Robertson Grant; Bayly AndrewHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I'll try and keep it short so that there is a possibility for another contribution.In terms of deficits I just would point out to the member that the National Party ran six deficits between 2009 and 2014. We are forecast to run five in response to COVID-19. Our largest deficit was 7.2 percent of GDP in 2020; National's largest deficit was 8.9 percent of GDP in 2011. Our deficits are forecast to average 3.2 percent of GDP; under National they averaged 3.6 percent of GDP.So I do take the point that the member is making that clearly when we have to respond to a crisis in the way that we do there is going to be pressure on the Government's books. The balance sheet is strong enough to manage this. Let's be really clear: New Zealand's level of debt is significantly lower than most other countries in the world. The debt-servicing costs which I've already run through twice in the House during this session are historically very very low.When it comes to the second part of the member's question—around three waters—look the no worse off" policy was the subject of discussion with Local Government New Zealand. It was a recognition that there was a change in the status of the assets that were available for local government. We did negotiate that with them. There are rules and requirements around how that money can be spent but the member is right to recognise how Auckland Council used it—he may not be satisfied with it but in fairness to Auckland Council the "no worse off" agreement was one made with Local Government New Zealand as part of the way that we managed three waters process.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm going to take another call. Members have to be mindful I have to close the debate off 6.05 p.m. Happy to do that—members wish to work within that?ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to respond to the Minister's rebuttal of my earlier question. Look National Party—and this is what a Minister always does is it's all or nothing. "We had to spend the money and everyone or the Opposition said 'You shouldn't have to spend any money.' "The second line of defence is saying "Of course we would have cut spending on health services and all that sort of stuff." The Minister knows that National would not have done that; that's not what I suggested. I did acknowledge that there was some other good spending other than the wage subsidy but there's $25 billion that's unaccountable for and that was my point.The second point: the proposition that the Minister was in a new environment and quantitative easing and we had no idea that would lead to higher rates of interest particularly over the course of the bonds—which some are extending out to 10 years—is again absurd because many economists knew about this. People like Charles Goodhart and a number of other monetary economists knew about this and were talking about it. And of course we have had periods where we've had quantitative easing before—actually in the history of the world Mr Robertson; it wasn't just a one-off issue.The question I want to put to the Minister now though is that there's $56 million set aside for the venture capital fund. The understanding I have is that this is going to be a plan: work with banks to provide money to small businesses to try and help those who can't get access to traditional finance. Why is it when I talk to banking executives they say "Well we don't know about it; we haven't agreed to it and don't really have any intention to do this."? So it's just a fascinating thing that there's a lot of rhetoric about supporting small businesses. The key part is the banks but the banks don't seem to know much about it and certainly haven't agreed to it."