Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): This is Steven Joyce's first Budget and I suspect the first Budget of many because what it does is deliver a trifecta of great things for this country: investment in public services investment in infrastructure as well as giving some money back to New Zealanders who need it most—those at the bottom of the heap—through tax cuts and through the accommodation supplement. We just heard a tired trite and platitudinous speech from the shadow Minister of Finance Grant Robertson. He says National is going straight back to the 1990s. Well Grant Robertson's political apprenticeship in the student unions was in the 1990s and I think he is obsessed with the 1990s. We often hear this from Grant Robertson: that this fifth National Government is just like the National Government of the 1990s. I think he is obsessed with it. He just runs the tired old lines that we have heard time and time again—things like: The Government's cut early childhood education spending." when the reality is that early childhood education funding has doubled under this Government participation is up—Sue Moroney: You cut the funding for qualified staff.CHRIS BISHOP: —achievements are up and the number of qualified staff is up Ms Moroney as well. We hear that there have been health funding cuts. As has been pointed out time and time again in this House it is a pretty strange definition of "cut" when it is actually a massive increase just not quite as much as you would like to have—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: A wish list.CHRIS BISHOP: That is what they describe as a cut. My colleague the Minister of Health points out it is a wish list. The reality is that health spending is massively up and also health results. Actually sometimes we do get confused a bit about the quantum of spending—we mistake that for intention and we mistake that for empathy and we mistake it for care. It is actually not always about the amount of money you spend. The spending the Government has done is up on health. It is up on education. It is up on the things that are important to New Zealanders. But actually fundamentally it is not about the magnitude.Alastair Scott: It's about results.CHRIS BISHOP: It is not about the absolute quantum; as Alastair Scott points out it is about the results. New Zealanders actually want results out of their Government. They want results out of their public services. They are the customers of the Government and very often they are the customers in a monopolistic situation. The Government is the only—or at least very nearly the only—provider. So it is really important the Government gets its own house in order and focuses on results. The good news is that health results are up: more elective surgeries more doctors and more nurses. Health results are getting better and it is the same with education.Then we hear the critique from Grant Robertson in his speech that this is a Budget that lacks the vision for the long term. This is just a classic critique. It is the thing you throw out there when you have run out of other things to say you know: "It just lacks vision. We need a vision." The Labour Party is obsessed with visions and plans and aspirations and dreams—things like that. "We need a vision you know. We just need a vision." Well actually this is a Budget that laid out a vision of the country and the contrast between the two parties—as we head into the regulated period and as we head into the election year—is a stark one. What the Budget laid out was a vision where we have a globally connected economy where foreign migration is welcomed into the country where foreign investment is welcomed into New Zealand and where New Zealand makes its way on the world stage as a trading globally connected country. Actually the Labour Party and the Green Party and definitely the New Zealand First Party stand against that vision. It was a Budget that laid out a vision for the country and it was a Budget that laid out the vision of returning more money to New Zealanders—more of their own money. The Labour Party says about tax cuts: "It's a bribe." That is its attitude. It really just sums up I think exactly how the Labour Party views New Zealanders and the role of the Government. If you say to New Zealanders that through tax threshold changes they can keep a bit more of their own money as this Budget does—particularly for those at the bottom end of the income spectrum—the Labour Party's attitude is that it is a bribe. But it is their own money; it is not Government's money. If they are allowed to keep a bit more of it it is a bribe. It is very difficult to bribe people with their own money but that is the Labour Party's attitude to it. So I reject absolutely that this Budget did not lay out a vision for the country. It laid out a clear vision.Sue Moroney: How's the free market going in Auckland Chris?CHRIS BISHOP: "How's the free market going?" says Sue Moroney. Well the free market is going pretty well actually. Sue Moroney should look at what free markets have done for the world. Free markets have dragged billions of people out of poverty. Free markets have raised living standards in China and India and numerous countries around the world. Free markets have made a more material contribution to the eradication of global poverty than anything else. Sue Moroney says: "Oh how's the free market going?". What an insightful remark into the attitude and the stupidity quite frankly of the modern-day Labour Party: what have free markets ever done for us! Well free markets have raised living standards around the world and have halved extreme poverty in the last 15 years. That is what free markets and free trade have done. Actually that is a very insightful comment about the Labour Party's attitude to trade because what this Budget does is invest in New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. It invests in our foreign affairs and trade department. [Interruption] Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! CHRIS BISHOP: It invests in our trade negotiators—[Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Wind it back a bit. CHRIS BISHOP: —and it invests in all the things that New Zealand needs to do to take advantage of globalisation. Steven Joyce in question time today talked about how New Zealanders are shaping globalisation to their own advantage and they absolutely are doing that. Whether it is Kaynemaile in Pētone and Lower Hutt Sanpro Industries across the road the exporters that Steven Joyce talked about in question time today or the exporters that the Prime Minister Bill English talked about on the weekend New Zealanders are shaping globalisation to their advantage. Again—to return to the theme from just before—what this Budget does is set out a vision of New Zealand as a trading nation and that is how we actually grow jobs for New Zealanders. That is how we grow our exports and create higher incomes. Sue Moroney: How's the invisible hand going in Auckland? CHRIS BISHOP: Sue Moroney's attitude is: "How's that free market going?". Well what free markets and the trade of goods and services do for New Zealanders is allow more New Zealand companies and more New Zealand individuals to sell more to the world. It allows New Zealanders to hire more New Zealanders. It allows companies to export more hire more people and create profits and growth which ultimately gets returned to New Zealanders. So Sue Moroney's attitude is quite instructive actually. Frankly it is a wholly depressing view of reality.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is supposed to be a speech on a particular issue. I recognise that he has run out of things to say about it but misrepresenting my view is not what this speech is about. CHRIS BISHOP: Speaking to the point of order—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance. That point of order was completely fatuous. The member has taken that point of order to interrupt the flow of a speech from the member who has the call. She has made numerous interjections all the way through that speech and she has been asked in certain terms to keep that down a bit which she has refused to do. The previous speaker from the Labour Party was very wide and funnily enough the Minister who was accused of travelling way off his speech was using—as the other side noted—slides relating directly to the Budget so you cannot have it so many different ways. So I would ask the member not to take fatuous points of order in the future and I recall Chris Bishop. CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. Just returning to where I left off which was about what this Budget invests in this Budget invests in education in New Zealand. It invests money to welcome international students into our economy. It invests in our Immigration Service in order to enforce the rules around immigration particularly around foreign students in New Zealand. It invests in the Electoral Commission for the safe and fair running of electioneering and election spending and it invests in our Parliamentary Service to make sure that all political parties follow the rules when it comes to election funding. Why are these things relevant? Why are these very important investments relevant? It is because what we have heard in the last few days was industrial-strength hypocrisy from the Labour Party over there when we discovered that it was importing foreign workers in order to come and work on its election campaign. It is quite amazing actually. It calls them "fellows". When I think of fellowships I think of people at ivory-tower universities in Cambridge sort of squirrelling themselves away in the corner having a glass of whisky as they write learned theses. That is what fellowship means. It does not mean living in substandard accommodation working 20 hours a day—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now the member is—Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at a marae being called substandard accommodation. CHRIS BISHOP: Well speaking—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I do not need any assistance in respect of that. The member was heading wider. He obviously took my comments to the previous point of order as licence which he should not do and he should stick to the Budget. However I—Dr Megan Woods: I've taken offence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry but you cannot—Dr Megan Woods: I've taken offence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well no I am sorry but a member cannot decide they are going to take offence in relation to something like that which was part of this particular speech. The member could take offence at something that is said in relation to her particularly; she cannot take—Dr Megan Woods: OK fair call. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. And once again we see the use of a point of order for a different purpose. Let us stick to the rules. CHRIS BISHOP: Anyway just—Dr Megan Woods: It was offensive. CHRIS BISHOP: Well I did not say—Dr Megan Woods: Visit a marae some time before you start putting them down. CHRIS BISHOP: Megan Woods the only person who has mentioned the word "marae" in the last minute is you. It was not me. Dr Megan Woods: You called it substandard accommodation. CHRIS BISHOP: I brought it—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Anyway back to the Budget. CHRIS BISHOP: Yes I did mention substandard accommodation because I was quoting what a Labour Party volunteer had said in the media. I was quoting directly from a person in the media. So the only person who has mentioned marae is Megan Woods. With 1 minute left in this learned contribution in the House this afternoon I do want to summarise by saying that actually I think Sue Moroney's contribution to the debate summarises the philosophical differences that you see at the heart of this Budget document—Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not made a contribution in this debate and I think that the member should stop misleading the House by saying that I have actually taken a call in this debate. I have not. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will regain her seat. The member has made numerous contributions to this debate. They will all be recorded in Hansard or those that are heard and whether she likes it or not an interjection is a contribution to the debate. I look forward to her scripted contribution to the debate that she will make when eventually she has a call should she seek one. I would also very much look forward to the member who has the call—and who has thankfully 32 seconds to go—addressing the matter that is under debate which is the appropriation bill. CHRIS BISHOP: This is a great Budget. It invests in public services for a growing economy it invests in infrastructure for a growing economy and it allows the New Zealanders who need it most to keep more of their own money. The Labour Party thinks that is a bribe. The National Party thinks that is what New Zealanders and a growing economy deserve—to keep some more of their own money—and that summarises the differences between the two parties in Parliament today."