Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Were the remarks of Raymond Huo in his speech not interesting? What did he say? He said Export education is a no-brainer. It's a sure and sustainable way to grow the New Zealand economy." and he waxed lyrical about the importance of export education which has been growing in recent years to $4.5 billion worth of value to the New Zealand economy. They are very interesting words because in a few weeks' time—in a few days' time actually—the Labour Party is going to announce its much-vaunted immigration plan. This is the plan to reduce the number of migrants in New Zealand by around 50000 to 10000 migrants per year. I know who the Labour Party will be targeting. It will be targeting all of the international students who come to New Zealand and enrol in our universities our high schools and our private training establishments to learn English and to learn lots of other things who want to make a contribution to this economy.So it is very interesting that already the new list MP for the Labour Party is very much out of step with his leader and very much out of step with the other comments that Labour members have made as well. The reality is that export education is a worthwhile contributor to this country. It is funded again in this Budget through the various agencies that do that within New Zealand and it is something that the Government stands fully behind unlike the Labour Party opposite.The other thing in this Budget that I want to highlight in this speech is the very much welcomed Family Incomes Package. This is a great package. In fact it is so great and so impressive that every party in Parliament decided to vote for the bill implementing it—other than Labour. I want to put on the record again our appreciation in the National Party for the Greens acting with principle—acting with principle—and doing the right thing in deciding to vote for what is a good package that puts more money in the hands of those who need it most. I also want to say thank you to New Zealand First for doing the same; for acting in this case—not always but in this case—in a principled way and deciding that actually the benefits that accrue under the bill and under this Budget to low-income workers are worth voting with the Government on.It is just a shame I think that the Labour Party has decided that the 1.3 million working families who benefit to the average of $26 per week—I actually think it is a regret that members in Labour decided not to vote for it. But that is fine—they made their bed they will have to lie in it and they will have to explain to New Zealanders in the coming weeks and months on the election campaign trail why exactly they did vote against giving working families an extra $26 per week on average why it is they voted against Working for Families increases and why it is they voted against tax cuts at the bottom end of the income scale. In reality they are isolated very much like their economic policy when it comes to New Zealand.The response from Labour to this Budget had a few stages. First of all there was just utter confusion. I think it was more like shell shock actually. I mean Andrew Little was so shell-shocked in his speech that after 9 years of a National Government in the ninth Budget presented by the Government he could make only 17 minutes. He could not even go the full 20 minutes. I mean it was just embarrassing. And actually the Labour members opposite knew it because their heads were down they were on their iPads or on their iPhones abusing people on Twitter and doing various things as they are wont to do. He could not even make 20 minutes. It was actually just embarrassing. That was the first response.Then there was anger. Then there was anger. We got that through the Labour members' speeches on the Budget bill. There was a lot of anger out there. I will tell you when there was a lot of anger was when Phil Twyford was sitting in the House and he worked out that the Greens were voting for the Budget and Labour was voting against it. He was not happy. You know we all know that Phil likes to get very worked up in the House. Well he was very worked up that night. So that was the second response: there was a lot of anger.Then the third response was denial. They just wanted to pretend the whole thing had never happened—that it was not a National Government helping out low-income workers. No that was still too difficult. Let us just pretend it was a bad dream that we did not wake up on Thursday morning and that was actually what was happening! But it was what was happening and so because of that Jacinda Ardern decided not to turn up to The Nation. She was given an opportunity to do an interview with The Nation and explain away why Labour was voting against the Budget and just decided not to turn up. So Labour was not represented on The Nation. It was just all too hard. We will just deny it happened!Then there was confusion again. Then we were right back to the start and there was confusion again. Andrew Little was on Morning Report on Monday morning trying to explain cuts to the Budget. A cut in Andrew Little's world is what happens when you have an increase that is not as much as you think it should be. That is what a cut means. It was just embarrassing.So there was confusion anger denial and then confusion again. That is the Labour Party's response to most policies from this Government and that is why this is a good Budget and why everyone should vote for it."