Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
Hughes Darren: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16373] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is 1998 the world economy is in tough times Governments have got big choices before them and Bill English the Minister of Finance comes into the debating chamber and cuts the pension of old people. It is 2008 the world economy is facing tough conditions and Dr Michael Cullen comes into the debating chamber and cuts personal taxes and increases the pension of old people. Which do members think is better: 1998 or 2008? 
Last week in this Chamber we saw a Budget that was about the Government’s plan for the future; a Budget that put people in all walks of life at the centre of the plan for that future. Nowhere is that more clear than in the different approach to the issues confronting this country 10 years ago compared with the approach today. As we come to the end of just the third term of the Labour-led Government we can compare like with like because conditions today are so similar to what they were in 1998 but the difference is that Bill English is not the Minister of Finance; he is not able to use scissors to cut the pension of old New Zealanders. He is proud of that record. We know that not because he cut the pension in 1998 as Minister of Finance— 
Hon Bill English 
: I wasn’t Minister of Finance. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well he was Minister of Finance when the pension cuts came in and he has never denied that because he knows that it is the truth. 
He scurries around the country now trying to tell people that older people in New Zealand have got it easy. In fact while we were all here on Friday debating cutting personal taxes the deputy leader of the National Party Mr English the man who aspires to once again be the Minister of Finance in New Zealand was in Christchurch. He was meant to be here debating the Government in the trenches about personal tax cuts but he was down in Christchurch speaking at a lunch where he condemned the Government for concentrating on managing the risks of an ageing population through our Superannuation Fund KiwiSaver and what he calls “new boons” for superannuitants. That means that he not only opposes our increase in the pension last week but would like to go back to the policy he had of cutting the entitlements of older people. If managing the needs of an ageing population is not via the Cullen fund not via KiwiSaver and not via the increases we have made to New Zealand superannuation what is managing the needs of an ageing population? We were waiting to hear from the National Party about that and we heard absolutely nothing. 
Last week gave us a glimpse of campaign 2008. For about a day we saw exactly what the next election campaign is going to be like. Labour turned up with well-thought-out positions clear policy and a principled stand on what we as a country are trying to achieve supported by the parties with which under MMP we can work and negotiate what should be in the best interests of the country and can put in place their policies as part of our programme—that is MMP that is proportional representation and that is how we do it. We brought that programme down to Parliament and as a Government we were unified; we stood together to deliver that programme and we were proud of it. 
On the other side of the House we saw what National’s campaign is going to be like. We saw absolutely zero from the Leader of the Opposition. When he gave his speech he had a 20-minute call but he gave about 6 minutes’ worth of dialogue. John Campbell made a very interesting observation. He asked John Key a few questions and John Key started giving the kind of puffery that no doubt gets rousing applause in the National Party caucus room. It would not do for John Campbell—who is no great friend of the Labour-led Government I might add—who said that John Key was “as slippery as a snake in wet grass” when it came to saying anything specific. That is what the campaign is going to show. 
We got a real glimpse of it last week. John Key had spent the previous week talking about tax cuts going north of $50 a week. We did not hear that phrase from him again after he had said it once. He zigzagged all across the country. The only place where he could find a welcome reception was at a National Party function in Auckland. Did he tell those people what National’s Budget policy would be with regard to tax? Basically that is the only topic that National members have talked about in this parliamentary term but they now have absolutely nothing to say about it at all. 
Bill English went in the other direction but he could not tell us what National would do either. That is why people are now saying that that lot is at sixes and sevens. And it is not on an issue that National members have not heard about before. I can understand that when a new policy comes out that they are not sure about that they have never heard about and that they have not had a caucus discussion about they are not quite sure where to position themselves. Reducing personal income tax is their own policy yet they have had nothing at all of consequence to say about it—nothing. Gerry Brownlee laughs away because he has to work out his tax cut on an abacus; that is how he is going to work out his tax cut. He will not use his fingers and toes—that is for sure! 
People will see from the Labour Party in Government a proper programme for New Zealand’s future. We were elected in 2005 with a very clear policy for New Zealand. Our priorities included KiwiSaver which is a very good policy for young New Zealanders across their working life. It was opposed by National members 40 times on the floor of this House. 
Another priority was lower doctors’ fees and pharmaceutical charges. National members not only opposed them in Parliament but in their health discussion document Tony Ryall one of the top fliers in the National Party proposed getting rid of the general practitioner fee cap. Those members oppose it because they think the market somehow will deliver what the cost of going to a doctor should be. 
We had interest-free student loans as a priority for this term. National opposed that policy at the last election and called it a big bribe. National members said it was a terrible thing. Now their policy is—I am told—to have interest-free student loans. They said they were a terrible thing at the last election and this time they are going to campaign in favour of them. I can see Gerry Brownlee looking through the prospectuses of many night schools and community colleges to work out a programme he might do that he could fund by way of an interest-free student loan. 
Our fourth priority was to bring in a major expansion of the public education system: 20 free hours a week for 3 and 4-year olds in early childhood education. That was absolutely opposed by National members but if we hang around just until playtime I am sure we will find that it is their policy as well. It may be a case of “Gone by playtime!” in that regard. 
Those were the four big policies that we said we would introduce this term and all of our Budgets have delivered them. I say to Gerry Brownlee that we have no time to breathe because there are so many good policies in this Budget but he will have plenty of time to have a snooze on the Opposition bench in the rest of this year and—I am sorry to disappoint him—probably in the next term too. The glimpse I saw last week of the next election campaign was really revealing. The Leader of the Opposition was underprepared the deputy was not really committed to the leadership team—and Mr Brownlee would identify with that because at one point he was a deputy who was not really committed to the leadership team—and they were not ready on their only topic. When members are out on the campaign trail things just happen we have to have a position and we have to tell people the truth about what we would do. That is when people get exposed. 
We rattled off that list of all the policies that we had said were our priorities then we came to Parliament last week and added personal income taxes on top of them and that is the programme for New Zealand going forward. We made sure that everybody would benefit from it—not just some people but absolutely everybody. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues in the House but members do not benefit to the same extent as a proportion of our salaries as other New Zealanders. I make no apology for that but I feel I have to offer the hand of friendship to the Opposition members and apologise because they looked so disappointed that they were not getting the $92 a week tax cut that they had promised themselves at the last election. They had promised a $10 a week tax cut to my constituents in Otaki. It is the other way round under this Government; my constituents will get a much bigger gain as a proportion of their income under this Government than they would ever get under National. I am sorry to disappoint members in that regard. 
But of course those members voted for the cuts in personal income tax. Mr Guy a list MP giggles away. He will have to giggle because he will have to explain to constituents on the campaign trail why he opposed a corporate tax cut why he opposed tax cuts for savers and why he opposed tax cuts for families through Working for Families. We have a broad programme that includes absolutely everybody and that approach goes right through the programme that we have to deliver. 
The Budget funds the buy-back of rail. Did the Opposition support or oppose it? It supported and opposed it! It is the greatest real estate deal in history and the Opposition’s approach is “I am here to buy the house; I am just not going to bid.” That is an absolutely ridiculous approach. 
Nathan Guy 
: Why did it take you 9 years? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well we were busy buying Air New Zealand—something that was opposed by National. John Key said on television that it was a good idea to buy it back. It is a pity no journalist said to him: “Hang on you opposed it.” It would be terrible to have some consistency in politics! 
Then National members said we should never have bought back the railway tracks and that we had bought a dog there. Now they say it was a very good idea to buy the railway tracks but they are not sure we should have bought the trains as well. I ask that Opposition member to wait at that train stop just a while longer because the caboose will turn up in time and it will be National’s policy as well. This Government always plans for rainy days and that is the difference between National and us. 
I go back to where I started to where this country was in 1998 compared with where it is in 2008. National had no planning for the future of this country then and when hard times hit the pension got cut tertiary fees went up Contact Energy was sold and tariffs were eliminated overnight which cost hundreds of workers in Porirua their jobs in the motor industry. We have in a sense worse economic conditions today when we consider world food prices and we are cutting income tax we are boosting the pension we are boosting family incomes we have more money going into education and health and we are making sure that all New Zealanders can participate in this country’s future. That is so important for all of our families. Nothing is more important than that to this Government. 
This Labour-Progressive Government supported by New Zealand First and United Future and working with the Greens and the Maori Party has a broad vision for all of the country. We want to look forward to the future with positive optimism for our people—not trying to see who can get the most and at what cost. People who read through the hundreds of pages of the Budget documents will know that we have clarity around what we believe in. We will defend our policies up hill and down dale because we are driven by the principle of them. We do not go for the cheap shot of saying that no representation in the Nordic community of Europe somehow will fund a big tax cut. That is in opposition to Swiss cheese I would have thought. We are in favour of cheese for everybody and that is why this Government has delivered a Budget worthy of our country.