Goff Phil: Budget Debate 
Goff Phil: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9688] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 That was very poor performance from a member who is generally capable of much better than that. It is a bit rich for that member to start saying that a person on the minimum wage of $11.25 an hour cannot afford to save. I would remind Katherine Rich that the minimum wage was $6 an hour when her Government left office—$6 an hour—because the previous National Government year after year refused to give the lowest-income people in this country the chance to earn a decent wage. Those members did not change it when they were in Government over 9 years; this Government has put up the minimum wage every year it has been in office. And she said that those people will not appreciate having the chance to have a superannuation scheme which is what KiwiSaver is. 
It is all right for Katherine Rich who like every member of this House is entitled to a matching employer contribution in a superannuation scheme here. Most of the lower-income people do not have that opportunity and this legislation this Budget gives those low-income people the chance to save. For every $20 they save each week they will get $40 in tax credits. That is great. The member said that people do not appreciate it but the polls showed that 77 percent of New Zealanders supported or strongly supported that particular measure the KiwiSaver. In fact a mere 7 percent—and that included every member of the National caucus—opposed it. 
This will be good for families because it enables them to get help to get into their first home. It will provide $10000 for a couple to help towards their deposit to get into their first home. It will give people including those on low incomes help to do that. Putting aside $20 a week is not impossible; it is harder for low-income people than it is for people in this House but it is not so hard when we compare it with the price of a packet of cigarettes or a couple of beers at the pub. People can do that and that will give them the chance to have a retirement that gives them more than the basic amount they would get under New Zealand superannuation. 
It was bit rich too that Katherine Rich talked about how bad the provision was for early childhood education. National would scrap the several hundreds of millions of dollars that this Government is putting into helping people get free and good-quality preschool education for their children. National has done nothing ever for preschool education. Every initiative that has been taken to invest in the area of education which is arguably the most important area of Government spending has been done under a Labour Government and we are proud of that. 
I will comment briefly on the throwaway line Katherine Rich said about Mr Field. There are some fundamental things in our democracy and in the rule of law in this country. One is that there is a separation between the Government and the judiciary. The second is that there is a presumption of innocence and that guilt or innocence is decided in a court—not by members of the National Party. But what really makes me sick is the hypocrisy of National members who on the day that Phillip Field left the Labour Party ceased asking questions holding him to account for what he might have done and only today have they resumed asking questions about that matter. That is double standards and it does not reflect well on the National members sitting opposite. 
I want to go back to KiwiSaver because I think that it is really important not only for families as I have pointed out but also for the economy of our country. One thing we know about New Zealand is that we have had one of the worst records of personal saving in the OECD. It has taken a long time to get here. We now have a scheme that will dramatically increase the rate of personal savings. What does that mean for New Zealand? It means that instead of borrowing the personal savings of people who live overseas we will use our own savings to invest in our own economy and we will continue to control our own economy rather than passing control ownership and dividends to people living overseas. Australia has had a scheme of this nature for over 10 years now. It has put together a more than $1 trillion - deep pool of savings that has strengthened its economic performance. There is no reason why New Zealand will not similarly benefit from having this scheme. 
Actually we could have had this scheme 30 years ago. The Norman Kirk - led Labour Government brought in a scheme that would have seen New Zealand become a totally different place today in terms of our savings our investment and our economic performance. That scheme was taken away—illegally as it happened—by the former National Government in 1975. It is deeply ironic that it was Mr Muldoon’s National Government that did that then and it is Mr Key’s National Party that is threatening to do the same thing today if it is given the chance. 
I say that that lot will not be given the chance. Those tired old faces—Murray McCully and the rest of those members sitting along there—will not be given the chance because the National Party voted against this measure that 77 percent of New Zealanders support. The fact is that the National Party is a dinosaur. It has learnt nothing it has no policy and it has no vision. This Budget shows that not only has the Labour Government managed this country competently for nearly 8 years—and has managed it to create 347000 jobs; no wonder our registered unemployment has hit 25000 which is one of the best records in the Western World and indicates one of the best rates of growth over that term in office of any OECD country—but also we are the party that is still coming up with new ideas and new initiatives. We are thinking to the future and taking this country forward. 
Murray McCully does not have ideas like that. He has not had an idea in a decade. When the public of this country look at who can lead New Zealand forward they will choose somebody with the depth of leadership and the competency of Helen Clark over the shallowness and vacillations of a John Key. You know the National Party voted against the Budget and KiwiSaver savings—and the business tax cuts—but we cannot rely on those members to oppose it tomorrow. This is the party whose leader said just a few months ago that climate change was a hoax. Then the next day he turned around and said that climate change was the greatest problem facing New Zealand and asked why the Government was not doing more about it. 
Where is the depth of analysis? What can we believe about this National Party? One day those members would have had the troops in Iraq; the next day they were against doing that. One day they were against New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy; the next day they were for it. One day they were against our having 4 weeks’ holiday for workers; the next day they were for it. The fact is that the public is fast realising that they cannot believe anything the National Party says and they cannot believe it because the National Party does not actually believe anything. 
 Where is its programme of action? Where are its policies? Where is its vision for the future? Where is its competent front bench? It is full of hacks from the last failed National Government and its 9 bleak years in the 1990s. National promised that it would not take away superannuation—no ifs no buts no maybes. The first thing that Government did was to increase the surtax rather than remove it. If that is not dishonesty if that is not breaking one’s word what is? It is largely the same people sitting on those benches who failed this country so badly just those few years ago. 
The other part of this Budget that I think is particularly good is the business tax reform package. New Zealanders are quite smart. They know that if we want better living standards if we want the delivery of better social services we have to generate the wealth to pay for those things. This business tax cut package does just that. That is why again New Zealanders are overwhelmingly in favour—66 percent in favour—of these business tax cuts. Seventeen percent including every voting member of the National Party on that side is against them. We do not know whether they believe in tax cuts. John Key says he wants them he wants $7 billion worth of them and Bill English says they would be massively inflationary and he will not have a bar of it. There we are. We have the Leader of the Opposition the deputy leader of the National Party and the Opposition spokesperson on finance saying opposite things. 
They said opposite things about broadband. John Key says we have to spend a lot more on it. Bill English says: “Oh no not really.” Murray McCully when asked to explain the contradiction said: “Oh that’s because Bill is speaking in his capacity as finance spokesperson.” I say to Murray that that is very impressive. That will increase the credibility of the National Party all over the country! We cannot believe it. We have two men who sit alongside each other who hate each other’s guts. Why would not Bill English dislike John Key in that way? John Key turned up at his house the night before the caucus vote and said: “I’m with you Bill.” He went out the next day—and Murray knows this—and voted against Bill English in a way that lost him the leadership. How can we have two people who dislike each other trying to present a united face to the country?