Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14324] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The speech preceding my United Future colleague’s speech was very interesting because Mr Peters demonstrated that amnesia is here to stay in respect of the New Zealand First Party. If we look at the unemployment figures during the time that Mr Peters was Treasurer and compare them with what we have now we see a huge gap. So let us bring this debate on finance and revenue estimates and the progress of the economy back to some bedrock facts. We have Huey Dewey and Louie over there in New Zealand First. I say to Mr Mark—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know it is the first day back but can I ask members to please look at Speaker’s ruling 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable relevant restrained and as a former colleague—the honourable member Geoff Braybrooke—said if at all possible witty. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. In keeping entirely within the Standing Orders could you remind members that they are to refer to other members in the House by their honourable names not nicknames such as “Huey Dewey and Louie”. To do such a thing would result in me calling that member “Punch and Grow” or something like that. We could not have that could we? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is right—Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Speaker I thank you for your indulgence. I would tell Mr Mark to stick to ski trips that never existed. He needs to get his facts straight. 
I will now concentrate on this finance and revenue debate and look at some hard facts which of course the Opposition will not like. From 1990 to 1999 the economic growth figures under the National Government averaged 2.6 percent. Now New Zealand is enjoying the most sustained period of economic growth in three decades. Suddenly the silence from Mr Key is deafening. The figures show that our annual growth rate was 3.4 percent on average in the past 3 years—well above the OECD average of 1 percent. 
If we are to have a debate about the finance and revenue estimates we should deal with the facts. I will look at tax which we have heard a lot about today. The latest statement on the National Party’s tax policy—when it finally sorts it out because we know that Dr Brash is a bit agnostic and uncomfortable or whatever—along with its ACT partners would give Dr Brash and Mr Hide and others in this place an extra $600 a week. Somebody below $39000 would get zip and that is the difference. 
What have we done in these estimates? We have put a package together that targets middle and low income hard-working New Zealanders. I would have thought that that mob on the other side of the House would actually be in favour of giving the workers—whom the Opposition says from time to time that it represents as long as they are on six-figure salaries—a little bit back. Under this Budget low and middle income workers if they are on $39000 with kids get $150 a week extra. If they are on $55000 with kids they get up to around $200 a week extra. I think it is good to go to hard-working families and say that if they work look after their kids and do the right things the Government will stand beside them and assist. But the only people the Opposition will stand beside are those who drip in Christian Dior earrings and jewellery and have elegant diamond pens. The National and Act parties will stand beside those people who have like Mr Key as he told the Finance and Expenditure Committee the black American Express card. I must confess that I had never heard of a black American Express card. I think I had a gold one but I never heard of a black one. I am told one has to do a number of things in the private sector for American Express to show that amount of faith and trust to get a black American Express card. 
Let us look at it. The Opposition has called for company taxes to be lowered. They have always said how badly New Zealand does and how over-regulated we are compared with Australia in respect of tax. Here is what the Chief Executive Officer of Fletcher Building Ralph Waters had to say: “If I didn’t choose New Zealand’s 33 percent regime against Australia’s lower rate but with payroll and capital gains taxes as well as stamp duty added on then I shouldn’t be doing the job I am.” 
If we look at Australia’s top two rates of personal tax they are ahead of our top rate. Australia’s company tax rate on the face of it is lower than ours but if we add in their equivalent of accident compensation—I think their equivalent of accident compensation is about double ours—Medicare and payroll then their rates are far and away higher than ours. But that is the sort of dynamic place that the National Party wants to take us. 
Let us look at these finance and revenue estimates and what will be achieved this year and what previous estimates under Dr Cullen have achieved. If we look at unemployment the number of Kiwis in work has grown by 193000 in 4 years under Labour. In 1999 when Labour came in the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent. Where are we now? We are just tilting over 4 percent or just tilting under depending on what one reads. I challenge Mr Key to match those facts.