Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5800] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise in support of this Budget. I must say that I was struck by that extraordinary speech by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not think that in my life that I would ever hear a Tory Leader of the Opposition attack a Labour Government for being a tight prudent fiscal manager. I did not think I would ever see that day. History has been made in this Parliament because a Leader of the Opposition—a National Party leader—has accused this Labour Government of doing that. Normally National members have accused us throughout our history as the Labour Party of taxing and spending. Now they say we are too prudent. They are saying that the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen is too prudent and has too tight a hand on the reins and that a $4 billion surplus is just too good and too much. That is incredible. 
This Budget shows a stark contrast between this Government and the Opposition. We have a Budget of certainty a Budget and a Government of stability and a Minister of Finance who engages in fiscal prudence all in an international environment of world volatility and uncertainty politically and economically. Every line item in this Budget—this is the stark difference between the parties and it hurts the National Party—and every financial commitment is a knife in the heart of the National Party. We can see that written on the faces of the National members today. Their heads are down. They are the party of progress the party that was born to rule and after two major election defeats they have not become used to being in Opposition. 
The Budget provides evidence of this Government’s commitment to our people. This Budget strengthens the social contract between this Government and our people. It strengthens the social contract that says we are willing to encourage innovators and entrepreneurs and will assist those who are down on their luck. This Government is a sound custodian of our country’s economy and it will continue to build a sound platform from which our citizens and their families can enhance their lives. The Budget highlights show how we are to do that. I know that the National Party is disappointed with the Budget highlights. National members are craving and clawing for anything negative that they can try to ram down the throats of the people. 
We have a $4 billion surplus. We have an additional $140 million over 4 years plus $12 million of capital for research science and technology. We have $73 million over 4 years to promote trade. There is more investment in skills training so that 5000 of our young people will be on Modern Apprenticeships. 
Total spending on education will increase by $393 million to $8.2 billion over 2003-04. There are taxation-smoothing initiatives that will help to grow our small and medium enterprises. Unlike the National Party we know that our small to medium sized enterprises provide 85 percent to 90 percent of our jobs. This Budget is a sound Budget; it is a certain and stable Budget. It is a prudent Budget and I suspect that the Minister of Finance has been a bit tight on the reins. Why do I say that? It is because he knows that we live in uncertain times and because he wants to ensure that the surpluses are locked in in a sustainable way for our country. 
We have a 4.4 percent growth rate and the lowest unemployment for 15 years. I want to contrast those achievements and this Government’s performance with what we have from members on the Opposition side of the House. As I watched Mr English’s speech I noticed two reactions from the Opposition members. I have never seen Gerry Brownlee look so happy and I have never seen Don Brash cringe so much. Don Brash is actually a tight fiscal manager—that is how he likes to portray himself. He portrays himself as a tightwad who is tight on the purse spends nothing drops taxes and holds back on expenditure. Yet Mr English said that the Government was too tight. Mr Brownlee who is like piggy in the middle was the happiest man today especially given the leadership problems that National faces. Then we heard the extraordinary statement that Mr English was against more power generation. 
If we compare this country’s statistics with Australia’s we can see that we are in a sound position. I compare our record with that of the National Party. Over there on the Opposition benches is a National Party that has no real purpose. It is a party with no heart and no pulse—dead. The walking dead of the National Party are over on the Opposition side of the House and they are politically bereft of any ideas. 
 I say to the National Party that we have written a Budget today. If that party has any policy it should put up an alternative Budget. The National members are self-confessed economic geniuses so they should put up an alternative Budget. If they have ideas for this country let them articulate them. If they have new policy let them put it on the table and promote it and then we can do what the people of New Zealand want us to do. When we have some proposals and some policy from the Opposition to match against our Budget we can have a debate. We can have a contest of ideas and challenge each other’s logic—and in some cases intelligence—so that we get the best from a policy debate. 
But there is a problem with that: we have only one side this Government that puts up policy and a Budget and we do not get anything from the hollowed-out party that purports to be an Opposition. Those members are the walking dead. They have no pulse. The political paramedics have been in in two elections and disposed of them. The body bags are out and the body count judging by the leadership issue is going up. That is interesting. National is a party of lazy people who will not put up policy or counterarguments. Don Brash in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post  
proposed three policies: cutting benefits switching the emphasis in health to private hospitals and doing away with school zoning. Those are all policies that the National Party was rejected on in two elections. The National Party the party of mediocrity has put up three tired old alternatives to our Budget. 
National members talk about layabouts and bludgers. Don Brash wants those so-called—and I do not like the term—layabouts and bludgers to line up and do some real work. But when National members talk about layabouts bludgers and lazy folk they should look at their own number. None of National’s spokespeople including Mr Key and Mr Carter from the C team and a couple of others—I see two of them here in the House—have put up any proposals. They have been in Opposition for how long? For 3½ years. How long has it been since we had an election? Have we had one policy idea or one alternative Budget? National members say they have a plan for assisting people in this country. They say they have a plan for this economy but they will not put it up. What do we hear from them? The best thing that they can do as they did yesterday is to complain about interjections. 
I am proud of this Budget. I challenge members of the Opposition to put up or shut up. We see what has happened in the polls. We see as a Government that people believe in the direction that we are taking this country. Let us look at the achievements—the spending on education trade training and health. There are spending rises of $711 million next year to $9.6 billion. Do we have a health policy from the Opposition? There is not one policy. There are three tired old policies released by the great doctor. Those three policies—benefit cuts the promotion of private hospitals and school zoning—were all rejected in two elections. I say to National Party members that if they want to engage with people they should go out into the streets and listen to folk. They should say to people that there are people of talent in this country who are doing very well that there are people of talent—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not need your protection Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate it but I relish interjections from that member. I appreciate your concern but I say let the Opposition bring him on. Every time that member opens his mouth he puts the sword right into his own side again. He would be better advised to take a call and tell us what the National Party’s health policy is. But will he do that? No because that party does not have one and that speaks volumes. 
I invite National Party members to celebrate the success of this country—to go out and say to people that we have a few issues but we are doing well as a country. Sure we can always do better. But I say that for 3½ years we have been a Government of doers and builders not an economic vandal as National was in the 1990s. Under the previous National Government unemployment averaged 8.1 percent for 9 years. What is it today? It is 4.9 percent—the lowest it has been in 15 years. National was the economic vandal of the 1990s. I relish these debates because every time we can put the sword into members on the Opposition side of the House we show them up as the economic vandals that they were. They are not builders. National the great party of progress still feels it is born to rule but people are crying out for a strong Opposition so that we can test ideas in an intelligent way. I challenge and invite those members to put up some policy ideas or to shut up. This is a good Budget and it will be supported.