Martin Tracey: Debate on Budget Policy StatementText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Debate on Budget Policy Statement[Sitting date: 11 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2144. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Budget Policy Statement 2015 on behalf of New Zealand First. There have been some interesting comments made around what is in this Budget and what is not in this Budget. Earlier in the contribution by Mr Bennett there was a comment made around a statement attributed to New Zealand First and to the Rt Hon Winston Peters around spending on a particular road of national significance. I would like to remind people that there are seven roads of national significance—not just one; seven—on which the Rt Hon Winston Peters was addressing his statements.Now I would like to move on to the one road of national significance that is of a great deal of importance and the one road of national significance mentioned by Mr Bennett—that would be the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance. I would like to direct Mr Bennett to my maiden speech on 8 February 2012 and the advocacy I gave there to remind the National Party MP for Rodney of his commitment to advocate for the continuation of that project. But not just that project—inside any Budget then or now—for the retention of access at Pūhoi upon which he has remained silent. The people of Pūhoi had to themselves fight with Auckland Transport and with the New Zealand Transport Agency to make sure they would still be able to get to their homes off the end of the Northern Gateway.I would direct Mr Bennett to my social media page once I get to leave this House after the series of debates we are going to have where I will put up the number of speeches I have made in this House taking to task any member of this House who calls that road a “Holiday Highway”. I live in that area. I know the importance of that area and this road to it and so does New Zealand First. New Zealand First is highly aware that under previous Budgets and Budgets now Warkworth is going to be a satellite town of Auckland. In the next 20 years it is expected to go from 10000 dwellings to 30000 dwellings—and the infrastructure that is required there to cater for it as a satellite town of Auckland.We also know however and the reason why the review is mentioned is that not only were there seven roads of national significance but the other thing that is interesting and that is not mentioned inside any of these Budget documents is the fact that the people of Pūhoi and Warkworth and Snells Beach and Algies Bay and Kaipara pay a toll on the current Northern Gateway motorway. They will pay a toll under the projected project of the Pūhoi to Wellsford road. Yet at the same time Mr Jami-Lee Ross stands up in this Budget Policy Statement debate and says he will advocate and ask his Government to block Auckland Transport and the ability of Auckland Transport to make its own decisions around its own spending for all the areas of Auckland of which Warkworth is one of which Pūhoi is one and of which Wellsford and Te Hana are some. He will block them to bring back that investment under any Budget—bring back that investment and centre it on the city. Therein lies the interesting thing.I would direct anybody who would like to see the truth of statements made by New Zealand First to page 97 of our manifesto where we guarantee the farmers who are in Auckland we guarantee the farmers who are in Northland and we guarantee the farmers throughout the whole of New Zealand that unlike the Budget cuts that have been made to road subsidies or the reallocation of Budgets that have been made to road subsidies for rural areas we will make sure that every rural member every farmer and every producer inside those rural areas can get their produce to an appropriate form of transport on a road that has been well maintained. Page 97 has been there since prior to 2014. So I would direct Mr Bennett if he would like to actually educate himself instead of taking a researcher’s note and then deciding he knows what he is talking about to go and read the document.That is the first thing. I would also like to talk about some of the other areas of this statement. I mean it is very interesting inside the Budget Policy Statement report here that there is to be a reduction in spending from Budget 2015 by half a billion dollars. I think it is interesting with the announcement of $68 million worth of spending around transport. Where will there be cuts for this half a billion dollar saving? Where will that come from? Will it be another situation where Hill Street was placed on the backburner because no member of the National Government has the decency to go up there and actually sit down and talk to the people of Warkworth who have been advocating year upon year upon year—for decades—for that intersection to be amended? Colin Greenslade I acknowledge you.Is that where these cuts are going to come from? Is the Hill Street intersection once again going to be delayed because this Government has promised $68 million on bridges eight of which nobody actually identified prior to last week? Is that what is going to affect the people of Northland? Is that what is going to affect the people of Wellsford and Te Hana which sit in the Northland electorate? There were some other interesting comments. The Finance and Expenditure Committee heard that special housing areas are picking up speed and developers are getting the message that they need to act soon and start building houses.An interesting statement—an interesting statement. And of course it is the silver bullet for housing affordability apparently although the phrasing has changed now.It is no longer “affordable housing”. It is being referred to by the Minister in this document as “low-value housing”. What does that change? Where has that change come from? It is supposed to be affordable but now it has become low value. It starts to imply a lesser quality of house. Is that what we are aiming for? It starts to imply these things. Is that what we are aiming for? We found that a very interesting comment in the report.One of the things that we would be interested to know if it was recorded here at all—and the questioning to the Minister did not uncover it—is about land banking. We are aware of land banking taking place. These special housing accord areas for Auckland have been clearly identified—the first second and third tranche actually have been identified and commented on. What we know is that there is land banking going on in some of those areas. So although that unitary plan has not been secured large tracts of that land are being bought up and set aside. We would like to know what the Government intends to do about that and we would make the suggestion that it has some conversation about penalties if after a certain period of time these special housing accord areas are not built on because once the city comes to its maximum yet again housing prices will continue to rise.There were a couple of other interesting pieces in here like the conversation around foreign investment that is actually recorded in the statement. So it was suggested by the Opposition members of the select committee and it is recorded here in the select committee report that there be a cross-party audit of foreign investment in New Zealand over the decade. It says: “Some of us propose a cross-party audit of foreign investment in New Zealand over the decade since the Overseas Investment Act came into force.” The Minister did not think it was necessary—not necessary does not care do not worry never mind. That is what we are hearing about foreign investment and foreign ownership from this Government. Our question would be why the Minister made the statement that the Minister does not feel that it is necessary. There was an offer here for a cross-party audit. If there is no concern about what the Overseas Investment Office is doing if there is no concern about how that Act is actually being applied then there is no harm in doing a review. It has been over a decade since it has been in place. We review legislation consistently to make sure that it is timely that it is up to date that it deals with different things in the House.Why is this Government so frightened of actually partaking in a cross-party audit? If you want to make it independent then. What is the problem? What is so scary for the National Government that it does not want to review that piece of legislation? Before I finish my contribution I think it is worthy of note that our Crown debt is now $59.9 billion. It is worthy to note that it has doubled since 2010. This Government talks again and again and again about it being somebody else’s fault—it is circumstance’s fault or it is the fault of Portugal Ireland Greece and Spain; or it is Greece’s fault or Spain’s fault or somebody else’s fault. But at the end of the day it is the Government’s watch. At the end of the day this is its debt its watch. But the New Zealand taxpayer ends up having to pay for it over time. So although there is a hope and a prayer that we get into surplus there is nothing in here that gives New Zealand First confidence that this Government actually knows what it is doing.