Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I've been quite enjoying this debate particularly with the Hon Steven Joyce's opening kind of volley I guess when he was suggesting that the central complaint about this Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) is that he doesn't know what's in the Budget. I was just sort of reflecting on the time that I spent in Opposition—three Budgets—watching Mr Joyce and Mr English say in the week leading up to Budget day to the then spokesperson on finance for the Labour Party Well Mr Robertson there's only three more sleeps to go." or "There's only two more sleeps to go before we reveal what's in the Budget." Well Mr Joyce I've got some news: there are only 183 more sleeps to go before we tell you what's in the Budget—only 183—and if you want to ask the question every single day I'm quite happy to count down how many sleeps there are until we tell you what's in the Budget. That seemed to be the central complaint that Mr Joyce had in his opening statement—that is that he doesn't yet know what is in Budget 2018. And I note that it isn't even 2018 yet but there are only a few sleeps to go before that starts.The other complaint that Mr Joyce seems to have is about the nature of what's termed the fiscal risks that are outlined in this document which are the things we are flagging that we say we are committed to in next year's Budget right. In next year's Budget—not in this document; not in this major mini-Budget but in next year's actual Budget.I just want to reflect on the use of that word "risk" because one of the things that he is saying is a major risk to this country is the idea that women will get paid as much as men for the same work. That's a massive risk which he has a huge complaint about—the idea that we're actually going to—finally after decades—close the gender pay gap in this country. What a huge risk that is that we need to take care of!There also seems to be a massive risk that we are actually going to build in this country infrastructure that is resilient and adaptable to climate change; that we are going to deal with the huge shortfall particularly when it comes to three waters and public transport and all of those things that we are currently exposed to as actual risks because we haven't invested in those things in recent years; and that there is a massive risk somehow that we're actually going to close that massive multibillion-dollar infrastructure gap in this country.There seems to be an enormous risk that people will get paid the living wage! How about that? That's a huge risk especially if you're currently on the minimum wage. There is a massive risk that you will actually suddenly be getting paid enough to live on in this country! It seems to be a huge complaint of Mr Joyce: that there is a massive risk that people will actually get paid enough to live on which might mean that they are able to move out of their cars and into some houses. What a risk that would be to this country if we actually did that! So those are the complaints that Mr Joyce has about next year's Budget which he hasn't seen and there are only 183 sleeps to go.He also has a complaint about the fact that the tax cuts that he legislated for in last year's Budget are going to disappear and the thing about this major mini-Budget that Mr Robertson is presenting here is that there will be 83000 kids lifted out of poverty over the course of the next couple of years as a result of the Families Package that is being introduced later today.So you've got a choice Mr Joyce: either you can lift 83000 kids out of poverty or you can have your tax cut right. Do you really want to do that? It's like no actually Mr Joyce would rather pocket his tax cut than lift 83000 children out of poverty. Here's a question: do you want to invest in the kind of infrastructure that this country needs in order to cope with climate change or with the risk of rising seas or with the fact that we've got a creaking water infrastructure that in some parts of the country is at great risk of making thousands of people sick or do you want to cut debt two years earlier than we are planning to? Twenty-four months—all that takes is 24 months—and we're able to invest billions of dollars in this country's economy.There is a good question here about debt which was raised by Amy Adams in her contribution earlier. It was about maintaining low levels of debt in order to be able to borrow or leverage up when another crisis hits and we know that other crises will hit. It is a good question: what is a prudent level of debt? I have to say that this Government is committed to paying down debt to precisely the same level that the last National Government was prepared to pay it down to—20 percent of GDP—but only two years later.There are two views of debt. There are two completely valid views of debt. One is as Amy Adams pointed out that you get it as low as possible as soon as possible so that when a crisis hits you can borrow up to deal with the crisis. That's one view of debt. The other view of debt is of course that at a time of historically low interest rates when you've got a massive infrastructure deficit why wouldn't you borrow to invest in the future? So you borrow to invest in the future. That is what businesses do all the time. It's actually what families do when they get mortgages to buy houses. They're borrowing to invest in the future.So you've got those two views and where we came down was we said "Yeah 20 percent seems like a pretty reasonable number." Compared to the rest of the OECD it's actually incredibly low—20 percent of GDP is incredibly low. What that allows us to do if there is another crisis is be able to borrow to fend off the crisis but also we actually do want to invest in our future because the last Government sucked so much money out of the economy in order to hit these magical numbers of theirs that actually they've left us with a multibillion-dollar infrastructure deficit in water in housing in schools in hospitals and in transport in particular and especially in Auckland. If you look at the infrastructure deficit that we've got to pay for I think we've got it absolutely right there.I wanted to reference in the time that's available to me some of the other good news about this. Obviously one of the things that everyone kind of obsesses about is gross domestic product and in Opposition one of my criticisms of the then National Government was that the GDP growth rate does not tell you how good things actually are. It doesn't tell you anything about how good things are. You can have an earthquake that actually drives up GDP. If someone breaks a window and replaces it that adds to GDP. GDP is only an economic measure of activity; it doesn't tell you if that's good activity or bad activity. Crime adds to GDP. Building prisons adds to GDP. Building warships adds to GDP. But that does not tell you anything about the people who are living in cars and garages or about the kids who have got respiratory illnesses and hospitalisations and all of that kind of thing.So one of the things I am delighted about in this HYEFU here is the commitment to measuring our success more holistically and more sustainably so that we have a much greater range of information about the nature of what actually makes a country well and what our measures of success are and the idea that as part of the Budget process the Minister of Finance will be responsible for reporting on genuine measures of progress in this country not just a number that tells you virtually anything. And while we're at it there is a number in this HYEFU that I'd like to talk about briefly and that is GDP per capita.Under the last National Government GDP was growing but GDP per capita was not. In other words people were actually going backwards in this country while the economy was growing—right—because our GDP per capita was falling. Under this HYEFU what it shows is that that gap is narrowing. It will narrow under this Government. Our GDP per capita will increase and the gap between GDP growth and GDP per capita growth will narrow at last. That means that while there is an economic adjustment that we are going through at the end of it we will have a more productive higher-wage economy than that which was presided over by the National Government previously. I think if there is one reflection for why they ended up on the Opposition benches it would be that.So I'm very delighted with the Budget statement. I'm proud that we are a part of it. I'm glad that we were given the opportunity to debate it and I'm looking forward to the legislation that accompanies it shortly. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."