Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13558] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 By virtue of moving the adjournment motion after the Budget was read on Thursday I find myself with 9 minutes and 50 seconds to reflect on the 2004 Budget introduced by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. One of the great things about the last 2 weeks for Labour members of Parliament and our Progressive colleagues has been being able to go out into our electorates and talk about the really good things that are happening in this Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] Opposition members ought to stay and find out what the good things are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know that select committees are meeting. When members leave for those—[ 
Interruption 
] Members will have their conversations outside. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: One would think they would want to stay and hear all the good news because there is so much in the documents that were brought to the House by Dr Cullen. The last 2 weeks have been a fantastic opportunity to get around the towns and the villages of New Zealand and even into some of the cities as well and talk about what this Labour-Progressive Government stands for. If there was any theme running through that Budget it was fairness and opportunity—two words the National Party cannot stand because those words do not reflect the values it has. Fairness and opportunity ran through every page of that Budget document because that is why this Government came to office—to deliver for ordinary people. 
It does not matter what area we care to look at. If I think about my own electorate and what I was able to do over the adjournment I would have to say that one of the great events I attended was the launch of Enterprise Coast which brings together the Kapiti and Horowhenua economic development agencies. Nowhere has our Government’s plan for the regions and working together in cooperation and partnership been more evident than in what we are seeing in the provinces. That is not just because they are producing nice glossy pamphlets or anything like that it is because I see the unemployment rate in provincial and rural New Zealand. It is because I see the number of new businesses that have started right across my electorate and also in areas to the north. I think of electorates like Rangitikei where jobs and businesses are booming because of the kinds of policies this Labour-Progressive Government is bringing in. 
At the launch of that economic development agency there were a whole lot of people who were upbeat and positive about their local economy. I know it is fashionable when people are talking about business and the economy to put the most negative spin possible on it. All the doomsayers and the gloomy-gutses on the other side of the House cannot wait to tell us that the latest Government policy will result in the closing of the New Zealand economy. They are on to about their 437th policy now that will lead to the end of the universe. Every single time they say it with the same kind of evangelical vigour and every single time they are wrong. 
Simon Power 
: Take a breath! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I do not have time to take a breath because there are so many good things in the Budget. I do not get the chance to laze around in my leader’s seat like he is doing at present thinking of another day when he may get the chance to lead his party. When Mr Power does get the chance to lead his party I hope he gets a slightly better Budget response than what we heard from the Opposition. What we heard from Dr Brash when he got up was: “Er I’m comfortable with much of the Budget and quite frankly I’m not sure what the National Party would do.” This is the Opposition’s chance to come to the House and spend hours and hours over the next 3 days telling us what they would “er quite frankly” do for this country. I do want them to bring some policy down to the House and I do want them to tell us what they are comfortable with. To date we have not heard what they are comfortable with. We have a few ideas of what they are uncomfortable with but— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That will take only 30 seconds. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: It will take a lot longer than that. Just wait! We are making work pay for ordinary families in New Zealand. I want National members to tell us whether they are “er uncomfortable” with the extra early childhood hours. Can the National Opposition members tell us whether they are uncomfortable with the extra after-school childcare for kids? 
Jill Pettis 
: They’ve gone very quiet. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: There is silence. They are uncomfortable with that. So I take it that they are uncomfortable with what the early childhood provisions will be. Can they tell us whether they are against pensioners in this country paying no more than $3 for most prescriptions? Are they “er comfortable” with that? 
Jill Pettis 
: They’ve gone quiet. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh they have gone quiet again. So we cannot find out whether they are comfortable that pensioners—people who are 65 or almost 65 in the case of some of their own members—will be able to get a $3 prescription charge when they go to the chemist. We are not sure whether they are comfortable with that. 
Can they tell us whether they are “er comfortable” with the superannuation fund? Can they tell us whether they will make sure that pensioners in New Zealand when they retire are going to be in a position where they are guaranteed the pension? One of the things this Budget does is look to the future. I am actually quite interested in the future unlike the Opposition. One of the issues that future members of Parliament will have to deal with is an ageing population and pressure on superannuation. When I pick up the Budget and look at what the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will do I see that by the time it gets to its peak 36 percent of the cost of superannuation will be met by the superannuation fund. 
I ask Opposition members if they are going to be here for a while what they are going to do about that issue. Mr Key might be here for a while. What is he going to do to pay for the pensions of his constituents who are currently working? I am talking about people under the age of 50 who are being told by Dr Brash that there will not be any certainty about what the pension will be. What is Mr Key going to do to pay for it? He is uncomfortable. Mr Key is uncomfortable which is becoming a contagious condition in this House. What will that mean for people? They say they will borrow and hope. Mr Key was on the  
Agenda  
programme a couple of Saturdays ago saying: “If we want a big wish list of all the things we want to build in New Zealand all the things we want to pay for I think the way we should do it is to borrow more money.” He said he knows a few merchant bankers. He said: “I’ve got a few friends on speed dial on my cellphone. I can whip up a few hundred million dollars and borrow and hope and ask future generations to pay for it.” So under the National Party future generations get no certainty about their future pensions they get no cheap primary health care and then they have to spend their tax money paying off the debts because Mr Key wants to borrow and hope. I am starting to feel uncomfortable with the kinds of policies that the National Party has been bringing to Parliament. 
 I turn to the Future Directions legislation which of course is about working for families and on which we went into urgency before the adjournment. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars will go to ordinary communities to help families raise their kids. What is wrong with that? Is the National Party opposed to it? I sat in the House for the debate and the only thing one of the bright lights of the National Party Katherine Rich was able to tell us was that when she rang the 0800 number a woman called Mandy gave her some information that she did not like. That was the full extent of the contribution of National Party’s No. 4 spokesperson on the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill. The only thing she had to say was what Mandy from the call centre was able to tell her. 
I think the fact that National Party members were unable to put together a coherent response to the Future Directions legislation was an absolute indictment on them. It showed that at their core they know this Budget is about the fairness and opportunity that will be delivered in October this year April next year October next year and in April for the 2 years after that because this is a long-term Budget for the future. We are not just doing it as a flash in the pan. We have been told by Opposition members that this is a cynical Budget. If it were a cynical Budget the entire package would start on 1 April next year. But it does not do that because it is a responsible Budget that will give opportunity and certainty to families and it will roll out over a long period of time. 
Of course their proposed tax cuts would be brought in straight away to bring money in for them and their rich mates. They would not worry about the families that they said they were for. Before the Budget of course they said they were for every single working family. Then when they read the Budget and worked out that those very working families for which they had been advocating in Parliament were going to get some assistance all of a sudden they were not for those families at all and they wanted to deliver tax cuts to the wealthy. 
I think it is incumbent on National Party members to tell us exactly which parts of this Budget they will not support. For example is the National Party against the $800 million in the Budget for capital spending on health? 
Hon Member 
: Uncomfortable! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: “Er uncomfortable”—back to the same old theme! I cannot identify which of the big-ticket items in the Budget the National Party members—and they say they are going to vote against the Budget—are against. Those members themselves cannot tell us. The National Party will not talk about the wider picture of the economy—15 percent growth in the economy over the last 4 years. Debt owed by 2007 will be at just over 20 percent of GDP—the National Party will not talk about that. 
What is the one fiscal issue in the Budget that the National Party has talked about? It is not the surplus the debt ratios economic growth or the 16-year low in unemployment. The only fiscal position stated by the deputy finance spokesperson John Key was that he did not like the excise going up on alcohol. The only fiscal position put out by John Key was: “Please don’t put up the excise on alcohol by inflation adjusting it.” That was the extent of the analysis that went on—we were told that some researchers were sent out to the trendy bars of Wellington. That is the ultimate response from the National Party. 
So it does not matter what angle one looks at it from—the fiscal direction the economic policy the Working for Families package the help for kids in education the partnership with the regions or the primary health care package—this Budget delivers fairness and opportunity to the people whom the Labour-Progressive Government came to office to represent and advocate for. I will proudly cast my vote in favour of this Budget and I cannot wait to tell the people of Otaki why the National Party is opposing it.