Scott Alastair; Tisch LindsayALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It gives me great pleasure to rise to support the Appropriation (2015/16 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I would like to talk not so much about the money or the amount of money that is listed in the documents but more about the results because they are what matter. It is the results that count. It is not a matter of numbers of dollars or even perhaps the number of police on the streets; what matters are the results. Reflecting on Mr Mark's comments about the police I was just thinking that my father retired from the police around 1990. He started probably around 1958 as a constable and jumping into a police car nowadays he would be just amazed at the technology and the efficiency and the change in the way that criminals and youth are dealt with from the way that he dealt with them back in the day. I have been in a cop car recently and they do amazing things. The technology has enabled results to be almost instant and with technology the results matter. I can also reflect on the town of Dannevirke where technology is used to get results and where they have put up closed-circuit television cameras in the town and that is getting results. That is reducing crime rates and enabling crime to be pushed out of Dannevirke and as we have seen in the results crime statistics are coming down. Fewer youths are going to prisons. These are important statistics because they affect the way that our communities act and behave in the future. Other results that matter: National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)—we have talked a little bit about NCEA results. Performance is increasing. More youths are passing NCEA level 2 than ever before. Particularly Māori and Pasifika are having a fantastic increase in results. Pharmac funding—increased Pharmac funding enables better results to be achieved for the likes of melanoma victims. Colon scanning is now going to be part of the health system rolled out in the first instance in the Wairarapa and the Hutt Valley. These are results that matter. We get these results because we have a strong economy. That economy is going to enable debt to fall. Forecast debt will fall below 20 percent of GDP. That is an important result. The percentage of Government involvement in the economy is also reducing enabling the private sector—New Zealanders—to take control of their own lives and their own destinies by having a greater part of the economy as the influence and the expenditure that the Government has reduces. We have already heard that new money from this side of the House at each Budget is about half of what the previous Government spent per Budget if you like. So approximately $3 billion a year of new funding was introduced each year by Labour and about $1.5 billion per year is the constrained and sensible amount of new money injected into the economy by this side of the House. The Minister of Finance has already talked about results in the social investment sector so we know that the results of the $1 million investment in kids are important. We need to identify these kids and invest in and wrap around those children because again they are going to be the future that we live in tomorrow. Once we can identify those kids we can invest in and care for those kids. We have already seen improvements in that future liability. That future balance sheet item has reduced and that is because of the investment we are making—and have been making—today. If a kid has had Child Youth and Family contact if mum and dad have been in jail or have been on the benefit for more than 5 years in the past or if the kid has left school early we know that that child is at risk. It is highly likely that that child will follow the parents' pathway and we need to arrest that. That is why we are focused on that end of the community and that is why we are getting results with the targeted—and my emphasis is on targeted—investment. We have had a few speakers before me and so far I have not heard of any alternative approach any better way forward from the Opposition today at least—except perhaps the 100000 houses. Build more houses" is the Greens' solution to the issue and of course there is the building 100000 homes programme from the Labour Party. But where are these buildings going to come from? Who is going to build them? Who is going to pay for them? Where will they be built? Those are fundamental questions. That is a $50 billion project. Let us say half a million dollars a house—that is a big programme and do we really expect the taxpayer to fund that? Do we really expect the State to get involved and with a snap of its fingers build 100000 houses? I do not think so. The other alternative policy that we have heard to solve some of these issues that we continually debate and have talked about this afternoon is the universal benefit idea where all the benefits are cut. Well there is an idea but again who is going to pay for the universal benefit that replaces the targeted social welfare system that we have today? With the universal basic income I and all of us here would receive about $11000. That wipes out all benefits for all people. But of course I do not need that fund. I am not in need of an extra $11000. To ignore all those people most in need is quite frankly a very poorly thought out policy from the Opposition. Again who is going to pay for the idea that there should be free tertiary education for anyone over 18? That is another "bums on seats" idea that is apparently going to educate everyone so that they are able to get high-paying jobs and more jobs. Of course again it is not targeted. There is no filter. There are no criteria. Anyone can turn up and sit on a seat at a university who has not previously been at a university or in tertiary education and spend taxpayers' money. You see that is the difference. This side of the House considers taxpayers' money when it invests when it decides where the money should be spent. It is not a lolly scramble on this side. It is not a free-for-all. We know there are limited resources. We are concerned for the taxpayers' money because we are all taxpayers. That is who we represent. We took at question time today the question around increasing paid parental leave. Yes we would all like to have our mums or dads have increased paid parental leave but there must be consideration as to the cost. As the Minister of Finance mentioned himself it is $25 a week going to every beneficiary family with children or something else. We have decided that the priority is to target those most in need. I was going to talk about Brexit actually. Mr Bishop talked about Brexit and how it had changed and I would reflect on when Margaret Thatcher got kicked out of Parliament. I was working in London at the time and there was chaos and calamity. This situation I do not think is going to be the same as back in those days. That is because the economy here today that we are lucky enough to be working in is a diversified economy. It is much more resilient it is much more flexible and there is much more understanding of what the economy does for the community. We do understand that having a strong economy is the only way that we can afford to invest in and support those most in need. This Appropriation Bill talks about where money flows and where it does not flow but really it is all about getting results and that is what we are targeted on on this side of the House. We want to leave more money in the taxpayers' pockets for them to decide to do what they wish to do with it to reduce Government debt over time and to reduce the Government's share of the economy over time. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes."