Woodhouse Michael: Budget DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Budget Debate[Sitting date: 06 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I would be very keen to talk about the Budget initiatives as they relate to my portfolios of immigration veterans’ affairs and associate transport. But before I do it is interesting to reflect 3 weeks since the Budget was read on the reactions of some and in particular of our friends on the other side. Mr Parker—Hon Members: Our friends?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes of course. Well our friendlies then—I like to be friendly. According to Mr Parker Labour believes the Government should returnto surplus and indeed said: “We would have in 2014-15.” That was said under a headline among others in an article by Audrey Young who wrote: “The one thing alternative finance minister Labour’s David Parker won’t be criticising … is the Government’s confirmation that it is on track to return to surplus in 2014-15.” I contrast that with the comments that Mr Parker was making only a year ago on Budget 2012 when he said not only that the Government’s path to surplus in 2014-15 when it was first announced was barely achievable but that the Government was placing an overemphasis on a return to surplus ahead of the other priorities. How he can say that then and then turn round a year later and say: “Well of course they’re going to be back in surplus in 2014-15 and so would we have.”?Well what I do not understand—and Labour members can explain it for me if they can—is how they can reconcile that in light of the legacy of 10 years of deficits and the very difficult decisions that this Government has had to take decisions that they would not have the wherewithal or the attitude to make and then add on top of that all the unfunded spending promises that we have had since the 2011 election. I do not have time to go through all of them but there is Sue Moroney’s extra paid parental leave and Clare Curran is wanting to resurrect Television New Zealand and subsidise $160 million for wagons to be made in New Zealand. I think Mr Little has just mentioned reversing the legal aid changes. Then there is the in-work tax credit. I am not quite sure where Labour is on the in-work tax credit. I think Labour campaigned on it then went quiet on it and who knows where that will be if Labour has to coalesce with the Greens. There is removing the changes to student loans and allowances—the list goes on.So here is what I do not understand: if returning to surplus is so easy how does Labour reconcile the fact that it was not prepared to make any of the hard decisions that this Government has had to make with the fact that it has opposed every single one of those decisions in every single Budget and every single bill? Add a whole pile—billions—for the 100000 houses Labour was going to build remember? Who knows how that is going to be paid for. The mixed-ownership model would not exist and so we would not have all those really good things we are going to fund out of the Future Investment Fund like 21st century schools. What happens to 21st century schools? Either we go deeper into debt for them or we do not get 21st century schools.Hon Member: Borrow and hope.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No idea what that choice is going to be but that is right—tax and spend borrow and hope. One thing we can rely on about Labour is that it does not change. Tax and spend borrow and hope. That is before we even get to the Greens whom they would need to rely on for confidence and supply.The single electricity market—well Parker’s comments were very interesting on the single electricity market.Hon Nathan Guy: What did he say?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He told Cabinet actually when he was near it that having a single buyer would result in higher capital and operating costs it would be risky and uncertain it would put investment proposals on hold and it would be poor at sustaining cost pressure on operating costs.Scott Simpson: Who said that?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mr Parker said that—that is a very good question. But when challenged on the inconsistency of the announcement in April against his publicly made statements as Minister for Energy and Resources in 2006 he said this: “Well things have changed.” Well I know what has changed. David Parker is no longer a Minister and Labour is no longer in Government. Talk is cheap. Following that up with action is much much harder. So it is great to be a lion in Opposition; we will see what happens when push comes to shove.I am the Minister of Immigration. It has been my great privilege to hold that portfolio over the last 5 months having taken over—and it was left in very good shape I have to say by the Hon Nathan Guy—during the last reshuffle. Immigration New Zealand is in much much better shape than it was in in 2008 when we took office. If there is a better example of a department in disarray under a Government asleep at the wheel in 2008 I cannot think of one. The Pacific division was in complete disarray there was inconsistent decision-making against the rules that had been put in place and it was slow and lacking in timeliness.I have been very very impressed with the staff and their effort to turn round that organisation in very difficult circumstances. The performance improvement measures in the Budget are plain to see. Customer satisfaction with the overall quality of the service of Immigration New Zealand has gone up from 73 percent in 2010 to 85 percent in March and it is still climbing. The quality of the decision making the accuracy of the decision making in just 2 years has gone from 77 percent to 96 percent. That is just about as good as you get.Of course the funding lines as for many of the departments in this Budget are flat and slightly dropping. We have asked our public servants to do more with the same—perhaps a drop in real terms. That is a challenge but one way that Immigration New Zealand is meeting that challenge is through changing business process changing technologies and changing branch structures away from a traditional branch structure which is perhaps less nimble in responding to changes in demand for visa applications to an online service through the global management system that will be coming online nearer the end of the year. It is a very large IT project that will revolutionise the way people interact with Immigration New Zealand. There will be changes to visa acceptance centres and a much more nimble framework within which to be able to make those decisions.We want our immigration staff to do three things: be fair be consistent and be timely. I have been very very impressed with their attitude towards that change. I am very confident that the online visa processing—which is of course a Better Public Services target that Chris Tremain as Minister of Internal Affairs has—will have 70 percent of transactions with the Government online by 2017. Immigration’s target is 80 percent and I am confident that by 2017 we will be able to achieve that target and help Mr Tremain look as good as I know he is in that portfolio. So I wish the Immigration staff and team all the best in that endeavour.The portfolio of veterans’ affairs is also a considerable privilege to hold—a portfolio where the Government has I think provided very strong benefits to our war heroes our veterans. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that in the last 10 years with a diminishing number of veterans—and it is true that our World War II veterans are reducing in number as they get older—we have been in a number of recognised emergencies not the least of which are Afghanistan East Timor the Solomon Islands and so on. So we are creating a new raft of veterans who have served with distinction in those theatres. As a consequence the War Pensions Act which is now 58 years old is probably not as fit for purpose as it needs to be. Cabinet has approved the changes that will be made and I am looking forward to introducing legislation into the House later this year to give effect to those changes to make sure that we continue to serve our veteran communities in the way that we have in the past.Of course we are coming up to a significant period of commemoration. From next year we recognise two significant milestones. There is the 70th anniversary of two important World War II theatres: the Battle of Monte Cassino at which of course New Zealand forces served with distinction and D-Day. But of course 2014 also marks the centenary of the start of World War I and as Minister of Veterans’ Affairs in NewZealand I am responsible for the commemorations that will be taking place at Gallipoli in 2015. I am pleased to report that progress is well under way on that.I want to finish by just touching on some of my responsibilities as Associate Minister of Transport—in particular the delegation for road safety. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the people of New Zealand and the police who patrol our roads on the fantastic outcome last Queen’s Birthday weekend—last week. For the first time since records began no one died on our roads this Queen’s Birthday weekend. That was despite the fact that the weather was very challenging. We had high winds in the South Island and torrential rain in the North Island yet we were still able to achieve a zero death toll. It continues a trend starting probably 4½ years ago I think it would be fair to say that the rate of death and injury on our roads has been reducing.The Government is committed to the Safer Journeys Action Plan 2013-2015. There is a new 2-year plan under way. The low-hanging fruit has I think been picked and it is a little harder now and it will probably take longer to change some of the behaviours and the engineering and to increase the safety of the vehicles on our roads. But I am very confident that we will continue the excellent work that has begun and I look forward to probably a road toll that might be a record this year—I do not want to tempt fate by suggesting that we will get there.All of those things I think are part of a Budget that is solid. It is sound. It has been well received by the IMF the World Bank the OECD and many other commentators and I commend it.