Dyson Ruth: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Sitting date: 26 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3394. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am delighted to contribute to the second reading debate on the Appropriation (2011/12 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. When the Minister of Finance Bill English introduced this debate he said that this bill carries on the same theme as the Budget. I noticed that Minister Parata paled at those words thinking of those days of agony that she had to go through when first of all she had to admit to the entire House that no she had not asked for any information at all in relation to what impact the Budget cuts in the education sector would have on the number of children who were going to be in classrooms around our country. She seemed surprised that we would expect her as the Minister of Education to have asked for that information. Then she had to tragically come down to the House and correct her answer having denied receiving such information because in fact her office had received the information. So not only did she not bother asking for it; she did not even know that her office had received it. 
Heaven only knows what her Cabinet colleagues thought when they signed off the education budget cuts. Did they not think about what the implications will be in our classrooms for our children and the quality of their education? But of course the Prime Minister rode to the rescue of the poor and by then stunned and silent Minister and said: “No we’re going to put a cap on these changes on these cuts to education in this year’s Budget.” So National announced this great fix and then just a week later it said: “The deal’s off. We’re going to have to find the money somewhere else.” 
So when Bill English said that this bill is going along the same lines as the Budget I must admit that my heart went out to Minister Parata. I thought: “That’s really cruel. I hope she doesn’t have to go through that same week and a half of embarrassment again.” For the Minister of Education to not know that when you cut the education budget when you change the ratio in the classrooms it will have an impact on the number of children in each classroom in every school and that undoubtedly that has an impact on the quality of education— 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: Oh really? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She’s learning. She said “really”. She’s picked it up. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I do not think the Minister has quite grasped the point yet. 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: Ha ha! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: She laughs at parents she laughs at teachers and she laughs at the anger that people felt when they were told that their child could have another five or so children in their classroom and it would not make any difference. That is not what teachers parents or even children feel about what we all want and that is quality outcomes. 
Bill English said this bill is going to be along the same lines as the Budget. Well that just means there is nothing in it that has any leadership any aspiration any vision for New Zealand. It was an absolutely zero Budget. It missed out on all the opportunities that New Zealanders would love to see coming from the Government all the opportunities that New Zealand would thrive on that New Zealanders are crying out to see. Instead we got a Budget where the centre point was really taking money out of the pockets of paper boys. That was the high point. That was the inspiration from Bill English that we got to see in the Budget: “Let’s turn the poor little paper boys upside down rattle their ankles and see whether we can get a few coins out of their pockets.” A pitiful amount of money but taxing paper boys was a key element. 
The other piece of legislation that came in of course under urgency in the Budget was capping the amount of money that people could keep for themselves to leave to their families in those final days of their lives when they were living in a rest home. Their having had an annual increase of $10000 in the asset threshold the Government said: “No that’s too much. We don’t want elderly people to keep that sort of money. We want them to pay it to us’’—to the Government—“for their rest home care.” So National put a stop on that as well. So we saw the most vulnerable people in our communities—older people who live in rest homes or in hospitals—being affected and the youngest in our community who are doing a few hours’ work a week doing paper runs getting taxed on that money. 
I think that if anyone from any other country in the world heard those two policies as centre points of the Budget they would be hanging out for the next page of the Budget document. But it was not there. There was nothing at all providing any vision or providing any leadership. That is what New Zealand wants at the moment. That is what New Zealand needs so that we can go back to playing our part as a strong contributor to the international economy. National has put its head in the sand over the most important issues facing New Zealand—over superannuation over economic growth over any vision and foresight for where New Zealand is going to go in the future. 
 In my view it is not just a lazy thing; it is shirking the legitimate responsibility of a Government. There are hard decisions for a Government to make. There are decisions that should be made that will challenge its popularity even. In my view and it was certainly the view expressed by the Hon Simon Power in his valedictory speech to this House that is part of the privilege of the responsibility of Government—facing up to those hard decisions and making them for the betterment of the whole nation; not for the popularity polls but for what is best for New Zealand. 
We know that in any Budget there are choices there are alternatives and there are different ways that different political parties look at things. I did have to have a little chuckle though at the member Maggie Barry who resumed her seat immediately prior to me when she started boasting about targets that had been set by the National Government. She said: “We set these targets so that we meet them.” Well I would be quite keen to know what happened to the 4 percent growth that John Key predicted. In the Budget the measures of which we are debating the growth rate is set at 2.6 percent. That is quite a gap between a target that was set and a target that was met. 
Last year John Key the Prime Minister said we would have 170000 new jobs created. This Budget which we have just finished debating cut that target by 16000. Those are not just figures. Those are real people who cannot get paid employment even though they desperately want to because the target that John Key as the Prime Minister set was not met—another target not met by the Government. Last week he said that exports were rising. Well the latest statistics show that exports fell in the last 12 months by 17 percent. That is $800 million worth of exports. So the trend in exports is going down rather than going up. That is another target that was not met. Last year the Prime Minister said that we would get real growth in wages this year. We have seen it peak at just 1.5 percent and now it is trending down again. That is not a set of targets that have been set and then are met; that is a set of targets that John Key the Prime Minister promised New Zealand and then he and his Government failed to meet those targets. 
There are alternatives as there always are. There are alternatives for this Government to step up to the mark and face up to and to deliver; or the voters of New Zealand can elect another Government that can provide a different way of leading our nation. We do need leadership that is willing to make the tough decisions and that is not prepared to say: “We will put our heads in the sand we will bury the hard issues and we hope they will go away.” We need to ensure that we do support businesses to create new jobs and support higher incomes for New Zealand. 
Reaching the surplus seems to be the only target that this Government has. It is even prepared to sell New Zealand - owned assets in order to achieve that surplus. Well of course reaching a surplus is important but a single-minded approach of reaching a surplus is not good enough. The sacrifices that the National Government is making New Zealanders and our economy pay in order to reach that surplus are just unfair. 
It is not about spending more money which is always the National Party’s chant. That is not the position that Labour has always espoused. It is about making the right choices. It is about looking at the options for the Budget and saying what our priority is and what the best way is to invest in New Zealand now so that as we move out of difficult financial times New Zealand and New Zealanders are on a stronger footing to take advantage of the better economic times. We have seen alternatives tried in other countries. The Budget and this Appropriation (2011/12 Supplementary Estimates) Bill are a wasted opportunity from the National Government. The bill is a continuation of a zero Budget with no ideas.