Carter David: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Carter David: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13800] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the second readings of the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/05) Bill and I start by congratulating the member for Otago David Parker—soon to be the former member for Otago—on the vision he displayed in his speech when he very correctly termed the National Opposition “the National Government”. I thank that member for the confidence he has in the chances of his own party at the next election. I heartily agree with his comments because we are talking here about the National Government that will be in power after the next general election. 
I want to concentrate on the seriousness of the Budget as presented recently by Dr Michael Cullen. As David Parker gives what I suspect is almost his final speech in the House we take pleasure in noting that Michael Cullen at very best can present only one more damaging Budget for our economy. 
I ask members of the House to refer particularly to page 45 in the Economic and Fiscal Update section of Budget 2004 under the heading “Economic Outlook Mid-2004 Through 2005—the Slowdown Arrives”. I then want members to turn to page 29 of the Fiscal Strategy Report in the same document and to look at the projected growth in gross domestic product. Very quickly we can see an economy under the stewardship of Dr Cullen settling down at 2 percent growth and it makes us remember the comments made by the Prime Minister about 12 months ago in the House when she was prepared to set a deadline of 10 years as the time she expected it would take New Zealand to lift itself back into the top half of the OECD. With the growth rate trending down to about 2 percent there is absolutely no possibility at all of seeing New Zealand lift itself back into the top of the OECD. 
So it is little wonder that Helen Clark quickly forgot her target of a 10-year deadline. She no longer has a target. More recently Dr Cullen when he was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee was asked what chance New Zealand had of getting itself back into the top half of the OECD. He replied: “Not at any time soon.” I say to that Minister and to Government members that it is time they actually looked at the seriousness of the situation. The skills attained by talented New Zealanders are highly marketable anywhere in the world and although David Parker says there is no relevance to the standard of living that Australians enjoy he is totally wrong. 
What New Zealanders could do at this stage is to look at the fact that if they moved to Australia they could earn substantially more. Many New Zealanders argue that one of the reasons they will not make the decision to do that is the rather enjoyable lifestyle we have in this country. I accept that to some extent that is true but where that lifestyle part of the equation becomes seriously compromised is when one realises that the Australian Government is able to deliver far better health and educational services than we in this country can—and that point is fast approaching. 
We had the ridiculous situation quite recently where the Government had put additional money into health for example. But even Treasury has had to notify the Minister of Finance that despite additional money being put into the health budget the output—the actual operations being received by New Zealanders—has actually declined. The Minister of Finance sent a “Please explain” letter across to the Minister of Health and to my knowledge we have not had a response from her about why even with more resources the output from our health sector is actually less. That is a very serious situation. 
David Parker also crowed about the Budget surpluses. They are large by historical standards but it is relatively easy to achieve very high Budget surpluses if one continues to impose tax after tax on New Zealanders. It is no challenge to achieve huge Budget surpluses if one just keeps on increasing taxes on all New Zealanders. A most revealing figure recently showed that average New Zealand households now pay an additional $2600 tax on top of what they paid prior to the Labour Government coming to power. It is not a total tax of $2600 per household; it is an additional tax of $2600 that they pay since Labour came to power at the end of 1999. 
John Carter 
: How much? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Two thousand six hundred dollars more tax is being paid by the average household in this country. That is now getting us to the ludicrous stage where this country is so overtaxed that it is not at all surprising we are ending up with projected growth rates of about 2 percent per annum. 
When this debate finishes later on this evening we will debate the third readings of the bills coming out of the Border Security Bill—or the “terrorist tax” as it has been named. That is the 23rd tax increase that has been imposed by the minority Labour Government since it came to office. It is the 23rd tax increase when the Government itself campaigned on only one tax increase—the “envy tax” that lifted the top tax rate from 33c to 39c. Commentator after commentator has been able to demonstrate to everybody but Dr Michael Cullen that that tax was totally unnecessary in view of the surpluses that subsequently have been achieved. 
The most frightening part of the Budget and the Budget debate is the revelation subsequent to the Budget itself that in a blatant attempt to sell the message to New Zealanders the Government will spend $21 million of taxpayer money selling itself and its re-election chances. The advertising industry found that the figure of $21 million was the biggest advertising spend in this country’s history. I read the other day that the Coca-Cola corporation which spent only $16 million a year was the biggest commercial advertising spend. Yet the Government is using $21 million of hard-earned taxpayer money in a desperate attempt to sell its measure for re-election. 
John Tamihere had the audacity to interject that $21 million was not enough. I tell that member that the Government should not use taxpayer money. If he believed in the progress made by the Government over the last 4½ long years he should get out there to sell its message. The latest polls would suggest that it has certainly not managed to do that very well. As people start to realise that most of the promises delivered in the Budget with the Working for Families package come into effect in 2005 2006 and even 2007 then I do not believe that that party has much of a chance to fool the electorate again in obtaining yet another term. 
The central theme of the Budget is about putting people back into welfare dependency. It is time this Government faced as an issue that New Zealand will not achieve a higher growth rate unless that trend is stopped.