Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): That member Hon Andrew Bayly started his speech by saying he took great pleasure in speaking to the Budget. No one listening to him found it particularly pleasurable and it wasn't a very pleasure-filled speech. Can I just say that I don't take any pleasure in speaking to that Government's Budget; however I do so because it's important that we speak to the general public and bring some transparency to the decisions that they made in the 2024 Budget.I want to start with the tax cuts. I want to start with the $14 billion worth of tax cuts that this Government is giving and what that means for the rest of New Zealand. They have come to this House on numerous occasions they have presented in front of the media saying that we are responsible for the health of the books. They are saying that they have had to make tough decisions because of what they inherited; however they are the ones that promised $14 billion worth of tax cuts—$14 billion that many economists many professionals and experts out there have continued to tell them are unaffordable.What did they prioritise next? They prioritised landlords. I'm not sure whether or not that was who the general public were screaming out for to get support but they decided $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords were the priority. What concerns me is that there are a number of New Zealanders who actually did need support who didn't get any support at the Budget because of who that Government decided to prioritise. Even if we just refer to the tax cuts the social development Minister herself did not even realise that the 9000 people who stood to lose from the tax cuts were actually 9000 of her people—9000 beneficiaries who she said she didn't get any advice on with respect to them losing anything with the changes to the tax system and yet it was in the regulatory impact statement; the regulatory impact statement that went with the bill that went to Cabinet that she should have read but clearly she did not read it.Those beneficiaries—the ones who really are struggling the most at the moment with the cost of living challenges—were the ones that were left off the list when a decision was made to hand out $14 billion. When asked on that side of the House why it was beneficiaries that were not included in any tax changes we were told it was because the focus was on working New Zealanders. Well superannuitants got a cut—a very very small one but superannuitants got a cut—so where do that Government's priorities lie? Certainly not with the poorest New Zealanders.We should be concerned about them because in the last eight nine months since that Government took office we've seen 20000 more New Zealanders on benefit. With the backdrop to that being that apparently there is a public sector target in place that we're going to see a 50000 reduction in beneficiaries in the welfare system. Well I don't know how that can be when we've seen it go up 20000 already.Now I do not begrudge those beneficiaries for having to access welfare support because ultimately it's about what is happening with the economy. Are there any jobs available? Are they being supported into employment? Well under that Government they're not but they are certainly being stigmatised. They're certainly being sanctioned more and we saw that with recent statistics that came out. They're not necessarily getting any additional hardship support because that's reduced. That is despite the fact there are 20000 more New Zealanders on benefit under that Government's watch. That takes us backwards. It takes us backwards because that is more New Zealanders that are in the welfare system who are not in employment getting the money that they need to support their whānau. Not their fault—that is the result of that Government's actions.Now the Government says they have no hand in that and they're not responsible for that at all. When you lay off 6000 public servants—I think it's 6000-plus now—then we all need to recognise that there are flow-on effects to that. New Zealanders are interwoven we are self-reliant. When New Zealanders lose jobs then everyone suffers be that local businesses be that the whole economy and that's exactly what we're seeing now. Now we're seeing more New Zealanders on benefit as a result of that.I've been out and about in recent weeks talking to our social services who also didn't get any reprieve with the 2024 Budget that is despite them going to the Government cap in hand saying Demand is high. More New Zealanders than ever need our budgeting support need food parcels." and yet nothing was there for them in the Budget. And now what are we seeing? Forty-four of our budgeting services across the country are closing down as a direct result of that Government ignoring them and choosing not to invest in their very important service.What else did we see? We saw the Auckland City Mission and a number of other key social service organisations across the country coming out strongly lobbying the Government saying they simply would not have enough money to be able to provide the level of food that they needed to to the poorest New Zealanders in the lead-up to Christmas. Now to their credit very quietly that Government has injected or found an additional $6 million to support those social services up until Christmas but that's not a plan. That's not certainty for those social services. They know—and the families that are going to them for support know—that there's no bright light of hope on the horizon post - December 2024. They are still going to have families in high demand seeking support from them and yet this Government have provided no certainty to them whatsoever.One of the key areas—changing subject a little bit here—that I had a high level of concern for when we were undertaking the scrutiny week reviews was actually the Government's public sector target to reduce emergency housing grants by 75 percent. No plan for where you might put these New Zealanders who front up to the Ministry of Social Development just a plan to deny them emergency accommodation if they showed up homeless to the Ministry of Social Development.When I asked the Associate Minister of Housing what risks had been brought to his attention by the public servants who gave him the advice he refused to answer that question. And yet we know what the risks are: 75 percent reduction in those getting special needs grants for emergency housing will lead to a significant increase in New Zealanders rough sleeping; sleeping in their cars; sleeping in overcrowded potentially unsafe environments. And yet to make the books look good they would reduce access by 75 percent to emergency housing all for the purpose of being able to say "Look we have less money going to emergency housing accommodation and fewer New Zealanders in emergency housing motels." But where will they be? On our streets in their cars.I was saying to one of our social service providers "How would these guys on that side of the House like it if every single one of them that was denied emergency housing in a motel showed up on their street sleeping outside their houses with their children with their sicknesses that they have their disabilities their mental health issues?" How would that side of the House feel? Well that is what that type of policy decision leads to. And the sad reality is that we have not had the answers from that Minister or many of the other Ministers with regards to the implications of some of their policy decisions.I am worried about the welfare system and some of the rhetoric that we've heard. We heard the Minister in the House talking about the move towards phone-based case management. I haven't even seen any evidence to support that that works. But again all it is is rhetoric and trying to make the numbers look good for the sake of saying perhaps that they've got more New Zealanders in case management. And yet all they're doing is giving them a phone call. We are not seeing the significant investment that we need into those that are unemployed with respect to upskilling and training and employment. We're not seeing the investment that we need with regards to income adequacy and support for those that are struggling with the cost of living. We're not seeing the investment that we need in terms of their overall expenses. In fact we've seen that taken away with free prescriptions with free and half-price public transport. We have seen so much taken away from the poorest New Zealanders at the most recent Budget that that side of the House should quite frankly just be ashamed of themselves. I take no pleasure in speaking to this Budget.SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call on Cameron—sorry Mark Cameron."