Connell Brian: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Connell Brian: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13815] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the call on the supplementary estimates debate. I was not sure what I would talk about when I came down to the House today but after listening to that drivel from the last speaker I decided I had to deal with the Budget and put the record straight. 
Let me start by saying that if Michael Cullen is sitting in his office listening to this debate he must be tearing his hair out. This was going to be the Budget that would be the saviour the bribe to end all bribes the circuit-breaker that would put the Labour Party back in front. This was going to be the Budget that would put dim-witted Ministers like Trevor Mallard back in office. 
I mention Mr Mallard because I heard him refer in the House to one of my colleagues as being stupid. I think that showed great audacity coming from a member who is regarded as being so dense that light bends around him. He is the member who set about closing all the schools around rural and provincial New Zealand and only when he had done great harm to his own party did the Prime Minister drag him into her office kick him from wall to wall and say: “Mr Mallard if you don’t stop this then I am going to.” That 20-watt light bulb that he calls a brain showed a dim glow of recognition in his eyes and he was told to go out and announce a moratorium. But what was worse was when the Prime Minister made Mr Mallard say that she looked down the barrel of a camera— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That member knows he has to say members’ names correctly. Mispronunciation of members’ names is unacceptable in this House. That is the third occasion on which that member has deliberately mispronounced Mr Mallard’s name and I ask you to direct him to pronounce it correctly. It is a cheap and undignified shot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I suggest that perhaps the member on my left look at Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8 and come to order. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Certainly. Thank you for your guidance. It is amazing though is it not how that member’s colleague can take cheap shots and accuse people of being stupid but when I give his colleague’s name a little bit of emphasis that member gets on his feet. He can give it but he cannot take it which is typical of the Labour Government— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member on his feet cannot refer to that; he must get on with the debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I was saying that the Prime Minister looked down the barrel of the camera and said—despite the school network closure programme being in every daily newspaper for months and being the lead item on television for 6 days out of 7—“My Cabinet and I didn’t know about it.” Well that is stretching the truth is it not? It is so perverted that she is a woman who could not lie straight in a coffin. Michael Cullen has fallen flat on his face— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a well-known Standing Order in this House and convention that people are not accused of certain things and that members do not use mechanisms to achieve that. That is what the member has done. He has accused the Prime Minister of telling a lie. That is the very essence of it. Without saying those words he has used a mechanism to subvert the Standing Order and I ask you to draw him to order. 
John Carter 
: If every statement that was made in this House were to have an interpretation put on it then I have to say that from the time we start at 2 o’clock until the time we finish at 10 o’clock there would be inferences and references that would lead one to draw the conclusion that members were accusing others of lying. It is well known in this House that members are not allowed to accuse anyone of lying but I have sat here for many hours as has that Minister and I know that he has made comments that were very similar if not the same in the same vein about other members. If we are getting to the stage where statements such as “can’t lie straight in a coffin” are excluded from our speeches then I am afraid that speeches in this House will be narrowed down to something that is hardly worth listening to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The member was skating on thin ice and I was considering Standing Order 116 which is about personal reflections. He was not quite there but I think the member should come to the point continue with the debate and come to order. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you for your guidance. Michael Cullen has fallen flat on his face. He has committed $4 billion of taxpayers’ money over a 3-year period to the pursuit of cheap votes and it has been soundly rejected by mainstream New Zealand. The message back to Dr Cullen has been: “Naff off. We do not believe you any more. You can’t buy our vote—we’re not going to put up with it.” Do members know why it has been rejected? It has been rejected because Dr Cullen and his colleagues are so out of touch with mainstream New Zealand that they forgot about the most basic Kiwi test of all: the test of fairness. When there are 1.5 million families in this country and the Government gives all the Budget funding to 300000 families people look at each other and say: “Well that’s not fair.” When four out five families do not get one red cent out of this Budget Kiwis look at each other and say: “That’s not fair.” When the very people who are the productive sector of this country—the very people who put this $6 billion surplus together—do not get one red cent out of it they also will reject it. So that has been the message for Michael Cullen and his cohorts. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: It’s a good number of hip replacements. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister is yelling out. I would engage in a battle of wits with her but I will not attack an unarmed person. 
What message do we have when there is a $6 billion surplus? It is simply that we are being taxed too much. This Budget tells me that this Government has no vision or aspiration for fellow Kiwis. What it has done is take the cheap option. It will try to buy votes instead of reducing tax and doing something about removing the impediments to growth. We have missed a huge opportunity to improve growth. Those members opposite know it. They just do not have the decency or the honesty to look themselves in the mirror and admit it. We have missed a huge opportunity for growth. We have had the best conditions for growth in decades—the three stars of low interest rates high commodity prices and a low dollar have been aligned—but the best we can achieve is 4 percent growth. Those members pat themselves on the back and say we achieved it in one year 2003 but now Treasury is forecasting 2.2 percent growth. Those members have no aspiration and no vision. 
If we take a hiding on the rugby field from the Australians we have a year of mourning to look into it yet we have been so conditioned that if we are beaten to the tune of $200 a week by the average Australian worker we think that is our lot. I have a better vision than that for this country. Not only could we have reduced taxation but we could have removed the impediments to growth. The Resource Management Act the occupational safety and health legislation the Holidays Act and the draconian employment law that is coming down the line are just impediments to growth. They are stifling growth. [ 
Interruption 
] At least I am getting a response from members opposite. It is the first time they have woken up today. They are so dumb that they would not recognise an economic spur if they saw one. 
What has this Budget done for water infrastructure on the east coast of the South Island? It is silent on that. That is an indictment on those members opposite. Providing infrastructure for South Island water would put billions of dollar into the local economy. That is aspiration. That is how one grows an economy. What has the Budget said about forestry? The only thing it has said is that the Government would steal people’s carbon credits and do absolutely nothing else for them. 
What this Government has done is take the cheap option of welfare dependency. In this country the working-age population on welfare is bigger than the population of the city of Christchurch. Our welfare population has grown twelvefold in the last 30 years while our population has not even doubled. We are spending $20.5 million a day on welfare dependency and nothing on growth. [ 
Interruption 
] That Associate Minister of Finance does not have a clue what he is doing other than yelling out drivel. Worse is the fact that the welfare dependency cycle is just keeping people impoverished. The correlation between those on welfare and high representation in crime and health statistics and low representation in education is there for all to see. Because of that mismanagement the country is heading to Third World status—unless we have a National-led Government in the next term. That is how acute the situation is. 
What has the Budget done for policing? The Minister of Police George Hawkins appeared before the Law and Order Committee the other day. The Southern Communications Centre is under stress. It is understaffed and 111 calls are not being picked up. When I spoke to the Minister about it he said: “Oh we’re budgeting for more staff.” When I asked him how many he said: “Oh we haven’t thought of that yet.” 
This Budget is a disaster and it is a reflection on that Government.