Smith Lockwood: Budget Debate 
Smith Lockwood: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:20831] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I guess in my lifetime there have been some memorable Budgets. I remember as a little kid listening on the wireless with mum and dad—or mum and dad were listening on the wireless I was probably not taking a great deal of notice—and I remember it so well: Nordy’s “black” Budget. Some in this House like the retiring member for Otaki are not old enough to remember Nordy’s ‘black” Budget— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: 1957. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: 1957 indeed! I was in this Parliament when Ruth Richardson delivered the “mother of all Budgets”. But what about this Budget? What will this one be remembered as? Will it be as some in the media have suggested “Cullen’s crumbs”? Some have suggested maybe “Cullen’s damp squib”. I think this Budget should be remembered as one of those really memorable Budgets as “Cullen’s deep dark secret”. Because the question is why on earth did he do it? Why on earth come to this House and read out a Budget that offers working New Zealanders 67c a week in tax cuts? Why would one do it? Why on earth would one insult working New Zealanders like that? 
The new Labour member Lesley Soper is so embarrassed by what Michael Cullen did in this Parliament that she missed her call in this debate. It is most unusual for two National members to speak one after the other to reinforce how disgraceful this Labour Budget is. Labour members are so embarrassed. Do members blame them for being embarrassed? That was the 21st Budget at least that I have heard read to this Parliament and I do not think I have ever heard a finance Minister’s Budget greeted with such derision by the Parliament. 
When Dr Cullen read out the 67c a week tax cut there was just derision from this side of the House. What I guess was derisory about it was not the fact that it was just 67c—and I do not think it does buy a decent packet of chewing gum—but hard-working New Zealanders will have to wait 3 years for it. Does one blame people for treating that with derision? That is why I suggest that this Budget could be remembered as “Cullen’s deep dark secret” because I suspect that he wants out; I suspect that Labour wants out. 
The Government has had a great economic tailwind this last 3 years. When Labour came to office there was such a loss of investor confidence in New Zealand that $3 billion fled the country just like that. The exchange rate dropped to 39c in a matter of days and members will well remember it. Sure that gave our export sector a huge boost and that started to filter through the economy. but just as the exchange rate started to come up again what happened? It was 9/11! Some crazed Arabs flew passenger jets into the World Trade Center. It created a massive wave of immigration back to New Zealand and gave our domestic economy a huge boost. I am picking that Labour does not claim that it did that! I am sure it does not claim to have engineered the disgraceful outrageous attack on the World Trade Center. 
Then just as immigration started to fall off in the last couple of years our commodity prices rose to world record highs for the last 20 years. I guess Labour cannot claim credit for that. Helen Clark tries to control most things but she sure cannot claim that she controls world commodity prices. 
All of that is now changing. The projections are that growth will fall from a 3.8 percent average over recent years down to what? Half of that! I suspect that the deep dark secret is that Michael Cullen wants out. He knows that the massive increase in spending—the amount this Government is spending—is almost 50 percent more than when National left office just 6 years ago. That is an extraordinary increase in Government spending. I suspect that Dr Cullen knows that if economic growth halves he cannot keep up that huge increase in spending. I suspect that the deep dark secret is that Dr Cullen and the Labour Party members actually want out. That is why they insulted New Zealand workers so much with that absolutely insulting tax policy in this Budget. 
Some in Labour have claimed that this Government has been fiscally prudent and that there is no room for tax cuts. That is garbage. Because as I said a moment ago I do not recollect a Government that has increased spending by as much as this Labour Government has done—almost 50 percent in 6 years. What have we seen for that increase in spending? My colleague Nick Smith pointed out the massive increase in spending on health—no more operations and the massive increase in spending on education. I see the member for Otaki shaking his head. There have been no more operations delivered in our hospitals despite the billions more dollars spent on health. As my colleague Nick Smith pointed out in this year’s Budget there is more money for the Ministry of Education in percentage increase terms than for schools’ operating grants. Those are this Government priorities. 
The quality of this spending is breathtaking. In education the Government funds programmes such as COOL IT. It funds homeopathy for pets. There has been a massive increase in wananga funding. I have never seen such fiscal largesse and it has to stop. I think Dr Cullen knows that the deep dark secret is that Labour cannot continue what it has been doing. 
I think this Budget more than any other defines the difference between National and Labour and that difference is this. Labour believes that it knows best how New Zealanders should spend money. Labour believes that it knows best how New Zealanders should run their lives and National does not. National believes that decent New Zealand people deserve the right to stand on their own feet. They deserve the right to keep more of their hard-earned wages. That is why National believes that the Government should take less of the hard-earned wages of the New Zealand people. 
Today Dr Cullen said: “Ah but the Working for Families package is so important. Working for Families will deliver for hard-working New Zealand families.” I want to tell this House and those Labour members opposite like the retiring member for Otaki and the new member Lesley Soper who is too embarrassed to take a call what Working for Families will really do to our hard-working families. [ 
Interruption 
] Darren Hughes should listen. If an ordinary working family—a traditional family of say mum dad and three children with dad working and earning $30000 living in Auckland and receiving the accommodation supplement—wants to earn another $1000 to try to do something for their children then under Working for Families they will get to keep only $228. This Labour Government will take the rest.  
A middle-income family on $40000 would keep only $108 of that extra $1000. [ 
Interruption 
] Lesley Soper should listen. If that family is on $65000 does that new member know how much they get to keep if they earn another $1000 under Dr Cullen’s Working for Families package? They get to keep $48! If by hard work that family earns another $1000 to do something for their children under Working for Families they keep $48. It is not $480 but $48. These figures were provided by the Inland Revenue Department in respect of parliamentary questions. That is why the people of New Zealand want to see this Labour Government gone.