SpeechJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. This is an interesting time to be speaking in a Budget debate. This is now the 10th Budget that I've had an opportunity to speak in since being here in the House and the unusual nature of this Budget debate is I'm struggling to identify what the alternative remedy would be to what is actually being outlined by the Government. The difficulty in this situation that we all face is yes this was a Budget that was delivered in haste off the back of rapidly changing economic circumstances. It was a Budget that delivered huge amounts of borrowing but would the alternative that may have been proposed if there was a National-led Government in place be any different? The reality is that the last time we had massive economic upheaval through the global financial crisis and through the Christchurch earthquakes the same remedies were proposed at that very point in time. There were mass job losses off the back of those economic events. There was a considerable increase in borrowing that the State did when it came along and said We have to invest in the economy to keep jobs going." There were a lot of jobs being lost and there were a lot of people who went on to welfare. The same circumstances are in fact in place and the difficulty with this Budget is trying to identify what would be done any differently. I am struggling to identify what the alternative remedy would be. Simply saying "We've been there before and we can deliver it better." is not one that I think is very sellable. In fact the very people who were doing the delivery 10 years have now all left. John Key's no longer here. Bill English is no longer here. Steven Joyce is no longer here. They were the ones—Chris Penk: You're still here Jami-Lee—you're still here. JAMI-LEE ROSS: —that were doing the delivery. I'm not there either Mr Penk—thank you very much. You might not be if you keep writing books as it turns out. I think we need to really look critically at this Budget and ask ourselves what would be done any different. There wouldn't be anything different; in fact this is the very prescription that Governments around the world are following. Jobs are being lost Governments come along and invest and Governments come along and identify infrastructure projects fast track them and try and do the best they can by people to keep jobs going to keep people in employment and to ensure that there are New Zealanders out there who still have hope and opportunity. I think when people go into the ballot boxes later this year they're going to ask themselves "What's there in the future for me?". But there also going to ask "Is there anything different on the other side of the fence?" and I can't say that there is much difference. When I look at some of the projects which are being delivered now there is a valid criticism here that many of the things that have been announced recently including before the lockdown were plans that were in place already. There were plans that were announced by the previous Government but when I look at things like what was announced earlier this week such as SkyPath that's something that Dan Bidois said during the by-election campaign. That is something Labour's picked up and they're running with it. You can't complain about that. The Unitec housing development—that's something Nick Smith announced in the last Government. This Government's now picked it up and is running with it and good on them. The rail electrification out to Pukekohe—that's something that was announced during the last election campaign. Labour's picked it up and they're running with it. It's hard to disagree with what the Government's actually doing and it's hard to make speeches in the House in opposition to what they're doing when in fact the prescriptions they're proposing are ones where if we really boil it down there's actually bipartisan support for them. I have to say there are questions on delivery that the Government has. If there are failings of the current Government it's that the housing hasn't been delivered as fast as it could have been the housing hasn't been there in place for New Zealanders that need it the rail works aren't exactly going as fast as they'd expect—and good on them for trying to do more. But they haven't delivered in that particular area and I can't say we can see any appreciable gains yet for the massive mental health funding that was put in place a couple of years ago. But would the policy prescription be any different if the blue team was in place? The answer is no. I have to say also that many of the roading projects announced earlier in the year are in fact ones which we can honestly say now that the House is united on. There's the Northland State Highway 1 upgrade which that I'm sure Shane Jones pushed for considerably which appears to be going ahead. There's the Penlink project—I saw Mark Mitchell in the House before—and that seems to be something the House is united on. The Mill Road project in South Auckland that's going to be going ahead—again a project that the House is united on. There are many other roading projects as well. The difficulty with this Budget debate is we're trained in this Parliament to try and be for everything or against everything but there isn't much difference between the two policy prescriptions that are out there. We may hear more during the upcoming election campaign from the National Party and we may hear more from the Labour Party but so far both sides are saying the same things and that's actually not a bad thing for New Zealanders. It's not a bad thing for New Zealanders that we are united in this Parliament on borrowing for more infrastructure spending and we're united in this Parliament on ensuring there are more jobs for people so that they can have hope and opportunity in Government investing in those areas and this fiction that we seem to entertain through a Budget debate where one side is doing everything perfectly and one side's doing everything absolutely wrong is a fiction—that isn't actually the reality. I have to say that if the Government could be criticised on some other areas it's that they haven't turned their minds and eyes to a range of risks that are on the horizon. We've heard a lot about a trans-Tasman bubble. We haven't seen much in the way of plans or delivery on that yet. If there's something we need to turn our minds a lot more to in the future it's how we do work closer with our longstanding partners that we've been moving away from over the years. If the Government's looking at a trans-Tasman bubble when it comes to travel they should also be looking at even more integration with Australia. We can benefit more by working much closer with Australia. We also need to turn our minds to how we can work closer with the likes of the United Kingdom and the likes of the United States. I'm very concerned that over the past 10 to 15 years our country has been moving further and further away from traditional trading partners like the US and like the UK. We have started to put all of our economic eggs in the one basket with that being the China exporting basket and now they're in a situation where we know that there are risks there on the horizon if we place too much trust in the regime in place in China—that we will have further economic problems because if this virus that we've seen and the handling of it in China has told us anything it's that we have to be more diverse in our trading opportunities and we have to be more diverse in how we look at the rest of the world. So I say to Labour and I say to the Opposition that if they're looking at our foreign policy and our exporting opportunities and our strategies in the future we must stop putting so much hope and opportunity in the China trade basket. We have to look at working closer with the UK and start looking closer at working with the United States. If there are opportunities to further integrate our defence forces with Australia we should be looking at those types of opportunities. A glaring hole in our legislative framework when it comes to boosting the regions is also the way in which we have constraints in place by way of the Resource Management Act and the way in which local government is not incentivised to ensure that there is growth and there is opportunity in the future. So when it comes to policy programmes that this Budget will be funding and when it comes to future policy work that the Government is intent on looking at I would say they should be directing their officials and directing efforts towards how we can unlock economic opportunity in the regions and around the country by ensuring we change that legislative framework when it comes to investment we change the way we incentivise local government and we change the way they look at infrastructure. The options for the future are almost solely based on infrastructure spending to support further job growth but we won't get that infrastructure spending being delivered long-term if we continue to have constraints in place. The short-term COVID19 response measures that are being legislated for which are allowing fast tracking of projects are good but that's not sustainable long-term. The very fact that we have to legislate in this House to deliver greater infrastructure because there are too many constraints suggests that our whole model isn't set up correctly. It suggests that if we are to deliver economic growth for the future and if we are to ensure that there are fewer constraints to job creation and infrastructure building then we should be looking wholesale at those legislative frameworks. Finally I want to say to the Government that I hope that they are more cautious when it comes to borrowing in the future. They are borrowing to ensure growth and to ensure infrastructure spending but it has to be targeted and it has to be done well. If there are opportunities in the regions where we can take local government where we can take community partners and where we can ensure that investment gets into those projects they should be looking at doing that rather than just assuming the Government can do everything and should be the be-all and everything when it comes to this country. It's hard to disagree with much of what's being delivered when this was the same policy prescription 10 years ago. It's hard to disagree with much of this Budget and I hope New Zealanders ensure that we continue to grow as a country in the future."