Heatley Phil: Budget Debate 
Heatley Phil: Budget Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19098] 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 It is true that the National Party as Lianne Dalziel refers to is reverting to type. That is true. We are reverting to type: we are managing the economy well. That is what National does. If you wandered up and down Queen Street—or more famously Cameron Street in Whangarei—and you talked to Green Party voters— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Lindsay Tisch the Deputy Speaker could talk to Green Party voters Labour Party voters or National Party voters and say: “On balance we appreciate that you do not necessarily vote for the National Party. On looking at the polls you probably do at the moment but no matter if you don’t.” I am using the collective “you” Mr Deputy Speaker so it is not so much referring to you. We could be speaking to a person; we will call him Thomas to make it easier. We appreciate that Thomas would not necessarily vote for the National Party but he probably does looking at the polls at the moment. Even if he did not vote for the National Party we could ask him which party he thought managed the economy well. We would find that most people would come back and say National. On balance National is a better economic manager. 
It is the same if we said to Thomas that we appreciated he might not be a Labour voter a National voter or a Green Party voter but if he had to say what party was involved in social engineering—was really really good at social engineering—what party would it be? Most people would say that the Labour Party was better at social engineering and the National Party was better at managing the economy. So yes we have returned to type. 
We can see quite clearly at the moment that we have a Budget that says we are now going to return the country to surplus in about 2014-15 which is a year sooner than was forecast even last December. In fact 2 or 3 years ago the country would not have believed that we would be able to return the country’s books to surplus so much sooner let alone by the year 2014-15. 
Basically New Zealanders are out there with all sorts of voting preferences and they understand two things. Firstly the Nats manage the economy better on balance and always have. We agree with Lianne Dalziel that National has returned to type and is managing the economy better. Secondly—it is a huge surprise and I guess the country is filled with a bit of hope on seeing it—we will return the books to surplus in 2014-15. 
There has also been heartfelt concern for the people of Canterbury. People are very very pleased to see the Budget deliver $5.5 billion in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Fund over the period of the next few years. Most New Zealanders support that. They understand the need for it and they think the National Government has got it about right. Those are the two messages the broad messages that this Government has sent and that the general public has received regardless of voting preferences: National is managing the economy well and we are supporting Christchurch. 
I will spend some time on one issue that the member Clayton Cosgrove talked about: his mocking receipt of the news that we are keeping mortgage interest rates currently at about 5.5 percent. He said: “Big deal!” and was very very proud to say that when Labour was in Government it was able to manage mortgage interest rates at about 8 9 or 10 percent. He felt that that did not affect households. But I say to Labour members that the best thing we can do for a first-home buyer for a family paying off a mortgage or for those coming up to retirement who would love to see their mortgage written off is to keep interest rates under control. We currently have a Government that is managing the economy such that mortgage interest rates are about 5 or 6 percent. When in Government Labour managed an economy in which mortgage rates were 9 or 10 percent. 
If we quickly do the maths we see that it shows the difference between Labour managing an economy with interest rates at 10 percent and us managing an economy with interest rates at 5 or 6 percent. The final difference is about 5 percent in mortgage interest rates. If families have a mortgage of about $200000 that difference of about 5 percent means they are looking at not having to pay $10000 interest a year under the National Government. That is about $200 a week. We are saying that under John Key the management of the economy is saving people roughly $10000 a year or $200 a week but the Labour Party thinks that does not matter. The Labour Party thinks $200 a week does not matter. I would like to see the Labour policy to write a cheque of $10000 to every householder with a $200000 mortgage. I do not see that policy. I see John Key managing an economy in a way that saves every $200000 mortgage-holder $10000 a year. That should be celebrated; it is the best thing we can do for a first-home buyer. 
It was appropriate that through its Budgets the Government ran larger deficits over the last few years to protect New Zealanders and to support jobs during the recession. If ACT had been in charge we might have seen some slash and burn and we would have seen the most vulnerable families come under pressure. If Labour had been in charge we would have seen cash flying here there and everywhere: cash for this cash for that and cash for every rinky-dink scheme it could possibly think of. But National has run that very fine line of not being too hard on those welfare recipients during the recession but also understanding that we cannot throw cash at everything. 
This is the election dilemma for the Labour Party: it is going into an election where it cannot use cash for votes. No one will expect the normal routine of the Labour Party and Phil Goff of a lolly scramble. No New Zealander—not a Green voter or even a Labour voter—will believe that Phil Goff can just write out cheques for every idea that comes through the post or to his door. He cannot throw cash at this that and every rinky-dink scheme like he normally would because no one accepts under the current environment that that is possible. 
That is why I agree with Lianne Dalziel: the National Party is returning to type. We are managing the economy well. The Labour Party is in a difficult dilemma because it cannot return to type. It cannot promise this election to throw cash at every problem because no one will believe it. It cannot return to type because it cannot promise the way it normally would and has in every previous election. I must say that managing the country through this recession has been difficult but it is nothing like the difficult job that the Labour Party has this election when it will not have New Zealand’s hard-earned dollar to spend on votes. I feel sorry for it.