Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
Mapp Wayne: Budget Debate 
[Volume:647;Page:16487] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I can only conclude that the Minister reads different newspapers from the ones that are publicly published. The editorials have actually been telling the Government that there is no need for a rush. I guess Mr Parker is always outflanked on this issue and no doubt he had to hear about this on the radio. The Prime Minister said: “Actually we don’t need to have transport fuels in the scheme by 2009. Let’s leave that out until 2011.” And why do we not work more closely with Australia? It is no wonder that David Parker is walking out. He does not want to hear the truth; that is the truth of it. It is simply fatuous for the Minister to say he is meeting the six key principles. He is not. Does he know what Australia will do? No he does not. Why can I say that? It is because Australia is not actually publishing what it will do until this month with legislation coming later this year. 
This is surely one of those areas where one would expect both countries to work in tandem. That is what CER is all about: trans-Tasman markets. It makes sense for an emissions trading scheme to also be a trans-Tasman market. By the Prime Minister’s own admission we have extra time. We should take that extra time and not end up trying to fix it in 2010 as inevitably will be the case if the Government insists on running headlong into this legislation. 
The Minister of Finance took 40 minutes to read the Budget. That is one of the longest Budget speeches in recent history. The best he could do in his 40 minutes was a $16 tax cut which for the information of members—and I have checked in the supermarket—will buy people a 1 kilogram block of Mainland cheddar cheese. Members opposite will say that people can use that money to pay their power bills or fill up their cars. Well who can fill up a car for $16? Who can pay a power bill with $16? What are Government members suggesting? People can fill the car pay the power bill or buy food. They can do only one thing or the other; they cannot do them all with $16. 
The other thing I have noticed is that Labour members have been smirking all this week. Do members know why they are doing that? It is because they think they have snookered National. They have said: “We’ve spent the lot. There’s no room for savings. Even though we’re spending $60 billion there is no room for a single item of saving and therefore there is no room for additional tax cuts.” Well elections are actually about choices—National’s programme against Labour’s. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: What programme? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister will simply have to wait because we are not dancing to Labour’s tune; we have our own programme and our own agenda and the public will know in good time to make that decision. How can Labour possibly think that every single cent of expenditure is justifiable? Well let us look at the programme set out in the Budget. Apparently there is $620 million for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is every single dollar of that necessary—$620 million? It is virtually a doubling of its budget and do members know what the Minister of Foreign Affairs will do? He will vote against the single most important initiative of the decade the free-trade agreement. That is what the Minister of Foreign Affairs will do. So obviously that expenditure was a waste of time anyway because it did not convince even the ministry’s own Minister on the single most important issue. 
There is $70 million for extensions to the National Library and $47 million for Government House. The core bureaucracy has grown in each and every year under Labour’s administration. There are at least 10000 extra bureaucrats not around the country but in Wellington. It is symptomatic of the sleaze and slush of this Government that it did not monitor the $65000 that was spent on a plush conference for Housing New Zealand Corporation management—in fact the Minister defended it. Every day I get brochures and booklets from Government departments which are hugely expensive to produce—Government communication costs tens of millions of dollars a year—so how can the Government possibly suggest that every single dollar is wisely spent and that National is locked in and has no choice but to implement Labour’s plans? 
The Government’s strategy seems to be one of “We’ve spent it all you can’t spend anything and even if we lose the election which we might do you’re going to have to implement Labour’s policy.” Well I say “Yeah right!” to that. We will get elected to implement Labour’s policy? Hardly! 
I shall focus on the portfolio I have a particular interest in—defence. The Auditor-General is reviewing 10 major acquisition projects all of them started under the Labour administration. The Auditor-General does not usually review every project in a particular department unless there are problems. Well I can tell the House that the Auditor-General does believe there are serious problems in acquisitions ranging from Project Protector—we all know the problems of the  
Canterbury 
—the NH90 helicopters and the light armoured vehicles to the anti-armour weapon and numerous other projects. 
We can take just one of them: the NH90 helicopter contract. The Ministry of Defence said in its initial statements that it would cost $500 million. That is $60 million per helicopter. Most people would say that that was a pretty substantial sum of money. But do members know what the contract is actually for? Nearly $900 million! How on earth does anyone get that sort of inflation in price in just 1 year unless there are problems with management? Frankly we believe that things can be done better in the Ministry of Defence with its acquisitions and clearly the Auditor-General thinks so too because he is reviewing all 10 of the contracts and will be reporting back to the select committee soon. 
That is just one example of one department—which actually had hardly a mention in the Budget—with serious problems of expenditure. So National knows that savings can be made. Every week in select committees we have seen wastage by this Government and that is why John Key has said that what this country—and what this Government—needs is a line-by-line review of expenditure basically to hunt out the waste. That will provide the headroom necessary for a different set of priorities. 
I can understand people saying “Oh well the embassy in Stockholm will cost only $3 million.” but it would not be just one item—would it be I ask Mr Dail Jones. There is in fact $620 million going into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I say to the members of New Zealand First that frankly not all of that is necessary. There are choices to be made in that area alone. None of that affects front-line services—doctors teachers nurses and educational workers. It simply does not affect those services; we are talking about what happens in Wellington. 
I will raise just one other point. Did the Budget have anything looking forward? The truth is that it did not. In fact Labour’s looking forward programme is to buy rail—not for just $650 million but for $1 billion. National’s alternative is that we will concentrate on broadband and I think that that sums up everything. Labour is looking to past technology; National is looking to the future for this nation. That is the choice that will face electors this year. Yes I can say to members opposite that there will be a clear choice in the programmes offered by the two parties and symbolic of that choice will be the question of whether they are looking forward. In National’s case the answer is clearly yes; in Labour’s case I can say based on its priorities the answer is no. 
On that basis National is looking forward to this election. That is a contest in which we are confident of being able to show to the country that looking forward is where we will find the answers. But looking back 150 years into 150-year-old technology will not provide the answers. I say to this Government that if that is the best it can do then we are looking forward to the contest.