Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : It is 1998, the world economy is in tough times, Governments have got big choices before them, and Bill English, the Minister of Finance, comes into the debating chamber and cuts the pension of old people. It is 2008, the world economy is facing tough conditions, and Dr Michael Cullen comes into the debating chamber and cuts personal taxes and increases the pension of old people. Which do members think is better: 1998 or 2008?

Last week in this Chamber we saw a Budget that was about the Government’s plan for the future; a Budget that put people in all walks of life at the centre of the plan for that future. Nowhere is that more clear than in the different approach to the issues confronting this country 10 years ago compared with the approach today. As we come to the end of just the third term of the Labour-led Government, we can compare like with like, because conditions today are so similar to what they were in 1998, but the difference is that Bill English is not the Minister of Finance; he is not able to use scissors to cut the pension of old New Zealanders. He is proud of that record. We know that, not because he cut the pension in 1998 as Minister of Finance—

Hon Bill English: I wasn’t Minister of Finance.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Well, he was Minister of Finance when the pension cuts came in, and he has never denied that, because he knows that it is the truth.

He scurries around the country now, trying to tell people that older people in New Zealand have got it easy. In fact, while we were all here on Friday debating cutting personal taxes, the deputy leader of the National Party, Mr English, the man who aspires to once again be the Minister of Finance in New Zealand, was in Christchurch. He was meant to be here debating the Government in the trenches about personal tax cuts, but he was down in Christchurch speaking at a lunch where he condemned the Government for concentrating on managing the risks of an ageing population, through our Superannuation Fund, KiwiSaver, and what he calls “new boons” for superannuitants. That means that he not only opposes our increase in the pension last week but would like to go back to the policy he had of cutting the entitlements of older people. If managing the needs of an ageing population is not via the Cullen fund, not via KiwiSaver, and not via the increases we have made to New Zealand superannuation, what is managing the needs of an ageing population? We were waiting to hear from the National Party about that, and we heard absolutely nothing.

Last week gave us a glimpse of campaign 2008. For about a day we saw exactly what the next election campaign is going to be like. Labour turned up with well-thought-out positions, clear policy, and a principled stand on what we as a country are trying to achieve, supported by the parties with which, under MMP, we can work and negotiate what should be in the best interests of the country, and can put in place their policies as part of our programme—that is MMP, that is proportional representation, and that is how we do it. We brought that programme down to Parliament, and as a Government we were unified; we stood together to deliver that programme, and we were proud of it.

On the other side of the House, we saw what National’s campaign is going to be like. We saw absolutely zero from the Leader of the Opposition. When he gave his speech he had a 20-minute call but he gave about 6 minutes’ worth of dialogue. John Campbell made a very interesting observation. He asked John Key a few questions, and John Key started giving the kind of puffery that, no doubt, gets rousing applause in the National Party caucus room. It would not do for John Campbell—who is no great friend of the Labour-led Government, I might add—who said that John Key was “as slippery as a snake in wet grass” when it came to saying anything specific. That is what the campaign is going to show.

We got a real glimpse of it last week. John Key had spent the previous week talking about tax cuts going north of $50 a week. We did not hear that phrase from him again, after he had said it once. He zigzagged all across the country. The only place where he could find a welcome reception was at a National Party function in Auckland. Did he tell those people what National’s Budget policy would be with regard to tax? Basically, that is the only topic that National members have talked about in this parliamentary term, but they now have absolutely nothing to say about it, at all.

Bill English went in the other direction, but he could not tell us what National would do, either. That is why people are now saying that that lot is at sixes and sevens. And it is not on an issue that National members have not heard about before. I can understand that when a new policy comes out that they are not sure about, that they have never heard about, and that they have not had a caucus discussion about, they are not quite sure where to position themselves. Reducing personal income tax is their own policy, yet they have had nothing at all of consequence to say about it—nothing. Gerry Brownlee laughs away because he has to work out his tax cut on an abacus; that is how he is going to work out his tax cut. He will not use his fingers and toes—that is for sure!

People will see from the Labour Party in Government a proper programme for New Zealand’s future. We were elected in 2005 with a very clear policy for New Zealand. Our priorities included KiwiSaver, which is a very good policy for young New Zealanders across their working life. It was opposed by National members 40 times on the floor of this House.

Another priority was lower doctors’ fees and pharmaceutical charges. National members not only opposed them in Parliament but in their health discussion document Tony Ryall, one of the top fliers in the National Party, proposed getting rid of the general practitioner fee cap. Those members oppose it because they think the market somehow will deliver what the cost of going to a doctor should be.

We had interest-free student loans as a priority for this term. National opposed that policy at the last election, and called it a big bribe. National members said it was a terrible thing. Now their policy is—I am told—to have interest-free student loans. They said they were a terrible thing at the last election, and this time they are going to campaign in favour of them. I can see Gerry Brownlee looking through the prospectuses of many night schools and community colleges to work out a programme he might do that he could fund by way of an interest-free student loan.

Our fourth priority was to bring in a major expansion of the public education system: 20 free hours a week for 3 and 4-year olds in early childhood education. That was absolutely opposed by National members, but if we hang around just until playtime, I am sure we will find that it is their policy, as well. It may be a case of “Gone by playtime!” in that regard.

Those were the four big policies that we said we would introduce this term, and all of our Budgets have delivered them. I say to Gerry Brownlee that we have no time to breathe, because there are so many good policies in this Budget, but he will have plenty of time to have a snooze on the Opposition bench in the rest of this year and—I am sorry to disappoint him—probably in the next term too. The glimpse I saw last week of the next election campaign was really revealing. The Leader of the Opposition was underprepared, the deputy was not really committed to the leadership team—and Mr Brownlee would identify with that, because at one point he was a deputy who was not really committed to the leadership team—and they were not ready on their only topic. When members are out on the campaign trail, things just happen, we have to have a position, and we have to tell people the truth about what we would do. That is when people get exposed.

We rattled off that list of all the policies that we had said were our priorities, then we came to Parliament last week and added personal income taxes on top of them, and that is the programme for New Zealand going forward. We made sure that everybody would benefit from it—not just some people but absolutely everybody. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues in the House, but members do not benefit to the same extent, as a proportion of our salaries, as other New Zealanders. I make no apology for that, but I feel I have to offer the hand of friendship to the Opposition members and apologise, because they looked so disappointed that they were not getting the $92 a week tax cut that they had promised themselves at the last election. They had promised a $10 a week tax cut to my constituents in Otaki. It is the other way round under this Government; my constituents will get a much bigger gain, as a proportion of their income, under this Government than they would ever get under National. I am sorry to disappoint members in that regard.

But, of course, those members voted for the cuts in personal income tax. Mr Guy, a list MP, giggles away. He will have to giggle, because he will have to explain to constituents on the campaign trail why he opposed a corporate tax cut, why he opposed tax cuts for savers, and why he opposed tax cuts for families through Working for Families. We have a broad programme that includes absolutely everybody, and that approach goes right through the programme that we have to deliver.

The Budget funds the buy-back of rail. Did the Opposition support or oppose it? It supported and opposed it! It is the greatest real estate deal in history, and the Opposition’s approach is “I am here to buy the house; I am just not going to bid.” That is an absolutely ridiculous approach.

Nathan Guy: Why did it take you 9 years?

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Well, we were busy buying Air New Zealand—something that was opposed by National. John Key said on television that it was a good idea to buy it back. It is a pity no journalist said to him: “Hang on, you opposed it.” It would be terrible to have some consistency in politics!

Then National members said we should never have bought back the railway tracks and that we had bought a dog there. Now they say it was a very good idea to buy the railway tracks but they are not sure we should have bought the trains as well. I ask that Opposition member to wait at that train stop just a while longer, because the caboose will turn up in time, and it will be National’s policy, as well. This Government always plans for rainy days, and that is the difference between National and us.

I go back to where I started, to where this country was in 1998 compared with where it is in 2008. National had no planning for the future of this country then, and when hard times hit, the pension got cut, tertiary fees went up, Contact Energy was sold, and tariffs were eliminated overnight, which cost hundreds of workers in Porirua their jobs in the motor industry. We have, in a sense, worse economic conditions today, when we consider world food prices, and we are cutting income tax, we are boosting the pension, we are boosting family incomes, we have more money going into education and health, and we are making sure that all New Zealanders can participate in this country’s future. That is so important for all of our families. Nothing is more important than that to this Government.

This Labour-Progressive Government, supported by New Zealand First and United Future, and working with the Greens and the Māori Party, has a broad vision for all of the country. We want to look forward to the future with positive optimism for our people—not trying to see who can get the most and at what cost. People who read through the hundreds of pages of the Budget documents will know that we have clarity around what we believe in. We will defend our policies up hill and down dale, because we are driven by the principle of them. We do not go for the cheap shot of saying that no representation in the Nordic community of Europe somehow will fund a big tax cut. That is in opposition to Swiss cheese, I would have thought. We are in favour of cheese for everybody, and that is why this Government has delivered a Budget worthy of our country.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) : I cannot help but reflect on dogs and deals in terms of asset sales, but the National Party actually sold the railways for less than the wooden sleepers were worth on the open market, so we do not need any lessons in that.

The Progressive Party is proud to vote for this Budget. The Budget puts significantly more into the pockets of most families. The Budget delivers better health-care and builds a stronger economy. The Budget cuts taxes, not spending, at a time when the economy is slowing. I remember that when the going got tough for National, it cut superannuation, it cut benefits, and it cut social services. But this Government has built them and will continue to build them all, even though the economy is in a slow-growth mode. This Budget carefully provides for better incomes across all of New Zealand; it does not herd the biggest tax cuts towards those who need them the least. Anyone in this House who claims he or she needs a big tax cut must be kidding. The Budget is fair and it is caring, and a caring New Zealand is what the Progressives are here to support. When it comes to assessing whether the Budget is good for New Zealand, we are a lot more concerned about caring for people than about simply providing tax cuts to those who are on good incomes.

Although far too many New Zealanders have been left behind for far too long, this Government has done a lot to reduce poverty. In the last 3 or 4 years more children have been lifted out of poverty than at any other time since the Great Depression. Income-related rents, cheaper doctors’ visits, and cheaper prescriptions have helped low-income households in ways that they have not been assisted for many years. Nothing has done more, however, to lift families out of poverty than the creation of 1,000 additional jobs every single week that this Government has been in office for the last 8½ years, and I am proud of that. We need to hear more about the people, however, who are still being left behind. Thousands of families are struggling with increased petrol costs and rising food prices. There are thousands who are struggling to make ends meet, and we have to show that we care about them, of course. So it is time we started to test more policies against the standard of the way in which a caring country takes care of its most vulnerable citizens.

It takes some strength to speak out for people and to care for them. In all the talk about tax rates, climate change, and other important issues, how much of that strength have we heard? Let us give one example here. In the very near future I am going to announce a decision about Hector’s dolphins. It is clear that no matter what decision I make, there will not be a popularity contest for the announcement. It is an important issue, and I get an awful lot of letters about it. People organise marches at Parliament, they send postcards by the thousand that fill my mailbag, they paint dolphins on walls and they run campaigns—and I say good on them.

But how many people do that for children? How many people care about the people in New Zealand who are really struggling? Let us imagine the situation if we got sick and could work, and could not get accident compensation. How would we make ends meet? I do not read many editorials about that. Editorials, as well as press releases from the National Party, have been filled with calls for more tax cuts. This Budget has delivered on that. It went as far as anyone could sensibly go, in my opinion. I hope we can hear now, however, a lot more about those people whose incomes are below the average wage. There are far more of them, of course, than there are of those with incomes above it.

But if we want to care for people, we have to strengthen the economy. I am pleased that this Budget makes a commitment to a historic initiative to strengthen our economy by strengthening research and innovation in our pastoral and food sectors. I want to make this point, in congratulating the Minister of Finance: what was in it for the Minister of Finance and the Labour part of the Labour-led Government in giving an initiative like that its support, through the provision of $700 million up front, $300 million on top of that, and $1,000 million more attracted by the private sector, when that constituency, with all due respect, is hardly a core element of Labour’s support? I have to say it was important that we did so, and I give credit to the Minister of Finance and my Labour colleagues for supporting it. This is a landmark decision for New Zealand. It is the largest initiative in scientific research and development for any sector in this economy in the whole history of New Zealand.

What did the National Party do when it saw that far-sighted investment in the future? It opposed it. The party that claims it represents the rural sector opposed the most significant investment in research and development in the country’s history. So I invited the National members to a full briefing. I thought I had got things wrong, and that if the National members could not understand the initiative, there was something wrong there. So I said I would get all the officials who had been beavering away on it for a couple of years to explain it to them. They said that would be fine, so we rang to make an appointment. We were told not to ring them; they would ring us. The National members did not want to know. They did not want to know the answers to questions that they clearly did not understand, because if they understood them, they might have to support the initiative, which they had already opposed. Having opposed it, stupidly, they could not let the facts get in the way of their prejudice.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s leadership.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: That is leadership.

Well, I tell members the view I have come to is this. We used to think, as we were sitting across here when John Key’s flip-flops went on all the time—gone by lunchtime is now gone halfway through question time—that he was being slippery. But slippery is not the right description, actually, is it? We made a big mistake in calling the Leader of the Opposition slippery, or the National Party members slippery. I call them weak. They are weak because they will not face up to hard decisions. They will not stick with them. They will not tell people what they really stand for. Bill English was on the Agenda programme the other day, and he could not even answer a simple question: whether he would retain the 39 percent top tax rate. The answer was: “Um, we’ll let you know.” When asked when he would do so, the answer was: “Sometime in the future.” How can National’s finance spokesperson, who wants to be the next Minister of Finance, 4, 5, or 6 months out from the next election—whenever it might be—not know whether National will keep the top tax rate intact? How can that be?

I tell members that there is a newspaper called The New Zealand Herald. It is not actually a well-known socialist organ, I can tell members. But I was struck by the editorial a couple of days back that stated: “Now that the Budget is behind us, the National Party has less excuse”—I never thought it ever had any excuse, anyway—“for indecision on most of the important … issues facing the country. … As late as eight days ago finance spokesman Bill English could not answer a question as basic as whether National would keep the top tax tier, 39c in the dollar”. That was in the New Zealand Herald. I mean, its people are almost paid-up members of National, and it is saying “For God’s sake, Bill, what are you doing? You surely know that?” No, no.

Well, New Zealanders are starting to ask themselves some hard questions. They are thinking that if National does not know that now, if it is not telling them its policy now, they have heard that before and it was called the secret agenda. I remember a famous politician being asked about the secret agenda and why the country had not been told about it. The answer was that it was because people would not like it. Well, we now know that the National Party is not going to tell us its agenda because it fears we will not like it! How is that a qualification for Government? When a party gets into Government, it has nowhere to hide then. Are National’s members going to go on the Agenda programme and say they do not know what the top tax rate is going to be, they do not even know what it is, and ask to be told that? Does that show leadership? Is that being slippery? Does that show strength? No, it shows weakness. These are hard questions: whether National will do this or that; whether it will cut social services in order to give higher tax cuts. It should tell us about that.

The Business Roundtable came out recently and said it wanted there to be a low flat-tax rate. Everyone in this House knows where he or she stands on that. I know where I stand; I am against it. My Labour colleagues are against it. ACT knows where it stands; it is for it. I am sure New Zealand First knows where it stands and the Greens know where they stand. I am sure the Minister of Revenue knows where he stands. What about the National Party? There is nothing but silence. It is the silence of covert people who want to hide their agenda, because they know that people will not really like it.

Have the National members forgotten history? When a party goes into Government, or hopes to, and goes in with a secret agenda, then delivers what people do not expect, or when it crushes the expectations that it has raised, how long does it stay there? It does not stay very long, and I would have thought that even the meanest of minds would figure that out by now.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s why we have MMP.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Exactly right. We have MMP but not because it is the German system. The people of New Zealand said they did not care whether the system came from Outer Mongolia, because if it would lead to something better than they had had from National—and from another party that I will not name—then they would have MMP. Well, surely that should have given National a signal.

I challenge the National members to be strong. I ask them to come and tell us, in the House, what they really stand for. They should tell the people of New Zealand that, and then we can have a fair contest. Otherwise they will be going on the campaign trail with no clothes on, and people are going to know that.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : Well, that was an interesting speech from the leader of the Progressive Party, who spoke on behalf of the Progressives. The reality is, of course, that he is the only Progressive member here. I just want to consider his record in the last 9 years. Interest rates have doubled, house prices have doubled, food prices have more than doubled; Government revenue has more than doubled, Government spending has more than doubled, household costs across the board have more than doubled, and fuel prices have gone through the roof astronomically. The one thing that has not risen in the last 9 years at the same level of costs for New Zealanders is income. Indisputably that is the case. Almost every other cost faced by households in New Zealand that anyone might like to look at has doubled or more, but incomes have not.

What really irritates me is that Jim Anderton comes in here crying crocodile tears for people whom he talks about as being on the average wage and below. Well, there will always be an average wage, as Madam Assistant Speaker, the Hon Marian Hobbs, would know from her past in education. There will always be an average. The question is where that average is set. How adequate for living is that average? The problem the current Government has is that that average is no longer adequate. That average has not kept pace with other costs that New Zealanders have to face. That is why there is anger out in the community at the failure of this Government to understand and listen to what New Zealanders need.

We will go into an election later this year. At that time there will be an intense discussion about the future of this country. Labour members will not look back in 5 months’ time, as Mr Anderton said, to the Budget of last week, because it will seem quite embarrassing to them. As New Zealanders recognise it, all that that Budget said to them was that the future is a block of cheese today and another one in a couple of years’ time.

There is interesting speculation that anyone might like to get into, around the date for the election. Mr Anderton indicated 5 months. I am in possession of a document signed by a Minister that indicates that Cabinet has considered this matter and has set a date for the passage of a bill by a particular day prior to the rising of the House. Interestingly, the date in the letter is nominated as 6 September, which is, in fact, a Saturday. I thought: “Well, that can’t be right.” Then I thought: “Yes, that’s what they’ll do.” They have this spare billion dollars in the Budget that is for the election lollipop. Look at all those members over there quietly putting their heads down and wondering whether the benefit will be spread around their particular electorate, or in their particular part of the electoral spectrum if they are list members. I think we will see legislation brought into the House over that last week from Tuesday, 2 September, and rammed through all stages in urgency, with the House lifting finally for the year on 6 September, making the election date, as has been well predicted by many, exactly 18 October—a comfortable 6 weeks.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh!

GERRY BROWNLEE: I tell Mr Mallard that I am not surprised, given the recent record, that the Prime Minister has not told him. But I have to tell my friend that she has clearly told the Hon David Cunliffe, because he is telling anybody who wants to know that that is the date that the House will be rising for the year to go into the election.

As we get closer to the election, there will be, of course, a lot more intense speculation about policy and the future of New Zealand—there is no question about that. But what New Zealanders are telling us, and what, by implication, they are telling Labour, is that they are sick of Government waste. They are sick of being told that a block of cheese today and another one in 2 years’ time is as good as it gets. They are sick of being told that they cannot have quality infrastructure that one sees in any other Western country. They are sick of being told that it is OK for 79,000 New Zealanders to walk out of this country every year because we are replacing them with people from other parts of the world. They are sick to death of finding out that there are shortages of doctors and teachers, and that there is an inadequacy of core Government services throughout the communities up and down the country.

If people needed to know whether the current Government is out of touch, they would only have had to watch the exchange this afternoon between my colleague Phil Heatley and the Minister for Housing, Maryan Street. I cannot believe that a Minister of the Crown, in a Labour Government that claims to be on the side of the depressed and the downtrodden, can say that a $250-a-night luxury conference at Tongariro was quite acceptable, and that it was quite acceptable to spend $250 a night for each of the 94 people who went to that conference. It would also seem, from the figures she gave today, that in 2 days they consumed $23,000 worth of food and alcohol. That is what it looks like from the figures that Maryan Street confirmed in the House today. That is quite outrageous.

The worst of it was that she then turned around and said that the figure represented a value of only a 1.5c cut in taxes. Well, we did a little bit of maths over here and worked out that if the total cost is $65,000, and that could be accumulated from just 1.5c of each taxpayer’s tax liability, then we would have an incredibly small tax base. Perhaps that gives an indication of why the Labour caucus has not challenged Dr Cullen about what is possible at the present time in regard to tax relief for New Zealanders. Quite clearly he has led them up the garden path, when they revert to rather silly stories like that.

You know, the Minister tried to justify this conference at the luxury Tongariro Lodge by arguing that the people attending had to be there to discuss strategies aimed at the better delivery of Housing New Zealand Corporation services. When an agency has a waiting list as long as Housing New Zealand Corporation has, then there is absolutely no need to discuss strategies for delivery; there is simply a need to come up with policies that will put people in better housing.

The Minister also went on to say that these are the people who will deliver retrofits and insulation to thousands of State houses over the next few years. Anyone would expect that a portfolio like that is going to get retrofitted. Some of it is 60 and 70 years old, so naturally it is going to be retrofitted. One would expect that in this day and age, when the country is facing energy shortages and everything else, insulation would be going into these houses. So I ask whether those people were taking DIY courses. Were they taking a DIY course on how to fit insulation and how to retrofit houses? If we ended up with 94,000 tradesmen out of this, then the $65,000 would be a pretty good investment. But everyone knows that that is not the case. They were there, as they said in their own brochure, for the fine dining, the log fire, and the gentle discussions in the evening about the activities of the day.

Hon Tony Ryall: What about the team building exercises?

GERRY BROWNLEE: There will be more to come on that. I spoke at the start about the reasons why this Government is out of touch, and I will state them again. Interest rates have doubled on the Government’s watch. Food prices have more than doubled under the Government’s watch. House prices have more than doubled under the Government’s watch. Rents have more than doubled under the Government’s watch. The Government revenue take has more than doubled under the Government’s watch. Other costs like fuel and electricity, which are faced by households in this country, have more than doubled under the Government’s watch.

The one thing, indisputably, that has not doubled in the last 9 years is the incomes of New Zealanders. As I said before, that is why New Zealanders are angry, it is why they have had enough, and it is why they are asking whether this Government is seriously telling them that this Budget is supposed to be about the future, when all it talks about is the little that New Zealanders are able to expect. Where are the expansionist policies that we might expect as we go into the year 2009? I look forward to 6 September, when, as David Cunliffe has announced, the House will rise, and the election will be, quite predictably, on 18 October this year. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : An extraordinary point of order was raised by the shadow Leader of the House last week. It commented on the fact that the Opposition had politely listened to the reading of the Budget speech and that many of us on the Government benches had interjected on the Leader of the Opposition. The fact that we wanted to know how much the Opposition was putting on the table for its tax cut package should not have taken that member or any other member of the National Party by surprise. After all, John Key promised north of $50 a week to all taxpayers on the Monday, and by Thursday we were not sure what National was promising. So we challenged John Key to show people the colour of his money. I will come back to that in a minute.

It was extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House thought there was something unfair about staying silent during a prepared speech, when interjections cannot be properly responded to. This, of course, is a matter of protocol and is mentioned in the Standing Orders. If that member thinks that that was hard, then I want him, and all other National members, to think about how hard it was for us as brand new MPs to be told that we had to politely listen to the first Budget we got to listen to when we were elected into this House, when that Budget speech was presented by Ruth Richardson, who had described it herself as the “mother of all Budgets”.

Let us just remind ourselves what we had to listen to in that speech by Ruth Richardson. We had to listen to a competitive market process being introduced into our health system, with a funder/provider split, the ending of health workforce planning—that was a good idea, was it not; let the market decide what the health needs are for the workforce of the health system—cash registers in our hospitals, which were charging for prescriptions; the list goes on in respect of health. In education we had the diversion of funds from our public schools to private schools. We had bulk funding of schools. The student loan scheme was introduced. We had the transfer of fees to the university and the removal of the low-income fee rate. Essentially, everyone had to borrow to pay for fees. In housing we had the introduction of market rents, and we had the massive sell-off of over 13,000 State houses, which led to an extremely difficult time for this Government—we are building houses as fast as we can. We had market rents for community groups as well, which previously had to pay peppercorn rents. Then we had the situation with accident compensation where the insurance principles were written into brand new legislation—basically a rewriting of the scheme that had been introduced back in 1974. Then, ultimately, we had the privatisation agenda exposed as part of that process. And that was after the benefit cuts legislation and the Employment Contracts Bill had been introduced into the House, just before Christmas.

We thought it was very harsh that we were ordered to sit there and listen to a Government that thought that market discipline should be applied to health, education, housing, and accident compensation—everything that underpins the social wage. But the Government of the day did not understand the concept of a social wage, at all. I have to say that it was very hard to stay quiet in the face of an onslaught of a Government that had the absolute power that first past the post had delivered to it. I thought to myself that that was why they wanted to get rid of MMP. They wanted to go back to a system that actually enabled them to have absolute power. If anyone thinks that that is unrelated to that first Budget we sat through, then I think they should think again. If anyone thinks that it is unrelated to what the Nats did in the late 1990s, where tax cuts were paid for by cuts to superannuation, then they should think again. If anyone thinks that it is unrelated to National’s failure to move the minimum wage in 9 years—except once when it was moved by 87c—then they should think again.

National does not want to work with other parties; National wants to return to the days when it could do whatever it wanted to do. National wants to deliver to the insurance company that provided significant funding to its campaign. It wants to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation. I bet that it will call doing that something else, but that will be the effect of what it will do. It wants to deliver to the Exclusive Brethren—who are usually in the galleries keeping an eye on their investment—by increasing the funding for exclusive private schools at the expense of funding for public schools, and it wants to find another way of introducing bulk funding, without calling it that, as well. National wants to deliver to a very narrow sector of the business community. It wants the Employment Contracts Act reinstated. It will call it something else but multi-employer collective agreements will be gone. Teachers’ agreements will be gone as well, as far as their having national agreements that cover them from one end of the country to the other. Those agreements will be down to individual school agreements—you can bet your bottom dollar on that. The fourth week of annual leave will be put at risk, the minimum wage freeze will be back, and the denial of employment rights to employees of small to medium sized enterprises, and to those in their first 6 months of employment—or maybe their first 12 months of employment—will be back on the agenda again.

National wants to let employers off the hook for the mandatory contribution to KiwiSaver, but the business community view is deeply opposed to that move. There are those of us who actually care about creating some depth in our capital markets, and KiwiSaver gives New Zealand a chance to achieve some very ambitious goals in that regard. It is utterly amazing to me to see someone who states that he is ambitious for New Zealand to put that very fundamental ambition on the line. Kate Wilkinson got it right when she said that National was not the party of compulsion and that they intended to get rid of employer contributions as soon as they could. There is no question that National has made up its mind that the employer contributions will go. There is absolutely no question about that, because John Key has already put out a statement today where he has made it quite clear that National will maybe hold on to pretty much what is there at the moment—

Hon Trevor Mallard: 1 percent.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —which is only 1 percent. That is all employers are required to contribute at this moment in time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Outrageous!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It is an absolute outrage! Those who work in the area of capital markets will be appalled that a party that says that it understands things like that is actually working against them.

The Opposition does not want us, of course, to remind the people of New Zealand what it did last time it was in power, but in fact all of the things we have talked about are on the table now. What is not on the table is the amount of the tax cuts, and I think we need to see that because we need to know what else will be cut; tax cuts do not come for free. We have laid out our hand and it is time for National to do the same. John Key says that he embraces just about everything that Labour does, but quite frankly I think he is up to no good. It was not surprising to me—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Slippery!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: He is as slippery as a snake in wet grass—that is what was said on television last week. I know for a fact that John Key went to National Party meetings last year and told National supporters: “You are not going to like some of the things that I am going to be saying, but we must win the election if we are going to introduce the policies that we want to.” He told National supporters that he would be saying things they would not like hearing because National had to win the election, and that was why he would be saying those things.

I believe that Michael Cullen has presented New Zealand with a positive reason to return a Labour-led Government later this year. Can members imagine what condition the New Zealand economy would have been in, in facing the global credit crunch, the massive increase in the price of crude oil, and a crisis in food production leading to higher food prices internationally, if we had had a National-led Government at any time within the last 9 years? We have been careful stewards of the economy, and that is why we have been able to invest in the social wage, invest in education, and invest in health, housing, accident compensation, infrastructure, broadband, roading, public transport, rail—the list goes on. We have invested in the promotion of arts, culture, and heritage, and in science and research. We have invested in across-the-board tax cuts that are fair and reasonable, and that reach the four-prong test that Michael Cullen announced well before the Budget, of cuts leading to no greater inequality in our society, not exacerbating inflationary pressures, not requiring borrowing to fund them, and not requiring cuts to the Public Service. That is fair and reasonable, and that is what New Zealand gets from a Labour-led Government. It is certainly not something that New Zealanders would get from a National-led Government. It is a wee bit like John Key’s position on the Springbok Tour. Of course he remembers what his position was; he just does not want to say because he will disappoint one side of a debate that ended with the end of apartheid. That is why we cannot trust the Opposition to take the Treasury benches.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) : It is very clear from the speech of that Minister, Lianne Dalziel, that this Government has run out of steam. It lacks ambition for New Zealand. When one of the bright young things—apparently—from the Government comes to the House and reads out research unit notes as her contribution, when she should be defending the Budget that Michael Cullen brought down, that speaks volumes for that Minister’s commitment and abilities. It was not until the 9th minute that she said anything about what Labour stood for in this Budget; there was nothing until the 9th minute about what Labour stood for in this Budget. But she was very revealing in the first 8 or 9 minutes. It is clear that the Labour Government opposite is going to wage the dirtiest election campaign this country has ever seen. It intends to focus on the negative, with a very personal and vindictive campaign against John Key.

As I travel around the country, more and more people are saying to me that they are changing from Labour to National. More and more people I meet are saying that they have not voted National for many years but they will vote National this time. We take that responsibility, from those individuals, very, very seriously. We know that those people are feeling the fact that interest rates have doubled under this Labour Government. We know that those former Labour supporters are concerned that last year 78,000 New Zealanders left our country permanently. And we know that many of those former long-time Labour supporters are worried that the tax take has more than doubled in the 9 years of this Labour Government, and that only now are they being offered the promise of a few dollars through tax cuts—after 9 long years of Labour and the doubling of the tax take.

During that time spending on the health sector has doubled. During those 9 years spending on the health sector has doubled, yet fewer New Zealanders are having vitally needed elective surgery. Fewer New Zealanders are having surgery of any kind. Fewer New Zealanders are having appointments with hospital specialists. But I can tell members what there is a lot more of in our public hospitals, and that is managers and administrators. As John Key pointed out in question time today, the legacy of the Labour Government is that more managers and administrators are employed in our hospitals than doctors. There are more bureaucrats in the health sector and not enough doctors. That is what has happened.

When I look at this Budget I ask what the most pressing issue in the health sector today is. The most pressing issue in the health sector today is the workforce. There are huge shortages right across the health sector. Grey Base Hospital is on its knees because it will no longer have any anaesthetist from the end of next month. Huge problems are happening at Waitemata’s North Shore Hospital, and problems are happening at Canterbury’s hospital and all around the country. There are huge problems with the health workforce, but what is the Government’s response in this Budget? Just 2 percent of this new Budget’s spend goes on workforce initiatives; only 2 percent of the extra $750 million in this Budget for the health sector goes on new workforce development initiatives. That is 2 percent for the most pressing issue in the health sector today—2 percent to deal with the workforce crisis.

Well, it is little wonder that in the time I have been speaking to the House many doctors and nurses in this country have been thinking about going to Australia. They know what this Labour Government means for people in the health workforce. They know that they are so important to it that only 2 percent of the new health funding outlined in this Budget deals with the crisis in the health workforce. I know that the Nurses Organisation, doctors’ organisations, and the Public Service Association, which represents many of our other health workers, are disappointed that only 2 percent of the new funding has been directed at the most pressing issue in the health sector today—the workforce.

Whatever the Government does with its funding, I can tell the House that since Labour was elected, on a population basis, fewer New Zealanders are getting elective surgery, fewer New Zealanders are getting surgery of any kind, and fewer New Zealanders are getting to see a hospital specialist.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You’re making it up.

Hon TONY RYALL: Lianne Dalziel says that is not true. She probably believes the press release that David Cunliffe—sorry, “Mr Conloffe”, as the Prime Minister calls him—put out to the public 2 weeks ago. He said that the number of people getting to see a hospital specialist had doubled. That is what he did; he put out a press release saying that the number of New Zealanders who got to see a hospital specialist had doubled. Well, he had to withdraw that press statement when I pointed out that he was actually comparing 6-month figures from 2000 with annual figures from this year. He was comparing annual figures with 6-month figures and saying that the number had doubled. Well, that is about the only thing that has doubled in the health sector—other than health spending—and he got it completely wrong.

As I travel around the country, meeting many people who have been long-time Labour supporters but who will not support Labour this time, I find that those people are particularly concerned about a number of issues. They are concerned that the Government has no direction, has no vision, is lurching from crisis to crisis, and is coming up with election gimmicks to try to deal with these issues. They say a number of things when we are talking about the 1990s. In the last week or so, particularly when the report came out that beneficiaries are comparatively worse off under Labour than they were before, many of these Labour supporters have been saying that Labour promised to restore the benefit cuts of 1990. That is what they have been saying—that Labour promised to restore the benefit cuts of 1990, and it did not. The second thing that older people often say to me is that Labour promised to abolish asset testing. Well, Labour has not abolished asset testing. It has broken its word on that. The third thing many of these Labour supporters say is that the Government does not understand the pressure that New Zealand families are under. They say that the Government does not understand the effect of the rising cost of living and the rising cost of food on ordinary New Zealanders.

In fact, I saw Labour members mocking members on this side of the House when we talked about the fact that many families are now thinking twice about buying a family-size block of cheese, and have stopped buying cheese. If we visit a school, kids will talk about the decisions that mum is making in the supermarket because of the cost of living. But Labour does not appreciate that. I suppose that when those members are driving around in their BMW 7 Series—

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Staying at the Tongariro Lodge.

Hon TONY RYALL: —and staying at the Tongariro Lodge, they lose touch with what is happening. But that is what people are saying. Government members do not understand the pressure that ordinary people are under, because they have had 9 years of living a good life. They do not understand the effect that the cost of petrol is having on ordinary New Zealanders. The other thing that many of the Labour supporters who are considering changing to National say is that they held out so much hope that the Government would deal with the hardship of ordinary families. Is it not incredible that one in five New Zealand children find themselves in families that are not able to make ends meet? In fact, child poverty is up under Labour—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Child poverty is down—well down.

Hon TONY RYALL: Child poverty is up under Labour. I will tell Ms Dalziel why New Zealanders are sick of the Labour Government. They are sick of the Labour Government because it has squandered 9 years of good economic times when there should have been opportunities for more and more New Zealanders. It has squandered that opportunity and we now find ourselves in an economy that is slowing down rapidly, and with a Government that does not have the ambition to deal with those problems and that spent most of its Budget speech talking about its place in history. If one starts talking about one’s place in history, one is history. That is what more and more New Zealanders are saying.

So over the next 4 or 5 months, as people begin to firm up their views against this Labour Government, I think the messages will be clear. Interest rates have doubled, 78,000 New Zealanders have left this country permanently, and New Zealanders had to wait 9 years—9 long years—during which the tax burden doubled, before this Government provided any opportunity for them.

R Doug Woolerton: People want to know what National’s going to do.

Hon TONY RYALL: They also want to know—do they not, I ask Mr Woolerton—how the health budget can double yet there are more crises and problems in our hospitals than we have seen for many, many years. Why can we not get the doctors and nurses necessary to maintain our provincial hospitals? Why are fewer people getting care? Why are our emergency departments clogged?

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am very happy to stand and take a call in this Budget debate. There is another very appropriate saying about history, which is that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We do not have to look very far back to see what the National Party would do under the current economic conditions, and to realise just how true that epithet is. Someone sent me an email the other day. She said she had been watching a movie with a quote in it that she thought was very appropriate, and that it fitted the National Party perfectly. What she could not understand was that her family was finding things so much easier. They were a Working for Families family, and life had been a lot easier since the Working for Families tax cuts came in. They were benefiting from paid parental leave. They were benefiting from 20 hours’ free early childhood education. They no long had to think about whether they could afford to take their children to the doctor. They could take their children to the doctor and they could afford the prescriptions.

This person asked how it was that speaker after speaker from the National Party kept getting up and going on about how bad things were and how much worse they were. She said there was a line in the movie where an American President said, and I paraphrase: “I thought they just didn’t get it. The problem isn’t that they don’t get it; the problem is that they can’t sell it.” That is the truth about the National Party—those members cannot sell it. They cannot sell their arguments, so they just make it up as they go along. Those members hope New Zealanders will not check that, in fact, when they say New Zealanders are doing a lot worse under a Labour-led Government, New Zealanders are actually doing a lot better, despite the very difficult economic conditions.

I also sometimes wonder whether people remember what Budgets used to be like in this country. We have had nine Budgets from Dr Michael Cullen—nine very good Budgets. They are Budgets that have continued to invest in health, education, social services, and infrastructure, which are all the things that are important to New Zealanders. They are Budgets that have delivered a package of tax cuts—business tax cuts, Working for Families, KiwiSaver tax cuts for savers, and now personal tax cuts. I wonder whether people remember what it used to be like when people were terrified of Budgets, and when there would be queues at the petrol stations because people were worried that the petrol excise would go up in the Budget. People would be going out buying alcohol and cigarettes, and worrying about where the cuts would come. I think that it is a testament to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that people now look at the Budget as being a positive thing. They ask what will be in it for them and their families, because we have had 9 years of good Budgets that have delivered for people in this country, and this is in the context of incredibly uncertain international economic conditions.

It must be pointed out how extraordinary it is to have a Budget like this at a time when, in the history of this country, National Governments have slashed Budgets when we have been in these kinds of economic conditions before. We have record food prices internationally, with an 83 percent increase over the last 3 years. We have had the fall-out from the United States subprime mortgage crisis, which, despite the official cash rate in New Zealand not having shifted in just about the last year, has impacted on our foreign-owned banks. They have moved our mortgage interest rates up, and people are feeling that.

We have record oil prices, and Gerry Brownlee blamed the Government for that. I thought that that was very ironic coming from the party that supported the war in Iraq, which is, in part, responsible for the higher oil prices. That is actually a very important point to consider, because who knows whether there may in the future be more wars in the Middle East. We do not know what might happen. The people of New Zealand deserve to know from the National Party what its position would be on supporting another war like the war in Iraq, which was not sanctioned by the United Nations. I think we deserve an answer on that.

Also, of course, National is doing nothing about climate change. It is paying nothing but lip-service to climate change, and to alternatives to oil in our economy. I reiterate that it is amazing to have a Budget like this that not only cuts personal tax rates but also continues to invest in health and education. It does not just continue the spending we already have, but it continues to invest more in health, in education, and in social services where it is needed, it continues to invest in infrastructure, and also the Government has purchased back a major New Zealand asset—another one that it had to buy back when it all went pear-shaped: New Zealand rail.

I want to highlight a point that the Hon Jim Anderton made, that this is a Government that addresses major problems head-on. The Government has not avoided the issue of climate change. It is addressing it now, through an emissions trading scheme, through biofuels legislation, and through energy conservation, which it is doing with the Green Party. All that the National Party wants to do is delay, delay, delay. It does not want to do anything about climate change. We are seeing that on our select committees and we are seeing it in National’s announcements, that it now no longer supports the legislation this Government is putting in place.

Labour has also addressed the enormous problem of our having no capital in this country, through the KiwiSaver scheme. The National Party has voted against KiwiSaver and its enhancements every time it has come on to the floor of this House.

This Budget also includes $700 million for the Fast Forward initiative for investment in research, science, and technology in our crucial agriculture areas, which also goes into the climate change area. There is more money for student support for students at tertiary institutions, and $400 million for non-governmental organisations that are providing essential services. We know that if they were not there on the ground, doing it, Governments would have to provide these services and, frankly, I believe that these people provide those services far better than we could. We want to support them, and in this Budget we have.

Labour is continuing the retrofitting of State houses, which means that people will have healthier homes, and that automatically impacts on our health bill, as well. There is $500 million for a broadband package that will deliver far more to this country, and particularly to rural and provincial New Zealand, than the National Party’s proposal, which is $1.5 billion to be delivered by Telecom. I doubt whether there is anyone in rural or provincial New Zealand who thinks that that has worked in the past and will work in the future. We need a contestable fund that has a mix of technologies, because what works way out in the back of beyond will not be the same as what works in inner-city Auckland, and that is what this Government is delivering, and it is doing it for a third of the price. In my opinion, we will reach far more people, far more quickly, than under the National Party’s proposal.

On a personal note, I am really happy to see the $30 million transport funding for regional development initiatives for Tairāwhiti and Northland. This is money that has gone down really well in the past, to help with forestry roading. I know there was a concern in my community that that funding might not continue, but it has. Our council was absolutely ecstatic that this Government has continued to support provincial New Zealand for the things that it sometimes finds difficult to fund with a very low ratepayer base.

That sector is also very happy with the $36 million for coastal shipping. It is very important to us. We have a very good port, and we have a train line that goes right up to the port. Coastal shipping is an important part of an integrated transport system, and, with the buy-back of New Zealand rail, that will go a long way towards taking a lot of those trucks off our roads, which drive many of us nuts as we are driving around.

Of course, the eternal question is what the National Party would do. It is huge on criticism, although, on the day, its members were so taken aback by the scope of the Budget that they were unable to come up with anything until their research unit had sent out all the new key lines. What would they do? It is not too much for the people of this country to ask what an alternative Government would do, 5 or 6 months out from a general election. The Labour Party did it when it was in Opposition, so that people could clearly see the difference between the two parties. People knew what a Labour Government would deliver. The National Party does not want to tell us, because its members know that it is likely to be unpopular and they want to minimise the impact.

They talk a lot about the public sector. Let us not forget that on election night in 1999 it took so long to count all the votes because our public sector was so decimated that it did not even have the capacity to count the votes on that night. They had to get contractors in, to brief incoming Ministers, because they did not have the capacity to do it themselves.

Maybe that is because the National Party was hands-off. Its members think the market is going to deliver anything—the visible hand of the market will do it all. The fact is that we need a strong public sector, and this Government has delivered more doctors, more nurses, more teachers, more police, and the people who support them behind the scenes.

Let us compare what happened in 1998, when National cut the rate of superannuation, stopped more investment in health and education, and sold State assets, with what a Labour-led Government has done. It has raised the level of superannuation, invested more in health and education, and bought back a State asset. The fact is that Labour knows that when the economy turns south, that is when the country needs a Government the most. A Labour-led Government will not desert New Zealanders at a time when they need it the most. Now is the time when New Zealanders need cheaper doctors’ visits, cheaper prescriptions, and 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Costs are increasing beyond our control—food prices, oil prices—and now is when New Zealanders need to know that they have a Government that will not take away the things that have made their lives affordable.

Of course, I am also talking about Working for Families. There is silence from the National Party on this. One of the things the National Party hates the most about this Budget is that Labour has shown that an economy can be strong and it can be fair. It has put paid to all the untruths National members told us in the 1990s about having to do things. The fact is they did not have to do what they did in the 1990s; they chose to do it. This Labour-led Government has shown that we chose to save money, to put the surpluses aside when the times were good, knowing that when the times were bad, New Zealanders would need a Government that would continue to provide them with the services that they need, and we did that. Michael Cullen came under incredible pressure in this House to squander the surpluses, and he did not do so. Now, at a time when the economy is slowing, we are able to look New Zealanders in the eye and say: “We will not desert you. A Labour-led Government will be there when you need us, providing the services that you put us into Government to provide, and we will continue to do that beyond this election.” People are going to see past the “Emperor With No Clothes” on the other side of the House.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) : What is striking about this Budget is that it is all about the Labour Party. When we listen to Dr Cullen and Helen Clark describing it, they do not describe it in terms of what it may do to deal with the challenges New Zealand faces in delivering the kinds of incomes that New Zealanders expect and the kinds of incomes New Zealand will need to deliver to compete for its own people and keep their talents here. Labour members talk about it all in terms of political manoeuvring around the National Party. Well, we are very proud to have the Government acknowledge that this Budget is essentially about Labour losing an argument with the New Zealand public over surpluses and tax rates, and we are very pleased that National has been able to play a role in winning that argument.

There is no doubt that the Budget, whatever it says about Labour’s pre-election political manoeuvrings, is a defeat for the idea, clung to strongly by Labour through its whole term in office, that the point of the tax system is to get as much cash as possible out of the pockets of New Zealanders so that Labour can spend it better than them. The previous speaker, Moana Mackey, summed that up by saying that Dr Cullen had successfully, until now, resisted the pressure to squander the surpluses. That means that he has resisted the pressure to let people keep some of their own money that he did not need. That is Labour’s definition of squandering. [Interruption] It does allow him to squander it. The fact that he taxed so much means that he had the spare cash sitting around on his balance sheet to go and spend what will amount to over $1 billion to buy back New Zealand rail, when he could have achieved his environmental, social, and economic objectives without having the taxpayer spend over $1 billion to buy it. It is a catch-up Budget. It is the Government losing an argument. It is too little, too late, and that is how the public are seeing it.

I think to finally underline the fact that it is a Budget that is all about Labour and its manoeuvrings and not about New Zealand is the way in which Dr Cullen and Helen Clark crafted the run-up to the Budget and the content of it as a legacy Budget. Dr Cullen believes that he, at least, will be able to ride off into the sunset as a defeated and departing member of Parliament and Minister of Finance, saying that he never gave in to the “rich pricks”, he never gave in to the people who earn $50,000 and who believed that they were paying more than they should to finance Labour’s various whims and fancies. And he will be able to do that. The speeches he gave in the run-up to the Budget were all about the principles he was applying. I take issue with one of those principles. He cries crocodile tears about equity; about how he has made sure that everything Labour has done has been equitable. Well, when it comes to taxes that is simply not the case. The distributional effects of the tax changes made by the Labour Government in no way correspond to the rather pure social democratic view that Dr Cullen is trying to propagate at the moment. In fact, a lot of his distributional decisions have been focused on winning the votes of people whose political influence corresponds to larger incomes rather than to Labour looking after the people who it believes will always back it.

Let us measure this Budget by some of Dr Cullen’s benchmarks, because there is an issue of credibility here. We know that the Budget is all about Labour and its political manoeuvrings, so is it possible that Dr Cullen would be able to execute the Budget he has laid down, and that Helen Clark means to see it through? I would say the answer to that is no. They have written a Budget as if they will not be overseeing it. How do we know that? The first point is to measure Dr Cullen by his own benchmarks. He always said he would not borrow for tax cuts. He has run a cash deficit of $12 billion, when 6 months ago the cash deficit for the next 3 to 4 years was $2 billion. The bond programme will be almost double what it was. I can imagine what Dr Cullen would say if National had presented this plan. He would be screaming from the rooftops that National had borrowed for tax cuts. The issue here is not so much whether the Government should do some borrowing in the context of the Government’s books. It is not that significant. The issue is whether we can believe what Labour members say. They say what they think suits them at the time. Dr Cullen has said for years that he would not borrow, and then, under political pressure, and when he is losing an argument with the New Zealand public, he does borrow. That, of course, raises the prospect that he would repeat the same act with tax cuts that he did last time, which is to promise them before the election and abandon them afterwards.

That brings us to the issue of spending. Dr Cullen, Helen Clark, and all the Labour members have behaved as if every dollar they have spent has been spent wisely and effectively. I think the public know without being told that that is certainly not the case. Labour members have also said that any departure from their spending plans means a cut for doctors and nurses and teachers. Dr Cullen has departed from his previous spending plans by cutting the forward allocation from $2.1 billion to $1.75 billion—in fact, it was $1.75 billion in 2009, $1.79 billion in 2010, and $1.8 billion in 2011. So why does this matter? Well, those are actually fairly small spending allocations for Dr Cullen, and I do not think anyone believes that he will be able to stick to them. Let us look at the last 3 years and at how much extra money the Government has spent. In 2005 Government spending increased by $3 billion—$3.013 billion. In 2006 Government spending increased by $4.4 billion. In 2007 Government spending increased by $4.7 billion. This year, 2008, it estimates—before the Toll purchase—that it will increase by $3.3 billion. Who believes that with increases of $3 billion, $4.4 billion, and $4.6 billion, Labour would stick to $1.75 billion? It would not, it could not, it does not know how to.

This is a good-times Government. The only kind of Government those members know how to run is one where they get billion-dollar windfalls before the Budget and before the election, and they go out and spend it. What they should be focusing on is how to get New Zealand through this downturn and on to a higher growth track. That is not what is in this Budget. What is in this Budget are Labour’s political manoeuvrings. What should be here is a recognition that some of the prosperity we have enjoyed has been borrowed, and that while households are paying back that debt, in the next phase of economic growth, the next economic cycle, all our prosperity will have to be earned. We will not be able to legislate for it or borrow it; we will have to earn it. That is where National’s plans are focused. National is focused on getting through this downturn and then getting in place the kinds of policies that will encourage, allow, and reward New Zealanders for earning prosperity, because that is how we will get on to a higher growth track. Labour has signalled very clearly in this Budget that is has given up on the worthy ambition it started out with, which was to lift New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. It has given up on that.

R Doug Woolerton: We know what Labour’s doing. Tell us about National.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not need to tell that member that day after day National is out there setting out its five-point plan to New Zealanders, offering some hope and some confidence, and demonstrating that if they elect National they will have a Government that understands that it should make sure that every taxpayer’s dollar is spent well.

R Doug Woolerton: No, that’s not what they are telling me.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: What about some detail?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have to say to those members that we are being very well received. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We are being very well received.

Dr Cullen’s Budget is now pretty much consigned to history as a manoeuvre by Labour in its pre-election run-up. The next 3 or 4 months will be about the issues that matter, which are the plans to get us through this downturn, lift our economic performance, and lift New Zealanders’ incomes.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : What a thoroughly disappointing contribution that was! One of things that is supposed to happen in a Budget debate such as this is that the Government puts up its plan—and it has; all the documents we see on the Table are Labour’s plan. Then the Opposition, the National Party, is supposed to put up its plan, and we have a debate and the public of New Zealand get the chance to decide which one they like better. That is what is supposed to be happening here. But from National we have had the dance of the seven veils. National members have stood up in this House and whinged, whined, grizzled, and groaned. They have not given us one skerrick of policy—not a sausage; not a thing. Bill English had 10 minutes to say something, and he did not say a single, solitary thing about what National would do. I will ask the National members some questions about that, so I just let them know that will be my general line of approach.

I want the National members over there to answer two simple questions. The first is this: if they are so critical about Labour’s tax cuts, what will National’s tax cuts be? How much will people get? It is a very, very simple question. How much will people get? People know what the Labour-led Government has delivered, because it is sitting there on the Table of the House. They know what is in the Budget, and I will talk about that in a minute. So the first question is: how much will people get from National? Mr Key has said a number of things. He has said it will be more than $50 a week, so we assume it is more than that. But does it mean everybody gets $50 a week, or does it mean some people get $50 a week and some people do not?

R Doug Woolerton: He’s changed.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: He has changed—and I will talk about that in just a minute. That is the first question. How much will people get? People are asking that. They want to know what National will give them, because National has been whingeing and moaning about tax cuts for 9 years. Here was the chance for Bill English, who supposedly will be the Treasurer or the Minister of Finance, to tell us what he would do. He had 10 minutes to tell us that. There was not a thing—not a sausage; not a skerrick of a policy.

The second question I ask National members is this: how will they afford it? Where will the money come from to fund this $50-plus a week tax cut?

So there are two simple questions: how much will people get, and where will the money come from? I think those sorts of responsible questions need to be asked in a debate like this, and National needs to come clean. Mr Key has said that National has a taxation policy but it will not tell anyone what is in it just now. Do members know what I think? I think that is because the National members do not trust the voter. They simply do not trust voters enough to tell them the policy now. Why are National members holding out on New Zealand voters? Why are they now saying they are going to give people a tax cut, but they are not going to tell them about it just now? Why? Is it because the National members think voters are too thick to understand the policy, or do they think it will not be generous enough or will be too generous? What is it about the National Party that means it will not come clean and tell people what they will get, and how National will afford it?

I think that is a problem.

R Doug Woolerton: That’s the worry.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I think that is the problem, as Mr Woolerton quite rightly says. It is a worry for National. I think National has been flattering people by saying it has a tax policy. I do not think it has one just yet. I do not think National was expecting what Dr Cullen delivered, and now it has had to go back to the abacus and try to work out what it means. We all know basically what National will do. It will give people who are wealthier more and people on lower incomes less, because that is just the way of the National Party. That will fail one of the tests that Dr Cullen has set.

Of course, the people in the National Party do not understand that over these last eight Budgets we have had to restore the mess we inherited in 1999. We have had to do things like making doctors’ visits cheaper and lowering the cost of prescription charges—those were important things. We have had to expand health services, screening, and immunisation programmes—all the things that people have been calling for. The list goes on: 20 hours’ free early childhood education, interest-free student loans, building thousands of State houses, increasing superannuation, rolling out better funding for broadband, increasing the transport infrastructure, providing more police, allocating more funding for defence, and so on. Dr Cullen knew, of course, that the time would come when the economy would go soft and there would need to be some funds there for that. Every household knows; every household knows one puts a little aside for the bad times. Now, of course, the economy has got softer than it was, yet Michael Cullen has delivered tax cuts, exactly as he said he would do. So we mean what we say and say what we mean; it is as simple as that. The National Party, of course, does the exact opposite of that.

What does the Budget actually mean for people? A two-earner family with two children aged under 13 years, and with incomes of $45,000 a year and $20,000 a year—$65,000 a year all up—from 1 October will get $42 extra a week, and by 1 April 2011 they will get an extra $84.55 a week. A one-earner family with two children under 13, and with an income of $45,000 a year will get an extra $30.83 a week from 1 October, and an extra $62.82 a week from 1 April 2011. A two-earner family with one child under 13, and with both adults earning $20,000 a year, will get an extra $35.16 a week from 1 October, and $67.76 a week from 1 April 2011. Members will note that all of those figures are north of $50—that is the point. A one-earner family that earns $45,000 a year and has one child under 13 will get an extra $27.85 a week from 1 October, and $56.42 a week from 1 April 2011. A one-earner family on $35,000 a year and with one child under 13 will get an extra $16.21 a week from 1 October, and $30.94 a week from 1 April 2011. Members can see that the Labour-led Government has been very upfront about what it is doing.

What about superannuitants? From 1 October 2008 the increase per week for a married couple is $45.88, and for a single superannuitant who lives alone it is $23.84. In addition to that is a very, very welcome suggestion, in my electorate, from New Zealand First of free public transport for superannuitants during off-peak times. That is a very, very good idea. So, you see, the Labour-led Government, with the support of its support parties, has come up with some concrete ideas and laid them out before us on the Table.

Now, what does John Key say? First, he said that the tax cuts would be north of $50. Then, when he was pushed on it by Paul Henry, he said National would announce its policy on the campaign trail. In February 2008 he talked about tax cuts of $200 to $300 a month. Then he said to Sean Plunket that the tax cuts would not be smaller than Labour’s. He said that they may be larger than that but they certainly would not be less. A bit later he said to Sean that of course National had a policy for a tax cut programme, and had been advocating it for about 6 years. The presenter said: “Well, why not tell us what it is you’ve had for 6 years?”. That is a fair question; it is the very question I am asking here. Why does John Key not tell us that, or is he jigging it in response to this Budget? John Key said: “Um, I’m not going to tell you our tax cut package now.” That is a problem.

National could afford tax cuts in only a number of ways. It could cut public services, and we know it would do that. Everybody knows it would do that; there is no question about that. Do members know why? It is because National Governments always cut public services when they are in office. I also reckon that a National Government would sell State assets, and I do not believe it would wait until a second term in office in order to do so.

The National members will not tell people how much they will get by way of tax cuts, and they will not tell us where the money will come from. That is why this has been a disappointing debate by the National members. The public has a right to know what the National members have planned, and I challenge the next National speaker to give us an idea of what that plan is.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : In a few days’ time, at the end of this debate, this House will be charged with the responsibility of either voting for this Budget or, alternatively, voting for the motion put by the National Party that it has no confidence in the Government. That is an unusual motion to put, because the meat of this Budget surrounds the tax cuts—precisely, the Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts, Annual Rates, and Remedial Matters) Bill 2008.

Hon Dover Samuels: And they’re supporting it!

PETER BROWN: The National Party supports that bill, but it has put a motion of no confidence in the Government. One has to ask what it is that the National Party has no confidence in.

John Key said in his Budget speech that when it comes to taxation, National will plan better, structure better, and deliver better. I think that those are the exact words that John Key used, but we have not heard one National member tell us in any detail at all what they mean. Nobody knows. It is not only MPs who want to know; the country is crying out to learn what they mean.

John Key is on record as saying that National wants higher wages—he said that in his speech in this House a day or so ago. But earlier he had stated that the higher wages would come from tax cuts. He said that there should be tax cuts of at least $50 per week per person, then he threw doubt on that by saying that it might not be so. But he says that tax cuts are National’s No. 1 priority. What does that tell us? The Government has delivered on tax cuts. What we want to know from the National Party is how much it will deliver and when.

I listened to Chris Tremain the other day—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?

PETER BROWN: Chris Tremain—he is a new MP. He said that we should forget the National Party of the past, that National was a new, vibrant party. I say to the member that he should look at his front bench—those members are not very new and they are certainly not vibrant. If one examines the record of the National Party when it was last in office, one finds that it downgraded pensions and that it sold State assets such as Contact Energy, despite a coalition agreement that it would not. It introduced draconian industrial legislation and supported it to the death knell. Worse still—as if that was not bad enough—it wanted to scale down the police force and to replace police officers with a computer. That computer has subsequently been sold to a real estate outfit, despite it having cost, I think, $98 million.

The only time we heard any policy from National Party members was when their leader was standing in front of a group of journalists and talking about the health sector. They asked him whether he would lift the cap on doctors’ fees, and he did not know. But Tony Ryall walked forward and said on national television that, yes, National would lift the cap on doctors’ fees.

R Doug Woolerton: Really.

PETER BROWN: Yes, that is true. Key did not know; he stood there dumbstruck, like a possum in the headlights.

When it comes to the tax cut issue, New Zealand First believes that Dr Cullen has got it just about right. It is fair and it is right.

He has addressed a number of our issues. The Hon Paul Swain referred to an initiative to do with superannuitants that came from New Zealand First. But we have a couple of concerns that the Labour Government has not addressed. One is overseas pensions. We have been harping on for 3 years now about the need to address the problem of overseas pensions. We know that it is complex when a person earns a pension elsewhere in the world, then comes to New Zealand and receives it here. We know that it is a complex situation. But some of the stuff is so small, yet so significant to the individual, that it should have been addressed ages ago. What comes to mind is a lady I met who is married to an American. She is a New Zealander, she worked overseas, and she married an American whose voluntary pension goes through Government coffers. Because of that, she gets zilch. She gets nothing. If she divorced her husband—if they separated—she would get superannuation tomorrow. That is not fair.

Dr Richard Worth: There’s the answer.

PETER BROWN: I am sure the member does not mean that. The answer lies heavily with Dr Cullen and the Labour Government.

There is another issue that is close to the hearts of New Zealand First members, and that is the problem facing physiotherapists. When they first came to me before the last election to outline their problems, I could not believe that their problems were so bad. So many of them came to see me that at one time I literally had an office full of them, and some of them were very senior physiotherapists.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Go and talk to your mates.

PETER BROWN: I am talking to my mates, and this is the best way to talk to them.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: And what did they do? Nothing!

PETER BROWN: The member might be interested in a few statistics. In this country, over 30,000 people a day visit physiotherapists—30,000 people a day. The Labour Government should take that on board. We worked closely with the Government to set up a review, headed by an eminent QC, David Goddard. The member over there who is from the legal profession knows he is—

Dr Richard Worth: A very fine man.

PETER BROWN: I could not agree more. He says in his report—a very comprehensive report—that the accident compensation funding of physiotherapy is unsustainable. He says that physiotherapists cannot recover the sustainable cost of providing treatment to accident victims. The physiotherapists unfairly bear a significant part of the cost of the treatment of victims of accidents. This is an independent reviewer of some eminence. He goes on to recommend an immediate increase in their funding of at least 33 percent. That is a huge increase, but it is an insult for them to get zilch. These guys are the quiet providers of medical services. Physiotherapy services are increasingly suffering from staffing shortages. They desperately need more funds to recruit and retain staff. Physiotherapists are moving to Australia, and we need these guys. They are essential to the treatment of accident victims.

However, having made that point, I have to say, on a personal note—more personal than perhaps my colleagues feel, although they might disagree—that I am delighted that this Government has finally recognised that we have a shipping industry. It has shrunk. National decimated it. But I compliment the Minister of Transport, Annette King; since she has been the Minister of Transport, I have spoken to her on a number of occasions, and she has spoken with the industry, and she has recognised that something has to be done about it. It is an essential industry—

Dail Jones: Is something being done?

PETER BROWN: Something is being done. The Government is going to inject $36 million into coastal shipping, for the future of this country. I can tell members that to an island nation that is tucked way down the bottom of the South Pacific, shipping is becoming more essential than ever before. I say to the National Party members that when New Zealand First was in coalition with them we were on track to getting something done. Was it 11 or 12 years ago? As soon as we were dispensed with, the National Government lost sight of the shipping industry. Labour needs to be congratulated on recognising that industry and doing something about it.

The other right thing—if I might just conclude—that the Government has done is to buy back the railway. If we want to develop the rail system in this country, it is better done, and more effectively done, by State ownership. The private operator can invest a bit here and there, but it is responsible to the shareholders. The Government can take a strategic overview of the importance of the rail system and how it links in to other modes of transport. I compliment the Government on that move.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : We have just heard the deputy leader of New Zealand First offer what seemed to me to be an incredible number of brickbats and very few bouquets to this Government in the context of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. I would just like to frame the debate for a moment in the way the honourable member started out, because the issue here is a debate on an amendment that “this House has no confidence in the Government led by Helen Clark, because New Zealanders have had to wait far too long to see any changes to personal tax thresholds or any lowering of personal tax rates, and”—I emphasise the next few words—“over nine Budgets this Government has presided over a decline in New Zealand’s standard of living compared to the rest of the world.”

I think a good starting point is really to ask the question about what we should hold a Government accountable for. The answer would seem obvious: it is whether it is achieving the goal that it has stated to be its “top priority”. The current Government has been unequivocal about its top priority goal. It wants to get New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD income range. Prime Minister Clark reaffirmed that goal in Parliament earlier this year. The Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, has said that the Government needs to achieve 4 percent-plus annual growth in real GDP on a sustained basis to achieve it. The goal is important. The goal is achievable. Economic growth, or more precisely growth in real per capita incomes, means the difference between hardship and a comfortable standard of living for many. Over the past 20 years Ireland, and now Australia, have lifted themselves from below average OECD income levels to well into the top half of the range. So, measured against this top-priority goal, the Budget is an admission of failure. Indeed, the goal is not even mentioned.

It is not difficult to understand why the economy’s average growth rate is falling, not rising. Over the so-called forecast period, the next 4 years, annual growth in real GDP is expected to average only 2.5 percent. Well, at that anaemic rate New Zealand will be lucky not to fall further down the OECD income ladder, and the income gap with Australia will almost certainly widen.

So what should the Budget have done? I do not think that is a very difficult question to answer, at all. I would say there should have been four core elements on which the Government should have focused, and did not. The first was an ongoing, credible programme of personal tax cuts. There is a real need to put the right incentives in place to encourage people to work, save, and get ahead under their own steam. If we can boost after-tax wages, that will clearly help stem the flow of New Zealanders overseas. No one in the Government can be proud of those exodus figures. They are simply appalling. We have to set in place strategies that will enable New Zealand to keep the skilled workers we need to grow our economy and to improve our public services.

The second thing we have to do is to bring discipline to Government spending. The third thing we have to do is that there needs to be an unwavering focus on lifting education standards. The fourth thing we have to do—and I would just like to speak about this in the balance of the time available, in the context of my responsibilities as Opposition spokesman on economic development—is we need to boost infrastructure to help the country grow.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Seriously?

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Mr Mallard has just intervened to say “Seriously?”. He clearly believes we do not have to boost infrastructure to help the country grow.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s not true.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: He now says that it is not true. That is what he said a moment ago. Well, I would just like to mention, for a moment, the $1.5 billion plan to bring ultra-fast broadband to businesses, schools, hospitals, and homes. Does he not think that is necessary? It seems not. Does he not think it is necessary to substantially boost investment in roads, electricity, and water? Apparently, he does not.

I would like to make a comment just on infrastructure, in the context of public-private partnerships, because some recent work has been done—some lessons that I think are very relevant, learnt in the United Kingdom. This Labour-led Government has always fiddled around the edges of public-private partnerships, until quite recently. In February this year the Government put the issue back on the agenda when Dr Cullen and Annette King announced that a steering committee was to be established to investigate the possibility of using a public-private partnership to develop the Waterview Connection in Auckland. It is a $2 billion tunnel project, which will complete the western ring route.

If one looks at the experience in the United Kingdom, there has been substantial experience of a good nature with such arrangements. Initially, the focus in the UK, as it seems this Government might be contemplating here in a very minor way, was on the construction phase: on getting something built on time and for a reasonable sum of money. But the focus has now shifted, and a lot of projects have become operational now. It is interesting just to look at the numbers that have emerged from a survey carried out by Her Majesty’s Treasury and Partnerships UK, which is actually a public-private partnership. They found three things, just briefly. First, they found that public sector contract managers reported that 96 percent of projects were performing at least satisfactorily, and 66 percent to a very good or good standard. The second finding was that 83 percent of contracts were described as always, or almost always, accurately specifying the services required. The third finding was that 97 percent of public sector contract managers rated the relationship with their private sector counterpart as satisfactory or better, and 72 percent rated it as good or very good.

I would like to say something about New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, because that seems to be an organisation that is very like the curate’s egg: good in part, and bad in part. There are opportunities that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise seizes on that are great initiatives. There are other initiatives that it seems, sadly, to ignore that have, I would say, undoubted merit. I would just like to talk about one of those for a moment. I do so conscious of the fact there has been a change at the top of the organisation. The new chairman, Jon Mayson, is very well regarded, and, of course, Tim Gibson is the chief executive and continues to do a good job. But I would like to talk about the failure of the “Buy New Zealand Made” programme, and to note that something happened in Los Angeles—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s not a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programme. Get it right, for a change.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Mr Mallard should just pause for a moment and be patient. All will be revealed. In Los Angeles on Waitangi Day in 2007 more than 1,000 Kiwis joined together to build New Zealand’s biggest business card—a 100-metre long sand sculpture of the silver fern.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which year?

Dr RICHARD WORTH: 2007, Mr Mallard.

Pansy Wong: Last year.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: And that was last year, in case the Minister has forgotten. What this is all about is that we can properly move from “Buy New Zealand Made” to what is proposed here: it is a brand identity change to “Made from New Zealand”. The Minister may never have heard of it. “Made from New Zealand” is a deliberately wide-ranging descriptor that goes way, way beyond the Buy Kiwi Made campaign. The Buy Kiwi Made campaign is no longer relevant to a significant number of New Zealand businesses that have elected to adopt business models that take part of their supply chain offshore—for example, iconic brands like Icebreaker, Swanndri, Karen Walker, and Wattie’s, as well as hundreds of smaller enterprises that have developed intellectual property in New Zealand but manufacture, or are fully based, overseas.

The result of all that is that many companies now have an identity crisis when it comes to leveraging off the value that being from New Zealand represents. There is an initiative to be further developed in conjunction with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise that could produce huge gains for the country. At the moment, it seems that the organisation has insufficient interest.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : It is no wonder Rodney Hide does not have to turn up to work, and can run around school pantomimes, when that is his opposition. I would like to get back to debating the Budget, which is what this actual debate is about. One would never have known that, if one had to suffer through listening to the last 10 minutes. I just want to quote a little bit from a prime ministerial speech. It starts off with an explanation of what these Budget tax cuts will mean to real people. A Kiwi family on the average household income of $72,000—say, split two-thirds to one-third between two parents—with two children at primary school is almost $43 a week better off from 1 October this year. That is equivalent to a 3.6 percent increase in take-home pay.

As many will know, I was a trade union official before coming here, and negotiating a 3.6 percent increase in take-home pay was a pretty good feat, particularly in times of low inflation, which we have seen under this Government in the last 8½ years. There is a 3.6 percent wage increase coming on 1 October into the pockets of the average family with a couple of kids. It is a great Budget.

Then we look at married superannuitants, who will see their fortnightly payments rise by $45.88. That is a 5.2 percent increase for those people; and, of course, it does not stop there. There is more.

R Doug Woolerton: That’s a fantastic rise.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: As Mr Woolerton knows, with next April’s annual adjustment expected to be $29.44 on their fortnightly payment, their fortnightly rise in payment by then will be $75.32, or an 8.6 percent increase. That is real money for real people. That is why when Bill English stood up and spoke, and when Dr Worth stood up and spoke, we did not hear anything about the Budget. Bill English, wannabe Minister of Finance, had three of his members staring at the floor during his speech in this debate, and the whip, who had to be here and was sitting behind him with the camera on him, managed to get his head up for a little of the speech. We did not hear a thing from Bill English about this Budget, and when we think about those two things we can understand why they do not want to debate it.

They do not want to face up to the fact that real New Zealanders are getting real money in their pockets come 1 October and on into the future, as we know, from the $10.6 billion package of tax cuts that we are debating here. It is no wonder they do not want to talk about it, because they have no answers, they are too slippery, and they cannot actually front up and say what they would do instead. So we had the rambling nonsense we have just had for the last 10 minutes from that National Party member.

We also have to remember that the world economy is not going too well at the moment. Anybody who turns on the TV news knows that. Parts of the world are suffering a food shortage. If we go back to 1998, when we last had a National Government and similar economic circumstances in the world, what did we see then? What did National do to New Zealand superannuation? Did it raise superannuation by 8.6 percent in the next few months? No, it cut it. It also decided that it had to sell a few things. Not only did it sell Contact Energy but it sold 13,000 State houses and had the rest on the block.

So when I became the Minister, Labour inherited a whole raft of State houses that were ready to be sold and that had not been maintained for years because National was not going to spend any money on them. We have had to find the money to fix up those houses, and there is more money coming in the Budget. We have managed to get about 7,500 houses back into Housing New Zealand stock, as well, so that we can deal with the waiting list of people we inherited from that lot over there. National said: “When the going gets tough overseas, we hit the hardest the people here who have no resources.”—that is, the elderly and the families who do not have enough income to pay a market rent. That is what the National Party is known for and that is what its members over there right now are thinking of doing, if they ever get a chance to sit on this side of the House.

Let us have a look at what a one-earner family with two children under 13 years of age, earning, say, 45 grand—a pretty normal wage for a lot of people—will get from 1 October. They will get 30 bucks—$30.83. Come 1 April 2011 that figure goes up to $62.82. That is pretty good money. It is pretty good money when they go to the supermarket to buy the food they have to, to fill up the petrol tank, and to pay the power bills. We know that it is real money for real people; that is why this is a good Budget.

But not only do we have tax cuts, because people on the streets are saying it is good to have tax cuts, but we are not having them at the expense of health, education, housing, social welfare, and all those sorts of things. We have seen all the vox pops on the TV and in the newspapers saying: “Yes, but, we don’t want education to suffer.” So let us look at what else is in the Budget. There is $171.6 million over 4 years going into operational grants for schools. That is a 5 percent increase in operational grants for all our schools, including $65 million for that much-needed information and communications technology. We know that our schools want to have the best technology for their children, and this Government is putting serious money into making sure that that happens.

We have tax cuts, we have superannuation increases, and we have more money for education—real money. Then we come to the other aspect that people are concerned about. They say: “If National says they can give bigger tax cuts, how are they are going to afford the health care that this Government has provided for in this Budget?”. The Government has provided another $2 billion over the next 4 years to future-proof our health services against population growth and the cost increases that come from paying workers in the system a decent wage. We cannot do that if we are cutting the budgets for health, or holding them still. Who will be able to pay for the doctors and the nurses to get a wage increase if National says we can give people a $50-plus tax cut and still give more money to health? It does not stack up. Are the doctors and nurses going to get a pay increase if the money is frozen? National pretends all these doctors and nurses are bureaucrats rather than health professionals. That does not happen, so there is $750 million per annum in the Budget for health care. We also have provided an additional $80 million in there over the 4 years to keep the primary health care strategy going. That has led to lower doctors’ fees, and prescription charges that people can afford.

We also have community organisations out there that have been doing it tough, looking after families in stress and all sorts of situations that the State used to provide for but now it is done by the community sector. We all know that there is $446.5 million for those community organisations to deal with the issues in our communities. As for elderly people, we have to congratulate New Zealand First, along with the rest of the people in the Labour Party and those who support this Government, on that gold card. What is the gold card coming up with in this Budget? It is pretty important stuff: there is $72 million for subsidised public transport so that our elderly people can get on the bus or the train and ride free in off-peak times. That is when they can do their shopping, visit the doctor, and that sort of thing. They do not need to get on the train at 7 o’clock in the morning; they can wait until 9 or 10, or whatever, and go at a leisurely time for free—this Government has allowed for that.

If they are like me and have listened to too much loud music when they were young, they are going to need that hearing aid sooner or later. We now see the subsidy for that hearing aid increasing from $198 to $500 from 1 October this year. There is no waiting with this Government—they will get the subsidy straight away.

I also want to talk about the Pacific communities. We have worked hard with our Pacific communities. As a former Minister of Pacific Island Affairs I can say that we set up, in our first term, a provider development fund to build the capacity of the Pacific community, and to provide health care for the Pacific community. We saw the benefits of that when Pacific children were immunised against meningococcal disease at the highest rates. Why? Because we used Pacific providers. This Budget provides $10.4 million over the next 4 years to keep that capacity to create the workforce so that we can have “for Pacific, by Pacific”—because it works. It actually works to have that arrangement, and everybody knows that.

We also know that a lot of our young people need to get into Modern Apprenticeships. There is money in the Budget for the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs to encourage even more young Pacific people into Modern Apprenticeships.

I finish by saying that this Government has put tax cuts in this Budget and provided for superannuation increases, health, education, the elderly, Pacific communities, Māori communities, and so on. Did we have to sell anything? Did we have to cut pensions? No, and in fact there is over $665 million to buy back a rail system that that lot over there hocked off to their mates and then let it run to rack and ruin.

Chris Tremain: Who sold Telecom?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Those fools over there from Hawke’s Bay better get up to their electorates and tell people why they are against having a rail service in Hawke’s Bay. They will soon find themselves out of a job if they tell people there that they will not get rail in Hawke’s Bay because National is opposed to that. I say good luck to them. We are buying back the rail system; that lot would sell it off again to their mates like they did last time, and they would also whack over the pensioners like they did last time.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : That was a former Minister of Housing, who, along with his colleagues, has been railing against tax cuts for the last 8 years, but who is telling us now that suddenly they are a good idea. In fact, so confused is he that he has been bragging in the House—it would have been recorded 5 minutes ago—that Labour is apparently giving $48 a week in tax cuts, according to his figures. But, according to the member, if National gives $50 a week, that is outrageous; that extra $2 will break the bank. So he is a very confused member who is claiming that Labour is giving $48, but that National, if it gives $50—incidentally, I do not know where he got the figure from—will suddenly break the bank. That is absolutely absurd.

I find it interesting, though, that that member is putting the spin on Labour’s tax relief. While arguing that tax cuts are really bad for the economy, he is now exaggerating the tax cuts that Labour is going to give. I know that every TV station in this country, every newspaper in this country, and every radio station in this country did the maths. Their people left this Budget, they left this House, and they went away to do the maths. Do members know what they reported? Every TV station in this country, every newspaper in this country, and every radio station in this country reported just what that elderly woman playing bowls said on Television One’s News, which was that this tax cut equates to one whole block of cheese on special. That is right—one whole block of cheese on special. Listening to the Labour member speaking previously, we would think that Labour is giving huge tax cuts. Why is it, then, that every media outlet in this country, and that elderly woman playing bowls, have cast their eyes across the figures and come up with one single block of cheese on special? I will tell members why. It is because the news media and that woman got it right, and the Labour Party is now putting spin on it, hoping that New Zealanders will get it wrong—but they will not. Labour’s tax relief is too little, too late. It should have come 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, and 1 year ago. It is absolutely disgraceful.

But I can tell members that 36,000 bureaucrats in Wellington will not be getting a cut—they will not have a reduction in their spending. Bureaucrats are up in numbers from 26,000 just 8 years ago to 36,000 today, but their spending has not been cut, at all. In fact, I know that some had a little bit of cash in their back pockets for the mini bar at Tongariro Lodge. That is right; they were each given a little bit of spending money for the mini bar at Tongariro Lodge. I tabled the answer to a written question today, and do members know how much miscellaneous spending those 94 Housing New Zealand Corporation bureaucrats had? They had $5,000 in miscellaneous spending. Do members know why? Rather than write “mini bar”, the Housing New Zealand Corporation decided to write “miscellaneous spending.” Steve Maharey might very well look ashamed, because when he was an MP in Opposition 9 years ago he said: “This is enough. Government agencies should no longer be going to luxury lodges. I won’t have it.” But then his Minister of Housing, Maryan Street, oversaw a 2-day visit to Tongariro Lodge that cost the taxpayer $65,000, and she oversaw that just 2 weeks ago.

Can members of this House tell me how long everyday New Zealanders have been tightening their belts in this country? Is it about 6 months?

Pansy Wong: Oh, a year.

PHIL HEATLEY: It is, perhaps, even a year. Can members of Parliament here tell me how long businesses in New Zealand have been tightening their belts?

Chris Tremain: 8 months.

PHIL HEATLEY: About 8 months—6 months, or 12 months, maybe? We are saying that everyday New Zealand businesses have been tightening their belts for 6 to 12 months now, while the Minister of Housing, who has completely lost touch with those businesses, has sent bureaucrats to Tongariro Lodge—not a year ago, but 2 weeks ago. This Government is absolutely and utterly out of touch with New Zealand, and that is an absolutely disgrace.

Chris Tremain: You’ve got to wonder what she’s got planned in her Budget for next year.

PHIL HEATLEY: I am concerned about what the Minister of Housing has got planned in her budget for next year’s conferences. It will not be Tongariro Lodge, it will not be Millbrook; I understand that perhaps Hawaii or some sort of overseas venue might be on the cards next year if the Minister of Housing is still in Government, which is highly, highly unlikely.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is just a little bit of confusion here. I think that Phil Heatley just offered John Key’s Hawaiian mansion for conferences for New Zealand public servants; I just ask that he clarifies that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is a debating issue.

PHIL HEATLEY: So what is incredible here is that essentially Labour is saying: “We’re going to give the public a block of cheese on special, and you 94 bureaucrats should go off to Tongariro Lodge and have a good couple of days. Here is $5,000 for miscellaneous spending, and if you spend it on a mini bar, that is fine with us. Do not tag it; we do not want to know about it as far as we’re concerned. But New Zealanders, have a block of cheese; bureaucrats, go off to Tongariro Lodge.”, and “Bring back some photos. If you catch a trout, I’d like to have it.”, is what the Minister of Housing is saying.

I would like to talk about the Housing New Zealand Corporation, because the ex-Minister across the House, Mark Gosche, who was the Minister of Housing for a time, oversaw some issues at the Housing New Zealand Corporation that I think as a National Party we will definitely have to address. One issue is that of the wanton vandalism, by a minority of State house tenants, that has never been checked. Year after year the vandalism bill for the corporation has been going up by about 10 percent—some years by 8 percent, some years by 12 percent. But there are a couple of million bucks’ worth of broken windows and kicked-in doors every year, and that Government will not do anything about it. I say that when there are 10,000 struggling families on the waiting list who would really appreciate a State home—that is what they need—why would we house someone who consistently kicks in doors and breaks windows? Why would we house someone with a sort of Trevor Mallard complex: “Some days I just get violent and I want to hit someone.”, or “I want to hit something, kick a door in, or punch someone.”? Why would we put a person with a Trevor Mallard complex in a State house, when so many other desperate families are on the waiting list?

Other issues concern State houses where one person is rattling around in a 4 or 5-bedroom house, large sections, million-dollar homes, and high-income tenants—tenants getting $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000 income and living in a State home. I wonder what those tenants’ tax cuts will be under Labour. I reckon it will be two blocks of cheese for those $70,000-income State house tenants—“A couple of blocks of cheese, a State house, and you can kick in the doors and we won’t even hold you to account.”

There is a lot of waste in this Government; I have just addressed the one area of housing. It is a crying shame that we now have to listen to stories from all Government departments about the waste of the taxpayer take. All that New Zealanders will get back, according to every newsagent in this country, is the money for one miserable block of cheese on special, while they watch bureaucrats enjoying themselves at Tongariro Lodge—fly-fishing, and sitting by the fire at night with four-course meals and chatting about the day’s events. It is a sad state of affairs, and that is why the country is looking forward to a change of Government.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the 2008 Budget because it is a Budget that balances matters very carefully—cutting taxes on the one hand, and investing in services that New Zealanders need on the other. It is very carefully delivering personal tax reductions responsibly, phasing them in over a 4-year period, and fairly, by applying them to all New Zealand taxpayers in proportion to their income. Having carefully managed financial resources since its election in 1999 in anticipation of difficult times that might lie ahead, the Government can now afford to offer a substantial amount of tax relief to New Zealand taxpayers—and it is substantial. It is worth $10.6 billion over the next 4 years, and recognises the contribution that hard-working New Zealanders make to our economy. It also provides an incentive for workers to stay and invest in this country.

On the Government side of the House, we all acknowledge that households have come under considerable pressure in New Zealand and across the world as all nations cope with rising food and petrol prices, and higher mortgage repayments driven up by the credit crunch. The last eight Budgets have delivered major reinvestments in public services and infrastructure, and a programme of substantial tax relief to businesses, savers, and families with children. From 1 April 2008 that programme will continue, with the personal tax cuts I have mentioned, as well as the further relief to be delivered through Working for Families, KiwiSaver, and further business tax reform. The tax cut package was delivered by a Government that can deliver relief for workers coping with the rising living costs I mentioned earlier, without driving public accounts deeper into debt or slashing public services to do so.

As well as easing the burden on Kiwi workers, it is clear that the personal income tax cuts set out in the Budget will promote economic growth. It is interesting to note what Treasury had to say in the Economic and Fiscal Update it recently published. The update states: “Domestic demand slowed from mid-2007, and is forecast to remain subdued, as a result of factors such as higher interest rates, falling house prices, lower net migration inflows and higher prices for petrol and food. Interest rates have been elevated because of ongoing inflation pressures and global credit constraints. Personal income tax cuts, growing labour incomes and high farm incomes (albeit lower owing to drought) partially offset these forces.”

It can be seen that Treasury is very clear that the timing of these tax cuts is responsible, they are reflationary, and this is very much a Budget for the rainy day that this Government has foreseen will be coming. We are now in the rainy day, and the Government finances are being managed responsibly, as Treasury’s Economic and Fiscal Update demonstrates. National members, whom we have heard much from this afternoon—well, not much in substance, but much in terms of hot air and volume—would have us introduce greater tax reductions, never mind about global economic uncertainty. But the Government, in the three consecutive terms of office that it has enjoyed, has clearly learnt the value of cautious and prudent financial management, delivering long-term benefits for the nation.

This is not a Government that believes in just squandering taxpayers’ hard-earned resources, like members opposite would have it do. Rather than increasing expenditure even further for tax cuts, this Government has shown its balanced approach by keeping funds aside. This is to ensure that it can continue to provide a wide range of public services to a high standard, with a focus on expanding those services for which there will be increasing future demand. Not for this Government a return to the run-down public services of the 1990s we inherited when we took office. We have been reinvesting in this country and providing people with the sorts of services they deserve in a world-class country such as ours.

It is interesting to note some of the major initiatives in the Budget. I am very proud of the expenditure being directed towards ensuring widespread access to high-speed broadband. After the effort put in by David Cunliffe and other hard-working Ministers in this Government to get the telecommunications sector right, we are finally in a situation where Telecom and the sector it has dominated are required to manage things in a fair way, instead of simply repatriating profits back to the United States. And what would National do? It would subsidise Telecom and turn it back into a monopoly operator—the behemoth astride this sector—by subsidising it to operate broadband across the country. That is absolutely crazy. This is supposedly the party with the great economic vision to take the great leap forward. I do not think so. [Interruption] That is right; National is quite happy to subsidise the private sector, but when it comes to building public sector infrastructure it tells a very different story.

I am also very proud of the initiatives for upskilling the workforce. Obviously, the carbon trading scheme—currently under consideration in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—will be compatible with international markets. It is a very important initiative and one that we are determined to get right and enact as soon as possible. Then we will upgrade New Zealand’s rail service so that it can accommodate the increasing number of commuters who choose—and have the meaningful choice, thanks to the investments made by this Government—to take public transport because of rising fuel costs and their environmental awareness. There is also a targeted investment in services that is balanced, as I said, with sensible tax cuts, and these are the cornerstones of this Budget. They demonstrate the Government’s commitment to steering New Zealand through these difficult and uncertain economic times, and prepare us for future challenges.

I was interested to hear the previous speaker, Phil Heatley, accuse Mr Gosche of being opposed to personal tax cuts. I have never heard Mr Gosche state such an opposition. In fact, he has just told me a very interesting story about the housing portfolio he inherited in 1999 from the folk opposite. It was necessary to get rid of some positions from the housing entities we took over because those positions were to sell the houses! Those job descriptions do not exist under this Government, and they never will. We do not want to see a return to that sort of bureaucratic nonsense. We will not have so-called bureaucrats selling houses. When we employ staff in central government it is to deliver strong, quality services, not to sell off the family silver.

Michael Cullen is to be congratulated on a Budget that recognises, at a time of record low unemployment, hard-working New Zealanders and the contribution they make every day to our economy, while taking account of the potential for tough times in the period that we are entering. This Government has its priorities right in creating incentives to join the workforce by cutting personal income tax while also investing in infrastructure that will enable us to see sustained growth through the development of a skills-based economy. Now more than ever it is necessary for New Zealand to invest in innovation and economic transformation, and it is great to see the initiatives in that regard in this Budget. We need to be able to support our diverse communities and families, and to protect the environment they live in, to create a sustainable and prosperous New Zealand. Now is not the time for more dramatic tax reductions no matter what the consequence is, as the National Party would have the public believe they would put in place. We have to do what is right for the New Zealand economy in 2008 and beyond. The tax cuts as they stand are substantial and will benefit all taxpayers. They will be phased in to avoid any significantly adverse effect on inflation, and this is all to be commended.

It is time for National to tell the country how it would deliver its promised tax cuts. How much would those tax cuts be? How would they be paid for? What services would be cut to fund them? How many nurses, doctors, and teachers would be made redundant? How much extra borrowing would have to occur, and how much more interest would ordinary Kiwis have to pay on their mortgage bills as a result? Those are the questions we look forward to hearing the answers to.

PANSY WONG (National) : How sad it is for a Labour member to admit that he is not excited about the tax cuts that are the central plank of his own Government’s Budget. Charles Chauvel is now waiting anxiously for the National Party’s tax policies. Well, he should hold his breath. That member has found nothing exciting or interesting about his own party’s Budget announcement. Actually, he is not the only one. Nobody was talking about Labour’s Budget 24 hours after it was delivered. That member has delivered the most humorous Budget speech I have heard for a long time. He said the Labour Government has been cautious and careful with taxpayers’ money. Well, actually, since Labour came into Government, total Government spending, which has largely come from the tax take, has increased from $34 billion to $62 billion.

Government expenditure has ballooned from $34 billion to $62 billion, but have we seen a reduction in health waiting lists? No. Have we faced less traffic congestion? No. We can tell people that we have not seen any improvement in hospital waiting lists. We know that my hard-working, diligent, effective colleague Dr Jonathan Coleman has said that in North Shore Hospital they have trolleys in the corridors for patients, and that is after Government expenditure has ballooned from $34 billion to $62 billion. Well, National knows where the wastage is.

Let me share with the public where that money has gone. I will talk about the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), following on from my effective colleague Phil Heatley. We have the same Minister for housing and accident compensation. In 2002 the number of people in ACC who were paid $100,000-plus was 68. By 2006-07 the number had gone up to 130—more than double. We are not talking about entitlements for claimants; we are talking about the communications experts in ACC who do its spin.

Let me share with the public the fact that under the Minister for ACC, Maryan Street, the chief executive of ACC defended the big jump in the number of staff earning more than $100,000. Dr Jan White said it was nothing out of the ordinary. Apparently, the fact that the number of people on $100,000-plus increased by 100 percent was nothing new; it was just average. It is like the 92 people flying all that way to have a big talkfest at the taxpayers’ expense. Well, it became even funnier, because ACC paid $2 million in salaries for 34 full-time communications experts.

Last year, interestingly, the corporation introduced for the elderly a programme designed to prevent falls, which is a good initiative. It introduced a very long established and successful exercise programme, widely practised in China and overseas, called t’ai chi. The only difficulty was that the evaluation of the 6-month-long t’ai chi pilot programme cost half a million dollars. I would just love to see the millions and millions of people in China who all practise t’ai chi demanding billions and billions of dollars for its evaluation.

The other huge increase in bureaucracy is in the Inland Revenue Department. In 2002, the number of people employed in the department earning over $100,000 was 77. By 2006, the number had gone to 333. It is no wonder that nobody believes that the Inland Revenue Department is there to help.

The next Government department that I want to share information about with the public is the Tertiary Education Commission. That organisation did not exist 5 years ago, but it now employs 341 people and costs $72 million to run. This year it will receive an additional $22 million. I have taken quite a personal interest in the Tertiary Education Commission. In 2006 I pointed out to the commission that quite a few educational institutions were offering cash kickbacks to senior citizens to get them to study the English language by taking out student loans.

In the year 2000 the number of senior citizens borrowing through the student loan scheme to study was only about 500. But by the year 2006 the amount of outstanding loans owed by senior citizens—people aged 65 and over—went up to $85 million. We knew there were some problems, and we drew them to the attention of the Tertiary Education Commission, which refused to do anything until a year later. Then it realised that, yes, scams were going on; institutions were targeting senior citizens for English language courses.

It took the Tertiary Education Commission 1 year to take action and kick those problems to the Serious Fraud Office, and then the commission said it had stopped the scams. It announced a policy whereby those courses would not be entitled to attract student loans. But that was not the case. We have now learnt from the Sunday Star-Times last Sunday that a new institution is apparently doing the same thing so that senior students will enrol in courses and take out student loans. If the Tertiary Education Commission, with its 341 staff, had taken a bit more interest in its work since then, it would have stopped the amount owed in student loans by senior citizens from ballooning from $85 million to $126 million. That amount of $126 million is sitting on the book. The Labour Government would describe that as an asset, but I am sad to inform the public that a large part of that will become a bad debt. A large part of it will not be collected.

So it was really a funny speech from the Labour member, who claimed that for over 8 years the Labour Government has been careful, cautious, and conservative with taxpayers’ money. I would say too much wastage and too many scams have been happening under Labour’s watch. It is time for the Labour Government to go.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) : We have just listened to Pansy Wong, who started her speech 10 minutes ago by saying, when she was challenged to present some policy: “Hold your breath.” Well, anyone in the House who was unwise enough to follow that advice would have turned blue in the face. We had the same lack of substance, the same lack of policy, and the same absence of vision that we have had from every National speaker in this debate. Pansy Wong cannot be blamed; she is a minion in the National Party. Why should we expect her to do better than John Key or Bill English, her erstwhile leaders, who equally failed to deliver any policy or any forward direction?

You know, the situation has got so bad for the National Party that the editorial in the New Zealand Herald—good old “Granny Herald”, which has crusaded against the Labour Party for these last 8½ years—had this to say about John Key on the lack of policy in his speech: “That sort of double-speak fools nobody. We need to hear serious policy soon.” We have not heard that policy. Then there was the John Campbell programme on Campbell Live. Mr Key was on it for 10 minutes, but he failed to answer question after question. Finally, in utter frustration, what did John Campbell say? He said to Mr Key: “you are as slippery as a snake in wet grass in terms of telling me where you are going to get the money from to pay for the tax cuts …”—as slippery as a snake in wet grass. And that sums the man up—that sums him up, because people cannot get a straight answer from him. Is it because he lacks substance? Perhaps it is. Or is it because he has a hidden agenda? Is it the fact that, as the National Party said in The Hollow Men: “Once you can fake [sincerity] you have got it made.”? We have seen that attitude time and time again.

It is not good enough to have had a series of flip-flops on policy. It is not good enough that Mr Key said he was in favour of, and voted for, sending troops to Iraq, and then claimed, dishonestly, that he never said that. It is not good enough that he said he always believed in climate change, but the year before that he said he thought climate change was a hoax. It is not good enough that we heard from National members that they would fight the reduction in student loans and interest rates with every bone in their body, but they then caved in. The truth is that nobody in this country knows where the National Party is at, and that is not good enough for the party that arrogantly thinks it can sleepwalk to victory. People want to know what will happen to Working for Families, which gives $190 a week to hard-working couples on a low wage with two kids—$190 a week.

What about KiwiSaver? What did we hear Kate Wilkinson say today? She said that National will scrap the employer contribution on KiwiSaver. That is what she said to the 600,000 New Zealanders who have joined that scheme—National will scrap the employer contribution on KiwiSaver. That is not what John Key is telling us, so Kate Wilkinson has let the cat out of the bag. I tell New Zealanders in KiwiSaver and who receive Working for Families payments to be very, very afraid, and to look at history, look at the record. The record from National members is to lie through their teeth in Opposition, and to break every promise they make. What about superannuation? National said: “No ifs, no buts, no maybes”, but then it put the surcharge up. Lockwood Smith, who is still a front-bencher for the National Party, said there would be no student fees and that he would resign if National did not scrap student fees. Then he doubled them and stayed on as Minister for 6 years. So I tell New Zealanders to be very careful about believing that slippery National Party, because it will not tell them the truth.

I am very proud of what this Government has delivered in this Budget. It has delivered $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts for all New Zealanders—$10.6 billion. In addition, it has put another $1 billion into bringing forward Working for Families increases for those folk who have children. Why should we not look after those families with children? They need to meet the costs of food and transport, and they need help. This Government has consistently delivered for working families. In this Budget Mike Cullen again delivers for them by giving them compensation for the increase in prices over which no Government has any control. National members might talk about petrol prices and food prices, but they know they are set internationally, and they know that they cannot bring those prices down. We know that, so we have gone as far as we responsibly can in giving families compensation for those increases. We have done that without cutting social services. In fact, this Budget puts $3 billion into our public health system—$3 billion over 4 years. That is $750 million a year. This Government has delivered on health. People in my electorate can go to their community health centre and see the doctor without paying for their kids and paying less than $20 for an adult. When they pick up their prescription it costs $3 per prescription. That is what this Labour Government has done. Let me tell members that if National ever got back into power, with its hare-brained schemes such as those we remember from Simon Upton’s time as Minister of Health, those things would go. Those things are not set in concrete. This country needs a Labour Government to protect its social services.

This Government has provided those tax cuts without borrowing to pay for them. It is a matter of pride for this Government that although it inherited a country that had debt levels of up to 35 percent of the gross national product—35 percent—its responsible nature and its management of the economy have brought down that debt for all New Zealanders, from 35 percent to something over 19 percent. Are we not pleased that because of that responsible management during the good times, we have saved for a rainy day when the world economy gets tough? Supported by those that give out our credit ratings for financial management, we can now responsibly deliver for families when the world economy is turning down, because we governed this country sensibly when we were at a time of economic boom.

The National Party promised tax cuts in 2005, when the economy was ripping along at first speed, which would have translated directly into inflation and into higher mortgage interest rates. That is what those members cannot explain in the House today. They cannot explain how they can go further than Labour without putting pressure on inflation, without forcing up interest rates, without borrowing, or without slashing public services. If they did that—if they ever got the chance to govern this country—then one of those things or all of those things would happen.

This Government is committed to running the country, to look after the needs of people, to provide social services, and to do so responsibly, and that is what Michael Cullen has done. Let us look at what New Zealanders get out of this. On 1 October a typical working family will get between $12 and $27 a week, and when the tax cuts are brought in fully, that amount will be between $22 and $55 a week. That is real money. It is designed to help New Zealanders at a time when they need that assistance to pay their bills. If they are a working family with children, then the sum goes up much more than that. A working couple on the average household income—which is about $72,000 for a couple—will get $45 a week this October. That $45 a week will rise to $84 a week, which is a real boost to the incomes of ordinary working New Zealanders.

We have not forgotten about the elderly. On 1 October a retired married couple will get $45 a fortnight on top of the $27 a fortnight that they got on 1 April this year. That means that a married couple on superannuation will this year get a boost of $72 a fortnight. When they want to go out and use our public transport system, they will be able to do that free of charge in off-peak hours because of the SuperGold card. This Government has looked after superannuitants and, in this Budget, it continues to do so. What does Bill English say about that? He says that we are too generous with the elderly. Bill English, as we know, is a man of his word. When he was a finance Minister in 1998, he cut the rate of superannuation. He cut it from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage, and, regardless of National members’ denials, they would do that again.

This is a good Budget—good for working New Zealanders, good for retired people, and good for our social services—from a good Government that deserves to be re-elected.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : As a number of church and community groups, and as beneficiaries themselves, have pointed out repeatedly and poignantly since last Thursday, Michael Cullen’s ninth Budget suffers from a glaring deficiency in the way in which it deals with the most vulnerable people in our society: those who are dependent on the benefit system for survival, and their children. Just a couple of weeks ago one of our Sunday newspapers extracted from the Ministry of Social Development a remarkable report entitled Pockets of Significant Hardship and Poverty. Published in June 2007, that confidential advice from the Government’s own people shows what many of us had already suspected, which is that the gap between the incomes of waged workers and beneficiaries has become larger and larger, and that beneficiaries are worse off now than they were in the wake of National’s 1991 benefit cuts.

That is a damning indictment of 18 years of National and Labour Governments. With 9 years each at the helm, neither party in Government has seen fit to redraw the acceptable limits of social and economic exclusion. Both parties have accepted—and, in fact, Labour has now entrenched—a philosophy that says the best way of dealing with beneficiaries is to force their incomes so far down that they will—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the evening meal break.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

SUE BRADFORD: Labour has now entrenched a philosophy that says the best way of dealing with beneficiaries is to plunge their incomes so low that they will end up having to take on paid work at almost any cost to their own or their children’s health and welfare. That attitude is exemplified by Labour’s “work first” amendments to the Social Security Act, which make the fundamental driver of our welfare system getting people into paid employment, rather than the original 1930s-driven concept of providing an adequate safety net for people who are out of work.

Dr Cullen’s 2008 Budget serves only to exacerbate the situation by focusing on giving $10.6 billion of tax cuts to those who are in work, without giving any compensatory relief for beneficiaries. The gap pointed out in the Ministry of Social Development report I mentioned earlier will only get worse. When challenged by the Māori Party and the Green Party in the House this afternoon on that very question, Dr Cullen responded that all beneficiaries receive annual adjustments as a matter of course on 1 April each year—something wage earners do not get—that beneficiary children will benefit from changes in the indexation of child tax credits under Working for Families, and that single beneficiaries who work part-time will gain from the lower tax thresholds.

In response, I say to the Minister, firstly, that the annual April adjustment is a pittance that takes place up to a year after major increases in prices have occurred, and some of it is often gobbled up by reductions in what people are entitled to by way of accommodation assistance. The Green Party believes that until beneficiaries are treated with the same decency as superannuitants and given annual cost of living increases that are linked to a fixed percentage of the average wage, the gap between wages and superannuation on the one hand and benefits on the other hand will just keep growing. Secondly, I say a small increase in assistance to beneficiaries through Working for Families goes nowhere near enough to make up for the fact that families where neither parent is substantially in paid work receive much less support than those where a parent works. That blatant discrimination against the children of beneficiaries continues, and it is no wonder that a large percentage of the children who live in poverty in these comparatively well-off times are from beneficiary families.

On top of that, not one cent from this Budget goes to those beneficiaries who do not have children and who do not engage in part-time paid work. That group has been ignored by successive Governments for the last two decades, yet it contains some of our most vulnerable citizens. They are often people with substantial long-term physical or mental illness or injury, or with major impairments, who have no opportunity of entering the paid workforce, or they are people who are caring for someone else in their family who is in that situation. People in those circumstances continue to be condemned to a life of total poverty and increasing social exclusion, in the absence of being able to take up the paid employment that Labour sees as the answer to all their woes.

In justifying his approach in the House this afternoon, Dr Cullen made the point that Labour clearly stands for labour—that is, as he said in a Scoop interview late last week “From its history the Labour Party has always been about people in employment.” Well, Dr Cullen certainly has a different understanding of labour history in this country than I do. I had thought that the first Labour Government, under Michael Joseph Savage, swept to power in 1935 as a result of the mass unemployment and poverty suffered through 6 years of the Great Depression. It was unemployed workers, together with their comrades in work, who helped to create and drive the great things Labour did in those early days, including taking the first steps towards putting a decent welfare system into place. I see this generation of Labour’s approach to beneficiaries as representing a real betrayal of that proud history.

Yes, it is critical that everyone in our country should have the right to a decent job at a decent pay rate. The Green Party stands for full employment, just as Labour does. But a commitment to full employment does not mean that somehow those who are not able to participate in the paid workforce at a particular time in their lives should be denied the means of sustenance necessary to support themselves and their children, if they have them, with dignity and without ever-increasing debt. Saying that the Labour Party is only about people in employment is a rejection of beneficiaries as people worthy of an equal place in society. It is no wonder that “work first” is Labour’s mantra. It is no wonder that the Government had no scruples about abolishing the special benefit, which used to be available to beneficiaries who were receiving all their entitlements but who still did not have enough to meet their basic needs. It is no wonder that this Budget pays only very limited lip-service to that group of citizens, who are now being expected, I guess, to shut up and get on with looking for a job, no matter what their circumstances may be.

On Sunday it was reported that Dr Cullen now plans to move with alacrity towards making some minor changes to help some beneficiaries—for example, through increasing the maximum amount payable for grants for additional assistance for food. Although lifting the level of the maximum amount payable for food grants would be an overdue and a welcome improvement on the current situation, it would do nothing to address the deeper systemic issues that face beneficiaries right now. Tinkering around the edges is not enough. At a time when the economic impacts of climate change and peak oil are starting to hit home through rising food, fuel, transport, and housing prices, we should be doing our best to ensure our country’s must vulnerable people can feed, clothe, and house themselves and their children. We should not be abandoning them.

We should have seen in this Budget not a prioritisation of tax cuts, including tax cuts for the very well off, but instead, a serious focus on a number of measures aimed at lifting beneficiaries out of the seemingly endless slide into deeper poverty. The Government should be lifting core benefit levels for all beneficiaries to amounts that individuals and families can actually and realistically live on without constantly going further into debt, both to Work and Income and to private lenders. In the absence of that hopelessly optimistic goal being achieved at any time in the near future, Labour should at least reintroduce genuine discretion into the benefit system, so that Work and Income caseworkers once again have the power they used to have with the special benefit to top up people’s incomes, so that at least their most basic needs can be met. The discriminatory in-work payment component of the Working for Families package should be replaced by a universal child benefit, like the old family benefit, paid in respect of all children, regardless of their parents’ employment status or income, and with the ability for families to capitalise on it as a deposit for their first home. And all benefit levels, once raised to a liveable amount, should be protected by annual adjustments linked to a fixed and sufficient percentage of the average wage.

I find it deeply ironic that I am once again pleading with a Labour Government to pay attention to the needs of beneficiaries. Labour is supposed to be the party of workers. Well, Labour should understand that unemployed workers and sole parents are workers too. Back in 1991 Labour MPs made speeches fighting tooth and nail against National’s “mother of all Budgets” benefit cuts. In the 1993 and 1996 election campaigns, Labour promised to reverse those cuts. Labour also railed against National introducing income status into the taxation system. The year 1999 rolled around, and what happened? There was no sign of any reversal of the benefit cuts, and subsequently Labour also entrenched structural discrimination against beneficiaries through Working for Families and by reducing gross benefit rates so that beneficiaries get nothing from the tax cuts. Every day I hear stories of desperation and anger from people who are impacted on by both the continuing poverty they are forced to live in, and the harassment they receive from Work and Income staff, who try to force, for example, people with long-term serious mental illness or who are mothers of young children into paid work.

This Budget and the attitudes it epitomises are simply not fair. If this Government believed in the right of everyone in Aotearoa to a decent life, we would have seen quite a different Budget last Thursday. It is way past time that we had a Government that recognised that every child and every adult in this country deserves a fair chance at life, not just some of us.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I want to focus on local government issues in this 10 minutes that I have. But first of all I make the point that here we are today, debating the “block of cheese Budget”. The amount of $16 a week has not yet been given out, but it will be given out just a few days before the next election. Of course, this is the second time we have debated a promised tax cut. The last one, of course, was offered by the Labour Government before the last election, and it was called the “chewing gum tax cut”, as people may recall. But nothing happened. At least with this one, because Mr Cullen could not trust himself or his Government, they have put it into law and this tax cut will be implemented. So at least there is some certainty. The dilemma is, of course, that for most people a shift from chewing gum to a block of cheese a week or a fortnight really does not mean a lot to them. I suspect that the Labour Government is expecting a big bounce out of this, but I think it might get a bounce downwards rather than a bounce upwards. We will wait and see.

One of the disappointing aspects of this Budget was the lack of response, in any significant manner, to the worries and trials and tribulations of local government and, more particularly, their ratepayers. This House will recall that last year we discussed and debated a thing called a rates revolt. Many ratepayers were facing significant rate increases as a consequence of the costs that had been put upon them for a number of reasons, partly because of the decisions taken by this Labour Government over the last 8 or 9 years. It has passed 69 pieces of legislation that have put costs on, and shifted responsibility to, local government, but without giving any significant funding.

The Government’s response to the rates revolt was to tell people not to panic, because it would have an inquiry. That, of course, was forced on the Government because the National Party very nearly succeeded, with the support of the Green Party, in getting an inquiry going at the select committee. To head that off, Labour promised the Green Party that it would have an inquiry, so we could not get the support—

Ron Mark: No, it was New Zealand First.

JOHN CARTER: Well, the New Zealand First Party was not on the select committee. So with the Greens and National, the select committee would have had the majority. But the Greens decided, as did New Zealand First, that they would go with an inquiry, and that inquiry became the Shand report. The fault of the Shand report, because of the limitations that were put on it by the Labour Government, was the fact that it did not inquire into the costs of local government, or could not to any degree. What was inquired into was how to better fund local government. If this House, local government in New Zealand, and indeed the ratepayers are to get any relief in regard to local government rating, there first needs to be a significant inquiry into the costs of local government. When the costs have been established and when a reason for the increase has been found, then at that stage we can have a look at the matter of how they are to be funded.

However, that will not happen, although I suspect we are in for a further rates revolt in the next few months as ratepayers across this country are faced with yet another significant round of rate increases, particularly as this year local bodies are not constrained by the fact that they have their own elections. Indeed, it is their first year of a 3-year term and most councils will be wanting to stamp their mark, and, as a consequence, they will be prepared to undertake those things for which they stood. The matter of the cost will be met by the ratepayers.

I want to focus on the Shand report and some of its recommendations. It did not go in the direction I suggested it should; nevertheless, it is a shame that this Government in its Budget this year did not look to set any funding aside, and in fact has not recognised any of the 96 recommendations of the Shand report.

Christopher Finlayson: Why do you think that is?

JOHN CARTER: Because it is too hard, for a start. It is too difficult, and actually, if the Government did undertake any of these steps, it would show that the Government has been at fault.

Nathan Guy: Incompetent.

JOHN CARTER: That goes without saying. Incompetence is the first name of the Labour Government. But it is not just incompetent. It has actually caused a lot of the problems. This report exposes the weaknesses and the faults, but the Labour Government will not want to acknowledge any of that, at all.

Let us take, for example, recommendation No. 3. The recommendation is that councils move away from fully funding depreciation, with the development of longer-term funding policies that take better account of intergenerational equity and the availability of longer-term debt-financing. Well, I have to say that that is just common sense. Why should we expect the ratepayers of today not only to pay for what their needs are but also to pay for the ratepayers of the future, as well? That is just common sense, and I have to say that a lot of the recommendations in the Shand report are common sense.

Christopher Finlayson: He’s a former Labour representative—Shand.

JOHN CARTER: Yes, that is true. But why did this Labour Government not pick it up? I guess it comes down to the fact that it was common sense, and that is not a thing this Government deals in.

Let us just have a look at recommendation No. 7, which is that local authorities be encouraged to charge for wastewater disposal by volumetric charging. Again, it is a no-brainer. It is just common sense. But, unfortunately, the Government and the Minister of Local Government have made no comment on that at all. I think that is most unfortunate. They spent a whole lot of taxpayers’ money on the Shand report. Surely to goodness, we could have expected some response by now, given that the report came out some 6 months ago. Recommendations Nos 9, 10, 11, and 12 all talk about rating systems and rate postponements, and policies on the postponing of rates for rural properties. When we look at the issues around coastal properties, the valuations, and the costs that those are imposing on many farmers, we see that it is a major issue. We seriously need to have a debate on it. This country and the ratepayers, particularly those living in rural areas on coastal properties and, indeed, urban people on rural properties, need to know that this Parliament understands the dilemma and the plight that people are facing with regard to their rates, particularly those on single incomes, all because coastal properties have gone up in value hugely and their rates have risen. Of course, for the people who have been there for 30 or so years and bought them to retire in, it means that they are now seriously struggling to meet the cost of those rates.

This report makes a recommendation. One would have thought the Labour Government would want to address some of those things to help those ratepayers, particularly those on fixed incomes but also the farmers who have significantly higher rates because of property values but are not getting the income from them. One would have thought the Government would want to show that it understands some of those things, but it has not bothered to address it at all.

Let us look at recommendation No. 19, which is that local government should look favourably at making use of debt to finance long-term assets. It goes on to say that this should include the issuance of bonds on the capital market, not just short-term borrowing from commercial banks. Again, that is all common sense. It is the sort of thing one would have thought this Government would want to put into its mix. But it has not done so at all.

There is a great deal about rates rebates in the report, but the only comment I have on rates rebates is that they are needed because of the huge costs this Government has put on to local government, thus forcing up rates, and, as a consequence, people on low incomes cannot afford them. So what did the Government do? It gave another handout. But would it not have been better to reduce the cost of the rates so that people did not have to meet the cost in the first place? Then we would not have to go through the situation where people are reliant on things such as rates rebates.

Sandra Goudie: And they are still adding costs.

JOHN CARTER: Well, it all adds costs, of course, but this Government is quite happy to hand out other people’s money.

If we look at recommendations Nos 72, 73, and 74, through to 76, etc., we see that they talk about long-term council community plans. That is another issue that has been of significant cost to local government. It worked out to be a very good thing for local government but it does not have to be done every year or every 3 years. It should be long-term and should be considered. This Government had the opportunity to address the costs in local government. It had the opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Shand report, but it has done absolutely nothing for it, or for local government, or for ratepayers in this country.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) : Here we are, in the middle of the Budget debate, and the member who has just resumed his seat, John Carter, who is one of the more moderate members on the other side of the House, decided to devote his time to talking about local government. He devoted his time not to the Budget debate, not to policies from the National Party for the forthcoming election—certainly none of those issues were to be found—but to local government. He said that the costs on local government are too high but that he opposes rates rebates. I leave people to work out whether there was any logic from one end of that speech to the other.

What I will say about the National Party’s contribution to the Budget debate over the last day or so around tax cuts is that its members do not like them. They do not like the tax cuts. They did not believe they were coming. They had fooled themselves and started to believe their own propaganda, which was that Dr Cullen would not give any tax cuts, or that if he did, then he would not give goodly sized tax cuts. They did not believe that he would, and that is because they do not understand Dr Cullen, and they do not understand this Government.

This Government has said it straightforwardly, time after time—listen to the language around the automatic stabilisers, or whatever you like. When one starts to hear Dr Cullen or an Associate Minister of Finance speak about our approach to economic development, it is always to look through the economic cycle and to look through the business cycle, and to say that we will not use pro-cyclic inflation and we will not use a pro-cyclic injection of tax cuts into the economy to cause inflation, but we will do the opposite. We will husband resources in the good times and spend them when the storm clouds gather. So they gather now because of petrol prices or food prices, or the subprime mortgage issue. They gather around the Western World, and the truth of the matter is that because New Zealand has husbanded its resources, and because Dr Cullen was able to make the announcement regarding tax cuts last week, those storm clouds will substantially pass over us.

Let us compare this with 10 years ago when the storm clouds last gathered. That was the Asian economic crisis. There was no kitty to put into the economy to give it a boost. There was no purse full of money; it was empty. So the Government of that time cut spending. It froze some things and it reduced some things. Quite obviously, and most memorably, it reduced superannuation for 500,000 older New Zealanders. It said they would need to bear the brunt of the Asian economic crisis. Let us consider the difference between the two approaches. Ten years ago the storm clouds gathered and the pensioners got a cut. Today the storm clouds gather again, and we are able to give those same New Zealand superannuitants an increase in their take-home pay.

National members did not like the size of the tax cuts. They thought the tax cuts would be modest and timid. They did not realise that there would be a 3-year programme, out to April 2011. They should have worked out that that is what one does at the bottom of the economic cycle. That is when one does the spending, and they did not like that because they are now painted into a corner with nowhere to go.

National members did not like the timing of the cuts. They thought that 1 April next year would be good, but we brought it forward to 1 October this year. They say that it is bribery and it is cynical, and that it is just before an election. We say in response that they were brought forward because that is when relief on the household budget is needed, for goodness’ sake! That is what we call timely intervention. Those members do not like it because of its coincidence with a certain electoral event—the general election later this year—but the truth of the matter is that that is when the economy needs to be stimulated.

The thing National members like the least is that these tax cuts, on a percentage basis, give more assistance to low and middle income earners than they do to upper-income earners. If there is one thing that will divide this House, and that has divided this House for decades and will do so for decades more, it is that the Labour Party stands for low-middle income earners and the National Party stands for its rich mates. If we look at low and middle income earners in this country, at someone on the average wage, or at an ordinary superannuitant, we will find, at least in percentage terms, that is where the biggest changes are. Dr Cullen has designed the tax cuts precisely for that, and National Party members do not like it. They do not like it, because they cannot give their well-to-do mates a big tax cut because we have announced tax cuts that take us to the limits of what this economy can reasonably expect to pay for.

So the question now is what the National Party’s next move is. What will National do next? National members have two main choices. The first is to cut services, or spending if one likes, and the second is to rack up debt. Let us look at each of them.

So far, in relation to cutting services, National has said: “We are going after bureaucrats.” I have one message for National members and it is that it does not matter what they do to the bureaucracy of this country, they will not save enough money to give significant tax cuts, because there are simply not enough bureaucrats.

For example, let us take the health system—the one National members like to pick on. They say there are too many bureaucrats in health. Let us play a quick game. What proportion of the total health expenditure in this country from the taxpayer goes to the Ministry of Health, which is where the bureaucrats are? Is it 10 percent or is it 5 percent? [Interruption] I hear someone say that it is 5 percent. That is wrong; it is 1.7 percent. That means 98.3 percent of the vote that leaves the desk of the Minister of Health flows past the Ministry of Health and out into nurses and doctors for patient care. That is the truth of the matter, so if National members go cutting bureaucrats, they will not find enough money, as there is not enough to be found.

Therefore, if one is to trim spending, one has to go to one of the four big votes. There are only four votes of any size in the New Zealand Government system. The first is health, the second is education, the third is superannuation, and the fourth is social welfare. Have we ever seen National take to those votes in the past? Have we ever seen it reduce health, education, social welfare, or superannuation expenditure? And if we have seen it do that, when did we see it do it? Tragically, we do not need to go back too far. We need to go only to the 1990s. Does anyone in this House recall the time when in order to enter a New Zealand hospital—we did not call them hospitals back then, we called them Crown health enterprises—one had to pay a part charge? Does anyone remember that? The patients hated it. The hospitals hated collecting it. There was a lot of disobedience around it, and, finally, that bankrupt policy was abolished and so was the Minister who thought of it.

Can anyone remember the “Education cuts don’t heal” posters? That was the National Government in the 1990s trying to get savings out of expenditure in order to give tax cuts to its mates. That is what National did back then, and year after year we saw expenditure in tertiary education drop so that students faced fees that rose astronomically.

Does anyone remember the benefit cuts? It was when everyone who was on a benefit got a cut. I remember going back to Dunedin on the Friday night after that debate and gathering in the Octagon in a silent vigil while the bells of the Anglican cathedral tolled and people held candles and asked themselves what the Government had done.

Do members remember the superannuation cuts I have just mentioned? That is another way in which National could save money for its rich mates. It has those options, I suppose, or it could run into debt. It did not run into debt in the 1990s—it did not get us out of debt particularly, either. But in the time before that, under Muldoon, that is exactly what happened. Those are the two options.

There is only one third option, and that is to acknowledge that the tax cuts have happened, to acknowledge that it is time to get over it, and to acknowledge that we should now move to other aspects of the New Zealand political policy framework and see what National has to say about the role of the conservation estate, policing, defence, health, or anything except tax cuts, because tax cuts have been its only policy. The tax cuts have been made; National members need to move on and decide whether they want to offer better support for science or students—all of the things that were announced last week that the National Party will vote against later this week.

Let us hear the National members talk about anything now except for tax cuts. It is time for them to move on. They have the idea of being in Government. Therefore, let us hear what they would do should they ever win the Treasury benches.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : You know, our magnificent leader, John Key, was absolutely right: Labour members are buried in the past. They are totally and utterly buried in the past. How far back do the reminiscences the member was indulging in go? How far back was that—18-what? If he wants to think about things that were happening in the past—

Nathan Guy: In the 1990s, when you were a teenager.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Oh, how sweet. The member is so sweet. But that member opposite is mired in the past. If we are going to talk about the past, we need to think about what our leader, John Key, reiterated in the House when he spoke in response to the Budget speech. He talked about closing the gaps. Do we remember that? Then there was talk of the knowledge wave. Do we remember that? Well, I think those Labour members opposite have forgotten those things, yet they are so mired in the past one would think they would remember.

There was talk about closing the gaps. What gaps? What were the other things? There was talk about the knowledge wave and the hundreds of information technology companies that would have a turnover of $100 million. What happened to all those companies? What happened to the knowledge wave? I have not heard anything much about it in the last couple of years, so that is gone; there is no more talk about that.

Does anyone remember the talk about the economic transformation? Hello! No! There seems to be a huge degree of memory lapse on the Government benches. Those members cannot remember what has happened recently but keep resurrecting things from many, many years gone by. So as far as economic transformation goes, we are still waiting. What about growth and innovation? What happened to growth and innovation? Maybe the Minister would like to take a call and tell us about that. What about carbon neutrality? Actually, we did not hear anything about that in the Budget speech, either. Perhaps it is because, as has been pointed out, the Government benches have finally realised what that means. It means we lose jobs, we lose people, and we lose opportunities. Most of all, all we do is export carbon dioxide emissions around the world.

I have to say that it was quite a relief that in this particular Budget speech we did not hear the word “sustainability” about 30 times. I think in the Budget speech a couple of years ago we counted how many times that word occurred and found that it was about 30 times, because it was the buzzword of the day. What do we hear about that now? Thankfully, we do not hear it being constantly repeated. What we do hear is what our young people are saying. You know, New Zealand is a wonderful country, a fantastic place to live in, but I was speaking to a young person after the Budget was announced who said he saw a fellow on TV slap $16 in front of the Prime Minister, and ask: “How will that stop our young people from leaving New Zealand?”. All of our builders, electricians, nurses, teachers, and police—you name it—are heading to Australia.

This young man—he is 26—also said: “This place is stuffed.” Those were his exact words. He said that his friends are going to Australia. Personally, I think it is an absolutely tragedy. It says, in spite of this Government’s rhetoric, that $16—a block of cheese—has just not cut it. Not only are young people leaving but also families and older people. It was only about 2 weeks ago that the average Australian worker got a $100 tax cut. Something like that would see Cullen frothing at the mouth. He is so opposed to tax cuts—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You must use the member’s full name.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Michael Cullen would be frothing at the mouth, because we all know he cannot stand giving tax cuts and we all know that we have to ratify the legislation in order to make sure it happens. As my colleagues who have spoken previously have said, we have had the “chewing gum Budget”; now we have the “block of cheese Budget”. It does not seem to improve at all.

Another young man whom I have been speaking to recently said—

Simon Power: What’s his name?

SANDRA GOUDIE: I will not say his name, although I could tell the member off the record. Perhaps he might like to talk to me later. This young man said that last weekend he had four different farewell functions to go to. Why was that? The reason was that his friends are all going to Australia and the UK. They are leaving in droves. Why are they leaving? They are escaping low wages and high taxes. As far as they are concerned, taxes here are high. And it is not just young people. As I said before, families and older people are also leaving. That is incredibly sad. Sixteen dollars does not give our young people hope for the future. It does nothing to make them feel that this country is moving forward; nor does it do anything to drive productivity, innovation, or prosperity. Quite frankly, if it were not for agriculture, we would be truly stuffed.

It is not just people who are leaving this country but businesses also, and that means the loss of jobs. No jobs mean reduced income for the Government to fund all those people who depend on Government support and who actually look to the Government for services like health, education, and law and order. At least we can be thankful that our superannuitants gained something out of the Budget. From 1 October a married couple will receive $45.88. Yes, that is right—1 October.

Paula Bennett: Oh, what a coincidence!

SANDRA GOUDIE: Exactly—1 October. What is happening around 1 October? Oh, gosh, could it be an election? Well, we think it might be. So we might plan for 18 October. Was that not the giveaway by “she who is always obeyed” by the Government benches?

The offer of extra money is the lure. That is the election bribe. This Government actually thinks it can lure votes by promising free public transport, on the SuperGold card. We should not be fooled. For starters, most of New Zealand does not have public transport. It is only in the larger city centres. There is no public transport anywhere in my electorate.

Ron Mark: What about trains in the Wairarapa?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Excuse me, there is absolutely no public transport in my electorate. Then, will the Government actually fund the entire cost of public transport, because I would hate to see any further costs loaded on to local government. Constantly loading costs on to local government is something that this Government is really, really good at. It cannot seem to help itself. One has only to consider the proposed national Coastal Policy Statement, things like the walking access bill, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill, and the sorts of bills constantly being put through this House that look at putting added costs on to local government. One also has to look at bills like the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill as being bills that constantly undermine our freedoms and our democracy. Those are some of the pieces of legislation that actually do that. The public is largely unaware. This Parliament is a constant battleground, not just for our freedoms and our democracy but also for providing some sort of vision for our country into the future. That is what National is going to do.

We can ask ourselves some pretty serious questions about why, after 8 years of a Labour Government, we are paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world, why the growing gap between our wages and those in Australia and other parts of the world is getting bigger and bigger, and why we get a tax cut only in an election year. Why cannot our hard-working Kiwis afford to buy their own homes? Why do we have one in five kids leaving school with grossly inadequate literacy and numeracy skills? Why has the health system not improved, when billions of extra dollars have been poured into it? And why is violent crime against innocent New Zealanders continuing to soar? Labour cannot do anything about it. Well, Simon Power, sure as eggs, will.

National will focus on the real issues facing New Zealand. We will not fixate on the old, tired political debates from 20 or 30 years ago, which is what those guys opposite do all the time. We are not going to come out with policy in a great hurry, either. Those members will have to learn a bit of patience. There is no imperative on us. We can wait. We are happy to wait, and we would rather wait, and do it once and do it right.

We will lift wages by driving economic growth—make no mistake about that. We will invest in infrastructure, ongoing tax cuts, and monitoring the quantity and quality of Government spending—make no bones about that. This Government is totally out of control. It has no idea how to budget, how to restrain its own spending—

Simon Power: Tongariro Lodge.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, Tongariro Lodge—for goodness’ sake! The Government is totally out of control. There are New Zealanders out there who are really struggling and have been for months.

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

SANDRA GOUDIE: I am getting a circle—the whole picture; the moon. Start again—go back to the beginning. National wants our young people to stay. We want them to have a future, and National will give it to them.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker; e te Whare, tēna koutou, tēna tātou katoa. I tell Aotearoa that that last speech was from Sandra Goudie, whose voice has been improved by the tutu berry juice that she inhales, drinks, every time she tries the honey in Coromandel! It is a voice that induces sleep. I say, please wake up, Aotearoa. This is a good Budget. This is a Budget that stands in stark contrast to the vacant, empty brand represented by the Opposition leader; a man who believes that he can win the hearts and minds of Aotearoa by flitting around as if he were the political equivalent of a fantail, and then taking on the attributes of a magpie, nicking and pinching all the silver and golden ideas of Dr Cullen.

During this entire budgetary debate we have watched the strategy laid down by the Opposition unfold. The leadership is not saying a single thing as to what is National’s alternative strategy. Unfortunately, one of its more eager, over-enthusiastic, legally qualified but politically inept members—Kate Wilkinson—decided that she would show a bit of form and usurp the role of Mr Key and announce that, yes, National’s supporters in the business community would be required to continue to contribute to the costs of KiwiSaver. Although Kate Wilkinson is now somewhere subterranean, having been cautioned, growled at, in fact she has provided a small, redeeming contribution from our friends in the National Party. At least we know that small part of what it is that National is on about.

Over these last 3 or 4 days we have had to suffer these tedious, childish references to blocks of cheese. Of course, that reference has become mouldy, reflective of the intellectual contribution offered by the Opposition front bench to this debate. It has become stale; it shows that Dr Cullen’s Budget has stripped Mr English and his thunderous brow and constant wearied look, as if he has run in a 1,000 mile race. Of course, he has, which is why the voters are not attracted to him.

John Hayes: Give us some substance, Shane.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Hayes has now piped up. He is the man who was an international diplomat, but the front bench does everything to ensure he never has anything to do with diplomacy. He has been lined up, actually, to make a contribution in the future as Opposition spokesman on matters to do with valuation, because he knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

However, let us just elaborate for our voters on what Dr Cullen has laid out in this Budget and what it builds upon. It joins forces with my tuakana from Ngāti Wai, the leader of New Zealand First, Winston Peters, on a savings strategy. The first one represents well in excess of a billion dollars. It is a substantial tax incentive introduced last year, a savings strategy developing the wells of capital, which are necessary to grow productivity, and deepening the wells of investment capital for our country in the productive sector, the investment sector, and right across the superannuation field. In addition, it builds on the business taxes that were introduced last year—of course, opposed by Mr Key and opposed by Mr English. In addition, something that they conveniently overlook is the introduction of a research and development tax incentive strategy, so that the productive sector is able to continue to invest in those areas, which, in the future, will enhance wealth.

To top it off, this year comes $10.8 billion worth of tax cuts. The figure has a rich allure to it. In fact, I can just imagine in 2 or 3 months, up and down the country, in draughty halls, in maraes, RSA rooms, everywhere we find, there will be only one figure that will be quoted—$10.8 billion in tax cuts. And what is John Key going to do? He has no response; he has no way of convincing New Zealanders, in sufficient numbers, that his recipe is better. So at that level, he is actually showing all the country that he has only an empty brand, and they will not accept that.

But I say to Aotearoa that this Budget does not stop just there. Oh, no! We are going the distance fuelled by bright ideas. We are going to bring a greater level of sophistication to our infrastructure, starting with broadband. Unlike Maurice Williamson—he of Jurassic variety—we are not going to hand over an enormous booty to their friends in Telecom. No! The creation of a highly competitive regime—

Ron Mark: Who would have thought that Maurice Williamson would subsidise business with taxpayers’ money.

Hon SHANE JONES: Indeed. We need to bear in mind that Maurice Williamson came on to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and elbowed Craig Foss away, as I recall, in order to atone for his wrongdoings to New Zealanders for the last 12 to 15 years, when National blighted the landscape with its failed ideas, driven by Fay Richwhite, Roger Douglas, and various other forms of Lazarus. It was amazing, was it not, that the only Opposition people to put anything out on the Budget have been Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas. There has been thunderous silence from the entire Opposition front bench in terms of what it proposes to do—which is absolutely nothing.

The broadband scheme is an excellent idea. In fact, up in Awanui, Kaitāia, and other such far-flung areas, which I share momentarily with John Carter, people are going to be so happy when David Cunliffe’s scheme for broadband is rolled out. That is covered in the Budget, and, of course, we had the tutu-berry woman from Coromandel—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was it Lockwood?

Hon SHANE JONES: No, that was not Lockwood Smith. That word is pronounced “tutu” not “too-too” That is a language lesson for the Opposition, a bit later on. We heard her complain about the absence of travel capacity. I say: “Toll, bye-bye.” What has been Bill English’s contribution? Bill English says that National would use the private sector for transportation infrastructure. So watch out for more tolled roads, watch out for an opportunity, for National aspires to it, for privatised roads, and watch out for a type of transportation apartheid—the utilisation of the Fay Richwhite model: when it fails, it gets bailed out by the State—as happened with rail, and as happened with airways.

National still entertains those ideas, but, fortunately, Kiwis are waking up. They have bought into the allure, the value, the sweetness of this Budget. In fact, I cannot wait for the campaign to begin. I cannot wait; in fact, I can sense scrambling, dawdling, confusion, and backbenchers usurping John Key. At least she told us something as to what National believes in. She had the temerity to stand up and give us an indication of what businesses will have to pay for in terms of—

Paula Bennett: Who is “she”?

Hon SHANE JONES: We have Ms Bennett squeaking now; she who wandered around the country intimidating and scaring the owners and operators of childhood centres, only to find now she has been quietly told: “Keep quiet. We’re actually going to embrace that idea.”—after having made a royal fool of herself, which came naturally, obviously. One has to spend only 3 seconds either looking or listening, and that foolhardiness exudes.

In relation to scratched records, that is what the country is hearing from the Opposition. It has not put a single idea forward. It has been outsmarted, but fair enough, it is a competition.

David Bennett: We’ve got a cunning plan.

Hon SHANE JONES: They have a cunning plan, etc. That is from the man who has given a bad reputation to Hamilton. Never has someone, with so little talent, risen so fast in the Opposition. That, fortunately, will be very cleverly picked out by the voters of that area.

Two amazing things have happened in this Budget that will excite the community. First, pensioners are flocking to the cause of New Zealand First and Labour, who have done something that National refused to do in those bleak, dark days of the 1990s. I do not want to dwell on the 1990s, because we are sailing to a rising sun. The Opposition represents a setting sun. So on that level we have pensioners who are very happy. John Carter was wrong to attack local government reform. We have a very handsome system and regime—a $500 rebate, as those people struggle with various rates. In addition, the Prime Minister has rolled out, and identified in the Budget, a very, very well-developed scheme that will bring our young people into permanent training, permanent education, until they are 18.

Before I sit, let me say that I heard—lamentably—from Sue Bradford that we have been unfair to beneficiaries. I endorse everything that Dr Cullen said; the Labour Party is a working party, labour means mahi—work—and the only way for people to get a better wage is either to improve their productivity or to get the firms that are funding the Opposition to pay a decent wage for a decent day’s work. Kia ora koutou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Allan Peachey.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Here’s a genius!

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : Ah, there is a little man with the little man’s disease! Tonight over New Zealand, this fine country, there hangs the pallor of economic gloom and uncertainty, and the best that that Government can put up tonight is that fool Shane Jones. That foolish man is the best that that Government could put up. This Budget, delivered with no vision and no confidence by a Minister of Finance who knows that he is presenting his last Budget—and the people of New Zealand say “Hurrah!” to that—has no direction. The little tax cuts are given grudgingly. They are not part of a long-term plan to put more money into the hands of good, hard-working New Zealanders. This is Michael Cullen being dragged reluctantly by the Prime Minister into giving New Zealand people a little bit of their money back, in Labour’s last vain hope—and it is a last vain hope—of winning an election. We just have to look at how low Labour members’ heads are, and at their dropped shoulders, to see that they know it is too late.

New Zealanders have figured it out; this Budget’s tax revenue is $22 billion more than the tax take when Labour came to office. That is money taken from ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders. If this House wants a point of difference between the National side of the House and the miserable socialists over there it is this: no one is better qualified to spend his or her income better than the man or woman who earns it. That is what those members do not understand. They think that they know better than New Zealanders. They think that their mission in life is to take as much money as they can from New Zealanders and spend it as they want. As the clouds of economic doom assemble over this country, they have no answers. They have no answers; all they know is that they take more money. They pour it down a dirty great big hole of bureaucracy, and they think everything will be all right.

Tonight I have a message for those socialists over there, and it is this: where in this Budget is any action at all that will save an 80-plus-year-old woman from the experience I am about to describe, well understanding emergencies and priorities. A woman was rushed to a hospital seriously ill and in great pain, left in a corridor for a couple of hours, and then—under this Labour Government, which boasts about how much it spends without telling the people where the money is going and without having any quality control over it—this lady, who is over 80 years old, seriously ill, and the widow of a World War II veteran, is told to get out of her bed and it is given to a much younger person. I defy any member over there to get up on his or her feet to say that that is acceptable under any conditions. Then this fine lady, who never caused anybody any difficulty in her life and who would never complain, is put in a wheelchair. After probably a couple of hours in the wheelchair in a crowded corridor, she can take it no longer—and nor should she. So she wheels herself away, finds a couple of those white plastic chairs somewhere, pulls them together, pulls herself out of the wheelchair, and is found several hours later lying between those two chairs. She was found lying between those two chairs. That is where the socialists get it wrong. They are so busy spending money on bureaucracy that the ordinary people sometimes get let down.

Those members make another mistake too. They think that if we can praise something like the health system or the schooling system, we can ignore its failures. Let me tell those members that we cannot. It does not matter how good the health system works for New Zealanders. If just one 80-year-old lady is forced to lie for hours on two plastic chairs it is not good enough. Would one not think that a few—

Hon Shane Jones: Stop making this up!

ALLAN PEACHEY: How dare Mr Jones say that! He is a disgrace to this Parliament. Would members not think that a few bureaucrats could maybe go without sea views from their offices so that the hospital system could give that fine, gentle lady a bed? That is all she wanted: a bed to rest on until she could get treatment. This Budget has no vision at all for dealing with that sort of problem. Mr Jones may sit over there and laugh and sneer; the man is a fool.

Let us talk about education for a moment.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I let it go three times; you may have been distracted by noise in the Chamber. I know the member is relatively new, although he has been around a few years now, but there is a point of etiquette in this House about hurling abuse. Terms like that, which he used three times, are personally offensive. He should be called to account, and it should be demanded that he withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just say that the member who takes offence has to be the member to which the offence or the concerns are expressed, and that was not done. This is a robust debate.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want the former headmaster to know that he must stop looking in the mirror, and that I have taken no great offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No—that is not a point of order and the Minister knows that.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the issue, Mr Tisch.

Lindsay Tisch: It is a new point of order. My colleague has responded to a comment made by the member, who said he was making it up. My colleague is a very sincere gentleman. He is speaking with experience, he is speaking about a specific case, and he was reacting to a comment made by the member who said: “Stop making it up.” My colleague here is genuine in his attempts to bring to this House issues that this Government and its members are not prepared to accept—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That is not a point of order; it’s a speech!

Lindsay Tisch: I am on my feet. This is a point of order and the member is interrupting. My colleague is right in what he has done, and that is where the matter should rest.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I just say to members that this—[Interruption] I am on my feet. I advise members that this is a place for robust debate. This is a democracy, and we have to expect some of those comments. But I would urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. Remember that and we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas in this place.

ALLAN PEACHEY: When I look at this Budget and think of the least advantaged of our children, I find nothing. I wonder what the socialist members opposite, who are very, very good at shooting their mouths off at a distance, have to say to those parents of children with special needs who cannot get access to a special school and who are on waiting lists waiting for another parent’s child to die. That is what it has come to under this Government. Government members would rather debate how much it spends rather than the quality of that expenditure or how it can get the best for our people.

I was very interested to hear Mr Goff’s address before the dinner break. One would expect Mr Goff to be a thoughtful, reflective, experienced Minister. All he could do was throw abuse at this side of the House. I sat there wondering what that was all about. Then I realised that Mr Goff has realised that his chances of being Minister of Finance are gone. Helen Clark put paid to that last week, so it is going to be Trevor Mallard. What also surprised me was that Mr Goff was not looking at the figures in the Budget. He is counting different numbers. He is going around the Labour caucus, talking to the guys who backed Mike Moore in 1993, and asking: “Are you still with me?”. He has probably been to Mr Jones and said: “I’d rather not have your vote, frankly, because you will not be part of a future party that I lead.” Instead of addressing the issues in this Budget because the pall of economic uncertainty hangs over this country, he is asking those members whether they are with him. [Interruption] All that those two Cabinet Ministers can do, rather than address those issues, is throw abuse across the floor. Look at them, they are masters at it. When somebody comes along who is a bit bigger and a bit smarter, they whinge, complain, get on their feet and raise points of order, and seek the protection of the Speaker. Well, let me tell those members that in this election campaign the debate will be robust. They will be held to account by the National Party for this Budget, pathetic as it is. They will be held to account for this Budget, and the New Zealand electorate cannot wait for that.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I have listened to Budgets for as long as I can remember. My grandparents who brought me up were avid listeners on Budget night. My grandfather, for reasons that I still do not fully comprehend, used to buy extra stock of Monteith’s beer just in case the excise duty went up, and he would drink it that night with a big grin because he had beaten the tax man. But Budget night is not like that any more. Most long-term decisions have already been taken and announced. With financial accounting being so open and transparent, it is difficult to provide the shocks and surprises that we had in yesteryear. But Michael Cullen’s ninth Budget is different.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I want to advise members that this House is a symbol of integrity, the integrity of all honourable members will be upheld, and every voice shall be heard, in accordance with our Standing Orders. The interjecting is almost amounting to barraging, and that is not permitted.

Hon RICK BARKER: I hope the barraging was not from me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Definitely not.

Hon RICK BARKER: This is Michael Cullen’s ninth Budget, and this time the surprise is on the National Party. The size and the scope of the tax cuts produced by Michael Cullen show that this Government is very serious about sharing the gains of a growing economy. The first tranche of gains, in Michael Cullen’s first Budget, went to superannuitants. I make the point to Allan Peachey that it was a National Government that had cut superannuation in this country. I welcome a strong and robust debate, because I will go out on the hustings and say what National did to superannuitants in this country and what this Government has done for superannuitants. In Michael Cullen’s first Budget we restored the superannuation cuts that National had made, and we have done it again.

The second move of this Government was on the minimum wage. The National Government, in 9 years, did nothing to the minimum wage. It froze the minimum wage. The Labour Government has increased the minimum wage every year.

The next layer of support and assistance for families came in the form of Working for Families. The tax relief in Working for Families is roughly equivalent to $100 per week per child. A total of 360,000 families get that tax relief, and what a welcome injection into the family budget it is. It means better and more food on the table, it means that school fees can be paid, it means better clothes for the children, and it means that from time to time the family can undertake some recreational leisure activity. Working for Families has transformed the lives of over 350,000 families in New Zealand, and that is a great thing. The National Party is opposed to it. One working mother told me that for her family it was like winning Lotto every week. For her, getting $180 through Working for Families was like winning Lotto every week.

Labour’s programme has taken care of superannuitants. I tell Mr Peachey to look at this Budget. He will see that there is an extra $45.88 per fortnight for a married couple. That is what this Budget has delivered to the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. National’s track record is cutting superannuation—that is National’s record. Labour’s record is restoring it and adding to it.

The other thing this Government has done is repeal the repressive employment legislation enacted by the National Party. Labour has constantly increased the minimum wage. Labour has invested in infrastructure, skills research, and research and development. That has meant a growing economy that has delivered thousands of jobs per week. It has resulted in registered unemployment in this country going from 160,000 to under 20,000. A total of 140,000 people have received an instant, enormous pay increase from this Government, because they have a job. But the unemployed shifting into employment is not the only benefit to come from the economy under Labour; there has been a huge benefit for the employed, as well. Real wages have increased 15 percent ahead of the cost of living, under the Labour-led Government. That is 15 percent over and above the cost of living—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take the opportunity to help guide the member. I feared that he would mislead the House. I know that he would not do it deliberately. I think he just forgot to mention that the Greens and New Zealand First have played a strong part in all those points he was making.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member knows that he is trifling with the Chair.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely assure you that I was not trifling with the Chair. I was seriously concerned that he would inadvertently mislead the House by claiming all the credit for something that he had no right to do so.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mark.

Hon RICK BARKER: I accept the interjection by Ron Mark. Of course, the Labour-led Government has been supported by New Zealand First and the Greens.

The point I want to make very clear is that wages have increased 15 percent ahead of the cost of living. I tell Mr Peachey that that is completely different from what happened under the National Government. Wages went down under National. Wages went down in comparison with wages in Australia. The National Party members come to this House and bleat about the comparison between New Zealand’s wages and Australia’s wages. The irony in that is that New Zealand’s wages were behind Australia’s in the 9 years of National’s Employment Contracts Act and the 9 years of National’s misery. That is what drove New Zealand’s wages down below wages in Australia. Since then, our wages have kept pace with Australia’s.

I want to give members opposite a very good example. Some years ago, under National, a neighbour of mine was—he still is—a registered carpenter. The wage he was on was 30c ahead of the minimum wage. He was on $7.50 an hour, under National. Today he is on $35 an hour. Why is that? Because there is so much work available. This Government has put much effort into creating jobs—1,000 a week.

In addition to all of this, we have a Budget that gives $10 billion worth of tax relief across the board to all wage earners—$10 billion worth of tax relief. That is on top of tax cuts for business. Labour has introduced the first tax reductions for business in 20 years. What did National do in 9 years of office? Nothing! Labour has reduced taxes for business.

By any measure, there has been a remarkable series of Budgets from Dr Cullen. They have seen the economy go from sluggish to high performing. Unemployment has dropped across the board, employment has increased, the economic growth rate has been above the OECD average, and wages have outstripped the inflation rate. There has been extra investment in health, education, transport, and research and development, as well as the delivery of increases in superannuation, the provision of 20 hours’ free early childhood education, and the introduction of paid parental leave. Let us not forget about the reinstatement of apprenticeships, and KiwiSaver—the list simply goes on and on. There seems to be almost nothing that this Government has not delivered on, particularly when it compares itself with the slash, cut, and sell Government of the 1990s.

David Bennett: What about the 1980s?

Hon RICK BARKER: I say to Mr Bennett that where this Government increased superannuation payments, National cut them. Where this Government bought back the railway, National sold it. Where the National Government froze the minimum wage, this Government has increased the minimum wage for New Zealanders every year. Under National, wages and conditions of working people were slashed. Under Labour, wages and conditions have improved. There have been increases in annual leave, along with increases in statutory holiday pay. All of that has been in stark contrast to what happened under the National Government.

I say to Allan Peachey that I welcome a robust debate during the election campaign about National versus Labour. Labour has a mountainous pile of achievements, and they would never have happened under a sour, dour National Government. But National says that it can better our policies. National’s only policy is tax cuts. For years, all we have heard from the National Party has been tax cuts, tax cuts, and even more about tax cuts. It has been a one-policy party. But even that one policy has not been on display for all to see. We have heard from John Key that everyone in New Zealand would be better off by 50 bucks a week under a National Government. That promise of 50 bucks a week does have a certain ring to it. It does sound attractive. But is it deliverable? If John Key is going to deliver $50 a week in tax cuts, then he will have to spend $10 billion more than Labour is spending. The leader of the National Party says he will do that without cutting services and, as of now, without cutting KiwiSaver, but he does not say how he will deliver it.

Just to give the public some perspective on the size of that promise, I tell them that $10 billion is about as big as the total education budget that Mr Peachey spoke about. If National gave another $10 billion of tax cuts, that would be equivalent to closing every primary school and every high school from Kaitāia to Bluff, and sacking every teacher, every principal, and every person who works there, from the cleaner to the caretaker. The lot would have to go. That is how much of a cut National would have to make to Government spending. National does not explain how it is going to fund its tax cuts, because the public simply would not accept the complete closure of the school system. John Key will not tell us how he is going to do it. What does that say about John Key, and what does it say about the public? John Key is trying to hide his policy from the public.

I ask National to tell us what its policy is. It has got only one policy to talk about; it should tell us what that policy is. Is National too afraid to tell us what its policy is, because it will not stand up to scrutiny? Is National too afraid to tell us what its policy is, because it does not trust the public? Is National too afraid to tell us what its policy is, because it will not stand up to scrutiny? The National Party, in hiding its tax policy from the public, is being deceptive.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : New Zealanders who are watching this debate and wondering where their taxpayer dollars are going have found out that they are paying for officials to write speeches for people like Rick Barker, who cannot even get up and say what he thinks. That member has to have a written speech, after being a member for Parliament for how many years? He has to get a forest cut down in order to read out something that some officials probably spent all day preparing for him. He does not believe in what he says; he has to read it out. He has to follow the lines that he has been given. If he really believed it in his heart he would not need to read it out from pieces of paper, which has meant that a forest has been cut down for him.

This Budget is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because New Zealanders are hurting. New Zealanders are hurting because there are rising food costs, rising fuel costs, and high interest rates. This economy is going into trouble. It is an economy going into trouble because of the leadership on the Government side of the House.

Let us see why the Government is getting into trouble. The 60-odd people who form the majority of the House believe they know more about what to do with people’s money than they do. They back themselves as the investment advisers for New Zealand. Why should they be the investment advisers for New Zealand? They are a pack of ex-unionists who have never had to run a business in their whole lives, and who come in here and sit on a safe salary and then decide what the whim of this country should be and what to invest in to make this country great?

Well, let us see how great those investments have been. We have a situation now where we are not growing at the OECD average. People are losing money on their houses, and New Zealanders cannot afford to live the lifestyle that they were brought up with. Under this Government we have moved from having the status of a First World country to that of a Second World country. This Government has done that. Its economic management has taken New Zealand from being a country where people could grow up knowing they had the opportunities to live a lifestyle that was in the world’s top echelon, to living a lifestyle where they cannot afford even a block of cheese, they cannot afford to fill up their cars with petrol, and they cannot afford to buy a house.

Those people certainly cannot afford to have this Government any longer. This Government will take them to the bottom of this world order. It will take these people from having had opportunity and promise to being stuck in the South Pacific, on some little island State, with some kind of fantasy boundary around it that will protect them from the rest of the world. Well, that is not the reality of the world. These 60-odd people who think they can govern the world economy with their great ambitions are dreaming. We can see how much they are dreaming.

The Government bought Toll NZ off an Australian company that was doing a really good job of looking after it. What did that Australian company do the day after that? It bought a trucking company, because it knows what will happen. It knows that the first time Fonterra gets a trainload of products ending up in Invercargill, when they should have been in Tauranga, those products will be going back on to trucks. More trucks will be on the road as a result of the Government’s management of the trains. It will happen; it is just a matter of time. These guys have seen the economic imperatives that this Government can deliver. The Labour Government has no idea about economics. It never has, and it never will. The public know that they should come to the National Party if there are problems in the economy. They know that the National Party will change that, turn it round, and deliver the response that New Zealanders need in order to have the lifestyle we need.

The country will turn to National in its darkest times, and this is the darkest of economic times, because the leadership on the Government side of the House has not delivered for ordinary New Zealanders. This leadership has led to New Zealanders not being able to live the lifestyle they want. That is a disgrace for a Labour Government, but it is typical of a Labour Government. National will pick it up, as it has in the past, after Labour Governments have not delivered because they do not know what is right for this country economically.

Let us look at what is in this Budget for students. What do they get? They get $5 a week. What is that? Is it two pies? Is it one Big Mac? They did not get even a block of cheese; they get just $5. They can borrow another $5. What does that say to the students? It tells them what Labour is about. Labour is about picking on people, when and how it needs to, to get an election result. It is not about what is best for New Zealand; it is about what Labour thinks will win it an election. That is all Labour is after. Students were not on the list this time. They were not identified as the group Labour wants to vote for it at this election, so it has cast them away and thrown them out. Labour has said: “We don’t need your vote this time.” The students will vote against Labour this time, because they know that they are getting nothing out of the Labour Government, and that Labour is not delivering for that vote.

Labour looks around and sees what it can pick as the votes it needs to win an election. It does not care about what is in the best interests of New Zealand. Labour does not know what is in the best interests of New Zealand. Rick Barker had to read his speech. If those members actually knew what was in the best interests of New Zealand we would get it from their hearts, but we do not. All we get from them is their mantra, read-out lines, messages they want to get across, and voting blocs they want to pay off. That is how Labour runs an election campaign. Those members look out to see who they want to buy off, in order to get votes to get back into power, and when they get back into power, they feather their own nests. That is all they have ever done and all they will ever do. They do not care about what is in the best interests of New Zealand, because if we look at the results of what they have done, we see that they have taken this country from being a country that was successful, dynamic, and giving everyone a chance to being a country where just Labour has control.

Labour wants to have control over individuals. It wants to have control over the money in the country, it wants to have control over people’s ambitions and aspirations, and it wants especially to have control over individuals. But that takes away the fundamental heart of a country. If the power of an individual to grow is taken away, and if that individual is controlled by a centralised Government—as the Labour Government does—then that is the end of the ambition and aspiration a country can have. That is what has happened under Labour. It has taken away that aspiration and ambition. That aspiration and ambition has gone to Australia now. It is not here; it is moving. But National will bring it back. National will provide that aspiration and ambition. We will give New Zealanders the reason to stay here; we will give New Zealanders the chance to use their aspiration and ambition to make this country great. We will make this country the great place it always has been, and should be again. We will not be there, necessarily, telling people that we know best.

We will not be saying that we, the 60 of us on this side of the House, can govern this country beyond what people can govern themselves, and that is the difference between the two political parties. On this side of the House we believe in people. We believe in the strength of people to achieve. We believe in the strength of this country to achieve. Members on that side of the House believe that they know best, that they know how to make this country, and that they know what the golden dream is for New Zealand. And when individuals go into the voting booths to make those choices in a few months’ time, they will back themselves. They will not back the 60 people on that side of the House who think they know better than anyone else, because the people on that side of the House do not know. They have been proven to not know, and they cannot deliver the answers for New Zealand. But the National Party can, and will.

National has the leadership, the aspiration, the ability, and the attitude to deliver for this country. Those are some things that the Labour Party will never know about. The Labour Party will never have any constructive influence on the building of this country, because it cannot believe in the ability of our people to achieve. Because Labour cannot believe in our people, it cannot truly govern. That is the problem the Labour Party has now. The economic environment has shown the problem of what that party is about. It has taken this country into a situation where we have not delivered for our people, and the people out there need change. They want change, and they will get change at the end of the year because there will be the opportunity to have a new vision, a new leadership, and a new attitude for New Zealand. National will deliver that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tātou i tēnei pō kua tae mai ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero. Having listened to some of the speeches this afternoon, I think I am fairly convinced that I bring a different perspective to some of the debate—hopefully—which shall be in a positive light.

In the hākari of offerings that is called Budget 2008, the Māori Party wants to move from the kongakonga, the crumbs, to focus on the mīti, the meat, in the menu for Māori. The main meal for Māori in Budget 2008 is the announcement of the new economic development institution, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. Can I make it clear that the Māori Party believes that Māori enterprise and the mobilisation of Māori business networks are absolutely central to the future success of Aotearoa. We consider it urgent that the nation comes together to increase our creativity and productivity, and a clever utilisation of the tax system would be a key component. Success in this area would help to deal with the high price of our dollar and the tendency towards price increases. It would also ease interest rate pressures by discovering growth activity that does not rely on raising the demand for capital.

There is a catch: the so-called brand new initiative, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, is not actually brand new. It is supposed to be a really innovative approach to using up unused money. It is called the old “Let’s have a spend-up of TPK’s surplus funds” trick. You see, if we go back to the 1998-99 financial year, we find that the total surplus fund paid by Te Puni Kōkiri into the consolidated account was in the vicinity of $6.336 million. It is the ongoing saga of a department that underspends and, some say, under-delivers. The books have not been exposed to the light of public scrutiny; instead, Te Puni Kōkiri money for business development has been siphoned off for the Māori business support agency. This was in addition to another one-off payment of $360,000 from Te Puni Kōkiri funds that was uncovered a few weeks ago.

The other more controversial contribution to the investment in this new business agency is, of course, the $35 million that will be siphoned off from the restructuring of the Māori Trust Office. Budget 2008 invests $19.4 million of operating funding and $4.4 million of capital funding into Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand to establish services to support Māori business and Māori economic development as well as to give some facility for loans to Māori businesses. Well, that would be absolutely fantastic if—and I say “if”—it were supported by the people it purports to represent.

The last thing I want to do is suggest that the Minister is telling a big rūkahu, but apparently part of the rationale expressed about this proposal is that there was overwhelming support for such an entity during the consultation process on the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. The truth is that the consultation process did not even raise the topic of the establishment of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. The consultation process was focused solely on establishing the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation separate from Te Puni Kōkiri—a proposal that did indeed meet wide support. But I am told that there was no mention—no mention—of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand. What is more, there was no mention of the concept of using $35 million, which is actually the unclaimed moneys of Māori landowners.

The thing is that out there amongst the whānau, hapū, and iwi, the decision by Labour to use Māori landowners’ money for another purpose has not gone down well, at all. In fact, the people I have come across in my electorate of Waiariki have said to me: “Tell them to keep their hands off.” You see—by way of some background—the Māori Trust Office has been around since 1921 and was set up to assist Māori with the asset management of fragmented and multiply owned land. The office administers the General Purposes Fund, which holds interest earned from beneficiaries’ funds—that is, the funds of beneficiaries who are Māori and who own land with others of their kin.

The bill introduced last year advocates that another statutory body—Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand—be set up by transferring $35 million from the General Purpose Fund. Well, we need to recall that this fund is, according to the Charters, Sykes, and Nikora review in 1991, income derived from the beneficiaries and not from the Māori Trustee. So what we have is what some have described as State-sponsored theft.

The Māori Party is first off the block to be proud of the amazing success that Māori businesses have created in the economy. Māori business success has earned us a glowing international reputation as entrepreneurs. A status of excellence has been acquired through the fruits of hard labour, diligence, perseverance, and preparation. In fact, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor has confirmed that we are the third most entrepreneurial people in the world.

All things being considered, we would be extremely supportive of the new entity, Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, but we have the sinking feeling that it is nothing more than mutton dressed up as lamb. There are concerns not only around the ownership of the $35 million but also because full consultation has not occurred to appropriate levels. We believe that it would have been far better if consideration of such an entity had come up once it had been reported back to Parliament after full and due discussion by the Māori Affairs Committee, but the committee has not reported back to Parliament with recommendations based on public submissions. So, in many respects, we are faced with the chicken before the egg, in the shape of Budget 2008.

If there is a winner in the Budget hākari, then it is the Māori Wardens Association, which is finally resourced after 60 years of voluntary service. It must be noted again, however, that the $6.8 million of funds is funded through reprioritising Vote Māori Affairs, and it makes one wonder why Te Puni Kōkiri never manages to spend its budget. Putting that aside, we want to put on record the incredible work these people do. They are the unsung heroes of our community. This weekend, for example, at home in Rotorua we have what is called Youth EFX being held at the Rotorua Aquatic Centre. It consists of dance battles and phat beats. It is a big thing for our rangatahi—last year some 800 people attended, and the Māori wardens will be there again this year.

Then there is the Māori wardens’ mahi as a part of their contract with the Rotorua District Council to monitor compliance with the sale of liquor laws on licensed premises and with the central city liquor ban. Just recently they have been on a trial programme, walking alongside the police, retrained and equipped with radios, to prevent trouble in the central city. So whether they are working alongside our rangatahi, on the beat with the cops, or simply on the streets the Māori wardens play a major role in reducing the potential for disorderly behaviour while also supporting in both a preventive and caring role. They have been doing this since they were first established in 1968, and they are a major asset in any Māori community—indeed, in the whole community. So it is really positive that the association has been resourced to grow while also maintaining the kaupapa of their movement. The Māori wardens are a trusted and respected group within our communities, and we are pleased to think that the resources they will receive will help them to maintain their autonomy.

The other great initiative whose time has finally come is the restoration of the significant whare of Ngāti Awa named Mātaatua. It was built over a century ago and was described in 1875 as “a grand carved house, said to be one of the finest in New Zealand”. Although every whare tells a thousand stories, this whare in particular is important as it includes within its walls the pain of the confiscation of 1866 and the invasion of Ngāti Awa lands by Te Kooti in 1869. In 1879 this whare was sent to the Intercolonial Exhibition in Sydney, and without any further consultation with Ngāti Awa, it was then sent on to the South Kensington Museum in London, England, before returning home, not to Ngāti Awa but to the Otago Museum. There it stayed until 1996 when, following the recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal in Wai 46, it was finally repatriated.

I take the opportunity to mihi to Ngāti Awa; to Ngāti Awa carver Te Hau o Te Rangi Tutua, who has been assisting with the reconstruction; to the analysis and research of Professor Hirini Mead; and to Te Roopu Kohikohi Kōrero o Ngāti Awa for the safe return home of Mātaatua Whare.

The $7 million for this project, along with the funding allocated for settlement negotiations and resolutions, are an investment in our nationhood that we in the Māori Party fully support. If there is anything that Vote Māori Affairs should support, then it is the building of nationhood for Aotearoa. If the department has a problem in that it is running out of ideas to spend its putea on, the Māori Party hereby invites the Minister, and indeed the department, to pick up the phone and give us a call. The Māori Party will be very happy to assist.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : It is a pleasure to follow the member who spoke before me, Te Ururoa Flavell, but it is really marvellous to speak in the debate following the Minister of Finance’s ninth Budget. Also, it is very interesting for me to follow David Bennett, a member of the National Party from Hamilton, who was rabbiting on at length earlier this evening.

I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Most MPs come here with a view of wanting to change the world, or at the very least of wanting to make the world a better place. Some have a more modest approach; they want only to make New Zealand a better place. That is all very laudable. But when I heard that member’s speech—and I have to say that he is a likeable member and is a guy whom I get on with very well—I was listening for one little piece, just one item, of National policy. I did not hear even one tiny little bit. All we got was what we have had from all the National speakers in this debate—cliché after cliché and dogma after dogma about tax cuts, about how they are supposedly better economic managers, and about how New Zealand turns to them in times of crisis.

Well, first, we are not in crisis. Second, every time this country has got in economic trouble, people have turned to Labour. If we go back through our history we see that that is what has happened. If members opposite cannot find it in their hearts to believe that, then all they have to do is read their history books.

All of us believe in some basic bottom lines: security for people in their old age or in ill health, the right to a job, the right to decent housing, and the right to a good education. All of those fundamental things should be backed up by the security of knowing that there will be a safety net if one is unfortunate enough to be injured at work or in some other place. National members simply cannot bring themselves to embrace these things. What is the proof of that? Let us look at the years since 1993, when I returned to Parliament. We had a National Government for 9 years—for 3 of those years I was not here, and then we had 6 more years—and in the next 9 years we had a Labour-led Government, with various partners helping us to do that job. In those first 9 years, under the National Government, State housing was sold off.

Lesley Soper: 13,500.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: National sold 13,000-plus State houses—not to the people who lived in them, but to entrepreneurs. What about health care? Do members remember cash registers in the foyer of the local hospital? At my hospital in Taranaki, Taranaki Base Hospital, a special construction was done to house the cash department where people had to pay for hospital care. That is what the previous National Government did.

National reckons it is a better economic manager. Well, let us look at the way we were. In the mid-1990s in a town such as Waitara, for example, 60 percent of households got their income from social welfare benefits of various sorts—superannuation, the unemployment benefit, the domestic purposes benefit, the sickness benefit, etc. How many people today are registered as unemployed in the town of Waitara? I believe that today it is 54 people.

Darien Fenton: How many?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Fifty-four people—that is the difference a Labour Government has made. I congratulate Michael Cullen and the Labour senior ministerial team on the work they have done over the years to pull this economy up by the bootstraps.

In my first 6 years back, during those 9 years under National from 1993 to 1999, I spent most of my time as an MP dealing with people who had health cases that were not addressed, people who had housing issues that were not addressed, or companies asking me how they could get some more work or more orders in order to keep on the core group of people they had. What is my problem today as a Labour MP in the city of New Plymouth? My problem today is getting enough people to do the work; getting enough skilled people with the trades and backgrounds to do the work that needs to be done in our engineering industries, our yacht-building industry, and all of the things that are keeping Taranaki buoyant.

We are seeing levels of growth in New Zealand that put us at the top of the OECD. We hear from the Opposition that we are doing terribly badly, but we are not. As a country we are doing extremely well. We have the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world. Countries like Germany would love to have a level of unemployment below 4 percent, as we have had continuously now for years, actually—and in Taranaki it is even lower than that.

Members opposite say that members on this side of the House have no idea about economics and that we are not business people, etc. Well, I have good news for them: some of us are. Some of us have had some involvement in business, that is for sure. But when we came into Government in 1999, things had been so good under the economic management of National that New Zealand had a partially privatised and thoroughly mucked-up electricity scheme. In transport, National had sold off the railways at a fire-sale price to investors who simply asset-stripped it then sold it on to Toll. Each police car had done something like an average of 200,000 kilometres, and one of the first things that this Government had to do was to buy thousands of new police cars. Ambulances, hospitals, and schools were all run down, and since we have been in Government, all of those things have been addressed.

Defence was more run down than it has ever been in our history. If we look at defence now, we see new ships, new aircraft, upgraded surveillance aircraft, substantial amounts of new equipment, armoured personnel carriers, fire control systems, new radios—even the radios were out of date. They were from the Viet Nam era. What National did in running down New Zealand was an absolute crime, yet its members tell us that they are the better economic managers.

They say to us that tax cuts are the answer. Allowing people to spend their own money, their own way, is the way to fix it. Let us hear what Mr Key, the Leader of the Opposition, had to say about that. He said: “Well, I think it’s extremely unlikely that our tax cuts actually will be near Labour’s, and, certainly, it is not about what we deliver on one particular day; it is about an ongoing programme, and we will be committed to an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts.” That is Mr Key’s flannel; he means “We actually don’t know what we’re going to do.” It is National’s code for “We haven’t got a policy yet.”

If National had a policy, why are we not hearing it? If National, after 8½ years in Opposition, had a coherent policy, why would its members not be telling the public about it right now? National simply cannot decide what to do; that is the problem. There are two wings in the National Party. One is totally free market. The invisible hand of the market, as Adam Smith said, will provide. The other wing, which is the rural end of the National Party, says “Hang on a minute. We’ve got to have some common sense, some pragmatism, and some planning here.”

Planning is a word that just disappeared from the lexicon in the 1990s. I am very pleased to say that it is back, and we can see it most in an area that I am very much involved in, and that is transport. This Government has made an enormous investment of $2.7 billion, to be spent on roading and public transport in the coming year. That is vastly ahead of what National spent. Actually, the public transport component is 1,000 percent more than what National spent during its last year in office. But just in that area alone we can see the sorts of issues we have had to address.

Rail, for example, was completely run down under the private-enterprise system that National always embraces so much, yet it should have delivered an efficient, rational, and reasonable system providing for our needs, according to National. Under private ownership there was an enormous deficit in maintenance, and an actual risk in terms of the danger of the network. Of course, the taxpayer had to bail out the system and, in the end, buy it because that was the only way we could guarantee it would become safe, modern, and at least able to perform its role as part of the infrastructural needs of New Zealand. None of that was going on under National.

I am delighted that we have put so much money into things like tax cuts for people, as well as family support for those with children. We cannot deal with one without the other. National’s challenge is to say how it will deliver this mythical $50 tax cut, on average—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: $50-plus.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: —$50-plus—for every taxpayer. But of course National forgets to tell us that John Key will get $90 and ordinary workers at the bottom of the wage heap will get $10 if they are lucky. National is not saying it is going to keep family support. It is not saying how it will fund it; it is not saying where the money will come from. It is simply going to borrow, like it always has in the past, and put our kids in debt for the future. That is National’s solution.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : We had Vote Health last week. It came and it went. We learnt that it has gone up by $750 million to almost $12 billion a year. The fact is that it has doubled in the last 9 years, since Labour took office, to $12 billion a year. I looked very hard in the document. I wanted to find out where the vision was, and I was very disappointed. I wanted to find out where the answers were and where the solutions were to our health issues. I could not find anything; absolutely nothing at all. I searched for the answer for a particular woman I have been in communication with. She is an elderly lady whose urgent cardiac surgery has been deferred twice. It turns out that she has an aneurysm, and if this aneurysm bursts it will be life-threatening. It is pretty serious. Her surgery has been deferred twice and the reason why, I found out from the manager of the district health board, is that there were not enough intensive care nurses. I looked for the vision of how we are going to sort out our health worker issues. How are we going to get more nurses? I could not see any rationale or any solutions in the Budget.

All this Government can do, and all it has done in the last 9 years, is produce health workforce report after report—42 more, in fact. The New Zealand Nurses Organisation estimates that we are short of up to 2,000 nurses. We have an ageing health workforce in every part of the health sector, whether it is pathology, radiology—you name it, we are an ageing health workforce. We have a workforce that is supported largely by overseas-trained doctors. Quite frankly, if we did not have that input we would not have a health workforce at all. Did the Budget have any answers for this? No, it did not. There was no vision at all.

National has a vision. John Key recently announced a solution to the medical health workforce problems. Yesterday he announced that National would be looking at voluntary bonding of newly graduated medical students to work in rural or hard to staff areas, and it would look at writing off their loans. This visionary announcement has been very much welcomed by the New Zealand Medical Association and also by the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association. That solution has vision, but the Budget did not have vision. The fact is that under 9 years of a Labour Government patients are waiting to see specialists; they are waiting, waiting, waiting. There are fewer first specialist assessments, fewer patients are being seen, and fewer elective surgeries. Patients are simply waiting longer and longer. There have been fewer elective surgeries, after a $6 billion increase in Vote Health each year.

What about Labour’s answers to the growing number of patients? I certainly hope we do not go back to the answer of 2006, when Labour culled an estimated 35,000 patients from waiting lists nationwide, all because they were waiting. Labour’s answer was to cull the patients and send them back to their general practitioners, even though their specialists had said that surgery was the best option. It was cynical data-cleansing at best. What about people who need elective surgeries for hernias or varicose veins? These conditions are not life-threatening, but they do cause a lot of pain and suffering. People with these conditions cannot get operations under district health boards in this day and age. They do not have an option; they just have to suffer.

Did this Budget have the answer to bureaucracy and the lack of productivity in the health sector? In fact, the health bureaucracy has been growing like the bureaucracy in all other sectors of Government departments. We know that the number of nurses and doctors employed by the district health boards has grown by 28 percent, but over the same period the number of people employed in the Ministry of Health has increased by 51 percent. The number of district health board managers and administrators has increased by more than 1,800 since 2001. We need just to look at the proliferation of health workforce documents, strategies, and plans—you name it—to see why we have been drowning in bureaucracy.

National has vision, and in our Better, Sooner, More Convenient health vision document we talk about what we will do for bureaucracy. National will increase productivity by re-engaging the health professionals, promoting clinical leadership, and making greater use of the private sector. It is all in our health discussion document; it is all there.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What does that mean—re-engaging the health professionals?

Dr JACKIE BLUE: I say to Mr Cosgrove that he should read the document and he might learn something.

Chris Tremain: It’s not in comic form.

Dr JACKIE BLUE: That is right! It is not all just pictures. There are lots of words, and members do have to read each word for it to make sense.

I will tell Mr Cosgrove about something that is in the Budget. An amount of $154 million was recently announced for the cervical cancer vaccine, and it was absolutely welcomed. It is very interesting to go back to the original announcement, which was made at the Labour Party conference in November last year. The Prime Minister announced that she was asking the Ministry of Health to make haste on advising our Government of these developments. This occurred after the United Kingdom had announced its own cervical cancer vaccine—hence the announcement at the Labour Party conference that the Prime Minister was asking the Ministry of Health officials to look urgently into this matter. That is all well and good. If she was so worried about the health of women in New Zealand, why did she not act a year earlier when the Australians had announced their cervical cancer vaccine programme? Why did she wait for the United Kingdom to suddenly announce its programme?

I was very interested in the timing of all this. I asked, under the Official Information Act, for the Ministry of Health to find out the exacting timing of when the Prime Minister had asked for information on the cervical cancer vaccine programme. I got different dates. The Director-General of Health told me the briefing was requested on 2 November, and then, in response to another Official Information Act request, I was told by the Deputy Director-General of Health that it was 5 November, a day or two after the Labour Party conference. All in all, the varying dates and the fact it was announced at the Labour Party conference make me think this was policy on the hoof and it was political. If our Prime Minister was truly worried about cervical cancer, she would have made the announcement a year earlier in late 2006, when the Australian Government, our nearest neighbour, announced its programme. She would not have waited for the UK announcement. This was cynicism at is best.

Another interesting omission in the Budget, in Vote Health, was that no budget was mentioned for pharmaceuticals. That was very interesting. Our pharmaceutical spending has been very poor. It has been going down steadily and flat-lining over several years. This Budget does not have the answer for people like little James, who is 5 years of age. I got to know him and his family very well. James has a special condition that affects his oesophagus and makes it quite inflamed. He cannot eat or drink very well, and he needs special food to give him nutrition. Unfortunately, the supplement he needed was not funded by Pharmac. The only funded supplement was a foul-tasting supplement that he had to have large quantities of. James is only 5, and to a 5-year-old’s palate, this medicine was difficult, literally, to get down. So it was hard for this little boy. His mother and his specialist lobbied Pharmac. They went to the Exceptional Circumstances panel on numerous occasions to try to get the supplement funded. They had no luck whatsoever. The postscript to this is that it looks as if the medicine will be funded, but it is too late for this family. They left to go to Australia, where the medicine is fully funded.

That family have joined the 200 Kiwis who leave our shores every week to go to Australia. They are among the people who are voting with their feet and leaving New Zealand, and that is to our detriment. Did Vote Health in this Budget have the answer to the problems in our emergency departments, where people have to wait in corridors, where there is bed blocking, and where people try to see a doctor but cannot? All in all, this is a very disappointing Vote Health Budget. It had no solutions, no vision, and, unfortunately, New Zealanders will have to wait for the election in order to get some real vision.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) : If we listen to the National Party, a number of things become very obvious in this Budget debate. National members have spent every speech trying to unzip it, attack it, and degrade it, and the only compensating factor, where they talk about any semblance of their own programme, comes down to the use of clichés and platitudes.

We heard a speech then from Dr Jackie Blue. She said that the National Party has some vision documents on health. When she was challenged on the health policy, I wrote the answer down, because I thought we would finally get some sort of policy out of the National Party. When challenged on what the health policy encompassed and what its centrepiece was, she said this: “We will re-engage with health professionals.”, whatever that means. When challenged to explain what that means, there was nothing there. There was the empty sound of the baked bean can. There was nothing there. She said: “We will re-engage with health professionals.”

I recall that at the last election I was standing against the National candidate in my electorate, Kate Wilkinson, who has done a real clanger today. She has given a policy on KiwiSaver—

Ron Mark: She was telling the truth, though.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Mr Mark says she was telling the truth, and, of course, I would not challenge Mr Mark’s word. Ms Wilkinson said that National will do away with the employer contribution. Then, out of nowhere, came Mr Key. He said: “No, we will not.” He did not talk, though, about what he would do about the Government contribution, and for a person on $45,000 a year, the employer contribution is around $1,800. Ms Wilkinson says it will go. John Key says, no, it will not, and that she was not part of the policy process. But hang on—she is in the shadow Cabinet. If she was not in the policy process, then we have to ask who is writing the policy. If members of the shadow Cabinet are not donkey deep in writing their own policy, then we have to ask who is writing it.

I recall Ms Wilkinson standing up in cold halls in Oxford and Kaiapoi—Mr Mark was there—and doing a Jackie Blue. People asked what National would do, and Ms Wilkinson stood up and said: “We believe in a decent society, a just and fair society, and that is what we will create.” I suspect Mr Mark beat me to it on one occasion, but we both looked at each other and said: “What does that mean? It sounds quite good. Those things are things we would all sign up to.” Then we asked what it meant and there was silence—absolute silence.

It was a bit like saying: “We will re-engage with health professionals.” Does that mean National will do what we did in this Budget and provide millions of dollars of extra funding? I think that is a really good form of re-engagement with health professionals—not platitudes, not clichés, but a real form of engagement.

Will National members do what we have done in education over the past 9 years? Will they build new schools? Will they fix up the leaks and the destruction they rendered on our schools? I remember going into schools in my electorate. I met one principal—in West Eyreton School, I think it was—whose office consisted of a few piles of books in a corner of a Skyline garage that doubled as the library, thanks to that lot over there. And they talk about re-engagement!

Re-engagement, I say to Dr Jackie Blue, is not talking about it, producing vision documents, producing platitudes, and then, when challenged, not producing a policy. Engagement means one delivers. It means one delivers on one’s promises. It means delivering on one’s policy. It means, I say to Dr Jackie Blue, that one has a policy. What we know about the National Party’s tax policy, as outlined on the day before the Budget, is that every taxpayer—and we know that pensioners pay tax—will get 50-plus bucks a week extra under a John Key - Jackie Blue Government. That is what John Key said. The members opposite are very quiet now. Even Dr Mapp, who is normally pretty vocal, is quiet.

On the day after the Budget the National Party policy was unwinding like a trout on a fishing line and, as we know, a trout is a pretty slippery fish. I think that John Campbell summed it up, I have to say. I have never seen a quote like this ever. John Campbell said to Mr Key: “I also think you”—that is, the leader of the National Party; and members opposite cannot take a point of order over this, because John Campbell said it—“are as slippery as a snake in wet grass in terms of telling me where you are going to get the money from to pay for tax cuts.” Those members will not tell us.

Mr Key went on Morning Report and said that National will tell people, maybe, 6 weeks out from election day. That is what he said. He said that maybe National will tell people 6 weeks out from election day. We know what the rationale and the strategy is for that. It is the same strategy that those members tried last time. The rationale and the strategy is to give no time for the New Zealand people to analyse the voodoo economics they will come up with—no time. We can see the gaunt-looking faces over there now. If those members were so proud and so sure of their tax policy and if it was so much better than ours, then they would be out now with the printing presses, producing the documents. They would be out with the calculators, and they would be telling everybody.

Ron Mark: They would have a shadow Budget.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Mr Mark is asking where the shadow Budget is—and he is right. Where is the alternative Budget that they would have produced? But, oh no, there is no alternative Budget. It is put up or shut up time. That, I say to Dr Jackie Blue, is called real engagement with the people.

Let us look at the tax cuts. I will give members some figures. Here is what Working for Families and the tax cut programme means for ordinary folks. I will give some policy—some detailed policy. For a two-earner family with two kids under 13 and with the parents earning $45,000 and $20,000, it means that family will get $42.76 per week from 1 October. From 2011 it will be $84.55 a week. For a one-earner family with two children under 13 and with the income earner earning $45,000, it means $30.83 per week. For a two-earner family with one child under 13 and with both parents earning $20,000, it means $35.16 a week. For a one-earner family earning $45,000 and with one child under 13, it means $27.85 a week. That, I say to Dr Jackie Blue, is called a policy. Not only is it called a policy but also it is called legislation written into law—rock solid, granite marble—and it is happening, now.

Then we look at what National members are prepared to tell us. Mr Tisch knows that I am right, as he slinks back into his chair. They are prepared to tell the people of New Zealand nothing. What they do is to get up and have a crack. Jackie Blue has had a crack at health. Well, here is what independent commentator Russell Brown said about what the Government secured in telecommunications. He said that the Government has “secured an additional $325 million over five years—a much smaller sum than the number National has come up with, but one which will be distributed through an established, contestable process … It’s also much more realistic and far less vague. It works now, without an epochal reorganisation of the entire communications sector.”

That is what we got out of our Budget. That is called a policy. That is what was announced. That is what is public. The policy of Labour is in those red and white booklets sitting on the Table of the House—volumes and volumes of policy, of action, and of delivery. What we get from members opposite is that they will re-engage. Last time they disengaged; they disengaged from our elderly folk. Our elderly folk, of course, benefit too. From 1 October they will benefit by $45.88 per fortnight for a couple and $23.84 for a single person. Will National members re-engage with the elderly? They disengaged from the elderly for the 9 long years they were last in Government. They slashed the pension and lifted the age of eligibility—no ifs, no buts, no maybes; they dislocated, destroyed, and disengaged with our elderly population.

I say to the great engager, Dr Jackie Blue, and to the communities: do not judge politicians by what they say, judge them by their actions. One can judge this side of the House by nine Budgets, nine volumes of Budget materials, and by promises kept and delivered. And they can judge that crew opposite by what they did last time, which was a total dislocation, economic vandalism, and disengagement—especially from the hothead Nick Smith, who has just walked in—from the communities, and they will do it again.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : Budget 2008—well, how out of touch is this Government with New Zealanders? They are not engaged, they are not re-engaged, they are not even disengaged—the phone is off the hook. New Zealanders are not listening any more. Since Michael Cullen brought this Budget to Parliament last Thursday there has been close scrutiny on the part of New Zealanders. The Budget has been variously described as a big-spending Budget and as just what Kiwis were waiting for—a fair economy, a strong future, an economic transformation Budget package, a fast broadband future, and a step change—but they are all Labour’s own descriptions, not ours, and not those of the New Zealand public.

One might start to think that some of that rhetoric was starting to sound a little bit familiar. That is because Labour has started to engage in some of National’s ideas, because it has seen that they are gaining traction. It was not enough that Labour borrowed National’s very well received charitable giving policy; it has now cottoned on to our policy on fast fibre to the home, which is going down very well in the homes of New Zealanders. Labour members like the idea of that so they have decided that their own broadband future will have a bit of urgency to it. But it is too little, too late. Pete Hodgson even used phrases like step change. Well, Labour heard it here first from National.

Then there is the oft-repeated phrase in Labour’s language, and it is that word “fairness”. I will have a crack at interpreting what this word “fairness” means. There is a hint in those red and white documents and in the Fiscal Strategy Report summary, where Labour refers to a more equal distribution of wealth. Well, there we have it—for the 9th year running we have, in essence, a redistribution of wealth. Labour entirely fails to realise that what New Zealanders really want now is some hope, some ambition, and some incentives, and they are not getting them from Labour members.

There are no incentives for the wavering masses to stay in New Zealand, not to head off to further their fortunes in Australia or even further afield. Essentially the Budget has come too late and it is too little. We have already lost more than 78,000 people in the last year—more than 40,000 of whom have gone to Australia. It is not enough for Labour to trumpet that we have net migration, because we want our own skilled New Zealanders to stay here. We want our children to make their lives here in New Zealand. When I knock on doors it is sad to hear the grandparents and the parents of those who have left New Zealand say: “Our kids have settled overseas, they do not see a future here in New Zealand.”

There is just one other thing I want to talk about. The PricewaterhouseCoopers Budget 2008 Tax Analysis had some fair but interesting comments to make. I will repeat all of these sentences; I will not try Labour’s trick of quoting just half a sentence. “This is a Budget full of tax cut surprises. More generous than expected, more protracted than predicted. We applaud the $10.6 billion size of the three year tax cut package but we have real doubts over whether the structure and timing of the programme will deliver the benefits and behavioural incentives that New Zealand so desperately needs.” It has real doubts and, actually, so do we.

The post-Budget analysis has shown that New Zealanders are not as appreciative of the tax cuts as Michael Cullen wants them to be. I guess he is out there saying: “How dare that little old lady say ‘just a miserly block of cheese’! How dare she!”. I will tell him how she dares to do so. It is because she is a bit worried about the future under a Labour Government. In fact, she is probably very worried. There will be some money for superannuitants on 1 October, and that is good. There is some money for taxpayers, but there will be a very, very long wait before they get any more.

Labour members keep on going on about National’s tax plans. I understand why they want to know them. After the next election they will want to know how well off they will be. I understand their need to hear them, but it will be in our good time, not the Government’s.

The response I have had when I have been out door-knocking since the Budget has been interesting, and it is further proof to me that the phone is off the hook. New Zealanders do not trust this Labour Government any more, and I think that is a fair response to its squandering of the economic good times of the last 9 years. This Budget was not the shot in the arm that Labour was looking for. New Zealanders are weary of the controlling nanny State redistributors of wealth that this Government is. They despair of ever being the beneficiaries of their own efforts.

I have already referred to National’s charitable giving policy. Well, boy, the charities will need to be lined up at the moment for the New Zealanders who are going to need them! I for one am sick to death of hearing about how well the economy has gone under Labour, but we are not hearing it quite so much lately as families feel the pain of interest rates doubling under Labour and of soaring food and fuel costs. You see, the good times, strangely enough, are always all Labour’s, and any bad times are a result of National in the 1990s. I just do not get why any time there is anything good Labour made it happen, but every time something goes a bit pear-shaped, it is us. It is rubbish, of course, and New Zealanders do not believe it any more. They are sick to death of this playground, squabbling-type attitude of: “He did it. It is his fault. He did it. She did it. They did it.” Well, no; Labour is the master of its own destiny. It got us here and New Zealanders have had enough of it.

I want to get a couple of things on the record for listeners or people who are watching out there, because they could be lulled into believing some of the misrepresentations we have had from that lot. Firstly, people should not believe Labour members when they say that National will cut superannuation. We will not. John Key said he would resign if he was Prime Minister under a National Government that did that. Make no mistake: that is not our intention. National also has no plans to raise the age at which people qualify for superannuation, which is what I have heard on doorstep after doorstep. That lot have been telling people that we have such plans. We have made no plans.

Which party put out a comprehensive discussion document on the aged-care sector? Was it New Zealand First? No. Was it United Future? No. Was it the Greens? No. Was it the Māori Party? No. Was it Labour? No. It was National. For 2 years we have been consulting on the aged-care sector. If we ask those people who has been doing the work on their behalf, then they will say that under National they will be cared for in their old age.

New Zealand First is trying to woo back those particular voters, but they can see through those shallow attempts by Winston Peters to save his own skin. They know that his ministerial duties have meant he has been overseas enjoying the baubles of office, as is appropriate in his particular ministerial role, but they will not be fooled into believing that a future under New Zealand First will be a rosy one for them. They prefer to look to the parties that are doing the hard work.

In the health sector there have been some interesting announcements. We have seen $5 million for after-hours primary health care services. It is only a quarter of what they needed, I say to Labour, but I suppose it is a start. We will see how much is wasted on bureaucracy. Actually, that crowd is good at that. There has been an announcement of $2 billion for future price increases in the health sector. One would think that might be a surprise, but it was not. It is what is commonly called the forecast funding track—or FFT—money to account for increases in health care provision. There is $160 million for elective surgery over 4 years. One would think that the sector would fall hungrily on that money, but that is not the case. It is really, really worried it does not have the doctors and nurses to deliver it. So instead of saying: “Let us have it. Let us deliver it. Let us alleviate the pain felt by many New Zealanders.”, they are saying: “We do not think we can use it.”

This Minister of Health is no better than his predecessor, who was Pete Hodgson, crisis-denier mark I. Now we have crisis-denier mark II, David Cunliffe. So heartily does he deny that there is a crisis, after 43 workforce reports under his Government that he has allocated a meagre 2 percent to the workforce issue. The New Zealand Medical Association described that as a lack of “comprehensive funding availability for workforce strategies”. David “I am running the show” Cunliffe has shown he sure is running this show—down.

You know, I get a real sense that New Zealanders are starting to think they are in a game of snakes and ladders. Instead of going up the ladder they keep walking on to a Labour snake and landing back at square one. This country needs a change of leadership. The country needs ambition. We need net migration that means our own people stay and more arrive. We need a positive future, not an excuse-laden set of politicians who blame their predecessors of 9 years ago. Labour has had its chance. New Zealanders will not get a positive future until it has packed its bags.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : After the Budget was delivered and all of us on this side of the House went out to meet people in the communities and tell them about it, many people came and shook our hands. They truly believed in what this Budget contains for them, and they passed on their good wishes to the Labour Government, particularly to Michael Cullen, because he as Minister of Finance has been the most careful steward of this country’s economy.

I must say that what we have just heard from the other side of the House is a whole lot of garbage. The fact is that members opposite simply cannot be trusted. We need only look at some of the statements that have been coming from them. Today we heard about the KiwiSaver drama. Their leader, John Key, said that KiwiSaver is fundamentally flawed and that it is a glorified Christmas club. Then he said that KiwiSaver would probably be successful, and not too bad. Now we hear, once again, the leader say that National has some policy and will do something about KiwiSaver when it delivers its Budget.

Then John Key talked about student loans. In November 2005 he said that interest-free loans were an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country. Then in January 2008 he said National would keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students.

Lesley Soper: Flip-flop.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: It was a flip-flop.

He also goes around the country talking about asset sales. In March 2005 he said that Landcorp and Solid Energy would be sold, and that there was no reason for the State to own Air New Zealand. Then in April 2008 the same leader said that no State assets would be sold in the first term of a National Government. That is another flip-flop.

In May 2005 Mr Key said that climate change was a complete and utter hoax. Then in 2006 he said he was a firm believer in climate change and always had been. We are talking about the leader of a party. In May 2008 John Key said buying back the railways was a dumb idea. Then he said National would have no option but to keep the asset that it would have acquired from Toll Holdings. That is another flip-flop.

We have heard what the Leader of the Opposition has said on Iraq. In September 2003 he said New Zealand was missing in action during the invasion of Iraq. Those members do not want to hear about that. But in July 2007 he said National would not have sent troops to Iraq.

Hon Mark Burton: God help them!

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: God help them!

I turn to the subject of agriculture. I do not think the Opposition has mentioned agricultural research or development. This country is built on agriculture. This country’s income comes mainly from agriculture. But the Opposition opposed the $700 million that we are putting into research and development in Crown research institutes. Opposition members have no idea what they are talking about. They do not bother to consult Federated Farmers. They do not bother to talk to agricultural universities. They do not bother to talk to Crown research institutes. They just say that the $700 million should not be made available for agricultural research and development. That is shocking. I do not see the Opposition spokesman on agriculture in the Chamber. He came in but then disappeared. He has had nothing to say about agriculture.

National claims to be farmer-friendly, but I am really disappointed that it has had nothing to say about the involvement of research and development in agriculture. It has opposed the provision of $700 million for agriculture, just as it opposed KiwiSaver and other benefits that we have given to the community through family packages, and so on. I was really shocked when I heard Opposition members say they would oppose $700 million going into the research and development of agriculture. It is really shocking.

This Budget will provide $205 million to boost New Zealand’s level of research. This will improve business performance, international competitiveness, and information and communications technology. New materials and sophisticated engineering will also be provided as a result of this investment. Of that figure of $205 million, $64 million will be provided for research into sustainable primary production and renewable energy.

I will quote a couple of people who have been talking about what we have done in the Budget for research and innovation. Bronwyn Dilley, the chief executive officer of NZBio, says: “This is a budget with foresight and strong commitment to New Zealand’s long term success. It signals a step change towards a high value, high skill, knowledge based economy for New Zealand,”. Mr Anthony Scott, chief executive of Science New Zealand, says: “Increases in areas which support long term research into specifically New Zealand needs—particularly the backbone databases and collections, and long term programmes—are very much welcomed.” These are scientific people who appreciate what this Government has done in terms of putting money into research and development for this country.

I will talk briefly about education. This Government is committed to investing in the future of young New Zealanders by providing a world-class education system. This Budget provides $182 million in operating funding and $33.5 million in capital funding in order to reduce year 1 class sizes, thereby fulfilling the 2005 manifesto commitment. Today members heard a question asked by an Opposition spokesperson on education who did not even know what was in the Budget. She did not even know that there was money for reducing class sizes to a ratio of 1:15. There is also better pay for teachers, with $1.8 billion for 5 years plus the remainder in the 2007 Budget for teachers’ wage settlement and key collective agreements. For investment in schools there has been a 5 percent increase of schools’ operational funding costing $171.6 million over 4 years plus $20.8 million in capital funding over the next 3 years. That investment will improve school facilities and build new schools. There is a whole lot more that we have done in the tertiary education area.

Before I finish I want to go back to what Dr Lockwood Smith said when he was National’s spokesperson on education. He promised that he would resign if he did not get rid of student fees. In fact, when he was Minister of Education he doubled those fees and did not even resign. As I said, we cannot trust Opposition members. They cannot be trusted or believed about what they say today and what they are going to say tomorrow. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I ask my colleagues to remind me of who said we could not have tax cuts because it would be fiscally irresponsible. Who was that?

Hon Members: Dr Cullen.

JACQUI DEAN: That is right; it was Dr Cullen. Who said we could not have tax cuts because we would then have to cut back on essential services? Who said that?

Hon Members: Dr Cullen.

JACQUI DEAN: Was that Dr Cullen again? And I ask colleagues to remind me—because I am struggling with this—of who, just a couple of days ago, announced in the Budget that the Government would, in fact, be having tax cuts. Who was that?

Hon Members: Michael Cullen.

JACQUI DEAN: It would not be Michael Cullen, would it? Goodness me—I ask my colleagues whether it is election year this year.

Does that not just show us that this Government—

Dr Wayne Mapp: I wonder whether there’s a tax cut next year.

JACQUI DEAN: I ask my colleagues, is there a tax cut next year?

Hon Members: No.

JACQUI DEAN: What is the matter? Is it not an election year next year?

Hon Member: Tax cuts.

JACQUI DEAN: So I ask my colleagues, how much are we going to get out of this tax cut?

Hon Member: $16.

JACQUI DEAN: Now what does that buy?

Hon Members: A block of cheese.

JACQUI DEAN: This Government cannot be trusted. This “block of cheese” Budget, this pork-barrel Budget, is here not because Dr Cullen thinks the country needs it but because Dr Cullen desperately, desperately wants to be re-elected. Well, the news is all bad for him.

This Government does not in any way live up to its promises. This Government does not live up to the hype, and, of course, that is not news to us. But let us just consider this. Let us just think back to last year’s Speech from the Throne, when the Prime Minister uttered the word “sustainability” 33 times. The Prime Minister uttered that magic word 33 times. Man, it sounded good to the Government members. Helen Clark was the New Zealand eco-heroine. She was the world-leading Prime Minister, the climate change - busting, caring Prime Minister, the Government leader. Now there have been plaudits from all around the world. The United Nations called her all sorts of wonderful things, and in due course, of course, the emissions trading legislation and the Biofuel Bill to back it all up were introduced into Parliament. This was a Government, the Labour members were trying to tell us, that was prepared not only to talk the talk but to be a world leader in climate change and sustainability—33 times she said the word “sustainability.” So against all that gung-ho environmentalism, one of the disappointing aspects of this year’s Budget was the real downgrading of the Government’s commitment to sustainability and its commitment to the environment.

Nobody said that more loudly and more clearly than Dr Cullen, when he gave his Budget speech and he said these words: “Sustainability is at the heart of a range of policies, including the Fast Forward Fund, the water programme of action, the Emissions Trading Scheme …”. Well, the Fast Forward fund is the repackaging of some operational funding all wrapped up in a nice bow, and, of course, it is unsustainable over time. The emissions trading scheme is an embarrassment. The emissions trading scheme is in full retreat, and following it will be the Biofuel Bill, which of course did not even rate a mention. And what happened to the much-vaunted Sustainable Water Programme of Action? Is the Government finally acknowledging what a senior policy Government official from the Ministry for the Environment spelt out last year at a major water conference in Rotorua, when he acknowledged—a Ministry for the Environment senior policy analyst—that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action really should be labelled the “Sustainable Water Programme of Inaction”?

I tell members that I was at that conference and the people who heard those words from a senior policy adviser of the Government were absolutely gobsmacked. There was a senior ministry official bagging the Government—a senior policy man bagging the Government. That pronouncement went down like an absolute lead balloon with the 400 professional people at that conference, as did, of course, the reputation of the Government. So that small moment—that small comment—on behalf of a Government official showed just how uncommitted the Government really is to the environment.

Then there is the Ministry for the Environment’s “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.” promotion. Members might remember that—the pictures in magazines of fully clothed men standing waist-deep in water. Do members remember that?

Jo Goodhew: My electorate chair!

JACQUI DEAN: Jo’s electorate chair; it cost a fortune. The purpose of that expensive exercise on behalf of the Ministry for the Environment is to show that the general public value water—as though the general public do not value water? Does the Government think that people are stupid? Hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money were used to tell us that we value water. That is the Ministry for the Environment and the Labour-led Government’s Sustainable Water Programme of Action, and it is a huge example of a complete waste of money.

• Debate interrupted.