Roy Heather: Budget Debate 
Roy Heather: Budget Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19089] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The Budget was a dire disappointment and an abject failure of nerve. Confronted with the necessity and opportunity of beginning a historic sea change away from the knee-jerk borrow-and-spend mentality that has held New Zealand back for so long the Government opted instead for cosmetics and cowardice. Yes the Government acknowledged that borrowing $380 million per week was unsustainable but it failed to make any significant assault on the mind-set that says that spending beyond our means and having to borrow heavily is the solution to our problems. Economic commentator Gareth Morgan captured the essence of our economic malaise very well in his column in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 “Bubbles on beer budget poor life choice”. He points out: “this is one of the most indebted countries in the world with a net external debt-to-GDP ratio of 90 per cent. We are still behind Ireland (130 per cent) if that’s comforting and a smidgen short of Greece (91 per cent) but Australia isn’t as bad (77 per cent) while the US (19 per cent) UK (14 per cent) and Canada (20 per cent) make us look delinquent.” He went on to say: “we continue to live it up as though we are right up there with the world’s richest. And of course you can only drink champagne on a beer budget by selling your assets or raising more debt. We do both.” 
In our present crisis the urgent imperative on the Government is to make itself much less of a burden on the productive sector. The way to do that is to discipline itself and bring its own runaway spending under control. National’s principles commit the party to small Government yet we have seen spending under this National-led Government explode. No this is not because of the earthquake. Of our $17 billion deficit this year only $6 billion is because of the earthquakes. What we needed was a major application of the brakes. Instead the Government has merely eased back slightly on the accelerator. 
One of the reasons the Government has been so timid is no doubt its fear of a chorus of accusations that to act more boldly would be uncaring. This Budget has left unchanged and unchallenged a number of situations that can scarcely be described as caring. Is it caring to condemn our young people to soul-destroying idleness by outlawing youth rates? ACT says no. It is sheer folly to prohibit employers from hiring young workers at rates that they can afford just to appease the perverse sensibilities of socialists and unionists. If a young person is prepared to work for a given rate of remuneration that should be the end to it. But then of course members on the Labour side are not known for their familiarity with the concept of choice. 
Is it caring to continue scams like Working for Families which snare thousands of people into the welfare dependency trap when their own money could simply have been left in their own pockets in the first place? ACT says no. ACT simply would leave people’s own money in their own pockets while targeting welfare at those who genuinely need it. The notion that even people on MPs’ salaries can qualify for Working for Families as I could have done in 2004 is farcical. It shows that the Government has moved from focusing its attention on those in genuine need to trying to nanny everyone. 
Is it caring to send children out of our school system illiterate? ACT says no. Our schools have been failing for decades. When the principals association criticises teachers’ literacy something is very wrong. Our schools have been in thrall to the philosophy that says literacy does not matter. The damage this mind-set has caused is incalculable. Once again simply increasing spending on Vote Education is not the answer. State schools at minimum must repair to basics and to the pursuit of excellence. Again if the field is opened up to genuine competition the natural demand of parents for the best for their children will give both State and private schools no option but to meet that demand. 
Is it caring simply to throw more taxpayers’ money at our “die while you wait” public health system when in Singapore where the Government spends just 3 percent of GDP on health as opposed to our 9 percent every measure of health success across the board is radically superior to ours—including infant mortality child mortality life expectancy emergency room waiting-times and non-urgent surgery waiting-times? ACT says no. We need to learn from places like Singapore and introduce a much greater degree of choice for patients by means of private enterprise involvement. Wherever possible rather than the Government simply throwing more and more money year after year at a system that remains stubbornly inefficient consumers should have their own money returned to them to spend on the health care of their choice as they see fit. 
To those who would have people believe that ACT is uncaring my response is that we are the only party that truly does care and has the policies to back up our caring. Those same people would also have people believe that ACT is extreme. If by “extreme” they mean unhinged then nothing could be further from the truth. But if by “extreme” they mean passionately and sincerely committed then I proudly acknowledge we are extreme. We are extreme in our desire for a vibrant full-employment economy that will afford everybody the dignity of work. We are extreme in our desire to revitalise the health system and to end waiting lists. We are extreme in our desire to transform the education system and to end a situation where one in four is functionally illiterate. 
I remind the House that the Prime Minister once said he was ambitious for New Zealand. This Budget shows Mr Key’s ambition to be extremely tepid. ACT by contrast has no qualms in proclaiming itself to be extremely ambitious for New Zealand and to mean it.