Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBudget Debate[Sitting date: 21 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18212. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Budget DebateDebate resumed on theAppropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The most significant part of Budget 2014 is that we are in the black. I am wearing a black tie to mark that because it is hugely significant. It is great news and a mark of respect for John Key and Bill English in bringing down a balanced Budget in such difficult circumstances—something that is the envy of developed countries around the world. Let me talk about how significant it is. I still remember and I have brought it down to the House with me the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update of October 2008. This is when Labour had control of the Treasury benches and the officials’ advice. Labour said—and let me list the figures to remind the House of where we have come from—that we would have a decade of deficits. In fact I checked that.Hon Todd McClay: How many?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A decade—10 years—of ever-increasing deficits. For the financial year that we are debating Labour said that the Government would be spending in 2014-15 $5 billion more than what it would be receiving. But it gets worse. It said that debt would now be at $80 billion and even worse it said that on abusiness-as-usual basis carrying on with Labour’s policies by 2020 that debt would be $130 billion. That is a Greek level of debt. That is a bankruptcy level of debt. That is the sort of dire state that New Zealand was inin 2008.It is not like the intervening 5 years have been easy. The global financial crisis that bit in 2009 was the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In fact Bill English has had the toughest job of any Minister of Finance 25 of them in terms of the global economic circumstances and then throw on top of that New Zealand’s worst ever natural disaster: the earthquakes in Christchurch. Add those circumstances together and you would say that it was a near miracle that we are in the black for 2014-15. I acknowledge that it is a small number $360 million but what is so encouraging is that we are going to have choices in the next 3 years with surpluses of $1 billion $2 billion and $3 billion out into future years. That is an outstanding tribute.Just to get the numbers clear debt today is $20 billion less than the pre-election forecast from 2008 and in 2020 when the projections would have us wallowing in $120 billion of debt those debt levels will be back to 20 percent of GDP with the New Zealand Government’s finances better than those of pretty much anywhere else in the world. That is an extraordinary achievement for which Bill English deserves huge credit.Listening to contributions from members opposite they sort of say that getting to surplus would have been easy. Well where have they been for 5 years? Let us go back to 2009 and 2010. Labour members including Mr Cunliffe were demanding that there be a greater stimulus package and that the Government borrow more and spend more. In every single area in which this Government has done the hard yards to get us in the black members opposite have screamed and whined and opposed and sniped. Let us give a little example. One of the things where saving was done was around the issue of night classes. Do you know what it meant in my area? I can remember a constituent in my area who was earning over $150000 strongly objecting that he was now going to have to pay for his own Pilates classes. Well sorry get a grip. Is balancing the books more important or is it the Government paying for well-off people’s Pilates classes?But it is not just there. Whether it is in terms of conservation whether it is foreign affairs whether it is defence or whether it has been primary industries across the board members opposite have opposed every attempt to get this country in the black and now they have the gall to come to this House and say that getting to surplus would have been easy. It was not. It has been hard yards. If New Zealand wants to know what it would be like with a Labour-Green Government just look across the Tasman. Australia just last week tabled a Budget with a $50 billion deficit. It is putting up taxes. It is cutting core services. It has got enormous difficulty on its hands as a consequence of the very policies that members opposite advocate for New Zealand and we say: “Not on your nelly! Let us keep New Zealand on course and in the black.”In this Budget are provisions extra steps around the issue of affordable housing. I was listening to the Budget debate and there was a contribution from a Green member. It was so extraordinary that I have to quote it. They said this: “What has the cost of building materials got to do with affordable housing?”. I am sorry but I am one of those practical engineering types. I have got news for the Greens. Houses are made of things like wood and concrete and plasterboard. If they are expensive that makes houses expensive. If we as a Government can make steps so that those things might be more affordable we actually make houses more affordable.I saw a policy announcement from parties opposite that said that they were going to grant every first-home buyer an extra $2000 and that was going to make houses more affordable. Firstly where does the $2000 that the Government gives away come from? It actually comes from homeowners from people who are trying to pay the mortgage. Itis just a money-go-round. It is actually not making things more affordable. But I say this: every country that has tried to provide grants and to simply feed the demand side of housing actually does not get there. You need to address the fundamentals. You need to go after the issues of land supply which we are going after at pace. Members opposite opposed every step this Government took last year with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill to free up the process so that we might get more sections available so that houses are more affordable.Tomorrow we are going to be debating the Government’s changes around development contributions. They have gone up more than any other item over the last 10 years. Members opposite are opposing reductions in those development contributions and somehow pretend that they are about addressing the issues of housing affordability. There is no magic bullet to that challenging issue. We need to do the things that the Productivity Commission said we should do. But do you know what I find particularly galling? In every year from 2003 to 2008 house prices went up by more than 10 percent. One year they went up by 19 percent. What did members opposite do? Absolutely diddly-squat. Absolutely nothing. House prices went up by 96 percent over that entire period and there is not a bill or reform in any area that would have made any difference.Reflect on our 5 years. Actually house prices in New Zealand for the first 3 years during that global financial crisis period went down. In fact I had questions from members opposite asking what the Government is doing about the risk of house prices dropping. The worst year was last year. House prices last year increased nationally by 9 percent. We have introduced over six different reforms to get on top of that issue and to make a real difference and those are the real long-term answers to the issues of housing affordability.I have one last point on that question and it is that the worst thing for homeownership and housing affordability is the issue of interest rates. The Budget documents and the Treasury advice is absolutely clear that if you spend like drunken soldiers you will drive interest rates up. Treasury has very clearly put in a spending cap of $1.5 billion which we are following and every utterance I hear from members opposite is that they would exceed that drive up interest rates and rob New Zealanders of their hopes and dreams of housing affordability.This is an awesome Budget. It is a good Budget in the black making progress for New Zealand and it should be commended to the House.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): That was an interesting contribution from Nick Smith. There are a couple of initiatives like the free doctors visits and prescriptions for children under 13 that the Green Party supports but this Budget is not a prudent Budget because it is about debt. It is about fiscal debt social debt and environmental debt. When National came into power the Government debt was $14 billion. How much is it now? It is $61 billion. That is $13500 for every New Zealander—an increase of $11000 for every person in New Zealand since 2008. So John Key’s Government may achieve a small surplus but it has been profligate in its borrowing and it is burdening present and future generations with the cost of repaying that debt. That debt means that we have $1 billion in interest costs every year and that is $1 billion that we cannot spend on health on education or on the environment like conservation. There is also a major problem in the Government’s spending priorities because it is skewing some of the spending in the natural resource area towards ripping off the environment. In this Budget National found an extra $40 million to subsidise more irrigation and more pollution of our rivers and lakes but it could not find a single dollar more to properly protect our wild landscapes and our species like themōhua thekākā and our threatened native bats.Those species are faced this year with a plague of rats and stoats and yet National could not find a single dollar extra to avoid that threat. We had the Minister of Conservation trumpeting the Department of Conservation’s programme to increase predator control over another 600000 hectares to tackle the mast year. That is the heavy seeding in our beech forests which is followed by an increase in rat and mice numbers and then an increase in stoats which then turn on our birds. Yet is there a dollar in this Budget to help control those rats and stoats—that pest plague? No. There is $40 million for more subsidies for water pollution but not a single dollar more—in fact there has been a cut of nearly $5 million—in the funding for the Department of Conservation’s Natural Heritage Management System which is the programme where we get pest control done and where we get work done for our threatened species. It is the department that is going to have to scrimp and save. It is going to have to reduce its other work in order to tackle this predator plague. There is not a single dollar extra for conservation.If this had been a Green Budget we would have had a Government that looked after all New Zealanders not just the top 2 percent. We would not have had the tax cuts for the wealthy that have deprived the Government of billions of dollars of revenue. We would have invested in conservation to protect our public lands because we know that investing in conservation protects our “100% Pure New Zealand” image. It protects that $13 billion worth of brand that is so essential to the marketing of our primary produce and to bringing tourists here. It is an essential investment too because it helps to sustain ecosystem services like clean air and water; it helps to sustain our quality of life and the places where we can go kayaking where we can go tramping and where we can go walking; and it is spending that creates extra jobs in the regions. A Green Budget would invest in protecting those wild landscapes.Instead in this Budget the Government is spending on very risky ventures. By putting an extra $40 million into the Crown Irrigation Fund the Government is signalling to the people of Hawke’s Bay and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Co. that it is likely to be spending on that very grandiose dam scheme atRuataniwha. It is doing that despite the fact that there are no obvious private investors for that scheme—TrustPower has pulled outNgāiTahu has pulled out—and there is a very low likelihood of getting good commercial returns. So what is the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Co. doing? It is looking to the Crown Irrigation Fund for a big handout to subsidise that scheme and plug the giant hole in its funding.So the Green Party knows that if we are going to have a prosperous economy we need to have an environment that we invest in not one that we rip off through subsidies. Our initiatives like the Green Investment Bank that was announced last week would seek to change the direction of our economy to put it on a much more sustainable footing in order to capture a slice of that trillion-dollar global market in renewables. A Green Budget would be about having a more sustainable course for our future not about investing in industries that pollute and destroy our environment.Julie Anne Genter: Mr Speaker—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry I was not informed that this was a split call—Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s a split call.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a split call? Well in that regard you have 5 minutes Julie Anne Genter. It is helpful if members alert the Speaker first and then I can give a warning bell. It would be preferable if that happened.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Budget is about choices. In the Green Party we are very conscious that resources are limited and so we have to make choices about how we spend our money. Despite what the National Party might say about us we believe in living within our means. One can tell what someone values by what theyprioritise in their spending. The Green Party values our pristine natural environment we value people and we value democracy. We would make very different choices to this Government in our Budget. A Green Budget would be one that builds an economy that serves people and protects the planet and that enriches the lives of New Zealanders for generations to come.I stood to be an MP for the Green Party because I love New Zealand. I want to help look after our precious places and all of our people and we can do that. We have so many opportunities right now in 2014 to create a clean green economy that works for everyone not just those who are already at the top. Unfortunately this National Government does not believe that we can have a healthy environment and have jobs. It consistently says that we are against jobs because we want to protect the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our economy exists to serve us—it exists to serve people—and it cannot exist without a healthy environment. Our economic success is underpinned by the health of our environment.I know that New Zealanders love our rivers and streams and that they want them to be clean enough to swim in as they once were. Unfortunately this Budget does not do much to clean up our rivers. On the contrary it earmarks $80 million to subsidise irrigation schemes which will make pollution in rivers worse. National is choosing to prioritise big projects—like theRuataniwha Dam a project that does not even stack up economically in the short term let alone environmentally in the long term—and the National Government is consistently choosing to prioritise a few people who stand to gain in the short term even when it will leave New Zealand’s economy and environment worse off when it will leave New Zealand’s rivers more polluted and when only a few people will benefit.Another example of short-term thinking by this National Government is the decision to prioritise billions of dollars in the transport budget on a few motorway projects that will serve only 5 percent of vehicle trips. It sounds crazy and it is. It is going ahead with these projects that do not stack up economically in the short term or environmentally in the long term. Of course there are some people who will benefit from these new duplicate highways. There are a few people who drive on those roads who will say once they have been built that they are better off. That is true but we do not see the opportunity cost and there is a massive opportunity cost to spending billions on just a few highways like thePūhoi to Warkworth “Holiday Highway”; Transmission Gully which we are taking out a private loan to fund—even though the Government claims to have returned to surplus it is actually getting us into more debt for some very dodgy projects—and the Waikato Expressway.That opportunity cost is that we will not see the improvements to safety and maintenance of these existing roads sooner. We will not see the improvements to train and bus services that could have helped millions of New Zealanders get to work and get to school more affordably and more quickly whether they travel by public transport or by car. The best way to free up the roads at peak time is to make it easier for some people not everyone to leave the car at home. We will not see the transformational and very low-cost benefits of making it safer for kids to walk and cycle to school. The Green Party has a very smart practical alternative to the Government’s programme that will improve our existing roads and give New Zealanders more choices.Housing has been raised as a major issue. I want to make just a couple of comments about housing and how the National Government is missing a huge opportunity to address both the demand side and the supply side of housing. It claims that there is no demand problem that there is no impact from foreign capital coming into our real estate market. Well that would make New Zealand an absolute exception on the world scene because it is affecting property prices in cities across the world. Secondly it says it isentirely a supply issue and that freeing up new land on the fringe is going to create affordable housing but it will also bring with it enormous transport costs. It would be wiser to enable cities to address the supply problem through targeted building and increase the opportunities for people to live where they want to live where land values are highest.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): On the day of Shane Jones’ valedictory the Greens have just given us two speeches to show exactly why he is leaving a potential Labour-Greens Government. That is an absolute prime example of a party over there with policies that are anti-growth anti-jobs under the guise of some nice green environmental wording but is actually so far to the left so devolutionary of our aspirations for our country that I do not know where to start.We note that in the Greens’ version of the Budget if they did it there would be printing presses involved because that is how they would find the money. They would get a printing press out and print money. They are against water storage and irrigation schemes across the country not just in the example of theRuataniwha Dam which the previous speaker Julie Anne Genter was talking about there. They are against oil and gas exploration around our country. They live in this conspiracy land. How do they solve the housing problem and its issues? Well I remember Metiria Turei talking about crashing down the equity that people have in their existing homes. They want to do a Green Investment Bank. Where is the capital for this bank coming from? From the printing press from domestic savings—there is a wee problem there—or from the offshore savings from evil foreign lenders to New Zealand? Where is it coming from?They have the audacity to talk about bringing tourists here and then are anti fossil fuels. How are the tourists going to get here I do wonder? They talk about jobs in the regions such as Hawke’s Bay. They rally against free-trade agreements for an exporting region such as Hawke’s Bay a country such as New Zealand and yet they talk about jobs in the regions. They were talking about water standards. Where were they supporting the previous Labour Government to help modernise New Zealand’s freshwater standards to bring in minimum standards? Where were they when we needed standards around oil exploration off our shores?I do note my colleague Mr Shane Jones’ valedictory tonight. What an excellent speech and what an entertainer and I am quite sure just quietly that some of the members opposite are probably going: “Oh maybe we made the wrong decision.” On a personal note I will miss Mr Jones. I do count him as a parliamentary friend. I do acknowledge that we had a couple of great times together particularly on our US trip together as part of the New Zealand – USA Friendship Group the Parliamentary Rugby Team and particularly on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We had a lot of fun.Actually Mr Jones is not the only person shunning Labour. He is not the only person leaving Mr Cunliffe and Labour because up in theWairarapa Tukituki and Napier all three of the Labour candidates there are actually refusing to go on the Labour list. They are refusing to go on the Labour list. Why? How can that be? Which of Labour’s policies must they not want to be a party to? Perhaps it goes way back to MrCunliffe’s sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Perhaps it goes back to Labour’s banning Facebook policy. Perhaps it goes back to its policy of banning friends and families of migrants to New Zealand. Perhaps it is just something to do with the man ban. Perhaps those three candidates who are choosing not to go on the Labour list and who are therefore choosing not to campaign for Labour Party policies do not want to have anything to do with the Greens. That is fair enough. Perhaps they do not want to have anything to do with Hone Harawira in a potential Government. Perhaps they do not want to be part of policy that is essentially anti-job anti-growth anti - New Zealand although it might make a few nice headlines.It is the party vote that decides the Government. It is the party vote. It is the party vote. It is the party vote. How and why candidates from the major Opposition party in New Zealand are choosing not to follow Labour Party policy on the party list I cannot understand. But I have seen this before and I have seen the results of it before. As a candidate for the Nats in 2002 I know that our organisation was not in the best shape. There were a few issues and individual candidates tried not to be on the list and ran localised campaigns. And do you remember the result? Worst result National has ever had. I am quite sure that Labour is well on that way and we are seeing that play out in the regions with its candidates.This was an excellent Budget. It is a continuation of the excellent and prudent management of our economy. A surplus has been reached. After the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update of 2008—just 6 years after that—there is a surplus of $382 million which is apparently a trifling amount according to the Opposition parties. Actually it is quite a significant amount I would suggest. What does that surplus mean? It means lower interest rates for longer—lower interest rates for longer—because of a National Government and Bill English’s Budget discipline over the last 6 years. How do we get to that surplus? What does it mean? It means more oxygen in the economy for the real job-makers out there. The size of Government to the economy is now about 30 percent and heading lower and better public services are being delivered all the time across crime health education—you name it—even though times have been tight. That is how you do things better. That is how you deliver better outcomes.It is curious that Mr Parker the Labour finance spokesman says Labour would have got to surplus anyway. How would it have done that with the decade of deficits forecast in 2008 with its existing policies and then with voting against every single measure of reform and cost-saving and budget leading up to this surplus? How could Labour have got to surplus if it voted against all those things and with the various policies it seems to be rolling out now? It is quite curious. Another curious thing is that Mr Cunliffe in his speech talked about Labour charging and targeting full employment—fair enough an aspirational goal. But then not long after that he said: “We are targeting 4 percent unemployment.” not full employment—zero—but 4 percent. Contradictory—what is he up to? I do not know. The surplus is very good for our families our country and our exports.Just to talk quickly about my broadcasting portfolio I note that the Opposition spokesman spoke and actually did not even mention broadcasting. I was quite surprised about that. A very good announcement today was that over 500000 hours of Television New Zealand archives will be transferred from Television New Zealand to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Department of Internal Affairs to be made accessible to New Zealanders online. That is National’s ongoing commitment to public sector broadcasting—the preservation of what we have already and making accessible stuff that has already been paid for and is owned by the taxpayer. That is actually what a better public service is. We continue to allow Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand to seize the opportunities in front of them in the challenging digital environment. The speech from the Chief Executive Officer of Radio New Zealand Paul Thompson the other day should be widely read by MPs in the House and particularly by Opposition spokespeople for broadcasting. It shows the ability of our publicly owned public sector broadcasters to begin to adapt to this very challenging and new but exciting environment.Where is Labour’s position on this? Labour’s position—and probably the Greens’ position; probably the Greens’ position would be worse—is that Labour wants to control what you watch when you watch and how you watch. That is what it would do. It is stuck in the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation one model. Labour memberstalk about building a new channel for goodness’ sake when the entire world is moving away from traditional channels because it is about content content content. We should be blind as to how it is delivered as long as it is produced got out there and Kiwis can access it.How would Labour pay for this new channel? Well it is putting a levy apparently on information and communications technology providers—i.e. internet companies. Internet providers in New Zealand will be taxed. Labour goes back to its natural position of: “If it is moving we should tax it.” Let us ban Facebook as part of that and tax the internet within New Zealand to pay for the traditional mode of broadcasting to build this new Labour channel it is talking about. It is absolute madness—absolute madness. Labour is very much in a New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation time warp. National is digital looking forward working forwardfutureproofed and looking to help New Zealand - owned organisations Government and otherwise seize the opportunity to tell New Zealand’s stories across the world. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that this is a split call—Louisa Wall.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): That is correct. I would like to take the opportunity to mihi to the Hon Shane Jones and acknowledge that he gave his valedictory speech tonight and that many of my colleagues are over at the Back Bencher enjoying his hospitality. Many of us enjoyed what he had to say and in fact I want to pick up on something that Shane quoted in his speech. It was: “Hūtia terito o te harakeke keihea tekōmako ekō?” [Pull out the centre shoot of the flax where will the bellbird sing lass?]What does that actually mean? At the heart of the flax-bush the bellbird sings. Where will the bellbird be if the flax-bush ceases to be? What the intention of thatwhakatauāki is all about is to ensure that we aswhānau ashapū as communities and as society support those who are the most vulnerable. Actually therito which is in the heart of the harakeke is the most vulnerable. I make no apologies for the Labour Party being very clear about what our priorities are and would be if we were the Government. I particularly want to commend my colleague Jacinda Ardern and her Best Start policy which is all about making sure every New Zealand child has the best possible start in life which begins with a $60 per week payment for every child and particularly for those children who are the most vulnerable. They are the 285000 children who are living in poverty. They are the 170000 children who are beneficiaries’ children who received nothing from this Government in the Budget. The Prime Minister reiterated that today.I would like to focus on two commentators post-Budget one of whom is the Associate Professor Mike O’Brien who is the social security spokesperson for the Child Poverty Action Group. His assessment of the Budget was very clear. He said that only one Budget item would directly “affect poverty” and that was extending free doctors visits and prescriptions to all children under the age of 13. That is the only measure in National’s Budget that is going to directly affect children who live in poverty. But he had a caveat on that assessment and I am sure the National members of the House will find this interesting. This was within the context of Northland. He said that there are geographical issues for poor people living in isolated rural communities so extending free visits is of no use if you could not access them because of distance or an inability to afford to get there. The only addition I would make within the context of South Auckland is that those free doctors visits mean nothing if you do not have enough general practitioners for our children to visit.Dr Paul Hutchison is in the House tonight and he will know that Counties Manukau District Health Board and the Counties Manukau area is the lowest-provided region in terms of general practitioners. We are over 100 general practitioners short. So withinthat context you can extend free visits but the reality is that if those general practitioners do not exist in our communities then again those families do not have access to what we would consider the basics. Those basics are primary-care basics that ensure that our children particularly are strong they are healthy and they are ready and active and have the ability to go to school to learn.I also want to pick up on a comment from this article in theNorthern Advocate. It is from a man calledHuaPoraka from Dargaville. His assessment of National’s Budget was pretty easy. His assessment was that National does not care. National does not care about the children in Northland. National does not care about the children in South Auckland. If National thinks that this Budget is going to reduce poverty is going to address the issues of child poverty then it is greatly mistaken. The only other thing I want to highlight is that Gordon Campbell was very clear that this is the “let them eat crumbs Budget”. That was his assessment. I say that for some kids living in poverty it is actually the “let them eat air Budget”. What you have given children and particularly beneficiaries’ children is fresh air. You have given them nothing. You are not helping them out of their circumstances. You are not providing a hand up or a way to a better life. You have actually ignored them. That was the other assessment of Gordon Campbell—that this Government has ignored beneficiaries’ children because guess what? National does not care. Kia ora.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take the other half of this call on the Budget. What I was looking for in this Budget was its vision. What vision does it reflect of contemporary New Zealand society and contemporary issues facing our people? I was asking myself the question: does it put people first? If it did then I would take the Budget seriously. People after all are the most important. If we do not put our people first if we do not develop them well if we do not give them the opportunities then we all pay for it in the end. We pay huge amounts of money to correct those problems that are created when we do not put our people first. That was not the vision of this particular Budget. Its vision was somewhere else. Its vision was of a divisive society. It was not a vision of treating our most vulnerable well.Then I asked well what does it do—this is one of the most serious questions facing New Zealand society today—about one of the most serious problems? This is the problem of inequality. [Interruption] I say to the Hon Todd McClay that this is a problem that is facing New Zealand society. I do not think anybody in this House doubts that inequality is awful and that it ought to be addressed particularly when that inequality has very serious impacts on our children. And yet we know that the Budget did not address those inequalities. The Budget really began to say: “Well do you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to select a small group of the most vulnerable and we’re going to target some services towards them.”I know that Paul Hutchison will soon talk about targeting but when there is such a big group Mr Hutchison—285000 children who are living in poverty—where is the morality and where is the ethics of addressing 30000 of them? Where is the morality? How do you work that out Mr Hutchison? In a sense it is condemning the other quarter of a million children to poverty. What that does Mr Hutchison is it simply creates another generation for the welfare system to cope with for the health system to cope with and for the justice system to cope with. We create bigger problems down the track Mr Hutchison. And yet we know that for children that moment of their lives that 0 to 3 years is what sets them up on their development trajectory for the rest of their lives. That is what does it. Every piece of science we know says that that is where we should target. So everybody in this group ought to be targeted.But when it is 285000 children Mr Hutchison and we are targeting 30000 children what is this silly game we are playing? It really is condemning the most vulnerable toeven more miserable lives. There is plenty of evidence to show that we have not applied the kind of morality the decency for creating a society where all boats are lifted. Here we are wanting to advantage a small group of those children and that is where this Budget fails abysmally. Our alternative ideas around children in Best Start begin to address very systematically each step each segment of what it takes to lift all those boats and to give those people a better start in life.This is my last Budget speech and it is a brief one. I make it with some sadness because I came into Parliament after a life of working with the most vulnerable working with children and families for 45 years. I say with some sadness that we now see a period here when we are not addressing the most vulnerable. Much of what Nick Smith said was really just discounting 9 years of very positive development. There were 9 years of economic management that gave this Government the headroom to manage the headwinds that came. If it was not for that it would have been in dire trouble. But Government members do not have the decency to acknowledge that. It was all designed simply to create the Crosby/Textor - type spin that throws those figures around. But their own performance is really immoral. It is immoral when looked at from the perspective of putting children and families first. Thank you.Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): This is a very good Budget—New Zealand is heading in the right direction—and it is a confident Budget for a confident country. That statement sums up the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House—a confident Budget for a confident nation.I want to be charitable after listening to the last two speakers. Rajen Prasad said that this will be his last Budget so I will resist the opportunity the challenge or the temptation to do anything but wish him well in his many many years ahead. But can I say that we need to be optimistic in this House. We need to focus on the good things that happen in New Zealand. We need to be fair and reasonable and when we are in Opposition we do not just have to oppose absolutely everything. What must it be like after 6 years in Opposition to feel that everything is wrong with this country and that the members opposite are right all of the time? Well let us wait and see.For two elections in a row New Zealanders have had a choice and those New Zealanders decided that they did want a brighter future and they did want to choose a New Zealand that was heading in the right direction. What they have been saying to us through the media on the airwaves as they call the radio stations and in our electorate seats is that this is a confident Budget for a confident nation. And when the members opposite stop talking and listen to New Zealanders they will actually see what it is that New Zealanders are interested in.Let us contrast—not just our speeches and how aspirational we are compared with members opposite—the Budget delivered by Bill English in New Zealand last week with the one that was delivered in Australia the very same week. But before we do let us remember 3 or 4 years ago when these very members who have been quite vocal in this House were saying: “Why aren’t you the National Government more like they are in Australia?”. They asked why we were not more like—and they used the term—the Lucky Country Australia where all of those New Zealanders were going. Well guess what? They were leaving under the Labour Government and yes when we inherited such a mess from the Labour Government after 9 years they continued to go. But we have not heard now have we or last week from the Labour Opposition: “Why aren’t you more like Australia?”.Can I say to New Zealanders that when they face the choice on 20 September of this year of who will govern them if they choose a Green-Labour Government coalition then they will get the wish that the Labour Party has asked for: they will be much more like Australia in this country than we are today. The reason for that is that in Australiapeople are facing very difficult times. In Australia the Government has made cuts. It has cut its welfare it has cut its Public Service and it has increased taxes. It has got a special deficit tax. After all of those changes and all of those cuts the costs going up when people go to the doctor across the board it is going to have a NZ$32 billion deficit in this next year—a NZ$32 billion deficit.That may be all right for members opposite in the Labour Party and the Greens. Maybe they think that that is OK but I am not sure that is the feeling in Australia right now. How come we are not hearing from them now about why we are not more like the Lucky Country? Compare that with the job that Bill English has done and the hard work that New Zealanders have done over this last 5 years on what we must recognise as being a very difficult time for New Zealanders—a deep recession.As one of the members opposite always says it has been the worst this and the worst that over 50 years. Well there was a very steep recession a global financial crisis a challenge in Christchurch because of the earthquakes and we have a modest surplus coming to New Zealand—$372 million. It is a very modest surplus but that is so much better than the deficits that were forecast by Treasury when we took over the Government benches and so very different from what is happening in Australia.There is a forecast of a growth rate of between 2 and 4 percent over the next 4 years—one of the first countries in the Western World not only to get back to surplus but to have sustainable levels of growth which will help grow the economy and grow incomes for New Zealanders. It is such a great difference between our two countries.This was a Budget focused on growth jobs and prosperity. But it was not just about the economy. There was much more to it than this and I think this is what hurts the Opposition the most: we are helping children and helping families. There is a $500 million investment in children and families in New Zealand. There are free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for all children under the age of 13. I think that is an excellent policy and I congratulate Bill English and Tony Ryall on making this possible. Without the hard work the dedication and the caution around Government spending over the last 5 years it would not have been possible to do this with a Budget surplus. There are free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for every child in New Zealand under the age of 13. There is 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave extended to caregivers and other parents. That will be welcomed by parents and the other caregivers of children in New Zealand.There is an increase in the parental tax credit of $70 a week bringing it to $220 per week. There is $155 million extra going into early childhood education. More money is being spent on early childhood education every year under this Government than in any year before and guess what the taxpayers—mums and dads and their children—are starting to see a return on this investment in children: $155 million extra in early childhood education. Members opposite reject that and do not support it.There is $33 million extra to support vulnerable children—$33 million extra to support vulnerable children—to create eight new Children’s Teams. I won the seat in my electorate of Rotorua 6 years ago. I was re-elected 3 years ago and I will work very hard for every single vote there this year. We had a Children’s Team delivered to us 2 years ago. It empowers the community and all of those groups to come together to focus on those vulnerable children to put them first and to make their lives better. Already we are starting to see the community growing coming together and working through that. So we have that in Rotorua already. It started a few years ago. We have worked hard it is starting to work well and now we are able to use those things that we have learnt and that were demonstrated and roll them out to eight other parts of the country at a cost of $33 million. Members opposite would say it was a cost; on this side of the House we see it as an investment of $33 million into vulnerable children to make theirlives better. Well done to Tony Ryall and the rest of the team for excellent work around helping children and around families.The other thing I wanted to talk about—because if one listened to only the Opposition one would think that there was no work done here at all—is health. What more have we done in health? All of those statistics all of that extra money I mentioned that we spent around families we get to do that and we also can run a modest surplus this year—so different from Australia. “Better sooner more convenient care”—there has never been a time when that statement was truer. There is $110 million extra for elective surgery. That is knees and hips—knees and hips for New Zealanders. They are getting operations.When I became the member of Parliament for Rotorua 6 years ago a number of complaints in the community were that people were not getting their operations. They were not being treated by hospitals they were being put on waiting lists and then they were receiving letters saying they had been knocked off the waiting list. The Labour Government at the time said they were doing a great job not by delivering operations but by knocking people off waiting lists. Well now there are more operations every year in Rotorua and in other parts of the country than ever before.There is $112 million for disability support $96 million for increased home-based support care $90 million for free general practitioner visits $40 million in additional support for the elderly $33 million for faster cancer treatment $20 million to help fight rheumatic fever and $6 million for cochlear implants for children.This is the Budget of a caring Government—a Government that has worked hard over 5 years to move New Zealand out of recession to get us back on track to back New Zealanders and to get us back to a modest surplus which will grow in the years ahead. This is a Government that has worked hard with New Zealanders to deliver for New Zealanders and I think it could not be a better Budget coming into an election.I say this to you that if the members opposite want to revert and be like Australia or other countries then they should keep making the pledges they are making in the Labour Party and the Green Party about how they can just spend money on anything they want with no accountability. The public saw that over 9 years. They did not like it. They rejected it. We will make a case as a confident Government. We have got a confident Budget for a confident country. This will be a very good year to go to an election. This is a caring Budget. It is a caring country. It is a caring Government. I commend this Budget to the House.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): The Budget provides the opportunity for the Government to outline its priorities and to talk about what its plan and its vision are. We saw that last Thursday and it is fair to say that like for many New Zealanders for this side of the House it was pretty underwhelming. But let us imagine.Let us imagine that every New Zealander woke up and they were in a home that was warm and dry and they could afford that home. Imagine what that would be like. Imagine that they had the security of knowing that the community they were living in was one they could put roots down in and participate in. Being part of a community—imagine that. Imagine that the children in the house went to the local school and remained there until it was time to move to the next stage in their world-class education. Imagine what that would be like.Imagine there was enough room in the house in the home and that that was a healthy place where no one was at risk of getting Third World diseases. Imagine that increasing numbers of New Zealanders were able to own their own homes. That is right—own their own homes. It was not that long ago that that was the Kiwi dream.Imagine that all adults who were in jobs were earning a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Remember that? That used to be part of the Kiwi dream too—a fair day’s pay fora fair day’s work. Imagine that they worked hard that they could get ahead and that they could improve their family’s standard of living.Imagine that all of the children living in this country had enough to eat. Imagine that all of the children in this country had the opportunity to develop to their full potential and to get ahead irrespective of their backgrounds and their families’ economic situations. Imagine that Budget 2014 had given New Zealanders hope that that was the sort of society we live in. But it is not.Once upon a time that was New Zealand but not any more—not under this National Government. Now we know that New Zealand is becoming less equal. These are the real figures in this Budget the things that underline this Budget. There are 285000 children living in poverty—a national disgrace. The cost of the tax cuts that National gave to the rich is $1.2 billion and now we cannot fund health and education sufficiently to keep up with cost increases and population growth. There are 42000 more people unemployed now than when National came into office and 46 percent of our people did not get a pay increase last year. Those are the sorts of figures underlying the Budget and those are the figures that impact on people and on families and in the end that is what matters.We need Budgets and an economy that delivers for people—all people not just some. Those are the sorts of priorities and the sorts of plans that could have been in Budget 2014 but not of course under a National Government.We also know that fairer societies are more successful societies. There is a body of evidence now that shows that we all benefit from people having a fair go and from all kids having a great start in life and getting ahead. We all benefit from that. The social costs of not doing that—imprisonment mental health issues and all of those things; the opposite side of that—the information about that is there. It is irresponsible to ignore that sort of information. Kiwis are worried about this.A recent poll showed that 75 percent of New Zealanders believe that New Zealand is becoming less equal and Bill English in the House the other day just sort of dismissed that saying: “They’re wrong. Obviously they’re wrong.” Well that is actually not the reality out there on the doorsteps. When I talk to people they are concerned about inequality. They are not just the people doing it tough themselves. Lots of decent New Zealanders who are doing OK are worried about other people. That is the sort of society we still have in this country.The Government ignores all of that and recent statistics including the census. The Government tried to dispute the census figures as well. Every time any information is put out in this House the Government ducks and dives. It disputes the figures and says they are not reputable. Even the New Zealand census showed that there are now twoAucklands: an Auckland for the rich and an Auckland for the rest. The Government says the census is wrong as well. Well tell that to the people inMāngere andŌtāhuhu whose incomes have actually dropped by 19 percent. Tell them that the census is wrong.In the Maungakiekie electorate in Auckland where I work we have got the richest and poorest Aucklanders living in one electorate. Housing is one of the big issues. Housing is a real indicator in the inequality argument. I talk to people about a range of different housing issues such as the difficulty that people are facing getting maintenance done on their State houses because the Government is extracting more money from Housing New Zealand. People have contacted me about the fact that there are State houses sitting empty while there are people desperately needing a home. There are people being evicted as a result of reviewable tenancies and elderly people worried that they are going to be evicted. There are people who just have no sense any more that they will ever be able to afford to buy a home.Access to affordable housing is vital. It is vital for people because they need shelter but it is much more than that. It is about a home it is about being part of a community and it is about good health and educational outcomes. So I know that this will be a really significant issue in this election and I know that across the other side of the House people know that as well. You know—sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government knows—Dr Rajen Prasad: But he knows.CAROL BEAUMONT: —including the Deputy Speaker—that there is a real vulnerability on the housing issue because it is so clear.Members opposite are so out of touch on this issue. I still cannot believe that the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga felt that a deposit of $130000—that is right $130000—is not out of reach for most people. Well that is just ridiculous. It is just ridiculous on the sorts of wages that people are earning to save $130000. That is so out of touch.On the poverty issue it is really interesting to see how much members opposite want to deny the issue of poverty and want to dispute what is going on with wages. Low wages in this country are a disgrace. People work hard and they cannot get ahead. Forty-six percent of them did not get a pay increase last year. Well prices certainly continued to go up last year. So this Budget did not deliver on those issues.Throughout New Zealand we see intergenerational inequality—young people burdened with student debt who have no sense of ever being able to afford to buy a home. We see inequality faced by women—single-income families beneficiary families and working families headed by women; Māori and Pacific women. The lowest-paid people in this country are Pasifika women earning little more than the minimum wage doing important work like aged care. That Government opposite intervened in the court case where they are trying to get wage justice. This is what is going on out there.Labour offers a different vision. Labour offers a vision where wages will be sufficient for people to have a decent standard of living and where there is a plan for economic development with decent jobs and decent wages. If you look at the Budget where was any information or any ideas about developing our economy to provide that sort of work? There is an absence of any thinking. There is a lack of ambition about moving forward lifting the standards in this country and lifting the sort of economic performance that we have in this country.So we want to make sure that there are decent jobs and enough jobs. Let us aspire to full employment. Let us aspire to lifting wages. Labour will lift wages. Labour will lift the minimum wage. Labour will promote the living wage. Labour will have fair labour laws where workers will be able to negotiate a decent pay increase unlike the sorts of attacks that they will face under National if it is returned in the election. So people have hope and change the Government.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised this is a split call—5 minutes Scott Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is interesting to follow that member Carol Beaumont who is a relatively recent retread arrival in the Labour caucus on the same night that Shane Jones should give his valedictory speech. Shane Jones is leaving the Labour Party caucus for a brighter future a more optimistic future and a more inspirational and aspirational future than could ever be provided by the Labour Party caucus. It was no good that member Carol Beaumont coming to this House tonight and speaking in the Budget debate and actually doing nothing more than reading her Labour list ranking speech—snarky whiney negative and offering no hope no vision no inspiration and no aspiration for hard-working New Zealanders.So here we stand. The nation is just 121 days out from a general election—121 days out from the election. There are only 18 House sitting days before this the 50th Parliament of New Zealand rises. Last week we had Bill English the very competent Minister of Finance in this John Key - led National Government administration present his sixth Budget to the nation and what a good Budget it was. We are back in black—back in black—with a modest but very workable surplus of $372 million. Four months out from the election who could ever have thought that that was possible without the hard work dedication and fiscal prudence of Bill English and this National team? Back in 2008 when John Key Bill English and the National team were first elected the country was in crisis. It was in turmoil. It was on the brink of financial disaster and it was the careful prudent management of Bill English and John Key that saw us return to an even keel and got us back on the right track.Last weekend I had many conversations with hard-working Kiwi people Kiwi voters and Kiwi constituents in the Coromandel electorate which I have the great pleasure to represent. What they were telling me was that this was a very good Budget. The feedback was excellent. That is quite unusual for a Budget because often people are not engaged with a Budget. Often people just let it wash over them but this time people did get the message. They understand that this is a caring National Government that has Kiwi families at the very heart of its policies—that we care that we understand and that we know it has been tough for so many New Zealanders over these last 6 years. We have now got away from the profligate spending of the Labour Government where the answer to everything was simply to throw more money at it.I am proud to rise in support of Bill English’s Budget which is clearly and very definitely focused on families at the heart of everything it contains. It is decent hard-working New Zealand families that are the focus of the Budget and they deserve it so to be. We had the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s. That is just one of the measures that Bill English and this team have had to contend with. Then of course we had Christchurch to contend with. We have done I think a very good job. I think New Zealanders in 121 days will realise that as well.I want to just mention one particular aspect of the Budget that is very near and dear to my heart and near and dear to the hearts of all people in the Coromandel—that is the $26.5 million that has been allocated to further the fight against kauri dieback disease. One-third of New Zealand’s remnant kauri stand in my electorate so it was a disaster of epic proportions when a couple of months ago the announcement came that kauri dieback had been found in the Coromandel. This new $26.5 million of investment by the Government into fighting kauri dieback will mean that over 100 kilometres of new tracks can be laid 5 kilometres of new boardwalks can be constructed and an extra 300 hygiene stations can be created.This Budget is a good Budget. In 121 days New Zealanders will be faced with a stark decision. That will be a decision to stick with John Key Bill English and this National Government on the course of solid fiscal management that they have embarked upon and are getting real results with or to put it all at risk with a Labour-Greens-Mana coalition. I know which way New Zealanders are going to vote in 121 days. I commend this Budget to the House.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from the Coromandel Scott Simpson for yielding in this split call. It is an enormous pleasure an honour and a privilege to rise and speak in favour of this Government’s sixth Budget delivered by our very prudent Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English. When looking through the departmental estimates it is fantastic to see such a large amount of investment going into the things that really matter to NewZealand and the areas that make a real difference in people’s lives—not just the pet projects and reckless expenditure that the side opposite seems to prefer.I have been knocking on doors in the Wellington Central electorate over the last weekend and I have to say that the feedback on this Budget has been overwhelmingly positive. The $500 million package for children and families in particular has been popular among the voters in Wellington. That is expanding the eligibility and duration for paid parental leave adding to the parental tax credit and giving further access to early childhood education. The free doctors visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13 especially have been extremely popular.Another area of investment that is of direct relevance to the good people of the capital is the Government’s support of the film-making industry. The newly restructuredScreen Production Grant offers an incentive of a 30 percent grant to attract international productions with an additional 5 percent available for productions that offer significant economic benefits. A 40 percent grant is available for local New Zealand productions and the range of productions that now qualify for this grant has been considerably expanded. This has been very well received also.Gisella Carr the Chief Executive of Film New Zealand said that “the increased incentive is very welcome as is the Government’s recognition that attracting film and television production into New Zealand has significant wider benefits for New Zealand including most recently in our tourism sector.” With three moreAvatar films to be fully realised in Wellington pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy I think the proof is in the pudding with this particular policy.We have also heard that business owners are breathing a sigh of relief that the Government has remained prudent in this Budget. The Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive RaewynBleakley has said that a “restrained Budget is exactly what this country needs to cement-in the economic gains of the past few years”. She went on to comment that the Budget does not appear to be a “vote-winning lolly scramble”. That is a very positive thing and it will build on the platform of a return to strong and sustainable growth adding that “The prospect of more jobs higher wages and even tax cuts further down the track will be welcomed across the economy.” Also the managing director ofXero a fine Wellington-based firm said that the initiatives in the Budget that have specifically delivered for business were most welcome outlining the research and development tax credits and the hand back of considerable ACC levies—half a billion dollars’ worth—as most welcome initiatives.To me it is also good news that this Government’s sensible management of the economy has given the private sector the confidence to go forward and make sensible investment decisions and I for one especially welcome the news this week that we have heard a 2500 - seating capacity convention centre and a 5-star hotel are being considered for Wellington by private entrepreneurs and investors. This is something that will happen only when a Government provides an environment conducive to the private sector taking these opportunities and risks.I also welcome the investment this Budget makes in boosting trade supporting exporters defending the realm and helping our Pacific neighbours with their aid programmes. Today we heard in media reports the Hon Shane Jones say that he has no regrets about leaving an incompetent and debilitated muddle that is today’s Labour Party and coming over here to join the Government waka. There was nothing in the Hon Shane Jones’ very eloquent valedictory speech that suggested that that is anything but the truth. I want to say to the Hon Shane Jones as someone who left the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to enter Parliament to someone who is making the journey in the opposite direction: “Welcome aboardJonesy.” I am sure the member will find this waka to be more seaworthy to be a lot quicker across the water and to have a muchmore competent captain and with nowhere as many drips and leaks as his former vessel.We on this side of the House look forward to working with the most talented and sensible member of the Opposition.Tākina te hoe kia rite—let us wield the paddles together. In doing so let us achieve great things for economic development at home and in our wider region. I absolutely unreservedly commend this Budget to the House and to the people of New Zealand.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I am very pleased to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. It would be very easy to be lulled into a false sense of security listening to some of the speeches from that side of the House and seeing the generous dollop of money that was put into the health area in the latest Budget. In New Zealand First we particularly liked some of the health initiatives that received funding. We liked the free health care for all children aged under 13. That has been one of our policies for many many years so we were pleased to see it come into fruition. We also liked the fact that children are going to get two cochlear implants. We all need two ears to hear rather than one. So there were some very positive initiatives in health.However once again this Government has neglected the very important area of aged care in its Budget. We all know that the need is increasing at a steady rate and that when people go into a rest home their needs are far greater than they ever have been because they stay at home for as long as they possibly can. We like them to do that too. But there was absolutely nothing that actually looks at funding for aged-care services and employees. The Budget was totally silent on anything and everything that actually applies to this particular group. No strategy was visible apart from ignoring the problem. I was looking for “faster better sooner” action in this particular area and I know that the Minister of Revenue the Hon Todd McClay was talking about that previously.Hon Todd McClay: Yes.BARBARA STEWART: See we do listen on this side of the House.Working in a rest home is not an easy job; rather the reverse. I would say that most of us here in this House could not and would not want to work in this particular area. Fortunately there are people who can and who do and who like to work in this area caring for our seniors. Aged-care workers provide a great service while battling and scrimping to survive on the minimum wage which has been completely overlooked by this Government. One can earn more money in a supermarket packing shelves than what one can earn in the rest home industry. These hard workers have a very demanding job looking after our elderly whether it is in a rest home or even in the person’s own home.We rely on these people to carry out this job yet the Government basically ignores them as if they do not matter. We all know that costs are rising right throughout New Zealand society. Pressure is building and aged-care workers need to get a bigger slice of the pie than they get now. These people have been to our Health Committee. Of course we have got all parties represented on the select committee including Government members but really we are not listening to what these workers are saying. There were as I said earlier a number of good health care initiatives in the Budget but the failure to address the district health board funding at the levels required to maintain the service in this particular sector is disappointing and it is going to result in increased pressure on staff across the whole sector.The bottom line—and we all know it—is that our country is facing an ageing population and we need the facilities and the workers to help cope with this. The number of aged-care facilities the number of beds and the number of staff are all going to need to increase to cope with the demand that we have upon us. The 2010 GrantThornton aged residential care services review predicted that by 2026 between 12000 and 20000 new residents would require aged residential care—not a little number.The Government clearly needs to quantify the impending demand for elderly care. But what do we see? Basically this has been trivialised because the valuable occupation of aged care is being ignored. Aged-care staff carry out a whole range of tasks—some of them are seriously unpleasant—and they are woefully underpaid for them. The fact that a person can receive a better wage stacking shelves at the supermarket shows just how much value the Government places on this particular sector. It is absolutely disgraceful. The Government must set appropriate staffing levels and remuneration for aged-care workers to acknowledge their vital work and ensure the safety and care of those people working in the sector. The subsidy paid for the elderly in care should also increase. New Zealand First believes that it needs to increase as recommended in a 2008 report and then be adjusted to meet the annual rate of inflation. That is only fair.So what do we have? The Government is primarily to blame for the low wages and pay inequalities in the aged residential care sector. New Zealand First took action in 2005 to improve workers’ wages after a PricewaterhouseCoopers report showed that the sector was seriously underfunded by about 20 percent—a percentage that has only ever increased over the years. As part of New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government in 2005 we boosted funding by $850 million over two Budgets. Post-2008 National took its eye off the ball and it did not inflation-adjust the increase we worked so hard to get. That has led to the situation today where Government workers are paid about 16 percent more than private providers doing similar work in residential aged-care facilities and in home-based community support.This Government needed to front up to ensure fair uniform funding for the aged-care sector which provides a valuable yet totally unappreciated service. And did it? No it did not. The Government needed to include money in the Budget to ensure that our older age group is adequately cared for and living in conditions that we would be happy to live in ourselves or for our parents or our grandparents to live in. People have sent me photos that show that some of the facilities are disgraceful. A student flat would be far better than some of the conditions that elderly residents are living in. By paying the staff a minimum wage reducing bed numbers and not keeping standards at a premium we are never going to see any improvement in this area. The Government is going to be completely caught out if it does not address adequate funding of this area now. The Budget was totally lacking in this area and the silence was absolutely deafening.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable Minister Simon—Hon Simon Bridges: You’d better give me my last name Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): —Bridges.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): I know there are other Simons in the House but that was the most pregnant pause I have ever heard. What is it? “Politeness is contagious” and I thought you had forgotten my name there. But enough about that.Look it is great to follow Barbara Stewart. She is a great woman. I know that if it was up to her New Zealand First would be supporting National after the election should it be in a position to do so. I know that she has been trying to seek peace between Brendan Horan and Winston Peters and she is disgusted by the nastiness going on between them right now. I know as I say that she is a good person with a good heart who if she was not a member of Parliament for New Zealand First would be voting National.What a great Budget we have seen in the last few days a Budget where Bill English and the Prime Minister came to this House and laid it all out for New Zealanders. Howwell received—I agree with Scott Simpson—that Budget was. We are now managing a growing economy. After Rajen Prasad’s party left us with a decade of deficits through good stewardship day after day we are now back in black and that means that we are able to put families at the heart of this Budget. All of the things that Rajen Prasad did in the Families Commission all of those things pale in comparison with the way that we are now through responsible stewardship able to show families a dividend of growth.The contrast between the Rt Hon John Key and his speech to this House on the Budget and that of David Cunliffe and the Labour Party—boy I tell you what. You saw in David Cunliffe a gentleman who was not sure whether to say: “Well we’re unhappy because you’ve stolen our two or three good ideas.” or “Actually this is terrible and not left wing enough.” He could not work out which was his position. I understand that because this is a Budget for our times that New Zealanders are very very happy with. They are glad to see us back in surplus and putting families at the heart of the Budget.I said that Mr Cunliffe was unhappy because we have stolen Labour’s ideas. Well actually no. Paid parental leave—let us look at that. We have always said—I am not sure what Rajen Prasad is doing; I will come back to him—that paid parental leave is something that when circumstances permit we want to do something about and now we are in a position to do that. But unlike the Labour Party and unlike the Green Party it is a considered responsible package which reaches more people who deserve it. As I said in my speech on Budget night we have done the hard policy work to come up with that thoughtful package.I know in terms of stealing ideas that now that Rajen Prasad and Darien Fenton are leaving this place—and maybe you as well Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson—the ideas factory of the Labour Party has gone. The ideas factory of the Labour Party has gone. Where is it going to get its big ideas from? It might have to go to Dr Clark. His great idea was banning Facebook and we know how popular that was. But that is the position.Darien Fenton: Don’t be so nasty Simon. It’s beneath you. You know you love me really.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I will be sorry to see Darien Fenton go. I will miss our little flirtations across the House at question time. I always send a guilty text to my wife afterwards telling her I love her but there you have it.Then of course in that alternation that David Cunliffe had between not being sure about what to say—“You stole our good ideas.” versus that whole sort of “Look it’s terrible and not left wing enough.”—we get the wacky press release from David Shearer today about home insulation. I do not know what others think. I have to contend with David Shearer’s press releases from time to time. From his radio appearances after those press releases I just wonder whether he has read them. I just wonder whether he has read them because the radio appearances do not seem to bear any sort of resemblance to them. But in this one he says: “The Budget has confirmed that National has virtually abandoned its programme of insulating cold and damp homes across New Zealand”.Well Mr Shearer I know it was a stressful time for you last year at Budget time but we invested an additional $100 million over 3 years in home insulation across this country. That means that we are now in a position where we have insulated over 250000 homes including 112000 low-income homes and that means that by the time we have finished the end of our Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart and Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programmes we will have insulated some $447 million worth of taxpayer-funded insulated homes or nearly 300000 homes. And that is not good enough for Mr Shearer. He thinks we should have done them all. Well I just ask Dr Clark who is writing notes on this to tell me how much a policy of doing every house which seems to be what Mr Shearer is saying will cost this country. On this sideof the House we know that it is managing a growing economy responsibly that allows us to give the dividends back to families and to do the business for New Zealanders. This is a responsible Government working for the people of New Zealand to deliver the things that we know they want.Was it not a great families package? Fundamentally when you think about the families package and the Budget in total what does it all sort of mean? Well I say let us actually look at the contrast with Australia. If you want to know what a Labour-Greens Government in New Zealand would look like then look at the Australian Budget. When Howard left office in 2007 there was no public debt. Leave it to the Labor-Greens and what a legacy they left Tony Abbott and Mr Hockey to deal with. That is the kind of David Shearer thinking we have had on home insulation today. Do not worry about the money just promise to do them all. Do not worry about balancing the books just say you will do it and worry about the money at another time. But we on this side of the House through our responsible management have been able to deliver for families. I am really proud to be part of a team that has through good management invested more in families. Really the fact that families are the first to get the dividends and the benefits from this growing economy that we are managing is something of a real pleasure.Paid parental leave is something that I have had an involvement in. To see us spending $172 million on that is fantastic for New Zealanders. It is about more and more. More entitlement—we are moving in two affordable steps from 14 to 18 weeks—and more eligibility. We are widening it so that caregivers other than parents some 800 families more will receive it on that criteria and people in less regular work will also receive more—Carol Beaumont: When will that happen?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This is not to mention our having done the policy work that that member over there never did on flexibility of the paid parental leave scheme so that women primarily get the real benefits of going back to work attachment to work and so on. Just extending the length of paid parental leave in the way that Labour would want to do well frankly that is lazy because it exacerbates the disparities. Actually we have seen from academics in pre-Budget commentary that more important than the length of entitlement is the targeting and that is what we are doing. We are effecting a more modern and diverse set of family arrangements and workplace arrangements. [Interruption]They do not like it because it is true. I know Mr Assistant Speaker that you are about to wind my time up but I just want to say in fairness to the members opposite who are retiring and to one or two of them who should be retiring—not looking at anyone in particular Ruth Dyson—that they were the brains factory of the Labour Party. As they leave I do not know who is going to do Labour’s thinking but on this side we have done it on paid parental leave. We are seeing caregivers other than parents going to get paid parental leave as well as grandparents who are working and meet the criteria and so on and so forth and people in less regular work getting it and there is the increased flexibility. This is a Government that is responsibly managing the finances of this country as they grow and putting families first. We should all be proud of that and celebrate that as a country.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member can I just remind members to have a look at Speakers’ ruling 60/5 which states that interjections are out of order unless they are rare reasonable relevant and restrained—and if at all possible witty—and running commentaries are definitely out of order and members must wait for their opportunity to make a speech. That is from Speakers Statham and Barnard in 1923 and 1936.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): On the topic of retirement I was actually in Tauranga not so long ago. The view was expressed to me by members of the electorate there that they will be very glad when that member Simon Bridges retires. A number of people said that to me. It was not just people who had heard about his conversations about the Bradford reforms as to why power prices were still so high where he said “Well after 15 years they just need a bit more time to bed in.” It was not that comment that they were complaining about; it was his more recent gaffes.What that member forgets though of course is that people matter—people matter. He asks how much insulating houses would cost—how much it would cost. He is always looking for the cost of everything and he understands the value of nothing—absolutely nothing. Saving lives is of no consequence. The news I have for that member is that insulating homes is actually likely to save costs in our health system. There is plenty of academic research out of the University of Otago—an absolutely tip-top university with an international reputation—that proves that investment in healthy housing saves health costs many times over down the line. That member would do well to read some of that research especially with his portfolio responsibilities. But I do not intend to dwell too long on him because when he does retire and Rachel Jones takes over his seat—the excellent excellent Labour candidate whom we have in Tauranga Rachel Jones—we will see some really good policy from that part of the country. He is not universally disliked. [Interruption] No no. In fact I heard Michael Woodhouse claiming him as his second cousin just the other day. So there are a few fans out there. There are a few fans.I rise to speak about this Budget here. Mr Cunliffe has moved a motion for a vote of no confidence in the Government which says: “I move That all words after ‘that’ be omitted and replaced with: ‘this House has no confidence in a Government that has failed to put people first; that has widened gaps where too many of our children grow up in poverty; that has failed to provide enough good jobs and has lowered incomes; a Government that has no vision for our nation’s long-term wellbeing but is mired in politics as usual.’ ” That does sum it up. That does sum it up. Mr Cunliffe has hit the nail on the head. This is a “fudge-it Budget”. It is a Budget that has fudged its way into surplus. It has got a finance Minister behind it who has been dotting thei’s and crossing thet’s shifting things this way and that in order to make sure that his vanity is preserved in a Budget that just crosses the line.Of course we forget too often that Labour produced nine surpluses in its 9 years in Government and this is this Government’s very first surplus in 6 years. It got there of course by keeping ACC levies $120 million higher than they needed to be by disguising $375 million worth of New Zealand Transport Agency spending as a zero-interest loan and by spending $560 million less on local infrastructure for the Canterbury rebuild than it did last year. There is a bunch more fudges in there. We know there were soft loans to local councils and iwi that are listed as a specific fiscal risk by Treasury. We know that its KiwiSaver auto-enrolment scheme which cost up to $290 million was pushed out for as long as it remains a threat to the Government’s constructed surplus. We know there are caregiver employment conditions that loom as a cost to the Government—back-pay relating to equal pay claims and the Minimum Wage Act. All of these things are swept under the carpet because a surplus was all that this Government had its eyes on because it had never ever had one before.This is a Government with the worst economic record in 50 years. You can see why it was so desperate to get there. But it was at the expense of vision. Labour would have got there but we would have got there with a vision for the future. That is the difference between this side of the House and that side. It had no plan. It is widening the gap between rich and poor it is watching the situation get worse it is watching fewer andfewer New Zealanders get their first home and those members are content to sit there accept their salaries and do nothing. The Labour Government will be more hands-on. We will bring down power prices with our NZ Power plan. We will make sure there are new houses on the market. We will bring in pro-growth tax reform in the form of a capital gains tax. We have a vision for a New Zealand with better jobs and with more jobs.Today I want to take a bit of time to speak about another crazy thing that is wedged in this Budget document and that is the cuts that the Government is hoping to make to the poison helpline. The 0800 POISON helpline is set to be merged under the Government’s current plan into a combined helpline withHealthlineQuitline the Alcohol Drug Helpline the National Depression Initiative problem gambling support and so on. This is an emergency service. Seconds count. When a child is unconscious lying on the floor convulsing or frothing at the mouth and a parent picks up the phone and dials 0800 POISON they are expecting to have expert help. There are toxicologists on the line immediately and they are able to sort the problem. Those who have called the line have been surveyed and 90 percent of them said that if they had not got through on the 0800 POISON line they would have gone straight to accident and emergency. You cannot blame them but seconds count. The paramedics and the ambulance would be ringing the 0800 POISON line as well. This is the line that this Government is proposing to roll in with other lines. That could cost lives. It could cost lives. The National Poisons Centre has operated successfully out of Dunedin for 50 years. It is trusted across the country and it should not be rolled into one line.The database that supports it is updated constantly with product formulas and brand names that are unique to New Zealand. The people who answer the phones are expert toxicologists who update the database. They know their stuff like the back of their hand. They also know New Zealand place names. They know how far you are from a hospital. In one of the proposals being looked at one of the prospective tenders is fromMedibank an Australian company. It is right now having conversations with the otherhelplines in what looks like a deal behind closed doors to take over the service. Again we are seeing these jobs go off to Australia for a closed-door deal that looks remarkably like the Skycity deal where there was one provider that had the inside running that had the information on the service and that was looking to bring things together to deliver a service on behalf of the Government.You have got to ask why. You have got to ask what is going on there because it makes no sense. The poison helpline answers 80 percent of its calls within 20 seconds. Nowhere else in the world has a poison helpline been integrated as far as we know with otherhelplines. It is against the World Health Organization’s best practice guidelines. Why on earth would we go down that track? We do not want to move into the Third World in respect of the emergency services we provide. Why is the Minister of Health taking us down that track? I have got an online petition. You can sign up. It is linked to the Labour Party website. It has already surpassed our 2500 signature target in 2 days. It is gaining signatures rapidly because New Zealanders are worried about their children. They are worried about the child who swallows some unidentified pills or takes something out of the garden shed and who is lying there unconscious. They know and they trust that that number on the packet—that 0800 POISON number—will be answered by an expert and that they will get immediate help. Why the Government would want to do without that I do not know.This Government seems content to select the New Zealand services that will get cut across the public sector and to let the services provided for every New Zealander run down whilst the richest 10 percent—the wealthiest 10 percent—get tax breaks and those in middle New Zealand struggle. They struggle. Forty-six percent of middle NewZealanders did not get a wage rise last year. This is a Government that is content to say that we have got a rock star economy. It says that we have got a rock star economy. Well those gains are not being shared and New Zealanders are starting to say “What’s going on here? Where is Mr Key’s ambition?”. Well it turns out that that ambition is for the wealthiest New Zealanders and for them to take home more and more and more. Many of the wealthiest New Zealanders are quite happy to share and I bet that many of the wealthiest New Zealanders will be keen to see the poison helpline stay as well.The Government needs to answer some questions about the poison helpline. The onus of proof is on the Government. How will the service be improved by having triage and critical seconds wasted while a desperate parent is on the line trying to explain what is going on? How will less money be spent if you bring inMedibank or another provider over the top? The service is nearly half subsidised by the University of Otago. It will not want to take the risk of producing a data bank where it is open to litigation when the line is run by another provider. Well it would be nuts to do so. Why on earth is the Government proposing to go against World Health Organization best-practice guidelines? Why on earth is it wanting to do that? Why is it wanting to make New Zealand an outlier by doing away with a world-class service? Where is the transparency in this process?I urge New Zealand citizens to go to the labour.org.nz website and sign the petition to save the 0800 POISON number. It is a world-class service. It needs to be preserved. Questions need to be answered by the Minister of Health. In these supplementary estimates money is swishing around in relation to thesehelplines. The Minister needs to take a call and explain why the Government is doing this to New Zealanders.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I am very proud to be associated with this Government. I would be proud to vote for it tomorrow and I am proudly promoting it in the Hamilton West electorate. There have been some very fine contributions to this debate from members on this side of the House including from members of our supply and confidence partners. I thank them for highlighting the important aspects of a Budget that is delivering in areas that matter to New Zealanders. This is a Government that is getting the job done.Nearly 6 years ago New Zealanders voted for change. The recession was already biting. The previous Government had squandered the best economic conditions of a generation. Labour was spending like drunken sailors without securing the revenue to fund its commitments. It had encouraged an explosion in bureaucracy while overseeing a major decline in the delivery of public services. Treasury was predicting that the incoming Government would face at least a decade of deficits. So that is why New Zealanders voted for change. They knew that the next few years would be difficult. They were prepared to back a Government that promised to get its own finances under control while protecting the vulnerable from the sharp edges of the recession and that is what we have done.One only needs to look at many of the countries with which we like to compare ourselves and those with which we trade—the United Kingdom the United States of America Spain Portugal Greece India and the list goes on—to appreciate the staggering accomplishments of the John Key - led administration and especially our excellent Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English. As we saw last week the pain and the cuts are now really biting across the Tasman as the new Australian Government attempts to rescue that country from the ravages and the irresponsibility of the former Labor-Greens Government. What a grim warning that is to all New Zealanders to not put it all at risk on this side of the Tasman when they go to the polls on 20 September this year.Earlier this evening I heard some of the Hon Nick Smith’s contribution to this debate. He quite rightly made the point that New Zealand’s level of debt would have reached bankruptcy levels if the former Labour Government’s reckless fiscal mismanagement had continued beyond 2008. So I say to the member for Dunedin North David Clark who barracks across the House regularly about this Government’s economic record that he knows and more important his constituents in Dunedin North know that this Government has rescued the country and its finances from the worst Labour Government they have ever seen.I am very proud of our achievements in getting the books back into surplus within 5 years not least because the previous Government delighted in spending all the money it had and plenty it did not have when it was clear that it was headed for electoral oblivion. Achieving that feat of a surplus in half the time that Treasury predicted to the incoming Government it would take was commendable in itself. But given that no one knew then what devastation lay ahead for the people of Canterbury and the city of Christchurch it is nothing short of remarkable. As others have noted in this debate getting back into surplus is important because it gives the Government and New Zealanders generally choices. It means that we can start planning for future debt repayments and contributions to the Superannuation Fund. I and others on this side of the House are determined to achieve both of those goals in order to ensure that our children and their children are not saddled with an impossible burden that would encourage many who could to leave our shores and cause living standards to plummet for those who would have to stay behind.It has been utterly disingenuous to hear members opposite crying crocodile tears in this debate about our country’s indebtedness while every reasonable person knows that those same members who were here during the 9 long years of the Clark administration are responsible for it. Had the voters not intervened as decisively as they did in 2008 the debt projections now would be astronomical. In the critical areas of managing the Crown’s finances this is a Government that is getting the job done. When it comes to delivering better public services which is a major responsibility of any Government and one of the clear priorities of this one some demanding targets have been set and met right across the board and again we are getting the job done.In the time remaining I want to focus on some recent announcements that have been warmly welcomed in Hamilton and elsewhere I am sure. Prior to Budget day we heard about the terrific initiatives to deal with this worrying problem of rheumatic fever. This is an issue that we thought had been dealt with a generation ago and now it has come back. It is striking at communities right around the country. We have to deal with it and we have put measures in place to ensure that it can be dealt with. We have seen the new measures for children who need cochlear implants. Again this is something that those living in the deaf community have been calling forfor a long time. Because of our responsible fiscal management we are now in a position to deal with it. I look forward to seeing people in my area and elsewhere being able to take advantage of this terrific initiative. These were the things that people were talking to me about when I was in Rotorua a couple of weeks ago and last weekend in Hamilton at the Women’s Lifestyle Expo. It is the sort of thing that matters to families.So of course the next thing is to look at how the Budget delivered for our families and our children. I was pleased to hear Barbara Stewart my colleague from the Waikato region acknowledging the importance of the free doctors visits for children under 13. I am sure that this is something that is warmly welcomed across the House. I am sure that we are all pleased to see that it is being delivered. It is part of a $500 million package of measures to support children and families and $90 million of that is being spent on those free doctors visits. There will be $171.8 million allocated to increase paid parentalleave to 18 weeks by 2016. We have heard a lot about that issue in recent times. I am proud to be part of a Government that is delivering on it.There is the $42.3 million measure to increase the parental tax credit. That was something introduced by National back in 1999. It helps families with newborn children who are not on a benefit and who are not receiving paid parental leave.Darien Fenton: Say something original. Stop reading your research notes.TIM MACINDOE: To the member who is chirping at the moment I would remind her that many of those people are the ones who used to be called “Mike Moore’s battlers” and the “Kiwi battlers”. The Labour Party fought for them but it does not any more. Now it is National that is delivering.There is a substantial increase to early childhood education. We are seeing results with far more children being enrolled in early childhood education. That will benefit them for a lifetime. We have more than doubled expenditure on early childhood education while we have been in office. As the Minister for Social Development talked about earlier this evening that vital $33 million package to help vulnerable children includes eight new children’s teams around the country. I hope and expect to see something in the Waikato to identify and work with our at-risk children. We are getting the job done in really important ways.Could I close just by paying a tribute to budget advisory services right around the country.Dr Cam Calder: More money.TIM MACINDOE: In Hamilton the Hamilton Budgeting Advisory Trust is one of those budgeting services doing tremendous work as my colleague Dr Calder is noting with financially vulnerable members of our community. I meet regularly with that wonderful team in my city of Hamilton. I am full of admiration for the work they do. It is practical it is compassionate and it is making a real difference for families.Dr Cam Calder: Effective.TIM MACINDOE: It is as Dr Calder says effective. There is so much I would like to be able to speak about but I am pleased with that $22 million package for the budget advisory services. I am proud of this Budget. I return to my theme. This is a Government that is getting the job done and I will be proud to campaign on it right through to 20 September.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next speaker this is to advise the House that this is a split call. The first one will be the honourable member Gareth Hughes and he will get the bell with 1 minute to go.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I know that I am not the oldest member in the House tonight but I know that Budgets are not what they were once upon a time when all New Zealanders would tune in on the wireless and hear the news coming out of Wellington to find out how it affected them their family and their community. They are sort of more muted affairs now but they still have a huge impact on our national economy and on households. I think that Budget 2014 is a great time to take stock of how our national economy is doing but more important to take stock of how that national economy is working for all New Zealanders.Budget 2014 was all about the surplus. Bill English has over 5 years made this the only measure of success. It was a test so important that he would have sold off the energy assets and juggled the numbers in the books just to achieve it which is exactly what we saw happen. This was always going to be the surplus Budget and although we celebrate the increase in free doctors visits for 5 to 13-year-olds and the small extra funding for things like computers in homes which are some good little initiatives we also acknowledge that the Greens would have got us to surplus too. In fact in the lastelection we were the only party that took a net fiscal position to the electors of New Zealand that would have seen a Green Government paying down more debt. So achieving a surplus was good but as economists like to say about surpluses—and it is important to point out that economists are also like weather forecasts in that they are often wrong. You know it is the only field where you can win a Nobel Prize disproving the truth of someone before you. It is an area where the Treasury analysts and the economists focus just on the numbers. Well what we also have to focus on are the real people.This year while people were maybe reading about the surplus in the newspapers we also saw that people were struggling. I was visiting them in Wellington in the soup kitchen on Monday. We see them sleeping in cars in Canterbury. We see numerous families to a home in South Auckland. When we talk about the surplus in the Budget what does it mean? An economy that works for all New Zealanders. Right now internationally what we see is that the richest 1 percent have 16 percent of the wealth yet the bottom half have only 5 percent of the wealth. Right now in National’s New Zealand 290000 Kiwi kids are growing up in poverty. It is a travesty that in this land of ours which feeds and exports food for 20 million people our kids are still going to school without food in their bellies. At a time when business confidence is up we have got to ask ourselves whether the economy is working for all New Zealanders when we look back and we reflect that we work some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages and pay some of the highest costs of living in the developed world.As Russel Norman pointed out in his Budget speech the legacy of this National Government will be 30 percent of children living in poverty a 50 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions and debt—mountains and mountains of debt. When John Key took that seat in 2008 our net Government debt was around $16 billion. Since then it has increased to over $61 billion. The interest is being paid by all of us—by our future generations and our kids. At a time when Bill English is focusing on the Budget surplus this election we will be pointing out the other surpluses—the surpluses of poverty of inequality and of pollution. The only thing that this Government cannot point to is a surplus in housing or housing ideas and solutions.In the 20 September lead-up we are quite happy to be talking about the surplus of inequality and of poverty but we are also going to be talking about the deficit—the deficit of ideas of innovation and of leadership which are the things our country is crying out for. Our Budget shows the critical challenges and problems facing New Zealand into the future. Depending on raw logs and milk exports around the world is not a credible economic strategy. The taxpayer subsidies for the Choruses theTīwai Points theAnadarkos and theSkycities may help the Cabinet club mates but it is not helping those real families who are sleeping in cars or where there are many families to a home.Our economy is more simplified and more dependent on raw commodity exports than ever. What it is time for is thinking of a future Budget a Budget that has a surplus of hope; a Budget that presses Ctrl-Alt-Delete on National’s failed economic agenda for the 1 percent and reboots to a richer New Zealand; a Budget that has a surplus of clean energy building a clean energy economy and an internet economy which thrives and brings in IT businesses to New Zealand with a second internet cable; and a Budget that ditches the Government Communications and Security Bureau Act and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act. So this election while National is offering a deficit of ideas and a surplus of pollution and inequality we will be offering a surplus of hope real leadership a clean economy and an innovative economy protecting our environment and lifting our kids out of poverty. Kia ora.Colin King: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Steffan Browning. It is not a race Mr King.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I note in this Budget in the vote for primary industries that there seems to be very little extra for biosecurity and yet consistently we have new incursions in New Zealand of pests that are costing us hundreds of millions of dollars. I will point out that through these recent years there have been pests that we will recognise by name like western flowerthrips guava moths—[Interruption]—the National Party varroa mite lettuce aphids tomato and potatopsyllid. It has cost a huge amount to our horticultural industry already. There is theHadda beetle which the Government gave up on eradicating and varroa mite which it gave up on eradicating.The Greens have a different vision. This Budget has no vision for primary industries that we can see in there at all. There is cost-cutting all over the place and minimal increases in any area at all. We would have smart green agriculture and we would be preserving the future for our farming families. We would be using organics more and more. We would be concerned about climate change in a real way and in having resilience in our farming systems—diverse farming systems. Biosecurity is integral to that. It is integral even to agriculture and horticulture as we see it right now today in this country.TheHadda beetle which the Government gave up on in 2010 is expected to cost New Zealand $100 million over 20 years. Yes the cost of eradication was going to be expensive—$200 million over 4 years and that was why the Government came to that conclusion—because it let it inin the first place and then did not nip it in the bud. The painted apple moth cost the Government $65 million and I suppose that that was a bit of a fright. Varroa mite cost $20 million and then that eradication was aborted. Then there are the other ones that have been given up on like Dutch elm disease potato spindle tuberviroid a leaf miner in eucalyptus and the lettuce aphid as I have mentioned before. The fruit fly incursion has been jumped on quite quickly.However what are these pests doing getting in in the first place? The systems are letting us down in terms of what is getting in. I had a look in the Budget to see where I could find the figures for an increase in border control and I could not find any. There is a limited increase—a very limited increase—in some money around biosecurity but when you put it into real terms there is no real increase at all.If fruit fly really got going it would cost $800 million in the Bay of Plenty in the first year. But there is something else I want to put to members which is that eradicating foot-and-mouth would cost $8 billion in the first year if that got in here. This time last year the Auditor-General said that we are not foot-and-mouth disease ready; we are not prepared. Then on April Fool’s Day this year the Government came out—yes on April Fool’s Day; 1 April 2014—and through the Ministry for Primary Industries said: “We reckon we’re ready.”I do not believe that the country is ready because at the same time the Government has let a particular strain ofTheileriaorientalis or Ikeda go loose and even today in our newsroom we hear that the big movement of cattle is about to be undertaken and the Government is saying: “Look farmers try to make sure you don’t share it around.” This should have been nipped in the bud and it could have been nipped in the bud if the Government had used the system it has got National Animal Identification and Tracing and proved that we are foot-and-mouth ready. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): This is just to advise the House that we have a split call.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It was certainly a blue-letter day for all provinces in New Zealand on 15 May because of the consistent reliable and good management of this nation’s economy. Low interest rates can never be undervaluedwhen you are in the primary industry nor can low inflation be minimised. Those are the two evils that were left as a legacy from the Labour-Greens Government. In fact when we look at it 2014 is a very good time for the provinces. It is a very good time for theKaikōura electorate. I am proud to say that this Friday we will turn the sod on our third new hospital in 6 years. So the provinces are certainly being looked after well by this Government.Hon Simon Bridges: Only three?COLIN KING: Only three. However it is all good news from there and it gets better.When you look across at the Australian economy one gets a very clear understanding of what a Labour-Greens Government leaves as a legacy. What did we see as a legacy from the last Labour Government? We hear a lot about it. Labour’s last Budget left this nation with a $4 billion deficit. The last Labour Budget left this nation with a $4 billion deficit and deficits for the next decade. So from that point of view it was pretty good to be on this side of the House seeing Bill English as the Minister of Finance give his sixth Budget and having the country back in the black.One of the standout points was the $500 million that put families at the very heart of this Budget. When we stop and look at that it means that effectively 400000 New Zealanders will benefit from that family package. I am very proud to see that we have been able to do that. You get to that space economically only when you have good fiscal management. So 400000 people—how is it going to be dished up? There is $171 million to boost the paid parental leave scheme. That is excellent. There is $42.3 million as far as the parental tax credit is concerned. That is something that National introduced way back in 1999 and it has increased it by effectively 50 percent to $220 a week and extended it to 10 weeks to really balance the equation with regard to parental leave.Then there is the crowning glory of that Budget—the $90 million to enable general practitioners to offer free medical visits and free prescriptions. Can you believe it? There will be free medical attention and free prescriptions for people under the age of 13. That has got to be something that we can all be very proud of. It shows you that families are at the very heart of this Government—families. There is $155.7 million to make sure that we keep working towards those goals of getting 98 percent—98 percent—early childhood education participation by our youngsters. Then of course we have got to lookat the Ministry of Social Development. It has really got to grips with some of the very challenging situations that we see and is trying to bridge those gaps that obviously from time to time appear with the eight extra Children’s Teams which will really start focusing on that. It is my expectation that we will have one of those in Blenheim because we are ready and willing to go.This Government has really set Marlborough up. It has setKaikōura up. It has set North Canterbury up. We are in particularly good shape and we have got to thank Bill English and the National-led Government for that under the stellar leadership of John Key. There is a lot more I could say about this Budget but time has got away on me and I must yield to my fellow member. I look forward to his speech. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a Budget that is back in black. If we were to say that the Budget is red we would know that that is a Budget in debt. We know that the country knows that if it has a Government that is red and green it will have a Budget in debt. I see my colleague Mr Kris Faafoi over there. As I listened to his speech about the Budget I noticed that he used interesting words. He used theatrical words. I do realise that he did train in journalism but I think what he did not tell the House the audience out there and the nation is that he actually got an A+ for creative writing. That is right. He got that for creative writing. So theseare the words that he used. He used the word “disgraceful”. He said these words: “It was disgraceful. It was disgusting. What sort of Budget was this?”.He went even further. He decided to give an example of a chemist from his electorate Mana. He took his beloved leader David Cunliffe—and he needed to do this because it is well known that the community does not know him. That is right. It was on the news. People asked: “Who is David Cunliffe?”. So he is doing his job. He is winning brownie points. He is taking his leader out so that the community will know him. He went out. Then he gave this theatrical story about this chemist and how he saw the prescriptions on the shelf waiting to be picked up. He said: “How disgraceful that that has happened.” With his theatrical skills and his creative writing he told a wonderful story. But when you looked in the eyes of that member you knew that he was not sincere. Why was he not sincere? I will tell you why. If he had read the Budget like everyone reads the Budget he would know that this is what we are doing for health. Free drop-ins for sore throat clinics will expand the target for dealing with rheumatic fever to 90000 children. There is $90 million in the Budget allocated to funding doctors visits for under-13s making them free.That is our voice but how about we take it from the people out there in the community? This has got to hurt because this is a little bit of evidence. There was an interview that was done on 16 May by Martin Johnston that says this: “A child health expert has hailed the policy to extend free GP visits [as] restoring justice for children”—restoring justice for children. That expert was Diana Lennon the Auckland University professor of population health of children and youth. She expects the Government’s $30 million a year policy a surprise announcement in the Budget will lead to better management of skin infections by removing the medical clinic cost barrier faced by many families. That is even the families down in Mana and it is even the families who will pick up a prescription at the chemist that Mr Faafoi talked about.But let us go a bit further. Why? Because those members like to bang the drum about poverty. They like to talk about South Auckland. I am not sure whether Mr Hughes has actually been there. They like to talk about people sleeping in cars. But this is what is also coming. It is from Dr Nikki Turner of the Child Poverty Action Group. This is what she says: “It’s really important for families. It takes the pressure off them about the cost of visiting their GP. It’s important for the people who have to sit at home and wonder whether they should take their sick kids to the doctor or not. It’s got to be part of a bigger picture…”. We know that this Budget is delivering for families and for those in need.I want to say this. There is all this talk about poverty. There is all this talk about the fact of children in need. But I want to say to those members to stop using the people and their circumstances to make them feel good because that is what we are hearing out there. The communities inMāngere—that is South Auckland Mr Hughes OK? In the South Auckland communities that I work with the people who come and knock on my door are faced with two things. It is either choice or circumstance. This Budget and the way that we are working as a Government does this—it is truth and love. In other words here is the truth and here is the reality that we want to face but it is not with callousness or carelessness but instead it is with love. We applaud this Budget. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tonight there are thousands of people throughout New Zealand either watching Parliament TV or listening to Parliament on the radio. I acknowledge what my Green colleague said before that once upon a time there would have been hundreds and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders tuned in tonight to this debate to listen to the important Budget discussion. That is not to say that the discussion is not important. It is to say though that the powerof Parliament to communicate to our country has changed. I think that is something important for us to reflect upon tonight. Parliament TV is almost 7 years old and it is a really important institution in our country. I hope that this Government is not going to try to destroy it as it has destroyed public broadcasting in this country.This is supposed to be an honest debate. Unfortunately it does not feel like an honest debate from listening to some of the comments and the speeches tonight from the other side of the House. This Budget is being framed by this Government as being a Budget about jobs and a growing economy. I have just got off the phone tonight from a call from one of the 101 workers in South Otago who were made redundant yesterday. This person is part of a group of 180 people who have been made redundant in the last month from a forest industry enterprise in South Otago that has four different plants spread across four different towns—Mosgiel Milburn Milton and Balclutha. This worker told me tonight: “It sucks. It sucks what’s happening to us.” He has been working in that plant for 12 years. He is a good honest solid working person just like the many hundreds and thousands of good solid working people who have lost their jobs in regional New Zealand under this Government. This is through no fault of his own and in an industry that should be expanding growing and thriving rather than contracting and putting people in regional New Zealand out of work.This person told me tonight that he does not know where his future lies. He has got three children. They are settled in schools. He may need to leave town to find a job somewhere else. I would like Government members to get up and tell me tonight what the future is for him and the other people in that industry. I would also like the list member for Dunedin to speak out and stick up for his city and his region and say where the job growth is going to come from in that region. We have just seen 180 jobs lost from South Otago in the last month. If that is the sign of a Government that is focused on growth and jobs then it is a fairy tale. It is a fairy tale; it is an absolute fairy tale.One of the important things to note in this debate though is that under a Labour Government the forest industry and the forest-processing industry will be a priority because we actually have a plan for that industry as we do for a number of industries. I have not seen a plan for any industries under this Government. There is rhetoric—there is lots of rhetoric. But when it comes to an actual plan for industry development and growth and actual jobs where is it? Under a Labour Government however the forestry industry and the forest-processing industry will be a priority.In a region such as Otago and Southland this makes a huge difference. Our region contains 11.8 percent of New Zealand’s forest plantations which is by far the largest area in the South Island and it is the second-largest in the country. But of the $4.5 billion per annum that that industry is worth half of those exports are raw logs that are being processed offshore. That is why we are seeing 180 jobs go—the latest set of jobs. Since 2013 40 sawmills have closed resulting in the loss of 1700 jobs across the country so I do not think we have seen the last of the demise of this industry in this country under this Government. Under a Labour Government it would be very different.I would also like to address the rhetoric that has been spouted on the other side of the House that this is a Budget that is focused on health. Well when you look beneath the surface this actually represents a cut and it certainly does represent a cut in our region. There is a 2.3 percent cut in real terms; that is what this Budget means in health funding. When Tony Ryall the Minister of Health hyped up the Budget saying it was the biggest funding of the health sector to date he neglected to admit that when you take into account demographic and population changes which any responsible Government would do it put a massive extra strain on the health sector and district health boards.In the Southern District Health Board area which is the whole of Otago and Southland as I understand it from looking at the Budget figures it is going backwards. It is a 0.2 percent cut and it is going to mean extra strain on the staffing which is already under stress; on the services being provided to the community; on primary health care; on the numbers of people who are being referred by their specialists to be getting operations and are not actually ending up on waiting lists; and pressure on the Dunedin Hospital which is well out of date for being upgraded and replaced—extra strain essentially on the whole of the health service throughout that whole region. Again I say to the list member for Dunedin sitting across the House who is very busy doing his work that this is actually a critical area for him to address and certainly one that he will be held accountable for in Dunedin.I would also like to reinforce my support for the petition that my Dunedin colleague David Clark has put out there tonight to keep the National Poisons Centre phone line going. All you have to do is go to the Labour Party website—which is labour.org.nz and it is right on the front page; really easy to connect to—and sign that petition. That is the poison phone line that you ring if you know someone who has been taking the psychoactive substances and is suffering the health effects of that. As I understand it because I have stood in this House on numerous occasions the numbers of people reporting effects from those substances have increased extraordinarily in the past months. To axe that poison phone line would be disastrous an absolute backward step and it is gobsmacking to understand why that would actually happen.This is a Budget that takes us backwards. It is a Budget of inequality. It is a Budget that is not focusing on regional job growth. It is a Budget that is taking us backwards in terms of our health care. It is not a Budget that any Government could be proud of.DAVID CLENDON (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. There is an old saying that no good deed goes unpunished and I suspect that that phrase would resonate with the New Zealand police force at the moment which has performed in an exemplary manner in recent times in the last several years. The reward is to see its budget cut yet again. For the fourth or fifth year in a row our police force is being asked to do more with less. It seems a perverse reward for an organisation that has done everything this Government has asked of it. It has done a great deal of what the New Zealand population has asked of it. It continues to be forward-looking and to be creative in its use of resources and the reward is to suffer a budget cut. I cannot understand the logic or the reasoning behind that.We understand that Minister Tolley is only one Minister in Cabinet. I believe that that Minister has done some good things in her portfolios of policing and corrections but nevertheless in the police force and in fact across the justice sector collectively there has been a significant cut in the available resources. That is a very strange decision made by this Government.I give credit and I acknowledge recently retired Commissioner Marshall whom I believe did an excellent job of changing the culture of the police force. He was an admirable officer. He did an extremely good job of changing the culture of the New Zealand Police and that is an extremely brave ambition. It is an extremely ambitious objective—to change the culture of an organisation to which change does not come easily or naturally.I believe that initiatives like Prevention First and the neighbourhood policing units are strategies and techniques that resonate with New Zealanders. To some extent that is back to the future. Crime prevention is the best way to deal with crime and to avoid it happening. We know that. The Prevention First strategy has been very effective. We have seen a reduction in some offending. We cannot entirely take credit for that; it is aninternational phenomenon some of it related to demographics to science to hard security around premises and so on.But the fact is that the police have actually risen to the occasion. They have changed their strategy. They have changed their tactics. They have changed their way of operating in ways that have been beneficial and that have served to make our society and community safer. The reward is that this Budget has taken money away from them and insisted that yet again they must look to take cuts. You can cut fat. You can cut flesh. The police are now being asked to cut to the bone. That is perverse and it is going to have very unfortunate outcomes.The president of the Police Association who is not a fellow given to extreme language or rhetoric has said that there is an increasing risk of operational failures and that fear of crime will quickly return when the police cannot respond or do not get a response right. The police have demonstrated that they can make New Zealanders feel safer and that they can contribute to reducing crime.The peculiar logic that I am endeavouring to understand from this Government is to say that because they have succeeded we will take money away from them. What it is overlooking is the fact that the Prevention First strategy and the neighbourhood policing units are people-intensive strategies. Yes we know that the police are using new technologies and they are using them very well. They are using electronics they are using cellphones they are using GPS systems and they are usingiPads to reduce the amount of time that officers spend bent over word processors at police stations rather than being out there providing a face-to-face service to New Zealanders.These are very people-intensive strategies. We know that the task of the neighbourhood police unit for example is to create units of officers— a sergeant and a number of constables—who will know who the troubled people are in their community. They will know where the hot spots are in their community. That takes time and commitment and it requires good morale.We heard and I recall very well Commissioner Marshall talking about the extent to which a generation ago or even a decade ago young police officers in particular built their morale from the excitement and the thrill of the chase—charging around in cars catching people chasing offenders down a road and arresting them. That is how they built their morale. Modern policing the sort of policing that our police force now aspires to do is a hard grind. It lacks some of that adrenalin-fuelled interest and excitement because the police are seeking to prevent crime and you do that by building relationships within a community by talking to the youth and by understanding where the pressure points are in a community. That is people-intensive. It demands a great deal of time. That is where these Budget cuts are going to show most badly.I recall having conversations with district commanders with senior police officers and with officers on the beat who all agreed that good police morale is critical to the success of the Prevention First strategy and of the forward-looking—shall I say—modern policing approach rather than simply putting men and women in cars to go out and chase burglars and offenders of other sorts. They need to actually engage with the community. As I said it is a back to the future approach where we actually treat police officers as pillars of our community and respect them as such. That respect comes through because they engage with the community with the troubled people with those who are damaged with the youths and with the offenders.To the extent that their budget is being cut what sort of a message is that sending to those very hard-working men and women? For those men and women with a significant commitment to a safe community to limiting harm done on the roads and to limiting offending the message is very clearly that actually this Government does not value those people or the enormous commitment and the very difficult and demanding tasksthat they undertake on a daily basis. The cuts to their budget are saying: “Look you’ve done really well and we expect you to do more with a great deal less.” That is a very perverse message to send.I look forward to a time personally when we can cut the police budgets. I certainly look forward to a time when we can cut the corrections budgets because we will have less offending. That time is not now. This Government’s budgeting is the Budget of parsimony. It is cost cutting. It is penny-pinching in the service of this illusory surplus which the Government would have New Zealanders believe it has generated.This is a very very dangerous and foolish place to cut costs—the front-line people who are out there on a daily basis keeping our communities safe reducing offending and looking to provide service on the roads. The people who serve our communities in a very difficult and dangerous way are getting the message that actually their work is not respected and it is not valued because the dollars are not being provided for them to do that job. The reason they have succeeded is that they have found efficiencies. For at least 5 years and even longer than that the police have learnt to do more with less. They have used technology in a very intelligent way. They have sought to maximise the amount of good work that every individual officer can do in their 8-hour shift their 10-hour shift or their 12-hour shift. And their perverse reward is to be told: “Well actually we respect and value you so much we’re going to make you do even more with even less.”This is not the time to be parsimonious. This is not the time to cut costs or cut corners in terms of policing. Nor is it the time to be reducing the funding available to the justice sector more generally. There has been a very good analysis done byJustSpeak and I recommend Government members read it through.JustSpeak is the youth arm of Rethinking Crime and Punishment—young people with a commitment to peaceful and safe communities and to natural justice being done.JustSpeak has highlighted very well that we have seen over the last several years a chipping away at the funding available. A justice system can work only if it is properly resourced.We have seen the debacle of the endeavour to put the courts in a more efficient place. TheeBench has failed badly. The management of that project has fallen over. That is unfortunate because we know that our courts are overstretched. Justice delayed is justice denied and we are not seeing the efficiency and the streamlining in the court system that this Government promised. It stood up and said it would make the courts work better and it has failed to do that.We have seen ongoing cuts to legal aid. The most vulnerable the least well-off and the people most likely to offend and most likely to be offended against are the people who are going to continue to suffer because of short-term penny-pinching and as I have said because of very misguided perverse decisions that are made that because some parts of the justice sector are succeeding we will therefore reduce their funding. We will therefore take money away from them and make it even harder for them to achieve the outcomes that we all aspire for them to achieve.I give thanks and I do offer our respects to the police force and those hard-working people in the justice sector. We look forward to a time when their activities will be properly rewarded and resourced. Kia ora.Debate interrupted.