Burns Brendon: Budget Debate 
Burns Brendon: Budget Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19126] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I now understand why Trevor Mallard unusually invites his opponent to public meetings when he calls them. When we hear Paul Quinn equating democratic socialism with Stalin it suggests that I should start talking about 1930s Fascism and equating that to National which of course is a nonsense. 
I will start my speech on the Appropriation (2011/12 Estimates) Bill tonight by acknowledging that Budget 2011 includes $5.5 billion for the rebuild of my city of Christchurch. I acknowledge that. It is 60 percent of the public cost of the infrastructure rebuild of my city. I think any Government would have done that but it is important to acknowledge it because nowhere will more of that money be spent than in my electorate of Christchurch Central. Recently with other MPs I had a tour of the central business district’s inner core the red zone which I had not personally been into for some weeks. It reminded me somewhat of the set of a science fiction movie. There was a very eerie feeling in that city centre where a thousand buildings are to be demolished. There was no noise taking place. We had a reminder only yesterday morning at about 8.30 that we are not yet out of the woods in respect of aftershocks continuing in Christchurch. 
The defining piece of the Budget for me and for Labour is the assertion that the Government wants to go down the track of selling 49 percent of State assets Meridian Energy Genesis Energy Mighty River Power Solid Energy and Air New Zealand. I put on record my opposition to those sales and say that in the late 1990s Telecom was sold by the Government for the sum of $4.5 billion. It accrued $14.5 billion in dividends and payments back to the owners in the period before it came back on to the sharemarket and in part back into New Zealand ownership. That is a fundamental indication of the folly of selling State assets. When they are making returns to the taxpayer in the hundreds of millions of dollars per annum there is absolutely no logic in selling them other than some sort of market-driven ideology that says that is sound policy. 
I acknowledge that the National MP from Christchurch Aaron Gilmore is in the House tonight. I raise again in this House this question. I ask any member opposite to take a call at some point to deny the proposition that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act includes a provision that allows the sale—the forced sale if need be—of Christchurch City Council assets and those of the two other territorial authorities affected by the Canterbury quakes the Selwyn District Council which owns substantial forestry assets and the Waimakariri District Council. 
I asked the Parliamentary Library to write me an analysis of what contribution one of those Christchurch City Council assets has made to the ratepayers of Christchurch. That asset is the Orion power network which services most of Canterbury. Since 1993 the Orion network has returned back to its majority shareholders—the Christchurch City Council which owns 89.3 percent of it—some $875 million in dividends and other payments. In other words it has returned nearly $1 million a week to the ratepayers of Christchurch—nearly $1 million a week. 
I ask members opposite to stand up and tell my constituents there is no prospect of those assets being sold or part-sold by a new term National-ACT Government because I think that is the agenda. The reason I think it is the agenda is that it is there in Budget 2011 which outlines the philosophy that it is absolutely acceptable to sell State assets. That rationale is laid out in National’s Budget. If reducing debt is an appropriate rationale for the sale of State assets then again I ask Aaron Gilmore who is sitting opposite to take a call and deny that there is any prospect—any prospect—of Christchurch City Council assets being sold including Orion the majority stake in the port company the majority stake in the airport company Enable Network broadband the Red Bus company and others. What is the position? I think the people of Christchurch deserve to know explicitly because I think the exact scenario is that there will be nothing before 26 November on this front but that after that there will be a cough and a splutter and an announcement that we have to sell off Christchurch’s assets to fund the debt that has been generated. 
I acknowledged at the start of this speech that the Government has taken on responsibility for funding 60 percent of the rebuild of the infrastructure in Christchurch. I acknowledged that. That is a responsible position. I acknowledged the Government for taking account of the need to rebuild the infrastructure of Christchurch and for meeting 60 percent of the costs. But I want to know on behalf of the people I represent whether the agenda is that that cost will at least in part be funded by the sale of our assets. We stood against the tide in the 1990s when other councils sold off their assets. We were the “People’s Republic of Christchurch” and proudly so. Across the political divide in Christchurch people want to keep those assets because they know the contribution those assets have made. I have given one indication of that contribution—nearly $1 million a week from Orion. The very facility that was being used by civil defence and for a short time the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to start the recovery process was the Christchurch City Art Gallery. A lot of that funding came out of assets such as Orion. I would like Aaron Gilmore to take a call and give us an assertion an assurance that this is not in prospect in a re-elected National Government because I think it is on the agenda. I wanted evidence of that and it is there in black and white in Budget 2011 with the outline of why this Government believes asset sales are appropriate to reduce debt. 
I will talk for a moment about the comments made by John Whitehead the outgoing Secretary to the Treasury on  
Q+A 
 the Sunday before last. I thought Guyon Espiner gave him a good grilling on the jobs forecasts. In the Budget 170000 jobs are forecast and 4 percent per annum growth is forecast for the year after next. The comment back from John Whitehead was that Treasury’s record for such predictions was second-to-none. I asked the Parliamentary Library to analyse that record. The Parliamentary Library tells me that Treasury’s growth forecasts have been wrong for 28 of the last 30 quarters. In the  
Q+A 
 interview John Whitehead also confirmed that Treasury supported Michael Cullen in building the surpluses that were built through the time of the last Labour Government rather than giving tax cuts because as he said they stood this country in good stead for the economic downturn that followed. So much for National’s rhetoric about Labour’s economic management. Then he talked about Treasury’s concern about the growing inequality in New Zealand. Well I have to say we are lagging at 26 out of 30 in the OECD. We have to ask what is in this Budget to address that inequality. What is in there? Will people be made better by asset sales? Will they be made better by KiwiSaver cuts? 
Will they be made better by the cuts in training? I am astounded and appalled that in a Budget that supposedly says we need to build skills is a $90 million cut from training. I went with Phil Goff to the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology trades training campus a couple of weeks back. The Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology is gearing up to build its trades training facility there but the point is that we will see about a thousand extra trade trainees in Christchurch and they are also going to be affected by that $90 million cut. We need tens of thousands more jobs in Christchurch. Currently the household labour force survey estimate of unemployment in Canterbury is that 10500 people aged 15 to 24 are unemployed. That is appallingly high. We need a plan and this Budget does not contain one.