Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about the Budget. It kind of reminds me of a bad movie that you have gone and seen and you get home and your mate gives you a call to ask what that movie you had been anticipating was like and you say: Oh it was budget." That is exactly what we have got here—this is a "budget Budget". Seriously we have got fake announcements coming out with Minister Maggie Barry talking about conservation rubbing her hands gleefully together: "We are going to give so much back to our country. Battle for our Birds is going to get $21 million; $76 million is going to infrastructure to help out with the conservation." What a load of spin! The $21 million dollars they announced was in July last year. Do not get too excited people; this is just to tidy up some seeding problems so they can actually napalm the forest with 1080 a little bit more.The reality is that the $76 million although it is being put into conservation is there to put in some infrastructure for tourism so it should go against the tourism budget. It is not going to help our natural flora and fauna or protect our species that are on the brink of collapse. The latest report that came out from Dr Jan Wright just yesterday says that over half of our native birds are in serious decline and looking to be extinct the numbers are so low. Yet this Minister was rubbing her hands together gleefully while we are all waiting with anticipation for a big announcement last week and what happened? Nothing. No new announcements no more Budget announcements and then we asked the question—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where are you on 1080?CLAYTON MITCHELL: You have had your turn Minister. Then Minister Maggie Barry stood up in the House and talked so proudly. She said that her Government over the last 9 years has increased spending in conservation. What a crock of nonsense! The Minister who speaks with a velvet tongue—what do they call it? "Velvetleaf tongue." We should call her "the Minister who speaks with velvetleaf tongue". "Rusty Myrtle" herself stood up there and she genuinely does not understand—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will withdraw that description of the Minister.CLAYTON MITCHELL: I withdraw that description of the Minister.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No you just say "I withdraw."CLAYTON MITCHELL: I withdraw.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Very good.CLAYTON MITCHELL: We now have a situation where initially I genuinely thought the Minister just did not get it that she might have been a bit thick. But the reality is that what is going on when she talks so blatantly—[Interruption] That is my opinion. She talked so blatantly about this increase in funding for the Department of Conservation (DOC) I thought she does not understand the difference between real and nominal. So I gave her the benefit of the doubt and we keep going week after week talking about spending on DOC—when is some serious funding going to come up—and she keeps sitting there with her hand on her heart. To me that is misleading because I absolutely know she understands the difference between nominal and real but she is just not telling the public the honest absolute truth about the situation of the Department of Conservation. If you go back—in fact I brought a copy down for the Minister if she would like a copy just so she can be very clear about this. This is my copy I am holding. I have got drawings all over it.If you look and understand the difference between what the cost of product was 9 years ago for example at 1.75 percent accumulated—which is the Consumers Price Index (CPI) average compounded index increase over that period of time—you have about 15.75 percent increase. So something that cost you $100 9 years ago will cost you $115.75 today. Costs of wages costs of product—everything is going up. In fact in the last quarter this year it has gone up by 2.2 percent so I am being very generous when I say it is only 1.75 percent. That means that when the Minister was spending $316 million back in 2008 if you add in the compounded index for that now we are getting close—just in this Budget alone—to around about $170 million less today than what we were getting back in 2008. You cannot disagree with that. Anybody who understands basic mathematics understands that you have to increase funding—it has got to be indexed to keep up with inflation. She has not and then she puts spin and rhetoric on and says: "I've got $76 million"—let us underline this—"over 4 years". Just about everything that the Government has come out with in this Budget is over 4 years. Well it is pretty presumptuous to think you are still going to be here in 4 years. The reality is that people have had a gutsful of your spin and nonsense.When you add that into it with the $21 million in funding for emergencies to deal with the Battle for our Birds we are talking about $170 shortfall from 2008 just to this year in comparison. We are not talking about the accumulated losses that the Department of Conservation has been struck so hard by with hundreds of job cuts with tracks that have been shut and with wildlife that is on the brink of extinction—and this Minister thinks she is doing a good job. Well I say billy-o to her. It is time to hop it.Righty-o we talk about water. Water is a major part of our environment. It is the lifeblood of our country in actual fact. Like a business has cash flow countries need a clean potable drinkable usable swimmable enjoyable and plentiful supply of water. What we are seeing now is another fake announcement by Minister Nick Smith—who is standing over there with his back to the wall like a naughty boy at the back of the class. He sits there and tells New Zealanders that by 2040 we are going to have 90 percent of our rivers swimmable. What a joke. What an absolute joke that a priority is not put on the cleanliness of our streams and rivers—that we are not riparian planting and making sure that we have got a clean environment that we can hand over to our families in the future. It is an absolute indictment on this Government and it should be ashamed of itself and he should go back and stand in the corner like he just was. That is much better Mr Assistant Speaker; maybe we could make a rearrangement of some of the seating. As I said the reality in terms of water is something quite different.We over the last number of years—certainly it has come to some serious attention now—have seen this Government going down a path of separation creating laws and advantages for the Māori Party which is absolutely hell-bent on creating a divide between New Zealanders and Māori. The reality is and the Rt Hon Winston Peters spoke about it in the House it is about ownership of water. This is a commodity that is for all New Zealanders. It should be there for everybody equally and I acknowledge the positive nodding of one's head over there Mr Naylor—you obviously agree with that. Yet this party is being wagged by the Māori Party which says it wants to own the water. And when the Rt Hon Winston Peters said that Marama Fox yelled out: "No we don't. We don't wanna own all of it just some of it." That is what she said. They want to own some of it. They have been denying it in the paper saying that they do not want to own the water but in actual fact right here in this House the Minister said: "We just want to own some of it—just the Crown water". Well goodness me! It is a terrible indictment that this could even be considered in this House—that water gets a new owner in the name of iwi; a group that thinks it has got special rights and conditions over it. What a joke.The other issue that we have got with our water is the fact that huge amounts billions of litres of it is sent off globally at no charge. The cost from a person taking 1000 litres of our natural beautiful spring water is $1.12 for 1000 litres. That is the cost to produce it through the councils to draw it out of the ground. One litre of water sells for $2.60. You multiply that out—that is around about a 2558 percent mark-up that those companies are making when they send that water offshore overseas extracted from New Zealand—and what do we get for it? Absolutely nothing. What a disgrace. You are selling our best natural resource giving it as a priority to people to send off overseas and make vast sums of money at the expense of New Zealanders not being able to have their fair share of it. The reality is that we need to put a priority back on water being in the hands of all New Zealanders equally and fairly and if there is an excess of water that we can actually sell off overseas and make a profit we should be getting our fair share of it. New Zealand First has a very strong policy with regard to water. As it is a natural resource we believe in a regional policy where 25 percent of money earned from any natural resource should go back directly to the region that it has come from.I just want to finish off a little bit with regard to this $26 a week family support package—I have only got a very short amount of time—that the Government talks about. And yet squeezed into that Budget the Minister talks about 25 percent increase to the Earthquake Commission levy and we have got a 40 percent increase in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. All up that is a huge cost that we have worked out to be around about $24 per week to average New Zealanders. So this if you are being polite is a Budget with "Two Dollar Bill" at the helm and it is a disgrace for New Zealanders. You should be ashamed of a Budget that is a "budget Budget"."