Carter David: Budget Debate 
Carter David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9540] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 This Budget was an important Budget for the Labour Government. The Government had a chance to produce a Budget that would be a circuit-breaker for the Government after the months and months of very bad news that it has enjoyed. I listened with interest to the second response made to the Budget after it had been delivered last Thursday by Dr Michael Cullen. The three words uttered by that contributor summed it up. Those three words were: “Is that it?”. Is that it? Those words were uttered by none other than Helen Clark Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party. She knew when Michael Cullen sat down that the Budget was not going to be the circuit-breaker she so much wished for. She knew as Michael Cullen sat down that as the Christchurch Press said in the editorial the next day there had been a huge opportunity lost. That is what the Christchurch  
Press 
 said in its editorial. 
Helen Clark knew that because Michael Cullen had again been too clever by half. He took the opportunity in this Budget to make what was originally a relatively simple KiwiSaver scheme extremely complex; what is worse he then insisted on compulsory contributions from employers. That is what took the business community by surprise. 
 So Helen Clark uttered the words: “Is that it?” and sat down and realised that Michael Cullen had delivered his last Budget in this House. He has delivered eight Budgets; eight Budgets that have not done anything to lift the standard of living for New Zealanders. But the real hassle for Helen Clark is who she will replace Michael Cullen with. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Michael Cullen. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Pete Hodgson interjects to say she will replace Michael Cullen with Michael Cullen. He may well be right and the reason he may be right is that when we look across the front bench of the Labour Government we see that there is no one else. Those members gave Mr Mallard the opportunity as an Associate Minister of Finance to get out amongst the business community and try to demonstrate that he had some credibility. But Mr Mallard lost the opportunity. He went off with some harebrained scheme to build a billion-dollar stadium on the Auckland waterfront and he lost his opportunity to build any credibility. Those people who are now listening to this debate on the radio knew that when Mr Mallard was talking about a billion dollars to build a fancy rugby stadium a billion dollars less would be used on Auckland roads. So Mr Mallard blew his opportunity to be the next Minister of Finance and to deliver Labour’s last Budget. Mr Hodgson may well be right—there may well be nobody who is credible within the Labour Government now to deliver the next Labour Budget; the last Budget before the country gives us a change of Government. Helen Clark was absolutely right when she sat down in absolute exasperation and said: “Is that it?”. 
I will talk about the employer contributions and what they will mean to lower-paid New Zealanders. When he delivered the Budget Dr Cullen said as an excuse to employers that they would not have to offer pay rises to workers. That is all very well for the 50 percent of people that Treasury says will sign up to the KiwiSaver scheme but what about those people on lower incomes who simply cannot afford to save—the sort of people who traditionally Labour used to represent. Mr Mallard the other day yelled out across the Chamber: “What about the workers?”. I say to the Labour members here in the House tonight: what about the workers? 
When that question was asked again earlier today by Bill English Darren Hughes interjected across the House to say that Labour had looked after the workers because it had given them $11.25 an hour. I think that that is the very reason that Darren Hughes now has only about 12 months left in this place. It is the arrogance he shows when he thinks he can tell lower-paid workers that $11.25 is their lot in life. I say to Darren Hughes that they are the very people who gave him a very slim majority in the Otaki electorate. They will not forget because Nathan Guy will take the opportunity of reminding those people at every chance he gets that Darren Hughes said this Budget was good for them because Labour gave them $11.25 an hour. I say to Darren Hughes that he should try to raise a family on $11.25 an hour because that is how out of touch this Labour Government has become. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s where Working for Families can help out—I agree with the member. I voted for it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh there goes Labour’s orange boy chipping in again. I tell Darren Hughes to listen because the only thing that he is good for is bringing on the oranges at half-time. The Labour Government will not even let him play a full game. 
But I want to talk about the Budget and about the previous tax cuts that the Minister of Finance offered. He offered to adjust the thresholds in the Budget of 2005. He offered personal tax cuts in 2005 but true to his word this time—again—he could not deliver them. He has taken away the chewing gum tax cuts he offered previously. Mark my words Dr Cullen has said that tax cuts are inflationary but next year when the Labour Government is further sunk in desperation and about to deliver its very last Budget suddenly Dr Cullen will come good and decide that tax cuts in an election year are not that inflationary after all. But people will not believe him—that will be the difference next time. He has offered personal tax cuts once and when he was called on to deliver them he used this Budget of 2007 to remove the promise of those tax cuts. So I say that when he offers them again nobody in New Zealand will believe him. 
I also remind the House of an earlier comment made by Helen Clark in this House that I well remember. She promised to raise the living standards of New Zealanders and to put New Zealanders back into the top half of the OECD. That was a great statement. I thought that if she were to do that then I was supportive of her doing that. But then when we asked her when she would do it she suddenly forgot that she ever made that comment in this House. In the meantime under the desperate management of the Labour Government we have seen this country actually slip further behind in the OECD rankings. That might not worry Darren Hughes because he sits here arrogantly on a little more than $11.25 an hour—I am never too sure why he deserves more than $11.25 but that is what he gets. 
Darren Hughes 
: I work for my money. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member says that he works for his money—he should tell that to the people he let down in the Budget. 
But anyhow I say that 700 New Zealanders leave this country each week because they find that life in Australia is better than it is here. That is the greatest challenge this country has. The reason people are leaving in those sorts of numbers is that they can earn significantly more money after tax in Australia than they can here—50 percent more. [ 
Interruption 
] Darren Hughes nods his head in agreement. 
I will finish with two comments on agriculture and biosecurity. I refer to Vote Agriculture and Forestry. I looked through what Mr Anderton was going to do for farmers and I found one item: $1 million for a New Zealand primary industry congress. 
Nathan Guy 
: Talkfest. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Anderton’s solution to New Zealand’s agricultural problems is another talkfest of $1 million being spent in November. That will not achieve a thing I tell Mr Anderton. The farmers in New Zealand are fed up with Mr Anderton’s talk and they want some real solutions. 
The other vote I will quickly refer to is biosecurity. Again Mr Anderton put out a surprising press release in the week leading up to the Budget that stated that he had increased biosecurity spending by $37 million. When I look at the figures I see that the out-years for biosecurity spend go down from $186 million to $168 million. That is a decline of $17 million not an increase of $37 million. I tell Mr Anderton that it is time he stops being economical with the truth and actually serves the portfolios that he has been given. Biosecurity in this country is in a mess agriculture is under real pressure and Mr Anderton has failed to deliver anything in this Budget for those two industries.