Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to this appropriations contribution this afternoon. I too would like to address some of the contributions made by the members opposite this afternoon and first of all and rightly so to address the statements by the Hon Amy Adams. She spoke about handing over a rock star economy. She spoke about how at the time GDP was fantastic and yes and on the surface 3 percent looks good. She spoke about—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Big surplus.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —wages and employment. Well actually Dr Nick Smith has spoken about employment. He spoke about the numbers but what he's failed to mention is the low wage rates of the time and the fact that people in our communities were not being able to share in the success of a few. So what did that party do at the time? Well they actually offered up tax cuts and they delivered tax cuts—Hon Dr Nick Smith: For the lowest band.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No Mr Nick Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was for the lowest band.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No not at all. At the time they made a decision to offer tax cuts when they knew that what we really needed was real spending in infrastructure in the people of New Zealand in the health sector in the education sector—in meaningful investment in the people of New Zealand. Unfortunately what we're seeing now Dr Nick Smith is evidence of the choices that you deliberately—forgive me Madam Chair—that that party deliberately made for superficial numbers on a page which spoke about surpluses. Those were the choices that party made to sell to the New Zealand public—numbers on a page.What we knew at the time and what New Zealand First particularly at this time said in contrast to the appropriations that we're looking at and debating this afternoon—in complete contrast to that—we said at the time that those surpluses were empty and meaningless. The Prime Minister now in the last few days has said in her own words—forgive me if I misquote but an approximation—We knew it was bad at the time but we didn't quite know how bad it was." That's what we're dealing with now Dr Nick Smith.The Hon Amy Adams spoke about well-being and then she kind of insinuated that "Be careful about how you look at well-being. If you look at the well-being of the people you might somehow stuff up the books." What? You know that party was the one who stuffed up the books and who didn't even want to look at the well-being of the people of New Zealand. They just wanted to sell numbers on a page—those surpluses.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just rubbish; we care about jobs.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Dr Nick Smith adamantly stood up in front of the New Zealand public and spoke about the quality of the New Zealand water and the rivers and the lakes that we swim in. He told us how fantastic that was and yet—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! I've already cautioned one member about straying from the topic.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Oh I apologise.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I apologise Madam Chair. I obviously didn't hear you in my furore.Hon Shane Jones: Fury.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Fury. Ha ha! Well in that case I apologise.Perhaps I'll just take this opportunity to speak to one of the examples of the appropriations and Solid Energy comes to mind. One of the lines in the report spoke about—forgive me but I think it was a $69 million write-off in these reports based on essentially the interference and the know-it-all nature of some of those members across the House. They thought they knew better. They thought they knew how to run a Government operation. And then because of that interference we found it—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! We have actually already discussed that sector. Solid Energy is not within this particular finance and Government administration sector.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: So instead then let me speak—oh I've only got eight seconds left. I would've loved the opportunity to attack Dr Nick Smith some more but life's like that. Thank you Madam Chair."