GEORGINA BEYER (Labour-Wairarapa): The comments of the member who has just resumed his seat are a little sad, but quite remarkable. They smack of a party in denial. This Labour-led Government is a strong, stable Government, and a responsible, cautious fiscal manager. The Opposition benches can deny it if they like, but it is true. This year’s Budget is about fiscal certainty and stability in an uncertain environment, and balanced policies. That is a new innovation for this place. Surpluses will be used to ensure long-term fiscal stability, and will not be thrown away at the first cheap sale that people think we should throw our money into. No, we are fiscally prudent, and this year’s estimates would bear that out.
We are determined to continue the task of building a shared vision and national consensus around the goal of lifting New Zealand’s economic performance and improving our social outcomes. The foundations have been laid and bedded in over the last three Budgets, and this year’s Budget is about staying on course and maintaining our strong position in times of uncertainty.
I ask members to imagine, if they will—and what a thing it would be—that National, and not Labour, had been running New Zealand’s economic policy for the last 3½ years. Let us run through a list of possibilities that might have happened if that were the scenario—though, thankfully, it is not. In welfare, National would have kept the work test for sole parents and sickness beneficiaries that was introduced in the 1990s. Had Dr Don Brash become the Minister of Finance, the unemployed would be queuing at the post offices in the mornings for their work for the dole.
Regarding superannuation, here is something that our old mothers and fathers would cringe at: if National were on the Treasury benches, New Zealand superannuation would have been cut again—yes, déjà vu, and that kind of thing—and the age of entitlement would more than likely have been raised. Not a good idea, I would have thought.
Asset sales are another topic of interest. The intention would have been to sell off the remaining family silver, including New Zealand Post, the Accident Compensation Corporation, Television New Zealand, and Radio New Zealand. This Government has taken the initiative, on behalf of New Zealanders, to claw back some of the rail that this country so badly needs for its infrastructure. That is a responsibility we are taking on to try to fulfil that aspiration for New Zealanders.
As for work life, unions would still be dwindling under National. The minimum wage had been frozen at $7 an hour for almost 3 years, and it might still have been there by the 1999 election, which would have been a worry for most working New Zealanders—the ordinary New Zealanders of this country. In economic development, research and development spending would more than likely have been slashed by National. Business incubators would have been non-existent, and the job of innovation and growth would have been left solely to the whims of the free market.
Under a Labour-led Government, we have spurned the hands-off policies of the previous 15 years, and New Zealand is benefiting. That is why the Opposition tends to find itself in denial over the good news that the estimates offer New Zealanders, particularly this year. We have developed the growth and innovation framework, with the objective of returning New Zealand’s per capita income to the top half of the OECD. Budget 2003 continues the Government’s commitment to the innovation and growth framework. Those initiatives include, for example, $140 million—excluding capital—over 4 years for research, science, and technology. That is reinvesting in New Zealanders; it is reinvesting in people we believe in. I think the Opposition would struggle to try to justify its position on those matters. There will also be $73 million over 4 years to promote overseas trade.
Where do I hear that we have let this country down? I hear it from the Opposition benches. We have not let this country down. The polls that have been talked about in the debate this evening, and in the previous evening’s debate, would bear out the fact that there has been little damage to this Government undertaking strong, stable action under the strong, stable leadership of a Prime Minister who cares, who has compassion, who is pretty smart, and who is a darned sight better than the Leader of the Opposition. He has had to escape the country at a time when I would have thought it was particularly dangerous to do that. What is he doing? Is he cosying up to “GW” in the White House over there in the United States? I do not think so. We have seen very little of what he is actually doing, and I would be worried if I were the Leader of the Opposition.
But let me come back to the point, which is the estimates for this year. We have put in $19 million for the pre-seed accelerator fund. That is for projects that have moved beyond eligibility for grant-funded research, but which are not yet at the stage where they might attract venture capital or other forms of private sector financing. I could go on on that particular tack, but I just want to finish with this: our policies are working. Our strong performance over the last 3½ years has left us in a solid position while we go into a period of uncertainty. The economy has grown 4.4 percent, and unemployment is hovering around 5 percent. With that I conclude, and thank the House for listening to this fantastic speech.
