Benson-Pope David: Budget Debate 
Benson-Pope David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16508] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 It is a delight to rise and make a contribution to the Budget debate. I begin by thanking the previous speaker Mr Ardern who is one of the many National members I will be thanking this evening. In respect of that last little story about Telecom I cannot imagine a better demonstration of why the National Party has kangaroos loose in the top paddock. 
If Mr Ardern cannot get Telecom reception in his own area—and I would be really pleased if he did not drive off a cliff on his old “Fergie” tractor or anything else—one would have to ask why he does not know about National’s policy. I assume he has been left out of the loop because he is not one of the four key policy developers whom we have heard all about today. I notice that none of those policy developers is in the House today including Mr Finlayson who is pleased to tell me that he is one of the key policy developers. Because Mr Ardern is out of the loop he clearly does not know that there is a National policy that will increase subsidies to Telecom so that it can stuff it up further. That is a fairly good example of one of the problems we have. 
I watched the debate about the Budget with interest both in the House and on television. A number of Labour’s preceding speakers have illustrated the substance of the Budget which sits in very large piles in all our offices and in many of our electorate offices by now. It is also on the Table of the House in compendious documents that will keep many students of politics and many economists busy for a very long time. All of that documentation is required by law and many people—not Mr Ardern of course because he cannot get it on broadband as a result of his support for Telecom; in fact he does not know which way to put the DVD in—have that documentation available to them. 
The amazing omission that many of my colleagues have spoken about—and I have had feedback about this from my community—is that the simple old seemingly logical tradition of expecting the Opposition to present an alternative Budget has gone by the board. Not only does it have no alternative Budget but it does not appear to have an alternative policy on anything except when it slips out because of the good offices of one or two people who think they know what the policy of the National Party might be. I will come back to that. 
One of the funny things about this House is that we operate at all sorts of different levels. I am pleased to say that I am the member of two select committees. One of them is the Law and Order Committee. I have had some dealings in recent times with the two doyens of the day Kate Wilkinson and Chester Borrows. I am very pleased to say that I have found both of them to be people of integrity. They are straight-up. I would not go as far as to say I like them. They are nice people but their policies stink. 
On this side of the House we believe in supporting people. [ 
Interruption 
] Is it not wonderful! That is the standard response of the National Party in Opposition. If anyone says anything that National members do not like or are uncomfortable about—any policy stuff or any areas where they do not want to have their difficulties highlighted—we get the screaming. One cannot expect four or five males to scream too much but we had a wonderful example earlier. 
Here I am explaining why I think Chester Borrows and Kate Wilkinson are almost nice. I do not like their policies—their policies stink—but in terms of normal human interaction I found them to be courteous and upfront in the select committee. I cannot talk about the select committee dealings from today of course but we will certainly be reporting to the House some time quite soon some unanimous decisions about all sorts of important things that are significant for this country. I think that those members make a significant contribution. However they have problems with their own policies and we will talk about that later. 
I will doubtless be in terrible trouble with some of my colleagues for being even half nice to such Tories. But what I want to say about the vagaries of the last day and a half is really interesting. The thing that surprised me most—and disappointed me the most actually—about the way Kate Wilkinson has been treated by her party is that she was immediately labelled by her colleagues—senior and associate—and the media as an anonymous back-bencher someone who was invisible and someone of whom the TV channels had no file footage. Really! Well is that hard to get in this place? What is more damning is that she was treated as someone who had no involvement in the policy decisions we are talking about. Well Kate Wilkinson is the National Party’s spokesperson on industrial relations for God’s sake and the suggestion that someone with that portfolio responsibility should not be in the loop about the things she was asked about is frankly just ludicrous. 
I think it is quite important to highlight some of the media material that has come out about that issue just today. There was a fascinating Scoop article which I will read this evening and I will seek leave to table it later. It reads as follows: “National leader John Key has been left to clean up the mess after an embarrassing gaffe by the party’s industrial relations spokeswoman.” At least this media person recognises that she has that role but “gaffe” it sure ain’t. 
On Newstalk ZB Mr Soper spoke about this issue. Now we all know Mr Soper. It would be hard to imagine that he would be bought by anyone or indeed threatened by anyone but I will come to that and I will ask to table this document as well. He said this about the issue: “What I found interesting was the way it was handled. I was the only person”—presumably media person—“this time yesterday at this particular breakfast and it was a question from the floor. Kate Wilkinson quite clearly said that employer contributions to KiwiSaver was not going to be compulsory. Now I had a call from the chief spin doctor from the National Party (Kevin Taylor)”—that apolitical person—“saying ‘I understand you are going to run the story you are wrong.’ And I thought hang on I was there I heard it and so did everybody else … And he repeated ‘you are wrong you will not run this’—and he emphasised that—‘you are wrong’. Well we ran it and by two o’clock yesterday afternoon John Key was saying ‘it was Kate Wilkinson that was wrong’.” Today in the House at question time—and the  
Hansard 
 is clear for everyone to read—we had exactly the same story from our Minister Mr Mallard who was also there. 
I do not mind what the National Party policy is on this or on any other matter. I am sure that many members of the National party do not mind what it is either but would it not be nice to know? I think that that is the telling part of the slipperiness we are now seeing because in the other document I alluded to earlier the National Party leader said that the party’s KiwiSaver programme was not yet finalised but that there would be compulsory employer contributions. He would not say whether they would involve tax credits for employers and he would not say how much employers would be asked to contribute. That is the question that the many hundreds of thousands of people who have signed up to the wonderful KiwiSaver initiative should ask themselves. What is the rate? Is it today’s rate of 1 percent or is Mr Key committed to the percentage—which will grow to 4 percent—that is part of Government policy? 
I have some more advice and suggestions for National. When it was last in Government it made a tidy $1.072 billion by selling some State houses. It sold only 13157 State houses but now there are more because we have been building them. The total number of State houses is now up to 67134. The average sale price for those State houses across the country was $80000 so there is a huge amount of money to be made out of selling every State house. That party can help plug the hole it has now dug itself in respect of the things it has committed to—such as KiwiSaver even at 1 percent—by selling the rest of those State houses. When National does that—and that will clearly be one of its many new policies; if and when it ever releases them maybe 3 hours before voting day—it will be able on past values to make another $5.5 billion available just like that by flicking all those State house tenants out on to the street where the National Party would rather see them. 
This is an astonishing Budget. This Budget has delivered $10.6 billion in tax cuts alone. The nonsense we hear about $16 is just that—nonsense—and it is time that the National Party and the community fronted up to the challenges ahead of them.