King Annette: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 28 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:4120. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Talofa lava Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a tradition in New Zealand of giving the Budget a name. You can think back to the Black Budget the “mother of all Budgets” the “chewing gum Budget” or the “block of cheese Budget”. Nick Smith endeavoured to give it a name this week. He called it the “best Budget he’d seen in 25 years”. But of course no one took any notice of anything that he said because he is inclined to become over-emotional at times—and he is the person who wants people to live next to an exploding substation. But no the person who has given the Budget its moniker this year is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has called this Budget the “it won’t make a blind bit of difference Budget”. That is what this Budget is going to be called—“it won’t make a blind bit of difference Budget”. Why the leader of our country would want to use blindness to make his point is another matter.The Prime Minister said when bringing in a new tax under the guise of a levy under urgency and in the dead of night that it would not make a blind bit of difference to people wanting to travel. Of course he did not say this when he flew to London—first class no doubt—on behalf of the taxpayers to argue with the UK Government not to impose the same sort of tax. And he called it a tax at the time. He said that it would not be good for New Zealand—that it would in fact hurt New Zealanders travelling. But of course he did not mind it being put on here in New Zealand because at the end of the day most of the people who will pay it will be New Zealanders. Of course he did stand on principle. His principle is that a levy is a tax and a tax is a levy and if you don’t know what it is then: “Google it.” He then said it will not make “a blind bit of difference” to the number of people enrolling if the Government gets rid of the $1000 kick-start to KiwiSaver—it will not make a blind bit of difference. Of course those members forgot that they said in Budget 2011 that they would never take away the $1000 kick-start. But then they do stand on principles—their principles—do they not?Speaker after speaker from the National Government has exploded with pride that after almost 7 years of urging and shaming they have increased the benefit for families with children who are on the benefit by $25 a week before tax and deductions which is about $2 a day. But of course it is so urgent. I heard them last night giving impassioned speeches saying: “Look what we’ve done. We’ve increased the benefit. After 43 years we are the first Government to increase the benefit.” They forgot to say that they were the first Government in 43 years to reduce the benefit—the first Government to reduce the benefit—but they proudly say that they are the first in 43 years to increase the benefit. They say that there is such hardship out there and that that is why they have done it. So why—and not one of the National members has answered this question—do these people in such hardship have to wait 10 months for it? Why do they have to wait for 10 months before they get any relief when National is taking the $1000 kick-start from KiwiSaver? That change starts immediately. The money is coming in but it ain’t going out to those whom it said were in such hardship.Oh the amnesia of the National Party. I have never seen so much propaganda pumped out in such a short time frame. National has forgotten many of the things that it did. Of course the Minister of Finance and Nick Smith who is the brains trust of the National Government are the ones who voted to cut the benefits way back then. They have also forgotten—and I would like to remind the new members who do not have a lot of memory of what their party did in the past. It was in 1999—not that long ago really—that the Minister of finance who was Bill English reduced by legislation the average net weekly payment of superannuation from 65 percent to 60 percent. He cut the amount that old people were getting by legislation in this House from 65 percent of the average net weekly wage to 60 percent. Have a look at the papers. Ask Bill to show you the papers. He wanted it to be cut to 55 percent but he was stopped. It was the Labour Government that restored superannuation to 65 percent of the average net weekly wage.Now let us get on to the part of the Budget that I was incredibly interested in and that is the health budget. Well we are told that we have got more money. I have to say that it is not about whether there is more money; it is about how much more has been put into the Budget and whether it covers the costs of running the health system in New Zealand. Some of you might have been awake in December when I released in this House a leaked Cabinet paper on how much Cabinet had agreed would go to district health boards. That Cabinet paper said that they would receive $320 million. They would receive money towards demographics and a contribution towards cost pressures. The Minister of Health stood in this House on a number of occasions and said that I was wrong that you could not trust anything I said that this was not correct and that this was not what had gone to Cabinet. Can I tell you that the Cabinet paper was 100 percent correct even down to the allocations that individual district health boards received. So I was not the one who was wrong. I have to say that there is a word for what the Minister did in this House but perhaps I will not use it today Mr Deputy Speaker just because you are a very good presiding officer indeed and I would not want you to tell me off.What I would like to do is read from that Cabinet paper. Perhaps the members opposite were not given this bit of information. What did Treasury say would happen if health was given $320 million? It said: “there are some major fiscal risks sitting in Vote Health stemming from the wind-up of Health Benefits Limited”—that fantastic organisation that has cost millions of dollars in health money and that got a kick in the teeth yesterday when Hawke’s Bay District Health Board said: “Take your health plan to send down flu from Auckland away we’re not interested in it.” So there are some significant risks coming from Health Benefits Ltd being wound up. The Cabinet paper went on to refer to the TerraNova pay equity case: “Announcing a funding signal of $320 million to DHBs now will make it”—listening everybody—“extremely challenging to manage pressures in Vote Health within a $400 million package”. What did they get in health? They got $396.5 million which is the health funding package. It was going to be a challenge at $400 million and they got even less than that. Treasury also said that district health boards will be required “to achieve combined efficiencies of around $191 million.” So all your district health boards are going to have to go out there and find efficiencies and they are already under huge pressure. “There is no doubt” Treasury went on to say “that the financial pressures facing DHBs … are considerable particularly in terms of upcoming wage negotiations.”I have to tell you who the losers are in this health budget because it is obvious that the members opposite have not been told anything other than the bright shiny story that the Minister of Finance the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have told them. There are many members sitting on the backbench who are members of rural constituencies. Well I am afraid to tell them that their constituencies are the losers. Rural health in New Zealand is a loser. It is no wonder that rural doctors and rural pharmacies are dismayed. What you find is that rural doctors have been told that there will be no increase in rural health workforce retention. The member who has taken over from Bill English ought to know that down in his area and all around the rural areas of New Zealand it is very hard to staff rural doctors rural pharmacists and rural health providers. The poor old pharmacists have really been hit. They have a 0.37 percent increase in one of their services only which amounts to 80c per patient per month. That is what they got out of this Budget.Members opposite will find that the rural GP flexible funding has been decreased. Then there are all the small rural hospitals around New Zealand and the biggest losers come from the southern part of New Zealand. Their district health board got a 1.89 percent increase not the 2.8 or 2.4 percent or whatever that the Government said it got—it got 1.89 percent. I have to tell you that that is why the community has written to Minister Coleman after a thousand people attended a public meeting saying: “We have resolved a vote of no confidence in yourself as Minister of Health.” This is why: the funding of health services is ultimately the Minister of Health’s responsibility. He decides with his Cabinet colleagues on the priorities of Government expenditure. Quite clearly running two public referendumson a New Zealand flag reportedly costing over $26 million is far more important than using the money for rural health services. Those health services in Dunstan in Alexander in Gore in Balclutha and in Queenstown are under threat and they are likely to close services or close altogether.