Parker David: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Second Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Parker David: Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Second Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:609;Page:6387] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Minister’s motion. In talking in relation to the supplementary estimates I think it is important to put the general background first. New Zealand has had one of the highest growth rates in the OECD in the last year and one of the lower unemployment rates. The Government is running a healthy surplus and Crown debt is at the lowest level it has been for about 30 years—and that is after the Government has been making prudent contributions to the Superannuation Fund. So one wonders whether against that background there would be some analysis or some attempt to find some bad news in the supplementary estimates on the part of the Opposition. Have we heard much talk about the detail of the supplementary estimates? No we have not. One would expect an analysis of the detail but no we are not getting that. What we saw today was the Rt Hon Winston Peters making a vicious attack against Mr Tamihere—the same old tired allegations that have been made over the previous 3 years. There is nothing new in them. 
Most members of the public—and I am certainly of this view—know that Mr Tamihere is a man of some considerable ability. That is reflected in what he did before he got to Parliament. In his brief time on this planet compared with some of the old dogs on the other side of the House he has achieved far more than they will ever achieve. That was reflected in 1997 when  
North and South  
named him Man of the Year. The next year the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 named him Man of the Year.  
Metro  
did something similar when it named him New Zealander of the Year in 1999. They are all high accolades. Mr Tamihere’s considerable efforts on behalf of the Waipareira Trust are a shining example of the good things that can be done for Maori on a limited budget. He is a man of some talent. It is obvious that the Rt Hon Winston Peters recognises that. He is threatened by that and is attempting to tear him down. Instead of focusing on the positive things that Mr Tamihere does and instead of looking at the strengths of this very important part of our Labour Party Mr Peters is spouting unjustified negative comments. 
I wish now to refer to the supplementary estimates which we are here to debate. John Tamihere is the Minister of Youth Affairs the Minister for Land Information the Minister of Statistics and the Minister for Small Business. Let us have a look at the supplementary estimates to see whether the accounts are in order in Mr Tamihere’s departments—looking at the actual numbers is a rare event in this debate. If we look at the total appropriation for Vote Lands we see that the supplementary estimates show that Land Information New Zealand is actually giving money back. Its supplementary estimate is a return of some money. If we look at the total appropriations for Statistics New Zealand—John Tamihere is the Minister of Statistics—we see that the total of appropriations for that department is $59 million. The small amount of $3 million is supplementary appropriation all of which is described as being a change of outputs between output classes and departments. There is actually no additional Government spending. 
John Tamihere is a man well in control of his ministries. If we look at the appropriations for the Ministry of Youth Affairs we can see that his ministry is actually handing money back. 
Government Member 
: What is he doing? 
DAVID PARKER 
: He is handing money back. He is not actually getting additional money. 
I would like to turn briefly to some of the outrageous comments that we heard earlier from Dr Don Brash in relation to his suggestion that we are not growing fast enough and that the Labour Party is not to be trusted. I refer him to his comments which were reflected in his article around the time of the Budget in the  
Dominion Post  
on Thursday 15 May when he was comparing us with Australia. He said: “There is too slow a rate to narrow the large gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia that emerged during the 1970s and 80s.” Now that seems to be a strange comment when one thinks about it in 2003. It is strange to see reference to the 1970s and 1980s and no reference to the 1990s. When I read that I thought I would have a look at the statistics. The OECD statistics which compare economic wellbeing show that in 1980 Australia was No. 10 on the list. New Zealand at that time was at No. 18. The 1980s was the decade of the Labour Party effectively. During that decade—between 1980 and 1990—Australia went back six places on the OECD tables. New Zealand went back only one place—compared with Australia that was a far better performance. Let us now look at the decade of the National Party—the 1990s. What would one expect to find? I thought that this deserved particular attention—it was the decade of those failed policies of the National Party and it was omitted quite conspicuously in the comments of Dr Brash that were reported in the  
Dominion Post  
of 15 May. One sees that during that period—the 1990s—Australia started at position No. 16 in the OECD rankings. By the year 2000 it had advanced to position No. 12. It had gone up by four places. In comparison during the 1990s—the decade of the National Party—we in New Zealand went backwards. 
Mark Peck 
: Where did we go to? 
DAVID PARKER 
: We went backwards from position No. 19 to position No. 20. This is no basis at all for the National Party to argue successfully that its policies are better. In fact it shows the contrary. It shows that the fundamentalist policies that are backed by National and ACT—which they still cling to which they have not moved past and which they still believe in rigidly—are not the policies that would improve the lot of New Zealanders. We know that that would be a return to that decade the 1990s when New Zealand went backwards while Australia was going forwards. They cling to their old-fashioned fundamentalist ideology. They have no faith at all in the ability of New Zealand to do better than look to its past. That past the decade of the 1990s makes sad reading. Lynda Scott is shaking her head but I will show her these statistics and she will see that they do not lie. 
Mark Peck 
: As far as Lynda Scott is concerned National never did anything wrong. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That may be right—some people do not learn from their mistakes. In 1990 Australia’s position was No. 16 and in 2000 it had advanced to No. 12. In 1990 New Zealand’s position was No. 19. We went backwards to position No. 20. 
Mark Peck 
: Who was in power? 
DAVID PARKER 
: The National Party was in power. Who was in charge of the Reserve Bank? It was Dr Don Brash. What happened to provincial areas? They were strangled. One of the points that comes out in the supplementary estimates is that in the last year the funding from Industry New Zealand to incubators increased. Under the National Government there were no incubators. They are associations of like-minded businesses that are given a bit of a hand up by the Government’s providing of some mentoring or its facilitating services that are not very expensive. The National Party just does not believe in that stuff but I can tell those members that as of May 2003 there were 15 incubators in New Zealand and three emerging incubators—103 companies in incubators have received some Industry New Zealand funding. The incubators have received the funding not necessarily the individual companies. The companies in those incubators have doubled their staff numbers. They are small emerging companies. They have also raised more than $10 million in equity funding and their turnover has increased. Those are all good statistics and that is a small part of the reason that in the last few years so many new jobs have been created in New Zealand under the wise governorship of this Labour-led Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: As opposed to what National did in the 1990s. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Exactly—as opposed to what National did in the 1990s when it closed down all of the funding. Max Bradford did not ruin just the power industry; he dealt to Tranz Rail as well. National also withdrew funding of the business support that was available through the then agencies. That had a negative effect and it is one of the reasons that in that decade New Zealand went backwards from No. 19 to No. 20 while the Australians advanced from No. 16 to No. 12.