Woolerton R Doug: Budget Debate 
Woolerton R Doug: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9693] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports Budget 2007 we support most aspects contained within it and most of all we support KiwiSaver. New Zealand First has long made savings an issue and we have voted in favour of any savings attempt that has come before the House whether we agreed with it totally or not. In most cases we agreed to the tune of probably 80 percent or 90 percent but would have liked to see further enhancements. It makes us very happy indeed to see those enhancements made to KiwiSaver—or “KiwiSaver II” as some people have called it—even before it is introduced. We commend the Government for that. 
We think it is essential that people right across the spectrum of New Zealand society have the ability to participate not only in a savings programme but in a savings programme that is backed—in this case by the State. I have no problems at all in speaking of it in that manner. As we heard Mr Goff say we in Parliament have such a scheme. It is quite interesting that the scheme is spoken about in the newspapers or anywhere else as a perk of our job. I regard it not necessarily as a perk but as an essential addition to the salary package that we enjoy. 
 It saddens me that the National Party is opposed to and has voted against the KiwiSaver scheme. It has done so for the skimpiest of reasons in my view by saying that people on lower incomes cannot afford KiwiSaver should not have it and would be better off under some sort of a tax break. To my knowledge the best advice says that such a tax break would be at the lower level to a maximum of somewhere between $5 and $10 a week. I do not think one has to be too smart to work out that if we take the Working for Families package in conjunction with KiwiSaver we see that the total package is a far far more attractive option than a one-off provision for tax savings which everybody knows would give far more on a percentage basis to the wealthy in society than this ever would. 
No scheme is perfect and no scheme of a voluntary nature can guarantee take-up. I applaud the Government for realising that the take-up of an unsubsidised scheme—I know we are not allowed to mention those words any more—or rather an unassisted scheme would not have had the take-up that was required. So the Government has stepped in—rightly in our view—and said it will enhance the KiwiSaver programme and it will front up. In our view there is no better market mechanism than the Government saying it believes KiwiSaver is the right thing to do to such a degree that it will stump up some dollars—it will put its money where its mouth is if we want to put it in that way. 
We believe that it is the right thing to do for another reason: to build up the available capital in this country to fund our businesses and other parts of our society. It is rather old hat to say that there is no shortage of capital. Capital can be gained from anywhere in the world; one just has to meet the market for the price of that capital and that capital can come to New Zealand to fund the businesses. That is all true. Capital is available to everybody and always has been. But the important thing is the cost of that capital and the cost to the country of that capital. I suggest that people should think of it in terms of their own households. Are they happy to live in a rented house and to go outside to borrow money from their neighbours for everything that they require to do in their homes? I think not. I think prudent money managers would make sure—to the extent that is humanly possible—that they operated with their own capital within the constraints of their daily life and that people from outside did not have undue influence on the decisions they made either today or in the future. 
In New Zealand First’s view we have gone a long way in this country from being in control of our own destiny in those areas. We have become too reliant on overseas countries. We have become too reliant on people who may or may not be willing in the future to help or be friendly to us. We think it is sensible that we look to provide as much of our own capital as we possibly can. 
The opposition to the Cullen fund that I often hear is that it is invested overseas or that it is not all available for our businesses in New Zealand or something like that. To me that is a rather naïve statement especially coming from people who are pretty literate in financial matters. It does not matter where one’s money is; it is still one’s money. It does not matter where borrowed money comes from; it is still borrowed money. If one’s money is let out at the highest rate of interest one can then look at borrowing other money at lower rates of interest. This is what other countries have done to us and now we want to do it to them; we think that makes sense. 
In speaking to a couple of other issues in the Budget I say again that it saddens me that National members—though I am sure they will change their opinions later on—voted against a tax rate reduction in the area of company tax. I am sure they did so for ideological reasons. I am sure they voted against it simply because they felt they should oppose the Budget—in fact they said so. The days of that sort of politics is long gone. That may be what National members used to do when Muldoon was in charge of the National Party and that may be what members used to do when there was a first-past-the-post voting system in New Zealand with just the two big parties in the House but I suggest that the people of New Zealand expect something far more responsible in this day and age of MMP. People will not feel comfortable with a party voting against tax cuts then going out into the public arena and urging people to believe it when it says it will give tax cuts to the population. It is again ironic to me that we have to go back to the days of “Kiwi Keith” Holyoake—some time in 1966 I am told—to see the last time National gave a tax cut. So that was sad. New Zealand First of course voted in favour of the company tax rate reduction and we are proud of that. 
Mr McCully mentioned the increase in the foreign affairs budget and the increase in aid to the South Pacific. I cannot make this speech without giving credit to my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters who has consistently said we should provide aid to those areas that we consider to be home to those areas that we consider to be our neighbours to those areas that we have some responsibility for and to those areas that we have some closeness to and that we regard as friends. He has done that. But the important thing is not just the aid but the recognition from America—another country we have become a tiny bit estranged from. 
 It is a matter of convincing America England and Australia that we are not only doing our bit in the South Pacific but we are doing it with some style and panache we are doing it in a friendly way and we are doing it with aid and with friendship. We are not doing it with threatening words we are not doing it with gunboats and we are not doing it in a colonial way as it was done in the past. It is being done between friends and for friends and I think that my leader should at least be congratulated on that.