Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : It is with pleasure that I take part in the debate, in the dying days of the Labour Government and again in urgency, on the third reading of the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill.

I want to talk about the events of yesterday, when Labour embarked on yet another diversion campaign because of the Prime Minister being in trouble. Let us look at yesterday’s Christchurch Press headline, which states: “PM’s car ‘hit 172kmh’”. It is no wonder that Phil Goff came into the House yesterday afternoon in question time, with a complete fabrication of the truth, and launched his leadership bid, because he and Mr Mallard are locking horns over who will lead the Labour Party in Opposition after the next election.

We are debating the Budget—the “chewing gum Budget”, as it has become known. Dr Cullen went to the people of New Zealand and said that despite having a $7 billion surplus things were a bit tight, and that if they waited patiently the Government would deliver to them 67c per week in 3 years’ time. That is what Dr Cullen did.

Hon Member: Absolutely outrageous!

Hon DAVID CARTER: It will be 67c per week in 3 years’ time. Then the polls started to turn, and the fiscal restraint Dr Cullen claims he is well known for was completely abandoned. The first person to come to the floor with a leadership bid was Mr Mallard, with a billion-dollar student loan bribe. That particular policy cannot be explained any other way. Mr Mallard himself is on record as saying that no substantial alteration could be made to the student loan policy, unless New Zealand struck oil and was guaranteed economic stability for the next 50 years. He said that earlier this year. But when the polls are down, when Helen Clark is on the ropes, and when Phil Goff and Trevor Mallard are locked in a leadership tussle, Mr Mallard is the first off the block with a billion-dollar bribe. We can forget about fiscal fortitude; an election is about to occur, and that was the first election bribe.

This morning’s Dominion Post—that well-known daily Labour Party newsletter—tells us that the first billion dollars has been spent and that Labour is sitting on another billion dollars that it plans to release to New Zealand over the election campaign. I say to Mr Swain, the only Labour Minister in the House this morning, that the New Zealand public will not be fooled by those bribes. A Government presenting a Budget and saying that there is no money for tax cuts, then starting on an expensive spending spree simply because the polls are against it, will not fool New Zealanders.

In this election we need to focus on the real issues. The real issues are on the way that Labour has created two standards of citizenship in this country—one for Māori and one for non-Māori. That is completely unacceptable to me, it is completely unacceptable to the National Party, and it is completely unacceptable to most New Zealanders.

We also have the debacle within the education sector, overseen first of all by Mr Maharey and more recently by Mr Mallard. The sum of $239 million was given to a wānanga, when Mr Mallard himself said he always doubted the value of that spending. Those sorts of scandals will not occur when the National Government takes over after 17 September. That is the sort of thing we will tidy up immediately. New Zealanders deserve a quality education, and that is not being delivered by this Government.

Then, of course, we have the issue of social welfare dependency. Although unemployment has come down, we note that, surprisingly, the numbers of people on the sickness and invalids benefits have effectively doubled over the time Labour has been in office. Is that not an admission that the country has got sicker under a Labour Government? Why are more people on a sickness benefit now than when Mr Swain came into power?

Hon Paul Swain: It’s because they get older.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Swain says they get older. I ask Mr Swain whether we are now putting superannuitants on that benefit. That is what he is doing, and the excuse is that they go on the sickness benefit simply because they are getting older. That excuse will not wash with New Zealanders on 17 September, either.

Over the weekend two very sad incidents of teenagers being killed in horrific car accidents occurred. I note the comments made by members of the Labour caucus acknowledging a problem with young motorists and the way they drive. There is a problem with young motorists not being mature enough to handle vehicles, and there is certainly a problem with young motorists using cars at speeds at which they cannot control them. But what sort of example does the Prime Minister set to young New Zealanders when she herself travels along State Highway 1 from Waimate to Christchurch at speeds of up to 172 kilometres an hour?

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s over 100 miles an hour.

Hon DAVID CARTER: That is over 100 miles an hour, as my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp says. What sort of example does that set from the Prime Minister of this country? The excuse she gives is that she was rushing to make a rugby match in Wellington. I say to the Prime Minister that I also travelled to Wellington on that particular day to watch that same rugby match. I left on a flight from Christchurch 1 hour later than the Prime Minister’s flight, and I arrived in Wellington with at least 1 hour to spare before I had to get to the stadium to watch the rugby match. There is absolutely no excuse for the Prime Minister’s travelling at that sort of speed up the main road south to Christchurch. She had plenty of time to make that rugby match. We see now six people before the courts, charged with being responsible for the speed at which that motorcade travelled.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Hung out to dry.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Six people! The Prime Minister will not accept any responsibility. She hangs those six people out to dry. I predict that if they are convicted, some of those six people will lose their jobs. But could the Prime Minister care less about those six people in the dock in Timaru today?

Dr Wayne Mapp: She’s like a Roman emperor.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I would say that most Roman emperors took more responsibility than Helen Clark ever has. This is the most disgraceful wiping of her hands we have seen. We know that she is prepared to forge paintings. That issue will not be lost on New Zealanders. Now we have this case of her speeding at 172 kilometres an hour to Christchurch to catch a flight to Wellington, when she had hours to spare.

Paul Adams: It’ll be an election issue.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I assure Mr Adams that it will be an election issue. Jo Goodhew is out there door-knocking at the moment in the Aoraki electorate. Mr Sutton does not stand a chance of being returned as the member for Aoraki, because the South Canterbury people are the ones who had to jump out of the way. Their lives were at risk as the motorcade cruised up the main road south at a speed of 170 kilometres an hour.

Because the Prime Minister is in trouble, Mr Goff and Mr Mallard raised the most frivolous headlines yesterday, quite inaccurately. It is all a diversion tactic, because the Prime Minister is in trouble. So I say to the voters of New Zealand that they should not be fooled by the Labour Party. They should stick to the issues at this election—the Treaty of Waitangi and the grievances it has created in New Zealand and the economy and taxation. I ask the public of New Zealand to recall the 41 new taxes that have been imposed by the Labour Government. That is how it has achieved the massive Budget surplus of $7 billion.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) : I detect a little bit of envy over there. I start to see the emergence of the green-eyed monster. Do members know why that is? It is because National members can see this election slipping away on them. Oh yes, they can. The so-called great tax policy—which was going to be announced “soon”, then was going to be announced when the election was called, and will now be announced a bit later on—is in tatters. Their student policy has been shown up to be absolutely pitiful, and now they can see the election slipping away on them.

This has been a great Government. The way we have managed the economy and led New Zealand has been fabulous. The most important thing we have done for New Zealand has been to grow the economy. That has been the most important thing, because as a result of that, we now have some of the highest growth rates among the OECD, we have more people working, we have created over 260,000 new jobs, there are 100,000 fewer working-age beneficiaries than there were in 1999, and we have been able to rebuild the services that were in rack and ruin and decay around New Zealand following 9 long years of that National Government. People will not forget that.

What about the good things we have been able to do? What about family support and Working for Families? Over 300,000 people will be $66 a week, on average, better off. What about paid parental leave, which gives people the opportunity to be paid for 13 weeks when they have a baby? Boy, that has taken away a lot of concern and pressure from a lot of ordinary families.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Do you think that was a good idea?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It was a very good idea and I thank the Government for it. What about early childhood education? What about the quality we have been able to raise as a result of the policies in early childhood education? What about schools? There are more teachers, over and above roll growth, there is more money, over and above inflation, and there are more resources. Schools are on high-speed Internet on broadband, and teachers and principals are getting laptops.

What about the tertiary loan policy of no interest on student loans? What a ripper that has been! It went round the universities by text message like prairie fire. What about health? We have now been able to make health more affordable to ordinary New Zealanders, particularly the young and the elderly. What about apprenticeships? National destroyed the apprenticeship system. We brought it back. One of the first things National did was to rip out the apprenticeship system, and we have brought it back. There are around 9,000 apprenticeships and we are, of course, looking to almost double that in the next 3 years. What about transport? It was absolutely in the doldrums under National. Look at the money that has gone back into transport. In my own region, Wellington, $885 million is going into transport, including public transport and roading—all the things that were lying fallow under the National Government.

What about pensions and pensioners? One of the things I am most proud of is that we restored the rate, which National cut when it was in Government, back to 65 percent of the average weekly wage. Asset testing is starting to come off next year, and what about the rates rebate scheme, which nothing has been done about since the 1970s? So this has been a fantastic Government.

What about the National Party? It is doing a couple of things that everyone is scratching their heads over. First of all, it is saying it will cut taxes. That is very, very popular. But then it will spend more. It will cut taxes and spend more. People who watch Rove Live will know that that is a “What the …?”. Cutting taxes and spending more—“What the …?”—how does that work, everybody wonders. If Governments could have done that, everyone would have been doing it for years. We cannot cut taxes and spend more. It just does not add up. It is a classic Rove Live “What the …?”. National is telling people that every New Zealander will get $40 or $50 from a tax cut. But National is also promising to spend billions more. National members say that defence spending will be up 20 percent—“What the … ?”. Then there are prisons. They will build six to 10 more at an average of probably around $1 billion to $2 billion.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Where are they going to build them?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Well, they are going to have to build them in a number of places. They are going to have to build one in Tauranga. I wonder whether the people of Tauranga know that the National Party is putting a prison near them—

Hon Ruth Dyson: With no resource consent!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes—so they will not even be able to object. What about up by the Albany coast? I wonder whether Murray McCully has told people that as part of the development up there, as well as a prison in Auckland the people will be getting another prison and they will not have a chance to object? And what about Nelson? I bet that Nick Smith has not told the people of Nelson that they are most likely to get a jail down there and not be able to object. I bet he has not told the people of Nelson that there is likely to be another prison there because they will have to build six or 10, and they are going to have to go somewhere. Every time a prison is going to be built National Party members turn up en bloc and tell people how to stop them from being built. They say: “Use Māori cultural values; that’s how you do it.” So they lecture people on how to stop the prisons being built and they have the audacity and cheek to come in here and say that they will build six to 10 more and not tell people where they are going. It is a disgrace. And in roads, of course, there are billions and billions of dollars.

Then National members say: “Don’t worry, we’re going to borrow.” We are back to the old ”borrow and hope”—and what will happen when the economy goes soft, as it is likely to do? If they borrow, we know what happens. Interest rates go up. There is no question about that. That affects people’s mortgages. If interest rates go up 1 percent on a $100,000 mortgage, that is $19 a week. If one has a mortgage of $150,000, that is $29 a week. They are eroding the very tax cut that that party says it will give to people. It does not add up. It is a Rove Live “What the …?”. It is just ridiculous and that is why people are not going to buy it.

This election will be about credibility, leadership, and trust—Helen Clark versus Don Brash. Well, there is absolutely no match. Obviously all the good money is on Helen Clark, and rightly so. What a bumbling amateur Don Brash is. He says: “Our nuclear policy is crystal clear.” Well, of course, to everybody it is, because they want to get rid of it. But they have not been able to bring themselves to actually say it. If they came out and said: “We in the National Party say that the nuclear policy should be gone, and we’re going to get rid of it.”, people would say: “At least they’re honest about what they are saying.” But oh no. There was the old “gone by lunchtime” quote. Now Don Brash is saying that he does not recall it. He does not recall saying “gone by lunchtime”. He has just forgotten—political amnesia!

Then he said: “No, no, we’re going to have a referendum to give people the chance to decide.” Then suddenly “referendum” went to “manifesto commitment”. They are weasel words, and we know what that is all about, and they have suffered in the polls as a result. And the classic, the summary, the most magnificent piece of wording that I have ever seen, virtually, in the National Business Review,is this. Asked whether he thought National suffered for his initial unwillingness to give a clear line on the party’s Iraq policy, Dr Brash said: “I can’t say.” He cannot say anything! He never knows what to say. He wants to say what he really thinks, but he knows that it is not popular and he will go down in the polls. So it is all weasel words.

What about Lockwood Smith yesterday? What a fiasco! At the same “gone by lunchtime” meeting, he asked: “Would it be worthwhile to get American think tanks to help change New Zealand’s mind on nuclear policy?”. What an outrage! What an outrage from a senior National member of Parliament in a formal meeting with senators from America asking them to give National a hand to change people’s minds! Well, the good thing that those senators said, and rightly so, was: “Changing people’s minds in New Zealand is not our business; it’s your business.”, and rightly so. Do members know what was also said? Dr Smith now says this morning: “I don’t recall saying that.” That is another case of political amnesia.

And what about Iraq? What a fiasco on that! He said: “I would have done what President Bush did.”, but when asked, eight times on television, to clarify that and repeat it, he said he would not do it. The problem is that Don Brash actually wants to say the things that deep down are part of his background—part of that extreme, hard, right-wing philosophy that he follows. He wants to say those things. One can see him bursting at the seams to say what he actually wants to say, but he knows that if he does he will not get elected.

Jill Pettis: He’ll be gone by lunchtime.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: That leader of the National Party and that National Party will be gone by lunchtime.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : This year’s Budget contains massive operating surpluses. Those surpluses, combined with the more than $3 billion that Dr Michael Cullen has stashed away in his slush fund, mean that there is plenty of room for tax cuts, and that is exactly what United Future will offer to all New Zealanders in this year’s elections—meaningful, simple, straightforward, justifiable tax cuts.

We will do this, firstly, by income splitting for couples with dependent children. As pointed out by the 1982 McCaw Task Force on Tax Reform, this would create a fairer tax system for New Zealanders. The reason is that, at any given level of income, a couple with dependent children have less ability to pay tax than other taxpayers with no such dependents but the same income. It is actually pretty simple: if a couple have two children, they have four mouths to feed; if they have three children, they have five mouths to feed; and so on. By contrast, single people have only themselves to feed, as do couples with no children—“dinkies”—and that is simply completely unfair. Under the current system, a couple with children where both spouses or partners work obtain a tax advantage in so far as they pay less tax than a single-income family with the same number of children. That is also unfair. The current tax system gives a tax rebate for the direct cost of childcare incurred by a family, whilst failing in any shape or form to recognise the indirect cost of income forgone by a parent who stays at home while caring for children, and that is unfair.

All of the four points I have just outlined to the House were identified in 1982 by the McCaw Task Force on Tax Reform. I was actually speaking to Malcolm McCaw yesterday, and he said to me that the task force was greatly disappointed that at the time the Government of the day simply rejected its recommendation. In fact, every Government, whether Labour or National, has consistently ignored the recommendations of the McCaw task force since 1982, and they have been wrong to do so.

United Future aims to change all of that. There are 325,000 couples—that is, 650,000 taxpayers—who will benefit from this change to income splitting. Indeed, for a couple with dependent children on the average household income level in New Zealand, as put out in this year’s Budget, our change together with the other changes we are proposing will give them up to an extra $163 per week in the hand. No other party in this Parliament is able to offer such generosity to couples with kids.

The 420,000 graduates who are now in the workforce and who have student loans will be better off with United Future. They will pay no tax at all on the first $3,000 they earn each year. Under Labour they pay 15c in the dollar. Those on incomes of between $38,000 and $43,000 will pay 19.5c in the dollar. Under Labour they pay 33c. People on incomes of between $60,000 and $65,000 will pay 33c. Under Labour they pay 39c. If we do the sums based on those realities, this is what we discover. If a graduate who is now in the workforce is earning $35,000, which I guess is probably almost a starting salary for graduates, he or she will save $585 in tax a year. If graduates are earning between $45,000 and $55,000, they will save $1,260 a year. If they are earning $65,000, the saving will be more than $1,560 a year. That beats, by a large margin, the measly $450 per annum—that is right; just $450 per annum—that they save under Labour’s zero-interest offer. That is based on the average student debt of approximately $15,000. The zero-interest offer of Labour, compared with United Future’s interest offer, saves graduates only $450 at the average level. Therefore, it is quite clear, on those numbers and on that arithmetic, which I invite graduates to check, that they would be much better off under United Future. We are offering real and substantial tax gains; Labour is not.

Superannuitants will also be better off with United Future. We will increase the total for married couples on New Zealand superannuation by $21.34 a week, or $1,110 per annum. An equivalent increase for singles will give them about $720 per annum extra. In addition, we will remove GST from rates. GST should not be charged on rates, because it is simply a tax on top of a tax. It is not charged in Australia, Canada, or the European Union. Taken together, those measures will increase the household income of senior citizens on the married couple rate by an average of about $1,300 per annum. It will more than ensure that our seniors can cover the increased cost of electricity and rates, both of which have increased dramatically in the last 3 years. The Labour Government says it has cared for the elderly in the last 3 years by bringing the superannuation rate back to 65 percent. But I tell members that since it did that, to this day, rates have gone up in this country by something like 40 percent over inflation, electricity has gone up by something like 50 percent over inflation, and Labour has done nothing about them—and nor is National offering to do anything about them, I might add. So if people over 65 vote Labour or National in this election, they will get zip. Under United Future, they will get a significant increase, which will enable them to pay their rates bill and electricity bill, and to live with the dignity that surely all of our senior citizens deserve. We will address that issue.

United Future will reduce the company tax rate to 30c. Under Labour, companies pay 33c. We have that policy in common with National. Both of us are intent on bringing the company tax rate down. Why? Because it is important to incentivise additional investment in, and through, New Zealand companies. Why? So that we can increase productivity. One of the craziest arguments that I have heard from Labour in the debate since the Budget is that somehow or other those measures will lead to inflation. They will not. That is nonsense. In short, every single taxpayer and every single company in New Zealand will pay less tax under United Future.

We can pay for those commitments and still maintain a surplus in the Crown accounts of almost $10 billion over the next 3 years. We believe that that is more than enough for capital expenditure. Dr Cullen, having told the country that it must wait for 3 years to receive a tax cut of—wait for it; we all know it—67c per week, has now revealed that that is only because he has reserved a slush fund of $3.6 billion. Members can see that on pages 71 and 99 of the Budget, if they want to check out the figure. He has put away $3.6 billion as a slush fund for election lollies, such as the “no interest on student loans” policy with its moral hazard, but there is nothing for couples with kids, nothing for senior citizens, nothing for companies, and an inferior deal for graduates in the workplace with student loans.

At least the people of New Zealand have some clear choices in this election. We have Labour on the one hand saying: “We know best how to spend your money.”, versus United Future saying: “We will leave it to you to decide how to spend your money.” We should never forget that leaving money in the pockets of families at this stage will build strong families, and without strong families we cannot have a strong nation.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) : Going into the election campaign, people in New Zealand will be looking at three things. First, they will be looking at the record of this Government compared with the record of the National Party when it was in Government. Second, they will be looking at the future commitments the parties are making, and judging the value of those policy commitments. Third, they will certainly be looking, in the end, at the difference between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government.

What is the alternative that is being offered? I and my Labour colleague candidates around the country will be very, very proud to stand on our record in the last 5¾ years as the Government—our record based fundamentally on Labour values and on delivering those in policies, particularly in jobs, education, health, and housing. There are now 250,000 more jobs in our country than there were when we were elected as the Government. That is six new jobs every hour. There are 100,000 fewer working-age people on benefits. I have heard the National Party and the ACT party—a thing of the past, almost—say that we have shifted people from one benefit to another. Well, the facts are before this House and before the country: 100,000 fewer working-age people are on benefits than when we were elected in 1999. Three hundred thousand families are better off financially because of our Working for Families package. Money is directed into their pockets so they can decide how to spend it—big money—whereas it would be $5 or $6 for average working families under National’s tax cuts.

Paid parental leave, which is a policy that National opposed at every step, means that new mothers can take time out of their paid job, look after their babies, and get direct money to help them support that new baby. Paid parental leave will increase to 14 weeks at the end of the year, and if Labour is elected to lead the next Government it will also be extended to self-employed people.

The investments we have made in early childhood education and the compulsory sector have seen a significant increase in the number of teachers, above that required for roll growth, and supported our children to have high-quality education.

In the health system, nurses are finally getting fair pay after years of waiting. Through the primary health organisations our younger people—those under 18 years—and our older citizens aged over 65 years, now have reduced costs when going to the doctor. For an elderly person going to the chemist, the maximum charge for Government-subsidised medicine is now $3 compared with $15 under the previous administration, which means $12 per item at the chemist that they get to keep in their own pocket.

One of the things I am most proud of is reintroducing the apprenticeship scheme. We all know that during the 1990s our tradespeople were not New Zealanders who had gone to school here, whose parents had paid their taxes, and who had an opportunity for a trade. We were importing tradespeople from overseas because the National Government had pushed away all of those training opportunities. Our apprenticeship scheme is now up and running, strongly supported by our Government.

It is the same in housing. We remember during the 1990s the great sell-off of State houses up and down the country. The introduction of market rentals for those in State houses meant that people were paying over 50 percent of their income on rent. How can people afford to support their family if half of their income is going on rent? One of the first things we did was start up again a State housing programme whereby houses were built around the country, and we reintroduced income-related rent. People on low incomes now who are in a State house have a cap of 25 percent of their income for rent. So now they can afford to feed and clothe their children properly instead of all of that money going out. Our record in health, education, employment, and housing is one I will be very proud to take to this country.

That demonstrates the integrity and delivery of the commitments we made prior to the election. One of the most important things in a democracy is when a party can stand up and say: “Before the last election we said we would deliver on these things.”, and 3 years later go back to the country and say: “Tick off those commitments.” The process with the commitment card that we put to the electorate in 1999 and in 2002 is exactly the same with this election: people can tick every one of those commitments, because we delivered what we said we would deliver.

But what about the integrity of the National Party? We are still waiting for National’s long- promised tax announcements. Every week the story is different.

Dr Wayne Mapp: It will happen.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Wayne Mapp says that it will happen. I am sure it will; so will Christmas! We know that it will happen; it is just a matter of when. Originally, National gave the excuse that it did not know when the election would be, so it would wait until that announcement. We all waited for the announcement, and 8 weeks out from the election we got the announcement, but suddenly the story had changed; Dr Brash said: “Oh, we’re no longer waiting for the election date to be announced; we’ll do it soon.” Then 3 or 4 days later he said: “We’ll do it a little later.” And now: “We’re finalising the details; we haven’t quite decided.” Dr Brash recently said that he did not even know the details of his own policy. How is that for a leader who is challenging Helen Clark for the position of Prime Minister of this country?

I say that the odds are pretty clearly in Helen Clark’s favour. In fact, I do not think it is a fair battle at all. Don Brash should probably move over now, rather than wait till after the election, and give somebody a decent chance at running the campaign. If he does not even know the details of his own tax policy, how can he possibly take it to the country with any integrity?

The people of New Zealand will look very carefully at the record of this Government. We know the record of the 1990s under a National-led Government, where everything that moved was sold. Our major infrastructure support was privatised. We had fewer teachers, fewer nurses, and fewer social workers. The most important social services in our country—namely, health services, education services, care and protection, and youth justice services—were all run down. That is now being portrayed by the National Party as “cutting bureaucracy”. It says that a National Government would cut the waste. We know where the cuts were made in the 1990s; the last time that that party had the opportunity to lead the Government, nurses’ pay was cut and the number of nurses was cut; teachers’ pay was cut and the number of teachers was cut; social workers’ pay was cut and the number of social workers was cut. We know the alternative that is before us.

So when the public hear the term “cuts in bureaucracy”, they know that National is talking about fewer teachers, fewer nurses, and fewer social workers. That is what the National Party describes as bureaucracy. To me those services are fundamental social services, without which New Zealand families cannot get by. That is the sort of social support that we should be giving as a Government, rather than cutting services and describing it as bureaucracy.

So the record of our Government, compared with the record of the National Government, is very clear and very different. The integrity of the parties is very clear and very different. The alternatives facing New Zealand for the future leadership of our country are very clear and very different.

It is very hard to try to get any clarity from the National Party about any of its policies. Just what is the National Party’s position on Iraq? Who knows! My bet is with the original statements made by Dr Brash that we would have troops sent to Iraq “by lunchtime”; “before Christmas”; whenever.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Rubbish!

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is not a hypothetical question. That member knows that Australia has just done it. New Zealand, under a National-led Government, would be sending troops to Iraq. National members cannot deny it, because they know that that is National’s policy. Who knows what would happen to our nuclear-free policy, which has been a flagship of our country for two decades now? That would be gone under a National Government, no matter how much members opposite squirm around and change things. We know that National would reintroduce bulk funding of schools, yet that practice divided our education system, up and down the country. It pitted teachers against parents, and pitted teachers against boards of trustees. Why would we want to go back to that sort of division?

We know the sort of racial division that would be created under National. We know the sort of intolerance that National creates by describing its own party as “mainstream”, thereby excluding people whom they do not consider mainstream. I am not sure what mainstream, is under Dr Brash’s definition, but I bet that a lot of New Zealanders would feel excluded in their own country. What sort of intolerance do they want to create with that sort of description of their policies?

We need a country that is led by someone with integrity, and that is Helen Clark. We need a party to lead the Government that has a record of commitment, where what it says it will deliver, it will deliver, so that the public of New Zealand can have trust in their leadership and trust in their Government. They will not get that under a National-led Government.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : The previous Labour speaker, Ruth Dyson, ended her speech on a very good point, and that is the question of leadership. We have no leadership from Labour. We certainly have no leadership of the Opposition by National. The leadership shown in this House comes from New Zealand First and the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

I am sure that if the Rt Hon Winston Peters was travelling in a car at 180 kilometres an hour, and the windscreen broke and the car was damaged, he would be fully aware of what was going on. The leader of Labour—the Prime Minister—tells us that she can travel in a car in those circumstances and not know what is happening. What a disgrace! She is letting down our fine New Zealand police force by indicating she had no idea what was going on. Of course, as usual with Labour, she lets the police force carry the can. Someone else, as far as Helen Clark is concerned, can always carry the can. How many Labour Ministers have been sacked? It is always someone else’s fault; she will never accept responsibility herself.

Instead, in New Zealand First we have a leader who takes full control of what is happening and knows what is going on. At the last election we promised three things. We would have a close look at law and order, for starters. We have had any number of questions asked of Labour Ministers on this matter—in particular, of course, the so-called Labour Minister of Police. If there has ever been a disgrace to the name of our fine police force, it is George Hawkins as Minister of Police. There has never been such an atrocious Minister of Police as George Hawkins, but he has had the full support of this so-called Prime Minister. He has had the full support of Helen Clark—the lady who does not even know that her windscreen is broken or her car is damaged, or that she is doing 180 kilometres an hour. No wonder she supports him, when she is party to the breaking of the law and the endangering of people, and supports dangerous driving. She should be on that stand, because she must surely have accepted responsibility and given the order. But, no, in New Zealand, Labour Party leaders do not accept responsibility.

New Zealand First is very clear about what a New Zealand First Government will do as far as law and order is concerned. We will separate the traffic police from the police. We do not want our main police handing out traffic tickets. We do not want our main police chasing after people who are doing 63 kilometres an hour in a built-up, residential area where they should be doing 50 kilometres an hour. The main police should be out there catching burglars, murderers, and rapists. They should have been making sure that Iraena Asher, the young woman who disappeared in the Pīhā area, was attended to—they should have called on her and made sure she was safe. That is what the police should be doing. Instead we have a disappearance that will remain one of those mysteries, and that we might still read about in 25 years’ time.

New Zealand First wants to make sure that the police do policing, and we will increase the size of the New Zealand police force to achieve that. Any responsible Government would do no less, and that is what New Zealand First will do.

The other area we said we would be involved in was Treaty of Waitangi matters. It is interesting that Labour and National now support New Zealand First policy. We have a 100 percent record on that. We have now drawn the two tired old parties kicking and screaming into the 21st century, to ensure they support the policies of New Zealand First. After the next election, New Zealand First will make sure those policies are carried out.

The third area we mentioned was immigration. It is very pleasing to note that, even in Opposition, New Zealand First has been able to ensure Labour has changed its policy. We insisted that there be English language tests for migrants, and Labour has done that. We wanted changes to the skilled migrant category, and Labour has done that. New Zealand First wanted stricter health requirements for migrants, and Labour has done that. We wanted to establish an undesirables category, and Labour has done that. We wanted to put a stop to foreign nationals processing visa applications, and Labour has done that. We wanted the regulation of immigration advisers, and Labour has done that. We wanted changes to the investor category, and that has been done, too. New Zealand First has run the administration of the New Zealand Immigration Service from Opposition. Time and time again throughout the past 3 years of this administration, from 2002 to 2005, the Rt Hon Winston Peters has hammered the successive Ministers of Immigration to ensure that there are good policies as far as administration is concerned.

Unfortunately, we have no control over the number of people who come into New Zealand. On looking at the figures, I see that the smartest people in New Zealand are, clearly, Wellingtonians, because in the 18 years from 1986 to 2004 Wellington’s population increased by only 15 percent. That is nice, steady growth of population in 18 years. By contrast, those of us who live in Auckland saw a population increase in that region of almost 60 percent. That is an appalling situation for Auckland. That is why I say Wellingtonians are smart. Their increase has been gentle, and can be managed. In fact, the increase in the population of the Auckland region in the last 18 years equals Wellington’s entire population since day one. It is no wonder that things are so chaotic in Auckland, and that so many born and bred Aucklanders regard Auckland as a foreign city and do not go anywhere near its main streets; they are frightened and nervous to do so.

Hon Dover Samuels: Ha, ha!

DAIL JONES: Mr Samuels might laugh, but it is a fact that many born and bred Aucklanders do not go down the main street any more. New Zealand First says we must have control of immigration, and we must ensure that we grant entry to immigrants with skills and knowledge of the English language. That is a priority. There should be a 5-year probation period for new immigrants.

New Zealand First will have a population policy to make sure that all New Zealanders can be involved in what happens to the future of New Zealand. I am very appreciative of the Taiwanese Association to which I and other members of Parliament spoke a little while ago. As one of its questions, it came up with the idea of a population policy. I was able to say to its members that the Rt Hon Winston Peters had already announced in his Ōrewa speech that that was what New Zealand First would be doing. We are working closely with migrant groups to ensure that everybody knows we have some sort of plan in respect of what happens to New Zealand.

As things stand at the moment, we can build as many roads as we like in Auckland, but they will never cope even with our present population, let alone with an increase of 1 million people, which is the number that some political parties want our population to increase by. I ask members if they can imagine another 450,000 people in Auckland, or another 500,000 people in 10 years’ time. Labour does not say no to that, and it is quite happy to support it, because it sees it as somehow helping it to win the election. It would be an absolute disaster for Auckland. After all, I can remember when I went to Belgrade and saw all the tall apartment buildings that had been built. To a large extent, Auckland now reminds me of Belgrade in post-Tito’s Yugoslavia of 1982. There are Aucklanders who are dreadfully concerned about the type of building that is being built.

In this election, New Zealand First is the only party that is concerned about the young children of New Zealand and their health. Plunket has supported New Zealand First’s policy to ensure that all children up to primary school age get free health-care. Labour does not care about free health-care for young children; neither does any other party in this House. But that is New Zealand First’s policy, which continues the existing policy that we had when we were in Government.

As far as students are concerned, New Zealand First will have a universal student allowance. That means people do not have to borrow anything. They get an allowance and do not have to pay it back. There is no interest to pay, and there is no principal to pay. People should have a closer look, as I know the students associations are doing, at New Zealand First’s policy.

As far as the elderly is concerned, New Zealand First says it is very simple. The current law allows retirement income to be calculated at between 65 and 72.5 percent of the average wage. The present Government and the National Party—the tired old parties—are cheating our elderly. One can increase retirement income to 68 percent by an administrative action, and New Zealand First will do that. It does not require any change in the law. All it requires is a change in the Government. All it requires is for both tired old parties to be gone, and for New Zealand First to have a say in ensuring that, by an administrative act, it can be increased—

Dr Wayne Mapp: Dream on!

DAIL JONES: Dr Mapp does not support the elderly people on the North Shore. That is fine; he tells me to dream on. [Interruption] Now he interjects, and now he wants to withdraw his interjection. I will be telling the people of the North Shore that all Dr Mapp wants is for them to dream on about an increase in retirement income, which I have been talking about. We will increase it for the elderly people of the North Shore to 68 percent, and then to 72.5 percent.

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) : The Budget and this third reading of the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill are all about the sort of country we are building in New Zealand today—a country in which the regions are thriving; a country in which we are a gateway to the world and are sending our exports to all the markets of the world, where we are respected and independent; and a country in which we are building a skills-based economy. Our people are getting more and more skills, and more and more education. We are taking new initiatives by the month to increase the accessibility of advanced training and education for our young people. But what do we have from the other side of the House? It is opposition all the way—opposition for its own sake.

It is quite apparent that the National Party would say anything—anything at all—to get elected in the forthcoming election. It does not have much hope, but it is prepared to sell out our nuclear-free policy, which is supported by an overwhelming majority of all New Zealanders, in order to advance its party political vested interests. National members will say anything, Dr Brash will say anything, and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD, as his friends call him, will say anything, to get elected. Dr Smith wants his old job back, but he is not going to get it. It is not just about whether New Zealand is nuclear-free; it is about whether New Zealand would rush to war any time Australia or the United States decided to take pre-emptive action or to make a pre-emptive strike somewhere. Would we go? Well, Simon Power said we would go wherever the United States goes, wherever George Bush goes.

What will National do if the Americans ratify the Kyoto Protocol—which they are likely to do one of these days? Will National do a flip-flop? You betcha! It will absolutely do a flip-flop then. National ought to do one now, because it would be good for New Zealand to have bipartisan support for tackling the desperate problem of human activity - induced climate change. But the point is whether we are going to rush to war. What are the fiscal consequences of rushing off to war every time Uncle Sam or the Australian Prime Minister decide that a pre-emptive strike needs to be made? I say that the fiscal consequences of that would not be good, at all. The issue is about whether New Zealand makes its own decisions. Do we have the capacity to make our own decisions in the world? Are we an independent sovereign nation?

Now, that is not just about the Budget; it is about whether we have the moral strength to stand up for what we believe in and to make our own decisions, and that is a very important matter. At the moment New Zealand has credibility around the world. We are respected because we cooperate on matters that we approve of. We work on the side of people who are trying to do good things in the world. We stand up against things that we think are bad, wrong, or mistaken, and we are respected for it. No matter how big a nation it is, it is worth its being able to say: “New Zealand agrees with us. New Zealand is prepared to do an FTA with us.” That is money in the bank for New Zealand and it keeps our reputation high, but our opponents would get rid of that reputation by being slavish followers of our traditional allies.

The days when New Zealand would say: “Where Britain goes, we go”, without knowing first where Britain was going, are gone. We are a fully independent nation. We do not rush to war because our good friends rush to war. We would go to war only if it were a last resort and necessary for the security of ourselves and other countries that share our values. That will be the most important issue of the forthcoming election.

Of course, it has fiscal implications. Every week Cabinet has to make tough decisions about what we spend on the resources needed to have an independent foreign policy, an independent military policy, and an independent trade policy. Those things do not come for nothing. We have to put the resources into them. Thank goodness that we on this side of the House have moral fibre and are prepared to commit those resources to them, in order to maintain New Zealand as an independent sovereign nation that makes its own decisions on the basis of what it sees as right. [Interruption] The member opposite who is bellowing away into space should take a lesson from that and stand up for an independent sovereign New Zealand that does the right thing in the world.

Let me turn to the issues in the Budget that are dear to me—biosecurity, trade, training, a skills-based economy, and thriving regions. All those things are dear to my heart. This Government is funding and delivering bigger and better results on the trade front than any Government I can remember. We have delivered three new closer economic partnership agreements or free-trade agreements in our 6 years so far. We have another clutch in negotiation. In 9 long, desert years the previous Government managed to start one negotiation, and completed none—not one single little free-trade agreement could it complete. There was no rain in the desert for 9 long years under National, Winston Peters, and the rest of them. I would not like to list all the coalition partners National had. Even when National was in a coalition involving one other member or a one-person party, it would be in two minds. How much unity did National display? Not a lot.

As well as delivering on the trade front, which, of course, underlines and bankrolls our prosperity in New Zealand, this Government has delivered on the biosecurity front far better than previous Governments. I must say that the only rational response to the ever-increasing number of tourists and travellers and the ever-increasing flood of sea freight containers coming into New Zealand, whereby every one of those passengers, every sea freight container, and every passenger and air crew carry-on bag is a potential source of a catastrophic biosecurity breach to New Zealand, is one of continuous improvement, and this Government is delivering that.

The previous Government could only cut, cut, cut. The “mother of all Budgets” did not leave much room for manoeuvre; things just got worse and worse. Labour has been cleaning up the incursions of moths, bugs, viruses, and bacteria that flooded into New Zealand, under the previous National Government. We have been slowly working our way through that huge list. National allowed hundreds of incursions per year. It allowed passengers to come into the country without being in sight of a detector dog and without being within cooee of a soft-tissue X-ray machine. No more!

They all go through the process now. Even visiting heads of State go through it. Their bags are X-rayed and analysed, they go before the detector dogs, and if there is any undeclared risk material all their bags get searched—even visiting senior politicians and heads of State. We have the most rigorous, watertight biosecurity system at the border of any nation on earth, and we will continue to make it better for the sake of New Zealand.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : That was Sutton the speedster—the man who was so oblivious of road conditions in South Canterbury that he was not aware his vehicle was travelling at 172 kilometres an hour. That is over 100 miles an hour in the old language and, frankly, it is simply not believable that someone could be unaware of that speed. I guess one is judged by one’s actions. There is a man—Mr Sutton—who simply will not fess up, who will duck and weave, and who will then expect people to believe other things he says. Well, he will be judged by the public of New Zealand for speeding at 172 kilometres per hour.

Where is his public statement defending the loyal police officers of this country? Frankly, the matter is outrageous—and it is no wonder he is walking out right now. If only he would get on a plane and go down to the District Court in Timaru!

Despite the bluff and bluster of this Government, the big contest will be between National’s tax package versus the Government’s desperate actions and desperate speeding.

Hon Phil Goff: Got a think tank working on it?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is why the Government is in trouble. Government members know it—and we saw the actions of Mr Goff yesterday. They know that New Zealanders are being crushed by the prospect of a miserable 67c tax cut. When will they get it? They will get it in 2008. That is as good as it gets under this Government, and that is why New Zealanders are saying: “Goodbye, Labour. We’re sick of you. We know it can get better than 67c per week in 3 years’ time.”

Mr Goff is in the House today. He knows full well why he released those documents yesterday. That action was desperate and devious, because this is a desperate Government trying to distract attention from its complete and utter failure on the tax front.

Hon Phil Goff: What did “Locky” say?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I say to Mr Goff that New Zealanders are not that foolish. They will not be distracted, because they know that the real issue is the one that affects their real lives: the money in their own pockets.

I say as well that the election is about values. I ask the Government why the Prime Minister cannot acknowledge her role in the notorious speeding incident. Frankly, it is so—

Hon Dover Samuels: Ha, ha!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Government members laugh about that. The speed was so high that children in a bus had to leave the road in fear for their lives. The Prime Minister is like some Eastern potentate streaming through the hamlets of New Zealand faster than a light aircraft, scattering villagers in fear. What an appalling example to New Zealanders! The public will judge the Prime Minister by her values. She is no Eastern potentate; she lives in a democracy. She will be accountable to the public of New Zealand, and I predict that she will not like the verdict.

Elections are about the big issues; they are not about the sideshows, and they are not about the desperate diversions. The Government knows full well that taxes have gone up from $32 billion 5 years ago to $45 billion now. We have 41 new taxes, but that is not enough for Labour; Labour wants more. Its more is open to having ever more, so it will increase taxes to $57 billion. Even though there is a $7 billion surplus, Labour will increase taxes by another $12 billion.

Do members know what taxpayers will get? They will get an extra 67c in 3 years’ time. I say to this Government—and more importantly to New Zealanders—that relief is on the way, because National is going to announce a significant tax policy. We know perfectly well that a surplus of $7 billion—which is a $2,000 surplus per head: every man, woman, and child in this country—provides an opportunity for a decent, reasonable, and prudent tax cut. In fact, every party other than Labour that I have heard from in this Parliament today, ranging from United Future through New Zealand First to ACT—and, dare I say it, even Mr Anderton himself, who proposes a 30c corporate or business tax—says there is scope for a reasonable tax cut.

In reality, it is about background and experience. No one in New Zealand can possibly believe the preposterous allegations by the Labour Government that National would put up interest rates. For heaven’s sake, the leader of the National Party is a former Governor of the Reserve Bank. For 14 years he was the man who squeezed inflation out of this country, to the everlasting benefit of the country and its economy. The growth that exists today is a direct result of sensible Reserve Bank policies, so for Labour to suggest seriously to the New Zealand public that National would be so imprudent as to have a policy that would increase inflation and interest rates is sheer cant and completely irresponsible.

Frankly, the public will see through that, because as I have said and as is clear, the public will not be fooled. They will not be fooled by Mr Goff. He can make his desperate plays as much as he wants. He can focus on the sideshows.

Hon Phil Goff: The truth hurts.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is Mr Goff, focusing on the sideshows. Well, I say to Mr Goff that in 7 weeks’ time the public will judge this Government on the real issues. The real issues will be the Government’s reckless spending and our prudent tax approach, the Government’s reckless division of New Zealanders on the basis of race and our policy of bringing New Zealanders together, the Government’s reckless student loans approach and our approach of giving New Zealanders real choices in education, and the Government’s reckless approach on welfare spending, whereby the number of sickness beneficiaries has increased by 44 percent. That is reality: the number of sickness beneficiaries has increased by 44 percent. We say that there should be accountability.

I conclude by saying that in the year 2000 Mr Goff introduced legislation that he said listened to New Zealand’s concerns about crime. He said in the select committee that New Zealanders were sick and tired of people being released after serving two-thirds of their sentence. What was his solution? They are out now in one-third of the time.

National says that the violent criminal will serve the full time. That is the cry; that is what New Zealanders want. So the election will be contested on Labour’s divisions and failed policies, and National’s policy of dealing with the issues of mainstream New Zealand.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) : I will just comment briefly on the previous speaker’s valedictory comments about crime. Everybody in this House is aware that the crime rate is down 22 percent since it peaked under the National - New Zealand First Government. Everybody in this country is aware that four new prisons are being built because of a much tougher stance on law and order. Everyone in this country is aware that people like William Bell get a life sentence and serve 30 years before they can even be considered for parole. Everybody in this country knows that the Parole Board now cannot release offenders where there is undue risk to the public. Everybody in this country knows that the police have raised crime resolution rates to the point where the rates are doing better than at any time since the 1980s. There are now more police than ever before, with a budget of over $1 billion. This Labour-led Government has responded to the referendum.

But I have one question for Lockwood Smith. What did he mean when he asked senators “whether it would be worthwhile for the United States think tank to assist with a public campaign following the National Party study review” on nuclear-free New Zealand? What did he mean? Why was it that the United States senators said he was being inappropriate in asking the United States to intervene in something it should not, and they would not, intervene in.