GEORGINA BEYER (Labour-Wairarapa): What a dour and depressing contribution that was from the member who just resumed his seat! His depression can well be understood, given the pressure that that member and his party are under to come up with even one policy that outlines their vision, in their attempt—bold as it may be—to lead this country. I do not think that will happen.

Mr Ryall could refer only to tax cuts, and what we ought to be talking about is what those cuts would actually mean for New Zealanders if they were to occur. They would mean that the 2,700 extra teachers we have employed would quite possibly no longer be there. I will come back to the list of shame—frankly, that is what it is—should the National Party find itself in the unlikely position of sitting on the Treasury benches after the next election. We would also like to remind ourselves that the dour 1990s matched the member’s dour, dour speech.

The 2005 Budget from Dr Michael Cullen is, once again, prudent and responsible. It maintains a strong and credible fiscal stance. It is fair and most certainly inclusive. It is helping Kiwis to build a stake in their country, and that is building the conditions for growth. That leads to prosperity, and that leads to jobs. We are experiencing that situation now, with more jobs than one can shake a stick at, at the moment.

We can compare it to how it was not very long ago, in the 1990s, when through various methods the mean-spirited Government of the day, the previous National Government, did not assist people, certainly not in provincial New Zealand. That has been talked about this afternoon by members on this side of the House—a great reminder. Moana Mackey’s speech summed it up quite perfectly. She gave some examples of the struggle, the strain, and the stress suffered by people who could have been regarded as being quite hard-core supporters of the Opposition, once upon a time.

Now, the Opposition is going through some kind of charade for the upcoming election; it is throwing tax cuts around but neglecting to say what those cuts would actually mean for New Zealanders all over the country—including, importantly, rural New Zealand. Tax cuts would threaten the 3,300 extra nurses we have employed, not to mention the hospitals we have built since hopes were dashed in the 1990s under the previous National Government. It would just be despicable, frankly, to consider that situation at any time in the near future.

New Zealanders do have a choice; it is the right choice. Under tax cuts from National we could possibly see the 950 extra medical staff we have employed disappear, but Labour is trying to build capacity. Our 2005 Budget builds upon the very prudent and careful management that has cleaned up after the tattered 1990s. This Government has had to grapple with some of the grave errors of judgment made during the terrible 1990s under the previous National Government.

This Government has taken hold of the situation and has brought the country through to the point of this present Budget, with great stability and prudent fiscal responsibility. That is what New Zealanders want to see maintained. They want to see initiatives like Working for Families get to work fully, because they can see that those initiatives will be of great benefit to them.

Under the tax cuts promised by the National Party, we could possibly see the 1,250 extra non-clinical support staff go. I do not think anyone would want to consider that. We could even see the 398 extra social workers at Child, Youth and Family Services go.

Most certainly, New Zealanders welcome the rebuilding of the capacity that was gutted during the 1990s. I can testify to that. As a mayor during the 1990s, I saw unexpected conditions arise as a result of the absolute viciousness of the Budget of 1991. It stripped many people of dignity. It certainly did not enhance employment. It certainly did not address things like apprenticeships.

I remind everybody in this House that this Government restored value to workers in trades in this country by restoring value to apprenticeships—unlike the National Party, which saw fit to dismiss apprenticeships out of hand. Well, New Zealand has responded since this Government brought that initiative back to the fore. It is obvious that apprenticeships are something we are most committed to, and we are committed not just to that sphere but to all spheres of training.

Under a National-led Government, and under National’s tax cut proposals, the 138 extra probation officers could go. We heard Mr Ryall whingeing on before about crime and such things—but here we are again, a Labour-led Government, restoring capacity where it was once ripped away by a National Government.

No, this country does not want to see a return to those dark days. They were dour—as dour as Mr Ryall’s speech was. He is no longer sitting there with any kind of smile of happiness on his face from his speech. He is hearing what I say—