Mapp Wayne: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Mapp Wayne: Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:656;Page:5927] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 There we have it do we not? That was Mr Darren Hughes the failed candidate and former member of Parliament for Otaki. He says that the terrible thing about National is that we have a plan for Otaki that we are willing to go out and consult on. He says that that is a terrible thing. What he forgets of course is that in the 9 years under the previous Labour Government there was no proposal and nothing to consult on at all. That is exactly the reason why he lost his seat. That is what the voters have said to him. I would ask Mr Darren Hughes why he does not go and talk to his deputy leader. Surely he could do a trade with her and get her seat because he will never get back in Otaki. I tell Darren to shift. He should shift to a better opportunity. 
National had to deliver its Budget 2009 in the most challenging circumstances since— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh give it a break. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There we are. The member is disconnected from reality completely disconnected from reality. “Recession? What recession?” he says. Should that affect the Government accounts? Oh no it is nothing to do with that just borrow a bit more and it will all be solved! That is the approach that we have grown to expect from Labour and the public saw through it precisely. 
The National Government had to deliver a Budget in extremely difficult circumstances. I will say this about the last 9 years under a Labour Government. During that period of time New Zealand’s productivity growth was virtually zero—virtually zero. That is why we continue to decline down the OECD ratings. Yes the Labour Government paid off a bit of debt. How did it do that? It paid off the debt by not giving a single tax cut during the whole of the 9 years and the public got sick of that. The public were hanging out for that tax cut and that is why there had to be a change. Labour’s solution to the extent that one could discern a solution from the incoherent ramblings of members on that side of the House is to borrow more to have more Government programmes to have more borrowing and to have more Government-created schemes. It was to have a continuing growth of government. I say to members opposite that during Labour’s 9 years in office it did have a continuing growth in government. The consequence was a decline in productivity output. That is an indictment of those members’ failure. New Zealanders fundamentally saw through that and that is the reason for the change of Government. 
I will turn to a couple of specific points around productivity. We have focused on this issue more than on anything else and the reason is that we are focused on growth. Yes we did provide a tax reduction. We had to do that to get more growth into the economy and to stabilise the effects of the recession which I might add had started under Labour in early 2008. That is the difference between us and Australia. We have a more constructive approach to growth than Labour had here and the current Labor Government in Australia inherited a more constructive approach from the Howard administration. We inherited difficult circumstances. The Rudd Government inherited circumstances that were fundamentally more positive. 
We are focusing on reducing the size of government in a practical and considered kind of way. We have focused on reducing taxes and in a very difficult set of circumstances we will restrain the growth of debt. It is clear that debt will grow over the next few years undoubtedly and I certainly concede that. We have to allow that to sustain a certain level of activity within the economy. The fundamental difference however is that we are taking a moderated approach to that. We are also concentrating that extra borrowing into infrastructure. I know that Mr Joyce would want me to mention the National Government policy on broadband for instance. It is hugely important as a driver of productivity. He would want me to focus on issues around transport. It is hugely important to get more effective transport. That reminds me yet again of Mr Darren Hughes’ signal failure as a member of Parliament for Otaki to deliver good outcomes for his electorate and the public there made a judgment on that. So I say to Mr Hughes that he should talk to his deputy leader encourage her to shift aside and then go for her seat. It might give him a better opportunity and a more sustainable future in politics. 
I will talk about two particular issues that are directly relevant to the portfolios I am responsible for. The first one is research science and technology. I will focus on that issue in particular because it is right at the heart of the productivity machine in New Zealand. We as a Government had to make some very careful choices as to where we put in extra funding. We heard from Mr Ryall about health which is fundamental to people’s confidence in their country and in their own personal well-being. Research science and technology are part of the productivity growth machine. We specifically focused on fundamental research as our first priority. We increased the Marsden Fund from $37 million to $47 million. That is a 24 percent increase. 
Grant Robertson 
: Robbing Peter to pay Paul. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member should just listen to the figures. There was a 24 percent increase to fundamental research funding. The second element of fundamental research we focused on was the Crown research institute capability fund. We increased that from $51 million to $61 million which is a 20 percent increase. The increase gives much more confidence to those Crown research institutes that they have a platform from which to grow. Thirdly in the area of fundamental research the Health Research Council of New Zealand has grown from $63 million to $71 million which is a 13 percent increase. Obviously that research funding is part and parcel of our overall objectives in health funding generally. 
Why did we focus on fundamental research? Fundamental research underpins economic growth. That is the first phase of our delivery. The next phase of our delivery will be looking over the next 12 months in particular at the commercialisation process. The Prime Minister’s chief science adviser Sir Peter Gluckman is also particularly focused on that issue. Over the next few months the commercialisation process will be the very particular focus of our research science and technology policy because we understand—unlike members on the other side who had 9 years in which to deal with these issues but simply took an ad hoc approach of bolting on extra policies to make it more complex and more complicated—that this country needs to do better especially in research science and technology. 
The other vote I am responsible for is Vote Defence. By and large there is a multiparty consensus on foreign policy and defence. I realise that there are some differences because inherently we are a Parliament of parties but by and large there is a high level of consensus around these things. Our deployments are particularly in the Pacific but also in Afghanistan where I think every party acknowledges there is a challenge and that New Zealand has a particular role to play. I know there are some divergences as to how that role should be carried out but by and large people accept that there is a proper role for us to play there. We have to deal with those issues because it is about New Zealand’s security. 
Therefore Vote Defence was increased by $52 million. I advise members that $15 million was in relation to infrastructure; $10 million was in relation to increased activity and maintenance for aircraft which is inherent in operations of the New Zealand Defence Force; and an extra $5 million went to the new Project Protector. I acknowledge the previous Ministers of Defence for their initiative in relation to Project Protector. Although one has to note that HMNZS 
 Canterbury 
 has been problematic the Defence Force is improving it. It has a truly excellent commanding officer and there is a make-work programme to fix it. But there is a fundamental lesson about HMNZS 
 Canterbury 
. A small Defence Force like New Zealand’s simply cannot go for one-off projects.