Turner Judy: Financial Review Debate 
Turner Judy: Financial Review Debate 
[Volume:607;Page:4153] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to reflect on health expenditure. When reviewing expenditure on health it is important to look at what I want to call the health climate of New Zealand that made the spending necessary in the first place and to ask ourselves what has been done and what is being done to reduce the need for costly health procedures. 
When the focus is predominantly on surgery waiting lists and expensive treatment centres and that alone we will perpetuate the ever-deepening hole that contains health funding. The risk factors are well documented and continue to beg for attention. United Future is committed to partnering with both Government and community organisations to reduce health risks by addressing the lifestyle issues that destroy New Zealanders’ quality of life. 
For instance one of the key socio-economic risk factors in health outcomes is unemployment. The Government is to be congratulated on the present tracking down of these statistics. The environmental factors that need consideration are things like water quality issues surrounding fluoridation and naturally occurring mineral deficiencies such as selenium. The impact that these have on public health and public health expenditure needs to be considered and addressed. 
We continue to pay dearly for the unacceptable levels of obesity and the closely related prevalence of diabetes high blood pressure and blood cholesterol concerns. Smoking and the culture that surrounds alcohol consumption in New Zealand need to be made an even higher priority. In 2001 the alcohol and public research unit reported: “Alcohol consumption amongst young people is of concern as there is evidence that heavier drinking cohorts of young people go on to be heavier drinkers in later life and experience more alcohol-related harm.” It also reported that “younger drinkers are more likely to experience alcohol-related harm than older drinkers.” 
Whenever we review our financial priorities we should assess whether those priorities include long-term planning and whether those plans are getting the planned outcomes. How do we facilitate an increase in activity levels an appropriate fat intake and the inclusion of fruit and vegetables in Kiwis’ diets? What are the ranges of strategies that have been identified and are being funded to reduce behavioural risk factors in the Kiwi lifestyle? 
Government investment in what seems to be the obvious is essential if we are to be able to afford the health services we want for the future. Child immunisation and sight and hearing tests at school entry point need to be funded at a more effective level. Last week I received a letter from a schoolteacher who said that she has discovered that the hearing test at her school does not pick up the problems that many of her children are suffering from but that a more expensive test would. We need to look at those kinds of issues. Oral health funding for schoolchildren and injury prevention for children are all areas that will save us dollars in health and give us dollars in the areas where we want to spend. 
While work and research continue as a part of the fight against life-threatening cancers never before have we enjoyed the weight of evidence regarding the increased risk that is a consequence of lifestyle choices. Publicly funded public health education strategies have never been more relevant in this regard. In relation to the health of our young people youth suicide youth motor vehicle mortality and teen pregnancy are all preventable youth health issues. United Future wants to challenge the Government to see that the New Zealand public tax dollar is used to a greater extent to fund initiatives that proactively work to help the public address the health issues that are personally preventable and to offer its support to that end. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in this financial review debate. I am very proud of the achievements of this Labour-Progressive Government and particularly proud of the achievements we have made in economic industry and regional development. In the past 3 years we have achieved some magnificent progress for New Zealand. When I say “we” I mean all sectors of the New Zealand economy particularly the regional New Zealand economy. However we cannot be complacent; there is a lot more to do yet. 
The appropriations from this House have gone towards improving the standard of living of all New Zealanders by creating jobs and building stronger regions and communities. I want every member of the House to celebrate that. There are some who do not but I know how strong the regions of this country are in comparison with how they were when this first coalition Government was elected in 1999. Members can say that that it is nothing to do with them but they are not believed out in the regions. That is why those members are there and that is why these members are here. Any time the National Party wants to trade its regional development record against this Government’s regional development record make my day! I know how everyone in the regions feels about that and so do the members opposite. 
However we need to make much more progress towards stronger businesses and industries and of course it would be good to increase our relative standings in the OECD. It does not matter when that is achieved as long as it is achieved progressively and I believe it will be achieved. In the 2002-03 Budget which I am proud to be associated with we will invest $112 million on Vote Industry and Regional Development. That is 0.3 percent of total Government spending in this financial year. If anyone thinks that is extravagant I would like him or her to talk to the Queensland State Parliament. I can assure the House that the Queensland Minister of State Development has a bigger budget than that. Nevertheless I believe we are making very good use of ours. It contrasts very neatly with the no-assistance for industries and businesses of the National and ACT-supported Government that interestingly spent $12.9 billion or 37 percent of its total Budget on dependency created through unemployment and hands-off economic policies. 
ACT and National clearly support Government intervention in the economy but not if it involves making the economy stronger. This money is making our economy stronger and people less dependent yet we are constantly criticised for doing it. I urge the National Party to consider what the relevant and relative views— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Has the Minister read the OECD report yet? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The OECD report on Industry New Zealand? What this Government is doing is extremely good; the OECD describes it as “cutting-edge development”. We have encouraged growth in an area of innovation and creativity where New Zealand has strengths. It is a sensible and targeted effort to bolster development to help create jobs and reduce the size of unemployment costs in future years—both human and financial. 
I have just come from a meeting on youth suicide. I am the Minister to whom this Government has given the responsibility for that issue. I can share with members of Parliament the fact that various studies have shown quite clearly the very direct link between unemployment and youth suicide. A recent study in America showed that unemployed people were three times more likely to commit suicide than those who were not. Is there anything about that we do not understand? As the unemployment rates in New Zealand fall it is not a great surprise to me personally that the suicide rates have fallen. We should all be pleased about that. My experience in the front line as a member of Parliament and constituency MP is that unemployment is one of the most serious causes of depression in young people. In the 1980s and 1990s kids were losing jobs in all directions getting sick and even becoming invalids because they were unemployable after being out of a job for a long time. This Government has the best record for 15 years in reducing unemployment. I do not know why members do not celebrate that unless it is because they like being permanently miserable. 
I am puzzled by the continued use of the mantra of tax cuts as a solution for all business ills. Every time there is a business issue ACT or National announce that tax cuts will solve it. There is a saying that for every complicated problem there are a number of simple answers—all of them wrong. Tax cuts are simply just another less efficient economic intervention. A tax cut across the board is a general subsidy for business—that is all it is. If we want to make funds available for the development of the New Zealand economy surely we should at least target them. If members opposite want to cut a few hundred million dollars off say business taxes then they should ask themselves which schools universities hospitals and other important social services they will close in their electorates. Every day in this House members opposite ask why there is not more money for operations in hospitals why we do not have more teachers for our kids in schools and all the rest of it. 
At one stage we had one of the National Party members—I think it was Nick Smith—suggesting that we should have laptop computers for everybody. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It was Gerry Brownlee. I think that suggestion was going to cost about a thousand million dollars. There were certainly no tax revenue proposals to go with it. We were going to cut tax but have laptop computers for all the kids in schools. I have never quite figured out how that works. Perhaps Lockwood Smith could tell us how that works. How can one cut taxes for everybody in the country but have laptop computers F16 fighters and all the rest of it? 
I have just returned from Australia where I looked at some of the economic industry and regional development incentives. I can tell members that we are among the learner brigades when it comes to actually getting Governments involved in the way their economies work. Lockwood Smith quoted the OECD which has said that our economic development programmes are among the world’s best-practice programmes. We support advice and where it is beneficial we support grants. I fully support assisting businesses regions and industries. Do members of the Opposition not support that? Do they not support regional development? Do they not support the development of our businesses? Do they not support clusters of industry coming together and using innovation and creativity to build the economy in New Zealand? That is what is happening all around the world. Governments are working in partnership with their local and regional communities and with their local businesses and industries. That is best practice internationally. The Opposition is trying to tell us that we should desist and go back to the practices of the 1980s and 1990s which were miserable failures in terms of economic development. 
If we look at New Zealand’s international indebtedness we can see that by the time we got to 1989 we had levels of well-being that were about 5 percent below those of Australia. That was not a great situation. By the end of the 1990s the levels were 40 percent below those of Australia—we went plummeting down. The policies we are being urged to go back to were miserable failures. Why would one go back? I can assure members that the regions of New Zealand do not want to do it. The businesses of New Zealand which I talk to from one end of the country to the other do not want to do it. In Christchurch Rodney Hide made a comment that this was all about handouts to business. The  
Press 
—which is not exactly a socialist rag—went all over Christchurch asking businesses what they thought about Industry New Zealand. They said it was the best thing since sliced bread and that without it they would not have been where they were; they would have taken much longer to get there. They were grateful. So if Rodney Hide thinks that attacking Industry New Zealand the Ministry of Economic Development and regional development is the way for ACT to go I say good luck. 
Today in this House we saw his leader say: “Let’s have a vote in Parliament to really see where the representatives of New Zealand are on this issue.” What was the result? The votes were 35 to 80-something—that is how in touch with the reality of New Zealand the ACT party is. National has aligned itself with that lot and it is no wonder that National is where it is now. This Government has taken New Zealand on to a new level of economic and social activity. I applaud the Government for that and am pleased to be part of it.