Tamihere John: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Tamihere John: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13806] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Before I concentrate solely on the supplementary estimates and imprest supply debate I want to acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat. I commend him because he is one of the few in New Zealand First who can string a sentence together although the jury is still out on whether he makes any sense. But I do commend him. There will always be a life for Ronnie Marks after Parliament; any pharmaceutical company that heard that speech would take him on tomorrow because he would drive anyone to take Prozac or Valium! He always leaves us feeling really depressed. 
I want to celebrate the Budget and the Budget settings with regard to the current supplementary estimates debate and to concentrate on economic management which is an area for which Labour Governments have often been attacked in the past. Between 1990 and 1999 New Zealand’s economic growth averaged 2.6 percent per annum—below the OECD average 
growth rate. But our annual economic growth rate over the last 3½ years has compared well with the OECD average of 1 percent. Our rate has been 3.4 percent. Under Labour the economy has expanded by over 15 percent in 4 years. It is no wonder that members opposite do not want to talk about the economy. They might want to talk about law and order they might want to talk about race but the real issue which is economic management and business management in this country is over and Dr Michael Cullen will go down in history as one of the finest finance Ministers this Parliament has ever seen. The facts are on the table. No one will stand and refute them. No one will stand and rebut them—no one. 
I want to make some more comments about that because it is vitally important that we start to make some comparisons between the management on this side of this House and that on the other side. I refer to the domination of our front bench which is not just formidable but absolutely capable and hugely confident. I know that most people think Stephen Franks was the big loser in the recent ACT party shemozzle—and that is what it is when to obtain leadership one has to rely on one’s own vote! There was no great majority and God bless Rodney Hide as a consequence! The Labour Party rejoices in that result. We hope Rodney Hide gets a lot more coverage a lot more photos because we know he was one of the greatest inspirations of the creative directors and producers of the main character in  
Shrek 
. The more we can promote him out there in the community the more we see of the policies of the ACT party then the greater the chance that Kiwis will start to understand that any Government with Brash and Hide in it is scary. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Surnames only are not permitted. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I sort of went off the track there. I shall move back to the debate on the supplementary estimates and imprest supply. 
When we look at policies in Budgets we see they are reflective of ideas. In this Budget we know we have set and will continue to set a very tight labour market. We can be the victims of our own success in that regard in that people with skills are greatly required. With this Budget with the way in which the Hon Steve Maharey has recalibrated tertiary education and training and with the way in which Mr Mallard in terms of the education portfolio is getting a business culture going in schools and is actually getting Kiwi kids to start to think about themselves as future employers rather than their just “working for the man” we expect to see great shifts in culture as Kiwis start to take a greater world view. We want them to have greater acknowledgment of their own capacity competency capability and potential. We say the potential in our communities is significant but latent. This Budget and in particular these supplementary estimates go a long way to endeavour to release that potential. 
What does the Opposition have to offer in that regard? Well what we do know is that its key finance spokesperson develops National Party policy with Fran O’Sullivan in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He does not go to his caucus. He does not go to his leadership. The National Party finance spokesman now develops National Party policy on the pages of the “Business Herald”. That is where it happens. That is where his caucus gets to read about the tax policy of the National Party and its policy with regard to debt management. It is all there in the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 It is not even on the National Party website. 
When we are comparing the way in which we manage the economy with the way in which National would do it it is very important in this debate to start to acknowledge the differences. What are those differences? Mr Key would tell us that this country has been managed so well in the last 5 years that we can now borrow. Any little deals that the boys and girls who line up to become members of the Opposition want done can be funded—there are plenty of dollars in the kitty. But he says they can be funded out of direct borrowing. Well we say this country has had enough of that type of politics—enough of largesse being granted to a few at the expense of the mainland and heartland of this country. We are managing the debt load of this country by setting a system to drive it down to under 21 percent by 2008. That is a big ask but good Governments have to set strong targets. They do not go out into the community and promise to borrow to fund largesse for the few the rich the minority—the likes of the ACT party and National Party. 
What else has been said? Well Dr Brash has said this: “That is certainly one option. Most governments do borrow for capital expenditure … If the rate of social return is appropriate then it is a perfectly rational thing to do.” Well what we do not know about the National Party is what it would actually borrow on. What we do not know is why it would borrow—we do not know that. We do know that it would spend a huge amount of money on the military but we do not know how much it would borrow to do that. And having done that we do not know how many hospitals would have to close. 
Another issue that is significant and that we need people to come clean on is superannuation. We understand what the Superannuation Fund is doing. We are banking for a major demographic profile coming through from the baby boomers and we have to manage prudently so that our children and grandchildren can manage the process as the population ages. What does Dr Brash say about that? “We haven’t reached a decision on that one yet.” he says. Surely voters need to know. Surely we need to know what National would do with the Superannuation Fund which has been put in place for and on behalf of all Kiwis in the most prudent fashion possible. Surely the elderly of this country deserve to know whether their entitlements would be slashed whether surcharges would be— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I want to conclude on a number of matters. In terms of competency capability and the like this front bench is absolutely dominating— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And the second one! 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: —and also the second and third rows; the third row where I sit is not too bad. But the front bench is absolutely dominant. Those members can walk into this House and be without peer or competition in terms of the Opposition. When we are talking about Budgets and supplementary estimates we are also talking about the capacity and the capability the integrity and the credibility on this side of the House to make things happen and I am grateful for that. 
I conclude by saying that John Key is making a wonderful run for the front bench—running right over the top of the rest of his caucus. In his own inimitable style he is providing National Party policy in cahoots with Fran O’Sullivan of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. His caucus woke up one morning and found that John Key had opined on the fact that his party would actually cut superannuation. 
Mark Peck 
: Is that what it is? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It would have to do something like that—lift the age or alternatively take on debt. We have managed the Government’s finances so well that he has opined that the low debt is crazy and that National would borrow to dispense largesse to some of its mates. It would have been great if only he had told his caucus colleagues that. 
Mark Peck 
: No no never tell them when they are drawing the policy up. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Oh right that is National Party policy. Mr Peck knows the way the National Party operates. Obviously it operates in cahoots with Fran O’Sullivan in terms of delivering exactly what the National Party policy is which is given the low debt levels that this Government has managed to take borrowings on board—but to spend on what? 
Mark Peck 
: Well what? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: That is a good question. We know that our old people out there will be shuddering and wondering whether they will be 70 or 75 before superannuation kicks in. Would they have the Superannuation Fund under that lot? How would that lot manage the tax system in terms of its tax take? What hospitals would close? What operations would be stopped? I do not like to depress Kiwis listening to this debate—and thousands of them will switch off after I sit down—but I say they should be afraid of Rodney Hide and Don Brash.