Mapp Wayne: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mapp Wayne: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13491] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This Budget can properly be described as half a Budget. It is all about redistribution; there is nothing about growth. And Mr Maharey knows that. One of the extraordinary things in this Budget is that even after what purports to be a distribution there is a surplus of $5.5 billion. The  
Dominion Post  
got that right when it said to the Government that it was overachieving with the surplus so to make less effort please. What did it say about the other issue of tax cuts? That it was not astrophysics— “stubbornly refuses to attend class and throws rocks at those who do.” 
Yesterday we heard the Minister rave on—because that is what he did giving a lecture to business as to why there should not be a tax cut and why corporate taxes in New Zealand had to be the highest in the Asia-Pacific region. That is why this Budget is anti-growth. It is all about redistribution. It is anti-growth and that is why it is half a Budget. 
Let us think of the alternatives. I think that everyone would acknowledge there needs to be a surplus but does it have to be $5.5 billion? The answer is: absolutely not. Let us for instance say that $4 billion might have been a reasonable target. That is another $1.5 billion could have been returned to New Zealanders. A corporate tax cut would have cost $450 million which still leaves $1 billion available for a tax cut across the board even when every part of this Budget is delivered. Every part of it could have been delivered plus a tax cut to every taxpayer in New Zealand plus a tax cut for corporate entities. It is extraordinary is it not when that opportunity was there and a $4 billion surplus could still have been delivered that that opportunity would be turned down. So that is why we on this side of the House say this Budget is anti-growth and only half a Budget. 
We also say that it ignores real needs; when the opportunity is there to make a redistribution that is the sign of failure. New Zealand First has put forward a proposal to bring the family package forward by 1 year. National will support that. 
It is extraordinary is it not that members of the party that is the lapdog to the Government day in day out have got up in this House and said: “Oh no we couldn’t do anything so reckless as that.” Let me tell Mr Baldock that there is a $5.5 billion surplus and it does not take rocket science to work out that voting for an earlier package is doable. On top of that there could even be a tax cut for every New Zealander. Every single New Zealander could have benefited. 
Now it disturbs the Minister in the chair Mr Maharey to know—[ 
Interruption 
]—apparently he did not know; he had not been told by the Minister of Finance—that a $4 billion surplus was in fact doable. That would have been a responsible surplus; it would have enabled business to get ahead. I guess there could have been a headline that did not just say that kids benefited but that said kids business and New Zealand benefited. That would have been a better headline but the Government refused that opportunity. So that is why National will be voting against the Government’s bill today. It represents only a half-pie job. 
This is surely a situation of missed opportunities. At a time when New Zealand is actually doing well—which is not due to the Government but to external conditions—we could have really given it an extra boost and businesses could have had real benefit. There could have been a real reduction so that we were competitive with Australia instead of having to have the carping lecture we had from the Minister of Finance yesterday as to why it could not be done. Well his own figures tell him his words were a lie. It could have been done it could have boosted growth but that was the opportunity the Government messed up. 
We are not talking here about hard things to do. Those things were easy because there is a $5.5 billion surplus not only for this period just gone by but for the future. It is that kind of missed opportunity that is so lamentable and that is why this Budget will go down as a lost opportunity as anti-growth and as only half a Budget. Frankly it deserves at best a C grade; there was an opportunity for an A grade.