Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 03 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1617. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Financial Review Debate 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. The financial review debate is the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill. The time allocated for this debate is 4 hours and comprises two distinct elements. The first is the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once this has concluded the Committee debates individual financial reviews of departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations as reported on by the select committees. The debate on the Government’s financial position may be a fairly wide-ranging one but the debates on the individual financial reviews of the departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations should be relevant to their performance in the 2010-11 financial year and their current operations.  
The compendium of financial reviews and non-departmental appropriations available for debate is on the Table. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment to or debate on the question. The Chairperson then reports the bill to the House and it is set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading. 
The Treasury and the financial statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2011  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 That is the first 10-minute call I have heard from the Chair for a while. I take a call referring to page 376 of the reports of select committees on the financial reviews which does deal with Treasury and I am interested to hear from the Minister of Finance as to what his latest excuse is for the continual slide or lacklustre performance of the New Zealand economy. Indeed as the Finance and Expenditure Committee report says on the second page of its report in the year we are talking about the fiscal year ended 30 June 2011 New Zealand’s operating deficit before gains and losses increased from $12.1 billion in 2010-11 to $18.4 billion in the year ended 30 June 2011. It is no coincidence that during that year we also saw National abandoning its promises that it had taken to the electorate in 2008. It was at that stage talking about closing the wage gap with Australia which was one of its promises that it seems to have given up on. It was promising a step change in the economy. That has also disappeared from National’s language because of course every reference we hear to forecasts is that they go backwards rather than forwards. It seems to the Labour Opposition that it is now abundantly clear that the management of the economy by the National-led Government is not all that it cracks itself up to be.  
We heard—and I note that we can refer also to current events in this part of the debate—from Treasury recently that the tax revenue is nearly $1 billion below forecasts for this year as well. This year Treasury says it is because GST was down 4 percent largely because of earthquake-related GST refunds corporate tax was down 5 percent and the weak job market pushed direct-source tax revenue—that is PAYE and the like—down 3 percent. So we have a billion-dollar forecast hole—which is worse than it was just prior to the election in the pre-election fiscal update—just in the months since the election. So I think it is time for the Minister to say why on the basis of that he is ignoring the advice of his own department which has got some ideas as to how we might turn that round to improve the future of New Zealand by addressing some of the long-term problems.  
The briefing to the incoming Minister supported quite a few of the policies that the Labour Party took to the last election but that National still will not embrace including the need to have a neutral tax signal to the economy so that people are investing for the basis of the profitability of their investment and the success of the business which will grow our exports better than our current business model which is predicated too much on the speculative sector driven in part by the tax advantages that that sector has compared with other sectors of the economy.  
Another recommendation—we have the Government saying that it is going to get these budget things under control in part through welfare reform. Yet it is refusing to deal with the issue of the age of eligibility of superannuation. I would ask the Minister to concede that in the latest forecasts within 4 years we will be spending more on superannuation than we spend on the total of Vote Education—the total—that is preschool primary secondary tertiary and trades training. Yet the Minister says there is no need to change any of that. The Government pretends that its tinkering with the domestic purposes benefit and the unemployment benefit will do the trick. Yet within 4 years the Government’s own forecasts say it will be spending more on superannuation than the unemployment benefit—in fact 20 times the amount approximately.  
This Government will not pull some of the levers that are open to it to improve the economy. We have not rebalanced the economy. Treasury’s own forecasts show that within the forecast period the current account deficit gets worse. Every year we have a current account deficit. The difference between the cost of our imports and our interest bill and the value of our exports is bridged by more borrowing from overseas and every year the forecast has it getting worse from here so that according to Treasury by 2016 our current account deficit will be equal to 6.9 percent of our GDP and between now and then New Zealand will have borrowed an extra $50 billion from overseas— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —that is New Zealand—and in addition to that we will have sold some of our assets. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If you look at the recent report from the IMF it says that a continuation of the dollar at the current levels means New Zealand’s already high debt will continue to accumulate at an unsustainable rate. It also says the kiwi could be overvalued by as much as 20 percent. Very shortly this Government will bring into the House another shonky document of the type we saw last year in May you will recall where it was going to create 170000 new jobs in 4 years. 
Hon Member 
: In Australia. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: He did not say it was going to be in Australia; he said it was in New Zealand. Mind you that was the pre-election Budget of last year and there was an election coming. Here comes the gloom post-election for the Budget in 2012. We are a trading nation. We live or die by our exports and right there is the IMF telling the Minister of Finance that he does not know what he is doing with an export-led economy or a country that is dependent upon exports. The Government runs economic policies that hammer our exporters encourage the importers and hand the last of our thriving enterprises over to foreigners. This is supposed to be a Government for the people of New Zealand. Instead it is a Government for foreign interests for currency traders and for overseas-owned banks. And the National Party—I cannot say it has not got courage or that it is scared—does not have to use that classic old phrase the fortitude to do what is right by its own country and the mass majority of its own supporters. Despite the fact that National claims to be a mass-membership party it is concerned about the few and the very few or as the famous American President Roosevelt once said: “These overmighty subjects.”  
For 20-plus years we have had this economy being run for those sorts of people and the signs of what is to come are already in the Prime Minister’s predilection of saying that this will be a zero increase Budget. It has reached the stage where even tonight we have perhaps the greatest industry we have ever had and Fonterra being opened up for a raid by outsiders some insiders and some people awfully close to the National Party. It is not because they believe in its ideas or its philosophy but because it is the conduit or the elevator for them to massively increase their private wealth whilst they dupe the National Party into thinking this is good for the country.  
That is what the last debate was about on the dairy industry. It is supposed to be a farmers’ Government but it is really a Government of Wall Street traders and dairy interests even though it is controlled by the communist State of China. But that is no surprise of course because former National Party apparatchiks and operatives and even Prime Ministers now work for those companies that are controlled by the communist Government of China. How low can you go? That is what this debate should be about tonight and we are going to make sure that New Zealanders become more and more aware of how it is they thought they could trust a Prime Minister—and a Minister of Finance who was opposed by him of course—because of all things he came from Wall Street. Does anybody not understand what has happened on Wall Street in the last 28 years? They ripped apart the ownership and confidence of business after business in their country and elsewhere. Banks for example no longer lent money; they lent a mortgage then had that mortgage flogged off so that the payment of that mortgage was the last thing the banks were concerned about with all these financial instruments. This is what this Government intends to do again in New Zealand in this Budget coming up in 2012.  
Thousands of jobs have been lost since the Minister of Finance boasted that 170000 new jobs were being created over the next 4 years. Thousands—record levels—are heading across the Tasman. The “Minister of Employment” for New Zealand now is a man called Swan who is the Minister of Finance in Australia. If you ask people who have gone to Australia they invariably say that the Government there looks after people. This Government cares nothing for people. It is only for the few and the very few—and the rich in particular. The Government pretends to care but it is all form and no substance. The Minister of Finance does things for example like fobbing off the Maori Party. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Appropriation (2010/11 Financial Review) Bill for the year coming up to 2011 and a remarkable year it was. Who would have thought that this country would be borrowing $18 billion in a deficit for that year? I spent a lot of time researching the New Zealand economy over the years back in the 1970s and 1980s when Winston Peters the previous speaker was in Parliament—way back then when we had deficits. I never thought we would have the same size and significant deficits again. Yet here we are.  
Why did we get in this situation? Well firstly obviously the global financial crisis has hit a number of countries around the world and economies have been knocked sideways by that and are having to stimulate their economy. Secondly we have been hit by the earthquake in Christchurch which we all know was one of the most substantial natural events in the modern economy in a developed economy. But finally the main reason that we have had this large deficit also has been the settings inherited from the Labour Government in 2008 when National inherited an economy pregnant with 10 years of deficits on the books. The Labour Party had abandoned discipline in the last 3 years particularly of Government. It had turned the taps of spending on and left this Government with 10 years of prospective deficits that we had to rein in. So there is no easy task for this Government in trying to restore some order to the books and that is what the last 3 years have all been about. We need to pay our way.  
It is not written in stone that this country will always be a rich country. It is not given to us as of right. It is not something that will happen automatically. Every generation in every year has to go out and earn it and we will earn that only if we have an economy that is dynamic where people want to save. You do not get a dynamic economy when the Government is soaking up all the capital and all the resources and that is why it is so essential that we bring down the deficit as quickly as we can and why I am pleased to be part of a party that has a clear plan to get back to surplus by the 2014-15 year. It is not going to be easy. It is difficult. It is much harder to turn off the tap than it is to turn on the tap but I am sure we will be getting there soon. 
I was glad that Mr Peters referred to the IMF in his speech because the IMF did have something very relevant to say. It said: “In our view [the Government has struck] the right balance between the need to limit public debt increases while containing any adverse impact on economic growth during the recovery.” So in other words in what is a very difficult environment this Government not only has struck a good balance between the need to maintain the dynamism of the economy through spending but also is setting a clear path so we can get back to a more sustainable position.  
We cannot continue to keep borrowing billions on volatile global markets as we have done for the last couple of years. We have been privileged in the sense that we have had relatively low Government debt levels over the last couple of decades and that has given us the room that we have to move in the last couple of years but we cannot keep on doing that indefinitely. So the figures and the plans that the Government has to get back into order quicker rather than later are well worthwhile.  
Finally before I finish I just want to talk about why the economy is so important. We hear particularly from the Greens that somehow all this focus on economic growth is materialism gone mad and misplaced. But the reality is that constantly we hear talk about people going to Australia. Why do the people want to go to Australia? Often they want to live in dynamic exciting economies and cities with the opportunity to do well.  
What I am in politics for and what we are all here in politics for is to do what we can to create that dynamic environment and that requires a strong economy. It means not saying no to every opportunity that comes our way as a country. It is being open to making use of our resources. It is being open to understanding the needs. It is actually private enterprise that creates wealth. It is people risking their livelihoods and their own capital to create jobs and to create products that people want to voluntarily buy on the markets not things that the Government does that makes all the difference. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Appropriation (2010/2011 Financial Review) Bill. In summary the Government has been a poor manager of the economy. In the 2011 year-end Budget what we are seeing is a deficit of over $18 billion—the largest in New Zealand’s history. That is poor economic mismanagement. In 2010-11 Crown debt rose by $13.4 billion to over $40 billion—again that is poor economic mismanagement. With economic activity that is stagnating just above the technical recession level we are again seeing poor economic mismanagement. The mismanagement of the economy is being characterised by poor decisions that have benefited the few but are paid for by the majority. 
What I want to talk about in this financial review is the narrative of this Government which as we saw led to tax cuts for the wealthy that we could not afford which led to a budget deficit and which led to cuts in spending. What we are now seeing is the third act of this narrative which is raising revenue by flogging off the State assets. When you go back to 2010 and the tax cuts what we saw was the big gains being delivered for the wealthiest New Zealanders. We saw the head of Westpac getting $5000 a week. What we had to do to respond to that was see increased borrowing for tax cuts to pay for tax cuts that were targeting the wealthiest. That is both reckless and immoral. But in addition to the inequity what we have also seen is that the tax switch which was not fiscally neutral was a fiscal blunder—another case of poor economic mismanagement. 
On the expenditure side what we have seen is this Government throwing $2 billion per year at the motorways. Meanwhile traffic is down petrol is up and public transport grows through the roof. We are seeing this Government throw $1.2 billion annually at polluters in New Zealand through its amended emissions trading scheme. We are seeing this Government sell our assets to fund $400 million worth of irrigation—again what we are seeing under this Government is it says it does not pick winners but when it comes to irrigation it is surely picking winners. When it comes to Skycity it is picking winners. When it comes to Warner Bros it is picking winners. What we are seeing is we are picking winners in the old style economy which has harmful social and harmful economic impacts on our country. 
But on the revenue side this is where the Government has failed to make up the books. To balance the books it is requiring the third act in this narrative which is to flog off the State assets. The Government turned down the Green Party’s sensible and popular proposal for a temporary earthquake levy for Christchurch. That could have raised over $1 billion per annum which would have helped with the $9 billion costs that Treasury estimates will be projected to be spent by the taxpayer. Rather than putting the cost of the earthquake on the taxpayers’ credit card we could have shared the cost more fairly across all New Zealanders and not put the burden on the many again. A comprehensive tax on capital gains would not have affected the family home. The Tax Working Group predicted that it could have brought in $4.5 billion in a year and would have helped move our economy to a more productive footing. A charge on commercial water use would have raised $500 million a year. 
But instead of taking these smart common-sense alternatives this Government—because it has got tax cuts for the rich because it has got a Budget blowout and because it is borrowing too much money—now has got to sell the assets. The problem is though when it comes to selling the assets the economics do not even stack up there. Our energy assets are getting a very good return at the moment—in fact more than repaying the debt is costing at the moment. Treasury’s Budget Policy Statement 2012 quantifies this amount. It shows that if the Government proceeds with the partial privatisation it will cost $94 million a year. Selling assets to reduce debt costs the Government money. That is the key message we have got to take to the country to stop this mindless selling of assets and the mindless arguments justifying it. 
The conclusion is that when you have got this destructive narrative affecting our economy we need to get into a good story. The good news is that there is a hero in the story. It is a smart clean economy. This is what we can deliver that is going to lift our kids out of poverty and it is going to see actual work coming to New Zealand. Take the “drill it mine it” approach this Government has got to economic development and the resource sector—there are hardly any jobs for Kiwis; hardly any royalties because we have got one of the fourth-lowest royalty rates in the world; and hardly any tax income because we have got so many tax exemptions. But what we are seeing is the profits go offshore. If we were investing in sustainable clean energy and if we were driving export growth through our international champions—these State-owned energy assets that at the moment are selling our expertise on geothermal energy around the world—we could be delivering prosperity for Kiwis and we could be growing the economy so we can lift those Kiwis out of poverty and actually give our kids a good start in the future. That is the path the Green Party will be focusing on. Thank you.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at the Financial Statements of the New Zealand Government for the year ended 30 June 2011 and Treasury we need to take a good look at what we inherited from the previous administration and that was an economy in recession. We got an economy in recession before the rest of the world. That was what we inherited from the Labour - New Zealand First coalition. It was an economy in recession. Since then we have managed to turn that round. In the most difficult of economic times we have turned that round. Not only have we turned that round but also we have set up the infrastructure and the economic platform for New Zealand to grow.  
Today we had a question in the House from the Green Party about the roads of national significance. The Green Party was wondering why we should have them. Well that is investing in the future growth of New Zealand.  
Sue Moroney 
: Ha ha! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is investing in the future of this country. Sue Moroney there is laughing. I would like to see her go to the people of Hamilton and laugh at them when they see those roads being built around their city. They will link us to Auckland and grow our city. That growth is imperative and important for New Zealand going forward. National has delivered that infrastructural growth in the most difficult of times. 
Not only have we delivered it but also we have set up structures so that New Zealanders have the right signals and incentives out there. If you get a good education and if you work hard you are going to get some rewards. That is what we want. We want New Zealanders to know that if they work hard and they get an education the future is theirs. The other side would rather take from people and try to redistribute it to make everybody equal and therefore control them. That is the party of the Opposition. That is how it has always been and always will be. The National Party has a different vision and it is a vision that we have enacted in the most difficult of times. It is a vision that is working. 
New Zealand is doing as well as any country in the Western World has done in these difficult times. Would you rather be in Europe or America? Well the Opposition would not want to live in Europe or America; those members want to be in New Zealand. It is all right for the New Zealand First Party to come into this House and try to put down the Chinese but the Chinese Government and the Chinese economy are saving us by buying our dairy products. It would be interesting to see if we did not have that market how smart people in the New Zealand economy would be. This is a Government that understands economic fundamentals. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. We understand what you need to do to build a strong economy and we are doing that. At the same time we have delivered the social services that New Zealand people need. We did not scare the horses. We did not go out there and cut social services. At a time when we could have done that we did not. We maintained those social services. We maintained the integrity of the New Zealand social welfare system. We had to borrow to do that but we did it.  
We have also delivered a rebuild programme for Christchurch after the major natural disaster there. That city will be rebuilt. Those people know that this Government stands behind them. They know that this Government is here for the people of Christchurch unlike the Opposition which will come into this House and try to pull down the regrowth of that city just for political purposes. That is not good enough. New Zealanders expect more from their Government and they have got more. They have got good leadership they have got an economic plan that will be successful and will work— 
Grant Robertson 
: Where? Where? Show it. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The Labour Party asks where this economic plan is. Well we want to see what David Shearer has got to say. He has not said anything in 4 months has he? Grant Robertson has said more than David Shearer has said in the last 4 months and he is not even the leader. He might want to be the leader but he is not. The Labour Party has not got a plan. Its members know that it has not got a plan. They look across to us and see that we have got a plan. We have got a direction. We are investing in that infrastructure. We are investing in education. We are telling our people: “If you make the right decisions and you work hard then the opportunities—” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is your stopwatch going? That speech seems a whole lot longer than 5 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am very mindful of the time. I just remind the member that on numerous occasions you have brought the Chair into the debate. You cannot do that. Also focus back on what this debate is. We are looking at the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s financial review. That is what we are concentrating on. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We are on the financial review and those Financial Statements show that this Government is making the right decisions to take New Zealand forward. It is investing in the infrastructure it is investing in that social spending but at the same time it is recognising the demands on this economy and the demands on this Government going forward in these very difficult times. We have had to borrow under those Financial Statements to get through these difficult times but that was the right decision for New Zealand going forward and nobody would dispute that. I would imagine that if the other side had been anywhere near the chains of power those members would have borrowed a lot more and that would have sent this economy spiralling into disaster. We did not. We borrowed what was prudent for this economy going forward and we have delivered at the same time the right investments with that borrowing. We have not spent it on silly things. We have spent it on the things that count giving the right incentives. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to rise this evening in this Chamber and speak after Mr David Bennett the member of Parliament from Hamilton East. That was one of the best speeches I have heard from that member in quite some time. Can I say to members opposite that that did not seem like a long 5 minutes to us on this side of the Chamber. I could imagine if one was not enjoying it on the other side then it would have seemed like a long period of time. But Mr Bennett who is well known for drinking very large glasses of clean Waikato River water was in full flight talking about the wonderful things that his Government has done and the important things New Zealanders have asked us to do.  
What have we heard from the other side of the Chamber so far in the debate? We have heard the politics of envy. We have heard from those members that everything is wrong in New Zealand that they are depressed that nothing is going right for them but actually after a lot of puff there was not a single good idea between them: a few things they spoke about back in 2008 regurgitated to the electorate in 2011. What happened in 2008? The largest single vote under MMP for any party.  
What happened in 2011 when they said everything had gone so wrong? Again the largest vote for any party under MMP. Was it for the Labour Party? Was it for the Green Party? It was for John Key’s National Party and it was for John Key’s National Party because New Zealanders resoundingly wanted a brighter future—not the slogan that was stolen by members opposite but a brighter future. They wanted direction they actually wanted hope they wanted to recognise the good things that happen in this country and they wanted to do more for themselves for their family members and for others.  
I heard members opposite say earlier when Mr Bennett was speaking that it was 4 years ago when we went into recession a recession that was the steepest New Zealand had faced in 60 years. The world’s economy was failing. But when we came into Government we inherited books that had debt growing and a forecast of debt into the future that was spiralling. The members opposite say: “That is the past. Why are we talking about that?”.  
If you do not know where you have come from as a country it is hard to know where you have gone to and what I have got to say is that over the last 3 years the National-led Government has provided the reasonable economic management that New Zealand was in such need of after 9 years of Labour mismanagement of this economy. I can see why they do not want to talk about those 9 years but it is a reality. It is a fact. New Zealanders cast their judgment on that not only in one election but also in two elections. I can understand why those members would not want to look at that.  
When we took the reins of office and the financial crisis had reached its peak in the New Zealand economy in that year the economy had shrunk by 3 percent topping off 5 years of historically low growth. I can remember back then reading newspapers about the wonderful things the Opposition had said were happening in the economy. But the important part of our economy the part of our economy that produces things the productive economy—the businesses that invest their own money and that produce things to sell them export reinvest that money and employ New Zealanders—had been in a recession long before the rest of New Zealand’s economy got there long before the rest of the world and it was going backwards.  
We were losing competitiveness and thank goodness that New Zealanders woke up and said they wanted a change. They wanted new direction with John Key. They wanted a finance Minister Mr English who would get Government spending under control who would move New Zealand in a more productive direction and who would say to our ministries that they must deliver more for New Zealanders with the resource that they are given the taxpayer resource—not more money but more hard work for that.  
Every day New Zealanders work hard for their money. Why should not the Government and our ministries do the same thing? Well on this side of the Chamber that is important to us and you know to New Zealanders it is important as well. They told us that in the last 3 years when they went to vote.  
Can I say to you that we have done a number of things—a raft of things—that helped New Zealand become more competitive and more productive. We have looked at the tax system and we have changed it to encourage work and savings. That is very important to New Zealanders. Over 9 years we did not hear about that. All we heard about were handouts and borrowing—handouts and borrowing.  
You know it does not matter whether it is you in your home in a business in your local government or in your Government if you spend more than you earn every single— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
TODD McCLAY 
: If one spends more than they earn every single year then sooner or later you have got to pay the piper. Well in this case Governments do not have to do that. Governments just keep putting up tax keep taking your money and keep spending it or at least that is what New Zealanders saw over 9 years of a Labour Government. Well we came into Government and we made one of the most important— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It has been interesting listening because the one thing we should have heard and still have not heard is Labour apologising for the damage it did to the New Zealand economy. These estimates cover just the cost of another year of this National-led Government trying to undo the wreckage disentangle the wreckage of an economy that used to be a proud exporting economy. But here is one simple fact for those who profess to care about jobs: in 2009 there were no more jobs in exporting than there had been 10 years earlier—10 years earlier. So after 10 years of the great moderation of a global economic boom with unfortunately a Labour Government in charge there were no new jobs in the New Zealand export sector—none. Our capacity to earn had not increased in 10 years. 
But what about our capacity to spend? Well there were jobs everywhere jobs everywhere—public servants real estate agents finance companies. That is what went so wrong with the economy and that is why the Labour Party should apologise. Until Labour apologises the public is not going to listen to it on the economy. The public rightly thinks it is still the same old nasty big government taxing spending Labour Party. 
Changing the leader does not make any difference. There is no change of heart. There is no discussion tonight about respecting the people who invest take risks and create jobs the people who show up to work every day and do not want to be taxed out of their pocket so that they cannot pay their bills. No there is no indication from the Labour Party that anything has changed from “Helen-omics”. At least when Michael Cullen was running economic policy it was reasonably sound. But in about 2004 that stopped. The left took over. It blew the Budget wrecked the economy and it is still in charge. That is why the New Zealand public—well the New Zealand public hope that if Grant Robertson is the leader he will apologise. Phil Goff certainly would not. David whatever-his-name-is thinks he—well I do not know if he thinks he should or not because he does not really say much. I was hopeful. I was hopeful. I thought David Shearer might get up clear the decks and say: “We’re sorry we made a mess. We understand why our vote keeps going down.”—and it went down again in the last election—“We are sorry.” But no he cannot bring himself to do it. But Grant Robertson probably can because I think he might have the ruthless streak. And the rest of the caucus just have to get used to the idea that when he becomes the leader he will apologise. I do not think he believes he should; I just think he believes that is probably what you need to do if you become the next leader of the Labour Party and you want to get the public’s vote and win. 
 That is one of the reasons why the Government is able to continue with a credible economic programme that sets out to achieve some pretty straightforward objectives: to get back to surplus and to rebalance this economy. By that I mean to get people and capital back into the income-earning side of the economy. We will not be able to borrow our wealth in the next 10 years like we did in the last 10 years; we will actually have to earn it. That is what these estimates cover: the continued considered and consistent economic strategy that the Government is following. It is taking the public along making significant change where it is warranted careful change where that is what is required and dealing with the unexpected events like the earthquakes—not complaining about them; just getting on with it. That is why the programme of the Government is starting to earn the respect of entities like the IMF as being a sensible programme. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Revisionist— 
Hon Bill English 
: Apologise! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well “Apologise!” says Mr English having criticised the election result of the Labour Party at the last election. He seems to conveniently forget that in 2002 he presided over the worst defeat ever—worst defeat ever—of the National Party. What did he get? Twenty-one percent! But of course he is not very good with figures this Minister of Finance because he overlooks that. He overlooks that.  
Similarly Mr Bennett’s contribution to the debate was to say: “Be thankful we’re not Greece.” It is a similar line to that run by Mr English. He says we are not as badly off as Greece. Well why is New Zealand not as badly off as Greece? Because the last Labour Government ran surpluses every one of which was opposed by Mr English when he was Leader of the Opposition by Mr Key when he was Opposition spokesperson on finance and by Mr Brash. All of them opposed the surpluses of the Labour-led Government which were supported by New Zealand First and the Greens and at one stage the United Future party. Those surpluses were all opposed by National.  
Mr English you even forget the comments that you made shortly after the 2008 election when you had the good grace to concede that “This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for.” because your Government—sorry the National Government—inherited amongst the lowest government debt in the Western World. In fact net debt was zero. Net debt was zero. Gross debt was 17 percent. Even after all of the problems of the earthquake and the global financial crisis New Zealand should be back in surplus in 2014-15. It should be and I think we will be or close to it. Even National cannot so mismanage our affairs that we do not get back to surplus by then.  
Even then New Zealand’s government debt will be amongst the lowest in the developed world. But we still will not have cured our fundamental problems which relate to imbalances in the economy. Mr English talks a good game when it comes to rebalancing the economy but he has not done it; he will not pull the levers that are open to him to cause the economy to change. That is clear from the Government’s own projections. The current account deficit goes up every year. Far from having cured this deficit being the difference between the cost of our imports and our interest bill and the value of our exports it gets worse from here. Treasury says that by 2016 New Zealand’s deficit will be out to 6.9 percent of GDP and by then New Zealand will have added $50 billion worth of overseas debt mainly private debt—$50 billion extra of debt. That is the reason why we were downgraded last year. It was misrepresented by the Prime Minister at the time as the ratings agencies saying it would have been worse under Labour. Subsequently that was denied by the ratings agencies. They downgraded New Zealand because of private debt in the main not government debt. Private debt gets worse every year from here on because it keeps growing under an unbalanced economy that this Government failed to change.  
These phoney promises are backed by no plan. In response to the fact that the Government was hurting because it did not have a plan it came up with this hare-brained scheme to sell off our State-owned enterprises which makes the Government deficit worse. It makes the Government deficit worse to the tune of $94 million per annum. We are around $100 million a year worse off because of course the interest saved is less than the profits and dividends forgone.  
The Government is getting distracted by scandal after scandal at the moment whether it is ACC or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or mistakes by Treasury monitoring the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme causing hundreds of millions of dollars of costs. The economic credentials of this Government are being slowly eroded as the public sees that it is mismanaging it. It is too distracted. It is looking after the people it likes whether it is Mr McElreabeing put in charge of the Broadcasting Commission or insiders of the National Party getting preferential treatment from ACC. This Government is more about looking after its insiders than it is about taking care of New Zealand’s serious economic problems. 
Reports noted. 
Office of the Controller and Auditor-General  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa. I will take a few minutes just to focus on the financial review of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. I note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee report on the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General was pretty succinct; in fact it had only two lines. But I did want to mention some of the work that did occur during the period of the review because it is key to I suppose making sure that we hold the Government to account. 
A massive 100-page report into the central government results of the 2010-11 audits asked some key questions about the Public Service. For example is the one-size-fits-all approach the appropriate approach to take for the future? Should there be a more collective approach to reporting? Is a simpler more flexible approach desirable? These are great questions and I want to just take a couple of examples to sort out why. In the health sector audits the Auditor-General tells us that despite there being specific legislation in place to reduce the disparities for Maori the lack of information in the annual reports and the absence of targets to reduce disparities makes it pretty hard to gauge district health boards’ progress. Some district health boards had great intentions to improve the health outcomes for Maori but for four district health boards there was not even a mention of health disparities for Maori in the plans at all. For 14 district health boards there was a mention of initiatives to address some disparities but the descriptions were pretty general rather than specific in detail. Can I suggest that a collective approach might result in measures and targets for Maori with trend data reported in the annual reports being a pretty good approach. 
Moving to the education sector I was interested in the 2011 audit of Maori immersion schools. One of the aspects of interest was around the notion of conflicts of interest. Given the close association by whakapapa and by whanau associations in kura there is every likelihood that kura will be employing staff who are actually whanaunga—relations—of the trustees who obviously run the schools. The Auditor-General acknowledges that this is a reality and in fact out of the 64 kura or schools that had boards 46—that is 72 percent—were in this position. The report had some really simple advice around how one might manage the perception of conflict of interests. In one school in one kura for example the principal’s husband tendered for the contract to paint the school fence. When it came to the discussions around the contract the principal abstained from the vote. In another kura the brother of a trustee tendered for a contract. The board minutes stated that the board member concerned was not consulted because there would be a conflict of interest. This is the sort of information that we would expect as a part of the auditor’s key function: really specific useful measurable actions that make the words mean something.  
Finally the reason that I think the work of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is so important is basically around the whole notion of accountability. It is pretty simple: we need to know that any service or agency being funded by the taxpayer has made and is making a real difference to the communities. It has got to be more than just having documents or plans; we want to know that the plans have made life a lot better and that the results of those plans are being communicated in a meaningful way. That is at the heart—and in a sense the genesis—of Whanau Ora. We want the Government to be more transparent and accountable to Parliament and to the public. 
The Auditor-General talks about the cost of producing reports for the sake of having some reports. We want to be able to trust that public funds are being spent to improve the situation for people. The classic example is in local government. In 2010-11 local authorities receiving $14.5 billion to finance the services they deliver to the community seems way over the top. The Local Government Act 2002 requires that councils consider and promote current and future well-being of communities. It has also introduced new responsibilities and opportunities for engagement and cooperation between councils and Maori. Yet what we know is that the performance against these criteria is at best variable and the Maori Party is determined that local authorities must comply with these requirements by law. So again that is why the appropriations report is pretty vital as we move forward. Kia ora. 
Report noted. 
Office of the Ombudsmen  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This is one of the most disturbing parts of this financial review process. The report of the Government Administration Committee into the Office of the Ombudsmen during 2010-11 is something that we should all be concerned about. The Ombudsman came to the Government Administration Committee and said that her office was in crisis. A budget established for a workload of 800 to 1000 cases was now dealing with 1600 to 1800 cases there were 1854 live cases on hand and 300 cases had not been assigned to an investigator because of the workload. As the Ombudsman herself said justice delayed is justice denied.  
The Ombudsman went on to talk about concerns over staff well-being. The report of the Government Administration Committee notes that the office said it was worried about staff sickness high rates of serious illness and staff placed on stress leave. The Ombudsman’s office noted that it would like to reward its staff better and to recruit additional investigators but it did not have the funding to do so. These are among the most serious issues that could be raised in this process.  
The Office of the Ombudsmen plays a critical role in our democracy. It is one of the pillars of our democracy by ensuring accountability by ensuring that New Zealanders can have trust and faith in the systems of government and that they have a place to go when other options have run out. Many New Zealanders will associate the Ombudsman’s office mainly with the Official Information Act but it also has an important role in determining how other Government agencies operate in particular around the Department of Corrections. It is simply unacceptable for the Ombudsman’s office to have got into this state.  
We do need to note that the Officers of Parliament Committee has allocated additional funding to the Ombudsman’s office and that is something that is to be welcomed but it is still well short of the $1 million extra that Beverley Wakem told the Government Administration Committee she needed to ensure that her office could operate in the way that most New Zealanders would want it to do. There is little more important in our democracy than knowing that an office like the Ombudsman’s office can operate without having to concern itself with staff who are simply unable to work because of the levels of stress that they are operating under.  
It was John Armstrong in the  
New Zealand Herald  
who asked the question: “is National now benefiting from delays in the Ombudsmen ruling on cases taken against ministers who block requests under the Official Information Act?”. That is the serious concern. Many members of this House will have Official Information Act requests dating back months if not years. I have one that goes back to May 2010 and the Ombudsman’s office comes back to me and says it simply does not have the resources to investigate these cases at this time.  
This is a crisis as Beverley Wakem said. Additional funding of $300000 from the Officers of Parliament Committee will go some way to addressing the staff remuneration issues and the staff retention issues but it will not reach the heart of the problem that we have here that an institution of Government that is charged with ensuring transparency and ensuring accountability is being starved of funding to the extent that the Ombudsman would come to a select committee and say her office was in crisis. That is something that members on the other side of the Chamber should take very very seriously indeed.  
It is not just about MPs or media wanting their Official Information Act requests fulfilled. It is about whether Government agencies are treating people fairly and we have a huge number of cases emanating from the Christchurch and Canterbury earthquakes that are coming towards the Ombudsman’s office and some that are already there and they are held up in this backlog as well. The Ombudsman’s office itself acknowledged that further public sector reforms would add more to the backlog.  
We need an assurance from this Government that it will fund an institution like this properly. We have seen too many examples of issues like conflict of interest cronyism and other issues from this Government that are not being properly addressed. We need the Ombudsman’s office to be in a position to undertake the kinds of inquiries that give New Zealanders confidence that the system of government we have is transparent and accountable. I cannot stress more how seriously we take this and how much this office needs to be supported. 
Dr The Rt Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (Speaker) 
: 
 I cannot let those issues go unanswered because under our constitutional arrangements it is not the Government that determines the funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen; the recommendations are made by the Officers of Parliament Committee which includes members from all sides of this House. I chair the Officers of Parliament Committee and as for all agencies of the Crown there is an expectation that all agencies will operate with the utmost efficiency. Just because agencies or departments seek extra funding does not mean to say that they should be allocated extra funding. I think I have told this House previously for example that I run the Speaker’s office on less than half the funding of my predecessor—less than half.  
The Office of the Ombudsmen has been allocated additional funding to deal with an increase in complaints. The Ombudsman’s office was allocated on a temporary basis $370000 to help the office cope with the increase in complaints. It was not made permanent because there was no certainty that the increase in complaints would be ongoing. The Officers of Parliament Committee is now satisfied that that increase in complaints with events like the Canterbury earthquake is likely to be ongoing for the foreseeable future and so that temporary additional funding of $370000 has been recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee to be made permanent to give the Ombudsman’s office the certainty of that. In addition to that all the additional funding requested by the Ombudsman’s office has been recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee to be allocated in this next financial year and that is the $300000 that the honourable member Grant Robertson was referring to. 
 So I want the House to understand that it is not the Government that on its own determines the funding of the Ombudsman; it is the Officers of Parliament Committee which comprises members from all sides of this House. That committee has listened to the representations of the Ombudsman and has accepted that there is a seemingly permanent increase in the level of inquiry required by the Ombudsman’s office at present. What is more there have been additional functions allocated to the Office of the Ombudsmen and those have been funded. There have been funding allocations made to meet those additional functions required.  
I just want the House to understand that the current situation is that in this next financial year in terms of all the requests made by the Ombudsman the recommendations have been met by the Officers of Parliament Committee. 
Report noted. 
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 We once had a great Prime Minister in the National Party and he governed for longer than anyone in the National Party. His name was Keith Holyoake and he did all that in very trying and difficult times with five people in his office. His name as I say was Keith Holyoake. He was not a greatly academic educated person but easily the most competent National Party leader that there ever was. For over half this past century we have had in New Zealand some great Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers who did great things. Unhappily for the people of this once great country we no longer have a great Prime Minister and he certainly does not have a great Cabinet. But my real point is this: why does the Prime Minister need if you take all the people who work for him not 126 but about 150 people in his service? It is 150 if you add it all up. It is 150 people for a Prime Minister who posed as being the best economic and financial brain this country had ever had because he went to the United States and was trained by Merrill Lynch. Why on earth the country would trust someone whose training came from Merrill Lynch and whose company and its ilk took the Western World to the worst global financial crisis since 1929 I would not know. But as time goes by New Zealanders will wake up to the fact that this man has had no training at all to run this country that he has no economic principles and that he has fewer social ones when it comes to running a fair country.  
Why does he need so many people to run his office when a man like Holyoake needed so fewer? The answer is he cannot trust his Ministers. He has to have somebody spying on them all. They do not do a very good spying job. Oh yes they do! I know Madam Minister that somebody is in the Prime Minister’s office watching you right now—not you Mr Chairman. They are watching the performance. Mind you that Minister starts from a flying start because the person she inherited the job from was absolutely and totally incompetent. That was another choice made by the Prime Minister. He may have made a correct one in this Minister’s case but the last one was the least qualified person in the whole of Parliament to be a Cabinet Minister. Why is it for example that this Prime Minister has his holidays in Hawaii or Europe? What is wrong with New Zealand? What is wrong with— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no no it is an explanatory matter and I will tell you how. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are actually on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the department. If the member wishes to look at page 352 he might actually bring the debate back to what is on those pages. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I most certainly will. Mr Chairman you should be aware that when he travels unlike others in the past he demands to take his security with him and that is a taxpayers’ cost assigned to his department right? That is a fact. Tell me this: why can he not holiday in New Zealand without taking these people all on the plane probably going business class all as security? Worse still why can we not access this House during the day when Parliament is sitting without having to walk behind these guys who are about 6 feet 5 inches tall stopping members of Parliament accessing the very place that they have been elected to all at the taxpayers’ cost?  
The answer is the boy from the State house has forgotten where he comes from. He has forgotten where he comes from. He loves the rich life. He loves the baubles and joy of it all. He loves the travel. Oh yes because to go to Hawaii with your bodyguards is in an atmospheric sense when it comes to the profession merely a bauble. He does not have to go there. Or if he has to go there why can he not go there and rely upon the local security? No no no not him. He has to be like somebody from a Third World dynastic dictatorship. The last person I saw do that was a guy called Saddam Hussein.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mu’ammer Gaddafi. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes Mu’ammer Gaddafi. In fact with Gaddafi the Chinese Foreign Minister said to me that one time this man called Gaddafi came to China and he had 26 magnificently built bodyguards all 6 feet tall all beautiful all women. Then in English he said: “Good eh?”. That is the parallel. 
Report noted. 
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority  
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 When the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was established it was at a time when it was replacing the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission which the Government had set up after the September earthquake. After February the Government felt that a stronger body was required and that was true. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission simply did not have the powers that were needed under the circumstances of the February earthquake. It was insufficient. It was a coordinating body a recommendatory body and it simply did not have the powers. But it did have one thing that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority does not have and that is independence. So it was an independent body that did not have sufficient powers—a powerless independent body. The Government replaced it with a powerful body that has no independence—it is a Government department.  
Just prior to its establishment our then leader Phil Goff wrote to the Prime Minister John Key and suggested that if the Government really did want to do things well in Christchurch and to have a genuine bipartisan approach to rebuilding Christchurch which the Government had said it wanted to achieve for it to be meaningful there had to be full engagement before decisions were made and consulting on proposals when they are ready to go to Cabinet does not make the resulting decision bipartisan. I think that is a very good point for us to note.  
Then he went on to say that Christchurch requires a separate recovery model so that the Christchurch City Council can get on with business as usual with key personnel seconded to a separate authority which is given all the powers to implement the recovery component of the city council’s civil defence emergency management obligations. Unfortunately the Government did not listen to us and that is because it does not understand international best practice when it comes to recovery. I know that that is the case because I listened to the Minister when he responded to a contribution that I made to the panel on Radio New Zealand National’s  
Afternoons  
with Jim Mora on 10 February this year when he suggested that what I wanted in terms of community engagement when I was talking about international best practice was that I was suggesting we sit around and play guitars and sing “Kumbaya” over it which I thought was very funny. I mean he is a very clever speaker when it comes to making humorous points such as that but this is a serious matter. What he told us in that same public statement was that he can rewrite the evidence he can rewrite the experience of the past when he said: “I think we are actually rewriting international best practice down here on a day-by-day basis.”  
I just want to remind the Committee that international best practice comes from the experience of failure and success. When things work well we learn from those but when things fail we learn from them as well. If we do not learn from failure we condemn ourselves to repeat it over and over again. What the Minister was actually telling the people of New Zealand was not that they were rewriting international best practice on a day-by-day basis in Christchurch. What he was telling New Zealand was that they were making it up day by day and they are getting it so terribly wrong. The people of Christchurch are finally starting to cotton on to the fact that this Government has no idea what it is doing.  
I want to tell the Committee that the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee headed by the exceptionally brilliant professor Sir Peter Gluckman has done an exceptionally brilliant briefing paper to the Prime Minister and I would like the Minister in the chair the Minister of Education to actually respond to this paper on the psychosocial consequences of the Canterbury earthquakes. He says this: “It would appear that key to minimising this phase of anger and frustration which becomes inevitable when people are treated the way they are treated by this Government is the promotion of local empowerment engagement by working closely in a collaborative way with the affected population in coordinating and co-leading the response effort. If the population do not sense this is happening then the phase may well be longer and the symptoms of anger and frustration more intense.”  
Sir Peter Gluckman knows exactly what he is talking about when he is talking about evidence and international best practice. Unfortunately the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has not been set up to undertake that approach at all. I understand that tomorrow the Government is going to announce a new direction for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to take over that role from the council. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the review of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority at pages 47 to 52 of the combined reports of select committees. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel has alluded to was established in March 2011. It has extensive powers under one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation this House has passed since World War II. Its task is to plan and coordinate Christchurch’s recovery until 2016. I certainly acknowledge the considerable work that it has done in carrying out land and building assessments as a basis for rebuilding and insurance decisions and its work with the Christchurch City Council Orion and others in coordinating the rebuilding of water sewerage electricity and other infrastructure. But I want to concentrate on the authority’s role in overseeing demolitions which is specifically referred to on page 50 of the combined select committee reports. 
In the last year the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has decided that more than 1200 buildings should be demolished in Christchurch’s central city with 900 of these in the cordoned-off central business district area. This is roughly half the buildings in Christchurch’s commercial and cultural heart. They include more than 140 heritage buildings that are recognised in the Christchurch city plan more than 70 buildings that are listed and registered with the Historic Places Trust and hundreds of buildings that have contributed to the city’s character even if they are not formally recognised as heritage buildings. Yet because the public has had such limited access to the red zone with only a few bus tours very few people know how much has gone and how little is going to be left.  
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has in its haste to demolish failed to heed international best practice and international experience. Dr Kit Miyamoto of Miyamoto International which has helped and advised a number of cities recovering from more than 100 natural disaster events from hurricanes to earthquakes warned that Christchurch was headed down completely the wrong track with the authority’s strategy of demolishing half of the central city. He said it was more appropriate to have a take-down rate of between 10 and 20 percent of buildings. He said that many of the buildings now—or that have been demolished by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—could be repaired for 20 to 30 percent of the cost of a new building.  
So it is the haste and the extent of the building demolition strategy of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority that is impeding the city’s recovery. The authority is creating a stark and bleak wasteland with huge vacant lots which may remain that way for decades particularly if the former owners of the buildings that have been demolished take their insurance payouts and go elsewhere—as the owners of the big Crowne Plaza Hotel are understood to be doing.  
Christchurch is known internationally for its stone Gothic revival buildings. They include the Arts Centre of Christchurch the Christchurch Cathedral the Canterbury Museum the Canterbury Provincial Council Chambers and numerous churches. They are a key part of the city’s architectural heritage. They are objects of beauty and of considerable artisanship and they have a key commercial value in attracting visitors to the city and providing the backdrop to a vital cultural life. Yet the authority’s enthusiasm for demolition and its failure to seek proper advice from engineers who are experienced in retrofitting rebuilding and strengthening heritage buildings mean that the Wizard is now conducting regular pray-ins to try to save that symbol of Christchurch—the Christchurch Cathedral.  
The  
Listener 
 reported last November: “ ‘We have owners desperate for us to say the building has less than 33% of new code strength and is therefore classed as a dangerous building’. Then they go along to Cera and have an exchange of letters. The owners hand over the letter from the engineer saying it’s under 33% and Cera hands them a letter saying ‘Tell us how you’re going to knock it down within 10 days.’ ” Because of that when owners have the option of repairing their damaged buildings or getting an insurance payout there is a very powerful incentive to go for the cash. With the cathedral not enough has been done to investigate ways of repairing and strengthening the building. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is encouraging with its haste to demolish to meet its April deadline a bleak and stark wasteland within the city.  
We need the authority’s extensive powers to be curtailed. We need the city council to go back to making decisions on the buildings that should be demolished using a public process where there is an opportunity for public submissions. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act has a lifespan of 5 years and it includes a commitment that it will be reviewed annually. The previous speaker has indicated that the Government is going to make some announcement tomorrow. That 1-year anniversary is approaching and the powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority need to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is the member going for another call?  
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —be substantially curtailed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If the member keeps talking after I have rung the bell that constitutes another call. I did not dock you for one and I did not dock the previous Labour member as well. But just be mindful if you continue talking and I call you again that constitutes another call. It means that later on you will not have that call if you want to speak on something else. So I just remind all members of that.  
Report noted. 
Ministry of Transport  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Ministry of Transport has an important role in our transport sector in that it provides the advice to the Minister around transport objectives and opportunities and it is a means for the promotion of changes in rules and regulations to make transport a much safer environment for New Zealanders who travel on our transport systems but also the importance that transport has as an economic growth agenda and a very strong part of this Government’s agenda of how we build a stronger and brighter future for New Zealanders going forward.  
I would like to focus on just a couple of things of prime importance in the transport sector that the Ministry of Transport has been involved in in providing advice to the Minister in that regard. One of those is in regard to the roads of national significance. This is probably the biggest initiative that has happened in the transport sector for the last decade. The roads of national significance are essentially a matter of identifying the main roads that in terms of economics safety and population demographic require substantial Government investment and funding.  
If you look at those roads of national significance they are typically situated in the large urban centres. For example Auckland has a large number of roads of national significance. There is the Waikato Expressway through the Waikato which you Mr Chairperson Tisch will be well aware of as it is through your electorate. Also we have the Wellington Christchurch and other roading projects.  
The initiative that the roads of national significance illustrate is that they are an indication of where we have identified the prime roads that need that investment. Rather than going through a system that we have had for many years of trying to politically go from section to section in those roads we have actually said that these are big economic growth agenda projects that are more important than just building the roads. They provide the focus and delivery of economic growth to our regions and a connectivity between our cities. So in identifying those roads and then funding them this Government has invested a lot of money in these times in economic growth providing that infrastructure for the country to go forward.  
I think we need to commend the ministry and the Ministers involved for the hard work that has been done in that area and the great benefits that you are seeing in the areas where those roads are being built. That will actually benefit all New Zealanders because the economic growth that comes out of the areas that are being serviced now by this infrastructure will be vital for the economic growth of New Zealand as a country as a whole.  
The other area around transport that we should probably make mention of is road safety. You have seen a number of initiatives in that area over the last few years ranging from the drug-driving requirements to the lower breath-alcohol levels for young people and recidivist offenders to the most recent changes that we see with the give-way rules in the last week or so. I would like to commend New Zealand motorists for taking the opportunity to understand those rules and act with a sense of respect to their fellow drivers in the way that they have engaged and made that transition from the old rules to the new rules—something that in practical effect has been successful and not with a lot of accidents or anything that would be seen as untoward.  
I think the Ministry of Transport needs to take credit for a lot of the work in those areas for its ability to assist in road transport and road safety and I think the Government organisations involved can take a lot of credit for the way that has been done. It shows that you can make practical changes on the ground level where if you get that public education right if you get the right promotion of the change if you get the understanding from the sector and if you get a cohesive approach to it then you can deliver those kinds of changes without too much effect on the ground. That is something that I think is important for us going forward in this sector.  
The road toll is another issue that is very close to our hearts. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Economic Development  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The year 2012—5 years after the former Labour Government reduced Crown debt to zero nearly 3½ years after this Government took office—far too late to blame history and time to take responsibility. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.