Cullen Michael: Budget Debate 
Cullen Michael: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16575] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The one thing John Key knows about Maurice Williamson is that sooner or later he will be stabbing him in the back just as he has done every previous National Party leader—and leaking like a sieve to the Labour Party his views about all the faults within the National Party. However his speech should be welcomed; it was the maiden speech from Mr Williamson this year—otherwise known as the “MP for Telecom”. 
He told us that the important thing for the National Party was not getting high-speed broadband to the farm and to the business; it was getting it to the home. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that was what Mr Key said; the important thing was granny at home being able to download faster the pictures of the grandkids. His answer to people leaving to live in Australia is to have high-speed broadband so that we in New Zealand can download more quickly photos from New Zealanders now living in Australia. We know that in Japan fibre-optic cable can be rolled out to the home and it is used for two things both of which reduce productivity neither of which raises productivity. The priority should be getting broadband to the farm and to the business in order to raise productivity and to leverage the maximum private sector investment for the public tax dollar—not a disguised subsidy for Telecom because who else other than the incumbent in terms of fixed technology would be the partner for the $1.5 billion? Name anybody else who would be that partner! 
There have been some great things about this Budget debate. The first thing we have learnt is that Bill English is totally ignored in terms of his views about the economy. Bill English said after the Budget that no money would be left by 2011 and every one of his colleagues following Mr Key ran around the country saying that people should not worry because National would find billions more dollars for bigger tax cuts. National members started off this debate saying they believe in tax cuts and they have ended it saying they believe in KiwiSaver. And who achieved that? The previously unknown Kate Wilkinson has managed to achieve a religious transformation in the National Party with one answer to one question. Just think what a strategic mind could achieve within that caucus if one error can achieve that kind of approach within the National Party! 
But there is something else: this is the first time that I have given a Budget and the National Party members could not think of a question to ask in the House the next week. There was not a single oral question or supplementary question from the National Party the whole week. Where was big brave Mr English? He tried to pick on other Ministers but unfortunately for him I got up and answered the questions instead. There was nothing about the Budget. Why? Because he knows that National members not only have swallowed whole rats; they have ended up being cornered by them as well at the same time. There they all are in the corner with nowhere at all to go and thinking how they can promise more to the people before the election. 
We had one policy from them and it has gone. It has been used up in the Budget. There is no other idea in the National Party—nothing at all. Every other policy is simply: “What a great idea Labour has had; let’s adopt it!”. National members did that with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund KiwiSaver Working for Families—just roll out the list. They say they believe in Labour’s policies and they say they believe in tax cuts but unfortunately the Labour Government has done them so there is nothing left for them to do. Why would people vote for National why would they vote for the glove puppets when they could have the real hands over on this side actually running the Government? That is the problem the National Party has got going into the next election. 
Then National members said that National could pay for more tax cuts if a National Government did some really bold things. First it would not open an embassy in Stockholm. That will save a lot of money! Secondly it would axe the special education service. It is National’s prime example of bureaucratic growth so it must be what National would cut. Thirdly it would transfer Housing New Zealand Corporation conferences from the Tongariro Lodge to the Brentwood Hotel and out of that magnificent saving of $20000 or $30000 a pop once a year it could provide a tax cut for everybody! The real purpose behind the National Party raising that issue was quite simple: its members like to have their caucus meetings in luxury lodges and they are worried that some Government department might fill up the luxury lodges. I guarantee that between now and the election that party will have a conference a caucus in a luxury lodge paid for by the taxpayer. The big “h” word will never occur to those members at any point in that process. Indeed I have a pretty fair idea that National did hold a caucus meeting in one of the examples read out this afternoon by the Minister of Housing and only about 2 or 3 years ago. That is the National Party for you; nothing is too good for the National Party when it comes to that kind of thing. 
This week we also learnt about the National Party’s policy process. The National Party’s policy process consists of hiring somebody’s water closet having the entire policy committee meet in a soundproof room inside it to arrive at its conclusions then making sure there are no leaks out of that water closet so that nobody else in the National caucus knows what the policy is. So the spokesperson on industrial relations did not know what the National Party plans for employers. It is supposed to be the party of the employers yet the spokesperson did not even know what the policy for employers was. So we have Bill English John Key and of course that giant of policy formulation Murray McCully meeting together to determine the policy of the National Party. The rest of the sheep baa bravely when the policy is finally released. National is a party that does not need a whip; it does not need two whips; it needs two Border collies! That is all that is needed to run the National Party in Parliament. 
The final thing we learnt in this debate after all the talk of National members about blocks of cheese—they are the “Colby Party”; they must be sponsored by Mainland from the way they have carried on—is that they have no answers at all. They do not have a single bit of policy at all. What is their policy? They say: “Remind us of the Labour Party policy.” and then they say: “That’s ours too! That’s our policy.” That is the National Party approach. I say: “Good luck team!”. 
This Budget has been a great Budget. This is a Budget on which we are getting better and better feedback every day of the week. I was stopped on the way to the Koro lounge I was stopped on the way into the plane and I was stopped on the way into the hotel in Auckland last night by people saying: “What a great Budget!”. I say to National: “We’re ready and you lot over there had better come up with some answers between now and sometime later this year because you’ve got none at the present time.”