Borrows Chester: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBorrows Chester: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 29 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10500. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call in this Budget debate. Those people sitting at home listening in to this debate will no doubt understand what is going on here. We are debating the Government’s Budget which has recently been put before the House. The Labour Party hates it. The Green Party hates it and so does the Mana Party. New Zealand First does not like a lot of it. And the Government loves it. That happens to be the nature of being in Parliament for whoever happens to be in Government at the moment. You know what? Not only do we love it over on this side of the House but the public out there love it too. As has been reflected in the polls that are reported time and time and time again at the moment we happen to be enjoying on this side of the House a popularity with the public that has never been seen before in the history of this country. It has lasted a lot longer than it ever has before in the history of this country and Labour hates that.It is interesting too to note that there are such things as parliamentary language and unparliamentary language in our particular rules of parliamentary debate here and one of them is around hypocrisy. I am not allowed to call anybody a hypocrite on the other side of the House and they are not allowed to call us hypocrites over here either. What you do notice is a level of duplicity though that goes on from time to time. It isinteresting to point that out every now and then. For instance it was not that long ago that I was roundly applauded by members on the other side of the House for a level of collaboration and consultation across the parties of the House and they used that to smack around one of our Ministers who was promoting a bill under urgency as if that had never happened before whatsoever.Upon being baled up by Radio New Zealand I was happy to answer the question about what I thought about this response. I was able to point out that one of the first things that I voted on—voted against—coming into the House was a bill that was going to make $800000 of unlawful spending by the Labour Party lawful. Not only that but not long after I also had to consider 1500 submissions that were dropped in at the select committee process which was also rushed and stymied and in the House processes as well through the emissions trading scheme. I also managed to be able to sit from time to time on the select committee considering the Electoral Finance Act where the chair of that committee said repeatedly time and time and time again: “We got the numbers and we are going to”—Hon Trevor Mallard: Has National paid the GST yet? Still thieving off the taxpayer?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is interesting to note that the major interjector at the moment is Trevor Mallard who not long ago raised a point of order about the word “xenophobia”. He took offence at it and the person who had used the word “xenophobic” had to stand up and withdraw and apologise. Yet only minutes before the same member Mr Mallard had pointed out my wonderful cousin the Hon Chris Finlayson and called him “Gutless Finlayson”. So he is happy to call out on the one hand and happy to take offence on the other. But that is just the way it is.We have also heard the speaker immediately before me Jacinda Ardern talking about all the things that she hates about the Budget. That is her role—she is the Opposition spokesperson on social development. She is not expected to love our Budget. But she talked for instance about the promotion of a convention centre in Auckland and the fact that 230 extra pokie machines would be put in there without conceding—I just repeat this and make the point for members of the public who are listening—that in the former Government the one that she supported and the one that she was part of the then Prime Minister and Cabinet a number of members of which are sitting there had agreed to a plan where there would be a further 230 pokie machines for a convention centre—Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s a lie.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member knows he cannot say “That’s a lie.” and I will ask you to withdraw that comment. Let us have some—calm it down because I actually want to hear what the speaker is saying. I will ask the Minister to continue but first I ask the member to withdraw that comment.Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Thank you to the member the Hon Trevor Mallard for explaining the point I made earlier. He is happy to make an unparliamentary comment across the House knowing full well he will have to stand up and withdraw and apologise.The fact was that that previous Government agreed to a deal where it conceded an extra 230 pokie machines in exchange for a convention centre that the then Labour Government would pay for which was about a third of the size that is proposed under this current deal. Thankfully it did not get any suckers who took it. There you go.We have also had another part of the impassioned speech by the former speaker. She was talking about insulation in homes. She was talking about cold and damp and overcrowded homes. There are 215000 families now living in insulated homes whichthey were given grants to be able to insulate. It was a constructive suggestion that was taken up by the previous Labour Government. However it was terribly unsuccessful insulating only about 800 homes as I understand it in the time that Labour was in Government.Hon Annette King: No that’s wrong Chester.Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Oh that is wrong?Hon Annette King: That’s wrong.Hon CHESTER BORROWS: OK my cousin Annette King is shaking her head and saying—oh I am prepared to concede just because it is her—that I may be a few hundred out. In any event when we came into Government we took up that suggestion with the Green Party. We continued with that programme and now we have seen 215000 homes insulated under that particular scheme. We are continuing to do another 46000 homes under this Budget and we are also bringing into effect a warrant of fitness for State houses.People say: “Well OK. Why only State houses?” and the answer to that is fairly simple. How can we expect other landlords to do what we are not doing ourselves? So we get stuck in we insulate and we provide a warrant of fitness for State homes to make sure that there is a base level of accommodation that is at least healthy to counter exactly the conditions that the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern was talking about—that they are not cold and damp and overcrowded. For the same reason then we are building on to the back of 300 of those State homes extra bedrooms to get people out of garages and get people inside the house so that they can be warmer and they can be healthier.There is never ever a concession—and I guess we would not expect it—from the other side that this Government has been working towards helping those people who are vulnerable and who are at risk within our communities. We have seen recently—this week—the launch of a programme to provide breakfasts for kids in schools. Previously that had been running for 2 days a week in low-decile schools. The Government has recognised that there is a need for people who may well be hungry who are not being fed at home for the reason that money is unavailable for whatever reason and we need to account for that because kids cannot learn if they are hungry and they are worried about where their next meal will come from. So the Government has recognised that.You would expect then that Opposition parties might even applaud that but they do not. They say we should be doing more. The fact that the Government is not paying for the whole lot but is doing it in partnership with communities and with businesses is anathema to them because of course business can be only bad. Families who want to for instance invest in shares in Mighty River Power must be rich. They cannot be real families—they cannot be real people apparently—if they happen to own shares or if they happen to have a family trust. They cannot be mum and dad New Zealanders and yet I would ask those members on the other side of the House how many of them—Dr David Clark: 185000 in 2 minutes.Hon CHESTER BORROWS: There is my good old Presbyterian brother forgetting that he is no longer in the pulpit and yelling out. He should remember the words of St Paul to be careful what you say unless you are thought a fool. I cannot dig you out scripture and verse but let us face it: you are the one with the theological degree not me. I was the lay preacher; I did not need the ticket.But let us just finish off with this point. The problem we have with parties on the left is this. They hate people who get on and succeed in spite of the circumstances that are thrust upon them. They hate that. What we on this side of the House applaud is people who in spite of things that happen to them go on and succeed in any event. Let us face it: in this life it is not about what happens to you; it is about how you respond to whathappens to you. On this side of the House we believe that people should take responsibility for the predicaments that they find themselves in whether or not they are the result of bad decisions they have made or circumstances that are thrust upon them and they should do what they can to help it. On the other side of the House those members would encourage their voters to sit there and wait for Government handouts. That has been the message of their policy for decade upon decade upon decade upon decade. What we know now is this: the public agree with us and they disagree with them and Labour hates it.