Genter Julie Anne: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 26 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3971. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Like many Aucklanders I am an immigrant to Aotearoa New Zealand. I chose to make my home here because I love this country. I love the mountains I love the beaches I love the old-growth forest and I love the people of New Zealand whom I have found very warm welcoming practical and above all fair-minded.I had a successful career as a transportation analyst and I did that because I wanted to have a job that allowed me to find creative solutions to some of the biggest most pressing challenges of the 21st century. So I did a lot of work in the areas of transportation planning and economics because I wanted to be part of the solution. I ended up joining the Green Party firstly because it is the party that shares my values—looking after the environment; ensuring that we have a fair society and democracy that decisions are made at the lowest level at which they affect people—but most important because the Green Party in Aotearoa was the only political party that was really championing the proven practical policies that should be mainstream but are not being implemented here in New Zealand.We know they have been proven overseas in very successful northern European countries that are managing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and reduce pollution and that do not have the levels of increasing inequality that we see here in New Zealand. I think that we could follow that path—we do not have to reinvent the wheel. Unfortunately neither of the two larger parties has grasped the opportunities that are provided by understanding all the interconnections between our environment our economy and our society. It is common sense to respond to climate change as soon as possible because we have to respond sooner or later. The sooner we take action the less it will cost us. It is common sense to reduce the growing gap between the rich and the poor because it is better for everyone in society. It ensures that we are all better off. It ensures that we build a much more successful society and economy in the future if we invest in our poorest kids.The National Government members—and in particular I heard the previous speaker the Hon Nikki Kaye—claim some of these values. They want to say that they care about the economy they care about fairness they care about the environment and they are doing all these things. But when you get down to it and you look at the numbers and you look at the policies they are implementing they are simply not taking us in a smarter greener and fairer direction. They are taking us in a direction of greater inequality and more pollution. I would say the Green Party is the only party that is really prepared to stand up for younger New Zealanders who are being let down by this National Government.I think the National Government is deeply out of touch if it says the economy is working for everyone. We have got a younger generation that is drowning in student debt and is unable to afford a home in Auckland and unlikely to afford one any time soon even if those people get a job and work hard. Wages are actually stagnating for at least half of the people in this country and a quarter of all children are still living in poverty. So I would say National has really lost touch with everyday New Zealanders. It is choosing to build an economy that relies on increasing pollution in the extraction of natural resources. It only really works for the New Zealanders who already have a lot. It works very well for them. They have got tax cuts and were able to buy shares in our State-owned energy companies. They are doing quite well. They are not paying any tax on the capital gains they have seen in Auckland over the last few years.There is an alternative to this. There is an alternative to just tinkering around the edges which is what this Government has done. The Green Party has a costed plan to retool the economy to get a better cleaner future that provides opportunity and prosperity for everyone.I want to speak specifically about two issues—firstly environmental protection and the Resource Management Act and secondly transport—because those are two areas in particular where this Government is missing huge opportunities. John Key admitted last week after the Budget that National cannot get support for its most radical proposed changes to the Resource Management Act. These are the changes to section 6 and section 7 which would fundamentally gut our world-leading environmental protection law. The reason it cannot get support for these changes is that they are very radical and cut to the heart of our national identity. I know New Zealanders love their natural environment. They are proud of it. They know there is huge value in protecting it—immeasurable value. We set environmental bottom lines to protect the things that we value. If you really believe in the ingenuity of people as I believe the Green Party does we know that people can adapt. Any economic activity must respect those bottom lines.As we know the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the natural environment and once something is gone it is gone for good. When a developer in Auckland proposed to cut down a 500-year-old kauri tree to build a house 93 percent of New Zealanders agreed that the tree should be protected. That is where the rubber hits the road because National’s changes to the Resource Management Act have already made it more difficult for communities to protect trees to protect the places they love and to have a say on the development that is happening. Changing the purpose and principles of the Act would fundamentally change the balance in a way that means no environmental bottom lines—communities cannot protect trees they cannot protect the things they really care about.Giving up environmental protection does not make us richer. You only need to look at China to see where this trade-off has occurred. It has managed to achieve huge GDP growth but it has been at the cost of clean air clean water and healthy communities. I know that is not what New Zealanders want here. We do not need growth of an economy that is reliant on increasing pollution and the extraction of non-renewable resources. That is just going to end up costing us in the long run.National has used the housing crisis in Auckland as a Trojan Horse for these reforms to the Resource Management Act. It is claiming that we cannot have affordable housing and protect our environment. I know that is not true. There is no evidence to support Nick Smith’s claims that planning rules are entirely responsible for the housing crisis. In fact if you look at the research you can see that pretty clearly. We have got research here in New Zealand from 2014-15 from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Arthur Grimes and Ian Mitchell. In this graph we have got estimates of what the impact of planning rules has been on development in Auckland. If you believe the Government which likes to listen to a pro - urban sprawl thinktank called Demographia you would guess that the whole difference in the increase in house price costs is due to planning regulations when the actual research in New Zealand shows that they have a much smaller impact. Maybe 20 to 30 percent of the price can be explained by planning regulations but most of the cost is actually on apartments or medium-rise density—you know the development not just of apartments but of town houses character flats.These are all things that the Green Party has been saying for a long time we should be developing because it is better for the environment and it means people can live where they want to live in compact walkable neighbourhoods where they can access goods services and jobs through public transport or by walking and cycling. That is what people really want. Land values are highest on the isthmus not out on the fringe because people want to be on the isthmus. They want to be close to where things are. The reason they cannot afford it is that the planning rules do not allow that high-quality mid-rise intensification which is what we have been arguing for and are quite happy to work on with the Government.Of course that is just the supply side. I would say that on the supply side the Greens have got it right. We have got a smart solution that not only reduces housing costs but reduces transport costs reduces pollution and enables people to live where they want to live. On the demand side it is clear that the tax treatment of income has fuelled speculation in residential property. The Green Party has long called for smart measures like a capital gains tax limiting the amount of capital coming in from overseas—limiting the purchase of land and property to citizens and residents here in New Zealand—and also having minimum standards for rental accommodation. All of that would help take the heat out of the housing market. And on the supply side we would welcome central government leadership with a national policy statement and environmental standards on good-quality mid-rise development in the central city because that is where the evidence says people want to be.The other side of the coin is of course transport. There is no point in building cheap houses on the fringe where people just have to spend more on cars and transport to access education and jobs. A smart green approach enables people to live closer to jobs and closer to public transport but we need that investment in public transport infrastructure first. This is where National is really failing Auckland and future New Zealanders because there is no money in this Budget for new public transport infrastructure in Auckland. In fact since National came to power there has been no new money announced for rail projects in Auckland. All of it was committed under Labour thanks to the pressure of the Green Party 8 years ago.If you look at the next 10 years this chart shows what the National Party is planning to spend the transport budget on—mostly on a bunch of motorways that have no business case when growth in rail in Auckland is at 20 percent a year and there has been no growth in vehicle kilometres travelled. So this is where the investment should go because it is smart it reduces pollution it increases people’s quality of life it reduces costs for Government and it reduces costs for households.We can have this smart green revolution here in New Zealand. We can have a fair society and we can respond to climate change but we need a Government that is willing to actually take on the evidence and take us in a better direction. The Green Party would do that. Thank you.