Brownlee Gerry: Budget Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11213] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill in what is commonly known as the Budget debate and to oppose the amendment proposed by the Hon Phil Goff. That amendment is an utter joke and it tells the public that the Labour Party has absolutely no sense of where public thinking lies. It is an amendment that clearly shows a party stuck in what it believed to be the best style of governance during the 9 years in which it squandered opportunities to move this country forward. I find it offensive that no one on the other side of the House has had the temerity to stand up and say “We wrote that amendment prior to hearing the Budget delivered and we now realise that we were completely wrong and want to withdraw it.” 
I find it amazing that a Budget that delivers a very very low tax rate to three-quarters of all workers in this country can be described as a Budget that lacks vision and that raises taxes for working New Zealanders. That is quite untrue and I would like the members on the other side of the House to tell us how they would respond to the simple facts that I will offer to the House. Firstly let us take an average family on a $76000 income a year with two kids and a mortgage who are receiving Working for Families. After the tax cuts and after the GST rise and with the Working for Families increase that family will be $25 a week better off. I would like Labour members to go to that family and tell them that the Budget is bad for them. Let us take the average earner who is on $50000 a year and renting a place to live and who is saving towards a first home. After tax cuts and the GST rise that earner will be $16 a week better off. Why does the Labour Opposition not go to the people who are in that category and tell them that they are worse off? Let us take a retired couple receiving New Zealand Superannuation who own their own home and have no other income—which is the case for the vast majority of superannuitants in this country—so they rely entirely on their superannuation payments to get by. After the tax cuts the GST rise and the increase in their superannuation to compensate for that rise they will be $11 a week better off. Why do Labour Opposition members continue to insist that they are not better off when patently they are. 
We will hear this afternoon no doubt Labour members saying that all of the value of the tax cuts and the adjustments made to all of those State benefits and superannuation will in fact leave people worse off or— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there are very clearly defined rules about visual aids. They are to be used only while a member is speaking and by that person. So those charts on the Labour front bench will be put down please. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was hoping that the cameras would catch a glimpse of those charts and the context in which they appear and that people would compare them with the genuine information contained in the Budget documents to prove that David Cunliffe the poor fellow is somewhat lacking in his ability to analyse these matters as well as being quite out of step with what New Zealanders are feeling about these matters. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Treasury numbers. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He yells across the House “Treasury numbers.” and it may well be that he has used some numbers to bodgie up those particular graphs. But the reality is that he is not Treasury despite the fact that he has got one of the biggest intellects in the world and he does not have the same capacity to impart that information to New Zealanders. I have no doubt that Mr Cunliffe will try to mount a case stating that after all these changes have come into effect—increases in State benefits Working for Families and superannuation and more income in the pockets of New Zealanders by virtue of tax cuts—we will have inflation that will rip it all away from them. 
A couple of points about that are worth noting. Firstly yes there has been a one-quarter spike in inflation but the underlying inflation figure is still running at around 3 percent. I would like Mr Cunliffe to say why he was not worried about workers superannuitants beneficiaries and families who relied on Working for Families payments when he left office with an inflation rate of 5.1 percent. It seems that it is another case of it being OK when Labour does it but not being OK when anyone else does it. The point in this case though is that no one else is doing it—the high inflation records lie entirely with the previous Government of that member. 
One might expect that in a Budget like this where there are such large tax cuts—the largest in 25 years—a number of trade-offs might see other spending start to fall. But that is not the case. When one goes through this Budget one can see that there is an increase in funding for housing a massive increase in funding for health services—an extra $512 million over the next 12 months—and very large increases in the education portfolio with an extra $417 million in just the next 12 months. There is funding for infrastructure with a total spending programme over a 5-year period from now of $7.5 billion. There is also the huge commitment that the Government has made to science innovation and technology in working with business to grow opportunities for this country and a very very sizable $243 million support for business research. That is not some sort of pie-in-the-sky “maybe” figure like the one that was being touted by the previous Labour Government for about 3 years prior to putting it in a Budget but never funding it. National’s increase in funding is real it is available it will be taken up and it will make a difference. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s less than half what Labour had. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member over there says it is less than half of what Labour promised. The problem is that having promised it Labour never delivered it. Those members had 9 years but they never delivered it. National’s has taken just 18 months and here it is on the table and available. It is real and it is for businesses to work with. 
Another feature of the Budget is the Government’s ongoing commitment to taking out of the public sector the spending that is of pretty low value. A huge effort has been made across the public sector to remove that lower-priority spending—about $1.8 billion of it. To quantify that I tell members that it is about 1800 Saturday-night Lotto prizes. It is a huge amount of money which was formerly spent on what can be described only as low-priority spending. 
All Budgets have in them particular features but normally they reach out to only a small sector of the community. This Budget is one that has reached out across the board. One of the most impressive things about this Budget is the way in which the business community has embraced it and that will mean more investment and more jobs. The significant number of additional jobs calculated in this Budget—170000 extra jobs predicted—will come to pass. 
When it comes to the issue of a fairer tax system some of the write-offs that were available to people who owned second properties or commercial properties have gone. There was no loss in value on a usual annual basis that they were able to claim. The Budget has been embraced by that sector. There are newspaper reports today that landlords throughout New Zealand are saying that this is a good Budget that will not have an adverse effect on the rental housing market. 
This is a Budget that can be described as delivering on National’s promise to reduce taxation for New Zealanders to ensure that there is genuine reward for work that is done. It sets the scene for real incomes in the pocket to grow over a number of years. I think that the Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English should be congratulated on this Budget. I hope that Mr Cunliffe his opposing shadow spokesperson—and I will say his name again because not many people know it: Mr Cunliffe—might come into the House this afternoon and withdraw the amendment to the motion moved by the Hon Bill English because that amendment is out of date it does not mean anything and it most certainly misses the mark as far as most New Zealanders are concerned.