Ardern Shane: Budget Debate 
Ardern Shane: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21089] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 On Thursday 19 May Dr Cullen came down to this House and presented his sixth and last Budget. We were all surprised including the Labour members. They sat there like stunned mullets. Dr Michael Cullen word has it is a very intelligent gentleman; I think I am being fair when I say tonight that everyone in New Zealand who has ever had anything to do with Michael Cullen would say that he is a man of some intelligence. Why then on 19 May when he had such a golden opportunity to present some real vision some leadership some real depth to New Zealand did he turn up with what can only be described as a damp squib—something that did not make it? [ 
Interruption 
] The member for Whanganui may bay over there but she would be wise to take note of what is happening in Whanganui with Chester Borrows out there tapping on the door. She has not long to stay in this Parliament. 
So what did we get out of the Budget? What came out of it? Well hard-working New Zealanders can expect 67c worth of tax cuts in 2008. I am sure they are very grateful to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for that but the reality is that most New Zealanders are not and they can see straight through what has happened here. The reality is that Dr Michael Cullen underestimated the wisdom of New Zealanders. He thought that a whole lot of flimflam and spin and promotional material—I believe that $21 million has been budgeted to promote the Working for Families package and various other bits of ninth floor propaganda—would be enough to carry his Budget forward and that New Zealanders would sit up and take notice. They sat up and took notice all right. In fact they listened with great interest to the president of the Labour Party when he said that the Budget would contain some deep dark secrets. Well it certainly did. It had secrets so deep and so dark that nobody has yet been able to understand or find exactly what they are. 
So what have we had from the Michael Cullen Budget? We have a health system that is in decline and is failing. There has been $3 billion of extra spending over the 6 years of the Labour Government but fewer surgical procedures at the end of the period. We have an education system that is in total disarray. Mark my words—if Labour is ever allowed to get back on the Treasury benches which seems very unlikely the rural school closure programme will be back on the agenda and 300 rural schools that were earmarked for closure will be on that agenda. There are 300 schools in total that are earmarked to close. 
Rest homes all over the country are closing because they cannot meet their commitments. Elderly people who have put their faith in Dr Michael Cullen Helen Clark and the Labour Government are very concerned about what their future may be and what is going to happen post the closure of their rural rest homes or care facilities. 
The No. 1 earner for the economy agriculture got nothing. Even the member for Whanganui knows that agriculture is important for New Zealand but agriculture got nothing. It got zero not a brass razoo not even a mention. There was not a single cent for agriculture in Dr Cullen’s sixth Budget. 
We talk with great passion about science and research and I know that there were some discussions in the House today about that. How much of that extra spending that is going into science is going to AgResearch? I see the member for Hamilton West nodding and acknowledging that it is clearly not enough. One of the major science research units in New Zealand is in her electorate. The reality is that very little was set aside for any of that. 
Let us look at what has happened in my own portfolio area biosecurity. We had the recent foot-and-mouth scare on Waiheke Island which should have been a wake-up call for all New Zealanders. Had that scare become a reality it could have plunged New Zealand into Third World status. In fact Treasury has forecast that $12 billion would be slashed off our GDP in the first 3 years after a foot-and-mouth outbreak. So what did we get out of the Budget in that regard? Not much. We are looking at a potential foot-and-mouth outbreak that the Government was involved in—so what did we get in regard to that? Not much. Nothing. 
What we have is 337 people daily bringing biosecurity risk products into this country. We have 196 biosecurity risk containers entering our ports every day. What does that say? It says clearly that the $200 instant fine we currently have is not working. Here was a potential for Dr Cullen to add to his fiscal surplus of $7 billion or find another way of raising some money to invest in biosecurity. We had 19.9 tonnes of fruit fly material imported into New Zealand last year on the person; 9.3 tonnes of meat and poultry products imported into New Zealand last year on the person; 3 tonnes of seeds; 2.7 tonnes of dairy products; and 5829 plant items. How do we know that? We know that because the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity intercepted and found that. One could say well they are doing a great job. But the reality is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s own audit says that at best it is catching 90 percent. 
We are very exposed and Dr Cullen with his $7 billion surplus and Helen Clark with her opportunity like no other Prime Minister has ever had could have addressed that in this Budget and they totally failed to acknowledge the importance of that issue. There has been a little bit of rats and mice here and there and as I said it could have been a cure. 
There is also the question of vehicle checks. Vehicles come into this country from all around the world but mainly from Japan where clearly the biosecurity risk is high and the check process is inadequate. Why was that not addressed? The painted apple moth has so far cost $52794000. One would think based on the amount the Government invested in trying to eradicate the painted apple moth—and it finally had some success—with a $7 billion surplus it would have invested more upfront in biosecurity on surveillance and trying to prevent those incursions coming across our border. So far $10 million dollars has been spent in relation to the varroa bee mite and another $750 million will be budgeted annually to try to stop it from travelling to the South Island. 
With regard to the saltmarsh mosquito $36 million has been spent so far. It is not rocket science to suggest that if the Government spent a little bit more upfront and stopped some of those incursions potentially it would have a fiscal advantage not a disadvantage. 
The Minister over there is waving her pen. I am sure she will take a call to explain that there was some money in the Budget. However I can tell the Minister that it clearly is not working and it clearly is not enough. The Government currently spends—wait for this big figure—$62 million a year on containment or attempted eradication. Another $4 million $5 million or $10 million—I do not have the figures to say how much would have been necessary in the Budget—could have enhanced that substantially. 
I know that the Minister over there has a strong view on this. I suggest that she as the Associate Minister for Biosecurity should take a call to tell the House why she and Minister Jim Sutton failed to recognise the importance of this issue particularly in the light of the recent foot-and-mouth scare on Waiheke Island. Why did they not put some real horsepower into this issue which is concerning a huge amount of New Zealanders? [ 
Interruption 
] I welcome the Minister’s interjection. I do not know whether any of it is comprehensive. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Tax cuts equal biosecurity cuts. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I have just explained to the Minister how better biosecurity could be achieved which would be by investing in better surveillance. 
We come back to Dr Michael Cullen’s Budget which will be his last one. As I said most people would say that he is an intelligent gent. Why then has he failed so miserably in this Budget? The only thing I can put it down to is that he has finally been worn down by the socialists around him and the Prime Minister who told him that focus group work and poll work shows that the people should have a tax cut and the tax cut will be 67c in 3 years—2008. Well done Dr Michael Cullen!