Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
Wilkinson Kate: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4153] 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 This is a good Budget. This is an A Budget. It is not a D Budget. This is a good Budget. It is a good responsible and balanced Budget. At least members on this side of the House know that the world economy has changed. In today’s economy this is a very good Budget. If it was not such a good Budget we would not be reading accolades such as: “The financial aspects of today’s Budget are straightforward and responsible” and “Deferring the tax cuts is the prudent thing to do.” The Budget has been labelled as “prudent and responsible in light of the extraordinary state of the world economy and the fiscal pressures facing the government.”; “The 2009 Budget is a first step on the long road to: repairing the damage of the economic mismanagement of recent years; raising the economy’s rate of productivity growth and correcting structural imbalances and; achieving the government’s goal of closing the income gap with Australia”; and “Budget 2009 strikes a reasonable balance between delivering support in the economy’s hour of need and being responsible about long term expenses and debt.” The accolades continue. “The Government has made good on an election promise for an additional $90 million over four years for the Aged Residential Care sector.” This was from HealthCare Providers. “The extra funding will go a long way towards the sector meeting the challenges it faces”—and we are all going to be facing challenges. “Government has listened to sector priorities.” health organisations said further in welcoming the Budget’s announcements. “The government’s budget announcement of even better assistance with home insulation is great news”. 
This is a good balanced and responsible Budget. At this stage I would like to say that I do not think we can underestimate the importance of our credit rating being improved. All Opposition members can do is mock it; they just mock it. They say “Oh no. It’s not important.” But if we look at what Treasury has estimated a rating downgrade would have done it would have pushed up the cost of borrowing for every family with a mortgage and every business by about 1.5 percent. It would have increased the cost of borrowing for New Zealand families who are struggling enough out there by 1.5 percent and the Opposition mocks the credit rating. I think that is irresponsible. This Budget is responsible. I will give an example. Just to put it into perspective a family with a $300000 mortgage would be almost $100 a week worse off if our credit rating had been downgraded. A family with a $150000 mortgage would have been almost $50 a week worse off with a credit rating downgrade. This Budget has increased our credit rating and all Opposition members can do is mock it. This rating increase alone affects New Zealand families it affects workers and it affects businesses and its impact should not be underestimated. 
Opposition members mock the rating and they scaremonger the Superannuation Fund. I would like to spend a bit of time talking about the Superannuation Fund contributions. We have been very clear that superannuation entitlements are not affected by Superannuation Fund contribution deferrals. We are maintaining entitlements. Our decision to defer payments into the Superannuation Fund will not affect superannuation entitlements. In fact we could quote what Dr Michael Cullen said in October 2000. He said then: “It [the Superannuation Fund] will not have any direct impact on NZS entitlements.” Was he not so right? Perhaps the deputy leader of the Labour Party Annette King could take some credence from that because she is making these scaremongering comments that the Government is destroying the fund. But Labour’s own genius of finance Dr Michael Cullen said: “It will not have any direct impact on NZS entitlements.” I tell Opposition members to get back in their seats get over it and work together so that we can get through this economic downturn together for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
It would be utterly ridiculous to borrow money in order to continue making full contributions to the Superannuation Fund; utterly ridiculous. I will quote an excerpt from a television interview in which the Leader of the Opposition Mr Goff was being interviewed. The presenter says: “OK but the idea of the Cullen fund was that you funded it out of surpluses. There are no surpluses can’t be funded … Would you go out now and borrow money to invest? I’m not doing that are you doing that?” Goff: “I tell you the very best time to invest is when the market is at the bottom and you know that … that’s what you’ll be doing if you’ve got the cash to do it.” Presenter: If you’ve got the cash. We haven’t got the cash.” Goff says: “No no.” Presenter: “That’s the key we don’t have the cash.” 
Why do we not have the cash? Because Labour squandered the surpluses over the last 9 years squandered the opportunities and we are left with trying to clean up the mess with a balanced responsible and fair Budget. We do not have the cash because Labour spent it. Labour frittered it on courses that were of no value and on projects that were of no value. Labour frittered it away and now those members are complaining because we do not have the cash to keep funding the Superannuation Fund. Who is to blame? It is the Opposition. 
Budget times create interesting days. In the  
Press 
 recently there was an article by John Minto. Members in the House will realise that John Minto is not particularly a friend of National. Mr Minto very rarely speaks kindly of National. But even he agrees with the decision to halt Superannuation Fund payments. I will quote him because this might be the only time that I quote him in this House and approve of what he is saying: “Halting contributions to the national superannuation fund is also a sensible move because national superannuation can and should be paid from taxation rather than relying on borrowing to invest in erratic markets to fund retirement incomes.” That is what John Minto said. This might be the only time that I say it but John Minto makes sense. [ 
Interruption 
] That is exactly right. Labour wants only to spend and spend. What amazes me is that every member on the Opposition front bench was here when Michael Cullen set up the fund but they all seem to be suffering from a coordinated amnesia. Mr Goff and his deputy continue to harp on about piling borrowed money into the Superannuation Fund despite the fact that Labour set it up to be funded by surpluses. National is not going to put pensions on the credit card. We are a responsible Government. What is most interesting about our credit card Opposition is that all they do is scaremonger and oppose for the sake of opposing. Those members have no vision they have no ideas and Labour does not have many seats in the House either which is even better. 
It might make a change if we looked at some of the positives in this Budget. Does Labour oppose the $900 million for justice initiatives aimed at improving public safety? Does Labour oppose that? The 600 more police on the streets by 2011; does Labour oppose that? The $182.5 million; does Labour oppose that? The 246 more probation officers 29 front-line managers and 26 psychologists to improve the quality of parole and home detention management $255.9 million; 1000 extra prison beds $385.4 million; does Labour oppose that? No Labour just wants to criticise the Superannuation Fund deferral contributions. Even Michael Cullen said that that fund was to be funded by surpluses not by the Visa card. Does Labour oppose the health incentives; the $3 billion investment in health services? No it does not. This includes $750 million in 2009-10; the improvement to district health board services $2.1 billion; and the 800 more health professionals to increase elective surgery capacity $70 million. Does Labour oppose that? Does Labour have anything positive to say about the great things that National is doing for this country? No. Labour members scaremonger they have amnesia and they are jealous and angry. I say that this is an A Budget not a D Budget. It is a good responsible Budget.