Budget Debate

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this

Dr Don Brash has moved a motion of no confidence in this Government. One of the reasons behind that, as we saw on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times last Sunday, is that this Government has no confidence in a number of its own back-benchers. We are starting to see the emergence of the managed-exit list, and we are starting to see the likes of Jill Pettis, Dianne Yates, Russell Fairbrother, Jim Sutton, Paul Swain, and Dover Samuels being shown the door—a back door, by the way. Not only that, but after the Māori Affairs Committee meeting today we will see the end of Parekura Horomia, by the sounds of things. No doubt television and other media outlets will have plenty to say about that later on.

After listening to question time today, I would say that the House will see the end of Judith Tizard. She gave a hopeless performance. She described her own job over the last 7 years as being hugely rewarding. For whom? It certainly has not been hugely rewarding for the people of Auckland. After the Telecom leak we will see the managed exit of David Cunliffe, and after the sad little Budget we saw last week—I see Trevor Mallard has his hand up to be the next Minister of Finance—we will see the managed exit of Dr Michael Cullen.

There are some serious issues, though, relating to my areas of corrections, police, and, more particularly, prison forecasts. In recent days, documents released under the Official Information Act have shown that the number of limitations to the current prison forecasts are in serious danger, because no allowance, according to these documents, has been made for the additional 1,000 police staff agreed to as part of the confidence and supply agreement.

That tells members on this side of the House something quite simple. It tell us that Cabinet members sat around and made the decision to approve the 1,000 extra police—and we will wait and see whether that actually eventuates—purely and simply on the basis of keeping Winston Peters quiet. They did not worry about the downstream effects. They did not worry about the policy problems it will cause in corrections, in justice, or in the court system. They just wanted to keep Winston Peters quiet. I see Brian Donnelly is sitting there with a smirk on his face. He knows, as everybody in this Parliament does, that Peter Brown’s days as the deputy leader of New Zealand First are just about over. The plotters are out. Barbara Stewart is smiling. She will put her name in the ballot. She might as well; everybody else will.

It seems to me that the Economic and Fiscal Update raises very serious questions around corrections and police. When we look at the Statement of Fiscal Risks, we see this statement about the corrections department: “The Department of Corrections has estimated that a further total of $209 million capital and $25 million operating funding may be required . . . The Minister of Finance has yet to fully consider the quantum of this risk.” In other words, the cost of building those prisons will not stop at $890 million. That is a major headache for the Minister of Corrections, who has turned his back on the private sector coming in and effectively managing prisons in New Zealand for no other reason than he cannot move himself out of his ideological ditch and he refuses to look outside the policy square.

In the justice area—the area of the heavyweight new Minister of Justice, Mark Burton—we have seen, in terms of the specific fiscal risks, that the associated flow-on cost of those 1,000 extra police has yet to be quantified. We see that: “The Minister of Finance has yet to fully consider the quantum of this risk.” That tells members on this side of the House that there were no fiscal discussions with Dr Cullen about the downstream effects of 1,000 new police. A dirty little deal was done to keep Winston Peters and New Zealand First happy in their confidence and supply agreement, with no serious policy considerations being given to the flow-on—

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) Link to this

Why does the National Party not tell Don Brash to go now? If it is so interested in telling everyone else what they should do, it should tell Don what the honest thing to do would be.

Let us think about a child who was born in this country 20 years ago. What future does the National Opposition offer that young adult today? Does National offer more investment in education and skills training? No, because it voted against every single dollar in skills training and investment in education in the last seven Budgets. Does National offer a growing economy with first-class infrastructure, telecommunications, and connections to the world? No, because it voted against every Budget that included those priorities in the last 7 years. National even said it was opposed to making telecommunications in New Zealand more competitive—and it did nothing about that issue in the 9 years it was in office during the 1990s. When this Government invested billions of dollars into transforming the economy of New Zealand for the benefit of the people of New Zealand, the National Party voted against every single clause in every single bill that opened up regional development, industry development, and economic development.

National, the same party that, when in Government, gutted this country in the early 1980s and all through the 1990s, dares to compare New Zealand with Australia now. Before that 20-year-old adult whom I was talking about was born, New Zealand had income levels comparable with Australia’s. That is true. But we fell behind in the 1980s, and who cheered that along? Dr Brash, when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. We fell further behind when that young person was a teenager in the 1990s. National was responsible for those policies. When the people of New Zealand chose a new direction at the dawn of this century, we started to catch up with Australia again. But, of course, the National Party has not caught up with that, either. Now the same party that sabotaged New Zealand while it was in Government in those times compares us with Australia.

It seems to me National Opposition members would do us all a favour if they headed to Australia themselves, as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen did. Dr Brash, in my view, is the modern Sir Joh. He runs down this country. Dr Brash seems to be ashamed of New Zealand, and he offers nothing but the vision of a banana republic. Every single day the National Party talks about doing more for this, that, and the other thing, and the only prescription it has for doing so is to lower tax and revenue so that it cannot be done. That is simply ludicrous. Dr Brash should take his policies and cringing about New Zealand to Queensland, as Sir Joh did.

Unemployment in New Zealand is under 4 percent, for the first time since the mid-1980s. Dr Brash used to write forecasts, which I used to rail against, that suggested unemployment in New Zealand should be steady at 7 percent, and that that should be the level of unemployment forever. That is what Dr Brash’s policies were. Now unemployment is at half that rate, and what does he say to that? He says we should all go to Australia, where, of course, unemployment is higher than it is here! Now that unemployment is at half the rate we had under National, he dares to question the competence of this Government.

Dr Brash wants to take away the jobs of young New Zealanders and to give tax cuts to affluent, elderly, middle-aged people like himself and me. Well, how does that work? That is the National Party’s entire economic policy. I could hear the panic this afternoon from John Key at the only policy the National Party actually has, which is tax cuts. What will happen if the Government actually gives some tax cuts, sooner or later? What will happen to National’s policy then? It does not have any other policy. There is no other vision for New Zealand except for tax cuts, and what happens if it loses that policy? It will be interesting to watch as National’s panic increases.

Do National Party members speak with any pride about our culture and uniqueness? We never hear them do so. We heard a question in the House today about the spiritual qualities of the tangata whenua in New Zealand. I sat over there in the House while Doug Graham introduced the Treaty settlements for Tainui. He was in tears about the role of the tangata whenua in this country. Now the National Party continually sneers at that. I suggest to National members that they should get their priorities and their values right. They run down, deride, and belittle New Zealand in every speech they make.

A week before the election Dr Brash, the leader of the National Party, said the haka is just a half-naked person jumping up and down. Is that the kind of spiritual dimension the National Party brings to our multiracial community? Dr Brash is a walking example of cultural cringe. He is ashamed of New Zealand, and his colleagues are becoming ashamed of him. I am just waiting for the next election day, with all the support we are getting, to see what will happen. That is why National members are already saying they will dump Dr Brash later this year. They know they need someone better than him to offer to young New Zealanders, and they know going back to the failed policies of the past offers those young New Zealanders nothing.

What does Don Brash actually offer New Zealanders? He offers them a ticket to Australia; he says they should go to Australia. Well, let us look at some of the elements of Australia. Do we want race riots like those that occurred in Cronulla to happen in New Zealand? Do we want the kind of treatment that Australian Aboriginals have had over the years to be dealt out to our tangata whenua? We should be very proud of what we have established in New Zealand, not cringe about how good the Australians are, no matter how good they may be in some of their more successful areas of activity.

The Progressive party supports this Budget because it continues to lead us along a path to a better, fairer, and stronger New Zealand. We want to see a vital and thriving small nation here that is proud to stand as a leader in international forums—as we do—and punch miles above our weight all over the world. Everyone knows we do that, and we should say it more often. I remember that last year, when a World Bank survey stated New Zealand was the best place in the world to do business in, there was sneering from the Opposition. If one said that in the Australian Parliament there would be cheering, because Australians support their own country. This Budget, of course, continues to transform our economy. It invests in our priorities, skills, and infrastructure. It invests in our own identity as New Zealanders. Those are the ingredients that will create a future where young New Zealanders can realise their potential.

I have been talking at primary industry sector conferences throughout New Zealand, and everywhere I go there is confidence and optimism about the future. People are creative and innovative. They are not whingeing, moaning, and cringing about how good Australia is; they are getting on with developing their opportunities in this country. We should be supporting that and talking those opportunities up, because New Zealand has great opportunities for its young people. The National Party, which claims to have support from the primary industries and rural New Zealand, should be telling our best and brightest young people to join in as scientists, managers, marketers, and so on in the primary sector industries, which, of course, are the engine room of this economy. All that those young people are told by the leader of the National Party is to get a ticket to Australia.

The last decade has been one of productivity for New Zealand, and this Government has been right at the centre of doing something about it. We are pouring money into protecting the biodiversity and biosecurity of New Zealand—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this

The tragedy of this Budget is it has no vision for New Zealand and gives no prospect of growth. It is from a Government that has run out of steam and ideas, and all we have is another dose of cringing political correctness, another dose of big government, and more waste of hard-working taxpayers’ money.

There is a famous old saying that the last bastion of a rogue is patriotism, and an appeal to patriotism is what we heard from Jim Anderton. If we on this side of the House make any comparison with Australia—where people are receiving tax cuts and increased take home pay, and where higher economic growth is projected—then Labour’s only claim is that somehow we are being unpatriotic. We are not; we are proud of this country and want it to do better. That is what we will be consistently arguing for in this Budget debate.

We have just heard from—can members believe it—the Minister of Agriculture. I was hoping to hear what this Budget might do for the export sector, the most important part of our economy. I waited for 10 minutes and I heard absolutely nothing. It is interesting that the Minister of Agriculture had slot No. 49 in Labour’s Budget debate. What does that say about Labour’s level of commitment to agriculture? It is no wonder members of the Nelson branch of Federated Farmers told me yesterday that they were embarrassed that Jim Anderton was representing the Government. They are looking forward to some of the capable people on National’s side of the House looking after the agriculture portfolio.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this

It is a pleasure to follow the 50th speaker in this debate—a man who came from nowhere and, after 2 days as deputy leader, went straight back. I have to say to Dr Smith, I notice that if anyone is tired in the House, it must be him, because his memory is, I think, a little faulty. The 1990s, I say for that member’s edification, were 9 long years of absolute and utter decline in this country. That member sat on this side of the House for the first 3 years, he will remember, and then for the next 6 years, basically, like most National members, he begged to be shot. That is how bad it was to be a National member in this House during that period of time.

Those members should think about the health system, and about the fact that National drove the unemployment rate to 11.9 percent. They should think about the fact that every single region in this country was shrinking, and people were wondering who would be left to turn the lights off, after National was finished with them. In the end, the only thing that saved National from utter destruction was that it was defeated by this Government, and its members were able to go off and lick their wounds and start to think about what they would do in the future. I tell Dr Smith that the 1990s will be remembered as an utter disaster—a shame—for National, and that is why its members are still sitting on the Opposition benches listening to Dr Michael Cullen deliver his—not first, not second, not third, not fourth, not fifth, not sixth, but—seventh Budget in a row.

That is why Dr Smith is sitting over on the other side listening to the seventh Budget—a Budget that has delivered on the commitments made in the last election. We do it because we say we will do it, and we have delivered in this Budget. It was a Labour Budget that illustrated our values. Ordinary New Zealand families are actually getting back more from tax than they paid. No one could give them a tax cut bigger than the one they are getting from Working for Families now. They are getting back more than they are paying, now, from Working for Families, yet the rocket scientist, Dr Nick Smith, comes in here and asks why we do not give a tax cut. People are already getting back more from tax than they are paying. The Budget is one that New Zealand can have only by having a progressive Government comprising Progressive, Labour, New Zealand First, and Greens—these people here who believe in investing in this country. They are not prepared to allow a deficit to build up around issues like health and education; they want to see a continuing high level of investment in the things New Zealanders voted for at the last election. I know it hurts Dr Smith to hear that, but that is what they voted for.

But from the other side, what do we get? It is a predictable reaction: “Lets cut taxes.”, they say. National has only one policy—that is all it can say. It says for people not to invest, but to cash up all the gains—but gains gained when? Were they gained under National in the 1990s? Did we have money in the bank when National was in Government? Were we, as Dr Smith said, in the black? No! We got into the black after 6 hard years of work by members now on this side of the House—the parties that made up the Labour-led Government during those 6 years—but the National Party wants to cash it up. That is the kind of mentality that National has: “Let us not invest; let us cash it up. We have some money after 6 years of the other side doing some work.”—so National wants to go and spend it on tax cuts. That is what it wants to do. Then, because National cannot do that—being on the other side of the House—it says that New Zealanders should go to Australia.

I want people to think about that line for a second. Can anybody imagine an Australian politician—no matter what the provocation; no matter how good it is in Tonga, New Zealand, Hong Kong, or America—campaigning on the theme of their people going to another country? Can anyone imagine Labor, the Democrats, the Greens, the Nationals, or the Liberals campaigning for Australians to go somewhere else? That is why New Zealanders are looking at the National Party right now and saying that patriotism is not part of the value set of that party.

The National Party does not stand for New Zealand. It is a little like saying we do not think the All Blacks are doing very well, so they all should go and play for the Wallabies. They lost in Paris and that is no good, so they should all go and play for the Wallabies. because somehow they have a better trainer, or whatever. An Australian politician would never do that. An Australian politician would rather eat a dingo than recommend another country to live in. Frankly, I would rather eat a tuatara than recommend a New Zealander go and live somewhere else. But National members do not believe that. They are now running a campaign, with billboards, about people on this side of the Tasman leaving the country and going over there. Well, I have to say those members have just turned themselves into what we always knew—that is, the biggest joke possible.

The second thing is they tell people to go across the Tasman because they will pay a lower tax rate. But the top tax rate in Australia is 45 percent. It is 39 percent in this country. The company tax rate is 33 percent in Australia, and 30 percent in New Zealand. GST is 12.5 percent here, and 10 percent over there. Do we pay stamp duty when we sell a house? No, we do not, but those who go to Australia can enjoy paying 2.5 percent in Sydney, for example. Do we pay a Medicare levy in this country? No, we do not. But across the Tasman they pay 1.5 percent of income. Does any employer in this country pay a payroll tax?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

It indeed is a sorry, sorry assault on listeners’ ears to hear so much gibberish coming from Minister Maharey, the retired sociologist who has reinvented the language; the man who says that spending on welfare dependency is an investment, whereas, as John Tamihere says: “Minister Maharey just can’t call a spade a spade.” Spending is spending, and when it is spending on welfare dependency, Mr Maharey is just in absolute denial.

Dr Cullen’s Budget 2006 has just cemented in two of the biggest election bribes—the largest expenditure bribes—in the history of New Zealand. The first is the $1 billion interest-free student loan scheme. The second is the $1.5 billion Working for Families bribe.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) Link to this

In his stirring speech last Thursday, the Rt Hon Winston Peters referred to this Budget as an “MMP Budget”. But I ask when—since 1998, at least—a Budget has been as influenced by a support party as Budget 2006 has been influenced by New Zealand First. It cannot be said that the Alliance, the Greens, the Progressive party, or United Future ever had an impact on any Budget, from 2000 onwards, that came anywhere near the impact that New Zealand First has had on this Budget. What impact, for example, did ACT have on the 1999 Budget? It had no impact whatsoever, yet National was dependent on ACT’s vote for confidence and supply, in the same way as Labour is dependent now on New Zealand First.

What this Budget shows is how key election pledges can be delivered by a support party, even when it has only seven members, if it is determined, true to its word, prepared to put its money where its mouth is, and puts the interests of the people of New Zealand ahead of the political ambitions of its caucus members. New Zealand First has shown how a party with a few members can punch way above its weight.

What did ACT deliver for the few people who voted for it? It delivered a dancing bear and the highest-paid territorial soldier in the country. What did National deliver for those who voted for it? It delivered a leadership bun fight. What did New Zealand First deliver for those who voted for it? I will tell members what New Zealand First delivered through this Budget for the 130,115 wise people who voted for it. First and foremost, this Budget delivered the first tranche of the additional 1,000 frontline police and 250 additional support staff. That first tranche came at a cost of $164.3 million in operating expenses, and $52.3 million in capital expenses. When the total package is finally played out, it will be worth more than $500 million. Those who voted for New Zealand First can justifiably say: “We did that. We did that for all New Zealanders, to provide greater security and to reduce crime.”

The racing industry was in dire straits. For years the industry, which is important to the economy of the country, had bemoaned the uneven playing field it faced. An industry that employs 20,000 people was in jeopardy, because for years politicians turned a deaf ear to the industry’s pleas for help—National, Labour, the lot. Who came riding in on his black and white charger for the industry’s protection? It was no one else but Winston Peters and his band of merry men and women. The rescue package that was recently announced will reduce Government income by $136.5 million over 4 years.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

As my colleague has said, this is a genuine MMP Budget—one that honours the supply and confidence agreement New Zealand First has with the Government. If we look at the Budget, we see that it involves five of the eight parties here in this Parliament. We in New Zealand First are really pleased to see that the policy platforms we took to the country at the last election will actually make a difference to the lives of all New Zealanders—and that is basically what being in politics is all about. The difference between this Government and the National Party is that the Government knows how to operate in an MMP environment, and it also gives parties some credit when it implements their policies.

How let-down those National voters must be feeling, given that the Bondi Beach brigade, in the form of Dr Brash and others, is advocating that everyone should go across the Tasman and get a tax cut. There were no constructive policies and there was no constructive debate; it just ran down New Zealand and put up billboards to advocate that everyone should go across to Australia. I hazard a guess that not one of the National Party team will resign during this parliamentary term to go and live in Australia. Neither will any member resign at the end of the term in order to live across the Tasman. That is rather ironical, I believe, although I must say that the leader of the Bondi Beach brigade, Dr Brash, may have the opportunity to go there sooner rather than later.

New Zealand First fought a lone crusade at the last election to address the plight of our seniors. Other parties were very happy to pay lip-service to senior citizens but they did not decide on any specific actions to help seniors. New Zealand First said that too many of our seniors were struggling, and that we were serious about improving their lot in life. Our seniors are entitled to live with dignity in their golden years, and this goes hand in hand with lifting the base rate for superannuation to 66 percent of the net average wage. This is the first step for New Zealand First.

The sum of $126 million went into the aged-care sector. The sector has been neglected for years, and this additional sum is a small step towards assisting the sector. We know it is an extremely important sector, which will grow in importance along with an ageing population. It is absolutely essential, however, that the increase flows through to the aged-care sector. Higher wages for the service providers of care to the elderly are absolutely essential. Those of us who went down to the demonstration yesterday know that an extra 51c an hour—the equivalent of one pack of peanuts—is not enough for the workers in this sector. The separate nurses’ claim must be resolved totally independently of this new money. District health boards have already been funded for the Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement, and they should pass that money on to those nurses in the aged residential care sector, as well as to the district health board nurses. New Zealand First wants better outcomes for our seniors. Of course, our golden age card emphasises our concerns for that group, and we will be waiting to see that coming through in the next Budget and implemented in the next year.

We in New Zealand First were very pleased to see an additional $40.8 million allocated to the oral health of New Zealand primary school children. The school dental service is in dire need of this funding and it is very concerning indeed to find that less than 40 percent of eligible preschoolers are enrolled in the service. That is an appalling statistic, and one the Māori Party, no doubt, is absolutely horrified by. However, when one actually does the maths for the allocation, one finds it is less than $2 million per district health board, and I know that district health boards need far more money than that to rectify the situation. Some district health boards have planned for projects that require four times that amount. Those projects will obviously have to be downsized. I hope they will actually be implemented, and we will be following that through very closely.

So New Zealand First celebrates the parts of the Budget our confidence and supply agreement has delivered on. We are very pleased with those, because we value investment in New Zealanders and we want to put New Zealanders first.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this

I begin by thanking the two preceding speakers for those very positive comments. I am sure most people in this country would acknowledge that this Budget is a clear demonstration of the results of collaboration and working positively for the future of New Zealand.

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the Budget will acknowledge that Budget 2006 continues some very strong progress made by the Labour-led Government in investing in our country and our people. We are focused on transforming New Zealand’s economy into the dynamic, knowledge-based, innovative society and economy that we need to have, and we will do that by improving the quality of life of Kiwi families young and old and by building pride in New Zealand’s unique national identity. This country has a proud history of social innovation. Over the past century, in particular, we have created a society that is about fairness, inclusion, and ensuring everyone gets a fair go. That is the Kiwi way.

In the past 6 years the Labour-led Government has reinforced the relationship between social and economic development. We have put a much stronger emphasis on the well-being of families. We have taken a much more active approach to social assistance, with case managers increasingly focused on supporting people into sustainable work rather than simply processing support. The results show that that approach is working, and working very well. Currently, 2.1 million New Zealanders are in work. Our labour force participation rate is the highest ever, at 68.5 percent, and we have the second-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, at 3.9 percent. The number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit has fallen by an extraordinary 72.4 percent since 1999, when National left to us the appalling legacy of 161,000 New Zealanders unemployed.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) Link to this

I thought that during the time I have been in this House I have heard pretty much every loopy idea available to mankind, but today I have learnt something new. From listening to members of the Government, I have heard that somehow it is patriotic for members of this House to sit back and do nothing as our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner strips this country of its capital, strips this country of its skill base, and sees our nation sink into oblivion. Somehow it is unpatriotic to point to the blindingly obvious fact that the Australian Budget brought down a couple of weeks ago is a huge wake-up call for all New Zealanders.

I say to the members opposite who have loyally read out the research notes that have been distributed by the ninth floor of the Beehive that New Zealanders have passed judgment already on this Budget. New Zealanders, from one end of the country to the other, know that this Government has no answer at all to the big challenges confronting New Zealand in 2006. [Interruption] I tell Mr Carter to enjoy his time, as it is coming to an end. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred to this Budget as the “Bondi Budget”. He correctly drew attention to the fact that in the last 6 years we have seen the gap between average after-tax income in Australia and average net income in New Zealand, which was previously 20 percent, move up to 33 percent—that is the advantage that Australia has over New Zealand.

Let us look at a few simple facts. New Zealand is currently struggling to achieve growth of 1 percent, and Australia’s growth is 3 percent and is probably headed for 4 percent this year. Australia has a free-trade deal with the United States that is now into the back end of its second year, and New Zealand has none. If we look at those facts, we can see that by the time we end up with a National Government in this country—in 2 years’ time—that gap could be well over 40 percent. That will present a real challenge to this country in terms of retaining its capital base and its skill base.

I want to spend a few minutes of my time today talking about foreign affairs and defence, because there are some interesting developments under way in this area—developments in which my colleagues and I have had some modest part to play. First of all, I have taken the view, since being appointed to take responsibility for these areas for the National Party, that New Zealand is too small, too geographically remote, and too dependent upon international trade for its livelihood for us to afford the luxury of political bickering where the national interest is at stake. I have made it clear to members opposite, to the Ministers who carry those responsibilities, that this side of the House will work with them wherever possible to try to achieve the important goals that lie ahead for this country. Some Ministers have reciprocated that offer in very material ways. I see Mr Sutton is in the Chamber; I acknowledge that he is one of those Ministers, as is his colleague Mr Goff.

One of the most important foreign affairs objectives that New Zealand must seek to achieve in the next few years is the improvement of our relationship with the United States of America, our second-largest trading partner. There is little point in dwelling on some of the detail of that relationship in the last decade or two. Much of it has been suboptimal, and I think there is little value to be gained in focusing on that detail today. Suffice it to say that I think we have reached a point where there is an understanding and a growing realisation on both sides of the relationship that we need to do something quickly to improve the relationship, and that both parties have to work harder at it than has been the case in the past. I believe there is growing appreciation—again, on both sides—of the absurdity of two countries that share so much history and so many values finding it difficult to find points of agreement in many aspects of the relationship.

Indeed, in relation to the trading arrangements at the moment, I am sure that some commentators on the international stage must shake their heads in wonderment as nations that have brought little to the table in terms of international affairs, and nothing in particular to their relationship with the US, are favoured with free-trade agreements with that country, to their considerable advantage, while New Zealand sits outside any such arrangement. That, to me, highlights in very stark terms the need for us to make some progress and to lose no time in seeking to make that progress.

I emphasise that this is not a short-term project for this country, and I think that Government Ministers will acknowledge that this project will take years, not months. This project will not be completed within the term of this current Government, which makes it important that there should be a degree of bipartisanship in terms of the way in which we move forward, as far as it is possible to achieve that. That is why the National Party has made a commitment to work with the Government in a bipartisan way to move the New Zealand - US relationship ahead over time. That is why the leader of the National Party, Dr Brash, my colleague Mr Groser, and I accompanied Ministers Goff and Cunliffe, along with a group of very high-powered business leaders, to the recent business partnership forum in Washington. We wanted to make it clear to the US administration and to the American people that the objective of improving the relationship is shared by both the Government in office in this country and the alternative Government of this country. I was delighted to be a part of that approach, and—led by Dr Brash—to play the National Party’s role in that important mission.

Today I want to reflect on just two or three specific areas of the relationship where I believe it is timely for us to move forward and where I see some glimmer of hope. First, it is important that New Zealand should secure some relaxation of the current restrictions that apply to New Zealand servicemen training with their US counterparts. That matter was raised by Mr Goff when we were in Washington—and it is a point that has also been raised by the Leader of the Opposition—because the current arrangements simply do not reflect the quality of the relationship in some of the more difficult parts of the world. Sure, there is provision for waivers of the presidential directive that was brought down 20 years ago, and, sure, such waivers are given. But when we reflect on the fact that we are expected to fight alongside each other in the trouble spots of the world, it seems silly that we are not able to train together more freely. I believe that in that respect the point made by Mr Goff and Dr Brash in Washington had some resonance, and, indeed, I see that at least some goodwill is being brought to further consideration on that matter in Washington.

Second, we need to see the current restrictions on US technology and intelligence, in terms of access for New Zealand forces—also a product of the presidential directive of 20 years ago—given some sort of review. The fact that the purchases of equipment that we make at the moment take place on a commercial basis rather than the advantageous terms of 20 years ago is a cost to this country, but, more important, New Zealand needs to move as far as possible down the path of interoperability with the forces of Australia. That will be difficult—indeed, some would say impossible—unless we can see further leeway through the removal of the restrictions that apply to our access to US technology and, indeed, US intelligence.

It is also important that we should make further progress on the completion of a free-trade deal with the US. Every New Zealander will be richer as a consequence of our achieving that objective. I personally believe that it is a medium-term project, not a short-term project, but it is one on which we cannot afford to miss any opportunity. There is always the very long shot that some unfortunate developments in the US might result in that country seeing some advantage in picking up at short notice a New Zealand offer.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) Link to this

I have listened over the years to a number of Budgets being announced in this House and I have found it very, very interesting, especially when one is in Government and the Budget is being delivered, to hear the responses of those on the Opposition benches. Things really have not changed very much at all, except for the responses made by Opposition members, and specifically the National Party, to this Budget, which have been very predictable—unusual, but predictable.

The strands of Opposition members and their contribution to the debate has been twofold. Two threads of deliberation and contribution have been made by the National Party to this Budget. One is the mantra we heard before the election about tax cuts and how they would benefit our people. The other one is unusual. It is unusual because it is the first time I have ever heard a member of this House encouraging people to go to Australia. So those are the two threads I want to talk about—the mantra of tax cuts and how they will benefit our people, and the new one, whereby Don Brash wants to emigrate to Australia.

I will pick up on the second one by way of a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Herald yesterday. It was sent by a New Zealander who has family who live in Australia. It states: “Don Brash and patriotism. As a loyal National voter I have one message for Don Brash—shut up. I am unimpressed by the anti-New Zealand rhetoric and offensive tax-rate billboard campaign. Let me give Dr Brash some perspective. I have family in Sydney.” This is not from somebody who is just claptrapping here, from this Parliament; he has a family in Sydney. “The husband left a $45,000 job in Auckland for a $70,000 job in Sydney, yet the family is saving next to no more than it was in New Zealand. The reason is simply a myriad of user-pays fees, expensive sports club fees for the children, huge stamp duty on house buying, hugely expensive insurances and so on. The result? Five more New Zealanders will be coming home sooner rather than later. National’s tax-rate campaign is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. Are you actually trying to make us feel bad for staying in this great country on purpose?”.

That letter to the editor certainly was not canvassed by the Labour Party. It was from a member of the National Party. I have listened to all this, and it makes one wonder. Could one imagine Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee in their speedos, lying on a towel on Bondi Beach? Could one imagine them in their bikinis, under the sunshine at Bondi? I would say that the best policy would be to repatriate every New Zealander, not just in Bondi or Sydney but from all around Australia. If we want New Zealanders to come back to this country, then just get them to picture Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee in their bikinis, lying in the sun on Bondi Beach! God help the Australians! That was in the New Zealand Herald.

I was interested to hear the comments made by my colleagues in the Māori Party. They said that this Budget has nothing in it for Māori. Certainly, I acknowledge that the Budget does not mention the word “Māori” many times, but I say to those members on the other side of the House—a group of people who I would say are “Ngāti knockers”—that if they look very carefully at the Budget documents they will see in them a lot of goodies for Māori.

I will talk about the Budget in terms of housing, health, tourism, and education. But, first, I will talk about the health budget. The sum of $10.6 million is going to the health sector this coming year—

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

On 14 February 2006, the beginning of this parliamentary year, the Prime Minister made her statement, and in the context of a very political speech, she said: “An economic transformation has always been central to this Government’s economic policy.” Well, the quintessence of transformation is a concept of sudden and dramatic change, and presumably the Prime Minister had it in mind that such an economic transformation would be beneficial to the country, would be worthwhile, and would bring benefits. The Minister of Finance, however, would not see economic transformation as containing any element of dramatic change. He has made it clear that for him the most effective way to bring about economic transformation is by what could be called “glacial incrementalism”.

The Budget of 2006, despite the rhetoric of the previous speaker, hardly showed courage or imagination. If economic transformation was to be its watchword, then it failed utterly. Looking back at the period of the Labour Government, it is no wonder so many people feel only a sense of dismay. Let me take three examples, in the short time I have available, through the time frame of this Government that demonstrate in a clear way incompetence, loss, and poor judgment. The first example is the proposal by Singapore Airlines to take a 49 percent share in Air New Zealand. That proposal required Cabinet approval. Running an airline is a very fraught business. It is well illustrated by the fact that all the major United States airlines, with the possible exception of Southwest Airlines, are in chapter 11. It is a state of managed bankruptcy, under American law.

The New Zealand Cabinet was then, and is now, a Cabinet wholly lacking in business skills and experience. In fact, the only person in the current Cabinet with business skill and experience is Mr Sutton, a farmer. Its members simply could not assess the merits of the proposal. They could not see the business case, so, of course, they rejected it. We as taxpayers fronted up with $885 million in October 2001. We invested a further $150 million in 2004 as part of a rights issue, and significantly more money will be required if the Government remains determined to compete on the international aviation stage in a business environment that is very hard and very ruthless.

Let us take a second example. This Government has been extraordinarily lucky, and I believe that its luck is about to run out. The speed at which New Zealand is being transformed into a branch office of Australia is truly frightening. One commentator has said: “If we are not to become a nation of store persons and shop assistants, sales managers and tourist guides, then we need to get a much firmer grip on our economic destiny.”

I am not sure whether members opposite know this, but 600 people each week leave New Zealand to settle permanently in Australia. That is a staggering loss of resource for many of those people who are our best and brightest—tradesmen, tradeswomen, and professional people. We can ill afford to lose them, yet the Government seems to be complacent about that loss. As we all know, and as we are constantly reminded, the gap between Australian and New Zealand incomes continues to widen dramatically. Why is it that when Dover Samuels retires from Parliament he is going to go we know where—Australia? We are simply not prepared to confront the challenges of an ageing and diminishing skills base.

I believe that the ideological differences between National and Labour are stark, as this Budget has demonstrated. The world competitiveness scoreboard for 2006, which was released earlier this month on 11 May, has New Zealand’s placing falling from 16th to 22nd. Meanwhile, Australia has risen from ninth place to sixth place. The scoreboard itself ranks the competitiveness of 61 national and regional economies based on 312 criteria. The section on New Zealand lists the challenges facing the country as including these things: encouraging skilled migrants; ensuring secure and affordable energy and water; improving workplace productivity, management, and business capability; and reducing compliance costs. What does the Budget do about that? Sadly, not very much at all. National believes that the strong fiscal surpluses provide the basis for significant tax cuts, and that the ideology of the Labour Government is enabling Australia—our biggest competitor for skills and capital—to charge further ahead.

At the moment members may be aware that the Government is carrying out a review of the Immigration Act. That is great, but sadly it seems very reluctant to critically consider changes to the migrant categories. There is a requirement that those in the business investor category have a sound knowledge of English, generally to the standard of the old University Entrance qualification. I am not arguing the case that skilled migrants do not require good English, but in this category—the business-investor category—that is quite different. A well-designed business investor programme would bring significant capital flows to New Zealand, and business investors are, of course, well able to afford staff to assist them in their daily lives in New Zealand. Let us just remember for a moment that Samuel Goldwyn, who emigrated from Poland to New York and went on to create the fabulous film studio MGM, knew nothing of English when he left Poland.

I conclude with a final example. In the last few days we have seen the disgraceful illustration of the Minister of Communications commenting about the prospects of Telecom and saying that that company might have to cut its dividend payout to fund increased investment. That statement was instrumental in wiping $157 million off Telecom’s market capitalisation.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) Link to this

That speech was made by the honorary consul for Monaco, Richard Worth. An extraordinary revelation was made this week and I think it is important to debate it further, because it has not received much coverage. I refer to the release of the email from the Exclusive Brethren to David Henry, the Chief Electoral Officer. This issue has nothing to do with David Henry. He was quite properly and professionally responding to questions that the Exclusive Brethren put to him. Those questions were around statements such as: “We, a group of Christian businessmen, have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million, with the goal of getting party votes for National.” We had thought that the amount was $500,000 but the email now reveals that it was $1.2 million.

The Brethren church asked the Chief Electoral Officer questions such as: “1. Does it compromise National’s position if we communicate to MPs and candidates our strategy? 2. Does it compromise National’s position if we show them draft publications before they are published? 3. Is there any legality prohibiting us printing ‘Vote National, Vote Brash’ and including a photo of Dr Brash on the pamphlets? Can this be done without compromising National’s funding position? 4. To what extent can we legally advise, direct, assist, communicate with other National MPs and candidates?”. It is very, very clear that the Brethren have been dishonest and the National Party has been dishonest. It is no wonder they are such good friends.

I have been actively involved in politics all my life, really, but more actively involved as an adult, since 1972. I have never ever seen Brethren members at a political meeting in my life until the last election campaign, and I would have been to more party political meetings than any of those five Tories sitting together in Opposition. I have been going to political meetings since I was aged 8, in the Hylton Hall, Somme Parade, Aramoho, in Wanganui. Chester Borrows said, at the Grey Power meeting in Hāwera two Mondays ago, that some new National MPs have never been to a political meeting in their lives, and that when they came into Parliament it was the first time they had ever been in such an intense political environment. That comment was made by one of National’s own MPs at a public meeting.

The Brethren were involved donkey deep in the last election campaign. They were involved in telephone polling. They were leaflet-dropping as late as 6 p.m. on the Friday night before the election. We have always played by the rules in our electorate. In the electorate of Whanganui, the old National Party always played by the rules and we had a very good gentlemen’s and ladies’ agreement whereby we stuck to the rules. But the Brethren were delivering leaflets as late as 6 p.m. on the Friday night before the election. That had not been seen or done before. When will those National MPs who are washing their hands like Pontius Pilate and saying it was not them, because they do not know any Brethren, come clean about that?

At National Party election night functions, when those MPs had to concede defeat, we looked around the rooms and saw the same old National Party faces—the same old National Party tried and true supporters who have turned out year after year and done the donkey work, which is not particularly glamorous. No Brethren were to be seen at those National Party functions, at all—not a Brethren in sight. All of the hard work, the pamphlet deliveries, the telephone polling, and the megabucks of dollars that were poured into the National Party campaign came from the Brethren. It did not come from the usual loyal National Party supporters.

It is time that the National Party and the Brethren came clean, because we know what this issue is all about. It is about a $4.5 million return to the Brethren over 3 years in education funding—a $4.5 million return over 3 years. That is a 450 percent return, which is better than the return on Telecom shares. The Brethren are no slugs. They know that getting $4.5 million from National is far better than the return available from Telecom any day of the week. The Brethren are not slugs when it comes to managing money. They get $1.5 million already for their 12 Westmount Schools. National said it would double the funding of private education, so that is $3 million per year for the Brethren—$4.5 million of extra funding over 3 years. There is not a word of denial from those Tories over there, because the new ones know that they would not be here without the Brethren.

It is time the Brethren and the Tories came clean. The Brethren tried to say they were motivated by moral issues, and did not like the Civil Union Bill. Well, what about some of the members who sit along National’s front bench, if we are talking about moral issues and voting history? The Brethren were not concerned about moral issues at all; they were just concerned about power, influence, and money. We were not born yesterday and the Tories can try to convince us as much as they like that their mates, the Brethren, were not involved in the campaign. We know they were involved, because we saw them at meetings and we had never seen them before. They did not open their mouths, of course, but they were there, and some of them turned up to the polling booth. You can bet your bottom dollar they turned up to the polling booth!

The National Party is not only dishonest about its association with the Brethren but is disloyal to New Zealand. The National members run New Zealand down for political gain. They should be honest and tell us how many of their children or siblings have gone overseas in the past. It is a good thing that New Zealanders go overseas and gain overseas experience. In fact, John Key bragged about his overseas experience and the success he had in the finance sector there. I do not think it was a bad thing that John Key went overseas; I actually think it was a good thing that he went overseas and gained some experience. He came back at a time when taxes were the same as they are now, so I ask the National members not to hand me that rubbish about National being concerned about matters of taxation.

The other totally dishonest thing about National is its position on race relations and race-based issues. The National Party members would love a Cronulla Beach - type riot. It would be absolutely right up their alley, and they would salivate should something like that take place in New Zealand—not that I think for a moment it ever will, because most New Zealanders are very fair-minded. I am just amazed and surprised at the friends that the National Party has. I remind the Māori Party of the old adage: “You’ve got to have a long spoon if you want to sup with the devil.”

Our Labour Government is delivering for New Zealanders in ways that have not been delivered before. The transport component of the Budget was particularly exciting for those MPs who live in provincial New Zealand. I am thrilled at the roading works that have been accelerated in the South Taranaki - Whanganui area, and in Taranaki itself. The Bell Block bypass, the Rugby Road underpass, the Normanby bridge realignment, the Tangahoe bridge widening, and several Wanganui projects moved up the list quite considerably. I am delighted that $58 million will go into industry training and the Modern Apprenticeship scheme. There are 8,000 apprentices currently in training in New Zealand. Apprenticeships are a brilliant scheme, but were abolished by National in 1991. One of the first things that Bill Birch did when he became Minister of Finance in 1991 was to help to get rid of the former apprenticeship scheme. That was a shame and a disgrace. The National Party talks about training but forgets to mention that by the way, the National Government abolished it. The other exciting expenditure is on tourism. New Zealand is a country that has a lot to show off to the rest of the world, and I commend the people involved in winning the silver award at the Chelsea Flower Show.

We are proud of this country, and Labour is prepared to back it.

KATHERINE RICH (National) Link to this

She is bitter all right, she is bitter! For those listeners who have just tuned in that was the valedictory speech of Jill Pettis. Anybody who has read the Sunday Star-Times will see that she is on Helen Clark’s hit list. No doubt some backroom deals are going on, but I doubt whether Jill Pettis has been offered anything other than being Ambassador to Namibia right now. The Ambassador to Namibia is all that is on offer for Jill Pettis. Was it not rather telling that that member started to talk about the Budget in only the last minute of her speech? That bitter and twisted diatribe about all and sundry had nothing to do with the Budget we heard delivered last Thursday.

In last Thursday’s Budget there was nothing for business—not one sausage, not one skerrick that will make any difference to business here in New Zealand. All the Government did with last Thursday’s announcement was confirm a total lack of understanding about business, and what it takes to create an economic environment that will make it easier to do business in this country, not harder.

Of course, there has been the endless self-congratulation about Lianne Dalziel’s review into business regulation and compliance costs. I say there is something quite wrong with a Government that thinks announcing another business review is something to celebrate. There is nothing to celebrate in announcing a review. It might be newsworthy, but it is not exciting. Actually doing something as a result of a review is exciting, and that is what this Government has no track record in doing.

Leading up to Monday’s announcement there was that predictable release to the local papers telling reporters what Lianne Dalziel would announce. She launched her new image—with some nice pictures, I have to say—and the idea that she was looking across the ditch to Australia to get some new ideas about looking at regulatory reform here in New Zealand. She was drawing on the work of Gary Banks who has recently written a paper called Rethinking Regulation. The build-up to the announcement got many business people thinking that something would be done—the expectation was built that there would be something in the review for them, perhaps a tax cut, perhaps some announcement into the area of employment law reform, or perhaps changes to the Holidays Act. Businesses rightly had their expectation raised, but there was none of that. What was the announcement? Another review.

Well, the response from business was understandably cynical because they had seen it all before. The rhetoric surrounding this review was exactly the same as it was in all the previous reviews that had been announced. Members who have been here a while will remember the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs in 2000 launched by Paul Swain, the then Minister for Small Business. Paul Swain said that he would be the Minister who would “wage war on red tape”. The objectives of his review were pretty interesting. I will read them: “The objective of the Panel will be to provide advice to the Government on ways to reduce unnecessary and over-burdensome compliance costs to business arising from central and local Government regulation (excluding tax legislation).”—of course—“This may lead to either the amendment or repeal of existing regulation, or to changing administration procedures.” That was written 6 years ago.

What Lianne Dalziel announced had some business people quite rightly feeling a sense of déjà vu. Certainly, their complaints have not stopped and business has not seen any result of that compliance cost review. That is why business people are suitably cynical about what Lianne Dalziel has announced. Ministers Tamihere, Hodgson, and Barker—who were also Ministers for Small Business—announced similar kinds of initiatives—

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

I rise with justifiable pride to support this Budget. Labour has delivered on its commitments, many of which it made during the election campaign. Over the seven Budgets that have been made since Labour formed a Government, New Zealanders have learnt that Labour delivers on its promises. One of the reasons the country moved to Labour and away from National was the memory of National’s broken promises to older people—to Grey Power, and to any number of people in society it promised much and then whipped away what it had promised. Labour has not done that; it has delivered on its promises. It extended Working for Families to approximately 85,000 more families and removed the interest on student loans.

A young student was in my office the other day—a young Wellingtonian—who owes $100,000 in loans. She is a medical student in her sixth year. She will go overseas after about 5 years, but she now wants to spend time in New Zealand practising and learning on the job and setting up networks, because she knows now that she can afford to do so. She knows that probably she can break over half of that loan and pay it back within 3 or 4 years. Labour has kept that promise and will deliver to New Zealanders.

As the member for Wellington Central, I am particularly happy with aspects of this Budget. We have transport woes—maybe not as great as Auckland’s—and the transport package delivered to us. Before the Greens say that it was all about Transmission Gully, I say that it is also about railways, railway stock, the purchase of Wellington Railway Station, and those sorts of issues. In education, Labour’s work in Modern Apprenticeships is having a real effect on industries here in Wellington. I heard the speaker before me, Katherine Rich—who has just left the House—say there was not a skerrick in this Budget for business. How on earth does business get goods to market except on roads and rail? I would have thought transport, infrastructure, and things to do with telecommunications and broadband had an awful lot to do with business. I do not know where National is, but if that is not a skerrick for business, then it must have a very big skerrick to give out at some time.

Labour is also on about supporting firms and finding markets. Of course, for Wellington, there is huge input in the Budget for driving innovation through science. [Interruption] Now Wellington—the member who speaks such an awful lot and so many times may not know this—has more scientists per head of population than anywhere else in New Zealand. It has all the Crown research institutes, most of them centred in here.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I note that the member, although she talked a lot about the health of New Zealanders, made not one mention of the long-term cost of people being culled from waiting lists—of New Zealanders being culled from waiting lists, in their thousands. There is not one word about those waiting lists in this Budget but, then, this is the Budget of an arrogant Government—the same as last year—that thinks it knows best how to spend the hard-earned taxes of ordinary New Zealanders up and down the country.

Those of us on the Māori Affairs Committee this morning witnessed the height of arrogance and ignorance in the Budget planning process. We were told by the Minister of Māori Affairs—after he was forced in the end to confirm it—that he, as Minister, had not made one bid in the current Budget round for new funding. He had not put in a bid for new funding in the Budget process. That has to be a first—a Minister of the Crown not making a bid for new funding. I doubt whether there has ever been a Minister who has not done that. This is a Minister who says his mission is to realise Māori potential, but who did not make a bid in the Budget round for new funding. Shame on him! It will be the first time ever. He is probably the first Minister ever to behave in that way. He should resign.

I come now to the broadcasting portfolio, and say I am not surprised that the Hon Steve Maharey is not going to talk about his contribution to the Budget round in respect of broadcasting. As we see, he has managed to get a measly $24 million over the next 4 years, most of which is going to NZ On Air for more local programming. No doubt, New Zealanders will welcome that, but we would have thought that this Government and Minister Maharey might have had the brains to work out, since they talk so much about unbundling and how they are going to move New Zealand forward—we will wait and see what happens there—that an ideal way to “sex up” their Budget would be to tell us what they are doing about the introduction of the digital platform. But do we see anything at all in the Budget that refers to the introduction of the digital platform? No—absolutely not! I would have thought that Minister Maharey might have had more going for him, and that he might have grabbed the opportunity to say: “Right, there was a big balls-upon the great leak, the Telecom leak. There’s a great hole in this Budget, so why don’t we tell the public, in this Budget, about the appropriations we are making”—if, indeed, there are some to be made—“and that we are going to have the digital platform, with TVNZ on digital, within months.” But, no, he is too smarmy. He sat there all last year, which was a disastrous year in broadcasting in terms of TVNZ.

Let us look at what happened to the company last year. It experienced a sharply reduced dividend; falling ratings; viewers deserting to TV3 and other channels; viewers signing up in droves to Sky television, because that is where the digital is but there is none in the offing from the Government; high-profile presenters departing under dubious circumstances; and a culture of extravagance that was still alive and well when we came into the new year. Worst of all, that organisation of the State had a finding of contempt made against it.

It was a disastrous year for television broadcasting under Minister Maharey. He sat on his hands and literally did nothing to curb the disastrous year for TVNZ. Now, he still seems to be doing nothing to reassure New Zealanders that, indeed, we are going to be brought into the age of digital TV. There was not one mention about that in the Budget. As I say, it was his opportunity to sex this Budget up. He missed it. It is a wonder nobody else did. Maybe the Minister of Māori Affairs should have seen the opportunity. Given that he struggled over the questions that were put to him this morning in the select committee, where he did not seem to know what the Budget process was all about anyway, I do not think we can look to him to sex any Budget up. But I would have thought that Steve Maharey, given his looks and the fact that the Speaker at one stage, I think, indicated that she thought he was quite pretty, would have the nous to do something exciting in the broadcasting area. He could have told us what all the months of consultation, the work of the free-to-air broadcasters with their digital group, and others, had achieved. The Minister himself has been making regular statements saying: “We’ll have digital on the way.”, but there was not one mention of it in the Budget.

That is an indictment on the Minister, who presided over a disastrous year—indeed, years—for TVNZ, and we now watch while New Zealanders leave in their droves and sign up to Sky television. Whether the new board is going to reverse the situation, who knows. Unless the Minister is able to somehow give us some indication soon of when the digital platform is to be introduced, there will be no viewers left. He has sat on his hands for all of the last 2 years with a group out there supposedly working on it—such as, Jo Tyndall, seconded from New Zealand On Air to the ministry. No doubt she is busy, busy working on something, although we do not know what, we have not been able to get any information out of the Minister on how far advanced the digital platform is. What are they doing? What does the Minister intend to do?

Broadband may or may not come. It suffered a huge set-back with the great “leaker” from the Prime Minister’s office. That left a big hole in the Budget. Nothing has been put there to fill that hole, and that is an indication of an arrogant Government that daily is putting more and more New Zealanders on benefits, as a cynical vote-gathering exercise, because that is all it is. In the meantime New Zealand slides down the ladder of economic prosperity, productivity, and economic growth.

We have a Minister who had absolutely nothing in the Budget in the broadcasting arena, other than a bit more funding for New Zealand On Air, but nothing about the biggest challenge facing television broadcasting—that is, the introduction of a digital platform. I am talking about the missing-in-action digital strategy, a whole lot of work going on for years, a whole lot of people who have busied themselves on this, and still absolutely nothing in the Budget. The Minister should fold his hands, pack his bag, and give the thing to someone else. Unfortunately, so many on the Government side are on notice. Who would he give it to? Mr Cunliffe, the great hope in the techno area, goodness me, the poor thing, he had to see his flower of the Budget leaked to the public, with Telecom losing millions off its share price. So he could not give it to Mr Cunliffe. So many of the Government members seem to be on notice, who could he give broadcasting to?

Broadcasting received approximately $24 million but there was not a whisper, not one word about the introduction of the digital platform. Do we live in the digital age or not? The Government seems to think we do not.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this

I have listened to this debate for 3 days. For 3 days we have heard one of the most important debates of the year, and it concerns the Budget. The debate has shown what National stands for and what it believes in, and it is a very narrow vision, indeed. It shows that National believes in tax cuts.

What else does National believe in? Tax cuts. What else does National believe in? Tax cuts. When the Government cuts taxes moderately, how does National respond? National members say: “More tax cuts.” Tax cuts are its religion; its article of faith. National says taxes are bad and must be cut. Tax cuts are the meaning of life for National. It has no other message. It is a one-policy party—tax cuts. If we ask the National members what the meaning of life is, they will not say: “A fair and egalitarian society.” They do not talk above love. They do not talk about health or education services. They do not even give us the number 41. For them the answer to everything is tax cuts.

Well, tax cuts are not the only thing, and most voters, of course, disagree with National. They do not think that the future of New Zealand lies in tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Most voters agree with the Labour position—that, essentially, taxes are good. I am happy to have this debate because I am sure that most New Zealanders agree with Labour that taxes are good. Tax is the glue that holds society together. It is the cornerstone of civilised Western society. Tax is good. Tax is crucial to social cohesion and low crime. Tax is essential if every New Zealander is to get the chance to succeed, no matter how rich or poor the family he or she is born into. Taxes in New Zealand are low by international standards. They are not high—and that is an issue I will return to.

In contrast, National says tax cuts are necessary and that $11 billion worth of them are overdue. What an extreme position! It is obvious that National’s tax cuts would cut basic services like health, education, and superannuation. But perhaps even more important to me is the fact that National’s tax cuts would threaten the core egalitarian values that I, and most New Zealanders, hold dear. Tax cuts under National would lead to where we know its heart is. Its heart is in the right-wing vision where we would have increasing divisions between those who have and those who do not have, between those who are born into wealth and those who are not. It would increase the gap between the wealthy and the less well-off. We would see more crime. We would see poorer health and education services for most people. Of course, outside of the tax arena we would also see international policies like the disastrous war in Iraq. Under National, we would have been part of that war.

National’s assertion that we can afford grandiose tax cuts is based on an assertion that New Zealand is over-taxed. Well, the OECD keeps statistics on taxation, and it shows that for a one-earner couple with two children New Zealand is the fifth-lowest taxed country in the OECD. That is, fifth-lowest out of 29. In respect of a single person without children, we do even better. We are the third-lowest taxed in the OECD. On both measures we are better than Australia. So how responsible would $11 billion worth of tax cuts be at this point in the business cycle? A recent OECD report states: “It is important that temporary revenue gains and economic upswings not be used as pretext for permanent tax cuts that exacerbate inflationary pressures and create a legacy of high structural Budget deficits that only become apparent during subsequent downswings.” That is exactly what National is proposing.

On the subject of tax cuts, I have to say that some are appropriate. That is why the Government, this year and next, is funding $1.6 billion of tax cuts for families with children, which is an average of $88 per week in tax relief. A family with three children on $60,000 gets $130 a week. That is affordable and prudent. Members should not be swayed by the notion that tax is bad. Tax is good.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

At home, the news of the week was not about the Budget, because most of my relatives are intelligent and cynical enough not to expect anything from a Government that seems dedicated to the downgrading of all things Māori. No, the news was about the real money, the big deal—the $18 million Lotto pay-out that some lucky bugger up in Kaeō won. I am happy for that person in Kaeō, and real happy for his or her whānau that they got the big break but, for all of that, I still feel a sense of gloom, because it seems that the only way a lot of my whanaunga will be able to break out of the poverty cycle is through a game of chance, a wild gamble.

Last week, Dr Cullen did nothing to change that with his 2006 Budget. Whānau development is gone, local level solutions are gone, direct resourcing is gone, capacity building is gone, capacity assessment is gone, manaaki tauira is gone, Māori and Pacific scholarships are gone, and there is no new money for the Ministry of Māori Affairs. Members should not get me wrong; I am not saying Māori were not targeted—we were. Unfortunately, though, targeting for Māori in 2006 involves the same failed, racist policies of assimilation that Governments pursued back in the 1800s, when Māori kids were allowed to speak only English, and the only good Māori was a quiet Māori.

Well, it comes as no surprise, at all, to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that assimilation just does not work. It did not work back in the 1800s, and it did not work in the 1900s. In fact, assimilation was supposed to have ended with the Hunn report in 1960. So it is a worrying trend when those same racist policies are dredged up in this new millennium. Of course, they are dressed up in new words, but there has been no consultation with Māori nor, I suspect, with even the Government’s own Māori MPs. Surely they could not possibly be supporting the rubbish being foisted upon their own people in 2006 by that crowd.

The one-size-fits-all theory simply does not work—it never did. As the only party dedicated to defending Māori rights and advancing Māori interests, the Māori Party has an obligation to highlight the hypocrisy of this Government’s financial programme. There is no new money for Māori—that is a fact. The Government has given funding two flash new names—reallocation and reprioritisation—but the facts remain the same. Even with a $9 billion surplus, there is no new money for Māori. In fact, the real story of Budget 2006 for Māori is about what was not in it.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance on announcing a key focus on our families, young and old, but what about the 60,000 Māori families who will not get anything from the Working for Families package? Although it is lovely to hear the Prime Minister reading out fan-mail from people who do get the package, members can believe me when I say that those words are absolutely meaningless to the nearly 100,000 Māori kids who do not even know they have been denied by this programme.

The Government was also right to target health as a Budget priority, and we congratulate it on that. But we remind it again that a one-size-fits-all health Budget will not alleviate the massive health problems faced by Māori people throughout the country; neither will it ease the fears of the people in the far north who stand to lose their hospital and their doctors, because there is no money to encourage them to stay.

So when my people ask me what they got in the Budget, I get really sad when I have to tell them they have got nothing new. When they ask me why not, I have to say I just do not know—I do not know why there is nothing there for them; I do not know why the Māori MPs in Labour did not fight for them; I do not know why those MPs are so quiet about that; I just do not know what they are thinking.

Last month, Labour’s Māori caucus was told to host a press conference to promote the Working for Families package, but when asked by the media what the benefits of that policy were for Māori, none of them could answer. They were dumbfounded and struck mute when they had to defend a discriminatory policy they did not understand—and, with no cue cards provided, even I was embarrassed.

The 2005 Budget was notable for 1 hour’s worth of talk and no mention of the word “Māori” at all. The 2006 Budget is even more sinister because it mentions Māori as in the sense of: no consultation with Māori, no new money for Māori, assimilation for Māori, and “No, Māori, we ain’t listening.”

I normally like to finish my kōrero with a Māori saying but, seeing that this Budget gives Māori nothing, I turn instead to my Pākehā side. Although I am no great fan of Shakespearian tragedy, I cannot help but think of a line from Macbeth to describe this Budget: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this

There is also a quote from Shakespeare about a pound of flesh—people tend to think that it is always about a pound of flesh. The focus on money by these other parties in the first instance, is outrageous. There is no doubt that Māori are a unique people. The contribution made by Māori to New Zealand is etched on the country at this stage. Māori culture reinforces the dynamic identity of Aotearoa New Zealand in a globalised society. I am thankful that Hone Harawira recognises his Pākehā side, because I have worked with Māori over the years who used to deny it—for example, Tau Henare.

Everything we do now must be measured for the contribution it makes to the future of our people. The groundwork has been done, the scene has been set, and this Minister of Māori Affairs has been part of it—not like the prattle of ancient and past Ministers of Māori Affairs, especially the one sitting in this House. [Interruption] How so? It is simple. Our growing asset base, falling unemployment rates, and rising participation rates in education and enterprise are what Māori are doing today, and that is what they are trying to establish in their growing population. All of these present opportunities have been imbued, developed, and strengthened by this Government.

This Budget provides for Māori, and I am glad that my friend Hone Harawira is sorry that, as he said, he does not understand. That is dead right; he does not understand. But I will help him learn it as he goes along. This Budget provides for Māori. It is about moving people from dependency to development. The Māori Party does not like this approach; it prefers our people to be trapped in the dungeons of doom and gloom. Well, I tell those doom merchants that the best way out of poverty—in fact, the only way out of poverty and dependency—is through work.

Māori Party members are concerned about beneficiary entitlement. They are arguing that beneficiaries should receive the in-work support payment. Without a doubt, beneficiaries are better off under this Government than they have ever been. But I want to make clear to this House that, with this Government’s approach, work always pays. If we are serious about moving our people from dependency to development, work must always pay. This Government has made significant inroads into supporting beneficiaries and their families. Child poverty has reduced by 70 percent under this Government. But, most important, this Government has given beneficiaries work. Research and experience shows that this Government has got 100,000 people off the dole and into work. Of those, 30,000 are Māori. They are off the dole and into work. That is simple logic.

Dr Sharples, as we have just heard Hone say, would tell the House to give all the money to Vote Māori Affairs. Then, in turn, it could all be given to Māori, and we would wait and see what happens. In 1999-2000, when this Government came into power, Vote Māori Affairs had $55 million. This year it had a 200 percent increase to $156 million—well-spent and well-managed money to help Māori development. The National Party, with its “mother of all Budgets”, slashed $1.3 billion in 1 day. It put the economy into a spin. And to resurrect the recession that was put on the people—members heard what Dr Cullen said this morning—National sold the State houses. That is what National did. That is National’s economic mentality. Those members marginalised people by thinking big with little minds and unkempt practices that do not have platforms of the macro and the micro. Dr Cullen will be remembered as the best finance Minister in Parliament’s history.

National sold the State houses, it put the economy into recession, it slashed $1.3 billion, and it is trying to do it again through John Key. That is supporting the greedy, not the needy. That is the right agenda. National members like John Carter know that. Hone Harawira knows that. Members should look at those two Hones sitting together. That is why they are together, because they support it.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

We now know why Labour members had to get linguistics expert Clare Curran to come and give them a lecture on how to talk to people. I understand that remedial classes are being organised, as we speak, for the Hon Parekura Horomia in order that he might be able to more clearly follow the Labour line. The Labour line says that National has grabbed the agenda. National led the agenda right throughout the election and, bar some explosion inside National, it will be the next Government in this country. That is the internal Labour document that is supposed to have encouraged Ministers like Parekura Horomia to, for example, tell the truth. Well, that would be novel for a Labour Minister.

The same Clare Curran had a huge effect on the Budget itself, referring to the tax take as “an investment in the future” and to burgeoning numbers of beneficiaries as investing in people’s futures, and suggesting that the best thing Labour could do now is apologise for the way it has run the country for the last 6 years. That is the Clare Curran document. What is worse, do members know where all this “special information” that was given to Labour came from? It came from the United States. That is right. A US linguist is quoted liberally throughout the programme. A US thinktank known as the The Rockridge Institute is apparently where all this comes from; and the Center for American Progress also contributed.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I want to talk about the $126 million that has been budgeted over the next 4 years to go into the aged-care sector. I believe that $58 million has been targeted towards home-based support and $68 million towards residential support. When we first heard the news, those of us with real concerns about what is going on in this sector were hugely pleased. However, as the days have ticked on since the Hon Michael Cullen delivered the Budget, some disturbing evidence has come to light. When the sums have been done we realise that this big amount of money is falling into an even bigger hole. As we have suffered for years in roading, we are facing a crisis of momentous proportions in the aged-care sector.

The demographics are clear. We know how many elderly people we will have. We know the types of care that will be needed in the future. But what we are not completely sure about is what this Government or the major Opposition party are planning to do about it. As yet, nobody has come up with a long-term plan that older citizens can rely on. Even the generation represented in this House cannot, with certainty, plan towards their senior years when they will require additional support.

The crisis in this sector is twofold. First of all, we have a lack of futures planning, as I have just said. The second point is that our current delivery is in serious need of improvement. Although we welcome every morsel that can be thrown in its direction, we have to understand that we are not making ends meet. This sector is reliant on three groups. We are reliant on two sets of providers—those who are for profit, and those who are part of the not-for-profit sector who just want to stay afloat and be able to maintain their buildings and develop their services further. The other side of it is the staff, and it is the staff whom I want to focus on for the remaining time. Staff are currently paid the most appalling wages.

I want to reflect on the case of the nurses who protested outside Parliament yesterday morning. The reassurance they were given from Government speakers was appalling. They said: “You are so lucky that this Government has improved the minimum wage so many times in the last 6 years. Be reassured, the minimum wage will continue to be something that we will attend to.” However, most of us said: “These people shouldn’t be on the minimum wage.” The photographs that have caused so much controversy in a recent publication—and I do suggest that they were inappropriately used—reminded us of the very sensitive work concerning people’s dignity, which many of us may need to rely on in the future, that is done by an amazing workforce of people, and we pay them the most appalling wages. In my area, they leave the aged-care sector seasonally to go into the kiwifruit orchards to pick kiwifruit.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

In the brief time I have this evening I will not be able to comment extensively on the Budget, so I want to just pick out one or two things that are near and dear to my own heart and to that of my party, and comment on those.

The first thing is that United Future is fully supportive of the Working for Families package. I do not care too much about what it is called; I think we should say that there is a mixture of targeted tax relief in it, and to the extent that some people receive more back from the Government than they pay in tax, there is also an element of what is technically called negative taxation in the package. But the really important thing is that the package is making a real difference to life on the ground for families with dependent children. My wife and I happen to be privileged enough to know quite a number of young families with dependent children, and I tell the House that those families are absolutely delighted with the additional amounts coming into their households each week through the Working for Families package. People are saying to me that it is good and that, at last, they can send their children to school adequately clothed and buy them some decent presents at birthdays and Christmas, and they feel like they are back in mainstream society.

I think it has to be admitted that when people leave the workforce, get married, or move into a relationship and have children, they feel a very real sense of having moved out of mainstream New Zealand. Other people are still going ahead, buying new cars and taking overseas holidays, and suddenly these people are in a different situation where they face the hard task, day in and day out, of making ends meet for their families. For those people the Working for Families package has undoubtedly made a huge difference. United Future is very proud not only to have had input into the design of the package but also to have supported it through the parliamentary process.

Having given credit where it is due, I say that United Future differs from the Labour-led Government when it comes to tax thresholds adjustments for personal taxation. In our view those thresholds should have been adjusted in last year’s Budget for the movement that has occurred in the rate of inflation since 1 April 2000 when the present tax rates, including the top rate of 39c in the dollar, came into being under the stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen. The Government, I believe, in failing to do that has created some real problems and real difficulties within New Zealand society. Dr Cullen’s inaction in that regard last year means that many thousands of taxpayers have moved up from the 19.5c band, which goes up to $38,000, and are now paying 33c in the dollar, and many more taxpayers have gone from the 33c band, which goes up to $60,000, and are now paying 39c in the dollar, purely because of inflation and the increase in the cost of living. To put that another way, because the cost of living has moved significantly since 1 April 2000—by around 14 percent—in real terms many hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are now paying more personal tax than they did in the year 2000.

Dr Cullen, in doing nothing about personal taxes, has allowed that to happen for the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are working people—the very people who, in the past, the Labour Party has traditionally sought to look after. So United Future and I are baffled at the way in which that group of people has been ignored by the Government after 7 years in office. For example, in 2000, average full-time workers in New Zealand were earning less than $38,000 a year and were, therefore, paying tax at 19.5c in the dollar. Now, according to the information released with the Budget, average individual wage earners earn $43,756 a year, and those people pay tax at 33c in the dollar—an increase of 13.5c in the dollar at the top end. In real terms they are, therefore, in some cases earning very little more than they were in 2000. Wages have gone up, but, as people shift through the brackets, at that top end taxes have gone up quite disproportionately and those people are now no better off.

The result is that we have created a dichotomy in New Zealand society. On the one hand we have people getting tax relief from Working for Families, while on the other hand we have all the other people who do not have dependent children and who have seen no shift in their tax position since this Government came into power. I think that that is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unjust, and it is also fundamentally unnecessary. Dr Cullen has hinted today that, as part of the business taxation review, he may be able to also look at doing something about personal tax rates for those people who have seen no change in their position. I, for one, urge him to do so, because I think it should be done. It will make our society more inclusive and will send a positive signal to all New Zealand working people that, regardless of whether they have dependent children, whether they are single, or whether their children are now off their hands and they are back to the “Darby and Joan” type of situation, they will also benefit under this Government.

The other example I will talk about briefly is the quality of spending. I have been critical of the fact that the Government is spending too much, but there is also the question of quality. I will give a couple of examples. The Budget proposes $8.9 million to tackle bullying in our schools. I could tell people how to fix that problem much more cheaply than that. We could hire Ian McKinnon, the former principal of Scots College, and he could run seminars right throughout this country for secondary and primary school principals and teach them how to eliminate bullying from their schools. The point I am making is that we need to make sure that we are using real people to do real things that have real outcomes—that we are not just engaged in window dressing.

Another example I would mention is the $64.2 million that has been set aside to help exporters, or people who want to go into export markets, develop their overseas markets. I thoroughly applaud the intention behind that measure, but again I would ask the Government to think very carefully about what the delivery mechanism is, whether it will work, and whether it will actually produce real results in real time for real people.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) Link to this

I listened with interest to the member who has just resumed his seat, and the one thing I would say about the Working for Families package is this. I am aware of the case of a young business person who, because of the way in which that business operates, is able to dictate the level of personal income to be declared. Of course, since Helen Clark and the Labour Government brought in the Working for Families package, that person has decided that the personal income is too high. That person will now reduce the level of income so, as a consequence, that person will now attract a payment under Working for Families. That person will now receive from the Government in excess of $12,000 that he or she would not otherwise have been eligible for. Quite honestly, if this Government thinks that the system will not be manipulated, ripped off, and misused, then it is deluding itself. That will happen time and time again, as it does with all benefits. The best thing this Government could have done, if it wanted to help New Zealanders, would have been to take people out of the welfare trap rather than entrapping them in it.

I also want to reflect on some recent stories. We always know when a Government is on its way out—it is when we read stories about the fact that the leader of the Government is starting to say that this person or that person should go. Rather than let those people make that choice for themselves, the leader starts directing who should and who should not be here. I have to say that people like Russell Fairbrother, whom I have just spent a week overseas with, actually is not a bad sort of chap. He deserves the right to make a choice and to not be dictated to by Helen Clark as to whether he—or Dianne Yates, or Jill Pettis, or Dover Samuels, my old mate from up north—should stay here. What is wrong with the contribution Dover Samuels makes? It may not be good enough for Helen Clark but it has been good enough for Northlanders for a number of years. Members opposite know that when they reach the stage of starting to push people out of their party, they are in trouble. National went through it between 1999 and 2002, and I have to say it was a shambles. I can tell this Government that if it is getting to that stage, then it is definitely on its last legs.

I want to talk a little about local government. In 2002 this Labour Government passed the thing called “power of general competence” to local government. Local government thought that was great and that at last it had a Government that trusted it—a Government that was going to let it do things it felt it should do for its communities. Local government thought it would be able to do the things its communities wanted it to do and that it was uninhibited at last. It thought that was marvellous. Since then, this Government has passed 78 pieces of legislation that restrict, direct, inhibit, and manipulate what local government can do; that cause more cost; and that add costs to ratepayers. The legislation restricts, binds, and dictates to local government what it should do, to the extent now that local government has suddenly woken up and realised that the power of general competence is actually meaningless and does not stand for anything other than this Government manipulating and dictating what should happen, through local government, to ratepayers by a socialist Government.

There is also this thing called the Local Government Forum, where the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers meet with local government leaders three times a year. It is a forum in which they can talk about the wonderful, powerful things that should happen in local government, and in which the Government can ask how it can assist and what it can do to make things better. Boy, it is fantastic! Local government people thought it was great that at last they would have the ear of the Government. Well, that is the only thing they do get—and, quite honestly, who the hell would want an ear of this Government? It is all they get. It is just a talkfest. Nothing comes of it.

Back in 2002 the Government started a review of the financial area of local government to see how it could better fund local government. The review was to come out in 6 months’ time, sometime before the end of the 2002 financial year. But then it was postponed, but that was OK because in only another 12 months the Government would have the report. Then, in 2005, when the report had not arrived, the Government decided that perhaps a time frame should be set. It did that, and the date was set for January of this year. That has since been postponed until November of this year. I suspect that local government is starting to realise that, actually, this Government is just pulling the wool over its eyes—that it is not delivering much at all. To be fair, a couple of things have happened. This Government has allowed for some subsidies for small rural areas that are troubled by the ability to install sewage schemes in tourist areas, and that is commendable. But that is about the only positive stuff.

What about things like our roading, for instance, which is an area of huge, huge cost in, for example, Auckland? What about roading in our rural areas, or in our other metropolitan centres, or in our provincial cities? What has happened with that? Are those areas getting more money? Is that problem being sorted out? Can we drive straight through Auckland in the way we can drive through Melbourne now? Not on your Nelly! Not with this Government. This Government has actually done less for roading. It is interesting that it is now forecast that over the next 10 years local government in Auckland will spend $11 billion just to be as effective in 10 years’ time as it is today. In other words, no progress will be made at all, because this Government is not doing anything to fix the problems and to assist local government with the problems of roading. Quite honestly, it is an absolute disgrace.

In the short time I have left, I turn my attention to an area that New Zealanders are suddenly starting to become more aware of—civil defence. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Civil Defence is sitting in his old seat, the whip’s chair, because, quite honestly, given what he has done for civil defence, it would be a good place for him to go back to. About 2 months ago I put out a press release after discussing some issues with people involved in civil defence in New Zealand. They told me that it was a joke, that nothing happens, that there is no system, communication, or structure, and that there is no cohesion, at all. So I put out the press release saying that, to my knowledge—because I was still finding out what was going on—things were not as tidy as they should be and that things were not quite right. I said that we actually had a civil disaster in New Zealand and that it was called “the Minister”. But I got a statement back saying that I did not know what I was talking about and that my head was in the clouds. I was told that I did not know what civil defence was about, that everything was fine, and that it was good.

Since then, I have been doing some more work—in fact, the good thing is that in lots of ways I have not had to, because the Minister has been presenting it on a plate. What happened with the tsunami warning we had recently? We were meant to have a system that allowed us to know what was happening, but people had to listen to the BBC to find out what was going on. The Minister said there had been a bit of a hiccup. After another trial it has been found that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management does not actually connect with local government.

Even more important, I put down some questions to the Minister to find out what the structure was like. I wanted to find out what regional councils, local government, and the voluntary base were doing, and I thought the person who would know all those things was the Minister. So I asked him: “How many staff are currently employed for civil defence purposes in each territorial local authority?”. Most members would think that the Minister would be able to give me some facts and figures. Well, here is the answer, folks: “I am advised that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is not responsible for keeping records of the number of territorial local authority civil defence staff. You would need to approach each authority to get complete records of the information you require.” Well, bless my soul! He did not know about that, but I thought he may know about volunteers, because there is meant to be a volunteer structure. So I asked him how many volunteers there were. I got the same sort of answer—that he was advised that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was not responsible for keeping the records of who are volunteers. If the Minister does not know, who does? This Minister is incompetent in the portfolio of civil defence, and the best thing he could do for this Government in terms of civil defence is to go back to being a whip.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

I am pleased to contribute to the Budget debate for 2006. I begin with something I have given before in this House—a tribute to Michael Cullen as Minister of Finance. Michael Cullen is one of the most principled, able, and compassionate men I know. This Budget is a Labour Budget, and we are proud of it. Only a Labour-led Government could produce a Budget that invests so much in New Zealand’s future and assists where necessary. I am delighted, as I have said before, that we have a social historian by training who is applying himself to the country’s books. That way, we get a clever head and real investment in the country through Government appropriations. We also get the right amount of heart. We get relief for families where it is needed most, acknowledging that paid work is the best way out of poverty but giving some assistance where it is most required, at times when it is most required.

This Budget delivers. It delivers on promises that we made in the election. It delivers on interest-free student loans. It will keep at home our investment in our young people and will improve our skills base. It delivers on Working for Families. Another 85,000 families will be eligible for tax relief as a result of this Budget, which will bring the total number of eligible families to 350,000 by the end of the roll-out. It delivers on promises we have made to our support parties, and our increasing of police numbers is but one example of that. It delivers on promises to families by lowering the cost of doctors’ visits, funding more teachers so there can be smaller classes, giving more operational funding to schools, and helping more people access job training.

This Budget also invests—most famously in transport, with $13.4 billion over the next 5 years. That is all of the revenue by way of petrol excise, road-user charges, and motor vehicle registration fees, plus another $300 million. This means that in the area north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which is an area that I have the privilege of working in, the troublesome intersections at both ends of Warkworth on State Highway 1 will be addressed; both Hill Street and Woodcocks Road will be fixed.

It also means improvements in another part of the country in which I have great interest—I refer to State Highway 3 at the Awakino Gorge. This will mean a great deal to the people of Taranaki - King Country. Business interests have repeatedly stressed to me, as a Government MP with a watching brief for Taranaki - King Country, the need to improve freight access to key export hubs such as Auckland and Tauranga. That will now happen through the investment by this Budget in transport, not only in the northern Taranaki, lower King Country area around the Awakino Gorge but also in terms of the huge investment going into roading and transportation in the Waikato. So those are particularly important items for me in seeing how the application of this 2006 Budget will roll out.

I also want to talk about health. There will be $40.8 million over 4 years for strengthened child and adolescent oral health services. That includes the rebuilding and re-equipping of the school dental service through additional capital expenditure. Today in the House the Hon Tony Ryall asked a question about the provision of health services to Māori, and he emphasised oral health services. The implication was that services were being provided on the basis of ethnicity, not need, and he cited oral health services as an example. He flourished a Government report stating that socio-economic status was a stronger indicator of health status than ethnicity. I cannot work out where that member’s missing synapse is that he cannot make the link between socio-economic status, need, and Māori. The facts are that the oral health needs of Māori are very pressing. The facts are that Māori 5-year-olds are twice as likely to have decayed, missing, or filled teeth as the New Zealand average. By 12 years of age the picture improves only slightly for Māori children, with nearly two-thirds of them having decayed, missing, or filled teeth. Why is it so hard for the Hon Tony Ryall to join the dots? Why is it so hard for him to make the connections and see that socio-economic status and need decide who gets services? If that means we deliver services to Māori, then we will stand up and say so. There should not be any imputation from the Opposition that that is a negative.

In fact, another Opposition member, Dr Jonathan Coleman, went on to ask a question about contracts—I think he actually said employment contracts—for radiologists, laboratory technicians, and technologists, or laboratory workers in general. He asked why special processes were built into those contracts for dealing with Māori. I have a story from the past. My mother used to take blood, as a phlebotomist, or a laboratory worker, in the laboratory in New Plymouth. In those days—it was a very long time ago—she learnt Māori phrases in order to ease the way with Māori patients. I still have the dictionary she used, and I still have her sentences written in her handwriting at the back of it. She had to learn to say things like: “This will hurt a little.”, “I need to take some blood.”, and “Are you in pain?”. Even then—and this was in the 1950s—there was a recognition of a need for a specific approach, even if it was about speaking the language. Now, an understanding about how the taking and processing of bodily specimens is viewed by Māori is more widely understood. Having such provisions in contracts is simply about respect, and respecting difference. The National Opposition would have us delete anything that represented respect and understanding in contractual arrangements. National members would shut their eyes to the reality of where needs are disproportionately found and bleat on as if dealing with Māori oral health needs were a crime. So I celebrate the fact that we have allocated specific moneys to children and young people’s oral health in this Budget.

We are working to build and promote our national identity as New Zealanders in this Budget. It is not about resurrecting No. 8 wire and buzzy bees, however important they have been and whatever nostalgia we have for those things. A new national identity is being built these days in New Zealand through young musicians, writers, artists, sculptors, and all the cultural strands that make up this country. Arts, culture, and heritage are central to building a national identity. The Government is helping to create a vibrant cultural sector, and we are proud that New Zealanders are seeing more of themselves reflected in a modern way on websites, in print, and on the stage. We have increased baseline funding for Creative New Zealand in this Budget by $10 million, ensuring that the level of support made possible by one-off funding last year can be maintained over the next 4 years.

Part of national identity is also coming to terms with our past and righting wrongs. I celebrate also the additional funding in this Budget to assist in arriving at Treaty settlements that will see historical Treaty claims lodged by 2008 and settled by 2020. That will go a long way to forging a new national identity.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) Link to this

Last Thursday in this Parliament, Dr Don Brash moved in his Budget speech a motion of no confidence in this Government. I have to say tonight that that was the only sensible thing he could have done. The reason is that the Government has lost direction, has no vision, and has put nothing in this Budget that will benefit anybody in this country. In fact, this Budget is the biggest step backwards we have seen in years.

Nowhere has that been epitomised more than with the Minister for Biosecurity, the Hon Jim Anderton. I want to share with members tonight what the Minister for Biosecurity said before the Budget. Before the Budget he announced that there would be a $33.2 million increase in biosecurity spending. I thought that sounded great. Numerous reports had identified the problems with biosecurity, and suddenly the Minister was announcing extra money. Then came the appropriation for 2006, and if we look at the details we find that funding for biosecurity has actually been cut by $5.9 million—not increased, but cut. It has been cut!

Let us look at the details, and at what they state: funding for biosecurity enforcement will decrease; funding for biosecurity policy will decrease; funding for biosecurity standards will decrease; funding for biosecurity surveillance and incursions response will decrease; funding for policy advice—this is an area that the Minister clearly should have spent a bit of money on, based on the mistakes he has made so far—will decrease; funding for specific pest and disease response will decrease; and funding for the control of TB vector will decrease.

What funding has been granted in this Budget for the control of didymo? None, nothing, not a cent. So what do we do about that? Treasury estimates that it will cost New Zealand $285 million if didymo reaches the North Island—and, believe this, under this Minister it will, there is no doubt about that. Papers I have received under the Official Information Act show that the lack of funding was a big problem. In desperation, Biosecurity New Zealand was borrowing money from the moth fund. It was letting Cabinet make long, convoluted decisions, and it was left waiting with nothing happening to control the procedures or the issues. All this information was finally made available—some time after the incursion—so what would one expect in the Budget? Would one not expect that this Budget would now come up with something to control that? What did we get in the Budget? Not a cent.

The Minister talks about team effort, particularly when he is talking about marine farmers and the recent sea squirt invasion. What he means is: “You are on your own, mate.” This is not a team Government. The Minister means that if people want to control or protect their industry, they should come up with the dough and do it themselves. They should not wait for this Government.

Over the past 5 years there have been 229 incursions into New Zealand. In 2004-05 the following were found on aircraft passengers: 15.8 tonnes of fruit fly material—that is a big truckload to be found on persons in 1 year—and 8.243 tonnes of meat products. The list goes on: seeds, grains, dairy products, and cut flowers. So what do we do about it? We have an instant fine mechanism. In 2004, 8,810 people were issued with an instant fine. Now, a $200 fine sounds pretty good. But when we look at the fact that 6,237 of those people were non - New Zealand visitors, we see clearly that the fine system is not working. What evidence do we need if that is not enough? What should the Labour Government do? What should this tired, visionless Minister do? He should adopt National’s policy, which is to stick those people on the same plane out of New Zealand that they came here on. People who come into this country and flout our biosecurity laws should be sent straight out, and the instant fine should be increased.

Most incursions, however, enter our borders through sea containers. The Auditor-General has just released a report, tabled in this Parliament today. The report is called Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Managing Biosecurity Risks Associated with High-risk Sea Containers. It follows on from the Auditor-General’s report of 2002. It clearly demonstrates that no lessons have been learnt by this Labour-led Government—none at all. This Government lacks substance to deal with the problems. Half a million sea containers enter New Zealand each year. All of them have the potential to bring in a biosecurity risk that could devastate our economy. The report states that high-risk containers receive special attention—but do they? They should, but do they? The Auditor-General sought, but could not find, reassurance on that matter. The paperwork is there and the rules are there, but the action is missing. More important, there is no accountability. Here is another interesting comment from the report: “In our view it would help if the Quarantine Service and Biosecurity NZ worked together when they involved industry groups in strategic policy matters.” The Auditor-General actually had to say that. It is not happening. How dumb is that? It does not get worse.

This report has 15 recommendations, all of them vital for protecting our borders, but none more so than the recommendation that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry needs to: “enforce the requirement of the Import Health Standard for Sea Containers from All Countries …”. That is particularly interesting, given that the Minister and his department are about to announce the importation of honey. In other words, the Minister is opening up our borders to the possibility of European foul brood. Do we know what officials say regarding the concerns of the pastoral industry and other industries that have raised concerns? They say it is OK and not to worry because there will be an import health standard. Importers will clearly have to come under the import health standard, but the Auditor-General says that the import health standard is not working. I ask the House tonight how raw pork meat came into New Zealand if it did not come through the import health standard. The list goes on and it makes appalling reading.

The Government assures us that we have the best biosecurity in the world. I knew it was a false declaration when I heard it. It is just like a lot of the declarations made by people coming in from overseas—they are as false, obviously, as the sea container documentation that we have to believe in. But even I did not think that the Minister had allowed biosecurity to sink so low. Our biggest incursion threat is from sea containers, and basically we are just window dressing. The Auditor-General said in his report that systems are not being used, the training of staff is inadequate, containers are not being checked or fumigated properly, import health standards are not being upheld, and there is no incentive for importers to follow our rules—the worst punishment they ever get is a letter saying they got it wrong. Ironically, all this seems to be on top of the Minister’s being pleased about the trade values we have gained by New Zealand being declared bovine spongiform encephalopathy - free by the World Organization for Animal Health. I agree that that is good news, but it is just good luck, certainly not good management. What Biosecurity New Zealand needs is team work. It needs a new Minister. It needs a new Government. Clearly, it will not get that leadership from this Government.

This leads on to the forestry industry. The Minister of Forestry is the same Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton. How can we have faith in a Minister who attacks and threatens the very industry he is supposed to represent? If an industry dares to suggest that the Minister’s policies are wrong, he says that the industry could expect obstinate treatment from the Government. This is a group that used to be on good terms with the Government—it was set up to work with the Government. The Minister further threatened the industry by saying that it could not expect assistance from this Government. Well, we know that, and certainly the forestry industry knows that. The industry needs a new Government. It needs a new Minister. We can not let this Minister do to the forestry industry what he did to the small business and regional development portfolio.

It is time for a new Government. I endorse the motion of Dr Don Brash. Let us have a vote of no confidence in this Government, have an election, and get somebody who can do something for this country in biosecurity and forestry.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) Link to this

In rising to speak to this Budget debate I want to iterate that this Budget is about investing in an Aotearoa New Zealand way of life. It is a Labour Budget and it reinvests back into health and education. If it were a National Budget, in order to fund National’s proposed tax cuts it would have made cuts to health and education. It would not have done one thing at all to support low-income families in New Zealand.

This is a Labour Budget and it reinvests where it matters most. It is a Budget that values families, young and old, a Budget that resolves to assist in the transforming of our economy to one that strives to add value to what we do and how we do it, and a Budget that harnesses the strength and diversity that are the face of Aotearoa New Zealand today.

There have been several contributions to this debate from the Opposition members. Those speeches may have stirred their blood, but there was not one bit of imagination in them. Instead, what did they do? They pointed to Australia. I will make a brief contribution on this matter of Australia. Many Māori go to Australia for work, and for a new life and a new experience. But anyone who talked to those same whānau members who were over there, and who returned about 2 or 5 years later, would hear that their decision to come home was based on quality of life. Quality of life was the measure, rather than money. We know that people in New Zealand value the way of life we have here. It is a great place to live and bring up kids. It is a pity the Opposition does not recognise that, because, here in New Zealand, we are reinvesting back into what we think is a great country.

On the one hand, the Opposition members have spent quite a lot of time scoffing at the Government’s Working for Families package, which provides tax relief to families in work; on the other hand, they criticise the lack of assistance to families on a benefit. This is all under fake concern for the many Māori families who currently receive a benefit. Do National members ever say a benefit should be increased? No, they do not. Do National members ever say that women on the domestic purposes benefit should get more money? No, they do not. So National members criticise the Government’s Working for Families package, but they have no solution, and certainly not one iota of support, for families on a benefit. If at any point a smidgeon more money were given to families on a benefit, National members would be the first to cry foul. In my neck of the woods, one calls a spade a spade; in this case, it is a shovel, and National just keeps digging.

Now, more than ever before, Māori families are well aware that it is better to be in work than not. The Working for Families package provides support and assistance for that to be a reality. The biggest disincentive to families who have been receiving a benefit and who want to go into work is the difference in their take-home amount of money. If one gets more money in the pocket from being on a benefit than from being in work, the maths is not hard and the choice is quite clear.

With the child tax credit, in-work payment, accommodation supplement, and assistance with childcare costs, there is now a range of options for those people choosing to go into either part-time work or full-time employment. There are now more opportunities for families on a low-middle income who are currently in work. Working for Families sends the right message to Māori families who want to break the dependency mentality and get out and make a go of it. There are a lot of Māori families like that. For families who are still on a benefit, the incentives and support should be the same. It is better to be in work than not. If we really are concerned about Māori in this country, then we should make sure they succeed in education, continue to take up Modern Apprenticeships if they want to, aspire to tertiary education, and are supported into business ventures. The potential of Māori is severely limited by doublespeak like that from the Opposition, and I do not think it is a solution at all; it is a fake guise of concern. Do National members have a solution or any answers? No, they do not.

A number of areas that are signalled in this Budget will, I believe, make a difference to the lives of many families. Let us take the election platform on which this Government was elected. Talking to a number of young Māori, I know that one thing they were excited about was the removal of interest on student loans. That is great for them, especially if they are currently at university and thinking about how they will pay back the compounding interest. Another area that is beneficial to a number of students is the signal that Labour will raise the threshold of parental income for students to receive student allowances. That is fantastic. Student allowances have been extended to include PhD students, and that will benefit a number of Māori who are now pushing through the ceiling—exceeding the expectations of Opposition members—so that they can get ahead in life, not just for themselves but for their whānau. That is the kind of platform that Labour was elected to deliver on, and it will do that.

There are areas in the Budget that will be helpful to Māori. This Budget provides around $33.5 million over the next 4 years towards improving literacy, numeracy, and language skills within the workforce. Some 330,000 New Zealanders have very low literacy and numeracy skills. Many of those are Māori and Pacific Island people. At the core of a successful workforce and economy are literacy and numeracy skills, which are fundamental. Now, more than ever before, the Government is investing to make a difference to current and future workforce development. Many of those in the workforce will be Māori and Pacific Island people. Funding will go towards working with industry training organisations to improve the foundation skills of people who are employed at the low skills end of the workforce. This will make a great contribution to many employee circumstances.

The funding will be available from 1 July this year, and there is a number of areas in which it will help. It will help to improve workplace practices so that more employees and workers can access suitable training. About $7.5 million has been made available over the next few years for this. The number of professional development clusters for training providers and tutors in the Learning for Living exploratory projects will be expanded. A lot of those providers are Māori based. There will be funding for 200 additional study grants to increase the number of fully qualified adult literacy tutors. Again, a number of those are Māori. There will be further integration of literacy, numeracy, and language training with industry training. There will be around $15 million available over 4 years for this. The quality of training will be increased by supporting about 220 providers to meet the foundation learning quality assurance requirements. Some of those providers are Māori. So there are ways in which the Government is contributing to improving skills within the workforce. These initiatives underline the Government’s commitment to building a skilled and productive workforce that includes Māori, and that can contribute to the social and economic development of Aotearoa New Zealand.

How else is the Government supporting families? We are lowering the cost of visiting doctors, and one can see that this is really important when one gets out into the community. The Government Minister who spoke before me, Maryan Street, talked a lot about oral health. If members were to go to my electorate, they would see a mobile bus unit that takes dental health services around the area. That is fantastic. In Pukekohe—where the mobile bus unit visits—many of the children using it are Māori, and they benefit from access to oral health services. An additional $750 million health funding will be made available to families. In particular, I am most excited about the child health package that will provide new tools for primary health care, more well child checks, and a new universal newborn hearing screening programme. It will also allow for major improvements in oral health services, as I have already spoken about, for those aged under 18.

The Minister of Māori Affairs has already made his contribution to this debate, and he highlighted that $23.9 million has been reallocated into three new investment areas. Simply put, refocusing investment in areas with the potential to offer greater opportunity for Māori is really important. By doing that, Māori can better utilise their existing human, intellectual, and resource capital to get ahead. Times are changing, and the collective asset wealth of Māori can act as significant leverage to enhance and drive development aspirations. That is as it should be. Other ministries are best placed to deal with health, education, and welfare, but Te Puni Kōkiri should clearly work in the new Māori potential framework set out by the Minister. In time, this emphasis will lead to measurable gains that are a far better indicator for Māori than the disparity analysis that the previous National Government seemed fixated on. Māori do not want to be like Pākehā; they want to continue to be Māori in a dynamic and changing world. The Māori potential framework is better placed to assist this objective, and so is Budget 2006.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā tātou katoa. Te hunga ākonga tēnā koutou katoa. Last week, in a pre-Budget speech, Dr Cullen admitted: “At the best of times, Budgets are a juggling act. But this year it seems it is not just a matter of keeping balls in the air, but also managing a few flaming torches and tomahawks,”. The Māori Party tonight is consumed with the anger and grief of Māori communities as they respond to the flaming torches and tomahawks that have attacked Māori again, as they did last century, and the sustained attacks on our dreams and aspirations for education.

The flaming torch of colonisation is an image strongly associated with William Fox, who regarded colonisation as one of the great adventures of the 19th century. Fox believed that the Māori population was declining and that Māori people would be exterminated within his lifetime. Fox was convinced of the inferiority of Māori technology and culture when compared with that of the European and that the best way forward was by integrating Māori and Europeans into one economy and one workforce. On this basis, he believed that the Government should proceed as rapidly as possible with the purchase of Māori land.

In June 1869, when Fox became Premier, he sought to rule with the directive that the time had come to rekindle the sacred fire of colonisation that had almost flickered out. The Māori Party has been revisiting those words as we listen to the debate about one law for all, and about the reallocation of existing initiatives, and in the light of the Government’s failure to support amendments we proposed to the Education Amendment Bill. Our amendments would have protected the special character of kura kaupapa Māori, would have protected the diversity of early childhood centres like kōhanga reo, and would have offered land back to Māori owners—land that Māori owners had gifted to the Crown last century for educational purposes.

We thought about the fire of colonisation as we heard Labour MP Shane Jones defend the lack of any funding for Māori, and we feel let down that the current Minister of Māori Affairs did not even bid for funding in the Budget. Interestingly, even Labour’s former friend and Cabinet Minister John Tamihere has spoken out and called the Government’s treatment of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa a big wake-up call for Māori in relation to how Labour regards Māori education. Mr Tamihere’s assessment of the Budget was that it failed to meet Māori needs in providing fair funding in order for Māori to run health, education, and justice programmes, and that that would drive Māori voters towards the mighty Māori Party.

Although we commend Mr Tamihere for his guts in telling it how it is, the great tragedy remains in the aftermath of the savage blows dealt to Māori by this Budget and, in particular, to education. Education, kawa, tikanga, whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and mātauranga, have always been important to tangata whenua. In 1822 the Rev Samuel Marsden observed rangatira children as young as 4 years old attending important hui and asking questions, and their elders answering as fully as possible. In contemporary times that passion for learning has been given further shape by the increased access to whare wānanga, and to tertiary education in general.

But last Thursday that passion was rewarded with the cruelty of cuts to the manaaki tauira programme in Māori and Pacific scholarships. Every year over 9,000 students have benefited from that scheme. Manaaki tauira is a needs-based initiative, with eligibility based on income criteria, so that those students in financial need are supported. Each student receives between 10 and 30 percent of his or her tuition fees, which translates to about $400 to $650 per year.

The Maori Education Trust Board receives $4.3 million for manaaki tauira, and $0.5 million for Māori and Polynesian scholarships for higher education. The grants are administered by the trust board, a successor to the Māori Education Foundation, a statutory body set up in 1961 to promote and encourage the better education of Māori, and to provide financial assistance for that purpose.

The Auditor-General described the purpose of the manaaki tauira scheme as being: “to ensure that participation by Māori in tertiary education was not adversely affected when significant increases in tertiary fees were introduced in the early 1990s”. Introduced in 1991, the purpose of the manaaki tauira grant, therefore, was to provide financial assistance to Māori in tertiary education—based on financial need. Members should note that the emphasis is on “need”, not “race”.

Last Friday Te Mana Ākonga and other Māori student groups around the country met together in an emergency hui. One of the pressing questions arising from the Budget cuts may possibly have been whether Māori students are participating in tertiary education. The Māori Party is aware of the deliberate process set up to control the unprecedented growth in the Māori tertiary education market. Recent changes in the policy framework for the tertiary sector would preclude a return to the period of high growth in student numbers experienced between 2000 and 2003.

As this House is well aware, the existence of the three wānanga has achieved what successive Governments promised decades ago, and right up until now, but failed to deliver. Māori participation rates in formal tertiary education grew from having just under 30,000 students in 1994 to having three times that number—94,474 students—enrolled in 2004. Notwithstanding the latest change in policy, however, enrolments are still healthy at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which is forecasting that it will enrol between 18,000 and 21,500 equivalent full-time students in this academic year. So we have not been wiped out yet.

A second question may well have been whether Māori students are no longer facing financial difficulty. Last week a full-time student and mother of three reflected on the impact of the axing of the manaaki tauira scheme, and said: “My whānau shifted away from our papakāinga so that I could study. Manaaki tauira helps with the books and the course costs. The manaaki tauira is an important incentive to keep going. It relieves the pressure. It is not just students who give a sigh of relief when manaaki tauira rolls out but, most important, it is the whole whānau.”

So often the rhetoric attached to any initiatives focused on Māori says that the Government is interested in need, not race. How will the Government front up to those 9,000 Māori students who will now face increased financial strife in order to buy textbooks, learning resources, and study materials, and to pay their fees? What rationale will be provided to justify Dr Cullen’s tomahawk slashing of their educational future before they have even had a chance?

A third question to be considered could be whether there were problems with the management of the grant. To get rid of something, to exterminate, or to terminate, one would think there had to be some sort of problem. Well, we are aware that in 2000 the Tertiary Education Commission had raised concerns about the quality of the Māori Education Trust Board’s financial management and the Ministry of Education’s monitoring. In response, the Auditor-General established an inquiry. The serious concerns raised by the commission were, however, not substantiated, but the Auditor-General did find that the ministry’s contract management and the monitoring of its contract with the trust had been variable, with specific concerns about policy and process, including variable levels of follow-up inquiry. In fact, the bulk of the inquiry’s recommendations dealt with the ministry’s mismanagement. So let us get it right—it was not the management by the trust board or, indeed, the Māori students that were at fault. If we are to believe the Auditor-General’s findings, it was the State—the Ministry of Education—that was at fault.

Finally, we can ask whether student fees are any longer a problem. The prediction from the New Zealand University Students Association is that although the Government has increased the threshold for fee maxima by 2.5 percent and institutional funding has increased by 2.5 percent, it is likely that there will be a funding shortfall in institutions, therefore resulting in yet more fee increases. Given that the “no interest on students loans” policy will cost $600 million less than previously forecast, the real question is whether the Government had sufficient opportunity to deal with the drivers of student debt, such as rising student fees. We have to ask Parekura Horomia, in pursuit of advancement in education and Māori Affairs, why it has not. What happened at the Cabinet table to allow this latest eradication to take place? The Government has taken away interest on student loans with one hand, but it has slapped Maori students—and only Maori students—with the other.

In Vote Research, Science and Technology for the third year running there has been no increase, thus there are cuts in real terms for Māori knowledge, development, and social research. The Government boasts that it is supporting families, yet it is slashing manaaki tauira. So Māori families bear the brunt. In closing, I say that the removal of the manaaki tauira and other higher educational scholarships repeats that pattern of treating the unique qualities of Māori education with disdain and contempt. We have to ask where the flaming torch will next take light and where the tomahawk will sever and destroy.

NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this

I am privileged to follow on from Te Ururoa Flavell. I feel that in terms of the Budget, Māori people have been robbed, just like rural New Zealand. I was interested in his comments that 9,000 Māori students are now going to struggle to fund their textbooks and tertiary fees—

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) Link to this

If there is one time in the year when we can sort out the Tories from the rest, it is Budget time. It is the one time in the year when in terms of philosophy we can sort out those who live for money from those who think that money should be for living. National members think that we have to live for money, that self-interest will drive every behaviour of every individual in this country, and that tax is nothing but a cost on the individual. Well, Labour thinks that money should be for living. Money should drive society and support the individuals in it. Labour believes that tax is not a cost on the individual but an opportunity for individuals to invest collectively in the future. That is exactly what Labour has provided in the Budget.

National members speak of a surplus, but I will explain the situation to them. If they were to run a household budget they would have some income, there would be a cost of living—they would pay for their food and petrol—and there might be some money left over. The Tories would call that a surplus, but Labour says that is money to be necessarily invested in the future. People might have to fix their fences, paint their houses, and even invest in their retirement years, and that is exactly what this Government has enabled through the Budget. Yes, there is a surplus, because this Government has managed the economy well. Yes, the Government will invest in the future, because it has a responsibility as a responsible Government.

That is not like the Tories. What would they have done? They would have offered massive, unaffordable tax cuts and not invested in the future—not painted the house, not fixed the fence, and not put any money in for retirement. Those are the kinds of irresponsible policies that we saw through the 1990s, and National would continue with them if—God help us—it ever got its hands on the reins again.

I am proud of this Budget. Labour has a few objectives for this country. It wants to transform this economy, because it believes it can improve productivity. I have never been able to understand the other Tory philosophy that says to increase productivity, more money has to be paid to CEOs and less money to workers. I tell National members that wherever people come from, and whatever their political philosophy, human beings have the same basic drivers—that is, incentives to improve their lives. Productivity will not be increased by driving down wages and by paying CEOs huge salaries.

This Government has invested in infrastructure through this Budget, because it knows it has to transform this economy and lift productivity, to take us into the future. Members may ask what for. It is basically to improve the quality of life for Kiwi families, young and old, rich and poor—not just for those who are privileged enough to be able to grab the tax cuts that would have been put on the table by that Tory party over there—tax cuts that were rejected. National members have not yet realised that. Labour was voted in on the basis that it would take taxes, spend them wisely, and invest in the future—and that is exactly what this Budget has done.

The third thing Labour is doing is investing in building the pride of this country. If members had wanted to hear the difference between the National Party’s approach to building pride and the Labour Party’s approach, they should have listened to Don Brash’s speech on Budget day. What did he do? He talked up Australians and talked down New Zealanders. In my view, that is treacherous behaviour in this House and it undermines the confidence of every young New Zealander who wants to get on with his or her life.

Australians, though, are not that dumb. I say that because less than a week after the Australians’ own Budget, which gave them billions of dollars of tax cuts, a poll stated that two-thirds of them would rather have had the increased spending and investment in their economy than the $10 a week they got in that blind, simple little political bribe offered by John Howard. The Australians are not that dumb; they saw through bribery. In fact, New Zealanders saw through it at the last election when they voted Labour into Government.

Labour has done a huge amount to invest in the future of this country through this Budget—not in a Tory way and driven by self-interest, but on the basis that all New Zealanders want to build a better life for their children and grandchildren, and to secure their retirement. That is why the Government has invested in roads, hospitals, education, and ongoing training in the workplace.

Would National have done that with its $11 billion worth of tax cuts? It would not, because it would not have been able to afford to do it. How would it have paid for those tax cuts? It would have cut services, for a start, and it would have sold off—flogged—State assets, as it did in the 1990s. That scandalous behaviour must be stopped at all costs. I fear for the time the National Party ever gets into power in this country—although I do not think it will, thank God, because, like Australians, New Zealanders understand the value in investing in the future through their taxes, rather than frittering away money hard-earned through the tax system in tax cuts.

If there is a place for tax relief, then that relief should be given to working families rather than to wealthy people like Mr Bob Clarkson or the millionaires around the country—which is what the National Party would have done. I say that it should be given to hard-working Kiwi families.

Do members know what? That is exactly what we did. Using the Working for Families package, I will give members an example of what will happen. We have been able, through wise management of the economy, to give 350,000 families in this country tax relief of about $1.6 billion. On average, it is about $88 per week. We did not insult people with a $10-a-week bribe, as the Australians tried to do. We did not insult them with something that would have been insignificant. No, the Australian tax cuts, in fact, gave $52 a week to someone on $100,000. With Working for Families, on the other hand, in order to help good, hard-working Kiwi families, this Government is giving to a family on $51,000, with one child, an extra $70 a week. If families have more children, they will get more money, often up to $150 a week. That is what we want to do.

The Tories say we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, yes, to some extent tax is taking from those people who can afford it and giving to those who cannot afford it. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having a country that has equality of opportunity, a fair justice system, and good infrastructure and roading—because that makes for a country where people want to live. That is why people want to live in New Zealand.