Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBudget Debate[Sitting date: 02 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4172. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Budget DebateDebate resumed from 28 May on theAppropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):When I was making my first contribution to the Budget speech on Thursday—it is obviously going down a treat this afternoon as everybody is leaving but never mind—I was talking about the contribution of the Minister the Hon Amy Adams to bringing in a world-class broadband network which so far as a Government we have invested $1.5 billion into and enabling economic development in the regions. I focused my contribution at that time on regional development and noted that in this Budget an extra $360 million has been set aside to deliver on the Government’s promise of high-speed broadband and rural broadband.I was particularly noticing the impact not only on the education sector and on hospitals but also on the economies of the regions. In particular for the lower half of the South Island it is generally around agriculture it is around IT but it is also around education. I want to turn to that because I was very interested and very proud to hear the Minister of Education Hekia Parata explaining to the House that this Government has invested more in education year on year than any Government previously. I was also very pleased and proud to hear the Minister talking about the fact that to date this year this Government has invested $10.8 billion in education. That includes—Melissa Lee: How much?JACQUI DEAN: $10.8 billion dollars in education. That is investing in our future. That is investing in our young people right from early childhood education. The Budget also made some announcements around early childhood education for our youngest New Zealanders and where is the benefit going to lie? Well again because I am so focused on the regions and the health of the regions I can say that we are of course going to see the benefit of that in the lower part of the South Island. We are going to see our young citizens going through an excellent school system enhanced absolutely by rural broadband.I can even go as far as talking about my own home town which is 100 percent wired up for broadband as are a number of towns around New Zealand.Hon Maurice Williamson: You’d better name this town.JACQUI DEAN: I have named this town and I will happily do so here. It is called Ōāmaru. It is the coolest little town and the sharpest little town and broadband will be a great benefit to the schools the hospital and the businesses all around the region. I would also talk about Wānaka which is a town that came fifth in the Gigatown competition and which is a hub for business start-ups.Small businesses are now being attracted out of the cities and business people are being attracted out of Dunedin. I know of people coming down from Auckland. There is a trend to go southward from Auckland into places like Wānaka. Why? Because they are innovative and they have wonderful infrastructure that includes broadband but most particularly I am so proud of this Government’s investment in education. Thank you.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):The current Government’s Budget has the byline “A plan that’s working”. Most New Zealanders will be asking “Working for whom?” because it is certainly not working for the vast bulk of New Zealanders who go out work hard every day try to get ahead and get pushed back down by the current National Government. It is certainly not working for future generations of New Zealanders who are going to inherit mountains of debt—the highest mountain of debt that any Government has ever clocked up in New Zealand’s history. It is not working for that same generation who cannot get a foot on the property ladder because this Government has done nothing about runaway house prices. It costs nearly a million dollars to buy a house in Auckland and it will top that figure very soon. This Government is not doing anything for the future generations who are burdened by student loan debt.It is not doing anything for the future generations of New Zealanders who are seeing the funding for early childhood education frozen for the entire duration of this Government. What does it mean when it is frozen? It means that in real terms it is going backwards. It means that those early childhood centres are getting less money now than they did when this Government came into office. It means that schools which are seeing their funding eroding away are not able to deliver the curriculum that they want to and that they are required to. It means that we are seeing schools cancelling for example field trips or experiential learning so practical experiences in the classroom are being pushed aside because schools simply do not have the resources they do not have the time and they cannot afford to deliver the curriculum as it is intended to be delivered. That is what is happening under this National Government.It is not a plan that is working for all of those people. It is not a plan that is working for the New Zealand Police which is seeing its funding cut. There is a lot more to come on that. It is not a plan that is working for regional New Zealand which sees jobs disappearing which sees its roads deteriorating and which sees its public services being diminished or disappearing altogether. This is not a plan that is working for the vast bulk of New Zealanders.Of course it is a plan that is working for the merchant banks which now get the opportunity to step in and deal with people with mental health problems. Merrill Lynch is lining up to deal with people with mental health problems in New Zealand. It is a plan that is working for the casinos which get to build convention centres off the backs of problem gamblers. This is probably a plan that is working for them. Of course it is a plan that is working for the Saudi millionaires who get to have sheep flown from New Zealand over to their farms in Saudi Arabia at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per sheep. Goodness me! I hope they got a meal with that. I hope they got a lie-flat bed and they got to check in their luggage. Actually most New Zealanders could not afford to pay that for their own travel let alone spending tens of thousands of dollars per sheep to transport sheep to Saudi Arabia as Murray McCully has done in his facilitation payment deal which most New Zealanders would look at and regard simply as a bribe.This is not a plan that is working for the vast bulk of New Zealanders. It is a plan that involves broken promises right left and centre. Unfortunately I get only 10 minutes in this debate so I cannot catalogue all of them but let us look at a few of them. Back into surplus John Key promised New Zealanders before the last election. He did not just promise he was going to do it; in fact he promised that he had done it. Then after the election what do you know? The surplus disappears. He says it was only ever an artificial target and it was like landing a 747 on the head of a pin. So how much was that deficit? It was $684 million. That was the deficit. National did not even come close. I am not even sure how that could possibly square up with John Key’s comments. Then of course we do not even know whether it is going to deliver a surplus next year. He promised to create 150000 extra jobs. Will the Government deliver on that promise? No it will not. He promised to increase average wages from $55000 to $62000 a year. Has it delivered on that promise? No it has not. He promised it would not cut KiwiSaver. Has it delivered on that promise? No it has not. It cut the $1000 kick-start from KiwiSaver. He promised no new taxes. Has it delivered on that promise? No it has not. It is going to be introducing a capital gains tax. It whacked up the levies on broadband. It introduced new taxes on people travelling through airports. It promised to improve our export performance. Has it delivered on that promise? No it has not. This is a Budget that is littered with broken promises.This Government got a bit of a pass when it came into office 7 years ago because the global financial crisis was going to put whoever was in Government under a bit of pressure. So the Government got a bit of a pass. It got a bit of leeway. Seven years on things are getting worse not getting better and New Zealanders can rightly say this Government is not delivering. This is a Government that has simply lost its way—a Government that made bold promises that it did not deliver. John Key says we are on the “cusp of something special”. Where have we heard that before? Could it be David Cameron saying that “we are on the brink of something special”? He clearly got the Crosby/Textor memo. Tony Abbott of course did not. He said that the Australian economy was on the brink of devastation. He obviously was not quite so on-message there. But of course we know that actually the Government’s promises are all about campaigning not about delivery because they are all delivered by the same people who are promising the same things around the world.We have got in Australia for example Tony Abbott promising the “foundations of future growth and prosperity”. That was Tony Abbott’s promise to the Australian people. David Cameron of course talks about the fact that they have “laid solid foundations”. You can see a similarity of language here. And what does John Key say? He says “growth … based on the solid foundations”. He is not even that creative when he rips off the other leaders from around the world David Cameron and Tony Abbott. John Key cannot even change the words; he just quotes them verbatim. That just shows how out of touch and how much the Government members have lost their way when all John Key can do is pick up off the shelf the speeches being delivered by David Cameron and Tony Abbott and deliver them as if they were his own ideas because the Government has not got any ideas of its own. That is why the current New Zealand economy is stagnating under this Government and the books are going backwards.Of course it all starts to pile up on John Key and his Government members. They start to get found out. What do they do? Normally they would turn to a debate about the flag but that is already going through a referendum so they cannot do that. So what is the next off-the-shelf crisis that they can create? What is the new diversionary tactic? There is a boat coming! There is a boat coming! Therefore goodness me there is a crisis. We have heard this before when there was a boat coming to New Zealand so the Government had to go into urgency and push legislation through Parliament. The boat did not come anywhere near New Zealand. It went round the other side of Australia. It came nowhere near New Zealand but this is John Key’s diversionary tactic. It shows how desperate the Government is when it goes and pulls that particular card off the shelf. It shows that Government members really have nothing else to talk about and all their broken promises are coming home to roost.The education sector is struggling under this Government. We have seen teachers who have basically had next to no pay increases for 7 years under the National Government. Schools’ funding is not keeping up with the rising cost of education. Hekia Parata said in the House today that the Government did not base its school funding decisions on an arbitrary figure; it based it on what schools actually spend and what the costs of delivering the curriculum are. I challenge her at any point to produce the figures that show that because we know that the cost of delivering education is going up and up the technological costs that schools face go up and up the pressure that they face goes up and up and the funding is simply not keeping up with that. In the early childhood sector it is criminal what is happening at the moment. Increases in participation are a good thing but that is masking the fact that on a per child basis early childhood education funding is going backwards. The result is going to be more cost for parents or lower quality education or in the worst case scenario both. That is simply not good enough.This was a Government that said it was aspirational for New Zealand. Where did that aspiration go? Where did that aspiration go? It has disappeared. This is a Government full of hollow promises hollow rhetoric and spin and when it cannot get away with that it then resorts to smear and it does not deliver what it promises New Zealanders. Government members are simply content to sit there on the Treasury benches and not deliver for ordinary everyday working New Zealanders who are happy to work hard to get ahead but they do not have a Government that is going to back them despite the promises for aspiration and despite the promises about getting ahead. This is a Government that is simply not delivering.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):It is a pleasure to rise and speak in this Budget debate. May I first congratulate the Minister of Finance on another outstanding Budget his seventh Budget in a row and one that actually speaks to most New Zealanders.We are a country that is on track economically we are a country that is on track fiscally for surplus next year and we are a country that is on track to deliver help where it is needed most. I would just like to state upfront that in terms of delivery we have delivered in this Budget $790 million to help children in our poorest households—help children in our poorest households. Mr Hipkins might ask why we are not delivering but I do not hear Ms Ardern complaining about this Budget in terms of $790 million being spent on the poorest households.What does it look like? Well it looks like 160000 of our lowest-income families. Some of those families are in my electorate of Maungakiekie. I know they are in Mr Ngaro’s electorate of Te Atatū. We are helping those families who really need some assistance around their benefit—$25 a week. If they are low-paid families they get up to $12.50 a week in most cases through Working for Families for those with incomes under $36000.It is also about providing more childcare support. It is an extra $1 per week per child. So for different children that is $50 per week. I challenge members opposite who complain about this to show me a family that would not take $1300 in 1 year—show me one family that would not take that money. I do not believe you can come up with that sort of family. I know Ms King brings families to this House—little examples of people who are not doing well—but you bring one family Ms King to this House who would not take the $1300.How do we know that this Budget is successful? How do we know? We held a Budget workshop—Mr Ngaro and I and Mr English—in Manukau in the heart of so-called Labour country last Friday morning. And what positive feedback we received about this Budget from Pacific community leaders from academics from workers and even from unionists dare I say it. Those people were saying to us: “We believe in what you’re doing. We believe in what the National Party is doing. We want to see more jobs we want to see more opportunities but we think we’re doing well under the National Government.”What does that look like? It looks like this in terms of Pacific communities. The current statistics show that over 123000 Pacific people are currently employed in New Zealand. That is more than at any other time in our history. I notice that members opposite have their heads down. They do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear the facts around how Pacific communities are doing very well under the National Government. That number is up 17500 from this time last year.We are doing well in our health statistics. Immunisation rates for Pacific people are in the mid-nineties. In fact they are doing better than most of the rest of the population. So we are doing well in terms of immunisation. We are doing well in terms of jobs. In terms of education we now have National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 pass rates for Pacific people in the mid-seventies. What was the pass rate under Labour can I ask? The heads are down again. It is OK. They are not proud of their record but I will tell you what it was. It was 51 percent under the Labour Government.Although they rail over there about the amount of spending that goes into education they do not look at the outcomes. The outcomes are quite clear. The pass rates for NCEA level 2 are up by 25 percent. Graduation rates are up by 50 percent. Early childhood education participation rates are up by 20 percent. I hear members opposite groaning whining and moaning but the outcomes do not quite fit with the rhetoric and the misleading representations that are made opposite.This Government has put in place more measures to address the housing problem across this nation than any other Government. Yes we know about the HomeStart package that subsidises our first-home buyers. Yes we know about the release of land and we are working alongside the Auckland Council with the Auckland Housing Accord. We have special housing areas and we are releasing large tracts of land. But in this Budget we also came up with a plan around releasing more Crown land for development. That goes alongside the extra money we are putting into rent top-ups as part of our housing reforms in order to have the income-related rent subsidy for those who are impoverished.We are about providing the community housing sector with the opportunity to actually get alongside the Government and provide some of the housing. I am proud of the announcement that the Tāmaki area will get a $200 million injection. Admittedly it sort of started under the Labour Government many many years ago but we are now implementing that plan to release more land to work alongside communities. At the launch of that plan we heard from a local early childhood education teacher who was talking about how the Tāmaki community was being empowered and given the opportunity for self-determination and to work out their own aspirations and their own goals and that can only come under a National Government. We believe that the answers to our social ills lie in our communities. That is why we support Whānau Ora that is why we support the Tāmaki redevelopment and that is why we support schemes that empower our communities and give them the ability to determine their own successes.This Budget is also about health. Ms King over there is a former health Minister but what she did under her reign was she doubled the spending but the outcomes diminished.Hon Annette King: Not true.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The outcomes actually got worse under her reign. I like Ms King but her record is poor. She cannot stand on her record. [Interruption] I really admire her but her record is poor. What we have done in the health portfolio is increase spending. We have got immunisation rates up. We have got health outcomes really doing well. I say to members opposite that they should look at our track record. They should look at what we have done in health in education and in housing.I also really admire what our Government is doing in the transport sector. We have funded the electrification of trains in Auckland. We have given some targets around the inner city loop and how we can achieve those targets and where we are going in terms of public transport. But what we have also done is we have invested in highways that actually promote economic growth to our regions. That is what is critical here—economic growth.We know that tourism numbers are up. We know that jobs are being created in the tourism sector. When I make my business visits locally in Maungakiekie I know that the IT sector is actually thriving. We also know that in terms of local manufacturing—and Maungakiekie is the hub of light manufacturing in the country—we have companies like Compac Sorting Equipment and we have companies like Coca-Cola that employ thousands upon thousands of locals. We know that that economic growth is important for our people.This Government has created over 170000 jobs in the last 4 years. We are about to create another 150000 jobs in the next 4 years. We are a Government that is clearly on top of our game—creating jobs providing for the needs of our less able and for our vulnerable kids. That is what is at the heart of this Budget. I am proud of that. I am proud of the fact that we are helping people who really are at the poor end of the scale. We are helping them lift up and improve their aspirations and their dreams by getting off welfare and into jobs. This Budget is another stellar Budget by the Hon Bill English. It is a Budget that I am supportive of and I commend it to this House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):Budgets are not just about the year’s plan and what is going to happen in the next 12 months; they are about vision. They are meant to set out where the Government wants to take the country over the course of a term or if it is indeed being visionary beyond the next political cycle. That is what Budgets are the opportunity to do. I have sat through what feels like more than my fair share of National Party Budgets and I am yet to see any evidence of that visionary kind of statement—the kind of thing that we actually need as a country. We do need it because we are facing challenges that are not challenges on a yearly cycle—they are not even challenges on a term of 3 years; they go well beyond that. This time around I wanted to see a Budget that acknowledged the hard decisions and that acknowledged that doing what is right is not always about doing what is popular. In fact if any Government worth its salt is going to address the issues that are right but that are not necessarily popular it should be doing so in the first Budget after an election year. It should but that is not what we have seen in this Budget.Labour always tried to look ahead. Of course we will always be criticised by members on the opposing side because that is what they do. But we did endeavour ultimately to look ahead. Our policies demonstrated that. Working for Families was essentially about trying to address what we recognised in Government as the inequality that was emerging and that was emerging most for our families and our low-income families. It was a very tightly crafted attempt at redistribution. Working for Families has endured as a mechanism because it has been to date the most successful attempt that a Government has made to achieve that redistribution. That is why National has not got rid of it. We brought interest-free student loans into play because we saw the emerging inequality and growing debt for the next generation and we saw the impact that that was having on them and their ability to own a home to become debt-free and to become contributing citizens. That is what interest-free student loans were all about.We established the New Zealand Superannuation Fund because we could see that we had baby boomers who were moving into retirement that there was growing debt and that we were going to have a spend in the superannuation space that would soon outstrip education—and we were simply not prepared for it. That is what the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—then known as the Cullen fund—was all about. We stopped calling it the Cullen fund when the National Government stopped contributing to it but that is why it was established. And of course that is why KiwiSaver existed. We knew that the universal superannuation scheme that we had was a bare minimum and that if anyone retired without owning a home they might potentially experience poverty in their retirement. That is why we brought in KiwiSaver. And the nine surpluses? Well those were because we could see down in front of us that there was the potential for a global financial crisis and that we would hit on hard times. Dr Cullen prepared New Zealand for that and that is why we ran nine Budget surpluses. I remember all the criticism from the other side of the House for the fact that we did that and for not entering into a lolly scramble with tax breaks at that time.In contrast what have we seen from the National Government? Not one surplus yet. For all its criticism of Labour in Government we are still yet to see one surplus. During our entire time in Government despite the planning that we put in place and all of the thinking ahead about the big challenges that New Zealand was facing the one label that the National Party could come up with was “nanny State”. That was the argument we kept getting—that somehow all the planning we were doing made us a nanny State. If that made us a nanny State then National is in contrast the babysitter who is now absent—the absent babysitter. And not just the absent babysitter; it is the babysitter who nicked the petty cash and left the kids home alone. That is the kind of government we have seen from the National Party. Our nation’s debt is beyond $86 billion and it is debt that we will all carry. Unfortunately as this Budget highlights some will carry that debt more than others. In fact it seems that the very people on whom Labour focused its Budgets because of the inequality that we saw are the very people who will now carry more of that debt under National’s Budgets.Let us start with the next generation. Student debt continues to be an issue but it is not just about dealing with student loans. We now have a National Government that will not even allow students who are for instance in a course of study that requires them to be in university for more than 7 years to be able to access student loans. Medical students cannot afford to complete their degree programmes under a National Government. That is just wrong and we will be paying for that in the future when we do not have enough people in the field who are ready and trained. The next generation is going to be paying for the fact that the kick-start payment for KiwiSaver has been wiped out. In fact under National Budgets we have had eight changes to KiwiSaver since National has been in Government. If there is one thing that I have heard particularly from the business sector and even the banking sector it is that the constant changes to KiwiSaver are undermining the scheme and are becoming genuinely problematic. So I beg the National Government: no more changes to KiwiSaver. We need consistency particularly for the next generation.What else have we done to the next generation? Well if they live in Auckland there is no way that they will be purchasing a house any time soon. We have put multiple ideas to the Government because we simply cannot wait for the next election in order to implement the changes that we need. We have put forward ideas for what we need the Government to do and unfortunately they have still not been adopted and houses continue to earn more than people. The next generation needed this Budget to focus on jobs also. There is almost no mention of any kind of mechanism focused on job creation. Small businesses—the ones that produced 41 percent of our jobs last year—what did they get in this Budget? If I am being generous I might point out that there is some funding that has been put aside for the New Zealand Business Number but that is about it actually. That is it actually. So as much as Craig Foss comes down to this House and trumpets how much his Government cares about small business that is mere rhetoric until the Government does anything meaningful and there was certainly nothing meaningful in this Budget.It is not just about the next generation; it is also about the next generation of children who are living in low-income families currently. We know that children who grow up in poverty bear the effects of that poverty in their adult life even if they get beyond that poverty themselves. Its effects manifest themselves unfortunately in terms of their health outcomes. Yes we on this side of the House welcome absolutely the $25 increase to those families who are living in benefit households but I do want to point out that it was not the first increase in 40 years—far from it. Like the National Government Labour targeted families living on benefits with Working for Families. The family tax credit went to families on benefits. That was the last big increase for beneficiary families with children. You were not in the House Jono Naylor so perhaps you do not realise that.Tim Macindoe: Order—JACINDA ARDERN: He was not elected—not absent Mr Macindoe—so that is why he perhaps was not aware of that fact. So we will be generous to that side. Perhaps the Government might have been able to make that claim if it had made a generic increase to benefits but the National Government has not. The increase is targeted to beneficiary families with children which is what the family tax credit did.If the Government is genuinely focused on raising children out of poverty why are there no numbers on how many families are being lifted out of poverty by this measure? Why are there absolutely no numbers that have been prepared by the Ministry of Social Development or Treasury? I imagine that Jonathan Boston’s quote illustrates perhaps why we have seen no numbers or calculations. He said: “With the exception of beneficiary families who secure income from paid employment for part of any specified period the changes to benefit rates announced in the Budget will not reduce rates of child poverty measured on the basis of family income.” They will not reduce the rates—and why? It is because the gap for those families has become so large that $25 will not do it. The reason I know that is because when we formulated Best Start I did the calculations myself. You need at least something like the Best Start payment which was $60 per child not per family if you genuinely want to make a difference. So I lay down this challenge to the National Party members: if they are serious about changing child poverty amend the bill to make the $25 payment per child. Tell us how many families will be lifted out of poverty and try to do something that is genuine not token. Then I may genuinely believe that you are doing something visionary.JONO NAYLOR (National):I was so wrapped up in that speech by Jacinda Ardern that I thought it was going to keep on going for ever. As the member so rightly pointed out this is the first Budget that I have been able to participate in and it has certainly been a great experience. Last week when we went into urgency again it was the first time that I had been in the House when we had urgency I had a member opposite smugly come up to me and say: “I think we are enjoying this more than you guys.” I could not help but think that every minute that we were there during urgency was a minute we were getting closer to passing really really good legislation that was going to help this country and benefit New Zealanders and it was certainly an exciting time. I thought I would rather be in our shoes where we knew what the outcome was going to be and the outcome was going to be positive rather than being a little bit cocky about how long the process could be drawn out.But turning to this roughly 15 hours—and we are getting to the conclusion now—of the Budget debate I guess that I expected something different from the other side of the House. I expected to hear alternative plans. I expected to hear alternative options. I expected to hear alternatives in some respect so maybe that is a little naivety on my part it being the first time I have been here for the Budget debate. But I have heard nothing. I have heard members dwelling on the past like the previous speaker who has just talked about what happened in Labour Governments gone by of which she herself was not actually a member anyway. We have heard all this kind of talk about what has been done in the past but we have heard no alternatives. All we have heard from the other side is a couple of things.Firstly we have heard claims that there is going to be a new capital gains tax. Well we all know that there is nothing new about the capital gains tax. It has always been there and all we have announced is that we are going to get better at catching out those speculators. So it is not a new tax. Also all we have heard from the other side is people getting really really excited about whether or not we have met our surplus targets this year. Basically for just about every speaker who has got up that is all they have managed to talk about.I want to reiterate something that the Hon Nick Smith referred to in his speech. He did a bit of an analysis of the last 20 years’ Budgets and on average each of those predictions of every Minister of Finance was 4 percent out in their calculations when they were looking at it going forward. This year it looks like we are going to be 1.4 percent out. So on that basis we can draw from that analysis that this Minister of Finance is doing a better job than any of the other Ministers of Finance that we have had in the last 20 years.But of course you do not measure the success of a Budget simply on surplus or not getting surplus by a small margin. You might measure it by whether the country is experiencing economic growth whether or not there are jobs being created and whether or not there are other factors being achieved like the planned decrease that we are going to see in ACC levies. What we have seen from the other side of the House is a complete fixation with money. Well on this side on the House we are fixated with the people of New Zealand. We are focused on ensuring that we are taking people off welfare and into work that we are raising academic achievement and that we are investing where it is going to make the biggest difference. So we are going to be putting in the package which so many people have talked about to increase benefits for families with children. What we know is that two-thirds of children who are experiencing material hardship are in families with people on a benefit.We are not leaving it at just that. There is also going to be an increase for those people who are on Working for Families. We are going to see an increase to the childcare subsidy which is going to make it easier for people to be able to go out and get more work if they need that work to make ends meet for their families. But we have got to remember that these are the new announcements and they ride on the back of everything else that this Government has been talking about over the last little while.And let us not forget that this is in the context over the last little while of also increasing parental leave to 16 weeks. It is in the context of us making free GP visits available to under-13s. It is in the context of the HomeStart loans package which means that younger people in particular who are buying their first homes will be able to access more money through their KiwiSaver contributions and also all the other contributions that have been made to their KiwiSaver account in order to get into their first home. It is in the context of us increasing the immunisation rates amongst our young children. It is in the context of us having warmed up 300000 homes and of us seeing early childhood education participation going up. That is the kind of commitment that this Government has had to families in New Zealand. This Budget is in the context of that and is simply adding to the great work that has already been achieved.But this Budget is not simply about welfare and it is not simply about what we are doing directly for children and for families who are experiencing hardship. It is a well-rounded Budget. It is one that is committed to the regions and we are seeing that through the $25 million that has been set aside to establish new regional research institutions. Living in Palmerston North I can tell you that the benefits that those types of institutions bring to a place are incredible because you have money coming in that is actually multiplied. You have people working in those areas who are often well qualified and well paid—and well educated too I might add—who are contributing positively to our communities and so there is a flow-on effect from that. So we are going to see more of those being established in New Zealand.We are seeing an increased contribution to the ultra-fast broadband roll-out. Again in Palmerston North I can say that we are currently the third-fastest community in New Zealand to take up ultra-fast broadband in the home. I was speaking recently to a business that is doing international IT work with all sorts of people from the big manufacturers of hardware to people like Google and working with DreamWorks Animation and all sorts of places like that. That business can do that because of the connectivity it has. When its staff members need to work from home they can do that because ultra-fast broadband is available to them. That is what these kinds of things can deliver for New Zealand. That is the kind of process that we are working on with these types of initiatives.We are seeing a further $80 million going into research and development. We all know that if we are going to move ahead and if the economy is going to move ahead we need to continue to be more innovative. We need to ensure that those companies that are on the edge of that innovation are getting the assistance they need and that is what we are doing. Again in my home town of Palmerston North we see the impact of that research and development funding going not just to the institutions but also to private businesses.As I said it is well-rounded Budget. We have got help for families we have got help in terms of promoting economic growth and of course the very big thing that New Zealand has faced over the last little while has been the rebuild of Christchurch. This Budget continues to invest in the rebuild of Christchurch. Last Friday I was fortunate enough to be in Christchurch and I witnessed firsthand some of the great work that is being done down there by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the things that are being achieved there. Despite the fact that Christchurch has had such a devastating last few years what we are now seeing growing up out of the ruins is what is going to be a state-of-the-art city—something that the people of Christchurch can be proud of and something that the people of New Zealand can be proud of. I am really looking forward to seeing what is going to rise up from the rubble so to speak. That is the kind of commitment that we have going forward.In summary I just want to add that I believe this is a balanced Budget. It is a Budget that is working towards great things for all of New Zealand. It is going to target those people who need our help the most and ensure they get it. We are not simply going to talk about what has been done in the past. We are looking forward. We are looking forward to seeing New Zealand have a future. We are looking forward to seeing people come out of poverty and into work and make their own way in the world. We are looking forward to an ongoing growing economy here in New Zealand as a result of the great work by this Minister of Finance with this Budget. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):Following on from the last National Party speaker Jono Naylor I just want to refer to what he said. He referred to the fact that the National Government has not reached surplus for the last 7 years and then said that Labour is fixated on money. As a default position because the Government has failed 7 years in a row to reach surplus he said that that is because National cares about people. There is something wrong with that whole picture. It is not that difficult to reach surplus. This side of the House did it for 9 years straight—9 nil; 9 nil. I think that those members need to be reminded of that because they have proven for the last 7 years that they cannot responsibly manage this country’s economy. That is not what I wanted to focus this speech on but I could not help but refer to it after Jono Naylor’s speech.What I want to concentrate on is that the Budget really is a continuation of the Government’s plan to experiment with some of the most vulnerable members of our society—namely sole parents and mental health beneficiaries. What has really upset me from the beginning is the way the Government refers to sole parents and mental health beneficiaries. Under its investment approach it refers to them as a “high liability”—not as people who are vulnerable and need help but as a high liability. That is how it refers to people.Under this most recent Budget the Government is trying to introduce an experimental and untested system of social improvement bonds for mental health beneficiaries. We have very real concerns. We do not even know what the outcomes or results are from the mental health employment and sole parent employment trials which have cost taxpayers a total sum of $5.9 million over the last 2 years. These trials involved the contracting-out of case management which would otherwise have been undertaken by Work and Income. It involved support for employment placements to 25 private sector providers two of which—APM WorkCare and Mental Health Solutions Ltd—received almost $1 million each. But where are the results? Where is the so-called return on investment from these trials?According to the social development Minister 3377 individuals were referred to the mental health employment services trial in which only 998 individuals were enrolled as at the end of February 2015. As at the end of February 2015 414 of those individuals had been placed into employment of which 63 individuals exited the service after achieving 12 months’ continuous employment. One hundred and seventy-one of those individuals were still in the service having achieved 6 months’ continuous employment and 180 individuals were still in the service and yet to achieve 6 months’ continuous employment. What happened to the other 2379 individuals who were referred as part of the trial?Our concern is that that same model will be carried over to the social impact bonds. Who will these providers or organisations choose to take on? What does it mean for those who are not taken on? What does it mean for the 2379 out of 3377 who were not picked up by these providers to place in employment? What were the criteria for trying to place them in employment? Who do we think the providers would have chosen? They would have chosen the people who were experiencing mental health difficulties or mental illness but who were the most employable. Why? Because they wanted to see their outcomes attained. So that Government is going to use that kind of measure to say that the private sector is better at doing this than the State but it is jigged—it is a complete jig-up. We can see that just from the employment trials that have been undertaken for those who are experiencing mental illness.Further the Ministry of Social Development has said that it does not hold information in relation to the roles and qualifications of staff from contracted providers delivering either trial. So here it is contracting providers to work with some of the most vulnerable—we are talking about people with mental illness—but these providers have no qualifications or no experience that the Government knows of to be able to work with people who have mental illness. That is irresponsible. Going back to the Government’s own language—that these clients are high liability—well I just want to say that I think the only liability for this country is the National Government.When we look at sole parents we see that sole parents and their children will bear the brunt of this Budget. We hear from that side of the House that it is giving $25 to sole parents or to beneficiaries. This is not per child but per family. It is something but it is not enough. As the Children’s Commissioner has said it is a surprise but it is not a plan. It is not a plan to address the issue of poverty which we are facing as a country. Under this Budget yes the Government has said that it will give an additional $25 per family not per child on benefit but we have also seen the work obligation extended for sole parents from 15 hours a week to 20 hours a week.I have had lots of constituents contact me with their concerns about this. The major concern is that what the Government is not taking into consideration is that what is subsidised is 20 hours and even those 20 hours cannot always be accessed. The Government has not taken into consideration that not only do the parents need to put their children into early childhood education but they need travel time to be able to get there to drop their children off and then pick them up. Many of these parents are saying that 15 hours a week if they can access the subsidy for 20 hours is just enough because it includes the time they need to work as well as the travel time for getting their children to the early childhood centre and then picking them up afterwards. That was not taken into consideration.On top of that sole parent support beneficiaries have to reapply for their benefits every year on that anniversary. They also have to go back to work when their child turns 3 as opposed to 5. Some of us women in caucus talked about this amongst ourselves. Some of us had gone back to work but circumstances are very different for different people in terms of the work they go into. Some of us have flexible working arrangements. Some of us are able to because of the amount of money we earn but that is not going to be the case for every parent. What also does not seem to be taken into consideration by what the Government announced in its Budget is the number of children these sole parents have. If you are looking at a sole parent with one child maybe—just maybe—it is more possible for them than for a sole parent who has two three four or five children. It becomes more and more difficult when you look at the number of children. So just to have this kind of blanket approach to things is actually really irresponsible and not fair to the parents we are talking about.The change that the Government is looking to introduce is going to affect 70373 sole parents. I just want to point out actually that approximately 90 percent of those parents are women. They are women raising children by themselves. What does that say about the way that the Government thinks about those women or addresses the needs of those families? What does it say about Government members? It says they do not really care. They are punitive they are judgmental and they are just saying “We don’t care about your circumstances. Get out and work regardless of how things are for you.”There was a lot in this Budget from a social development perspective to be concerned about. Looking at the reprioritisation of funding to the social sector and the impact that will have on NGOs is another big issue. We already see this with the demise of Relationships Aotearoa and we know already that there are NGOs out there that have very very good reputations in their local communities and have served their local communities and vulnerable people for decades many of them; and yet they are feeling the brunt of this Budget as well. They are concerned about what this Budget will mean for them and their ability to continue doing the important work they have been doing for many many years.This Budget is not about people unlike what Jonathan Naylor has said; it is not even about money. The National Government has failed on both fronts in this Budget and it will not take long for the rest of New Zealand to see through that.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei):It is a pleasure to speak to Budget 2015. There were many highlights in Budget 2015 and one of them was clearly the $25 increase in benefits. I want to focus on this for a moment and allay some of the fears of the previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni. I want to focus on the benefit increase because in fact many more will benefit. In fact maybe 100000 beneficiary households are going to do even better than the $25 increase some by as much as a further 30 percent or on average $8 up to $33 a week. The reason for this is that it turns out that a majority of beneficiaries also own motor vehicles. They will also benefit from the good work of Nikki Kaye and her team with the ACC reduction on the motor vehicle and petrol levy which is decreasing by an average of $135 a year. This will apply to 100000 beneficiary households.So let us look at that a little bit more closely. Let us see who and how they will benefit. If we look at New Zealand households and household income from the last census the smallest household income category is $20000 or less. There are 146000 households in this category. It is highly likely that a household with $20000 or less has a number of beneficiaries in it so we could reasonably call that a beneficiary household. When you analyse the data for beneficiary households it turns out that 70 percent of those households across New Zealand also own motor vehicles—54 percent own one motor vehicle 12 percent own two motor vehicles and 3 percent own three motor vehicles. The 100000 beneficiary households will therefore receive the direct Budget benefit of $25 per week and the indirect benefit from the motor vehicle ACC levy reduction. It will be an indirect benefit because unlike the core $25 it will not go directly into their account. It is an indirect benefit because it is a cost they will no longer have to bear; therefore their annualised weekly costs will go down.If we put some numbers around this and add the direct $25 benefit increase and the indirect ACC levy benefit what we actually see is this: 78954 beneficiary households with one vehicle will receive an increase of another $3 a week to $28 a week; 17545 beneficiary households with two vehicles will benefit by $5 a week to $30 a week; and 4386 beneficiary households with three motor vehicles will benefit by $8 a week increasing to $33. For this group that is a 30 percent increase over the core Budget announcement of $25. If we look at that last group—the group with three motor vehicles—a little bit harder and extend that thinking it gets even more interesting. The household income for a beneficiary household with three vehicles—and again there are 4386 of them—is less than $20000. Well it is probably unlikely that one person is driving all of those three vehicles. You could reasonably say that there is one person per vehicle and therefore there are three beneficiaries in that household. There are a few assumptions there. If we work through those assumptions what it means for those 5000 households is this: three benefit increases at three times $25 is $75; three ACC levy improvements at three times $8 is $24. If you put those two together that is a $99 per week increase for 4386 beneficiary households. That is a number. This Budget is good for beneficiary households and the data holds true.In fact Whangarei and Northland will do even better because Whangarei and Northland have a higher vehicle ownership ratio than the average across New Zealand. So they are going to do better. In fact the New Zealand average for one vehicle—just to focus on that—is 54 percent in Whangarei it is 58 percent and in Northland it is 59 percent. So the indirect benefit from the ACC levy decrease is going to disproportionately advantage Whangarei and Northland. That is a good thing for them. The motor vehicle levy decrease will continue to contribute in outgoing years because it is projected that there is going to be a further drop to $120 down from $195 in the outgoing years.The data speaks and people speak and they are saying this is a good Budget. People such as those in the Whangarei Child Poverty Action Group which had its post-Budget lunch on the Friday said what others are saying—that this is a significant start but there is work to do. I get it; we get it. There is more work to do but this is a significant start. I have focused on benefits but there are other things of course in the Budget that are helpful and useful.Transport—Northland is benefiting from the Akerama curves realignment and the loop road to Smeatons Valley. The road changes there the transport changes there are significant. Millions of dollars are pouring into Northland there. What was also announced pre-Budget was funding for the Northland cycle trail. A further $3 million will fund the Pou Herenga Tai—Twin Coast Cycle Trail. That is going to allow the development of the cycle trail from Hōreke in the Hokianga to the Bay of Islands. That will be a total contribution of $7 million.There are so many things in this Budget. I have focused on the benefit increase and made the point that it is going to be way more. In fact it is almost a hidden number—another 100000 are going to benefit more. I make my point again: the data speaks and the people speak. This is a good Budget I believe it is a good Budget and I think Northland and New Zealand are going to do well from it. Thank you.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First):I am pleased to take this call with my colleague who spoke earlier Ria Bond. However it is not very pleasant to speak about the Budget because there is nothing pleasant about this Budget.Just last week we had a visit to Rimutaka Prison. We were hosted by the prison manager Chris Burns and his great team. Chris Burns and his team are doing a great job there. They have a very dedicated rehabilitation team and their officers know what they are doing. They are doing a great job in keeping those prisoners within the wire. They are keeping them safe. They are also implementing programmes and courses that help prisoners to rehabilitate. We also visited the drug treatment unit which is one of a kind in the country and although small that unit is doing a great job. We do not think there is any need to privatise the hard work that Chris Burns and his colleagues are putting in. This is not about cost cutting; it is about the rehabilitation of New Zealanders—New Zealanders who have gone off the track. Chris Burns and his team are doing a good job to bring them back into mainstream society. However privatisation of their work does not help the prisoners nor does it help the corrections system in our country.The visit was very educational and that enforces the danger of assumptions. This Government has assumed that outsourcing is a viable way ahead for our prison system. We believe it is not. It is wrong on many levels. Our call is to invest in the likes of Chris Burns and his team and not in Serco. Serco is a large corporate and it is all about profits. It is a matter of public record that prisoners were removed from prisons like Rimutaka and certain other units such as Tongariro/Rangipō and Manawatū and those units were closed to create the business case for the $400 million Serco-run corrections facility in Wiri a South Auckland corrections facility.Given the housing issues in Auckland we wonder how many houses could have been built there on that 17-hectare site that is accommodating the Serco-run corrections facility. This according to us is an opportunity lost for us. There was no need at all for that prison and there was no need to close down the units which were working perfectly fine with dedicated officers and rehabilitation case managers there.Serco is a foreign corporate managing Wiri. Serco also runs the UK’s Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre. I recommend that members google the Channel 4 investigation as Serco has run that facility since 2007. Just last Saturday we were told that a violent offender escaped from a Serco-managed facility in the UK. He just walked out just testing the system. He claimed that he was just testing the system and Serco in this test has failed miserably to keep those prisoners inside the wire.This is the nub of the issue for us. Serco may appear to be a great operator this year and even next year but Yarl’s Wood revealed true abuse 8 years in and that is not the only problem that Serco has given it has written off over £1 billion worth of contracts in its latest financial year. Then again given the approach of this Government with the holiday tax it would not surprise us to see it also sell the Customs Service to Serco next. We keep wondering what is going to happen next. Is it going to privatise the police? It is going to privatise the whole judicial system? Where will it stop?Barbara Stewart: Mental health system.MAHESH BINDRA: And the mental health system as my colleague here says. This Government has a strong desire to shed itself of the core responsibility of governance. Corrections is a core responsibility for any Government. It is what the taxpayer expects from our justice system. They do not want overseas-owned publicly listed corporates to make margins off their taxes while Kiwis get laid off.New Zealand First is also puzzled about how an ice cream top-up in Budget 2015 will do anything to stop offending. It is very easy for the so-called financial wizards to calculate but there were 8303 prisoners in our system last week. The additional $6.5 million that was allocated for rehabilitation in the Budget—it calculates down to $2.02 per prisoner per day. That is the cost of a scoop of ice cream. We do not expect people to change their behaviour for the sake of a scoop of ice cream. We can do better than that I think. But no this Government just believes in giving ice creams to Kiwis and millions to Serco. That is what it is.We do not believe that prisons should be sold off to the highest bidder when that bidder has less than a savoury reputation as Serco regretfully does. Just $2.02 a day extra for each of the 8803 prisoners will make a scant impact unless the plan is managed—the decline of our prisons that Serco will magically fix. I do not believe in conspiracies but there is a plan to sell off our prisons. This goes against the claims of the Minister of Corrections Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga that rehabilitation is a key focus of the National Government. How could it add $2.02 a day extra—how can we fix the system with $2.02 a day? This goes against the claims that the Minister has made. Unlike England’s Moeen Ali who I hoped would drop Trent Boult in the first test the other day this Minister has dropped the ball on corrections big time as has this Government.Coming back to the cost-cutting in prisons we demand that the likes of our own people our own corrections staff and rehabilitation set-up get more funding and not Serco. Thank you.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Before I make my contribution can I first extend my congratulations to the new co-leader of the Green Party Mr James Shaw. Congratulations I look forward to your contribution in this House.I am happy to take a call on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. I have been listening since the Budget was announced last week and all through the debate listening attentively for some offerings that I as a representative of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti can honestly say will make a difference in my electorate. I also say as a former senior public servant and a chief executive of the third-largest iwi that long-term and medium-term planning is critical. I was also listening for the plan—the big plan—that is going to take this nation forward. I was disappointed on both accounts that there was nothing in the Budget that could address the pressing issues of the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti which I will touch on shortly—namely housing and employment.Listening to the contributions from members on all sides of the House I think that this Budget is clever politics. It has no plan to address the long-term challenges facing New Zealand and it is a Budget of squandered opportunities. When Labour becomes Government in 2017 we are going to invest in diversifying the economy and prepare for the future. We are going to ensure that the gains of economic growth are shared among all New Zealanders and not just with the few.Scott Simpson: Who will be leader?MEKA WHAITIRI: Do not you worry; you will be surprised. Much has been said about the Labour Party’s inability to manage the economy. I have heard speakers on the Government side talk about celebrating that this is the seventh Budget delivered by the Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English and they are very happy about that. But my issue is this: how can you be happy with a Budget that continuously gives deficit announcements in this House? You cannot be proud to say that you want to belong to a party that has not delivered an ounce of surplus in the Budget in this House.We on this side as has been heard by previous speakers have delivered—how many people? Nine surplus Budgets—nine surplus Budgets—in this House and yet we hear members on that side of the House talk about Labour’s history of poor management. But bring on one surplus—just bring on one—and then we may have a debate around whether we are even in the same ballpark. But 9-0 as a former sporting person is a loser in my part.Let us turn to the Budget. We on this side commend the $25 extra payment for working families. Clearly—as commentators have announced since the Budget was announced—that is equivalent probably to two extra meals in the House per week. But we applaud the Government’s move in that way. When Labour is in Government we are going to raise it to $60 per week but you know we will work with $25.This Budget also fails to deliver on housing. Releasing Crown land for housing is a no-brainer but the Government cannot tell us how many houses will be built or whether any will actually be affordable. The Government must commit to all of the houses being affordable and the best that Mr Nick Smith can offer is that they will be affordable for someone.Cutting KiwiSaver demonstrates the short-term thinking of this National-led Government which I alluded to earlier. This move will hurt our national savings rate and reduce future investment in our productive Kiwi businesses.Surplus—the Government broke its promises for surplus despite making it its No. 1 election campaign promise last year. Its promise of a surplus next year based on rising dairy prices is fiction. Not reaching surplus means not paying back any of the $88 million—I say that again $88 million—of debt we currently have. A $7 billion hole was caused by a drop in dairy prices and the Government has failed to react and diversify the economy. It is out of ideas clearly.The $30 billion looming superannuation cost—the Government has not addressed this issue either. It is irresponsible short-term thinking. Labour has a strong record in pre-funding the cost of superannuation through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and in ensuring Kiwis have a retirement nest egg with KiwiSaver.In terms of the issues that I mentioned I would raise in this House around the benefits or the not-so-benefits for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti can I mention that in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay turning to the issue of housing there is no emergency housing available in Napier or Hastings despite being the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the country—zip zero not one emergency house in Napier or Hastings. There is no emergency housing available in Gisborne despite increasing inquiries to the Gisborne Citizens Advice Bureau. The nearest emergency housing to Napier is in Palmerston North 2½ hours away. It is approximately a 5-hour drive if you live in Gisborne.Homelessness is up in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. We are probably at about 15 people but those are just the people who come down to us. Kiri Swindell from Napier’s soup kitchen was reported as saying in Hawke’s Bay Today on 22 May 2015: “This shortage of emergency housing is putting pressure on council and State social housing which in turn sends more people to the private rental market and pushes up rents for everybody.” The situation in Hawke’s Bay reflects the sad state of affairs across the country. Provision of emergency housing is random patchy and far below what is needed. National’s State house sell-off which is already under way with large numbers of State houses being sold off locally will only make matters worse and asking about how many are being sold in my electorate is like trying to get blood from a stone.Labour believes that the level of homelessness we are seeing now is unacceptable in New Zealand in the 21st century. Our policy when we are in Government in 2017 is to commit $5 million-plus a year housing from Housing New Zealand to house 1000 homeless families and individuals per year in support of emergency housing. People who are homeless will be housed. The funding will be used to pay social service NGOs and to provide wraparound services to help homeless people get their lives back on track and then find sustainable long-term housing. We will also undertake a ministerial commission working with the community to develop a New Zealand strategy to eliminate homelessness. [Bell rung]Those 8 minutes have gone way too fast but I do want to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development the Māori Party co-leader when he spoke in the House in his speech about being happy to deliver goodies to the people of New Zealand. I want to commend the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell for the work that he has done in securing the budget he has for our people but I would not call them “goodies”. It is giving on one hand and it is definitely taking on the other hand.Under Labour you will see a return to surplus Budgets. Under Labour we will fix New Zealand’s housing through KiwiBuild. We will invest in our regions to grow real jobs and we will restore the impartiality of the public service. We will also invest in and value our NGOs and communities to deliver fairer and more detailed social services. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Alfred Ngaro—a 5-minute call.ALFRED NGARO (National):I thank you for the call and look forward to having this call in this Budget debate even if it is only 5 minutes. I just want to commend the previous speaker Meka Whaitiri because when she was talking it was actually the first time I have heard the strategies coming from the Opposition and from the Labour Party. She was talking about the things that they will actually do rather than just opposing us. So I can commend her for putting up the strategies. I do not always agree with all of them but I think it is great that actually we are hearing strategies that are being put forward.What I want to talk about is this Budget of 2015 and the responses not from the House but actually from the community from the heart of the people who are out there and from the people who work every day with our communities and with our families whether it be in business tertiary training education health or other forms of services as well.On Friday we were with the Deputy Prime Minister the Minister of Finance himself. We were in South Auckland at the Auckland University of Technology at the Manukau campus and we were holding a post-Budget forum with the Pasifika community. What was encouraging were the comments that came afterwards and also when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke. He said: “This Budget tries to move forward.” It makes changes for instance in regard to the baseline of benefit changes and the increases that are there. Seven hundred and ninety million dollars over a period of 4 years is significant and though it has been said that that $25 is not much that increase has not happened in 42 years so that is significant as well.Kris Faafoi: And it won’t happen for 10 months.ALFRED NGARO: The reason why there are comments about 10 months—let us talk about that just really briefly. Part of that process as the honourable member Mr Faafoi will know is that first of all you have to go through legislation. Then you have a process—and this is for the listeners out there to hear—and then there are submissions to be heard over 3 months. After that the legislation comes back into the House has its second and third readings and then after that it then goes through the administration changes after the Royal assent. And so therefore 16 April is an appropriate date. It is no different from the GP visits for under-13s legislation. We announced this measure in 2014 and it was enacted in 2015. It is appropriate because we need to make sure we have the administration side and we have the commitment there to achieve that so it is actually no different from that process as well. We believe that process is appropriate it is adequate and it is meeting the needs. Like we said when you have not changed something for 42 years you have got to do it right. You cannot say: “Why is it taking 10 months?” when you have not done it—even in Labour’s time—in 42 years. I think that is quite significant and we think that it is important as well.What is not often talked about—and I just want to make some comments about this—is that the economic growth forecast is at 2.8 percent and that is significant. We have heard others in the Opposition and even internationally call it the rock star economy but we know that our Minister of Finance has said it is a rock-solid economy. Therefore we are not trying to be flashy and we are not trying to pretend that we know all things. However we are making sensible and stable decisions hence the reason why even in the latest poll from Television One 48 percent still prefer National as a Government. That is significant as well and so that is important. The deficit of $684 million is forecast for 2014-15 and will move to a surplus—and a question was asked about a surplus—of $176 million in 2015-16 growing to a $3.6 billion surplus in 2018-19. We think that is quite significant. We think that is really important as well.I also want to just talk about how average wages are expected to rise to $63000 a year by mid-2019 at an increase of 12.5 percent. That is significant because we still know and we are still clear that the average wage increase is above inflation. That is significant as well because we know that what is important to our families and to our homes is to ensure there are enough resources coming in. Unemployment—Mr Faafoi was actually talking and asking questions about that. Unemployment is forecast to fall to below 5 percent in 2016. There are 194000 new jobs that are there. It is nearly 23000 more than what was forecasted by Treasury which talked about 170000. We think that is significant—194000 jobs are significant to what we are talking about.In the remaining moments that I have I just want to talk about—just finally in wrapping up—for vulnerable children the other part of the Budget that is part of the $790 million child hardship package proposal the $36 million to support the Children’s Action Plan including for new and existing Children’s Teams. We know they are out in Whangarei; we know they are in Rotorua. We have seen that the Children’s Teams have begun to work. It is an intersectional sort of collaboration that is making a difference for the children—for the young people and their families—and we know that this $36 million is important. In the Budget there is $23 million to bolster the work of Child Youth and Family and $8 million to help vulnerable students to participate more in education or training and to lift achievement. These things are absolutely significant and important as well. We have been talking about early childhood education in schools. We see the total spend is $10.8 billion.Scott Simpson: How much?ALFRED NGARO: $10.8 billion by 2015-16 on early childhood primary and secondary education—and at the moment there is $74.9 million for early childhood education to enable more children to be able to attend. We know that when children go to school they are well-equipped and prepared by their being in the early childhood education sector. We have increased the participation rates to up to at least 25 percent from what they were before. We think it is making a difference and it is quite significant.The other one—which is dear to my heart—is there are 300 extra trades academies places being added to support students to achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. This is a great opportunity to be able to—[Interruption] Sorry?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member can keep going if he wants to for a little while yet. I will tell him when to stop.ALFRED NGARO: Thirty seconds.In the brief moments that I have then Mr Assistant Speaker I just want to touch on a couple of things and they are particular to health. I think that these things are quite important. There is an additional $1.7 billion for new public health services which over the next 4 years will increase the Government’s total health investment. I think that is important. I am a member of the Pacific Prostate Cancer Foundation and getting health messages out to our community is critical. I know issues around non-communicable diseases are also placing an important burden upon a number of our communities. Therefore I believe that the health spend is significant in the primary care space—that it is important. So there is $320 million per year to district health boards and $1.3 billion over 4 years for extra services to help meet cost pressures and population changes. I could go on but I will not I think.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Consider it a challenge.ALFRED NGARO: Consider it a challenge—would you like me to continue? Thank you very much. I commend this Budget this excellent Budget to the House.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):I could listen to my admirable colleague Alfred Ngaro all day and in fact for a while I thought I was going to. But I do want to commend him for a very fine address which I know he spent a considerable period of time preparing late this afternoon.We have come into the home straight of the debate on an excellent Budget which started 15 hours of debating time ago. This is a Budget that is exactly right for the times in which we live. This is a Budget that justifies the faith that New Zealanders resoundingly put in the John Key - led National Party at the polls last September. It also reflects the considerable plaudits that some very distinguished international commentators have uttered about the work of the New Zealand Government in recent years.Scott Simpson: Tell us about them.TIM MACINDOE: Particularly—Mr Simpson—the IMF and some of the leading economists who write in very reputable journals and who have said that New Zealand is following a pathway and has set a model that many other countries should follow. Most important in my view this is a Budget that is really genuinely helping our families that is helping those who most need help from a Government and in particular that is working for New Zealand.As we are nearly at the end of a debate that has focused fully and widely on all of the key provisions that were announced by the Minister of Finance just under a fortnight ago it is really time for the adjudicators I think to deliver their verdict and of course they are the public of New Zealand. The public of New Zealand who have been watching—and who no doubt are watching in great numbers right at this moment—will note the cohesion of the Government team in this debate and acknowledge as I do the strong contributions of our confidence and supply partners the Māori Party United Future and ACT. Each of those parties brings a fresh perspective to the table and each has secured in this Budget and indeed over the last 7 years some significant wins in their areas of influence. I want to applaud them and thank them for their contribution. They play a vital role in this Government.The public of New Zealand—the adjudicators of this debate—will have looked across the House throughout the last 15 hours and followed with interest the contributions respectively of the Green Party New Zealand First and the Labour Party. I am sure that they will share my views that the Greens often bring an interesting perspective to our debates in this House. At times I have to say it really does feel as if they occupy a different planet from the rest of us but even though they also have a long way to go before their aspiration of advancing economic credibility can be achieved they do bring something of value to the table.They were not helped of course at the start of this debate by a very poor opening gambit on Budget day from Metiria Turei who delivered a speech that she had clearly written 3 days earlier in order to lament the things that were not going to be in the Budget and then did not have the wit to think on her feet and acknowledge that actually most of those things were there. Instead she could have delivered a much more complimentary speech saying “Thank goodness.”This is the first Government in a very long time that has really substantially delivered for the people she keeps on talking about day after day in this House. But there were some considered speeches from many of her colleagues. I acknowledge that they do have the ability to articulate a theme and in most respects to develop it in some consistent detail. So I think that the adjudicators of New Zealand might give the Greens seven out of 10 for their performance in the 2015 Budget debate. And could I just briefly as others have done acknowledge today the election of James Shaw to the co-leadership of the Green Party. I congratulate him on that and wish him well. I also want to acknowledge and commiserate with Kevin Hague Gareth Hughes and Vernon Tava.Then we go to New Zealand First. Well New Zealand First got off to a slow start and there certainly was not a lot of depth evident in its contributions. Clearly it is missing the intellectual grunt and leadership that Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor gave it in the previous Parliament. But like the Greens New Zealand First too can actually advance and develop a theme even though it depends too greatly on populism xenophobia and Luddite economics rather than on clear principles and an understanding of contemporary challenges and solutions. Most of the New Zealand First MPs gave it a reasonable shot and some of them would have held the public’s attention. I think overall New Zealand First scraped together a creditable pass mark of five out of 10.But what of the hapless Labour Party? Clearly it got off to an appalling start when its current leader delivered the worst Budget reply speech by an Opposition leader in at least 50 years. The pained expressions on Labour members’ faces when that ordeal was over spoke volumes and the public definitely noticed. Yet incredibly things seldom improved for them over the 13 hours of Budget debate that have followed. Labour’s woes are numerous readily apparent and well documented. To be sitting at 25 percent in the polls nearly 7 years after they were ejected from the Treasury benches must be devastating for those members and their dwindling band of union backers and party members yet they need only reflect upon their lamentable contributions in this Budget debate for compelling reasons for their continuing decline in public estimation.Unlike the Greens and New Zealand First the Labour members have failed to grasp a theme or even a few connected ideas and stick to them. Although the leaders of the Greens and New Zealand First made less than memorable speeches the speech of the current leader of the Labour Party was memorable but for all the wrong reasons. In the months and years to come he will no doubt look back on that contribution as the beginning of the end of his brief tenure as leader of the Labour Party.Despite being well into their third consecutive period in Opposition Labour members have no more idea today than they did nearly 7 years ago of how to improve their performance. In this debate Labour speaker after Labour speaker has failed to grasp what it is actually about. New Zealanders know that it is about the responsible management of our economy; reducing debt; delivering better public services—boy we are and that is one of the things that I am most proud of as a National MP; standing by Canterbury which I am very proud of too given the challenges there; and doing more for our most vulnerable families.That is why New Zealanders are saying that this is another great Budget from the National Government. Labour members do not know how to deal with that. They have substituted volume for persuasiveness throughout this debate. They have also tried to substitute clichés for substance. Well that will not cut it. That will not reconnect them with the public of New Zealand. That will not even inspire their own members let alone the public who are waiting to be swayed. I have to say that I think the New Zealand public if they were being charitable would give the Labour Party two out of 10 for its performance in Budget 2015. And that is why we are seeing in both the Greens and New Zealand First day after day emerging leaders of the Opposition. I predict that one of those two parties will be the main party in the Opposition after the next Parliament unless this Labour Party which is doing so badly can actually start to learn why it is doing badly and turn things round. Labour members need only look further down the Chamber to get a few clues of how it is done.Let me finish today by saying that as the MP for Hamilton West I am very very proud of what this Government does—in particular to help our vulnerable families. I represent a marginal electorate. It is good to see you Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard smiling at me because you too know what it is like to represent Hamilton West. We have a microcosm of New Zealand. There are many families in New Zealand who have done it tough through the recession. There are many who need some support. There are many who have struggled to make ends meet during the global financial crisis and the domestic recession. So I want to say that I am deeply proud not only of the fact that as a National Government we have perhaps confounded the punters and delivered something that a lot of people did not expect but that we have acknowledged the fact that there are people who are doing it tough who need some extra support.As has been acknowledged by many on this side of the House we have in this Budget delivered the first real increase—a significant increase—in incomes for people at the bottom of the heap in a very long period of time. But of course it is part of a much wider overall package. We saw other measures designed to help families last year in the Budget and in previous years. The reform of the tax system despite the bleatings of members opposite is genuinely fairer for everybody and gives people more hope to the point where the vast majority of taxpayers in my electorate—more than three-quarters of them—are paying less than 20 percent in income tax. That is a terrific incentive to them. But these measures that the Minister of Finance has announced in this Budget are making a huge difference and will make a huge difference. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member does not need to wake up the House.TIM MACINDOE: As you have just rightly said this speech is so riveting that no one needs to be woken up. But I am really proud of what this Budget does for families. I want to say that I believe that this Minister of Finance will go down as one of the greatest Ministers of Finance of our lifetime. I want to say that I will go to my grave immensely proud to have been a member of the John Key - led National Government because we are delivering the things that matter to New Zealand because we are making real improvements across the board because people will be better off because things are getting better because things are getting fairer and because our achievements in health and education and across a range of areas are clear for all to see.That is what being in Government is about. That is why this Budget continues a very impressive record since the National-led Government came into office. That is why John Key and Bill English and their Ministers can all hold their heads up high. I say to them “job well done” and in a few minutes’ time I will have great pleasure on behalf of the Government in giving the confidence vote an emphatic expression of support because I know that it is felt not only on this side of the House but overwhelmingly throughout the country.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):It is a pleasure to speak as Labour’s last speaker in this Budget debate. I would like to thank Tim Macindoe for two things. The first thing is that he realised that well within 8 minutes of his own speech he would be asleep so he set himself an alarm. He set himself an alarm. He fell asleep but with 2 minutes to go Tim Macindoe’s alarm went off. That tells you the story of this Budget. This is a tired Budget from a tired Government that has fallen asleep not only just at the wheel but at the chief whip’s speech. Eight minutes into it he had enough. He had to set an alarm and that speaks volumes for this Government and this Budget. I would also like to thank Tim Macindoe and wish him well for his career post the 2017 election as a standby judge for Dancing with the Stars—as a standby judge for Dancing with the Stars. Because with his performance of scores out of 10—inaccurate by the way; inaccurate—that is pretty much all the chief whip for the House has got.Accuracy is something that is very important to me. I want to be accurate in the way that we have described this Budget. Some of my colleagues have said that this Budget lacks vision. I do not think that is quite precise. If your vision is that you can tax it you can sell it you can charge for it and you can make a profit out of it then this is the Budget for you. I thought I had seen everything in this Budget but to wake up this morning and to hear about this Government with its plans for social bonds I thought “This has gone too far.” This is a serious issue. This is a Government that wants to help people make profits out of the treatment of mental health patients. I have thrown some accusations at the National Government before but to think that this is not a good old-fashioned Tory Government when it wants to charge or help companies make profit out of mental health provisions in our communities—it shows you just how true Tory this Government is. It shows you just how true Tory this Government is.Where is the vision in this Budget for children in my electorate of Mana to dream to succeed? For those children who are vulnerable for those children who come from Housing New Zealand homes and private rental homes where their families are struggling there is no vision in this Budget. Let us look at those many thousands of constituents of mine who live in Housing New Zealand houses. Where is the vision for them? There is none. The only vision for those families is that this Budget allows this Government to sell off swaths of Housing New Zealand homes. I came from a State home too just like the Prime Minister who sits over there. I am proud to say I grew up in one. That State home let me get here. It was an anchor in my community. But that Government over there wants to take that away. That Government wants to take that away—to take that opportunity away from many of those families from many of those children who want a good affordable warm house to live in. Those members sit over there and they are quite happy to do that.Where is the vision for helping our families save? Well there is none. It is the eighth time in this Budget that this Government has taken a crack at KiwiSaver—the eighth time. All those 2.5 million people saw the benefit and the incentive of the $1000 kick-start that is now gone for anyone who has not already signed up. I made the point during the Budget debates that some of the members across the House have already signed up to KiwiSaver. I know we are not allowed to read speeches but for the purposes of accuracy I want to read the roll of honour of people who voted for getting rid of the KiwiSaver kick-start but who have probably already taken that $1000. So here it is: Amy Adams Todd Barclay Maggie Barry Andrew Bayly Chris Bishop Simon Bridges Gerry Brownlee David Carter Matt Doocey Sarah Dowie Te Ururoa Flavell Craig Foss Paul Foster-Bell Marama Fox Paul Goldsmith Jo Goodhew Joanne Hayes Brett Hudson Nikki Kaye Nuk Korako Barbara Kuriger Melissa Lee Tim Macindoe Todd McClay Ian McKelvie Mark Mitchell Todd Muller Jono Naylor Alfred Ngaro Simon O’Connor Hekia Parata Parmjeet Parmar Alistair Scott Scott Simpson Stuart Smith Lindsay Tisch Nicky Wagner Maurice Williamson Michael Woodhouse and Jian Yang.Those people have already signed up to KiwiSaver. They have signed up to KiwiSaver and they have got their $1000 but they are going to deny future generations of this country their incentive to start their KiwiSaver programme. They have taken your $1000—they are all sweet they are good but they are not going to let future generations of Kiwis sign up to KiwiSaver and have their incentive to start their savings regime from a very young age. My simple message that I will continue to say to that side of the House is “Give it back.” Give it back. Give it back. If you are quite happy to sit in this House and say that we do not need this anymore—that is not an incentive. There is not an incentive anymore to sign up to KiwiSaver. Give the money back. Give the money back. There is a deafening silence from that side of the House. There is a deafening silence.Is it not a strange strange coincidence that the first year of savings from getting rid of the KiwiSaver kick-start is about $175 million? What is Bill English’s proposed surplus for the next financial year? It is $176 million. So with one fell swoop getting rid of that KiwiSaver kick-start the Government has landed itself on a surplus. But hold on a minute. We have been here before. The Government has said that we will get to surplus. Again this is a Government that has said we are in surplus. It is a complete and utter fallacy that this Government has ever delivered a surplus. Again for the records and for accuracy it is not 9 nil; it is 9 negative 7. The Government has been there for 7 years and has not delivered one surplus. Government members sit over there saying that they are the great economic managers of New Zealand and this Government is working for a better New Zealand but they have not managed to deliver one surplus. This Government has not delivered one surplus. So in the interests of accuracy it is not 9 nil. I want it put into Hansard that the last Labour Government delivered nine surpluses and Bill English has not delivered one. In fact he is on negative 7—that is how bad this Government is.We were told just before the election that there would be no new taxes. Well in this Budget there are three new taxes. If you are going to go overseas and come back you are going to get charged a new tax. Of course the Government calls it a levy—let us google “levy”. Let us take the chance to google “levy” as the Prime Minister said. Is it a tax or is it not? Well that was the debate. Google “levy”—bang! It is a tax. If you go through the airport you are going to get charged $22. Were Kiwis told about that? No. If you have got a broadband internet connection or you are a mobile user you are going to be paying a levy or tax on that. Also we can go into the debate about a capital gains tax. The list member from Palmerston North has already said it is a capital gains tax when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister said it was not.This is a tired Government. This is a tired Budget. It is a tired Budget from a tired Government that has fallen asleep at the wheel. I want to thank Tim Macindoe. We had to wait 15 hours to get to the truth and his alarm went off because he himself had fallen asleep. That is what happened 8 minutes through the speech—I think he was probably asleep for 15 hours especially through his own members’ contributions. This is a Budget that lacks vision. It is not tackling the real issues that matter to Kiwis. They are around housing—and if you want to know our plan make sure you do something about investing in Housing New Zealand and building some houses. Nick Smith would not know a thing about that. I would love to go to one of Nick Smith’s consent-warming parties because that is all he has delivered. That is all he has delivered. In education we are seeing Government members crowing about extra investment. The Government cut the education budget. What we have seen today—and this is a serious issue—in health is where this Government’s real DNA lies. It wants to help people make profit out of looking after people with mental illness. Is that the kind of Government that New Zealanders want? I do not think so. We know what is going to happen there: the easy cases get taken and the profit gets made and those that are too hard get left and nothing is done with them. That is the real DNA of this Government. This is a tired Government. It has run out of ideas and is asleep at the wheel and Tim Macindoe’s alarm clock absolutely confirmed that.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):That speech was better than Andrew Little’s. It was energetic by comparison. It had a lot of insight and vision by comparison. And it had more support in the Labour caucus by comparison.It is a pleasure to be able to stand and wind up this Budget debate. What a good Budget it was. I want to acknowledge the National Party team and our coalition partners because that team put together in somewhat trying circumstances a Budget that many New Zealanders are pleased with. In the last week or so I have been out giving speeches and presentations about the Budget and actually it did not matter whether I was speaking to iwi Pasifika businesses the social sector the education sector or the finance sector they all thought the Budget was good—the whole lot! They all thought it was good even when they disagreed with us because even when they disagree with us they can see that the Government is grappling with the broad economic and social challenges that they think a Government should be dealing with and they pay us the respect of engaging and giving us alternative arguable propositions—not just whingeing. The Labour Party should be worried because a lot of those people are on the face of it Labour supporters and Labour voters. I want to come back to that.As we have said for some time the outlook for the economy is positive in this Budget with moderate growth consistent job creation and increases in incomes year on year—2 to 3 percent; moderate but sustained. And the Government’s economic policy some of which is expressed through further measures in the Budget is to support the sustainability of that economic growth. There are some potential imbalances—the housing market in Auckland for instance—but there has been a series of measures over the last month that take the Government’s efforts further towards achieving a balance between supply and demand.In the Budget the Government has laid out further its progress on how to control Government spending which amounts to a view that if the Government does its job better then it will need to spend less. We do not measure the Government’s success in its own business by the fact that it spends more all the time because more Government expenditure is often a signal of failure not of success. It happens because the last 15 programmes did not work.In the face of that Budget the Leader of the Opposition got up and gave one of the worst Budget reply speeches that we have heard.Hon Paula Bennett: The worst.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well no to be fair some of the others of the four previous Labour leaders were pretty bad. Honestly they were. The real question is: why was it such a bad speech? He made one mistake among many—probably the biggest mistake—and that is—Hon Maggie Barry: Standing up.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well standing up—that was a bit of a problem but at least he got to sit down at the end. That fixed that problem. No his other big mistake was listening to Grant Robertson. It really was because Grant Robertson—Hon Paula Bennett: Other leaders have too.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well other leaders have made the same mistake and look what has happened to them. In fact Grant is probably surprised how quickly his strategy is working. It has worked three times before and they are all on the bench over there and there is room for one more I am sure.One of the reasons why he gave such a bad speech is actually that Labour members do not have anything to say. Look it is not what the Government says about Labour that is most devastating for Labour members it is what they are saying about Labour. Here is a question that every heartland Labour supporter is asking: why did the Labour Government not put benefits up when it had the biggest surpluses a Government has ever had? Why did it not? Why did it not put benefits up? Every Labour caucus member was asking themselves that question. It is not our doubts about Labour that are going to be so hard on this Labour Party through a long cold winter; it is Labour’s doubts about Labour. Because if Labour could not put benefits up for the poorest when it had the money what is Labour for? The conclusion that we came to long ago—which Labour voters are starting to come to now—is that it is not for anything in particular.I will give them one reason why Labour did not put benefits up: it was because the political judgment of its previous leadership was that no one trusts Labour on welfare. They see the Labour Party as a one-way cash machine. It takes the money—the fruits of successful capitalism—and uses it to buy political power. That is the modern Labour Party and how it is perceived and the previous Government leadership was right. That is why it did not put benefits up. It knew that Labour would lose votes if it did. And now we have the irony of a National Party that can put benefits up and we will win votes because we have. We will win votes. Why? Because we do not treat the lowest-income people like meat to be ground in our political machine. Most of them do not vote or will not vote and certainly will not vote for us.But the New Zealand public trusts us with their money. That is what it comes down to. People who are working in the cold weather today who at the end of the week pay over their PAYE will vote National because they know that we will use that money responsibly and when we are alleviating hardship in the lowest-income families we will treat those families with the respect of creating some kind of reciprocal obligations. We will think about requiring them to turn up to a work test because we think they are capable of work. The Labour Party never thought that they were capable of work. It treated them as if they were helpless. The public knew that and believed that if Labour gave them more money through their benefits it would make dependency worse not better. And that is the question that Labour members are asking themselves. What are they for if they could not lift the incomes of the lowest-income New Zealanders?It is summed up in their argument against social bonds today. There is not an enterprising innovative lefty in the developed world who is not excited by the possibilities of social bonds. If you are a social enterprise if you are green if you know about Grameen Bank if you have been in the development unit of some UK local council you are pumped up and wanting to do it. One group of left-wing politicians in the whole world is against it.Hon Steven Joyce: Who are they? Who’s that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The New Zealand Labour Party. It simply sums up the political time warp that they are in. This lazy Labour Party this uninspiring Labour Party this Labour Party that sucks hope from those who need it most has been waiting around to be able to say “The nasty Tories cut everything. Vote for us; we’re kind and caring.” It is not happening so they are marooned. They do not know what else to do. They have not done any of the intellectual work to test themselves so they have nothing to contribute to the issues—more tax deductibility for research and development credits or something is about their only policy; and they have had that same policy for six elections. It is not just about the broader economy; it is worse than that because they have nothing to contribute in areas where they are supposed to be the experts. They are meant to be the defenders of low-income New Zealand. They have nothing to say about social investment except “Don’t do it.” They have nothing to say about social bonds except “Don’t do it.” They have nothing to say about the reform of State housing except “Don’t do it.”The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat all the words after “that” be deleted and replaced with “this House has no confidence in a government which has failed to deliver the jobs the incomes or the surplus they promised; squandered the economic golden weather; failed to diversify our economy; failed to fix the housing crisis; neglected regional New Zealand; and is tired out of touch and out of ideas.”.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member will resume his seat. I just want to remind members of the very good ruling last week from my colleague Assistant Speaker Tisch as to what happens to members who interject during party votes.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.