Dalziel Lianne: Budget Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21071] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
My team in the Christchurch East electorate and I have been out door-knocking every weekend and what good news we have found on the doorstep—very good news. A working father with his wife and three children is almost $100 a week better off because of this Government’s Working for Families package. That is what Working for Families means for ordinary New Zealanders and I think it is time that the story was told. Of course his is not the only family that is better off but he was keen for me to be told how much that boost to income means for his whole family. My team was pleased to tell him that there was much more to come in terms of that with the in-work payment kicking in in April next year. 
Those lower to middle income working families know that there is no way that an across-the-board tax cut could ever return what the Working for Families package has returned to families with children. They know that I do not need a tax cut. I am on a high income and I do not have children to look after either. Why should I have a tax cut? But that is actually the question we should be asking the National Party. Why do National members think that I should receive a tax cut and not the family in my electorate with a wife at home and three children to support? 
If we think about it we realise the Working for Families package is a targeted tax cut. That is what it is. It is delivering to those who need extra dollars in their pocket each week because they are raising our next generation. They are responsible for the children of our country and they are the people whom this Government gives the tax cuts to—not to the rich mates in big business as some parties in this House would prefer. There is no way that families in Christchurch East could get the kind of extra income that they are receiving under this Government from a tax cut that by its nature is designed to benefit most the richest people in New Zealand who receive the most out of across-the-board tax cuts. 
I have difficulty with the Opposition’s promise of tax cuts by Christmas. If we listened to the Leader of the Opposition on the radio the other day he said that none could be implemented before 1 April next year anyway so the question of which Christmas is the real issue there. But the real question that everyone wants to know the answer to—which the National Party refuses to answer and on which those members remain steadfastly silent—is where the money will come from for those tax cuts. 
The information I have is that every cent knocked off the top personal tax rate of 39c in the dollar costs $115 million every cent taken off the upper middle rate of 33c costs $95 million every cent taken off the lower middle rate of 21c costs $325 million and every cent taken off the bottom rate of 15c costs $215 million. The approximate cost of just changing the personal rates from 33c and 39c to 30c is $1.725 billion. Where on earth does $1.725 billion come from? The National Party keeps very quiet about that point because there has to be a reduction on the spending side of the ledger if there is to be a reduction on the income side of the ledger. I am absolutely gobsmacked that somebody who calls himself a former Governor of the Reserve Bank does not know basic economics—if we are to cut our income then we have to cut our expenditure to match.  
The Opposition has to front up and tell New Zealand how it would pay for the tax cuts. The question I ask is whether it would stop the in-work payment next year which will see my constituent another $50 a week better off. Is that how Opposition members would make sure that they have enough for their big business supporters who have personal annual incomes of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year—by taking away the targeted tax cut? Maybe they would cut the public service. What does the National Party mean when it talks about the public service? How many of the extra 2700 teachers we have employed would it lay off? How many of the 3300 extra nurses who have been employed under a Labour Government would be cut? How many of the 950 extra medical staff who have been employed the 1250 extra non-clinical support staff the 398 extra social workers at Child Youth and Family Services the 138 extra probation officers the 820 extra prison officers and the 1080 extra police who have been employed would be cut? Which jobs are on the line because the Opposition has to find the money to pay for that tax cut? 
Fortunately we will not need to find out what the Opposition plans to cut because the electorate will not buy the nonsense of tax cuts as promised across the board by Opposition parties. People will not accept the mantra of tax cuts without knowing how they are to be paid for. Not knowing how much they plan to cut on both sides of the ledger leads me to suspect that the cuts are deep and will hurt a lot and that they obviously go into health and education. 
This Government has committed enormous funding increases to both health and education and the results are now showing very clearly. Many more operations are happening in our public hospitals today because this Government has funded them. This Government also funded the mobile bus that is taking surgical services out to small provincial hospitals that would otherwise be closed. The previous National Government failed to fund the bus; this Government said that it was an exciting innovation and it put the money behind it. Under this Government better primary health services have been coordinated through primary health organisations. There is much better pay for nurses and there are brand new hospitals and equipment so that the job can be done. I went to the opening of the new Christchurch Women’s Hospital a few weeks ago. Do people know when the closing and rebuilding of the old Christchurch Women’s Hospital was first discussed? It was first discussed in 1990. Then there was a change of Government and guess what: there was no money for the rebuilding of Christchurch Women’s Hospital for 10 long years and now we have a Labour Government which gave the hospital the capital expenditure to continue. 
What about education? We have had enormous advances as a result of this Government’s commitment to education. If we look at the commitment to early childhood education the evidence shows that it makes a real difference. The Opposition wants to destroy the State school network. It wants to reintroduce vouchers. It wants selecting schools which will deny kids the right to go to their neighbourhood school. The Opposition calls it parental choice but it is not; it is the schools’ choice. They can say: “No we don’t want you. You’re not good enough for our school.” Increased funding to private schools would be matched by decreased funding to public schools. At the tertiary level it was the Opposition that introduced the student loan scheme and we as a Government have worked hard to make the scheme fairer. 
What about employment relations? The nurses can kiss their multi-employer collective agreement goodbye should National ever occupy the Treasury benches. University staff will not get a multi-employer collective agreement off the ground. The teachers will not get a multi-employer collective agreement. National Party members have made it very clear at select committee meetings that that is the one thing they regret not dealing to when they had the chance with the Employment Contracts Act. 
This Budget is good news for my electorate. It builds on last year’s Budget announcements. I have not mentioned the real opportunity for homeownership and encouragement to save provided by the fantastic initiative KiwiSaver. I think it is brilliant and the reaction to it in my electorate has been very positive indeed. The Budget provides $17 million more for cataract operations a 10-year package for defence—the list just goes on and on. No matter how the Opposition tries to spin it this is a good Government with inspirational leadership and the best Minister of Finance this country has ever had.