Mr Speaker, I'd like to reply to the speech from TheTrashMan - an apt name if I ever saw one, Mr Speaker - which is as embarrassing as ever. Mr Speaker, in his reply to the House, he once potificated, in his immense wisdom of course, that our budget - a spreadsheet of monies incoming and outgoing - that this is our Prime Minister and his government engaging in dog whistling! One would be wise to remember that only dogs can hear those, Mr Speaker. Of course, Mr Speaker, these dog whistles are left to our imagination to find which is coincidentally the same place from which TheTrashMan found them. So what are these dog whistles, Mr Speaker? What are we saying to some scary, shadowy cabal in some smoke billowed room in back rooms of the Beehive or somewhere else? The dog whistles one might guess are that ‘lower taxes are good for consumers’, ‘supply side economics is good actually’ and ‘you should be able to keep more of your own money’.
Mr Speaker, he says that the budget delivered to the House is simply more of the same that New Zealand has seen before and again. Is this meant to be an indictment, Mr Speaker? Can anyone truly say that this is a bad thing? We are a highly developed free-market economy with the 52nd-largest economy in the world by GDP and the 63rd-largest in the world when measured by PPP while having only 5 million citizens! Remarkable! Indeed, Mr Speaker, we have large-scale manufacturing industries including aluminium production, food processing, metal fabrication, wood and paper products, mining, manufacturing, electricity, gas, water, and waste services. We actually produce things! Not many western economies can say that. So Mr Speaker, are we to be ashamed of our economic success and is more growth and a strong presence in the world’s economy a bad thing? Well he would like us to think so, Mr Speaker! Shame I say. Why are these wonderful achievements not something all governments should strive to emulate? Our Prime Minister is doing just that and TheTrashMan seems all too happy to criticise him for it? Where do his loyalties lie, Mr Speaker? Seemingly not with the continued growth and success of our economy. These successes I’ve outlined, Mr Speaker, are just that, yet he has the audacity to call them failures! Shame, Mr Speaker!
Mr Speaker, he says that this is not a transformative budget. Mr Speaker, he is wrong. This budget has added over $11 billion into sustainable transport solutions which are crucial to our addressing the biggest issue of our time - global warming. This is supplemented with a $27 billion investment into the largest transport package in New Zealand's history! The budget accounts for $150 million to supply 15,000,000 vaccines to prevent spread and eradicate COVID-19 from our country. This government is investing $400 million into Hawkes Bay Hospital renovations making sure our citizens continue to receive the standard of care that they deserve. This budget invests $2.8 billion into repairing schools in New Zealand which, like our plan on hospitals, will keep us the envy of the world. This budget will add $2 billion to an 'Education Infrastructure and Construction fund' which will build new schools and classrooms over the next 10 years to cater for an additional 100,000 students. Our signature policy, BusinessStart which gets those who were laid off - through no fault of their own - into self-employment by allowing them to extract $20,000 from their KiwiSaver scheme, saving the taxpayer dollars in the long run and keeping our citizens above water. Mr Speaker, the policy of this government covers the $130 Companies Registration Fee, uses the entire taxed portion of their redundancy package as a tax credit for their business, applies up to a $10,000 tax credit on businesses to keep them afloat when they start making a profit, and gives them professional business advice. Also, JobStart - a $500 million scheme that will put 50,000 people back into work by giving businesses $5,000 for hiring a new employee and a further $5,000 after 90 days of full time employment. And finally, with all that having been said, we still achieved a $12 billion tax cut that shifts the tax brackets which gives the average New Zealand household $2,400 back in what is now untaxed income. He says this is not transformative. I say he is wrong.
These successes that work for all New Zealanders, just like this Government, he calls ridiculous. Well I call him ridiculous. He says that these policies uphold the failures of the past which contribute to a New Zealand in decline. How can this be? Not one of these policies are even opposed by the opposition - indeed their biggest criticism of them is that they do not go far enough, not that they are bad policies. That is what TheTrashMan is up against - his own opposition and the government.
Mr Speaker, when his economic attacks fail without any counter examples for the government to even consider, he turns to - and I promise this is true - poetry. He cites a poem by former MP Catherine Delahunty for whatever reason. This poem holds no significance at all in terms of economic analysis so it shall be discarded for the sake of this reply.
Mr Speaker, TheTrashMan says that a good budget is one that ends suffering and because this budget - like any budget - doesn’t, it is a bad budget. He also engages in the trickle down myth which is totally different to supply side economics. Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation. In other words, the economy will work most efficiently when the market is allowed to go ahead with minimal barriers. Trickle down is the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. These are not the same thing.
Mr Speaker, let's do something completely unexpected: Let's stop and think! Why would anyone advocate that we "give" something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place. The "trickle-down" theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories — including J.A. Schumpeter's monumental History of Economic Analysis, more than a thousand pages long and printed in very small type. I have studied this at university, Mr Speaker. I can say with confidence that this is a myth and that ‘trickle down’ and simply trumped up.
TheTrashMan says that lowering taxes will not promote economic growth. Well, Mr Speaker, he is always welcome to send a donation to the treasury at any time. Nothing is holding you back.
Mr Speaker, he criticises our KiwiSaver program. He says this program will strip kiwis of their saved super which could only be the case if he does not understand the policy. The program allows business owners to take out their own saved money - if they want to - to support their business. “Stripping” implies that they do not have a choice about this. They do. Yes, businesses fail. It’s called risk. And it sucks that it may happen, there is no disagreement on that at all. Yet he seems to believe that a program by the government which would support business and also protect the taxpayer is a bad thing … because. He criticises us that we are simultaneously giving grants to businesses to employ kiwis and that we also believe that business should also be able to use their own money if they wish. I find it funny that he is criticizing the free choice of business by appealing to a bad choice by businesses. I would say that the irony is not lost on him, Mr Speaker, yet here we are. He even endorses our policy. He says that the best way to kick start an economy suffering from a demand side recession is to pump money into it - which is correct - but he forgets that we offer just this program! It’s in the budget, Mr Speaker, has he read it? Has he heard the Prime Minister’s speech on this? Does he even care to do the most basic research on these issues before he speaks on them? Seemingly not.
Mr Speaker, with his absurd criticisms which are only argued so he can argue something are totally bunk and without any merit. But I suppose he knows something about that. Good luck unseating the most popular kiwi in the country at the election, champ. You’ll need it!