Cunliffe David: Budget Debate 
Cunliffe David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16546] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 For the last 9 years each year has been better than the one before it. The average income has increased by nearly 25 percent unemployment is at a historic low and 1000 new jobs every week have been created under this Government. But in a world beset with cold international headwinds New Zealand families need even more than that. They need hope that their tomorrows are going to be better than their yesterdays. Under this Government they can have that hope. But there are headwinds blowing and that is the context for this Budget. There are the headwinds of a global credit crunch and the headwinds of a sharp increase in world oil prices. There is also the pinch at the supermarket checkout when we tally up the weekly food bill. 
To use a football analogy those are the breezes into which the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has kicked the goal from our 10-yard line right between the posts. But this time there are four posts not just two. In respect of the first post we have maintained the debt anchor at 20 percent or thereabouts thereby keeping low the cost of interest and the burden on future generations. Secondly we have been successful in delivering historic tax cuts—$10.4 billion over 4 years which is $40 a week for an average Kiwi family with kids or $70 a week by the time the cuts fully come through. These tax cuts are socially progressive. They do not reinforce inequality and they are good for all New Zealanders. 
The third goal post is dedicated to maintaining and expanding social services like health and education and that has been done at the same time as we have delivered tax remission. The fourth goal post is economic growth. We have invested heavily in infrastructure by buying back the railways for the sake of an energy-efficient transport future and we are investing rapidly in fast broadband—about as fast as capacity will allow us to go. The Government’s broadband initiative is a model of good design and it is appropriately funded so that we will have maximum capacity going into the ground or through the airwaves over the next 5 years. That initiative stands in sharp contrast to National’s plan which is wasteful and poorly targeted. A capital tender with only one potential bidder will surely reinforce the dominance of the incumbent as a vertically integrated provider. As in previous years National is very slow to learn the lessons of history. 
Health services receive a further three-quarters of a billion dollars of new money every year for the life of this Budget. That funding will strengthen our trust in health services and will provide future funding for district health boards at a rate faster than that of inflation and that of population growth. The funding actions an agenda for equality with nearly $172 million being provided over 5 years to strengthen district health board collaboration and it puts in place new measures to underpin patient safety. It invests in wellness and public health including $52 million over 4 years to fight obesity—surely one of our most serious social challenges. It invests in the early years in youth potential with the human papilloma virus vaccinations and a new programme of oral health services for young people. 
The Budget is full of good and positive reasons why the public can have confidence that under a Labour-led Government their tomorrows will be better than their yesterdays. I feel bound to share with this House the three reasons why anyone looking at this Budget ought not to vote for John Key. The ill winds of the credit crunch have been caused by financial fiddlers just like he has been—people who rig cheap debt to bring down the whole house of cards. That is what he was up to in his career before he came into Parliament. Why would one vote for a guy whose stock in trade was making problems worse? 
The energy crunch has been caused by the war in Iraq and the failure to properly plan for an energy-efficient future. Again I turn to the National Party. National is led by a man who once supported the war in Iraq then changed his mind then could not remember then denied he had ever done it and now he does not know where he stands. He thought climate change was a hoax then he wanted to be carbon neutral and now he has changed his mind again. He is a man who is an inconsistent short-term position taker. He is devoid of direction devoid of strategy and devoid of hope.