Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21102] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 Fair inclusive and forward-looking would be the only three words—or four words as it happens—that one could use to describe Dr Michael Cullen’s sixth Budget to this Chamber. I say that because this Budget actually continues to deliver everything that the Labour-led Government has done since the year 2000. A number of people are making one key mistake in politics at the moment—especially on the other side of the House—by acting as though the 2005 Budget was the only thing the Helen Clark Government has done in 6 years and that we are asking to be judged only on one afternoon’s work on one Budget. That is the fundamental mistake the National Party is making because this year’s Budget builds on the 2004 Budget and on the 2003 2002 2001 and 2000 Budgets which have delivered real and meaningful change right across this country. One can pick up any portfolio area or any vote that the Government has put forward in the Budget process this year; if one follows it through the preceding years one sees that this is a Government on a journey for the country. 
This is not a Government trying to steal headlines in just one year; it is not a Government that sleeps for 2½ years and wakes up for 6 months as some political parties do. This is a Government that is turning up for work every single day trying to make this country a better place to live in—not just for some people not just for the few but for absolutely everybody across all walks of life in our community. Not for us are the politics of division and exclusion; for us are the politics of inclusion and of making sure we get a fair deal across the economic and social sectors and in terms of New Zealand’s place in the world in terms of foreign policy. So the most important thing to note about this Budget is that it continues Labour’s and the Progressives’ work in Government with the support of United Future and from time to time on legislation the Green Party. The Budget is a continuation of a process rather than a one-off event on which we submit ourselves for judgment. 
But even if we did say that this Budget alone was the thing that after 6 years we wanted to be judged on I stand by what we did in this House on 19 May. On that date we invested in what Labour Governments ought to invest in. There was more money put into the health sector into the education sector and into things like public housing. Those are the very reasons we have a Labour Party on this side of politics in this country and we have been able to deliver on all those things. 
I point members to one or two things that can make a difference for ordinary people. I point out the funding for cataract operations that exists in this year’s Budget as part of our public health budget delivered by the Hon Annette King. We will make a huge difference for people by doubling the number of cataract operations over the next 3 years. We can radically change the lives of those people who are hard of vision by investing in public services. If the choice is between doing that for somebody on the Kapiti coast who is in retirement or cutting taxes for people who already earn quite a significant amount of money then I will go for the cataract operation time and time again. Just as in last year’s Budget when we doubled the number of hip and knee operations we have practical things that change people’s lives when we have a Government committed to the core public sectors. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I hear the ACT party’s spokesperson interjecting about health. The ACT party takes the extraordinary view of saying that when it comes to economics it wants the lowest tax rate in the world but when it comes to any area of social spending it wants to spend the most amount of money on health. The National Party has a big problem at the moment: none of it adds up. But the soon-to-be-departed ACT party has it even worse when it comes to problems around the abacus and the places it would like to put that. The National Party of course has that problem in droves as well. 
There are other things in this Budget that have not received a lot of attention and that have very low-spending plans. I point to the rates rebate scheme— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Thank goodness for that! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I hear the member for Epsom interject. The amount of rates rebate he would have would not worry him too much. In fact if we were to do a proportional rebate the rates that one paid in Remuera would be far more than the rates that any of my constituents pay in the Otaki electorate. So it is no surprise to me at all that the National Party is not interested in the rates rebate scheme. But if one is a constituency member of Parliament one knows that people on low and fixed incomes often struggle to pay their rates. So we have moved the rates rebate scheme up for the first time in 30 years and for the first time in 30 years we will help more people on low fixed and modest incomes to pay their rates. How much will that cost? It will be $50 million—not a very expensive Government programme but the kind of programme that only a Labour-led Government can deliver because only a Labour-led Government will be attuned to the kinds of needs that exist in our communities. Those are the sorts of things that will make a difference. 
In a few days on 1 July the beginning of the removal of asset testing will come in. That is another very important policy for older New Zealanders. We will now move the threshold up to $150000 and we do that because of our commitment to older New Zealanders. 
Across the superannuation area of course we have introduced the KiwiSaver scheme. Why is that important? Because it focuses on the future and I return to that theme I mentioned about the Budget being inclusive fair and forward-looking. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Speak faster. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member for Epsom will be here for such a short time more that he needs me to speak fast so he can hear about some decent policies. Of course it is always interesting to hear from Mr Worth in the evening. 
I also say when it comes to the issue of KiwiSaver that we are putting the needs of the country first for the long term. One thousand dollars will go into the account of every person who starts work and then 4 or 8 percent of his or her income so that we can lift the savings rate of this country and assist people into their first home with their first deposit—which we know is a struggle for a lot of people out there—and also get them thinking about their retirement when they hit the age of 65. That is the kind of forward-looking and responsible policy that this country needs. 
What we do not need is the sort of stuff that has been offered to us by the National Party. We have sat through almost 14 hours of Budget debate and despite all the opportunities available to National which in a few weeks is offering itself to our country as an alternative Government we heard not one policy at all from that lot over there. We heard that they wanted to have tax cuts but they would not front up to the country and tell us how much those tax cuts would be. In fairness to the outgoing ACT party it has named its proposed tax cuts but National has steadfastly refused the entire way through this 14-hour Budget debate to tell us what its tax rates would be. We heard from Dr Hutchison who said: “Why will the Government not spend more on health?”. Well we will tell him why. We cannot spend more on health because we are putting out in terms of a Budget table exactly how much we want to spend. 
Jill Pettis 
: $9 billion. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member for Whanganui says $9 billion. The National Party members will not tell us how much they want to spend and at the same time they are saying: “We ought to cut taxes.” 
We actually know that its current leader Dr Don Brash has a number of views about Government spending. When he became Leader of the Opposition of course he stopped talking about what he believed in. He had a little book published about himself which was particularly unhelpful for his cause. So bad was that book that the poor guy who wrote it was ranked No. 64 on the National Party list which is about where the book came in. It came in I think in the top 70 books in the country at about No. 64. But I tell members that before Don Brash became the leader of the National Party he had well-stated views. 
The 2001 Catching the Knowledge Wave conference was where he put a lot of his views out and he said that minor changes at the margins will not do the trick. That man stands for wholesale cuts in public spending. He stands for big tax cuts that this country cannot afford. The onus was on the National members in this debate which is a few weeks out from a general election. They had a wonderful opportunity to get on their pins and tell us exactly how much they were going to charge New Zealanders in tax and what core public services the public could expect for that tax rate. But not a thing did we hear. 
What we do know though—there is one little thing that we know—is that they are prepared to borrow money. I want to say that when one side of politics—that is Labour—is saving by way of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund for the Government contribution and introducing the KiwiSaver account for individuals to save for their futures it is irresponsible of National to say “We are going to borrow and hope our way to the future.” Have we come through all the reforms of the 1980s only to go back to borrow-and-hope policies? I certainly hope we are not because that will not help New Zealand one iota. As soon as a Government comes in and says: “We’ll borrow every time things get tough.” it will come under pressure from all the little interest groups up and down the country. One can see what is happening with roads. National is promising to build roads everywhere having done nothing in the 1990s—nothing at all. It wants to borrow and borrow and this country cannot afford it. It will put us back into debt. It is the kind of Muldoonist problem that led to high interest rates in our country which Don Brash did nothing about. 
We cannot go backwards in this election campaign. We must go forward we must be inclusive we must be fair and we must design policies that take our country forward. We have to make sure that we do not give in. Having come so far to get our country’s figures back in the black in the Budget we cannot afford to give in to bribes like the National Party offers every 15 years—1975 1990 2005. Those members will bribe their way into office and the Labour Party is here to make sure they do not get a chance. I support Dr Cullen’s Budget.