Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Taxation (Annual Rates and Budget Measures) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:672;Page:18919] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 We now know the marketing strategy of the National Government. Say a cut is a modification say a cut is streamlining but do not call a cut a cut. This is the sort of spin that the previous speaker has come up with. “We modified Working for Families.” [ 
Interruption 
] No no. The facts are that 200000 participants in that scheme are getting a cut. It is a small word of three letters. Everybody apart from that member understands what it means. It is not streamlining. 
Likewise for KiwiSaver. On the one hand members and especially the member who has just spoken say they want to encourage a savings culture. That member said that the Government has modified or streamlined KiwiSaver. No no the Government has kicked it in the guts. Every participant in KiwiSaver has had a kick in the guts from that member’s Government. They do not feel like they have been streamlined or modified. They know what it is. The people are not stupid. That member thinks his constituents are stupid. They know and smell a cut when they see it. It is not a modification. 
I say to that member that it is very interesting. The National Government of course has banked this whole Budget on a series of projections—the creation of 170000 jobs and 4 percent wage growth over 3 or 4 years. But that is a very interesting set of projections. I can remember another set of projections nigh on a year-plus ago. The great plan was going to be a Job Summit. That then went west and we had a cycleway which was to be the nirvana in terms of job creation for this country. I am told that to date the numbers are around 70 people employed on a cycleway to nowhere. Then that went west. Gerry Brownlee the parliamentary blunderbuss of the Chamber had a brilliant idea—and the first I suspect in his terms in his life—and it was to mine national parks. That lasted 5 minutes. That was to be the great job creator the roads would be paved with gold and other miracles according to Gerry. Then of course we had: “No that’s off. We’re going to make New Zealand an international financial hub.” That was a great slogan. It lasted 5 minutes and we have never heard of it again. 
The plan of Government members because they know the people know they have no plan is to say they have a plan say it often enough and hopefully people will believe it. They did not get it last time. No member on that side of the House when they articulated a plan actually put it into place. So I ask those members whether they really think people will believe them now. 
I also say this. They use the Canterbury earthquake—and I must say I do get a little raw that these members would use the Canterbury earthquake over and over again as some sort of alibi to cover their tracks in terms of what they are doing now. They make a case that says somehow the great contributor to the $16 billion deficit which they have delivered in this Budget was the Canterbury earthquake. If they read the Budget documents they will now know that the Canterbury earthquake according to Treasury’s own figures contributed a mere 10 percent of accumulated deficit—10 percent of that accumulated deficit. Now we have dealt with that load of bunkum and that alibi I tell members to think carefully before they use the people of Canterbury and the earthquake as an alibi for a $16 billion deficit. We now know thanks to the Government’s own Budget documents that that is not the case. 
The previous speaker talked about the record of the last Government. I say this. Here are a couple of facts—low unemployment high growth and 9 years of surpluses. Who agreed with us on that? On 19 December 2008 just some days after taking office the finance Minister Bill English said the following in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.” I will say it again slowly for the more challenged members on the other side: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.” To unbundle that statement Mr English was saying: “Thank God we had 9 years of surpluses so we can actually try to deal with this global economic meltdown as it impacts on New Zealand unlike other countries that spent the lot.” 
When I was speaking on the first reading I recalled as an Associate Minister of Finance being taunted as we all were in Government by Bill English the then Opposition spokesperson saying we were mean-spirited because we did not spend the dough. We were squirreling away all these surpluses day after day and that we were a mean Government and we should be frittering it away. [ 
Interruption 
] That member at the back of the Chamber squawking was not in the Chamber at the time so I forgive him for his lack of historical knowledge. We were told we were being mean because we did not spend the lot. 
I say to members that I have a document from a series of Budgets starting from 2000 and I will read a couple of figures. These are the surpluses that we had: “year 2000 $594 million; year— 
Hon Hekia Parata 
: For God’s sake! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member does not like it. It is not “for God’s sake” but for her sake I say. In 2001 the surplus was $1.4 billion in 2002 it was $2.4 billion in 2003 it was $4.3 billion and it goes on right up to a high in 2006 to a surplus of $7.1 billion. When Labour left office it was a $5.6 billion surplus. If we are looking at facts about economic track records and what this Government inherited there it is in black and white. 
Then we can fast forward to today. The biggest deficit I think in our history of $16 billion has been delivered by this Government. Here is the problem when one is in Government. Government members are responsible. I do not think the members over there have quite got it. When they win an election they become accountable. They become responsible for their own performance. At some point they have to stand up and say: “We’re taking the hit. We’re biting the bullet. We are accountable. We are responsible.” What they have delivered today apart from all—[ 
Interruption 
] Here we go. Come on a bit more life! The blood is pumping through the veins. What they have delivered today is a cut in KiwiSaver yet they say they want to encourage a savings culture. They have delivered a cut in Working for Families yet they bleat aloud that they want to look after people—except there are 200000 participants who will receive a cut. 
The last speaker then had a crack at Opposition members because we want to provide some GST relief around fresh fruit and vegetables. They say it is all a slogan; it is all hoo-ha. That suggests to me that that member may be like all of us in this Chamber. He may be in the privileged position where he can probably afford a decent feed 7 nights a week—or in one member’s case a few more than that but he is in another place. I say that member can probably afford it. Maybe what I suggest he and others do is go around the food banks. I think it was Mrs King who challenged the Prime Minister to visit a food bank visit McGehan Close or visit a few other places where people are battling away and maybe ask them what they think about the cost of living and their food and grocery bills. Maybe they should do that. That may be instructive for them as they bleat clichés tonight about looking after people. 
Then we come to the other plank of course that will solve all ills—the sale of assets. That crew presents a proposition to people that says: “You’ve all got a lot of money out there New Zealanders ordinary mums and dads. You can buy back the assets that you already own.” That is the proposition they put up to them. It is a great benevolent Government: “Kiwis buy back the assets you already own and you have a lot of disposable income to do that with.” What a benevolent Government. 
They do not tell people of course what happened last time they did that and everybody was promised they would be better off. They do not tell people of course that those who will want to invest in our assets will be foreign companies foreign institutions and foreign agencies. Of course quite rightly those foreign institutions having invested in our State-owned enterprises like the power companies and generators will require logically a dividend from them. They will want their pound of flesh and that pound of flesh will be in the form of higher power prices delivered to consumers over the cold winter. Then somehow in a benevolent way the Government will put the icing on the cake by saying that it will go to the country with this matter even though it is in the Budget documents that the decision has already been made to do it. But as my Green colleague said the Government is asking for a mandate in retrospect or words to that effect. 
So I say to National members that if they want to get up on their hind legs and actually compare economic and political records then they should do it with facts. “Old Sooty” over there will not stand up and compare his record because that member has delivered a $16 billion deficit whereas we delivered 9 years of surpluses and we stand on our record in Government.