Carter David: Budget Debate 
Carter David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:631;Page:3294] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 When Michael Cullen delivered what I understand was his seventh Budget last Thursday he at least got one thing right. He said his Budget would be boring. That is what most New Zealanders have accepted is the truth. I looked at the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 of this last week and it talked about the dead wood in the Labour Party that is about to be removed. Dover Samuels over there can chuckle but he is on Helen Clark’s list. The ones mentioned were Jill Pettis—the “paint stripper”—Dianne Yates; Mr Russell Fairbrother I think his name is; and of course our old mate in agriculture Jim Sutton. But the name that was not there because Helen Clark has already told him he is on his way was Dr Michael Cullen. She knows that the previous Budget delivered by Dr Michael Cullen very nearly cost Labour the election and she now knows when she judges the commentaries written over the last week that his last Budget delivered on Thursday his seventh attempt will again cost Labour at the next election. 
What Michael Cullen came into the House and said was that with an $8.5 billion surplus New Zealanders could not afford to keep some of their own taxes. New Zealanders right across the country now know that that is not correct. A report by an Australian thinktank was released a couple of days before the Budget. I knew that the Labour Party had increased taxes dramatically over the 7 years it has been in Government but even I did not realise that over that time it has actually increased by a massive 50 percent the amount of taxes it takes off New Zealanders. So it is easy for Michael Cullen to come into this House and crow about his fiscal ability and his ability to achieve Budget surpluses of that magnitude. But the question that needs to be asked is what it is really doing to this country. I well remember election night of 1999. 
Darren Hughes 
: I bet. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do. I remember it well and I remember the speech made by one Hon Jim Anderton. He got up puffed out his chest and said: “I’m going to be part of a new Government that will bring New Zealanders home. Come home New Zealanders.” That was Jim Anderton’s message and today in this Budget speech we heard from Dr Wayne Mapp that currently 38000 New Zealanders are leaving this country each and every year because they do not see a strategic vision. What they see is what Peter Costello the next Prime Minister of Australia sees—that people will be substantially better off in Australia than in New Zealand. I think that is a shame because I say to Darren Hughes I have young kids. I have four young children and I want to see New Zealand good enough for those four young children to choose as their country. But I suspect they will not stay. 
Dianne Yates 
: You can go if you like. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: They will not stay because the sorts of policies Dianne Yates stands for will drive those people to another country where they can build a better standard of living they can earn more money and they get to keep more of their earnings. We have just had a contribution from a Labour member of Parliament whose name—I do apologise—I cannot remember as she has spoken in the House only once or twice. She said the debate was about whether the Government was going to give back some money to New Zealanders. That is how the Labour Party thinks of this tax debate. This is not about the Government giving money to New Zealand; it is about setting tax rates I say to Dianne Yates where New Zealanders do not have to give as much to the Government in the first place. That is what it is all about. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Dianne Yates finds that surprising. Well I am not surprised that she is surprised because she has not been the sharpest bottle in the pack. But that is what this debate is about. New Zealanders know their wage rates are now lower than Australia’s. But what they find incredible is that unless one earns $150000 a year or more the tax rates here in New Zealand are substantially higher meaning that average people are far better off to go to Australia earn higher wages pay less tax and develop a far better standard of living. 
But I want to take my time in the Budget debate to talk about my two portfolio areas. The first is agriculture. Can Darren Hughes tell me—because he listened intently to Dr Cullen’s speech—how many times the word “agriculture” or the word “farmer” was mentioned by Dr Michael Cullen? 
Darren Hughes 
: Not as often as the word “jobs” that’s for sure. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well I can tell Darren Hughes that it was less than that. It was a fat zero. Agriculture was not mentioned at all and farming was not mentioned at all and I do not think any farmers would actually be surprised by that. They know how they have been treated by this Government—with absolute disdain. Yet Jim Anderton in a speech to the Auckland provincial Federated Farmers’ AGM the day after the Budget said that we have to find a way of making it easier to do business: “We need solutions that enhance your businesses not saddle you with greater compliance costs.” That was what Jim Anderton said and he was laughed out of the room because only last week that man’s vote was the one vote the Opposition needed to get rid of an additional compliance cost—a measure that will achieve nothing. I am talking of course about Labour’s decision to microchip dogs. Jim Anderton talked about reducing compliance costs but $3 million more is being imposed. The bill was passed in Parliament by one vote—the vote of the one and only Jim Anderton Minister of Agriculture. 
We got rid of the previous Minister the Hon Jim Sutton who was a disaster as Minister of Agriculture. He was replaced by Jim Anderton but he has achieved even less. When we look at the Budget documents we ask what happened to Vote Agriculture. It has been reduced substantially but then I look at the one achievement of Jim Sutton—that is the establishment of the Sustainable Farming Fund. On the whole it has been a very successful measure and I congratulate him. It received $17.9 million in the previous Budget under Jim Sutton but under the current Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton it has been almost halved to $9.6 million. What we see is a man who truly has no knowledge of farming no interest in farming; and he is the best that Helen Clark could offer in the portfolio line-up because she had no other talent to choose from. 
In my closing minute I want to talk about tourism. Damien O’Conner put out a press release stating that the Budget had given $63 million to tourism. Straight away I went and had a look at the Budget document and in fact Vote Tourism drops every year from now on and if we look out 5 years hence it drops by a cumulative $55 million. There was no additional money for tourism despite Damien O’Connor’s statement that there was. That is what we see with the Government: it is all smoke and mirrors all rubbish all decoys and nothing about what Helen Clark promised to deliver—that is transparent accountable Government. There is a stench of decay on the Government benches and the New Zealand voting public will remember the last 3 years of the Government as a dirty smelly desperate attempt to stay in Government. I say: “Bring on the next election.” because in that way we will see an alternative Budget presented by National as requested by the last Labour speaker.