Prasad Rajen: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
Prasad Rajen: Appropriation (2009/10 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2010/11) Bill — Second Readings 
[Volume:664;Page:11911] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge that wonderful warm welcome and smile that Mr Deputy Speaker has just given me; I wish I could return the same to Mr Gilmore who has just spoken. I ask Mr Gilmore to remember that he is here because of only 39 votes and when there is any downturn in the votes for that party he should remember that he will be the first to go. Mr Gilmore should remember that. Mr Gilmore plays with figures a lot but perhaps the one figure he should remember is 39. There are only 39 steps—perhaps he should read the book—he should look at that and put it anywhere he likes or next to his bed to remind himself about it. 
Although Mr Gilmore talks about voodoo I think the voodoo is within him. I wonder what it is about the argument that we on this side are putting forward so strongly that he does not get. I wonder what he would say to those people who cannot afford a decent life for themselves. I wonder what Mr Gilmore would say to those who simply want a decent life for their children to those who want good early childhood education for their children to those who want access to good primary health care and to those who want a decent job. Do members know what Mr Gilmore would say? He would say to wait for the good times—wait for the economy to improve; wait till the rich have really become rich—and then that party will do something because he definitely believes in the trickle-down effect. 
Mr Gilmore is one of those people who just do not get the importance of balanced development and balanced development will never occur unless both economic development and social development are brought together. Social development is about our people. It is about looking after our citizens especially the most vulnerable. Perhaps it is also about reducing the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. But for that member it is all about exports and it is not about people at all. It is just about figures and dollars but it is not about people. 
In a similar way when Craig Foss was speaking it was interesting to hear how he had forgotten about the amount of resources his party is currently spending on trawling through the past. He was lecturing members on this side of the House—when Trevor Mallard was debating very very aggressively perhaps an issue that was of concern to him and simply bringing that to the attention of this House—that we should not bring up the past. Mr Foss got very angry about that and he said that we should not do that. But members on that side of the House trawled through the archives to bring to their Prime Minister quotes from the deep past so that they may read them and remind us of what some members of the House might have said 10 or 15 years ago. If the member lives in a glasshouse he should not throw stones. Intense scrutiny might be something that that side of the House does not like but they should get used to it because that is what they will get from this side of the House. 
Perhaps more important the problems of Budget 2009 have not been addressed by Budget 2010. We can ask a number of questions: did the jobs the Government promised in 2009 materialise? Did they? Where are they? Has the number of jobs gone up? The Government promised a cycleway. Did that materialise? How many jobs has that created? Well not many. The Government promised that unemployment would be halted. Has it been halted? It has not. Has our savings record improved in this country? Have our savings increased? No they have not. Did the vulnerable get the kind of assistance that they deserve in the shift of resources? No they did not. Instead the Government shifted resources from the poor to the rich from low and middle income earners to high-income earners. The Government has had two cracks at this—in the 2009 Budget and again in the 2010 Budget—and the Government is borrowing to fund it. It is borrowing at a rate of knots—hundreds of millions of dollars are being borrowed to fund this particular shift. Where is the sense in that? 
Day in and day out the Government uses the mantra that for 9 years Labour did nothing. If only the Government members were intellectually honest they would interrogate the kinds of advances the Government of the last 9 years brought to this country. The Labour Government did pay off debt it did save money and it did increase our savings record. It did put money aside for our national superannuation scheme for KiwiSaver etc. Those members opposite might expected to be be fair about it but no they are not. 
Let us look more intensively at the Government’s programme at the moment. The point I want to make is that a country’s Budget is really a moral document. It expresses the values and philosophies and morality if you like of the Government that proposes it. One can look at a Budget and find signs of a Government’s particular morality and I want to look at the Budget from that perspective. 
Let us look at the tax cuts. The mantra at the moment is that everybody benefits but they do not. It is absolutely not true. If everybody benefits then why is the Government not able to take a typical family or a range of typical families and actually show us in real terms the effects of this Budget on them? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: We did. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Perhaps Mr Mapp might like to explain some of what I am going to tell him in a minute. If one is taking the example of GST and comparing that against the decrease in taxation then that is one point. But I say to Mr Mapp that it is intellectually dishonest to disregard all the other increases that have already occurred and will continue to occur as a result of the Government’s tax programme. It is intellectually dishonest and the member as a former professor at a university would accept that as I would. It is simply intellectually dishonest to do that. When we factor in the increase in GST we see that it takes money off people. Then we go a little further and look at inflation. The Government’s own figures show that inflation will be significant. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Inflation is covered by wage increases. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Again I say to Mr Mapp that the figures do not tally. The increase in wages will give an average worker $2 per week. That is what the effective increase in wages will be. It is intellectually dishonest not to add the extra accident compensation costs—it is unfair to do that. Also if we take a typical family with children we see the extra early childhood education costs. If we add all those costs we can see that the average wage earner is not well off so it is intellectually dishonest to say that. 
The other point the Government makes is that it will create all these jobs. Well the full tax package will create 10000 jobs a mere 6 percent of the 174000 that were promised. I ask the member to consider what Mr Muldoon said when Think Big was put forward in the same way that the member’s Government is putting forward its idea. Mr Muldoon was going to create 420000 jobs. What did he create? He created barely 10 percent of that. He brought the country to its knees. We have seen the same kind of intellectual dishonesty from successive National Governments and this is another one. 
Let us consider the promises about not selling State assets. How can we trust that side of the House? The Government has said it will not sell State assets. It should read the polls. The country does not want asset sales. Now the Government is playing with words and saying it will not sell State assets during this term—certainly not KiwiSaver. The Government has tested the water. Mr English tested the water and heard very clearly that this country does not want sales of State assets. 
Let us look at the way in which members on that side of the House talk about health. Mr Ryall gets up in the House week in and week out and tells us that there has been an increase in health spending in 2009 and 2010. In fact there has been a decrease and $186 million has been stripped from low-priority spending. Who are the people who experience that? It is the people with mental health issues. The district health boards have had a major reduction in funding.