Dyson Ruth: Budget Debate 
Dyson Ruth: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4155] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The rumours circulating around Wellington that Paul Quinn has been giving Cabinet Ministers elocution lessons are clearly confirmed by the contribution from that member Kate Wilkinson. The pressure is showing even on that member who is very well regarded in this House as being a timid little mouse. She very rarely makes a contribution and when she does it is as brief as possible before she resumes her seat and nearly crawls under it so we cannot see her. But today she did the best imitation of Paul Quinn that I hope this House ever has to endure. 
The expectations of New Zealanders for the Budget were not very high because both John Key and Bill English had spent a lot of time talking it down. But one thing New Zealanders have a right to expect from their Government regardless of which party is leading it is the truth. New Zealanders were very badly let down by the deception in this Budget. It was a planned knowing deception of New Zealanders over something that was quite fundamental in the election campaign not just last time but the time before. That deception was about tax cuts. 
Paul Quinn 
: Who hid the figures? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was not just a deception by the person who is contributing as usual far too loudly from someone’s else seat despite the Standing Orders despite being reminded about that constantly and despite his whip sitting there knowing that his members are breaching the Standing Orders. It was not just the Government backbench who deceived the members of the New Zealand public; it was John Key himself in his personal commitments. I have a copy of them here: “John Key National Party Leader”—choose a blighted future—“Party Vote National”. They state that National will: “… Strengthen the economy increase after-tax incomes and ensure Kiwis can get ahead under their own steam by reducing personal taxes on 1 April 2009 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011.” That was a personal guarantee by John Key leader of the National Party in Opposition and in Government he passed that legislation under urgency prior to Christmas in the full knowledge that that promise would be broken. 
That is one of the most disappointing things. New Zealanders have a right to expect the truth from their Government and they got a planned deception a planned bribe and an absolute broken promise. But there is another thing that I find very sad. In today’s answers from the Minister of Education during question time she gave us one of the saddest performances I have had to witness in my time in this House. Anne Tolley referred to literacy courses and domestic violence courses as hobbies. Since when has domestic violence been a hobby in New Zealand? Since when have good community organisations that are trying to support families to stop violence been referred to as running low-value hobby courses? Well the answer was given today and confirmed in the House by the so-called Minister of Education. Today is a day of shame for this Parliament. It is a day of shame for New Zealand when we have a Minister referring not just to good community organisations but to a blight on our society—the issue of domestic violence—as a hobby. 
New Zealanders expected from this Budget a vision and an action plan for the delivery of jobs—for creating jobs and supporting people to be able to stay in their jobs. What did we see? Exactly the opposite: not just no plan but job cuts led by the Government in the Public Service. That was another broken promise by National about it supporting front-line workers as we knew there would be which New Zealanders can now see coming into effect. In fact just the day after the Budget Air New Zealand—close colleagues of and advisers to the Prime Minister—said it would cut 80 jobs because of a lack of support from the Government in this critical area. 
In the area of health we heard big trumpeting by the Minister of Health that the $750 million increase which was already promised by Labour was going to be confirmed by the National Government. But what we saw was not an investment in Vote Health where direct health services could be funded but $100 million over 4 years or $25 million per year going into the new home insulation fund. That is a very good fund. The more warm dry houses we have in New Zealand the better but they should not come at the cost of health services. Throughout the country—for example the district health boards in Otago in Southland South Canterbury Canterbury Capital and Coast Wanganui and Tairawhiti—we see on the public record planned cuts to existing health services so that the health system can put the money into the home insulation package which the Government is now trumpeting as a great new initiative. When Tony Ryall visits rural Southland Invercargill Dunedin and South Canterbury how will he be able to say to the older people there that he has personally signed off an increase in the threshold that will allow “Mr Older Person in South Canterbury” to get into a rest home? 
By the way what has also been signed off by the Minister of Health is a cut in the eligibility for home support services. Older people in their homes who need a little bit of support to stay there safely will not get it and if they need to get into a rest home they will find that the threshold is higher. Those are the cuts that have been signed off by the Minister of Health and are now being implemented by the district health boards. 
Those are not the issues that are being communicated to the public by the Minister. He is hiding behind smoke and mirrors but older people in our community know that what he says is not true. Older people in our community know that the promises made to them about their superannuation are not true either. The member who just resumed her seat talked about the Superannuation Fund as if it was not an investment in superannuation payments in the future. That is the point of the Superannuation Fund because we know there will be a huge increase in the percentage of New Zealanders who are entitled to get superannuation at the age of 65 over the next few years. It is a huge increase as a percentage. 
Jo Goodhew 
: When are we going to draw down on that fund? Go on be honest. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Even Mrs Goodhew would be able to work this out: if a higher percentage of people over 65 are on superannuation then a smaller percentage of people under 65 are paying taxes to fund the superannuation. Unless we have some money put aside to contribute to future superannuation investment something has to go. Will the National Government pledge to cut the health budget? Will it pledge to cut the education budget? Will it pledge—heaven forbid—to halt the cycleway which is the major investment in New Zealand infrastructure or will it be honest with the public of New Zealand and say that unless we have some saving now for future contribution to New Zealand superannuation it will not be affordable at 65 at the average income for a married couple or 66 percent of the average wage? 
The National Government needs to front up to that debate because that is what New Zealanders are asking. How will we be able to afford New Zealand superannuation at the current age and at the current rate if we do not have any pre-funding? The other question that New Zealanders are asking is if it is good enough to defer superannuation contributions if it is good enough to put the most vulnerable people at risk in terms of their financial security—people over 65 who are entirely dependent on superannuation—why was it not good enough to defer the huge amount of money that went into the top 3 percent of New Zealand income earners by way of tax cuts? If it is good enough to punish the most vulnerable—50 percent of those over 65 who are entirely dependent on New Zealand superannuation—why are the wealthiest in New Zealand not subject to those new regimes? I agree with Annette King: this Budget gets a D for deception. The National Party will pay the price.