United Future
Hon Peter Dunne

Speech - Auckland Vision Network

A campaign from which United Future emerged as one of the winners, holding the balance of power.

Now, as we face the next election in a year or so, it is worth considering what difference we have made since the last election, and what the future holds from here.

The best way to do that is to look at what we actually promised at the last election, and how far we have got since then in achieving them.

In my standard 2002 campaign speech I said:

 “The only way we can make progress is to recognise that the New Zealand family is the cornerstone of our society and that when things are going well for the family and the family’s functioning well, then things are going well for the country.”

“So we want to see a Commission for the Family set up to be an advocate for families but also to make sure that all policies that the Government follows are in fact good for families.  If it’s good for the family, we’ll back it; if it’s not, we’ll oppose it.” 

Well, that Families Commission has been established exactly the way we wanted.

Its membership has been finalised and will be announced within the next few days.

The Families Commission will start work on July 1.

For the first time, we will have a dedicated government agency working on behalf of all New Zealand families to bring that missing family focus to government policies and to ensure New Zealand develops policies that benefit the family for years to come.

I also promised in 2002 that:

“We want to ensure that every child gets the best start in life and we’ll do that by guaranteeing every child the right of access to up to 15 hours early childhood education a week from the age of 3.” 

The recent Budget contained an initiative to extend to all children above 3 access to 20 hours a week pre-school education in approved facilities, so United Future’s active lobbying of the Government for this initiative has been more than fulfilled.

In 2002, we promised that:

“We’ll have better support for agencies like Plunket to ensure that all children get the eight well child health checks they’re supposed to have by the age of 5 and every child does get the best start in life.”

In the last two years, there has been significant progress in greater support for child care, and better support for children’s health programmes and the work of agencies like Plunket and the Children’s Health Camps, and we continue to work closely with Ministers and the agencies concerned to boost support for children.

Our fourth commitment was that:

“Above all else we’ll stop the nonsense at the moment of this head-long rush to decriminalise cannabis.  We have a situation where parents don’t know how to advise their children; they’re getting so many mixed and conflicting messages that it simply becomes impossible for them to do their job properly.  We value our parents’ role and will support them and will make sure that they’re able to provide strong and effective leadership to their children.” 

As a result of our confidence and supply agreement with Labour, we have a firm Government commitment not to alter the legal status of cannabis.

Four key promises – all achieved within two years of the election.

So what about the other side of the ledger?

Here are some more quotes from that 2002 campaign speech:

“We want parents to have the right to split their incomes for tax purposes when they’re bringing up their children.  That would give the average household up to $188 a fortnight more in the hand to spend on their families.”

“We want parents who are at home caring for preschoolers to get a special rebate to recognise their contribution.   We want better support for childcare costs that families have to bear as well.”

“We want to make sure that we have a much stronger link to the voluntary sector in our community and we’ll increase the charitable donations rebate from $600 to $5,000 to better support our charities and voluntary agencies.  We’ll support the role of people who volunteer their time in the community as well by letting them claim a small tax rebate for that work.”

 “We’ll promote values and character education in our schools to help our children make the right decisions about their future.” 

These remain key elements of United Future policy which we are continuing to promote as vigorously as we can.

While they can be seen as unfinished business, the steps announced in the Budget recently regarding working families go  some way towards addressing the concerns of household income and support for rearing children.

Of the outstanding issues, income splitting is probably the most dramatic.

Essentially, income splitting focuses on the income of a household, rather than just an individual.

It would allow a couple to aggregate their incomes and then split them to the maximum advantage for tax purposes.

An example is that of the average household income of around $70,000.

In that household, one partner may be working full-time, and the other may be at home looking after the children.

Under current policy, the earning partner pays $18,570 in tax a year.

However, if that $70,000 was split between the couple at the rate of $35,000 each and taxed separately, then the tax bill would drop to $13,650 a year.

That is equivalent to a 7% tax cut, and would provide almost $190 a fortnight more in additional income for that household.

We promote income splitting because it is a fair way of recognising the contribution both parents make as equal partners to the running of a household, and the rearing of children, and is a more direct recognition of the important role of the parent – almost invariably the mother who stays at home with the children.

Too often, we hear the complaint of people who say that they would love to have been able to stay home with the children, but simply could not afford to do so.

And, of late, there has been some debate about potential detrimental impacts on children spending too much time in child care.

Income splitting would go a significant way towards addressing that particular concern.

Under our policy, income splitting would be an option only in circumstances where parents are raising dependent children, and up to a maximum household income of around $120,000, after which point the benefits decline steeply because of  the 39 cent in the dollar marginal tax rate on incomes over $60,000.

While income splitting, a higher charitable tax donation rebate, and character education are policy battles yet to be won, the real point that should not be overlooked is that it is a remarkable achievement to have just over half our key election policies implemented within two years of the election.

We are, after all a small party, holding only 8 seats out of 120 in Parliament, and we are not formally part of the government.

Yet in less than two years we have made the sort progress many majority government parties in the past would have envied greatly.

The final point I made in that address was one that has become United Future’s defining characteristic, which has set us aside from all the other parties jostling for position under MMP.

I said that:

“United Future is an MMP party.  We’ll recognise that good ideas come from right across the political spectrum.  Parties on the left or parties on the right don’t have all the answers.  We can work constructively with either side and we will.” 

“A party vote for us is a party vote for positive progress.  In the next Parliament, we will be the party that’s prepared to face up to these issues and make sure they’re addressed and dealt to.  We will work with  the major party most committed to implementing policies along these lines because that’s what the New Zealand family deserves and when the New Zealand family gets what it deserves, then we will get a better and stronger country.”

This was the most fundamental election commitment of all that we made, and the one I am most proud that we have achieved in the years since.

In just two years, we have stuck to our principles and election commitments, contributed positively to stable government, and like no other small party before us, we have made MMP work.

Without a party like United Future, MMP will not survive.

That lesson has yet to be learned by many.

I am constantly amazed at those parties that piously state before the election who they will and will not work with.

The Greens, and more recently ACT, are past masters at this approach, which is just more political arrogance.

They all seem to forget that it is voters - not political parties - who decide elections and that it is the voters’ wishes, not the parties’ prejudices, that should be foremost in politicians’ minds when the issue of government formation arises.

The parties are there to give effect to the voters’ wishes – not the other way round.

That is why it has always been United Future’s position that the first option to attempt to form a government should rest with the party securing the largest number of seats in Parliament, as that, after all, is presumably reflective of the public’s intent.

If our support was necessary or desirable for that party to be able to form a government, and there was a measure of policy compatibility between us, then we would be willing to enter into negotiations with that party.

If those negotiations were successful and a government was able to be formed, well and good.

If  not, then and only then, would we be prepared to talk to the second largest party.

MMP was reduced to ridicule during the 9 weeks circus after the 1996 election when everyone was forced to play second fiddle to Mr Peters’ insufferable ego display, and I have no intention of ever repeating that appalling display of selfishness.

You will have noticed in recent days there has been a lot of chatter about potential coalition partners for Labour or National and who will or will not make the best Prime Minister of New Zealand.

I was talking to a few political journalists recently who expressed surprise that United Future was willing to work with either National or Labour.

That was rather frustrating as that has been our consistent position since we entered Parliament, so let me put the record straight.

As the country’s only genuine centre party United Future has to be able to work with both sides of politics, as circumstances require, to moderate the excesses of the extremes, and to contribute to good and stable government.

In that regard, we consider a National-led government beholden to Act to be no better than a Labour-led government beholden to the Greens.

It is worth recalling that the outcome the voters dealt at the last election meant that only two government arrangements were possible: a Labour government, backed by the Greens, or a Labour government backed by United Future.

A grand coalition on the right, involving National, Act, New Zealand First and including United Future, even if it could have been established, would not have been a majority in Parliament.

Therefore, United Future took the responsible position of doing all it could to shut the Greens out of formal involvement in government because of their anti-family, pro-drugs, anti-growth policies.

That is why we entered into the confidence and supply relationship with Labour because it would have been irresponsible to do otherwise.

It does not mean we have to agree with everything the Labour Government does – nor do we – and it does not mean that the Labour Government has to agree with everything we stand for – and nor does it.

What it does mean, however, is that we work constructively together on the things we agree on, and leave the rest to the government’s own devices.

Where United  Future does not support the government on legislation, the composition of the current Parliament means the government can look elsewhere for support, whether we like it or not.

That is democracy.

With 8 seats out of 120 in Parliament United Future does not have a veto over legislation.

New Zealanders have had enough in the previous two Parliaments of small parties being the tail wagging the dog and having a petulant tantrum if they do not get their own way, and we campaigned strongly against that at election time.

As a moderate, centrist party, committed to working constructively to achieve goals in accord with our policy objectives, we recognise that politics are often far more about the achievable than the desirable, and that pragmatic compromise leads to more progress than rigid ideological extremism.

Where ideological extremism gets in the way of common sense we have not hesitated to oppose the Labour-led government, on issues like increased ACC fees; the new occupational safety and health laws; the establishment of the Maori Television Service; changes to the holidays laws; the re-centralisation of the tertiary education system; the response to the Kyoto Protocol; the Care of Children Bill; the abolition of the Privy Council, the Foreshore and Seabed legislation etc.

And we will continue to do so in future instances.

Again, this is exactly in line with the commitments we made before the election.

Common sense is our yardstick.

For some, this is all very well but moral issues are the key divider.

How can we continue to support a government that is promoting a moral agenda, contrary to our policies, they argue.

Well, let me say this.

Moral issues involve the whole Parliament, not just the government of the day.

That is why they are treated as conscience votes rather than party votes, and United Future is no exception in this regard.

Nevertheless, in resolving these matters I am pleased that United Future MPs have  stuck to their principles.

All our MPs voted against the Prostitution Bill at every stage, and we also strongly opposed the Death with Dignity Bill.

Helen Clark and Don Brash voted for both.

We are the only party campaigning against the Civil Union Bill which would establish effective same-sex marriage, something both Helen Clark and Don Brash are on record supporting.

At the same time, we have delivered on the four key elements of our agreement with Labour.

New Victims Rights legislation has been implemented; the Families Commission is being established in exactly the way we envisaged; the new transport legislation will ensure progress on better roading and transport infrastructure across the country; and there has been no change in the legal status of cannabis.

And then there are those who believe we should be more naturally aligned with National than Labour.

I have to tell you we have no particular preference in that regard.

We have worked well with the Labour-led government to date and see no reason why this relationship should not continue for the balance of this Parliamentary term.

In the past, we have worked well with and been part of National-led governments, and I am sure we could work well with National in the future if the circumstances warranted it.

New Zealanders made their abhorrence of New Zealand First’s break-up of the National/New Zealand First coalition in 1998, and of the Alliance’s implosion in the Labour/Alliance coalition in 2002, utterly clear.

United Future has no intention of repeating either of those arrogant follies, and knows how strongly New Zealanders would punish us if we were to do so.

And they would be entirely justified.

Despite the rhetoric, even the National Party acknowledges, at least privately, that we should honour our commitment to provide stable government for a full parliamentary term.

After all, if we terminated our agreement with Labour half way through the term, there is absolutely no reason why we could not do the same to National in a similar situation.

The last thing New Zealanders deserve right now is another round of political instability because a support party cannot stand the heat, or cynically decides it is time to boost its standing in the polls by pulling an indulgent political stunt.

Bringing the government down when the going gets tough might appear attractive, but there is no doubt people would quickly tire of the experience – the proper scorn and ridicule that New Zealand First and the Alliance attracted should be proof enough of that, and the Italian example has become legendary.

And, to put it bluntly, the parties voters take their vengeance upon are those seen to have caused the problem – as again New Zealand First and the Alliance prove.

I have been in politics for 20 years and have seen many dramatic political moments.

I have learnt that capricious acts of high dudgeon are seldom appreciated, or even remembered, and that victory comes eventually to those who have the humility and the determination to turn the other cheek to adversity and move on.

So, I am not going to see United Future mount its high moral horse and go out in a short-lived blaze of glory.

That would be the ultimate betrayal of those who support us because politics is after all not just about winning the battles, but being there to win the war as well.

When New Zealanders vote they have a right to expect that the government they elect will govern for a full three years, and not just at the whim of the party supporting it on supply and confidence.

That was the position we took in 2002 – even though as I said  the results meant Labour was the only party capable of forming a government then – and will also be the position we take in 2005.

Then, as in 2002, the voters will decide which party they want to lead that government.

And that is as it should be.