Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11445] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Members on this side of the House will be voting no confidence in this Budget for a number of reasons. As I said in previous speeches the day Mark Bryers a multimillionaire and the biggest crook in Blue Chip earning over a million dollars a year got his 75 hours community service John Key gave him a $1000 a week tax cut. Another reason Labour members have no confidence in the Budget is that on the same day as that people on the average wage became $30 a week worse off in real terms. After they got their tax cut it was negated by GST and by the big elephant in the room which is 5.9 percent inflation. 
I say to Mr Peachey that the other reason why we are voting for a no-confidence motion and he might want to reflect on it is that 56 percent of his electorate in Tamaki which he is so proud of—presumably the 56 percent he does not want to represent—earn $40000 or less and are therefore thanks to him and his vote of confidence $30 to $50 per week worse off. But his mates on the other side of the Tamaki electorate on a million bucks a year and more get $1000 a week. That man over there talked about the vindictiveness—that is the term he used—of tax increases. Well I say to Mr Peachey that if it is vindictive to raise revenue from the people to fund health expenditure education expenditure and superannuation expenditure then we on this side of the House stand guilty as charged—absolutely guilty as charged. 
That member then talked about choices. I ask Mr Peachey why he does not talk to the 56 percent of his electorate who are $30 a week worse off as a result of his confidence vote. He should ask them whether they have a choice to pay the increase in the power bill and the increase in the rates bill thanks to GST and inflation. Do the poorest in our community and the superannuitants on fixed incomes have a choice about paying the increase in food prices? Oh no where is Mr Peachey now? He is representing the old 44 percent of his electorate who are very well-off. It is not even that much actually when we look at the figures. 
This Budget is a swindle. On Budget night the members opposite stood up and talked about a Budget approval rate of 80 percent. Oh yes did they crow. But we said to them in speech after speech that the people will take a little time to unpick it to unravel it to undo the stitching as the hem of this Budget is released. What did we have last night? Well the people delivered their verdict. It was not 80 percent approval; only 37 percent of the people said they feel they will be better off. The rest said they would not be and we have yet to pile on the GST increase. 
A previous speaker Pansy Wong talked about the Prime Minister going to a footy match and said that in doing so he was standing beside the younger generation. How does that stand up in credibility with the massive cuts to early childhood education that are piled on and become costs that parents will pay? Then we have the GST increase plus 5.9 percent inflation. How is that “standing beside the younger generation” if that is what it takes to go to a footy match? What was the Prime Minister’s response in the  
Dominion Post 
 to the news that only 37 percent of people feel they will be better off and the rest feel worse off? His response was: “Don’t sweat it.” So they should not sweat the 2.5 percent GST rise the 5.9 percent inflation or the early childhood education cuts which equate to an increase in fees of $25 per child per week on top of what mum and dad Kiwis have to pay. “Don’t sweat it.” he says; and then he says that he stands by New Zealanders and he stands by young people. 
I say that Mr Peachey should go and talk to the 56 percent of his electorate who are worse off thanks to that member’s vote of confidence. If 37 percent of people say they feel they will be better off we have to ask what the others say. That is why Labour does not have confidence in this Budget yet the Prime Minister’s response is “Don’t sweat it.” 
The Prime Minister’s own Budget figures show that after he has done all the cash—after he has borrowed $240 million a week for 3 years where the finance costs do not drop down do not start to decrease until 2021—the additional GDP growth cumulatively is 0.9 percent over 7 years. Well is that not a step change! Is that closing the gap with Australia? Is that aspirational for New Zealanders? Is that ambitious—0.9 percent cumulatively over 7 years? That is great is it not! Stack that up against the 70-odd people who allegedly are working on a cycleway. The previous speaker Mr Peachey questioned why we would vote against this legislation and I say to him that we will vote against it because it is unfair. It is unfair when a third of the tax cuts goes to the top 5 percent and 15 percent goes to the top 1 percent. It is unfair when Mark Bryers the crook from Blue Chip gets $1000 a week in tax cuts thanks to Maurice Williamson and his mates because he earns over a million bucks and people on the average wage are 30 bucks to 50 bucks a week worse off. Can members opposite tell me whether that is a definition of fairness? 
The previous speaker said it was vindictive to raise revenue for things like social services and superannuation. He said that we should be encouraging savings. I agree with him. The question is why his Government kicked the guts out of KiwiSaver when part of it was set up for the very sentiments that that member expressed—especially to give young people a start in their first home. Oh hang on! That vessel is empty it is echoing over on the other side. The old dust mite in the seat has not said anything. Oh no perhaps the old dust mite does not want to talk about the 56 percent of his electorate who will be worse off thanks to his vote of confidence because 56 percent of his electorate earns 40 grand or less. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about Kiwibank? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh yes! Mr English has spent all the cash he has borrowed $240 million a week borrowed up to the hilt the credit card is maxed out and then we come to the doozy that sort of slipped out the other side—to flog the family silver. Mr English has an interesting economic equation. He says that mums and dads can buy Kiwibank. He forgets of course that mums and dads everyone in this Chamber every member of the gallery every member of this nation already owns that asset now. So Mr English in his own privileged pompous way will allow mums and dads to spend their own money again to buy again what they already own. Then the interesting thing is that one has to ask which mums and dads will be able to afford to buy this asset for a second time. I would wager very few would. If they did get a chance to get a slice of it the international institutions would of course offer them something called a “very nice price for it” and away it would go back overseas into overseas ownership. But that one slipped out. The other problem with flogging Kiwibank of course is that we can sell it only once. The question for the Government is that if the thesis is that an asset that took I think about $80 million and returned a value in today’s terms of around $800 million—if that is good enough to sell a valuable profitable asset—then what about the other side of the equation? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How many assets did Labour sell? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Will the Government flog off KiwiRail because it is not performing the way we would want it to be? I ask Maurice Williamson who is barking like some sort of lame dog whether he is in favour of this. Will he call a public meeting and have a debate with his constituents on Kiwibank and let us see whether we can get a percentage of people who agree with flogging that off? The member says that we flogged assets off in the 1980s and that is true. Then we learnt. The problem is that party did that in the 1990s and that party has not learnt today. It slipped out of Bill English’s mouth although he said it a little bit before the election. What he is now doing is prepping these assets for sale. 
So we have in this Budget a dishonest Budget; one that has used all the cash; one that has borrowed for the next generation; and now the next step is to flog off some successful assets. Well I say that Kiwis will object to that. Judging by what is reflected in last night’s poll and the 37 percent rating it has taken a few days for Kiwis to logically coolly in a common-sense way start unravelling this Budget from stem to stern. They have finally worked out that all the spin saying they would be better off is not true. It simply stacks up on this equation again: how is it fair that a person who earns a million bucks a year gets an extra $1000 a week and someone on the average wage is 30 bucks a week worse off? That is not fair. That is a swindle. That is a dishonest Budget.