Fairbrother Russell: Budget Debate 
Fairbrother Russell: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16517] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I am somewhat pleased to follow the previous speaker Eric Roy because he referred to the fact that he has listened to lots of Budgets. Looking at his waistline we can certainly see that. I too have listened to lots of Budgets—as I am a Grey Power member that is self-explanatory. [ 
Interruption 
] Members will have to speak up. I do not have my new hearing aid yet so members will have to speak louder. 
The point Mr Roy really made was that when Budgets came out in the days of old the people in the street would wait with great anxiety for the Budget. Do members remember the queues at petrol stations the night before Budget night? Do they remember the queues at dairies before the Budget was read out in case the excise tax on cigarettes went up? Nowadays people do not queue at petrol stations to buy petrol; these days people know that petrol tax is spent on roads. They know that there is stability in the economy. They know that the taxes imposed are stable. These days the public look with some anticipation at what they will get out of a Budget not at what a Budget will take out of their pockets. 
That is the signal change in the Budget environment in this country over the last 9 years: the mums and dads out there know that the economy is stable. They know that we have been setting up the economy to go through a time of wet weather which is no doubt approaching and they know that the cautious approach taken by the Government and Dr Cullen is preparing us for times of adverse circumstances—and there certainly will be adverse circumstances. If we look at the exchange rate against the US dollar food prices petrol prices and the international credit crisis we see that they are just a few of the challenges we face at this particular time. What does this Government do in the face of those challenges? Does it hunker down and do nothing? No; it comes up with more innovative policies for the future that will build a fair economy. It comes up with policies that will build on the strong economy that has been developed over the last 9 years. 
What have we heard from the Opposition since Budget day? What have those members come up with to combat any one of the policies that have been carried through in the current Budget? What have the debates in this House been about in the last week? Have Opposition members been engaging with Dr Cullen on the merits of the Budget? No there has been absolute silence. Have they come up with one policy except for the one that was wrenched out of them? No. And when they do come up with one policy—that is to retain KiwiSaver—does John Key explain the change from his position of a year ago when he said that he would keep KiwiSaver mark I but he now says that it is no good or the other way around? Does he explain that flip-flop on policy on KiwiSaver? No he does not. National members have adopted KiwiSaver like it was their brainchild. We have seen the same thing happen with Working for Families and with our Budget on education health and welfare. 
The significant fact is that the tax cuts delivered in this Budget are estimated to cost about $2.7 billion per annum over the next 4 years. If National is to offer tax cuts in the range it has promised which is larger than what is in this Budget then it will have to go against the advice of the BNZ economist who said that the tax cuts in the Budget were about what the country could afford and it will also have to find another $2.7 billion per annum over the next 4 years. Where will those members get that money from? Will they get it from the taxpayer? No because they will give tax cuts. So where will they take it from? 
I will give an example of where the money will come from. National will cut the corners of the most obscure provisions that are building our communities. I refer members to page 27 of Vote Justice. If I were not so old I would be able to read it without my glasses but I had better put my glasses on. We in Grey Power need glasses to help us from time to time. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s in Braille. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: They do not print the Budget in Braille yet I say to Mr Hughes but maybe that day will come. On page 27 we see the departmental output trends and there is a pie chart on page 26. That pie chart shows the crime prevention and community safety allocation. The Budget shows that as being 3 percent of the departmental output expenses—off the top of my head I would say that that is probably about $2 million or perhaps $1.8 million. That is the area that will be cut because few people would notice it. 
If funding in that area is cut then what will we have? That great Tory mayor in Hastings Mr Lawrence Yule came to a select committee at Parliament this morning and I will read part of his evidence. His evidence is significant because National would take away the very thing that that Tory mayor Mr Lawrence Yule was advocating was a success within the community. He said: “In January 2007 a project called CARV Cutting Alcohol Related Violence … CARV is one of three demonstration projects undertaken in Napier Hastings Rotorua and Queenstown. Funded by the Ministry of Justice it brings together local authorities police and community agencies to further develop collaborative and effective approaches to alcohol-related violence. It aims to foster reduction initiatives and services in the three selected communities through coordination liaison or networking and research leading to the implementation of evidence-based practice and action plans.” 
Mr Lawrence Yule who some say will be a list candidate for the National Party at this election went on to say that the rationale for the project was given after statistics and anecdotal evidence showed that alcohol-related violence continued to remain stubbornly high in New Zealand. He said that the three project areas were selected by the over-representation of alcohol-related violence in each locality and by the acceptance of the project and working relationships required by local police district health boards and territorial authorities. 
Mr Yule said: “A needs analysis carried out in Hawke’s Bay on alcohol-related violence involved significant consultation with the local agencies and the community. This consultation showed that the Napier and Hastings community were concerned with accepted drinking culture youth access to alcohol enforcement and licensing disorder by-products of alcohol. From the needs analysis conducted a number of issues and resulting actions were identified. The focus on decreasing violent crime where alcohol is a factor was a main consideration for the CARV project. Enforcement collaboration education and access to services were all identified as key priorities in addressing alcohol-related violence.” 
Mr Yule was at the select committee to talk about young people’s alcohol-related violence in the top-order town of Havelock North. The wealthy live in Havelock North. Project CARV represents 3 percent of Vote Justice and that is where National will draw its money from—from small budgets such as that; from budgets that operate under the radar. Not many people in Napier know of Project CARV. Not many people know about what goes on on the streets and the work that the police and the Ministry of Justice are doing to curb alcohol-related crimes so not many will miss the budget for Project CARV when it is withdrawn by National to pay for tax cuts. 
Not one National member at the select committee this morning criticised Mr Yule for emphasising that project; nor did one give him an assurance if he had bothered to ask for it that if National ever brought in a Budget that project would be preserved. So we have the irony of a staunch National Party man from Hawke’s Bay singing the praises of one of those below-the-radar policies that are having such a profound effect among our young people and in our community. It is those profound effects that this Government is building through having a sound infrastructure which this Budget is a hallmark of. 
In this Budget we have achieved tax cuts that put money into the pockets of our senior citizens. From 1 October a married couple will get an extra $48 per fortnight. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How much? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: An extra $48 per fortnight. 
This Budget has put money in the pockets of business. On 1 April business tax rates went down to 30c. Who voted against that? The National Party did. Would those members lift that rate again to pay for tax cuts? They have not said but they voted against those rates. How will they tell their friends in the business community that they would lift business tax cuts to pay for private tax cuts larger than those in this Budget? 
The truth is that National members are in a tizz and a difficulty because the Budget we are debating tonight has been endorsed by many in the commercial community as providing the right level of tax cuts without affecting the social services justice and health budgets. Not only does it not affect those votes but also as we know part of the Budget—and it is much welcomed in Hawke’s Bay—is the increase in spending on health and on operational grants for schools. 
I am the chair of a secondary school board of trustees and the 5 percent increase effective from 1 July in the operational grant for that school is hugely welcomed. It is a large sum of money. It will make a difference to our kids. These are the figures that National should be addressing—the funding for Project CARV the 5 percent increase in the operational grant for schools and additional money for our district health boards. What we want to hear in this debate is whether National will continue with those sorts of increases in our vital infrastructure. 
This is a Budget to provide a secure future. This is a Budget for a strong economy that reflects 9 years of hard work and cautious management. It is a good Budget.