Bennett David: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Bennett David: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:673;Page:19552] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will follow on from that great speech by my colleague from Hamilton West Mr Tim Macindoe. He will deliver a stunning electorate victory in that seat for National at the next election because he has worked hard and he has delivered for the people of Hamilton. He has shown them the vision and the strategy that will deliver a strong future for all New Zealanders and particularly the people of Hamilton who deserve it and need it after many years of having to listen to Labour rhetoric.  
Today in this debate we see the true colours of Labour members. They do not care about New Zealand’s growth prospects. They do not care about New Zealanders. They do not care about jobs. They do not care about wages. All Labour members care about is themselves. Being in power is all that Labour members ever wanted ever will want and ever can hope for because that is how they argue their case. Labour members say that they know best and know how to do these things and that they do not actually need to look to our people for inspiration or give our people the tools to make their own future. That is the difference between the two political parties and this Budget has shown that.  
In this Budget New Zealanders are given the tools to build their economic future. We are giving the New Zealand public the tools they want and that many Governments around the world cannot deliver. This country has some of the lowest interest rates in the world which means that hard-working Kiwi families have low interest rates for their biggest expense: their mortgage. The second thing low interest rates mean is that people can invest in productive industries knowing that they are paying low interest rates so they can deliver that productive growth to the economy.  
Having low interest rates is a key and fundamental result of this Budget—something that Labour did not deliver when it was in Government and that it would not be able to deliver at this time because its economic policy would lead to high interest rates. Labour’s spend in its Budgets would lead to a situation where New Zealand families have to pay more for their mortgage interest rates. It would lead to a situation where New Zealand businesses could not invest because they would be paying higher interest rates. That is the difference between this Budget and what a Labour Budget would have given us. It would have stifled the economy and contracted the economy in some of the most difficult times. Labour has no plan to pay for Christchurch. It has no way of delivering a plan that will help pay for Christchurch and grow this economy.  
I actually take offence when I hear members on the Labour side of the House go on about the assets of this country. They say that all New Zealanders own them and that the investment programme National has promoted through the Budget is a bad idea. I will give them a local example from Hamilton and I want them to think about it. In Hamilton we have Tainui Group Holdings. Tainui Group Holdings has a policy of investing locally. It has used the Treaty settlement very wisely and is now the biggest commercial player in the Waikato region. Together with other iwi around the country it will become one of the biggest investment players in this country. Tainui Group Holdings has used local money locally and has invested successfully.  
Look at what else happens in our region. We have a number of community trusts that do not invest locally. They put their money on the US stock exchange. Does that money deliver benefits for the people of Hamilton and the Waikato? Not to the same extent it would if it was delivered through the Tainui Group Holdings model: not only do the returns go to the Waikato people but the actual capital investment is used in the best interests of creating a stronger and more vibrant region.  
What is happening with our superannuation funds in New Zealand? Are we investing those funds locally? No we are not. Where are we sending that money? It is going offshore. Labour wants to send New Zealand money overseas. That is what it has always set up in its investment programme. Do members know why it wants to do that? Labour wants to send New Zealand money overseas because then it is not accountable for it. If the investment does not go well if the right decisions are not made about it or if no decisions are made about it Labour is not accountable. It can say that some investment adviser who is looking after that money overseas is accountable. That is the folly in the Labour argument. It is not backing New Zealanders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The member doesn’t even believe it himself. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: No I do. The member should go to Hamilton. Mr Cunliffe says he does not believe it. He is sitting there realising the folly of his ways because the Hamilton example where they invest locally pays greater dividends in capital returns. Labour would want to see that money go offshore so that the assets of other countries can be built up. New Zealanders would be confined to a situation where they have to look across the Ditch to see the benefits they want rather than having those here.  
Today we are living in a situation where there is not enough food around the world. There will be not enough food for the next 100 years. What do Waikato and New Zealand have as a strategic advantage? We make food. We make food competitively and it is the best quality in the world. New Zealand has the chance to be one of the most successful countries in the world. People will need what we make for the next generation. The question is whether we will invest in our country and make profits here or send our money overseas thinking that it is safer to let someone else have control of it so that we can sit in our pretty little world and say we never had to make any choices.  
That is what Labour members would do. They would sit back redistribute money and say it is not their fault; it is someone else’s fault. National is not taking that approach. We are going to invest in our country. We know that we have the people here to deliver the returns. We know that we have the future in the sense that we are a food-producing country. The stars are in alignment because people need our products. We know that if we invest and create a stable economic environment where there are low interest rates and a well-educated and successful workforce we can take advantage of those opportunities. That is the plan. It is such a hard plan that Labour members cannot work it out. They cannot see as far into the future as that because a Labour plan is something that is given to them on a platter. They do not have to think about it and they do not have to work for it; it is merely a redistribution plan. That is the difference and that is why this Budget is so important. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This debate has concluded. We have an amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe.