Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): So many clichés so little time—so little time that the member didn't even manage to address the bill that is under discussion. Now the member is a new member so I suppose it's reasonable that she could be mistaken about the subject matter of this debate. But the subject matter of this debate is not—is not—the 2024 Budget. In fact the subject matter of this debate is the imprest supply bill and this bill the Supplementary Estimates which are the Supplementary Estimates which amend the 2023 Budget—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The previous member did refer to the Estimates a number of times.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Indeed she did but she talked repeatedly about the Budget. However if the member wants to open up the debate like that well I suppose we are going to welcome the opportunity to talk more about the Budget. But I just want to retreat right back to this bill and some of the reasons behind it. First of all any member who's actually attended the Finance and Expenditure Committee meetings and read the report would know that the discussion there was very much on the extra money that has been appropriated or not in this bill and there is a very dull pro forma report that comes out. But the Minister of Finance—and the member would do well to listen to her Minister of Finance—said something very interesting in her speech in which she said one of the reasons for this annual Supplementary Estimates bill is that fiscal risks materialise". Stuff happens—stuff happens between one Budget and the next. Stuff happens which means that the Budget needs to be amended or changed. Sometimes it's low-level stuff that just happens at the level of the department or a ministry. At other times it is major and significant things that happen which then necessitate a change to the Budget.In fact the member in amidst her speaking repeatedly about the Budget rather than the Supplementary Estimates did spend quite a bit of time talking about the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle. I noticed she didn't manage to talk about the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods which were just as important but talked about the impact of Cyclone Gabrielle. Of course that is one of those things that happen and that a Government simply must deal with. It simply must start spending the money making the choices because a disaster has happened or because something completely unexpected has happened and in these Supplementary Estimates we see some of that going on.So to help the member out I will direct her to page 28 of this bill which is the one we're debating and it talks about some of the extra money that is allocated there: it's a decrease of $257000 actually for Cyclone Gabrielle for the National Land Transport Fund operating cost pressure funding—it's on page 28. Now that's because when Cyclone Gabrielle swept through a huge adjustment had to be made to the 2023 Budget. It was done with just doing the best we could and so subsequently the money got changed around because later understandings developed. Why? Because as the Minister of Finance said fiscal risks materialise.So what this bill is the one that we should have been debating is talking about the changes that have been made between Budgets and it does. This bill does contain as my colleague Megan Woods said some signals—some stuff that we know about that was changed because of the choices that this incoming Government has made—and these choices are quite instructive.I want to direct the member's attention to page 20 of this particular Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and sitting in there is a return of money to central government of $122 million—it's a lot of money—for the establishment of water services entities. So the incoming Government has made a choice about how it is going to deal with the serious issues around water supply in this country.It's interesting sitting in the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the last few days. In the public hearings—the stuff that's already public—council after council after council has come to that committee and said "How are we going to pay? How is our rating base going to manage?" Councils like Rangitikei Council councils like Clutha Council—they've come and said "We just don't have the money or the rating base to manage this."Hon Peeni Henare: Far North.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Now the previous Government had come up with a solution to enable those councils to manage the real needs around water supply. Actually my colleague Mr Henare has just mentioned the Far North District Council. They absolutely need assistance in order to get their water supplies up to standard but off a low ratings base they simply cannot pay for it. That Government over there and it's seen in this Supplementary Estimates bill has told councils to go it on their own—just go it on their own—and some of the least wealthy areas of the country and some of the areas where there is no capacity to get further money out of the rating base havew told the councils that they are on their own. That decision is recorded in this bill. It's a shameful decision and it's one that council after council has rejected.I want to direct the member's attention now—because she needs to understand where this comes from—to page 52 of this bill and what it has in there is a return of $220 million to the centre because there was going to be a Crown loan to support the transformation of Te Pūkenga and of our whole vocational education system in there. But that money is coming back and it's quite interesting because even though that money has come back into the centre sitting in the Budget this year where—seeing as the Government has abandoned one plan we might expect to see some plan in this year's Budget. But sitting on page 90 of a summary of initiatives where we're looking at the Te Pūkenga disestablishment and transition a tad contingency there's not a single number in there—not a single number there. What does this point to—between the Supplementary Estimates where the money is taken out because they're not going to do that anymore but no money provided for it in this document? There is no plan. That Government does not have a plan. It does not have a plan for water services other than charging the money back to councils. It does not have a plan for Te Pūkenga. It charged in to change things around because of its own ideological preferences and then couldn't be bothered to allocate the money. It does not have a plan and does not have a sense of where it's going. That is what this Supplementary Estimates bill records for us. That's what we see coming through from it.So I also then want to turn to again another really interesting item sitting in this Supplementary Estimates bill and I'm going to point the member to page 40 of this Supplementary Estimates bill. It's some extra money that the Government has had to allocate to KiwiRail for the Project iReX wind-down costs—another area where the Government simply doesn't have a plan. It has rejected the entirely sensible plan of the previous Government. The plan of the previous Government would have seen a secure freight connection between the North and South Islands that would have seen excellent ferry transport that would have promoted the use of rail to get our freight up and down the country taking that pressure off our roads.But that Government decided to just bin the contract. They decided they just didn't want to do it. I don't know why they just decided not to—and it's going to cost us $300 million. That's the money that's been set aside in these Supplementary Estimates in order to cover off that Government's ideological decision making where they've raced into decisions as a knee-jerk reaction and saying they're just not going to do anything that this Government has done. So that is what is recorded in these Supplementary Estimates and they are a shameful record for that Government.Looking forward to next year we can expect to see one more decision in some Supplementary Estimates. They ignored a promise they'd made on the campaign trail. They refused to fund the cancer drugs they'd promised to fund. They didn't put it in the Budget and so then by the concerted action up and down the country they were finally shamed into doing the thing they had promised to do all along. But they have not recorded it in their Budget—they have not recorded it in this Budget. They've written a cheque on the future and I expect to see it in next year's Budget and right then we can think some more about their lack of planning their lack of foresight and their inability to follow through on their promises. This is a Government that does not have a plan. It just races from one decision to another and the record of that is right here. We will be voting against this bill."