Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13694. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support this Budget. I will start by picking up on a few things Pansy Wong said from the Opposition side of the House. 
John Key 
: They’re worth repeating because they’re really good. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I knew that member had a sense of humour. Pansy Wong said that she had been out door-knocking in Auckland. As some of my colleagues said at the time I ask her to please continue doing that. In fact I beg her to doorknock in my electorate of Waimakariri along with John Key who I am told used to live in Papanui in a State house. I invite Pansy Wong to explain to my constituents in Hoani Street and in Redwood and Papanui National’s policy on taxation cuts—the only economy policy National has announced—which would give back to its leader $500 to $600 a week. I think a person on $39000 would get around $40 a week and a person who was earning under $39000 would get zip. I invite Pansy Wong— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: How much? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Zero; nothing. Under National’s only economic policy and under John Key’s and Dr Brash’s scenario any person in New Zealand who is earning under $39000 would get nothing. Any National member of Parliament is welcome to come to my electorate and explain that to my constituents who like Mr Key grew up in a State house. 
John Key is an interesting bloke. He lived in Papanui. I am told by people who knew his family that he was brought up in a State house and that his family was very hard-working especially his mum. A lot of folk remember and admire her. That guy got assistance from the State through the provision of a State house and I say good on him. He made good and now he is a success. I am not envious of him; I admire and respect his success. If more New Zealanders could make the income he does it would be a good thing. My problem is that if John Key’s family had Government assistance and help when they were down on their luck and John Key made a wonderful success of his life—up until he joined the National Party—then why is he so mean-spirited that he is against this Government’s attempt to replicate that success by helping other hard-working families? I ask him that and I hear no answer. 
This package is about working families and I know that the National Party hates hearing that. I have been here in the House for 5 years and I can recall the National Party asking repeatedly when the Government would do something for middle New Zealand hard-working families. When Budgets came out in the past I can recall that for years middle-class folk would say that they were either a couple of dollars just over the limit or they were just getting squeezed or they were just missing out on assistance. Dr Cullen’s Budget will deliver for over 300000 working families. Members of the Opposition have called the Budget a welfare Budget. I invite Pansy Wong to talk to working families on $25000 $45000 and $55000 who battle and work hard for every dollar they get and to tell them that they are welfare recipients. I suspect that they would slam the door in her face. I invite the clucky member from up north over there on the Opposition benches to come to my electorate as well to explain that. Under this Budget the average increase for families will be around $100 a week in income. If families with children are in the $25000 to $45000 income bracket they will get $100-plus a week. If families with children are on $55000 they will get $150-plus a week. That is for hard-working people. For years those people have been saying that if someone is a beneficiary it is not worth working. They have also been saying that if someone was just above the beneficiary line then it was probably better if that person was encouraged to go on a benefit because there was not a lot of difference in income. The Budget has opened up that gap. For hard-working battling families that are working and looking after their kids this Budget delivers. 
But of course the party across the aisle in the House is the party of privilege. I heard Judith Collins talk about “those people who shop in The Warehouse”. What a snob! Of course one would not catch Judith Collins in her mink coat and pearls shopping in The Warehouse. She is more of a sort of Christian Dior Yves St Laurent type of person. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Louis Vuitton. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: One would not catch her shopping in The Warehouse with ordinary folk—not with ordinary hard-working battling Kiwis who take their kids there. No she is a sort of Christian Dior type of girl. Maybe Lockwood Smith is as well; I do not know. Or maybe he is a bit of a Dolce and Gabbana type; I do not know. 
Just as my colleague John Tamaheri digressed in his speech so too I shall also focus on and congratulate Rodney Hide—as one does out of tradition in this Parliament. That pains me. I never thought I would congratulate Rodney on anything apart from his resignation. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Spongy pud. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am just reflecting that interjection. I congratulate Rodney on his massive ascendancy to the leadership of ACT. Muriel Newman is now deputy and Rodney Hide is leader. They are both extremes. In political terms ACT has a lightweight and a super heavyweight; I would not be referring to anything else of course. Rodney said that he will make himself over. I am told that the pollster Paul Heylen once said that about all one could do to make over a male politician was to give him a decent suit—we could do that; maybe two suits for Rodney Hide—a decent tie which would be a big one for Rodney Hide and maybe a decent shave and haircut. A haircut might be a bit tough for Rodney I know but that is about all one could do to a politician. At the end of the day politicians have to be themselves and they cannot hoodwink the people. We have all heard of an extreme makeover. I suspect that this will be the extreme makeover. I wonder whether the makeover extends to the things Rodney has talked about in his past. I refer to Vote: Serious Fraud which gets funding of about $5.5 million. I wonder whether Rodney Hide in his massive makeover will actually come clean on his activities in Fiji. I wonder whether he will answer questions that he would not answer when he was not ACT’s leader like who paid his airfares to the Investors International conference. I know that Rodney Hide hates it when I harp on about that but I shall keep harping on about it until we get the answers. 
I can see Stephen Franks there on the Opposition benches. I send my condolences to him though I am glad Rodney got there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Please address members in the way they wish to be addressed. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I give my apologies for that. With Mr Hide becoming ACT’s leader—and I know this is a wide debate—we over on the Government side of the House say that we have got the ACT leader we wanted. I think a better leader intellectually would have been Mr Franks who is a man of substance. However we got the ACT leader we wanted. I wonder whether the makeover of Rodney Hide will extend to his coming clean on a whole series of things. I wonder whether the makeover will extend to Mr Hide telling us who invited him to that conference in Fiji because last week four people in Auckland were jailed for 3½ years for the Investors International scam. I wonder whether he will come clean make himself over and tell us why he did not go to the authorities when he found out it was a scam. I wonder whether he will make himself over and clean up the Deborah Coddington mess that we know still exists—and there is more to come. The makeover of Rodney Hide is a bit like the rice pudding theory: one can tear the skin off a rice pudding but at the end of the day it is still a rice pudding. I look forward to this massive makeover. In fact if it works for Mr Hide I might line up myself for one. People will see in ACT exactly what Mr Hide has portrayed all this time. 
This is a good Budget. If we look at the appropriations we see there is $9.92 billion provided for health plus additional money for education and $2.1 billion for the superannuitants. The Opposition asked what we have done for the old folks. We secured their superannuation from those people with fingers like Araldite over there on the Opposition benches who would stick their fingers into it and spend the lot. We are looking after folk. When people who are now 50 and 55 years of age retire they will get a pension under us but they would not if the Opposition became the Government. Mr Tamihere was right when he said that the scariest scenario for this Parliament and for the people of New Zealand was Don Brash as Prime Minister and Rodney Hide as Minister of Finance and Minister of State Owned Enterprises. At that point all the family silver—that is New Zealand Post Landcorp and Air New Zealand—would be gone. The man who hates that scenario the most—because Rodney Hide declared he wanted to be the Minister of Finance—is Mr John Key. Mr John Key is out there polishing a big piece of lino for Rodney Hide because we now have a bit of a split between those two potential coalition partners. 
This is a good Budget and it should be supported. In conclusion I invite the National Party to give us its alternative Budget.