the Americans, bless them, said that no, that was our business, and that they would not interfere in domestic policy. That is exactly what the Americans said. There are somewhat higher standards from US senators than we see from our own Opposition MPs.

But the question does arise: who would call the referendum on the nuclear power issue if National ever formed a Government? National has not yet answered that question. Under what pretext, under what circumstances, for what reason, and over what period of time might National arrange for there to be a referendum? Would it be in the first 3 years? No answer has been given. So, even now, on the nuclear issue, just to pick on one issue—it is such a simple thing, because the answer is either yes or no, which is why it is a good political issue to pick on—we cannot get an answer from National. We can get only seven answers. That is exactly what is wrong with the National Party, as it finds itself 6 weeks and 3 days out from an election. It does not have a firm view on anything. Of course, if National did have a firm view and I felt that that view was wrong, it would be a different thing. We would then contest for the 4 million New Zealanders—those amongst them who have votes—to say who will win at the election. But we do not know where the National Party stands, because it flip-flops.

What we do know is that the underlying rhetoric of National’s leader is radical. It is swirly-eyed; it is really very different. It is really quite scary. The gentleman is rather odd. We know that about the National Party leader. We do not need to go to his utterances to learn that; we can just read the authorised biography. We know the gentleman is odd. But what we do not know is what National would do in Government. We suspect it would be radical, and we suspect there would be significant change. We suspect we would go back to the future, in a rerun of the 1990s. But we cannot tell what National would do, because National has not said clearly what its policy is. We are 6 weeks and 3 days away from polling day. It really is time for the National Party to front up, to stop flip-flopping, to stop trying to disguise its policy, to come clean on what its policy is, to have the courage to say what its policy is, to spell it out, to give it some detail and to point out where the detail cannot yet be determined, because that is fair enough, and to put its policy out clearly to the public, so that we know what the National Party, in the year 2005, stands for. No one seems to know that now, because it does depend on the time of the day, the speaker, and the audience. That is not the way to run a democracy, and National will get caught out, as we move closer and closer to a campaign, for having more than one viewpoint on virtually any subject, really.

Primary health organisations would be a cracker. Would they be gone by lunchtime? Would they be gone slowly? Would National just amalgamate the little ones first? Would it change their governance? Would National turn them back, in order that they come under greater control from general practitioners? Would National require primary health organisations to have high levels of auditing? Would it get rid of them by punishing them with high levels of compliance? Or would National get rid of them in a clean sweep? That is not clear. We do know that National does not like primary health organisations, even though New Zealanders do, and even though New Zealanders enrol in them at a huge 99-point-something percent rate. We know that New Zealanders like primary health organisations and we know that those organisations are working, but we do not know how National would get rid of them. We just know that National does not like them. We just know that the primary health organisations would go backwards, but we do not know the detail of how that would occur. National itself, perhaps, does not know that, and it has 6 weeks and 3 days to find out. If National does not have a clear position by then, we will tell people what its position is and National will be in the position of having to deny that. That is how it works. So, too, it is the case on almost any other subject. The National Party needs to know what it stands for, because it is about to stand.

PANSY WONG (National) : We have heard very clearly the urgency in the tone used by the Hon Pete Hodgson together with the other two speakers, Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey, to see a National Government in 6 weeks’ time. The Hon Pete Hodgson cannot wait. We heard the anxiousness in his speech. Do members know why? None of those three Labour members who have spoken in the debate mentioned even once the last Budget speech of the Hon Michael Cullen. In fact, Labour members want to put that nightmare Budget behind them. I bet all of them, like the public, cannot wait to see the incoming Minister of Finance, the Hon John Key, deliver an alternative budget, because Labour simply does not know how to proceed. It has totally run out of options and solutions.

Where is the Hon Michael Cullen’s KiwiSaver? Why are no members standing in the Chamber to say they can campaign for the so-called third-term Government on this Budget 2005? They have thrown the Budget away. The Hon Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance, preached to the public to be fiscally responsible, and said there was no fat in the Budget to reward hard-working New Zealanders. Oops! Suddenly $300 million came up from nowhere for interest-free student loans.

Let me lay out the reasons why Labour is so anxious, in a tone that we can hear, for National to come in, and to see John Key’s budget, because Labour cannot proceed. Look at education. What is the solution? I refer to Labour’s pre-school policy. Its own Minister, from Auckland, does not even know which pre-school childcare facility would qualify for the 20 hours. We have the carers calling for Labour to scrap that.

How about schools? They have no answer, because Trevor Mallard, not too long ago, wanted to close 300 schools. Oops! He changed his mind. I refer to tertiary education. What is the answer? The answer is 200 bureaucrats. The Hon Michael Cullen talked about quality education—singalong courses that were supposed to be closed down. When? It was last year. Well, I have bad news for Labour. Enrolments were still open until yesterday. Another class is to start in August.

Then, worse, student loans—what is the answer? Interest-free loans! Pete Hodgson mentioned that National members should stand and be prepared for close scrutiny. Well, he is a fine one to talk! When the Westpac economist scrutinised the so-called $300 million cost, he came out with a figure that was at least double, and it could rise to a billion dollars. That is amazing, is it not? Labour does not like scrutiny. Labour does not like its numbers to be scrutinised. So here we go. Education has nowhere to go.

I want to tackle the Hon Pete Hodgson, because he wants to talk about solutions. Nobody would be able to tell or to predict this about the Hon Pete Hodgson. He was the Labour Opposition spokesperson on energy for 9 years. When he became the Minister of Energy his first policy was to seek an inquiry into the energy sector. He was 9 years in Opposition, and his first role as Minister was to ask for an inquiry. Even today, I do not think that people out there actually know what Labour’s policy on energy is—whether it is more wind farms: not possible due to objectors using the Resource Management Act. The next minute it wants clean fuels, and suddenly it comes up with a concession for the oil exploration industry. What a contrast! Then there is the billion-dollar problem with the Kyoto Protocol. How can people have confidence in Labour?

What about the police? We thought Labour had spelt out its commitment for a safe New Zealand community and that it would put some money into police. Now the word on the street is that it will come up with even more money for the police. But people are still looking for police on the streets. Everywhere I go, including public meetings, it is obvious that every single individual who turns up to public meetings tells all the candidates that priority for police, under Labour, is on issuing tickets. No matter how much Labour members try to convince the public that New Zealand is now enjoying its safest period, and that the police have the highest budget, no single individual whom I have come across throughout New Zealand actually believes that Labour has any answers for keeping the New Zealand community safe.

That is why during all those three speeches none of those members was proud enough to talk about Michael Cullen’s Budget. Instead, I could hear the pleading in their voices that they wanted to hear about the alternative budget of John Key—the incoming Minister. They seemed to be secretly asking us to help Labour because they did not know which way to turn, or where to lead New Zealand in terms of Michael Cullen’s word that the long-term economic and social health of New Zealand is waiting to be improved.

In the last 6 long years Labour has just squandered the best economic situation and conditions that have faced New Zealand. It did nothing but reconfirm that Labour is a high-tax and income redistribution party that, basically, is keen only to tax people and then hand it out to its favourite groups, without paying any attention or respect to hard-working New Zealanders. It holds the business sector in contempt. It has absolutely no respect for business. I do not know why. That is the sector that provides jobs, but it gets nothing from this Government.

The fact is that everywhere I go I am asked what sort of a Government it is that would insult its citizens by telling them, after 6 years, that they have to wait another 3 years to get a 67c tax cut per week. That is why there is silence on Dr Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance, and they have chosen to forget this Budget statement. The 2005 Budget is a total failure for Labour and I can tell that all members opposite are anxious and waiting to see what National will come up with. They are waiting for a new Minister of Finance who has an alternative budget that would reward New Zealanders, not subject them to high taxes.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to a point of order that I raised with the Speaker in the Chair earlier in the debate. The chief Government whip used a Māori word to describe me, as she walked across the floor of the House. She used the word at least twice. I asked the Speaker whether he was going to allow that reference to go unchallenged. He did not intervene, and I continued with my speech. I subsequently checked that Māori word, and I now ask you to see whether Jill Pettis wishes that word to stand; otherwise will she accept that I might refer to her as kairau in the future. I ask whether she is prepared to stand, withdraw, and apologise for calling me a drunk, in Māori, and getting away with it. I take extreme exception—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has made his point.

RON MARK: So I can call her kairau any time I like?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, we cannot get into hypothetical situations. The member Jill Pettis said something in Māori. She should have translated it. I ask her to translate, please.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I said “pōrangi”, which means mad. But if the member is tired and emotional and has taken offence, I apologise.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I raise a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I much prefer a gracious, magnanimous withdrawal, but if it is beyond that member to do such a thing, then we will let it lie where it lies, and will deal with it in public.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Ms Pettis is quite aware that a withdrawal should not be qualified. An apology would be helpful.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) : There are 6 weeks and 3 days until the election. Obviously, it cannot come soon enough for some people in this House, who are looking forward to a long holiday indeed. In fact, the bell is about to toll for a large number of MPs and parties in this House. It is past time for some of them to front up, speak up, and own up to New Zealanders as to what their policies will do to New Zealanders. It is time that those politicians put on record what their policies are, so that New Zealanders can make their choices.

I have to say that Don Brash and the National Party have been playing New Zealanders for suckers, week in and week out, in this Parliament and in the little meetings in halls that they have been holding around New Zealand. They have been playing New Zealanders for suckers. Don Brash has been doing the equivalent of a political striptease with his major policy plank. He has been doing the political striptease with his tax cuts. It is a sordid little peep show that he has been teasing New Zealanders with. He is the proverbial teaser of the voter. What he has been doing is talk about when he will announce the tax cuts. I want to take New Zealanders who are listening tonight on this political striptease of Don Brash and his tax cuts.

On 1 April this year he said that he did not propose to announce National’s tax policy, and that, indeed, he would defer any detailed announcement on its tax policy until after the Budget on 19 May. On 13 May he said that not long after the 19 May Budget, in the run-up to the election, he would be announcing a very different set of policies from those of Helen Clark’s Government, and that lower taxes on families would be firmly on the agenda. The next day the National Party leader, Don Brash, said to the Otago chamber of commerce that National’s tax policy would be announced in the next 2 or 3 weeks. When was that? That was on 14 May. We got to the next day, 15 May. He said that National would lessen the burden on hundreds of thousands of middle-income families, and would be announcing its policy once it had seen what was left in the Budget.

The Budget was on 19 May. Obviously, National members are slow readers, as we hear from the rest of the story. On 21 May, at the launch of his post-Budget roadshow, Dr Brash confirmed that he would offer big tax cuts to all workers, but he refused to repeat the Budget night assurance that it would amount to billions of dollars. John Key had told New Zealanders, in the Sunday Star-Times, that the tax cuts would amount to billions, not hundred of millions, of dollars. Dr Brash refused to confirm that figure or to provide details of National’s tax plan.

He said on 21 May that he would be announcing details of the tax cuts in a few weeks’ time. Well, we got to 22 May, and Dr Brash said that National would bring in a tax system that rewards enterprise and rewards skill and hard work, and that he would announce it in a few weeks’ time. That was on 22 May. On 23 May Dr Brash said that he hoped to provide wide-scale tax relief for New Zealanders, to restore some kind of incentive for hard work and initiative, but that we would have to wait because he intended to announce it in a few weeks’ time. It was reported that he said that teasingly on Morning Report on 23 May. Well, we got to 26 May and he said that National’s tax policies could not be announced until after the Budget. Well, the Budget had been the week before! He said that National would announce them shortly, in the next few weeks—that he would do that.

By 11 June he had this to say: “The reality is we will announce our tax policy well ahead of the election. We said we would do it in a few weeks, after the Budget was announced.” National was going to do it a few weeks after the Budget was announced; we were now at 11 June. “Why are you holding this back?”, asked the presenter; “Is it for strategic advantage?”. Dr Brash said: “That is correct.” This is all about strategic advantage. It has nothing to do with wanting to be honest and upfront with taxpayers.

Then we got to 6 July, and Dr Brash said this: “We will be revealing more and more bits of policy over the next few weeks.” Then we got to 7 July, and he said: “We will be rolling it out next month. We don’t have a particular date in mind. We want to see when the election will be.” Then we got to 13 July. He said: “We will put it out in our own good time. Just ask Helen Clark when the election is, and at that point I will tell you exactly when we will announce our tax policy.”

We have had this political striptease going on since April this year.

Darren Hughes: We’re down to the pyjamas.

Hon ANNETTE KING: We are not down to the pyjamas; we are down to the Y-fronts, and people are waiting eagerly for the final act, so that they can see what lies beneath. I have a terrible feeling it is going to be a great disappointment to many, many New Zealanders.

John Key said there will be tax cuts by Christmas if National is in Government. So not only have we had this slow striptease about the tax cuts but we are told that if National is in Government, we will have them before Christmas. Of course, that all changed quite quickly when Don Brash heard about that. Of course, a National Government could not actually give tax cuts before Christmas. A few things would have to happen before it could do that. First of all, it would have to decide who is going to get them. Along the way, Dr Brash has told us that every single New Zealander would get a substantial tax cut. Do members know what New Zealanders are saying? They are saying that “substantial” means 50 to 100 bucks a week. That is substantial. That is what they are expecting. Every hard-working New Zealander, toiling away out there, is expecting between 50 and 100 bucks a week. That is what would make a difference; that is what people say would make them vote National. I can tell members that those people will be very, very disappointed. It will be the final act of treachery when National takes off the last veil and there is nothing there at all. It will be a great disappointment.

We heard today from Dr Brash about the fact that this Government has announced a very attractive student loan policy. He said it is a bribe to the voters, and how dreadful it is to have a cynical bribe to the voters like that. Of course, promising a substantial tax cut to every single New Zealander is not a bribe, at all; no, it is just sensible policy! It is what parties do when they are in Opposition!

We then get to National’s promises on health. I have been looking for the policy. I have searched for the policy. I have been on Google. I have read everything I could. I have read the New Zealand Herald and I have read the . I have read the websites. Have we found a health policy? No, we have not. But I did read the general election report in . There is a little bit of policy there! It is the first little bit of policy I have found. It states: “The National Party supports the amalgamation of district health boards.” Well, let me tell Jill Pettis—and perhaps Mr Power would be interested—that the Whanganui District Health Board would be gone under National Party policy. So would the Taranaki District Health Board. They would be amalgamated with Palmerston North’s. That is where they would be. National should tell the people of Tauranga and the people of Rotorua, because their boards would be amalgamated with Waikato’s. National should tell the people in the far north; their board would be amalgamated with Auckland’s. And so on, down New Zealand.

We are talking about a party that would force amalgamations of district health boards up and down New Zealand. That is not what the people necessarily want, and it is not what they will be consulted on, but because National needed a policy—it had to have something to say—it would force amalgamations. Well, I would like to see National impose that policy on New Zealanders. It will not work. When it comes to local government amalgamation, Dr Brash said National is in favour of amalgamating councils. Of course, when it comes to the local council we notice the views of political candidates such as the National Party candidate in Otaki. He is suddenly not in favour of this sort of amalgamation. He is saying: “Amalgamate everybody else but not my council.” So let us see how this policy would work. It is a half-baked approach to health, but is about the best we have from National so far.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : This is the sixth Budget since Labour became the Government, and as the last Budget of Labour’s second term it is perhaps a good time to assess its overall economic management over the last 6 years. In conventional terms, using the conventional measurements of economic management, Labour has been very successful. Economic growth in the last 6 years has been much higher than in the previous 9 years. The unemployment rate is down, and although business always grizzles no matter who is in Government, business has, on the whole, been pretty happy. The latest Budget gives advances in access to housing, in family support, and in workplace savings. But along with the growth in GDP a lot of other things have grown too, and there is somehow a reluctance to talk so much about them.

Economic growth has been driven to a considerable extent by immigration: building housing and providing the infrastructure for extra people. So house prices have grown. House prices have grown to the point that for more and more ordinary New Zealanders, owning a house is completely unaffordable. Some middle-income New Zealanders can see no way of getting on the housing escalator, at all. Along with GDP growth, traffic congestion has grown. In Auckland it has grown out of sight. There is a limit to how much space in a city can be taken up with roads and vehicles. Along with traffic congestion, the time that it takes to get from one side of Auckland to the other has grown, as well.

We have had a lot of growth in the last 6 years. We have had a lot of growth in the dairy industry, and with that we have had a lot of growth in nitrate runoff from our farms into our waterways. We have had a lot of growth in water pollution, to the point where the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research now tells us that 95 percent of our lowland rivers and streams are not fit to swim in, let alone to drink.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but I for one think it is the height of rudeness for there to be these types of sit-around conversations, and for people to have their backs to the Speaker, while Jeanette Fitzsimons is trying to make a contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that; he is quite right. The member has now moved away.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Along with the growth in GDP we have had huge growth in the use of energy, both transport fuel and electricity, and along with that we have had a huge and rapid growth in greenhouse emissions. They have grown faster than GDP has. For every unit of GDP growth we have had even more units of growth in greenhouse emissions, to the point where quite a healthy half a billion dollars of projected Kyoto Protocol credit has turned into a projected half a billion dollars of Kyoto deficit.

The other deficit that has doubled in this time is the trade deficit. We have paid for the growth in our exports by an excess of imports and, of course, by the undercutting of local industries as we import more and more from countries with cheap labour. Student debt during those 6 years has more than doubled—from about $3 billion when Labour came to power to $7 billion today. That is an albatross round the necks of many of our young people, who will not ever manage to get a home together or to have a family, unless that burden is relieved.

Those things are seen conventionally as simply the costs of a successful economy. They are regarded as a shame, but the important thing is thought to be that the economy grew. Therefore, it is argued, we just have to put up with the consequences of having more traffic, more greenhouse gases, more pollution, more of a trade deficit, and more student debt. In fact, the operation has been a complete success; it is just unfortunate that the patient died! So much for looking back.

When I look forward, I hope there will be a third-term Labour-led Government, but at the moment we are seeing no big new ideas for that third term. We can predict that stable economic management will continue as long as the real world does not change. But actually the real world will change. It is changing now, and there is no vision for how we could address the big challenges that are coming. In fact, there is no recognition that there are big challenges coming.

I refer members to the Christchurch Press of 30 June this year, which had a whole list of reports that together added up to a significant warning. Half the Nelson fishing boats, the reported on that date, had stayed in port because fuel costs made it uneconomic to go fishing. Cropping farmers in Canterbury were considering scaling down their production because of the costs of diesel, which had risen in a little over a year from 55c per litre to 93c per litre. Federated Farmers said that fuel for farming is one of the biggest costs of business now—for machinery, for irrigation pumps, and for transporting fertiliser. Freight costs have risen by 40 percent and freight charges by 10 percent. The further reported that community-care workers were seriously considering whether they could continue to do home visits, because of the cost of fuel and the lack of a budget to pay for those transport costs. What will happen to people marooned in their homes by their health needs, if it is not possible for the district nurse to visit their homes any longer?

The airlines are all charging a fuel surcharge on their fares. Why is that? While the price of crude oil has doubled in 2 years, New Zealanders have been protected from that by the high exchange rate of our dollar, but that rate is now starting to fall. We could well be hit with the double whammy of crude oil prices continuing to rise and the falling exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar exacerbating those price rises. Last year the December Economic and Fiscal Update predicted that the crude oil price would fall to $43 per barrel by March of this year—that is, fall to $43 per barrel by March 2005. Today it is $62 a barrel. The Budget Economic and Fiscal Update in May predicted that the price of crude oil would fall to $47 a barrel. Currently is it $62 a barrel.

This Budget totally ignores the oil prices that underpin our economy. It makes no concession at all to that change in the fundamentals, pretending that it is some kind of temporary blip caused by geographic factors, by unrest, or by other short-term interruptions to supply. But those so-called short-term and temporary interruptions have been going on for several years now, and alongside them we have predictions that we are actually at the end of the age of cheap oil. We are entering the age of very expensive oil, which comes before the age when we can get very little oil at all. This Budget threw another $100 million at roads, on top of the extra 5c a litre tax on petrol and a record number of litres being used. Then, post-Budget, Dr Cullen threw another half a billion dollars—which he has suddenly discovered—at roads as well. The Government says it is not just for roads but is for land transport, which includes public transport. But, actually, until the Government changes the financial assistance rate, none of that money will be spent on public transport. It cannot be spent on public transport because local and regional authorities cannot raise their rates high enough to pay their share, without which they get nothing from the National Land Transport Fund.

More than two-thirds of our car imports are used vehicles now, and three-quarters of them are more than 7 years old. Our motor vehicle fleet is becoming older every year, it is becoming dirtier every year, and it is becoming less fuel efficient. Twenty-two percent of the new cars that come into New Zealand are sport utility vehicles. Every year we use more and more fuel to travel 100 kilometres than we did in the past. Fuel efficiency is going backwards. We have not had a word of warning from the Government about how we will afford to run all those inefficient vehicles, how we will maintain the huge numbers of new motorways that are being built all over the country, or what, in fact, will run on them. Where is the planning for more fuel-efficient cars? There is none. Where is the planning to run our farms on less fuel? There is none. Where is the planning to shift freight to the rail network, to fix up the rail lines so they can cope with it, and to build more public transport in cities? There is very little.

National, of course, would make things even worse. There would be more big roads, less public transport, no interest at all in fuel efficiency—the market would suddenly transform our old fleet when prices go over $100 a barrel. National, in fact, would make congestion in Auckland much worse, because it would abolish school zoning and encourage parents to cart their kids all around town at rush hour, driving one tonne of metal tens of kilometres in order to get one child to school.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Finance) : It is a pleasure to follow the member who has just resumed her seat. Indeed, the Green Party has made a contribution to the long-term thinking of this Government around energy issues. It has, to its credit, been making the case for renewable energy for some time now, and that is to be applauded. Of course, it supports the Government’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which has made available some of the credits that have contributed to renewable energy in the form of wind power, where New Zealand is now taking an international leadership position. It is ironic, however, that the member criticises the Government for spending too much on roads and too much, perhaps, on urban rail, because often other members opposite criticise the Government for spending too little. The truth of the matter is that we are now spending on a per annum basis in Auckland alone 10 times what was being spent when we came into office 6 years ago.

But I do not want to dwell on that track record—good as it is—because I want to cast my mind back to a time before I even entered Parliament. It is appropriate in this type of debate, where we take stock of the Budget and where Parliament has got to, in the last days of this session. Before I entered Parliament I was a diplomat, and I worked, latterly, in the New Zealand Embassy in Washington DC. It was my pleasure to support the visits of such high-ranking Ministers as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith and the Hon Philip Burdon, who occasionally fell asleep in meetings with US Congressmen. There are other exciting stories that I will not go into now. It is a very great surprise to me to find that a former Minister like Lockwood Smith, who was experienced in those circles, would be the one to put on the table, in front of a visiting group of US senators, the idea that a group like The Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute ought to help educate Kiwis about our nuclear-free policy. For those who do not know the people involved with The Heritage Foundation, let me tell members that those people think Attila the Hun is a liberal and Genghis Khan is PC. These guys are seriously right wing. They are the sort of people that Ken Shirley thinks are right on. That is how far to the right they are. Those are the people whom Lockwood Smith thinks ought to be educating everyday New Zealanders about our foreign policy.

Well, we have news for him. We are proud of New Zealanders and we trust them to have good sense. They have said that although they are prepared to invest our resources and risk the lives of New Zealand service people who are overseas making this a safer world, they will not go blindly into that dark night and they will not go where any other country says just because it is that country. They will make up their own minds. That is a prerogative as a sovereign nation that our forebears fought and died to secure, and we are not about to give it away on a whim. Nor will we ask any foreign power to fund our election campaign on the basis of a promise like Lockwood Smith sought.

I believe that, when asked this evening whether Dr Smith really said that, Dr Brash echoed a famous phrase. I ask members to guess what it was. I believe he said he would “neither confirm nor deny”. Well, the worm comes full circle, because this is Dr Brash’s latest utterance. One could even call it position No. 10. He has more positions on nuclear ships than the Kama Sutra. He has 10 positions so far, advancing on that advance by Simon Power, who said that wherever George goes, they go. Going back—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I caution the member not to refer to what it is alleged that Dr Smith said. He has made a personal explanation in the House, and we need to accept that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I was not aware of that. I was in my office at the time the personal explanation was made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It has been done, so there will be no more references to that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I take your point, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think it is a matter of public record that Dr Brash has had 10 positions now if we include the “neither confirm nor deny” policy on nuclear ships. He has told people that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime, that he wants a referendum, that he will change it if he has got a mandate, and that he has not got a policy yet. What does Dr Brash think?

The question facing New Zealanders is simply this: who do they trust? Do they trust Helen Clark, in a Government that has stood up for New Zealand’s independent foreign policy stance over these last 6 years, or do they trust a man who is new to politics, who cannot make up his mind, who will not say what his real agenda is, and who is apparently even let down by former Ministers making embarrassing statements about foreign funding?

That is one issue, but of course there is an even bigger flip-flop on an issue that is very close to many New Zealanders’ hearts. That is about whether they can trust Dr Brash with the nations’s chequebook. Once again, we get the same treatment. My colleague Annette King called it the great striptease. I just call it the policy vacuum. I have not seen a policy from the National Party. What I have heard is $7 billion worth of spending and tax cut promises so far. National has talked about a 3c cut across the board in the tax rate. That is about $4 billion worth, roughly speaking, by a back of the envelope calculation. To give a real life example, if you are a family with a $50,000 income, that is worth—wait for it—$28 a week. I do not refer to you, Mr Speaker. I am sure you are on more than $50,000, and you deserve to be, and it would be worth more than $28 for you. But for a family on $50,000, it would be $28 a week.

Now, if National’s $4 billion of tax cuts, let alone its $3 billion of spending promises, were to hit Dr Bollard’s desk at the Reserve Bank and he were to put rates up by, say, a percent, that would be $38 a week off that same income with a mortgage of $200,000. So someone with an average mortgage would be worse off—and that is even before National has done away with the Working for Families package. So, again, I ask who New Zealanders trust. They trust Dr Cullen.

Hon David Carter: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No, no. They trust him not just to be a good manager of the chequebook, or to restore New Zealand’s international reputation for good Government and fiscal stability, but to front up and say what he will do. No one can argue with this: we did not embellish that Budget. We told it as it was. There is no $7.4 billion surplus, because every Kiwi knows that when you get your wages and pay the bills, at the end of the week—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE:—not you, Mr Speaker; I am sure that you get your wages and pay your bills. As the average Kiwi knows, if one has a surplus it comes down to what is left in the purse. This Government, as made clear in the Budget statements, will be running a cash deficit for 3 out of the next 4 years, which will increase to around $3 billion in 2008. Well, that is a funny kind of surplus, and it is not what New Zealanders understand by the phrase.

This Government is committed to making life better for all New Zealanders, not just to giving a tax cut for the wealthy. We know that even an across-the-board tax cut falls disproportionately to the top table and that those at the bottom end miss out. At the end of the day, that is often what politics is about, is it not? It is not about grand speeches in the House, it is not about policy papers that are 5 yards long, and it is not about the fine rhetoric; it is about who gets what. It is about whether the next John Key who grows up in a State house will get a good State education so he will be able to make the best of his life, or whether we will give away the resources of the generation next to this one, so that we can continue a spending boom beyond our means. Will we be responsible, will we look after our children, and will we look after our futures by spending only what we can afford to spend as we can afford to spend it? I see Mr Shirley nodding, because he has dedicated most of his career—which ends this week—to good fiscal management, and I commend him for that. He knows that the argument has been won on this side. He knows—

Simon Power: Gotta love him!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and Simon Power knows, as he slumps down in his seat, that they are there on the Opposition benches for another 3 years. It is not all bad for Simon Power. He is quite well positioned for the next round, and I think he will be a formidable opponent in 2008. But those members need that 3 years, clearly, to come up with a policy, because they do not have a policy on nuclear ships, they do not have a policy on tax cuts, and they do not have a policy on superannuation entitlements. Hell, they do not have a policy!

New Zealanders know who they can trust—a hard-working good Government, led by Helen Clark and her front-bench team, her Cabinet. They know that we might not put a lot of fluff around the package, but we tell it as it is. New Zealanders can trust us to do our very best for every New Zealand family, because that is what we have done for the last 6 years, and what we will continue to do for the next 6 years.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : The sad thing about that contribution from David Cunliffe is that he is so arrogant he actually starts to believe his own rhetoric. We are talking about the “chewing gum Budget”, in which Dr Cullen himself generously promised tax cuts of 67c a week, provided New Zealanders patiently wait for the next 3 years. But the New Zealand public will not wait 3 years for 67c a week, because on 17 September they will vote overwhelmingly for a new Government that does something about the 41 taxes this Government has imposed.

• Debate interrupted.