Barnett Tim: Budget Debate 
Barnett Tim: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:20840] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Budgets come and Budgets go and I judge each Budget both as a Labour member of Parliament and as the elected representative for Christchurch Central. From both of those viewpoints I am very happy indeed with the 2005 Cullen Budget. I will give just 10 reasons why and in doing that I will credit the National MP who said earlier that this Budget defines the difference between Labour and National. So it does and so it should and that is why I as a Labour MP like it so much. 
First this Budget is honest. That is healthy for our democracy. Budget 2005 does not pretend that x equals y or that good public service and big tax cuts are compatible. If the Opposition combined its incessant calls for lower taxes with the other side of the coin—if it explained that tax cuts mean fewer hospital operations worse-equipped defence forces larger school classes—I would be the first to commend its honesty. It does not do that. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
TIM BARNETT 
: It is an inspiration to stand here and see members stream into the House with appetites whetted by the first 1½ minutes of my speech and looking forward to the last 8½ minutes. I was just giving the House 10 reasons why I think this is such an excellent Budget. 
The first point I was making was that the Budget is honest at its heart. It does not pretend that x equals y and that good public services and large tax cuts are compatible. I was challenging the Opposition to explain what it would cut in order to afford long term the tax cuts it is now promising. Indeed National has made specific costed new commitments that would mean about 12.5 percent growth—over $5 billion—in current Government spending. On top of that National loudly and incessantly bemoans what it sees as underspending in other areas while at the same time it promises tax cuts of something over $1 billion. It simply does not add up. It is voodoo economics indeed. 
Second this Budget is visionary. It recognises that most of us have aspirations for our retirement from paid work that will not be met just by State superannuation. For the first time through the KiwiSaver initiative this Budget gives every New Zealander the right to save and the easy ability to do that. It also recognises that for many people homeownership is an unaffordable dream. It offers a way forward to the many people in my Christchurch Central electorate who are caught in that cycle of expensive inadequate and insecure rental property. 
Third this Budget will improve the health of my electorate. In 1999 Labour inherited a truly dreadful legacy of high-cost primary health care and free hospital care. Primary health organisations are the key tools to transform that. National started by opposing them and now it has flipped. This Budget includes $1 billion of new money for health—$250 for every person in our nation. I was also delighted that the Minister of Finance noted that health spending here and worldwide is growing faster than wealth creation. I welcome the root and branch examination of how we as a nation will handle that. 
Fourth this Budget is good for Maori. Christchurch Central contains the highest number of Maori of any general electorate in the South Island. Maori are on average younger and are more likely to be parents than the general population. The plans in the Budget for early childhood education school spending health economic development and Working for Families are particularly relevant to the Maori community. This Budget is a winner for them. 
Fifth this Budget is good for the arts. My electorate contains the nation’s best collection of heritage buildings and also its premier art gallery. Our museum is more visited than that of Auckland. All of that requires public investment to match and incentivise private support. Under Labour that has happened. This Budget expands support for significant new and renovated public buildings and also deepens the grassroots partnerships and investment from which have emerged Canterbury winners like Scribe and Yulia. 
Sixth this Budget is good for older New Zealanders. New plans include reform of the driving test. Older people have understandably a real fear of losing their independence and the current testing system does not lessen that fear. Also Budget 2005 puts much more money into rates rebates which is particularly helpful for older people. We should compare that with National’s Budget in 1999—a sad end to an embarrassing Government. That Budget presented a double whammy of tax cuts plus superannuation cuts. That still haunts older people in my electorate. Labour reversed the superannuation cuts in 2000 and since then the “Cullen fund” has become the guarantee for us all to have a secure future in old age. Of course National started by opposing the fund and now again it has flipped. 
Seventh this Budget is good for New Zealand families who are seeking security—not the security of a handful of dollars coming from a tax cut but instead the security of Working for Families which means real new income for families in need. That scheme is a perfect illustration of the difference between Labour and National. Labour puts the money where it is needed; National wants to use it as a reward for earning a lot. The security that comes with real jobs is vital to people in my electorate. In Christchurch Central the number of people on the unemployment benefit has dropped from 7100 in March 2000 to 2100 in March 2005. It has gone from 7000 to 2000 in just 5 years. The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit has dropped from 4400 to 4000. In the last year the number of people on the sickness benefit has also dropped and the number on the invalids benefit has risen just a little. Overall there has been a dramatic turn-round. Each of those falling numbers means that families are better off they have more pride and happiness and they are saving the Government from spending. 
The other side of security is safe communities. Again on every count Labour is winning. Recorded crime is down. The homicide and murder rates are down to half the level of the late 1980s and early 1990s the burglary rate is down and crime resolution rates are up. Budget 2005 lifts the police budget to over $1 billion per year. Certainly more police resources are needed in some areas but surely a time of falling crime is a chance to put the money into prevention better education and early intervention. 
Eighth this Budget is good for refugees and migrants. I well remember in my inner city electorate the stories of the 1990s of people attracted to New Zealand under false pretences and given not 1c of support. Now we offer settlement education more understanding of the traumas of migrating across the world and specialist health and job support. Why set people up to fail when we could—and should—set them up to win? Budget 2005 builds on our success in that area. 
Ninth this Budget is good for education and training. Since 1999 Labour has increased school funding by an average of $348 for every child—one-sixth growth in real terms. We have 2700 more teachers than roll growth demands. Budget 2005 adds to that. In early childhood education the story is inspirational. Sixty-five new childcare centres are funded in this Budget and from July 2007 all 3 and 4-year-olds will be eligible for 20 hours of free community-based early childhood education. 
Tenth and last this Budget continues the good story. Why offer tax cuts in election year—the oldest trick in the political textbook—when we all know that clever Government spending can bring help to those in most need? Private sector provision of basic services which is at the heart of National’s solution is dreadful for many delightful for the fortunate few and not an answer to any question I have heard my constituents asking. Margaret Thatcher once claimed that her greatest achievement was to reform the Labour Party in order to bring it closer to her vision of the world and to move the centre of politics in her direction. Just occasionally National shows a rare flash of common sense in supporting what Labour is doing but true to type its response to this Budget shows just how hard our task is and just how unreformed National is at heart. I commend this forward-looking Labour Budget to the people and to this House. 
Debate interrupted.