Sutton Jim: Budget Debate 
Sutton Jim: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3273] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of State) 
: 
 It is with some pride that I rise to speak in the debate on the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill. The pride I feel is felt by all of us on this side of the House. It is not pride of office; it is pride in our nation. It is pride in the results of 6½ years of forward-looking bold—even visionary—policies that are successfully delivering a better life for our people. 
The unemployment rate is at a historic low. It is the lowest in the Western World. The Opposition members do not like that. They like to have a decent-sized core of unemployed. It helps keep wages for the peasants down. But bigger pay packets are a fitting reward for participation in a successful economy; particularly increasing household income net of tax is a reward for families raising the next generation of Kiwi workers. It is a reward coming via the Working for Families package which surely reflects the policies of a Government that wisely puts investment in people and their futures as its prime responsibility. For the same reason we are putting aside money now to meet the rising cost of superannuation in the future. 
We know these policies infuriate the Opposition. The Nats and their ragtag pathetic parliamentary allies abhor increases in wages. They despise tax rebates being targeted on the basis of family need rather than the aspirations of some—who do not currently have the same family responsibilities—to minimise their own contribution. Labour’s wise forward-looking policies which are delivering real benefits to our communities right now are not paid for by reckless overexpenditure. This Government is fiscally prudent. We are investing and have been investing for an even more successful future. With steadily rising wages and other incomes we are investing and have been investing— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the entire time the Minister has been speaking he has been subjected to a constant conversation that has not let up once. The Minister and members on this side do not mind interjections but there has been a constant conversation and commentary during the Minister’s speech and I think members ought to be able to make a contribution to the Budget debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think everybody is entitled to hear the speech. Certainly there has been a level of noise—it is more than interjections—that is not acceptable and I ask members to give other members the opportunity to hear the speech. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The Government is investing in a culture of innovation and rising productivity in the New Zealand economy. We are investing in ever-improving public services especially health education and training law and order environmental quality and a better work-life balance. We are building an asset in the Superannuation Fund which of course is already generating excellent returns. We are investing big-time in the infrastructure that will make continuing economic growth possible. 
But we are doing this while keeping lower marginal tax rates than most comparable economies—lower even than the remaining high marginal tax rates in that nation so much more preferred by Dr Don Brash than our own country. Australia of course is the example National wants to emulate although I suggest to Dr Brash that he is getting a little old to invade Iraq. He will have to cut his coat according to his cloth. He could invade somewhere smaller perhaps somewhere closer. Perhaps he could invade Bondi Beach. That is a horrible thought and I would not wish it on the Australians myself. 
Dr Brash admires the recent Australian tax cuts. I want to quote what these recent much-admired Australian tax cuts deliver. They deliver a top personal tax rate of 45 percent—45c in the dollar. Any further bid? That is down from the previous exorbitant 47c in the dollar. That is a slashing cut! 
 It will give those Australians with incomes of $150000 a year almost $120 extra a week. To those on average incomes it will return almost $10 extra a week. To those on the lowest incomes it will deliver $7 extra a week. That is Dr Brash’s brave vision for New Zealand—tax cuts of $7 a week for low-income workers and $120 for rich earners. That is certainly a National vision. I should mention some other comparisons. The rate of stamp duty in Australia remains— 
Darren Hughes 
: What is it? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: In Sydney for example the stamp duty is 2.5 percent which would add $20000 to $25000 for the average family buying their first home. But what does $20000 matter if one is getting a $7 a week tax cut! Goodness me! We ought to see these things in perspective. What do the Nats say about that? They say they want more. They say we can have stamp duty. What is the rate of stamp duty in New Zealand? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Zero! No stamp duty. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: It is a pathetic zero. Where is the boldness in that? Dr Brash is so disappointed in New Zealand’s zero stamp duty rate. What about Medicare levies in Australia? What do we pay in Medicare? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Zero! 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Zero! We do not have to pay Medicare levies. Australians have to pay 1.5 percent of their income which is on top of the top marginal tax rate of 45c in the dollar. Of course it is at the same rate for the poor so that is perhaps not as bad as it would have seemed at first sight. What about payroll taxes in Australia? Australians pay 3.65 percent to 6.85 percent depending on which state they work in. So those prepared to go to a state that is unbearably hot might get away with a lower rate of payroll tax. What is the rate of payroll tax in New Zealand? 
Darren Hughes 
: Zero! 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Zero! My goodness how are accountants supposed to earn a living in this poor country when there is no range of additional taxes to be calculated? Oh it is so unfair on accountants! What about accident compensation charges in New Zealand? They are less than 1 percent on average. Australia has a different but equivalent workplace insurance scheme but its charges are 2.47 percent—or 2½ times in general terms what accident compensation costs workers in New Zealand. 
What about annual leave in New Zealand? Well we have been a bit slow but we are catching up. We are moving to 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave. The Australians already have that. However under the present Australian Government workers will have the opportunity to revert to 2 weeks’ annual leave. They can sort of sell the other 2 weeks back to their employer—perhaps to help pay for their Medicare levies. I suppose they will have to do that. But we are going to end up with 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave and the Australians will be back to 2 weeks. If it is the answer maybe that will set them on the road to recovery. 
But it is not the answer in the views of the New Zealand Labour-led Government. This Government believes people are entitled to a better work-life balance. They are entitled to higher incomes and a progressive Government.