Carter John: Budget Debate 
Carter John: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11386] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I join with the majority of New Zealanders in congratulating the Minister of Finance Bill English on what in my view is the finest Budget of the 23 Budgets that have been presented by a Minister of Finance during my time in this House. It was worth the wait I have to say. New Zealanders across the country are saying “Thank goodness this Government and this Minister of Finance have produced this Budget.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is an enormous amount of noise around the Chamber from every member. The member cannot be heard. Those members who wish to have a conversation should pack up their bags go out into the lobbies and continue their conversations there. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Of course I am pleased because people will want to listen to this speech; I am well aware of that. 
What is disappointing is the way that Opposition members have decided that the only way they can fight against this Budget is to bring in the envy language. They are out there saying that some people will get more than others. Some people will get more money and some will get less. The fact is that when we have a Budget such as this one of course there will be people who end up with more dollars in the hand; it is a fact of life. 
I will read out a little story that was sent to me which explains exactly what the Labour Opposition members do not seem to have understood. Let us just suppose we explain the tax system by way of buying beer which we all drink from time to time. Suppose that every day 10 men go out for a beer and the bill for the 10 of them comes to $100. If they paid the bill in the way that we pay our taxes it would go something like this: the first four men—the poorest—would pay nothing the fifth man would pay $1 the sixth man would pay $3 the seventh man would pay $7 the eighth man would pay $12 the ninth man would pay $18 and the 10th man—the richest—would pay $59. That seems to be what our tax system says. That is what they decided to do. They drank their beer every day and they paid for it in that ratio. 
One day the pub owner said: “Well look as you are such good beer drinkers we will reduce the cost of your beer by $20.” So now the 10 drinks cost only $80. 
Hon Member 
: Didn’t anybody drink wine? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: No the group drank only beer. But the point is this. The men said: “What are we going to do about this? We will have to split up the bill. We should pay the bill so that we can divide the $20 windfall and everyone will get their fair share.” They realised that $20 divided by six comes to $3.33. But if they subtracted that amount from everybody’s share then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to drink their beer. That did not seem to work. 
The bar owner suggested that they reduce every man’s bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts they should pay. The fifth man like the fourth man would pay nothing. In other words he would make a 100 percent saving. The sixth man would now pay $2 instead of $3 which is a 33 percent saving. The seventh man would now pay $5 instead of $7 which is a 28 percent saving. The eighth man would now pay $9 instead of $12 which is a 25 percent saving. The ninth man would now pay $14 instead of $18 which is a 22 percent saving. The 10th man would now pay $49 instead of $59 which is a 16 percent saving. Six of the men would be better off than before and the first four men would continue to drink for free. 
However once the men were outside the restaurant they began to compare their savings. The sixth man declared that he had got only $1 out of the $20. He pointed to the 10th man and said that he had got $10. The fifth man said that that was right. He said that he saved only $1 as well and that it was unfair the 10th man had got 10 times more than him. “That is true” shouted the seventh man “why should he get $10 back when I get only $2? The wealthy always get the breaks.” “Wait a minute” yelled the first four men in unison “we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.” The first nine men surrounded the 10th man and they beat him up. 
The next night the 10th man did not show up for drinks so the other nine men sat down and had their beers without him. But when it was time to pay the bill they discovered that they did not have enough money to pay it. They did not have enough money between the nine of them. 
That I say to the Opposition is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. If we tax them too much and attack them for being wealthy then they might not show up anymore. That is the problem with what the Labour Opposition is saying to New Zealanders. The Opposition is saying that as far as it is concerned those in the highest tax bracket should pay more until they are driven off the shores of our nation. We need people who generate wealth in this country. 
What really disappoints me about the Labour Opposition is that its whole philosophy is about tying people down to being poor so they have to vote for Labour. That is Labour’s philosophy now and it always has been. It is a philosophy of envy a philosophy of suppressing people and a philosophy of not trying to help people at all. 
I admire a number of members in this House but one whom I really do admire is Tariana Turia. She does not like seeing people being oppressed. She does not like seeing people being demeaned. She is out there speaking up for people who stand on their own two feet just like I do and just like this Government does. We want people to make a go of things. We want people to have meaningful participation in our country. We want good individual outcomes we want good family outcomes and we want good outcomes for this country. 
In the ideal world there would be no underclass. There would be no uneducated people no dysfunctional families and no drugs and crime because people were left out of society. In the ideal world all people would be standing on their own two feet. They would be contributing they would be participating and they would be there for themselves their families and their communities. Unfortunately—and especially because of what has happened in this country over the last 9 years—we do not live in an ideal world but this Budget is about aspiration. This Budget is about getting people back on their feet. This Budget is about giving people the path to opportunity. This Budget is about allowing New Zealanders to have the right to participate. This Budget is about allowing people to develop for themselves. This Budget is about allowing people to contribute to themselves to their family and to society. 
This Budget is about something that everybody should be happy to have and that we can all be proud of and aspire to. This Budget is about what this Government is about: aspiration. It is about making sure that people can have the opportunity to participate in our society. It is about giving people the opportunity to be well-educated. It is about making sure that people can participate in their families and that families can participate in their communities. It is about addressing those things that will remove the barriers to allow people to be themselves and to make the contribution that each and every person in this country can make given the opportunity. It is about removing barriers—particularly Government barriers—from people’s hopes aspirations and opportunities. 
I commend this Budget to this House and to the people of New Zealand. It is a great Budget. As I have said of the 23 Budgets that have been presented during my time in this House it is the most outstanding Budget no matter which way one measures it. I am proud of this Budget. I am proud of this country. I am proud of this Government and I am proud of the Minister of Finance Bill English who brought this Budget to this House.