Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the opportunity to take this call and in the main reply to the contributions already from the Government members. Mr Bishop for example spoke about—I think the 2015-16 Budget was called a plan that is working. What we are seeing from the debate today is a large number of appropriations that show exactly the opposite. He spoke about the glaring success of business research and development. He claims Government success from the growth in research and development from business of 29 percent. Of course the National Government claims that that is its success despite the very same statistics Mr Bishop referred to telling New Zealanders and highlighting to this Government that over the same period since 2014 Government contribution to R & D has gone up by only 5 percent in that entire time. I want to point out to those Government members across the aisle there that this is a race that this is a competition with the rest of the world and that they are not holding up their end of the bargain.So Mr—I keep forgetting your name—Tracey Martin: Hudson.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Hudson. Mr Hudson how do we measure the success of R & D by Government and business? Let us ask what a simple way is of measuring that. I put it to the Committee that a simple way of measuring that is the amount of external trade this country undertakes as a percentage of its economy. Well the measure is a simple one and its outcome is that trade as a percentage of this economy is absolutely undoubtedly going backwards—undoubtedly going backwards.Hon Steven Joyce: No it's not.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: As a percentage of GDP Minister it is going backwards.The Minister of Finance spoke about positive growth and a wonderful economy going on but then he failed to mention in his analysis that that is not true as a measure per capita. Our economy per capita has been stagnant or if we concede and give some ultra-right interpretation of the statistics it has grown marginally per individual. What does the implication of that mean? Because he is right—the economy has grown. But where has that gone if it is not being spread out evenly amongst New Zealanders? It means that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.In fact the Minister quoted OECD statistics. He quoted the OECD as a measure of how well this economy is doing. Well let me quote the OECD back to the Minister and highlight the fact that it was the OECD in a formal report to all its member nations that said that New Zealand as a member has one of the highest inequality data sets in the developed world. In fact we are bordering on Third World numbers in comparison in inequality. That means that the OECD itself—completely ignored by the Ministers here—has shown to New Zealand and to that Government that inequality is huge. It is growing and those members opposite are not doing anything to address that—certainly not through the appropriations.I asked the question before—I think this Budget was called a plan that is working and in conclusion I just want to highlight to the members opposite that there is no plan. There is no plan. The former Minister of Finance was diametrically opposed to the Government doing anything meaningful in its Budgets hence this rigmarole around appropriations and trying to move money into places where it is needed. Economic development and infrastructure which are the topics we are focusing on are inexorably linked. For 9 years this Government has done nothing meaningful in terms of infrastructure development.I have got only 30 seconds left. I have got example after example of opportunities missed but the reality is that this Government has cost this nation. It has cost businesses and it has cost our Kiwi households in terms of homelessness just as one example of its lack of action its lack of spending and its lack of leadership. Thank you.