Bishop Chris: Debate on Budget Policy StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: Debate on Budget Policy Statement[Sitting date: 09 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9524. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): I do not know what planet Grant Robertson has been living on for the last few years because just at the tail end of his speech we heard from him that the Budget Policy Statement should do other things than talk about GDP—that we need to measure things like jobs and we need to measure things like wages. Well we do measure those things and the good news for Grant and the good news for the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order!CHRIS BISHOP: —is that jobs are up by 175000 over the last few years unemployment is down to its lowest level in 7 years at 5.3 percent real wages are up over the last 7 years and just in the last year they are up 3.1 percent compared with inflation of 0.1 percent. We do measure those things and those measures are heading in the right direction for this economy and more important for New Zealand families.What else did he say? He said: “We should have targets. Let’s set some social targets.” Well again we do do that. In 2012 we established the Better Public Services results programme which sets the Public Service to measure itself against targets to reduce recidivism to increase the number of kids getting National Certificate of Education Achievement level 2 and to reduce youth crime across a whole range of measures. Again the good news for Grant and the good news for the House is that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It is not acceptable for a member to continue to refer to another member by just a Christian name. If it happens again I will stop the member’s speech.CHRIS BISHOP: I apologise Mr Speaker. The good news for Mr Robertson is that those numbers are heading in the right direction. I want totalk in my contribution today about three things that are reflected in the Budget and reflected in the response from the Opposition. The first is fiscal strategy the second is about our attitude to the outside world and the third is about the tertiary policy labelled the Working Futures Plan of the Labour Opposition.I want to start with fiscal strategy and I want to take members back to late 2008 when National inherited the Treasury benches. Members opposite often turn up in the House and they often skite about the fact that the Labour Government from 1999 to 2008 ran 9 years of surpluses and that is false. The 2008-09 accounts when they were produced produced a $3.9 billion deficit. When we came to office Treasury was forecasting never-ending Budget deficits and debt to blow out to 60 percent of GDP. These are not National’s numbers; this was the fiscal reality we inherited from a profligate Opposition. Michael Cullen was gleeful.Hon Annette King: Was it a reality or a prediction?CHRIS BISHOP: Mrs King’s best mate Michael Cullen was gleeful. He went around Parliament saying: “I’ve spent the lot. The money’s gone; I’ve spent the lot.” He used to crow about that—about how there was no money left for anyone to spend. Government spending between 2003 and 2008 increased 50 percent in 5 years. It was simply unsustainable and we had to spend 7 years getting the books back in order. That is reflected in the Budget Policy Statement presented before the House and it will be reflected in Budget 2016. So this Budget Policy Statement reflects the considered fiscal discipline of the Government. New operating allowances for Budget 2016—there is just $1 billion. There is $2.5 billion for 2017 and it is lower again in 2018 and 2019. These are well below the massive new operating allowances under the Labour Government. Labour used to say that we would never get the books back into the black. In fact Andrew Little said that it was the biggest political con he had ever seen. It was pretty embarrassing for him when the 2014-15 Budget accounts showed a small—albeit small—but very definite surplus.So what is Labour’s latest strategy? Labour’s latest strategy is to turn up here and complain about debt. We have David Clark over there and every day without fail—you can set your watch by it—he turns up here and says that we have borrowed more money than Muldoon did. Well I put it to the House that that is a little hypocritical because Labour spent 2009 and 2010 saying “You’ve got to go on a massive deficit spending. You’ve got to go on a debt-fuelled Keynesian stimulus package to get the economy going.”—all of which involves borrowing. Then it left the Government a fiscal mess it called for more borrowing and then it had the temerity to turn round and criticise the very borrowing that is maintaining social entitlements and the social welfare safety net. That is of course without considering Labour’s current fiscal plans which is a massive spending blowout on wasteful and ineffective programmes such as subsidised macramé classes and Moroccan cooking.Secondly I want to talk about what this Budget Policy Statement demonstrates about our attitude towards the outside world because that is now a major fault line in New Zealand politics. Budget 2015 which is reflected in the policy statement that we considered in the Finance and Expenditure Committee contains support for a range of measures to support an outward-facing confident New Zealand competing hard in a rapidly globalising and changing world. Our prosperity depends on increasing our global competitiveness expanding our markets overseas and building on those international connections. But sadly for New Zealand Labour has spent these past 7 years becoming more and more hostile to free trade foreign investment and now even migration to New Zealand.I do want to talk about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement because this is the apex of foreign and trade policy of New Zealand for the last 30 years and it is truly sad that the Labour Party that started the TPP programme—the Labour Government that started it—will not back it now. Phil Goff knows it is good for New Zealand. Helen Clark knows it is good for New Zealand. The Labour members’ heads are down; they do not want to engage with this point. Helen Clark knows it is good for New Zealand. She says it is unthinkable that we would not be a part of it. David Shearer knows it is good for New Zealand; he is just not allowed to say so publicly because he is not running for the Auckland mayoralty. Phil Goff knows it is good for New Zealand. Mike Moore knows it is good. In fact there is barely a Labour leader still alive who does not think it is a good deal for New Zealand other than Andrew Little. So the reality is that it is unthinkable as Helen Clark says that we would not be a part of it. Their arguments on this are hopeless.I will tell you what happened today. The Government ratified a thing called the Maritime Labour Convention. Do you know what this convention does? It is an international agreement and it commits the New Zealand Government to introducing measures to address the health safety and welfare of seafarers on commercial vessels. It is an international agreement it is binding international law it commits the New Zealand Government to doing various things under international law and it means that we have to bring our domestic law into compliance with it. It is the Maritime Labour Convention. Have we heard a word from the Labour Party about this “terrible international agreement that affects our sovereignty”? No. It wants to focus only on the TPP agreement which is exactly the same in principle as the Maritime Labour Convention: it is an international agreement it commits New Zealand to doing things on the world stage and it means that we have to change our laws. So the Labour Party’s major argument about the TPP is that it affects our sovereignty. Well so does the Maritime Labour Convention so I am looking forward to the outraged press releases the questions in Parliament and the roadshows up and down the country about this “outrageous flagrant breach of our sovereignty” which is an international agreement.The reality is that the Labour Party is giving into its worst instincts. It is backsliding to a 1970s Fortress New Zealand nostalgic view of New Zealand and the sad reality is that half the caucus actually knows it but they are just so frightened of the hard-core left of the political spectrum losing support for them. We know the Greens can never be relied upon for free trade; Labour used to be able to be relied upon but not anymore.Lastly quickly just on tertiary policy this Budget Policy Statement continues this Government’s strong support for tertiary education. We just heard Grant Robertson skite about Labour’s Working Futures Plan. Labour is desperate for a big-bang start to the year. It is desperate to grab the public’s attention. So what did it do? It went right back to its student union roots—the Labour Party leadership went right back to the things it knows best. What does it know best? What do Grant Robertson Andrew Little and Chris Hipkins know best? They know all about spending on tertiary education. Is it not indicative of their political priorities? After carping for 5 years about child poverty they materialise—they magic up—$1.2 billion to spend. What do they spend it on—child poverty? No. Social housing? No. They spend it on the things that they know best: money for students. Now I am the first to defend support for students but not the policy that the Labour Party is promoting. It would be ineffective—it is ineffective—it would be inequitable and it is regressive. The Labour Party which started the student loan scheme should be defending it as one of the most progressive and successful public policy achievements of any party of any Government—it should not be trying to destroy it. This was a great Budget and it is reflective of a country that is ambitious and confident and heading in the right direction led by an ambitious and confident Government.