Mackey Moana: Budget Debate 
Mackey Moana: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9550] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What an extraordinary speech Mr Assistant Speaker—what an extraordinary speech! Let us be clear: Paula Bennett National member is advocating a zero taxation policy for New Zealand. Of all members on that side of the House that member should understand a little more about what it means to be a low-income New Zealander. She stood up in her maiden speech and gave us the typical Tory line: “When I was on the benefit it was because I had to be; all those other people are on a benefit because they are too lazy.” That is the typical Tory approach to beneficiaries—to bash them with statements like: “But of course when I was on it it was because I couldn’t support my family.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Before I continue my speech Mr Assistant Speaker can I wish you a very happy birthday today on this most auspicious occasion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you for telling everybody. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am sure that everybody wishes you a very happy birthday. 
I was talking about the outrageous revelation from National MP Paula Bennett about the zero taxation policy she is now promoting on behalf of the National Party which is quite astounding. I am not quite sure what she thinks is going to happen. Maybe people are going to pool their money together to build their own hospitals and pay their own teachers but I am sure it will all become clear as we see some policy emerge from the National caucus. 
This is a very significant Budget and it is a very important Budget for New Zealand not just for today but for many many generations to come. This Government is the kind of far-sighted visionary Government that we have come to expect under this Labour-led leadership. 
I think that what has emerged since the Budget last Thursday is that New Zealanders know that they need to save. We know that we are bad at it. We know that we need to save. We know that the fact we have such a low rate of savings causes incredible imbalances in our economy but until now we have never really had any great incentive to do it. New Zealanders are great for putting off things to do on another day and as we have seen TV and newspaper reporters have gone out and found that the response from many New Zealanders has been: “This is great this is something tangible and it is well worth my while doing; I have known for a long time that I needed to do that and now I’m going to start doing it.” 
I think that this is particularly important for my generation and those younger because of course we cannot guarantee—unless Labour stays in Government there is no guarantee—that New Zealand superannuation is going to remain universal at the same age of entitlement and at the same level if it exists at all by the time we reach retirement. We remember only a few years ago the then leader of the National Party Don Brash telling people that if they were under 50 they should not rely on there being New Zealand superannuation when we retired. The sad thing about that was that I think he was meaning that to be comforting. I think he was saying that to make people feel better—that those people who were under 50 under a National-led Government maybe could probably still rely on New Zealand superannuation. Of course we cannot trust National on that either. But what he was saying essentially was that under a National-led Government all those under 50 could not be guaranteed New Zealand superannuation. 
I want to highlight the Labour Government’s commitment to New Zealand superannuation at the age of entitlement and of course along with our supply and confidence partners in coalition the increased rate of superannuation. Let us not forget that just prior to coming into Government in 1999 National cut taxes. How did it pay for that? It cut the rate of New Zealand superannuation. Well Labour restored that as soon as it came into Parliament—and Labour did not just do that it increased the rate because Labour is committed to universal New Zealand superannuation. 
We have heard a lot about low-income families and about how KiwiSaver does nothing for low-income families. It has been pointed out by members who were on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the original KiwiSaver bill went through that various surveys had shown in fact that low-income families had some of the best savings culture—because they have had to. If a low-income family wants to buy something the family has to save. That family does not have any other choice. People are not going to give out credit cards if they know families cannot pay money back. 
Again I think that it is also important to reiterate that under Labour we see KiwiSaver as supplementing New Zealand superannuation. Under National I believe its members see it as replacing New Zealand superannuation. I think that National needs to be clear and honest about that going into the next election—that it has a commitment to New Zealand superannuation and then to uphold that should it ever become the Government—and let us hope that it does not. 
But let us not forget KiwiSaver. We would almost think to hear some of the debate out there about the take-up of KiwiSaver in low-income communities that it was the only policy that the Labour-led Government has ever rolled out in the seven Budgets prior to this Budget. Of course that is simply not the case. Labour has over progressive Budgets aimed to reduce costs for low-income and middle-income families and also to increase the income going into those families. I want to highlight some of the policies. With our primary health organisations we have seen lower doctors’ fees and prescription charges. That is saving a lot of money for low-income families particularly for families with a large number of children who may have to go to the doctor quite a lot. We have seen the rates rebate scheme as well. 
We have raised the minimum wage every year that we have been in Government. I point out that in the 1990s the minimum wage was raised only once and that was done only because New Zealand First insisted on it. It was raised by $1. We have been progressively raising the minimum wage. I wish we did not have to do that as a way of raising incomes in New Zealand but for some of our lowest-paid workers that is the reality. 
We have also brought in fair industrial relations legislation that actually allows workers to negotiate a fair wage. Let us not forget that the gap between New Zealand and Australia really opened up under a National-led Government. Of course when we look across the Tasman—and we hear a lot of comparisons between Australia and New Zealand when it suits the Opposition but we do not hear those comparisons when it does not—we see there is still very strong union representation and union power in Australia. In New Zealand that was all but decimated in the 1990s and wages fell behind as well as job security which is also important to our families. 
This Budget of course also continues the Government’s Working for Families package. That package is putting tax credits back for those families who need it most. Labour makes absolutely no apology for targeting this money where it is needed. We know that the expenses that come with raising children put a lot of families close to the breadline including those families we might suspect were well off or very comfortable if we simply looked at their household incomes. In fact that is not the reality for a lot of families. Labour targets that money where it is needed most because if it is targeted we can give more. 
If we were to spread tax cuts across everyone as National is proposing then those high-income earners who need it the least get the most value from those tax cuts. I do not want my $100-a-week tax cut from the National Party. National seems to act as though that is a sacrifice it is prepared to make for the greater good; it will take that $100 and do its bit for the country by doing that. But the fact is that that money could be far better used if it were put where it was needed. 
Labour has also brought back income-related State house rentals which has saved a lot of money for low-income households—a lot of money. We do not quite know where National stands on income-related rents for State houses; it has flip-flopped all over the show. I suspect that National will not support that policy because it does not really fit with National’s philosophy at all but that does not mean that National will not go into the election promising that it will keep income-related rentals. 
Labour has also brought in interest-free student loans which is making a huge difference to a lot of families and it will make an even bigger difference as time goes on and we get more people who come into that category. We have raised superannuation and made early-childhood education available to all families. It is all very well to say that we should give a tax rebate for childcare. That would be fantastic if families could pay for it upfront but if families cannot pay upfront they cannot get the tax rebate and that is an argument that National has yet even to address. 
Let us not forget that National gave us two recessions in the 1990s and nothing hurts provincial New Zealand more than a recession. National members are now going around telling New Zealanders and coming down to the House and saying that they are going to give tax cuts—and they have said that they will definitely do that even though they know the cuts are inflationary. But now we have this bizarre argument from Bill English who cannot understand why we are saying that the $2 billion worth of business tax cuts that have come through Labour are not inflationary and will not result in cuts in services without his explaining the fact that National’s tax cuts will cost—what—$8 billion. 
I think that that probably explains a lot about the National Party economic policy that we have seen. National MPs across the whole country are promising to pay for everything. They are scratching every itch and saying that a National Government will pay. I look forward to seeing National’s alternative Budget including every single spending promise that every single one of its MPs has made. I look forward to them explaining their huge tax cuts. Let us be clear: when Bill English comes down here and tries to compare what National was planning to do at the last election and what Labour has done we are talking about a four-fold factor difference. That is the difference. 
When Labour cuts taxes as it has done New Zealanders know we can afford it. And let us be clear again that National never cut business tax when it was in Government; the last time that happened was under a Labour Government and this time it has happened under a Labour Government. New Zealanders trust a Labour-led Government that when it cuts taxes it will be good for the economy and it will not run us into a recession. National does not care about recessions because its guys at the top who earn a lot of money do fabulously well out of the boom-bust cycle. They make lots of money in the boom and in the bust they are protected. But we know who suffers the most. I say: “Stop the crocodile tears for the poor people of New Zealand!” because when it comes down to it our history tells us that National does not care for them and it never will.