Foss Craig: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoss Craig: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 21 May 2014. Volume:699;Page:18217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): On the day of Shane Jones’ valedictory the Greens have just given us two speeches to show exactly why he is leaving a potential Labour-Greens Government. That is an absolute prime example of a party over there with policies that are anti-growth anti-jobs under the guise of some nice green environmental wording but is actually so far to the left so devolutionary of our aspirations for our country that I do not know where to start.We note that in the Greens’ version of the Budget if they did it there would be printing presses involved because that is how they would find the money. They would get a printing press out and print money. They are against water storage and irrigation schemes across the country not just in the example of theRuataniwha Dam which the previous speaker Julie Anne Genter was talking about there. They are against oil and gas exploration around our country. They live in this conspiracy land. How do they solve the housing problem and its issues? Well I remember Metiria Turei talking about crashing down the equity that people have in their existing homes. They want to do a Green Investment Bank. Where is the capital for this bank coming from? From the printing press from domestic savings—there is a wee problem there—or from the offshore savings from evil foreign lenders to New Zealand? Where is it coming from?They have the audacity to talk about bringing tourists here and then are anti fossil fuels. How are the tourists going to get here I do wonder? They talk about jobs in the regions such as Hawke’s Bay. They rally against free-trade agreements for an exporting region such as Hawke’s Bay a country such as New Zealand and yet they talk about jobs in the regions. They were talking about water standards. Where were they supporting the previous Labour Government to help modernise New Zealand’s freshwater standards to bring in minimum standards? Where were they when we needed standards around oil exploration off our shores?I do note my colleague Mr Shane Jones’ valedictory tonight. What an excellent speech and what an entertainer and I am quite sure just quietly that some of the members opposite are probably going: “Oh maybe we made the wrong decision.” On a personal note I will miss Mr Jones. I do count him as a parliamentary friend. I do acknowledge that we had a couple of great times together particularly on our US trip together as part of the New Zealand – USA Friendship Group the Parliamentary Rugby Team and particularly on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We had a lot of fun.Actually Mr Jones is not the only person shunning Labour. He is not the only person leaving Mr Cunliffe and Labour because up in theWairarapa Tukituki and Napier all three of the Labour candidates there are actually refusing to go on the Labour list. They are refusing to go on the Labour list. Why? How can that be? Which of Labour’s policies must they not want to be a party to? Perhaps it goes way back to MrCunliffe’s sacking of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Perhaps it goes back to Labour’s banning Facebook policy. Perhaps it goes back to its policy of banning friends and families of migrants to New Zealand. Perhaps it is just something to do with the man ban. Perhaps those three candidates who are choosing not to go on the Labour list and who are therefore choosing not to campaign for Labour Party policies do not want to have anything to do with the Greens. That is fair enough. Perhaps they do not want to have anything to do with Hone Harawira in a potential Government. Perhaps they do not want to be part of policy that is essentially anti-job anti-growth anti - New Zealand although it might make a few nice headlines.It is the party vote that decides the Government. It is the party vote. It is the party vote. It is the party vote. How and why candidates from the major Opposition party in New Zealand are choosing not to follow Labour Party policy on the party list I cannot understand. But I have seen this before and I have seen the results of it before. As a candidate for the Nats in 2002 I know that our organisation was not in the best shape. There were a few issues and individual candidates tried not to be on the list and ran localised campaigns. And do you remember the result? Worst result National has ever had. I am quite sure that Labour is well on that way and we are seeing that play out in the regions with its candidates.This was an excellent Budget. It is a continuation of the excellent and prudent management of our economy. A surplus has been reached. After the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update of 2008—just 6 years after that—there is a surplus of $382 million which is apparently a trifling amount according to the Opposition parties. Actually it is quite a significant amount I would suggest. What does that surplus mean? It means lower interest rates for longer—lower interest rates for longer—because of a National Government and Bill English’s Budget discipline over the last 6 years. How do we get to that surplus? What does it mean? It means more oxygen in the economy for the real job-makers out there. The size of Government to the economy is now about 30 percent and heading lower and better public services are being delivered all the time across crime health education—you name it—even though times have been tight. That is how you do things better. That is how you deliver better outcomes.It is curious that Mr Parker the Labour finance spokesman says Labour would have got to surplus anyway. How would it have done that with the decade of deficits forecast in 2008 with its existing policies and then with voting against every single measure of reform and cost-saving and budget leading up to this surplus? How could Labour have got to surplus if it voted against all those things and with the various policies it seems to be rolling out now? It is quite curious. Another curious thing is that Mr Cunliffe in his speech talked about Labour charging and targeting full employment—fair enough an aspirational goal. But then not long after that he said: “We are targeting 4 percent unemployment.” not full employment—zero—but 4 percent. Contradictory—what is he up to? I do not know. The surplus is very good for our families our country and our exports.Just to talk quickly about my broadcasting portfolio I note that the Opposition spokesman spoke and actually did not even mention broadcasting. I was quite surprised about that. A very good announcement today was that over 500000 hours of Television New Zealand archives will be transferred from Television New Zealand to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and the Department of Internal Affairs to be made accessible to New Zealanders online. That is National’s ongoing commitment to public sector broadcasting—the preservation of what we have already and making accessible stuff that has already been paid for and is owned by the taxpayer. That is actually what a better public service is. We continue to allow Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand to seize the opportunities in front of them in the challenging digital environment. The speech from the Chief Executive Officer of Radio New Zealand Paul Thompson the other day should be widely read by MPs in the House and particularly by Opposition spokespeople for broadcasting. It shows the ability of our publicly owned public sector broadcasters to begin to adapt to this very challenging and new but exciting environment.Where is Labour’s position on this? Labour’s position—and probably the Greens’ position; probably the Greens’ position would be worse—is that Labour wants to control what you watch when you watch and how you watch. That is what it would do. It is stuck in the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation one model. Labour memberstalk about building a new channel for goodness’ sake when the entire world is moving away from traditional channels because it is about content content content. We should be blind as to how it is delivered as long as it is produced got out there and Kiwis can access it.How would Labour pay for this new channel? Well it is putting a levy apparently on information and communications technology providers—i.e. internet companies. Internet providers in New Zealand will be taxed. Labour goes back to its natural position of: “If it is moving we should tax it.” Let us ban Facebook as part of that and tax the internet within New Zealand to pay for the traditional mode of broadcasting to build this new Labour channel it is talking about. It is absolute madness—absolute madness. Labour is very much in a New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation time warp. National is digital looking forward working forwardfutureproofed and looking to help New Zealand - owned organisations Government and otherwise seize the opportunity to tell New Zealand’s stories across the world. Thank you.