Connell Brian: Budget Debate 
Connell Brian: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3400] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Does Damien O’Connor a Minister of the current Government have such a short memory that he has forgotten about the “chewing gum Budget” with its “chewing gum” tax cuts? The Government offered hard-working Kiwis the equivalent of half a packet of chewing gum less than 2 years ago. When the people of New Zealand resoundingly rejected that Dr Cullen put his hand in his pocket and created a lolly scramble. Damien O’Connor might forget who his mates are but the National Party will not forget. We will not forget. 
It has been over 20 years since the last time the Christchurch  
Press 
 did not lead with the Budget as its main item of business the day after the announcement of a Budget. When a socialist rag like the Christchurch  
Press 
 does not support this Government we know that the Government is on the slippery slope off the Treasury benches. The article of business that bumped the Budget off the lead story was serious but the Budget was nowhere near being of the national importance that a Budget should be. 
Simon Power 
: Wasn’t it on the front page? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It was on the front page but it was not the lead story for the first time in over 20 years. Do members know why that was? It was because the editor in his judgment said it had no public appeal. A Budget from the Minister of Finance was rated by the editor of one of the largest dailies in the country as having no public appeal. 
Documents being leaked to Telecom are not the only thing this Government needs to be concerned about. I will be in receipt of a document any day soon that has a whole list of names on it which I am told in advance will include these people: Pettis Mackey Hawkins Yates Fairbrother Swain and Sutton. Unless I miss my guess there will be one other name on it—I think that will be Cullen because— 
Simon Power 
: Ah! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I will give the member my logic. The Minister mucked up once with a Budget and the Prime Minister came out and denounced him. Can he do it twice and escape the hatchet? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member should give my full name as he should with Dr Cullen. I would like that list of names to be read out loud again including my proper name. I do not think we should have that sort of insult. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute. The member— 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute. I am ruling on the point of order. Members should always use members’ names properly. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is a new point of order. I was clearly referring to a list that was to be presented to me which I was told in advance would have those names on it. I was not referring to members. I was referring to the list. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It does not matter what context it is taken out of if you are referring to members of Parliament as you have you must refer to them by their proper names. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is worth making the point at this stage in the debate that it has been a free-flowing and reasonably robust debate. In fact the last speaker the Hon Damien O’Connor brought you into the debate on at least 13 occasions that I counted. At no point did you or any other member in the Chamber deem it appropriate to intervene on that particular speech. I ask you to take into account the fact that members are trying to conduct their speeches within the 10 minutes offered and if it is a rule that we are allowed to disrupt the debate because of an alleged breach of Standing Orders then that should be applied to both sides of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Power you are quite right. People have been bringing the Speaker into debate in I would say nine out of 10 speeches on both sides of the House. I have spoken to the whips to suggest that they might talk to their members. Members are consistently bringing the Speaker into the debate all the time. It still does not matter though. The point in this respect is that it does not alter the fact that a member must always be referred to by his or her correct name. We do have a lot of points of order on that as I am sure the member knows. All the member needs to do is refer to people by their correct names. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Can I have an assurance that that time has not come off my speaking slot? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No? Well I had better move along quickly then. The question that needs to be asked of Dr Cullen and which is being asked right around the country is this. When the country has a surplus of $8.5 billion at what point does the country qualify for a tax reduction? If we follow Dr Cullen’s logic with regard to fiscal management that time will never arrive. But the sceptic in me says that come 2008 he will throw away his principles of good fiscal management and out will come huge bribes. Clearly raw politics will take over. 
The members of Government are mounting—or spouting—an argument that this is a Budget around investment. I can tick roading but I have a question mark over its funding. When we have such a huge surplus and a good balance sheet is it not prudent to borrow money for infrastructure development particularly roading when the value of that will take 50 or 60 years to be realised? That is the first thing I ask the House. It is not fair nor reasonable for one generation to be expected to pay for infrastructure and then for it to go without. 
The other area of concern is that one of the largest tranches of money that will go into the roading fund will come from Meridian Energy’s asset sales in Australia. The irony that that investment was in Australia—the very place the Government is thumbing its nose at—is not lost on me. It is good enough for Meridian Energy to go across there and earn its bucks and bring the money back but it is not fair if anyone else does it. It is only the Government that can do that. The key point is that $800 million that should be going into energy generation is now going into roading. Not one red cent is going into energy generation when that industry is looking down the barrel of a crisis. The chief executive of Meridian Energy in concert with other industry chief executives has warned that by 2010 the demand for electricity will outstrip supply. That is 3½ years from now and Michael Cullen did not even mention it in this Budget except to give one assurance—that the Green Party is working up a plan to solve our energy crisis. With that knowledge we on this side of the House feel much better for now. When the lights go out in New Zealand—and they will the way this Government is going—the damage to New Zealand as an investment destination will be huge. 
I want to provide an example. The forestry industry which is our third-biggest export earner and our fourth-biggest employer is in free fall. What do we expect when we have an advocate like Jim Anderton? It would have to be in free fall. The salvation of that industry is in processing which is very energy hungry but it is not getting investment. Our third-biggest export earner and fourth-biggest employer is not attracting investment because there is no certainty around energy generation. That is an appalling set of circumstances. When we ask investors and industry leaders in that industry why people will not invest they say it is because the current Government did not have the vision the capacity or the inner fortitude to fix up the Resource Management Act. It is not about the cost of energy—that is secondary. What is keeping people away is a lack of certainty. 
We have been told that this is a visionary Budget—one for investment. I say to members of the House that if they want to share wealth they first have to create it. I looked to see what was on offer for rural Canterbury. I looked for vision and momentum around things like water infrastructure for irrigation. That was not mentioned once yet Dr Cullen says he is serious about growth. There is an industry that if properly funded would produce two America’s Cups in terms of revenue back to back every year ad infinitum. 
Dr Cullen tells us that he is serious about growth but he simply cannot be. He tells us that he is investing more money in health. It might come as a surprise to Dr Cullen but we simply do not need more money in health. What we need is smarter thinking. At the moment we have direct to indirect labour ratios of one to two. Let me make that clear for members opposite. That ratio deals with the number of direct labour units with administrators. At the moment for every doctor or nurse there are two administrators and we wonder why our hospital boards cannot balance their books. It is not the amount of money; it is how it is being spent. Best practice in banking way back in 1992 when I was examining it was 10 to one and in 2006 it is two to one. 
The issue I conclude on is that Michael Cullen simply cannot be serious about growth when in this Budget he ignored our biggest export-earning industry. Seventy-two percent of our export income comes from farming but farming was not mentioned in the Budget—with one exception which related to the slashing of the sustainable farming fund from $18 million down to $9 million. Yet Dr Cullen has the temerity to tell the country that he is serious about investing. We in the National Party simply have no confidence in this Budget.