Carter David: Budget Debate 
Carter David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13596] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 That speech by the Labour member Taito Phillip Field was symptomatic of the problems the Labour Party now faces. The speech was completely without vision was full of rhetoric and slogan and had no substance or vision. 
Dianne Yates 
: Where’s your vision? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I shall give that member a few thoughts on my vision shortly. 
The 2004 Budget will go down as the biggest bribe that has been presented to this Parliament. Even the Government itself was not prepared to put its new provisions before a select committee so that the committee could examine the Government’s Working for Families package. Immediately after the presentation of the Budget the Minister of Finance slammed the House into urgency and we spent the next 2 days debating measures that will not come into effect until 2007. That shows that the Government was not prepared to allow a select committee to scrutinise the package. But I think that New Zealanders are not fooled by the Budget which clearly states: “Vote for Labour and Labour will deliver some money to you over the next 3 or 4 years.” I note that the member Miss Mackey is nodding her head in agreement with that. But if members follow what has happened in the polls since the presentation of the Budget they will find that the voters of New Zealand are far sharper than the members sitting on that Government side of the fence. New Zealanders have already completely rejected this Budget as a cynical bribe to spend New Zealand taxpayers’ money. 
It takes very little skill by a Minister of Finance to achieve record Budget surpluses if that very Minister of Finance is just going to continue to lump tax increase after tax increase on to New Zealanders. We have had 23 new tax increases since that Government came into power. I do not include the “fart tax” that the Labour Party in embarrassment had to back down on. The average household in New Zealand now pays $2600 more in tax each year than it paid before the Labour Government came into power. 
As the Government splashes that money around on its Working for Families scheme I congratulate my colleague John Key on his excellent research. He compared two single-income families each with two children. One family is earning $60000 a year and the other family $38000. For the benefit of Chris Carter because he is not good at maths that means the first family has $22000 more in gross income. But I ask Mr Carter what happens when tax is taken off the family earning $60000 and benefits are added to the family earning $38000? Surprise surprise—the family earning $60000 is a paltry $2000 better off each year. What incentive is there for anybody to try to get out of the welfare trap and stop being dependent on a Government welfare system? It is just outrageous! I suspect that those Government members who are continuing to jab and interject did not even understand the effect of the Budget package when they voted for it before the adjournment. 
I am pleased to say that the Budget has already been rejected by New Zealanders. Yet we found out in the House today that the Government is to spend $21 million of taxpayers’ money to try to sell this Budget to New Zealanders. That is totally unacceptable but what worries me most as Labour members go around the country using that $21 million of taxpayer money to sell the Budget is whether they will be telling the truth about the Budget. I became concerned today when I looked back at press releases put out by the Hon Jim Sutton the Minister of Agriculture— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: An excellent Minister. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well he stated in his press release “In 2001 we”—meaning the Labour Party—“introduced a $200 instant fine for biosecurity breaches at airports—something previous Governments had been too scared to do.” 
I tell Mr Carter that that is absolutely incorrect. That legislation was introduced by the National Party in 1999. It was not initiated until 2001 because the hapless Marian Hobbs who was the Minister for Biosecurity at the time forgot to apply for the Budget allocation and the legislation sat on the statute book unused because of her incompetence. Yet Jim Sutton had the audacity to suggest that a previous Government was too scared to move on that issue. 
I now move to the next rather strange message delivered in the House today again by the Hon Jim Sutton. A patsy question was asked by David Parker— 
Hon Member 
: He’s gone. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh the “previous” member for Otago—on what reports had been received analysing recent Budget allocations in biosecurity. The Minister of Agriculture replied that the rural media analysed the Budget extensively. Even the  
Rural News 
 had commented that the Budget was good. Well I went back to my office and got hold of copies of the  
Farmers Weekly 
 and the  
Rural News 
. The front page of the  
Farmers Weekly 
 states: “Bad for ag” and has a photograph of the Minister of Finance. It is slating the Government and stating that there is nothing in the Budget for agriculture. When we move on to page 4 we see: “Family Budget means little for agriculture”. 
Dianne Yates 
: Where’s your vision? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I tell the member who wants some vision that the  
Farmers Weekly 
 goes on further to state: “Peanuts for agriculture”. How can the Minister of Agriculture come into the House and for even a minute try to suggest that the rural papers have been kind to the Government and have given it a tick of approval? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What about the  
Rural News 
? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The only comment I can find in the  
Rural News  
that states something good about the Budget was written by one Hon Jim Sutton the Minister of Agriculture. But I need to tell the House about the editorial. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Look at that! Great headline. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh I had forgotten that one. It states: “Thanks for nothing Cullen.” And I ask members about this headline for the editorial: “Why are we waiting?”. That editorial is all about the issue of public access an issue Jim Sutton is sitting on. Huge reports were gathered last year. He promised to deliver a policy on public access to the House by 31 March and farmers all around the country are waiting with bated breath for the silent Minister Sutton to come forward with his policy. 
There was an opportunity for this Budget to be good for farming because farmers are worried about the cost structure they operate under. We as farmers in New Zealand have to compete particularly with farmers in Australia and farmers in Australia now have an easier and substantially lesser cost structure under which to operate. If the Government is to continue to pile tax after tax on to New Zealand farmers then it will not see the growth rates we have seen over the last 4 years. I say that those growth rates have been because of agriculture. Agriculture has been kind to this Government and there has been growth in the economy because farmers have done well. 
But members of this Government and particularly Mr Sutton as the Minister of Agriculture threaten the very existence of the whole of the New Zealand economy unless they wake up and listen to the concerns of New Zealand farmers. Their concerns can be summarised to this extent: they are grossly overtaxed and the cost-compliance regime imposed by the Labour Government is far too oppressive.