I call David Seymour. Madam Speaker, what a sad day for New Zealand,
when a
a transformational Budget is promised and a Budget of taxing and
spending on marginal voters is
delivered. There is
nothing transformational about
transformational about taxing a group of people the
Government believes, in fact, should be fairly
confident now will not vote for
it in order to give that
money to groups of people
that it believes will vote for it. I have to
make a few comments on
the earlier speeches, Madam Speaker. James
Shaw tried very hard. He used up
15 of his 20 minutes, and I'd give
him a little bit of advice
his 20 minutes, and I'd give him a
speech is about process. And what he should have learned now
after six months of being a Minister is
that when the bureaucrats are
promising you an office here, an sight
over there, you know that you're never
gonna get any results. What
you're gonna get is a whole lot of process,
and your own bureaucrats are taking
you for a ride. I'm afraid to say
to James Shaw that he has been taken
for a ride by
his own bureaucrat, and everything he is delivering
in this Budget. I also couldn't
help but notice that his
speech was almost entirely directed
at the Green Party and its legacy
and the membership, which makes
you wonder if James Shaw is not having
trouble with the Green Party. I won't
be surprised, considering what
they haven't got out of
this Budget, because of one person, Winston
Peters. Sadly, I missed the Rt
Hon Winston Peters' speech,
but I could have told you what it
would say, because it has not changed for 40
years. What a tragedy of a political
career to have such nice hair, such
nice teeth, such a great voice, and
little. As Oliver Cromwell might say to Winston Peters, if he
was here today,
to Winston Peters, if he was here
for far too long for any good ye have
for far too long for any good ye
get back to the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges, who I
thought gave a very
fine gladiatorial speech, well suited to
the amphitheatre of Parliament. But
there's a problem with it. That
every policy he criticised,
and those that I'm about to discuss,
were possible because they had been
left in place over nine long years
as the legacy of Helen Clark's
because there was no reform. Pensions at 65 will continue
because, given the chance, there
was no reform.
because, given the chance, there was
so different from what the previous Government was trying to do. Working
for families is back as Winter
Energy Payments, and back as an
expanded Families Package,
because it was not removed by
the previous Government. I say to my
colleagues in the National Party,
the tragedy of our time in Government was not
that we lost
power, it's that we didn't use enough of it when
we had it. And now this Government is
further expanding the ratchet
of Government and taxing and spending
more of our money. But the person
that really needs
comments addressed to them is Grant Robertson. Make
no mistake. This is a Budget that is
not about transformation.
Transformation would be
about changing the way the Government
operates to deliver better services,
better outcomes, and better rules
and regulations
and regulations so that New Zealanders can get on with pursuing
their dreams.
Zealanders can get on with pursuing their dreams. Take the
idea of
Madam Speaker, if you're 18 years' old and you live in New Zealand and
you're going to
get higher education, you are one of
the luckiest people who has lived ever.
Since we've climbed down
from the trees. In the history of humanity,
tertiary education are the luckiest humans who have ever lived. And
they are the people that
this Government believes are in need of
Government largess. I put it to
you, Madam Speaker, this is the first evidence
that this Government's Budget is not
about transformation, it is
about taxing money off one group of people
who won't vote for
taxing money off one group of people
and I can guarantee the Government now, net taxpayers will
not like this one
now, net taxpayers will not like
and giving it to groups of people that the Government thinks will vote
for it. That's how they do politics
in South America. It is not the way
to run a country. What
about take
problem. There is a need for transformation around housing
in this country. There is a need to fix
the fundamental problem, which is
produce houses at the rate that we produced them in the 1970s, with
vastly inferior technology,
New Zealanders built twice as
many homes 40 years ago, when Winston Peters
was with it, than
they build today in 2018. That's
the fundamental problem. And the problems are
supply of land. They relate to the funding of infrastructure. They
relate to the building consent
process. So, what is
transformational in this
Budget about saying that the Government
is going to tax people and pump more
money into a housing market
with limited supply, but do nothing
about all of the rules and regulations and
lack of land, and lack of
efficient infrastructure funding, that mean
we have a shortage in the first
infrastructure funding, that mean we
Pumping more money into a
going to improve the housing situation, it is simply going to
ensure that we actually have higher
prices and fewer houses. What about
Budget is all about taxing one group of people who won't vote
for the Government and giving it
to groups of people that the Government hopes
will vote for it. And in this
case, wistfully hoped for by Winston
Peters in the regions. What about
the Winter Energy
Peters in the regions. What about
one doesn't quite make sense, because it's giving money to
millionaires
because it's giving money to
earners, and yet it is without any targeting whatsoever. So, for
once the Government
the Government doesn't target money at people it thinks will
vote for it, it just sprays it around,
completely aimlessly. What about
the New Zealand Super
completely aimlessly. What about the
recontinued contributions. We have
Government is giving the New Zealand Super Fund money to play the
share market at what may well be the
end of the longest growth cycle in
the postwar world. That is nuts. How
many people out there with mortgage
debt play the share market
believing they can consistently beat
their mortgage rate by
playing with international
mortgage rate by playing with
this Government is now doing with New Zealanders' money.
What they should have done is acknowledged
that people are living longer, they
are working longer, they should
have raised the age of superannuation
and given real fairness to
younger generations of New Zealanders. And
what about the
additional revenue over four years that this Government will
additional revenue over four years
billion. Now, in everyday life, if one finds something that belongs
to someone else, that they did not
expect to have, the right thing to
do is give it back to the rightful
owner. There is room in
Budget...
over the coming four years to the people that earned the money in
the first place. And what
would that
tax rate of 25 cents in the dollar. That would mean taking the
tax rate of 25 cents in the dollar.
rate down to 15. That would mean taking the
rate down to 15. That would mean
Every single New Zealander could have received a tax cut
in this Budget, but instead it is going
to be sprayed around cynically
at groups of people
that this Government believes will
vote for it.
it. So,
it. So, Madam Speaker, it's a sad day,
because the
because the Government has recognised the need for
transformation. It recognises
the need for transformation in housing.
It recognises the need
for transformation in education. It
recognises the need for
transformation in transport and in
healthcare. But, sadly, this Budget
is delivering no
such transformation whatsoever. This Government is
delivering, in this Budget, a
lolly scramble of money
to special interest groups, be they
tertiary students, be they people
in particular regions, be they people
who are feeling a bit cold
in the winter,
winter, despite being millionaire, in the hope
winter, despite being millionaire,
people will vote for the Government in order to get other people's
money. That is not transformation.
That is what every single Government
since Richard Sedden has tried to
do. If we want
to address transformation, if we want to
transform the way that the
Government operates for a better
tomorrow for all New Zealanders,
then the
tomorrow for all New Zealanders, then the conclusion,
Madam Speaker, is crystal clear.
is crystal clear. People in 2020
will have to vote ACT.
ACT. Unfortunately, the last
10 minutes of my life, I can't reclaim. That
was a speech spoken by
somebody who's never ever been outside of his
little bubble and actually
seen the hardship, the lack of housing, the
homelessness, the poverty in
the areas that I represent.
Madam Speaker, let me just start by
acknowledging the PM. The