Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance)
: I congratulate that member on that brief, scintillating, and brilliant speech, in which he managed to mention my name as often as John Key did in his speech during the Budget debate—he seems to have a fixation about me.
National members have had one simple message throughout this debate.
Darren Hughes: What’s it been?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: “We lost, you won, we’ve got indigestion.” That is all they have managed to say during this entire debate, so far. The other thing they did during the debate was to keep asking themselves this simple question: “Why are we here?”. We echoed it. We too asked them why they are here, because they said they wanted to be in Australia. They said: “Please free us from this bondage so we can go to Australia.” Indeed, that dinky-di Australian, Don Brash, acted as a sort of advertising agency for the Australian immigration office throughout his speech, followed by both his acolytes and the rest of the members of the National caucus, during the Budget debate we have had so far.
I will respond on a couple of issues. I do not want to attack my friends in Australia, but it is true that I thought a couple of things Peter Costello said raised some issues about the tradition of mateship that Australians are supposed to stand by. But let us look at growth over the last 5 years. Per capita GDP growth in this country rose by 12.4 percent. In Australia, it rose by 9.9 percent. It was one-quarter more in New Zealand. But what about the previous 5 years, for comparison, when Dr Brash’s colleagues were in office? Australia had a growth rate of 17.9 percent; New Zealand’s rate was 11.9 percent—two-thirds the size of Australia’s.
What about that taxation? We will hear a lot this afternoon about capital gains tax. In Australia, every taxpayer has to pay a net capital gains tax on their worldwide assets every year, in full—100 percent capital gains tax, worldwide, every year—and that is in a country where there is a 1.5 percent Medicare surcharge. And if someone is earning over $50,000 and does not have private hospital insurance, there is another 1.5 percent on top of that. Plus, there is stamp duty that might set that person back 20,000 bucks when he or she buys a house in Sydney. So before Dr Lockwood Smith strips off his gear again and rushes off to Bondi, he had better think about the stamp duties he might have to pay when he gets there, and the extra taxes he will have to pay. Members should not believe what Dr Donald T, “Dinky-di” Brash is telling them about going to Australia. [Interruption] What is Ms Bennett trying to say?
Paula Bennett: I said: “Gosh, you’re funny!”
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, I do not know what I said that was so funny. Perhaps she will tell me later, and we will learn about that.
Of course, Dr Brash used to be extremely close to the Business Roundtable. He used to tell us that he believed in cutting health spending, cutting education spending, and cutting spending in almost every area of Government. These days, of course, he has only a loose connection with the Business Roundtable, and he tells us that he will increase health spending, increase education spending, increase law and order spending, increase roading spending, and that he will cut taxes but will not increase borrowing; he will just increase debt. That is the National Party’s fiscal position as explained by Dr Brash, almost entirely by himself, on
Morning Report
the day after the Budget. I could not believe it. He said there would be more spending on roads, more on health, more on education, more on law and order, and that there would be less revenue but they would not be borrowing more. There are just too many tooth fairies opposite for that to be believable in terms of where National gets to with its fiscal position.
So what did the Budget actually do? First of all, a lot of money is to be spent on roading. That has got the Greens upset, but all I can say is that they should look at the big four-lane cycle tracks we will be building for them in the future, throughout New Zealand. The Greens will be able to cycle fully abreast—the entire caucus—down some of those roads. They will be able to take a positive view of life in that respect, and they will stop moaning about the fact that some of us poor, decrepit, older ones who cannot ride our bicycles for about 100 kilometres will be using our cars and getting along more rapidly as a consequence—with less pollution, and hopefully killing far fewer people on the way, because we would have addressed safety issues on those roads. In the Waikato and Bay of Plenty, those safety issues are very serious indeed. There are terrible rates of vehicle accidents in some of those parts of the country.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: We’re not going to see these roads for years.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, it will take some time to build the roads, because the National Government left a huge infrastructure deficit.
During this period of time we will be spending 130 percent more per year on roads than we inherited from National. We will be spending on land transport all of the income from excise duty, from road-user charges, and from motor vehicle registration fees. So when people in Auckland and Wellington say they want even more spent on public transport, it has to come out of general taxation. There is nothing left out of the fees on motorists to spend in those areas. So they have to make a strong case and not simply tell me that if we put electric engines rather than diesel engines in trains, Aucklanders, who are so unused to the notion of electric trains, will flood on to them in perpetuity and use them instead of diesel trains. Given that this is a country where one-quarter of us go overseas every year, it seems likely that most Aucklanders have already been on electric trains and have already enjoyed the experience.
Secondly, we did—let us announce it again; a sort of ex post facto leak—indeed foreshadow the regulation of telecommunications; unbundling the loop. What has that done? Already, Telecom has indicated investment in higher speed broadband. Already, TelstraClear has indicated massive investment. Even before the legislation has been drafted, we are getting investment committed to improve this country’s telecommunications system. That is a major improvement, crucial to economic transformation, and crucial to economic growth.
Thirdly in this Budget, we provided the funding for the introduction of the KiwiSaver scheme, which will lift the rate of savings. The only argument now is about whether it should be compulsory, but I note that nobody in business wants to pay for it, as they do in Australia. They want employees to pay for that, if it is going to be a compulsory scheme. Fourthly, we provided for the fulfilling of our promises. Now, that is the bit the National Party hates about all the seven Budgets I have produced. In every one we fulfilled pre-election promises and other undertakings. That for National members is indecent, appalling, and a betrayal of the political tradition that they are the proud inheritors of, which is: “Say everything to get elected and then turn round and deny it. Once you’re in and don’t actually do it.” That is the approach they believe Governments should take. We do not take it. And, of course, we do not have to pay for just our own promises; we have to pay for some other people’s as well, as part of forming Governments under MMP.
Then I foreshadowed that Mr Dunne and I are working on a business taxation document that will address issues of taxation within the business area and assist in terms of productivity growth and economic growth within New Zealand. We signalled more investment in skills, and more investment in building human capital in the country, which is the most important input.
The Government makes no apology for the fact that in this Budget we provided the money to give an $88 a week increase, on average, to 350,000 families with children, reducing the number of children living in poverty, by 2007, by some 70 percent, compared with the figures that we inherited from a National Government. We do not believe we have to have New Zealanders living in mass poverty in order to make a few people comfortable about living here. If some people believe they must live in a country with high levels of poverty in order to feel good, then they should go—leave this country—because this country’s national identity is not one for people who believe that kind of thing. This is a country committed to social justice, committed—
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: You’re so arrogant.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is not arrogant. Abolishing poverty is not arrogant, I say to Dr Lockwood Smith. If he did not come from such a privileged background, he would not say something as stupid as that. The most important thing a Government can do in the modern world is ensure that all its citizens can enjoy a decent life, bring up their children in decency, enjoy good employment, have a decent house, and retire with dignity. If Dr Lockwood Smith hates that, then he can go to a country where they do not do those things, and I will stay here with a Labour Government for years and years to come.
