JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : We have heard from Mr Tim Barnett, who said that he was proud of Labour’s Budget. My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp said that he must be the only one. But, no, I read the other day that Kerre Woodham said David Cunliffe telephoned her radio show on Newstalk ZB and made the most extraordinary, toadying comments about the Budget. Kerre Woodham is normally a bit of a lefty, but she said that she was nauseated by this. How could this man, even as a Minister in this Government, possibly say that 67c a week in 3 years’ time will keep the public happy? Why does he not just say “Let them eat cake.”? In fact, what he said was “Let them chew gum.”, because that is all people can buy with 67c a week.

Mr Barnett has been talking on and on and on about how spending more money gets better results. We all know that that is absolute nonsense. Members should look at the health spending. Under this Government it has gone up about 50 percent from the days of 1999. What has happened to the number of operations performed in the public sector in that time? It has gone down, or occasionally it has stayed the same.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What happened to nurses’ wages?

JUDITH COLLINS: I am not one of Labour’s members. I can behave myself in the House. What has happened to nurses wages? Nurses are only now starting to get the pay that the Labour Government has been promising for 6 years, none of which was factored into the health budget last year. That is what has happened. Nurses have been underpaid for years. The Government has promised them money for 6 years and it is only now starting to get the pay system working. That is what it has done. Unfortunately, the poor old nurses have been the ones to miss out. The Government let them wait and wait and wait while it built up the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Health so that the bureaucrats could push around their little pens, and the Government did not give a toss—the Prime Minister has used that term so I will, too—about the poor old nurses at the coalface. What about the nurses in the private sector, such as the ones working in rest homes? We know that the great reward that Marian Hobbs is talking about has not gone to them. We know it has not.

Let us talk about some of the waste in the health sector. Let us talk about the number of Treaty of Waitangi indoctrination courses that the nurses of Otago are forced to go through. Let us talk about the indoctrination into the Treaty of Waitangi that midwives have to go through. Midwives from Australia cannot practise here unless they get themselves indoctrinated with the Treaty of Waitangi. We know what is happening to the money and it is not going to where it needs to go.

The people of Otago who find themselves in hospital have to have pillowcases that are a different colour to sheets. That is so that they can be washed separately because of protocol. Jill Pettis looks very puzzled. The Otago Daily Times ran that story on its front page and I am sure that as the chief Government whip she would know about it. What about the money wasted on that sort of nonsense?

Let us talk about education spending. This Government talks ad nauseam about how much money it spends. What about seeing some outcomes for our people? Let us look at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. When National was in Government the wānanga was getting $4 million a year. That was fair enough. Last year, the Labour Government gave it $239 million, and the wānanga is still going broke. The wānanga had the Government’s own commissioner on the board for 18 months and it is still going broke. The Government simply attacks the people running the wānanga. It should be looking at the Ministers who were in charge of it. We know who was in charge until he had it removed from his responsibility—Steve Maharey.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Smarmy.

JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that the staff called themselves “Smarmy’s Army”. He let it go, just as he did with the Families Commission. He just let it go and the wānanga could do whatever it wanted. This Government has been conning people, particularly the media, to think that spending more money means getting more. That is not true—we have got less. That has been shown over and over again. Teachers in decile 1 schools are saying that they cannot get even the most basic things for their kids. They need better reading-recovery programmes. The few things that this Government has done for kids started with National—for instance, introducing social workers into schools. The Government has only now started to increase the numbers a little bit. Who brought that policy in? National brought it in. The Government is talking all the time about giving our children Family Start. Who brought in concepts like that? National did.

What is in the Budget that is so wonderful? There is nothing that is so wonderful. Here are some examples of quotes from the media about the Budget: “What we knew was that there was going to be this deep, dark secret. We knew there was going to be a deep, dark secret because Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, said so.” The deep, dark secret of the Budget. It was a deep, dark disappointment because it was 67c a week for working New Zealanders to get in 3 years’ time. It was worse than an insult; it was a disgrace and every commentator up and down the country, whether that commentator was left, right, middle, or any other form, said what a disappointment it was. We can see what has happened to Labour—it has absolutely lost the plot. Has there ever been anything like Dr Michael Cullen in the last few weeks? He has lost his temper in Parliament—he lost it again today. He has lost his temper at the media, accusing one TV station of doing something naughty, and then apparently it was another TV station. He has been losing it all the time. The reason he is losing it is because he knows that this is just about the worst Budget that anyone has ever seen.

We were sitting here listening during the Budget speech and waiting for the big one. We were wondering where the big one was, and what the Government would do to show some vision. What did we find? We found that the depreciation of laptop computers can now be reduced a bit more quickly. I sat there reading the Budget speech and listening to Dr Cullen and I turned to my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and said: “Laptop computers will be able to be depreciated at a quicker rate. My goodness, isn’t that a big one.”

Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s like a tax lecture.

JUDITH COLLINS: Dr Mapp said it is like a tax lecture. I asked Dr Mapp whether he could imagine George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, or Tony Blair saying in their big Budget speeches: “You’ll be able to depreciate your laptop computers. That’ll bring you round.” It will not and this Government hates the fact that people like John Armstrong from the New Zealand Herald have termed this Budget the the —one of the great disasters of our time. John Armstrong is a very experienced commentator and he knows a thing or two. He certainly knew that this one was a booby. It was a booby from the time that Dr Cullen refused to have his photo taken with the Budget as it was coming off the press. That was the telltale sign that Dr Cullen had been rolled by his own caucus. He was forced to go ahead with this pathetic little tax cut to try to make it look as if the people of New Zealand were going to get something. But, of course, all he got was the big booby prize, and he had to front it.

Poor old Dr Cullen, he must be very disappointed. My goodness, he lost his temper today when he was put on the ropes by John Key. He lost his temper time and time again. This is one of the most appalling Budgets of all time. We all remember the talk about the “black” Budget. This is the “blank” Budget. It is a blank Budget from a Government that has lost all idea of what to do other than spend, spend, spend.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : That was a very disappointing speech from the previous speaker. I know from her oration skills in this House that she is capable of better than that. She needs to go back to some of her research people in the National Party research room. I would not rely on the research notes if I were her. I am sure she would have done much better if that speech had really come from her heart; in my view, it lacked a degree of passion.

I am very, very proud to be part of this Government, and I am certainly proud to rise and speak in support of this Budget. I want to make some observations. The Budget builds on the very strong fiscal position the Government has created. The cash surplus for the current year is forecast to be $2.4 billion. This reduces, however, to a cash surplus of $30 million for 2005-06, but changes to an average cash deficit for the following 3 years of about $1.9 billion per year. It is obvious, if one looks, that there are no magical rainbow sums in the kitty.

In my view, we are very lucky to have a very prudent and cautious Minister of Finance. Notwithstanding his prudence and caution, there have been huge gains in this Budget for a number of sectors. For example, this year’s Budget commits additional resources to heath, which will total over $1.9 billion per year by 2008-09. A good part of this reflects—meeting in full—the costs of maintaining real, population-adjusted spending for the health and disability sector.

In terms of education, it is really good to see that this Government is increasing its investment in early childhood education by $152 million over 4 years, as it continues to deliver on its commitment to making early childhood education more affordable, more accessible, and of the best quality possible for all New Zealand families. Our commitment to more and better-paid teachers in our schools continues, with a total investment of $1.43 billion since the 2004 Budget.

One of the areas that I think we need to talk more about in this country is the whole issue of saving, particularly for retirement. I believe that in time the KiwiSaver scheme announced in this Budget will be seen as being equally historic, in a range of ways, as the so-called Cullen fund. The new KiwiSaver scheme is intended to begin operation on 1 April 2007. It is designed to help New Zealanders save and build a stake in their country. It is designed, obviously, to be a personal supplement to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. KiwiSaver will be linked to a new scheme to assist modest to middle income families with a deposit for their first home. I remember hearing people reflecting on the assistance they received in the 1950s and 1960s to make that magic and important start towards home ownership. Those people who are KiwiSavers for a minimum of 3 years will qualify for an additional subsidy of $1,000 a year, up to a maximum of 5 years, at the time of the purchase of their first home. This is an excellent Budget.

Let us talk about some more good news. There will be $173 million in funding over the next 3 to 4 years for police, which means that we will be adding to the record number of police that this country now has.

It is very interesting when we talk about defence. I reflect on a question that a member of Parliament—myself—asked Mr Burton today on defence in terms of the recent announcements. I am very pleased to see that extra money will go towards purchasing vital capital equipment for our defence budget over the next few years. It was really interesting that there were no supplementary questions from Opposition members around the total amount that this Government plans to spend on defence. There was one question from the Opposition member from Northland about Mr Burton’s history and his passion for world peace—I do not think that is a major crime; I think that shows great foresight in terms of what we all want to achieve—and also a much more creditable question from a New Zealand First member about the whole issue of pay and conditions for defence staff. But no question was related to the total defence budget and defence package. Quite clearly, as the Minister indicated, Opposition parties are now rewriting their defence policies on the back of a postage stamp, because the wind has absolutely been taken out of their sails, bearing in mind their scandalous record of defence expenditure during the 1990s.

I also take the opportunity to highlight how well the Waikato has been doing under this Government. Of course, there has been more good news for the Waikato in terms of the Budget, particularly in terms of the roll-out of the Working for Families package. I mention two projects that would clearly be targeted should there be a Brash-led Government. One is the Waikato technology park, which my colleague Dianne Yates played a leading role in promoting. Considerable central government money and input, in partnership with local government and industry, was provided for that particular project, which would be knocked on the head if the Opposition were in charge. More recently, the Prime Minister and Jim Anderton came for the roll-out of the aviation park, which has an aircraft manufacturing component, a flying school that has come out from the UK, and a whole range of airport and aviation-related industries. Again, that has recently received assistance from New Zealand Trade and Enterprise grants.

If we look at the Opposition promises of tax cuts—from the National Party in this case—we see that they will clearly have very, very little impact when they actually roll out to average working families. What National members are not telling us is that they will be paying considerable attention to the Working for Families package. Obviously, they are not telling us the whole story. How on earth they can balance a series of tax cuts with the spending plans and promises they have made is extremely interesting.

We on this side of the House wait with considerable interest and focus to see the so-called alternative Budget that National members are to put up. They said there would be tax cuts by Christmas. Then, of course, it dawned on them that that could have a significant impact on mortgage rates, etc., and now it is tax cuts by Christmas—but maybe not, or probably not. Who knows when, and in what quantity, the tax cuts will be. Yes, there will be certainly be tax cuts for some of their more wealthy friends, but there will absolutely not be significant tax cuts for working people in this country. That is not “maybe not”; it is “absolutely not”.

I believe this has been a very responsible and positive Budget.

Ron Mark: A Scrooge Budget!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: A Scrooge Budget—no. A responsible Budget—yes. It is a responsible Budget, which will not squander and mortgage our children’s future. It will not go back to the Muldoon era, when it was spend, borrow, and hope.

We will not be part of a grubby, grotty election bidding auction, because we care too much about this country. Dr Cullen is to be commended for introducing a very fiscally responsible and excellent Budget.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I would like to recommend to the previous speaker that he takes his pills. He seemed to be getting very, very het up. I would like to start by saying that I fully support the motion by the leader of ACT, Rodney Hide, that this House has no confidence in the Labour minority Government, which has provided no vision or ambition for New Zealand, no 10-year plan to make New Zealand a freer, more prosperous, and proud nation, and no policy to drop the excessive tax burden on hard-working New Zealanders. That really does sum it up. When we look at the Labour Budget in election year 2005, we see that it really is a wasted opportunity. Where is the ambition for New Zealand? Where is the vision? Where is there any plan at all? The reality is that this country is being run by a pack of hopeless Labour politicians, who probably could not run a proper booze-up in a brewery. That is the reality, and the Budget simply confirms that stance.

The Budget shows that, after New Zealand has had the best economic conditions in a decade, its growth will drop to an average of 2.9 percent over the next 4 years. We all know that in order to raise our standard of living we need to be growing at over 4 percent, but this Government has managed to mismanage the economy to such an extent that this country will start to sink further and further down, in terms of our standard of living. Our trading partners average growth of 3.4 percent, and other countries around the world are managing to go forward. Why is New Zealand going backwards? Well, I am sorry, but the finger has to be pointed at the Government. It sets the policy, it sets the tax rate, and it sets the spending promises. The Government is directing this country, and it is doing that badly. We are slipping behind other countries, and the legacy that Labour will leave when it is defeated at the next election is one of wasted opportunity. Labour took a great little country and has run it down.

The reason why Labour does not know how to run this country properly is that it is anti-business. It has not figured out that small business is the engine room of any economy. Small business creates the jobs, and it creates the growth. Labour, during the 6 years it has been in power, has essentially killed off enterprise, and killed off the dynamic growth plans and ambitions that small business had, through things like the destruction of labour market flexibility. It is too hard to employ people now, because if things do not work out the employer cannot get rid of the employee. The Government has introduced stealth taxes—some 33 during the period it has been in power—which have added enormous costs to doing business. A tax like the petrol tax is spreading costs right through the whole economy. Of course, in the Budget Mr Cullen signalled that we are going to have a carbon tax, which will add to our costs, as well. There are silly regulations, at which small business just throws up its hands in horror and basically asks what is coming next—and it hesitates even to think about that.

John Tamihere did the country an enormous favour when he explained to us that the four forces running this country are the forces in the Labour Cabinet made up of feminists, Māori, unionists, and gays—people who are looking at those agendas. Now, those terms are not my terms; they are John Tamihere’s terms. He was a Minister who sat around the Cabinet table, and he said, essentially, that the feminists, who are anti-business and anti-men, want to get women out of the home and into the workplace. It is quite a good idea to get more people into the workplace, but why did the feminists not pick on the welfare recipients? If they are serious about getting people back into the workplace to fill the shortage gap, then something like 200,000 able-bodied New Zealanders who are on the dole or on the domestic purposes benefit, could be helped to move back into the workforce, over time. Instead of picking on those people, the feminists have happened to pick on mums at home who are trying to bring up their children.

Mr Tamihere talked about Māori, and he said that the privilege being introduced by the Labour Party was at every level. There are now elite groups in communities throughout New Zealand who are running the country, but ordinary Māori do not like that. Ordinary people who are working for a living do not like elitism, and they do not like to see privilege. Many Māori on benefits see no benefit from Labour’s policies, at all. John Tamihere talked about unions, and about how they had a strong agenda. I predict here that if Labour does happen to fluke it and win the next election, then compulsory unionism is around the corner. That will be for workplaces up and down New Zealand, and the small business sector should take heed of that and be very worried. I can tell members that if compulsory unionism is brought in at a time when the country is struggling to keep up with its trading partners, any competitive advantage that we might have had will be destroyed.

The average working family, with its own household budget, would have done better than Labour did in the Budget. The first thing families do is to cut out waste. If we had a look to see whether Labour was cutting out waste in this Budget, we would see that the answer was no. Labour has grown the size of the bureaucracy in this country many-fold. It is an absolute disgrace that for every dollar of health spending, the large majority of it—probably almost the whole lot—goes on bureaucracy instead of patient care. If we look at every dollar that goes into the education system and ask how much is actually helping our kids to do better, again we see that that sum is only a small proportion of every dollar put in there, while the rest is wasted. If we looked at all the stupid, politically correct programmes that this Government has introduced at every level of governance in this country, we would simply shake our heads in horror. That is without even talking about things like the dog laws, which will mean that when Mrs Brown’s chihuahua from down the road has five puppies, they will all have to be microchipped—as they are clearly a danger to humanity. I ask: what level of madness will this Government stop at? It seems to know no bounds, at all.

In Australia, the Labour Party brought in tax cuts in its Budget. It also brought in welfare reform, and I think that many people were hoping that Labour would do the same in New Zealand. Well, it has not. It has brought in an insulting tax cut that will be worth 67c a week in 3 years’ time, and I say that New Zealanders deserve better than that. That is why the ACT party will be going to the election proposing major tax cuts, to give a tax rate of 15c in the dollar for anyone earning up to $38,000, and of 25c in the dollar for anyone earning over that. That proposal is affordable. It will help to drive growth in this country, and the propaganda put out by Labour that the country cannot afford it is total rubbish. We can afford it out of the $7.4 billion surplus that this Government, this greedy Government, has collected from hard-working families. For the first time, polls are now showing that the majority of New Zealand workers want to be given a tax cut. That is what this Government should have delivered in this Budget. In Australia, for the last 3 years the Government has delivered tax cuts, because it was overtaxing Australians. This Government is overtaxing New Zealanders way above anything that Aussie was doing, but instead of giving money back in tax cuts it is pocketing it, to use the money for its own stupid schemes. Any talk about tax cuts being inflationary is complete and utter rubbish. The things that are inflationary in this country are things like petrol tax increases, carbon tax increases, and local body rates increases, all of which are things driven by this Government.

This Budget is a disgrace. Workers in New Zealand deserve to have a tax cut.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I am very proud to be a member of this New Zealand Government, and I want to put on the record that I do not want to be an Australian. The Australian Budget did deliver $6 a week to the average worker, but it also delivered to the average worker the news that their health system had had its funding limited, in order to finance that $6 a week—and Australians, for that, still face higher tax rates. They pay 30c in the dollar on income above NZ$23,000 and, from 1 July, 42c in the dollar on income above A$63,000. That compares with our 33c rate, which kicks in at $38,000.

So I am proud to be a member of this team, and proud to be part of a team that trusts the people. There is no need for sudden surprises or for “black” Budgets and that sort of hyped-up stuff. There is no need for photographs of a Budget. This is a steady-as-you-go, trustful group of people. I am proud to be prudent, but, most of all, I am proud to be associated with a Minister of Finance and a Budget that maintain a strong and credible stance.

By contrast, let us go back to 1999. State assets like TVNZ were being stripped down, ready for sale. In 1999 legislation had been passed that allowed both a tax cut and a cut in superannuation, and the date set was 2000. So when people hear “tax cuts”, they should be very, very careful. “Tax cut” may mean “superannuation cut”—or anything else.

Dr Richard Worth: Oh!

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Well, that is what has happened before, in 2000. In 2005 National is out there, promising tax cuts again—just like it has done before. It is really good to look at the cartoons of 1999 and see that National is saying the same old things.

But what would those tax cuts cost? If one brought the corporate rate down to 30c, and brought those on 39c and 33c in the dollar down to 30c, that would cost $1.725 billion a year. One would not do it for a year; one might do it for at least 10 years—and that would be $17 billion. OK, to do that would mean that one would have no spending, at all. But that is not what National Party members have said. We are struggling to get consistent policy out of them—in fact, we are struggling to get policy out of them, at all—but they have been saying things like: “Well, we will give $4.5 billion over the next 10 years in transport, $540 million for the Waikato expressway, $120 million for Northland roads, $110 million for a toll-free harbour link in Tauranga.”, and they want us to be like the Australians and have a strike air force. They want us to have law and order, which would require at least seven prisons—most of those, of course, would be privatised—and they have said that they have locked into the Superannuation Fund, but have they? I can remember some broken promises around that area before.

So when are the tax cuts coming? And here comes the other problem, because we have not had any consistency from John Key versus Dr “Baloney Pony” Brash. Dr Brash said that National would have a Budget before Christmas and there would be a prospect of good tax relief for all mainstream New Zealanders. John Key said: “It would be my hope that the mini-Budget would give a Christmas bonus to all working New Zealanders.” Then they changed their minds. John Key conceded that tax cuts would have to be rolled out over the longer term to avoid inflation, which probably means between 6 and 9 years. That is a very long time until Christmas. So are these tax cuts real and are they coming? We do not think so.

Therefore, it must be about borrowing again. I wonder whether anyone remembers little Olivia and the debts that she had to pay. She had to pay debts because we had Governments that borrowed and that went out there and said: “We will borrow! We will borrow for this, we will borrow for that, we will borrow for your tax cuts, and that’s OK, because we can do this!”. That is what they went on about. But Olivia had to see half her taxes go on interest payments for the borrowing that was done by those Governments. In contrast, we have had a Minister of Finance who has reduced our debt, and who has freed up taxes, not to be spent on interest but to be spent on health, education, and special education in particular.

Dr Richard Worth: Wasted!

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: You say that special education is a waste of money?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I must have that conversation with Mr Key again, Mr Assistant Speaker, because I am sure that you did not say that special education was a waste of money. But if one cannot have tax cuts and one promised expenditure, then one must borrow, and I never saw Don Brash, “Baloney Pony”, as Muldoon, the big spender, who would let inflation go. Of course, we could go back to borrow and hope—that is what it was in those days—but it does not make sense, because Dr Brash was the man in charge of the Reserve Bank. He promised a tax cut. Taxes would pay for interest; they would not pay for health and education. We would get a tax cut, have fewer services, and pay more in interest on our credit cards and our mortgages. It gets worse, because a theme is emerging: tax cuts, borrow for roads, borrow for private prisons—not State prisons; private prisons—cuts to the public service.

There I come to the wondrous quote I got from Dr Cullen today. Dr Cullen said: “Every billion cut to revenue would require a 2.1 percent cut to expenditure on 2006 numbers.” That is 497 fewer primary school teachers, 394 fewer secondary school teachers—wiping out all the workload gains and other concessions that we had gained for primary and secondary schools. There would be 154 fewer sworn police staff. Well, I wonder how the National candidate in Wellington Central will deal with that?

Today Dr Nick Smith accused the Government of wasting money on bureaucracy. I ask which bureaucracy and which public servants? I challenged the National candidate for Wellington Central to specify who will lose their jobs, and that candidate said: “The majority of public servants are doing a good job.” The problem is that he did not specify what the majority is. Is it a 51 percent majority? Are we going to have a 49 percent cut in the public service? Which public servants will it be? Judith Collins, when she was going on about health before, talked about Treaty of Waitangi cover, and about the things that were really important for people whom I regard as being really special, such as Irihāpeti Ramsden. She talked about making a Māori elder comfortable in a hospital by not having to share his or her pillowcases with other people who had been in the hospital before. That is very important in the health of that person—I do not regard it as being stupid or a waste of money. But even if we cut that out, that would not produce $1.75 billion. Will National reduce the health wages that have been put in there? Will those members go back to the rundown on radiotherapists? What will be closed down? Will they close down and review what happened in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? How many embassies will be closed? Will those members lock out the consular section?

We come back to the environment. When I inherited the Ministry for the Environment, it was a very small core ministry, but it spent tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants, and that is what we have saved money on. We have cut the consultants and put in public servants who are connected to local government, Fonterra, and the people in the Packaging Accord 2004, and who are out there solving problems and working with industry. This Government has formed those partnerships. Before, when it was contractors writing policy, yes, that was very doubtful. That is the kind of change that maybe those members want to go back to—short-term and expensive.

Would a National Government cut aid? Would it go back on what the people of New Zealand did when they dipped into their pockets for the tsunami aid? Would it cut that? Is that expenditure safe? I am scared for our commitment to overseas aid. I am scared for our commitment to clean water. One cannot give tax cuts and pay for roads, privatised prisons, and a strike air force; maintain our international commitments, such as NZAID and our peace contributions; continue our environmental clean-ups, like Māpua and the Tui mine; and continue our commitment to clean rivers.

If I listened to the Opposition, I might be afraid, but then I remember the New Zealand voters. I trust their common sense and their fairness. They want credible commitments in the Budget, they want fairness, they want money for things like special education, and they want social justice. They want a New Zealand to be proud of, and so do I.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : I am always a little distrustful of people who read from notes in a fully prepared way.

Hon Marian Hobbs: You can read them if you want.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: The honourable Minister has just offered me her notes to read. I will not take advantage of that, but I can see that they are very fully scripted. I think that on occasions it is really important to speak from the heart. National is running some very simple lines. They are lines that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, in whom I repose great confidence and trust, has offered, and they are very much lines that are part of National Party philosophy.

I would like to talk about some aspects of justice that this Government seems prepared to overlook. They are not tricky issues. They are issues that this Government, for some reason, has chosen to ignore utterly. Now this is not an opportunity to talk about National Party policy, and I will refrain from doing that. However, I will try for a moment to accentuate the differences between the sorts of positions that Marian Hobbs espouses and that so divide National and Labour. People ask: “Well, what’s the difference between the two parties?”. The difference is palpable. It may not be on the issues Minister Carter espouses; it is not. But on issues of law and order and justice, which I am tasked to talk about, the difference is huge. I look at what this Government has done in the context of law and order and justice, and, against a background of my experience on these issues, I pause to reflect on where these guys are going. The answer to that rhetorical question is that they are going absolutely nowhere—in fact, nowhere good. So I thought I would talk about these issues in the short time I have remaining, although it is my hope that the House will permit me extended time to talk on them in greater depth.

This is a Government that has spurned opportunity. One talks to people in the street, and they say that this Government has lost an opportunity. I think it has, and certainly the economy drifts down in a setting where it has been healthy and is now destined to be less so. But I would like to talk about a couple of issues on the law and order programme. It seems to me that one of the challenges that faces any party is to say: “This is where Labour is at.”—nowhere, I would say—and “This is where National is at.” I will talk about where National is at on law and order, and about the funding the Government has provided for justice.

There are some players who do not believe that justice is really important, and I understand that. I look at the Hon Michael Cullen, an economic historian. He has no interest in this stuff. It is not his stuff. He has been made Attorney-General by default. There are competent players whom the Government deliberately decided should not be chosen to fulfil that role. I look at the Minister for Courts, Rick Barker—a very prominent, tough trade unionist on the East Coast—and wonder what he knows about the court system. Members of Parliament and listeners know the answer: absolutely nothing. Then we have the third player, Minister Goff. After calling himself Phil Goff since he began in Parliament, he is now calling himself Philip Goff. I guess it is all part of an agenda advancement programme. However, it is great that he is calling himself Philip Goff His background is in political studies. There are crunchy issues in justice, and a whole lot of really simple propositions. [Interruption] I see Mr Jones, resplendent in his red and black tie, leaning back and looking for advancement in his party—and he is probably about to be granted it. But there are some very simple propositions in justice. One of the key things is access to justice. The Government espouses that—at least it pays it lip-service, but, in reality, no way.

So what will National do? Well, I will talk about just one thing—about a guy called Abe Wharewaka. Some members may have heard of him; others may never have heard of him.

Hon Chris Carter: I went to school with him.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: The young Minister across the way said that he went to school with him. I do not know whether he is trying to be part of the Wharewaka team; maybe he is. I do not know about the Wharewaka story in terms of what the Hon Chris Carter has to bring to that debate, but I say this: we know the facts. The facts are very simple. He was convicted on charges of possessing, manufacturing, and supplying methamphetamine. What was the penalty? It was 8 years. What did the judge say? The judge said: “Mm, OK—minimum sentence under the Sentencing Act of this Government: 3 years 4 months.” Is that reasonable? Do the guys across the Chamber from me, in the Labour Party, think that is reasonable? Would that not be a 20-year sentence? I shall leaven it with a bit of factual material. That particular person, in the period the charges ran over, had made $13 million in revenue. I think we need to reflect on those aspects of sentencing policy.

So what would National do? People ask: “What would you do? It’s all very well criticising others, but what would you do?”. We are absolutely determined—and we have costed this into our budget policies—that there will be no parole for those types of people.

Dianne Yates: No what?

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I am saying that there would be no parole. That would mean that someone who was sentenced to 8 years in jail would spend 8 years in jail, not 3 years 4 months. I am completely undeterred by those comments coming from Government members. I know that Government members do not understand the issues. I tell them that methamphetamine is a real curse, and that this Government needs to get very serious about dealing with the problem. That is the first thing we will do. We will deal with the issues relating to parole, to organised crime, and to the whole raft of issues that flow from that.

Another one of the justice issues relates to DNA testing. [Interruption] I think this is really interesting, because as one looks across the debating chamber one sees the interflow of intervention and interjection, and a young woman from Whanganui—or from wherever her electorate is; it is probably Whanganui—who knows nothing about anything. The only thing she can say to her credit is that she married into the Navy. That is pretty meritorious; I am not condemning her for marrying into the Navy.

National will deal with parole. We will deal with this stuff relating to organised crime. We will pick up the issues covered in the Western Australian Proceeds of Crimes Act, and we will go for it. We will run a very simple line, because I think members of the public know that the two things that burden a criminal are, first, being caught, and, second, being imprisoned. We will quietly deal with that, and very determinedly so.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) : I was very fascinated by the presentation from the member for Epsom, a member whom I have always had very convivial relationships with, but a member often described in this House as “Lord Worth”. I am not surprised that that member has been given that title, because his speeches do remind me, somewhat, of the speeches one might hear in the House of Lords—speeches by individuals who are totally out of touch with the reality of the lives of most people in New Zealand society, or in British society for that matter.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have refrained from gratuitous abuse. I am not aware that this particular member has any knowledge of what goes on in the House of Lords. I suggest he confine himself to the facts.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. It is a debatable issue.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: It is with a lot of pride that I speak about the Budget that was presented in the House. It is a Budget that addresses the issues of growth, addresses the issues of infrastructure, and addresses the issues of social justice.

I have just put around my electorate of Te Atatu a letter with a summary of what has happened in the Budget. It has gone out to 21,000 households. I had a lot of pleasure in helping to deliver them in the weekend. I shall read a summary of the letter, because it encapsulates what the Budget has been about and it addresses some of the criticisms of the Budget we have heard both in the House and during the last few days about the Budget.

It begins: “To the residents of Te Atatu electorate. Dear resident, The National and ACT parties talk a lot about tax cuts. Labour has wisely put more money into core community services, such as health and education, rather than spending the Budget surpluses on tax cuts. Across the Tasman the last Australian Budget delivered a vast $23 billion of tax cuts, which resulted in most Australians getting no more than a mere $6 per week. To achieve that, the Australian Government had to slash spending, including major cuts in public health spending. Tax cuts are like borrowing on your credit card to give yourself a pay rise. Dr Brash talks about $2 billion of tax cuts. For most workers in Te Atatu and the rest of New Zealand this would mean a handful of dollars more a week in their pay packets in return for a likely combination of huge cuts in health, education, and superannuation spending, and a return to the Government borrowing heavily from overseas—a little bit like President Bush has been doing in the United States: funding a war by borrowing from future generations. It is our children who would have to pay off any debt that was so incurred.

“In contrast, the Labour-led Government has delivered a carefully balanced Budget, which invests more in public services. Over the next 4 years Labour will invest an extra $4.9 billion more in health, $297 million more in tertiary education, $57 million more directly on students, $169 million more on schools, plus $30 million more in IT for schools, $152 million more in early childhood education, and $47 million more for at-risk kids, $173 million more in the police, and $410 million more in defence, $131 million more in State house construction, $300 million more in land transport.

“As your member of Parliament, I am proud to be part of a Government that continues to increase funding for core Government services, that has created a strong economy. If you would like to find out more information about this year’s Budget, check it out on the Government website www.beehive.govt.nz or call into my electorate office at 300 Great North Road, Henderson, and find out some more in person.”

That letter has gone out to the constituents of Te Atatu, but what it does is encapsulate why this was a great Budget, why it was a Budget that delivered for New Zealand. As part of the Government, I have the privilege of being conservation Minister, and in this Budget $24.6 million more was delivered for core conservation work around New Zealand. That money helps to do work—from saving the endangered kākāpō, to delivering more for recreational assets and ecotourism opportunities that bring $2.45 million tourists to our country. This additional funding is a measure of the Government’s commitment to the New Zealand environment, our endangered species, and the recreational opportunities of Kiwi families.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suddenly become concerned that a valuable document has been referred to in the House that could appropriately be tabled, and that is the letter that the honourable Minister has read from. I just wonder, before he goes further, whether he might be prepared to table that letter with all the stuff that is in it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a speech are out of order. The member knows that. Such tactics actually lead to disorder and are unacceptable to the progress of business through the House. The member should consider Speaker’s ruling 19/8.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In addition to that $24.6 million for core conservation work around New Zealand, this extra spending, $2 million was given for conservation work on the seven Hauraki Gulf islands adjacent to Auckland. That is a fantastic and exciting project, where Motutapu and Rangitoto will be made pest-free. They will become not only an incredible venue for biodiversity protection but will be an amazing tourist attraction, and only 15 minutes’ drive by boat from downtown Auckland. That is $2 million for Project Hauraki. We call it “Project Doorstep”, because it is on the doorstep of Auckland.

We have another half million dollars in the Budget for the eradication of pests from the Auckland Islands. That will be a ground-breaking project, which will attract international interest. Those incredibly important subantarctic islands, which are unique in their biodiversity, will for the first time be made pest-free, will become the breeding ground for vast flocks of albatross, and will be a resource and a heritage for all mankind. Time magazine has already expressed an interest in covering this project. It will be great for New Zealand, great for the Department of Conservation, and great for biodiversity gains in our country.

In addition to the half million dollars that is going to the Auckland Islands, another $1.5 million goes into telling the story of New Zealand. So five historic sites—Ship Cove, for example, in Fiordland—will be given interpretation and opportunities for visitor usage, which will be able to tell the story of the history of New Zealand. Finally, as part of this wonderful conservation package in the Budget, a new visitor centre will be built at Mount Cook.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just a bit worried that listeners may have been misled, because Ship Cove is not in Fiordland; it is in Marlborough Sounds.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer Mr Worth to Speaker’s ruling 19/8, by Mr Speaker Steward in 1891, and tell him he has his first yellow card.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I thank the member for his geography lesson. Going back to the list of achievements for conservation, a new visitor centre is being built at Mount Cook.

That in a nutshell is the conservation package. It is fantastic, and I am proud to deliver it as Minister of Conservation.

I turn to local government, which is another of my portfolios. The Budget delivers two incredibly important packages. We have put aside $136 million over the next 10 years for a subsidy of up to 100 percent for small rural communities to improve their drinking water. It matches the sewerage subsidy of a similar amount coming through in last year’s Budget, and also a new rates rebate funding package of $70 million, which should allow 300,000 New Zealand households to apply for a rates rebate, which will be incredibly important for people on fixed incomes. I am really proud to deliver that.

Building and housing is my third portfolio, and the Budget delivers $22.6 million into that service—

Dr Richard Worth: Leaky homes.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: —which will provide surety for New Zealanders. I heard the member for Epsom call out “leaky homes”. I do not need to remind the House that it was a National Government that deregulated the building industry that created leaky homes—something that the Hon Dr Nick Smith seems often to forget in this Chamber.

I realise that my time is almost up, but finally, in my fourth portfolio of ethnic affairs, the Budget provides $4 million more to create job positions on the ground for people who will be working with ethnic communities, helping them settle successfully into New Zealand, demonstrating that this Labour-led Government is committed to supporting all New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnic, religious, or social background, and this $4 million for ethnic affairs will help to strengthen that department established under this Government to work for all Kiwis to settle successfully in this country.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : The Budget: dead on arrival. Dr Cullen: the nation’s newest undertaker. Dr Cullen’s funeral service: the Labour Government. It is no wonder John Tamihere has joined a radio show. He knows what the future is. It is not in this Parliament, so he is out there getting a new job.

I wonder about some other members in this House. What about, for instance, David Parker, a well-known lawyer in the south? I tell him that he should hang up his shingle, because practising law is precisely what he will need to do. What about Dianne Yates, who is in the House this evening? I understand that she was a teacher, and that in fact she visited President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Maybe she will have the opportunity to go back and work for him. I heard Martin Gallagher speak in the House earlier. He is also a teacher. Maybe he will have the opportunity to go back to teaching. And what about Jill Pettis, the chief Government whip? I think we can kindly say that she is heading for a job in interior decorating, and that we know precisely why that would be. Marian Hobbs is also in this House. She was a distinguished principal and, frankly, that is her future. Even the member for Northcote, the neighbouring electorate to mine—Ann Hartley, the member’s colleague who is in the Chair—had a distinguished role in local government and was Mayor of North Shore. I say to her that she should join her colleague Jenny Kirk and get back to that job, because it is the only one she will have. Jonathan Coleman, a fine, very talented young man, will be knocking on doors in Northcote, sweeping in the votes, and rolling out Ann Hartley.

One knows when the Government is in trouble, because Dr Cullen stands, rants, and shouts. When he is in control, he uses an even, a restrained, and a calm voice. That is Dr Cullen—the man who is in control. When it is all drifting, he begins to shout, and he rants and raves. That is what we heard in question time today. We know Dr Cullen is a man under pressure, and, frankly, he should be, because by his very own actions he has buried this Government. Let us be honest: the Labour Government actually had a chance to make it very difficult for National. It had a chance to reach out to middle New Zealand. Instead, what has it done? In 3 years’ time people will be able to buy two-thirds of a packet of chewing gum—that is it. As the newspapers stated, that was not a tax cut; it was an insult. It was derisory. The irony is that Dr Cullen had real choices, and the choice he made was to spend more money.

I want to analyse that particular aspect of the Budget. Dr Cullen says that National has no opportunity to give a decent tax cut to hard-working middle New Zealand families, because he says he has spent all the money. Actually, that is somewhat true. Government spending today is $45 billion. In 3 years’ time it will be $54 billion—an increase of $9 billion. That is an increase of 6.5 percent each and every year. What is the projected rate of economic growth—2 percent, 2.5 percent? What is the projected rate of population growth? It is 1 percent. So the Government is spending more and more of the nation’s money, squeezing out the dollars, and denying the possibility of any tax cut. That is the choice Labour has made, and I predict that the people’s verdict will be: “Thanks, but no thanks.”

There was another option. Let us say, for instance, that Government expenditure had gone up by 4 percent per annum—still substantial, and covering population growth and economic growth. What would the difference be in 3 years’ time? The difference would be a $6 billion increase in expenditure. This Government has a $9 billion increase. The choice that confronts New Zealanders is between either reasonable expenditure on essential services or reckless out-of-control expenditure by this Government. That is their choice. This Government cannot possibly pretend that all its expenditure is thoughtful and wise. I refer, for instance to the $250 million spent on the wānanga. What Government member will defend that sort of expenditure? Will I see even one Government member stand up and say that that was wonderful, thoughtful, good expenditure on behalf of New Zealanders? I am listening, but not a single Government member is responding. Government members know that that is not true. They know it is false, yet they will spend more and more money on that kind of wasteful expenditure. The Government has not even increased the number of operations—that is the scandal of it. Dr Paul Hutchison has proved in this Parliament, and outside it, that no improvement has been made to our health services.

I turn to issues around the Department of Labour. I have here the Estimates document. In it, I guess, are the proud things—the things Labour members want to boast about. What do they say about productivity? They are all for productivity. The Government is all for productivity. It has increased it—actually, it is New Zealanders who have increased it—by 1.4 percent per annum. That is what the document states. What is the case in Australia? Productivity is increasing by 2.5 percent per annum. What is the rate of productivity increase in the United States? It is 2.7 percent per annum. That is how one gets real growth in the economy. The Government’s approach is to increase its share of the economy. What happens? Private investment is squeezed out, and productivity and the growth of incomes are crushed.

I want to turn the House’s attention to the fact that business was looking for something from this Government. What did it get? It got a depreciation allowance on computers. That is what it got. One might say that that is useful enough—

Simon Power: Not really.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Not really. What did business want? It wanted 30 percent corporate taxes. I listened to Morning Report 2 days before the Budget. On the programme were two leading accountants from the major firms in the country, who were asked what they were looking for in the Budget. They said they did not want a complicated set of allowances, depreciation provisions, or compliance costs. They wanted something simple: a 30 percent tax rate for business. Did they get it? The answer is no.

Hon Damien O'Connor: So?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: We have just heard from the Hon Damien O’Connor. He is trying to defend the Government’s wasteful expenditure. He is trying to say that business does not know what it is talking about. He is trying to say that businesses should be thankful for a depreciation allowance on their computers, that they should ignore their request for a 30 percent tax rate, that they should ignore even Jim Anderton who talked about it, and that they should ignore Dr Cullen, the undertaker, who said some time ago—overseas, I note—that a 30 percent tax rate for business was possible.

I say, as has already been said by other members on the Opposition side of the House, that this Budget is Dr Cullen’s last Budget. This Budget is the undertaking service for the Labour Government, because in 3 months’ time, or less, New Zealanders will have a real choice. They will have the choice to give themselves a real break to boost their own incomes and preserve public services—crucial public services—and that choice will be a National-led Government, for the benefit of our country. That is the clear choice, and that is why members on the Government side of the House know that Dr Cullen has written their funeral service.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : I see the member for Epsom quite regularly at a number of Indian community meetings in Auckland. He often invites himself. He actually rings around and finds out where the meetings are happening, and writes letters to my good friends—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take great exception to what the member has said. Any Indian event that I have attended, I have always been invited to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

Dr Richard Worth: I seek leave, then, to make a personal explanation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be taken. Is there any objection? There is none.

Dr Richard Worth: I would just like to say to Ashraf Choudhary that I think it is singularly unfortunate that he has chosen to start his speech with those comments.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): A personal explanation must rebut what was said.

Dr Richard Worth: It is absolutely wrong that I have canvassed, on any occasion, an opportunity to speak to the Indian community, and I am shocked and dismayed that those comments have been made.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Despite what the member has said, I actually like the member. I personally enjoy his company when he attends with me meetings with some of the community. What I would like to say is that although he has attended many meetings, I wonder whether he has learnt anything from the community whose functions he attends. If he knows anything about that community, there are two things I hope he has learnt. One thing is about savings. Something that is well known about the Asian community, and particularly the Indian community, is that they save. I am often told that if these people earn $2, they will try to save $1. I came to New Zealand 28 years ago, and bought my first home, after years of work, because of a scheme from the Housing Corporation that gave a grant to encourage people to buy homes. I hope my worthy friend over there has learnt that our community loves saving. The KiwiSaver scheme in this Budget is about something that is part of our nature. It is part of the Kiwi nature for people to save for a rainy day. I am delighted that this Government has started the KiwiSaver scheme, which will encourage people to save for their first home. Not only that, but, of course, they will be saving for—

Ron Mark: When does it start? It doesn’t start for 3 years!

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: It does not matter when they start; the issue is that there is a scheme for people to put some money aside to buy their first home. I am delighted with that scheme. It does take some time for people to save money, but once they start saving, and with a Government contribution after 3 years, the time will come when there is enough money for them to buy their first home. So I am delighted with the scheme.

The second thing I hope my good friend over there has learnt from the Indians is about self-dependence. Indian people have always tried to depend on their own resources rather than to borrow money and live on someone else’s money. This country has lived on somebody else’s money—whether it has come from Asia, or America, or Europe—for too long. We have to have a sustainable economy, and part of having a sustainable economy is being self-dependent. I am delighted with our policies in the Budget that Dr Cullen has presented—as opposed to what is being promoted from members opposite, who want to borrow money to pay for tax cuts. I believe that self-dependence is very important for all people in this country, to make sure we do not live on money borrowed from somebody else to pay for tax cuts.

I hope my good friend opposite has learnt some of those traits from the people he goes to meet and mingle with. I am delighted that he thinks he has often been invited to those meetings, rather than his trying to get invitations for himself.

I want to touch on a number of areas. Although the worthy member opposite goes to meetings with ethnic communities, I was really surprised—in fact, shocked—to see on the National Party’s list that Pansy Wong has been demoted from No. 10 to No. 20. That was shocking. What will my good friend Dr Richard Worth tell the Chinese and Indian communities that National has done for those ethnic communities in terms of its list rankings? It will be really shocking for him the next time he goes out to meet those people.

I have a couple of other things to say about this Budget, particularly in relation to the environment. My good friend Marian Hobbs has mentioned sustainability and the environment. Our national identity is tied up with our love of the land. Our love of the land is part of what makes us proud Kiwis. Labour believes in protecting the environment. It is important to act now, with good regulations to look after the environment, so that all New Zealanders can continue to enjoy it. Labour believes in cleaning up the environment. We live with a legacy of polluted air, land, and water that need restoring to their clean, safe state. Labour believes that a clean and healthy environment sits alongside economic growth and social opportunity as the keys to an improved quality of life for all New Zealanders. We call this sustainable development.

Labour’s approach is based on partnership, underpinned by central government leadership. We want to work with local government, businesses, iwi, and other communities. This Budget has allocated $12.4 million over the next 4 years for initiatives that promote sustainable business practices. The funding reinforces the success and progress of the ministry’s new way of working with industry and organisations. Underpinning this new way of working is the Government’s emphasis on quality economic growth through sustainable development. Since early 2003 the ministry has focused on partnership with industry players to support them in becoming more sustainable, with the overall outlook of better economic and environmental outcomes. The funding allows core programmes set up over the last 2 years to grow, and new initiatives to be actioned. Most of the core programmes are the result of industry action, and are based on voluntary contributions. Those programmes are about finding practical solutions, rather than unnecessarily imposing regulations and legislation.

I want to say a couple of words about the Sustainable Farming Fund under this Budget. The Sustainable Farming Fund has a secure future. The Budget shows that the fund has moved from being a vulnerable add-on to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to being a core output. The fund has been baselined, which means that it should have a much more secure future, where its funding is assured, rather than funding being allocated specifically every few years. In this year’s Budget the fund is set to receive $8.44 million in the 2006-07 and the 2007-08 financial years, and $9.422 million in the 2008-09 financial year. The Sustainable Farming Fund has proved its worth to rural New Zealand. More than 300 projects have been funded, with the goal of ensuring the social, economic, and environmental viability of rural communities.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I intend to speak on trade matters for New Zealand First, but perhaps in passing I can touch on Dr Ashraf Choudhary’s comments on the Indian community, and his unfortunate remarks, I thought, with regard to Dr Worth, who is in good spirits tonight. We all enjoy the camaraderie of our members from time to time.

It is true that people who come here from South Asia work hard and save money. But they take advantage of the New Zealand way of life. What happens in India? One cannot borrow money in India, but if one does want to borrow money in India, the daily rate is 56 percent, and if one does not pay it back, a Pathan debt collector collects it from one. Mr Choudhary agrees with me. It is a totally different way of life in India, and I do not think we can compare what happens in India with what happens here. They are two different things. I just make that point.

Mr Choudhary, all Indians, and everyone who immigrates to New Zealand have a wonderful opportunity in New Zealand, and everyone shares in that opportunity—New Zealanders and others. Indians are no different from Chinese, UK people, and whatever, all of whom were entitled in those days to State Advances Corporation loans—subsequently called Housing Corporation loans—at 3 percent for 25 years. I myself never got one of those loans, because I worked a bit too hard, but they were available to all New Zealanders. That is the New Zealand way of life, everyone has the advantage of it, and it was unfortunate that Mr Choudhary adopted the line he did.

However, moving on to other issues, and looking at New Zealand’s trading way of life and what is happening at the present time, especially as far as the Budget is concerned, I must say that one of the most disappointing features of the Budget was Dr Cullen’s admission that New Zealand’s trade situation would be in difficulties in the coming years ahead, and especially in the short term. We would have thought that a Budget that had such a prediction in it would try to do something about that. What did this Budget have in it for exporters? The Opposition is silent now. The Government is silent now. This Budget had nothing in it for exporters. There were no policies to encourage exporters to get some sort of tax advantage or export credit as a result of breaking into new areas and doing the hard yards, which is so important in that area.

I spoke to a manufacturers association last year, and we discussed how many of today’s companies that are doing so well got their start way back in the 1970s and the 1980s by getting export incentive grants to encourage them to go overseas to develop new markets, and to grow New Zealand’s produce, development, and exports from there. That does not happen now. It should be happening now, and New Zealand First intends to make sure it can happen in the future. A feature of New Zealand First’s policy is to aid exporters and to encourage trade. Without trade we do not survive. Trade is our lifeblood, and New Zealand First’s economic policy prescription is based on a partnership with people in promoting sustainable, export-led economic growth that will lead to job creation and enable the savings that will facilitate our social progress.

Of course, those are fine words, but what do they actually mean? New Zealand First will implement a tax abatement scheme that will reduce the tax rate on new export net profit to 20 percent, to ensure that exporting opportunities and innovation are not lost. I shall repeat that: our tax rate on new export net profit for companies and businessmen will be 20 percent—not 30 percent, not 33 percent, or whatever. We want to make sure that we continue to have new markets and new development in the export area, to ensure that New Zealanders have a future. This Budget has nothing in it for exporters—nothing at all. This Government has survived on the back of exporters who have spent their money and tried desperately to improve their companies’ situation in very difficult times, and all they have got is a high New Zealand dollar and low overseas currencies. That is not helping their businesses terribly much.

What happens? They come back to New Zealand, the wage rates are not good enough, and the staff they have trained go off to Australia. Again, that is a disadvantage to our exporters. We have to make sure that our exporters are earning enough, and get enough in the way of tax breaks, so that they can pass something on to their employees, who will stay in New Zealand.

Of course, one of the areas that is causing great concern at the moment in the community is the export to Australia of pipfruit—apples and pears. New Zealand First, in its policy, is making it clear that we will review all current and future bilateral free-trade agreements, including the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia. We are saying that in reviewing the Closer Economic Relations agreement we will give priority to gaining access for New Zealand apples to the Australian market, and, if necessary, advancing that by referring the matter to the World Trade Organization.

There was a time in this House when Labour at least stopped to listen to apple growers or pipfruit growers in Nelson or Hawke’s Bay, and took notice of what they had to say. I remember that, because when I was in the House from 1975 to 1984 one of the biggest problems in trying to change the practice of selling apples in 2-kilogram bags to selling an apple a time was that it was opposed by the Nelson and Hawke’s Bay growers and even the Central Otago growers. They somehow saw a disadvantage to them if a customer could buy apples singly, rather than in 2-kilogram bags. That law persisted for a long time because the Nelson, Hawke’s Bay, and Central Otago growers wanted it that way. Well, that law finally went, but it survived for as long as it did only because Labour listened to those growers—and, to some extent, the National Party at the time, although when I was in the House I was opposed to that, and Jo Gurbac and others in the Kumeu-Henderson area will know of my opposition to that attitude.

However, things have moved on, and I note that, with regard to growers in the Nelson area, their picking is a little bit late, and they want the opportunity to sell their applies in Australia. The member for Hastings, the member over there for the Central Otago area, and Damien O’Connor, who puts up his hand, too, should all be doing something to make sure that we can sell our apples in Australia.

Hon Damien O'Connor: We are.

DAIL JONES: Mr O’Connor should have been listening to the Minister for Trade Negotiations today. In 6 years this Labour Party Government has done absolutely nothing at all. The rules were changed; in 2003 a decision was made in so far as the access of American apples to Japan was concerned—the same situation as New Zealand’s situation with Australia. What has Labour done? Nothing. Time and time again we ask the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Jim Sutton, what he is doing, and he says he is doing something, but all he ever does is talk and talk. He has done that all the way through, and that is symptomatic of so many things in the Labour Government. Whether it is the Minister of Police, the Minister of Education, or the Minister of Immigration, they are all just dithering.

In my view, as someone who is a trade spokesman and who is taking close notice of what Mr Sutton is not doing, Mr Sutton is one of the biggest ditherers of the lot. He has had a good 6 years in which to resolve this issue, but he is more willing to listen to the Tasmanian apple grower than to the Nelson, Central Otago, or Hawke’s Bay apple grower. He cares more for the people of Tasmania than he does for the people out in the provinces of New Zealand. That is the way this Labour Government seems to work today. It does not give two hoots any more about the people in the provinces. If it did, it would simply have stated to the Australians at a meeting, probably 3 years ago, that unless our apples got access to Australia, the issue would go to the World Trade Organization now. It is as simple as that. That is what New Zealand First is going to do. The issue would go to the World Trade Organization now—no ifs, no buts, no maybes.

We get fruit, crops, and other products from Australia that are riddled with pests. Pears, tomatoes, strawberries, grapes, oranges, and rock melons have all had pest interceptions in New Zealand since 2000. Let us consider rock melon. There have been 2,037 pest interceptions on rock melon imports from Australia. We should be saying to the Australians that if they want to get smart and use some sort of biosecurity means to not allow our apples into Australia, then, quite simply, we will do the same to them. It might be tit for tat and it might be schoolboy nonsense, but if the Australians recognise only schoolboy nonsense, then that is the game we have to play. We have to go back into their courtyard. If they want to bowl underarm, we have to bowl underarm, as well. This Labour Government’s attitude towards this issue is a total failure. New Zealand First will fix it.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) : Labour will not fund tax cuts from borrowings. Since this Budget has been delivered, we have already seen United Future’s tax policy. United Future promises tax cuts that are probably more modest than the bribe the National Party will offer, yet already it acknowledges that to fund its proposed tax cuts it will have to sell up to 40 percent of State-owned enterprises. In other words, United Future cannot fund the tax cuts it proposes other than by borrowing, cutting services, or selling State-owned enterprises.

Labour will not fund tax cuts from borrowing, unlike National under Mr Muldoon, which just about bankrupted this country. That Government had New Zealand at its knees, having borrowed to fund the affairs of this country. It left the economy in tatters. New Zealand’s Government debt equalled 70 percent of GDP and $1 in every $5 of tax collected was spent on interest. When this Government took over, debt had gone down to 35 percent of GDP. We have reduced it further, to 23 percent of GDP. We cannot reduce Government debt if we are not running a surplus—that is basic economics. If we fund tax cuts from borrowings, debt will go up.

The other underlying premise in this tax debate at the moment is some suggestion that New Zealand is overtaxed. New Zealand’s rate of taxation as a percentage of GDP went down between 2002 and 2003—the last date for which there are comparable figures with the rest of the OECD. The tax rate did not increase—it went down.

Where do we sit in relation to other OECD countries when we consider taxation?

Hon David Carter: Compare us with Australia!

DAVID PARKER: I tell Mr Carter to listen—he will probably learn something. New Zealand’s taxation rate in the year ended 2003 was 34.8 percent of GDP.

Hon David Carter: Too high!

DAVID PARKER: They were high, were they? What was Canada’s rate? Canada is a wealthier country than New Zealand. Their rate was 33.9 percent. That is pretty much the same as us.

Hon David Carter: What about Australia?

DAVID PARKER: I will come to Australia, if Mr Carter will just hold his horses. Austria’s rate of taxation was 43 percent of GDP, compared with our 34.8 percent—let us call ours a round 35 percent. Belgium’s rate was 45 percent—it is another wealthier country—Denmark 49 percent, France 44 percent, and Germany 36 percent. Canada’s rate, as I have already said, was 34 percent. The taxation rates of Norway and the other Scandinavian countries were between 43 and 50 percent, and the United Kingdom was at 35 percent.

Hon David Carter: What about the United States?

DAVID PARKER: The United States rate is quite significantly different. Australia was not significantly different. Its rate was 31.5 percent, compared with our 34 percent. The big difference is the United States.

Hon David Carter: That’s a big difference.

DAVID PARKER: I agree. The United States’ rate was only 25 percent of GDP, but it has no universal public health-care. The level of public provision of health care for most people is low. There is no superannuation such as we have. The United States’ situation is completely incomparable to that of New Zealand. If we look at the OECD group of wealthy countries, we see that New Zealand’s rate of taxation is in the lower part of the range for OECD countries. It is not in the higher part. When Bill Clinton was famously asked by journalists what the most important issue facing the USA was, he did not say that it was taxation. He said to those journalists what was obvious. He said: “It’s the economy, stupid.” It is not taxation; it is the economy. The same is true in New Zealand.

In recent years New Zealand has had one of the highest growth rates in the OECD—higher than that of Australia. Our unemployment rate is the second-lowest in the developed world. It is not the tenth-lowest, and it is not the third-lowest—though that would be impressive enough. It is the second-lowest in the developed world. We in Labour are immensely proud of that. “It’s the economy, stupid.” It is not about taxation rates. We are within the band of reasonable taxation rates around the world. Taxation cuts cannot be afforded unless we increase borrowings, decrease savings, or flog off State-owned enterprises, as United Future is proposing to do.

The unemployment rate is good in New Zealand, but the drop in Māori unemployment has been even more impressive. In 1999 unemployment stood at 15 percent for Māori overall and 32 percent for young Māori. Under National, an appalling 32 percent of young Māori were unemployed. Overall, under Labour that has dropped to 8.7 percent. That must bode well not just for Māori but for the social cohesion and prosperity of the nation as a whole. There are 250,000 more people in jobs than when Labour took office, and the vast majority of those are in full-time jobs.

We can say “250,000 extra jobs” quickly, but let us reflect on that. That figure is more than the combined populations of Cromwell, Alexandra, Dunedin, Queenstown, Oamaru, Balclutha, Gore, and Invercargill. In fact, it equates to about the same number of people as the total population—not just people of working age, but including children and superannuitants—of the lower half of the South Island. As many extra jobs in this country have been created under this Labour-led Government as there are people south of the Waitaki River. “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The number of people on domestic purposes benefits and unemployment benefits is down. There has been a moderate increase in sickness and invalids beneficiaries. The largest cause of that is our ageing population. People get more illnesses as they age, but we have introduced programmes to do what we can to get people who are able to work, back to work. Overall, including sickness and invalids beneficiaries, 100,000 fewer people are on benefits than when Labour took office. What has happened to the wages and salaries earned by New Zealanders in the same period? Well, they have increased from $45 billion in 1999 to $59 billion in 2004. We often hear meaningless statistics quoted by the National Party that show that the average wage has not grown as much. That is true. But when we take the people who are least employable—because they are the last people to get jobs—and put them into employment, they generally move into low-paid jobs, not high-paid jobs. So the more meaningful statistic is not the average wage, but the total wages and salaries paid to New Zealanders. That amount has increased by a phenomenal 32 percent from 1999 to 2004. In just 5 years the wages and salaries earned by New Zealanders have increased by 32 percent.

Now I will look at what we have done in terms of taxation. It is important to record why our focus on tax and income relief has been for low to middle income earners and their children. Put simply, after restoring the baseline for superannuation, health, and education services our view was that need was greatest amongst low to middle income families with dependent children. They were the ones on whom we wanted to focus our tax relief. Why? We know that raising children is the most important job any parent undertakes. How well we do this determines not just the prosperity of our own family, but also the collective prosperity of our nation. That is why this Government has directed a substantial proportion of its spending through tax cuts and subsidies to families with dependent children.

It is not true to say that this Government has not introduced tax cuts. It is true that we have directed those tax cuts to families with dependent children. We have done that because they are the ones who suffered in the 1990s when the gap between rich and poor households increased hugely. Between 1988 and 1998 the gap between the rich and the poor increased hugely. The gains from New Zealand’s increased economic output fell into the pockets of the top 20 percent of families. Indeed, it was really the top 10 percent of families that benefited most. The bottom 20 to 30 percent went backwards, the middle 50 percent of families stayed static, and the top 10 percent charged ahead. That is why our tax relief is for low to middle income families, not disproportionately for richer people.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I start my contribution by wishing David Parker all the best for his job search when he departs from this place in the next couple of weeks, because while he spent 10 minutes reading notes from the Labour research unit, Jacqui Dean was out door-knocking and has probably been to another four households in Oamaru. She will be the next member of Parliament for Otago and the people there will finally get the representation that they deserve.

I acknowledge the motion of no confidence expressed by the leader of the National Party, Don Brash, in Dr Cullen’s “blank” Budget. In supporting the no-confidence motion of Don Brash, I note that 32,000 New Zealanders also support the same motion of no confidence in this Labour Government, because that is the number of New Zealanders who left New Zealand last year and who ticked the box on the immigration form to say that they were off to live in Australia permanently. That is the equivalent of half of David Parker’s current electorate leaving for Australia in 1 year alone because they have no confidence at all in the future of this country under Labour, Helen Clark, and Michael Cullen. But help is on the way in the not too distant future because those people who have voted with their feet still have a chance to vote at the ballot box. Those people did not leave New Zealand because they wanted to leave; they care deeply for this country. When they see that a Government is prepared to concentrate on real wealth creation, they may be inspired to come back.

There is a common misconception that the 32,000 New Zealanders who have left are young, motivated, competent, and qualified New Zealanders. I recently had the occasion to meet a person who was from the electorate of Otago. That person, who was about 46 years of age, was a truck driver who had returned from Melbourne quite recently and is currently driving trucks and trailers up and down the main route of the South Island. He receives a gross wage of $13.50 an hour. Before he left Melbourne, where he was doing exactly the same work, he was receiving a gross wage of $22.50 an hour. That was before Peter Costello delivered a Budget with significant tax cuts and before Dr Cullen delivered his “blank” Budget about 10 days ago. That person is leaving New Zealand again, and this time he will leave permanently, because his prospects in Australia are substantially better than they are here.

The Labour Government has done nothing at all to address those concerns. Dr Cullen has now delivered six Budgets in this House, and the best he was able to do in his sixth attempt was to offer that truck driver 67c a week, provided he hung around for 3 years. The audacity and arrogance of that move has not been lost on the people of New Zealand.

Two other initiatives that Dr Cullen mentioned in his Budget were a savings initiative of $1,000 per saver and a home ownership initiative of $5,000 for new homeowners, provided the recipients hang around for the next 5 years. But in both cases no details were given of those schemes, at all. Dr Cullen is incompetent. He came into this House after 6 years as Minister of Finance, floated two schemes, and then said that the details would be worked on in the future. He has failed New Zealand yet again.

I managed to catch the news at 6 o’clock tonight. The first item on Television One was exactly what we can expect from State television—another photo shoot of Helen Clark out of New Zealand. She is touring the world and meeting with world leaders. Flicking to TV3, I saw that the first item should have been of interest to New Zealanders. It was Dr Cullen losing his rag again and falsely accusing TV3 of unfairly implicating David Benson-Pope in a bullying scandal. Dr Cullen was losing his rag yet again—he is the very Minister who should be receiving anger management counselling by the day. I acknowledge that he is under a lot of pressure. I accept that. Only a couple of hours after making those statements, he came out with another arrogant and half-hearted apology to TV3. He said he had got it wrong. He should be apologising to every New Zealander for the arrogance and insincerity he has displayed by coming into this House to promote tax cuts, which his own party president had said were the “deep, dark secret” of the Budget. They were subsequently revealed to amount to 67c a week, providing taxpayers waited around for the next 3 years.

I thought it was very interesting that Mike Williams, the party president, was the person who led the charge on the tax cuts. Yet, after the issue had been floated in the media, Dr Cullen did nothing to lower the public’s expectations. He thought that 67c in 3 years’ time would be received generously. That is how out of touch this man is. He thought that 67c would be received enthusiastically by the voters of New Zealand. I have news for Dr Cullen—New Zealanders know that it was an outrage.

I was particularly interested in Dr Cullen’s response to Mike Williams after the presentation of the Budget. He said: “Mike was speaking, not the Labour Party.” Is Mike Williams not the president of the Labour Party? Is that not the same Mike Williams who is a board member of Transit New Zealand, and who picks up the phone, rings potential donors and those involved in the roading infrastructure, and says: “By the way, I am at a Transit meeting”—considering where the contracts might go—“and I just thought I would take the opportunity of speaking to you about a donation to the Labour Party.”? That man is the president of the Labour Party. When he seeks money, he speaks for the Labour Party. When he mentioned tax cuts, he had inside information.

I will close by speaking about Mr Sutton, who will not debate the public access walking policy—nor will any other Minister in the Labour Government. Yet it has put a further $2 million a year in the Budget document to develop walking access policy. I challenge Mr Sutton to table the legislation that has been sitting in his in tray over the last 2 years, and to let Federated Farmers and other interested people in New Zealand debate the real issue. Even Mr Sutton’s ally Bryce Johnson, of Fish and Game New Zealand, refuses to debate the issue. He used to be the greatest proponent of public access. He has been told to shut up as the Government tries to downplay this issue. Yet it has stuck it in the Budget.

The message is clear to all New Zealanders, particularly landowners: if we are unfortunate enough to end up with a Labour Government after the next election, land associated with water will be confiscated. That is what will happen. Public access will be taken from people. The right of farmers of this country to keep their land for their own production will be taken from them by a future Labour Government. But I will not allow that to happen.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I want to contribute to this debate by supporting my previous colleague’s comments surrounding tax cuts. We do not support tax cuts. They are a thing of the past. They are the National Party’s policy mindset of the past.

Māori are better off under this Budget, and, overall, better off under this Government. This Government is committed to supporting whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori communities. It delivers help so that whānau get ahead with added security for the future by building on the progress introduced to public health and education services, with extra support for businesses, and for families with children. The recent Hui Taumata made it clear that the path to development is through education, employment, and enterprise, so that it is Māori enterprise. Māori are reversing the narrow-minded cul-de-sac of dependency and are therefore meeting the challenge that enterprise offers. The Government is very conscious of this and welcomes those initiatives as the Budget allows supportive measures that reinforce Māori enterprise.

Many Māori in business will benefit from the business package of the Budget of 2005. This package makes changes to tax and depreciation laws in order to encourage savings, ensures a more productive use of capital, improves access to overseas capital and skills, and reduces compliance costs.

More New Zealanders are in work, and more are back at work than ever before. In fact, unemployment is at just 3.6 percent—the lowest recorded in two decades. With Māori unemployment dropping from 18.9 percent in March 1999 to just 8.7 percent, this is the first time in over 20 years that the Māori unemployment rate has been down to single digits. I bet that National wishes that that was a deep, dark secret!

But let us not take things for granted. That did not happen on its own. It did not just fall out of the sky. It certainly was not caused by the National Party. No, let us give credit where credit is due. It happened through careful, considerate policy planning by Labour. We accept the value and the importance of providing a real platform of change, of being inclusive, and of inviting people into processes that deliver.

One of the major programmes that continues to be funded in this year’s Budget is the Working for Families package. A family with four children and on a single income of $55,000 a year will be better off under the package by nearly $150 a week, once it is fully implemented by 2007. By contrast, that family would gain just $39 a week from a reduction in income tax to a 20 percent flat rate. The fiscal cost of a flat tax at that rate would be around $5.5 billion. How would the National Party fund that? That means every cent knocked off the top personal tax rate of 39c in the dollar would cost $115 million dollars; every cent off the upper-middle rate of 33c would cost $95 million; the lower-middle income rate of 21c would cost $325 million for every cent, and every cent off the bottom rate of 15c would cost a further $215 million. The approximate cost of changing the personal rates from 33c to 30c is a total—listen to it—of $1,725 billion.

One does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that tax cuts are expensive. How does the National Party intend funding that proportion of tax cuts? Would it slash them from health? Labour will not. We are investing into health by committing $109 billion a year by 2008-09, meeting the full costs of maintaining real population-adjusted spending for the health and disability sector.

Does National intend to fund tax cuts by cutting funding for education? This Budget does the reverse. We are increasing our investment in early childhood education by $152 million over 4 years, as we continue to deliver on our commitment to make early childhood education more affordable, more accessible, and of the best quality possible for all New Zealand families. Will National take it out of housing? Or will it go back to its dismal failed policies of the 1990s by selling off assets? New Zealanders are absolutely fed up with the National Party compromising health, education, and housing. Or do we just agree to the sale of our assets for the sake of National using tax cuts as a policy plank for the coming election? That is not surprising; that is how hopeless National is.

This Labour-led Budget maintains a strong, credible fiscal stance. It is fair and inclusive. It helps Kiwis build a stake in their country, and it builds the conditions for growth. It secures the future for the nation as a whole, and for New Zealand families. With careful financial investment it means we can afford to invest in health, education, and social services.

It is a Budget for the future that saves for the future. The new KiwiSaver scheme is intended to begin operation on 1 April 2007. It is linked to a new scheme to assist modest to middle income families with a deposit for a first home. Those who are KiwiSavers for a minimum of just 3 years will qualify for an additional subsidy of $1,000 a year, up to a maximum of 5 years, at the time of the purchase of their first home.

This is a Budget with vision, which builds the conditions for growth, and it could have been achieved only by sound fiscal management. If the National Party had its way, it would fund tax cuts by cutting spending on health and education, by selling off State housing stock, and by returning to failed, old, archaic policies that it tried in the 1990s. It has no new ideas, no surprises, no vision—nothing new.

The Budget further creates solutions, boosting New Zealanders’ capacity and choices through skills and training. Who cut the apprenticeships scheme? Who cut Māori Trade Training? It was National. We are doubling the industry training funding—$136.7 million will be invested annually. Modern Apprenticeships has been successful. Our target is 8,000 Modern Apprentices by 2006, and industry training—those upskilling on the job—to nearly 140,000. Our target is 150,000 in industry training organisations this year, moving to 250,000 by 2008. That is a real commitment.

The new Kapohia ngā Rawa initiative provides funding of $14.8 million over 4 years for outreach and community workers to work with whānau to provide information and advice on education, career planning, financial management, and housing. That will certainly assist Māori development and enterprise.

In terms of promoting an understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Budget invests $1.2 million to develop and stage a major touring exhibition focusing on the treaty. The exhibition will be created by the Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit. It will visit 35 locations around New Zealand, where, it is estimated, over 250,000 New Zealanders will see it. That is about investing in our nationhood.

To improve the quality of life for kuia and kaumātua, the Budget increases funding for cataract, hip, and joint operations. Over the next 3 years we aim to fund an extra 7,500 cataract operations, and we will fund ongoing increases in the number of hip and joint operations.

The Government’s primary health strategy focuses on prevention, and primary health organisations and clusters of health service providers are an all-important part of our strategy within this Budget to give cheaper doctors’ visits. There are now 77 primary health organisations able to offer lower-cost health-care for many of the 3.8 million New Zealanders enrolled with them.

I finish by saying that we are supporting the celebration and preservation of Māori culture. Budget 2005 increases funding for kapahaka, to help with regional planning and projects. We are also making housing more affordable. We are increasing State housing stock, thus helping to reduce waiting lists and waiting times in the areas of high-housing need, especially in Auckland. Other Government programmes to ensure better housing include programmes of income-related rents for low-income State house tenants, rural housing programmes to address substandard housing, community renewal programmes to improve housing and social conditions, and healthy-housing programmes to reduce health risks in overcrowded homes. I extend my commitment to our Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, and thank him for a very stable, managed way of presenting our Budget 2005.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to achieve a bit of brevity. I recall, in my time here as a whip, which was some time ago, listening to the Rt Hon David Lange lamenting how members in the House had lost the ability to orate with skill. Might I suggest that rather than subject the House to readings of speeches pre-prepared by Ministers, Government back-bench members might like to save us time by tabling those speeches and letting the Opposition get on with the real debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member, but that is an issue for another place.

PANSY WONG (National) : I do not thank the Labour member for sending the public to sleep; I will try to remind them that we are speaking in the Budget debate. Hundreds of people packed out venues in Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton, and Napier to listen to National’s leader, Dr Don Brash, and the shadow finance Minister, John Key, in their post-Budget tour. It was obvious that the crowds were angry about the total loss of touch of the Labour Government with the public. The crumbs that were being thrown at them through the much-trumpeted tax cuts of 67c a week in 3 years’ time angered the public. Labour has forgotten that the largest slices of tax come from personal incomes and GST. Hard-working New Zealanders were told by the Labour Government that people were not to be trusted to know how to spend their own money wisely.

It is not as though those taxes were put into good use. Let us look at education, at health, and at the police. We see they are in crisis because of the lack of political management and leadership. But where are the taxes going? As the shadow Minister of Revenue, I will share with members a piece of information. I am amazed at the increased personnel expenses for the Inland Revenue Department. The sum is going up by $33 million—$33 million for tax collectors. But can members guess how much police personnel expenses are going up by? It is a mere $41 million, in comparison with the tax collectors. Our nation is crying out for protection and safety, and the Labour Government’s answer is to give us more tax collectors instead of a larger police force. The public will send this Labour Government packing, because it is arrogant and incompetent.

Another area of concern is border security. The New Zealand Immigration Service has lurched from crisis to crisis since 2002 under the previous Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel. The legislation she rushed into the House in 2002 to lapse 10,000 immigration applications, and her incompetent management of the skilled migrant category, has seen New Zealand’s reputation of having a transparent and consistent immigration policy plummet. Lianne Dalziel apparently apologised in a Christchurch Chinese language media “messenger” for raising the English language requirement for business migrants in 2002. Then I asked the Hon Paul Swain whether he agreed with that apology. In his written answer, he stated that he knew nothing of the apology.

Hon Member: They lied!

PANSY WONG: Oh, it is more than that. It is typical of the Labour Government, which tailors different messages for different communities. That tightly targeted and secretive apology was aimed only for the benefit of Chinese New Zealanders in an election year, no doubt to seek their votes. The continuing incompetence of the Labour Government’s handling of the immigration portfolio has seen it allocate only an additional $12 million in total to the whole Immigration Service, but it has increased the funding for tax collectors by $33 million.

Let us put that in perspective. That lack of a sense of priority gives rise to Winston Peters’ race card immigration platform. It is said that there are only two things in life that one can count on: taxes and death. But to that we can add Mr Peters playing the race card in election years. To make statements such as: “We are being colonised without having any say in the numbers of people coming in and where they come from.”, in conjunction with assertions that the size of the Asian population will overtake that of the Māori population, is to incite racial disharmony. I have pointed out previously that Statistics New Zealand’s projections—[Interruption] If the member listens, he may learn something—are based on long-term arrivals, which include people who come here on work permits or student visas for more than 12 months. But Mr Peters will never let the facts get in his way.

The proposal of Mr Peters to set up patriotic squads, routinely seeking out overstayers, will see non-European and non-Māori residents and citizens being put under surveillance, and their loyalty to New Zealand being questioned. People from the ethnic communities have to defend their right to be here and account for their contributions constantly. One can imagine they would be well advised to carry their passports—like the one in my hand—in future, when facing those patriotic squads.

Lianne Dalziel: Is the member starting a coalition?

PANSY WONG: The previous Minister of Immigration, who lied to the media and was sacked from her portfolio, and who put up English language requirements to shut out Chinese migrants, has no room to speak. She should take the call and apologise to the Chinese community. I challenge Lianne Dalziel to apologise to the Chinese in Parliament, not in a Chinese language paper. [Interruption] I invite the honourable ex-Minister Lianne Dalziel to take a call to apologise properly in Parliament to the Chinese community, rather than through a Chinese language newspaper.

How much longer will it be before the time comes when people from the ethnic communities and others may be required to wear a yellow band—like the one on my arm—with their passport numbers on it? Some may think that that is being too dramatic. But let us remember, after all, that it was only in 1927 that the Wellington Indian Association had to fight against the Wellington City Council’s ludicrous insistence that Indian bottle collectors were to wear straps on their sleeves. And in 1937, Asian New Zealanders had to protest against a recommendation of the fruit and vegetable committee for the compulsory registration of Asian fruiterers’ thumb prints under the then Labour Acting Prime Minister, Peter Fraser.

The ethnic communities are either angry or resigned. But many have chosen to speak out. I am confident that the majority of New Zealanders are fair-minded and will speak up at the ballot box. The debate on immigration policy should happen, but it should not be used as a disguise to raise fear and contempt against any particular community. The incompetent handling of the immigration portfolio has left the ethnic community vulnerable to exploitation, yet Labour sees fit to increase the immigration vote in total by only $12 million, when the tax collectors’ personnel expenses alone will be increased by $33 million. It is time for Labour to go.

I would like to reply to the statement made by my parliamentary colleague Dr Ashraf Choudhary, who seemed to be concerned about my list ranking. I can assure that member that no matter where I rank I will be highly visible in the Indian community, compared with him. There have been cries in every edition of the Indian Newslink, asking where Dr Choudhary is. When will Dr Choudhary speak up when the Indian and Asian communities are under attack by the so-called immigration policies? Where was Dr Choudhary when the Indian information technology workers were not recognised by the Labour Government’s immigration policy?

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : That was a Budget speech by a National Party MP who is on the way out. Did New Zealand get any wiser as to National’s policy? Did National pronounce on what its Budget would look like?

Hon Members: No.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: No. That is because it still does not have a policy on anything. I thought National was going to have tax cuts by Christmas—but maybe not Christmas this year, as Rodney Hide said; it will be sometime in the future, and maybe only a little bit at a time, and maybe not at all, because the Leader of the Opposition might not feel comfortable with it!

So let us hear about what is in this Budget we are debating. It is nothing but good news. There is $4.09 billion for vote Health. What is in there? There is half a billion dollars for nurses’ pay. This Government actually puts its money where its mouth is. We support nurses. We do not throw them out in the cold as the National Party does. We are not going to scrap 3,300 of them to pay for some miserable tax cut. We are not going to sack 2,700 teachers to pay for some nebulous tax cut that might come some Christmas in the future from National.

Will that member get up and tell us how many teachers will lose their jobs, and how many nurses will lose their jobs? Will nurses expect a half a billion - dollar pay increase when Sandra Goudie has to get a tax cut, and when John Key cannot afford to live in New Zealand without a tax cut? Don Brash, who put up New Zealanders’ interest rates year after year, needs a tax cut, but the workers who look after sick people have to go, to pay for the tax cuts! That is National Party voodoo economics, as it has been labelled. It is not even that.

They want to go and tell the prison officers and the police staff how many of them are going to lose their jobs. We have provided an extra 1,080 police staff, 2,700 extra teachers, and 3,300 extra nurses. They do not work for nothing; they have to be paid.

I turn to the care of the elderly. Members opposite, who do not like members to read their speeches, talked about asset testing of the elderly. Did the National Government do anything? Did New Zealand First do anything? No, they did not do a thing. This Budget gives $93 million to implement that policy in the first year.

What about people in rest homes? They had a legitimate gripe with the National Government year after year, but it gave them nothing. But this Budget provides $71 million next year for residential care. What about people who want to stay in their homes—the elderly, or younger people who are ill? The Budget provides $18 million next year to address that very big need, to improve the quality of care, and the wages of those who look after such people in the community.

Sandra Goudie is supposed to be the Opposition spokesperson on disabilities. What did she say about the $59 million extra for disability support services? Would she do away with that when she takes the tax cut for herself? Yes, she would. She will say to them: “I am only a poor MP. I need some more money. I need a tax cut. Blow those workers! They can go to hell.” What about the extra teachers provided by this Budget? What about the fact that this Government since 1999 has increased, for every child in every school, the operations grant by 348 bucks? That is 15 percent in real terms, over and above inflation. But that provision would have to go, in order to pay for tax cuts for members opposite.

What about the madness of the National policy on roading, whereby it says it would borrow to build roads? Now, this Government happens to have found $18.9 billion—a miserable $18.9 billion!—for roading and transport over the next 10 years. But National says that that is not enough; that it would borrow money and make people pay tolls, as well. Where is the ghost of Muldoon when we need him, to come and remind members opposite about the effects of such stupid economics! That suggestion was made by a fellow who was once the Governor of the Reserve Bank. We know what Mr Muldoon thought of that sort of economics.

Lianne Dalziel: Baloney!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: He would have used much stronger words. I was shaking in my boots when I saw that speech! I was frightened!

Lianne Dalziel: Baloney!

Hon MARK GOSCHE: No, no! I think Mr Speaker should rule that word out as unparliamentary—because it was, in 1901. But seriously, in my community the important things are more money for education, health, and industry training; more apprenticeships for our kids, more teachers in our schools, more money to run the schools. I could go on and on. I love driving around Auckland at the moment and seeing the work that this Government has undertaken. It is all about building a new hospital, building new roads, getting the railways going, getting more buses, more roads. What does Wayne Mapp want to do? He wants to take holidays away from workers—before Christmas. That is his policy—to take away those holidays. What an unimaginative, dead-brained bunch of Opposition members! What a pathetic Opposition! No wonder the media are having to do the job for the Opposition! No wonder the media are saying: “There is no real Opposition to this Government. We had better do the job for them, because nobody on the Opposition side has a brain.”! Not one of them can come up with a policy, not one of them can stick to a story for more than 5 minutes. There will be a tax cut by some Christmas, in the future, but not much. Because John Key and Don Brash cannot agree on that policy, we are none the wiser. But we on this side know that we cannot have spending for schools, education, and health, if we have a tax cut.

• Debate interrupted.