Upston Louise: Budget Debate 
Upston Louise: Budget Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19195] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 It is great to stand in this House and speak in the Budget debate on this Government’s third Budget. This is a sensible responsible and balanced Budget. Clearly it is a Budget that suits the times we are in. Hard-working New Zealanders including the hard-working members of my electorate want to know that they have a Government that is being responsible with their hard-earned tax dollars. That is why they are pleased to have strong leadership in these challenging economic times from Prime Minister John Key and the Minister of Finance Bill English. This Budget is clearly about building a stronger economy because we know and New Zealanders know that is the only way that they and their families will get better jobs higher wages and the sorts of services from the public sector—whether it is health education or the police—that they deserve and expect from their hard-earned tax dollars. 
I want to give members the context because members opposite tend to forget the fact that there is a plan. I do not think they would recognise a plan because they have not seen one before—in 9 years they did not have one. I will go back and look at the 2009 and 2010 Budgets to provide a bit of context for where we are now. Rather than talk about my perspective I thought it would be helpful to bring members the voices of my constituents because over the last 2 weeks in the adjournment I have been out in every corner of my electorate—literally. I have spoken in cafes spoken to social services groups visited early childhood education centres and schools because they are important beneficiaries of this Budget and spoken to Grey Power and Age Concern. You name it I have met them over the last couple of weeks because it is important that they understand this Government’s plan for a stronger economy. These were the words they used. They said that this is a fair Budget and that it brought them pretty much what they expected. They said it is responsive responsible logical and understandable. Some of them feared there might be something drastic in the Budget but they were reassured when they realised there was not. 
The overwhelming concern from the constituents in Taupo was the level of Government borrowing: $300 million a week. I could see the level of horror at what that sort of figure meant for us as a country as I spoke to them and looked in their faces as well as the desperate need for us to get our debt under control and get back to black as soon as possible. To be fair some of them were also concerned about some of the programmes they had become used to like Working for Families and interest-free student loans. When we explained the detail of how these changes would mean we would get to keep those programmes but make them affordable and sustainable over time their concerns disappeared before my eyes. 
Let us look at this plan. We started with our first Budget in 2009. It was clearly based on helping New Zealanders through the worst times of the recession and on starting to turn round the forecasts of ever-rising debt. In 2010 the next year of the plan built the platform for savings and investment and it had the biggest tax reform in 25 years which ended up with 73 percent of our earners paying no more than 17.5 percent tax. I get sick to death of hearing Opposition members talk about the fact that this side of the House gives tax cuts to the rich so I remind the House that two-thirds—now focus on your maths guys I say to members opposite—of the cost of the income tax cuts from last year has gone into reducing the bottom two tax rates. Those are the ones down there. So two-thirds of the cost went to the bottom two income tax rates. 
Hon David Carter 
: They don’t want to believe it do they? 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: There is no response from members opposite. As for the third year of the plan Budget 2011 involves a faster return to surplus making sure that we get a year ahead of what we had projected in the last Budget—it is great to have a plan when we are delivering ahead of schedule—as well as a plan to rebuild Christchurch and to ensure that we have higher national savings. This is in the context of the forecast we had when we came into office of debt hitting 60 percent of GDP. We are now managing within our plan to keep it under 30 percent. That is a stunning result and it is half of what the previous Government would have done. 
Let us talk about some of the areas that are important to my electorate and I will talk specifically about families. Another thing that frustrates me is hearing members opposite talk about the fact that this Budget is tough on families. Again I want to correct some of the myths from that side of the House. Working for Families— 
Hon David Parker 
: Remind us about KiwiSaver. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Let me start with Working for Families. Admittedly it is a programme that was introduced by Labour—credit where credit is due—and for families in need it has been working. But one of the challenges with this programme is that it was on a projected spending level that was never ever going to be sustainable. So what did we do? We have looked at the families that perhaps most people would have expected would never have got it in the first place. For a family earning $100000 $120000 or $140000 a year most people did not have an expectation that they would get Working for Families on that income level. What we have done with this Budget is ensure that 280000—that is a big number; do you guys know your maths I ask members opposite—families will be better off with our changes to Working for Families. Those members are not interested in hearing that so I will say it again: 280000 families will be better off. We on this side of the House realise that when we have a programme that in the 2005-06 year had doubled its spending it is clearly not sustainable. 
Early childhood education is another classic example. Here is one of the questions I have been asking when I have been out in my electorate. It is a fairly simple maths question so I am hoping members opposite can figure this one out. If over a period of 5 years we spend three times as much money what would we expect in terms of an outcome? Most people logically say that maybe we would get three times as much for our money. Unfortunately under the early childhood education policy of the previous Government after 5 years and three times as much money spent not even 1 percent more children were participating. I am absolutely shameless in saying that for me Maori and Pacific students who have no early childhood education deserve a better go. They deserve to be in early childhood education because if they are not they will never catch up. This side of the House is not willing to tolerate that. Our clear and simple focus is on participation. We are spending $1.4 billion which is the most ever. Of the $550 million that is additional some of that money—$416 million—is specifically for roll growth. So that annihilates the comments from the previous speaker Sue Moroney who said that it does not take that into consideration. 
On a local note $4.8 million has been put into the Lake Taupo boat harbour facilities which will have a significant impact in my electorate. Unfortunately the previous Government let the assets run down but this Government has said that this is an icon for New Zealand and we need to make sure that New Zealanders and visitors from overseas enjoy our lake so $4.8 million has been put specifically into that. The final positive piece of news for the day is that Mighty River Power has announced in my electorate today that $466 million will go into a new plant at Ngatamariki for geothermal developments which is good news for my electorate. It is good news for this country and I say bring it on.