Cunliffe David: Budget Debate 
Cunliffe David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11216] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I wish to second the amendment moved by the Hon Phil Goff on behalf of one of your constituents Mr Assistant Speaker Roy—Mr Henry Lindsay of Southland who is an 84-year-old. His family has emailed me. Unfortunately he has kidney cancer and heart failure. He used to receive a couple of hours of home help a week—that is until the Government cut it. We have received a second email from his son telling us that unfortunately Mr Lindsay has been admitted to hospital suffering from exhaustion and that he is still there. If the Minister of Finance cares to tote it up the $700 a day that Mr Lindsay is now costing the taxpayer would have covered his home help for probably the rest of his natural life. The case of Henry Lindsay of Southland is just a taste of what people will suffer in the future because of this Government. 
I turn now to “scene 2”. I was in a Noel Leeming store in Newmarket last weekend which was the first weekend after the Budget. Signs were up everywhere saying “Beat the GST rise. Buy your flat-screen TV today.” If this Government thinks that New Zealanders will suddenly save and enhance the national wealth because of the baubles and beads in this Budget it has another think coming. There will be a roaring trade in flat-screen TVs all over Newmarket while the Mr Lindsays of this world struggle to get the care they need. 
When the Budget hype lifts and the hangover sets in ordinary Kiwis will know the truth—that they have been sold a pup. This is not a step-change Budget a step-forward Budget or even a small-step Budget. It is not a step-up; it is a set-up. It is a set-up because it is the sucker punch of the real blow that is yet to come. It is not an economic Budget; it is a political Budget. It is a Budget that is designed to try to do one thing which is to get the National Party elected next year so that the real privatisations—and Bill English said what he thought about that on Friday last—and the real cuts can come in the second term. Let us hope that New Zealanders join together and stop that from happening. 
Today I will ask three quick questions about what the Budget means for the ordinary Kiwi for the country and for the future. What does the Budget mean for the ordinary Kiwi? National has made it tougher for Kiwis to get ahead—to get better jobs and higher incomes. National has dashed the hopes of ordinary New Zealanders at the checkout counter. 
Early in my time as an MP I was door-knocking in a place in New Lynn called Northall Road and I met a young mum who was on the domestic purposes benefit. She had three young boys who were about the age of my own kids and she had just come back from the doctor. The youngest one was calcium deficient and as I talked to her she cried because she could not afford milk to feed her boys. She could afford milk powder but not milk so she cried. 
She would have done better under Labour in the 9 years that followed. She would have been able to use the training incentive allowance to get a job when the kids were old enough but she has probably lost that job now in the wave of unemployment that has grown since the change of Government. One thing is for sure: she will not be better off following this Budget and I will tell members why. My colleague Parekura Horomia is now holding up a bar graph of gross income for an average-wage earner. These figures are based on Budget numbers. When we put in the Budget document’s inflation rate the average-wage earner after his or her tax cut will not break even until 2014—two elections away. 
When my colleague holds up the second graph he will show what happens to minimum-wage earners under this Budget. They just break even after tax by 2014 but the average-wage earner does not even do that. That is why 75 to 80 percent of Maori and over 80 percent of Pasifika people will be worse off after this Budget. Ordinary New Zealanders will be worse off after this Budget. Henry Lindsay of Southland will be worse off after this Budget. 
But let us not put it in terms of fancy graphs and statistics; let us talk about others who will be worse off. Anybody with a child who has been benefiting from 20 hours’ free early childhood education is at risk of paying up to $31 extra a week for that child to be in childcare. 
Paul Quinn 
: Outstanding Budget. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh “Outstanding” he says. The learning of our youngest New Zealanders is impeded but only if their parents cannot afford to pay. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Paul Quinn said that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Paul Quinn said that and  
Hansard 
 will show that Paul Quinn said “Outstanding” to ordinary Kiwis paying $31 a week for early childhood education. 
What about the tenants in the Housing New Zealand flats in Rata Street in New Lynn where some genius forgot to put an extractor fan in the bathrooms so that the flats are covered in mould rot and rising damp all winter? They desperately needed part of the money that was there for improvements and refurbishments in the State housing estate—the hundred million - odd that has been slashed out of this Budget. Those New Zealanders will not be better off. Those State housing tenants will have to live with the asthma and respiratory diseases that occur as a result of that rising damp. 
If the Budget is not good for ordinary Kiwis is it at least justified by some overwhelming result for the nation as a whole? The answer sadly is no. By the Minister’s own admission there will be no reduction in the widening gap between rich and poor. How could it be that a millionaire—a person who earns a million dollars a year—gets back $1000 a week in tax? Fifteen percent of the total tax refund goes to the top 1 percent of earners. One-third goes to the top 5 percent. Shame! They are not the people who have had to tough it out through the recession. They are not the people who have done it tough and have tried to meet the grocery bill at the checkout counter—and those people will be disappointed when they still cannot meet the bill at the checkout counter every year from now until 2014. 
Is there a great growth impact to make up for that social inequity? The answer is no. On the Budget’s own figures it takes over 7 years to scrape up an extra 1 percent of growth. It takes over 7 years to accumulate 1 percent—actually not even 1 percent—of extra growth. This Government promised a step change to catch up with Australia. It needed 2 percent a year and what does it have? It has less than one-seventh of 1 percent each year over the next decade. It is pathetic. But of course the Government is pulling the wrong levers. Nobody on this side of the House would have put their faith in trickle down. Supply-side economics was dead and buried after Ronald Reagan. 
In terms of employment—and this is important—fewer than 10000 jobs are forecast while unemployment widens by 60000 and the Government creates less than half the jobs that Labour created in its term of office. This Budget is delivering only 3 percent of the total growth in employment. The rest would have happened anyway. The best the Government could do was 3 percent. 
The external account more than doubles—from 3 percent of GDP to 7 percent of GDP—because of this Budget. We are not paying our way in the world. We are not exporting enough. We are not saving enough. We are not innovating enough. This was the Government’s big chance to turn the boat round and it failed. Total national debt approaches 100 percent for the first time in our history. To be fair to Bill English he had the courage to say that it was our biggest single vulnerability and I agree with him on that. But what did he do in response? He made it worse by borrowing an extra $1.1 billion to give $1000 a week to someone earning a million dollars a year. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Ridiculous. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is ridiculous. He called it the biggest single vulnerability and he broke his promise to be revenue-neutral on his tax package therefore making that promise worse. 
This Budget is not good for ordinary New Zealanders and it is not good for the country. So why do it? That is the big question. Well here is the rub. Here is the sucker punch I say to New Zealanders. This is the hoodwink to make them think they are better off so they will vote for this lot one more time. Mr English has let the cat out of the bag. Kiwibank is the first of many State assets to go. We will see savage cuts in spending the privatisation of assets and New Zealanders will regret the day they entrusted these people with national office.