Benson-Pope David: Budget Debate 
Benson-Pope David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6021] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to talk about the advantages this Budget has brought to the whole country and in particular to the people of Otago and Southland. Education in my home territory and in the south has considerable increased funding. For example people in Clutha-Southland Dunedin North Dunedin South Invercargill and Otago have an even distribution of another 72.5 new teachers this year above those required for roll growth. Next year there will be another 63.7 new teachers above those required for roll growth. We have $1.16 in extra operational funding for our schools in Otago and Southland. In industry training the Budget contains an $85 million package that will significantly boost the number of businesses and workers involved. I am pleased to tell the House that currently nearly 9000 young people are involved in industry training in the southern region. In health $656.9 million has been allocated for major hospital developments. A substantial amount of that funding—which is much welcomed by the people in the electorate of my colleague Mark Peck—will go to the new Southland hospital. 
A wonderful initiative for rural areas suffering so badly under the depopulation encouraged and left alone and ignored by previous Governments is that just under half a million dollars will be allocated over the next 2 years in rural roster relief funding to help those 11 primary health providers in those areas. That money will help relieve doctors and nurses working in those onerous and remote parts of New Zealand. It is part of a total of nearly $3.5 million to be allocated over the next 2 years to the rural health services which are so important for the health of those communities. 
The Budget provides in rural and agricultural affairs more than $30 million to sustain the Sustainable Farming Fund for another 3 years which will in my territory enable support for another 80 to 90 projects a year. Already the Sustainable Farming Fund has provided support for more than 180 community and partnership-based projects of which 160 are still running. It is hard to think of a better example of the partnerships that this Government is determined and so successful in forging with all the sectors of our community. 
 That positive achievement happens without the butchery the Brash policies would bring to our communities and without the sad and failed policies of those mean people on the Opposition benches—people described in the current  
Listener 
 even by their own supporters as “leaden brat packers”. This Budget invests wisely in the future of New Zealand continuing the directions begun by this Government in 1999—directions that the community continues to applaud. 
For those silly enough to believe the Opposition rhetoric that there is nothing in this Budget let me detail spending changes in some key areas. In the area of social services the Budget includes an extra $582 million this incoming year. The Budget includes an extra $737 million for health services in the new year. In education the incoming Budget includes an extra $481 million. In housing there is an extra $41 million. In arts culture and heritage—one of our most creative and productive work sectors—there is $28 million of extra spending. This spending is welcome everywhere. 
On the East Coast in the south in Northland in enterprise industry and regional development—which would be done away with by those members on that side of the House—there is an increase in spending by an enormous $76 million. Members should compare those commitments to the promises of Dr Brash who is now in charge of policy development for the Opposition. Dr Brash wants to “scrap the unemployment benefit and minimum wage laws and reinstitute work camps.” He said that on National Radio on 29 January this year. He wants to allow employers to sack staff more easily without fear of recourse to the Employment Court. He said that in the  
Press 
 on 5 April this year. He wants to privatise health and education services. He said that on 18 August 1999. Dr Brash also wants to slash Government spending per capita by 20 percent. He said that in the  
Press 
 on 5 April this year. 
Dr Brash also wants to end affirmative action programmes for Maori. He said that on the same occasion. Dr Brash also said in the  
Press 
 on 5 April that he wants to increase spending on defence. Most interestingly Dr Brash wants to bring in tax relief for the richest New Zealanders—that is a flat tax and a capital gains tax based on housing gains. He said that in the  
Independent 
 on 27 March 1997. Dr Brash also wants to raise the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. He said that at the knowledge wave conference in August 2002 and he wants to continue the programme of asset sales. He said that on 17 May 2002. As I have just mentioned Dr Brash the one who is developing the policy for that party wants to abandon regional development and Industry New Zealand. He said that on 15 July 2002 on Wellington television. That is what Dr Brash National’s leader-in-waiting believes. That is why no one in this country will miss the irony of the  
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary  
definition of the word “Brash” which is that it is a noun: “A slight attack of sickness;  
esp. 
 one arising from a disorder of the alimentary canal.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is all very well but that can lead to unfortunate repercussions. Members are entitled to their name and to have their name used. I suggest the member moves on. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Those policies that I have detailed will certainly have a most undesirable effect on most New Zealanders. I wonder whether that is the reason for the extraordinary poll released in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
The poll shows that National voters—even though more than half of them insist that the leadership of the party should be changed—are getting worried. More than half of National voters—and the only figure that comes anywhere near that figure is the cross-population all-party support for the leader of the Labour Party the Prime Minister Helen Clark—are starting to worry. Although they know that they have to change their leadership they worry about the extraordinary policies being developed in their country. 
What I am asking the National Party to do is to come clean. I am asking Dr Brash to come clean about what he actually believes. I am also asking Mr English to come clean about the new Maori policy. Does that member’s new Maori policy to “out-Peters” Mr Peters really mean the logical consequence that National will stand no candidates in the Maori seats in 2005? I am asking Mr English: does that policy mean that we would see Maori being selected by that party in winnable electorate seats which will clearly be fewer in 2005 anyway? I do not think so! And does that policy mean that any Maori list candidate could have an expectation—any Maori list candidate stupid enough to climb aboard the National shipwreck—that anyone let alone anyone Maori could be elected from the list given the appalling polling of that party? 
Members should compare that attitude with this Budget’s commitment to innovation to growth and to jobs. There is $140 million over 4 years for research science and technology—that area so long ignored by preceding Governments. There is $73 million over 4 years to promote overseas trade. There is $19 million for the pre-seed accelerator fund. This Budget is about a Government keeping its word. It is about a Government that has seen more New Zealanders now in work than ever before—an increase of 132000 New Zealanders employed since we were first elected in 1999. This is a Government that has reduced the cost of primary health-care through the establishment of 34 public health organisations throughout the country. It is a Government that has made superannuation more secure by the establishment of the fund. It is a Government that has funded 5102 modern apprenticeships which is nearly at our target of 6000. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 It is a political truism that when the Government has good news to release it times it for the television news in the evening. When it has bad news of course it hides it in the dead media time of the weekend. When it has really really bad news it releases it the day before Christmas or the day before Easter so that it gets hidden when people are too busy going on holidays to even read the news. And so it was with the economic impact report on genetically modified organisms and their impact on the environment. By the time it became public it was already yesterday’s fish and chip wrappers. So was this a success for the spin doctors or was it something really quite sinister? 
That economic impact report makes very chilling reading for rural communities. Farmers should be afraid—they should be very afraid. If I can summarise the report very briefly it states that keeping New Zealand free of genetically engineered organisms is good for the rural economy and embracing genetically engineered organisms is disastrous for the rural economy. So what is this report? Is this the work of the rabid environmentalists—the anti-science anti-progress people? No it is not. This is the work of Business and Economic Research Ltd. It was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury. This was part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. This is a formal document. 
It is a curious document though. It is curious because what is in the text is very different from what is in the executive summary. Why is it I wonder that that is the case? The answer is that what is in the text is absolutely damning for the direction that this Government is taking. It is not even listening to its own advice. 
There are only two ways to embrace genetic engineering (GE) that can have a positive impact on our rural economies. The first is if we embrace GE and there is an increase in productivity—a very large increase. That is the assumption that underpins all the positive scenarios in this report. The only problem is that there is no example of increased productivity from the use of GE anywhere in the world. There are no examples of it. The other way we can increase the performance of the rural economies is to remain free of genetically engineered organisms. 
We are a market-driven economy. We must be responsive to the needs of the consumers who buy our products and the message from them is unequivocal. It says that our consumer markets do not want GE-free produce. If we increase the demand for our produce then the returns to farmers go up. If we increase our productivity it is equivocal because— 
Jill Pettis 
: More people will not be able to afford to buy! 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: I tell Mrs Pettis that quite apart from anything else if one increases the amount of product that is on the market then the price goes down. So increasing productivity does not necessarily increase the farm-gate return. 
So why is the Government trying to hide this information? Why do we have and I hesitate to say this an otherwise astute Government that is clearly flying in the face of common sense? It is doing the opposite of what the population of this country wants. It is doing the opposite of what the farmers of this country want. Why did the Minister of Rural Affairs in answer to a question I asked him yesterday dismiss an academic research poll that showed that 80 percent of farmers do not want GE as just another poll—it was off-hand? Why did the Minister for the Environmentnot read the report? She got as far as the executive summary and that was good. But it does not reflect what is in the text. Why does David Parker for instance think that farmers want GE? I tell Mr Parker that they do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Mr Key could I say that he has 9 minutes before the Minister calls in reply.