Dyson Ruth: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: General Debate[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6940. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I really love the humour that Mr Jami-Lee Ross uses when he makes his contributions to the House as he did when he praised the Minister of Finance for his competent financial management of the books—7 years seven deficits. Seven years seven deficits—that is what Bill English has delivered to us. Bill English has borrowed more money than Sir Robert Muldoon. Bill English has borrowed more money than Sir Robert Muldoon. Seven Budgets seven deficits and Jami-Lee Ross thinks that it is something to boast about. Well I would hang my head in shame if I were the whip of the National Party and were looking at the tragedy that Bill English has delivered for the finances of our country.I heard the Minister for Senior Citizens another person who is obviously prone to irony and humour in her debate. Let me tell the House about a few policy issues for senior citizens. What about increasing the level of superannuation which was hacked back under a National Government in the 1990s? What about establishing a New Zealand superannuation fund that the Government could invest in so that older people in the future—the young ones of today—could have some security that the increased demands of superannuation will be met by saving for the future in a New Zealand superannuation fund? What about introducing income-related rents for State housing so that people who are on low incomes pay a lower level of rent and can afford to have a bit of money in their pockets instead of it all going out on the rent? What about having a rates rebate so that people on low incomes who have high rates billsand have not got very much money—every yearyou get your rates bill and you cannot get out of it; and if you are on superannuation it is a big bill—could have a little more of that money back in their own pockets? What about the removal of asset testing for rest homes?Those are all policies that were progressed by Labour when we were last in Government. Let us compare this against the most recent announcement by the Minister for Senior Citizens standing alongside the Prime Minister. The Minister for Senior Citizens announced—ta-da drum roll—the launching of a website. Wow! The launching of a website—that will give older New Zealanders financial security! That will help them with the level of superannuation! That will give the young people of today the security of knowing that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will be there in the future! Not only did that Minister launch a website but also simultaneously as only the Prime Minister can do they cut home support for older New Zealanders—at the same time. It is almost like a magic trick. They can launch a website and cut home support for senior citizens at the same time. That is what older New Zealanders are facing under this Government.Nikki Kaye the current member for Auckland Central said in what sounded like a valedictory speech how proud she was of the achievements that have been brought forward by the National Government. Not for older New Zealanders not for young New Zealanders—in fact not for very many people at all. If only Bill English had invested in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as he should have done from 2009 instead of borrowing for tax cuts which is what he actually did. He would not borrow in order to save for future New Zealanders’ security but he did borrow for tax cuts for the highest-income New Zealanders. The highest-income New Zealanders got tax cuts in 2009 which Bill English borrowed money to pay for. That is a disgrace. If he had not done that and if he had invested in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund we would have been $18.2 billion better off. That superannuation fund would have been $18.2 billion bigger—$18.2 billion bigger—if we had had that investment over the past 7 years. Even if you take the most conservative approach of allowing for borrowing in the costs we would still be $6.2 billion better off. That is money for future New Zealanders to have security in their quality of life and it is money that the Minister of Finance spent instead on tax cuts for rich people.