Wall Louisa: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWall Louisa: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 21 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): That is correct. I would like to take the opportunity to mihi to the Hon Shane Jones and acknowledge that he gave his valedictory speech tonight and that many of my colleagues are over at the Back Bencher enjoying his hospitality. Many of us enjoyed what he had to say and in fact I want to pick up on something that Shane quoted in his speech. It was: “Hūtia terito o te harakeke keihea tekōmako ekō?” [Pull out the centre shoot of the flax where will the bellbird sing lass?]What does that actually mean? At the heart of the flax-bush the bellbird sings. Where will the bellbird be if the flax-bush ceases to be? What the intention of thatwhakatauāki is all about is to ensure that we aswhānau ashapū as communities and as society support those who are the most vulnerable. Actually therito which is in the heart of the harakeke is the most vulnerable. I make no apologies for the Labour Party being very clear about what our priorities are and would be if we were the Government. I particularly want to commend my colleague Jacinda Ardern and her Best Start policy which is all about making sure every New Zealand child has the best possible start in life which begins with a $60 per week payment for every child and particularly for those children who are the most vulnerable. They are the 285000 children who are living in poverty. They are the 170000 children who are beneficiaries’ children who received nothing from this Government in the Budget. The Prime Minister reiterated that today.I would like to focus on two commentators post-Budget one of whom is the Associate Professor Mike O’Brien who is the social security spokesperson for the Child Poverty Action Group. His assessment of the Budget was very clear. He said that only one Budget item would directly “affect poverty” and that was extending free doctors visits and prescriptions to all children under the age of 13. That is the only measure in National’s Budget that is going to directly affect children who live in poverty. But he had a caveat on that assessment and I am sure the National members of the House will find this interesting. This was within the context of Northland. He said that there are geographical issues for poor people living in isolated rural communities so extending free visits is of no use if you could not access them because of distance or an inability to afford to get there. The only addition I would make within the context of South Auckland is that those free doctors visits mean nothing if you do not have enough general practitioners for our children to visit.Dr Paul Hutchison is in the House tonight and he will know that Counties Manukau District Health Board and the Counties Manukau area is the lowest-provided region in terms of general practitioners. We are over 100 general practitioners short. So withinthat context you can extend free visits but the reality is that if those general practitioners do not exist in our communities then again those families do not have access to what we would consider the basics. Those basics are primary-care basics that ensure that our children particularly are strong they are healthy and they are ready and active and have the ability to go to school to learn.I also want to pick up on a comment from this article in theNorthern Advocate. It is from a man calledHuaPoraka from Dargaville. His assessment of National’s Budget was pretty easy. His assessment was that National does not care. National does not care about the children in Northland. National does not care about the children in South Auckland. If National thinks that this Budget is going to reduce poverty is going to address the issues of child poverty then it is greatly mistaken. The only other thing I want to highlight is that Gordon Campbell was very clear that this is the “let them eat crumbs Budget”. That was his assessment. I say that for some kids living in poverty it is actually the “let them eat air Budget”. What you have given children and particularly beneficiaries’ children is fresh air. You have given them nothing. You are not helping them out of their circumstances. You are not providing a hand up or a way to a better life. You have actually ignored them. That was the other assessment of Gordon Campbell—that this Government has ignored beneficiaries’ children because guess what? National does not care. Kia ora.