Quinn Paul: Budget Debate 
Quinn Paul: Budget Debate 
[Volume:663;Page:11614] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. May it please the House as it pleases my friends on this side of the aisle that I can advise that reports of my resignation are an exaggeration. I know that Trevor Mallard will be disappointed in that and certainly others in the Opposition will be but I am here to stay for a little longer. 
Thursday 20 May 2010 will go down in history as one of the great days in this House. We had presented to us a Budget that brought a seismic shift in the tax structure and the tax system of this country. We moved from a system that was unsustainable lacked coherence and lacked fairness and equity to a Budget that delivered what the people of New Zealand wanted. It was delivered by a Minister of Finance whom I have no doubt history will show as being one of the great finance Ministers that this country has ever seen. Of course that was followed up by one of the great and endearing speeches that this House has heard. It was by the outstanding leader of this country Prime Minister John Key. His speech tore to shreds the Leader of the Opposition who floundered around trying to look for an argument having had all his points destroyed following the Budget’s presentation. I was humbled to be part of that momentous occasion on 20 May. 
The feedback on the Budget bears witness to its excellence. We have heard some figures from Opposition members but what they have not told the House is that people care about others; they are not in it for themselves. The TV polls show that people by a clear majority thought the Budget was good. In fact an overwhelming majority felt it was great for the country. All the newspapers polls show over 80 percent support. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development that left-wing organisation from Labour’s own side even had to concede there was 78 percent support for the tax changes. There is no poll that can demonstrate that this Budget was not good for this country. I pause for a moment and acknowledge the great support of Maori Party members for this Budget. They were glowing in their praise. In fact Tariana Turia said in her speech that the Maori Party was in for the long haul and that it was the path to success that mattered—not the short gains but the long-term vision. I offer my congratulations to the Maori Party because I think it should be congratulated in that respect. 
We need to ask ourselves why this Budget has received overwhelming support. Let me tell members. Firstly it allows people to make their own decisions about their own money. That is fundamental. They earned it; they can make the decisions about their own money. The Budget ensures that the very high-income people pay their fair share of taxes and it brings balance to investment choices. That is why people overwhelmingly support it. How does the Budget do this? Well 75 percent of the package is dedicated to the lowest two tax brackets; 75 percent of income earners will get to keep 82c in every extra dollar they earn. The average tax rate—not a figure that has been often shared—for these two income brackets will now be 15 percent. But Opposition members sit over there and say that the wealthiest gain the most. The first point is that the wealthiest actually pay the most tax and in fact these tax changes have taken the figures back to 33 percent. They were 33 percent earlier they went up to 39 percent in 1999-2000 and now they are back to 33 percent. That is where the rates are now. When we look at it in mathematical terms and I know that is quite difficult for some in the Opposition the biggest winners are those in the income bracket between $14000 and $48000 who receive the 17 percent reduction. Those in the nil to $14000 bracket receive the 16 percent reduction in their tax. That is way ahead of the other income brackets. I know that is a bit difficult for Opposition members to comprehend so I will give them a little example in Economics 101. 
Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Carmel Sepuloni keeps holding up visual aids. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that that can be done only sparingly by a speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did not notice but the member ought not to have been holding visual aids. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Let me give members an example. Let us take for instance the example of the  
Biggest Loser 
 match-up. We all know what the  
Biggest Loser 
 match-up is—right? If I take my friend Tau Henare I tell members that in doing the  
Biggest Loser 
 match-up he has had a 7 percent reduction when the weigh-in came. In the red corner I have Parekura Horomia—OK? He had a 5 percent reduction—right? In relative turns Tau has won because he has had the greatest level of reduction. But we all know that in absolute terms Parekura has won. But will we be jealous? Will we be envious? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Of course not. We will rejoice at the fact that in absolute terms Parekura got more because he had more to give. It is as simple as that—he had more to give. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Absolute—ha ha! 
PAUL QUINN 
: I know that Darren Hughes is lost in all this but it is actually pretty simple—all right? It is as I said. 
Before I conclude I will just comment on the Greens’ contribution to this debate. We heard Russel Norman the Greens’ male leader say that New Zealanders want prosperity and that economic growth is the basis for their increased opportunity. On the other side is Metiria Turei who says that we New Zealanders like to think of ourselves as an egalitarian society where everyone gets a fair go. OK? But let me say that egalitarianism is not the same as mediocrity and that is a fundamental issue. In fact National is not about averaging down; it is about aspiring up. The Government’s responsibility—our responsibility as the Government—is to provide a safety net yes but a lifestyle—no. It is to give a hand up yes but to spoonfeed—no. That is the problem with the Green Party: it wants to average down; this side of the House wants to aspire up. Egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity; that is what it is about. It is important that we provide the tools for people to use and that we show compassion and aspiration. It is about creating the environment where everyone—and in particular our youth—has every opportunity to achieve his or her potential. That is what is important and that is what we are here to govern for. This Budget provides the greatest opportunity for all New Zealanders to be able to achieve their potential. 
I will conclude if I may by reflecting on a visit last week to the Pinehaven School in Upper Hutt— 
Simon Bridges 
: With the Prime Minister. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —by the Prime Minister and me. The school was opening its new administration block and it took the time to share with the Prime Minister its value statement. The value statement about inspiring and looking up was being achieved.