Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:20855] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Budget: dead on arrival. Dr Cullen: the nation’s newest undertaker. Dr Cullen’s funeral service: the Labour Government. It is no wonder John Tamihere has joined a radio show. He knows what the future is. It is not in this Parliament so he is out there getting a new job. 
I wonder about some other members in this House. What about for instance David Parker a well-known lawyer in the south? I tell him that he should hang up his shingle because practising law is precisely what he will need to do. What about Dianne Yates who is in the House this evening? I understand that she was a teacher and that in fact she visited President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Maybe she will have the opportunity to go back and work for him. I heard Martin Gallagher speak in the House earlier. He is also a teacher. Maybe he will have the opportunity to go back to teaching. And what about Jill Pettis the chief Government whip? I think we can kindly say that she is heading for a job in interior decorating and that we know precisely why that would be. Marian Hobbs is also in this House. She was a distinguished principal and frankly that is her future. Even the member for Northcote the neighbouring electorate to mine—Ann Hartley the member’s colleague who is in the Chair—had a distinguished role in local government and was Mayor of North Shore. I say to her that she should join her colleague Jenny Kirk and get back to that job because it is the only one she will have. Jonathan Coleman a fine very talented young man will be knocking on doors in Northcote sweeping in the votes and rolling out Ann Hartley. 
One knows when the Government is in trouble because Dr Cullen stands rants and shouts. When he is in control he uses an even a restrained and a calm voice. That is Dr Cullen—the man who is in control. When it is all drifting he begins to shout and he rants and raves. That is what we heard in question time today. We know Dr Cullen is a man under pressure and frankly he should be because by his very own actions he has buried this Government. Let us be honest: the Labour Government actually had a chance to make it very difficult for National. It had a chance to reach out to middle New Zealand. Instead what has it done? In 3 years’ time people will be able to buy two-thirds of a packet of chewing gum—that is it. As the newspapers stated that was not a tax cut; it was an insult. It was derisory. The irony is that Dr Cullen had real choices and the choice he made was to spend more money. 
I want to analyse that particular aspect of the Budget. Dr Cullen says that National has no opportunity to give a decent tax cut to hard-working middle New Zealand families because he says he has spent all the money. Actually that is somewhat true. Government spending today is $45 billion. In 3 years’ time it will be $54 billion—an increase of $9 billion. That is an increase of 6.5 percent each and every year. What is the projected rate of economic growth—2 percent 2.5 percent? What is the projected rate of population growth? It is 1 percent. So the Government is spending more and more of the nation’s money squeezing out the dollars and denying the possibility of any tax cut. That is the choice Labour has made and I predict that the people’s verdict will be: “Thanks but no thanks.” 
There was another option. Let us say for instance that Government expenditure had gone up by 4 percent per annum—still substantial and covering population growth and economic growth. What would the difference be in 3 years’ time? The difference would be a $6 billion increase in expenditure. This Government has a $9 billion increase. The choice that confronts New Zealanders is between either reasonable expenditure on essential services or reckless out-of-control expenditure by this Government. That is their choice. This Government cannot possibly pretend that all its expenditure is thoughtful and wise. I refer for instance to the $250 million spent on the wananga. What Government member will defend that sort of expenditure? Will I see even one Government member stand up and say that that was wonderful thoughtful good expenditure on behalf of New Zealanders? I am listening but not a single Government member is responding. Government members know that that is not true. They know it is false yet they will spend more and more money on that kind of wasteful expenditure. The Government has not even increased the number of operations—that is the scandal of it. Dr Paul Hutchison has proved in this Parliament and outside it that no improvement has been made to our health services. 
I turn to issues around the Department of Labour. I have here the Estimates document. In it I guess are the proud things—the things Labour members want to boast about. What do they say about productivity? They are all for productivity. The Government is all for productivity. It has increased it—actually it is New Zealanders who have increased it—by 1.4 percent per annum. That is what the document states. What is the case in Australia? Productivity is increasing by 2.5 percent per annum. What is the rate of productivity increase in the United States? It is 2.7 percent per annum. That is how one gets real growth in the economy. The Government’s approach is to increase its share of the economy. What happens? Private investment is squeezed out and productivity and the growth of incomes are crushed. 
I want to turn the House’s attention to the fact that business was looking for something from this Government. What did it get? It got a depreciation allowance on computers. That is what it got. One might say that that is useful enough— 
Simon Power 
: Not really. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Not really. What did business want? It wanted 30 percent corporate taxes. I listened to  
Morning Report 
 2 days before the Budget. On the programme were two leading accountants from the major firms in the country who were asked what they were looking for in the Budget. They said they did not want a complicated set of allowances depreciation provisions or compliance costs. They wanted something simple: a 30 percent tax rate for business. Did they get it? The answer is no. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: So? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We have just heard from the Hon Damien O’Connor. He is trying to defend the Government’s wasteful expenditure. He is trying to say that business does not know what it is talking about. He is trying to say that businesses should be thankful for a depreciation allowance on their computers that they should ignore their request for a 30 percent tax rate that they should ignore even Jim Anderton who talked about it and that they should ignore Dr Cullen the undertaker who said some time ago—overseas I note—that a 30 percent tax rate for business was possible. 
I say as has already been said by other members on the Opposition side of the House that this Budget is Dr Cullen’s last Budget. This Budget is the undertaking service for the Labour Government because in 3 months’ time or less New Zealanders will have a real choice. They will have the choice to give themselves a real break to boost their own incomes and preserve public services—crucial public services—and that choice will be a National-led Government for the benefit of our country. That is the clear choice and that is why members on the Government side of the House know that Dr Cullen has written their funeral service.