Hon Gerry Brownlee - In the House

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill - First Reading Speech

nospam@example.com (admin) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:59:00 +1300

Mr Speaker, I move that the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill now be read a first time.

The previous government inserted Part 6A into the Electricity Act 1992, which makes the connection of new thermal generation plant (above 10 MW) for which an exemption has not been granted a criminal offence, punishable by fine.

The provision is known widely as the "thermal ban". Eligibility criteria and matters dealing with the exemption application process were to be dealt with in regulations yet to be made.

This Bill repeals Part 6A of the Electricity Act 1992.

Let me first briefly outline the circumstances in which Part 6A was added to the Electricity Act.

The previous Minister of Energy, Hon David Parker, added the thermal ban provisions to the Bill which introduced the Emissions Trading Scheme at the very last minute.

The provisions had not been signalled in advance and the industry was taken completely by surprise.

The justification for the ban was written hurriedly into the explanatory note to the Bill and was somewhat deficient.

At select committee, the ban came under heavy criticism. All of the major electricity generators said they were opposed to it.

Major lobby groups like the Major Electricity Users' Group and the Business Council for Sustainable Development said the thermal ban should be dropped.

However, the previous Minister remained wedded to the policy and it became law with the passing of the Emissions Trading Scheme in September this year.

The current government has listened to the experts, agrees with the criticism of the ban, and we are now moving to repeal it.

Mr Speaker, I want to outline the specific reasons why the government is repealing the thermal ban.

The first reason is that the ban is a totally unnecessary intervention into the electricity market.

National believes that investment decisions in the electricity sector should be made on the basis of sound economics, with environmental effects taken into account through a price on carbon, rather than through some decisions being ruled out through the command-and-control style reflected by the ban.

Mr Speaker, if a price is put on carbon, it will incentivise the uptake of renewable generation technology because thermal generation would be subject to carbon charges, while renewable generation would not.

It therefore surprised us that the previous government felt it necessary to advance the thermal ban. This raises two questions. First, did they have confidence in their ETS? It looks like they did not. If they did, then the second question is, is the ban just a bit of political symbolism? We think it is.

Unfortunately that symbolism has dangerous consequences.

That brings me to the second reason why the Government is repealing the ban: it puts security of electricity supply at risk.

New Zealand's electricity system relies on thermal generation. Coal and gas-fired power plants generate around a third of our electricity each year.

Without coal and gas, the lights would not stay on. This was made clear in the winter of 2008, when gas and coal plant was, at times, supplying over 50% of New Zealand's electricity needs, due to the low level of the hydro lakes.

Thermal generation underpins the security of our electricity system and the ban creates an unnecessary hurdle for this vital resource.

New gas plants like the e3p plant at Huntly are highly efficient and produce relatively low levels of carbon emissions. The last government was so keen to see e3p built it underwrote the gas contract to ensure it had fuel.

More importantly, thermal plants like e3p can run around the clock and produce large amounts of electricity.

It is foolish for New Zealand to close off the option of more e3p-like plants if the gas is available and the electricity system needs bolstering.

The Government will leave investment in new generation plants up to the industry, which is best placed to weigh-up the capital and operating costs of new plant, and the availability of fuel into the future.

What we are not doing is ruling out types of plants carte blanche, when an economic and environmental case can be made for them.

I do want to make it clear now that the Government does not expect that repealing the thermal ban will lead to coal-fired power stations being built. That was not the situation before the ban came into force and nor will it be the situation after it is repealed.

The third reason why the Government is repealing the ban is that it does not lead to environmentally sound outcomes. This is because the ban blocks investment in new generation that could displace more inefficient and more carbon-emitting existing generation.

For example, the ban blocks the building of new efficient gas-turbines at Huntly, which could phase out the coal-fired turbines or return them to the reserve capacity for which they were originally built.

So the ban ironically would have ensured that for the foreseeable future, each winter, Huntly's coal-fired boilers would be fired up, and belch out emissions. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Newer thermal plants are very efficient. A modern combined cycle gas plant like e3p emits just under half the volume of C02 per MW of energy produced compared to Huntly when it is burning coal, and around 20% less than when Huntly is burning gas.

The fourth reason why the government is repealing the ban is that it disincentivises oil and gas exploration. Already the ban, in its short timeframe, has seen explorers and investors shy away from New Zealand.

Under the current ban, explorers have less opportunity to offset exploration risks and costs against gas sales, if NZ bans sales for new electricity generation. Repealing the ban removes this risk for explorers.

As I said at the outset, the current government has listened to the experts and agrees with the criticism of the ban. This is why we are now moving to repeal it.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Archived General Debates

nospam@example.com (Staff) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:15:00 +1200

Question 4. Electoral Finance Bill-Community Groups

Press Release by Office of the Clerk at 6:39 pm, 06 Sep 2007

(Uncorrected transcript-subject to correction and further editing. For corrected transcripts, please visit:http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/hansard)

4. GERRY BROWNLEE (National-Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all the statements he made in his recent letter to community groups regarding the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) : Yes, because the letter repeats the Government's intention to advance legislation that protects our electoral system from manipulation, and notes that the bill is now before the Justice and Electoral Committee, at which, the letter expresses confidence, improvements and refinements for inclusion in the bill may well be suggested.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister's letter tell community groups that: "Electioneering activities are intended by Government to have a narrow scope in their definition in law."; if so, why is it that the definition in *clause 5(1)(a) of the bill is in fact extremely wide, as is noted by many of the submissions coming in on the bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: I believe that the member makes an accurate reflection on the content of the letter, and does so because, like it or not, we cannot avoid in this bill attempting to deal with the rorts that were visited upon our electoral system in 2005. Those, precisely, used the sorts of materials that purported to be non-party political and non-electoral advertising, but which quite literally sought, according to their own authors, to spend $1 million with the sole goal of getting votes for National. You see, we are trying to close a loophole that was used and abused by the National Party and its friends to undermine our electoral system.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister's letter tell community groups that the bill will not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate; if so, what does he call the requirement for them to register as a third party, the cap of $60,000 on their spending, the requirement for them to appoint a financial agent, the requirement for them to appoint an auditor, and the requirement for them to file a return of their expenses and donations-and if these are not restrictions, what are they?

Hon MARK BURTON: I call them the provisions that apply to those only who seek to become participants as third parties in the electoral process. Of course, unlike the impression given in Mr English's taxpayer-funded extremist and misleading letter, those organisations will be able to go about their normal business without any reference. For instance, the *Plunket Society runs a very good car-seat campaign, and it calls for public donations. That activity will not in any way be caught by the provisions of this bill. Yet the impression given by the National Party is that such activities as the *Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society's excellent Kiwi Conservation Club** for kids will be caught-the sort of campaign I am sure that members in this House have supported and given resourcing to. The impression given by the National Party is that all of these sorts of activities will somehow be fettered. That is absolute nonsense, and National members know that.

Gerry Brownlee: What should people making submissions on this bill base their submissions on-the vague intentions of the Minister or the black and white facts as they are presented in this bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: All submissions to a bill should be based on the understanding of the bill the person making the submission has. I say to Mr Brownlee that that is the point of a select committee process.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister provide to the House a list of references showing which clauses each of the statements he makes are based on; and if Mr English is wrong but able to list everything he claims against a clause in this bill, why cannot the Minister do it for his vague intentions?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would be interested to know how Mr English could find a clause that "relates to every-[Interruption] Hang on-if members want to hear it! According to Mr English's letter: "The bill will restrict your freedom to have your say on important issues in election year. We believe robust and diverse debate is widely held .". It goes on to say: "The scope of the bill is so broad that any public communication"-any public communication-"by your organisation in election year will need to be scrutinised." I challenge that member to point to the clause in the bill that says "any-

Gerry Brownlee: It's true!

Hon MARK BURTON: So the member is suggesting that the Plunket Society putting out a public appeal for donations to the car-seat campaign would have to be scrutinised under this bill. That is a patent nonsense. There is no such reference in the bill.

Gerry Brownlee: Is it not the case that the Labour Government is so terrified of public scrutiny of its record that it has simply decided to legislate against it?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is the case that this Government is happy to have a contest of ideas with a National Party that is so bereft of policy that the only thing it parades is apparent policy on a change-by-day basis-that is, our policies-and the only way that it sees for itself to contest a campaign is to have the unfettered use of millions of dollars of other people's money to try to buy a result.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister is to be believed, then why will this bill restrict Opposition parties on the amount they can spend on an attack on and criticism of the Government for some 11 months prior to an election, but allow the Government itself to dive into the taxpayer pool, in an unfettered way, to promote itself throughout that time?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As, by the time the election comes, every Government programme that any such publicity will be supporting will be adopted by the National Party, then it will be a very even-handed approach.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon MARK BURTON: There is that, but-

Hon Member: You're going to answer the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: Who said that? Notwithstanding that Dr Cullen's contribution probably represents the fact, of course the member confuses two completely different things. Like National members of Parliament, members on this side of the House are constrained in the use of parliamentary budgets-absolutely constrained. For legitimate purposes-

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen's intervention has clearly meant that the Minister has not understood the question, and I would like to ask it again.

Madam SPEAKER: Could we just hear the Minister's reply, and if he could get on with the reply, then it would help us a lot.

Hon MARK BURTON: The fact is that any expenditure to promote a Government service, for instance, is constrained by very strict parameters. It is under the absolute scrutiny of the *Auditor-General, and the member knows it. It is a red herring. The central issue here is the absolute terror of the National Party to fight an election on policy and ideas rather than on fat bank balances.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are not responsible for the answers that a Minister gives, but I think you probably do have some responsibility to ensure that the question asked is addressed by the Minister. The Minister standing up and giving that answer clearly had not listened to the question he was asked.

Madam SPEAKER: I did listen quite closely and know a little bit about this, and I do think, actually, that the Minister did address the question this time.

Rodney Hide: Does the *Electoral Finance Bill comply with the *Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines and was a regulatory impact assessment undertaken, as prescribed by the Minister for* Economic Development; if not, why not, given the importance of this bill?

Hon MARK BURTON: It is my recollection that the answer to both the questions is yes.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that a part of what the bill is aimed at is the advertising in 2005 by the Exclusive Brethren, which attached the Labour-led Government for abandoning a strike force in the Air Force; if so, has he received any indications from the National Party that it intends to refund the Brethren for what was clearly unintended false advertising?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for the National Party.

Ron Mark: Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for a third-party group, which put a million dollars into a parallel election campaign to get votes for a political party on the basis that that party would rebuild the New Zealand Defence Force and reinstate an air strike capability but which then reneged on that deal; or is the situation simply that the Exclusive Brethren have blown their money and should never have trusted National in the first place?

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot see where the ministerial responsibility is for that question.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the start of my question I asked the Minister: "Will the Electoral Finance Bill provide protection for" third parties, and that does fit within the Minister's responsibilities.

Madam SPEAKER: That does, and if the question had stopped there it might have been all right.

Hon MARK BURTON: In a sense it will-[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If members ask questions, they are entitled to hear the answers.

Hon MARK BURTON: In a sense it will, because it will prevent the likes of the Exclusive Brethren from undertaking that sort of covert campaign in the future. But, of course, the Brethren could take a read of their own top line and wake up, because they have been ripped off by the National Party.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Electoral Finance Act prevent the Labour Party from using taxpayer money to distribute another pledge card?

Hon MARK BURTON: The question of pledge cards is not in any way covered by this bill. Nor am I convinced that the bill will deliver the GST* that is still outstanding from the National Party. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I will be asking two members to take their argument outside if there is any more of this across-the-Chamber chat.

ENDS

8 August 2007
General Debate

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : If we were to typify New Zealand today, we would have to say it is a country of very high interest rates, where mortgage stress is causing New Zealanders a great deal of hurt, where child abuse is absolutely out of control, and where emergency rooms throughout our hospitals are overcrowded and people cannot get the service they want. This is a Government so disappointed with and unwilling to talk about its own performance that all its members could do in the last couple of days is come into the House and hack away at the knees of the National Party.
Michael Cullen asked the question: “Who believes John Key will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand?”. I say that he should go and look at the polls—that is who believes John Key will be the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and that will not change. So what is the plan when one’s policies do not work? What is the plan for the Government when it has spent 8 or 9 years making an absolute hash of it? What does one do? Well, one starts to politicise the public service and turn it into some great arm of the Government, and then deny anybody else any right to make a comment about it by altering the Electoral Act to prevent any criticism whatsoever of the current Government. That is the broad plan.
One of the things we are most concerned about is the sham that is going on in the State Services Commission. This country has tens of thousands of State servants who do a good job, day in, day out, regardless of their political persuasion, and when they deal with other New Zealanders they do a good job without regard for the political persuasions of those New Zealanders. So why is it, then, that we cannot accept the need for the public service to be neutral? We know that Government members cannot accept that because they talk about it so very much.
Let me build a bit of a picture. Firstly, we had the situation where Minister Benson-Pope said: “I won’t have that woman in my office.” That comment related to the new manager of the Ministry for the Environment communications team. He conveyed that message to Mr Logan, the chief executive. Mr Logan said: “What am I going to do now?”, and he went to Dr Prebble, who is the commissioner himself. The commissioner has said that he advised Mr Logan on how to handle this matter. Mr Logan said he told Dr Prebble of the instructions clearly given to him by David Benson-Pope. Time unfolded, Ms Setchell lost her job, and the whole ruckus started to arise about the interference of the Minister.
Things got so bad in the middle of that, that the State Services Commissioner felt the need to sit down in front of his computer and write an article explaining what political neutrality is, and he published that article in the Dominion Post. The interesting thing is that when he sat there to consider this particular issue, he forgot the most important fact in it. He forgot why the issue arose in the first place. He somehow seemed to think that the sacking of Ms Setchell came out of the sky somewhere—that there was no particular reason for it other than the fact Mr Logan had decided there might be a conflict. The reality is that it is not plausible for anyone to defend Dr Prebble on the basis that he simply forgot what happened.
So here we have the State Services Commissioner, who forgot the most salient fact in this matter, now being required by the Government to lead an inquiry into what happened. The question that arises is: if, as we were told in the House today by the Minister of State Services and by Dr Cullen, this inquiry is into the handling of this issue by Mr Logan, and it is occurring because the Prime Minister was unhappy that Mr Logan did not let the acting commissioner, Mr Rennie, know about David Benson-Pope’s intervention, where does that leave Dr Prebble, because he is a man who also knew? So here we have the adviser to the culprit. In other words, Dr Prebble advised Mr Logan. Mr Logan told him all the relevant facts. Dr Prebble admits that. But now we have Mr Logan being investigated by Dr Prebble, who knew all the time what was going on and advised Mr Logan on what was supposed to happen. This is a whitewash of the worst kind.
-----------------------
25 July 2007
General Debate

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I hope the graduation ceremony speech next year at Massey University will be better than that effort. I am very confident that the Massey University library researchers will be better than those in the Labour Party. I further want to say to Mr Maharey that when he stalks the halls of power as the vice-chancellor of the university, he will be welcome in our office despite his own Government’s attitude to these things.
That comment relates, of course, to the incidents that have unravelled in the House this week and, indeed, in the media relating to the Government’s decision to end or terminate the employment of Madeleine Setchell in the Ministry for the Environment. We have heard a whole lot of excuses from people about why this happened. The Minister himself said he knew nothing about it at all until, apparently, someone in his office picked up a telephone, rang the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, and said: “Look, I don’t want to get in the road of your employment policies, but is it true that this person has a connection that we find unfavourable?”. Apparently, that person then went to Mr Benson-Pope and said: “Look, there’s been a rumour around. I’ve just managed to confirm it.” He did not then ask what Mr Benson-Pope thought, or what he should do; he apparently did not say anything. The Minister has told the House that there was no discussion.
Apparently, some time later, Hugh Logan, sitting at his desk, thought: “I wonder why Steve Hurring rang me about that? Perhaps I’d better investigate a bit further. Maybe there’s something they need to tell me.” Well, we do not know whether he rang them, but we do know that there were a series of meetings, we heard today, between the Minister and the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment where all sorts of things were discussed. Can members imagine that in the course of those discussions Mr Logan did not say: “By the way, I’m looking into that matter.”, or “What do you think about that particular issue?”, or “Are you happy if I take this particular course of action?”. Apparently, there was no discussion whatsoever. Mr Logan concluded that there was going to be a conflict of interest, and therefore he had to manage Ms Setchell out of this particular position.
Well, they are the facts as presented by the Government. But no one in their right mind believes that that was how it worked. The reality is bound to be much more along these lines: Mr Benson-Pope heard the rumour, Mr Benson-Pope asked for the rumour to be checked out, and Mr Benson-Pope said: “No, that woman has to go.” Mr Logan was instructed one way or the other, by any manner of communication, to achieve just that.
The interesting thing is that there was at least a month between the time the Minister became aware of Ms Setchell’s appointment and the exit of Ms Setchell from that department. So there had to have been lots of discussion and lots of consideration. The thing that really makes us a little bit suspicious about what went on is that even after her employers had been through this exercise, and even after they had gone through the charade of offering Madeleine Setchell a different position—a junior position—they tried to keep it quiet after they had constructively dismissed her, because she was politically connected, in their view. Let me make it very clear that Madeleine Setchell is entitled to her political views. I do not know what they are. I do not even know what Kevin Taylor’s views are upstairs. They are good servants to us—or he is—and she has been a good servant to the State, and they deserve to be treated much better

Rodney Hide: That’s a Freudian slip from you!

GERRY BROWNLEE: That may well have been a Freudian slip, I am not sure, but I am fortunate, because I do not know what a Freudian slip actually means, and clearly yesterday Mr Benson-Pope did not know, either.
One would think, after going through this sort of exercise, that this department might be a little cautious. But, no, members should remember that the department was in this process from 28 May. On 30 June the department placed an A4-sized ad in the Dominion Post. The ad states: “Do you want to work on issues that are at the forefront of New Zealand’s political agenda?”.
---------------------
18 July 2007
General Debate

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : Where were they? Where were Minister Annette King’s mates? Why did the Labour Party front bench desert this Minister at this difficult time for her? Why did they walk away? Well, let us have a look at it. First there is the debacle over the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. None of what was presented by the Minister today is true. She is an extremely arrogant Minister who would not know consultation if she was instructed totally in what it is. Then there is the issue of the police and the lack of standards in the new recruits. We will have police officers on our streets who cannot even write, let alone bring a successful prosecution to court. And now there is the horrible spectre of potential corruption at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board hanging over the Minister’s head, as well.
Is it not interesting that only now Mr Trevor Mallard comes to sit alongside the Minister? This has nothing to do with supporting her, of course. Everyone in this House knows that we have gone past the shortest day. We are on the long road to summer, and Phil Goff has the barbecue list out to revise who should be there in the summer, because he knows that his opportunities are not too far off. He has told us—and anyone who wants to listen—that if he had been handling that Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, the House would be voting for it now. We look at him every day as various Ministers are in trouble. Mr Hodgson today had a big grin on his face, and where is he now? He is out in his caravan talking to the people—waiting, waiting for his time. Of course, he must be enormously comforted that his running mate David Cunliffe is off filling up the liquefied petroleum gas bottles ready to make sure that the barbecue fires up in the right direction.
These are people who are in severe political trouble, and this is a Government that is on its way out, not just because of the trans-Tasman therapeutic products legislation, not just because of the police issue, and not just because of the debacle at Hawke’s Bay—all the responsibility of the one Minister—but because of so many things that have gone wrong: 20 free hours’ early childhood education that are perfectly free as long as one pays for them; the vicious attack on the mortgage holders of this country in order that we might somehow stem a rising exchange rate; and, of course, health services throughout the country being in crisis everywhere. My own city has an emergency room that simply cannot cope, and people are suffering the consequences of that.
The education sector is struggling to provide for the realities of life for many young New Zealanders and is not giving them the opportunities that they need. We have a Minister of Education who now knows he has made such a hash of it that the best thing he can do is to get out. It is only a matter of days before we hear the announcement that Steve Maharey is the new vice-chancellor of Massey University. Well, good luck, Massey University—all the best. That will not be a good move for that university or for any of the students who go there.
But there are a few bright spots on the horizon. I understand that Clayton Cosgrove is now the “go-to man” inside the Labour Party. One only has to look at the Order Paper to know that that is the case. A few weeks ago the Order Paper had nothing on it. Now it has substantial legislation on it, such as the Wills Bill. It has substantial legislation on it, such as the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It has important pieces of legislation on it, such as the Succession (Homicide) Bill. Who is the Minister behind all of this? The young cut-and-thruster, Clayton Cosgrove himself.
Well, all I can say to Clayton Cosgrove is: get home on a Friday, stay there on a Saturday, stay there on a Sunday, and do not be too eager to come back on a Monday, because those boundary changes are looking pretty dodgy. Would it not be a great shame if the great future light of the Labour Party lost his seat? He will not go on the list. He has promised the people of Waimakariri that he will not go on the list. It will be a great shame if he loses his seat just by the stroke of a pen.
The point here, of course, is that this is a Government that now cannot do anything right. It now cannot achieve anything at all. That is demonstrated so clearly when the Minister of Finance has to stand up and explain why it is OK for Winston Peters, the coalition partner, to undo 20 years of bipartisan agreement on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—20 years of bipartisan agreement on that Act, which has allowed the New Zealand economy, one way or the other, to flourish more than it might have without it. Michael Cullen sits there quietly and allows Winston Peters to have a go at advancing that legislation simply so Helen Clark can stay as Prime Minister.
------------------------------
27 June 2007
General Debate

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : That speech was one of the saddest things one will ever see in Parliament, because it was made by a senior Minister—someone who has given 12 years of ministerial service to successive Labour Governments—who is fighting to get off the managed exit list. That Minister, Annette King, was hauled in by the Prime Minister and given the bad news yesterday. Along with numerous others, she was told that she was on her way. Did any members here notice that her comments were that Bill English was the Deputy Prime Minister in waiting, that John Key was the Prime Minister in waiting, and that National is the Government-in-waiting? We thank her for that admission.
Who else is on the managed exit list?

Chris Auchinvole: Who else?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, it is a long one: Di Yates, Russell Fairbrother, Ann Hartley, Rick Barker, Dover Samuels, Jill Pettis—no, Jill Pettis is not on it. That is the surprise for the Cabinet reshuffle. We know about it; we have heard. The list continues: Mita Ririnui, Lesley Soper, Darien Fenton, Dave Hereora, Moana Mackey, and one Judith Tizard. I had to read the list because I have never met most of them. We now know that yesterday the Prime Minister hauled a few people in and gave them the bad news, then last night, at a swanky Wellington restaurant, they sat down to have what might be called the last supper for that group.
How does a Government that goes out with a cornerstone of its election promise—20 hours’ free early childhood education—and says: “Here is something for free.”, get itself into so much trouble trying to give something away? It is pretty simple; it is because it is not free. New Zealanders are sick and tired of the diet of garbage they are being fed by the current Government. If everybody were to take a good look at the situation, they would see no political parallel anywhere in the world. The Government says it is 20 hours’ free, and no one wants to believe it. That is why it is in trouble.
Then, of course, Government members are out there saying: “We can do better for you in a range of areas. We can tell you all sorts of things that you must do—you have to do—and when you should do them. You can’t eat pies at the school tuck shop, but, by the way, you can vote.” They talk about all that sort of stuff. It is total control. In the meantime, Government spending is wildly out of control. Wasteful spending is wildly out of control. And who pays? It is the mortgage-holders of this country, the people who are trying to get a roof over their head for their families, and the young people who are trying to get into homeownership. They pay because this Government does not trust New Zealanders to do more for themselves. This Government is hell-bent on control at any particular point.
When we see the Government in a tight spot, what does it do? It reverts to kind by going out and saying there will be more legislation that is about the Government poking itself into people’s lives. That is where the free early childhood education policy has got the Government into so much trouble. People who are making a choice are saying: “Yes, we’d like to have a subsidy. We’d like to have some assistance. We’d like to have some tax rebate. But we don’t want to be told: ‘That’s the place you go because they’re the ones that have the tick. That’s the place you go because Steve Maharey has decided that’s the early childhood education you should have for your child.’ It’s all about control.” That is why this Government is in trouble. That is why a sad Minister like Annette King has had to come down to the House today to make a speech that supposedly gets her off the managed exit list. It is why Mike Williams says there are 10 others to go very, very shortly. I acknowledge the contribution made by Annette King, and that is the reason why John Key is the Prime Minister in waiting and National is the Government-in-waiting.
-------------------------