Hon Peter Dunne
MP for Ohariu
Leader, UnitedFuture

Address to Harbour City Rotary Club
7pm, Wednesday 4 August
Duxton Hotel, Wellington

Good evening. It would be fair to say that the National-led Government's performance to date, especially that of the Prime Minister, has been strong and warmly supported by most New Zealanders.

The polls certainly tell us so.

So much so that it would be a brave person indeed (or an extremely foolish one) who would at this stage predict anything other than another substantial election victory for National next year.

But while the National Party may be odds-on to win again next year, the dark clouds are already gathering.

National's success to date has come because the Prime Minister in particular has been extremely careful so far not to become hostage to traditional conservative policies or interest groups.

He has shown a level of pragmatism that many have welcomed, even on contentious issues such as mining on the conservation estate, and the foreshore and seabed.

He has not allowed his government to become boxed in or defined by its opponents, much to their chagrin, and his deftness has set a new standard in political openness and honesty.

In many ways, he is closer to the style and tone of the Holyoake years of the 1960s, than to any of the subsequent National governments.

All this has left Labour flat-footed and out of step with the current reality, so much so that it still looks like the old government thrown out at the last election, rather than a fresh, new government in waiting.

This perception is reinforced by what appears to be its old guard leadership.

It is unlikely to be a perception that will be shifted while the current leadership remains in place - on that, perhaps you, I and Chris Carter can agree!

Indeed, the last time a major party won government with old guard leadership was Labour under Walter Nash, way back in 1957 - and it took the desperate £100 tax rebate bribe to achieve the narrowest of victories, something that would be unlikely to happen again under today's conditions.

Compounding Labour's problems is the lack of an obvious successor in the wings - precisely the same fate that befell National after 1999.

Therefore, it may well be that Labour's most difficult post-Clark years are yet to come, as it works its way through the leadership options to find the one that seems best suited to take on a then tiring National Party at some point in the future.

In short, Labour's journey back to office is looking increasingly like a re-run of National's odyssey from 1999.

And let us remember that was only stemmed only by the rise of John Key from 2006.

But although National looks set to win comfortably the largest representation in Parliament again next year, its support will most likely erode somewhat, meaning it will be highly unlikely to be able to govern on its own.

So it will be even more reliant on support partners in the next Parliament.

And that is where the dark clouds now gathering start to look decidedly stormy.

ACT's right wing is already becoming impatient and has shown no hesitation in trying to throw its weight around, well beyond the limits of its electoral mandate.

It has made it very clear that the Government's reforms are too slow and too moderate for its liking.

Might I suggest, however, that ACT is not a force that Kiwis would want shaping an increasingly far right agenda for a second-term National-led government?

Assuming the party does not split asunder in the meantime, it can be expected to push the Douglas agenda of asset sales, reduced government spending, and service privatisation with even more vigour in the second term, as the price it will extract for continuing to support National.

The true believers and big-money backers who want a return on their investment will insist National implement real, core ACT policies in the second term.

Yet the moment National starts down that path, the press, followed eventually by the Labour Opposition, will justifiably excoriate it for returning to Richardson era politics that John Key, to date at least, has seemed so firmly set against.

And then there is the Maori Party.

The key to understanding this unlikely but genuinely strong relationship is that John Key's invitation to join him after the last election was the first time in modern political history any major political party had invited Maori to join in government.

Labour may like to talk big about the relationship forged with Ratana in 1935, but the truth is it was always a subservient one, where Maoris' political loyalty was quickly taken for granted and seldom reciprocated in any meaningful way.

Maori understand that.

They know that for generations they were taken for granted by Labour, which is why the strength of the bond now formed with National cannot be underestimated.

It has counted for a lot in the Government so far, and will do likewise for the remainder of this term.

National will also tolerate a lot from the Maori Party in order not just to keep them in the tent, but more importantly to keep them out of Labour's tent.

Keeping the Maori Party on National's side is an important part of the electoral equation - without them, Labour's path to government becomes that much harder.

It would have to rely on the Greens, who consistently show themselves as quite good as a "conscience" party in a simplistic, 'black and white' world kind of way, but, as a consequence, generally too unreliable to be taken seriously as a government partner.

For its part, although it could never say so, the Maori Party will be prepared to tolerate a watering down of its Whanau Ora plan, or some compromises over the foreshore and seabed - for now - because it is still relishing the fact it was invited to the table in the first place, and rightly so.

But that too is likely to change in a second term.

Maori are going to want much more than lip service and personal warmth on issues like devolution; the future role of the Treaty of Waitangi; and, closing the social and economic gaps between Maori and Pakeha.

Indeed, the very future of the Maori Party will depend on its making significant progress in each of these areas during the next term.

So National therefore faces the unenviable possibility of being the largest party in Parliament - indeed the only party capable of forming a government after the 2011 election - but with partners whose core demands are likely to tear it in completely opposite directions.

And both those directions would take it far away from its core support base and the centre ground pragmatism that has characterised the Key administration to date.

National's strategists know this and are very concerned about it.

All of which raises the intriguing parallel of the 2002 election and with it, the question of what happens if there is a melt-down in Labour's support, akin to that of National in 2002.

You will recall that at that time there was a popular Labour-led Government in office, facing an election it was likely to win, but where its coalition partner had imploded, and its two best options were the Greens, who were busy white-anting Labour at every turn (remember Corngate?) and New Zealand First, whose anti-immigrant xenophobia was anathema to everything the Labour Government had hitherto stood for.

Labour's response to this impossible situation was a desperate plea to voters to just give it an outright majority - the last thing voters still mindful of the excesses of one-party government in the first past the post era were prepared to do.

In the event, a significant number of centre ground voters switched in roughly equal numbers from both National, whom they had written off as not yet ready to govern again, and Labour, whom they felt largely deserved another go, to UnitedFuture.

They did so to give Labour the moderating partner they felt it needed, to prevent it being derailed by what they regarded as the extremes.

There are emerging signs that a similar situation may occur next year, this time with soft Labour voters both recognising their party is unlikely to win and, being not too unhappy with current government's direction, looking for a moderating influence on National in its second term.

And, given the experience of 2002, it is a situation UnitedFuture - written off as irrelevant now just as we were in 2002 - is watching with some interest.

But regardless of that scenario, we remain the only party promoting change and improvement for middle New Zealand families - the true champions of our society.

These are the people who make our community tick - who run the school boards and the sports clubs, who join the service clubs, and who genuinely care about the state of their communities.

They are not hell-bent on selling our state assets or slashing government's social spending, nor do they want government telling them what they can and cannot do, or providing everything for them.

They just want to get on with their lives, on a live and let live basis, knowing there is someone in government who understands and respects their concerns, and stands up for them.

That has been UnitedFuture's role - promoting positive change for middle New Zealand families, and filling exactly the same role as the Liberal Democrats do in Britain, which is why we have endured against adversity to date.

We believe:

* Ideas and principles are more important than serving special interests. * Promoting social advances involves all of us, not just the State. * Participation is the key to successful communities and nations, and families are the building block of these.

These are the politics of principle and courage - not the politics of compromise and surrender as some would have it.

They are utterly consistent with our role as the protector and upholder of common sense in politics.

To be honest, I am sick and tired of hearing the values and the aspirations of middle New Zealand families derided as dull and boring.

I am sick and tired of seeing their hard work and their efforts to get ahead and do the best for their families derailed by those who rip off the system, or do not pay their fair share.

I think the good, honest people who do their best, day in and day out, who are long-suffering and often uncomplaining, deserve more of a look-in as far as government is concerned.

UnitedFuture has deliberately used its position as a partner to successive governments since 2002 to introduce common sense policies that are good for middle New Zealand families, and I make no apology for that.

I and UnitedFuture have been criticised for working with both National and Labour-led governments, but I will never apologise for getting into government and making a difference

And getting things done.

And that is what we have done.

In any endeavour in life, change does not happen from the 'opposition benches'.

If you want to achieve something, you get yourself into a position to actually do it and get what you think is important on the agenda and implemented.

As I say, I will never apologise for that.

UnitedFuture's moderation and commitment to solutions than work for people, regardless of the ideological paradigm, make us a natural fit in government, as the quiet achievers who get on and make things happen.

Why be in politics if you are not aiming to do that?

In 2002 it was not fashionable to talk about policies that were family friendly.

Our country had become too politically correct for that, so governments simply did not talk about families.

Well, UnitedFuture changed all that, and nowadays political parties of whatever hue bend over backwards to proclaim their family friendly credentials.

Our view of families is positive and inclusive - by their very nature families are dynamic and diverse.

Strong and cohesive families, whatever their structure, are the key to our society's future development, so it is only right that their voice be encouraged and heard.

Indeed, allowing families to spend more time together was one of the reasons I pushed successfully to extend daylight saving to six months of the year, and our commitment to promoting outdoor recreation opportunities is because of our belief in enabling New Zealanders to spend more quality time together enjoying our magnificent natural environment.

These are mainstream Kiwi values we have lost a little sight of in recent years.

We conceived and developed the national medicines strategy, Medicines New Zealand, to ensure all New Zealanders are better placed to get the medicines they need when they are ill, and at a price they can afford.

This year, over 200,000 more people will get access to the medicines they need, as a result of the policy changes Medicines New Zealand has ushered in.

Again, this is all about promoting, wellbeing, and better social cohesion.

Our ongoing efforts to reform the tax system to make it fairer, through the range of personal and business tax cuts I have been part of introducing since 2007, and including the work I did with the Minister of Finance in developing the Budget 2010 tax package, have been about improving the lot of families across the board, and making it easier for them to play a full part in the development of our society.

I am immensely proud of the fact that from October this year the top marginal tax rate for nearly three quarters of New Zealand taxpayers will be just 17.5 cents in the dollar - half what it was when I became Minister just under five years ago.

The legislation I will shortly introduce allow parents with dependent children to share their incomes between them for tax purposes takes that a step further and gives nearly two-thirds of two parent households a little bit more choice in how they structure their affairs.

We have pushed successfully for major infrastructure developments like Transmission Gully to keep our communities more connected and closely linked.

And my efforts to promote a greater culture of giving and more philanthropy amongst New Zealanders by removing the previous limits on the level of charitable donations qualifying for a tax rebate, and introducing payroll giving, are all about recognising more strongly the important and growing role that the charitable and voluntary sector plays in our community.

What is significant is that UnitedFuture has introduced and sustained these policies under governments led by both major parties, demonstrating both philosophical consistency and a capacity to deliver.

In St Paul's Cathedral in London, there is the famous epitaph for the architect Sir Christopher Wren, "If you seek his monument, look around you."

Well, to those who still ask what UnitedFuture stands for, let me say, "If you seek our purpose, look at our achievements."

Put simply, they all focus on our communities, and joining up the dots to make them function better.

None of the policies I have spoken of would have been achieved had UnitedFuture not been part of government over the last eight years - nor, I suggest, will many survive if we are not there in the future.

All of them have been focused on making life better for middle New Zealand families, and restoring to them a sense of dignity that had been stripped away during the major political upheavals of the 1980s and 1990s.

With ACT and the Maori Party making it clear they will be pursuing their own particular interests, and the Labour/Green alliance promoting higher taxes, and new taxes like a capital gains tax, middle New Zealand families could be the big losers next year.

Therefore, to ensure middle New Zealand families remain at the core of the government's focus National therefore needs UnitedFuture and its hard head, warm heart focus to ensure that while we balance the chequebook, we also retain our social justice and compassion.

ENDS

© Scoop Media