Volume 680 Week 12 - Thursday 31 May 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 680 Week 12 - Thursday 31 May 2012 
[Sitting date: 31 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2745. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 31 May 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 12 June the Government will look to progress a number of first and second readings on the Order Paper and to conclude the Budget debate. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the acting Leader of the House for that. Can she tell us when it is the Government’s intention to make further progress in the House on the sale of assets legislation and on the alcohol legislation? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 To my knowledge firstly there is no such legislation called that. But I think the bill the member is referring to is still in the select committee. 
Motions 
Nuclear Disarmament—Global Support and Anniversary of New Zealand Nuclear-free Zone 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to move a non-debatable motion that is set down as members’ notice of motion No. 5 today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I move  
That this House celebrate the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act; reaffirm the commitment of New Zealand to the achievement of a nuclear-weapons-free world; welcome the 2010 agreement of States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that any use of nuclear weapons could create catastrophic humanitarian consequences and that all States must play a role in building the framework for a nuclear-weapons-free world; commend Norway for its announcement to hold a conference in 2013 on humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons in order to build political momentum for a global ban; and call on the New Zealand Government to provide its highest support for this conference. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Speaker’s Role in Interpreting Answers 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you again the issue that I raised during question time yesterday and ask you for a further ruling. You will recall that yesterday I asked you to consider the issue of the Speaker’s interpretation of a Minister’s answer and whether in fact the Minister could be held to account for your interpretation of that answer. The issue that I want to now raise with you is if it subsequently transpires that both the Minister’s answer and your interpretation of that answer were incorrect is there an obligation on the Minister if they come to the House to make a personal statement on that to also correct your interpretation of their answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not at all. The Speaker sometimes tries to assist in the interests of making progress by elucidating why he is not requiring a Minister to answer further. But that is the only standing of anything the Minister might say. The answers are absolutely up to the Ministers. That is why yesterday when there was concern over an answer given I enabled the member Chris Hipkins himself to repeat his question so that the Minister could answer herself in person with an actual answer to the question asked. That is why I did that—to avoid any confusion. 
Questions to Ministers 
Schools Class Sizes—Teacher to Pupil Ratios 
1. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Education; if so why? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because she is a hard-working Minister working to build a brighter future for New Zealand. In particular she is focusing on lifting achievement for the one in five young Kiwis who does not currently succeed in the New Zealand education system. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has he received any advice from the Minister of Education on the impact of changing staff-student ratios on primary schools that provide technology centres and classes for students from a number of other schools? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister I do not have that information to hand. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the Minister— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been down this track before. I think the Minister should not have said “On behalf of the Prime Minister I do not …” because what he is effectively saying is that the Prime Minister does not and he does not know that. I think he should be saying that he is not aware whether the Prime Minister has that information. It is quite important when it comes to later stages. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I accept the technicality the member makes but I think one has to accept—if we got that technical about all questions and answers in this House I think we would be in some difficulty. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the Minister of Education advised him that the cumulative effect of a number of contributing schools and the provider school losing up to two staff will be that they will not be able to afford to send students to technology centres such as that offered at Mt Cook School in Wellington and that those centres may have to close? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not familiar with the exact issue the member raises but it is important to point out the key element of this policy which is that over the last 10 years teacher numbers have grown by over 12 percent while student numbers have— 
Hon Member 
: Student rolls. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No they have not. They have grown by only about 2 percent over the last 10 years. At the same time we have had no further improvement in achievement in our education system. So the Minister and the Government have taken some decisions to invest in quality. We have made it absolutely clear that no school will be affected by more than two full-time teacher equivalents by this change. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a newsletter from Mt Cook School in Wellington that has been released to parents today that says that its technology centre will close in 2013 unless the funding policy in the Budget is dropped. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that technology centres such as the one at Mt Cook School in Wellington may have to close as a result of the policies being implemented by his Government in Budget 2012? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No. We are very focused on supporting technology education at levels 7 and 8. I would point out two things. The Minister has made it clear that 90 percent of schools will be affected either positively or negatively by one full-time teacher equivalent position and the other 10 percent by up to two full-time teacher equivalent positions. Beyond that the schools make their own decisions as to how they allocate their staff funding around the teachers in the school. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister of Education when her department is planning to close residential special schools throughout New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not have all that information to hand today but I would point out again that everything this Minister does is focused on lifting achievement of New Zealand’s young people and I am absolutely confident she is passionate about doing that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the Minister of Education informed him of what she will say to schools that even with the slowing down of the cuts will be forced to choose between cutting Reading Recovery programmes or programmes for gifted children or reducing staffing and increasing class sizes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Schools every day manage their number of teachers according to the roll they have at the time and they make their own decisions as to how they allocate that funding to best teach the New Zealand curriculum and to give the best possible education to their students. We have said and have made it absolutely clear that the effect of this change will be no more than two full-time teacher equivalents for 10 percent of schools and only one positive or minus for the other 90 percent of schools. I am confident that professional schools will work with the change. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he step in to stop the closure of technology centres such as the one at Mt Cook School if they have to close as a result of the cuts being made by his Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The reality is that those decisions are not made by the Ministry of Education or the Minister. Those decisions are made by the schools. If they did decide that they wanted to present technology in a different way with a different provision model that would be their decision and this change will not require them to do so. 
Grant Robertson 
: If he is prepared to intervene to ensure that technology education can continue in intermediate schools why is he not prepared to intervene to say that technology centres in primary schools can carry on operating? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is obviously not listening. The answer to the question is the same as the previous answer. We have made it absolutely clear that 90 percent of schools will be either up one full-time teacher equivalent or down one or about the same and schools will make their own decisions within that as to how they allocate their resources—as they always have done. The same will apply to the other 10 percent where any change will be limited to two full-time teacher equivalents. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question about why the Government is prepared to intervene for intermediate schools and not for primary schools. There was no— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have listened to the answers quite carefully and I believe that in the answer to the previous question on which that supplementary question was based the Minister in replying said that it was a matter for the schools to organise how they delivered the curriculum and the Government would not be stepping in to tell them how to do it—if I heard the Minister correctly. So that is why the Minister in answering the last supplementary question suggested that the member asking it had not been listening because in asking the question the member implied that the Government would step in and the Minister’s answer had indicated exactly the opposite—it would not step in to tell the school how to organise its affairs. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Further to that point of order I think the point of the question was that the Government has stepped in to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The point of a question may be one thing; the question that is asked is the matter the Speaker has to deal with and the Minister has to answer. The question that was asked gave the Minister the chance to answer in the way he did and that is why in my view it was an acceptable answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well I think you should review— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Government Financial Position—Measures to Return to Surplus 
2. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps is the Government taking to get the Crown accounts back into surplus? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Budget 2012 shows that the Government remains clearly on track to achieve a surplus in 2014-15 with $4.4 billion of new operating spending over the next 4 years matched by a combination of savings and revenue initiatives. This is a situation many countries would be envious of. We will achieve this through discipline on new spending and running a zero Budget for the second consecutive year. We are encouraging economic growth to take place whether it is through changes to the tax system changes to the Resource Management Act changes to labour laws—the list goes on. Across the economy these policies will help drive the growth of competitive business. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Has he received any reports on alternative approaches to getting back into surplus? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No but I have seen a lot of proposals to simply spend more money whether it is the increased cost of borrowing more higher tertiary student support ineffective research and development tax credits ever-increasing early childhood education subsidies or even in fact army brass bands. The approach advocated for resembles a fire hose of borrowed money being sprayed round—and not just borrowed money but money borrowed internationally. Somehow all of these policies of spending more money and making no savings would apparently still leave the Labour Party back in surplus by— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member was OK until that point. He must not attribute policies to other parties. That is not his responsibility. 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative options to save money? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have received one. It involves increasing the age of retirement to 67 but it does not kick in until past 2020 and it would save only a small amount initially and actually nothing between now and 2020. And that report is by a certain Mr David Shearer. However I have also seen another separate report which involves reducing the age of retirement to 60 for manual workers— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: At the same time? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —yeah apparently—which requires extra spending of maybe as much as— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister has no responsibility for reports of David Shearer. I think we have heard sufficient. 
Hon David Parker 
: Would his Government get back into surplus more easily if export growth was higher? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A whole range of things could get us back into surplus more quickly. 
Hon David Parker 
: How about that one? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well it does not necessarily apply because if for example we then decide to spend a whole lot of money to try to achieve that then that would not get us back into surplus more quickly. That would just involve fire-hosing money in all directions. 
Budget 2011 and Budget 2012—Comparison of Economic Growth Forecasts 
3. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did he say Budget 2011 built “a platform for faster growth more jobs and higher incomes”; and if so did his forecasts in Budget 2012 show faster growth more jobs and higher incomes than his Budget 2011 projections? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: In answer to the first part of the question yes. The policy steps taken in Budget 2011 built a platform for faster growth more jobs and higher incomes than would otherwise have occurred. In fact each of our Budgets has been focused on building a platform for faster growth more jobs and higher incomes than would have been the case if we had carried on with the policy settings we inherited in 2008 which were forecast to lead to permanent deficits and ever-rising debt. In relation to the second part of the question where the member refers to “his forecasts” they are of course not the finance Minister’s forecast projections; they are independent Treasury forecasts and they fluctuate from year to year depending on a range of factors including the economic outlook of our trading partners.  
Hon David Parker 
: Did Budget 2012 cut forecast growth in real GDP per capita from 1 percent to just 0.8 percent this year and from 3.2 percent to 1.8 percent for the next year; and if so is cutting his own forecasts what he meant when he promised faster growth? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In answer to the second part of the question I again have to point out to the member that he knows that they are independent Treasury forecasts but there you go. In answer to the first part of the question the reality is as we know that the actual growth that turns out depends on a number of things. I know the member does not like to focus on what actually happens in the wider world but during that period we had the ongoing aftershocks in Christchurch and we had lower growth in our trading partners. Those members can object all they like but that actually happens to be the reality. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does Budget 2012 forecast worsening current account deficits totalling $64 billion to 2016; and if so how is another $64 billion worth of overseas borrowing good for New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: They do in fact increase but of course not to the percentages seen under the previous Government when they lifted to 8-point something percent of GDP and caused us very significant issues which we are still rebalancing from. The interesting thing—[ 
Interruption 
] It may be but from a much lower level and the difference with it this time is that it is largely about investment in the New Zealand economy whereas previously under the old Labour Government it was borrowing to consume and borrowing to spend and that was an unsustainable position. We know where that leads—it is called southern Europe. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he agree with the conclusion about his Budget from Fran O’Sullivan in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “the major problem is that there is no clear economic growth agenda.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can safely assume that the Minister’s answer to that question would be no. The reality is—as Fran would know if she actually focused on it—that we have a very strong economic growth agenda involved in a whole range of areas: the tax plans we have made; the capital markets in terms of the mixed-ownership model; the investment in innovation and science; the investment in tertiary education vocational education and getting people off benefit and into work; the investment in education; the focus on primary resources and encouraging the use of our natural resources; the investment in infrastructure; and the investment in trade policy and encouraging new free-trade agreements with other countries. This Government has a comprehensive economic growth agenda which we will continue to put in place for the benefit of this country.  
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister appeared to be quoting from some official laminated documents. I wonder whether he would like to table them for us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me check with the Minister. Were those official documents? They were not. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he then agree with Vernon Small of Fairfax: “the Budget has been a barely qualified disaster.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Minister finds Mr Small a very engaging personality but— 
Grant Robertson 
: Dr Small. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —well Dr Small to you. But the Minister is unlikely to agree on his economic prognosis.  
Hon David Parker 
: Which is the more serious blow to his Budget’s credibility: commentators’ views that this Budget has no clear growth agenda the cut in his own forecast growth figures or the incompetence shown around his Government’s attempts to grow the economy through larger class sizes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Sometimes I really do wonder where that member lives and on which planet. The reality is if you look at the commentators who count—for example Standard and Poor’s and those rating agencies—they have all endorsed the New Zealand Budget of the Minister of Finance as have a number of other serious economic commentators. That member constantly tries to pretend that New Zealand is not dealing with the challenges of the Christchurch earthquake and the world economy. As long as he keeps doing that the country will still think he is in la-la land. 
Criminal History Employment Checks—Reciprocal Information-sharing Trial with Australia 
4. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What steps is she taking to improve access to criminal history information for New Zealand employers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This week I signed a memorandum of understanding between New Zealand and Australia that will allow four New Zealand agencies to benefit from being able to check job applicants for any criminal history in Australia. The Ministry of Social Development Child Youth and Family the Teachers Council and IHC New Zealand already operate in potential high-risk sectors and with vulnerable individuals. They already undertake high-risk employee checks through the New Zealand Police. The trial between New Zealand and Australia will give them even more certainty about client safety. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the trial work? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: When a person is offered a job with these organisations they provide written consent for a criminal history check to be carried out. The trial does not change that requirement. Instead it means that the organisations—via the New Zealand Police—can check whether that person has a criminal history in Australia. The trial will last for 6 months after which time we will review how it has worked before looking to extend it to other New Zealand employers. This is an important step in supporting border control and law enforcement. 
Andrew Little 
: What steps will the Minister and her office take to ensure that information managed under the scheme will be accurate and treated with integrity or will she apply the same standards of personal information management that she permits in ACC? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That question is absolutely ridiculous. The New Zealand Police has the highest levels of integrity and I am astonished that that member would make such an allegation. 
Schools Class Sizes—Teacher to Pupil Ratios 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Could I ask the front benches please to bring the noise down. I want to hear Catherine Delahunty.  
5. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her statement that “schools will therefore be given a guarantee that their staffing entitlement will not be reduced by more than two full-time teacher equivalents over the next three years”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Talofa lava. Tena koutou. I stand by my full statement where I said: “Schools will … be given a guarantee that their staffing entitlement will not be reduced by more than two full-time teacher equivalents over the next 3 years as a result of the policy changes.” 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Given her admission this week that the Ministry of Education’s modelling for technology staffing levels was flawed will she guarantee that schools that have been given a stay of execution will not lose up to seven teachers at the end of the 3 years? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I have not suggested that the ministry’s modelling was flawed and no I will not give a guarantee beyond 3 years. We are focused on raising quality in schools for all students over the next 3 years. 
Tracey Martin 
: Can the Minister tell us how much of the money saved by increasing public school class sizes will be redirected to the investigation setting up and running of charter schools which has become policy only since a former National Cabinet Minister became the leader of the ACT Party?  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The money that has been saved as a result of the changes we are making which are to focus on investing in quality so that student achievement can be raised is being reinvested in quality for all schools and for all students and for all types of schools that will perform for them.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: Given that the modelling around technology teachers was flawed has she checked whether the ministry’s formula for staffing is flawed in any other way? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I reject the presumption in that question. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether she had checked something and I did not get an answer as to whether she had.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! If the member wanted—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! If the member wanted that question answered she should not have put the first part into her question. She said “Given that the staffing model was flawed”. The Minister disputed that part of the question and that is perfectly within the Standing Orders.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: How will her new staffing formula working party come up with useful staffing solutions when the schools most affected including the New Zealand Association of Intermediate and Middle Schools have announced just today that they will not participate in a group set up to axe their staff? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The sector working group that has been set up is not focused on axing staff; it is focused on how we can ensure the continuation of the provision of a quality technology curriculum. It is focused on whether there are any unintended impacts and how we might mitigate those and it is in the context of providing a guarantee that schools will be protected from losing any more than two full-time teacher equivalents because our focus is on raising quality to raise student achievement for all New Zealand students.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will her working party listen to children like 9-year-old Jade Christensen of Tauranga who wrote to her yesterday saying: “We have enough resources to help us learn and play sports. I think this one-on-one time with teachers is much much much more important.”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Look we are very focused on how we raise achievement for all students. That is why we are working with the professional leadership of the sector. That is why we are providing assurance to parents who may have been anxious. That is why the conversation is with professional leaders and with parents. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? The member must be called for a point of order.  
Catherine Delahunty 
: I asked the Minister whether she would listen to Jade’s points. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I remember correctly the member asked whether the Minister would consult with students. If I remember correctly that was the question—and the Minister did not actually answer that. The member went on to “such as” so there was only one question and the one question was whether the Minister would consult the students and I think it probably should be answered.  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I recall the question it was whether I would consult a 9-year-old student about changes. My answer was that we are working with the professional leadership of schools and we are assuring parents of what our commitment is and that is to provide quality for all students of whatever age they are.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member again what is helpful is to actually answer a question though. I mean what the Minister has told the House is what the Minister wants to do but the questioner asked whether the Minister would do a particular thing and the Minister has basically ignored that. That is the dilemma at question time because that is what causes members to raise points of order—if their questions have not been answered. The question was dead simple. It asked whether the Minister would consult students such as a 9-year-old student. It would be very easy to say “No we are not doing that; we are doing this.” and the Minister did not do that.  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: All right. We are listening to the concerns raised by all New Zealanders—students parents professional leaders alike. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise. I think that yesterday and today your interventions have been helpful. I know that with technology developments we now get simultaneous interpretation of the Maori language and I wonder whether you would look at a service where you could do that for certain Ministers on an ongoing basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order!  
Catherine Delahunty 
: When she told schools like Papatoetoe Intermediate School which will lose seven teachers in 3 years’ time that it was their choice how they cut staff did she consider increasing class sizes to 40 or cutting technology altogether a fair choice?  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Successive Governments have provided a funding formula to schools. It is based on a number of aspects and responsibilities. Then the professional leadership of a school makes the decision as to how it will deliver the national curriculum— 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether she considered that a fair choice.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness to the Minister the Minister was actually explaining there how it will work and that is relevant to the question asked because depending on how it will work there may be other choices. I think that on this particular occasion the member is trying to pin the Minister down to an unreasonable position. I think it is not unreasonable that the Minister should explain how it will work which was what the Minister was doing.  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I have explained it is the policy of successive Governments that the Government funds on a formula to schools in order that those schools can make determinations about how they will deliver their curriculum according to the specifics of their circumstances. Those include who the students enrolled at their schools are and what the particular interests of their community are as reflected by their boards of trustees.  
Chris Hipkins 
: Is it current policy for the teacher-pupil ratios for years 7 and 8 to increase at the end of the 3-year cap to 1:27.5 as she announced on 16 May up from 1:23.36 as it is presently?  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I announced yesterday the impact of the ratio change was not intended to have an effect to the extreme that we have heard anxieties raised about and as a result of that we have guaranteed that all schools that are in the 10 percent that may experience an effect greater than two will be funded up to two full-time teacher equivalents.  
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you probably know what my point of order is going to be. The question I asked was what would happen at the end of the 3-year cap—whether the ratios that she announced on 16 May would apply from the time the cap ceased. She has talked about what is going to happen while the cap is in place.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a fair point of order. The question did ask what would happen at the end of the period of the cap applying.  
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: This provision is over the next 3 years during which time we would expect to see student achievement raised which is the whole point of this policy. We will be reviewing this over the next 3 years and there are a number of Budgets between now and then that will allow us with relevant timely information to make that decision at that point.  
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again the question that I asked was whether it was current policy for teacher-pupil ratios in years 7 and 8 to increase at the end of the 3-year cap to 1:27.5 which was the ratio the Minister has announced. She still has not actually addressed that primary part—in fact the only part—of the question.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think in fairness the Minister has answered that those decisions will be made as the policy progresses and the Government reflects on the changes in student achievement that are achieved. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh no in fairness—the member should not be interjecting while I am ruling on a point of order anyhow. He has been getting a fair bit of licence and maybe he should bring his interjections and points of order back a bit. I think that was not an unreasonable answer. The member asked about something 3 years out and the Minister said the Government will make those decisions as it sees the impact of the policy develop. That is an answer to the question. That is not an unreasonable answer to the question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue that we have is that I asked about the effect of current policy. Government policy changes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have listened to the member long enough. I think the member is trying my patience a little too far. The member is just playing with words. Had the member been a Minister he might know this but to say “current policy” is actually irrelevant. The Government has made some decisions and the Minister has said it wants to see the impact of those decisions before it decides a situation in 3 years’ time. To argue that there should be some current Government policy about it as the member is I think is being unreasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Catherine Delahunty. [ 
Interruption 
] Is it a point of order or a supplementary question? 
Catherine Delahunty 
: No it is a supplementary question. I was just checking with my colleague—I could not hear him. Given the failed modelling in the technology staffing formulas will she agree to a moratorium on all staffing changes until schools and parents have been consulted and she actually knows how many teachers are really needed? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I reject the presumption that that question is predicated on. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will the cap that she has announced limiting the number of teachers any school may lose as a result of the ratio changes apply only to teachers who are lost as a result of the ratio changes or will the cap also extend to include positions that may be lost as a result of the consequent changes to classroom release time and management staffing allocations? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: What I have announced is that we will provide a guarantee that no school will lose more than two full-time teacher equivalents as a result of the policy changes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That to some extent addresses the question but does not actually answer the wider issue which is that when we are talking about full-time teacher equivalents we are talking about the funding formula for schools. There is an additional funding formula around management positions and classroom release time which is additional to that and she has not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member’s point and I accept the veracity of the question asked but I believe that an answer was given in that the Minister has told the House that the maximum full-time teacher equivalent loss from the policy change will be two full-time teacher equivalents—that being the total impact of the policy change. That has answered the member’s question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Thank you for the interpretation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no interpretation. The member should not interject. There is no interpretation. That is what the Minister said. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table an email from Jade Christensen aged 9 saying they need more teachers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is entitled to seek leave to have a document tabled. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table an email to the Minister from Jade Christensen aged 9 saying that more one-to-one teachers are needed in her school. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Police Resourcing—New Police Stations 
6. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What recent investments has the Government made in new police stations? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Today I opened the new Otahuhu Police Station in Counties-Manukau. The $8.6 million facility is the second new station to open in Counties-Manukau this month. Everyone in the project should be congratulated as it too came in well under budget. Nationally recorded crimes are at a 15-year low and Counties-Manukau police have made a valuable contribution to this and I take this opportunity to thank the local officers for all their hard work. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What other investments has the Government made in police stations in Counties-Manukau? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Two weeks ago I opened the new $10.2 million police hub at Botany. The two new stations provide modern working environments for the additional 300 police officers that this National Government has put on the front line in Counties-Manukau to further reduce crime and make our communities safer. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What investments has the Government made in new police facilities in Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Earlier this month the first sod was turned for a new temporary police station for Christchurch central. Providing a strong police presence in the city as Christchurch and the surrounding area face their rebuilding phase is a really important symbol of the Christchurch rebuild. The temporary station is expected to cost around $19.8 million and is on track to be completed before the end of the year. 
Schools Class Sizes—Teacher to Pupil Ratios 
7. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Did she ask for or receive a list of the schools that would lose or gain more than one teacher as a result of the new ratios prior to taking the policy to Cabinet for approval; if not why did she not ask for that list? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As I clarified in the House last night my office received a list of schools that were affected by a combination of forecasted roll growth and ratio changes. However this list was based on a different funding formula. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she ask for a further breakdown or any further information on the likely impact of the proposed new teacher-pupil ratios on the schools that had been identified as likely to lose more than one teacher as a result of the change before she took the proposal to Cabinet; if not why did she not ask for that information? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: In the iterative policy process I asked for breakdowns of different parts of that and I took those impacts to Cabinet. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked her whether she had received a further breakdown on the impact of those proposed new teacher-pupil ratios and I am not sure that she answered that question. She said she asked for a range of information but I was asking specifically about the schools that lost more than one teacher and she did not address that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to add anything further to her answer? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes Mr Speaker. What I said was that in the development of the policy there are a number of iterative processes and those have led to running lists that are relevant to those refinements and that included what the impact would be on the 90 percent that would gain one or another. The member is suggesting that there was one finite stage. In the iterative process we have looked at what the impacts were for the 90 percent that have gained or lost one and for the 10 percent on which it had a bigger effect. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did she examine the final list of schools that would lose more than one teacher as a result of her ratio changes? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did the Cabinet paper she presented proposing the change to the teacher-pupil ratios contain a breakdown of the number of schools likely to lose teachers gain teachers or have the same number of teachers as a result of the change; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Cabinet made a decision on the basis of our focus on how we would raise quality how we would raise student achievement and what the impact would be across the 2436 schools and it wanted assurance that the 90 percent would either lose or gain one full-time teaching equivalent that the 10 percent would experience a greater impact and that we had transition options and contingency funding available to deal with that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure I followed all of that and as a result of that I am not entirely sure that she has addressed the question that I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is a difficult situation we get into where you know the question asked was actually an absolutely proper question. It did not make any assertion in it. It did not have any content alleging anything that happened. It just asked: did the paper the Minister took to Cabinet contain a list of the schools that would lose however many full-time teacher equivalents? In answering the Minister said that Cabinet made its decision based on these sorts of things. If the question had asked on what basis Cabinet made its decision that would have been a perfect answer. But the questioner did not ask that. It could be a perfectly acceptable answer to say: “I do not reveal to the House the detailed content of a paper put in front of Cabinet.” I guess. But simply to ignore the question asked I believe—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet—is not reasonable. I think the member has got a fair point. He asked an absolutely straight question and it was totally ignored. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I am sorry if my hearing is not as good as yours but I am not sure that that was the actual question that was asked. Could we have the question repeated? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed. Certainly. I am very happy to do that. Chris Hipkins please to repeat the question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I am very happy to repeat it. Did the Cabinet paper she presented proposing the change to teacher-pupil ratios contain a breakdown of the number of schools likely to lose teachers gain teachers or have the same number of teachers as a result of the change; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I did take a paper that had a breakdown of the numbers of schools. I did not take a paper that had the list of the specific schools. 
Health Targets—Cancer Treatment 
8. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress is our public health service making in achieving the Government’s health target of shorter waiting times for cancer treatment? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Good progress. Every cancer patient needing radiation is starting it within the world gold standard of 4 weeks. Just 4 years ago people were waiting up to 15 weeks for this critical treatment and many New Zealand women were sent to Australia to receive this treatment. From 1 July chemotherapy will be included in the target and this means every patient ready for chemotherapy treatment will also start that within a 4-week maximum. I would like to congratulate the very hard-working doctors nurses and support staff in our nation’s cancer centres on this outstanding achievement for New Zealand patients. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What further improvements is the Government making to public health cancer services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In Budget 2012 the Government makes available an additional $33 million for better and faster cancer services for patients. Research shows that some cancer patients can come into contact with up to 28 different doctors and even more nurses during the course of their cancer treatment. So that is why the Government is putting significant funds into new dedicated cancer coordination nurse positions which will act as a single point of contact and assist patients and their families across the different parts of the health service. This has been welcomed by our friends at the New Zealand Nurses Organisation who have said that this will be a win-win situation for everyone involved and that patients will receive improved quality of care. 
War Pensions Law Commission Report—Government Response 
9. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: What progress has been made by the Government to implement the recommendations in the Law Commission report  
A New Support Scheme for Veterans: A Report on the Review of the War Pensions Act 1954  
published on 1 June 2010? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 The Government is indeed making good progress. The Law Commission took 3 years to produce the report with 170 recommendations. Many of them were complex and included replacing the Act with new legislation and making significant other changes. The Law Commission did not cost its recommendations and advised that the Government obtain rigorous costings before making decisions. This work has now been completed and I intend taking the proposals to Cabinet shortly. 
Andrew Williams 
: When can concerned veterans many of whom are well into their 80s expect the Government to make comprehensive far-reaching changes to the War Pensions Act 1954 given the Minister’s response in February 2012 to a written question was that a response to the Law Commission’s report would be released in due course? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: If the member was listening to the answer to the primary question I said that we have completed the progress so far in terms of— 
Andrew Williams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question included the words “to make comprehensive far-reaching”. Those were the two specific words asking when the Minister would make “comprehensive far-reaching” changes. The Minister has not outlined any comprehensive far-reaching changes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members asking questions cannot get too pedantic. I mean the Minister had barely started his answer and I think he should be given the chance to proceed with it.  
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I was outlining to the House in my primary answer this is a very detailed report with 170 recommendations and it has taken some time to work through the dozen or so Government departments. It is now at a stage where I am going to be taking some of these proposals through to Cabinet in the next few months. 
Andrew Williams 
: What does he say to the thousands of elderly war veterans with ailments from their time of service who are anxiously waiting for the Government to give them a fair go 2 years to the day after the report was released on 1 June 2010? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: What I say is that this Government cares about veterans. Today I have just made an announcement that under the war pensions coverage 10 additional military deployments will indeed be covered that were not previously covered by the War Pensions Act. An additional $4.8 million of funding means that 1100 additional veterans will now be eligible for this. This Government does care about veterans. 
Andrew Williams 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear Andrew Williams. 
Andrew Williams 
: Does the Minister believe even allowing for the extraordinary laws of coincidence of the Minister’s announcement today that this process is being needlessly drawn out due to the fact that implementing all of the Law Commission’s 170 recommendations may jeopardise this Government’s wishful plans to return to surplus by 2014? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I reject that assertion. If that member had done his homework he would see that the 10 additional military deployments that are now going to be covered were in Budget 2012. 
John Hayes 
: What else is the Government doing to support veterans? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I just alluded to before there are 10 additional military deployments that are going to be covered under the War Pensions Act. This is indeed a significant announcement involving $4.8 million that means that 1100 additional veterans will now be eligible for a war disablement pension for any disability that occurred as a result of their service in these deployments. I am extremely proud of this National-led Government for this significant contribution to veterans. 
Civil Defence Disaster Preparedness—ShakeOut Exercise 
10. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What progress is the Government making on preparing New Zealanders for earthquakes? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Earthquake preparedness has increased in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes but there is still a lot of work to do. On 26 September 2012 we will hold New Zealand’s largest ever earthquake drill exercise ShakeOut. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management aims to have 1 million New Zealanders taking part to raise awareness so that more people prepare themselves for an earthquake. Yesterday we reached a milestone of 100000 registrations. This is a good start and I encourage further schools businesses Government departments and individuals to get on board. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What actions are being taken to encourage even more people to sign up for exercise ShakeOut? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is writing to all Government departments and New Zealand’s 100 largest employers seeking their involvement along with schools and other organisations. There will also be an advertising campaign that highlights the need for preparedness and encourages people to sign up to ShakeOut at www.getthru.govt.nz. I will be writing to all members of Parliament to ask for their support in this valuable exercise by encouraging their communities to get involved with “Operation ShakeOut”. Thank you. 
Tax System Changes—Children’s Active Income Tax Credit 
11. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding changes to the child tax credit that “if it’s interest on their savings or other means of payment they won’t pay any tax”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: That answer to a media question was not accurate because it did not take account of the resident withholding tax introduced way back in 1989 under Labour which is applied to every dollar of interest or dividends. 
Dr David Clark 
: Did the revenue Minister take the proposal for the child tax policy to Cabinet or any other Cabinet committee; and if so were he and the Prime Minister present at those meetings? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I can certainly answer for the revenue Minister yes to the first part of the question. To the second part of the question my recollection is that the Prime Minister was certainly present at the meeting which he alluded to himself last Monday week but I cannot be more specific than that. 
Dr David Clark 
: Was the Prime Minister correct in his answer to question No. 12 yesterday that the changes to the child tax credit “would remove the tax status for those who earn $2340 from PAYE income.”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The Prime Minister was correct in his answer yesterday. What we are doing is introducing an active income exemption for those who qualify so that is persons under the age of 18 part-time workers and children earning less than $2340 per annum. 
Dr David Clark 
: Has he seen recent Treasury figures that show his 2010 income tax cuts cost somewhere between $11 billion and $12 billion over the forecast period; and if so how much of that will be recovered by the paper delivery tax? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I think it is important to appreciate that the change the member refers to plus the other two tax credit removals was about streamlining and improving the tax system. Those changes together with the changes announced to livestock and the mixed use of assets will make a significant contribution to the Government’s revenue. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Some several hundred million dollars over the forecast period. 
Nuclear Disarmament—Government Support for Convention on Nuclear Weapons 
12. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will New Zealand promote immediate negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting their development production stockpiling and use? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The position of successive New Zealand Governments has been one of general support for such a convention when circumstances are such that it has a realistic chance of success and in the meantime to focus on practical measures to reduce nuclear dangers. I am advised that the prospects of successfully negotiating such a treaty at the present time would be poor. For that reason at Government level internationally there are no serious moves afoot to get negotiations on a convention under way. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given our nuclear-free policy and the fact that a convention is supported by the United Nations Secretary-General as a practical plan now not in the future should we not support all resolutions calling for the convention and a nuclear-free world generally? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: As I alluded to in my primary answer the Government’s position on that and the position of previous Governments is one of general support. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he agree given that global support is 76 percent in favour of a nuclear weapons convention according to a World Public Opinion poll that New Zealand would be in tune with the world mood in advancing this goal now not at some indeterminate time in the future? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: As I indicated in my primary answer the Government’s position and that of its predecessors is generally one of support but it has been determined that it would be useful to place some effort into promoting such an outcome when there is some prospect of success. In the meantime the Government puts its efforts into immediate steps to try to reduce nuclear dangers. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister agree that any use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the United Nations Charter and a crime against humanity as affirmed last December in UN Resolution 66/57? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I would not want to provide an answer to a specific question based on the interpretation of that charter. What I would say is that the Government as its predecessors have done takes the view that we should work actively to ensure that the nuclear dangers that attend the world are reduced through whatever means are practical at the time. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is UN General Assembly document A/62/650 which is a letter from the Costa Rican and Malaysian Governments to the Secretary-General setting out a model nuclear weapons convention as an immediate practical goal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: There is? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is objection. Does the member wish to seek— 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The second document is UN Resolution A/Res/66/57 which endorses a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: And the third document is a document by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons which sets out the public opinion poll showing 76 percent of the world opinion in favour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister aware of a report that John Key could not recall how he felt about New Zealand’s anti-nuclear stance at the time of the passage of the legislation; if he is is he concerned that the Prime Minister has lost a decade somewhere along the line because he could not remember his position on the Springbok Tour either? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: What I can say is that amongst the steps that New Zealand is taking in the short term to reduce nuclear dangers attending the world is the outstanding leadership that the Prime Minister brought to the nuclear summit held recently in Seoul. 
Budget Debate 
Debate resumed from 30 May on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I stand in this House proud to be a member of the John Key - led Government and proud to acknowledge our coalition partners the Hon Peter Dunne the Hon Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia. I thank them for their help. I want to congratulate our Minister of Finance Bill English on the 2012 Budget. It is a very sensible Budget—a very sensible Budget that addresses the four key focus areas that this John Key - led Government has identified. Firstly there is responsibly managing the Government’s finances. Why is that important for a Government? Well at this time when we are still working our way through a global recession and when we are dealing with our second-largest city having been largely destroyed by a series of earthquakes there is no more important time for a Government to be focused on managing responsibly the finances of this country. We have done that by protecting the most vulnerable in our communities from some of the sharper edges of that recession. We have not seen in this country the austerity measures that other countries around the world have had to implement and we have maintained our front-line services. We have seen in fact a growth in front-line services of people like police doctors nurses and teachers right across the years of this recession.  
The second area is of course building a competitive and productive economy. We have seen an extra 60000 new jobs created in our community over the last 2 years. The Opposition does not seem to understand that the Government does not create jobs. There were jobs that the members opposite created when they were in power and when times got tough they were unsustainable. We need businesses to grow and we need New Zealand employers to decide to take on more staff and grow their businesses. We are creating an environment and a framework that will enable them to do that.  
The third area is to deliver better public services—better services for New Zealanders that they pay their taxes to get. We have heard from the Minister of Health of one area where we have seen a dramatic turn-round. Whereas 4 years ago people were waiting for treatment—in fact they had to fly women to Australia to get cancer treatment—now they are receiving that cancer treatment within 4 weeks. And this Government of course fully funded Herceptin for women—younger women largely and family women—who were having to pay enormous amounts of money under that previous Government.  
The fourth area of course is rebuilding the Greater Christchurch area. I have a quote on my wall. It has been there for some years. It is attributed to a great Roman politician. I know that some of my colleagues have been quoting literary examples. Well actually I want to go back further because Cicero that great Roman politician author and orator who lived from 106 BC is supposed to have said: “The Budget should be balanced the Treasury should be refilled public debt should be reduced the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance.” That was written over 2000 years ago and not much has changed. I put it to you that not much has changed.  
Why is it important that the New Zealand Government balances its books? Why is it important that we get into surplus in 2014? It is so that New Zealanders have options. Of course—why else would we want to do that? We do not want to be beholden to overseas lenders; we want to be able to manage our own country and create good options for our New Zealanders. Labour New Zealand First and the Greens simply do not get it. I quote Cicero again: “To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child.” That is a pretty accurate description I have to say.  
You cannot keep spending money. You cannot keep spending money. If you have not earned it you cannot spend it. I beg your pardon Mr Speaker; I am sure that you would not spend money before you have earned it. But Labour New Zealand First and the Greens seem to have this cost-plus mentality. They keep wanting to do all the things they have been doing even when those things are ineffective and continue to spend more. We have seen that Opposition oppose every single change that this Government has tried to make. Every time we have said: “This programme isn’t working. We’re going to stop doing this programme because we’re getting no results from it.” we have seen the Opposition cry out and put up some poor innocent person or child as an individual case to show that that programme should not be cut.  
We have seen our Public Service look deep into the way it operates. We have managed to produce some fantastic Public Service results without extra money by looking at our back room by looking at where there is duplication and by looking at where programmes are ineffective—in other words they are not getting results—and stopping them. Clearly the Opposition cannot comprehend that method of working and that says that it does not deserve to have hold of the Treasury benches. That says that the Opposition cannot be trusted with other people’s money. It is not Government money; it is taxpayers’ money and taxpayers deserve to have a Government that recognises and values the fact that it is someone else’s money that it is spending. The members sitting on the Opposition benches over there do not understand that and that is why they will be there for quite some time to come.  
I want to talk about some examples—in particular where two departments have looked deep within their resources and managed to produce extra services with the same and similar amounts of money. The first example is the New Zealand Police. The police are looking at how they are operating and how they manage their resources. They are looking to get good intelligence. They are looking to work in a 21st century environment. They can do things smarter and better and they do not need to keep having extra dollars put into the department. That is a simple way—every household around New Zealand is looking at that. But our police are I think doing a fantastic job.  
I want to come to the Department of Corrections because we made some announcements in Budget 2012 about the department. It also looked deep within its organisation and found savings to offer up to change the way we deal with the people who either are in prison or are serving their sentences out in the community. We are spending $65 million over the next 4 years on a radical new way of addressing crime in our communities and that is saying that if 27 percent of people who leave prison come back within 12 months then we have to keep our communities safe by reducing that by a quarter. That is an enormously difficult target to have set but the Department of Corrections has set that target because it believes that by addressing alcohol and drug addition 33000 offenders will get access to drug and alcohol addiction services—33000. The previous Labour Government struggled to provide those services to 500. For the first time offenders who are on remand will get access to those services to education services and to trade skills in the workplace. For the first time ever those remand prisoners will have access to that. The Labour Government was in power for 9 years and was never able to provide that. It did not try and it had all the money to spend. Now at a time when there is not a lot of money to spend the Department of Corrections has said it can do things better. It has said it can find the money by digging deep by looking at where the duplication is by stopping things that do not work and by investing money in things we know will work.  
The Drivers of Crime work that this Government has done tells us that drug and alcohol addiction is one of the main features of reoffending. Another feature is poor education. The Labour Government was in power for 9 years and it watched while one in five students left school not able to read or write. Many of them are in our prisons. Many of them are in our prisons. This Government knows well how to look deep and make the changes we need to make in order to balance our Budget. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the Minister of Police refer to Cicero. Presumably that is the Cicero who was the author of the book about Riley the rat which the former Minister of Education read to the Post Primary Teachers Association. But remarkably enough she was actually a better Minister of Education than Hekia Parata. It is absolutely incredible. I did not think I would ever say those words in the House but it is true.  
We have seen the worst anti-education Budget that I can remember from this Government. Its members come from a party that simply does not understand education. They do not understand how the education system works and when it comes to education they are driven by a mentality that sees the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Overall this is a Budget without a vision for sustainable growth and without hope to ensure that a new generation want to build their lives for themselves and their families in our country.  
The Government said it wanted this Budget to be boring. Being boring is no aim but more than that being boring in the way the National Government is doing it is damaging. It is damaging to New Zealand because there are such big issues that this country has to face. Being boring in the way the National Government is saying is neglect. It is neglect of the future of this country. But this Budget is not actually boring when it comes to education. Right through from early childhood education to tertiary education this Budget is the worst Budget for education that I can remember. 
 This is a Budget from an anti-education party that simply does not understand the education system. It starts right at the early childhood education level. That sector is still reeling from having $400 million ripped out of it in the 2010 Budget. It pushed the costs for many families up by $60 to $80 a week to have their children in early childhood education. That was the record from the 2010 Budget. Now we see a freeze on the funding for those centres. That will see the costs for parents with children in early childhood education go up once again.  
How many times do we have to tell this Government that investment in early childhood education pays off again and again in later life? Every dollar put in gives $10 or $11 back. But this Government ignores that evidence time and time again. It freezes the funding and makes sure that parents will have to pay more. Parents who are already under financial pressure will have to pay more for early childhood education.  
But it is in the compulsory sector that this Budget really fails the future of New Zealand. Much has been said already in this House about the failure of this Government in the compulsory sector— 
Phil Twyford 
: There is so much to say.  
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There is so much to say. But the real story is the fundamental flaw in the assumption that the Minister of Education and John Key are making and that is that funding education is a zero-sum game—if we want to keep class sizes reasonable we have to give up on teacher quality. That is the assumption from this Government. That is how it sees this. Well I have got a message for John Key and Hekia Parata. Our children’s future is not something to be traded off. It is not one commodity to be traded off against another commodity.  
Of course we want good quality teachers in front of classrooms. That is why Labour invested heavily in professional development. The National Government came in and took money out of professional development for teachers and now tries to celebrate—this year—that it brought some of that money back again. It is not a zero-sum game. We can have quality teachers and keep class sizes at a reasonable level if this Government is prepared to actually prioritise education.  
Class size increase is a deliberate policy by this Government. New Zealanders should make no mistake about that. New Zealanders should make no mistake. Parents right across New Zealand this National Government is deliberately increasing the size of classes. We know from evidence right around the world about the impact that will have. We know that John Key and Bill English know that. In 2004 Bill English said it. He said that increasing class sizes will cause trouble in classrooms and especially for children who are already disadvantaged. Yet that is exactly what this Government is doing. This Government is increasing class sizes and disadvantaging students.  
We have already heard a lot about technology teaching. I just want to make the point that was already made in question time today. There are students who attend schools that are not intermediate schools. These are schools that go from years 1 to 8. Students who perhaps might be at a school like Wellington Girls’ College previously have been to schools in Wellington that go from years 1 to 8. When they go to their technology classes they go and do them at a primary school that offers that. We have heard today from Mt Cook School here in Wellington that as a result of the changes this Government is making which will reduce funding to most of the schools that contribute students to that technology centre at Mt Cook School they will have to close that centre if the Government does not change its priorities. They will have to close that technology centre and five teachers will lose their jobs. Many of those students will lose the opportunity to learn the skills that they learn in technology classes. John Key received an email yesterday from a group of engineers. Those engineers—15 of them—signed this email and they said: “Please do not make these changes to technology education because that’s where we got our interest in technology. That is where we got our start to be engineers.” The very thing the Government tells us it wants—people in high-value jobs adding value to the economy—starts in schools. But that is what has been taken away by this Government.  
The way it has treated the compulsory sector has been absolutely appalling. Would it not have been better if this Government had actually sat down and formed a working group with teachers and schools—before it made these decisions rather than afterwards when it has stuffed up and is trying to back-pedal? The problem is that even the back-pedalling is not enough because this reduction in the number of teachers in schools will damage the educational future of New Zealanders.  
There is no need for this to be a zero-sum game. I want to repeat the commitment that David Shearer made earlier this week. Labour in Government will reverse these class-size changes. We will reverse these because we think it is important that every child—wherever they are wherever they are from—gets the same opportunities. We are not going to put in place a regime that will see class sizes increase.  
In the tertiary education area we have seen some bizarre changes. I want to make the point that the proposal to completely abolish student allowances for postgraduate study for master’s and PhD students was not in the National Party manifesto. There was absolutely no indication that this was what the Government was going to do. There were some indications it was going to raid the loan scheme and change that around but no indication whatsoever that there would be these cuts to student allowances.  
Student allowances go to people from low and modest income backgrounds. They are provided because people from those backgrounds will struggle to undertake tertiary study without that support. In the House this week we have seen Steven Joyce and John Key get up and say: “It’s relatively similar.”—the amounts that are going to be received by those who now will have to borrow from the loan scheme. Well I want to tell Mr Key and Mr Joyce about a 24-year-old single mother who is trying to complete her master’s degree here in Wellington. She at the moment receives just on $353 a week to be able to support herself and her child while studying to do her master’s. Under the scheme that is now being put forward she will lose close to $140 a week from what she gets. She simply will not be able to carry on and finish her postgraduate study. She will not be able to achieve her potential and that is what this Government is responsible for. It is responsible for taking away potential from people. I want to send a message to this Government. “Stop doing this. Stop taking away opportunity from people. Stop making sure that people can’t achieve their potential. Make sure you invest in education.”  
The Labour Party sees education as a priority. It is fundamental to the health and well-being of our society and the success of our children. It is the key driver in creating a prosperous and growing economy. When Labour is in Government we will invest in education. When Labour is in Government we will ensure that we actually use a Budget to address the issues that are fundamental to our economy. Let us get monetary policy right. Let us actually support exporters. Let us make sure superannuation is sustainable for the future. Let us actually make the tax system fair and balanced so that everybody pays their fair share. And let us invest in education. That is what a Labour Government would do. This Government is failing the future of New Zealand. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Can I pick up from the Hon Anne Tolley’s message about using taxpayer funds so very very much better. I would like to talk about a policy—one that the Labour Party is nowhere near but which about a third of a million New Zealanders are right up against—that is the insulation of private homes owned by homeowners or rental properties with tenants. It is the insulation programme that over 150000 families have now picked up. There is an average of three people in a household so about 450000 New Zealanders now benefit from it. What happened was that when we came into Government—when the National Party came into Government—John Key asked his officials what were the two or three things that the Government could do that would change New Zealanders’ lives instantly and also create jobs. We came out with this home insulation scheme. The deal essentially is that the Government will pay for a third of the insulation costs for houses if families can front up with two-thirds. The Green Party—of course I acknowledge the Green Party—came on board and we had an announcement back then that over 4 years we would put in about a third of a billion dollars and insulate about 188000 homes across New Zealand. The Green Party was part of that and I certainly acknowledge it. The reality is that the Government of the day the National Government stumped up a third of a billion dollars and we are well on the way to insulating those 188000 homes. So that is a good thing.  
Come this Budget I myself as Minister of Energy and Resources looked at the figures. What has actually happened—and Anne Tolley will be interested in this—is that out of that fund we have managed to be able to extend that to 230000 houses. It will not be just 188000; we think we can probably do about 230000 houses with the same amount of money. In other words an extra 41000 houses will be funded out of that fund. Would the Labour Party—well first of all the Labour Party would not have thought of doing it—have got that cost-effectiveness? Is there anyone in New Zealand who would argue against the ability of National to get from a third of a billion dollars instead of 188000 houses an extra 41000 houses out of the same amount of cash through the efficiencies that we the sector and the people who have installed it have driven? Can anyone argue against that? I do not think so. So what are we going to get? Instead of getting 188000 houses over 4 years we are going to get 6 to 9 months into a fifth year a total of 230000 houses. That is fantastic value for money—fantastic value for money.  
I want to inform members about something humorous. This does not go to the Green Party because it supported us in that programme. Labour said: “We would have done that.” Labour had 9 years in Government and it did not do that but it said: “We would have done that.” To make it worse can I tell the New Zealand public about something pretty interesting. We are insulating private homes—right—and private rentals. Did you know that not all State houses are insulated? Did the Speaker know and did the New Zealand public know that not all State houses are insulated? In other words after 9 years in Government Labour did not even insulate its own homes. Its own homes are not even insulated. By the end of next year we will have insulated every single State home in the country that can be insulated. The Labour Party after 9 years in Government had State house tenants living in uninsulated homes yet when National makes the announcement that it is going to insulate private homes the Labour Party members say: “We would have done that.” Labour did not even insulate its own houses. What a disgrace. Can I say that we do not agree with the Green Party on most things. We do not agree with the Green Party on most things but I can tell you that when I am talking about the two-faced attitude here on home insulation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member is referring to the word that we do not actually hear. The speaker cannot get around the use of that word by a circumlocution which the member is trying to do. The member will withdraw. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The point I am making here is that I do not agree with the Green Party on a whole bunch of things but at least it has got some honesty around this. By the end of next year under this Government we will have insulated every single State house in New Zealand that can be insulated and that we can track down and we will have insulated about 230000 private houses across New Zealand. That is a stunning stunning promise.  
I am also fascinated about the odd story that turns up in the media about old cold and mouldy State houses. Can I reiterate as I did in the last term of Government over 3 years—virtually every month over the last 3 years I have said this as Minister of Housing and I will say it again—we have about 70000 State houses across New Zealand. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of them are in the wrong place—wrong suburb or wrong town—or they are of the wrong size. In other words they are three-bedroom houses when actually we need one-bedroom houses and six-bedroom houses. Thirdly they are in a poor state of disrepair. In other words they are old 1940s and 1950s State houses and they are uninsulated. When we came into Government between a quarter and a third of State houses in New Zealand were either in the wrong place were of the wrong size or were in very poor condition. So to the New Zealand media: we know—we know—and that is why we are insulating them. That is why we are going through developments like in Tamaki and bowling old houses and building new ones. That is why we introduced reviewable tenancies so that State house tenants are no longer in a State house for life if they do not need one. If I got into a State house with a family of six 30 or 40 years later under the Labour Party I could be a single person rattling round in five bedrooms and all the while there is a desperate family on the waiting list. Well that changes under us. 
But I will tell you this out of interest: the Labour Party opposes everything we are doing in State housing. We insulate all the State houses; Labour is against it. We do redevelopments where we better use the land and we upgrade all the State houses and bowl the old ones and build the new ones in Tamaki; Labour is against it. The redevelopment in Farmer Crescent; Labour is against it. What we do is say: “Hey if you don’t need a State house you can no longer have it for life. Someone else on the waiting list should get it.” and the Labour Party opposes that. So it does not matter where you turn the Labour Party opposes National Party policy even when it blindingly makes good sense. I put on the record that yes the State housing stock needs a serious upgrade yes we need the right type of houses and yes we need to insulate them all. The previous Labour Government did none of that in 9 years. We have to do it. That is why people are in State houses in poor condition. That is why people are on the waiting lists and I am proud to be part of a Budget that actually starts addressing those issues. As we insulate State houses across the country and private houses across the country can I thank members in the House and can I thank the Green Party. Can I say to the Green Party that if ever it is in Government with the Labour Party please please please repeat these messages the main one being that insulation of housing is good start at home with your own stock—you know the State housing stock—and extend it to the private housing stock. Thank you.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Some of the old cold and mouldy State houses that the Minister of Housing referred to were in my electorate. They were old they were cold and they were mouldy and they did need some work. Phil Heatley came in and demolished them. He demolished them completely and the land is now empty and the land has stayed empty since he demolished them. Anybody who wanted to move into a State house would have to ring up his 0800 number and wait and wait and wait to get into a house that Phil Heatley had demolished—gone completely. He did not fix the problem; just demolished the houses and left the land empty—demolished gone. So I guess that is one way to solve the problem is it not? Just demolish the houses. Forget about the people who live there. Forget about anybody else. Forget about anybody who might need some State housing; just demolish the houses. Leave the land empty. Now his latest solution is to sell the land—to sell it off. That is another way to deal with it I guess: demolish the houses and sell the land off. It does not actually help the people who were living in those old cold and mouldy State houses. It does not help them one bit at all. In fact it makes them potentially homeless. If someone is living in their car now under Phil Heatley they cannot go to a Housing New Zealand Corporation office any more; they need to ring an 0800 number. So this person who is living in a car is supposed to have a car and ring an 0800 number— 
Charles Chauvel 
: They’ll use a car phone.  
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right because someone living in their car is very likely to have a car phone! They are going to have to wait for at least about 40 minutes before someone answers that call—if in fact the call gets answered. This is a person living in their car. That is Phil Heatley’s idea of solving New Zealand’s housing problems. I think that speaks for itself.  
This is a Government that is interested in governing for today and for the benefit of people like its members. It is not a Government that is interested in governing for a better future for all New Zealanders and this Budget screamed that out loud. It is about making short-term decisions that will benefit people like its members regardless of the impact those decisions are going to have on the future of this country. The Government has cut funding successively in the time that it has been in Government to early childhood education. It has continued to cut funding for early childhood education even though all of the research says that kids who get quality early childhood education are more likely to succeed later on in the system. In this Budget what it did was punish people in New Zealand—hard-working Kiwis who are working and who are at the bottom of the ladder and are trying to pull themselves up. They got punished by this Government. The paper boys— 
Louise Upston 
: And what would you have done eh?  
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well we would not have cut the tax credit for the paper boys a measure that saves very little money but sends a message to the paper boys that says: “Don’t work hard to try to get ahead don’t work hard to make your life better because you’ll be punished by this National Government.” People who are from relatively modest backgrounds who want to do tertiary education study particularly at postgraduate level or maybe a medical degree which takes many years to complete are going to have their eligibility for a student allowance taken away. What it says is that if someone is from a family with means who can support them through their tertiary study they should think about a programme of study that is going to be greater than 4 years. They should think about medicine they should think about dentistry and those other sorts of programmes that take more than 4 years. But if you are from a poor family a family who cannot afford to support you for 5 6 or 7 years of tertiary study do not bother applying because this Government is not interested in providing support to those people.  
What it is basically saying about tertiary education is that it should return to being the preserve of the people on the highest incomes and who come from families of means and forget about the low-income families who want to make a better life for themselves and for any children that they might have. No no no this Government is not interested one jot in them. It is content to make life much more difficult for them and to pull the ladder up so that they do not get the chance to work hard and make a better life for themselves. 
 Perhaps the best example of the short-sightedness of this Government’s Budget the zero Budget that we have seen from this Government has been the changes that it has made to class sizes. This is a Government that is arguing that we can improve the outcomes of our education system by putting more kids into every class. That is what it is trying to tell New Zealanders. And every parent and every teacher knows—they know—that that simply is wrong. This must be the only Government in the world that thinks that we will get a better outcome from our education system by putting more kids into every class.  
Not only has it made that rather Draconian decision but it has totally failed to consider the detailed implications of the policies that have gone through Cabinet. It took a Cabinet paper through that reduced the number of teachers in year 7 and year 8 of intermediate schools without one Cabinet Minister at any point asking to see a list of the schools that would be affected by that change. Not one Minister at any point thought gosh do we think we should actually look at what this might mean for real actual schools? Nobody—nobody—not one of those 20 Cabinet Ministers including the Minister of Education thought that it would be a good idea to look at what the actual impact of the policy that they were voting for that they were approving and putting in the Budget was going to be on actual schools. Not one. Twenty Cabinet Ministers and not one of them asked for an analysis of the actual impact of the policy—including the Prime Minister who then tried to deny that he knew anything about it despite the fact that he chairs the Cabinet that approved the policy that was put forward by Hekia Parata the Minister of Education who clearly did not understand it. That is simply atrocious government. It is incompetence at the highest level of our Government and it should not be allowed to stand or to go unchecked. It should not be allowed to go unchecked.  
I have here newsletters from the intermediate schools in my electorate pointing out what these changes would mean for them. This one from Fergusson Intermediate School is headed up “Budget cuts will cripple intermediate schools”. The principal there talks about the fact that the horror of these details is that they show a devastating cut to the staffing of intermediate schools. He states very clearly and I quote directly from it: “Our choice will be to abandon the technology/arts specialist teacher positions or retain these positions and lose at least three classroom teachers.” Further on through the newsletter he points out that the result of losing those three classroom teachers would be that students end up in classes of 38 students. So either forget about doing woodwork metalwork and those other sorts of subjects—the technology subjects—or end up in a class of 38. The thing is the cap that the Minister has applied is a total hoax because it lasts only for 3 years and then the new ratios are going to kick in anyway. So it does not actually solve the problem; it simply delays the implementation of it. Intermediate schools are being done over.  
I will read from a newsletter from Maidstone Intermediate: “The idea that increasing class sizes will improve the quality of education for your child is difficult to comprehend.” That is a direct quote from the principal of Maidstone Intermediate. He points out that a whole lot of the extra activities that parents and students really value will be put at risk by this policy. Again I will quote: “The whole nature of what intermediates provide is under threat. Opportunities such as winter sport personal development options Stage Challenge computer extension groups kapahaka would all cease to operate because we would not have the staffing to sustain these programmes.” That is John Key’s and Hekia Parata’s vision of a better education system. How is that possibly raising the standard of education in this country? This Government claims to care about standards of education. It does not raise the standard of education in New Zealand to put more and more kids into the same classes.  
I will go back to quoting from the principal of Fergusson Intermediate because I think he puts it very well: “Teacher quality will not improve with higher class numbers! Student learning will not improve with higher class numbers! Student engagement particularly for students who enjoy and excel in hands on learning will not remain at the current high level when all of those options are gone from their schooling.” And that is the reality that they will face under this National Government. Hekia Parata’s cap on this policy makes it very clear. Those New Zealanders who care about the future of education will have to vote for a change of Government if they do not want to see massively bigger class sizes in 3 years’ time when that cap is removed. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Talofa lava. Chris Hipkins’ contribution just confirms how deeply in denial is the Labour Opposition after that stunning information from the Hon Phil Heatley where he pointed out that the National Government has insulated 150000 homes so far and will go on to 230000 homes—a brilliant achievement after the Labour Government had done nothing after 9 long years including failing to insulate even its own State houses. What did Chris Hipkins do? He denied it. He was in total denial. He did not rebut it he did not say a thing he just stayed like the Labour Party in total denial.  
The day after the Budget John Shewan—[ 
Interruption 
]— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Members on my left and my right cannot interject on each other without the floor. The interjections are reserved for the person who is speaking.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The day after the Budget John Shewan arguably New Zealand’s foremost tax expert if not the top tax expert said that this Budget is an impressive Budget. He said it needed to be predictable and it was. He said this was a responsible Budget. As so many speakers have said about Budget 2012 it is indeed a Budget for the times. For the Opposition to suggest that this is an austerity Budget clearly defies the fact. As the leader of the National Party the Prime Minister has so fondly pointed out the Labour Party does indeed live on “Planet Labour”. There is also “Planet Green” somewhere up there in the clouds. As my old psychology teacher used to say the difference between a neurotic and a psychotic is that a neurotic builds sandcastles in the air and a psychotic lives in them. When it comes to Labour and the Greens the public can take its pick.  
The facts are that as a response to the global recession this National Government has actually borrowed up to $350 million a week. This is in order to ensure that vital services such as health education and social welfare continue to be well supported and this indeed has been hugely helpful to millions of New Zealanders. This has indeed provided a huge stimulation. If one compares that with what has gone on in Europe where there have been savage cuts to the Public Service where there have been savage cuts not only to Public Service numbers but also to their salaries New Zealand has really come through extraordinarily unscathed. That has been because of a highly responsible and prudential National Government.  
As the Governor of the Reserve Bank pointed out unless New Zealand does manage our finances prudentially we undoubtedly will have a credit rate downgrade. This would have a huge impact on the housing mortgages that so many New Zealanders have and it would have a huge impact on our farmers and our small businesses. Think of the dairy industry which is in the order of $30 billion in debt. There is no question that we do need in this country a Budget that is highly financially prudential and responsible.  
For David Shearer to go on about a “departure lounge Budget” is scaremongering of the worst order. I was over in the Middle East with his predecessor the Hon Phil Goff 10 days ago. It was extremely poignant from that position in that tinder-dry area to realise how lucky we are here in New Zealand and how extremely well our economy has been managed by the National Government. What is more despite the international economic uncertainties New Zealanders can be optimistic for the future because of the clear economic growth plan that this Government has and because the National Government is committed to ensuring that we have a surplus by 2014-15.  
One area that David Shearer said was good about the Budget was the fact that there is going to be a significant investment in science and technology—in all a boost of $326 million for science innovation and research over 4 years. There is no doubt this will be money well spent. We know that countries like Denmark Israel Singapore and Taiwan have consistently invested in both the public and the private sector in the science and innovation and in its commercialisation area and have consistently had much superior growth rates than many other developed countries.  
Here in New Zealand the National Government is doing exactly the same thing. New funding over the next few years includes $90 million operating funding and $76.1 million certified funding to create the Advanced Technology Institute. This will be business-facing and will work with the high-tech manufacturing and service sector. This is $326 million of new funding in the science innovation and research area and in difficult times this is very significant and appropriate. There will be $60 million operating funding for the National Science Challenges to find innovative solutions to some of the most fundamental issues that New Zealand faces. For example we have the world’s largest exclusive economic zone. How best can we use this taking into account the balance between our economic and environmental interests?  
There will be $100 million additional research funding for Vote Tertiary Education by increasing the size of the Performance-based Research Fund to $300 million by 2016. This is particularly important to ensure that we do achieve a world-leading research university in this country. By doing it in this way by having a competitive research fund such as the Performance-based Research Fund we will enable our universities on merit to get there and obviously assist New Zealand in terms of leading innovation and its commercialisation and research and also attracting students. The Government’s total cross-portfolio funding for science innovation and research stands at $1.24 billion up $0.24 billion from 2008. That has to be a very very significant amount in science and innovation over these very difficult times.  
I want to end by just repeating that as John Shewan pointed out last week Budget 2012-13 is an impressive Budget. It needed to be predictable and it was. It is indeed a very responsible Budget. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Talofa lava. I would like to start by responding to some comments made by the Hon Phil Heatley and Dr Paul Hutchison. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: That would be me. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: Thank you so much for your acknowledgment but I think those members misremember what happened. The instigation of the home insulation project was actually entirely the idea and initiative of my brilliant colleague and former co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons who convinced the former Labour Government to fund it with $1 billion which is significantly more than what the National Government ended up doing. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not quite sure how to test that but that has never been reflected in the books. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member will be seated. This is a debatable issue. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. This is the reaction to the Budget. It is a wide-ranging debate and the issue that she is speaking about is debatable. Any member following from National can refute it or otherwise. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. The member can refute it and in response the member is entitled to say what she likes within reason. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. I think the Hon Phil Heatley will find in media reports shortly after the 2008 election that Prime Minister John Key said that he would be axing the home insulation fund. It was only the persistence of Jeanette Fitzsimons that convinced the Government to take up this smart idea and I invite the Government to take up more smart green ideas because we have many.  
When one considers the lost opportunities in this Budget it is quite easy to feel rather depressed that most New Zealanders are not going to be better off and certainly not future generations of New Zealanders. But it is none the less a pleasure for me to take a call because I am very enthusiastic about the opportunities that we have before us. We have great opportunities particularly in the area of transport. One of the easiest ways to reduce our debt to improve our economic productivity and to reduce household costs as well as to get better outcomes in health and in air and water quality is to reform our transportation market. So a few facts. Our transportation system is costing us a whole lot of money. This is not political; it is just a fact. It is costing us a lot of money. Last year New Zealand households and businesses—and members on the Government side can ask the Parliamentary Library for this information—spent $11 billion on imported cars and fuel to run them. This is a huge contribution to our current account deficit and it is ongoing. There is a huge cost of off-street parking which has been shifted from the transport sector to the real estate sector. That cost is conservatively estimated at $10 billion annually—$10 billion because of bad Government regulation. I would think that that Government would be very interested in reducing some of the bad Government regulation that is imposing huge costs on developers and on businesses and on households. I invite the Government to inquire and get some information about how it can improve economic productivity by reducing bad Government regulations.  
It is not just households and businesses and the real estate sector that are spending billions on our transport system. Transport funding is also the single largest outlay of local government in New Zealand so if the Government is concerned about reducing rates and confining local government to how much it can raise rates it should probably look at what changes to the transportation sector could limit the amount of rates that local government needs to raise. Of course central government is continuing to spend billions every year about $3 billion from the National Land Transport Fund on capital investment and operations in transport. But for some mysterious reason the Government lists infrastructure investment as one of the things it is doing to improve economic productivity and the vast majority of its national infrastructure plan is a new spend on State highways. So it is $12 billion to $14 billion over the next 10 years. [ 
Interruption 
] If Government members listened maybe they would understand what I am saying but they are not listening; they are just talking. The mystery is how these motorways are going to improve economic productivity because there is actually no evidence.  
There is no evidence to suggest the Government is going to improve economic productivity. In fact there is a lot of evidence that suggests the Government will do the exact opposite. We heard from the Minister of Finance last week in the House in response to questions from Dr Russel Norman that these motorways were never subject to Treasury’s  
Better Business Cases for Capital Proposals 
 guidelines. The National Party campaigned on these motorways without any investigation of the costs or the benefits or the impact on the economy and it has massively reprioritised the entire national transport budget just to pay for them. It says that right here in this document. Here is the 4-year budget plan from the Ministry of Transport and it says about the so-called roads of national significance—or National Party significance—that funding has been sourced from within the National Land Transport Fund by a major reprioritisation of expenditure. What this means is that in order to pay for these political projects—where there is no evidence that they are going to have a positive impact on the economy—we are going to be spending less money on road policing we are spending less money on local roads we are spending less money on road maintenance and renewal and very very little money on smart public transport and walking and cycling.  
So it is a question of priorities—it is a question of priorities. The truth is—[ 
Interruption 
] I am trying to get to it but Government members are apparently not interested in listening. I think it is easy for New Zealanders and Government members who do not understand anything about transport or traffic engineering to think “Oh well sure another motorway couldn’t hurt. It’d come in handy if there was a crash or congestion on other roads. It’ll mean I’m less likely to get stuck in a traffic jam. It’ll mean that we can get out of Wellington if there’s an earthquake.” Except that is not the case. That is just not the case. Motorways have never reduced congestion—not in Auckland not in anywhere else in the world. 
There is a paradigm shift and it is an opportunity for the Government. This is an opportunity for the Government. There is a paradigm shift in how we define and address transport problems. Look at Southern California for example. No region has spent more on motorways than Southern California. And what has it led to? The worst road congestion in the entire United States more road crashes per capita than anywhere else longer commutes a huge burden of under-maintained infrastructure and a stagnant economy not to mention huge costs to households just to get around. And they have extremely poor land affordability. It is completely understandable why this has happened. It is because the traditional approach to traffic engineering prioritises the flow of vehicles. It does not look at the movement of people and goods. It does not look at what the opportunity cost is of using up 30 to 50 percent of the land in our towns and cities just on transport infrastructure.  
It is really funny to hear from Government MPs that there is wastefulness in public transport because sometimes buses which are running at all times of the day are really crowded at peak time and may be near empty at other parts of the day. But that is a network that enables people to move around a city all day and it is far more efficient than the unbalanced vehicle-oriented system we have right now. What about the wastefulness of nearly empty arterials and motorways outside peak? What about the land in our town centres lying fallow as empty off-street car-parks that exist only because district plan regulations force developers to put them there? Members of the House I invite you to walk along upper Symonds Street in Auckland at 8 p.m. at night and look over the tarmac-covered landscape that is nearly empty of anything at all. That is some of the most valuable land in our city yet it is not used for an economically productive use most of the time. It is not used for commerce trade dwellings or recreation. We have given over huge amounts of highly valuable land in our towns and cities to our transport system and the traffic engineers and transport economists who do the modelling and evaluation of these projects never include this massive opportunity cost in the assessment of projects.  
The Budget shows that even though the Government says that it understands that public transport is a cheaper way to reduce congestion and to move more people and goods it is not actually putting its money where its mouth is. And this is just in the last year; it is going to get worse over the next 10 years. The red bit on this chart is how much the Government is spending on public transport in Auckland Wellington and Christchurch combined and here is the amount it is spending on State highways. It is unbalanced—it is unbalanced—it does not give New Zealanders a choice and it is costing us a whole lot of money. Every other part of our transport system as I have said is languishing under National’s transport programme and this is imposing huge costs on local government. The Green Party has done a very robust analysis and I invite Government members to sit down with me; I am happy to explain it to them. We found we can save money. We can spend less on expensive new infrastructure. We can use our existing infrastructure better. We can free up valuable land in our town centres for development. And we can move more people and goods at lower cost. This will be 100 times better not just for our economy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak on Budget 2012. I am supportive of this Budget because it looks to the future and focuses strongly on rebuilding and strengthening our economy delivering better services and creating new jobs but at the same time managing the Government’s finances responsibly and getting the books back to surplus by 2014-15 without having to borrow more. Meanwhile we are committed to protecting the most vulnerable families and businesses from the sharpest edges of the global economic downturn. We have set a path to surplus while maintaining entitlements such as Working for Families and increasing superannuation above inflation so that New Zealanders are supported through these tough economic times.  
Responsibility is a key word of Budget 2012. National inherited a country in recession when it came into office in 2008. Earlier this month the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s  
Financial Stability Report  
stated that “New Zealand’s financial system remains vulnerable to global financial instability despite an improvement in financial market sentiment since the start of 2012.” The statement supports National’s priority of getting our books back to surplus. A surplus helps keep mortgage rates lower for longer. It gives the Government choices about how it invests our taxes. It ensures that our economy is stronger and more stable and able to deflect future economic surprises.  
Only by acting responsibly can New Zealanders be assured a brighter future. The National-led Government is committed to that goal. To achieve that goal we have a lot of work to do. Here are some of the key areas that I would like to elaborate on. Firstly the Government will provide substantial new funding for research and innovation over 4 years. This includes $59 million for science and engineering courses and $100 million to boost research. As a former senior university lecturer I understand how important such funding is. Research and innovation will help deliver a more competitive and productive economy. I commend the Government for that.  
Secondly this Government understands that only by investing in education will we ensure that the next generation reaches its highest potential. As the proud father of two girls I want them to reach their potential. National will be focusing on increasing student achievement. Over 4 years we will commit over $511 million towards new early childhood and schooling initiatives and also $59.8 million to support teacher quality.  
Thirdly the National-led Government has worked hard to put our economy on a more sound footing. It is committed to expanding our trade with rising economies such as China. I was fortunate enough to be able to accompany the trade Minister the Hon Tim Groser on his visit to China in March. Since National came into office our trade with China has grown rapidly. In 2009 it grew by 8 percent in 2010 by 16 percent and in 2011 by 15 percent. We are well positioned to reach the goal of doubling our trade with China to $20 billion in 2015 which will benefit all New Zealanders.  
Fourthly the Government is committed to having a more effective welfare system. We are focusing on getting New Zealanders back to work while still protecting the vulnerable through Working For Families superannuation for our elderly and welfare benefits for those genuinely in need. However for too long New Zealand has been stifled by a welfare dependency that drains the taxpayer and does nothing to grow the economy. We want those who can work to go back to work. We want to break the vicious cycle of welfare dependency that can go from generation to generation in some families. We want them to know that work is good for them and for the country. All New Zealanders should strive to better themselves so that they can have a brighter future. That is why we are investing over $287 million in education and training to better support beneficiaries to return to work. We will be focusing on supporting sole parents back to work and giving more powers to Work and Income New Zealand to direct people to prepare for work.  
What I should also mention is the issue of law and order. The National-led Government is staying tough on crime with a record 15-year low crime rate in 2011. Like many New Zealanders the Chinese community are law-abiding citizens and rate law and order high on their priorities. National believes in safer communities. Investing in more front-line police has played a part in this low crime rate.  
As a member of the Health Committee I now would like to turn my attention to our successful public health service. The National-led Government is achieving great results for New Zealanders in delivering a world-class public health service; this despite inheriting a service that was in crisis. We are spending more than any other Government over $14 billion over the next 4 years to deliver better sooner and more convenient front-line health care services for New Zealanders. In Budget 2012 health received the largest increase in Government spending; a sign of National’s commitment to growing our public health service. As a result of National’s investment we now have 800 more doctors and 2000 more nurses. As a member of the Health Committee I am supportive of more efficiency and less bureaucracy in our health system.  
Many from the medical field are supportive of the health investment in Budget 2012. Medicines New Zealand said: “We support the Government’s commitment to improving access to innovative medicines and protecting and growing public health services in a tight economic climate. Thousands of New Zealand patients have benefited from increased Government investment in pharmaceuticals over the past three years.” This Budget is about growing New Zealand’s economy and giving New Zealanders hope for a brighter future. National has shown that we have the right policies to help cushion New Zealand in tough economic times. We remain resolute in our commitment to responsibly managing the Government’s finances so that we return to surplus sooner and without incurring more debt. We are building a more competitive and productive economy. We are delivering better front-line public services such as health and education and we are focusing on priorities that matter to all New Zealanders. We do not want to see a return to the debt-fuelled excesses of the last Labour Government. That is why National is disciplined around spending and capital management.  
National’s commitment to growing New Zealand’s economy and responsible fiscal management speaks for itself. We have created 60000 new jobs in the past 2 years mortgage rates are at 45-year lows there have been tax cuts across the board to reward hard work more doctors and nurses are providing health care to Kiwis and more front-line police are protecting our communities. Despite the extraordinary challenges we have all faced in the last few years which include the 2008 recession the global financial crisis and the devastating Christchurch earthquakes New Zealand is on a good track for growth. I commend this Budget. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Members the next call I understand is a split call for New Zealand First. It is a 5-minute call. I will ring a bell at 4 minutes. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Does that mean there won’t be time for singing? 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: Well there is another one of those jokes of yours staggering over the horizon with glacier-like speed. I look forward to seeing Mr Bridges in his role as Associate Minister. We all in Tauranga eagerly wait for you to do something.  
I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this 2012 Budget and I must admit that although this Budget at first glance bears an amazing resemblance to the “mother of all Budgets” from the Ruth Richardson era this Budget although similarly austere does contain subtle differences of a frightening yet somehow morbidly fascinating design. To many of us New Zealanders it almost seems as if consultants of a numerical leaning have transferred figures played a numbers game with no thought or due consideration to the social ramifications affecting New Zealanders—our people. Question time yesterday lent evidence to that theory with the education Minister’s admissions. I searched for redeeming features in this Budget for sport for transport for art heritage and culture for Maori affairs or for industrial relations but instead I found only austerity and despair for my fellow countrymen and women. It truly is a zero Budget and I wonder how much attention to detail has been paid by the relevant Ministers.  
I have seen some very sad occurrences of late as a result of the austerity measures imposed upon New Zealand by this Government. I will divulge some of those experiences to this House. Two weeks ago in Tauranga 32 primary schools sent teams to a Rippa Rugby competition. It was billed as the Rippa Rugby World Cup and all of the teams were given T-shirts of different nations. So you had England in one colour and France and New Zealand in other colours. It was a very exciting day. In previous years the children were able to keep the T-shirts to remind them of the wonderful day they had participating in a sporting extravaganza. It also reminded them of the day they strove to be the best that they could be. I say to the Hon Mr Bridges that I look forward to the day when your young lad can be involved in that competition because it truly is a great day.  
This year however at the end of the competition all of the children were told that they had to return their T-shirts due to a lack of the money and so that the T-shirts could be used again by other teams next year. How can this be? How can this happen in New Zealand that we cannot even give Kiwi kids T-shirts?  
The following day there was another unfortunate incident. My son was playing rugby in Paengaroa where a scrum collapsed and a 11-year-old boy was trapped in the bottom of that scrum and suffered a severely dislocated knee. We moved the rugby game to the adjacent playing field and I telephoned 111 for immediate medical attention. Well the operator did not even know where Paengaroa was and it turned out that she was in the South Island. About 30 minutes later an ambulance arrived and the young lad was taken to Tauranga to hospital. What if that boy had suffered a cut artery?  
Later that day I visited Tauranga Hospital and noticed a significant amount of blood splashed on the kerb just outside the emergency department doors. My sister informed the receptionist asking her to get an outdoor cleaner to wash away the blood but was told that due to budget cuts at Tauranga Hospital they had nobody to perform that task. This is blood. It could have been infected and it was metres away from the entrance. But no it was just left there. Too bad “Mr Spray and Walk Away” was not there. This is not a Middle East hot spot that I am talking of but New Zealand our country. Sadly this is not— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. The member’s time has expired. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the 2012 Budget. This Budget does not give much assistance at all to ordinary New Zealanders. It does not provide a brighter future for the ordinary New Zealander. In fact this Budget gives New Zealanders no hope and no vision and lastly there is no plan for economic growth. Instead what we have is a Budget that continues to create hardship and misery for many: hundreds of people will continue to lose their jobs and of course State assets will continue to be sold. The senior citizens were ambushed. There was no funding for aged care one of the fastest-growing areas in New Zealand. One would have thought that this Government would do that. Second the Budget links the aged-care asset-testing to the rate of inflation it increases prescription charges and there is no assistance for seniors and their increased power charges that they face.  
In New Zealand First we had actually expected some vision some tax policies that encouraged higher savings some policies that encouraged research and development some investment into plant assets that create high margin jobs and high margin exports—and of course jobs for a start. We often hear about the jobs that are being created but I can assure you that these are not career jobs that are being created; they are jobs for a very short period of time like helping pick in the kiwifruit industry. It is not good enough for our Kiwi kids to consider that they will have a career in that particular industry. We know that New Zealand will never ever recover if we are not going to be focused on our export industry our IT industry and production and manufacturing to mention just a few. We need these types of industries if New Zealand is going to grow and flourish. There is nothing in this Budget to actually grow the economy. It is a zero Budget that gives our New Zealanders no hope and—worse—no career jobs for our young people.  
Just a few weeks ago we saw the rest home workers on strike. This group of workers was totally ignored in the Budget. Yet the Prime Minister has acknowledged that there were problems but he did not go on to say that working in this industry was like a form of modern-day slavery like the recent report actually suggests. District health boards can do nothing to raise the pay of our aged-care workers because the Government has got other priorities than the health sector—robbing Peter to pay Paul. Aged-care staff are called upon to carry out a whole range of tasks. Some of them are heavy most of them are seriously unpleasant and woefully the staff are underpaid. This must be one of the hardest areas to work in— 
Hon Member 
: Read the report. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: —even if Minister Goodhew does not agree. What action is going to be taken? Nothing. Ignoring the problem Minister is not going to make it go away. Do not pretend that it does not exist. John Key acknowledged that there were problems with rest home workers paying for their own travel so what is going to be done about it? We will be watching that space. We were interested to see that the Government also ignored in the Budget health initiatives that will save money in the years to come. “Do more with less” has been the catchcry. There comes a time when more just cannot be done. Shifting money from one area to another has meant that some initiatives continue to be overlooked.  
This is a Budget that lacks vision and contains all the elements of failure for our people—an opportunity missed for New Zealand and New Zealanders. We cannot afford to have too many Budgets like this. This Budget did not work in 1991 and it is not going to work 20 years later. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I timed the amount of time that I had to speak and somewhere along the way 35 seconds were lost. It may have been— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The timing is controlled by the officer on my right. I do not control the time; I ring the bell. So I can assure the member that the timings are correct and that if there are interjections and I have to intervene the clock is stopped. In your case you actually had the time and when your time expired I stood up and told you to sit down. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I can see Brendon Horan’s point. It was such a ripper little contribution I am sure he wanted to get a little sing-song in there before he concluded—never mind. His contribution was second only to the fantastic discussion the chitter-chatter from Julie Anne Genter of the Greens from “Fantasy Island” where she seems to be domiciled.  
Let us get down to this Budget this fourth National Budget which is about staying on track on the four key priorities that this nation needs. This Budget is about responsibly managing the Government’s finances this Budget is about building a more competitive and productive economy this Budget is about ensuring that we have better public services and this Budget is about rebuilding Christchurch. These are the decisions that have been made that reflect the challenges that this nation faces in these tough uncertain global economic times.  
Of course the first challenge that we were confronted with back in 2007 was the fact that New Zealand was going into recession after 8 years of Labour Government. This was a Labour Government that seemed to think that growing the Government is akin to growing the economy. When New Zealand went into recession what we faced was Labour squandering the good times zero growth in the tradable sector massive growth in the Government sector and a whole big bunch of lolly scrambles and bribes for Labour to make its way back into power. That was the picture. So when the global credit crisis actually did strike and one Mr Cullen and one Miss Clark were last seen exiting stage left what we saw was the Labour members scrambling—what was left of them—to get back on to their high horses of Opposition to blame National for the mess that they had made. Oh what a surprise!  
Labour and the members in that corner of the House have never known a better time to be in Opposition. Why is that? They know that they want to be able to blame the National Government for everything that is going on in the country and in the world and they see plenty of opportunities to do that because in “Labour Land” there is no global credit crisis. In “Labour Land” we have not taken a 10 percent hit on our GDP following the devastating earthquakes in Christchurch. In “Labour Land” the Government is to blame for all of this—not mother Nature and not the global credit crisis. But you watch this space on Christchurch because when growth starts to pick up down there what you will hear is the Labour bench saying: “Oh no there is growth only because of what is happening in Christchurch.” Suddenly Christchurch will be back in the frame. Well you cannot have it both ways—plain and simple. The members try but they cannot have it both ways.  
The truth of the matter is that lots of people on that side of the House think it is a pretty good time to be in Opposition because it is all care and no responsibility. They do not have to deal with the challenges and they would not have the gumption to do it anyway. Kiwis have woken up to this and while these guys opposite are playing politics Kiwis are out there getting on with it and doing what they know needs to be done. Households have made the adjustments businesses have made the adjustments and we have supported them to do just that. We have supported them by taking those rough edges off the recession whilst continuing to invest in infrastructure by continuing to invest in health by continuing to invest in science and innovation by continuing to invest in 21st century schools and by continuing to invest in economic growth in tough times. When it all boils down what we have done is what Kiwis want and need. We have set a course back to surplus despite the headwinds that that crowd do not have to sail against. We have set a course and we have stayed to that unfalteringly. That is about recognising what the right decisions are and having the fortitude to actually make them.  
On this side of the House we actually have to do that. That is about having a clear plan focused on getting back to surplus and sticking to it. That is about making tough decisions because that is what New Zealanders want and need from us. That is leadership. That is John Key’s leadership and that is the leadership that resonates with New Zealanders. It is also the reason that the polls are about 20 points apart and have been for about 3 or 4 years like a set of railway tracks. New Zealanders know how important it is to stick to the course. New Zealanders know we need a more productive economy to actually grow jobs. They do not grow on trees; you need a more productive economy. New Zealanders know that we need more efficiency from our public services. New Zealanders know that we need to manage the Government finances as well as we possibly can because that is their money. New Zealanders get that. But in “Labour Land” they do not. How do we know they do not? Because in “Labour Land” they oppose everything we do to try to grow the economy. They oppose a $1.5 million investment in ultra-fast broadband. They oppose the mixed-ownership model. They oppose roads of national significance as do the Greens of course. They oppose more mining and gas exploration. They oppose investment in 21st century schools. They oppose public sector reforms. They oppose the 90-day probation period. They oppose tax reform. They oppose welfare reform. They oppose they oppose they oppose. There is a bit of a theme creeping through.  
They have had a change of leadership although the three Daves cannot quite sort out what is going on from there. The Labour Party is trying to reinvent itself. Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch you can also participate in that if you like— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. 
MIKE SABIN 
: —as can any member of the public by simply tuning into Labour’s website and giving a pound of your flesh and giving your views. What is the Labour Party’s plan? Well nothing much has changed in “Labour Land”. Nothing much has changed at all because Labour’s plan is about milking businesses dry. Its plan is about a capital gains tax. Its plan is about increasing the minimum wage. Its plan is about abandoning the 90-day probation period for employers. Its plan is about returning to the 1970s industrial relations laws. Its plan is about accelerating farmers’ entry into the emissions trading scheme. Its plan is about doubling employers’ contributions to KiwiSaver. Its plan is about raising interest rates and more borrowing. Its plan is about milking the business community dry. Well the Labour Party may be stuck in something of a time warp—back in the utopian years of the mid-2000s—but the rest of New Zealand has passed Labour by.  
What is this Government doing? We are on track to be back in surplus by 2014-15. We are one of the few developed countries that is not increasing its public debt. We have created over 60000 new jobs in the last 2 years. Mortgage rates are at a 45-year low. We have made tax cuts across the board. There are more doctors nurses and front-line police officers. This economy has grown in nine out of 10 quarters. This economy is looking at 2 percent growth in this calendar year and 3 percent is projected for 2014. That equates to 154000 new jobs. What are we doing to keep this going? We are making sure we are achieving savings to invest in health science education and a more productive economy. We are focusing on the efficiencies that Government programmes need to deliver and reprioritising $4.4 billion as a result of that to deliver better public services for less. We are tackling the welfare trap. We are putting $148 million into supporting young people who are on a collision course with benefits. If they can work we want to make them ready for work and to get them into work. This Budget is about keeping on course and investing in New Zealanders. This Budget has been about investing in our economy without increasing spending. Far from a zero Budget this Budget has been about delivering for New Zealanders and that is what we will continue to do. I commend it to the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 No wonder the member Mike Sabin was struggling to fill out his 10 minutes because he was trying to spend 10 minutes talking about a zero Budget that had zero ideas for a zero future. It certainly did not have any ideas for growth because it is a zero growth Budget as well. It is no wonder that member struggled with his lines.  
What I want to talk about is worse than zero actually; it is it moving into the negatives. That is what this Budget did for education. Not only is it a zero Budget for education but it is moving into the negatives. Every parent in every household in New Zealand knows this. They get it. It does not matter how many times Hekia Parata tries to tell families that increasing class sizes and cutting the number of teachers are good for education—good news for education—they simply do not believe her. They are right not to believe her because parents are not stupid. Parents know what is good for children’s education and they know that having more children and fewer teachers means worse education. They are a bit confused because they were promised a brighter future by that Government. They were promised a brighter future. But did the National Party on the election hustings once dare to come clean with the electorate and tell it that National was going to be cutting teacher numbers? Did any of those MPs opposite actually come clean and honestly tell parents in their community that the brighter future meant larger class sizes and fewer teachers? There is silence—absolute silence from the lambs opposite. They would not be honest with the electorate. They knew that if they told the electorate the truth about what the brighter future actually meant they would lose votes. And so they should lose votes because they were dishonest with the electorate. They are not creating a brighter future. They are putting every child’s future at risk by their policy of cutting teacher numbers and increasing class sizes. 
The reality is that—and everyone knows what all of the research and evidence tells us about improving quality of education—it is the quality of the interaction between the teacher and the child that makes the difference. That is what makes the difference. So somehow that Government thinks that it is a good idea to cut the number of teachers and increase the number of children that they have to have these interactions with. Of course every parent gets it because they are not stupid. If you have more children in the class the teacher has less time to have those quality interactions with each of those children. Members opposite seem blind to that fact except for when it comes to their own children. They conveniently seem to have them in private schools where the ratios are lower. There is a story in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 in fact where only five of the Cabinet Ministers—out of I think 18 Ministers—said they sent their children to State schools. The rest are in private school education. So they do not care. They do not care about children in families like mine who do go to the local State school. They do not care about what is going to happen in the future for those children because their children are all right. They have the money to send their children to private schools. What do private schools offer? They offer lower class sizes. That is what they offer. And here we are with the very people who send their children there making the decision that that is good enough for their children but it is not going to happen for other people’s children. That is what is going on here.  
 The other thing that has started to happen—because my goodness what a shambles education is for the National Party I have got to say; what an absolute shambles—is that it has caused people to recognise what a difference it would be to have a Labour-led Government. Labour has said we will restore the class sizes to what they are currently. We are not going to allow those increased class sizes to continue to exist and we are not going to allow those teacher cuts. New Zealanders know that it is a really stark choice now. They understand that the brighter future actually lies with Labour. It is really clear to parents because they can see that it is Labour that is saying: “Uh-uh no teacher cuts and no increase in class sizes under Labour.” That is the future that you get with National. Parents are now coming to understand what a brighter future actually looks like. It will look like a brighter future for their children under a Labour-led Government not a National Government. 
The current strategy is that National is trying to shift the blame on to the schools for goodness’ sake. Can you believe that? Here is the Government cutting the funding to education so that there are fewer teachers and more children in every single classroom and it is starting to blame the schools for that decision. It is starting to blame the schools. But here is what the schools have got to say. I am going to talk about a few schools in the part of the world that I come from. I will start with the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 actually because it had a really interesting story about Tauranga Intermediate School. Tauranga Intermediate School has hit the headlines twice this week—both for tragic reasons actually. One of them was because it was the school that had the children out in the Kaimai Ranges who were lost but fortunately not overnight. I want to say how grateful we all are that those children were found before a much more serious situation evolved. Tauranga Intermediate is the largest intermediate school in the country and it was set to lose 10 to 13 staff members— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: And now it’s a maximum of two. How good am I? 
SUE MORONEY 
: —from its school as a result of that Government’s folly with education. That is what it was set to lose. And Simon Bridges who is their local MP is now going: “But it’s going to lose only two. Isn’t that great news? Isn’t that great news?”. I have got some news for Simon Bridges. Two full-time teacher equivalent positions does not mean just two teachers. It does not mean just two subjects by the way. But even if it did is that really going to be his claim to fame? Simon Bridges’ claim to fame is going to be saying to the parents and the community in Tauranga: “Good news you are losing teachers. Isn’t that great news?”. Well that is the best members opposite can come up with on that side of the House but it is not good enough for the Labour Party.  
 I want to move on and talk about some other schools in the area of the Waikato - Bay of Plenty. In Matamata actually my old school Matamata Intermediate School is set to lose five or six teachers. That is what it is set to lose because of that Government’s misjudgment about education. There are a number of other schools such as Cambridge Middle School which is going to be losing 3.5 staff and Fairfield Intermediate School which is expected to lose 5.4 staff under the Government’s original plan. This is what the brighter future looks like ladies and gentlemen of the New Zealand public. This is the brighter future. It is about cutting teachers and increasing class sizes. Anyone who knows what a brighter future looks like knows that that is not what it looks like at all.  
Parents are not stupid. It does not matter how many times John Key tries to convince them that the plan means that their children will get a better education. It does not matter how many times Hekia Parata tries to convince them that it means that their children will get a better education. Every parent knows that it means a worse quality of education for their children. That is the future under this National Government. 
I want to go on to early childhood education— 
Maggie Barry 
: And on and on. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes I will go on and on about education thank you very much Miss Barry because it is important. I know that that Government thinks that it is not important but it is. Parents get this: on early childhood education the Government has frozen the funding. Get this: in the calendar year 2012 the funding is going down $200 per child. That is how much the funding cuts will be for early childhood education in this Budget. What is that going to mean for the future? If the Government is reducing as it is by $200 per child the funding for 2012 then that means that parents are going to have to make up the shortfall. That Government has no idea about the struggles that working families face these days. It is absolutely blatant that the Government has no understanding of the struggles of ordinary working families because it does not care about them. But that is the result. The fees for early childhood education will go up for those families and that Government does not care about that. It thinks that is perfectly fine. Well it is not because Labour certainly does understand working families and the struggle they face on a day-to-day basis. We know— 
Maggie Barry 
: That’s why you’re in Opposition. 
SUE MORONEY 
: —that their family budgets are at breaking point. Maggie Barry has no idea. She thinks that it is all tickety-boo because on their planet over there everyone is doing just fantastically well. Everyone is doing so well and there are no problems out there in the community at all. Well in the real world these are the problems that this Budget creates for families— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Before I call the next speaker can I just remind members about interjections. Interjections should be exactly that—interjections. They should not be running commentaries. Please bear that in mind as this debate progresses. Also interjections should be related to the person who is speaking; they should not be exchanges across the cross benches as to what someone may or may not think. So just bear that in mind. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak this afternoon in support of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill—the 2012 Budget. It is a very fine Budget but before I go on to talk about the merits of the Budget I want to spend just a moment or two talking about the presentation from the previous speaker Sue Moroney. She represents all that was bad wrong and evil with the previous 9 years of Labour administration—the excess the fiscal irresponsibility the excess of spending and the borrowing to pay for things that we could not afford. Members on that side of the House—our opponents—have opposed every single growth initiative that we on this side have proposed. And every time we put up a growth strategy they oppose it they knock it and they argue against it. Those members are the same people who have opposed every single restraint on spending that has been put up by this Government because they are from an Opposition and a party—a once proud party I might say—that has lost its way. They are on an orbit in outer space which is an irregular orbit— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Out of time.  
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: They are out of time and out of orbit in a very very bad way. But they were once proud. Once they knew what they stood for. Once they knew what they wanted to achieve. Now they do not. They have no idea. They are rudderless leaderless and bereft and lost in the orbit of Opposition. They are completely lacking any credibility in terms of jobs growth and responsible fiscal management and under Labour all that we would get would be more costs for businesses.  
Turning to Budget 2012 this is a Budget that invests in New Zealand’s future. It is a Budget that will stimulate the economy and will create jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders up and down the countryside. Most of all from my point of view it will create opportunities for the good people of Coromandel. We are investing across the board over $4 billion worth of new spending taken from a zero Budget. That means that there have been $4 billion worth of efficiencies gained somewhere efficiencies in the Government spending and investments and that is a good thing. It is a good thing for the New Zealand taxpayer and it is a good thing for the New Zealand nation as a whole.  
This Budget forms a very important part of the Government’s four-step plan. The four steps of course have been spoken about before. The four priorities are one the responsible managing of the Government’s finances and this Budget absolutely represents that. The second one is building a more competitive and productive economy and we are absolutely doing that in Budget 2012. Then of course we come to delivering a better Public Service. Finally the most important one the pressing one and the one that the Labour Party seems to have forgotten is the rebuild of Christchurch after the earthquake. On “Planet Labour” members seem to have forgotten that there has been an earthquake and they seem to have forgotten that there has been a global fiscal crisis of the worst sort that we have ever seen in our lifetimes. So this is important.  
Labour borrowed to consume it borrowed to spend and it borrowed to live beyond our means. It borrowed our children’s future. Inflation in my youth was the big fiscal bogeyman. In the early 1980s when I was first married and buying a house inflation was the big monster that we had to worry about. Interest rates were running at about 18 19 or 20 percent. Now it is debt. Now it is debt that is the fiscal bogeyman and it is debt that Labour does not seem to understand that people do not want. This week I received a text message from a constituent that read: “Have just renegotiated my mortgage downwards. New rate: 5.35 percent. Means a reduction”—wait for this—“of $2000 p.a. for me and my family. All good.” That really means in tax paid dollar terms a huge saving for that family. That is an enormous payback of fiscal responsibility for that family.  
I want to turn now just for a minute or two to what this Budget means for the good people of Coromandel because they will be listening intently I am sure to this presentation watching on their televisions and listening as the member for Epsom would say around their crystal sets this afternoon. This Government has been very very good in providing sound financial management and certainty for the people of Coromandel. One of the best things that has happened of course is that we built early ahead of time and below budget the new Kopu Bridge and by this time tomorrow tens of thousands of people will be crossing the new Kopu Bridge as they head on to the Coromandel Peninsula for the long weekend. That is good news for them and it is good news for us and it was part of the stimulus package that this Government introduced in response to the global financial meltdown after year upon year of delay and prevarication on behalf of the Labour Government.  
Another thing that has been very good and that this Government has assisted in terms of providing opportunity for the people of Coromandel is the newly opened Hauraki Rail Trail cycleway with 77 kilometres of new exciting cycleway track from Thames to Paeroa from Paeroa to Waihi and from Paeroa to Te Aroha. In the first 3 years it is projected that there will be something like 40000 people travelling on that cycleway. Can you imagine the economic benefit? Can you imagine the economic benefit to a township like Te Aroha when 40000 people turn up? If only a few of them buy a single cup of coffee in Te Aroha that is an enormous boost and opportunity for the financial well-being of Te Aroha.  
So we have all sorts of good things. One of the most important ones is the rolling out of the ultra-fast broadband because that is very very important—the Rural Broadband Initiative. Fiscal responsibility means that we can by being careful roll this stuff out and that means there can be opportunities for jobs creation of business and all sorts of happy wonderful things not just in our schools our libraries and our hospitals but also it means businesses can grow. In Waihi there is a group of architectural draughtsmen and I visited them recently. I went to see them and I said “How’s business?” expecting them to say that business was a bit ho-hum. They told me business was booming and I said “What? What’s happening?”.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Booming. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: Booming—business is booming and business is booming not because there is a great big building boom going on in Waihi. What is happening is that most of their customers actually are in Auckland or Christchurch and those customers are traded with via the internet and via broadband—via fast reliable ultra-fast broadband. They are refugees from Auckland. They are people who have come to Waihi for a better quality of life where they can buy affordable homes where they have reasonable rates where their children can go to great schools and where they can park their cars for free. My invitation to the people of Auckland who are being rated off their properties and out of their businesses by a mayor who is out of control and is inflicting 25 percent and 30 percent rates increases on the people of Auckland is to come to the Coromandel. Come to the Coromandel where there is fiscal responsibility where the Thames-Coromandel District Council which is a good council is for the second year in a row like Bill English being fiscally responsible and for the second year in a row has a negative rates rise. I say that to the people of Auckland: come and bring your jobs bring your enterprise bring your opportunity and bring your entrepreneurial flair; bring it to the Coromandel and enjoy the opportunities that we can create for you and on top of all that you will receive a wonderful lifestyle and a fantastic view.  
Coming back to Budget 2012 it is a good Budget. It is a very good Budget. It is a Budget for the times. It is appropriate given the international climate. It is a very appropriate Budget for New Zealand. We will be positioned in a good space for the recovery that will eventuate and it is through the prudent fiscally responsible leadership of Bill English and Prime Minister John Key and his very capable Cabinet not to say anything of his very good backbenchers. Those people will ensure that the country is kept on a stable footing with a bright future for one and all. Thank you.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What did children ever do to the National Party? That is what was running through my mind as I sat there listening to Bill English reading out Budget 2012. What did children ever do to the National Party? You can just imagine Bill English sitting up in his Beehive office thinking: “It’s time someone cracked down on those little bludgers. They get a free education free food free board all paid for by adults. It’s about time someone taxed the happy out of them and wiped the smug smiles off their little faces so I’m going to tax their paper route. The time has come. They need to learn responsibility because someone has got to pay for my massive big tax cut. Lord knows the Government cannot afford it. So I am going to reach into the piggy banks of kids all around New Zealand and tax their paper route.” What a mean petty Government. And what it shows is that the Government is so destitute of ideas and so desperate for any form of revenue that it would actually as the big economic announcement in its Budget showed tax children. That is how bad it has got in this country. That is how few ideas we have in the National Party caucus—that taxing children is going to be the economic saviour of this country. 
This was a zero Budget with zero ideas zero hope zero reasons to stay in New Zealand and zero reasons not to move to Australia. It was a zero Budget. It is about priorities. I was very interested to hear the member who spoke before me Scott Simpson talking about how great it was that National upgraded the Kopu Bridge so that people could have it a little bit easier when they go on holiday at long weekends when they need to get to their holiday homes in the Coromandel. That should not be a priority in tough economic times because— 
Simon O’Connor 
: Politics of envy. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Politics of envy—it is the politics of envy to ask that the Government look after the people who need it the most in the toughest economic times! That is the politics of envy! Opposing a $1.7 billion piece of road north of Auckland—which officials themselves have said will do nothing except get Minsters to their holiday homes 7 minutes faster twice a year in summer—and saying it is not a good use of money in tough economic times is apparently the politics of envy. 
Apparently the fact that we are cutting money for State schooling but always managing to find more and more money for private schools so that they can keep lower class sizes is the politics of envy. I want to talk to Mr Borrows because he gets very upset when we talk about this. We are not saying we should not have small class sizes; we are saying that all schools in New Zealand and all students should have class sizes that are manageable where students can get one-on-one time with teachers. Why is it only private school kids who should get that and not our State school kids too? That is a question for Mr Borrows. It is no criticism of small class sizes. I think it is quite clear that we support small class sizes but it should not be for just those kids who are fortunate enough to be able to go to private schools. 
When you take $40 million out of the education budget for State schools and then look at the fact that the Government put $40 million more into private schools that is a pretty clear set of priorities. It is not the politics of envy; it is simply wrong and it should not happen. It seems like we can find all this money for tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders for pieces of roads that get people to their holiday homes faster and billions and billions of dollars for private schools but when we want to put money into those students who are struggling who come from poor socio-economic backgrounds suddenly that money is not available and we have to tax kids on their after-school jobs. 
The Government seriously needs to think about its priorities because this Government is an anti-education Government. That is absolutely clear. From day one when it came in it made it clear it is anti-education. I want to say how disappointed I am that it has been two education Ministers from my part of the country who have led this anti-education agenda. They both should know better. They both come from a low socio-economic part of the country that faces a variety of problems where the schools have a broad mix of different cultures. They should know better. The Minister grew up in Ruatoria as did my dad. She went to the same school in Ruatoria as a lot of my uncles and aunts did and she said: “Well we had a big class size and I was fine.” The thing she fails to mention is that not everyone goes into school on the same footing. And the fact is that the Minister despite her performance this week is intelligent is able and was always going to do well in the school system. She also came from a family that valued education. That is just such a treasure to have. She had a father who was a teacher so I imagine that the education continued at home. 
I wish every student in the country could go into school with those advantages but they cannot. So our education system has to make sure that it delivers for those students who do not have that ability or who have abilities in different areas—like maybe the trades or music or art not necessarily the traditional academic areas—or who unfortunately come from families that do not value education as much as they should. An education system has to deliver not just for those who were always going to do well in a school system because of the situation that they are in. 
My colleague Sue Moroney talked about the early childhood education cuts. I also want to mention the cuts to the science advisers for primary schools. We talk about all this money going into science and innovation and how great that is. Where is the next generation of scientists in New Zealand going to come from? They are going to have to come from overseas because we certainly are not going to be producing any of them here—we are certainly not going to be producing any of them here. So it is all very well saying that science is great but science training has to start at school obviously. And we are cutting out all the support that would help those kids for whom science is their key interest. We got rid of the science advisers and we are now seeing the loss of speciality teachers in intermediate schools. How is that going to help us deliver a creative and innovative economy? It will not. 
Then we have the debacle of national standards. I have to wonder why National members keep looking to countries that consistently do worse than New Zealand students on every single indicator for their education policy ideas. Why would they take policies that have failed categorically all around the world where their students do worse than our students and say “Hey here’s a good idea. Let’s ditch a system that works and bring in one that does not.”? National standards will not work. National has been told that by teachers and it has been told that by principals. Again it does not listen. 
I want to talk about another really big issue and that is the change the Government made to quarterly roll funding. It is possibly one of the biggest anti-education initiatives the Government has come up with. It has devastated low socio-economic schools because they have far higher levels of transients than wealthier schools do. I want to mention the case of Opotiki College. This is a college that the Minister of Education should know very well because she knows the area very well. Well Opotiki College is addressing the tail of underachievement right now and it is doing it through quality teaching. What is stopping the college from addressing this and what is making it more difficult for it to do so is Government policies—in particular the shift to quarterly roll funding. It is losing about $70000 a year from its operational budget because of that change—in one fell swoop. Not only that when they bring kids into Opotiki College about 80 percent of them are in the bottom quartile for everything. By the time they leave Opotiki College they are achieving the National Certificate of Educational Achievement at levels that are akin to much much higher decile schools. The college is addressing the tail of underachievement. 
One of the things that it does is that it takes students who have serious behavioural problems and puts them into an alternative education course where they get the time and the attention that they need to re-engage with the education system. Overwhelmingly those students come back to the college and they then achieve. When those kids go to the alternative education course they are deemed to be excluded from school and under this Government’s policy the college loses the funding for those students. It would be financially better for the school to send them home to sit on their backsides and play PlayStation than it would be to send them to the alternative education course and actually try to re-engage them in education. 
Lo and behold in this Budget we have increases to class sizes. The National Party must be the only party that actually thinks that the way to get better learning out of students is to put them in bigger classes. It is not a trade-off. We need quality teachers but we need them in classes where the size is manageable where they can get to know the students and where they can spend one-on-one time with the students particularly those who need it. The teachers cannot do that when the class sizes increase. If we are going to be losing speciality teachers at the same time that is going to be devastating for all those students who engage in education in that way. That is what makes education relevant to them. It is the trades it is art it is music it is science. We risk losing these children at a very young age and then spending an awful lot of money on them throughout the rest of the system trying to re-engage them or—God forbid—in the criminal justice system if things really go bad. It is such short-term thinking. It is incredibly damaging. 
Education is the key. There is no doubt about it. Education is what is going to make a difference in the lives of the children of New Zealand. This anti-education National Government is doing irreparable damage and it should not underestimate that. What it is doing is wrong. National members need to apologise—or even not apologise but just back down—and recognise that the future of our children the future of this country is far too important to be gambled away because they need to find a way to pay for the extortionate tax cuts that they gave themselves 3 years ago. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call in this debate and I am pleased to be able to have found at least one thing I can agree on with the previous speaker Moana Mackey and that is that education is important. In fact education is extremely important. I am very very disappointed though not surprised to hear that she wants to keep on referring to this Government as being anti-education.  
I come from a part of the world called South Taranaki and Whanganui. In my electorate in one very small part of the electorate I have got 10 schools that were shut by that party over there when in Government and none of those members raised a squeak about it. You can still drive down State Highway 45 and see a big billboard on the side of the road with a picture of a duck on it that says “Open season on Mallards”. It was 2002 when he shut those schools—2002. Labour came in and it shut schools and I will pick on just one of the schools. One of the schools it shut was Te Kiri School. In the year that it shut it three of the students from Te Kiri School were duxes in Taranaki high schools and it shut it down. So those members want to talk about a National Government that is anti-education; it is Labour that is not prepared to be creative enough to look at education and see where those improvements can be made.  
Labour members think that the only answer—the only answer—is class sizes. They do not even believe in the people they consider their own in the teaching fraternity. They do not even believe in them enough to understand that it is about creation and innovation. It is about looking at those young people who are sitting in front of them and dealing with the concerns that they have. For instance no one in the Labour Party wants to concede for one moment that we have a 20 percent tail within our education system or wants to look at who those people are. That 20 percent tail was there in 1999 when Labour came into Government and that 20 percent tail was still there when it left in 2008. It had done nothing with those people.  
I reiterate that they are people. They are people and Labour wants to keep treating students in this country as a commodity. That is how Labour treats them; it does not believe they have got faces and names and parents and addresses and a future. Labour members want to treat them as a commodity. They want to treat them only as voters and they consider them their commodity and their voters. The reason why people on this side of the House talk about the politics of envy is the way that Labour members treat those people. When you have listened to the last three speakers from the Labour Party what have they talked about? They have talked about protecting the rich and doing nothing for vulnerable people—absolute rubbish!  
Let us go back to that 20 percent I was talking about. I was visiting a school in my electorate not too long ago Manaia Primary School. The headmaster came to me and said: “Look here is the tail that you’re talking about.” Who are these people? These people and these students are the people whom Labour members would consider their voters.  
What Labour has done with these people through the welfare system and through the education system is say: “We are going to lower class sizes.” Well what we know is that the target that this Budget sets as far as class sizes go is exactly the class sizes that there were in 2005—exactly. What we know is that in the period of the Labour Government the number of teachers within the education system went up about 12.5 percent so class sizes went down. What happened to that tail we talked about? Nothing—nothing. What we also found was that in the same time that those teacher numbers went up by 12.5 percent the number of students went up by 2 percent and that explains why those class sizes were down.  
What we also know is this. There are those people whom the Labour Party claims as its own and as its voters those people who snuggle up to the teacher unions and tell them how hard-done-by they are because when you go into every school classroom what do you find on the noticeboard? The latest press release out of the education spokesperson from the Labour Party. That is the deal. But it is interesting because what happens there is this. Just like under Labour those schools are funded for 15 students per teacher in the first year of education. But how many kids are in those classrooms? There is not only 15. What do they do with those extra teaching places? They are the ones who are trying to look after their votes.  
Let us have a little look at private schools because Sue Moroney mentioned private schools. Apparently in respect of everyone on this side of the House their kids go only to private schools. Those members just want to lump National voters and National politicians together. Apparently we have all got a bach north of Auckland as well or there is another bach apparently at Pauanui or wherever you get to if you ever go over the Potu—whatever that bloody bridge is. The point is what did Labour members do with private schools in their term of Government? Trevor Mallard said: “Yep help yourself.” When he was approached by his mates in the Exclusive Brethren who said: “We want to open a whole lot of independent schools.” Trevor Mallard said: “Yep help yourself. But we are not going to give them any more money at all.” The cap on private schooling went so far down and that was it. The National Government came in and saw a need and saw the contribution that private schools make to our education system to our communities and to our ongoing economy so that was when that cap was lifted.  
What we do know is that along with our 50000 teachers who are operating within our schooling system there are another 35000 people working in the classrooms and in the schools on that payroll. 
Andrew Little 
: Oh disgraceful! 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: Mr Little over there would like to say they are all cleaners. No they are not. They are people working in classrooms adding to the educational benefits of young people who are in that school. On top of that there are 2500 principals who are working in that system too. So that has built up over time.  
What we are doing here is we are saying this: we do not believe that the only answer to educational achievement in this country is to do with class sizes. I think that if you went and spoke to the average New Zealander they would agree. They would say it is important but they would not say it is the only thing. They would say: “Look my kid was in a class last year. She had a teacher who did this. She had a teacher who did that.” Every one of us can look back on our schooling and we can think of a teacher who made a huge difference to us. I can think back to a teacher I had in standard 4. He was an incredible guy. I had him for two terms. His name is Gary Exeter. He was teaching at Nayland Primary School and he was only 22 years old. He is an absolutely fantastic teacher. He is still making a difference in the lives of people today because he is still in the classroom and he is still teaching.  
Every one of us too though can think back on a teacher we would rather not have again. We could think back on a teacher who probably was not happy in his job. Maybe he bit it off too early; maybe the decision that we make sometimes as 18-year-olds 19-year-olds or 20-year-olds to go off and do a teaching degree is not the decision we would make if we made it now. There are teachers within the education system probably just like there are police officers panel beaters people in the newspaper industry and politicians who some days think: “Maybe this was not for me.” That is maybe what Mr Shane Jones is thinking today.  
But in any event what I want to say is this. The difference between Labour and National on this issue just this issue is that Labour thinks the answer is class sizes. National believes it is about innovation. It is about creativity. It is about people who want to get up in the morning and go along to work and do what pushes their buttons.  
What Labour hates is this. Those members hate the fact that National is prepared to look at an issue and deal with it creatively. National is prepared to look at the welfare system and realise that we can do more than just throw money at it and walk away. National believes that we should treat people who happen to have a vote as individuals. Labour believes the only way it can maintain its vote is to treat people as a commodity and if it does not keep them poor and pissed off they will not vote for Labour. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 What an outstanding speech we have just heard from the Hon Chester Borrows delivered with heart and with passion. He comes into this House and he shows us why we are proud of the New Zealand National Party and what we are doing in this country. We do not come to this House to deal with issues in the way the Labour Party does. We do not come with hollow rhetoric. We do not come here out of sectional interests trying to keep people where they belong. We do not come from the unions from the teaching union we do not come from the legal union. We come here because we want to deal fairly and honestly and responsibly with the issues this country has in front of it.  
I want to say that Bill English and John Key have delivered this year a fantastic Budget that this side of the House is proud of. We are proud of the Budget that has been delivered in this House and we are proud of it because it is the very best most sensible Budget that can be delivered in the difficult uncertain times we are in globally and also in New Zealand. This is a Budget that not only the New Zealand National Party but New Zealand can be proud of.  
I want to go through some of what I think are the salient points. Firstly it is a responsible Budget—it is a responsible Budget. Members opposite have gone quiet on that because they know that that actually matters whereas the Labour Party in Government as we have heard in the good years was spending like drunken sailors with “$2.5 billion more this year and another $2.5 billion” from Mr Michael Cullen. Today they are not sure where they are—whether to spend up or say they are responsible; they just do not know. But we will balance the books in 2014-15 and that matters to New Zealanders. They tell us when we are down at the schools and they tell us when we are at their health centres that they want that and so we are delivering that for them. That will deliver to this country choices and options and the ability to do things creatively as we have heard. 
 But let me be very clear. This was not an austere Budget. This was not whatever that means. We hear about austere times in Europe. We do not have an austere Budget in this country. We spent some $72 billion or $73 billion over this financial year. We did that and we have proven it to New Zealanders and they trust us on this. From 2008 to 2011 we kept our word as we are doing this time. We kept our word we smoothed off the sharp edges of the recession and New Zealanders backed us and gave us another term.  
Our prudent management our balancing of the books and our reprioritisation means fundamentally we can spend more in the areas that New Zealanders tell us they want us to spend more in. So we are spending more over $1 billion more in health. And what an unalloyed success that has been in terms of more elective surgeries and in terms of redirecting funds into cancer treatment and immunisation. Those are the things that New Zealanders talk to us about and say that they want. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: $80 million worth of public health cuts. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Yes. As I say there is reprioritisation in the health department so we can spend more and more. There is more money going in Mr Lees-Galloway—more money in Palmerston North in the Rodney district in Tauranga in Wellington and in New Plymouth. You name it we are putting more in there. Education—I will come back to it because I have heard the things said I have heard the heckling from the other side. There is more money—about a half a billion dollars more money—in education this term. Welfare: we are putting more money into welfare. That is because you can judge a society not just by how it treats the vulnerable but by how many vulnerable it creates.  
We have heard a lot about the politics of envy the kind of politics actually that the Labour Party likes to play with. But let me put another phrase that is well known into this debate: the soft bigotry of low expectations. That is what the Labour Party stands for fundamentally—the soft bigotry of low expectations. It keeps them on the welfare because it knows that that is where they should be and it knows that that is where they will keep on voting for it. We are investing money into welfare to get people off welfare so actually they can do well and they can get ahead. We know on this side of the House unlike that side of the House that what those people—all people in all our communities—do is aspire. They want to get ahead. They want their children to do well.  
So I suggest that this is an upbeat confident Budget given the times that we are in and given what we have been dealt—the cards we have been given in terms of a global financial crisis the worst in 70 or 80 years and in terms of the earthquakes. And I am not trying Andrew Little to politicise the earthquakes. They have been a terrible ordeal for the people of Canterbury. But we have got them and that reflects what we have to do and the way we have to treat it.  
But let me be political about this. The other circumstance we have been left with is the mess that Labour left us—the absolute mess. In 2008 in every single quarter there was negative growth—negative growth. Labour had the good years Cullen spent like a drunken sailor and then when the times started to get a little bit tough this is the way the growth went—down. Yet in our Government in 10 out of the last 11 quarters we have delivered growth. In the toughest times this world has seen in 70 to 80 years we have delivered growth. The one quarter we did not was the first one before Bill English gave us his first Budget. We have delivered 60000 new jobs in the last couple of years. Those are the facts.  
We have grown the economy as I have said. And as I think Scott Simpson made clear at the coalface when you are talking to property owners and new home buyers we have in this country at the moment the lowest interest rates this country has seen in 45 or 50 years. They are results that talk results that most of the developed world would be envious of: Europe America Canada and Japan. Yes OK Australia is doing well. We do not want to wish that away for our big brother next to us. But in this country where today we have lower taxes and we have less regulation jobs are moving here.  
Let me say another thing about this Budget. It is always very important to look at the counterfactual at what is on offer on the other side. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Nothing. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well it is not nothing; it is a shambles. It is a shambles. Labour members are outdone by the guys in black and green on either side of them who seem to be getting more media than they can—at least positive media. And they cannot decide whether to save money and be prudent or to spend it and throw it away. So what they do is they double-talk. They do both. They say both. They say: “We are going to spend more; we are going to spend less. We are going to be responsible; we are going to be reckless.” And they oppose all the time everything we do that is constructive for this—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I am coming to that and I am glad you mentioned it: the proposed retirement age. That latest so-called policy or excuse of a policy that they give us is a shambles. They have said they will put it up to 67 or start doing that around 2020.  
But then yesterday or the day before David Shearer their leader—at least for the next week or so—came out with a doozy. He came out with a doozy. 
Andrew Little 
: He doesn’t smoke. What are you talking about? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Ha ha! He said that for manual workers Labour would put it to 60. Well let us not worry about the cost of that; let us just run through how that will work. Manual workers? If people thought taking GST off fruit and veges was a nightmare for the lawyers to get involved with let us go with manual workers.  
Who is a manual worker in this country? Well Shane Jones is a manual worker. He is only manual when he is watching videos in his own hotel room. Trevor Mallard? Well he is manual when he is fighting with another member outside or when he is running away—like that member Andrew Little did—from process servers because he is scared of the full arm of the law. But that has caught up with him. Are they manual workers? Are farmers manual workers? That policy is a shambles that they should be ashamed of. When eventually they do get their next Prime Minister—the way they are going it is not going to be Shearer Cunliffe Parker or Robertson; it could be “Chippy” Hipkins in sort of 2028; he might be their next one—they will not keep that shambles of a policy.  
Here we have a responsible Budget for the times a Budget that is dealing with a whole lot of uncertainty in the world but nevertheless reprioritises the money and makes sure there is more for health education welfare science and innovation. It is a Budget New Zealanders can be proud of. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 What an honour it is to speak after these fantastic Ministers who have spoken with passion and lots of animation as well. It is a great pleasure to rise to give my support to the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. But before I get on to some of the topics I would like to give a little bit of perspective on the education topic that a lot of speakers have talked about in this House today as well.  
I am originally from Korea. I was born in the 1960s after the Korean War when Korea was a very poor country. It was an aid-receiving country. In those times I was in primary school in Korea and there were at least 65 children in one class—65 kids. Because I was one of the youngest kids in the class and the smallest often I was No. 65 and I always had to take the last turn. Considering that I come from a country where there were 65 kids in one class I do not think it actually did me any harm. Having moved from Korea to Malaysia where the class sizes were about the same and not speaking a word of Bahasa a word of Chinese a word of Tamil or a word of Hindi and being in a class where none of the things that the teachers were talking about made any sense until I was about 15 the quality of teachers made a difference. It was not the class size that actually helped a non-language speaking non-English speaking non-Malay speaking child in a foreign country; it was the teacher. It was the quality of the teacher. It was the care of the teacher who paid attention to me that made a whole lot of difference. Now having actually started learning the language at the age of about 15 I like to think that I speak a bit of English—hopefully better than a little bit. I am bilingual and I am very proud of that.  
Until I became a member of Parliament when people talked about the Budget it was relevant only in the way it affected my life my personal life but having been in Parliament—and I am now in my second term—my perception has changed dramatically. I would like to say what a fantastic job our finance Minister the Hon Bill English is doing and has done for this country by producing a Budget that is for our times. The burden is on all of us—not just on the Government but on all of us as citizens.  
A lot of people have dubbed the Budget many things but I would like to just acknowledge the brilliance of the zero new money Budget in managing to provide and invest in better front-line services as a priority. Considering there is no new money spent on this investment we must acknowledge how good the National Government is in managing our finances when our predecessor the Labour Government in its 9 years managed to deliver less in much better economic times in a much better economic climate than we currently have. As previous speakers have said we have not had such a bad time economically for 70 to 80 years and we are delivering for New Zealanders. We are delivering more than Labour’s 9 years ever did.  
Going back to class sizes and teacher numbers let me just say that in the last decade the number of teachers—the growth in teacher numbers—has increased by 12.7 percent or something close to that amount but the roll growth has been only about 2.5 percent. Did the smaller class sizes over the last decade mean that we actually achieved better outcomes for our children? Absolutely not. We have not. It plateaued and it did not grow. What we are doing is innovative ideas to improve the outcome. That 20 percent of our students leave our school education system with an inability to read write or do maths is an appalling result. It is an appalling situation that this country is in. Creating a situation where we are providing better quality education for our children is something that I am sure all of us in this House agree on. Education is very very important.  
There have been many speakers in this Budget debate and Chester Borrows and Simon Bridges were among them. Another one that actually caught my attention was the impassioned speech by my colleague the Hon Tau Henare. He spoked about the—he spoke about the—I almost made that mistake about the English language that the Opposition does sorry. 
Hon Chester Borrows 
: Be careful. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Thank you. He spoke about the Opposition members who were willing to wave goodbye to their whanau who are leaving for mining jobs in Australia—I think that is what he talked about—but were not happy to say yes to mining or oil and gas exploration that would create jobs that could keep people in this country. Yet the Opposition members keep on harping on about “Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?”. Well if they did not oppose every growth initiative this Government has proposed perhaps that question might have some credibility. If they had not opposed every single restraint we have made to get back into surplus they might have some credibility but maybe the words “credibility” and “Labour Party” do not quite go together. Maybe that is the problem. If they did those members would not oppose growth nor would they oppose jobs nor would they oppose responsible fiscal management. They would be supporting this Government to get back into surplus and actually grow this country and provide more jobs and better opportunities for all New Zealanders.  
Having moved to the Social Services Committee in the 50th Parliament I am very pleased about what our Minister for Social Development the Hon Paula Bennett is doing in Vote Social Development. I would like to say that as a New Zealand citizen I am very proud that we have a welfare system that is there for those who are in need. Our welfare system will always be there to support those in genuine need; that is what it is supposed to do and that is what it was created for. But our welfare system in New Zealand is actually failing many. The cost of our welfare system is around $8 billion to pay benefits to 351000 people. That is 13 percent of our working-age population and that is one in eight people on a benefit.  
Welfare is necessary but too many people have been on benefit for far too long. In fact 170000 have been on welfare for most of the last decade 220000 children are currently growing up in welfare-dependent homes and 33000 women on the DPB are having subsequent children on the benefit. We know that young people who come on to the benefit early stay on a benefit longer and long-term welfare dependency is in fact destructive trapping vulnerable young people into a life of limited choices poverty and poor health. We want to support young people to make better choices and to stay in education training or work. Talking about the children who are growing up in welfare-dependent homes I say that the outcomes for those children whether it is health outcomes education outcomes or social outcomes—all outcomes for those children—do not compare to those for children who are not growing up in a welfare-dependent home. They are not performing as well and we are doing something about it. The other day I was speaking to the Hon Paula Bennett and I actually said that she had balls tackling this issue and that Labour when it was in Government did not have the balls to fix this problem. We are getting on with the programme.  
This Government will deliver a surplus in 2014-15 this Government is growing jobs and this Government is making sure that the finances of this country are managed responsibly and pragmatically. Thank you. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 First they came for the paper boys and then they came for the old people in the rest homes— 
Maggie Barry 
: Change the record. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: —and then they came for the woodwork teachers. This—[ 
Interruption 
] I have been asked by the members opposite to change the record. I would like to but that would have required the Government opposite to deliver a Budget that offered something. Instead what we had was a Budget that offered zero ideas zero hope and zero opportunity.  
We have heard this afternoon that this is a Budget of investment in New Zealand of opportunities for New Zealanders and a Budget of innovation. Well I do not think that when New Zealanders in 2008 fell for the line of a brighter future they thought the National Party meant the Sunshine Coast but that seems to be the opportunity for New Zealanders according to this National Government. Because ladies and gentlemen last week we had a Budget where young New Zealanders are paying the price for the Government’s deficit of ideas—and what a deficit of ideas it is. It is a Budget that has done nothing but tinker around the edges and in that tinkering it has done nothing to address the real issues for New Zealanders. There are no jobs there is nothing in there to increase our exports and there is nothing in there to raise incomes for New Zealanders.  
We have members opposite telling us what a wonderful track record they have in Government. But the reality is that this Government has the worst growth record in 50 years. This is not something to be proud of. There are more than 50000 people leaving for Australia and a 52 percent increase in unemployment with nearly 50000 more people on benefits. How can it herald this as a triumph? What is more there was absolutely nothing in the Budget that we heard for the 87000 young people who have been thrown on the scrap heap by this Government—the 87000 young people who are not in education employment or training.  
This Budget did do some tinkering around the edges but in doing that tinkering it has created some sharp edges for young people. It has increased their class sizes. It has jeopardised their right to a good education. It has taxed children. This is something that is just beyond belief—that this is what the National Government could come up with as an idea. When it looked and thought “What are we going to do to fix our economy?” it actually thought that cutting tax credits for children was the right thing to do and the way to fix the economy. The Government has issued disincentives for postgraduate study and it has lowered incomes for graduates in New Zealand. All these four measures amount to more of our young people getting on jet planes and leaving.  
This is a Budget and a Government that do not understand education and its importance to New Zealand. It is an anti-education Government and it is an anti-education Budget that was delivered. It does not understand the impact of what changing teacher ratios means. Well I think Hekia Parata has found out pretty quickly over the last few days that changing teacher ratios actually means fewer teachers in our high schools and fewer classes being delivered and—lo and behold—students parents and their teachers do not think that that is a good idea. We have a Government that does not understand education at the early childhood education level. We have a Government that does not understand its worth and the need to invest in it.  
But its understanding does not stop here. Over and over again we hear members opposite say—and we have heard it today we have heard the rhetoric from Paul Hutchison and we hear it from the Prime Minister and the “Minister of Everything” Steven Joyce all the time—that science and innovation are the major drivers of growth in international competition for New Zealand and that we must invest in these areas. However last week a Budget was delivered that undermines our very ability to do that at every level.  
Let us start with the staffing cuts for technology subjects for years 7 and 8 students. Previously National had seen the worth in teaching technology to young New Zealanders. In fact John Key in 2007 said that National was committed to working with industry and teachers to make it easier for schools to find pay and employ people to take their trades and technology classes. He went on to say that National was also committed to helping schools overcome the funding and bureaucratic barriers that prevent so many students from accessing trades- and industry-based education at school. Well we did not find this in Budget 2012 did we? No. Instead what we found were cuts in this area.  
We in Labour know that the food technologists the scientists the engineers the designers and the builders whom we need for this creative and innovative 21st century New Zealand get their start in the very classrooms that this Government is axing. This is where it begins. And it is not just we in Labour who know this; industry knows this as well. We have had the Industry Training Federation come out and remind the members opposite—remind the Government—that it is in years 7 and 8 that pupils start to think about their career and losing these technology classes could take away potential career options. Principals and teachers know this. We have heard that if we want to set our students up for careers in biotechnology engineering or research we need to set those foundations early on. We do not wait until year 10 or year 11 to start teaching kids literacy and numeracy.  
So why is it that we have a Government opposite that thinks we can have an economy that is based on science that is based on technology and that is based on innovation but we do not start teaching those very skills until kids get to high school? This is not a Government that understands the value of education. It is not a Government that really understands the role that innovation can play in our economy. A principal in my electorate has told me—well actually he has told every parent of the students—that these staffing reductions are unacceptable. They are denying students valuable skills knowledge and attitudes to develop them into competent and capable adults of the future.  
So here is a question for the members opposite. How does your policy of cutting funding at this level your slashing of funding for technology teachers either set our kids up for a brighter future or contribute to New Zealand having a 21st century economy that is based on science research and innovation? Well the answer is nothing.  
National is making sure that even if someone gets to university—after getting through an intermediate school where there was no technology and science taught—does a science degree and decides they might like to go on and do some postgraduate study it will kill their hope and aspiration there too by taking away student allowances for people going on to do postgraduate study. If we do not invest in this vital area of postgraduate study we will have no innovation and we will not have a chance of creating the higher-paying jobs that National talks about but does nothing to invest in. There is no use throwing $166 million into the development of an Advanced Technology Institute and smothering the human capital needed to grow this institute in the future. For our future to be reliant on technology and innovative manufacturing we need the technologists we need the engineers and we need the scientists. All we have seen from members opposite is policy that is going to destroy this human capital.  
Even if you manage to get through all that and you are a young person in New Zealand in the future—you have got through your cut technology classes you have gone on and you have paid for your postgraduate studies—your income is going to fall because you are going to be asked to pay back your student loan at a rate that outstrips that of other countries in the OECD.  
This is not a Budget that is investing in our education system. This is not a Budget that is investing in our young people. In fact it is a raid. It is about cutting hope and opportunity and it is driving more and more of our young people on to jet planes and it will continue to do so in the future. The young people are starting to fight back. They want more for the future. I would like members opposite to give them a choice that is a bit broader than Melbourne Sydney or Brisbane. Thank you. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. I begin by congratulating our Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English on planning and producing a very strategic Budget which I believe will ensure investment in the brighter future of New Zealand and its citizens.  
This Budget also focuses on the growing economy less debt more jobs and strong and stable Government. We are also promising the rebuilding of Christchurch. The Minister of Finance and his team have ensured that spending is made in areas that are proven and cut in areas that are not pulling their weight. The Budget I have little doubt will ensure that New Zealand returns to Budget surplus by 2014-15 which will strengthen our economy create jobs and lead to economic and business growth particularly for small and medium sized businesses.  
Although the focus of this National-led Government is on ensuring that we return to surplus it does not mean that we are not focusing on providing quality health and education and also ensuring that we maintain law and order in this country of ours. The Budget has made it a clear priority to deliver better sooner and more easily available front-line health services and this is our goal despite the very difficult financial crisis. This Government has decided to spend more on health care than any of the previous Governments. Our effort has provided some great results but we are certainly not resting on our laurels. Rather our Minister of Finance has listened very closely to the Minister of Health and provided $14 billion towards front-line health funding along with an additional $1.5 billion towards priority investment in front-line services and funding for disability support. 
Andrew Little 
: Give us an example. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI 
: If I can be more specific—it is coming—$48 million of this will go towards elective surgery $33 million towards better and faster services for cancer patients $15 million for quicker access to important diagnostic tests and $144 million towards improving disability support. 
 This significant amount of funding in health will help all New Zealanders including migrants from all ethnic groups. In Counties Manukau we have got one of the country’s biggest hospitals—at Middlemore. As Manukau is an area that houses multiple ethnicities I am sure all of them will welcome this initiative from the National-led Government towards improving the public health service to ensure that people’s health and well-being are well taken care of. I acknowledge the work of our Minister of Health the Hon Tony Ryall towards all the initiatives that I have just mentioned.  
Apart from health the other area that I feel will need a significant amount of work is education. Educated and healthy New Zealanders will want to positively contribute to this country. The Government must ensure that we are providing people with the necessary skills knowledge training and qualifications for them to do so. This Government understands that unless the basics of the child are strong it may not be possible that the child will attain its full potential. Towards this end the National Government’s education plan is ensuring that five out of five kids get the qualifications they need. At the moment this is four out of five kids. We want to increase the participation in early childhood education to 98 percent and would like to see 85 percent of all 18-year-olds achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 within 5 years.  
These are ambitious targets. Once again we are not going to rest on our laurels. We understand that to achieve our targets significant investment must be made in the quality of teaching as this raises a child’s achievement. Once again the Minister of Finance has listened very closely to the Minister of Education and the general public. He has allocated an extra $511 million over the next 4 years to raise this achievement.  
Once again the money for education will assist all New Zealanders regardless of their ethnicity. Migrants will benefit from gaining access to the world-class and well-established education system which seeks feedback towards improving its services to students. In my own community I have received very positive feedback about this. I congratulate the Hon Hekia Parata who is working hard to uplift educational quality among all New Zealanders.  
The third point I want to talk about today is law and order. In the Manukau and South Auckland region law and order used to be a major issue. However ever since the National-led Government has been elected we have deployed an extra 300 front-line policemen and have taken a number of other measures to reduce crime and bring back the rule of law. This Budget further extends our commitment to ensuring that New Zealand and South Auckland in particular remains a safe place for us to live and raise our children. National firmly believes that Kiwis deserve to be safe at home on the streets and in their communities. Keeping this in mind the Government has rolled out a number of initiatives such as the $50 offender levy for victim support 600 more police officers and DNA testing for serious offenders among a number of other initiatives.  
The Budget seeks to capitalise on the good work that we have done so far. The Government aims to reduce reoffending by 25 percent by 2017 along with 18500 fewer victims of crime every year. Our efforts will not be limited to tackling crime. We are keen on rehabilitating those who are in jail thereby providing 33100 offenders with access to drug and alcohol treatment. We have established 7855 more rehabilitation places along with 2950 in education and training. All in all our efforts are toward the integration of offenders back into society as normal hard-working positive citizens who can contribute positively and live their life with their families and society. Towards this end I acknowledge and thank the Hon Judith Collins for her commendable work.  
Today the Hon Anne Tolley opened a new building—the Otahuhu Police Station. This is the second new station within 2 weeks opened in Counties Manukau by our Government. The first was opened in Botany. I acknowledge the work of our Minister of Police the Hon Anne Tolley towards these initiatives and many others. There are many more areas that I would like to discuss here today some of which have been spoken about by my other colleagues. It is with a lot of excitement that I commend this Budget to the House. Thank you.  
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take the last call today I think for the Budget debate at the end of this Budget time. Research from Otago University has shown that 50 percent of New Zealand families have likely lived below the poverty line for at least 1 year in the last 7 years—50 percent of New Zealand families have lived below the poverty line for at least 1 year in the last 7 years. For all of the MPs here they are families whom you know they are families whom you are related to and they are families who are in your community. They are not just families who are on the lowest incomes but those on middle incomes who are under severe financial strain and only just managing to keep their heads above water.  
Their financial circumstances have now been made considerably worse as a result of John Key’s 2012 Budget. We did some analysis of this and our studies show that in terms of lost income a solo mum of one who is on a benefit who is also working part-time and making her contribution is $5000 worse off today than she was in 2008. A solo mum of one doing her best is $5000 worse off. A typical family with both parents in work and three kids earning around $70000 is $11000 worse off than it was in 2008.  
Chris Hipkins 
: They obviously lack aspiration! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Ha ha! Well do you know who does not? Do you know who is better off though if you look at the numbers and do the analysis? The top 10 percent earning around $250000 a year are $12000 better off today than they were in 2008. Well lucky them! I want to give you just one more example. A person who is married with a couple of children and who just happens to be getting the Prime Minister’s salary of around $400000 a year is now $19000 better off than they were when they first took the prime ministerial salary in 2008. The Prime Minister is now $19000 better off because of the policies he has put in place.  
And where has that money come from? Where does this $19000 more that he now earns come from? Well it is from that 50 percent of families whom I talked about who are struggling just to keep their heads above water and more families trying to work to pay off their mortgages to take care of their kids to save for their children’s schooling which is getting more and more expensive under this Government and to save for their own retirement—ordinary New Zealand families. They have lost income from the increase in the repayment of student loans they have lost income through the cuts in student allowances for postgraduate study they have lost income from increased early childhood education costs they have lost income from the increased prescription charges and their kids will go to the State schools with less food in their lunch boxes and to classes with fewer teachers. All the burden of National’s economic failures has fallen on to New Zealand families—not just low-income families but those in the middle as well.  
There was one shining light—one shining light—from the Budget I have to say. Thank God for the Greens. If there is one shining light in the Budget it is the home insulation scheme. I want to just touch on that for a moment. The Green Party working first with Labour and then with National has managed to save this country $1.5 billion—that is right $1.5 billion saved—through the home insulation scheme. Eighteen deaths have been prevented as a result of the home insulation scheme—18 old people who would otherwise have died from respiratory illness caused or exacerbated by cold homes are still alive because of the Greens’ home insulation scheme. The scheme has been so cost-effective—and it is getting cheaper all the time—that the original Budget allocation made in 2008 is now enough to extend the scheme for nearly a year into 2014 and from 180000 homes insulated to 230000 new homes insulated. This is a programme for families that keeps their costs down that keeps their homes warm that keeps kids and their grandparents healthy and that saves the taxpayer $1.5 billion.  
It is also true that the Budget has failed to allocate any more money for the scheme and we want to work with the community with business with councils with community organisations and with families asking them to work with me and the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley to find a way that we can extend or expand the scheme and keep it rolling until every house in this country is warm dry and safe for our kids.  
A Government makes choices about what it values. It demonstrates those values above all else in how it spends public money. The 2012 Budget makes some very stark choices. John Key has chosen to give tax cuts to the wealthy which cost about $800 million or $700 million a year; to subsidise the agricultural sector through the emissions trading scheme which costs around $1 billion a year; and to spend $14 billion on unnecessary roads over the next period. So who is missing out on all this largesse from John Key and his Government? Kids are missing out. Babies are missing out.  
You know I wonder what Hekia Parata was thinking when she took her Budget paper to Cabinet. I think she was thinking that she was going to get the prize for head girl in Cabinet that she would turn up to Cabinet with this vicious set of cuts to the education Budget and proud of it she would get a big old clap on the back and be told: “Well done Hekia you good girl.” “Good news.” she said to this House with her education cuts. I wonder whether she saw the long tail of underachievement in the education sector and in an attempt to deal with it took out a big giant pair of scissors and just chopped it off—chopped it off and moved on leaving those kids behind. What she has done with her Budget cuts is strip money out of the public schooling system and put it into the private schooling system. So there will be much bigger class sizes for kids who are in the State schools in order to make sure that there are still very small class sizes in the private schools.  
We have had cuts from education and advice on the prevention of child abuse from community support services for families and from the housing budget. This has been a zero-hope Budget but the Green Party has a plan for a smart compassionate economy. This Government has made choices. John Key has made choices about where he will spend Government money and those choices ignore those most in need. But the Green Party makes choices and will make choices about the spending of public money that reflect our values and our choices. The Green Party chooses families. The Green Party chooses children. We make no apology that we put children at the heart of everything we do and we will continue to do so. This is a zero-hope Budget and there is zero hope for families but there will be a time when this Government will look back and see that this was a zero Budget for it and not for our community. Thank you.  
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is great to stand and take a call on this Budget. It is the first time that I have done so. I will just reflect very briefly in these remaining seconds on that faux moral outrage that we have continued to hear across the House from various speakers and it is that outrage that is really itself without hope and without substance.  
You know you can make up facts to suit whatever you like but this has been a very important Budget for this country. I want to begin by thanking Minister English for the work that he has done to pull this together. It is a Budget that is well a Budget for our time. Budgets have to reflect the times that we are in and have to look forward to take the country in that direction positively and strongly. This is a Budget that has been about cutting our cloth to suit.  
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.