5. Budget 2017—CommentaryGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of FinanceBudget 2017—Commentary5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in response to statements his Budget was not visionary Well no I don't even know why people would ever sort of like what's innovative what's visionary"?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Unfortunately for the member he is once again wrong. He has misinterpreted the quote. The questioning from Jessica Mutch on the weekend's Q+A programme related to comments from the Auckland mayor Phil Goff about transport in that city. For the member's edification the Government is currently building in Auckland the City Rail Link the completion of the western ring route the Waterview Connection and the northern corridor and southern corridor expansions. It is about to start work on the East-West Link and is working on the Kirkbride Road entrance to Auckland Airport as well as numerous other projects which for all I know the member may have opposed. You can call it visionary or call it what you like but it is a big programme of infrastructure for all.Grant Robertson: Why would the Mayor of Auckland say that the Budget "ignored Auckland's problems"—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has every right to ask his question.Grant Robertson: I will start again since they like it so much.Mr SPEAKER: Not only will the member start again but there will be substantially less interjection from my right-hand side.Grant Robertson: Why would the Mayor of Auckland say that the Budget "ignored Auckland's problems" and the chief executive of the Property Institute of New Zealand say that the Budget risked the Government being seen as not understanding the extent of the housing problems in Auckland or even caring about them?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the first part of the member's question I think the mayor has his mayoral hat on but his Labour Party membership in his back pocket.Grant Robertson: Why would the Xero country manager Craig Hudson say that the Budget let down small businesses and the tech sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member has obviously run out of ideas because it is the second time he has quoted the Xero guy in a week. But the good news for the member is actually if he just looks a little bit further he will find some people who are very supportive of the Budget. For example Iain Hudson who is the social policy director of the Salvation Army said Budget 2017 delivers a substantial support to low-income working families and "the Family Tax credit and increases in the accommodation supplement will make things easier for vulnerable working families". He could look a little further and go to Marlborough where Marlborough Family Budgeting Service coordinator Denise Best said "These increases are great and they will make a big difference" or he could go to the Waikato Chamber of Commerce—get out of Wellington a bit further—and go and see the CEO William Durning who says: "The budget has been very focused on investing in this growing economy and there are a number of initiatives on strengthening the existing spending … a … strong focus that has been taken on infrastructure". I have a number more—Mr SPEAKER: No no. I have heard enough.Grant Robertson: Why would a respected business person such as Kerry McDonald describe his Budget as having "no economic merit" and being pure political flannel?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have got a question which is why he is still on Tuesday's question—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first question I asked in this series the Minister did not address but we moved past that. He does not get to ask the questions; he gets to answer them.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have—I ask the member to please have a look at Speaker's ruling 195/6: "The scope of question time has expanded in recent years. Members can now ask opinions and include hypothetical material. Questions no longer have to seek just factual material. It is therefore inevitable that there will be greater dissatisfaction with the replies to questions of much greater scope." Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order?Hon David Parker: Yes Mr Speaker. That says that the answer can be broad; it does not say that the answer can be a question. So Mr Robertson's point was correct.Mr SPEAKER: No at this stage—certainly the way Mr Joyce started his question was not terribly satisfactory but we are going to give Mr Joyce the chance to now complete his answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well as I started to say obviously—Grant Robertson: Why would he do that?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well Kerry McDonald is a friend of old Winston's which is probably one reason why—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will address members the correct way.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The point I was making—Denis O'Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We have another point of order.Denis O'Rourke: I believe that the Minister should be asked to withdraw and apologise for the way in which he addressed the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to ask for the member to withdraw and apologise but Mr O'Rourke may not have heard that I immediately interjected to the Minister. He is required to address all members of Parliament the correct way and if we go to the stage of addressing people simply by Christian names that will lead to disorder. So I have dealt with the matter; I am not going to take it further. Now can we have the answer to the question asked by Mr Grant Robertson.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Certainly Mr Speaker. The point I was making is that the members between them have quoted the two people who have not been supportive of the Budget and that is fine because people are entitled to their opinion. But actually there are lots of others who have been supportive and for example I speak of Kim Campbell the CEO of the Employers and Manufacturers Association who said: "The books are certainly in good order and this allows the government to deliver a budget aimed at building prosperity from both a social and a business perspective". So there are different views of course. I just think it would be more entertaining for the House if the member came up with some different ones on different days.Grant Robertson: Has he considered that all the people who actually want to see some kind of vision from a Budget that lifts living standards reduces inequality and increases productivity might actually have a point or are they all just wrong and he is the only one who is right?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I think the member is the only one who is wrong. If he would like some examples I have some more quotes for him. There is a gentleman called Peter Vial who is the New Zealand head of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand who said that the "Finance [Minister's] … first Budget achieves a balance between continued careful fiscal management and sharing the benefits of sustained economic growth across the community. … It certainly provides most working New Zealanders with a tax cut. It also signals continued commitment to social investment and that is laudable …". I also quote for the member Kirk Hope Business New Zealand's CEO who says: "Business welcomes the spending on transport and tourism infrastructure help for exporters and co-funding for greater research and development through Callaghan Innovation. This is judicious investment in high-growth areas of the economy." So there are plenty of people who are supportive and I understand that the member has worked hard and found the two or three people who have been against it."