King Annette: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
King Annette: Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:641;Page:11065] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Today in the imprest supply debate the Leader of the Opposition John Key coined another new phrase—“lolly-nomics”. Of course he has a tendency to do this; whenever there is a major debate he comes up with a catchy little phrase that will hopefully make the TV clip that night as the sound bite. Mr Key and Mr English and no doubt all National members have all been asked to say the phrase in all their speeches today so we will just tick off how many times they say “lolly-nomics”. I am quite happy to have the new name “lolly-enomics” because it means that we have to have some lollies to be able to spend. We have to build up some lollies to be able to share them with New Zealanders. We cannot share “nothing” with anybody. We have to be able to have something to share with the people of New Zealand and what this Government has done has built up some lollies so we can spend them. So I thank National for that label. I suppose the opposite of it would be “Scrooge-nomics” and we suffered Scrooge-nomics under the National Government. I think it was called “euthanasia” at one stage but it was “Ruthanasia”. It became—and I think it was—“Scrooge-nomics” and New Zealanders felt the effect of it because there were no lollies to spend. 
In fact Bill English as Minister of Finance ran deficits. He was so good in his job he ran deficits. He wants the job again I say to members of this House. He is begging for the job again and his record is that he ran deficits and people can only spend deficits if they borrow to spend the deficits. 
It is like the household budget. People take out the old credit card they go into New World they buy the milk the bread the butter and the meat they stick it on the credit card and they think they have actually paid for them—until they get the bill. Then they get the headache because they now have to pay for what they have put on their credit cards. 
I have to say that people could be mistaken in not knowing what this debate is about. It is the imprest supply debate and it is the end of the Budget 2007 debate. A Budget is the implementation of policy. We heard Mr English say today that Labour has no policy. Of course we do not have a Budget if we are not implementing something and spending some of the lollies on something. In fact this party spends the lollies on policy—policy we told New Zealanders about policy we believe in—and in a Budget we implement policy. Did we hear from Opposition members how they would implement policy? Did they tell us about a policy? They did not tell us about a single policy. In fact it was the usual rant and rave. 
Many New Zealanders may not remember this debate but they will remember that this Budget brought in KiwiSaver for thousands and thousands of New Zealanders. In fact over 100000 New Zealanders will be enrolled by 2008. This Budget brought in business tax cuts for New Zealand business people. The National Party—can people believe it—opposed that. They opposed a tax cut for business in New Zealand. I heard on so many occasions National members saying they believed that the businesses of New Zealand deserved to have the same tax rates as Australia. We heard that up and down the country for years and when the first chance came to vote for a tax cut for business in New Zealand who opposed it? The National Party! That is as shallow as a bird bath. 
Who can believe that that party ever believes in tax cuts when the first chance it got to vote for them it voted against them? Why did its members vote against them? I ask members to ask themselves that. Why would they vote against them? It can be for only one reason—pure politics. There was no rationale behind it there was no reasoning behind it; it was pure naked politics. That is why National members voted against tax cuts. 
In this Budget we also saw some of the last implementation of the Primary Health Care Strategy. I want to congratulate the Minister of Health on the work he has done in ensuring that this policy which was put in place has been implemented for the benefit of New Zealanders. I have to say I am particularly proud of that policy because I have always believed—as this party has—that the first rung of the health ladder ought to be affordable for New Zealanders. We allow people to go to hospitals where it is free but we say to them that when they want to go to their primary health care provider they pay top dollar. 
We did have a subsidy for primary health care—New Zealanders will remember it—and we were subsidised for years and years and years. In the years of “Scrooge-nomics” National members took away the subsidy for primary health care they voted to take away the subsidy for primary health care and gave people a “poor card”. If people were poor enough they got a bit of a help to go to their doctor but if they had a dollar over the benchmark they paid full price. This current provision has brought back affordable primary health care to New Zealanders—not only primary health care but affordable prescriptions as well. I am very proud that that was in this Budget implementing a policy that I know that many New Zealanders believe in. I know that many of the other supporting parties believe in it as well. 
We also saw in education the implementation of 20 hours’ free early childhood education. Last Friday I had the privilege of visiting a brand-new early childhood centre in my electorate called I-Kids. It is private early childhood education centre. If members drive around Greta Point I ask them to have a look at a beautiful new building that has gone up there—it is spectacular. And do members know what that early childhood centre has done? It has signed up for 20 hours’ free early childhood education. It believes in it. It believes that it is good for the parents it is providing a quality service and it is one of many in my electorate. I say: “Good on you I-Kids and good on all those who have signed up.” They have put first the children of New Zealand—not raw naked politics as some would do because they think they might get the National Party a vote or two. 
But one would have to say that the level of debate in this House in recent weeks has been more about getting rid of Ministers dreamt-up scandals so-called conspiracies and a lot of innuendo that we have seen over the last few weeks rather than sensible debate. 
Hon Member 
: And a lot of rubbish as well! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would say to Mr Coleman that as a new member in this House it is really remarkable how fast he has fallen into those traps—traps that most people take a long time to fall into. I think that Diane Foreman in the Sunday paper put her finger on it when she pointed out that the problem she faced in terms of the theft of Don Brash’s emails—another one of the scandals and conspiracies we have heard about in this House—was closer to home. In other words the problem is around the National Party. I think what we have seen since the election in 2005 is the National Party immersing itself in pursuing issues that are irrelevant to New Zealanders are irrelevant to the daily lives of Kiwi men and women and I want to say that the Budget the Government has just put out is very relevant to the people of New Zealand. 
The big winner in this Budget was transport. Transport was a winner in 2006. It has been a winner under this Government because we believe we can transform an economy only by investing in infrastructure. Today John Key talked about transport in Auckland and the gridlock there. I ask him to think about the roads that were not built about the investment that did not go into public transport and about the decisions made in the 1990s. It is there for anyone to see as clear as the nose on your face—there was little investment. We in Auckland are reaping the benefits—or in fact we are reaping the results of that lack of investment and it has only been this Government’s commitment to investment that has seen us have a programme under way where there is now money going towards electrification of rail and into passenger transport into roads—local and State highways. In fact we have seen an unprecedented investment into our infrastructure. 
John Key also said how a tax cut fixes a traffic jam. I think he said they should have got a tax cut and he implied that that would fix a traffic jam. Well of course one cannot spend the money twice. The lollies have to go where they are needed. In my view investment into infrastructure which is in this Budget is very good spending indeed.