Coleman Jonathan: Budget Debate 
Coleman Jonathan: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16519] 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 It has been a real honour to sit in on Russell Fairbrother’s valedictory speech. Let us reflect on the Labour Party’s dire position in Hawke’s Bay. It had an opportunity to look to the future and select a bright new candidate who would lead the party to greater things but what did it do? It went back to Mr Fairbrother. 
I think there are some real parallels between that situation and this Labour Budget. This Budget was an opportunity for Labour to paint a picture as to how it would grow the New Zealand economy and look to the future. But what has it done? Labour has just looked at the cake and worked out how to cut it up; it has not looked at how it can make the cake bigger. In this country we have a growth problem. I know that you read the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Mr Deputy Speaker; even some Labour members might read it. There is a very fine cartoon in it today on page A14 by my constituent Mr Emmerson. It pretty much sums up the economic growth problem under Labour. In the cartoon Mr Emmerson says “What NASA did with $438m …”. What did the National Aeronautics and Space Administration do? It put a space probe on Mars—something that will add to the growth of the body of human knowledge. What did the Labour Government do with $690 million—soon to be $1 billion? It went back to the past and bought an outdated train set. This cartoon asks whether if one were trying to grow the economy to increase the prospects of the nation and to take New Zealand forward into the 21st century one would buy a train set for $690 million. Would that be a sensible way to encourage growth in this country? 
Darren Hughes looks a bit sour because he knows that this sort of thing will absolutely sting him in the Otaki electorate. He may be one of the few Labour members who read the  
National Business Review 
. Two weeks ago the editorial in the  
National Business Review 
 said that we have a growth problem in New Zealand. The IMD business school’s growth and competitiveness rankings which were published a couple of weeks ago show that New Zealand is at the bottom of the OECD. Only two countries are below us. We have improved one place since last year but that is only because Iceland has slipped below us. I ask members what in this Budget will increase New Zealand’s competitiveness and grow the size of the economic cake. There is absolutely nothing. All we heard from the last speaker Russell Fairbrother was a whole lot of tangential stuff that had nothing to do with the economy. 
The Budget document outlines “Main Spending and Revenue Decisions in Budget 2008”. The Government has made three points under the “Economic Transformation” section. One of the pillars of economic transformation for the Labour mob is a “$690 million capital investment in 2007/08 for the purchase of Toll New Zealand’s rail business.” Is that not an indictment? The platform for economic growth is buying back the railways. I would like the next Labour speaker to tell us how much that will add to the New Zealand economy over the next 10 years. I do not think there will be any takers. If we look at this Budget we see that there is nothing in it to indicate that this mob will be able to increase the competitiveness of the New Zealand economy. 
Over the last 9 years we have heard a lot of plans from Labour members but the one consistent thing is that there has never been a consistent economic plan for the future and Darren Hughes knows that. We had the knowledge wave. What did that produce? We never hear about it any more. There were no gains from it. We heard about programmes like closing the gaps. What happened to that? It disappeared. Those guys over there are not even allowed to talk about it any more. We heard about our getting in the top half of the OECD. What happened about that? Nothing at all happened. Last year the theme was sustainability. What happened to that? They do not talk about sustainability any more. Now they are even backing off on the emissions trading scheme—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes they are. These guys brought it to Parliament but they do not have the guts to put it out there and stick to it. 
The interesting thing about this Budget is the big emphasis on tax cuts. Suddenly tax cuts are OK. If we read through the Budget speech we can hear Michael Cullen justifying them. As Eric Roy said it is all to do with external circumstances. We very much get the feeling that Michael Cullen has been forced into a position he cannot get out of and is finally grudgingly giving tax cuts. We know that because Michael Cullen is on the record as saying: “My view is that tax cuts are largely offered as a political bribe not because of beneficial economic or social effects.” It is pretty hard to be credible on tax when one is on the record as saying that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is a very poor speech. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mr Mallard does not believe in tax cuts but he knows that his only hope of getting back on the Treasury benches is for Labour to throw everything it can into this Budget. 
These guys do not believe in tax cuts but they knew that was the only thing they could do. What did Helen Clark have to say on tax cuts in 2000? She said: “Tax cuts are a path to inequality … They are the promises of vision-less and intellectually bankrupt people.”—visionless and intellectually bankrupt. The lack of planning for growth in this Budget pretty much sums it up. There is no vision and those members are intellectually bankrupt. They are grasping at power. They are trying to survive. Here is another quote from Michael Cullen: “We just don’t believe in tax cuts—it’s against our fundamental philosophy—after all we are socialists and proud of it.” How would members like to have that on the record then try to roll out a $10 billion tax cut plan? Well I can tell them what happens when one does that. I get out and talk to the people in Northcote every weekend—every time I am back in the electorate. They tell me that they have voted for Labour in the past but that they will not make that mistake again because these guys pretend they are for working people but they have let the working people of New Zealand down. A lot of people on those benches opposite are completely ashamed of that fact. 
People are queuing in the accident and emergency department at North Shore Hospital. They cannot get the operations they need and nothing in this Budget will change the situation one little bit. The extra spending in this Budget will cover only health inflation. Labour has given up. Its members said that extra spending would be the answer in health. They said extra spending would deliver more operations and would actually improve the situation. Now they are not even putting in the spending—they have no health plan at all. They do not know what they are going to do in health. It has run away from them and more important they have completely lost the trust of the electorate. 
I also want to speak about Mr Mallard’s issue—broadcasting. Mr Mallard does not spend a lot of time on the broadcasting portfolio because it is his demotion portfolio. Frankly he resents being there. He does not like being in that portfolio. What has been really interesting is that since he came into that portfolio he has been busy cleaning up the absolute mess that the Hon Steve Maharey left behind him when he decided it was time to get off the sinking ship and step off to Massey University to become the vice-chancellor. When Mr Mallard got there he was absolutely horrified to find that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) was being given $15 million of direct charter funding every year and it did not have to account for it—it did not have to account for it at all. It has had that funding for the last 5 years. Mr Mallard and Helen Clark said that that funding would deliver great public broadcasting but now the truth has come out. Mr Maharey never kept an eye on how that money was spent. It was being used as a slush fund to fund all sorts of commercially viable projects that would have been done anyway. So what has Mr Mallard done this week? He has taken that $15 million off TVNZ and has given it to New Zealand on Air to look after. That really is the ultimate indictment of this Government’s broadcasting policy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Indiked-ment”? What does “indiked-ment” mean? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: “Indiked-ment”? I do not know. I-n-d-i-c-t-m-e-n-t. The member should look it up. There may well be a dictionary out in the foyer. This guy can try as many versions as he likes but he knows he is presiding over a mess in broadcasting. Frankly he cannot wait to get out of that portfolio. 
There are some very uncomfortable people over there because being in Government is getting way too hot for them to handle. They have had to completely compromise their principles to give these last-gasp tax cuts. They do not believe in tax cuts but they know that tax cuts are the only way they will survive. They are on the record all over the place as saying that they do not believe in tax cuts at all—that they are things visionless and intellectually bankrupt people support. Yet here they are doing just that. 
The Budget speech was a valedictory speech for Michael Cullen. This is a valedictory Budget. He will not be here again—it was his last Budget. Sadly for the Labour members half of them will not be back here again either. Mr Gallagher will probably not be back here. I am not sure where he will be sent but he certainly will not be coming back to this House. There may be one or two survivors over there but that will be it. This Budget has no plan for the growth that New Zealand needs. These guys know it but they have sold out; they have given the tax cuts they know they need to give in order to survive. That is the end of the story.