Volume 690 Week 43 - Tuesday 28 May 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 690 Week 43 - Tuesday 28 May 2013[Sitting date: 28 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10389. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 28 May 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ResignationsDr Jackie Blue New Zealand NationalAaron Gilmore New Zealand NationalMr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received letters from Dr Jacqueline Diane Blue resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Friday 24 May 2013 and from Aaron Wayne Gilmore resigning his seat in the House with effect from Monday 27 May 2013.List Member VacancyMr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Electoral Commission that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 Paul Ayers Robert Foster-Bell has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of Dr Jacqueline Diane Blue. I understand that Paul Foster-Bell is present and wishes to make the affirmation. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.Members SwornPaul Ayers Robert Foster-Bell was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.Psychoactive Substances BillInstruction to Health CommitteeHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave to put a question to the House without notice or debate that the Health Committee in its consideration of the Psychoactive Substances Bill have the authority to consider and if it sees fit adopt amendments preventing the use of information resulting from animal testing being used in the consideration of specific psychoactive substances for approval.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.Questions to MinistersBudget 2013—Job Creation and Economic Growth1.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to theMinister of Finance: How many new jobs if any are forecast in Budget 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Thank you for asking about jobs a key focus for the Government. The Budget forecasts are done independently by Treasury who predict that there will be 60000 more people employed over the course of 2013 and a further 54000 in 2014. Since the Budget forecasts were finalised the actual numbers for the first quarter of 2013 have been released showing an increase of 38000 of the predicted 60000 for the calendar year growth in employment. However these numbers can fluctuate from quarter to quarter. This reflects in part reasonably strong growth in the New Zealand economy as well as growth in exports low interest rates low inflation and the confidence built by the Government in maintaining its track to surplus.Andrew Williams: Why is annual average employment growth estimated to be minus 0.8 percent in the June 2013 quarter of the 2013 Budget given that Budget 2011 forecast 170000 new jobs by 2015?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very good question and one where I would need to go and look at the detail to be able to answer the member. As I said job growth is forecast based on reasonable growth in the economy. I think we would accept two things. One is that job growth was pretty soft in 2012 softer than was expected so there were fewer extra people in employment than expected and looking out over the next 12 months job growth as measured by these statistical methods is likely to fluctuate from quarter to quarter around the rising trend.Andrew Williams: Given that the June quarter shows a minus 0.8 percent average employment growth and given that Budget 2011 forecast 170000 new jobs by 2015 and Budget 2013 is now halfway through that time frame how many of those 170000 new jobs has the Government actually delivered?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place the Government does not directly deliver jobs; it delivers an environment where businesses are confident enough to make the decision to invest and employ. Secondly in response to the member’s question the fact is that in the calendar year for 2012 job growth was pretty soft and of the 170000 jobs that were forecast in Budget 2010 it is currently about 40000 behind that forecast. However the forecasts ahead of us do look a bit surer because we are closer to the rebuild of Christchurch and there is likely to be more success in getting Auckland housing under way.Todd McClay: What is the Government doing to support more jobs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Instead of printing money and excessive Government spending what we are doing is focusing the Business Growth Agenda on getting businesses to make decisions that constitute growth. The Business Growth Agenda sets out over 200 initiatives—in fact closer to 300 initiatives—all of which are designed to support and encourage business to invest another dollar and employ another person. The indications from anecdotal evidence and measures of business confidence are that New Zealand business is increasingly interested in hiring more people.Andrew Williams: Does he consider the 354 new jobs at Work and Income New Zealand announced in Budget 2013 to be part of those 170000 jobs forecast in Budget 2011 and why are those new jobs at Work and Income New Zealand required—354 of them—if his Government is predicting a decline in unemployment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is precisely because we are shifting the focus of whom Government supports back into work. What has become clear through the welfare reform and the investment approach is that people who are in unemployment who have been the focus of much of Government support activity have a pretty high probability of getting jobs again. However other parts of the beneficiary population—in particular solo parents and sickness beneficiaries—have been left languishing particularly by the previous Government. We have decided they deserve more support and more of them will get work if we support them and that is why the 350 new jobs in Work and Income New Zealand are there.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the Budget documents show that National will be 61000 jobs short of the promise of 170000 extra jobs that he made in Budget 2010 and repeated on the election trail in 2011?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out to the member the job numbers are forecasts made by Treasury in the same way that GDP growth is a forecast made by Treasury. In answer to the question yes and the reason is that the economy was slower last year. But I can tell that member that promises of printing money and stopping all economic growth are not the recipe for more jobs.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table the National Party’s ad regarding 170000 more jobs from the 2011 election campaign which the finance Minister has just told us will not be met.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Andrew Williams: Given that the number of Kiwis on the unemployment benefit was 23000 when his Government took office and now sits at 49000 how can he claim that his economic management is not putting people out of work?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well a few events have occurred since we took office that the member may not be aware of. There was a large earthquake in Christchurch there was a global financial crisis there was the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s and in that context we have done pretty well. But if that member wants to stay on “Planet Labour” he will remain out of touch with what is happening in the real world.Todd McClay: What policies has he seen that will reduce jobs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I have seen a few: a policy that will use the emissions trading system to increase power prices by $500 per family and will probably destroy jobs; policies opposing all new mining and oil and gas exploration which will probably destroy jobs; policies designed to shut down the dairy industry which will probably destroy jobs; and policies to print money and erode confidence of business which will probably destroy jobs. Those are the policies of the Labour-Green Opposition.Budget 2013—Economic Programme2.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to theMinister of Finance: How did the Budget on 16 May contribute to the Government’s economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget provided further momentum right across the Government’s economic programme built on considerable progress over the last four Budgets. In particular it progressed the Government’s four priorities for this term: getting back to surplus a more competitive economy better public services and rebuilding Christchurch. The Budget continues to focus on imbalances that are part of the recovery such as the pick-up in house prices but which could threaten the recovery.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What has been the Government’s approach to implementing its economic programme and what do recent indicators show about progress?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has focused on moderate and consistent change over time in order to manage New Zealand out of the difficult circumstances of the recession and the earthquakes but at the same time to invest in improving our capacity for growth in the future. The Government’s plan is working as international bodies such as the IMF have recognised. In the last year New Zealand grew at about the same rate as Australia which is higher than most other developed economies and looking out over the next couple of years New Zealand has better prospects than most developed economies and probably moderately better prospects than Australia.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How does the current economic outlook as set out in the Budget compare with the position the Government inherited in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economy is in much better shape and compared with other countries there is a sense that New Zealand has been dealing with some of the key issues that are going to dog other developed economies for the next decade. Five years ago New Zealand was in deep recession the global economy was in crisis Government spending was out of control and Treasury forecasts showed never-ending deficits andsoaring debt—and that was before the Christchurch earthquakes hit which are going to have an impact of about 20 percent of GDP. So the Government’s plan has been to get on top of those issues in the short term and build our long-term capacity for growth.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What independent reports has he received on the Budget in the Government’s wider economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reports on the Budget have generally supported the Government’s economic direction but I would be the first to give the credit to New Zealanders—their businesses and households—who have proven to be so resilient and have actually made the decisions that have enabled New Zealand to get back on its feet. The Employers and Manufacturers Association commented on the Government’s returning the books to surplus giving business confidence. Business New Zealand says a careful and measured approach to spending is also showing benefits as well as the focus on competitiveness through innovation infrastructure internationalisation and skills. Even the Children’s Commissioner who is generally a critic of the Government has said there is much to be impressed with in the Budget despite the Government’s constrained finances.Dr Russel Norman: Given that New Zealand’s net international debt will increase by $61 billion over 5 years under the Budget projections and economic plan that he released does he consider that an increase in net debt of $61 billion over 5 years is a sustainable economic strategy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that in the context of the recession there has been a significant build-up of Government debt and that is what has—Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am terribly sorry to interrupt the Minister but it was about New Zealand’s net international investment position—the debt of New Zealand not the Government’s debt position.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the Minister to answer the question.Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member was really concerned about that he would support the asset sales which are enabling us to buy public assets without borrowing money off foreign bankers. Why is he so keen on foreign bankers?Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was not a political question at all; it was a very straight question about New Zealand’s net debt increasing by $61 billion. I asked the Minister whether he thought this was a sustainable strategy. He is opening by just attacking me. It has got nothing to do with me. It is about his Government.Mr SPEAKER: No I think the Minister adequately addressed the question that was asked.Housing Affordable—Auckland Housing Accord3.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement in relation to affordable housing that “We are very serious about resolving this issue.”; if so why do the Budget forecasts show an increase in average house prices by up to 46 percent by 2017 or more than 10 percent a year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well that is Treasury’s forecast but we are very serious about that issue. That is why the Government has been prepared to release 39000 sections in Auckland alone over the course of the next 3 years working alongside Auckland Council. That is why this Government does not want to embark on printing money—which Labour and the Greens support—because that would drive up interest rates. Thatis why this Government is successfully managing the economy: to make sure that New Zealanders can afford to buy a home.Grant Robertson: Stop telling lies.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not a lie. It is not a lie Grant. I am afraid you are tied at the hip to your boy over there.David Shearer: In light of his last answer have there been any targets set for the number of affordable homes that will be built as part of the 39000 homes under the housing accord with Auckland Council?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure that a firm target has been set but there is wide expectation that a great many of them will be affordable because the reality is that firstly that is where the demand is; and secondly by fast-tracking the process and ensuring that they are built right across Auckland the very target of this is actually for affordable homes.David Shearer: Can he guarantee that any of the 39000 homes that are going to be built as a part of the accord will be in the affordable range? Can he guarantee that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government itself is not building the homes so by definition you can only make these statements but of course there will be affordable homes built—of course they will be built. In reality the only guarantee that we can make is that if Labour and the Greens ever got the chance to print money they would drive inflation up.David Shearer: What confidence can Aucklanders have that affordable housing will actually be built when the housing accord talks only about giving “consideration to the provision” of affordable housing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the member seems to be saying is that Len Brown the Mayor of Auckland has all of a sudden left the Labour Party and is interested in building big homes that do not attract the people who want affordable housing. Well if that is what he thinks about Len Brown maybe he should go and tell him.David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was addressed to the Prime Minister. It was a really straight question. I do not want to hear about somebody else whom he knows; I would like to hear what the Prime Minister thinks about it.Mr SPEAKER: The member needs to think carefully about the question he asked which is what confidence would Aucklanders have that housing would be affordable etc. That is a political type of question that will get a political type of answer.David Shearer: I will ask it a different way: what safeguards has he put into his housing policy to make sure that speculators building on his new land do not build all of the homes at the expensive end of the market?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well it is not my land but the reality is that the commitment between Auckland Council and the Government is to try to build 39000 homes on brownfield and greenfield sites over the course of the next 3 years. The mayor himself is on record—I was at the press conference that we held—saying that his focus is on affordable housing. I might add while we are at it that if we want to care about people having access to good-quality homes this is the Government that in the Budget announced that 3000 additional bedrooms will be built for State houses in Auckland—David Shearer: Bedrooms!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well the member laughs but that is right. The Labour Government did absolutely nothing in 9 years in caring about large families—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.Child Poverty—School Food Programmes and Other Initiatives4.ALFRED NGARO (National) to theMinister for Social Development: What announcements has she made about providing support for breakfast in schools?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Today we announced that the Government is putting $9.5 million over the next 5 years towards the KickStart Breakfast programme in schools. This is in partnership with Fonterra and Sanitarium and will be matched in value by them. We have also announced that we will increase our support to KidsCan providing $1.5 million over 3 years to provide children with basic necessities like raincoats and shoes. I believe we have struck the right balance. Ultimately it is parents who are responsible for their children but we cannot ignore the fact that some children turn up hungry and cannot learn on an empty stomach. That is why this programme includes not only Government but community non-governmental organisations and business partners as we all have a shared responsibility for these children.Alfred Ngaro: How will this Government investment support these programmes to make a difference for vulnerable children?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Currently the KickStart Breakfast programme runs just two mornings a week in decile 1 to 4 schools. This partnership will increase this to five mornings a week and higher-decile schools that want and need the programme can opt in over time. These programmes are a genuine partnership. The Government will back the programme with resources Fonterra and Sanitarium will distribute the food and communities will run the breakfasts and provide the bowls and spoons.Alfred Ngaro: What other announcements have been made to support low-income families?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is part of a vast programme of initiatives and policies targeted to vulnerable and low-income families with children. We have a strong record over the past 4½ years of targeted assistance and support to those who need it most. But Budget 2013 included further initiatives like $100 million to extend the home insulation programme; another $24 million for rheumatic fever prevention; $41 million for early childhood education for vulnerable children to make sure that they really are targeted; $35 million for carers of children; and low and no-interest loan options.Jacinda Ardern: Will her Government take the next step and formulate a plan to tackle child poverty starting with setting targets to reduce it and address the root cause of the problem: our low-wage economy and inequality rates that have reached their highest point ever under this Government?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Some of the reports that I have seen said that way back in 2007 when that member’s party was in Government we still had 240000 children who were living in poverty. I think that if the member reads our response to the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty she will see an extensive programme of work that has been going on out there. Ultimately what we are saying though is that the plan is working but there is more still that we can do and that is why we are pleased with the announcements today.Jacinda Ardern: Has she adequately responded to the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty its 78 detailed recommendations and its almost year’s worth of work with her 13-page double-spaced paper which barely acknowledges the group’s recommendations and which lists tax cuts and floating mortgage rates as her Government’s child poverty successes?Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the old days when that member’s party was in Government it was a case of the longer the document the more it was doing. But actually this is about action. What that document shows is what a vast lot of work isgoing on to support those who are on low incomes or in benefit-dependent households. To give just two quick examples to the House we have had a doubling of special-needs grants to families that needed it during the recession. We spent twice as much at that time when people really needed it. We were there for them and we were able to give them that level of assistance. This Government spends nearly $2 billion on accommodation support alone: $1.2 billion projected to go up by another $100 million just on accommodation support and also under the income-related rents. That is making a difference. It is one thing to sort of harp from the other side; it is another to take action.Rt Hon John Key: Has the member seen reports of a Government that over the last 5 years when it comes to at-risk children and to vulnerable families has spent $20 billion on Working for Families income-related rents and accommodation supplements; insulated 215000 homes with a further 46000 homes to be insulated; built 3000 additional bedrooms on State houses in Auckland—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon John Key: —spent just on $50 million on rheumatic fever; come up with a whiteware procurement programme and a microfinance programme—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficiently long supplementary question.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes I have seen reports about that. Actually the report was a lot longer than that because you did not actually cover everything that was in the report that is actually happening for vulnerable children. But of course this National-led Government is the one that is stepping up and taking action for those low-income families that need it.Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order—Hon Trevor Mallard: No no. It is a supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Oh a supplementary question. The Hon Trevor Mallard—[Interruption] Order! The member is asking a supplementary question.Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Minister seen a statement recording the view of an individual that Working for Families was communism by stealth and is that individual now the Prime Minister?Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I have seen a report on is that we have actually seen Working for Families being fixed. We have actually seen more support going into those lower-income families and seen it actually making a big difference in their lives.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although it was a political question it was straightforward and does deserve an answer.Mr SPEAKER: I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer it.Hon PAULA BENNETT: I personally have not seen a report like that.Mr SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Order! Question—[Interruption] Order! Would the House please settle. Question No. 5 Dr Russel Norman.State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Forecasts Costs and Investors5.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Finance: Has he received any official advice since the sale of Mighty River Power on how many retail investors are expected to buy shares in Meridian Energy; if so what is the forecast for the number of retail investors in Meridian Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No there is no official forecast and in any case the number would be difficult to predict. This Government has confidence in the ability of New Zealanders to examine the information about investing in Meridian Energy and to make up their own minds about where to invest. It is a good thing that they now have greater choice as to where they put their savings and we will be happiergetting money from New Zealand retail investors than getting it from the foreign bankers for whom that member advocates.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister telling us that he proposes to sell billions of dollars in public assets without any knowledge of how many Kiwis are likely to buy them?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well as I said there is no prediction or forecast for the number of retail investors but it is likely that they will look at the information presented through the offer document which has to be factual and transparent and will make up their own minds. If you can use Mighty River Power as a yardstick then there were 113000 investors who took part in the public pool there and there may well be more taking part in the Meridian Energy pool. Either way we hope to replicate the experience of Mighty River Power where we got $1.7 billion in the bank Friday 2 weeks ago whereas that member would have either printed the money or got it from foreign bankers.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. These have been two very straight questions. The first one was on notice; it was a very straight question. The Minister used both his answers to attack me as the questioner. I do not see why you are not ruling those answers or those parts of the answers out of order. How are they relevant?Mr SPEAKER: I do not think the answers in any case were attacking the member. They were political but this is a political debating chamber. The first question was on notice and it was very clearly answered with: “No that information is not available.” The member then raised a supplementary question which effectively was a repeat of the primary question.Dr Russel Norman: Given that his Government forecast that 250000 Kiwis would buy shares in Mighty River Power according to the Treasury documents and only 100000 did why would subsequent sales attract a larger number of investors?Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all 250000 was not a forecast. It is a number that the logistics people thought they needed to be able to cater for because of course if we could not have catered for the numbers then that would be the point of criticism. Secondly the reason it will attract more retail investors is that fewer and fewer people think that the Labour-Greens policy is credible and even fewer people think that they can now win an election.Dr Russel Norman: Is it still the Government’s plan to sell both Meridian Energy and Genesis before the end of the year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has not made decisions about that. It has simply made the decision that it will float Meridian Energy with the objective of widespread New Zealand ownership. We would expect that it will give New Zealanders the opportunity to invest in a large New Zealand company and tens of thousands of them are likely to do so. We will get several billion dollars of cash in the bank which is not a bad thing and then we will be able to use that to purchase other public assets. We will be doing that instead of borrowing from foreign bankers whom that member continues to advocate for.Hon David Parker: Can the Minister assure the House that Mighty River Power is still at least 85 percent New Zealand - owned?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give that assurance and the member knows why. What we always said is that at the float it would be. Actually the record of a number of New Zealand public companies is that New Zealand proportional ownership is growing and that may well occur with Mighty River Power.Dr Russel Norman: Given his earlier admission in this House on 9 May that the cost of selling Mighty River Power alone was $100 million how can the Governmentpossibly keep to its limit of spending 2 percent of the asset sales revenue—or about $120 million—on the entire asset sales programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The costs are published every 3 months so it is quite a transparent process. It was always going to cost a bit and there have been some extra costs such as the Supreme Court case which was not something that was necessarily anticipated. The member’s announcement of his policy designed to scare off the very retail investors he now pretends to advocate for meant that we had to give a lot of investors the opportunity to withdraw their application and refund their money and that was an extra cost.Dr Russel Norman: What advice has he received on the cost of selling Meridian Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know whether I have received specific advice on that but we have said that the programme will cost 1 to 2 percent of the proceeds of the whole programme. We believe that is a cost worth incurring in order to give New Zealanders the opportunity to invest in large New Zealand companies rather than borrow the money off foreign bankers as the Opposition seems to want us to do.Dr Russel Norman: So to recap is the Minister telling us that he has no idea how many retail investors are likely to buy Meridian Energy he has no idea how much it will cost to sell Meridian Energy and the whole failed asset sales programme is just on a wing and a hope?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No that is not the case. But I would anticipate that now the member has indicated he is keen to see widespread New Zealand ownership rather than narrowly based New Zealand ownership he will be in full support of getting the mums and dads interested in investing and will not try to stop them as he did last time. That member should pay more attention to trying to get enough signatures on his referendum—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.Crown Revenue—Accident Compensation Levies6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: How much revenue will ACC levies over and above those recommended by ACC in 2012 contribute to the Crown’s finances in 2013/14 and if he had followed the advice of ACC what would have been the effect on the surplus or deficit in 2014/15?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the ACC Minister said last December at the time that the previous decision was made to keep ACC levies unchanged the Government was focused on ensuring that the signs of improved performance in ACC could be sustained over time in order to avoid volatility in the levies—that is dropping them and then having to increase them. At the time we also said that we took into account that a reduction in ACC levies would have a direct impact on the Crown’s operating balance. In answer to the question ACC recommended a $317 million reduction in 2013-14 rising to $383 million in 2014-15 which would have passed through directly to the operating balance before gains and losses if it had been accepted. As it happened Budget 2013 subsequently allowed for levy reductions of around $300 million in 2014-15 increasing to around $1 billion in 2015-16. These have been fully incorporated into the Budget forecasts and we remain on track to surplus.Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the Hon Judith Collins who stated at a party conference just this last Saturday that both the earners and workers accounts are now fully funded; if so why is he not lowering ACC levy levels now as recommended?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well we have signalled the path in the Budget and ACC levies will be reduced on 1 April which is the next possible opportunity after followingthe correct statutory process which means that decisions will be announced in November. But it is important to understand that the success of ACC has been built on improved rehabilitation—that is getting more people back to work sooner. We have been anxious to ensure that its improved performance under Minister Smith and then Minister Collins is well bedded in so that levy reductions do not have to be reversed later.Hon David Parker: Is the Government taking more than $650 million extra in ACC levies than was recommended and does he realise that that is the equivalent of 325 years of the $2 million per annum extra going from Government funding into food in schools announced today?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whether you regard it as extra is a matter of what you think the core performance level is of ACC. Under the previous Government that would not have been near enough actually because ACC was performing so poorly on rehabilitating injured people and people who had serious accidents. Now that it has improved we have the opportunity to pass those levies through. The Government has been conservative about it. That is consistent with the way we have managed all Government finances.Hon David Parker: Why is his Government using ACC as a stealth tax?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I think the point of the Budget announcements is that we are using it as a stealth tax cut actually—that is over 3 years we will be able to leave $1.6 billion per year after 3 years in the hands of New Zealand’s businesses and households because the performance of ACC has greatly improved compared with the time when that member’s Government was in charge.Hon David Parker: Given that the Minister of Finance has just admitted that he is using ACC as a future stealth tax cut—[Interruption]—that is exactly what he said. How is it proper for National to use ACC as a political jellybean jar overfilling it now and then doling out the lollies—doling out the lollies—in an election year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That of course would not be acceptable. We are treating it according to prudent financial management. But the difference here is that this Government cares sufficiently about rehabilitating people with serious injuries and accident victims and that is what we are focused on. The result of that is an improvement in the Government’s books and lower levies for businesses and companies. What works for those who are injured and vulnerable is the most important. Now that we are delivering that there are benefits for the Government’s books.Child Protection—Legislation and Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online7.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to theMinister of Justice: What steps have been taken recently to stop child sexual abuse online?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): This week I introduced the Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill which targets criminals who prey on children. The bill increases maximum penalties for possessing importing or exporting objectionable materials from 5 years’ imprisonment to 10 years’ imprisonment while also increasing the maximum penalty for distributing or making an objectionable publication from 10 years’ imprisonment to 14 years’ imprisonment.Scott Simpson: What additional protections for children are targeted in the bill?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The bill also creates a new offence of indecent communication with a child under the age of 16. Indecent communications may include texting picture messaging internet chat or verbal communications via telephone. Indecent communications are damaging to children regardless of the method ofcommunication and the new offence will be punishable by a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment.Scott Simpson: What other steps is the Government taking to eradicate child sexual abuse online?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Last year New Zealand was one of 48 countries to sign up to the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online. The global alliance headed by the European Union and the United States aims to eliminate legal loopholes exploited by the distributors of child sexual abuse material strengthen efforts to grow Interpol’s international database of material and make it easier to initiate joint cross-border police investigations. Efforts are also being made to dismantle child sexual exploitation networks block internet sites seize harmful material and raise public awareness. Stopping child sexual abuse online is a priority for enforcement agencies and a priority for this Government.Primary Industries—Meat Exports to China and Confidence in Minister8.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Primary Industries?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the statement made just today that Chinese officials now have all the information they need how can we believe that statement any more than those made by the Minister for Primary Industries on 18 May 20 May and 23 May that the issue of meat exports into China was being resolved and indeed today the latest press statement confirms that the meat still sits on the wharves in China?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct.Hon Damien O’Connor: If the Prime Minister will not hold his Minister to account who should be responsible for the compensation that he referred to possibly available to meat exporters and is it now the Government’s policy to compensate private companies when his Ministers stuff up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The matter of compensation is a matter for the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. It is fair to say that there are a number of people who have made mistakes here but quite clearly the issue actually rests with the officials in the Ministry of Primary Industries.Hon Damien O’Connor: Has the Prime Minister considered reassigning the Minister for Primary Industries to the energy portfolio where all his drilling down might be more productive than in the primary industries portfolio where his drilling down has done nothing to achieve a resolution of this issue in a timely manner?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I have enormous confidence in the Minister for Primary Industries. But I have to say I am a little surprised that that member has raised the issue of drilling given he is at complete odds with his own party over what is happening at Denniston.Budget 2013—Mental Health Care for New Mothers9.KATRINA SHANKS (National) to theMinister of Health: What investments in Budget 2013 is the Government making to better help mothers with post-natal distress and other mental health conditions?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The Government is putting an extra $18.2 million over 4 years into dedicated maternal mental health beds and new specialist community services around the North Island for around 650 mothers and babies a year. At least 15 percent of New Zealand mothers develop depression anxiety or a more severe mental illness post-natally. Currently in the North Island new mothers with severe mental illness are often treated and supported in adult acute mental healthunits separated from their new babies and families. But thanks to this investment more of these mothers will now get the support of the new specialised maternal mental health services with their babies beside them reportedly in the North Island for the first time in 40 years.Katrina Shanks: What services and support will this new funding provide?Hon TONY RYALL: The $18 million of extra funding will provide a balance of dedicated acute in-patient and community residential beds serviced by specialised multidisciplinary teams mostly in the Greater Auckland area. An additional 18 to 20 community health practitioners comprising doctors nurses midwives psychologists and support staff will be employed and integrated across the district health boards in the North Island. It will make a real difference to the families involved with post-natal depression. It will allow mothers to receive their care with their new babies instead of having to be separated for weeks on end at what should be a happy time in their lives.Sue Moroney: Will he support the prevention as well as the treatment of post-natal distress by voting for my bill to extend paid parental leave to 6 months given the submissions received by the Government Administration Committee from organisations such as La Leche League and the Human Rights Foundation that identified the importance of adequate paid parental leave in improving maternal mental health?Hon TONY RYALL: No I will not be supporting that bill but what I will be saying to those groups if that member wants to be political is why did her party do nothing about it for 9 years in office? [Interruption]Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it in order when I have been called by the Speaker to ask a question in question time for members on the backbenches opposite to yell at me to sit down? Is that in order Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: No it certainly is not in order. I did not hear any member—[Interruption]Hon Member: Listen up!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well I am attempting to listen up but the noise today is fairly loud. I did not hear it but it is certainly not in order and the member is quite correct to raise it.Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—Appointment ProcessGRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): My question is to—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Tau Henare: Sit down Grant.Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly not helpful to the order of the House particularly after the last point of order that was raised.GRANT ROBERTSON: He so rarely gets to stand up himself.Mr SPEAKER: Right question No. 10.10.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Justice: On what date did applications for the position of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner close in the most recent appointment process and on what date did the Ministry of Justice receive an application from Dr Jackie Blue?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The premise of that question is incorrect. This is a statutory position for appointment by the Governor-General under advice from the Minister. Expressions of interest for a ministerial appointment close when the Minister making the advice to the Governor-General is satisfied that they can make the right recommendation for the appointment to the Governor-General. I received an informal expression of interest from Dr Jackie Blue—Hon Shane Jones: Dodgy!Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a bit much coming from that member is it not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister just complete the answer.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received an informal expression of interest from Dr Jackie Blue on 20 September 2012. Dr Blue’s formal expression of interest was sent by me to the ministry on 11 November 2012.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table the advertisement for the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner published in daily newspapers which had a closing date of 13 October 2012.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was in the newspaper.Mr SPEAKER: But on this occasion I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: Why was Jackie Blue’s application treated differently from those of other applicants who had to have their application in by 13 October 2012?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In fact as I have already told that member they were only expressions of interest not applications—expressions of interest—and in fact the expressions of interest could come either to me or to the ministry. She gave me her expression of interest on 20 September 2012 which is significantly earlier than the date quoted by that member.Grant Robertson: Why did the ministry announce a closing date of 13 October 2012 if that was not relevant to the appointment process?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The ministry’s process was in addition to the fact that I had already commenced the process. Actually the ministry—[Interruption] Look I’m sorry for that member who obviously does not seem to understand ministerial appointments but he should ask Trevor Mallard or David Parker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order.Grant Robertson: Supplementary question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We now—[Interruption] Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: What a fool! What a fool!Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to assist the member’s colleague to ask a supplementary question.Grant Robertson: Why is there no evidence on paper as released by the Minister under the Official Information Act of Jackie Blue’s expression of interest going to her on 20 September?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because she came to see me with her CV. Actually it is very difficult for me to be able to have a written piece of paper to say “Here she is with me.” but Jackie Blue could confirm that to that member should he ever wish to ask.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table Jackie Blue’s expression of interest letter dated 11 November 2012.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I seek leave to table a document showing that four Ministers under the previous Labour Government actually sat on the interview panels for the appointments of the Solicitor-General the State Services Commissioner and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Two of those members are here today—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that document. [Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: I seek leave—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document that proves that the State Services Commissioner cannot appoint himself.Mr SPEAKER: I am not putting that leave.Grant Robertson: Why did she give as her initial answer to written question No. 4716 that she did not discuss the position of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner with Dr Blue prior to 13 October 2012 contrary to what she has told the House today?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As that member well knows I actually corrected that because I looked at that answer which my staff had prepared when I came back into the office and said: “That’s a bit cute.” I did not go out to Jackie Blue and say to her: “Why don’t you come and apply for this job?”. She actually discussed it with me and asked whether she could put it in. That is why I corrected it Mr Robertson unlike that member who should now go and—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Mining in Conservation Areas—Denniston Plateau11.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theMinister of Conservation: What benefits does he see in the access agreement negotiated between the Department of Conservation and Bathurst Resources for its mine on the Denniston Plateau?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): There are both conservation and economic benefits. The conservation benefits come from the extensive and intensive $22 million programme of pest control covering 4500 hectares on the plateau and its surrounds and a further 25000 hectares in the Heaphy Valley in the Kahurangi National Park. I am advised this will result in a net increase in the populations of great spotted kiwi kākā and blue duck as well as native bats and snails on the West Coast. The economic benefits are 225 direct jobs and $1 billion in export earnings and will be a welcome relief for a region that has been hit hard by the Pike River mine disaster and the financial woes of Solid Energy.Chris Auchinvole: Has the Minister received a letter from the Labour Opposition on the issue; if so is it consistent with other representations he has received on the Bathurst Resources mine?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes the letter from the Labour Party is dated 3rd of this month and states “I urge you to take whatever action you can to support Bathurst’s proposed Denniston mine.” and it is signed by Mr Damien O’Connor. I previously stood on a platform with Opposition environment spokesperson Maryan Street who said on this mine: “Leave the coal in the hole.” But what was even more confusing is that after I approved the mine last Friday Mr O’Connor put out a statement damning the deal.Chris Auchinvole: What advice has the Minister received on how he should deal with appeals against the Denniston mine?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The letter I received on 3 May on Labour Party letterhead and signed by Mr O’Connor said this: “As Minister of Conservation your involvement is crucial to stop the continuous appeals from Forest and Bird against the mine development.” After approving the Bathurst Resources application last Thursday I received a joint statement from Mr O’Connor and conservation spokesperson Ruth Dyson stating that I was riding roughshod over process and that I should give the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society a further opportunity to oppose the mine. It seemsthat Labour’s position is all over the paddock—or should I say “plateau”? I seek leave of the House to table a letter I received from the Labour Opposition on the Bathurst Resources mine dated 2 May 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mining in Conservation Areas—Denniston Plateau12.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to theMinister of Conservation: Does he agree with advice from his own Department of Conservation in regards to Bathurst’s plans for an opencast coal mine on the Denniston Plateau “there would be significant and irreversible adverse effects on the conservation values and overall ecological integrity of the application area and the Denniston Plateau should the proposed activity be approved”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): Yes. In regard to the area to be mined the effects will be significant and irreversible. I also note the advice though that the area concerned has already been mined has a dam and artificial lake includes roads and bulldozer tracks and has infestation from weeds like gorse and broom. I also note the advice that the area to be mined is general stewardship land. It is not national park conservation park or any class of reserve or sanctuary. It is the lowest conservation category of land managed by the department and the mine affects 5 percent of the plateau.Catherine Delahunty: How can he as Minister of Conservation approve an access agreement for a proposal possibly the first of six from Bathurst Resources which his own department has advised is inconsistent with the objectives of the Conservation Act?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because the member is selective in the advice from the 230-page report from the department. The departmental report said that there was very significant benefits from the $22 million compensation package and that the threats from pests on both the Denniston Plateau and the West Coast were far greater than those from mining. The advice I have received is that for instance with this package the population of a special species like the whio or blue duck will increase fivefold within 5 years as a consequence of the compensation package that goes with the mine application.Catherine Delahunty: How will New Zealand’s environment be better off given that after the completion of the Bathurst Resources pest control programme the pests will come back but the significant and irreversible mining damage will remain for ever on Denniston Plateau?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The programme of pest control is for a period of 50 years. Of course the mine application also requires the rehabilitation of the area. The member’s wish may be that the area actually be environmentally detrimental from what it is now. Actually because it has been mined the water in the area to be mined is almost as strong as acid. As a condition of the consent the water in this area right where it is being mined will actually be of better quality than what it is now. The Green Party totally overlooks the fact that the Denniston Plateau has been mined for over 100 years.Catherine Delahunty: Does he accept that as Minister of Conservation he will have allowed the destruction of a unique landscape with distinctive rare and threatened plants and that proposed compensation will do nothing to stop the destruction of that specific environment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The part I cannot work out from the Greens is this: they do not want mining anywhere but I want to know where they are going to manufacture thewind farms. And what about the glass and the steel that we use in daily lives? One of the facts they overlook is that the only way that you can manufacture steel is with good quality coking coal and it is hypocritical for people to say no to mining but want to use steel in their daily lives.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a photograph that I took myself of the iconic landscape on the Denniston Plateau and it has not—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order and it is seeking leave to table a photograph that the member has taken herself. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. The member can table the document.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Urgent Debates DeclinedPrimary Industries Ministry—Suspension of Meat Exports to ChinaMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Damien O’Connor seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the cessation of the importation of New Zealand sheep and beef meat into China as a result of actions by the Ministry of Primary Industries and the failure to adequately respond to these issues. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However applications for urgent debates are required to be lodged at least 1 hour before the House sits. The member did not meet the deadline with this application. However in any event the House will today continue with the Budget debate. This provides another means for the House to discuss the matter. In these circumstances there is no justification for setting aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.Budget DebateDebate resumed from 16 May on theAppropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Mr Speaker I am not surprised that Damien O’Connor got that letter in to you late. He probably had another one in his drawer asking not to have an urgent debate and he could not work out which one he should send in.I rise to speak in favour of the Budget delivered by the Hon Bill English and against the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This is a Budget that has seen the Government being able to project a surplus in the coming year and I want to put on record my congratulations to the Hon Bill English who has stuck to the course but has shown throughout the last 4 years considerable compassion for New Zealanders where there are needs and most particularly that has been shown in the situation around Christchurch. This Budget committed a further $2 billion in extra funding to the recovery effort in Christchurch bringing the Government’s contribution to that recovery to something around the $15 billion mark. The total recovery from all sources will now be in excess of $40 billion—a very large undertaking by any manner of means. The Government remains very committed to ensuring that we do get a good recovery result in Christchurch.I want to just run through with the House not only some of the things that we have committed funding to but also some of the issues that we have previously committed funding to. So first in this Budget there is $900 million of new capital funding which will go to Christchurch hospitals and their redevelopment. This is the biggest single hospital development in New Zealand’s history and it is very appropriately being led by the Canterbury District Health Board which is doing a great job in making sure that this new facility comes together extremely well. I want to thank the Hon Tony Ryall for his considerable efforts in making sure that this funding was available. Furthermorethere is a capital commitment to the justice and emergency precinct and further commitments also to tertiary education. Once again the hallmark of the legislation that we passed for the recovery in Canterbury is that each Minister in their own ministry has responsibility to contribute to that recovery. It has made my job as the overall Minister responsible so much easier and I do want to thank the Ministers for the work that they continue to do.We have also put money in this Budget into making sure that the anchor projects that were in theChristchurch Central Recovery Plan which was produced last year do get under way. These are very big civic assets that add to the amenity of any city. The opportunity here is for Christchurch to have some very very good buildings that will be strong that will last and pass the test of time and that will add value to our community.In addition we have put up money for the development of the Avon River precinct. People will be familiar with the Avon River which wanders through the centre of Christchurch. We want the banks of that river to become far more accessible to people in Christchurch and to visitors to our city and the Government has put up a fund of some $96 million to make that happen over the coming years. As private sector investors begin to build buildings—I want to acknowledge Antony Gough for getting first out of the blocks with the proposals he announced yesterday—there will be complementary design between those buildings and those riverbanks to ensure that we get the most splendid results possible.The Earthquake Commission comes under a great deal of criticism and we have funded it beyond the Natural Disaster Fund so that it can continue with the obligations that it now picks up in Christchurch. So far it has repaired over 38000 homes. That is a very large number albeit that it has taken a couple of years to do that. What it does let us do is get to the point where by the end of the year we would expect that number to be 50000 and by the end of 2015 the entire repair job going to the Fletcher EQR office to be completed. Private insurers have got a role to play. They need to step up and do a lot more than they appear to be doing at the present time.One of the things that we did early on was put up $1.7 billion to help families out of damaged homes in the worst affected areas of Christchurch. These are areas essentially where it is just so difficult to rebuild that it was much more desirable for people to make a difficult choice—a very difficult choice—to accept one of the Government offers and move on. I am pleased that nearly 6700 households have accepted those offers and are moving on. We saw last Friday night on theCampbell Live television programme the happy faces of people who have been able to benefit from that programme by in fact relocating into new or second-purchased houses in far stronger areas. It was a little change from the novel John Campbell television programme. He is I think the self-appointed campaign manager for the Labour Party in Christchurch. It is disappointing that he does take that particular role because I do not think that he actually represents the city terribly well with some of the stories he does put out there. I would just encourage him to keep looking—not too hard; not too hard because you do not have to—to find some of the very good stories that exist for people in Canterbury.We are coming into a local body election this year and that does create some worries. I would simply say to anybody who is thinking of standing for the council or taking a major leadership role that they might be elected to to have a look at the finances—have a look at the finances—and do not be deceived by what you are being told by the people who are presenting those figures. That is a council that has significant challenges ahead of it and some of the silly rhetoric that we are getting out of potential candidates is not going to help people in Christchurch move forward. We need to do that in a sensible fashion and I am pleased that the Government is sticking by Canterbury and ensuring that things do move.It is noteworthy that the economy in Canterbury last year grew by 5.6 percent compared with the rest of New Zealand at 2.2 percent. We have got very good growth statistics with a 6.8 percent rise in employment and unemployment sitting at 4.3 percent. So there are some very very good fundamentals. Essentially local people are responding to the challenges in front of them and getting on with putting the city back together. I have got huge admiration for them. I do want to make it clear that it is the Prime Minister’s commitment the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment and the commitment of the whole Cabinet and National caucus as well as a great deal of the membership of this House that sits in a most complementary fashion behind the work that local people do.I do think though that it is worth looking at the public reaction to the Budget as a whole which by and large has been very very positive. I mentioned John Campbell before. Sadly I now have to mention Paddy Gower who had a very interesting take on some polling figures that were produced last week. He said that it was the Labour Party hoax over the electricity proposals that had got it up in the polls. I will simply say this. The National Government came into office in 2008. We had had at that time a 72 percent rise in the retail power price in just 8 years. We had had four crises in the electricity industry through that time when people were asked to save and the power companies profited all the way through that. We said that there was something wrong here. The first thing we did was get rid of the thermal ban. The second thing we did was embark on electricity market reform. When in 2010 those reforms kicked in the Labour Party said that they would never work and that they would cause problems.Well firstly power price increases have been at less than half the rate that they were under the Labour Government and secondly in the last 3 years of the Labour Government the average amount of electricity generated from renewable sources was just 65 percent. Since 2010 the average amount of electricity generated from renewable sources has sat at 74 percent. That is a massive increase. What it means is that when power companies are faced with some opportunities to do things in a sensible way they will choose to do that. The point that I make is that under all the smoke and mirrors from the Labour Party there is a suggestion that there will be a $300 or $400 a year saving in electricity which frankly cannot be proven and cannot be sustained as an argument. But then of course climate change charges will put $500 to $600 on the costs of every household. It is no surprise that the alternative to the excellent Budget brought down by Bill English has fallen on its face with the public. Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is this a 10-minute call?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Ten minutes. I will give a call at 2 minutes to go.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Again today we had another typical announcement from the Prime Minister. He made an announcement of $2 million a year going into food in schools—just enough to get a headline but not enough to make a substantial difference. That is the way this Government operates. It knows it is in trouble on child poverty it knows it is in trouble on housing it knows it is in trouble on electricity and what does it do? It just tinkers a little bit but it never does anything sufficiently large or substantial to make a difference that will be significant.This is the National Government’s—is it its fifth Budget? It is its fifth Budget but it has not yet balanced one Budget. Labour ran nine Budgets and we ran surpluses every time—every time. We actually had very substantial tax cuts for families with children and we cut the corporate tax rate from 33c to 30c in the dollar and improved write-off for short-lived assets.Andrew Little: What of the Crown debt?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well over that same period we reduced Crown debt Mr Little. We reduced gross debt from 38 percent of GDP to 18 percent of GDP and we got net debt down to zero.What was National calling for at the time? It said it did not want the big surpluses that we ran; it wanted more tax cuts. What foolish behaviour that would have been. That would have left New Zealand in the same position that the United States Great Britain and most of Europe are facing as a consequence of having Governments that did there what National would have done here had it been in charge and that would be to fritter away those surpluses. As a consequence National would have had us in very very difficult times at the moment. Even Bill English who is not really a Labour Party supporter was forced to acknowledge at the time he took office that this was the rainy day the Labour Government had been saving for. So this proud record that Labour has of fiscal responsibility goes back—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.Hon DAVID PARKER: —just about through every Labour Government that you have ever had. Dr Smith says “Rubbish”.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is.Hon DAVID PARKER: Dr Smith who was the most fiscally irresponsible Prime Minister in your life? It was Mr Muldoon. Mr Muldoon is the only fiscally irresponsible Prime Minister that we have had. John Banks—who looks like he is on the phone over there—is the only one left here who was a supporter of Mr Muldoon and I am not surprised that the ACT Party—Hon Phil Goff: He named his dog after him.Hon DAVID PARKER: He named his dog after him. Well that might be appropriate. He also modelled his own behaviour after him because he tripled council debt when he was last the mayor. The Labour Party is not fiscally irresponsible. We have never been fiscally irresponsible and our record shows that.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell the truth.Hon DAVID PARKER: So this should not be a debate about austerity compared with Government spending.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Sorry. The member cannot say that phrase. There is a well-known Speaker’s ruling; 42/3. Do not do it again.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Speaker; I am sure that will not come off my time.We had shiny pledges from the National Party in order to get into office. It promised us a brighter future. It said: “Wave Goodbye to Higher Taxes. Not Your Loved Ones.” Since then 200000 people have disappeared to Australia. Since then we have had electricity prices continuing to rise at double the rate of inflation. In fact last year they went up by five times the rate of inflation. We have got rampant house price inflation.We have got a two-speed economy where some parts of the economy are thriving—i.e. the speculative economy. Speculative housing investment in Auckland is driving rampant house price inflation. And National does nothing about it because it has caused the problem. Forty percent of its income tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of income earners and National is surprised that those people are out there trying to buy more and more houses while a lot of people—in fact the majority of young people—cannot afford even one. Not only that but National knows that it is a tax bias that is driving over-investment in property at the cost of jobs and the productive economy but it does nothing about it.We have got a two-speed economy in the regional sense in that we have got some regions doing well and lots of regions doing poorly. We have got unemployment at over 15 percent amongst Pasifika and Māori groups. There is a two-speed economy for them.We have got a two-speed economy age-wise with young people increasingly in insecure work without secure work and career structures to keep them in New Zealand.What has the Government done in terms of its promise to create 170000 more jobs? We had Mr English again in the House today trying to say that it was something other than an election promise when I have got here with me the advertisement that was on the television which says “170000 more jobs”. At the time of the Budget where were they? The Government got only 8000 more jobs. It was 162000 behind. That is yet another broken promise from the National Party.We have got rampant house price inflation. The Government is really spooked by the fact that the Labour Party has struck a chord with people. We have said that there is a need for some planning interventions and the Government has brought forward some of those—indeed it has overreacted in one part of it—but only after the Labour Party and the Auckland Council said that the Government has got to let it give effect to the Auckland Plan. But the Government does not have a clue as to how it is that you get on and build more houses. It is actually quite simple. You get on and you build more houses. But it will not do that. It does not have a clue as to how to solve this problem. It is blaming councils which it is apt to do and Nick Smith has been blaming councils—Phil Twyford: He’s the worst.Hon DAVID PARKER: —saying that it is all the councils’ fault. He is the worst at it. He talks up a crisis as he did with ACC. Blaming councils might take the heat off the Government but it does not take the heat out of the problem.We will be holding the Government to account on this problem because rampant house price inflation is set to continue. Indeed it is an absolute indictment of this Government that the upside projection in this Budget—the upside projection in this Budget—is predicated on more house price inflation driving more debt and more debt-fuelled consumption. That is the great scenario in the Government’s Budget. That is the upside scenario in the Budget. Its growth strategy is to make the imbalances in the New Zealand economy worse.Let us talk about the national overdraft. The national overdraft is our current account deficit. The national overdraft is something that Bill English said he was going to fix. He was going to rebalance the economy. But under National the national overdraft is already the worst in the developed world. Five years into its—Dr David Clark: Worse than Greece.Hon DAVID PARKER: It is worse than in Greece. It is worse than in Greece. It is the worst in the developed world according to the IMF. And every year from here it gets worse still until the end of the projection period. So National’s overdraft has us—instead of borrowing $10 billion extra overseas next year or selling assets to overseas owners—going to $16 billion in the projection period. As Russel Norman said today in the House there is an extra $60 billion of net international liabilities in the forecast period.These guys could not run a bath—they could not run a bath. They have not got extra jobs. Electricity prices keep going up at twice the rate of inflation. And what do they do about all these things? Nothing. Because you know in the end the National Party stands for vested interests. It stands for John Banks keeping secret the donations from Skycity. He is currently facing charges before the court in respect of that abysmal lack of judgment. We have the National Party giving New Zealand the misery of pokie machines in return for a shabby deal for a convention centre in Auckland.Hon John Banks: What’s happening to the polls?Hon DAVID PARKER: What has happened in the polls? What has happened in the polls is that there has been a more than 10 percent two-party swing from National to Labour since the election. What has happened in the polls in terms of ACT is that wecannot find it. Polls have just about stopped reporting ACT because it is under 1 percent. It is below the margin of error. That is what has happened in the polls.This two-speed economy is not working for ordinary New Zealanders. That is why 200000 people have left for Australia. Forty percent of them are between the ages of 18 and 30. They are our future—the young people. It is shameful—absolutely shameful—that they are leaving. We used to hear Bill English saying that the Government was sticking to a plan that is working. Well that is gone. I have not heard those members skiting about the brighter future or saying “Wave Goodbye to Higher Taxes. Not Your Loved Ones.”—all these flash slogans. They are all being proved wrong one by one and as a consequence the shine continues to tarnish in respect of the National Party. This is a bad Budget. It does not address any of the fundamental problems of the New Zealand economy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): It is with huge pride that I endorse this Budget from Bill English because if you look at all of the vital signs on which you should judge an economy it is a Budget that is making great progress. Let us go through them. What is the rate of interest rates being faced by New Zealand households and businesses today and how does that compare with what the previous Labour Government left? We have got an interest rate in front-page ads today in the paper of 4.9 percent—the lowest mortgage interest rates since I was in nappies in the 1960s. Mortgage interest rates were 9 percent when the members opposite left office and that halving of interest rates is making an enormous difference to families and businesses throughout New Zealand.Let us look at growth rates. How is New Zealand’s economic growth rate comparing throughout the world? The Budget shows a 3 percent growth rate. Name me a country—name me an OECD country—that has delivered a better stronger economy under the most trying conditions since the Great Depression. You look at the UK—0.3 percent. You look at France—0.5 percent. You look at the United States—1.2 percent. There is only one country within the OECD whose growth rate is slightly better than New Zealand’s growth rate and that is Australia. Anybody listening to the Budget last week in Australia or in our own country would know that they would rather be on this side of the Tasman.Another key issue that you should test economic performance by is the cost of living. It impacts on every New Zealander. Members opposite want to highlight the odd element. One minute they were screaming last year: “Food prices are going out of control.” Actually Statistics New Zealand shows that the cost of living for households in the last year has gone up by less than it did at any time in the last 15 years—any time in the last 15 years.Andrew Little: What about power prices?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Andrew Little is interjecting there—Andrew Little: Five percent. Five percent last year.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What was the inflation rate after Labour had been in Government for 9 years? It was over 5 percent. New Zealand families could feel themselves going backwards. Their power prices were going up their food prices were going up the Government was spending like there was no tomorrow and their charges were going up. Look at growth look at inflation look at jobs look at mortgage interest rates—this is an outstanding Budget.I was interested in Mr Parker’s contribution in which he said that the Labour Party was good at fiscal discipline—good at fiscal discipline. Well let us look at the numbers. I totalled up how much Labour had spent in new spending in its last five Budgets. In its last five Budgets how much had Labour spent? There was $14 billion of new spending—$14 billion of new spending—over its last five Budgets. I compare that withthis Budget which is Bill English’s fifth Budget. What is the total amount of new spending in each of those five Budgets? If we take the zero Budgets when times were really tough there was a total of $3 billion of new spending. Am I going to take a lecture on fiscal discipline from David Parker when the record shows that the last Labour Government spent like there was no tomorrow and left a huge wave—a decade—of deficits at which Bill English has been beavering away year in year out? And now Bill English is going to balance the books.I want to focus in on that question. How many OECD countries have been able to deliver a Budget in which they are going to balance the books? How many? How many?Hon Craig Foss: Just this one.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well actually there were two. There was New Zealand and there was Australia except that Australia delivered a Budget with its hopeless Labor Party—with its hopeless Labor Party—where it had to declare a deficit of $20 billion. We know the UK has been in tough times. Actually the deficit in the UK is bigger than the whole of the New Zealand economy—bigger than the whole of the New Zealand economy. I looked up the speeches from last year’s Budget. There was ridicule—ridicule—from members opposite at the idea that Bill English would be able to balance the books. They said it was a joke. They said he would never get there. You had all those speeches criticising his fiscal approach. Bill English has delivered the goods and delivered them better than any other OECD country.But I want to go further in saying that absolutely Bill English and John Key are sticking to a plan despite all of the rhetoric from members opposite. Let us go through the things they said they would do and how they have delivered. We have got the mixed-ownership model. Yes there have been a few headwinds. Yes the Opposition has disgracefully done its best to sabotage the interests of New Zealand taxpayers in opposing that policy but we have seen it through. We have seen a successful float of Mighty River Power. One thing we understand on this side of the House which members opposite do not is that a strong sharemarket is absolutely crucial to a successful economy. Can members opposite who want to sabotage our stock market—who want to sabotage it—tell me a successful economy that does not have a successful stock market? The silence is deafening. You see we on this side of the House understand what is needed for a strong economy and what it is to deliver goods for New Zealanders.But I also want to tell the story of this Budget in that it does deal with the real issues facing New Zealand. I particularly want to talk about the initiatives on housing in this Budget. I do want to draw a contrast. I listened carefully to Mr Parker saying that house price inflation under this Government had been awful. So I went to the Parliamentary Library and I asked them for the figures on what was the average increase in house price from 2000 to 2008. The answer was an average of 9 percent per year—9 percent per year was what house prices went up by Mr Little when you were president of the Labour Party and Labour was in Government. And what is the average over the last 5 years? It was 9 percent under Labour and what has been the average over the last 5 years? It was 2.1 percent—2.1 percent has been the average increase over the last 5 years.Andrew Little: What about last year? Tell us about last year.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But it is openly acknowledged that particularly in the last year house prices have moved—so the Budget has responded.The interesting feature is this. The Productivity Commission an initiative that we had with the ACT Party produced a comprehensive report on what was needed to be done around improving house prices for New Zealanders. It said that we had to address land supply; that we had to address infrastructure costs; that we had to address theissues of materials costs and productivity in the sector particularly in the area of skills; and that we had to deal with the compliance costs. Over the last month you have seen the Government on every one of those five areas announcing initiatives in each of those things.I compare that with members opposite. Members opposite have opposed this Government on every attempt to fix the Resource Management Act roadblocks to getting affordable houses for ordinary New Zealanders—every single step—and we then hear the response from Labour. Is it not interesting? It says: “Well if houses are not affordable the answer is for the Government to run it the Government to do it.” Well Labour has got the same approach with the electricity sector. Labour members say: “Oh the way to get good power prices is for the Government to run it.” Well I am just waiting for the next Labour member to say to us that to get better food prices all we have to do is get the Government to buy all the damned supermarkets! It is a lunatic policy. It is a policy that is a huge risk to the future of the economy and we should not have a bar of it.The other thing on which I want to compliment the Minister of Finance is the smart spending—careful but smart spending—in this Budget. Every member of this House knows that we need to grow our exports and our foreign exchange earnings. That is why the Budget commits $400 million to increased tourism increased support for our exporters increased investments in technology and increased investments in areas like skills and apprenticeships—things that will make a difference.The last point I want to make is that in every single area in which the New Zealand economy has opportunities for growth and jobs members opposite particularly with this mixed-ownership business between Labour and the Greens say no. They say no to the convention centre. Right now there is an issue in my area with the industry of aquaculture where we have got the Green Party opposing any growth of that industry and of jobs for my constituents. We have got the issue of Denniston mining where you have had more positions than the Kama Sutra from the Labour Party on whether it supports or whether it opposes that. When it comes to irrigation where does the Labour Party stand on the growth in irrigation? I have heard Mr Parker saying Labour is totally opposed.This is a good Budget. This is a Budget about growth. This is a Budget that will give New Zealanders confidence about their future. We are in better shape than any other country in the world and by goodness we should be proud and pass this Budget.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is my pleasure to take a call in this debate. I want to begin by recalling that when I was a kid at primary school one of the resources that our teachers used wasAesop’s Fables.Hon John Banks: That was a long time ago Kevin.KEVIN HAGUE: Yes it was a long time ago as Mr Banks said and I do not know whetherAesop’s Fables is still featured in our primary school curriculum. My favourite was the tale of the grasshopper and the ant. I want to say that this year’s Budget confirms once again that this is a Government of grasshoppers. It is a Government that is focused on short-term gain and in particular on short-term political gain at the expense of future generations and at the long-term cost to this country.There has been the disastrous asset sales programme. There has been the matter that has been discussed already this afternoon in this House which is the $61 billion—$61 billion—increase in New Zealand’s net international debt. There has been the charter schools experiment with our children. There has been the constant prioritisation of economic activity and private profit over environmental considerations and over the legacy in our natural environment that we will leave our children. There has been this Government’s not only inaction on climate change but also unwinding of even themodest action that the previous Government had taken on climate change. It is a Government of grasshoppers.If I can pay a backhanded compliment to my counterpart the Minister of Health it would be to say that he is a star in this Government of grasshoppers. He has genuinely increased funding and expenditure to some areas of the health budget but at the cost of everything else and at the cost of future generations and the future health of New Zealand. Take for example elective surgery. The Minister has genuinely increased funding to elective surgery and that is a great thing for people who will benefit from elective surgery—good on them—but he has done that at the expense of everything else and elective surgery comprises perhaps 5 percent of what the health system actually does for New Zealanders. That cost to everything else comes also against a backdrop of a sinking lid on health funding because in this year’s Budget as the Government has done in every other Budget in its tenure it has in real terms reduced the amount of funding that is going into the health sector. Within that sinking lid there have been some winners like elective surgery and that means that everything else has had to find even more just to try to tread water and it has been unable to do so.Some of the other winners have been the areas that the Minister has prioritised through his health sector indicators. Look I am not opposed to having indicators and targets for the health sector; I think that is actually a quite good approach. The UK has proved that that has been a particularly useful approach in fact. But what the Minister does not seem to have understood or perhaps he has understood and just does not care about is that when the Minister sets targets for the health sector those are the things that the sector will focus on and there is an opportunity cost to everything. If the sector is focused on achieving those particular things then it will be less focused on achieving everything else. What that means is that if the Minister is going to set indicators for the sector if he is going to set targets he has to be absolutely sure that he has set the right ones. Once again what we see is a Minister who has set targets that fit the things that he prioritised when he was in Opposition that fit the particular areas where he is able to make short-term political gain and are not well suited to measuring the health sector’s preparedness for the long-term needs of New Zealanders.Although there has been genuinely good progress on some of those health indicators that the Minister has set—and good on the sector for delivering on those—there are some other indicators that the Minister could have chosen. He could have chosen inequalities in health outcomes for example where the indicator would have shown that inequalities are increasing. The gap between say Māori New Zealanders and non-Māori New Zealanders in terms of their health status is getting greater and greater. That seems to me to be unacceptable. He could have chosen ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations. That is when someone gets admitted to hospital for something that could and should arguably have been prevented either by public health services—those that aim to prevent diseases—or primary care services. Once again this internationally recognised measure of how the sector is doing actually shows it is deteriorating. It is getting worse and it is particularly getting worse for Māori and Pacific Island people. He could have chosen—let us see—readmission rates: unplanned readmissions to hospital after a hospital stay. He did not choose that. Actually if he had done that too would have shown that our health sector against this internationally recognised indicator of performance is in fact deteriorating. It is in trouble. It is getting worse and it is particularly getting worse for Māori New Zealanders and for Pasifika New Zealanders.He could have chosen obesity rates. New Zealand has the second-highest obesity rate in the OECD and it is getting worse. He could have chosen—let us see—diabetes rates. We have just seen data published that shows that one in four adult New Zealanderseither has diabetes or has pre-diabetes—one in four. He could have chosen that but he chose not to perhaps because that again is getting worse particularly for Māori New Zealanders and particularly for Pasifika New Zealanders. Actually that one-in-four figure is even worse for older New Zealanders and for those groups that I have mentioned. The Minister has repeatedly chosen short-run political considerations over the long-term health of New Zealanders.The word “tsunami” is overused in relation to chronic conditions but I cannot actually think of a better word to describe the fact that there is going to be an absolute need among New Zealanders for health services related to the chronic conditions that are literally exploding in these populations that threaten to engulf our health services and are already doing so. We are already seeing renal services—transplantation and dialysis—really struggling to cope with diabetes. Diabetes heart disease cancer asthma depression dementia—this Minister is doing almost nothing about those things.A responsible Government a Green Government would be responding to the evidence. On obesity for example we would be using taxation measures to try to drive the eating and activity behaviour of New Zealanders. We would be putting restrictions on marketing and advertising of unhealthy foods. We would be ensuring that food in places that are controlled by the Government is healthy—like schools for example. We would be undertaking a major promotion of healthy eating and physical activity for people of all ages ensuring that what happens in schools is evidence-based. We would be ensuring that there would be a health workforce geared to meeting this growing demand.In contrast Minister Ryall has abandoned the healthy food requirements in schools. He has abandoned the healthy eating and healthy activity programmes. He has abandoned the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme and replaced it with something that well actually we still have not seen yet. He has ruled out using market measures. He has ruled out using regulatory measures to control the food industry. He has appointed the food industry’s lobbyist to the Health Promotion Agency. He has left the Public Health Bill languishing at No. 64 on the Order Paper—a bill that was reported back by the Health Committee in June 2008 and has yet to receive its second reading. He has axed health promotion programmes in order to undertake his pet projects. He is a Minister who has prioritised short-run considerations ahead of long-term health gain for New Zealanders. It is time for a decent Minister of Health and a reminder I think that inAesop’s Fables things did not work out so well for the grasshopper and winter is coming.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): We have an interesting contrast here in the House. An earlier Labour speaker was talking about a two-speed economy or something like that. Well I think that member may have been half right. There are two speeds going on at the moment. There is forward and reverse. The National-ACT-United Future-Māori Party coalition Government is in forward mode into growth looking to the future to build a sustainable real job growth real export growth economy. We have a Labour-Greens Opposition or where the fruit meets the loop or where the Greens are leading Labour—we are not quite sure at the moment—backwards to reverse to recession to printing money and to experimenting with all sorts of weird and wonderful things those members have read in the latest book somewhere.This Budget continues the momentum towards solid and prudent management of the Crown accounts or the taxpayers’ account—the taxpayers’ balance sheet. The momentum continues towards surplus towards actual surplus the surplus that was laughed at by Opposition members not 1 year ago the surplus that they questioned the surplus that we are achieving that they blocked and voted against. They opposed every measure to achieve that surplus. The Opposition voted against every single measure toachieve surplus to achieve an economy that can weather economic storms around the world. I am surprised that Mr Parker had the audacity to say in the paper: “Oh yes but Labour would have achieved a surplus itself anyway.” How could that be? How could those members have done that when they have voted against every single measure to help achieve the surplus that is coming to fruition as the documents show next year?The polls are showing that New Zealanders believe this Budget. They trust this Budget. They are continuing their support for the National-led Government and its prudent management of our accounts of our economy in these tough tough times. Our economy needs to pay its way. New Zealand needs to pay its own way around the world. How do we do that? We have to manage our way through economic storms; we have to grow our economy through exports exports exports. Commentary over recent weeks has actually been very positive about the Budget. It has been very positive indeed and I will come back to that in a moment. But actually what was reflected in the polls the other night from both TV channels was that they showed an average sustainable and solid improvement in polling for the National-led Government.Interestingly though just as an aside when was the last time members saw a poll with National versus Labour? I cannot recall the good old days if you like of National versus Labour. It is now always National versus Labour-Greens or National versus Greens-Labour. Which party is leading the charge and the debate in the Opposition? When was the last time any member of the public who is listening saw a poll with National versus Labour? There has not been one for quite some time. The Labour-Greens potential—well the Opposition coalition—is a scary scary thought indeed. The recent lurch to the far left in the joint politburo announcement about the nationalisation of the power industry has gone down like a cup of the cold proverbial not only with most of New Zealand but actually with core traditional Labour supporters. I actually do think some of them realise that and are wondering quite how they can get out of it.Let us test some of the current rhetoric of Labour against what it was saying the last time it was in Government. The Hon Nick Smith was pointing to some of these points in his speech. We need to remember that Labour took New Zealand into recession 1 year before the global economic crisis—1 year—yet now it is talking up GDP growth and it has got all the answers. We must remember that because that is what we should test some of its announcements on. Labour led New Zealand into recession 1 year before—before—the global economic crisis. Let us contrast that with New Zealand’s running at 3 percent GDP growth; contrast that with one of the best growth rates in the OECD.It is quite interesting to actually just test the numbers. The pre-election update or the December update—I cannot remember which one it was—in December 2008 revealed the decade of deficits of the previous Labour administration so we must test Mr Parker’s rhetoric that “Oh no we would have got into surplus of course as well.” yet the fiscal independent forecast in December 2008 was for a decade of deficits. Those cannot both be true. We have to test it. Interestingly and quite weirdly actually inflation at the time under Labour was running near 5 percent—5 percent inflation under Labour. Currently under National it has been 0.9 percent for the last year. That means that the cost of living under Labour in its last year in Government was nearing 5 percent per annum. Under National it is under 1 percent.The cost of living is much cheaper under a National Government. Take mortgage rates for instance. When Labour left office floating mortgage rates were near 10 percent. Quite how Labour got floating mortgage rates through 10 percent when growth was in recession I do not know. I do not really know how it managed it but it did. So New Zealand families’ mortgages under Labour were near double figures at 10 percent. Currently those same mortgages are under 5 percent. What an awesome result in 5 short years. That is what prudent management and solid economically and fiscallyresponsible Budgets mean. They simply mean lower interest rates for longer for New Zealanders to afford their mortgages: National—sub - 5 percent mortgages; Labour—plus 10 percent mortgages; National—cost of living 0.9 percent per annum; Labour—cost of living 5 percent per annum.All that means is that families struggle under Labour. Their mortgage rates are always higher under Labour. Thank goodness for our children—thank God—New Zealand voted those members out in 2008. They are still in denial. There were 240000 children in poverty under a Labour Government when it was running surpluses and it was in recession but inflation was at 5 percent and mortgage rates were at 10 percent. How dare they get up and talk about poverty when they were running an economy rampant with 10 percent mortgage rates. Absolutely outrageous!So what are their latest solutions? Well Labour has given up on having itself run the economy because now it is joint Labour-Greens far-left announcements. Printing money—that will solve it. I do not know why Dr Michael Cullen did not think of that when he was the Minister of Finance. Printing money will solve all the problems as the Labour-Greens coalition has recently announced. Quite why that was not offered when it was in Government I do not know. Perhaps it was because most of them truly realised that it is absolute madness it is inflationary and it is essentially theft from future generations.I just want to comment on one thing in particular. New Zealand owes the world about $200 billion. It is incumbent on all of us that there is confidence in our capital markets and certainty about the New Zealand state of affairs so that the interest rates that we have to fund that are as low as possible for the Government for our companies and of course for our families. The economic grenade that Labour and the Greens threw all but 2 or 3 weeks ago about their crazy far-left power policy actually adds to the risk premium of New Zealand. So that announcement actually means that mortgage rates for New Zealanders may well be slightly higher than they need to be because of the risk—the scary risk but the risk none the less—of a far-left Labour-Greens coalition Government.I go back again to my earlier point. When was the last time any poll showed Labour versus National? That is the record that should be tested. At least the Green speakers are leading the debate. They are making their points. Labour comes in quickly and behind now and tries to join but we are now seeing what a Labour-Greens coalition Government could look like to the far left. This is a solid prudent manageable Budget continuing the momentum towards surplus real growth and real jobs. It is good for our families—interest rates are half what they once were under the Labour Government. There were 10 percent mortgage rates under Labour. They are at 5 percent under National. National is by far—by far—a better manager of the New Zealand economy.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): To the members of the crochet club in Hawke’s Bay that was the member for Tukituki. The meaning of such a word—tukituki—is to beat. If there is a Minister full of promise but very empty on delivery it is the beaten member for Tukituki. His name is Mr Foss. His name is Mr Foss which rhymes with dross. What we have just received was a lamentable and forgettable and very disappointing speech from a person of the Hawke’s Bay whose region suffers 8.9 percent regional unemployment. Only my own area of Northland has a worse unemployment rate reflective of the fact that we have to rely on Mr Sabin and Hone Harawira to actually advocate for it in a constituency seat.Mr Foss is a person who actually represents what is wrong with this Budget. This is not a Budget for the low-waged citizens of New Zealand. This is a Budget for the over-hyped consumers of the sharemarket the purchasers of services from the merchant bankers and those who are wiping their consciences clear as housing prices spiral out ofcontrol. There is not a glimmer of hope from that side of the House that that will be arrested. Let me just recap before we talk about the Budget: dross Foss Tukituki low-wage economy 8.9 percent unemployment Hawke’s Bay. That is the gift of this Budget to that part of New Zealand.Let us talk a little bit more about unemployment. Unemployment is without a doubt the area where this Government will eventually fall and move to this side of the House. There are no jobs being created that meet the aspirations of our young people. We are into serious double-figure youth unemployment. I accept that the senior members on that side of the House cannot admit to this but the majority of our regions that are dealing with significantly double-figure unemployment are busily encouraging their young people to leave those regions and go to Australia. They know that it happens in their regions and it is an indictment on the Government that the best it can deliver is a passage to Australia.But it is worsened by one other thing and the thing that eclipses that level of folly is the attitude shown by the current Minister of Māori Affairs. I cannot let “Huggie Bear” escape today. You cannot use small amounts of dough which may actually contribute to the development of a bilingual nation—I have no idea and he does not even know himself—to mask the fact that Māori unemployment is approaching in a number of our areas 40 percent amongst the ages of 15 to 19 and 19 to 24. A thousand million grants to grow gardens at the back of the marae—and if they are not well-tended let me tell you they will have electric puha in them—cannot mask the fact that there has been abject failure by the current Minister of Māori Affairs on unemployment.He can at least offer the defence that he does not understand it because that is a brilliant defence; it is the truth. But members on this side do understand it. They understand that Government members have narrowed their attention and their resources to enrich a narrow caste of the New Zealand community. How have they done this? They are selling a pup to you and me as New Zealanders that the only way to resuscitate the capital markets in New Zealand is to take property developed by countless generations of Kiwi taxpayers and then gift it to a narrow range of Kiwis who may be possessed of either connection or a little bit of capital to purchase those shares.That in itself is an indictment on the people who are speaking very very grandiloquently about the power of the sharemarket. If it was that good why do we need to come back and raid the larder of the Crown to resuscitate that particular part of the economy? It might be said that it is going to provide a broader range of opportunities for Kiwis to save. In Hawke’s Bay with the low-wage economy there are no savings available. Secondly the narrow number of New Zealanders who have managed to buy into these shares shows that the broad number of Kiwis lack surplus money but more important they are struggling to pay on a week-by-week basis for the key necessities. That is why our power strategy our power policy is an absolute winner.We will fight month by month until the next election and I can guarantee that the polls that are already showing considerable support for that power strategy will increase in growth. A number might say as Mr Nick Smith I recall and a host of others have said it was dirty pool. This House this group of parliamentarians is entirely entitled to say that the regulatory framework governing this sector of the economy is going to change. Why is it that we get criticised for being up front about that when Government members change the regulatory framework for the casinos and give them a tax holiday for 7 years and then say that if you want to re-regulate in order to meet societal demands about the ills associated with gambling into the future you are not allowed to do it until you compensate? Well if that is what we are lumbered with that is what willhave to happen. But know this: the cost of that regulatory change is a John Key bill. That is not a Labour bill; it is a John Key bill.Let us just go back here. Yes we will re-regulate and improve and indeed refine the regulatory framework for the power industry. All that has been established as more people become accustomed to that is a new norm. That happens in all industries. Indeed the fishing industry at the moment is going through a significant regulatory refinement process that is going to increase the costs associated with vessel ownership with vessel purchases. So rather than just confine it to that part of the economy—because it is an essential service; the effect of power prices is systemic—it will drive the improvement on manufacturing and drive the improvement on industry as they gain access to moderated prices and it will substantially decrease the cost of power to the average householder. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and we will politick we will campaign and we will sell that policy to the citizens of New Zealand.When you vote when you exercise the privilege of being in a democratic country first you are a citizen and second you are a consumer. Therein lies the key difference in terms of what that party is saying about how it wants to run the economy. National wants to run it for a narrow range of power-obsessed highly wealthy individuals who want to treat the rest of society the rest of the community in the context of power as consumers to be fleeced. We will be changing that without a doubt.The final point I would like to make is that I actually do applaud the current Minister of Housing for moving into the territory and trying to colonise what we have won over the housing debate. The only reason that the Minister of Housing has moved into Auckland and sought to provide the chimera of a housing policy is that he knows that the policy originally announced by Annette King is a winner—100000 houses. That improves supply; they increase the supply equation. But his policy is just going to generate more demand without an improvement in supply. That will have only one impact—a further driving-up of prices.Indeed I understand that people who live in Herne Bay are now enjoying a new blessing. When I was at St Stephen’s School half of Ngāpuhi seemed to live in Herne Bay but a Māori living in Herne Bay is very rare now. I understand that $2 million if you are blessed enough to live in Herne Bay—and I know one or three who live in Herne Bay—is the average cost of a whare there. There is no way that that type of policy is going to generate a solution to the housing woes. It will happen only by increasing supply and that is the essence of the Labour remedy. Kia ora tātou.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): What a pleasure it is to rise in support of the Budget particularly after listening to the previous speaker Shane Jones. I think what you were listening to there was a leadership speech but the problem with that was that the only ones listening were the members on this side of the House because those on the other side of the House could not understand a single word that the Hon Shane Jones was saying except when he reverted to the Labour type which of course he struggles to agree with himself. What we are looking at as other members have said is a very very stark contrast. It is a contrast between growth forward movement and a party that is focused on what makes the economy grow what creates jobs and what will create a better future for New Zealand and a group a mismatch of people from the left. What did the Prime Minister say? It is a 51 percent - 49 percent shareholding between the Labour-Green parties and no one really knows which one has the 51 percent share.The issue confronting the country at the moment is how we grow an economy in what has been described—not by me but by political commentators and economists around the world—as an economic crisis an economic downturn on a scale equal to the 1930s Depression. How do you grow an economy in that circumstance? We listened tothe Opposition spokesman on finance the Hon David Parker talk earlier on about Labour’s track record in the management of the economy. Well let us have a look at that for a moment. Let us test some of what Mr Parker said. Let us go back as he did to the 1980s when you had the David Lange - Roger Douglas administration. Just remember at that time we had a Prime Minister who said that the agriculture sector was a sunset industry. When you think about that in the context of today when 70-odd percent of our export receipts come from that sector it is a bizarre comment. It is a ridiculous comment. But what is so bizarre about it even today is that was the case then when those comments were made. And what happened at the end of Labour’s tenure through the 1980s? Apart from the fact that it had three Prime Ministers in quick succession towards the end of it we had the 1987 sharemarket collapse we had the bailout of the BNZ we had interest rates that peaked at 22 percent and we had inflation rates that ran at 18 percent. This is the track record that Mr Parker was talking about. Let us have a look at some of those figures.Then we had a change to the new incoming Bolger National Government which inherited the fiscal shambles. At the end of that Government’s period the country was on a growth strategy again with growth rates of 4 percent we had interest rates back down to the lowest level they had been since the early part of the 1960s and we were on track for an economy that was growing. What happened then? Well the Government changed in the late 1990s. And what did we end up with then? We ended up with the Clark-Cullen Government the next Labour Government—once again checking this track record that Mr Parker spoke of. What happened at the end of that period? Well we had interest rates back up to 10 percent. We had inflation growing at a rate that was unsustainable. We had export receipts in decline again—once again in decline. We had the best economic circumstances that the New Zealand economy had seen in about five generations and what did we end up with? We ended up with the circumstances that this Government the incoming Key Government inherited which was once again a fiscal outlook that had the Government heading towards 60 percent debt by 2020—a forecast 60 percent debt against GDP by 2020—and no prospect of Government surplus ever again. Well if that is the track record Mr Parker wants to promote then I invite him to promote that as strongly as he can over the next few months because I think it is the best thing since sliced bread for the National Government.So what have we got today? We have got the lowest interest rates in 40 years—the lowest interest rates in 40 years. What is it about our opponents that they cannot understand that? For mum and dad “Joe Hard-worker” out there trying to own their first home it is in the order of $300 to $400 a week compared with what it was when Labour was in power. We have got the lowest inflation we have had for a very long time with the cost of living going up by less than 1 percent—under 1 percent. Food prices for a very very long time have become more and more affordable for mum and dad “Joe Hard-worker” out there. What is it about that that Labour cannot understand?Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?SHANE ARDERN: The member over there bays “Where are the jobs?”. Well the end result of all of this fiscal growth is more investment. I heard the Hon Shane Jones talking about unemployment rates. Look at Taranaki—the area that this member here would condemn and his colleague often does. Where are the jobs? The highest employment rate in New Zealand is in Taranaki. Why is that? Because of a strong growing energy sector and a strong growing agricultural sector. Those are both sectors that our Labour-Green opponents would attack and let us just talk about what they have said they will do. They will introduce a capital gains tax they will introduce an emissions trading tax they will increase company tax they will increase personal tax—Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?SHANE ARDERN: —and they will do away with the 90-day trial period in employment as the member keeps baying “Where are the jobs?”. They will do away with the 90-day trial period they will increase ACC charges and they will increase interest rates through higher Government spending and more Government borrowing. Those are the end results of a Labour administration over a period of time.So what has this Government announced in its Budget in regard to jobs as the member wants to know? A $130 million boost for Kiwi research and development start-ups. Budget 2013 is investing $130 million in Callaghan Innovation encouraging business to invest more in research and development and to support new start-ups. What the member obviously cannot comprehend and Labour never can is this country is made up of small businesses that employ low numbers of people. So where would you invest money if you wanted to get more jobs? Is it in great Government expenditure or great Government employment schemes? I mean this is Labour which over the term of the Clark Government invested so much in the public sector that it doubled the office space for bureaucrats in Wellington. And what did that do for employment? What growth came out of that? What were the opportunities there?What would Opposition members do in terms of opportunities and in terms of development like what I have just said in the energy sector? Well they would reverse the Resource Management Act reforms that this Government is proposing and has already carried out. They have said they would do that. How would you develop an energy-efficient economy under those circumstances? In fact what did happen under the Labour Government? We saw a massive increase in the use of fossil fuels for the generation of energy because the development of sustainable energy production could not take place because of Resource Management Act or environmental constraints that were placed on those developments. Labour talks about growth in jobs and improving the economy but what it would do towards the economy would be devastating.In the Budget there is $80 million for irrigation. Is there any lower hanging fruit than what this would produce—producing more of what we are good at and where we have international markets to sell to? Right up the eastern belt of the whole of the South and North Islands—including in the Hawke’s Bay which Hon Shane Jones the previous speaker spoke of—is where we could invest in irrigation. Of course the cry from the Greens on this is “More dairy cows.” Well when we put water into the Marlborough area it was not dairy cows that were developed there; it was actually vineyards. If you were to go into Marlborough now and suggest—and Labour and the Greens are potentially mad enough to say that we should never have done it and there should not be vineyards in Marlborough. Where there used to be one sheep per 10 hectares in some of that very arid land there are now intensive world-renowned viticulture developments that have exports of $1.2 billion to the world and still have potential to grow.What we have in this Budget the Bill English Budget the John Key - led Government Budget is a strategy for strong growth going forward a formula for success and a formula for jobs. I strongly support the Budget.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Talofa lava.Dr DAVID CLARK: Talofa lava. Well what a lot of rhetoric we have just heard. I do not think even Shane Ardern the member himself believes much of it. He might well believe that his Government has spent money in certain areas but he knows very very well that its record of job creation is so poor that it is an embarrassment—it is an embarrassment around this House.He wanted to raise the issue of Labour’s track record and I will happily raise that issue again. Under the Labour Governments since the War we have had a 3.7 percent average growth rate. Under National it has been 2.9 percent. There is a considerabledifference between those two numbers in real terms for real New Zealanders. Labour grows the economy consistently. National stalls it. Under this Government real wages have dropped—real wages have dropped median wages. The New Zealander “Joe New Zealander” is really feeling the pinch and it is as a result of the policies of this Government.Let us go back to the 2010 tax cuts. Forty percent of the value of those tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of people—40 percent went to the top 10 percent. The bottom 20 percent of people got just 2 percent of the value of those tax cuts. That is typical of this Government. This Budget does nothing to change that picture. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is a Government that is creating a two-speed economy with a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots.This Budget if it does anything to raise average wages has attempted to do it one Mighty River Power director at a time. That is the way this Government approaches it. It looks out for those who have vested interests and those who are its mates. It looks to transfer some money to them but the average New Zealander “Joe Normal” is struggling. The average New Zealander can no longer dream of owning their own house. The average New Zealander can no longer dream of having a decent job because this Government is destroying those jobs it is creating unemployment and it is driving wages down in real terms.This Government has created the worst current account deficit in the developed world.Hon Dr Nick Smith: No. Look at your own record.Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Smith disputes that but this Government has created the worst current account deficit in the developed world. It is worse than Greece’s. It is worse than Greece’s the IMF tells us. This Government has brought about a credit downgrade. It has had New Zealand’s credit downgraded. Kiwibank is on notice now. This Government does not know how to manage an economy and that is the real shame. This Budget was another opportunity to address the structural issues in New Zealand. Those opportunities are flying by and with them New Zealand’s chances of raising its place in the world of creating a better standard of living for its citizens. This Government is taking the country backwards. Let us remind ourselves that this Government is the Government with the worst economic record of any Government in this country in the last 50 years. This Government’s only idea is to sell off the best revenue-generating assets. That is its only vision for this economy.Labour would do things differently. We have announced our NZ Power policy. That would bring businesses’ power bills down by 5 to 7 percent. It would put an extra $200 or $300 in Kiwis’ pockets. It is a sensible policy. It is a policy that is about taking New Zealand forward. We would put in affordable housing. We would create 10000 new houses over the next 10 years and that too would create jobs. Not only would it make an affordable house an affordable dream for New Zealanders it also would create jobs.Let us remind ourselves that these things that we have now—these situations where housing is unaffordable and power prices keep going up—are things that can be fixed. We know from Professor Wolak’s report that there was $4.2 billion worth of price gouging in the New Zealand energy market between 2001 and 2007—$4.2 billion worth of price gouging. We have been told by academics and we have been told by those who have researched this that this is a pattern in New Zealand and that the market does not work. When a recession hits and the rest of the world’s power prices go down they go up in New Zealand. Something is wrong here and it can be fixed. We know that markets are good when they do the bidding of the people—of the citizens. When the markets do not do the bidding of the citizens they make terrible masters and this needs to be corrected through effective regulation so that businesses can thrive and citizenscan thrive. There is a problem here that needs to fixed. This Government is sitting on its hands and not doing anything about it.I have just returned from a trip to the United States. It was a tremendous privilege to go on this trip. I went with the Eisenhower Fellowship. President Eisenhower created as his legacy an international exchange. Many Presidents have created large libraries in their own states but President Eisenhower wanted an international exchange. I have been a fortunate beneficiary of this. It has been a terrific learning experience. One of the lessons I brought back is about the importance of fairness as a cultural value in New Zealand. New Zealanders believe in fairness. They believe everybody should have the opportunity to get ahead; it is part of what makes New Zealand a great place to live. Sir Paul Callaghan used to talk about the importance of New Zealand being a place where talent wants to live as part of a strategy for economic growth. This growing gap between rich and poor in New Zealand drives us in the opposite direction I am afraid. This undermines our reputation for fairness. People want to come back to New Zealand once they have had overseas experience because they want to go to a hospital where they do not have to bring out a cheque book. They want access to justice for all citizens so that there is a sense of fairness in society. They want to know that they can get a great education at their local schools. We want to live in a fair society.What is also true is that people in other countries admire this sense of fairness that New Zealand has. It is part of what gives us a privileged place in international trade negotiations. People want to hear New Zealand’s voice because we speak impartially we speak independently and we speak about fairness. This Budget which drives this two-speed economy that the Government has been creating goes further toward undermining this international reputation for fairness. It is not good for us as a people it is not good for our citizens and it is also not good for our country. It undermines the reputation we have that gives us that privileged place at the international trade negotiation table. We need to be at that table if our economy is going to grow. We need to be at that table because we want to be a part of those discussions.The Government’s mates are jacking things up. We know that the casinos are getting extra funding we know that Goldman Sachs is profiting from the sale of assets and we know that the wealthiest New Zealanders have had those tax cuts. This is not the recipe for a fairer society. This is not a recipe for the kind of society we want to live in and that actually most of the world aspires to live in. We have the largest gap between rich and poor in this country that we have had since records have existed. We are becoming an economy of the haves and have-nots.Thirty thousand jobs were lost last year and 1000 people in my home city moved from Dunedin to Australia permanently because of the policies of this Government. We have had a 10 percent drop in the last 4 years in non - primary sector manufacturing in this country. The policies of this Government have been undermining our exporters. When I left New Zealand Mighty River Power was 100 percent Kiwi-owned. Now 49 percent of Mighty River Power is owned by just 2.5 percent of New Zealanders. This is a two-speed economy where some Kiwis are getting ahead and some are being left behind.We need a Government that is prepared to bring in pro-growth tax reform. We need to take out the investment distortion that pushes money towards properties creates housing bubbles and creates people farming for capital gains rather than for profitability. We need tax reform that makes our country more profitable. We need tax reform that promotes research and development. We need universal KiwiSaver so that we are more like Australia which has $1.3 trillion in savings. Its savings regime brings back its own financial markets expertise from overseas. When its young people gooverseas they have something to come back to because they have a successful industry there.New Zealand unfortunately has suffered under National Governments that have not had a long-term vision. They have focused on the short term they have focused on making sure that their mates are looked after and the rest of New Zealand are missing out. They are not interested in creating a society for all of us; they are interested only in a few of their mates. That is why this Budget is a terrible Budget which does nothing that is in the interest of ordinary New Zealanders and I think this is a Budget that needs to be condemned.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this great Budget and interesting to follow on from David Clark who has been studying in the United States for the past few weeks. I had hoped that he would come back to New Zealand better informed and with some fresh ideas but instead we have the same old monotonous line about our record over the last 50 years.Dr David Clark: Which is the worst of any Government.PAUL GOLDSMITH:Well hello Mr Clark the global financial crisis has been the worst crisis internationally for 70-odd years but the good news is that this Budget confirms that New Zealand is on the right track. Our growth is amongst the best in the OECD unemployment is falling real wages are rising inflation is subdued interest rates are the lowest in decades and the Government books will be returning to surplus in 2014 and 2015 as we promised. Sure these are not boom times. Retailers in Newmarket and around Auckland and New Zealand are still facing headwinds. Everybody know that. But most fair-minded New Zealanders agree that the results of this Budget are indeed promising and relatively good in a difficult international context.That good result was by no means guaranteed. It is easy to forget that when John Key and National entered Government at the end of 2008—when I was still happily writing books in Auckland—in the early years of the global financial crisis Treasury projected 10 years of deficits and rising debt. The previous Government had increased spending by an amazing 50 percent over a short period. The New Zealand Government’s books were pregnant with expensive new schemes that were never properly funded which led New Zealand to have deficits projected for 10 years. So to have turned that round so that this year’s deficit will be less than 1 percent of GDP and next year will yield a surplus is an achievement of which we can all be proud. Contrast that with Australia which has just announced a $20 billion deficit this year and with many other comparable countries such as the United States and the UK where there is no end in sight to deficits—it is a remarkable achievement for New Zealand.I hear the Labour members opposite saying that they would have done the same. Yeah right! We do not believe that for a moment. They have opposed every control and limit that we have placed on spending—every scheme that we have tried to get spending under control they have opposed. Perhaps their idea is just to increase taxes. Well how is that working in France? Not very well as far as I can see. Maybe they think a capital gains tax on productive businesses is a good idea but I certainly do not see that that is a good way to increase and promote savings in this country which they say they are concerned about.I am particularly proud overall that the adjustment that we have made in this Budget has been achieved without resort to the excessive austerity that we have seen in other parts of the world. The return to surplus has been achieved carefully without undermining growth and while we continue to support the most vulnerable in New Zealand society. There have been no gimmicks. This Government holds to the traditional notion that a country has to earn its money—it cannot simply print it—and that the only way to pay our way in the world is to produce goods and services that freeconsumers out there want to buy. So this Government has focused on doing the basics well. It is about building a productive and competitive economy.I am happy to take the House through the core elements of the Business Growth Agenda which people have heard about a number of times over the last few years. It focuses on what businesses need to grow and thereby increase exports and employ New Zealanders with good high-paying jobs. It is about ensuring access to export markets and innovation—more of which I will talk about later. It is about skilled and safe workforces such as trade training schemes which we are investing a lot of money in. It is about access to capital markets and we have given a shot in the arm to that area with the Mighty River Power flotation. It is about natural resources—and we are hearing about the Denniston Plateau right at the moment again opposed by the Greens and their friends in Labour—and infrastructure. The Waterview tunnel of which we had the sod-turning only a few days ago will reduce traffic enormously on the streets of Epsom and throughout Auckland and is a very good example of the investment that we are making in infrastructure in this country.As well as those things it is all about delivering better public services without increasing spending in most areas. A good example of that is in the area of police where recorded crime is at a 24-year low in this country and we are rolling out new technology for front-line police officers but the baseline funding for police has not been increased. Instead police have found more efficient and effective ways of doing their jobs and generating savings that we can reinvest.Governments should be judged on the quality of what they achieve rather than the vast amounts they spend and this Government has understood that as every other business person who has to survive on their wits has understood that for a long time. Health and education once more received the lion’s share of the new spending in the Budget and considerable resources some $200 million are also being pumped into science and innovation.We are signalling that ACC levy cuts that will benefit families and businesses across New Zealand will be coming in the next couple of years. We are expecting a $300 million reduction in 2014-15 and around about a billion the following year. As a small business operator myself in the past I know how painful ACC levies are—the invoices always arrive at the most inconvenient time. I am very proud to be part of a Government that—because of the improved performance of the way that we have managed ACC that led to better rehabilitation rates—can sustainably reduce those levies over time and I hope we can go further on that score.This Budget also includes the proceeds of the first partial asset sale—some $1.7 billion for Mighty River Power—and that money is going into the Future Investment Fund for investment in new capital assets such as the redeveloped hospitals in Christchurch. That partial asset sale allows us to have these new assets without borrowing more on global markets and thereby reduces our vulnerability to a sudden change of sentiment in these dangerous times. I have no doubt as well that the scrutiny of the share market will improve the business performance of Mighty River Power and over time the electricity market in general.I am still shocked frankly by the proposal of the Labour Party and the Greens over power. I expect that sort of thing from the Greens but I had thought that since the 1980s there has been an understanding within the major parties of this country that heavy-handed regulation had failed in the 1970s and that markets were the best way to get an efficient system in power and education. But Labour seems to have withdrawn from that basic understanding and I am shocked and deeply saddened by that.The real focus also in the Budget has been on supporting low-income families. Budget 2013 signals our intent to grow the social housing sector. As well a further$100 million has been invested in warmer healthier homes for those in need. Already there are some 215000 homes across the country from deep in the south up into the north that are warmer because of this Government’s scheme. So I am proud to be a part of that.Addressing Auckland’s housing affordability issues was another part of this Budget and rightly so. My aunt in Feilding might well ask why on earth she should care about Auckland house prices when they are cheap down there. Well the answer is that she will care if runaway house prices in Auckland lead to higher interest rates for all New Zealanders. And she certainly would care if those higher interest rates if they were to come sooner than they needed to led to the New Zealand dollar being higher than it needs to be putting further pressure on the economy as a whole. So getting on top of Auckland housing affordability and the bubble that we are potentially seeing in Auckland with 12 percent growth in the past year is an important focus of this Budget.It is a real worry that thousands of Aucklanders are struggling to progress up the housing ladder. So the Government’s housing response has been grounded in the work of the Productivity Commission and it is focused particularly upon increasing the supply of land. Constantly we hear people denying that there is a link between rigid land supply policies and house prices but you only have to look at the evidence: the availability of sections in Auckland has plummeted over the past 10 years and the price of sections has increased over the past 5 years from about $100000 to $325000 today.We are currently building only 4000 houses when we need 13000-odd so the Government’s Budget initiatives on housing and the housing accord that it signed with Auckland Council and is working on with Auckland Council provide a circuit breaker to get some pace and momentum back into addressing housing supply in the Auckland region. I am sure that will make a real difference to the lives of many Aucklanders who are wanting to get on to that housing ladder.National is building towards a stronger more stable economy and it continues to work on building a brighter future for all New Zealanders. I commend the Budget to the House. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Talofa lava—in recognition of Samoan Language Week—to all of our folks who are out there watching. I am pleased to rise to oppose this dreadful Budget. We have had 5 years of this National Government and when it came to power we heard all the promises about the brighter future and that it would be creating jobs lifting wages growing the economy and making New Zealand a better place to live. Well those promises have turned out to be absolutely false. After 5 years John Key has let New Zealanders down. But he has not let down all Kiwis. No he has looked after the movie moguls the casino operators and those with capital and a wealth base underneath them—and that is the base of the National Party. But he has not looked after all Kiwis and that is why National has created this two-speed economy.The speakers opposite have spoken about how they have got this momentum going and that we on this side of the House are going to be sending New Zealand backwards. Well that is totally misinformed because they have got a complete mix-up between speed and direction. If they wanted to turn things round and go forward they will be going backwards and that is exactly where they have taken our country. If we look at the actual failures of this National Government it has been appalling. Members opposite talked about rebalancing the economy and delivering more export growth. That is what we all want; we definitely want more export growth. That is what we need to move forward as a country. We need to get our tradable sector thriving. We need to grow those exports and sell our wares to the world and make some money.But what has happened under this Government? We as a country have seen the worst current account deficit in the whole world—No. 1 in the world. That means we are spending more on imports and on interest than what we are earning as a country. If that is rebalancing the economy well I do not really know what planet Mr English is on because that has been an absolute failure and it is only going to be getting worse. The projections are that that will be getting worse. It is a very dangerous sign for our country and for our economy because as we know worldwide countries are debasing their currencies. We have got asset bubbles that are blowing up all over the place. We have got stock markets that are blowing up all based on printing-press money from the big major countries around the world. This is putting a huge amount of pressure on our whole financial system. Everything is teetering on the edge and this Government does not want to know about it but when the bubble pops—like all bubbles do; they will pop at some stage—it is going to signal a huge blow not only to our economy but to the global economy.I think we need to be mindful of that because members opposite are talking about how great it has been that there have been record-low interest rates. Sure we welcome low interest rates but the reason the interest rates are low is because the world economy and our economy have been so sick. That is why. You lower the interest rates because you want to try to rev up things. The problem is that we have had going on 7 years of record-low interest rates and ours are really high compared with the rest of the world and yet it has not actually generated economic growth because this Government has been more concerned with looking after its own base—its own rich elite select group of the National Party support base—than it has been towards looking after all of the whānau across Aotearoa. So that is a very dangerous situation that we find ourselves in. When interest rates do rise it is actually going to catch out a lot of people.This Government has been so concerned so preoccupied about reaching surplus in 2014 that it has forgotten about the finances of everyday Kiwis. Everyday Kiwis are actually struggling—we are maxed out; we as our current account deficit shows are more indebted than ever—and that is putting huge pressure on families and that is why we have got this two-speed economy.But the two-speed economy does not apply just in terms of household finances; we are seeing it right across the whole country. If we look at it geographically there is definitely a North Island - South Island spread going on there. I am actually quite fortunate in that I cover a huge electorate. I cover the whole of the South Island and there are some regions that are actually doing quite well in relation to their agricultural and pastoral sectors so I commend that. But if you look at the regions in the North Island particularly in the far north—Hawke’s BayIkaroa-Rāwhiti and the area covered by that electorate—there are huge amounts of inequality happening up there. They are struggling and this Government has not had a plan to really help those regions. It has neglected the regions and that is why we are seeing such terribly high unemployment numbers coming through.We also see that the two-speed economy is applicable age-wise. Younger New Zealanders are being locked out of that homeownership. They would like to aspire to owning their own home and getting on that property ladder but the way that the property bubbles are going—again the properties are being held by that wealthy class who have the capital and the wealth base and who want the tax-free capital gains—is preventing young people the new generation coming through from actually getting on that property ladder. It is all because this Government has sent the wrong signals. It has skewed the whole property ownership model because of the fact that it is encouraging property bubbles to occur through the fact that we have had a low-interest rate environment no capital gains tax and the like. Again that does put a lot of pressure onthose young people who want to get there. But the older generation—who are obviously looking out for their own retirement and they want to hold on to and charge the rent on private rental accommodation—want to generate an income for themselves going into the future. So we have a real mismatch there caused by this Government between our young generation and our older generation in terms of property ownership.Then of course what it comes down to is that this two-speed economy is around fairness. We have seen the largest growth in inequality in this country under this National Government. Income disparity is at its widest and it is very much pronounced when we look at the Māori community itself. That is the electorate I represent. When you see the deprivation and the hardship out there it does break your heart. It can be addressed. I know that the Prime Minister made the announcement about providing some support for the food in schools programme. Although we support that why has it taken so long? We had the Budget—what—over a week ago and the Government sort of signalled it prior to the Budget but then there was nothing in the Budget itself and now we have had to wait another week and a half and then something has come out. I think something must be up around the National Government Cabinet table because it has taken too long for that to come through.What it shows is that there is incredible hardship and poverty out there. We have 270000 children living in poverty. That is just way too much. The rising unemployment rates among Māori people are absolutely horrendous. When I look at the unemployment rates for Māori and Pacific Islanders—basically 14 percent for Māori and 15.2 percent for Pacific Islanders—those are horrendous unemployment rates that apply to all of us to all Māori and all Pacific people right across the board. We have to change this Government so we can actually address those issues because I fear that if we continue down this track put down in this Budget it is not going to be able to really address those pressing issues that are really desperate cries coming out from those hard-working families out there.In conclusion I would just like to say that I mentioned before that there is a preoccupation with surplus in this Budget. The Government thinks that by 2014 it can get to the surplus when at the end of the day it has been constructed on bogus numbers—bogus numbers—because we see that there is approximately $3 billion worth of numbers in that Budget that are a complete sham. I am talking about the overcharging from ACC of $700 million the so-called $1.1 billion of extra corporate tax which the Government thinks is going to suddenly appear and I am talking about the tax credits that it has booked in as revenue and no one knows where they are going to come from. So this is a dreadful Budget we oppose it 100 percent and we look forward to getting rid of this Government. Kia ora tātou.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): Poor old Rino Tirikatene. Look he is a nice bloke but that was absolutely dreadful. I mean how misinformed. What is going on in that caucus over there? He had nothing good to say about the Budget. He could not even agree with David Parker his finance spokesman who said that getting to surplus is the right thing to do. So Labour Party members cannot even get one crucial message right about this Budget.What I can tell you is that when you look at the Budget it tells a very clear story. There have been 4½ years of very difficult economic conditions which the National Government has shepherded the country through. It has not been easy. We had to have a couple of zero Budgets but we are now building momentum with this Budget and it tells a very good story. If you do not believe me you have got to just look at the external validation that the New Zealand economy is getting—that objective feedback. So Standard and Poor’s says that this is the ninth-best place in the world to hold debt. So actually this is a very good place to invest. The IMF just the day before the Budgetcame out and said that the New Zealand Government is absolutely on the right track with its policies. It pretty much said: “Don’t change those policy settings. Don’t go back to the policy settings of the Labour Government because it was getting New Zealand into deep deep shtick.”Hon Member: Who said that?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That was the IMF.If you look at what was happening when Labour was holding the purse strings you will see that it was spending like Topsy—it was spending like Topsy. What was happening was that the growth of the Public Service was going out of control. When we came into Government we had a look at those books and we said that New Zealand could not continue like that. Debt has been a problem—$70 billion now—but do you know what it would have been under Labour if it had continued with those policies? It would be $170 billion and that is a fact. The Labour Government was out of control. We inherited a situation where debt was heading to 60 percent of GDP so we had to do something and we had to do it very very quickly.Look at the environment we are in now. We have the lowest interest rates for 50 years—50 years—inflation is just less than 1 percent over the last year and wages are growing at 2 percent over the last year and are projected to grow real incomes in nominal terms by 20 percent over the next 4 years against the background of 9 percent inflation. So actually there is more money in people’s pockets at the same time as mortgages are cheaper.We are in a very very good position but the one danger on the horizon is the far-left Government that Labour and the Greens would deliver because as John Key said—Darien Fenton: Ha ha!Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: They might laugh on the Labour side but David Shearer has wrapped himself in the Greens. There is no question about it. These dangerous left-wing fundamentalists these Bolsheviks like David Clendon over there are going to be there with the Labour Party if it gets the chance to be in Government. You would have someone like Russel Norman as the Minister of Finance. He will be printing money. Labour knows it can never get into power unless it promises things like the finance portfolio to Russel Norman. You will have Metiria Turei—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —running the transport or environment portfolios. Seriously it is going to be really really bad. This election is going to be a contest between the centre-right and the far left and for New Zealanders that is going to be very very scary. You can actually see five Labour members and one Green here in the Chamber and there is not a day of business experience between them. Is that not frightening?Hon Member: Rubbish.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That reflects the reality of what you would get with a Labour Government and they are saying: “Rubbish.”The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well it is absolutely true. David Clendon is getting more excited than I have ever seen him in the House and the Assistant Speaker is trying to bring the debate back to him but this is the reality. We are facing a situation where if those people opposite ever got hold of the Treasury benches New Zealand would be in a huge power of trouble.This is a very very good Budget. We have set out our four priorities very very clearly. We are going to be in surplus by next year—a $75 million surplus. It is thin but it is there and that is what 4½ years of fiscal discipline brings you. This year we have a deficit of $2 billion. Back in 2010 we had an $18.7 billion deficit. When you look atwhere we are positioned compared to Australia—they have got a deficit of A$20 billion this year—we are in a very very good position.The Opposition can go on about the state of the economy but the fact is that we and the Australians have grown at the fastest rate in the OECD over the past year—the fastest rate. Over the next year we are going to be growing at 3 percent. No one is going to be growing faster in the OECD. The eurozone is really down the gurgler as is the UK the US and Japan. We are very very well positioned. There have been 50000 new jobs over the past 2 years. Unemployment has gone from 6.8 percent to 6.2 percent.We are hearing from Labour a lot of whinging we are hearing a lot of misinformed comment but we are not getting one comment about what it would do better. In fact we are not even getting a comment about what it would do—full stop. It is going to be very clear where the balance lies. You have got a Government with a very sound economic record which is getting us—Clare Curran: We’re going to bring down power bills; that’s what we’re going to do.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Ah! Getting down power bills. Labour reckons it is going to get down power bills by regulating and nationalising the electricity industry. Well good luck with that because that is going to take us back to blackouts. That is not going to be the way forward. That is going to totally stop new generation and it is going to be incredibly bad for the economy.I can tell you what is going to happen if these people opposite were ever in charge—it would be an end to inward investment in New Zealand because these people do not like the Chinese. They were very clear about that during the whole Shanghai Pengxin Group episode. They spoke out about it on the basis of political opportunism and that is very very dangerous for New Zealand. But I think what you will see if these people ever get the chance to get close to the Treasury benches is a big change in those ratings from people like Standard and Poor’s. You will see the IMF—Darien Fenton: Doom and gloom.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: When the IMF sees hard-bitten unionists like Darien Fenton over there getting anywhere near the immigration portfolio stopping the inflow of skills and stopping the inflow of capital investment will fly from New Zealand. There is no question about it—it will leave. There is no question.We focused very much on our priorities: getting back into surplus economic growth and this is interesting—[Interruption]Hon Maurice Williamson: Pay attention.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes. We are growing the economy getting the skills here that we need in New Zealand encouraging new apprenticeships and new skills getting people down to Christchurch and making a firm commitment to rebuilding Christchurch. The impact that Christchurch has had is actually incredible but we have willingly said it is very very important that we rebuild New Zealand’s second-biggest city. The Government’s contribution is $15 billion out of a total rebuild of $40 billion and that has gone up quite considerably from $30 billion. Despite that we are still going to hit surplus.What I can say is that if those people opposite reckon they are going to get down debt rebuild schools build hospitals and fund fast broadband where is the money going to come from? They are going to stop partial share floats.Hon Members: That’s right.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes. “That’s right.” they say. They are proud of it. This is how economically illiterate those people opposite are. They need to explain—and I am looking forward to the next speaker getting up to explain—Darien Fenton: There’s more than one way.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Darien Fenton when you are Associate Minister of Finance—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member has now brought the Chair into the debate four times.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh come on. When that member Darien Fenton is Associate Minister of Finance and she cancels partial shares—Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to be picky but as we observe it in one language it would also be nice if the member would call me by my proper name. It is “Dar-rien” not “Darry-en”.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I thought Darien was going to get up and deny that she was going to be the Associate Minister of Finance and in fact many members from both sides might have agreed with that. Anyway one thing we have learnt from the Labour contribution in this debate is how to pronounce Darien Fenton’s name.What I would say is that if Labour is going to stop partial share floats where is it going to get the money from? It is concerned about debt but it is going to have to borrow more. Or is it going to go down to Christchurch and say: “No we’re not going to rebuild Megan Woods’ Christchurch Hospital we’re not going to rebuild schools and we’re not going to put in fast broadband because we’re not going to borrow the money and we’re not going to raise money for the Future Investment Fund.” So basically what you are going to have with those people is more debt and you are going to have investment flying out the door. When that member from Dunedin who has just come in David Clark says that nonsense about the worst economic record in 50 years he is telling a gross mistruth.Dr David Clark: The worst economic record in 50 years of any Government.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Here he goes. That is the only contribution he can make. In conclusion it is a very good Budget we are going ahead well the economy is growing and New Zealand is on the right track. New Zealand do not put it all at risk. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member I just want to refer members to Speaker’s ruling 27/5(1). The use of the word “you”—and the member did it three or four times during that debate—is not to be used in debate because it brings the Chair into it.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Talofa lava.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe? Now I’ve got you!CLARE CURRAN: Now you have got me.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Manuia fa’afetai.CLARE CURRAN: Thank you Mr Speaker. What a lot of froth bubble bogus claims and excuses have come out of the mouths of the members on the other side of the House the Government speakers today. Bill English today promised 60000 new jobs in the 2013 Budget but 2 years ago he promised 170000 jobs. The truth is that there are no jobs. Our unemployment rates continue to go up. Since this Government has been in power 41000 more people have become out of work. I draw your attention—if you can see the bar graph in the document I am holding up—to the grey column which is what was projected for jobs. The blue column is where there have been some jobs.John Key’s and Bill English’s and Steven Joyce’s ghost jobs—their ghost job promises—will be their undoing. There are no jobs in the regions. There are certainly none in the southern part of New Zealand because this Government is delivering a two-speed economy that is advantaging the people whom it likes and the parts of New Zealand that it likes and disadvantaging our regions. It is disadvantaging our youngpeople and our exporters and entrenching inequalities. It is morally wrong to entrench inequality. It is wrong for our kids and it is wrong for a country that considers itself to be egalitarian. It is wrong economically and it is not only wrong but stupid. An economy has to work for the ordinary person so that they have got a job so that they can stay in New Zealand so that their families will thrive and so that they will pay tax they will spend they will invest their wage and they will help our economy to stay on track. Otherwise what happens is that they leave. They become disenfranchised or they leave.Our economy has to also work for manufacturing. We have to make things. We have to make things and export them to be a productive economy. It is not rocket science. Instead we are hollowing out our manufacturing base and the loss of so many middle-income skilled jobs has made New Zealand a very unequal society.Why is this Government propping up its mates at Skycity and not lifting a finger to support manufacturing businesses like the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin? Just what New Zealand businesses are going to benefit from the Government’s new pretend procurement policy which was announced after a significant manufacturing outlet with more than 100 skilled jobs was allowed to go down the gurgler?This Government is not benefiting our regions and it is not benefiting the increasing number of working poor and elderly who are struggling with low incomes and rising costs of living. Most of all though it is not benefiting our young people—our future workforce our future. That is the area in which entrenched inequality policies are criminal in nature because they are doing us harm.Although the national average for youth not in education employment or training is 14 percent Dunedin has a rate of 34 percent. The number of people participating in training programmes in Otago has dropped by 24 percent or 1805 people since December 2008. Why? Not because of the demand but because the number of funded places has dropped. Seventy percent of the Dunedin South electorate earns less than $40000 a year. The median income in Dunedin city is $19400 compared with the national median of $24400. In Otago it is marginally higher at $21600 compared with that national median of $24400.The average power bill in Otago is almost $3000 which is acknowledged by the ministry itself as probably being too low. Since November 2008 power bills in Otago have increased by 25 percent. In 2010 an Otago University study calculated that 30 percent of households in Dunedin are living in fuel poverty. Fuel poverty is a recognised measurement whereby the household spending on power equates to 10 percent or more of income. That figure of 30 percent sounds right at least and it could be higher.Thank God that Labour’s NZ Power policy will reduce average household power bills by 10 percent a year and lower the cost to businesses by up to 7 percent a year because that means something to the ordinary person. It means something to them. It is concrete. It is not froth and bogus promises. It will mean something to the 70 percent of people in my electorate who earn under $40000 a year and who may be spending up to $4000 a year on electricity and living in fuel poverty.We have got to have a new approach. We have got to have a major rethink on how to grow jobs wealth and fairness. The fact is that the merchant banking outlook has failed. The way the National Government looks at this has failed. Clinging to that way harms people. It does us harm. It does not help the economy. The new outlook is industrial. This view holds that economic growth must be based in a real economy a productive economy where people actually make things and where businesses create products and services that bring real growth and real jobs not speculation. But unfortunately National still views the economy through that lens of merchant bankingwhich has dominated the Western World for the last 30 years. It has to change. The productive economy requires a productive workforce and a skilled workforce for the jobs of the future. It is a digital world that we live in now and we have to equip our kids for the digital workforce.Another huge issue of concern for all of our communities—and where that two-speed economy is so stark—is the growing digital divide in our economy. This Government should be putting its heart and soul into equipping our kids to be the workforce of the future. But again what it is doing is entrenching a digital divide. We cannot have a digital divide. It will kill our future economy. If we are not providing our kids and their families with access to digital literacy we will kill our future economy.It is estimated by the most up-to-date data that around 20 percent of New Zealand households currently do not have a computer. Computers in Homes has estimated that there are 100000 families with dependent children who do not have access to a computer at home. Those unconnected homes are predominantly in lower socio-economic areas. They are often home to Pasifika and Māori families where children cannot participate equitably in digital learning and using technology and where programmes such as Computers in Homes Computer Clubhouse and Aotearoa People’s Network Kaharoa do great work in increasing digital literacy; but where their success is sporadic because of limited and uncertain funding. Well it is about to become more limited more sporadic and more uncertain.When Nikki Kaye was made a Minister and given special responsibility for digital education she said that she wanted New Zealand to lead the world and her vision was to enable more children to have access to online learning and resources. Well access to infrastructure is great if you can afford it and great if you actually do have the access. Hidden in the Budget was a nasty and an unnecessary cut. It was a cut to Computers in Homes through the digital literacy fund—a cut of $1.7 million which could affect more than 1000 families a year. In the last 12 years Computers in Homes has supported more than 10000 families in this country. It supports communities in 17 different regions across the country from the far north to Otago. It has widespread support and flow-on effects. For every $1 invested by the Government another $2 is invested by the community and by local businesses.It is an absolute travesty that this is being cut. This is mean-spirited it is unnecessary and it is a cut to the heart of an initiative that is making inroads into closing the gaps in increasing inequality. Cuts like these affect people who need the help the most while 100000 families with no computer access have bleaker prospects. This is truly a two-speed economy—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Today I want to pay tribute to the New Zealand public. I want to pay tribute to them in that they do not fall for the little traps that keep being thrown at them by the Opposition which I think is known as speaking from both sides of your mouth. They know that when reality strikes Governments have to change their whole policy mix. So when the National Party was campaigning in the 2008 election and promising to do a certain number of things black storm clouds were just beginning to gather on the economic horizon. It was called the global financial crisis. What I do not understand in this House is that members on the opposite side have not got how to handle something when such an event occurs.I know that if I had promised my kids that they would all get new plasma screens for their bedrooms at Christmas and then during the year I lost my job my wife lost her job we were on welfare and we were struggling to even pay for food and so on doyou know what we would have to say? Every New Zealand family knows what they would say to the kids: “We just cannot do it. Sorry we thought we could and things were looking good but events outside of our control have occurred and we just cannot do it.” And yet it is almost like over in happy “Labour Land” that the global financial crisis did not occur. It did not happen. Why has unemployment gone up from where it was when Labour was in power? Well it is very simple: the whole world melted down. But the good news is that the New Zealand economy got the least battering of just about any country I know. That is through sound prudent fiscal management by Bill English and the team who said: “Look it is going to be rough. It is going to be tough but we have got to try to withstand some of the real sharpness of the peaks and the troughs that will come at us but without going in and doing some of the harsh cuttings of the welfare budgets that other Governments have done in the past when times have got tough.”The Labour-Greens Opposition sits there as if the global financial crisis never happened. So they will be getting up and I have heard them today saying: “Where are all the jobs? When we were in power we had this level of employment and now look how bad it is.” Well I can tell you that under the policy mix that we inherited in 2008 had we stayed on just the Labour Party policy mix platform this country would now be calling to the IMF to come in and totally bail us out. I think this country owes a huge debt of gratitude to Bill English for having steered us through 5 years of some of the most difficult economic times. By the way if you did not think the global financial crisis was the biggest smack around the whole world could have been dealt—we were sort of on our knees and trying to get through it—along came a series of devastating earthquakes that caused $40 billion worth of damage which no one could see coming.But what I find really hard to get through is that sort of duplicity of view that we hear from the other side. For example the Greens will spend half of their day saying that our economy is not functioning and that people are heading off to Australia and asking why are we not doing as well as Australia. But the other half of their debate is saying that they do not want minerals mining petroleum and taking stuff out of the ground. Well that is the only reason Australia has been a success. The only reason Australia—Catherine Delahunty: No it’s not.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It is true. It is the only reason the Australian economy—it has a two-tier economy. Its ordinary economy is going slower than ours. In fact the forecast levels of growth for New Zealand are better than for Australia. Have a look at the Budget that the Australian Labor Government brought down a couple of weeks before ours. It is appalling. There is a $22 billion deficit within that Budget. Australia is really struggling because commodity prices for all of the stuff that it rips out of the ground are falling. But you just cannot run the policy that the Greens do which is that we should match Australia. We should be economically as good as it is and doing as well as it is. But we should not do all the things that it is doing like taking minerals and so on out of it.I think it is enough for us to have a duplicitous view of the world from the Greens but today I saw something that I have never seen before. I saw a member of Parliament who even disagreed with himself. Damien O’Connor wrote letters saying that we have got to do the mining on the Denniston Plateau and then said that it is all wrong and we should not be doing it. It is the first time in my 27 years in this House that I have actually ever seen a member of Parliament debating with himself and losing on both counts.It applies to the Labour Party as well. If you look at direct foreign investment you see that there is no question that if we want this economy to function well we need direct foreign investment. We need foreigners to bring their skills and their capital inhere to grow it. There is just no doubt about that. What happened when Labour was in power? Let us take the sale of foreign lands because I cop this all the time. It is dreadful to be selling land to foreigners OK—dreadful. Well the National Government is a babe in the woods compared with them. I feel embarrassed. Total land sold to foreigners under a National Government is about 100000 hectares. Total land sold to foreigners under the Labour Government was 666000 hectares. That is about six times what we have done. That is what I said. I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed—Tracey Martin: You don’t know because there’s no register for it. No register for it so you haven’t any idea how much land has been sold underneath a house in Auckland.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: There is somebody over there going off like a demented chook; I cannot quite tell what they are saying. But all I can say is Helen Clark sells 55000 hectares—55000 hectares—to Shania Twain and then goes down and walks across the farm with the cameras. Are we not wonderful? Then it comes to selling 6000 hectares to the Shanghai Pengxin Group and it is evil. They are foreigners—we cannot do it. Well Shania Twain was from Canada. I reckon that makes her a foreigner. Maybe you do not Mr Speaker and maybe Helen Clark did not but I think Shania Twain was a foreigner. And it is the same when Labour sold 350000 hectares of forestry land and then it could—Tracey Martin: If you’re not a New Zealander you shouldn’t be able to buy land. No matter where you’re from you shouldn’t be able to buy land if you’re a foreigner.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Could somebody get her some medication? She is really in pain over there. She is really suffering. You need to help her out somebody. Get a medic kit. All I can say is that Labour sold 350000 hectares of forestry land in 1 year and then we sell a few thousand and somehow it is wrong. I want Phil Goff when he gets up because I know he is getting up next to explain to this House how it can be all right for Labour to sell six times as much land to foreigners as we do but it is now wrong and evil and how Labour could have supported the building of a convention centre in Auckland that I think was a third of the size of the one that is planned but with the same number of pokie machines with it. Again Helen Clark paraded on the stage about what a great deal we have got for you and then Steven Joyce goes and gets a convention centre three times that size which the private sector will put its own money at risk to build and with only the same number of pokies. Oh and by the way there is a sinking lid on the number of pokie machines in New Zealand so the total number of pokies is dropping. But somehow it is evil. I just do not understand how it can be all right in one case but it can be wrong in another.Labour sold just about everything that moved when it was in office in the 1980s but it now says that it is awful it is evil and it is wrong. I just still do not understand how the public—well actually the good news is that the public do not the fall for it and that is showing in the polls. It is showing in their response to this House when we are doing legislation. Parties that get up and try to be all things to all people when their history and their track record shows the exact opposite of what they are calling for are never going to convince the New Zealand public. No Mr Goff 2 more minutes of this and then you can get up—2 more minutes.So I want to talk about Labour’s alternative policies and the first thing I had to do with the research was struggle to find what the alternative policy is. I do not actually—[Interruption]—well no no they should be well known but we do not know. We have got a couple though. It certainly wants to have a much more dramatic and harsh emissions trading scheme. It thinks ours was a little toy poodle and it thinks that industry and emitters should be really really paying the price. Well that will be good for economic growth would it not? Let us really put the boot into the productive sector. It really really wants to do it. By the way also households pay a big number of moneystowards any emissions trading scheme and Labour’s scheme would make it a lot more. It wants to introduce a capital gains tax. Is that not fascinating? A capital gains tax. So it socks everybody then it is going to exempt the family home then it is going to exempt this and so on. It ends up so that it will be business and rural farming that will be hit so hard. That is really good for the productive sector right? Is that how we grow the economy? I do not think so.There are a couple of others. It wants to abandon some of the sensible monetary policy—I think this is mainly the Greens but remember the Greens co-leader Russel Norman will be the finance Minister in the coalition and just print money. Mr Goff laughs. If that is not going to be the case he should tell us. If Russel Norman is not going to be the finance Minister then just say so. I hear nothing—I hear nothing. Is Russel Norman going to be the—see Opposition members will not even answer it. He wants to back the truck up to the Beehive unload a swag of printers fill it up with printing ink and just print off the money. That has even been stamped best before 1990 in Eastern Europe.I am proud of this Government I am proud of the Budget and I think Bill English will go down in the history of this country as being one of the best Ministers of Finance we have ever had.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I would like to answer a few questions posed to the House by the gay icon on the other side. I want to bring a few facts into it. Maurice Williamson knows this. He knows it and he will smile when I give him the answers because he knew them already. First of all if New Zealand came out well from the global financial crisis it was because of the state that a Labour Government after 9 years left this country in. If he does not accept my word for this I am quoting from a document from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Treasury and the State Services Commission. Produced in November 2011 it is called Better Public Services and it said this: “Although New Zealand entered the global economic downturn with a stronger financial position than most OECD countries …”. Bill English said it did he not just after becoming Minister of Finance? He said: “This is the rainy day that [New Zealand] has been saving for.” What was he talking about? He was talking about a Labour Government because he had only just become the Minister of Finance.Why was New Zealand in a good shape Maurice Williamson? It was in a good shape because we had paid down our debt when you Mr Williamson were talking about spending it on tax cuts. So we had net zero debt for New Zealand when we went into the recession. We had the lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD. One other thing Mr Williamson: we had just signed a trade agreement for free trade with China and the ASEAN countries. Our exports have trebled since I signed that agreement in Beijing—trebled to $6 billion. We were safe from the worst effects of the downturn in Europe and the United States. That is why this country is in good shape: 9 years of surpluses from a Labour Government—9 years of surpluses—net zero debt the lowest unemployment rate in the Western World and trade agreements with China and with Asia. That is the answer to your question Mr Williamson; not what you were making up as you went along.You ask about the capital gains tax as if this was something extraordinary. We are almost the only country in the OECD that does not have one. The Reserve Bank has proposed it. Treasury has proposed it. The International Monetary Fund has proposed it. The World Bank has proposed it. In his heart Maurice Williamson knows it is the right thing to do—knows it is the right thing to do—and he is smiling now because he knows I am telling the truth. That is enough of Maurice Williamson.I want to talk about the things that are really important to New Zealanders. You know New Zealanders do not ask for much. They do not actually even expect much and even so they have been disappointed by what this Government has delivered them. What do they want? They want a job they want a home they want a good education for their kids and they want a fair go. None of those things are unreasonable but that is what the ordinary Kiwi wants: a job a home a decent education for their kids and the Government to give them a fair go. This Government in this Budget has delivered none of those things.Let us go through them. Regarding jobs 146000 New Zealanders are out of work—146000. In my city of Auckland it is 7.3 percent but in the parts of the electorate where I have Pasifika communities living it is around 15 percent. For their kids it is one in three not in work. This Government has not delivered on its promises. The 2010 Budget promised 170000 jobs and John Key mimicked the Budget. He said: “We will deliver 170000 jobs by 2014.” He made the same promise in 2011 as did the Budget. Twice in a row—170000 jobs. When he went to the people of New Zealand at the election in 2011 what did he promise? He promised 170000 new jobs. What does Treasury tell us in this Budget? What does it tell us Mr Coleman? It tells us that you are breaking the promise and that you will fall short of that target that you promised three times through your leader and your finance Minister by 61000 jobs. Three times they promised it every promise a broken promise and one-third of the teenage Pasifika kids in my electorate stay out of work.The answers are not rocket science. Why are we importing tens of thousands of skilled tradesmen into this country when tens of thousands of our kids are out of work? Why will the Government not turn the dole into a payment to encourage employers to take on apprentices? Why will we not give jobs to our young people who are on the dole out of work without hope? Because this Government—what did it do with skills training? It cut skills training. It did not grow it; it cut it.Then about manufacturing in New Zealand—manufacturing has got a really important role to play and what has this Government done? It has jacked up the dollar value to a point where our manufacturers are going out of business because they cannot compete with a dollar that is overvalued Treasury says by 20 per cent. Where is the guts in this Government to actually say that we need a new approach to monetary policy? We need to say that the Reserve Bank should be looking at jobs and it should be looking at the exchange rate not just the inflation rate. It will not change the monetary policy by broadening the objectives and the representation on the board of the bank.Then there is the question of investment policy. Where are people putting their money? They are not putting it into Mighty River Power. Mighty River Power is selling for less than what you floated it for a couple of weeks ago. They are putting it into speculation because it is easy to put money into housing. You can make a lot of money out of it and you do not pay tax when you sell it so you have a tax-free income. It is a speculator’s paradise in New Zealand. It is great for the speculators. They are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and who is paying that money? The low-income families with their kids desperate to actually achieve the New Zealand dream of a home of their own. What happens to those families? When I bought my first home the price of that house in Auckland was three times my annual wage. Today it is 10 times the average wage of that young family desperate to get into a home of their own. What is the Government and this Budget doing about it? Absolutely nothing. There is no commitment to an affordable housing policy and no commitment to cracking down on speculation through a capital gains tax.Why are we not getting jobs? Because there are not the savings. I heard the Prime Minister this afternoon talk about KiwiSaver as if it was his idea. I think National votedagainst it. Certainly it has done nothing to make it universal which would create an investment basis for jobs in this country.But I want to come back to housing. If you get a housing programme going it does two things. Firstly it gets people into homes of their own. That used to be a National Party principle—the property-owning democracy. Now you cannot do it. The speculators will own 50 houses and the young families will not get a chance for a home of their own. Labour is talking about KiwiBuild setting up a fund funded by homeownership bonds rolled over that would allow us to create 10000 houses a year with all of the jobs and all of the skills training that that involves and the opportunity for people to own their own homes. Labour would put a warrant of fitness on rental housing.The Government comes out with its insulation policy. I can get cheap insulation for my house on my income but most of the low-income families in our country live in flats. The lowest take-up for insulating homes was from rental properties. Those are the families with low wages living in cold damp and unhealthy conditions with absenteeism from work because they are sick too often and absenteeism from school because they are not well and they fall behind in their learning. Why has the Government not done something about that as a warrant of fitness for rental housing? That would really make a difference.The other thing that is obvious is lower power prices. You know the Wolak report said that the power companies were making a killing out of power prices. They were gouging to the extent he said of $4.2 billion. When will the National Government realise that the Bradford reforms have failed? Simon Bridges got up and said that they have not had long enough—they have not had long enough. They have had 16 years and they have failed. It is time that we actually gave some of the dividend back from the power stations that our forebears and my father-in-law helped build by giving it back to New Zealand consumers by way of cuts to the price of their electricity. What difference would it make to a low-income family to have their power bill cut by $300 a year? A huge amount of difference and we will do it.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Under the National Government New Zealand is on the right track. This Government is doing exactly what we said we would do and we are delivering in areas that matter to New Zealanders. This Budget is a Budget that delivers for New Zealanders.After-tax wages have risen by 22 percent since September 2008 when we became the Government. Economic growth rose by 3 percent last year. That is a significant rise against a global financial crisis where other countries around the world are literally floundering. Here in New Zealand we achieved 3 percent growth in the last financial year forecasting around 2.5 percent in difficult economic times. The cost of living in New Zealand has experienced the lowest rises since 1999 and mortgage interest rates are the lowest since 1965. The New Zealand economy is in good shape under Bill English and John Key.This Government has got four priorities for our economy: responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more competitive and a more productive economy delivering better public services and arguably to a South Island member of Parliament the fourth imperative is rebuilding Christchurch. I want to spend a bit of time talking about that but first of all I want to put some stakes in the ground refuting some of the rather unwise comments made by some members across the House. Clare Curran that luminary from Dunedin said that there are no jobs in the regions. Well come on. That kind of language might work in South Dunedin but this is Parliament. This is where we want to have some reasoned debate and I am going to tell thatmember exactly why comments like that do not help her cause and do not help her party’s cause.Under the Better Public Services initiative the Ministerial Committee on Poverty has endorsed a number of important initiatives to help low-income families. Those include $100 million over 3 years for the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart healthy homes programme. That programme targets low-income households particularly those with children with health needs for home insulation. What did Labour do in the 9 years it was in power? Phil Goff just spent 8 of his 10 minutes taking credit for the state that the New Zealand economy is in in 2013. Well the news is Phil Goff that those guys went out of Government 5 years ago. You cannot keep taking credit for stuff you did way back in history. That is so last century.This Government has put more than $21 million aside over the next 4 years for rheumatic fever prevention. That is significant for the health and welfare of our children. There is an extra $1.5 million for budgeting services in 2013-14 in addition it has to be said to the $8.9 million that was provided for in the previous financial year. This next one is good. There is a whiteware procurement programme that will enable people on benefits to purchase new appliances under warranty using repayable Ministry of Social Development payments. That is a significant help. It is just a small portion of the Budget but it is a significant help to low-income families and people on benefit.The trial on Housing New Zealand properties for a warrant of fitness programme for rental housing—where was Labour? Where was Labour in its 9 years of surplus that it keeps talking about? Where was Labour in helping low-income families? Where were those members with the insulation programme? They were absolutely nowhere. Labour was content for low-income households to live in cold damp social housing and what did it do about it? It did nothing.I want to go on to some welfare measures. There will be $188 million over the next 4 years for the next stage of welfare reform to help more New Zealanders off benefit and into work. Of course this follows a $287 million investment in last year’s Budget so it is increases year on year. You see Labour members are yelling because they do not actually care about this stuff. What they care about is going back to the glory days—they think—of the 9 years under Helen Clark when they squandered the economic opportunities they had. They do not actually care about the fact that here is a Government that is providing assistance to low-income New Zealanders and providing assistance to people on a benefit and that has a very strong focus on getting those people who are on a benefit off that benefit and into jobs.There will be 354 extra Work and Income staff to provide intensive help and support. I know from recent history in my own home town of Ōāmaru that when the Summit Wool Spinners mill closed Work and Income did a magnificent job. It rallied around those people who were made redundant from a regional response—Clare Curran: Have they got jobs?JACQUI DEAN: And I am happy to say to Clare Curran who asks “Have they got jobs?” that yes they have. Most of those people have got jobs—60 of them—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Oh she’s so disappointed.JACQUI DEAN: I know she does not like to hear it. It does not suit that member’s agenda. But I can tell that member that 60 of those workers at Summit Wool Spinners have been re-engaged by Canterbury Spinners and that a significant proportion of the other workers have found work either by themselves or through the assistance of Work and Income. That is not good news to the other side of the House because those members do not like to hear this stuff but actually Government agencies such as Work and Income are providing a magnificent job in supporting the workers back into jobs. Labour members do not like to hear it because they love shouting they love pulling thiscountry down and they love people being poor and downtrodden but when they see a Government that is actually prepared to put a stake in the ground and do something about it they simply do not like it because it does not suit their purposes.I am going to go on now to talk a little bit about health because that is something that is quite important to people obviously not only in my electorate but all over New Zealand. There will be a further $1.6 billion for new health initiatives. Again Labour members when they are not yelling have gone quiet. They do not like this initiative because it is there to actually help people.I will tell the House how this new initiative this $106 billion—I wish—this $1.6 billion is going to be allocated. Over the next 4 years there will be $70 million for aged-care and dementia services. We know that New Zealand has an ageing population. We know that it is incredibly difficult for the State to provide services and so that $70 million will go a long way particularly in the area of dementia services. There will be $35.5 million for diabetes and heart disease. We know very well that we have a problem in New Zealand with growing rates of diabetes and growing rates of heart disease. There will be $100 million in this Budget over the next 4 years to meet population changes and cost pressures in disability support services. I do hope some of that money will be allocated into my part of New Zealand. I certainly will be advocating for that to happen. There will be $48 million for more elective operations such as for hip replacements and cataracts. This is real assistance for New Zealanders. This should be celebrated across the House. This is extra cataract surgeries in south and north Dunedin. This is more hip operations in south and north Dunedin. Gosh you would think those members might be quite pleased about that.I just want to talk a little bit in my final moments about the strong focus that this Government has got on the recovery for Christchurch. There is going to be an additional $2.1 billion for Christchurch’s recovery. We know that Christchurch has been through a terrible event. We know also that the people of Christchurch are incredibly resilient and are getting on with life and rebuilding Christchurch. This Government is committed to assisting those people in Christchurch in rebuilding their lives and rebuilding the economy of the second-largest city in New Zealand and the largest city in the South Island and the tourism gateway to other parts of New Zealand such as Wānaka and Southland.I want to finish my speech with just a couple of figures. I am reading from a document from Invest Christchurch which is the Christchurch Central Development Unit. I just want to say that Canterbury is attracting business from around the rest of New Zealand. I quote from this document: “Inland Revenue data at April 2013 show a ‘positive net internal migration of business’.” and also: “Canterbury is attracting employees to job opportunities.” So I go back to Clare Curran who said—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this slightly bizarre debate. I sometimes wonder whether the listeners who are familiar with George Orwell will be weighing up whether the Budget is reallyNineteen Eighty-FourorAnimal Farm. It is a bit hard to tell which. Also I do have to comment on the attack on South Dunedin. It was quite odd to say that someone from South Dunedin can talk like this but not in Parliament implying that Parliament is the real world? I find that really odd. We all claim we are in the real world but I think South Dunedin has its feet on the ground in a way that Parliament possibly does not. Parliament despite our aspirations to be in touch with reality has a certain unreality about it and so did the Budget.The thing I want to talk about in terms of the Budget as laudable as some of the things may be is that there was a huge elephant in the room—actually a herd of elephants trampling around the room as usual standing on each other trying to find spare room because they were being ignored and trying not to gore each other in the process. There were many issues associated with poverty that were not addressed. But there was also this thing that was not mentioned called the environment—this thing that actually we all depend on for our life for everything. We cannot get food and water without it but it was not addressed in a 21st century Budget in a so-called modern country. There was no addressing of the issue of the environment.All around the world countries everywhere recognise we are facing the greatest ecological crisis that we have ever faced as a species. It is self-created which some of us are still in denial about. There was nothing. There was silence. It is very Orwellian when some people ignore the issues that are screaming out because they cannot see a way of leading with any vision to solve those issues. They think that if we continue with business as usual and just ignore them they will all go away. But they will not and they cannot and we have a responsibility to do a whole lot better than was done in the Budget with that absolute howling silence on the issues of the environment.However I want to briefly address a couple of Budget issues in this speech. One is to do with the $90 million that was spent on charter schools in the education budget and the other is the money that was set aside for the family carers and the Budget bill that pushed that through under urgency. That would have to be a lowlight in the history of the Parliament. It is perhaps one of the most disingenuous discriminatory and unbelievably cruel pieces of legislation masquerading as a Budget that was not going to assist anybody. But I will refer to that later.Starting with charter schools and the $90 million in the Budget it was a nice little sum considering that there was no mandate for it and that nobody at the last election asked for it except for the ACT Party. I am not saying they are nobodies; they are certainly not everybody but they are the only people who actually wanted it. When the evidence which is a rare word these days in education is looked at for the results globally of charter schools in terms of creating educational equity and improvement of children’s learning the very best that you can say is that the results are mixed. If you go through Stanford University and all the other research the results in the United Kingdom and the USA at the very best can only be called mixed.So why is the Budget giving money for a bunch of experiments from religious fundamentalists to people who also could use the special character provisions or the kura kaupapa provisions? What about the other groups of people who may not be religious fundamentalists who have been seduced into thinking that they will get more money and more autonomy by signing up to this latest failed fashion for the screwed-up notion that competition improves children’s learning? Competition works well in sports teams but it does not improve children’s learning. This may be news to the National Government but actually children learn through working with a supportive professional with a registered teacher with family and with each other through cooperation. Learning is a collective and collaborative experience. It is not a competition.However the reason we have got this $90 million being wasted is that the ACT-National coalition agreement says it should. It also works really well for the Government with its meme that the public education system is a failure. If a decision has been made to present a system as a failure then you really need to spend money on it and create models that you would ensure at the beginning initially at least will succeed. That is what the charter schools are all about.I think there is nobody who thinks that the education system is perfect and that it has delivered for everybody. But as to the idea that a model based on a contract where unregistered teachers and a sponsor who does not have to have an educational background is going to succeed better when the results from overseas are clear that it does not that is just not evidence-based. It is just ideological and political agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party. It certainly suits the National agenda when you look at its history with the educational system since 2008. It is not going to work but does it really matter because they have made their agreement? Well of course it does matter because those children who are going to charter schools if they are not counselled out because they cannot meet the statistics are going to be put in a very vulnerable position because the very particular version of charter schools that we are funding—and this will come up tomorrow in the House—supported by the Budget is based on some very bizarre ideas.One idea is that the schools do not have to have registered teachers. On the one hand we put a lot of effort and energy into improving the Education Review Office the Teachers Council registration processes and making sure we protect children from inappropriate behaviour in schools. On the other hand we throw up our hands and say: “Hey let’s bring in charter schools. They don’t have to abide by any of the rules just so long as they meet the contract.” That is where the business meme in education gets sicker and sicker because all it says is to “meet the contract”. If you can produce the data at the end of the day they do not care how you do it. They do not care whether the teacher is registered. They do not care how many hours the students are expected to be at school. They do not care what means are used so long as they meet the contract.There is no scrutiny that is going help. There is not going to be an overview by any external body. There is going to be a contract that will be a secret between the Ministry of Education—probably the Secretary for Education—and the contractor. This to me is Orwellian because our children are not lab rats and because the Budget is wasting precious educational dollars on something that at best is called “mixed” in terms of success.When we have got programmes that have been proven to work we should support them—for example Te Kotahitanga has been proven to work. It would be quite a good idea if instead of taking out the core element—the facilitators in schools—because they are too expensive we actually invest in those programmes and then we will start to get results such as they have at Melville High School and Kerikeri High School. If the Government does not know about those I suggest it goes and talks to those schools to find out how it is working for Māori and Pacific students. That is what we call evidence.However given my short call I will make a brief mention of the other Budget disaster that I wanted to focus on amongst the many—and I am spoilt for choice—and that is the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) that was forced through the House as part of the Budget. I think the reason it was forced through under urgency as part of the Budget is that probably very few support parties could have stomached it if it had not been. It is a unique bill. The Budget has allocated $23 million per year for 3 years for perhaps 1600 families who can be paid less than all other carers who can be paid for only 40 hours’ work a week and who basically if they are not able to get that funding and want to complain about any aspect of the Government’s new policy will be unable to do so because there is a discriminatory clause in the bill. A most extraordinary discrimination has been entrenched in the bill and it has been commented on far and wide. That is why I have called the bill the “Too Little Too Late Too Bad Shut Up Bill” because that is really what it is about.The only reason there was any money put aside for this in the Budget is that the Government had lost in every court in the land. The Government did not do it tobecome internationally recognised as people who really like to defend people. The Government did it because it could and it is wrong. Thank you.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): For all those people listening that was Catherine Delahunty. Catherine Delahunty will be the next Labour spokesperson on Treaty issues so watch this space. She will be the spokesperson for the Labour Party very soon as the Labour Party gives away another policy area to the Green Party—Dr David Clark: Expecting a change of Government?DAVID BENNETT: No I said “spokesperson” which does not mean anything more than that. We have back in the House the man who is known and will be known in his political career for yelling out one phrase. For 5 years he has yelled out one phrase. Nobody can actually remember it but he has been known for the one phrase. The “One-Phrase Bandit”—it is good to see you back and I am sure that we are going to hear you yelling out across the House for the next few months.This Budget is a good Budget. It is a great Budget for New Zealand. It is a Budget that we should be proud of and it is a Budget that the Opposition should be afraid of. This is a Budget that has gone down well on the streets of New Zealand because people know the reality of the world that we live in and they know that this is a good Budget.Holly Walker: Dipton doesn’t need it.DAVID BENNETT: It is a good Budget for New Zealand Holly Walker.Let us have a look at some of the speeches we have had today. I want to go back to Phil Goff. I thought Phil Goff made a great speech for Labour. That was the best speech to come from Labour on this debate. Phil Goff is the Kevin Rudd of the Labour Party and he should be back leading the Labour Opposition. Why is Labour not getting together and getting Phil Goff back into leadership? He was better than anyone else Labour has put up.That was a good speech from Phil Goff but it is a speech that was wrong. Phil Goff talked about some good things like the free trade agreement with China—yes very good. Nobody disputes that that has been very important for New Zealand going forward. That is not a bad thing. The New Zealand First Party will disagree but it disagrees with anything to do with trade. Phil Goff made a very good point about that but when you look at what he said he did not tell you the full facts. The full facts are that the last Labour Government put New Zealand into recession before the rest of the world. The rest of the world was pumping and New Zealand was going into recession because of the policies the last Labour Government enacted. Those policies as the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman said would have meant a $170 billion deficit for New Zealand going forward for which we would have had to borrow. If those policies had been continued in the manner they were put forward that would have been a disgrace and the destruction of the New Zealand economy.That has not happened. There has been good solid responsible fiscal management by this Government in the last 5 years.Hon Maurice Williamson: And the public knows that.DAVID BENNETT: Maurice Williamson talked about that and Maurice Williamson was right: the public know that. The public know that there was a time when we needed responsible management and that is what has been delivered. They are thankful for that and they are thankful to Bill English and the team for delivering that. That is something that the Opposition needs to be aware of. The New Zealand First Party can laugh over there but it does not even know what fiscal management is let alone working out what is responsible. That party has had no responsibility at all; it just sits there and tries to take the worst out of everything.One thing Phil Goff did talk about was the KiwiBuild programme. That was the great building programme that I think David Shearer announced at the end of last year. Thendid he not have to come back and say: “Oh no those numbers aren’t actually quite right. We can’t actually do those houses for that price. That actually wouldn’t be the reality of what would happen.”? Labour had to backtrack on the one policy it built itself upon and say that it could not actually deliver the houses. National on the other hand has worked constructively with Auckland City. We have worked together to deliver a plan that will increase the housing and the brownfields and greenfields developments in our biggest city. There is nothing wrong with having a big city in Auckland. The Opposition—the Green Party certainly does not want a big city in Auckland and the Labour Party is talking about trying to stop it.New Zealand needs a city of that size and scale to be competitive. Imagine a New Zealand that did not have a city that was equivalent to Sydney or Melbourne. If we do not have a city of that nature we cannot provide jobs and opportunities for our young people and we cannot provide the institutions of higher learning that will be at the scale and size to be competitive with other countries. If you look at the modern world the world that is coming about based in the Asian basin of the Pacific Basin there are cities like Sydney Auckland Melbourne Singapore San Francisco and Los Angeles. The size and the scale of those cities is important for the future of our country going forward. New Zealand cannot compete if we do not have an Auckland that is in that realm.Catherine Delahunty: Crime-ridden.DAVID BENNETT: We will get a city in that realm. The Green Party says it is a crime-ridden city. That is not true. Crime has gone down. Crime statistics have gone down under this Government. You look at the statistics around that. Do not make up things in this House; talk about the reality and what is truthful.Tracey Martin: Have you even seen your region? You’re sucking the life out of your region and putting everything into Auckland.DAVID BENNETT: This is New Zealand First: “… sucking the life out of our region.” When was a New Zealand First MP ever in our region to actually see what is happening? I say to that member that our region is doing very well. We are doing well off the back of Auckland’s growth off the back of our growth and our export industries and off the back of the investment that this Government has made in our region. I see a member here from Northland. People of Northland understand that this is important for their region as well because that is going to be another growth area once the plans of the National Government become a reality.This is a Budget that puts New Zealand back into surplus in 2014-15. That is crucial for New Zealanders. The other crucial thing for New Zealanders is that their interest rates remain low for as long as possible. This Government will deliver that. On the other side of the Table had the Opposition been in your interest rates would be much higher. You would have a low dollar do not get me wrong. The dollar would be at 40c if there were a Labour-Greens Government. That would be the rest of the world saying: “Your economy is in tragic downfall because you’ve got bad economic management.” The Russel Norman approach to economics would give you a 40c dollar but at the same time he would give you interest rates of 9 percent to 10 percent and at the same time he would give you a higher unemployment rate and at the same time this country would not grow.Under this National Government you have seen growth of 3 percent—growth of 3 percent which is great in this modern economy of the world where you have seen—Moana Mackey: Oh!DAVID BENNETT: A lot of Western countries are finding it very difficult to get growth. The member over there from somewhere over near Gisborne—she is a list member from over there—is arguing about that. Those are good growth rates.Compared with the rates of other Western countries such as Australia and America we are at the top of the countries that are growing in the Western World. The National Government has delivered that for New Zealanders and at a time of delivering low interest rates which are crucial for New Zealanders. That provides jobs that provides security and that provides the investment going forward.The National Government has delivered in health care and in education. The new initiatives in that area—which Jacqui Dean talked about in a very strong and positive way—are all good for New Zealanders going forward. We are rebuilding Christchurch a major city that had major destruction with the earthquake. The Labour and Green parties tend to ignore the fact that there was a world recession and they ignore the fact that Christchurch needed rebuilding. It is all right to stand up there and say what they do about delivering all these things but the reality is we had to deliver those two initiatives and we have done that.This is a good Budget for New Zealand. This is a good Budget for New Zealanders out there. People recognise and understand that. They understand that this Government and this country have had to be careful with their money—just like they have had to—to make the right choices and to work towards building a stronger country going forward. This Budget is a strong Budget which indicates and shows that strength of the New Zealand economy and this National Government. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Talofa lava. I want to thank the previous speaker David Bennett for the comedy routine that we have just had just before the dinner break. I think it will send us all off in good humour. It does seem to be my problem that I end up following that member quite often although it does provide one with quite a lot of good material including the phrase “going forward” which I counted six times during that speech. I would like to ask the member whether he truly believes he is going forward because I think that is probably not the case.David Bennett: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a point of order?David Bennett: No. I have been asked a question; I would like to respond to it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no.DARIEN FENTON: This Budget is definitely not going forward; it is definitely a going-backwards and looking-backwards Budget. I want to say in the 1 minute or the few seconds I have left before the dinner break how disappointing it is after 5 years—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DARIEN FENTON: As I was saying before the break when I had 1 minute to speak this Budget is extremely disappointing. It is disappointing. After 5 years of a National Government—5 years—and the fifth Budget of this Government the only word you can use to describe it is “disappointing”.The Government is propping up its mates at Skycity and in the big end of town. It has not lifted a finger in this Budget to help grow real sustainable well-paid decent jobs. There is nothing in this Budget for those affected by the entrenched two-speed economy we have been debating today. There is nothing in this Budget for the tens of thousands of out-of-work New Zealanders. There is nothing in this Budget to give hope or support to hollowed-out regions and unaffordable cities. Our young people are out of work in large numbers and have been consigned to youth wages and they are expected under this Government to be grateful to be paid a pittance.After five Budgets of this Government incomes and wealth are ever more concentrated in the hands of a few. Chief executive officers these days are paid sickeningly huge salaries that are on average 35 times the size of a median Kiwi wage. There is something wrong with that. Today the top 20 percent of the population earns five times as much as the bottom 20 percent and yet two in five seriously deprived children have working parents on inadequate incomes. So this is not just about people out of work; it is about people who are working who are not earning a decent living.Even this Government has finally admitted that child poverty is a problem. It has started to talk about it today and about dealing with some of the symptoms. But what was interesting was when John Key admitted that the food in schools programme would be here to stay meaning that he expects that the high levels of child poverty that we have today are going to become a permanent feature of New Zealand society at least under the National Government.Inequality in New Zealand has worsened. That started with National’s tax cuts for the rich in its very first Budget. It had the cheek after holding a Job Summit—remember the Job Summit; it went nowhere—in its first Budget to give 40 percent of its income tax cuts to the top 10 percent of income earners. The ongoing refusal of National to address the gaping hole in our tax structures—the lack of a capital gains tax—is just making it worse.Hard-working New Zealanders who are struggling who are doing their best to find work to upskill will be disappointed in this fifth Budget of the National Government. There is nothing in this Budget for families who have to work two jobs and still cannot make ends meet. There is nothing in this Budget for out-of-work New Zealanders who are desperate to get a job. And it breaks promises—again. At the last election John Key promised New Zealanders that his Building a Brighter Future plan would create 170000 new jobs over 4 years. That sounded great. That sounded great but National promises and promises and in fact it makes the same promise over and over again.The first time we heard it was in Budget 2010—3 years ago. What John Key promised then was more than 170000 jobs from 2010 to 2014. Promise No. 2 in Budget 2011 was that 170000 new jobs would be created from 2010 to 2015—extending it to 5 years. Promise No. 3 in 2011 was the National Party election manifesto or election material. The National Party went out and did it again—170000 new jobs over the next 4 years. That has been promised three times but the truth is that all National can promise in this Budget is that unemployment will reduce by a pretty pitiful 15000 jobs over 4 years to 131000 people out of work. I am sure that makes them feel a lot better those people who have not got jobs but it simply is not good enough. It is cold comfort to those 146000 people around the country who are unemployed. That is 41000 more people out of work since National came to power. I call that a disgrace.Sue Moroney: It is a disgrace.DARIEN FENTON: It is a disgrace. It seems that job growth is always just around the corner. But every Budget that we see Treasury has to downgrade its forecasts. It is now predicting that National will fall 61000 jobs short of its promise.Meanwhile the jobs market is not getting any better. In May Fonterra announced 300 job losses. A leaked Air New Zealand document shows that it may cut 150 jobs and it is actually looking to contract out all of its flight attendants at the moment so it can cut wages. The Department of Conservation confirmed the job losses at 72. There are 70 jobs to go at Tait Communications and 50 at Tower Insurance. Solid Energy has 105 added to the ones that it had—another 400 last year—as a result of National’s mismanagement.In Auckland where I come from unemployment actually rose to 7.3 percent in the March quarter. In Northland it is 10 percent. In Wellington it is 6.8 percent. The only thing that is holding up the unemployment figures is the Christchurch rebuild. But it is not creating jobs. The economy under Bill English and John Key is not creating jobs other than those in the Christchurch rebuild. They have no idea about how to get the economy back on track. They are sitting by and watching as people opt out of the labour market. They are giving up—it is just too hard to find a job—or they are going off overseas.Under John Key’s brighter future it is easy to see where the money is going: special deals for Skycity and employment laws for sale to movie moguls. I want to talk about that in particular. That deal was supposed to be for the good of New Zealanders but yesterday we heard that Weta Digital is seeking to bring in 526 foreign workers. That is on top of the 369 workers it was able to employ from offshore last year. That is nearly a thousand jobs. Where is the responsibility—where is the requirement from this Government—on Weta Digital with the taxpayer-funded benefits that that industry is getting to train New Zealanders to do the work? There is not one. Weta Digital will be back next year asking for another 500 workers from overseas. There are some highly skilled jobs but there are many that New Zealanders could do without much training such as crew services accounts and publicity.The Government’s response to all of this is a dreadful Budget. It is to sell the assets and take them out of the hands and ownership of New Zealanders and to help its mates again.The last thing I would like to say is that on the North Shore where I work as a list member I have been asking questions about the number of people who have been approaching Work and Income for support to pay their power and gas bills. The House would be surprised at these numbers. In Maggie Barry’s and Jonathan Coleman’s areas there are something like 487. In the Rodney District where Mark Mitchell works there are 968. That is 1455 people who have applied for help to pay their power bills yet this Government can talk only about selling assets. It has no ideas about how to make life better for New Zealanders. It has no idea about how to get people into work to make life better for them. It is looking after its mates. This is a disgraceful Budget.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to speak on Budget 2013—an excellent Budget. We have just heard Darien Fenton saying she was a little disappointed with it. Well we have growth at 3 percent unemployment at 6.2 percent and coming down inflation at 0.9 percent and balancing the books by 2014-15—this is the envy of the OECD. This was a fantastic Budget and it certainly shows what a lack of insight that member Darien Fenton has because this is a great achievement. It is a great achievement because of the extraordinary level of prudential financial management to get it through. It is a great achievement because of the history of the global financial crisis along with the other misfortunes New Zealand suffered: the earthquakes the droughts and the various other factors that have been of concern. And it is a great achievement given that under Labour’s spending trajectory nothing like this would have ever happened. If we look at Labour’s spending trajectory if we look at the absolute financial mismanagement through those 9 long years we see that net debt would have exceeded 60 percent of GDP by the early 2020s—60 percent of GDP by the early 2020s. But under the excellent management of National and the Minister of Finance Bill English we are going to have net debt peaking at 28.7 percent of GDP and by 2021 it will have fallen to 17.6 percent of GDP.It is absolutely frightening to contemplate what a Labour-Green coalition would do. I was reading theNational Business Review just the other day and it was commentingabout what that former Tasmanian Marxist Russel Norman would do. What would he do? He would print money. And what would be the result of that? Up would go interest rates up would go inflation and that would hurt every single small business across the face of New Zealand as well as every single individual. And who is donkey deep with Russel Norman? None other than the Labour Party—none other than the Labour Party.I want to talk on two important trends. These relate to health and to science and innovation research and development. Under National both are tracking absolutely in the right direction. Under Labour sadly both tracked in the wrong direction. Under Labour during those 9 long unfortunate years health spending rose 7.2 percent year after year after year: $6 billion in 2000 to $12 billion in 2008. But the problem was that productivity declined—productivity absolutely declined. This was absolutely simply unsustainable and the fact is that if we had gone on in that spending trajectory health as core Crown spending would have been 60 percent of core Crown spending. Even Ian Powell of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists a well-known lefty made the point only the other day that Labour was absolutely hopeless operationally—absolutely hopeless. All one has to do is look at the latestNew Zealand Doctor magazine to see that. But it is important to realise that between 1950 and 2012 health spending has actually gone up 442 percent with the biggest incline between 2000 and 2008—absolutely the fact. Per capita GDP has gone up during that time by 142 percent—totally unsustainable under Labour. But under the excellent National Government since 2009 the rate of increase of health spending has lowered.But the big difference between National and Labour is that under National productivity has increased outcomes have increased and there has been spectacular success with the health targets—spectacular success. Let us have a look at immunisation. Under Labour in 2007 only 67 percent of 2-year-olds were immunised. That was Third World. Today it is 95 percent—95 percent of 2-year-olds are fully immunised. In 2007 under Labour the cancer waiting lists took months. People were going to Australia after waiting 2 or 3 months in New Zealand. Families were totally suffering. This was under Labour in 2007. Today 100 percent of people needing radiotherapy are treated within 4 weeks. That is best world practice. That is best world practice gold standard treatment. That is absolutely fantastic and of course elective surgery spending has increased by $35 million per year since 2008.But let us have a look at the achievements in science research and development which is obviously a very vital lever to economic growth. Under Labour both public and private investment in science research and development as a percentage of GDP remained static. Under National public investment in science research and development has increased 7 percent per year—7 percent per year—over the last 4 years. National has chosen to invest in a carefully designed grant system which has palpably increased private investment in research and development from a low under Labour of 0.35 percent of GDP up to about 0.6 percent already and heading towards an aspirational 1 percent. This compares with Labour which was hell-bent on putting in a tax credit of 300 million bucks a year which would be well known right throughout the world to be rorted. This clearly was totally the opposite direction.I do now want just for a moment to speak about the public health services which have received the largest increase of funding in the Budget. The National Government despite the global economic recession has focused on increased investment in health in education and in science research and development over the last 5 years. This is in sharp contrast to many European countries. But Budget 2013 is making available $1.6 billion more for health over the next 4 years $250 million for the district health boards year in year out over the next 4 years and new funding on average is $352 million per year.I just want to end by saying how pleased I am about the $4.3 million to improve care and men’s awareness of prostate cancer. The Health Committee carried out an inquiry into early detection and treatment of prostate cancer in 2011-12 and I want to specifically congratulate Professor Nacey and his colleagues who were in the Prostate Cancer Taskforce and who worked so well. For years nothing was done and there was huge confusion about this cancer which affects 3000 men per year in New Zealand but National has taken up the inquiry and has put it into action and we now have a quality improvement programme relating to the early detection and treatment of prostate cancer in New Zealand. This is a very positive thing. This is a very positive Budget.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise from the cross benches—from the moderate sensible middle ground it could be said—on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in this Budget debate and to take a call on Vote Police. It is with some sense of déjà vu that I rise. Looking back at my speech to the House in August of last year I find that very little has changed in terms of the lack of proper regard accorded to the police by this inadequate Government and this inadequate Budget. The bottom line for the New Zealand Police in this Budget is that there has been a cut of almost $36 million from the previous year’s appropriation—$35799000 to be precise. The Government can spin that any way it likes but a cut is a cut. A reduction is a reduction—$36 million give or take off the budget from one year to the next represents an actual net fiscal loss. This is a mathematical reality which is impossible to fudge. The police have $36 million less to work with this year than it had last year.In these times of rising crime when we should be spending more on the police and not less the Government is cutting the budget. In these days when more and more experienced police officers are leaving the force are becoming disillusioned with the job of policing in New Zealand and are jumping the Ditch to Australia in droves to work as police officers across the Tasman where pay rates are realistic and resourcing is actually adequate the Government is cutting the budget.This Government has fallen into a trap. It has fallen into the classic trap of believing its own propaganda. This Government has been telling us for so long now—it has told us so often and for so long—that crime rates are falling that it has actually begun to believe that this is so. But it is not so. Crime rates are rising. Crime is increasing steadily as it always does when fundamental mismanagement of the economy results in lean times and hardship for many ordinary people. Ordinary people turn to crime and regular criminals get worse. People stop reporting crime—ordinary people stop reporting crimes because they know nothing will be done about them. The police do not have sufficient resources to investigate and everybody knows it—the people know it the victims of crime know it the crims know it and so do the police themselves. The regular cops on the beat who day by day are becoming frustrated to the point of leaving for Australia know it too and the Government is cutting the budget. In the face of all this this Government is cutting the budget—$36 million from the bottom line. Why? Has it forgotten? Is this Government so out of touch with reality that it does not remember or never knew why policing is important and why it is that people need to be protected?Someone sent me an anecdote just this morning. Someone sent me a story that illustrates this very subject very well. It purports to be from Psychology 101 or somebody’s interpretation of it. At any rate if you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage you hang a banana on a string from the top and then place a set of stairs under the banana before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs you spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes an attempt at climbing towards the banana with the same result—all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now you put the cold water away. Then you remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock all the other monkeys beat him up. After another attempt at the banana he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted. Next remove another one of the original five monkeys replacing it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Then you replace a third original monkey with a new one followed by a fourth then a fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked. Most of the monkeys who are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs; neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. Finally having replaced all of the original monkeys none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water; nevertheless none of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana. Why one might ask. Because in their minds that is the way it has always been.That is how Government operates and it is why from time to time all of the monkeys need to be replaced at the same time. Perhaps that is what is wrong with this Government. I am not suggesting for one minute that the members of the Government are monkeys not even in jest—not even in jest. It is a metaphor; that is all. This is a serious matter. Some time in the not too distant past this National Party which forms this Government abandoned its roots and took to promoting neo-liberal economic ideology. Since then members have come and gone members have joined and resigned—they have been a part of that party and then left again. Today as a result there are too few members of the Government who remember being sprayed with cold water. There are too few within the Government’s ranks who remember the cold water of the electorates’ backlash and who remember the beatings given to the National Party in 1999 and 2002. Too many of the Government’s members have forgotten why they are supposed to be there or perhaps they never knew. Too many of them appear to have no understanding of what it is that the Government is supposed to do.As Abraham Lincoln put it: “The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.” This National Government appears to have forgotten that fact or perhaps too many of its members never knew it. It is a fact that society needs to be safe that people need to be safe. It is a fact that the people the citizens of society have a right to be protected from the actions of criminals. They have a right to expect that they will be protected and their families and property will be protected and for that to happen the police need to be properly resourced. We need to have enough police officers and we need them to be out in the streets and out on patrol. We do not need fewer police. We do not need them to be stuck in back offices doing paperwork because the support budgets have been cut. We need more police out on the beat more police who are actually available to investigate burglaries of property crimes.We need more police on checkpoints breath-testing drunk-drivers before they crash before they kill and maim innocent people. We do not need fewer cops and fewer cars because the operation’s budget has been slashed. It is not good enough for this Government to hide behind the excuse that less is being spent this year because some new police stations were built last year and we do not need any more of them. That is a red herring and a disingenuous explanation. It is not good enough for them to hide behind that excuse when we still have too many unsolved burglaries and too many drunk-drivers on the roads and too many cops being assaulted and beaten and shot at and stabbed. Too many good cops are giving up in frustration and leaving for Australiawhen we still have under-manning and sole-charge rural stations and people not reporting crime because they know that it will never be investigated.It is not good enough that this Government is cutting money from the police budget when it should be being increased. Perhaps it is time to replace all the members of the Government at the same time just like the monkeys in the cage. Perhaps it is time to replace them with a New Zealand First Government which will accord the police the recognition and resourcing that it requires and that we all deserve. This is a dreadful Budget and the reduction in Vote Police is as incomprehensible as it is irresponsible. New Zealand First condemns this Budget and we urge the House to do the same. Thank you.Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I think it is appropriate that I stand up and take a call on the Budget considering that it is within Vote Social Development and I am responsible for more than a third of all Government spending.Vote Social Development is spending a total of $22.23 billion on social support and services for New Zealand over the 2013-14 year. This broadly maintains the same funding from the previous year although there is an increase of about 3 percent. There have been some key movements. We are certainly seeing an increase in superannuation as we see the results of keeping it at 66 percent and the need for those who are older.Just to run through some of those bigger numbers so that people have got them we are spending about $8 billion a year on benefits—on welfare for the working-age population. It is broken down into many aspects but we now spend about $1.2 billion—and rising as we said to about $1.3 billion—just on accommodation supplements. About 40 percent of that goes to those who are on benefits but actually a lot more goes to those who are on lower incomes and it is a way that we support people who are struggling in some areas and cannot afford to pay their rent and their mortgages. If you take the overall spend and include income-related rents this Government over the next year will spend around $1.9 billion on accommodation supplements and income-related rents for those who are as I say on lower incomes and/or benefits which do seem to come hand in hand.We are investing another $188.6 million in welfare reform. I would like to go into that in a bit more detail than perhaps we have done in the past but I am going to come back to it because I want to stick to some of the stuff that we have announced that gets overlooked pretty quickly.The Confidential Listening and Assistance Service—we get the Department of Internal Affairs to administer the funding for it—is really important for those who have suffered historical abuse. It was actually started under the Labour Government in 2008 and we have stuck with it and have now extended that funding for another 2 years. It is for those people who quite frankly certainly have the most horrific stories that I have ever heard. You can see that path that they have been on. What the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service does is give them a place to express that and actually it is a really important part of their healing. Many will tell you that it is the first time they have been listened to and believed and have actually felt that they have had the State listening which is the way that it happens. The service is also able to wrap support around them.In line with that we have also put substantial money into addressing historical grievances—about $16 million additional from memory; I will find the figure as I am talking. That $16 million goes a long way to addressing historical abuse claims. The truth of the matter is that when these people go to court the State actually wins because it is too hard for those people to prove that all those years ago the abuse took place and because it is too hard to prove how much of it is from the previous hurt that led to thembeing in care and how much of it is from the horrific abuse that some suffered while in care.What we have done certainly with the leadership of me and the Attorney-General is that we have said that wherever possible we would like to err on the side of paying people out. So if it is a certain point in time they were in certain institutions and we had evidence that there was other abuse and neglect there then we would like to see these people be able to move on with their lives and wherever we can we actually pay out. From memory we have about 1000 claims. We have settled about 265 and we have another whole lot that are still in train and still working their way through. Hence we need to put more money in and need to see those people have what I think is quite minimal closure to be honest. In some respects it feels quite trivial but it makes a big difference to them and their lives.The other thing we have done is we have continued funding of $5.6 million for family violence response coordination. We have also put more into budgeting advice services and that is temporary. We already put in about $9 million a year. That is more than double the funding over the last 4 years but we see that they need some help in the interim. But that needs a complete review so we need to look at the current policy. Is it working? Are we are getting unintended consequences or the consequences that we intended; if so how is it affecting them and do we need to look at more sustainable funding options for them going forward?The other initiative of course is what we have already heard today which is food in schools. It is really positive to see it being accessible to all decile 1 to 4 schools for 5 days a week—Weet-Bix and milk which will make a big difference I think. A lot is being said today about whose fault it is and why these kids are hungry and I can stand here and pontificate for a long time on what the causes might be and why that is but at the end of the day any member who stands in a classroom and sees hungry kids who are fidgeting unable to learn and unable to get that kind of support to get that little brain switched on will see that it makes sense that we are stepping up and expanding a programme that is already there.We have also talked about KidsCan. I think it is important that we are more than tripling its funding. We give $150000 now; we are actually going to $500000 a year over the next 3 years. That funding goes towards those other items. One that I thought was really important as a mum myself is around lice treatment. Lice can be really hard to get rid of at times and it can be very expensive to purchase those treatments and keep up with them. So seeing that treatment come through from KidsCan and seeing that it is able to step in do those sorts of services I think makes a big difference.The other thing I want to touch on is microfinance and whiteware. There was a bit of derogatory from the Opposition when we said that we were going to look at a procurement model for whiteware where the truth of the matter is that we spend nearly $11 million a year in giving special-needs grants to those on benefits. They actually pay it back so it is a loan. Effectively what is happening far far too often for my liking and for the liking of those who work with these people is that they buy poor-quality second-hand goods with no warranties or guarantees. The goods then break down and the people have not got the money to fix them. They go and borrow another loan and they are still paying off the one that they bought originally. It just seems to be a really hard cycle for them.What we have discovered is that the average price that they are paying is around $420 for as I say predominantly second-hand goods. I reckon we can get them a new machine at that kind of price with a warranty of 2 years that is actually installed in their home. The old machine is taken away and they actually have a much better service andit is much better that they are not having to re-borrow again and again and again. I just think it makes sense. We have seen substantial changes and alarm in previous years where I changed the procurement model for that. I think it will make a difference.Microfinance is something that I personally am particularly interested in. I think life is tough on a benefit but actually people can do it and that is made evident by the fact that 50 percent of those on welfare actually do not go for special-needs grants or additional payments. But when something goes wrong it is hard to manage. We far too often see people borrowing from loan sharks and from others and getting themselves into financial difficulty and unable to pay it back. The kinds of questions though that we need to go through over the next few months—and we want to do that in partnership with the community in partnership with banks and others—are about what sort of lending we want to do. Are we the lender of first choice or the lender of last choice? Are we looking at consolidating people’s loans from loan sharks or should we not be doing that because it almost incentivises? Are they low-interest or are they no-interest? Are we taking on the loan sharks in some respects in their own business and saying “Come and borrow from this kind of microfinance service.” or not? Those questions are what we are going to work our way through as we go through it.I want to talk about Work and Income and the changes that are happening there. There is $188.6 million new going into Work and Income. One that has not been talked about much is that $16.4 million of that is actually a work bonus. That is for people on sole parent support or people on the new supported living payment who go off their benefit and do not have work expectations so that they can retain some of their benefit over time. It is a huge transition going from benefit to work and often the pay cycles do not add up nicely. What we are saying is that your benefit will decrease by $100 a week even though you have started in a job so that you can actually have a little bit of time to manage and get yourself into that new world. We project that that will cost us $16.4 million but I think it is a good investment.What we are also doing is employing 354 new staff within Work and Income. I heard New Zealand First today saying how shocking that is and how awful it is and if the number on the unemployment benefit is going down then why do we need them? For the very reason actually that the numbers on sole parent support and those on the current invalid’s benefit now the new supported living payment are not going down at the same levels. They need intensive support that works alongside of them. We need to bring case loads down and to do that we need to be putting more staff on the front line. Forty of those staff will be going into the contact centre 100 will be in administration roles that are actually taking away a lot of that work from the front line and the others of course about 214 of them will be on the front line and making a big difference.We are also putting money into making sure that we have got money for drug testing so that we can help out with the cost there.This is a big package. I could speak far longer than 10 minutes on this as it is so significant but this is making a real difference for people on the ground and I am really proud to deliver it.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Talofa lava lau afioga Mr Speaker. E muamua ‘ona ou fa’aali atu. ‘O le vaiaso taua lenei. ‘O le vaiaso ‘e fa’ataua ai le gagana Samoa. ‘O le gagana Samoa ‘ua gagana ‘e le to’atele i totonu ‘o Aukilani. ‘Ou te fa’atalofa atu i la’u pule’aga i Te Atatū. ‘Ma tagata Samoa ‘uma i Nu’u Sila. ‘O le gagana Samoa ‘o se ‘auro ‘e fa’ataua aua le fa’alelei atili mo tupulaga i tausaga i luma. ‘E tatau ‘i le malo ‘ona pasia ni tulafono ‘e mafai ai ‘ona fa’amalosia nei fa’amoemoe. Fa’amanuia mai le Atua i le Palemene atoa. Fa’afetai lava lau Afioga Mr Speaker. Soifua.[Greetings Mr Speaker. First I must inform you this is an important week. It is the week we celebrate the Samoan language. The Samoan language is spoken by many people especially in Auckland. I greet my constituents in Te Atatū and all the Samoan people throughout New Zealand. The Samoan language is a treasure we must nurture for generations into the future. Let the Government enact laws so that these intentions can be materialised. Blessings to the whole Parliament. Thank you Mr Speaker. Blessings.]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Malo.PHIL TWYFORD: Soifua.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Fa‘afetai lava.PHIL TWYFORD: It is Samoan Language Week. Samoan is the third most spoken language in our nation. I believe that it is a treasure that we should nurture and safeguard for future generations.I am going to talk about housing in this Budget debate. This afternoon David Parker made a comment that I thought was a typically shrewd observation. He said that the announcements that the Government made around housing in the Budget were typical John Key: big enough to get a headline but not big enough to make any impact on the problem—not big enough to make a difference. I think it is absolutely plain for anybody in New Zealand today to see that we have a housing crisis particularly in certain centres like Auckland Christchurch the Bay of Plenty Queenstown and Nelson where housing affordability is at its worst. But we also have a housing stock as a nation that is so inadequate and so substandard that it is causing too many of our children to die preventable deaths from rheumatic fever from asthma and from meningococcal disease.The housing market has failed. It is in a terrible state. The consequence of that is that we have seen plummeting rates of homeownership. We used to have only a couple of decades ago one of the highest rates of homeownership in this country and we were proud of that as a nation. Homeownership is dropping rapidly and it has fallen from 75 percent across the country down to 65 percent only in the last decade. For people under 40 it has dropped down to percentages in the high 30s.There are all sorts of consequences. It is not just homeownership and the fact that a whole generation of New Zealanders today is locked out of the housing market. The dysfunction in the housing market has terrible knock-on effects for people all the way down the chain. So people who two decades ago would reasonably have expected to own their own homes are now renting. People who were renters have now been pushed to the bottom of the market and are often living in substandard private rental accommodation. There is such an inadequate number of Housing New Zealand social housing units available that people who would normally have expected to get a State house are now often homeless and are living in sleepouts in Skyline garages and—I see it every day in west Auckland—in caravan parks. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a housing crisis for our nation.The Government made two big announcements in the Budget and one of them was around the reform of social housing. Only National would spend weeks talking up the fact that its Budget was going to put people into affordable housing and then announce that one of the centrepieces of its Budget announcement was to boot out 3000 State house tenants and in the worst housing affordability crisis in living memory—in living memory. The housing shortage and affordability crisis has never been this bad yet National’s great policy centrepiece in this Budget is to boot out 3000 State house tenants. Only the National Party would do that.The Hon Nick Smith the Minister of Housing announced that the income-related rental subsidy which is currently used by Housing New Zealand is going to betransferred across to the community housing sector. Along with that he announced his plan to transfer a number of State houses to community housing non-government organisations. On the face of it it is probably not a bad idea. But in the context of the worst housing crisis in living memory in the context of terrible shortages what this Government is doing—transferring the subsidy across to the community housing sector and introducing reviewable tenancies which will create tremendous insecurity among State house tenants—is everything but the obvious thing and that is to build more State houses.I know that the National Party does not like Housing New Zealand. It has never liked it. The National Party and its predecessors have not been comfortable with the idea of State-provided social housing since the days of Richard Seddon let alone through the 1930s 1940s and 1950s. In the 1990s the National Government sold off 13000 State houses. Well it is at it again. It is at it again. It is running down Housing New Zealand. It is transferring its assets and many of its functions and powers away from the organisation. Nick Smith wants Housing New Zealand to be simply another tenancy manager competing with the community housing sector to provide this service. National is up to its old tricks. It is offloading what is a fundamental responsibility of the State and that is to provide quality income-related social housing rentals for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. All that it is doing is shuffling the deckchairs around on theTitanic. It is doing everything but the obvious thing and that is to build more social housing.The second big announcement that John Key made in the Budget was the so-called Auckland Housing Accord. There is to be legislation that would provide a legal framework for the Housing Accord that the Government has negotiated with Auckland Council and a framework that would allow the Government to do this with councils all around the country. On the face of it it is an attempt to tackle the extreme housing unaffordability problems that Auckland faces. But the problem as was made absolutely clear in question time today when David Shearer was questioning the Prime Minister is that this Government has no way of guaranteeing that a single affordable house will be built as a result of its policy. The Government has nothing to say. The Prime Minister was completely unable to give the House any kind of explanation or reassurance that any affordable houses would be built as a result of its policy. All the so-called accord does is cherry-pick a couple of aspects of the Auckland Unitary Plan—that is it brings in a supply of greenfield land into the land supply more quickly than it otherwise would have done and it fast tracks the Resource Management Act consenting for affordable housing.Those are two of a whole long list of things that are at the root of the housing affordability crisis. The Government wants us to believe that tinkering with the Resource Management Act will solve the crisis. Well it will not. It just will not cut the mustard. And it is very clear that just bringing in some more greenfield land into the system will likely result in the construction of more houses that will sell for three-quarters of a million dollars on the fringes of the city. That is not what is needed. It will not put a single Kiwi family into affordable homes.The one thing that the Government needs to do is pick up a hammer and build some affordable housing. We have a shortage. There is a supply crisis. There are not enough affordable homes. The industry has seized up. It is not building affordable homes because for the builders and the developers there is no margin in it for them. What the Government needs to do is roll up its sleeves and build affordable housing as the Labour Party will do when in Government from the end of next year with our KiwiBuild policy. We will build 10000 modern affordable starter homes every year for a decade and while we are doing that we will drive down the costs. We will use thescale of KiwiBuild to drive productivity improvements to do deals with suppliers to reform the building and construction industry to drive down the costs of the construction of new homes and to provide a lasting solution.This Government in its housing announcements basically created a charade. Nick Smith’s job as the Minister of Housing has been to convey a sense of activity that he is doing something but the Government is doing everything but what it needs to do and that is pick up a hammer and actually build some affordable houses. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson):Fa‘afetai lava.Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector):Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker and to the House as well. This evening as we debate the Budget and as we actually set out our particular views on how New Zealand is going I want to convey to the House the view of the constituents in my electorate. The constituents of Rangitata responded to the Budget in very even measure. The reports in the paper generally speaking said that this is a sensible strong Budget—a Budget that continues down a sensible path without rocking the boat because actually New Zealand has been through a very rocky couple of years.It would appear to me that the Opposition members around the House have little or no comprehension of the actual effects of the global financial crisis. If I were to comment on some of the speakers who have preceded me I would still shake my head in wonderment at the stories of monkeys and spraying cold water. The incomprehensible analogies that the New Zealand First member Richard Prosser treated the House to tonight were interspersed with stories about cuts to police budgets that bore no resemblance to the facts. In fact under this Government we have had a 5.9 percent drop in recorded crime 18 new public safety laws passed 6000 families protected by police safety orders—a personal favourite of mine because it adds an extra tool to the toolbox to protect women and children in their homes—and a record number of prisoners engaged in training. This particular foursome I am going to describe as being part of a theme of the National Government.We are not continually spending more and more and more money throwing lollies at the electorate. In fact what we as a Government are doing under the stewardship of John Key and our finance Minister is making sure that the money that the members of this House have paid in taxes and that the members of my constituency have paid in taxes is treated with the respect that that money deserves. That money deserves to be spent wisely sensibly and carefully because it does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the people of New Zealand.We have had many successes of which it appears that the member for the New Zealand First Party is unaware. We have seen crime fall by 17 percent in my own electorate. That is phenomenal. I tell you that that is about police on the beat police on the streets and smart police working with their community and getting fantastic results. This Government has introduced technology to the police so that they can do thousands and thousands more hours of police work out in the community instead of back at the office.We are a very different Government from the previous Government. As I said we do not throw money around; we try to make it work better for us. The member who spoke prior to me Phil Twyford ascribes to the old Labour doctrine that the Government solves everything the Government builds everything that needs to be built and the Government creates every job that is worthy of having. But actually guess what? Jobs created by Governments are not sustainable jobs. Jobs created by businesses that are growing are sustainable jobs. The previous Government controlled business. The previous Government wants to control the marketplace with borrow with tax and with spend and for good measure—with its partners in crime the Green Party—it is going toprint money as well. The ill-thought-out and rushed policies from the far-left bloc Labour and the Greens are transparently vote-seeking missiles. But the one thing about that is that the vote-seeking missiles are heading for heat and I tell you that the electorate is not showing it any heat. In fact the electorate indeed is cold to its ideas.Under National we are concentrating on four main themes. I am going to repeat them because New Zealanders are coming to understand that this truly is what is important to New Zealand. We are responsibly managing the Government’s finances and I have given examples already. A more competitive and productive economy grows jobs in the economy. We have had the global financial crisis and that crisis has in fact dampened much of New Zealand. But we are no longer on that path to destruction that we were on under a Labour Government where we had at least 10 years of deficits and were looking at a horrendous debt for the children who follow me and the members of this House.In delivering Better Public Services we are looking at fine-tuning and addressing all of the money we spend and making sure that we get a very good deal with it. When it comes to rebuilding Christchurch our second-largest city—in fact the largest city in the South Island and so close to my home electorate—we are completely committed to that. There is a lot of job growth happening in Christchurch but from my own personal perspective I am disturbed that the job growth is happening mainly for men. So the work that I am doing with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is to zero in on finding more jobs and encouraging women into non-traditional trades and into some of the jobs that the rebuild is creating.I now want to spend a little bit of time talking about the health budget and what the health budget is actually doing for New Zealanders. There has been a huge change in the health sector. The huge change I can put down I think to a couple of things. First of all the health Minister’s “Better sooner more convenient care” theme which is now right across the health sector. But also part of that is actually about involving clinicians in the decisions. What we have seen as a result of that is a phenomenal impact on what is actually being achieved within the health sector. We have been delivering the sort of health care that matters most to New Zealanders and at the same time New Zealanders have responded by becoming more and more secure in their knowledge that the health sector works for them. This year there are 35000 more elective surgeries than there were in 2008 and there are free visits to the doctor for under-sixes day or night. Immunisation is indeed one of my favourites as it was Dr Hutchison’s in that 93 percent of 2-year-olds are fully immunised up from 74 percent back in 2008. Actually it is not so long ago under the previous Government that it was 67 percent. There are 1000 more doctors and 2000 more nurses but even more important is that we have 45000 children at nearly 200 schools taking part in the rheumatic fever prevention programme. Rheumatic fever was apparently a priority under the previous Government. It is just that nothing happened during that time.In New Zealand these days if a patient is going to receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy then they get it in New Zealand. Far gone are the days when they travelled to Australia more often than we cared to admit. There are 56000 more Well Child checks and 24/7 funding for PlunketLine. When I talked to Plunket in my electorate recently it asked me what it could do better and I said that whenever anyone talks to me about Plunket I never get any complaints; the only time I ever hear anything at a public meeting is when someone says: “Can we have more of Plunket?”. So it is absolutely delighted that this Government funded PlunketLine 24/7. I believe that it was Helen Clark who cut it. There are 56000 more Well Child checks.Then we also have the amazing turn-round where no longer do we have beds in corridors in emergency departments. Sometimes patients were on those beds—on thosetrolleys really—for days at a time. Now we have 93 percent of patients in emergency departments seen treated or discharged within 6 hours. But this Budget brought more—$14.7 billion in total health spending. That is up. There is $1.6 billion extra for new initiatives and to meet population pressures. There is $70 million for aged-care and dementia services and even more money $48 million more for elective operations. We are concentrating on the non-surgical aspects as well with more money $35.5 million for heart disease and diabetes checks. Then I note the screening service which is my own particular responsibility. There is an extra $25 million for preventive screening services such as breast cancer screening.This Government is doing its level best to use the New Zealand public’s taxpayer funds to the very very best effect and New Zealanders are not missing out. Today’s announcements for vulnerable children and the money we are spending on vulnerable families mean that this Government and this Budget is entirely for all New Zealanders not just some. Thank you.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe. Malo le soifua. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa. I would like to acknowledge that it is Samoan Language Week which is particularly relevant for me and my electorate of Manurewa where 32 percent of my community is Pacific and 28 percent is Māori. But within the context of those school-age children 75 percent are Māori-Pacific.Like my colleague Phil Twyford I want to talk about housing and the relationship between housing and health and how it relates to the educational outcomes of our children. I would like to begin with a quote from Gandhi actually which is: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” Why is it relevant? Well it is relevant to my electorate when I look at some statistics. I have been readingMore Than Churches Rugby & Festivals: A Report on the State of Pasifika People in New Zealand which was produced by Ronji Tanielu and Alan Johnson from the Salvation Army. It makes very interesting reading because what it says—and I want to reiterate some of the statistics that Phil talked about—is that 67 percent of New Zealanders own their own home. In my electorate of Manurewa it is less than 50 percent. What is relevant is that 37 percent of Pacific people own their own home. There is a huge disparity if we look at the general population and who owns their homes and then the relevance I guess of that statistic to my electorate because what I do know is that 58 percent of Pacific people rent.When I think about my electorate of Manurewa I think about what a home represents. For me it represents a stable base where I can learn my language learn my culture and be fed and where for me my parents ensured that my basic needs were met. Unless we all have a stable home it is very difficult to then go out into this vast world and fulfil our potential. The relevance to my electorate actually is when I look at rates of transience. All of my schools collect data and one of the most shocking statistics that I have come across in my time as the MP for Manurewa is from Takanini School. Linda Kelly is the principal there and at one stage she had 120 percent transience. You may ask how you can have 120 percent transience. She had some children who were there—they left. They came back and they left. One child went to nine different primary schools in 1 year.What is the relevance of that? The relevance of that in terms of the electorate work I do is that we see between 120 and 140 people every month come into my electorate office and 16 percent of those people have housing problems. The people who come to my electorate office usually come because they are living in cars they are living in a garage or they have been booted out of their home because they cannot pay the power.I have a community that lives on the breadline. Because they live on the breadline having a stable home is incredibly important and as I have said if families do not have a stable home then that affects their children’s ability to learn.When I look at the housing stock across the board we have approximately 67000 Housing New Zealand houses. Under this Government’s watch that has not increased at all. The relevance to my community is that between 1996 and 2006 the population of Manurewa increased by 35 percent. If the population of Manurewa is increasing by 35 percent but the housing stocks have basically not increased at all the relevance when I look at my population is that if I look at my 29 schools—and this is an indicator of need—I have 14 decile 1 schools nine decile 2 schools and four decile 3 schools. So 27 of my 29 schools are deciles 1 2 and 3. What that means is that my community is living in poverty. My community has families that either are living off the benefit or if they are working are working in jobs that pay them the minimum wage.What is the relevance of the National Government’s policies to improving the lives of the most vulnerable members of society? As my colleague Phil Twyford said it is absolutely nothing—absolutely nothing. In fact the communities of South Auckland where predominantly Māori and Pacific people live are not better off under this Government. I have huge concerns about the provision of basic services to our community.I look at that relevance then to health and I look at the rheumatic fever statistics. We have approximately 200 people who die every year because of rheumatic fever - related illnesses—200 people. There is a report from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service and its medical officer of health Katherine Jackson. What is the relevance of that to statistics in Auckland? It is that 60 percent of the people who suffer from rheumatic fever are Pacific and 35 percent are Māori so we know this is a Māori-Pacific disease related to the quality—or lack—of housing that they have.I find this appalling. I find it appalling that the Government’s response to those statistics is to treat the symptom in one way. We are going to find out the kids who have strep A and then we will give them basic antibiotics but they will continue to live in those cold damp houses and at the end of the day unless we address the underlying cause of rheumatic fever which is the quality of the housing stock then nothing is going to change.When I look at the priorities of this Government they are not to address the needs of Māori and Pacific communities; they are to continue to have health targets where the Government can pat itself on the back because we can get elective services through and we can do a whole lot of other things that have nothing to do with preventing some of the illnesses that are disproportionately affecting Māori and Pacific people.I am on the Health Committee. One of the pieces of information that we have got before our select committee is about the provision of general practitioners midwives and obstetricians. What we do know is that the Counties Manukau District Health Board has 13.5 percent of births in New Zealand. Nearly 9000 children are born in South Auckland every year and guess what? They are mostly Māori and Pacific. How does that translate to this Government’s provision of those basic services—general practitioners midwives and obstetricians? We have 293 general practitioners in South Auckland which means if you compare it with the number of children born and the number of general practitioners there are in the country South Auckland gets 8 percent of the general practitioners that we have in New Zealand. In terms of the midwife count we get 5.3 percent of the midwives in New Zealand. In terms of obstetricians we get 4 percent of the obstetricians in New Zealand.If this Government really wants to make a difference what it would do is ensure that there was some benchmarking in terms of what the provision of general practitionersmidwives and obstetricians should be and it would also ensure that those resources those clinical resources went to communities in South Auckland. You kind of wonder why it is not going to address this issue.What this means is that our families our parents are not choosing not to take their children to a doctor and they are not choosing for them not to be immunised. The reality is that where our most vulnerable community members live those services are not provided. Where they are they are not provided to the level of need for those communities.So for me when I look at my role as an MP in a community that is high Māori and high Pacific I think about the priorities that this Government has and the priorities in electorates like mine and I think that actually it does not care because if it did care it would start to address some of these systemic problems. It would make sure that these basic resources were provided because what we do know is that every child has equal potential to be successful. If they do not have access to those basic resources then they are not going to be on a learning and development pathway so that they can be full citizens of our country. Thank you. I just want to conclude fa‘afetai. Ia manuia le Vaiaso o le Gagana Sāmoa. Kia ora.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Malo le soifua maua ma lagi e mama lau afioga le taitaile fono nei o le palmene o Niu Sila Aotearoa.[Greetings to you the Honourable Mr Speaker of the House of Representatives of Aotearoa New Zealand.]Good evening Mr Assistant Speaker. Good evening to our guests in the gallery and to all those listening across this country and watching this debate. Budget 2013 is about building momentum. Budget 2013 is about leadership it is about stewardship and it is about a vision for this country to go forward. For that I commend the Hon Bill English for bringing this Budget to the House and for bringing his steady conservative leadership to our country. It is built on the four previous Budgets of this John Key - led National Government. It is about responsibly managing the books and the accounts of this country. It is about building a competitive and productive economy and delivering better public services as well as rebuilding Christchurch.I want to just answer my friend and colleague Louisa Wall from across the aisle about access to health services before I do talk about what is pertinent within this Budget. There are many general practitioner services throughout South Auckland where she is the member of Parliament for Manurewa. They are very low-cost access practices where children by and large receive free access to health care to primary care and where the maximum amount paid is quite a low-code payment. It was a policy that was implemented by the Labour Government and it was continued by this National-led Government so I do beg to differ around the access to services not only across South Auckland but also including in my own electorate of Maungakiekie.What we inherited 5 years ago was an economy teetering on the brink of a collapse. There was forecast a decade of deficits going forward. The global financial crisis was beginning to hit. Many countries across Europe particularly were suffering quite distressing circumstances financially where high unemployment rates were the order of the day. So what this National-led Government has done by coming in and rescuing the finances of this country is we have now got to the point where we have some of the lowest interest rates in the Western hemisphere where we have the lowest inflation rate in the civil world of under 1 percent and where our economy is actually in the sort of top 12 countries in terms of economic growth.You might ask why that is important. Why is it important that growth stimulates this economy? It is because growth produces jobs. It produces jobs. As far as my constituents in Maungakiekie are concerned when I go out and door-knock and when Igo out to the markets and talk to business owners and I talk to schoolkids and residents what they are after is an economy that produces jobs for their parents where their parents are able to look after the kids feed them clothe them and get them educated and where they can enjoy the Kiwi lifestyle that many of us—many of us across this country—have become accustomed to over the years.This morning 2300000 people went to work in this country. Over 2.3 million people went to work in New Zealand this morning and that is more than at any other time in our history—any other time in our history. We know that 50000 jobs have been created over the last couple of years and it is not because of the Government by the way. All that this Government does is set a framework set an environment from which jobs can be created. Often those jobs are created by the private sector. So we have got a situation today where the unemployment rate has dipped down to 6.2 percent the household income has risen by 20 percent in the past 4 years and where superannuitants—[Interruption] Members opposite know this. Superannuitants’ real incomes have gone up by more over the last 5 years than they ever did under the Labour Government—more than ever under the Labour Government.What I want to focus on is export growth. Export growth is the key to delivering jobs in this economy. Mr Mallard knows because he was a Minister in the last Government. In the last 5 years of the last Labour Government exports contracted in 5 consecutive years under the Labour Government—in 5 consecutive years—but we know that under this Government we have grown the export sector. We have had a compound annual average of 4.6 percent over the past 4 years—4.6 percent. That is a record that we can be proud of as a National Government and it is a record that creates jobs.I have just come back from the United States where we had a trade mission. I was with some iconic Kiwi companies like Vista—Hon Trevor Mallard: Name-dropper.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —like Orion Health—and Mr Mallard knows this but he denies it. But let me talk to you about Vista. Vista is a cinema-ticketing software company. Mr Mallard knows it but Mr Jones and Mr Cosgrove were there and they have seen these companies. This company in 2008 had a revenue of $11 million and today that company now generates sales of over $38 million which is three and a half times what it was. Under the National Government under this environment—Hon Trevor Mallard: And how did they get started?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —under the framework that we have set it has more than tripled its revenue. But it gets better Mr Mallard. It gets better. Its profits have almost tripled from $3.5 million to $10 million and its employees—Mr Mallard will like this because he was formerly a Minister of Labour; he will like this—have gone from numbering 38 to 175 under the 5 years of this National Government. This is another success story of an export-driven company that is supported by this Government that is nurtured by this Government and that is encouraged by this National Government to expand and export goods.Orion Health—$150 million—is another company that under this Government and the conditions that we have set is really thriving in the United States of America. When we have opened up more trade routes when we have negotiated more free-trade agreements whether it is—Louisa Wall: And the relevance to the Pacific community in Samoan Language Week is?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —yes the Trans-Pacific Partnership with America and with Canada and with Japan Viet Nam and Malaysia—when those markets are opened up we can expect more export-led growth in this economy.I just want to make one more point around why this Budget is delivering for New Zealanders and it is in the area of housing. The Hon Nick Smith has brought a package of reforms to this House that addresses one of the key issues of our times and that is around housing affordability. Under the Labour Government between 1999 and 2008—Louisa Wall: 200 premature deaths every year.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —and Louisa Wall knows this. She knows this. Under those 9 years average house prices in Auckland went up by 91 percent which is two and a half times the rate they are going up under this National Government—two and a half times the rate. So what we are doing as a Government is providing land supply. We have set up an inquiry that will look at building material and construction costs and look at how productivity in the housing sector could be improved. The Productivity Commission in its report stated quite clearly Louisa Wall—and you know this—that land supply was the critical issue in terms of unlocking housing affordability both in Auckland and around the country. So this reform is going to speed up consents it is going to release more land for development and it is going to put more Aucklanders into homes in the next 3 years than was ever accomplished under the Labour Government.So I return to just summarise that this Budget is again about managing finances and it is about addressing matters that really are important to New Zealanders. It is about an education system that is robust and growing. It is about a health system that can be relied upon and trusted. But most of all it is about creating jobs for families who want to look after their own who want to be independent of the State and who are confident and optimistic and give hope to those who want to get out there and produce for our country. Thank you.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): What an absolute load of rubbish we just listened to from Sam Lotu-Iiga. I tell you what that was ridiculous to hear. Let us hear some facts shall we. This Government promised 170000 new jobs. How many did it deliver? Just 8000 new jobs—just 8000—and now it has promised another 170000 jobs so I guess we can expect another very little from this Government. It might be all well and good for that member to sit there and say that this is the Government’s priority. It is clearly not. Do you know what this Government is? This is a Government of the 2 percent for the 2 percent—of the 2 percent for the 2 percent. We saw that set out very clearly in this Government’s Budget through all of not just its social policy spending which I want to talk about shortly but its general priorities.I think it was obvious when Bill English in the lead-up to the Budget release said that there is no solution to child poverty. That is what he said—that there is no solution to child poverty. That is a typical attitude of this Government that if you do not bother to find out whether something exists then you do not have to worry about trying to fix it. “There’s no solution to child poverty.” says Bill English and that is clearly what the Government believes. If you look at its Budget and certainly if you look at the Government response to the Children’s Commissioner’s report it is obvious that the Government has no intention either of understanding the scale of the problem or of addressing it.I have to say it was quite a shock to see the Government’s response to the Children’s Commissioner’s reportSolutions to Child Poverty in New Zealand. This report came out late last year. It was worked on by a significant number of New Zealanders with a very high level of expertise on the broad range of issues to do with child poverty including tax issues income and housing. It is a very significant report and it has many many recommendations that provide the solutions to child poverty. Well what do we have? A thin meagre little response from the so-called Ministerial Committee on Poverty that was set up in Government which has done virtually nothing. It is a tiny little meagrereport that provides no real solutions. Do you know what? The Children’s Commissioner’s report said: “Government you are failing our kids. Government you are not doing enough to make sure that our kids are protected from the worst ravages of poverty and that’s why we have a quarter of a million children living in severe poverty. So Government here are some solutions that you can take on board to fix the problem.” The report says that the response from Government is simply to set out all the things it has been doing. The Government’s response is: “Well we did all these things.” Yes we know and we were told very clearly that they have failed.But there are no new solutions in this meagre meagre response. We saw how this was reflected in the Budget. Today we had the food in schools announcement and I will come back to that in a moment. But what was in the Budget that really gives some clear indication? I will tell you. The sum of $5 million a year has been set aside to fund charter schools that will funnel the poorest and most vulnerable kids into schools where there are unqualified teachers who can teach any kind of curriculum any kind of crazy curriculum that they want and subject those kids to that experiment. The sum of $5 million a year is a lot of money. What do the kids who need food in schools the kids who go to school hungry get from this Government? Do you think they get $5 million a year? Do you think they get $4 million a year? Maybe $3 million a year maybe half of that budget? No there is not even $2 million a year from this miserly mean Government which simply did it just because it knows that there is public pressure on the Government to do something about food in schools.It would still rather give money away to private enterprise to privatise the public education system and subject vulnerable kids to unqualified teachers and an unformed curriculum and spend much more money on doing that. Do you know what else the Government will spend money on? Wanganui Collegiate School alone gets $3 million a year. This Government was very happy to integrate that school and to provide it with even more money. This is a private school that costs a great deal to attend and it is for the very elite. They get $3 million a year. What about the hundreds of thousands of kids who go to school hungry? Nope they do not get even that. Therein lies this Government’s priorities. It will give money to private enterprise it will give money to private schools but when it comes to the kids who really need support well they will not get anything. They get hardly anything under this Government. They get just the meagre crumbs from the table that John Key and the Skycity executives were dining at when they did a $400 million deal—a $400 million deal that will be paid for off the back of problem gambling and human misery.We know whom this Government is standing up for. We know that it has got people whom it really wants to support communities that it believes are very important and it will be here to protect them. Who are they? They are the miserable 2 percent a tiny proportion of our community when the majority of New Zealanders are suffering real hardship. It is not just the poor not just the very poor. We are talking about the middle classes here. We are talking about people who have formed the backbone of New Zealand’s economy the backbone of New Zealand’s community who have relied for generations on quality public services to help provide them and their children with the ability to step up to a better economic situation to greater wealth and greater stability. But this Government is degrading the status of the middle classes and at the same time it is forcing vulnerable and poorer families into even worse difficulty and then providing the maximum that it can get away with to the top 2 percent.Why do we not just have a look again at this Government’s response because one of the issues that has been really huge for all communities around the country including the middle classes of course is housing and homeownership. There is a wide variety of issues around housing including the provision of affordable housing. The Green Partyhas produced the Home for Life programme which is specifically designed to provide support for young families to be able to own their own home through a progressive ownership system like the old family benefit system that we used to have in the old days so that these young families can get a real step up. We also provide in that programme a warrant of fitness for rental homes so that those families who are trapped in the private rental market will at least know that the homes they rent will be warm and dry. These were all provisions and ideas that were provided in the solutions to child poverty report particularly the warrant of fitness that is provided in the report.Do we want to have a look at what the Government has said about housing in its response what the Government has written? It is worthwhile noting that solutions to child poverty report from the Children’s Commissioner comes with a 73-page working paper of analysis evidence ideas and recommendations—73 pages on housing alone sit behind this report. Do you want to know what the Government’s response is? Its response to this report is a whole two paragraphs that it has written on safe and healthy homes compared with a 75-page report from experts in New Zealand about how to provide solutions to child poverty through housing. Do you know what is in that report what they talk about? The only thing the Government talks about in the entirety of this proposal—this response to child poverty—on housing is the home insulation programme. That is it. That is all it has got. The fact is that it has a home insulation scheme that was driven by the Green Party led by the Green Party and built by the Green Party for a number of years now. The only reason that that home insulation scheme is still in this year’s Budget is that we have been pestering and pestering this Government for more than a year in order to get it.Hon Trevor Mallard: They’ve cut the money in half.METIRIA TUREI: That is right Mr Mallard. Mr Mallard is quite right. This Government cut that fund—not just in half Mr Mallard but by two-thirds. The Government cut it by two-thirds because it did not want it. This Government did not want to insulate New Zealanders’ homes. It does not want to insulate New Zealanders’ homes and it does not want to feed kids in school either so it will do the barest minimum that it thinks it can get away with.Hon Trevor Mallard: They want higher power prices. That’s why.METIRIA TUREI: Absolutely Mr Mallard. This Government wants higher power prices. It wants kids living in cold damp homes and it wants them to go hungry. The evidence for that is in this Budget and it is in this response to this critical report on solutions to child poverty. There are two measly pages on housing and only about the Green Party’s home insulation fund. We are absolutely proud of that fund. We know that it will work for people and for children. We wanted it to be much stronger and much bigger than it is and we are deeply disappointed that this Government has been so meagre in its approach. But we also know that like the food in schools programme and like home insulation the evidence proves itself. The public are out there campaigning for it. They want it they know that it works and they are putting pressure on this Government to make changes. I want to acknowledge that people power. I want to acknowledge all of those communities—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but her time has expired.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the “miserable miserly” National Government. This is the Government that—contrary to “Miss Glossy” over there who has a very fast way with the facts—has spent $100 million in Budget 2013 to insulate a further 46000 homes. We are so miserly that we are spending $21.3 million to reduce rheumatic fever in children so miserly that we are spending $189 million on welfare reform and on providing more front-line staff—donot go away; you come here and listen to the truth. We are spending money on health care you can rely on—$14.7 billion in total in this Budget. We are spending $1.6 billion in Budget 2013 for new initiatives so as to meet population pressure. We are such a miserly Government that we are spending a total of $12.4 billion on education in 2013-14. We are spending $173 million in early childhood education. We are so miserly we are spending $215 million to help improve our schools and to ensure kids get the basic qualifications they need! We are spending $130 million on tertiary education. Really miserly are we not!I would say to Louisa Wall that an individual’s present circumstances do not determine where they can go; they merely determine where they start. I am a sailor a sport I enjoy and I know that it is always possible to reach your target by simply trimming your sails to the wind. That is why I believe this to be a damn good Budget. It offers the lowest inflation since 1999 it offered 3 percent growth last year our mortgage rates are the lowest in 50 years and our after-tax wages are up 22 percent since 2008. Our communities know that and that is reflected in the most recent political polls that I have noticed over the last few days. People know—contrary to what was said by Green speaker Metiria Turei—that 50000 more jobs now exist in the economy than were in place 2 years ago. This economy is being responsibly managed. The Government is going to have its finances back in order by 2014-15.Our objective and this Budget’s objective is to have a more productive and competitive economy. This fifth National Budget shows the Government’s books are in good shape because the Government chose sound fiscal and economic policies and is sticking to them. That is why the National Government had such a good turnout last week in Dannevirke when the Prime Minister came to meet the Chamber of Commerce and to visit industries like Metalform (Dannevirke); to view the old freezing works at Ōringi which is running really well; and to observe how Norsewear had morphed itself into the Kiwi Sock Company and is now employing 17 people as against nine people when the policies of the Labour Government tipped that company off the edge.Budget 2013 forecasts an operating surplus before gains and losses of about $75 million in 2014-15—a very sharp contrast to the sort of outcome that we would get from a Green Government that printed money or a Labour Government with a capital gains tax. New Zealand needs to pay its way in the world through increased trade and investment if we are to create jobs and opportunities for hard-working Kiwis stretching in my electorate from Pirinoa in the south to Dannevirke and Ōtāne in the north.Under our Business Growth Agenda the Government will lift exports by 40 percent of GDP by 2025. This target is an important part of our plan to build a more competitive and productive economy. Budget 2013 builds on the Business Growth Agenda by investing and growing New Zealand exports and boosting our overseas profile and international competitiveness through a $100 million—or $400 million over 4 years—internationally focused growth package. This is not something a miserly Government would do. The new spending will be invested in extra research and development assistance to businesses and supporting new start-ups—about $106 million over 4 years. We are going to invest in public science—about $93 million over 4 years.We are going to provide additional funding for high-value tourism—$38 million in 2013-14 increasing to $40 million a year from 2014-15 when our economy will be back in surplus. There are more resources for marketing New Zealand to international students—$40 million over 4 years. That is a market that already contributes more than $2 billion to our economy each year. For the marketing of New Zealand under the New Zealand Story there will be $2 million in 2013-14. These are not the actions of a miserly Government as asserted by the Greens and Labour.To meet the target of 40 percent by 2025 the value of New Zealand exports needs to double. This requires nominal export growth of between about 6.7 and 7.6 percent in 2025. I believe that the productive sector as exists in the Wairarapa electorate will seriously contribute to that. Government statistics show that our nominal export of goods and services has been growing by a compound average of 4.6 percent over the last 4 years. These things are possible because of a sensible hard-working moderate Government and sensible financial policies. These things are possible despite the international headwinds which you can see in Europe where unemployment rates are up over 25 percent for example in Spain and where if you are 25 or under you are 50 to 54 percent likely to be unemployed. We are nowhere near that space because we have sensible policies.The aim of the internationally focused growth package is to help accelerate this trend over the medium term and in particular to build on the opportunities that exist in China India Burma South Asia Latin America and also the Middle East. Along with its mates the Greens Labour is promoting policy ideas that would stunt New Zealand’s growth. I listen to that regularly at Finance and Expenditure Committee meetings where I hear Mr Cunliffe talking about the introduction of his capital gains tax. On top of that it is opposed to all initiatives that would create growth in jobs and boost incomes.I think that Labour is the anti-growth party. It wants to bring in a capital gains tax on every business and on every farm in my electorate. The Greens want to print money to lower the dollar to force households to pay an extra $500 a year under an emissions trading scheme and to borrow more and spend more. In the view of the Labour Party and the Green Party this stuff money grows on trees. I think that in their rush to appeal to the political left—those who have just left the gallery—they are ignoring the economic impact of their ideas.Labour’s latest plan—Mr Mallard’s latest plan—on electricity is playing politics with the value of New Zealand’s economic assets and the Opposition does not care whom it affects. Even Mr Damien O’Connor from the West Coast electorate can see the stupidity of Labour policies as Nick Smith pointed out in the House this afternoon. Labour clearly has not thought through the consequences of discouraging investment and savings both for KiwiSavers and for the jobs for all policy that pretty much everyone agrees will not work. I think that our policies are very good. I think the Budget is outstanding. I look forward to this country and the economy moving forward and people getting into a much better space over the next 5 years of this Government. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): It is great to have an opportunity to take a call in this Budget debate. It is great to have the opportunity to speak in Parliament on behalf of so many of our countrymen and women who cannot speak for themselves. Under National New Zealand is going backwards. At the last election John Key promised 170000 new jobs. It sounded great but the reality has been all too different. Here is the Minister for Economic Development wandering in for the jobs machine finally showing up in the Budget debate. He knows that the unemployment statistics are that there are 146000 people still out of work. We say to New Zealanders that we on the Opposition benches are here in this debate for you. We are here for you.What we have over there is a Government that is not governing for all the people of New Zealand. It is for the rich not the poor and arguably for the old not the young. The game that has been played here in this Budget is plain for all to see. It is a tight Budget that lacks strategy and that has zero vision. What it does have is a fig leaf of social policy like food in schools done at a trivial pathetic scale that is nothing morethan public relations spin. It is bad for New Zealanders it is bad for New Zealand it is bad social policy and it is also bad economics. It is bad because the Government and the Minister of Finance seem to be unfixably confused about what their job actually is in a Budget.Labour knows about running surpluses. We ran nine surpluses out of nine. National has not run one yet—has not run one fiscal surplus yet. It is just absolutely craving to run one. But you know what? Although we would run one too it is not the right question. The question here is not about balancing the Government’s books at the expense of New Zealanders’ books; it should be about growing the pie for the whole country about getting those New Zealanders who are out of work back in jobs and about giving hope to the 270000 New Zealand children growing up in poverty not about tokenism Minister—not tokenism.National has put all its political credentials its hope for the 2014 election on one magical number: reaching fiscal surplus. It cannot do even that right. It is a bogus surplus. It does not come within $1 billion of breaking even and here are the simple facts why. The surplus is not wafer-thin; it comes only from massaging the numbers to an extent that I have never seen in my time in Parliament because if the Government did not do that it would have to admit failure in the one goal that it set itself. For example over $1 billion more than is needed is being collected from ACC levies. Officials advised the Government to give the $1 billion back. It is keeping $700 million and giving $300 million back to New Zealanders and without that $700 million we would not be within a bull’s roar of breaking even. The Government is collecting an extra $900 million in petrol tax from people’s pockets. That is a tax increase on everyday New Zealanders who cannot afford it but without it there is no surplus.But here is the really interesting stuff. On page 30 of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update are the revenue forecasts. I have to read those as revenue spokesman for Labour. They are very interesting because in the year in which the Government is so desperate to reach surplus we see a sudden spike of $400 million in something called tax loss offsets which appear from nowhere and are never seen again—only in that 1 year when the Government thinks it is going to make a $75 million surplus. That is swamped by this magic $400 million piece of fairy dust that appears from nowhere and disappears again. Well is that the only magic in the revenue figures? I am afraid not. Employees’ compensation jumps from an increase of $500 million to $1.1 billion. Guess what! This is in the year in which the Government is desperate to make surplus. And then it tails off again. Corporate profits rise from $300 million to $1.1 billion and then drop again to only $200 million. The point is that if all of these extraordinary coincidences—these funny-money rubber numbers—did not all occur simultaneously there would be no surplus.Andrew Little: It’s boom bust.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes it is boom and bust as my colleague says. It actually belongs in the fiction section of the library. Then the next job was to go back to the estimates of appropriations for the Inland Revenue Department. As most New Zealanders will be aware the Government has committed itself to spending between $1 billion and $1.5 billion on the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system rebuild. That is very interesting. How much is in the Budget documents for the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system? Zero zip nil nada nothing. How could that be? Is it because it is capital not operating spend? No because there is no line here for the operating costs for the interest on that capital. The Government has just left it out. How could it forget to include a $1 billion liability? Here we are not talking about Peter Dunne—he is a billion and a half dollar liability. It had to add $500 million of fluxbecause it does not know whether it can get the project over the line. Because the Government could not quantify it because it was so horrific it thought it had an excuse to leave it out all together and then claim that it has a $75 million surplus. The viewers will see Ministers in the front row nattering to each other. That is a sign of extreme nervousness: people who hardly talk to each other the rivals for John Key’s job pretending to be civil because they know that what the Opposition is saying is true. They know that there is no surplus in this Budget. It is a creation of magic accounting worthy of Merrill Lynch by coincidence.Refusing to lower excessive ACC levies kicking out forecast expenditure from $1.2 billion forecast down to $1 billion even magicking another $200 million towards the surplus that does not exist—yet another condition that if they did not all occur simultaneously would not get the Government over that line. You know when the Government is really desperate when warring Ministers have to call backbenchers to the front row to make them feel better because they cannot stand the heat in the House they cannot stand the argument they cannot stand the truth. They know that they are condemned by their own Budget documents. They know that there is a magic $400 million fillip at just the right time once only in history in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. They know that they are holding on to $1 billion worth of ACC levies. They know that they have been manipulating the books.It is time for a whole new approach—Hon Judith Collins: Ha ha!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —because the world is changing. Oh Judith Collins thinks that is about her. Well she has been taking advice from Simon Lusk apparently the bagman of the ugly right. Poor old Aaron Gilmore got hit by a freight train and it was not Steven Joyce’s face on it; it was somebody else’s. We will let the public decide. The nervous laughter from the Government benches continues.In behind here we have got two views of the economy. We have got a merchant banker’s view. They think that it is all about the financial economy. And we have got the Labour Party view which has grown up in working New Zealand and which knows that it is about getting the economic engine running and people back in jobs—real jobs with real industries based on real strategy not one-off transactions that are dependent on busting the law or selling it off to foreign movie moguls or casinos. New Zealanders deserve better than that.It is my pleasure to also be fisheries spokesperson for Labour. I have just been to a very interesting presentation on the launch today of Seafood New Zealand. It has a game plan to grow that industry and we think we can back it. But that is based on real work real jobs sustainable use of resources and building towards a much better future. It is not a one-off pokie transaction that Mr Joyce prides himself on. That will be his career high—playing second fiddle to a gambler in order to sell the law for a bunch of pokie machines. Welcome to the big time Minister. Was that all worth it? Is that the best you could do?Where is the strategy in this Budget? I end where I started. It is not good for people it is not good for the economy and the numbers do not stack up.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I moveThat the debate be now adjourned.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the debate be now adjourned.Ayes63New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Third ReadingsHon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill the Auctioneers Amendment Bill the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Disclosure Amendment Bill the Evidence Amendment Bill the Juries Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the Summary Offences Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The laws governing criminal procedure are now over 50 years old and well out of date. The current criminal procedure system has been characterised by avoidable delay excessive complexity unnecessary costs and a high reliance on paper-based systems that do not make sense in a modern era increasingly dominated by electronic technology. In response to such concerns this Government passed the Criminal Procedure Act in 2011 and its 14 associated amendment Acts in October 2011 to modernise and simplify criminal procedure. They represented the biggest reform and modernisation of the criminal justice procedure in nearly two generations. These Acts consolidated criminal procedure and introduced a comprehensive package of reforms to make the criminal justice procedure more comprehensible and efficient.I would like to note that although this Government passed the legislation the project has had a long gestation spanning more than a decade. Extensive work was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission in consultation with the legal profession. For much of that time it was under the guidance of the Labour-led Government so I would first like to thank all those involved in the development of these reforms.As I noted at the first reading the reforms have the potential to deliver some significant benefits. They will reduce and streamline victims’ and witnesses’ exposure to the criminal justice system. There will be fewer repeat or unnecessary events in the use of staff time and courthouse capacity will be optimised to ensure that money is spent more effectively. The reforms are part of this Government’s wider programme of modernising the way our courts are run and are expected to result in over 31000 fewer court events per year. It is estimated that they will free up about 10000 court sitting hours each year—about 12 percent of the current total effort in the criminal jurisdiction.The reforms have the potential to take up to 9 weeks off the average time of cases that go to jury trial. The overall reforms have the potential to increase the efficiency of the courts to a value of about $50 million over a 10-year period. The criminal procedure reforms will also have benefits for the defendants’ rights to a fair trial. The legislation achieves a careful balance between moving criminal cases through the court system more quickly and protecting the fundamental rights and safeguards that underpin our justice system.Overall making the court system more timely efficient fair and easy to understand will reduce stress delays costs and inconvenience for everyone—and this includes victims witnesses jurors defendants judges lawyers and court staff and ultimatelythe taxpayer who pays for our court system. It is important to keep in mind the sheer scale of these reforms when considering these bills currently before the House.After enactment but prior to commencement a number of technical issues were identified in the Criminal Procedure Act and related legislation. These nine bills remedy those matters and will ensure that the Criminal Procedure Act and its associated legislation may be fully implemented as intended. Although the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill was a technical Statutes Amendment Bill type of legislation the amendments included in these bills are important for the coherent implementation of criminal procedure reforms on 1 July this year. Accordingly that stand-alone omnibus bill was promoted.At the first reading Mr Chauvel the then Labour justice spokesperson indicated that his party would support the bill so long as it contained only technical and uncontroversial amendments. Concern was raised by the New Zealand Law Society at select committee about the possibility of a proposed regulation-making power being inappropriately used to make substantive changes to the criminal law. The Justice and Electoral Committee listened and removed the power. Although there were a small number of other concerns raised by the Law Society it was generally supportive of the bill. The committee understood the concerns raised by the society but decided that good reason existed for the other proposed amendments.There was unanimous support for this bill at the select committee and during the second reading. It was recognised that although the individual amendments were small collectively they would provide significant benefit in allowing full implementation of the agreed policy. I am grateful to all parties that have indicated support for this legislation and the constructive manner in which members have deliberated on these reforms. As indicated by the widespread support the legislation has received it is not contentious.As I have indicated to the House on introduction it is technical non-controversial legislation that clarifies and gives full effect to legislation that this House has already approved. It will ensure that the largest criminal procedure reforms in 50 years can be implemented effectively and coherently and that the benefits predicted are fully realised. The criminal procedure reforms when fully implemented will have positive impacts for those who deal with our justice system. As the previous Minister of Justice said at the introduction of the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill these reforms will ensure that timely justice is delivered for victims witnesses defendants and the community. This legislation will assist in ensuring that these objectives are realised. I commend these nine bills arising from the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to get up to speak on what was previously the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill and is now broken into nine bills. I will not adumbrate them all; they have been laid out by the Hon Chester Borrows who spoke just now. As we have done so throughout the Labour Party supports this legislation. This is the end of a process that started under the previous Labour Government to reform our criminal procedure legislation when the original amending bill was passed. This now deals with some refinements and some technical amendments. It has been properly processed through the chamber of this House and the select committee and it is supported by us. There is no controversy to it and indeed the select committee process showed that the Government was listening. It listened to Labour’s concerns about the “Henry VIII” clause that was in the original bill. That has been removed and this is perfectly acceptable legislation now that ought to have the backing and the support of this House.As Mr Borrows pointed out this completes the most significant reform of this area of our law in around 50 years. I am very pleased to see that one of the break-out pieces of legislation is the Auctioneers Act. It is an Act that goes back to 1928 and if there was ever a piece of legislation that was crying out for review it is probably that Act at least and it has been amended in part under this series of bills—Hon David Parker: Going going gone.ANDREW LITTLE: Going going gone as my colleague Mr Parker says. That is probably a piece of legislation that deserves some attention in its own right given what is happening now on the interweb. The trading and retailing that happens in that forum now is perhaps making a traditional auctioneer’s role somewhat obsolete—although not completely because of course they are good people and do good things.Mr Borrows talked about the many other changes that are happening in criminal justice and the administration of criminal justice. One aspect of course that will not be there which was expected to accompany this legislation when it took effect on 1 July is eBench the new information technology system that was meant to cover the courts and the court system. It has been delayed by at least another year. Talking to people in the traps they expect it would be longer. But of course due to a reliance on eBench a number of courts—admittedly small regional courts—have been closed down and the people in those courts do not have the benefit of new wondrous technology that allows them to communicate by looking at a TV camera and a screen and communicating through that with courtrooms in other parts of the country. We do not have the benefit of that but we do have the benefit of modernised legislation.The objectives of this legislation and of the total reform are worthy. They are about ensuring fewer appearances not only for counsel and for judges but for witnesses as well. That should lead to less delay. If there is one problem that defines the difficulties with our justice system at the moment it is the problem of delay. I can say from talking to many members of the profession that they approach 1 July if not with trepidation then certainly with a small degree of anxiety as they wait to see how this will all bed down and bed in. The very many crimes that we have in our Crimes Act the Summary Offences Act and the various other criminal statutes have been categorised into four types of crime and that is going to have a bearing on the way that criminal lawyers conduct their practices and indeed how judges administer the law. So this will be an interesting time for us all.I repeat too what the New Zealand Law Society said as this bill was progressing through the Justice and Electoral Committee and that is that in areas such as criminal justice these should proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement as opposed to the Government ramming through its particular agendas and its desired reforms. This is an area that requires—or where at least the participants in the system are entitled to—certainty and agreement in this House and the full backing of this House when it comes to that area of our law because it affects people’s lives but most important it affects their constitutional rights and criminal justice potentially affects their liberty. That is a matter upon which this House ought to ideally speak with one voice.But of course there is one other aspect that was expected to have been successfully reformed to accompany the commencement of this new criminal procedure reform and that is the system of legal aid. That is now in complete disarray and yet it need not be. As recently as last Friday the Court of Appeal handed down its ruling on the challenge by the Criminal Bar Association and found that that aspect of reform which was handled single-handedly by this Government and by two Ministers of Justice—the current one and the preceding one—is now left in a most unsatisfactory state. It was declared by the Court of Appeal to have been implemented in an unreasonable way for the Legal Services Commissioner now responsible for legal aid to have had hisindependence compromised and that there was a lack of flexibility and far too much rigidity in the regime that this Government would like to impose on the system. So my plea to the Minister of Justice is this: it is not too late to get the legal aid system sorted out and in a satisfactory state in time for 1 July.Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps the member is not aware that this matter is currently in front of the Supreme Court. It is not appropriate to be discussing a court matter in Parliament.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes I thank the Minister for that. Also when we are doing a third reading I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 122/4 which says: “Members must confine themselves to the general principles of the bill as it emerged from the committee.” So please confine your comments to that.ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I appreciate your guidance on this matter except to say that when it comes to the administration of criminal justice the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill and the other bills that we are dealing with in this third reading came under the umbrella of the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill and is integrally related to other aspects of criminal justice. It is simply not possible to not talk about the greater efficiencies that are expected from this set of bills without referring to other integral aspects which in this case includes legal aid. I will say no more on that.I simply want to say this though. The way we deal with criminal justice the way we deal with criminal procedure and the way this House speaks on it is absolutely crucial to the principle of the rule of law. The way this legislation—what was originally one bill and is now nine bills—has been managed has been a model process for the management of bills by this House and in a very sensitive area. It was properly introduced it was allowed to be subject to the scrutiny of the select committee members of the public and indeed important institutional submitters like the New Zealand Law Society had their say and changes were effected during that process and we now have a satisfactory piece of legislation to complement changes already made. That is a good thing but it would be nice if the felicitous way in which this process was carried out was reflected in other pieces of legislation too. I make that point because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the way some pieces of legislation and some issues are handled is not good for the reputation of this House. This piece of legislation this bill will stand as a model of lawmaking by this House. It is a good bill and it is being conducted appropriately and properly.The process started with the Labour Government and we would expect that a piece of legislation that started its life under a Labour Government would be a good piece of legislation and would be managed and processed correctly and properly. But the same cannot be said of other pieces of legislation including sadly pieces of legislation that bear upon people’s individual and personal rights as we saw in the aftermath of the Budget just a couple of weeks ago. We welcome the fact that this bill has reached this stage. We are 5 or so weeks away from the implementation of what will be a significant change to the management of our criminal justice system and the criminal procedures that will apply in our courts leading up to it.That is a very sensitive point and a very sensitive area. We have a profession that will now be called upon to bring life to these pieces of legislation and to this reform. Members of the profession who are practising at the Bar and judges will have to make sense of it and I am confident that they will do—no pun intended—justice to the legislation we are passing. But they are in a state of concern. In fact it would not be going too far to say there is a sense of alarm developing in the profession about the way in which and about the respect with which they are treated as well as their issues and their ability to conduct themselves and fulfil their duties—both statutory and ethical—when it comes to criminal justice laws and the criminal statutes that they are called upon to work under.So it will be a pity if we look upon this time and the passage of these bills as the high-water mark of good legislation and good legislative practice. Let us take a leaf from these pieces of legislation these nine bills as we see them through their end stages tonight. Let us say that we want all legislation to follow this proper constitutional process with good input from members of Parliament and good input from members of the public and those stakeholders who have a greater interest perhaps than others when it comes to legislation as we have heard from the important stakeholders in these pieces of legislation. As I have said we support the bills and we will be voting for them. But let us take a lesson from these bills and let us not allow this House to repeat the exercises that it has been forced into in the last couple of weeks that have dealt with individual and personal rights and ridden roughshod over them. Let us look at these pieces of legislation these nine bills and say that this is the right way to go about it this is the way to pass law this is the correct way to do it. Let us make sure that this law is simply the start of a new approach a breath of fresh air for this 5-year-old Government to say: “You know we’ve got it wrong before. This is the way we do it. We’ve taken a leaf out of the Labour Party book. We know what good law looks like and this is the way we’ll approach all other legislation from here.”SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to stand in support of the third reading of what was originally the Criminal Procedure Legislation Bill but that has now been broken into its nine component parts. As the two previous speakers Chester Borrows and Andrew Little have indicated this is a measure that receives wide and probably unanimous support across the House so it is very good to be part of it.This is a Government that makes absolutely no apology for putting victims first in our criminal justice system. That is right and appropriate. These nine bills are just another milestone along what is quite a radical overhaul of our total justice system. They contain technical amendments that are needed to ensure that the legislative intent of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 is made clear and can be applied as intended. These measures as others have said are non-controversial and the Justice and Electoral Committee was unanimous in its support for the introduction of these measures. I would like to thank the members of the committee for their work and for their diligent attention to detail most of it of a very fine technical nature.The benefits of these changes including the changes made by Supplementary Order Paper 233 have the potential to free up something like 10000 court sitting hours each year with potentially something close to 31000 fewer court events and it is expected somewhere between 300 and 500 fewer jury trials and a reduction of somewhere between 6 and 9 weeks in the average time to complete a jury trial. The net benefit to taxpayers of these sorts of savings—let alone to litigants and those people who are participating in our criminal justice system—is just huge.Criticisms of our criminal procedure over the last 20 years can be summarised broadly into four areas: excessive delay excessive complexity an outdated legislative framework and excessive cost. It has been estimated that currently there are about 43000 unnecessary court fixtures and appearances a year within our criminal justice jurisdiction. More than two-thirds of cases that reach a defended hearing fail to proceed on the day. We can and must do better than that.Our current system of course is built entirely on an obsolete assumption of a fully paper-based system. It is a bizarre but current fact that the system currently makes and puts in place barriers to the use of modern technology. An example of the delays being experienced is that the median time to dispose of a High Court jury trial is now something in the order of 16 months. That is an increase of about 5 months in the last 5years. As has been quoted many times in the earlier readings of this legislation justice delayed is indeed justice denied. Our system is clogged and we need to fix it.This Associate Minister of Justice Chester Borrows is a good Minister who is getting on with the job. He is making our criminal justice system more responsive more effective and more cost-effective for all involved. These are good measures and I commend them to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Not only do I together with my colleagues on the Labour benches want to support these bills but also I want to commend the Associate Minister of Justice and his predecessor actually for the way in which they have conducted the process of legislation through the House. In recent times we have seen so many legislative outrages. Going back to just the last week of this session we were pushing through under urgency things that never went to a select committee at all. They did not go to a select committee and they did not get the benefit of having ordinary citizens and people who are experts in their fields come in and have a look at the legislation to make sure that what this Parliament is intending to do is actually carried out in the form of the legislation.This criminal procedure legislation actually allows us to put into effect the primary piece of legislation the Criminal Procedure Act which is a very thorough overhaul of our criminal justice system. In fact the primary Act is a massive 426 pages long. It is a huge change and Scott Simpson was very supportive of that change and attributed it somehow to the National Government. In fact this came into effect as a result of a project set up in October 2007. In fact I recall working on it some years before that as Minister of Justice. It was a huge job to do and it was a really important job to do.I think that most people looking at the New Zealand justice system say that we have got a generally good system of justice. We have integrity we have an independent judiciary and we can rely on the quality and the principles of those who operate within the justice system both on the bench and in the Ministry of Justice and the people who support them. But there were some very obvious problems with the New Zealand justice system. It came down to about four different categories. There was excessive cost and that excessive cost was caused not by thoroughness but rather by inefficiency. Wherever we can within the Public Service we need to reduce inefficiencies. We need to make sure that things are done right and that they are done properly but also that they are also done efficiently and that we are getting value for money. Our court system was replete with problems that meant that court cases took longer and we have an obligation in this House to cut down on the costs that are involved.There was also excessive delay. Court cases were taking far too long from first appearance to the final disposal of the cases. You know when court cases are drawn out in that way you then create problems for everybody involved in the system. You create problems for the victim—most important—because the victim has that agony of the court case drawn out over a much longer period. You create problems for the defendant and all defendants are innocent until proven guilty so if the court case does not stack up then that person is again on tenterhooks for much longer than should be the case. It creates problems for the juries. These are people who are taking time off work who are being paid a pittance to do so but who are prepared to participate in our justice system—and the really good thing about our justice system is that it allows for peer evaluation—but they find that a much longer period of their time is required if you have excessive delays and if you have inefficiency.The third problem with the system was excessive complexity. This was very clearly the case with legislation being spread across several statutes and seven different categories of offence. The Law Commission actually went as far as describing the courts system as “an impenetrable maze”. When the Law Commission with the eminentjurists on it reaches that determination you can really believe that there is some credibility in that criticism.The fourth and last problem with the system was that it provided an outdated legislative framework.So what we have had was this very thorough process which involved the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice going back to October 2007 under a Labour Government setting out to make some real changes in our justice system that will improve it considerably. I think an earlier speaker mentioned that this is likely to free up something like 10000 court sitting hours that there will be 300 to 500 fewer jury trials and that there will be a reduction of 6 to 9 weeks in the time taken to conclude a jury trial. Those are huge advances. That primary legislation has gone through and it is important that we pass this legislation so that the 2011 Act can come fully into force in July of this year.This legislation largely as has been mentioned makes technical changes. It amends the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and 18 other enactments in relation to criminal procedure matters. These matters are largely things such as cross-referencing technical matters amendments to allow procedures and processes to operate as intended and amendments to references to crime reflecting the repeal of the definition of “crime” in the Crimes Act 1961 to make explicit the type of offence that is being referred to where the context requires it. The legislation also clarifies the jurisdiction of community magistrates. So those things are technical but the primary Act has real and important changes.I want to go back to what I was saying before. A good Government—a Government that is not arrogant and overbearing—takes into account the criticisms made of the legislation as introduced. Too often that does not happen. Too often you see just straight-out arrogance: “We’ll ram this through. We’ve got the numbers. To hell with the principle.” It is almost a matter of principle for the National Government if the Opposition is opposed to legislation to not make any changes and that is really unfortunate because that is not how a good democracy works.In this case the primary legislation did involve a range of things that were quite controversial. They included things like the threshold for jury trials. It was going to be extended up to I think about 3 years before you could get a jury trial yet a jury trial is something that is a traditional right under our British system of justice. It is not something that we should give away lightly. The original bill required the defence to identify and disclose issues in dispute before the trial and that would have been at the jeopardy of the position of the defendant. It would have allowed courts to proceed in the absence of a defendant—this was really quite remarkable. Again a fundamental principle of justice is that no trial should proceed in the absence of the defendant. It also involved the right to silence and compliance cost issues.There could have been a huge dispute over this piece of legislation but quite sensibly the then Minister of Justice Simon Power decided that he would listen to the criticisms that were made. He took a step back from those issues and the result is that we have a piece of legislation before us that actually has the support of all sides of the House. That makes this a very powerful piece of legislation. It has been carefully considered. It has sought and achieved consensus.I have just got to say again if only in areas—I was thinking of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) which was rammed through the other night with the Attorney-General himself saying that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. You know that was appalling process. That was a Government that for no good reason forced things through under urgency. It did not follow good processand did not seek consensus. This legislation stands in contrast to that and therefore this legislation will be enduring.The other thing that I would like to finally add is that there was some controversy over this legislation in the sense that it provided a regulatory power that is commonly known as a “Henry VIII” clause which is a power to make regulations that amend statutes. Again to be fair to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and to be fair to the Minister involved Chester Borrows they agreed that this was inappropriate and this was taken out.So I think all in all we have a piece of legislation that has followed good process that has been properly researched that has been carefully planned and that will make a real difference. It is not a piece of rubbish like the gang patches bill. This is good legislation and we are supporting it.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on this bill or this suite of bills as they now are to affirm the Greens’ continued support for this legislation. It is actually quite a rare day that the Greens are able to support a Government justice bill throughout every reading for the reasons of course that generally they fail to meet the standards of good lawmaking and they fail to improve the situations for offenders or for victims or the judicial system. But in this case it is legislation that we have supported and are happy to continue to support through this final reading.The point has been made that the provisions of this bill in other circumstances could well have been addressed within the contents of a Statutes Amendment Bill. But of course there are time constraints. This legislation must be in place by 1 July this year which is barely a month or so away and so of course we are quite happy to cooperate and to see this legislation go through in time to ensure that the original legislation is enacted as was intended at the time.It is true that the purpose of this legislation or the original legislation should I say—the principal legislation—was to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of our court processes and to remove delays from the court process. And it is well said—it is an old well-tried cliché—that justice delayed is justice denied. It is important that we get our justice system working effectively. Justice bills must be seen as some of the most important that go through this House.We make law in this place clearly. The courts the police and other arms of the justice system enforce that law and take people to task if the law is not complied with. We have the capacity the State has the capacity to fine people to deny them their freedom and their liberty in the extreme cases so it is doubly important that the processes around the judicial system—the justice system generally—are seen to work effectively efficiently and properly in order to maintain public confidence and to ensure that that confidence is well founded.Unfortunately at the same time that this very useful legislation is being put in place to minimise or at least to reduce some of the delays and some of the roadblocks to good process in the courts we are seeing other aspects of policy and implementation of policy that are working against the intention of this—issues like staff cuts in our courts. Anecdotally we are hearing repeatedly from lawyers from people who work in the courts and from people who have business in the courts that the loss of skilled staff and the loss of experienced staff in our courts is causing ongoing delays. Work is not being done in an effective manner. Judges’ time is being wasted. Witnesses’ time even defendants’ time is being wasted because of cuts to staffing. It is critical that we do not save pennies and lose pounds in the way that if we do not have sufficient staffing—experienced well-skilled well-trained staffing—in our courts then the processes willfail we will lose the confidence of the public and other participants and no matter what we do in legislation like this the process will fail and be seen to be failing.Sadly also of course recently we have seen—and Mr Little I think referred to this—closures of some of our courts. We have seen reduced services at some of the courts. The consequences of that are quite significant not least of all for offenders and for victims of offending and again for witnesses. Unfortunately that is not saving any money which is what we were told it would be doing. It is simply putting costs on other departments of State. The police for example will be picking up the tab for the extra cost imposed on their budget by some perceived savings in the courts’ budgets.So unfortunately although this legislation will go some way towards speeding up the judicial process sadly other policies that are being enacted are actually working in the opposite direction.We could talk about legal aid and I am aware that there is a sensitivity about that question at the moment. Unfortunately the Government has found itself on the wrong side of a legal judgment. But more generally there have been cuts to the availability of legal aid and that has negatively impacted on access to the courts. We are hearing this again from participants and it is not only beneficiaries low-income people or unemployed people; it is middle New Zealand that is discovering that as the access point the entry point for legal aid is being made more difficult access to the courts is being denied—access to representation. The intention of this legislation we have before us is to speed up the processes of our courts. Self-litigation will do nothing to speed up the process of our courts. Quite the contrary it will slow it down. The cuts to legal aid will inevitably lead to more self-litigation in the courts.We are told in terms of some of the difficulties that this legislation endeavours to overcome but cannot do entirely that some of the slack will be picked by NGOs—by the community law centres for example which unfortunately have had no funding increase for something like 7 years. In other words their funding is being cut. So although we might like to pass legislation to streamline legislation to make our courts work better if we do not support the infrastructure around public access to the courts then our work will be in vain. I could critique the Government’s judicial approach all night—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.