McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. If this Budget was so good and if it really delivered what the Government is saying it is don't you think they'd want to speak for a bit longer than a minute and a half to talk about it? But they don't because right throughout this debate—the first reading the second reading and the committee stage—all their claims have been unravelled. You know the rules of Parliament are quite restrictive and there are certain words that you cannot use. You can however use a combination of words to describe things. There is a word for when people say one thing and do another there's also a word for saying something that isn't true and there's also a word for saying something and then ignoring that and then not doing that thing and all of those situations have occurred in this Budget. What summed it up quite nicely was that very brief contribution there from Ryan Hamilton that said that you can't borrow to give tax cuts. Well you can because that's what they've done. What they have done is they have committed to tax cuts which in turn have reduced the Government's revenue and then borrowed to fill the gap. They have borrowed for tax cuts despite the fact that in their Budget at a Glance it says Tax relief is fully funded". But it's not. If there was the equivalent of the Advertising Standards Authority here this should be reported because it is not telling it as it actually is and there is no greater example of how this Government has let New Zealanders down than in housing. This Government has decided that instead of helping first-home buyers over that line to produce a deposit to buy their first home it is a better and more pressing priority to do a $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords. In addition to that this Government has said that it is a bigger priority for them to reduce the brightline test which will ultimately see houses bought and flicked on much quicker than they would have done otherwise. A really interesting piece of information that came from the Government's own analysis said that a combination of those two polices—the $2.9 billion tax cut for landlords and reducing the brightline test—will mean that rents will go up quicker and longer and this is the Government that promised to bring down rents. Now what was I talking about earlier about saying something that isn't actually the case and knowing that that's the case? For months throughout the election campaign and at question time after question time after question time the Prime Minister sat in that seat there and said to the House and said to the people of New Zealand that the tax cut for landlords would drive rents down. He knows that's not the case and now the Government's own analysis says so. How can Government members stand up for 90 seconds or in some cases for quicker than a minute and say that this is a good deal for New Zealanders when they know that it's not? The piddly small amount that many many many New Zealanders are getting out of these tax cuts will not compensate for the additional costs that they are bearing. It will not compensate for the increase in rents and it will not compensate for the increase in insurance nor will it compensate for the increase in rates and every time that ratepayers open their bills and see a rates increase that they did not expect they can lay the blame squarely on the Government. Even the Government's own advice says that by repealing the water reforms that has imposed an undue burden on councils who simply cannot do it by themselves. Their own advice said that repealing the water reform would cause a significant increase in rates and later on in urgency we'll be debating a bill that does absolutely nothing to reduce rates. It fiddles around with processes to make things that can already happen happen quicker but it does not in any way deliver lower rates for ratepayers and that is the thing that is stinging Kiwis the most. It is a massive driver of inflation at the moment and it's not just ratepayers; it's renters as well because of course if the costs on landlords and ratepayers go up so too do rents. This is a fact. It is in their own advice and it is disingenuous to say the least to stand up and crow about how much this Budget is delivering for New Zealanders when many New Zealanders are facing costs that will be far higher than the tax cuts that they receive. In addition to the increased cost of rents and rates the housing issue continues. This Government—and this is something that hasn't been spoken about and I'd be really interested on their thoughts. Perhaps if they'd contributed to the full time allocated we might have been able to hear about this. A billion dollars: remember that—it's a lot of money. A billion dollars they have removed from the maintenance budget of Kāinga Ora—$1 billion—because they want to do what they did last time and that's run down Kāinga Ora and then say "See? The Government shouldn't be involved in the provision of State housing. We may as well flick 'em off." It's what happened last time and it's what's happening this time and the fact is that in the Budget in order in part to pay for tax cuts they have taken $1 billion out of the maintenance budget for Kāinga Ora. The question I have for the members is this. Is a leaky roof still considered a roof over the family that is vulnerable and that needs housing because obviously that is exactly where it is going and it demonstrates yet again that this Government doesn't care about those that need it. They've made the wrong choices and they've got the wrong priorities. When it comes to saying that they would do one thing and then not do something there is no greater example than their promising vulnerable families who are facing an untimely and early departure of their family members who are suffering from cancer that they if in Government would fund prescribed cancer medication. They broke that promise—they broke that promise. They misled New Zealanders. They said they were going to do something that they simply could not do and then they have the gall to turn around and try and blame us. I couldn't believe it. The finance Minister was trying today when she's come under the pump—it's quite clear that the message has hit home with the Government that this is a step too far for New Zealanders. To promise people that they would fund cancer medications when they knew they could never do it and they had no intention of doing it—and there are people that voted for that Government solely on that policy—and then to turn around and try and blame us. It was a cynical move and if there was any credibility left in the finance Minister it disappeared today when she made that claim. It is disgraceful. They should own it. They misled New Zealanders. They promised something that they knew they couldn't deliver they had no intention of delivering it—because they can't; it's not how Pharmac works—and here they are turning around and saying "Oops sorry. But by the way let's blame Labour." Nah—sorry that's not going to wash. If you're going to campaign on something so personal as funding cancer medications for people who are desperate to get as much assistance as they possibly can and who then vote for you on that basis own it. That was a choice that this Government made. They turned their backs on those people and they should own it and instead of standing up for 60 seconds or 90 seconds and saying how great this Government is how about those members using the time to tell those people why they made that choice? That would be the honourable thing to do—stand up and defend the decisions that they've made. Defend the decision to back landlords and those that are wealthy instead of following on the promises that they made on funding cancer medications and the best that they can come up with—the best they can come up with—is to tell me "You're running out of time." That's it and I think that speaks volumes. They've been confronted with the truth and they don't like it. Well it's not just us that's going to confront them with it. They're going home on Monday afternoon when this urgency finishes and they have to face their constituents. I'd rather be us."