Cosgrove Clayton: Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2015/16) Bill — Second ReadingsText is subject to correctionCosgrove Clayton: Appropriation (2014/15 Supplementary Estimates) Bill Imprest Supply (First for 2015/16) Bill — Second Readings[Sitting date: 17 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4523. Text is subject to correction.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):In the seconds that remain before the dinner break I just say to that member Andrew Bayley that that speech proves how out of touch he is. He rattled off about 5 minutes’ worth of international statistics and could I say this to him: it does not move a young person any closer to the dream of homeownership. It does not build one new house and you have built only 170 since 2013 in your own special housing areas. It does nothing. He can rattle off statistics for the next 3 or 4 hours if he likes to but it does not address and he did not address the very human concerns of individuals and families in our community. He is so out of touch that he has wandered around the regions and not seen the impact of his Government’s policies—the negative impact on those regions. If he wanders around with the blinkers on he proves how out of touch he is.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Before the dinner break I followed—I cannot remember the gentleman’s name—a National Party member of Parliament who took us on a sort of whirlwind tour of the OECD and rattled off about 5 to 6 minutes of statistics in trying to make a proposition that this was somehow exceedingly relevant to the lives of perhaps young New Zealanders who were trying to execute the dream of making a first-home buy as if these statistics would somehow keep people warm in their State houses or in their private accommodation that may well be damp under-heated and pretty disreputable. I have got to say to that member that he can throw statistics around for hour after hour but what actually counts in Struggle Street out in the communities is the here and now the income in the pocket—or the lack of it—the ability to put food in the mouths of your kids and the ability to have decent housing and the basic basket of goods and services that probably all of us or most of us in this Parliament had the privilege of growing up with over the years.The member then also waxed eloquent about how the surplus—in fact I think it was Mr Bennett. Mr Bennett made a wonderful proposition actually. He attacked the Opposition for claiming that the Government had not met its No. 1 promise of going into surplus and then admitted a couple of minutes later that it was edging towards surplus and that it had remained in deficit for the last 7 years. So he attacked us for telling the truth and then did not provide any sort of evidence or proposition as to why the Government broke its premier gold-plated No. 1 promise to the electorate that it would. In fact the Prime Minister I think—as Mr Hipkins pointed out—said before the election campaign not that it would be in surplus but that it was in surplus to the tune of $300 million - plus. And then we found out it is the other way round—it is $680 million - odd in deficit.So although Mr Bennett attacks the Opposition for holding the Government to account and telling the people of New Zealand that it continually on seven occasions broke its promise—you know that is our job Mr Bennett. That is our job. And if we are bandying around statistics I would just offer one for the historians in the audience and among those listening tonight which is that when we left office in 2008 we had had 9 years of surpluses. Net Crown debt was zero and there had been 9 years of surpluses. Compare that with a Government whose debt outstrips that of Sir Robert Muldoon the great National Party hero—and my word we thought he was the last of the big spenders. The debt outstrips him and we have had 7 years of deficit.Of course the next proposition that National members put up in the Budget was that there would be a $176 million surplus they said. As Mr Hipkins pointed out if you do the basic math on that—and I know the member Mr Scott who is prone to telling the truth in this Parliament will want to get to the KiwiSaver home loan stuff in a moment which is his favourite topic—you work out that the KiwiSaver $1000 kick-start which has now gone equates to $175 million and so by cutting that out they somehow achieve a surplus. That gives them a surplus of a paltry 1 million bucks.For those people who might be tuning in tonight $1 million is a lot of money—I accept that—but in the whole scheme of the Government accounts it is wafer thin tissue thin transparently thin and I doubt whether that will be achieved. But you have got to look at some of the spending in the Budget and the supplementary estimates.I made an interesting discovery. I note that the Minister of Police in answer to a proposition put to him this afternoon that there had been a cut in the police vote denied it. I know that Mr Deputy Speaker of course given his previous occupation may indeed take a passing interest in this but if you actually look at the Budget documents you will note that there is a cut to the police operational funding of $44 million over 4 years—44 million bucks over 4 years. Then if you flip over a few pages you will see that Whānau Ora gets an additional $50 million for something called navigators. I do not know what that means and I bow to those in the House like Mr McClay and others who are far more proficient on Government policy than I. But at the same time as you cut 44 million bucks out of the Police vote you bung $50 million into Whānau Ora for something called navigators and with no rebuttal and no examination of the effectiveness of Whānau Ora to the point where the Auditor-General said: “It was not easy to describe what it is”—that being the policy of Whānau Ora—“or what it has achieved.”We had a lot of members over there talking about the effectiveness of Government spending. Well when the Auditor-General who is an Officer of Parliament and is independent of everybody here including the Government and who is charged with examining the Government accounts and the appropriateness and the effectiveness of spending came out and said about one of the biggest expenditures in this Government’s ongoing Budget programme one of its flagship policies which has been given an additional $50 million: “It was not easy to describe what it”—that is the policy—“is or what it has achieved.” I would be really grateful if somebody in the Government would stand up and explain and give the answer that the Office of the Auditor-General has been unable to find.I note in the media that somebody—and I am not sure whether it was the Māori Party or somebody else—then demanded that the Auditor-General apologise for what she said. Well why should she? She is actually charged with examining the effectiveness and appropriateness of expenditure. She could not work it out and she is a pretty learned individual. The Office of the Auditor-General is a pretty formidable office with an independent world-class reputation. So I would like somebody over there to sort of get up and perhaps explain to the New Zealand people what the programme is about whether it has been effective and if it has been where the evidence is and what the additional $50 million is for.Equally I just note for the record that I find it interesting that the largest expenditure in Whānau Ora went to one particular seat. It was the seat of the former member Hon Tariana Turia the author of the policy. Happenstance? Maybe. Coincidence? Possibly. But I do not particularly believe that not when 8 percent of the Māori population reside in that electorate and the largest bulk of Whānau Ora money just happened to land inside those boundaries. There may be a good reason to be fair—I make no judgment—but I think an explanation is due.When we get into looking at the sort of histrionics of this Budget I think it was a number of the other colleagues who said: “Who is going to benefit from this grand plan?” because we have got expenditure cuts we have got expenditure that cannot be explained sort of poured down the toilet and nowhere in this Budget or the supplementary pieces of legislation can I find an effective plan to house those people in derelict and substandard accommodation. Nick Smith had a crack. As I said this afternoon you know the cheese has slid off his cracker a couple of times over the last 6 months or so—170 houses since 2013 in his so-called special housing areas when we need 10000 houses a year in Auckland to keep pace.Mr Scott’s wont to sort of wax eloquent about the KiwiSaver proposition—well it equates to $521 per year of extra funding. That is about $10 a week and when we had this debate a few months ago it was Mr Scott the only honest man in the National Government who got up and actually admitted that that is what it was. He said that it is $10 a week extra when Auckland house prices are going up by $17000 a month or by 90 grand a year. So I ask those members as they celebrate their KiwiSaver HomeStart—whatever it is—policy to answer me this question: how is it going to affect and assist in a positive way those people who are up against housing inflation of $17000 a month in Auckland when they get $521 of their own money to spend per year?Mr Scott you have done this Parliament a service. You are the only honest man on that side to tell the truth.