Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9653] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I have heard so many of the Labour Government speakers referring to the past looking forever backward—[ 
Interruption 
]—some more backward than others I say to Mr Benson-Pope. They have no vision no ideas and no chance. We have heard of deception and desertion in this debate and I want to remind the House what actually happened in 1990 because I think it is important that we set the scene. 
In 1990 the newly elected National Government and the New Zealand public learnt that Labour had been far from open and honest in the lead-up to the election. Labour hid the need for a $600 million bail-out of the Bank of New Zealand and by October 1990 the fiscal situation had deteriorated by a further $1.5 billion to reach a deficit of $3.7 billion since the Budget presented by Labour Minister of Finance David Caygill. With the subsequent passing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act it was said that this cynical dishonesty could “never be repeated”. Well unfortunately that quote was wrong because the lesson has not been learnt and the cynical dishonesty still abounds from this Labour Government. 
Mr Deputy Speaker you do have to wonder about this latest attempt at a Labour Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: These interjections are not intelligent. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker; I concur with your ruling. We do have to wonder about this latest attempt at a Labour Budget when Laila Harré the champion of workers’ rights herself admits to being disappointed and asks what is in it for her workers. 
She was quite right to ask that question because 50 percent of workers will get nothing from this Budget. The working poor get to subsidise their better-off workmates. They do not get to spend more of their own money; they are not even trusted with their own money. This is what Laila Harré had to say about the Budget: “… this Budget makes me sad. When before has the workers’ party been so endowed with riches and surrounded by such potential? Even the projected cash deficit has bloomed into a $2 billion cash surplus and there are people and causes crying out for that money. … Compulsory employer contributions are a double-edged sword. They will help those who make it into the scheme but workers are expected to lower their wage demands to off-set the cost to employers.” That statement was from Laila Harré the champion of workers’ rights. KiwiSaver is the supposed linchpin of this Budget and that was what Laila Harré had to say about the eighth Labour Budget. Labour is no longer the workers’ party; it is the self-preservation power-at-all-costs party. 
We have heard about the cleaners—the hundreds of cleaners. They will not get a wage rise. They will not get a tax cut. They will not opt—they cannot opt—for KiwiSaver. They will not get anything from this Budget. If workers do not have enough money now how on earth can they be expected to save for tomorrow from today’s wages? Fifty percent of workers will get nothing from this Budget and if they live in Auckland they will actually get to pay more tax in the form of the regional petrol tax. 
On the morning after the Budget speech I read the editorials in the morning papers. It was interesting reading because they put in perspective just what other people thought of this eighth Budget. The Budget was so impressive that the car-parking issues of Taranaki were more important. The people in Taranaki were more concerned about their parking than this Budget—a Budget described by one of the Ministers as “a huge gold star”. The southern papers were more interested in the Southern Man—that was more important to them than this Budget. In fact the editorials that did cover the Budget had headlines such as: “Opportunity lost”. I find it puzzling that when we announced our charities policy some months ago it was derided as Tory charity and as tax cuts for the rich. But now that this Labour Government has it in its Budget it is neither. Under National it is tax cuts for the rich; under Labour it is not. Labour members say that tax cuts under National are inflationary. But for some reason tax cuts under Labour are not inflationary. 
You know I also find it puzzling that when National suggests tax cuts Labour says they will have to be at the expense of cutting health and education services. When Labour suggests tax cuts—and the Prime Minister actually said this is a tax-cutting Budget—they are no longer at the expense of cutting health and education services. It is puzzling that for some reason it is OK for this Labour Government to avoid answering questions during question time about current and important matters but it is not OK for us not to answer questions about what may happen in the future. Labour does not have to answer a question about what is happening in the present but it expects us to answer a question about what may happen in the future. There is a word for this. 
It is often said that the tax dollar should travel the least distance between taxpayer and its end destination. Our tax dollar is a long-distance runner—a marathon runner. It is paid by the taxpayer it is churned around in the Government coffers for some time then it is re-churned out again at some stage in the far-off future. It is like the Working for Families benefit. Each churn of the tax dollar reduces its value. Surely the object is to reduce the churn and maximise the use of the tax dollar. But this Government must have control. It must control what we have and what we spend. It cannot possibly trust us with our own money. It takes the money churns it through some bureaucratic nightmare then if we are lucky we can ask for some of it back. If we are even more lucky we may be able to get some of it back. I am no economist but that certainly does not seem to be an efficient use of our tax dollar. 
Labour has had 8 very long years in which to lift productivity—very long years. It has had years and years in which to meet the Prime Minister’s own commitment to lifting us to the top half of the OECD rankings. What has happened? Are we now in the top half of the OECD rankings after 8 years? No. Are we even in the same place in the OECD rankings as we were 8 years ago? No. We are worse off than before. We have fallen down in the OECD rankings and we are now ranked with Portugal Hungary and the Czech Republic. 
Lifting fundings has been lauded by the Government and for some reason this Labour Government thinks that lifting funding is the same as lifting productivity. But it is not. As we hear time and time again throwing more money at an issue does not address it. Throwing more and more money at health actually resulted in longer waiting lists fewer operations and more time spent waiting for a specialist’s appointment. 
It is interesting what the Christchurch  
Press 
 had to say about this Budget: “ ‘We need’ ”—Dr Cullen said—“ ‘incentives for investing and innovating in our economy to raise productivity and sustainably increase our living standards.’ Cullen has diagnosed the problem exactly. Regrettably in his eight years in office he has presided over an economy in which the opposite has happened and despite all the talk about economic transformation he has failed to offer anything in the latest Budget that will significantly alter that. In one of the most propitious periods for real economic change in recent history Cullen has lost a huge opportunity.” This is an opportunity that good hard-working New Zealanders deserve.”