Benson-Pope David: Budget Debate 
Benson-Pope David: Budget Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13617] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to be able to participate in this Budget debate not only because of the nature of the Budget itself—which I think this community is beginning to recognise for the great achievement that it is—but also because of its focus on major initiatives and changes of direction for this country that have been so long overdue. In my contribution I want to talk about richer communities not richer individuals. 
We have heard a lot in this country lately and also in my hometown of Dunedin about poverty—food poverty and child poverty in particular. Some members may not be aware that the average household income in many parts of my electorate of Dunedin South is around $15000 per annum. So it will not surprise members to hear me say that I do not have much time for the attitude of those National Party members in the House—all two of them—and the way in which they look after their mates. That is why it is so timely that this Government has launched such an offensive on child poverty in New Zealand. It is the greatest offensive that this country has seen for decades. We do not believe that a vibrant society or vibrant communities can be sustained by casting adrift those at the bottom—those struggling most to make ends meet. They are the very people who inevitably have been historically and who would be again the victims of the selfish policies the National Party put in place in the past. The policies are the same policies it has offered to the electorate once again. 
We all know and the community knows that the centrepiece of this Budget is the Working for Families package. I would like to comment on some of its features and on some of the other priorities that have been less well publicised. The Working for Families package has three key aims. The first aim which must be espoused by everyone in this community is to reduce the barriers to work. The second aim is a clear effort to make work pay by ensuring that people are better off by being in work and that people are rewarded for their work efforts. The third goal which will be as successful as the other two is to support people into work. One of the major differences between this Government and Opposition parties and one of the reasons for the Government’s success is that we believe that a supportive approach is infinitely preferable to the punitive approach that those parties in Opposition so often apply to the least advantaged and most vulnerable in our communities. 
That package in total will assist nearly 300000 families over the next 3 years. Over 60 percent of families with dependent children will benefit from the combination of increases to family support new in-work tax incentives increased family tax credits and changes to abatement rates and thresholds. The average increase will be $66 a week and almost $100 for families in the $25000 to $40000 income range. As I have said that package in total represents the biggest offensive against child poverty in memory in this country. 
Using 60 percent of the median household income as a poverty measure the Working for Families package will reduce the number of children living in poverty by a whopping 30 percent. Other recognised measures of poverty—shifting that median to 50 percent for example—will put the reduction as high as 70 percent. 
I shall give members the example of the now famous Waihi family—a working couple with four young children on one income of $55000 a year. That middle-income family the one we have read about so much will be nearly $110 a week better off by 1 April 2006 and $150 a week from 1 April 2007 as this package works its way through. It is instructive to contrast that family’s gains with the gains to be had from other options that have been so tediously repeated by the Opposition. At a 20 percent flat tax rate—a cost of about $5.5 billion a year to this country—how much would that family receive? It would receive $39 a week. So Mr Tisch and Dr Brash should not tell this community that tax cuts work. They do not. 
New Zealanders need support to help their families and to help people look after their children properly and delivering targeted assistance of this kind is the only way to do that. This Government is not interested in the “look after your mates” approach that flows from the tax-cut regime. I am sorry but an income of $55000 dollars a year and an increase of $150 per week does not compare with Dr Brash’s 20 percent tax rate to generate a paltry $39 a week. 
But I do not want to spend all of my time on the Working for Families package. It is a key element of the Budget but in many ways it has unfortunately eclipsed some extraordinary commitments and expenditure that is also committed to in this year and the 2 following years. 
For example this Budget invests $1.2 billion in supporting business. Mr Tisch should have looked at the Budget before he made those ridiculous comments earlier in the House. The Budget covers numerous initiatives which include increasing links with offshore markets strengthening the international education industry developing research science and technology and marketing New Zealand job opportunities for potential migrants. There is also the notable sum of $212 million earmarked for research science and technology. 
There is increased funding for the Modern Apprenticeships scheme and industry training organisations that will boost the vocational skills of school leavers. Provision has been made for young people in another 500 places in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme which we started 3½ years ago. They will join the 6500 young people already involved in modern apprenticeship training. One of the most telling things about the National Party is a quotation I found this afternoon from Max Bradford—that man who gave us the shambles of the electricity supply and delivery industry. In 2000 Max Bradford said that the Modern Apprenticeships legislation was: “… pathetic just like the scheme that is behind it and the sooner we get rid of it the better.” He went on to say: “This is a pathetic little bill that does absolutely nothing to improve the lot of apprentices or to improve the number of apprentices who are likely to go into the scheme. All it does basically is to appoint some coordinators.” Well Mr Bradford is not here because he got it wrong about the electricity industry but his colleagues in the National Party are still getting it wrong about the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. The scheme that Mr Bradford said would fail is now delivering 6500 apprentices and we have increased funding for yet another 500. How good is that when we have such terrible problems to cope with as the lowest unemployment numbers in 16 years and great economic growth? 
The other great achievement is of course the continued contribution to the superannuation fund. When people focus on a thing like a Budget they look at what is in it for them. The one thing that is in this Budget for all New Zealanders apart from great advances in health care and education is yet another $2.1 billion invested this year in the superannuation fund. I have previously been on record on many occasions for complimenting my predecessor Dr Cullen on his achievement of what I think is an extraordinary goal in the establishment of this fund. I think that that achievement for the future of this country has been eclipsed by his being able to pull together this Budget. I extend my congratulations to him for that. 
Education in this Budget gets a whopping new $2 billion extra over 4 years. Schools gets about one-fifth of that and about half of that—$92 million—is dedicated to operational spending. Equally important and perhaps even more important than in the established secondary sector there are wonderful new initiatives in early childhood education in particular. This is a Budget for the whole community and it is about richer communities not richer individuals.