Cullen Michael: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Cullen Michael: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21261] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a second time 
. This will be of course the last imprest supply bill before the election. It is a good time to place on the record certain key facts. It is a good time to ask some key questions of the desperate and dateless members opposite us. 
This Government has a proud record and we are grateful for the support we have received from parties in the House. We have seen economic growth at the highest sustained level for 30-odd years in New Zealand. We have outstripped Australia for 4 years in a row which the National Government never achieved. We have seen the growth and innovation framework which is guiding that economic policy. We have seen employment rising with 260000 new jobs the vast majority of which are full-time jobs. We have seen unemployment dropping to record low levels since the modern indices began. We have seen poverty falling for the first time for many years in New Zealand and that is before the Working for Families package started to come into force in any great sense on 1 April this year. We have seen health spending rise. We have seen mortality rates fall and life expectancy rates rise. We have seen the growth of primary health-care organisations cheaper doctors’ visits cheaper pharmaceuticals and increased operations across the board. 
We have seen a restoration of the level of New Zealand superannuation which was cut by the National Government in 1999 at the same time that it legislated for a tax cut. One paid for the other then as it would again in the future under a National Government. We have seen the setting up of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which secures the future of New Zealand superannuation and finally the National Party has had to accept that that fund is a permanent part of New Zealand’s public policy. 
We have seen successful industrial relations reform which has seen record low levels of industrial disputes and indeed underemployed institutions for settling industrial disputes. We have seen the introduction of paid parental leave and so much else. Moving forward we will see the introduction of the KiwiSaver scheme to help average ordinary hard-working battling Kiwis save for their future their retirement and their deposit on a first home and this Labour-led Government is the first party in 30 years to introduce those sorts of measures. 
We will see on 1 April next year stage 2 of Working for Families which will deliver to many two-child low to middle income working households $30 $40 or $50 a week extra in the hand which could never be matched by any tax cuts the Opposition can offer. On 1 July next year we will see the introduction of the rates rebate scheme which will help tens upon tens of thousands of superannuitants pay the rates they struggle with at the present time. We will see on 1 April next year the introduction—indeed some of it was on 1 April this year—of business tax changes and the simplification of that scheme. 
From members opposite all we have heard offered against that is one thing: tax cuts. National has become like the ACT party these days. Tax cuts is the answer from the members opposite to everything from paedophilia to boils on the back as far as one can tell. How do we solve the problem of too many people being in accident and emergency departments? Give them a tax cut! Give them a tax cut and they will leave bleeding but happy—marching into the golden future they will go under a National Government. 
We ask now: where is the beef? It has been promised for so long. It is a case of Salome with about 97 veils on and only five have gone; there are still 92 left to go. Under National there would be tax cuts by Christmas then it was by 1 April next year then it was in 6 or 9 years then it was for the top end then it was for the middle then it was for the top again then it was for everybody. So it goes on and on in utter confusion. 
Watching Dr Brash against Simon Dallow on Saturday morning was an exercise in elderly confusion. Like an ageing courtesan the National Party is trying to keep its policy covered up until the lights have gone out the election is on and the public cannot really see what is actually underneath. And underlying that policy is a whole set of myths. The first myth is big government. The National Government never got government spending below 32 percent of GDP. It is 30 percent of GDP now. After Working for Families and all the other things it will rise back to 32 percent of GDP and stay there. Where is this big government that Labour has been putting in place? 
The second myth is high tax. Australians have two tax rates above our top tax rate and tax on top of their higher taxes in terms of Medicare compulsory superannuation capital gains tax stamp duty—and so on and so on. 
The third myth is that National can deliver a lot to the ordinary hard-working Kiwi by means of tax cuts. What would the Australians deliver for the equivalent of a billion dollars or so a year if it was in New Zealand? Six dollars a week! Will that be the big bribe? That will not fill up a billboard will it? Not even half a billboard would be filled up by $6 a week from the Opposition—and it is not what people are expecting or have been led to believe if National were to be elected. 
National is now promising significant tax cuts for all workers. We know what that means. People are expecting about 30 bucks a week from National. National has promised movements in every threshold and to get back to 5 percent on the top rate means raising the top threshold to $80000. It has promised to cut the top rate from 39c to 36c. It has promised to cut the company tax rate from 33c to 30c. It has promised to divert all the money out of the Government account over time into the National Land Transport Fund. It has promised to scrap the carbon tax. What does that add up to? It adds up to $4 billion a year to start with rising to $5 billion a year by 2007-08. That is the cost of National’s policy. That cannot be done by simply cutting the number of public servants in Wellington. There are not enough to go around. If we cut the lot of them there would not be enough left over. 
The fourth myth is that we can pay for tax cuts next year and the year after and the year after and the year after with this year’s cash surplus. But this year’s cash surplus will be all gone by 30 June. It has been used to pay off debt. It has gone into the superannuation fund. It has gone here it has gone there it has gone everywhere. None of it will be left on 1 July. 
So what will pay for these tax cuts come a National Government if it is ever elected? We know the consequences. Firstly higher interest rates because that much looser fiscal policy must mean tighter monetary policy and it must mean higher interest rates. Those hard-working battling Kiwis will pay more on their mortgage to pay for John Key’s tax cuts. He will be laughing all the way and putting more of his money offshore as it all is at the present time. He will continue to invest overseas rather than in the future of this country as we learnt today in question time. It is pretty obvious what that was all about. The hard-working battling Kiwi will be the person who has to pay for that. 
National would have to cut into core spending. The billboard is right. It is tax or it is a cut. It is tax or a cut in health; it is tax or a cut in superannuation; it is tax or a cut in education; it is tax or a cut in law and order. That is what the battle is about as we lead into this election over the next few weeks. Electing a National Government would be the 1990s all over again—cuts cuts and cuts to pay for tax cuts for those who are better off. We saw it in 1996 1998 and 1999. 
The real question for New Zealanders is very very simple. Can they afford National? The answer for the great majority of New Zealanders is very simple. No they cannot afford National. Only a small minority can afford a National Government. That is why National will not release its policy until the last possible moment. If it is released too soon it will be clear there are holes in the policy it will be clear it does not add up it will be clear it will make this country worse off it will be clear it will make most New Zealanders worse off and it will be back to the misery and strife of the 1990s under Ruth Richardson and Bill Birch. Bring it on in 2005 for this election.