Foss Craig: Debate on Budget Policy StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFoss Craig: Debate on Budget Policy Statement[Sitting date: 09 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9536. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): The previous speaker Fletcher Tabuteau was very interesting—well maybe for 30 seconds. I just note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the Budget Policy Statement unless I find a minority report in here—actually I am sure that member sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee or one of his party members does—is a unanimous report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement. So what the member has just said here—I cannot quite see perhaps I missed it. I welcome the member to point me to that bit where New Zealand First says it does not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) where New Zealand First says it is not supporting Christchurch where New Zealand First essentially says it is putting New Zealand last. I will come back to that in a minute.This is a very good report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee; it is almost as good as the glory days of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 2008-11—they were the days. They were the glory days and I see the members are working hard to bring themselves up to that awesome awesome level we had not too many years ago.The Budget Policy Statement is part of a series of documents of papers in and around the financial settings for the Government the BPS that we have here—not to be confused with the Better Public Services of course which is very strongly linked in here. The Budget itself the half-year update the full-year update—of course which is the Budget—and of course the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update which is also one of the very important series of documents in the transparency of the Government or taxpayers’ accounts across the country.The reason I raise the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and the half-year update is that the member theHon Annette King earlier seemed to be somehow dismissing the validity of some of the numbers that the National members were using in their speeches. There were examples such as endless debt debt going to 60 percent of GDP ongoing—a peeking out of revenue but an ongoing almost exponential growth in expenditure. Perhaps some members are forgetting something from a few years ago or perhaps they are new—just go have a look members at the pre-election update of October 2008. Have a look at that document which actually makes the half-year update not long after that more sober reading.That was a document that described and noted that New Zealand had been in recession as we all knew for 1 year prior to the global financial crisis—and of course the global financial crisis the rampant inflation and the rampant interest rates caused by prolific spending and out-of-control Ministers and ministries across Government resulted in a chaotic economy which National did inherit. Admittedly yes that was a good few years ago now but we are still dealing with the consequences of it.When small businesses talk to me—or even just households New Zealanders talk about their mortgage. Many floating mortgages are now sub-5 percent. It does not take much to remind them of the cost to them their family their home their business. A 10-plus percent mortgage was a devastating cost for their family for their confidence for their business. Just imagine listeners and those watching if your mortgage suddenly went to about 10 percent because that is what it was not that long ago. The policy settings still favoured by the Opposition resulted in 10-plus percent mortgages for you and your family.Another member was talking about GDP growth over the Labour term. I am not sure whether he was talking net real—I think he was talking gross because when you have got 5 percent inflation which we had under the Labour Government and we are in recession or near recession for a good few years I am not sure how we would get to the astronomical figures that he was describing.Other members have talked about Christchurch and Christchurch has been blamed or something—this Government does not blame Christchurch for one thing one iota. This Government stands beside Christchurch; we continue to stand beside Christchurch be it economically morally fiscally and we are doing all that we can to rebuild that city. Members opposite seem to think: “Well because the earthquakes weren’t last year therefore Christchurch—it’s all over.” Actually in these documents we are debating in the Budget Policy Statement page 6 has a table called “Net earthquake expenses”. Members may be interested in that. The total half-year update net earthquake expenses that this Government has stood beside Christchurch are $17 billion.So when members opposite are rattling off emotional debt numbers etc.—yes much of that has been borrowed to fund that. That is absolutely right. Go down to Christchurch members opposite and tell them that no if you were in Government you would not have done the same. Go down and look at those people in Christchurch and tell them you would not have done the same.The half-year update in October 2008 which was the last time we could test the Opposition’s policy settings was not a pretty picture nor was it good reading at all. The National Party is the party for jobs. The National Party is the party for growth with our partner parties in Government helping drive better medium to long-term prospects for all New Zealanders regardless of their circumstances.It is for those reasons we are so supportive and so driving of free-trade agreements. It is for those reasons that we stand on the free-trade agreements negotiated by Governments before us and previous National Governments. It is for those reasons we proudly used to have bipartisan support in this House across the two major parties National and Labour for job-enhancing growth-enhancing and opportunity-enhancing agreements for New Zealand. It is so sad for this Parliament and it is so sad for New Zealand’s opportunities and prospects that the Labour Party has walked away from that. It does not stand any logical test.My colleague Mr Bishop pointed out the agreement that we signed just the other day for international shipping. Labour’s arguments do not stand any logical test. They do not stand any historic test against say the China free-trade agreement which Labour so proudly—and good on them—initiated and signed which was ratified under this Government. It does not stand any test in comparison with another agreement because if we follow Labour members’ logic through we would tear up CER. Are they arguing that? Are they arguing that we should tear up other free-trade agreements?They seem to be supportive of the European free-trade agreement initiative but not this one. Why? Why is Phil Goff the only Labour MP to be given a dispensation to come out publicly and say he is supportive of the TPP? Why have the members opposite in the party that used to call itself the party for workers—when 40 percent of the jobs are in export regions around the country; they depend directly on exports—not been given dispensation to say they support their region they support they families in their region they support jobs in their region and therefore they will be supporting the TPP as they inherently know it is the right thing to do?Those who were in Government with the Rt Hon Helen Clark know it is the right thing to do. Those who are true to their convictions and are true to what they say know inherently it is the right thing to do. I challenge them to come out and actually stand and say why they are unable to support job-enhancing prospect-enhancing opportunity-enhancing agreements that they once along with most other parties in this Parliament stood and supported.The Opposition has recently come out with this thing called the Future of Work Commission. I was very interested recently to see that someone else had done this quite a long time ago. Mr Bishop will help me here. Mr Bruce Beetham—was it in 1981—came out with the original “future of work”. It makes interesting reading. I guess we are now in the future from 1981; not much of it has really turned out.So Mr Robertson and his colleagues are busy working out the future of work. Perhaps one of their colleagues over there will do a copy and paste job again and just pick up what Mr Beetham forecast back then.David Seymour: It wasn’t in digital format.Hon CRAIG FOSS: Yes it may be in a different format—perhaps a typewriter.The TPP political rhetoric from some members aside protesters aside—we all know and expect them to do their usual stuff; they are perfectly entitled to do that. But the moment they get in the way of other people’s democratic process the moment they try to shout down other people who are expressing their democratic desire and opinion they have lost the debate—and they have lost the debate.So I go back again. I ask I challenge New Zealanders and all MPs across New Zealand particularly those whose areas totally depend on the export prospects of this country to stand up to follow the lead of Phil Goff and to get a dispensation to be able to say to their people that they truly support the jobs and therefore the free-trade agreement. Thank you.