Lotu-Iiga Sam: Budget Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lotu-Iiga Sam: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2836. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is an honour and privilege to talk to this Budget 2012 debate. The context in which we assess this debate is to look back at 3½ years of this Government and what did we inherit? We inherited an economy that had some of the highest interest rates in the world—over 10 percent. Labour’s grave legacy was 5 consecutive years of contracting exports. Treasury forecasts were particularly grim with predictions of deficits that would go out over 10 years.  
The prolonged global economic recession the Christchurch earthquake and Labour’s economic mismanagement have led to a long dark night in our history. However after a long dark night this Budget represents morning again in New Zealand. It is morning again in New Zealand because this Budget will balance the Government’s books by the year 2015. It is morning again in New Zealand because this Budget delivers better Government services. It is morning again in New Zealand as this Budget builds a more productive and competitive economy.  
Under this National Government the economy has steadily built up to the point where this morning 2230000 New Zealanders went to work—more than at any time in our history. Interest rates are at historic lows under 5 percent today whereas they were over 10 percent in 2008. Finally inflation was over 5 percent in mid-2008 and it is now at a low of 2.1 percent.  
The Opposition has asked in this debate why it is important to balance the books. Well it is important because as we look around the world there are danger signs of countries where out-of-control debt has brought nations to their knees. In Greece where crazy debt levels have led to a €130 billion rescue package for an economy that is only— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. I know that we are having problems with our speaker system and getting people’s voices out uninterrupted to the world but I think there has been an overcompensation. If you could ask— 
Tim Macindoe 
: This is not a point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you could ask for the system to be turned down a little in the House. I am a member who is slightly hard of hearing and I will have trouble staying in here at that volume. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think that message has percolated to those who might do that. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: In Spain unemployment has hit 24 percent. The banking sector is in crisis there facing serious downgrades and an imminent recession. But this National Government will not allow that situation to happen here. It is through fiscally responsible policies prudent economic management and sound common-sense leadership that we will make this country bolder brighter and better again.  
So you may ask what this Budget does to balance the books. Well we have closed tax loopholes around livestock and mixed-use assets to save $293 million over 4 years. We have removed tax credits where they were no longer serving their purpose and this will save $117 million. But what is critical is that net core Crown debt will remain below 30 percent which is a gold standard compared with other developed countries. Significantly we are reprioritising $4.4 billion over the next 4 years to ensure that New Zealanders receive better public services in health education social services and science and innovation. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because these are the areas that matter to New Zealanders most.  
What has been clear in this debate is the ideological differences between those tired Opposition benchers and the Government’s aspirational benchers. In a Harvard study economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna investigated policies aimed at stimulating the economy in 21 countries between 1970 and 2007. Their conclusions were unequivocal and I will quote: “Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based on spending increases.” They added that spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases—