Smith Nick: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 01 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11563. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am delighted to join in this Budget debate—the 26th that I have participated in as a parliamentarian—which if you look at the core economic statistics is the best Budget in a generation. It does not matter whether you look at the issue of the balancing of the books whether you look at job growth whether you look at income growth whether you look at the state of the Government’s level of debt or whether you look at the issue of inflation. I challenge members opposite to tell me a Budget in the last 25 years that has had a better set of core economic statistics than Bill English’s 2016 Budget.Let me go through each of them.Economic growth—3.3 percent 2.6 percent 2.8 percent—3 strong years both now and into the future. Tell me an OECD developed country that has its economy growing stronger than ours. I can remember Budget after Budget after Budget in this Parliament where we have had depressing numbers about our economy scratching to make 1 percent growth let alone those strong numbers.Let us look at the issue of jobs. When I came to this Parliament unemployment in New Zealand was 11 percent. We all know that there are countries in the world right now—the US Europe—where unemployment numbers are up at 10 11 12 15 percent. There are countries where 25 percent of young people are unemployed. And what this Budget shows is that not only is unemployment set to go lower than 5 percent but also over the next 4 years there will be another 170000 jobs in our country. I again challenge the members opposite: show me a Budget in the last 25 years that has been as strong in terms of job growth.Let us look at the issues—the hard issues—around living within one’s means. I have sat in this House so often listening to Budget debates that are riddled with red ink—billions and billions of dollars of deficits right through the 1990s. Look at those Budget figures in 2009 when Treasury said this country was going to run deficits for the next 10 years. Let us look at that Budget figure only 5 years ago when the Budget presented in this House had a deficit of $17 billion.I say to Mr English that to deliver a Budget balance last year again this year and next year is a stunning result and so too are those future surpluses that are going to give this country choices.Dr David Clark: You borrowed more than Muldoon.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And then take an issue—the member raises the question of debt. When I came to this Parliament this country had debt of over 90 percent of GDP—90 percent. What this Budget shows is debt levels of 25 percent. Do you know what—Hon Annette King: Who got it down?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well Annette King asked this question. Do you know what level of debt for New Zealand was projected by Treasury when I picked up my ministerial warrant and joined Cabinet in 2008? It said that New Zealand’s debt in this year 2016 was going to be 110 percent of GDP—110 percent of GDP. Annette King it was your legacy and Bill English has it down to 25 percent. I challenge the members opposite and say: tell me the country in the OECD that has got a lower level of debt than New Zealand because now it is even lower than Australia which was the gold standard. Again I say to Bill English congratulations.In so many Budgets that I have been a part of the big debate has been regarding the cost of living—the cost to a Kiwi family of paying their food bill of paying for basic costs of living. When we came into Government Annette King inflation was running at 5 percent. What did that mean? That meant that families were going backwards by 5 percent per year. Bill English has presided over an economy that has the lowest level of inflation in 50 years at only 0.4 percent. I say that that is what you get with good economic management.Equally I remember so many Budgets where the big debate was interest rates. Why do interest rates matter? I will tell you why: because for families struggling to pay their mortgage for farms and for businesses that are wanting to invest in growth in jobs interest rates matter a heck of a lot. Why are we not debating about interest rates? That is because they are at the lowest level in 40 years and that is good for Kiwi families and that is good for Kiwi businesses.And at the same time I thought the gall of Grant Robertson to say that there was nothing in this Budget for health. Well let me tell him something. This Budget provides for bowel cancer screening. I have had people die—mates die—from bowel cancer. There are hundreds of New Zealanders every year who die from bowel cancer and this Budget is going to provide a screening programme that is going to save over a hundred Kiwi lives a year. I say that is good news. And I say that the extra $70 million for Pharmac which is going to enable this country to have more drugs so that we can prevent diseases so that we can save New Zealanders’ lives is good news.I openly acknowledge that because New Zealand’s economy is doing so well tens of thousands of Kiwis are voting confidence in New Zealand and moving back to our country. That is true and that is putting pressure on housing. But here is the real question: which Government has the wherewithal to deal with the root causes that are so pertinent to the issues of housing? I had to agree with Phil Twyford when he said 2 weeks ago that the most important issue around housing is land supply—on that we agree absolutely. Here are the numbers: over the last 25 years the price of a section in Auckland has gone from $100000 to $450000 and if the section costs $450000 of course there will not be an affordable home built on that section. So if this Parliament is serious about dealing with Auckland’s housing issues we have to deal with the issues that have sections in Auckland costing $450000.There is the problem. We on this side of the House are very clear on the solutions. That is why we are reforming the Resource Management Act. That is why we are driving a new Auckland Unitary Plan. That is why tomorrow we will be announcing a new national policy statement on the supply of land for housing. But here is the rub: for all the love fest that occurred yesterday between Labour and the Greens on the issue that Labour admits is the most fundamental to solving housing these guys—Labour and the Greens—are a hundred miles apart.The Green Party strongly believes in metropolitan urban limits. It is behind the policies that have seen section prices go stupid over the last 20 years. What I say to this Parliament is that the dysfunctionality on such a fundamental issue as metropolitan urban limits and housing shows that Labour and the Greens do not have the solution. They can have all the exchanges of roses in a Bachelor-style episode—[Interruption]—but they need to resolve Annette King the fundamental policy issues like Resource Management Act (RMA) reform and metropolitan urban limits if we are to deliver long-term sustainable solutions around housing.So I simply challenge Labour members opposite: are the Greens on the same page as you on scrapping metropolitan urban limits? Are they on the same page in respect of the requirements to reform the RMA where they now recognise the requirements for reform? Because the truth is that members opposite are all talk on housing but actually around the core issues that we need to address they have no idea and they have not resolved fundamental issues like land supply which are critical to finding the solution long term for Kiwi families.