Moroney Sue: Budget Debate 
Moroney Sue: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9555] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is excellent indeed to be able to take part in the Budget debate. If only the member for Piako Lindsay Tisch put that same amount of passion and energy into actually representing his constituents then it would not have been this member of Parliament who secured the $9.8 million to clean up the Tui mine in the Piako area. That member has not advocated on that issue and has not represented the local constituency. I was the one who actually went after the $9.8 million that was announced in this Budget to clean up the Tui mine. 
The problem was that the toxic tailings that had been sitting up there had been hanging over the heads of the Te Aroha residents for 30-odd years. It was the second-most contaminated site in New Zealand and that member—the member for Piako—did nothing to secure the funding for the clean-up of the Tui mine. However I took it upon myself to secure this funding because immediately after my election into Parliament—and I am not the electorate MP for Piako but I have very strong ties to that area—I recognised that the clean-up of the Tui mine was an absolute priority for that community. It was a priority because as I said before this was one of the orphan contaminated sites. It is an orphan site because the mining company that had been mining on Mount Te Aroha about 30 to 40 years ago had left that mine in a terrible state. It had left toxic tailings behind— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What about the Budget? 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is right—$9.8 million in this Budget. The member should read his documents. That $9.8 million is for the clean-up of the Tui mine. I just tell the member opposite who seemed to be so passionate about what was going on in this Budget that he could not advocate even for his own constituents on this issue. 
The issue was so serious because a minor earthquake or a weather bomb over Mount Te Aroha would mean that those tailings would end up right in Te Aroha township. These are the immediate issues—the good practical local issues that yes a Labour Government does get on top of with advocacy from good Labour members of Parliament. 
But I want to continue because although those are the little things that have been achieved in this Budget there are other massive things for all New Zealanders that have been achieved in it. I think that the speeches from National members have really shown the difference between the two major parties. 
Simon Power 
: The member should tell the House a little bit about herself in her maiden speech. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I will tell the House all about how that member over there has not done a thing about the Tui mine—that is for sure. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Tell us how to win an election. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am about to talk about other events apart from those in Piako in my speech on the Budget and I would appreciate having the opportunity to do that without the barracking from the Opposition benches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that strictly speaking a member can be heard without interruption but members may ask reasonable questions to illicit further information. That is in Speaker’s ruling 57/2. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members who are present in the Chamber will know that this is a place of robust debate and my learned friend Jill Pettis on the opposite side of the House is well known for her interjections and for the lively way in which she engages in the debate—and that has always been valued by members on this side of the House. It is fair to say that she was in full flight during Mr Tisch’s speech. The member nods in recognition as she is wont to do because she is a fair and honourable member. All we are asking is that the rule be applied evenly to both sides of the House. I am interested in what the member has to say but I am sure she would not want to admit defeat and ask to be heard in silence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I again refer him to Speaker’s ruling 57/2. Also I say that this is Parliament. The member with the call is not speaking from her own seat and must accept some interjection. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Of course I would not wish to be heard in silence because I am interested in what defence the members have for not representing their own constituencies. But of course nothing they have interjected on has been on that particular issue. 
This debate is very enlightening because National members are full of saying what will not work. That has been their whole tenor throughout this debate. According to them low-income people will not be able to save because they do not have the wherewithal to understand that they actually have the opportunity under a Labour-led Government of putting about $30 a week into a savings scheme and working out that that turns out to be about $87 with all the contributions that go in alongside it. Of course the Opposition does not understand that low-income people would be able to understand what a very good incentive that is for saving for their future. 
But this is not the first time that those Opposition members have hoped and hoped that things would not work out well for New Zealanders particularly New Zealand families because at the moment they also keep telling us that providers of early childhood education will not provide the 20 hours free early childhood education. They really really wish that New Zealand families could not actually get 20 hours free early childhood education for their 3 and 4-year-olds. They are desperate to make sure that families do not get that. Of course they are the same National members who also said that the way Labour chose to go about lowering doctors’ fees would not work—and it has. It just goes to show what a lazy Opposition the National Party is when it cannot even work out how such a scheme would work to contain the lowering of doctors’ fees. But of course they have no interest in those sorts of issues in respect of making health care affordable for ordinary families. 
Another thing that has come out in this debate is the issue of National Opposition members talking about how they believe that workers should not get any wage increases if they are involved in superannuation through the KiwiSaver scheme. What a load of rubbish! That may be the National Party’s stance but the Labour Party’s stance is that we hope KiwiSaver will become part of a package to be negotiated by workers in their workplaces. It is a very very positive step forward. It might be the National Party’s view that workers are not entitled to a wage increase but it is not the view of the Labour Party or of the Labour Government. 
One of my favourite aspects of the Budget announcements has been the extra $400 million—yes read it—into aged-care funding over the next 4 years. National members have been vocal in this area from time to time when it has suited them. But have we heard them once say what a great idea it is that an extra $400 million is to go into aged-care funding? I am a little bit suspicious about their silence on this issue. This is how I read it. Labour has quite clearly said that the vast bulk of that money will be going into aged-care workers’ wages. That is right. National members feel quite squirm-ish about that I am sure. This Labour Government understands how those systems work and it will ensure that that happens. 
As a past advocate for— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Yeah right! Sure sure! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I say to Ms Goudie that for about a dozen years I have been advocating for workers in the aged-care sector. I do know a bit about what I am talking about—yeah right! I know how one actually gets those mechanisms right in order to make sure that the predominantly women workers actually get the lion’s share of that $400 million going into aged care. So it is really excellent news not just for those workers and their families but for the people who are the recipients of aged care. It ensures that the support they get will be from people who are well valued in their work and who have good training opportunities. It will also decrease the very high level of turnover that goes on in that sector. That has to be good for the care that is offered to people who are in need of aged-care services. So it is great news all around and the whole sector has acknowledged that. We are yet to hear the acknowledgement from the National Party about that. 
Ann Martin Chief Executive of Age Concern New Zealand says: “We’re glad to see the extra allocation for older people in this year’s Budget … we know many older people will be really pleased with the extra $20.3 million per year for home-based support.”—and that is just home-based support. She continues: “Better resourced well-trained home support staff will mean more people can remain in their own homes for longer.” That is exactly what we want. John Ryall the National Secretary of the Service and Food Workers Union says: “The Government is to be congratulated for responding to the submissions of sector unions and providing funding that should provide caregivers pay increases of more than double the rate of inflation for each of the next four years.” 
 That is real progress. It is not pie in the sky and it is not a case of standing up and making speeches that sound passionate when one does not even advocate for one’s own constituents. It is real progress— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Haven’t seen it yet. 
SUE MORONEY 
:—and I can tell Sandra Goudie that the sector knows it. The people intimately involved in this care know that it will work despite National’s attempts to hope it does not work. By the way what do National members have against older people? I do not know. 
The last thing I want to tell people about this particular Budget that is close to my heart is just how good it is for families. As the mother of young children I know that this Government is putting in place a really really bright future for my children and for the children of their generation. They will have a savings culture as a result of what the Government has done in this Budget. They will have healthy families to participate in and to grow up in. As a result of this Budget they will have better access to public transport and access to healthy sustainable homes. Just today in the  
Waikato Times 
 it was very encouraging to see a report about a group of students—and this is the sort of impact that this Government is having—talking about cultural change. At Pukenui School 27 9-year-old students have sat down and designed an energy-efficient classroom. That is the sort of cultural change happening under this Government. It is great for families and it is great for the future of New Zealand. Thank you.