Guy Nathan: Budget Debate 
Guy Nathan: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3395] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I am privileged to follow on from Te Ururoa Flavell. I feel that in terms of the Budget Maori people have been robbed just like rural New Zealand. I was interested in his comments that 9000 Maori students are now going to struggle to fund their textbooks and tertiary fees— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What’s National going to deliver to them? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Do not worry about that. We will sort it out. Leave it to a National Government not a tired old Labour Government. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: You want to get rid of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Was the member’s name in the Sunday newspaper—getting ready for the drafting gate? 
Hon David Carter 
: He’s the greatest “leaker” they’ve got. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right—leaks like a sieve. 
We know that Budget 2006 will be the last one from Dr Cullen. I liken it to a “doughnut Budget” because the centrepiece fell out a couple of weeks ago. Then we saw the spectacular Cunliffe gaffe which caused the sale of $79 million of Telecom shares. I am concerned about what that announcement means for rural New Zealand—for people living up in the valleys and in the gullies of provincial New Zealand. I quote from a Cabinet paper although I am not sure whether it is the leaked one. 
Jo Goodhew 
: It might be. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It could well be. They fly around all over the place up on the ninth floor of the Beehive. 
I quote: “A risk—Telecom slows investment in rural areas”; and at another point: “Increased competition should create pressures in urban areas.” And hello hello: “Prices in rural areas may increase.” So let us wait and see whether rural New Zealand is going to be better off with the Budget and the telecommunications announcement. Right now the telecommunications service that rural New Zealand gets from Telecom is absolutely shocking. When people ring Telecom they are told they might come this week but more than likely next week. 
The Budget talks about economic transformation. Well people out in the provinces up in the valleys and in the gullies struggle to get dial-up access. So we will wait and see whether that announcement will actually benefit rural New Zealand—whether the copper wire network up in the valleys and in the gullies of provincial New Zealand will be maintained or will we be forgotten? 
The Budget is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter will always prop up Paul. We have heard a lot from members opposite about Labour’s package of welfare for families and how reliant those people will be on the State. It is a real concern to me that so many people are now dependent on the State at a time when we look to drive the productivity of this country forward. People who were earning a good income with a lot of children are now relying on the Government to prop them up. What about actually driving productivity in this country? The Government has a huge surplus—something like $9 billion. 
Hon David Carter 
: Something over $8 billion. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I thought $9 billion but when we get to those numbers what the hell does it matter! But we have an arrogant tired Government that thinks it knows what is best for hard-working taxpayers. It decides where the money goes. It does not care about tax reductions for people without kids. It thinks it knows best. It just whacks them around with high taxes. People earning over $60000 are paying 39 percent tax. We have called it the “Bondi Budget” because New Zealanders are getting on planes and heading across the Tasman to Australia—gone never to come back. 
The Budget is silent on several things. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Barker who was trying to interject that if I was him I would be up in Tukituki trying to look for those lost votes. The Budget is silent on some of the biggest issues facing the country. What about environment and energy? What about more hydro investment? The Budget is silent. What about the big issues that we face as a country going forward with our environment? What about actually doing something and planting some trees? It is interesting that tree plantings in the country have dropped from 70000 hectares down to 9 hectares. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: How many? 
NATHAN GUY 
: 70000 hectares down to 9. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Do you want the Government to do that? 
NATHAN GUY 
: There might be a few over on the West Coast still planting but that is what that member’s Government has done. It has been mucking around with a silly Kyoto Protocol with a carbon tax and it is now trying to take the credits from forestry owners. It is great to see Roger Dickie leading a pan-organisation that is trying to sort out all the disasters in forestry. He is at a stand-off with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. So nothing will happen there. But once again a real issue for rural New Zealand is the planting of more trees. The Budget talks about sustainability of those erosion-prone areas in rural New Zealand yet the whole industry is topsy-turvy as to whether it should plant trees. 
We also have real concerns about the walking access issue. I am looking forward to heading along tomorrow night to a consultation meeting on walking access. Last year it was land access—where the Government was wanting to grab a 5-metre wide strip from rural New Zealand farmers which was a blatant abuse of property rights to trundle through their properties to get down to a lake or a riverbed. We know that the Prime Minister’s pet project is the right to roam willy-nilly all over farmers’ properties. 
In our particular situation in the Horowhenua where we have 3 kilometres of formed tracks down to the Manawatu River what has worked well for three generations is that people pick up the phone they ring and they ask and we are able to tell them to look out for the 3-year-old bulls look out for the stags that are roaring down in the back paddock. That has worked well. A courtesy call has worked well—for decades in our situation. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s just good manners. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Exactly. I will be interested in going along to hear tomorrow night in Wellington the Government’s proposition about walking access and just what that will mean for farmers throughout New Zealand. 
I want to touch on local government because I am still on the council in Horowhenua. Every bit of legislation that comes through the House affects ratepayers but there is no cheque following through from the House to the ratepayers of New Zealand. Every bill tends to wallop ratepayers around their wallets. Look at the Building Act. People now need to have an inspector looking over their shoulder when they are doing a bit of DIY on their house. Look at the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. In terms of drinking water standards the crossbar has been raised on the goalpost. Now rural communities are going to have to fork out. Look at the whole auditing process around the glossy long-term council community plan. It was interesting before because I was hoping that Ms Mahuta might still be in the House as right now we have this jolly microchipping of dogs— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a convention of the House that members do not refer to the absence of members. All members at one time or another need to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have made a ruling on that Mr Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think there was any need whatsoever for that intervention by you. It was a small minor infraction and I think you need to take that on board. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Henare. I have made a decision. It is a convention in this House that the absence of members is not to be referred to. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During your ruling you were constantly being interjected on by the member who last spoke. He then went on—contrary to your exhortation—to challenge your ruling. That is a challenge against the Chair and it will bring disorder to this House. I think you should remind the member of that. 
Brian Connell 
: You have already ruled on this matter. I do not think it is necessary for that Minister to carry it on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I ask members to desist. 
NATHAN GUY 
: I was talking about microchipping and the implications of what it means for dog owners in this country which is $3 million to $7 million. This is a Government that has lost contact with New Zealand. 
The microchipping legislation that will come into effect on 1 July for every dog will cost between $70 and $100 per dog. It is now one rule for all dogs. National is saying we should get rid of this except for dangerous and menacing dogs. It is atrocious legislation. There are dog rallies happening throughout the country where urban and rural dog owners are saying that the Government should not wallop the good dog owners but target the owners of the dogs that are not registered. They are saying that the dog rangers should have more power as they are the people who are out there trying to do their work. The Government should give them more power. We all know that the bad menacing dogs are those that are not registered. Their owners are the ones who should be targeted not the good dog owners the responsible dog owners. 
To close I want to touch on a couple of things happening in my electorate in my patch. It is interesting to hear that $80 million has gone into Transmission Gully. Will it be another 5-year-long report where we will not see the bulldozers operating? It is also interesting to hear that it is costing $200000 a year to fund the two people who are spotting traffic in the T2 lane between Paremata and Plimmerton. 
Hon David Carter 
: How many tickets have they got? 
NATHAN GUY 
: There have been no tickets just a few warning letters sent out. To sum up this Budget is boring. It is Michael Cullen’s last Budget. It does nothing for rural provincial New Zealand.