Bishop Chris; Hipkins Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS BISHOP (National): I have got to say a couple of things about Chris Hipkin's speech—that was a much better speech than Andrew Little gave this afternoon in the Budget reply. It was actually funny at times. It was actually energetic. It was actually relevant to the bill we are debating and he actually made the time—he got to 10 minutes. The most amazing thing about Andrew Little's speech in the Budget reply this afternoon is that when he got to 17½ minutes—he had already run out of puff about 5 minutes in—he sat down. That was it. After 9 years—and we are up to the fourth Leader of the Opposition—there was bluster and anger and hostility from the Opposition. He got to 17½ minutes and he sat down. That is all they have got to say about the Budget. I thought it was pathetic but well done to Chris Hipkins. It was actually not a bad speech. It was full of factual inaccuracies like the fact that we have cut early childhood spending even though it has doubled in the last 8 years—full of factual inaccuracies—but at least it was a good attempt.The Labour Party's attitude to this bill and to the overall Budget is pretty weird I have got to say.Brett Hudson: Disgraceful.CHRIS BISHOP: It is disgraceful as my colleague Brett Hudson says. And it is pretty weird because there is actually a degree of consensus in the House a reasonable degree of consensus that what this bill does—which is deliver tax relief and more money into the back pockets of hard-working families particularly those under housing stress—is a good thing. There is consensus that that is a good thing and that is what the bill does. That is why the Greens have taken a courageous political decision a principled decision and I want to congratulate James Shaw and Marama Davidson and Metiria Turei on that decision to vote for it because it must have been tough with the memorandum of understanding about being partners in fiscal responsibility—the hilarious pledge. I call them the partners in fiscal irresponsibility given their history in Government. But it must have been tough for them to—[Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am loath to interrupt the member but there has been interjection from this side. And quite honestly we listened to the last member talk about people's backsides in limousines the talent squad and all the rest of it. Quite honestly one side asked for it and I think the other side is going to give it to them.CHRIS BISHOP: It must have been tough for the Greens to make that decision. But they have made that decision and good on them—good on them. Good on New Zealand First as well for taking the courageous stand to vote for this piece of legislation. So the Labour Party looks very isolated tonight and we know that it has caused a bit of unhappiness in the coalition opposite. There is a bit of testiness between the parties and they will have to resolve that in the coming weeks and months but good on the Greens for doing it.The Labour Party says that this is a bribe and that just sums up so much does it not? The attitude of the Labour Party to New Zealanders' own money: it is a bribe. We could not possibly have a situation where New Zealanders get to keep a bit more of their own money where they have to work a bit less every year before they start handing over to the New Zealand Government to spend that money for them. That just sums up so much of the attitude of the Labour Party to how New Zealanders should view their own money.Then we hear the classic. The classic is that this is a Budget and this is a bill that just helps the rich. Well I have got to say that this is the most laughable and hysterical claim. There are 154000 families in the lowest quintile—that is the lowest quintile; the bottom 20 percent—who will benefit on average by more than $35 per week up to almost $2000 per year. That is not a Budget that helps only the rich. It lifts 20000 households in severe housing stress above that threshold. That is not a Budget that helps only the rich. It reduces the number of children and families receiving less than half the medium wage by around 50000 people—50000 children—and Labour is opposed. Jacinda Ardern to give her credit recognised that that is one of the measures that people often use to measure child poverty. That is one of the measures that people use and the Labour Party has used it itself.On the Government's own numbers this lifts those kids out of poverty to the tune of 50000 children per year and that is why the Child Poverty Action Group which I think all members would agree is not traditionally a friend of this Government—in fact it was not actually a friend of the last Labour Government either when it came to the in-work tax credit; but anyway it is a not a friend of the Government—said that these moves must be encouraged. And I do not want to be accused of misleading the House because most of the press release was fairly critical but it basically said: You should have gone further. You should have lifted more children out." We would disagree on some aspects of what it said but it did say that these moves must be encouraged.Overall 1.3 million families benefit to the tune of on average $26 per week. This is not a Budget that helps only the rich. This is not a Government that does that. It was this Government in 2015 that raised benefit levels for the first time in 43 years. It was this Government that did that. It was a National-led Government that did that not a Labour Government. It was a National-led Government that did that. We were only able to do that because of the strong hard work over the last 7 or 8 years under the leadership of John Key and now Bill English—the strong economic plan we have been delivering that has been raising wages creating jobs and now gives the Government the fiscal headroom to deliver to those who need it most. That is exactly what the Budget does and that is exactly why I am very proud to vote for it.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek leave to table the results of an opinion poll in Wainuiōmata that shows that five out of six voters were voting Labour and the only voter the Wainuiomata News could find who was going to vote National was Chris Bishop.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wonder whether the member can confirm that it actually exists or has it yet to be done? [Interruption] Leave is put for that purpose. There is objection. Well that is a bit of a shame because I was looking forward to reading it.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): It appears that Mr Bishop is hurt that the Labour Party is not praising his tax policy enough. We have already heard from Jacinda Ardern acknowledging that the Working for Families changes are acceptable. We are not going to heap praise upon the Government for those changes because previously a few years ago the Government stripped $500 million out of Working for Families entitlements. We are not going to heap praise upon you Mr Bishop in that but we are not opposed to them.What we are opposed to is this very poorly targeted tax cut. And it is poorly targeted. Our tax policy when you see it will be better. Your tax policy does not take effect till next year—till next year. Why would we vote for this when we know that we have got something that is better? The size of these tax cuts is not dramatic. The size of these tax cuts is less than 1 percent of GDP. The size of these tax cuts is not dramatic. What is the problem with them then? The problem actually is not the size of them. The problem is the targeting. A multimillionaire who does not need a cent who has been getting huge increases in income under the inequality that grows under this Government gets a higher tax cut than the low paid. It is so obvious that I cannot understand how Bill English and Steven Joyce missed it because it is so clear. As Chris Hipkins has pointed out if you are on the minimum wage without children you get a dollar a year. That is a lot of people in the hospitality sector. That is cleaners. These are the lowest-paid people. If you want to use the words "tax relief"—Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about the accommodation supplement?Hon DAVID PARKER: I will come to the accommodation supplement. Actually I will divert into that. There is no area of policy that the housing Minister who just asked about it has bungled more than the accommodation supplement. When the Government came to power in 2008 the accommodation supplement cost $890 million per annum. A year and half out from here it is going to cost $1.5 billion—$1.5 billion. Why has that area of welfare expenditure exploded? It is because of appalling policy by the National Government made worse by this Budget increasing the subsidy that is available to be paid to landlords. This will bid up rents and it will hold up house prices to the detriment of first-home buyers. That is basic economics. The National Government should hang its head in shame that the cost of the accommodation supplement has risen from $891 million in 2008 to $1.5 billion after this Budget goes through.In respect of other areas I have talked about how someone on the minimum wage gets only a dollar a year but it is not fair for middle-income people. Why should the electrician get the same amount as the multimillionaire? The multimillionaire should not get the same as the electrician. It is just not right.Hon Dr Nick Smith: He does not get the accommodation supplement.Hon DAVID PARKER: What is that?Hon Dr Nick Smith: The millionaire will not get the family support increases and will not get—Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh he does not get the accommodation supplement. Right. His defence of this is that the multimillionaire does not get the accommodation supplement. Oh poor multimillionaire with numerous houses rented out to people who is receiving the accommodation supplement for every one of their houses in Auckland! Oh the poor multimillionaire! That was the housing Minister—my goodness.In respect of Mr Joyce he boasts about spending. Why is this spending necessary? It is because of one of the highest rates of net migration in the Western World. In fact I think there is only one country that has got a higher rate and we are playing catch-up.The health services have not been funded enough. The schools have not been funded enough. The roads have not been funded enough. In respect of infrastructure I want to quote what the "Minister of Spin" Steven Joyce said. I paid attention to this in his Budget statement because I thought it seemed strange. This is a quote: "We are in the process of building more new hospitals and schools than New Zealand has seen in generations." It is just not true. I was sitting next to Annette King. She listed all the hospitals that we had built from Kaitāia to Invercargill—both new hospitals. Auckland City Hospital was built by the last Labour Government. That was the most expensive capital building project ever in the history of New Zealand for anything—by the last Labour Government. There was a new hospital in Wellington and in the area where I was then an MP a new hospital in Dunstan.It is just untrue what Minister Joyce said that this is somehow some new record building of hospital infrastructure and that it was similar for schools. And then he listed down—as if he should be proud of it—$763 million for new prison capacity not many years after the former Minister of Finance now Prime Minister Bill English said that prisons were a "moral and fiscal failure". How can he turn from that to being proud of wasting another $763 million on a new prison?And what about the state of the economy? We have heard virtually no talk about that from the National Government because it is truly appalling when you strip out the effects of immigration. The Government is spruiking growth by these high rates of immigration. Take that out and per capita growth is less than 1 percent. Productivity growth is pathetic. It is pathetic. It is terribly low. It is no wonder because all of the money is going into trading houses—not new houses but trading existing houses at ever-higher prices—instead of being invested in export industries.So what is happening? Well wages are stagnant. We know many people do not have a wage increase keeping up with inflation never mind housing costs. But what is happening in the underlying economy? In 2008 the Government's objective was to lift exports from 30 to 40 percent of GDP. What has happened? Well at the moment they are down to 27.8 percent. That is after 9 years of National. The Government's target was to lift exports from 30 percent; they have gone backwards to 27 percent. So what do you think their forecast is? At the end of the forecast period it is even worse—26.2 percent. By that time National would have been in Government—thank goodness it will not be—for 13 years. What did we hear about that in the Budget? Nothing. Instead we got this risible target about the percentage of exports—which will be going down as a percentage of the economy—that are being sold into countries that we have got free-trade agreements with. That is not a silly ambition but it is not one that is ambitious for New Zealand.I will not talk about housing. I mentioned a little bit about the accommodation supplement and my colleague Phil Twyford is talking about this but you really do have to question whether in reality this is a real surplus as the Government says it is. There is no contribution to the Cullen fund even though we know that the Government should be putting $2 billion a year into it. Not one cent. It keeps putting it on the never-never. It says it still believes in it but after 9 years in Government not one cent came into Government. It keeps piling up the bills for the next generation just like in climate change. You know since the Budget has been delivered I have had a call from someone in one of the foreign affairs areas and they say they think this shows the Government is just all talk; it is stalling it is not doing anything material and those bills are piling up for the future.So the next generation—they are the ones who are working for the minimum wage in hospitality. They get a dollar a year. As Chris Hipkins has said they have also got student debt. They have got the unaffordable housing and the dropping homeownership rate they have got this future where New Zealand is not paying its way in the world because our exports are dropping and if you do not think that is right well—National can you tell me what the rate of savings is in the next few years in the Budget? Can anyone over there tell me how much we are saving as a country? No—I cannot hear a word; they cannot. Well what is it? It is minus 2.2 percent—it is minus 2.2 percent—of household disposable income next year. And what is it the year after that? It is negative. And what about the year after that? It is negative.So for the next 3 years household savings are negative and we are meant to say we are going to vote for this legislation as a symbol of success on the part of the National Government. Exports are going back. Households are getting poorer because they are dissaving; they are not saving. And National thinks: "Oh this is great progress." We are having to double the subsidy in their housing accommodation supplement and the housing Minister expects me to say that is good news. We are voting against this bill because it is indicative of a poor Budget."