Barker Rick: Budget Debate 
Barker Rick: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16421] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I have listened to Budgets for as long as I can remember. My grandparents who brought me up were avid listeners on Budget night. My grandfather for reasons that I still do not fully comprehend used to buy extra stock of Monteith’s beer just in case the excise duty went up and he would drink it that night with a big grin because he had beaten the tax man. But Budget night is not like that any more. Most long-term decisions have already been taken and announced. With financial accounting being so open and transparent it is difficult to provide the shocks and surprises that we had in yesteryear. But Michael Cullen’s ninth Budget is different. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I want to advise members that this House is a symbol of integrity the integrity of all honourable members will be upheld and every voice shall be heard in accordance with our Standing Orders. The interjecting is almost amounting to barraging and that is not permitted. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I hope the barraging was not from me. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Definitely not. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This is Michael Cullen’s ninth Budget and this time the surprise is on the National Party. The size and the scope of the tax cuts produced by Michael Cullen show that this Government is very serious about sharing the gains of a growing economy. The first tranche of gains in Michael Cullen’s first Budget went to superannuitants. I make the point to Allan Peachey that it was a National Government that had cut superannuation in this country. I welcome a strong and robust debate because I will go out on the hustings and say what National did to superannuitants in this country and what this Government has done for superannuitants. In Michael Cullen’s first Budget we restored the superannuation cuts that National had made and we have done it again. 
The second move of this Government was on the minimum wage. The National Government in 9 years did nothing to the minimum wage. It froze the minimum wage. The Labour Government has increased the minimum wage every year. 
The next layer of support and assistance for families came in the form of Working for Families. The tax relief in Working for Families is roughly equivalent to $100 per week per child. A total of 360000 families get that tax relief and what a welcome injection into the family budget it is. It means better and more food on the table it means that school fees can be paid it means better clothes for the children and it means that from time to time the family can undertake some recreational leisure activity. Working for Families has transformed the lives of over 350000 families in New Zealand and that is a great thing. The National Party is opposed to it. One working mother told me that for her family it was like winning Lotto every week. For her getting $180 through Working for Families was like winning Lotto every week. 
Labour’s programme has taken care of superannuitants. I tell Mr Peachey to look at this Budget. He will see that there is an extra $45.88 per fortnight for a married couple. That is what this Budget has delivered to the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. National’s track record is cutting superannuation—that is National’s record. Labour’s record is restoring it and adding to it. 
The other thing this Government has done is repeal the repressive employment legislation enacted by the National Party. Labour has constantly increased the minimum wage. Labour has invested in infrastructure skills research and research and development. That has meant a growing economy that has delivered thousands of jobs per week. It has resulted in registered unemployment in this country going from 160000 to under 20000. A total of 140000 people have received an instant enormous pay increase from this Government because they have a job. But the unemployed shifting into employment is not the only benefit to come from the economy under Labour; there has been a huge benefit for the employed as well. Real wages have increased 15 percent ahead of the cost of living under the Labour-led Government. That is 15 percent over and above the cost of living— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take the opportunity to help guide the member. I feared that he would mislead the House. I know that he would not do it deliberately. I think he just forgot to mention that the Greens and New Zealand First have played a strong part in all those points he was making. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member knows that he is trifling with the Chair. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I absolutely assure you that I was not trifling with the Chair. I was seriously concerned that he would inadvertently mislead the House by claiming all the credit for something that he had no right to do so. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I accept the interjection by Ron Mark. Of course the Labour-led Government has been supported by New Zealand First and the Greens. 
The point I want to make very clear is that wages have increased 15 percent ahead of the cost of living. I tell Mr Peachey that that is completely different from what happened under the National Government. Wages went down under National. Wages went down in comparison with wages in Australia. The National Party members come to this House and bleat about the comparison between New Zealand’s wages and Australia’s wages. The irony in that is that New Zealand’s wages were behind Australia’s in the 9 years of National’s Employment Contracts Act and the 9 years of National’s misery. That is what drove New Zealand’s wages down below wages in Australia. Since then our wages have kept pace with Australia’s. 
I want to give members opposite a very good example. Some years ago under National a neighbour of mine was—he still is—a registered carpenter. The wage he was on was 30c ahead of the minimum wage. He was on $7.50 an hour under National. Today he is on $35 an hour. Why is that? Because there is so much work available. This Government has put much effort into creating jobs—1000 a week. 
In addition to all of this we have a Budget that gives $10 billion worth of tax relief across the board to all wage earners—$10 billion worth of tax relief. That is on top of tax cuts for business. Labour has introduced the first tax reductions for business in 20 years. What did National do in 9 years of office? Nothing! Labour has reduced taxes for business. 
By any measure there has been a remarkable series of Budgets from Dr Cullen. They have seen the economy go from sluggish to high performing. Unemployment has dropped across the board employment has increased the economic growth rate has been above the OECD average and wages have outstripped the inflation rate. There has been extra investment in health education transport and research and development as well as the delivery of increases in superannuation the provision of 20 hours’ free early childhood education and the introduction of paid parental leave. Let us not forget about the reinstatement of apprenticeships and KiwiSaver—the list simply goes on and on. There seems to be almost nothing that this Government has not delivered on particularly when it compares itself with the slash cut and sell Government of the 1990s. 
David Bennett 
: What about the 1980s? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I say to Mr Bennett that where this Government increased superannuation payments National cut them. Where this Government bought back the railway National sold it. Where the National Government froze the minimum wage this Government has increased the minimum wage for New Zealanders every year. Under National wages and conditions of working people were slashed. Under Labour wages and conditions have improved. There have been increases in annual leave along with increases in statutory holiday pay. All of that has been in stark contrast to what happened under the National Government. 
I say to Allan Peachey that I welcome a robust debate during the election campaign about National versus Labour. Labour has a mountainous pile of achievements and they would never have happened under a sour dour National Government. But National says that it can better our policies. National’s only policy is tax cuts. For years all we have heard from the National Party has been tax cuts tax cuts and even more about tax cuts. It has been a one-policy party. But even that one policy has not been on display for all to see. We have heard from John Key that everyone in New Zealand would be better off by 50 bucks a week under a National Government. That promise of 50 bucks a week does have a certain ring to it. It does sound attractive. But is it deliverable? If John Key is going to deliver $50 a week in tax cuts then he will have to spend $10 billion more than Labour is spending. The leader of the National Party says he will do that without cutting services and as of now without cutting KiwiSaver but he does not say how he will deliver it. 
Just to give the public some perspective on the size of that promise I tell them that $10 billion is about as big as the total education budget that Mr Peachey spoke about. If National gave another $10 billion of tax cuts that would be equivalent to closing every primary school and every high school from Kaitaia to Bluff and sacking every teacher every principal and every person who works there from the cleaner to the caretaker. The lot would have to go. That is how much of a cut National would have to make to Government spending. National does not explain how it is going to fund its tax cuts because the public simply would not accept the complete closure of the school system. John Key will not tell us how he is going to do it. What does that say about John Key and what does it say about the public? John Key is trying to hide his policy from the public. 
I ask National to tell us what its policy is. It has got only one policy to talk about; it should tell us what that policy is. Is National too afraid to tell us what its policy is because it will not stand up to scrutiny? Is National too afraid to tell us what its policy is because it does not trust the public? Is National too afraid to tell us what its policy is because it will not stand up to scrutiny? The National Party in hiding its tax policy from the public is being deceptive.