Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Madam Speaker. We have a Budget called—as the previous speaker Kiritapu Allan called it—a wellbeing Budget but it was a completely underwhelming Budget in many accounts. Yes there were some increases in areas that I think New Zealanders did appreciate but essentially even using that term is questionable. In fact I like what John Roughan in the New Zealand Herald said. He said The term 'wellbeing budget' is [a] tautology[. It's] a bit like saying 'healthy medicine'. It is also faintly insulting to previous budgets" he said "implying they were not seeking the country's maximum wellbeing."I remember in Budget 2015—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who said that? JONATHAN YOUNG: —I remember John Key increased—you need to stay with us Mr Peters—the benefit for families with children by $25 a week the first increase outside of Consumer Price Index increases in 42 years. To say that that is not a focus on wellbeing is just fake news. I recall Steven Joyce's $2.2 billion family package in Budget 2017. To say that that was just concentrating on GDP is wrong because it's concentrating on what can be done for families in New Zealand. It's true to say that every Budget that every Government presents is determined and shaped to bring the best benefit to this country to the people who live in this country to families who raise children and to people who need to be able to get by and have a bit more money in their pocket. I think that it's quite telling that the first piece of legislation that came through under urgency when we sat after the reading of the Budget was all about increasing taxes. So that is not to do I don't think with the wellbeing that people expected. I listened to the previous speaker Kiritapu Allan as she talked about the acclaim that she heard whenever she went out and about in her region but there's lots of people who would have a contrary voice and contrary opinion to her. For example the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand they say "We had hoped that the … Budget would be a turning point for [our] community health. There certainly has been consideration given to certain aspects of community health which is always good to see but it's a shame that the Foundation has again been overlooked." So it's disappointing for many people.Grey Power is very disappointed with the latest Budget. The president Mac Welch says "It is obvious that the wellbeing of seniors is well down the list of priorities of the current Government with absolutely nothing for seniors". The Child Poverty Action Group said that the Budget provides relief but nothing transformational for children in poverty. They went on to say "Children simply cannot wait until 2020 for a meagre increase based on the previous year's wage inflation. They need benefits to be based on actual and realistic costs of living."—which is why John Key brought that increase back up when that occurred in 2015. That's the sort of action I believe that people were looking for.Radio New Zealand—of course one of the favourites of New Zealanders—said "The Government has allocated a few million dollars more to Radio New Zealand but the $38 million splurge previously proposed by Labour remains elusive." So there are a lot of people out there who aren't quite as enthusiastic as the previous speaker made it out to be. I think that we need to understand that that is something for their consideration and for New Zealanders also to be aware of. The Cancer Society of New Zealand says it welcomes the Wellbeing Budget but was disappointed to see cancer not being made a priority: "For a long time now we have been advocating for a cancer agency but we have seen no commitment from the Government for this." I think this is the one that I probably like the most: the EMA the Employers and Manufacturers Association said they weren't "expecting much for business from the Wellbeing Budget 2019 but [we were] still disappointed it did not tackle any or some of the members' key concerns." So this is a group of people who had no expectation at all and ended up being very disappointed that there was nothing there. There was nothing there at all. Can I just speak around the energy resources funding that comes through the Budget? From that Budget we see that over four years energy and resources loses about $3.4 million in their appropriation. There have been reductions in information services there have been reductions in policy advice that the Minister could procure particularly for consulting. It's been reallocated within the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) due to pressure on other MBIE areas. Essentially what this means is that there will be less funding available for the Minister of Energy and Resources for policy research and consulting. Now ordinarily New Zealanders might say "Less money for consultants; well that's a good thing." but actually we're in a time of great complexity regarding the energy and resources portfolio.When you think about the Government's ban on new exploration permits and what that is going to do to our energy mix when you think about the Speech from the Throne which said no new mines on conservation land—by the way most of the green minerals is on conservation land and not all conservation land is beautiful pristine bush; some of that conservation land is used for grazing cattle and sheep. There is a policy that the Government stated in the Speech from the Throne that says no new mines. So that's no lithium that's no cobalt that is no rare earth elements—all the types of the minerals of high value for the low-emission future. So what we see is some complexity around this particular portfolio and yet what we see is the removal of $3.5 million of funding for policy advice. The Minister appeared before the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee this morning and told the committee members of the work programme that she and her ministry are undertaking. I would say that actually advice is going to be very very important. We know the Minister does have a reputation of not listening to advice from her department—and of course that will not be the reason why this funding is being cut—but there is advice out there that's come from consultants such as Concept Consulting who the Minister has disagreed with. There is advice there that is coming from the Interim Climate Change Committee which is contrary to the Minister's policy. There are contrary voices out there and I say actually that's good because that's what consultants and advisers ought to do. They should challenge the thinking of the Government yet what we find in this particular appropriation in a particularly complex and important area regarding our energy and resources is that $3.5 million has been withdrawn from the Budget around policy advice. I disagree with that. I think that whether that advice is agreed to or not whether it's welcome or not whether the Minister supports it or not it doesn't matter. I think what we need for the sake of New Zealand going forward is to have every idea robustly challenged. I don't see how that can occur; I don't anticipate that there's going to be any restructuring or change within the official Government advisory regarding that portfolio. But what is going to happen is that we are not going to see as much of the outside voice. In fact when I say "the outside voice" I'm talking about people who move in and out of the sector who understand the trends and the science and the technology. These are the people who are at the face and the interaction and the engagement with the sector. These people are often our best thinkers; certainly in the most technical areas they are able to communicate the issues around that. So what I anticipate we'll see is a lack of challenge when it will come to decisions and policy formation that I think is going to be a tremendous disappointment for New Zealand."