Dalziel Lianne: Budget Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13613] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I felt proud sitting in Parliament on 27 May this year listening to the Hon Michael Cullen deliver Budget 2004. That is the 14th Budget I have heard from within Parliament’s debating chamber and the fifth Budget of a Labour-led Government. 
I had cause to reflect that the first Budget I listened to as a brand new MP in this House 13 years ago was the one Ruth Richardson branded the “mother of all Budgets” and what an insult to mothers that Budget was. It was the Budget that followed on from the slashing of benefits and the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act that divided workplaces destroyed wages and conditions of employment and with the slashing of benefits took dollars out of the economy from the pockets of those who every week spent every cent they received. That decision alone took our country into a recession. It was the Budget that scrapped the universal family benefit brought in market rents for State housing and introduced the competitive market philosophy into our health system with the ideologically-driven funder/provider split. It was the Budget that undermined the Accident Compensation Corporation scheme which was virtually at the point of being fully funded until Mr Birch got his hands on it. “Paying more and getting less” was the mantra of the 1991 Budget. It was the Budget that lifted the age of eligibility for superannuation from 60 to 65 and yes I admit that that was signalled by all parties prior to the election but what people forget is that every party said they would do it over 20 years—not the 10 years the National Government subjected this country to and revealed in that Budget. It was the Budget that introduced the student loan scheme. I know that the line Ruth Richardson used—“the mother of all Budgets”—was a throwaway line but the first 9 months of her financial management of this economy were a disaster for families. 
Budget 2004 stands in stark contrast to that Budget. This Budget unashamedly puts working families first. I do not know how many times in the 1990s I was approached by constituents who identified that they were not better off when they went out into the paid workforce. This Budget says that going to work will pay. It will ensure that people will earn more by going out to work than they could receive on a benefit. This Budget responds to the needs of people who have spoken out over a number of years and it does so in a way that is deliberately targeted to lift children out of poverty. 
Yet I hear the National Party speaking against the Budget. I have heard National Party members say that they would prefer tax cuts. Being on an MP’s salary I understand why they would say that. They know that tax cuts would benefit those on higher incomes but tax cuts do nothing for those on low to modest incomes. The trouble with tax cuts is that they are based on income only; they do not take into account the different circumstances of those who may in fact be on exactly the same income. Why should a couple with a double income and no kids—the dinkies as they are known—get a bigger slice of the cake than a couple with two or three kids? Why should that be? I do not accept that that is right and I fit into the former category not the latter. I have obviously a number of nieces and nephews. I think that the parents of those children deserve to have a lift rather than people who do not have those responsibilities. Income is not based on what people need; it is based on what they can negotiate with their employers or generate with their businesses. 
It is appropriate to redistribute in order to assist those with children. This Budget unashamedly does that and I am proud of what the Government has achieved. Over the next 3 years the Working for Families package will deliver around $100 a week in direct income assistance to families in the $25000 to $45000 income bracket. Many households will also benefit from changes to the accommodation supplement and childcare subsidies. 
But there is so much more in this Budget that has not really achieved the sort of headline news that the Working for Families package has with its greater focus. There are huge Budget gains for education and for early childhood education in particular. We know that the foundation stones that are put in place for young children to enable them to get a good start in the education system and to build a commitment to lifetime life-long learning will stand this country in enormous good stead in the future. 
There are another 500 modern apprentices. When I go out and talk to older tradespeople they tell me that what they miss most are the young apprentices they were able to mentor—not only in terms of their trades but also in terms of life skills. Those are the sorts of things our older generation wants to pass on to the new generation coming through and I congratulate this Government on what it is doing for modern apprentices. 
Health funding will reach almost $10 billion next year and members have already heard from a number of speakers about the extra money being targeted for hip and knee operations. I know that it is frustrating for constituents when they tell me their surgery is described as “elective”. It sounds as if one can elect to have it or elect not to have it but those people are suffering while they wait for important surgery that may not meet the threshold of urgent need but that certainly must be done in order to give fulfilment of life. 
 There will be 1054 new State houses with an upgrade to over 850 more. This is a real Labour Budget; it is devoted to the needs of people who need it most. 
The contribution to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will be a further $2.1 billion. I know that the National Party plans to get rid of this fund—probably by lunchtime I would say just to use an expression that I know Dr Brash likes to use from time to time. I want to make just one point about that. My first political awareness I guess was as a 15-year-old when I asked my parents why the National Party was advertising the Russian Cossacks who were dancing across our television screen. As a 15-year-old I could not understand why National was doing that. My parents explained to me that the advertisement was on because a superannuation fund had been started by a very good Labour Government in 1974 and the National Party was scaremongering about the fund saying that it would develop into an asset the State would use and that New Zealand would become like Russia. I think that communism is what the National Party was trying to imply. The bottom line is that the National Party in the biggest election bribe in electoral history in this country threw away the opportunity that that Labour Government had had to save for the future. We have that opportunity back now with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund but I warn all my constituents and others who are listening that it is really important to remember that National will get rid of the ability this country now has to save for the future. 
This Budget is big by New Zealand standards but it has been made possible by this Government’s prudent fiscal management and by the resilience of the New Zealand economy. Budget 2004 will be remembered for its sustainability and its fairness. It will be remembered as the family-friendly Budget because it has put families first. As I said it will always be for me a stark contrast to the incredulity I experienced as a brand new MP when I heard a Minister of Finance tear our economy and social fabric apart. This is a great Budget. I pay tribute to the Hon Michael Cullen and also to the Hon Steve Maharey who I know is deserving of considerable credit for the effort he has put into improving the lives of so many New Zealand families. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I tell honourable members that United Future has requested that its 10 minutes be separated in two. I will therefore ring the bell at 4 minutes.