Parker David: General Debate 
Parker David: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10260] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 We have heard from prior Labour speakers who have listed some of the important initiatives that will be rolled out as of 1 July this year and I will recount those briefly before I move to what I see as the big threat to those highly valued programmes. But before I list those I think we should reflect on the other important things this Government has already delivered including very substantial tax cuts to families with children—very very substantial tax cuts for those families. In addition we have seen the restoration of the rate of superannuation for superannuitants which was cut by the previous Government. That has now been further increased pursuant to the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First for a married couple to 66 percent of the average full-time wage. In the last year that was an increase to superannuitants of approximately $20 a week for those in that situation. 
On 1 July we are seeing the roll-out of KiwiSaver and the very significant tax credits that will flow through to employees in addition to their own contributions in order to encourage New Zealanders to save so as to provide additional funds for the New Zealand business community to grow our economy and as well as that to ensure a better level of income in retirement for those who do save. The early childhood sector’s 20 free hours of education for 3 and 4-year-olds is being rolled out and of course there is the completion of the roll-out of primary health organisation subsidies making doctors’ visits cheaper now for New Zealanders—all New Zealanders. The latest cohort to be added is that of 25 to 44-year-olds so now all New Zealanders will have cheaper doctors’ visits and prescription fees. 
Of course there will also be extensions to paid parental leave and also important extensions to the thresholds that will be free from asset-testing for people who are in long-term care. All of these things have been achieved by a Government that has reduced gross Government debt to 20 percent of GDP—a very prudent figure. 
But I would like to focus on the reality that that would change if there were to be a change of Government. Then there is no doubt that National could fund its main policy only which is substantial—and I would say unaffordable—tax cuts. How would National fund it? A National Government would be no different from any other Government. It cannot turn water into wine; it cannot turn one loaf and one fish into loaves and fishes for multitudes. Somehow it would have to get the money to fund tax cuts. Of course there are only three ways in which that could essentially be funded and I think that a combination of all three would be required. Firstly National would have to substantially cut services. You cannot cut services in a minor way to achieve the level of tax cuts that the National Party proposes; you have to cut core votes. We in New Zealand have only three very large votes—that is the money voted by this Parliament to spend on health education and superannuation. I think you have to look beyond the rhetoric and look at history to find— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister because I was actually listening pretty closely to what he was saying. But for the point of consistency you may want to note Madam Assistant Speaker that the Minister has used the word “you” three times in the last 30 seconds. You did not intervene on him but were quick to do so on Paula Bennett. I just ask that we get the same ruling across the House thanks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: OK. The member is correct and I will just remind the Minister. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I take the point. 
The only votes that would give rise to substantial savings through significant cuts would be education health or superannuation but National would go further. National would have to go further and it would have to either raise debt or flog off State-owned enterprises. I think that National would do a combination of both. It would raise debt above its sustainable level of 20 percent of GDP and it would effectively borrow to fund tax cuts. Further I think we would find that National would flog off some of the State-owned enterprises—probably the electricity companies. Maybe that would not be a hundred percent of those electricity companies but it would flog off part of them— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: And the next generation pays. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
:—and the next generation would pay. National would be selling New Zealand’s silver in order to fund tax cuts today. Of course it would be doing that in an environment where that would push up interest rates. We know that New Zealanders know that that would not be a wise way to go. I think that by the time we get to the election this will be a central issue for the campaign. How will National fund the substantial unaffordable tax cuts it proposes? Here I think we should look past rhetoric and look at conduct. Why do I say that? Well in the last week we have seen what Dr Nick Smith has been saying in his local paper the  
Nelson Mail.  
He is on record as stating in that paper in a letter to the editor published on 13 June—I will read it out because it is very short—“Sir Last Saturday your correspondent Boris Leegwater claimed ‘Nick Smith stated that we should pull out of Kyoto.’ This is grossly untrue. I have never stated this.” Of course we in this Parliament know that Dr Smith has said just that repeatedly—not once but hundreds of times in this Parliament and to the media. It is interesting of course that he made those very comments to the  
Nelson Mail 
. That paper 
had a headline at one stage stating: “Smith: National would opt out of Kyoto”. Now here he is in the paper saying the opposite. He is not to be believed.