Smith Nick: Budget Debate 
Smith Nick: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:20829] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a simple message for the member for Rotorua: she should listen to what the public is saying. A poll reported on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 asked people whether they believed that the services offered by their hospital had got better or worse since Labour came into Government. In that poll of 1000 people two to one New Zealanders said that health services in New Zealand had got worse—and they are right. When it comes to schools what did the public think? They were asked whether they thought standards in education had got better or worse. Forty-four percent of New Zealanders said that standards had gone down the toilet and 16 percent said standards were better. That says it all. The Government has poured billions of dollars into the bureaucracy but the standard of services for the public has deteriorated and New Zealanders have said “Enough is enough.” 
The most telling part of this Budget was the embarrassment on the faces of the Labour members. I have never seen Government members look so glum while a Minister of Finance delivered a Budget. I remember the very difficult Budget of 1991—the “mother of all Budgets”—and yes it was hard yes it was difficult but there was enthusiasm from the National Government members. The moment that Michael Cullen said the phrase “67c a week” the members of this Government knew that they were dead and buried. They were gone! What is so telling about the 67c a week tax cut in 3 years’ time is that Labour thinks it can spend the public’s money better than citizens can. 
Opposition members are absolutely united on the point that New Zealanders need to keep more of their hard-earned money. [ 
Interruption 
] The member for New Plymouth is chipping in. I know that the people of New Plymouth would think exactly the same thing as the people in this poll. When asked whose tax policy they preferred—Labour’s or National’s—80 percent of New Zealanders said that National was right. What is extraordinary is that the policy has not yet been announced but people know that members on this side of the House are committed to doing the detail and committed to affordable tax cuts. What is even more extraordinary is that United Future members who are the Government’s mates and friends and who have access to the financial data have said overwhelmingly that tax cuts are affordable. That is what Harry’s mates have said. That is what the people who are supporting the Government on confidence have said. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name or title. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Mr Duynhoven and I say that his own coalition partner United Future says that this country can afford tax cuts. The most remarkable thing of all is that even Jim Anderton the former Alliance leader supports tax cuts. Well if the Progressives and United Future support tax cuts and believe they are affordable why does Labour not support them? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Just tell us what you would cut. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Duynhoven wants to know what we might cut. Let me give him some ideas. I want to talk about my own portfolio. Do people know what this Government budgeted to spend? It budgeted $100 million to be spent on the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—$100 million—but not one dollar was budgeted to be spent on fixing a home. That money was to be spent on bureaucracy. Do people know how much the Government has spent to date? When it set up the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service it promised that the service would be speedy fair and cost-effective. Well how cost-effective is this: on average it is costing over $100000 per leaky home just for the bureaucratic process—the mediation and the expert reports. Not a dollar is being spent on fixing a single dwang a single joist or a single stud. I say to the member for New Plymouth that one of the reasons he is going down the tube is that New Zealanders have had a gutsful of that sort of wasted money. Members on this side of the House would have spent the money on fixing homes not on the mad bureaucracy. The members opposite said that the system would be speedy. Michael Cullen said that the Government would speedily fix up this tragic problem for thousands and thousands of New Zealanders. Do people know how many homes the Government will fix? The Government has said that in the next year it will fix 120 homes. Well at that rate it will take 20 years. 
Darren Hughes 
: Baloney! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know that the retiring Government member for Otaki has difficulty with numeracy but if we have 3400 cases and we are settling 120 a year it takes well over 20 years to settle all the cases. That is a tragedy; that is anything but speedy. 
We go to the area of education and again I say to Mr Duynhoven and the member for Rotorua that this Budget gives more money to the education bureaucracy than it gives to schools. That is where this Government’s priorities are. It wants to look after its mates in the Public Service Association and the Ministry of Education. There is more money in the Budget for the Ministry of Education than there is for schools. That is tragic. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member is talking baloney. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is a fact. I will bet that member—the retiring member for Otaki who is soon to be gone after Nathan Guy’s election—the best bottle of Nelson wine that this Budget gives more money to the Ministry of Education than it does to schools. I ask whether the member will take me on. He is very loud and chirpy. I bet a simple bottle of wine that this Budget provides more for the bureaucracy than it does for schools. That is a statement of fact and he will not take me on. Suddenly he is silent because he knows that I am right. He knows that Labour members think it is more important to give another $45 million to the Ministry of Education than it is to give money to schools. 
Members on this side of the House have a very different point of view. Our view is that money is best spent closer to the children. It is better spent by the schools. It is better spent on the teachers. When I was the Minister of Education I had 1000 staff in the ministry. Do members know that that number is now over 3000? There are over 3000 people employed in the Ministry of Education and we have according to the public the biggest drop in standards. That is one of the reasons we need a change of Government. 
New Zealanders know that the economy has been growing well but they also know that the Government has taken all the money and does not trust New Zealanders with it. Ordinary New Zealanders are saying in their thousands what they want. I have been to Otaki and met Darren Hughes’ constituents and they said that they wanted a tax cut. Yesterday I was in Taupo and constituents there were saying that they wanted a tax cut. Up and down this country people have had a gutsful of a Government that is more interested in keeping the money in its own pocket than letting hard-working New Zealanders enjoy the fruits of their hard work. There will be a change of Government because New Zealanders do not want a nanny State. New Zealanders are strong and individualistic. They want to be able to get on with their lives without the bureaucracy and without the excessive tax that this Government is taking out of ordinary New Zealanders’ pockets. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Excessive tax! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Excessive it is. I ask the member one last question. This Budget provides for a carbon tax of $400 million. How many members here believe that the carbon tax will reduce the amount of emissions? It is a joke. It is nothing more than an excuse for Dr Cullen to get his sticky little fingers into the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders. 
It is time for change. New Zealand needs a fresh start. We should reject this Budget. We should provide for tax cuts because ultimately New Zealanders are far better at spending their money than any incompetent Labour Government.