Collins Judith: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Taxation (Personal Tax Cuts Annual Rates and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:16336] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 There leaves Parekura Horomia one of Labour’s best members. Next time I will ask for his speech to be delivered in Maori so that we can understand it; I could hardly understand a word he said. 
One of the most disappointing things about this Budget is that it will not address any of the issues that New Zealanders think are really important. National members will of course vote for the tax cuts today because we do not believe that Labour will go ahead with them unless we do. That is one of the really important things that New Zealanders want to talk about. This Budget has been called the “block of cheese Budget” but in the good old days when Norm Kirk led the Labour Party and when Labour said it represented workers—and it did in those days—this would have been called the “cheddar cheese Budget”. Nowadays under the current Labour Government of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen we have the “Budget of gruyère cheese”. That is really all it is—full of holes and pretty stinky. That is about it. 
Nowadays Labour members only ever want to talk about the arts and things like that. They want to tell people how to live their lives and how to bring up their children. Labour members want to tell people what they can eat what they can do and what they can watch. They say that they will fight obesity by telling people not to eat and that they will fight child abuse by telling people not to abuse their children as if somehow that is going to matter. 
Unfortunately there is nothing in this Budget and nothing in the tax package that will do anything about child poverty. Once upon a time in the 1990s the Labour Party in Opposition talked constantly about child poverty. It talked about it up hill and down dale. Labour members said they would do something about the benefit cuts that happened in 1991. And did they? They did not. We can hear the absolute sound of silence from the Labour benches. Those members did nothing. They just talked and talked. 
What did Ruth Dyson say 2 weeks ago when she was told that this year we had had the biggest drop in employment in one quarter in the last 19 years? She said: “Oh well I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually.” That is what she said. That is what the Labour Minister of Social Development and Employment which is what the Labour Government now calls it—or social welfare; I will put it into plain language—said about our having the highest drop in employment in one quarter in 19 years this year. That is what she said. When I asked her whether she stood by that statement hoping that she might say she should not have said it that it was a silly thing to say or that she was misrepresented she said yes. She said that she stood by that statement. A couple of days later I asked her again and she still said that she stood by it. 
Did Ruth Dyson care about the people who have lost their jobs at the meatworks recently? No she did not care about that either. She told them that they could go on a benefit. That is what she said. Did she go down to see the 300 Sealord workers who have been told that they are losing their jobs? No she did not. 
Jill Pettis 
: That member is not telling the truth. I have the Minister’s statement right here. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member Jill Pettis who is taking herself out of a job—she was actually sacked by the Labour Party; that is the awful thing—should be quiet for a little bit and listen because she would be interested to hear that there has been a loss of 11000 jobs in the construction industry. What did Ruth Dyson say about that? Well she did not think there was much wrong with that either. What did she say about the 6000 jobs that have been lost in the manufacturing industry alone in the past year? That did not seem to be really important either. 
I ask what is in this tax cut bill for those people. There is absolutely nothing. When Labour members talk about this bill they say that it is all about spending every cent that the taxpayers have given them—every single cent—so that there is nothing there for National to spend. That is what this is all about. 
One of the things my colleague Dr Lockwood Smith said was very very pertinent. He said that when the previous Labour Government went out in 1990 in a massive landslide it said that there was an $89 million surplus. That is what it said. That was the previous Labour Government of Michael Cullen and Phil Goff and that is what it said. It said there was an $89 million surplus. The members opposite have gone very quiet; they do not like hearing that. But what was the truth? The truth was that National came in in a landslide victory in 1990 and it found that there was a $1.5 billion deficit—a $1.5 billion deficit. The previous Labour Government had not just spent everything that was there but also spent everything that would be there for years to come. That $1.5 billion deficit went out to $3 billion over the spending that the previous Labour Government had made. It spent money that it did not have the authority of Parliament to spend. That is what the previous Labour Government of Michael Cullen and Phil Goff did and by the way it was also the previous Labour Government of Helen Clark because as I recall she was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time. That is what those members did. The fact is that Labour cannot be trusted with people’s money. 
In looking at some of the things that National will not be spending money on should we be privileged enough to lead the next Government I promise people that we will not spend $96000 for a study on “boganology”. We will not do that but this Labour Government has. We will not I promise people spend $795000 of taxpayer money on an interesting little number entitled  
More than Bricks and Mortar 
 which is a study of social networks. Of course it would be a social networking study would it not? That study cost almost $1 million. We will not I promise spend $600000 of taxpayer money on a little study called  
The Impact of Economic Shocks on the Well-being of New Zealanders 
. I can tell members opposite who have gone so silent that those of us who live and work in South Auckland have seen the impact of economic shocks on the well-being of New Zealanders. We see it in mortgagee sales all over Auckland. We are seeing that now. That is the economic shock that has happened to New Zealanders. Why has it happened? The reason is that the cost of borrowing has gone through the roof. 
This Labour Government supported by New Zealand First and others has spent money like it is water. It has spent money as though it will always be there. It has not given money back to the people who earned it. It has not given money back to the very people who get up every day go to work do an honest job and look after their children without having to be told to do it—the very good people of New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: This speech is total gibberish and you know it. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is good to hear something from Harry Duynhoven because I know that the Labour Party is trying to get him out of his New Plymouth seat. I know that. It is not fair; he has done a good job. But it is trying to get him out. All that those members can say to people after 9 years is that they will give them a block of cheese—a big holey one that smells a lot. That is all they will do. 
Labour members are beside themselves because they know that the people of New Zealand have switched off from them. People do not want to know about the personal insults that Labour members throw at members on this side of the House. They do want to know why after 9 years of very good economic times in terms of our international prices beneficiary debt is $730 million under a Labour Government. Why are the poor poorer than they have ever been? Why do 185000 New Zealand children live in poverty after 9 years of a Labour Government? Why is it that every time this issue is raised Labour members scream their little hearts out and turn to personal insults? 
Why do we need an embassy in Stockholm? I have to tell Labour members that a lot of New Zealanders are asking themselves where Stockholm is. Well I tell them that it is in Sweden. The Prime Minister likes Sweden better than she likes New Zealand and we know that because we know about her travel plans. We know that people are wondering why we have spent tens of millions of dollars on the single core benefit policy. Do members remember that? We have been having that discussion since 1989. Those members have wasted taxpayer money like never before. They have wasted it and wasted it. Whatever happened to the single core benefit? Whatever happened to that? 
Jill Pettis 
: What about the 37 people in John Key’s office? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: But we do know that the good thing about the next election will be that at least people like Jill Pettis will not be pretending to represent the people of Wanganui. Chester Borrows already got rid of her last time and he will continue to do that. I say to Mrs Pettis that she will never represent those people because they have moved on.