Parliamentary Debate

APPROPRIATION (1995/96 ESTIMATES) BILL---FINANCIAL STATEMENT : Second Reading

DAVID CARTER (Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to follow the member for Hamilton West in what I venture to say will be his second to last Budget speech. I join my fellow Government members in saying ``Thank God for small mercies.'' At one stage I thought I would be calling for an emergency supply of Berocca in order to make it through to closing time.

Last Thursday the Minister of Finance delivered what he termed a balanced Budget, and I agree with that. It was a very balanced Budget and it is a pleasure to be able to speak to that Budget tonight in my first Budget debate since my election to the House.

The Budget was balanced in three critical aspects: first, continued rapid debt-repayment, which is what people want---the Labour Opposition may not want debt repayment but people want it and I certainly want it; second, increased social spending, which has been carefully targeted---it is not the squeaky-wheel syndrome we used to see in the past; and third, tax cuts, the threat the Labour Party leader spoke about earlier---there will be tax cuts in 1997 so that all New Zealanders have a chance to share further in our economic recovery. The Labour Administration would have been happy to achieve a balanced Budget. I remind the House that it had six goes at balancing the Budget and it was a dismal effort. From 1984 until 1990 its effort saw indebtedness increase from $22 billion to $44 billion. So from its point of view balanced Budgets are very hard to see.

But this is a balanced Budget. It is a balanced Budget from the point of view of policy and it is a profit Budget from the point of view of fiscal responsibility.

Harry Duynhoven: What about the cut-back in service contained in the Budget?

DAVID CARTER: The member opposite mentions operating services. This year alone $2.6 billion; next year $3.3 billion; 1996-97, $5.4 billion; and---listen to this---1997-98, $7.8 billion---

Tony Ryall: Did Labour ever have a surplus?

DAVID CARTER: It never had a surplus. I am staggered at the simplicity of the remarks we get from some leaders of Opposition political parties, despite those figures. The member for Tauranga was reported in the Christchurch Press the day after the Budget as saying that the Budget did nothing for employment. This Government has witnessed the creation of 148,000 new jobs in the last 3 years. Labour, by comparison, managed to lose 100,000 jobs in the last 3 years of its Administration. In the last year the Government has created 76,000 jobs.

This Budget, despite the comments of the member for Tauranga, ensures continued employment opportunities for all New Zealanders. I wish the Opposition would explain why it does not support that initiative. The grasp of economics by the leader of New Zealand First is obviously fairly slight. He continues to rave on about foreign takeovers, failing to understand that without foreign direct investment interest rates in New Zealand would be considerably higher than they are today. He fails to see that the current level of foreign direct investment is not a threat to our country, it is a compliment to New Zealand.

But the member for Sydenham, the leader of the Alliance, has shown the least understanding of all. Last Friday he was reported in the Christchurch Press as saying that the Government has opted to send so-called surpluses to international bankers rather than to needy New Zealanders. I remind that member that the Budgets of the last 17 years were the Budgets that sent money to international bankers. That was when we borrowed rather than pay our way. That is when we had Budgets for international bankers. Only the Alliance seriously believes that we do not have to pay that money back. We have borrowed it and we have to meet the indebtedness. Only the Alliance seriously believes that living beyond our means is good for New Zealand.

This was definitely not a Budget for international bankers. They make money when we borrow; they do not make money when we pay back.

I want to discuss what the Labour Party leader said about the Budget. On Friday morning the Christchurch Press considered her comments so worthy that it did not even bother to print them. There were no comments at all in the Christchurch Press on Friday morning from the Leader of the Opposition. I guess this is simply symptomatic of New Zealand's perception of the current Labour Party leadership, the once-proud Labour Party that now has no leadership at all.

Tony Ryall: How much does she rate in the polls?

DAVID CARTER: I think it is probably around the margin of error.

Tony Ryall: It's 2 percent and falling.

DAVID CARTER: Yes, it is 2 percent. I want to talk tonight about debt reduction, because I came here to be part of a Government that promises to decrease our indebtedness not to increase it.

Harry Duynhoven: The member came here promising to do something about health.

DAVID CARTER: It was interesting that when the leader of the Labour Party spoke earlier this evening she had forgotten there had been a by-election in Selwyn. She referred to the member for Selwyn as the immediate past member, Ruth Richardson. However, I am not the least bit surprised that she wanted to forget that by-election because where did Labour come in that by-election? I remind the House that it came a very distant third, and that is exactly where it figures today in the polls.

During that by-election I spoke on numerous occasions of the burden of New Zealand's debt and the $11,000 that every New Zealander owed. Judicious management over recent months has seen this figure already decline to $9,000. Even more exciting are the projections that this will get to $5,000 for every New Zealander by 1997-98. How the Labour Opposition could be critical of those figures I fail to understand.

New Zealanders must be made aware of these indebtedness figures before the next general election. Unless we have a strong, fiscally responsible Government we risk a reversal of those indebtedness trends. If we commence the borrowing again, despite the failure to understand of the Alliance and New Zealand First proponents, these borrowings must be paid back by somebody. National is the only political party in this House that realises that to spend any money is to spend its fellow New Zealanders' money. It is earned by the workers of New Zealand. Only National promises to spend New Zealanders' money responsibly.

The greatest spending impetus in the Budget was on education. This demonstrates to me National's commitment to the future, the future of New Zealand's young people, the future of a strong, inclusive society in which all New Zealanders have an opportunity to further themselves through education. The Budget allocated an extra $688 million to vote: Education over the next 3 years. This means that by next year total education spending will exceed $6 billion. The Labour Party may be critical of that but that is $1.5 billion more than the members opposite ever spent when they had their chance. No one can seriously say that National ignores social justice. This is how National wants to give young New Zealanders their chance. I want to give young New Zealanders a chance, an opportunity to help themselves, not compensation when our society fails them.

Prior to this Budget the Minister of Education announced that New Zealand schools would get 1,000 net more teaching positions. This Budget dedicated $200 million over the next 3 years to accommodate those 1,000 new teachers and that is in excess of $1 million a week on school accommodation.

Tony Ryall: How many new teachers are expected in the Selwyn electorate---at least 15?

DAVID CARTER: Oh, considerably more than that. Over the next 3 years universities will receive a further $66 million, allowing another 17,000 students to have the opportunity to further their education, and, in doing so, to increase the number of schools---

Harry Duynhoven: How many schools are there in the Selwyn electorate?

DAVID CARTER: There are 31 schools in the electorate. This means that we have witnessed a phenomenal 40 percent increase in the number of students who will now have the opportunity for tertiary education, from the time that Labour left office and the end of this decade. The Labour Party's proposal for student fees is for fewer New Zealanders to have the opportunity for tertiary education, or, it says, we should increase the taxes on working people---its supporters---to fund these extra numbers of students.

I further applaud the additional resource of $1.7 million, which has been made available for training and support for boards of trustees. As we push decision making into our communities, giving parents and not the Wellington boffins the chance, the responsibility on the board of trustees obviously increases. We recognise this and the move will now ensure that adequate funding and support is available for this very valuable support.

Within this Budget are a couple of initiatives that nobody has bothered to mention tonight but which I think deserve some comment. Within my own electorate work I have visited the pilot Compass programme instigated by the Income Support Service. I was impressed by the immediate success of this programme, which aims to move sole parents into education, training, or employment. I have taken the opportunity of speaking to the people Compass has already helped. It goes straight to the heart of the problem. It boosts these people's self-esteem and I take the opportunity tonight to welcome the decision of the Government to spend an additional $5 million to promote the Compass programme, a very good initiative. [Interruption] I have seen it at work. It helps real people with real needs.

This Budget also recognised the difficulty that adults have with literacy and numeracy and it devotes $3 million specifically to this cause. Sadly in my electorate a growth industry is that of prisons. On my visits to our prisons, temporarily I assure the House, I am saddened at the large number of prisoners who can neither read nor write adequately. The amount of $3 million is a very important step in the right direction.

This Budget places before New Zealanders a stark reality. New Zealanders can see responsible management by a National Government, ensuring spectacular economic progress, which is the envy of the Western World at this stage. We will couple that with responsible social progress. That is our choice as a nation. Let me close by dealing with that point and with the opponents of this Budget in the order of their recent political polls.

Tony Ryall: Who's first?

DAVID CARTER: It is New Zealand First, the xenophobic party, which simply criticises but never offers a policy because it knows that, thank God, it will never have a chance to enact so much as an empty wine box.

Tony Ryall: He's going to lose in Tauranga.

DAVID CARTER: Yes, he will very likely lose in Tauranga. The other minor Opposition party, the Labour Party, the endangered species, stands behind a very proud economic record---a proposed $89 million surplus announced before the 1990 election that was suddenly revealed to be a projected $5.2 billion deficit in 1993-94 on a no-change policy basis. Merlin the Magician would not have been able to compete with that remarkable miracle.

Finally, the Alliance, the party still managing to convince New Zealanders, or trying to manage to convince New Zealanders, that money grows on trees, is the party in an absolute time warp. The solution for New Zealand is not to return to the failed policies of the past. New Zealand has already sacrificed so much in the time that I have been in Parliament, and earlier, that I do not want to see this country go back and go through all that sacrifice again. The reborn leader of the Alliance must surely realise this.

An Hon. Member: He is back again.

DAVID CARTER: Yes, that is right, he has come back for another go.

Hon. John Banks: More brutalisation.

DAVID CARTER: He is brutal? I do not find him too brutal.

Hon. John Banks: I said he has been brutalised.

DAVID CARTER: Well, he has had 6 months off and he has decided to come back for another go. But I hope that people realise, and I hope that the leader of the Alliance realises, that economics is not simply like phonecards. Somebody else has to pay the bill.