Field Taito Phillip: Budget Debate 
Field Taito Phillip: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13594] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very pleased to contribute to this Budget debate. It is a debate that is important for New Zealand because we are at a crossroads where investment in our people is very much needed. I am proud to be part of a Government that with leadership under an outstanding Prime Minister Helen Clark and with the economic stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen will I believe go down in history with a legacy comparable to that of Michael Joseph Savage’s first Labour Government. 
Contrary to claims by the National Party about election bribes we on this side of the House know that the commitment to social justice has been the plan of this Labour Government ever since it took office 4 years ago. This Budget comes on the back of the right moves to build an economy that is growing and I really want to commend the stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen in that regard. Without proper planning and fiscal responsibility we could not deliver the social justice that this Budget now represents. This social justice relates to those with the greatest needs within our communities. I am proud that I am from an area that is very positive about the package that this Budget offers to low and middle income families and particularly to their children. 
The issue of child poverty is not new. Research and studies have for many years identified one-third of New Zealand children as living and struggling in financial and economic hardship and some of that research clearly shows that those children are living below what is termed the poverty line. Not only do they suffer as a result of the economic situation they are in but their whole future health and education is affected by it. As a result they become dependent on the State and because of that educational failure in many instances they end up unemployed. That is a waste of the potential of those children who are in that situation. 
This is a proud moment because the Government can deliver targeted assistance that could never be achieved by tax cuts. It is targeted assistance in a way that achieves for those families and children with the greatest need. This Budget is a point in the history of New Zealand and we are indeed delivering to and investing in that one-third of our children from low and middle income families for the future of this country. This Budget is good for families and good for the economy. It is a Budget for growth and opportunity. It is a Budget that has a heart and is fiscally responsible in terms of promoting economic growth. 
I also commend Dr Cullen for dealing with a problem that a lot of Western countries face—the question of superannuation. We have just been focusing on some of the veterans who went to Europe for the El Casino and D-Day ceremonies which commemorated the free world’s fight against the evil of Nazism. Those veterans deserve superannuation as does the baby-boomer generation born after the war. As most members of the House know the issue of superannuation is a common problem amongst Western countries but the National Party has done nothing about the issue except talk about the problem. It does not have any solutions; it has no policies. I can say at least that Dr Cullen and this Government have worked out a solution to the problem that other countries are struggling with. The Government is looking to solve the problem by ensuring that we have enough money to sustain into the future a pension for older people who have retired. 
The leader of the National Party—who can only talk about the problem—talks about putting up the age of eligibility which would be a disaster for Pacific and Maori people because their life expectancy does not go past 70 years of age. Unless National comes up with another solution to the problem most Maori and Pacific people would never see a pension under National because of the likelihood of Don Brash putting up the age of eligibility to 70 years of age for superannuation. The Maori and Pacific communities could kiss goodbye to any hope of a pension in the future. 
There are other areas in relation to the strategy that has been put in place by this Working for Families package that promote people into employment. One of the key issues relates to affordable childcare and the giving of a big enough subsidy for childcare so that women have the opportunity to move into the workforce. This Budget provides for extra improvements to childcare. The rates of subsidy will increase significantly and many more families will be eligible for a subsidy. This package is designed to encourage and be an incentive for those families on benefits to move into employment. There is no question about that and that incentive is important to encourage those who could contribute to our economy to move from benefits into employment. 
One of the important parts of this Budget is early childhood education and one of the things this Budget does is invest an extra $365 million into it over the next 4 years. I know that Maori and Pacific communities are concerned about the low level of participation by young Pacific Island children in pre-school and this money will go a long way to encourage more early childhood education development for Pacific Island children. This adds to the already significant amounts of money that this Government has committed to early childhood education. We are looking at a total of about $750 million in that area. I believe that that is a very good investment to deal with the high educational failure rates amongst Pacific Island children. 
This Budget relates to a decade of problems of hardship created by the legacy of the past National Government. We can talk about the sort of poverty generated by the 25 percent benefit cuts in the “mother of all Budgets” which was delivered by Ruth Richardson the Minister of Finance for the National Government at that time. 
 We can talk about market rents which is one of the major factors that have contributed to the poverty in this country. There can be no argument about that—the research and facts are there. Under the Employment Contracts Act low wage packets and worse conditions for employment resulted in low-paid employment and poverty for people in this country. That was the legacy of the National Party. When it comes to the election next year people in communities should remember some of the policies of the former National Government and know that this Government is now looking at measures in the Budget to deal with poverty fairness in the workplace and to ensure that workers have the right to negotiate improvement in their conditions of employment as well as their wages. 
Funding of half a billion dollars over the next 4 years to strengthen economic performance is another responsible part of the Budget that will focus on investing in our economy. Spending on economic development in tourism research and trade promotion has increased by over 25 percent since this Government took office. The Budget will provide $212 million - plus over 4 years for science research and technology bringing the total public investment to $621 million. That is also a 45 percent increase since Labour took office. That sort of investment will ensure that the economic growth that has been generated by this Government’s policies in the last 4 years will continue into the future. 
Some people like to take the credit for some of the economic changes. A Labour Government was also part of those economic changes and restructuring that will ensure economic growth for this country. In particular there has been a lot of talk about tax cuts. I tell members—and if they can do their sums they will know—that there is no way that tax cuts could have delivered that sort of targeted assistance to people in our communities with the greatest needs. I invite members on the other side of the House to do their sums and to explain to the House how a Government could deliver targeted assistance to remove child poverty in our communities by way of tax cuts and maintain a progressive tax system. 
Mr Williamson may talk a lot but I would like to hear how he would achieve by way of tax cuts the extra $150 to $170 being paid to middle income families to improve their standard of living. I invite him to do that when he has the opportunity.