Donnelly Brian: Budget Debate 
Donnelly Brian: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21107] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 We have all heard of Arnold Nordmeyer’s “black” Budget. I certainly cannot forget it—Darren Hughes might have forgotten it. My father used to go on incessantly about that—expletive—wowser and he did not often swear. Well now we have Michael Cullen’s “blew it” Budget because he blew it and in the process he blew what should have been an unassailable position coming into the next election. On the back of a good economy this Government has gone unchallenged except for a blip following a speech in Orewa that was nothing more than a Winston Peters speech without the finesse and following a bit of “here’s mud in your eye” outside the Te Tii marae from what could have been a National Party supporter. Apart from that period Labour has ridden high in the polls. 
The question has to be: how could Michael Cullen—“Mr Dependable”; the Prime Minister’s safe pair of hands; the unerring gaffe-free Michael Cullen—have mucked up so badly? A hospital pass from Mike Williams certainly did not help by setting up expectations that were inevitably dashed. But that does not explain the political ineptitude displayed in this Budget and one cannot accuse this Government of being politically inept. The roots of this disaster—and it can only be called a disaster for the Government—lie in the very modus operandi of this administration since its inception and are best reflected in the comments of a strongly Labour-supporting friend of mine who said a couple of years ago now: “I cannot believe how unprincipled this Government is. I cannot believe the degree to which it is driven by opinion polls and focus groups.” That is exactly what this Budget represents. It is underpinned by no principle but is driven solely by the self-interest of the Labour Government and its intention to stay in power. 
Unfortunately the result is the opposite of the intention. The problem with responding to every group that clamours loudly is that in election year everyone starts to clamour. Suddenly focus groups were overwhelming the Government with evidence of political hot spots. For example focus groups have been telling Labour that there is a clamour for taxation relief. So Michael Cullen said: “Let’s do that. But how do we do that and satisfy the other clamourings? Obviously it has got to be a pretty small tax cut and not right away.” So we have ended up with half a packet of chewing gum per week in 3 years’ time. As one commentator said: “This a chutty gum Budget.” 
Nowhere is this more of a chutty gum Budget than in education. First and foremost most of the expenditure is simply to fund what has already been agreed to in collective and other agreements. Primary education has an increase of $100 million—5.34 percent. That certainly sounds impressive. However $74 million of that is for higher salaries resulting from collective agreements. Those decisions have already been made. There is a need to ensure that salaries and conditions of service attract quality and quantity in our teaching force. New Zealand First has no quibble with those increases. We were the party that ensured the biggest-ever proportional increase in primary teachers’ salaries. The point is that it is not new policy and that the money was committed long before this Budget was ever drawn up. Out of the $91 million extra for secondary education $63.4 million is for salary increases and $14.2 million for roll increases—factors already in existence before the Budget. 
There is also $19 million in primary schools and $12 million in secondary schools for increases in operational funding. That is an increase of 2.4 percent when inflation is expected to run at 2.8 percent. How do we know that it is running at 2.8 percent? It is because elsewhere in the Government’s documentation on early childhood education funding increases it states that parent-led services are to receive an inflation increase to their rates of 2.8 percent. Instead of addressing the very real shortfall in operational funding that schools are facing the Budget is providing less than inflation—and it is crowing! New Zealand First says that it is time to do a detailed analysis of the real cost to school boards of meeting expectations—an exercise that was probably last carried out in 1988. 
Elsewhere we have situations like some tinkering with the funding for tertiary students when that needs a major overhaul. There is some tinkering with special-education funding when in fact we need to increase the cap of 1 percent and also the special-education grant funding. There has been some playing around with the Best Evidence Synthesis programme. It will receive $3.4 million over 4 years whereas Singapore is giving $47 million. 
All in all this is a chutty gum Budget. It lacks in vision and lacks in boldness. It reminds me of what RichieBenaud said of fast bowler Bob Cunis: “Cunis Cunis what sort of a name is that neither one thing or the other.” This is a chutty gum Budget.