Cullen Michael: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Cullen Michael: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10164] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2007/08) Bill be now read a second time 
. The Labour-led Government welcomes the chance at this time to debate its record and the alternatives put up by the Opposition across a broad range of issues. It welcomes particularly debating them at this time when John Key’s cocky crowing of only a week or two ago that there would be a National Party landslide is already turning to dust in his mouth. 
We also want to talk particularly about what is happening this coming Sunday 1 July. This is the day when KiwiSaver the new scheme to enable all New Zealanders in employment to save begins; the day that 20 hours’ free early childhood education begins; the day that sees extensions to paid parental leave; and the day that sees the new primary health care strategy have its final roll-out for 25 to 44-year-olds. This is a Government of energy and ideas that is delivering to the people; it is not a bunch of clapped-out past-it recycled 1990s front-bench people with no single new idea among them. The contest is between a Prime Minister of substance and a Leader of the Opposition whose full shallowness has yet to be completely explored. Indeed for political speleologists this will be a very interesting year or so as we explore the shallowness of the Leader of the Opposition. 
KiwiSaver is the most important macroeconomic reform in this country for something like 20 years. It is a scheme that offers security to individual New Zealanders a scheme that builds upon personal responsibility a scheme that will build personal wealth across the New Zealand population—not just a property owning democracy such as National used to stand for in the 1950s—and a scheme that will build national economic sovereignty and stronger capital markets. With that set looking pretty much like a royal flush if it were a poker hand it is not surprising that the members opposite who have about an 8-high nothing in their hand say they are opposed to it. This is a scheme that is good for Kiwis good for business and good for New Zealand. 
It comes on top of the fact that this Government restored the level of New Zealand superannuation as its first action in office then built the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to ensure that we could afford New Zealand superannuation from age 65 as a universal payment for the indefinite future. And what does National do and say? In 1999 when Mr English was in Government National cut New Zealand superannuation to pay for tax cuts. Members should remember that linkage. Secondly in 2000 National opposed creating the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
In 2005 National opposed “KiwiSaver Mark I” and this year it voted against the improved “KiwiSaver Mark II” and the tax credits that will go into the individual funds of Kiwis in the KiwiSaver scheme. When John Key was asked about “KiwiSaver Mark II” he said: “Oh no there are no guarantees over ‘KiwiSaver Mark II’.” So let the message go clearly out to the public: when Mr Key sidles up to them loving to be liked and liking to be loved and wanting to say anything to impress they should remember that he said there are no guarantees about “KiwiSaver Mark II”. Only a Labour-led Government can guarantee KiwiSaver being locked in place. As only Labour could guarantee the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in 2002 and as only Labour could guarantee 4 weeks’ annual leave in 2005 in 2008 only Labour can guarantee the improved KiwiSaver scheme staying in place. 
I come now to 20 hours’ free quality affordable early childhood education the biggest single improvement in quality early childhood education in New Zealand’s history for decades and decades. Mr English says that National opposes the 20 hours free policy. It cannot be clearer than that: National opposes the 20 hours free policy. And Mr Key of course said: “We want these young kids to be able to have 20 free hours. We want them to be able to go to school.” Well they can go to school already; that is not a problem. In New Zealand children have been able to do that for a rather large length of time. I think that since 1877 basically children in New Zealand have been able to go to school; school here has been compulsory free and secular. We want to make sure that Kiwis get the best start in life and get not just childcare but quality education as early in life as possible. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is it free? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What Paula Bennett wants to do is to give them a tax cut. “Never mind the quality feel the width.” says Paula Bennett and she is talking about early childhood education at that point. 
We then come to paid parental leave. National has opposed paid parental leave at every point along the way. It is now taken up by 80 percent of eligible women and after the extension last year to the self-employed it is available to nearly 90 percent of all women in paid employment. Employers support paid parental leave yet National continues to oppose every extension to paid parental leave that a Labour-led Government puts into place. 
I come to doctors’ fees and prescription charges in the primary health care strategy. They are finally being rolled out on 1 July. That means that all Kiwis will have access to cheaper doctors’ visits and to lower-priced prescription medicines on the approved list. National has opposed that policy at almost every point during its roll-out. In the 2005 election National promised not to proceed with the roll-out to groups that at that point were not covered and it still refuses to state clearly that it will keep that roll-out. It prefers to see “more timely measures” as it puts it to free up money for spending elsewhere in terms of tax cuts. 
This debate is not just about the good things this Labour Government is doing on 1 July—on Sunday—and is rolling out from that point on. This debate comes about at a good time because of the ever-growing list of contradictions between the two leaders of the National Party. No wonder that when Mr Key left the country he remembered Sunbeam the cat but forgot Mr English the somewhat badly behaved dog when it comes to policy issues in the National Party. When trying to explain these differences—in one of those wonderful phrases that all politicians come to regret just as they have uttered them—Mr English put it this way: “John articulates a confident and aspirational view about the future and I focus on putting together the numbers and the programme.” In other words: “He’s the pretty face and I’m the brains. He’s the pretty face who the public will like because they know I’m not a pretty face but I’m the brains who will look after him.” Well when Mr English is putting together the numbers one has to worry. Members should look at his track record on putting together the numbers in the National caucus itself; he has twice lost in terms of those numbers over the last couple of years or so. 
But on issue after issue the leaders disagree. There is a fundamental difference between them on fiscal policy. Mr English is more conservative than I am. I mean I like putting money in the top of the piggy bank but he does not have a little hole underneath to take anything out at any point when it is needed. He is a true Treasury official when it comes to that. Mr Key believes that we should gear up the country more that we should borrow billions of dollars more and that we should have a big spend-up. Mr English does not believe in bribing people with their own money; Mr Key believes in bribing people with their children’s and their grandchildren’s money. He believes in borrowing so that they can pay it back to pay for tax cuts and large spending now. 
They disagree over monetary policy. Mr English favours high interest rates; Mr Key says that high interest rates are unnecessary and that we should not have had them. There they disagree again. Mr Key says that we can have big tax cuts now; Mr English says that now is not the right time for giving out extensive tax cuts. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite would do better to ask Colin King the shearer from Kaikoura how to settle these differences between them. Mr Key says that we should cut out some of the Working for Families package to pay for tax cuts; Mr English says that there is no way that National would do that. On a fundamental issue of public policy they disagree publicly yet again. Mr Key believes that there should be a review of monetary policy; Mr English says there is nothing wrong with current monetary policy at all—it just should be faster harder and nastier. 
This is an Opposition that cannot get its two leaders to agree on a single important point about economic and financial policy. One cannot win an election on that basis.