Imprest Supply Debate

I move, That the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill be now read a second time. These bills continue the Government’s economic and fiscal strategy and provide the funding for the Government to operate until the 2013 Budget is passed. Budget 2013 is about responsible management of the Government’s finances, and I am proud to report to the House that we are on track to return to surplus and begin to reduce debt by 2014-15. Budget 2013 is also about building a competitive economy for New Zealand businesses to succeed and grow. We are investing in a package of growth and innovation measures, we are speeding up the provision of new housing, and we are reducing ACC levies. Through the Future Investment Fund we are making several key investments in New Zealand’s infrastructure. Budget 2013 is about delivering Better Public Services. Ten priority targets have been set for the Public Service where there are opportunities to make a substantial difference. Investment is being carefully targeted to support these Better Public Services targets.

Importantly, Budget 2013 is about rebuilding Christchurch. The Budget has provided an extra $2.1 billion for the Christchurch rebuild, taking the Crown’s total contribution to around $15.2 billion. Since 2008 New Zealand has been impacted by the global financial crisis and an international recession. Around the world many countries continue to grapple with low growth, high unemployment, and soaring Government debt. Directly or indirectly, this has affected every New Zealand household and business. On top of that, New Zealand has had its own additional challenge, which is, of course, dealing with the earthquakes in Christchurch and the economic cost of the city’s rebuilding. Of necessity, we have had to take on extra debt to protect the vulnerable through this period, to maintain living standards, and, of course, to support Christchurch’s renewal.

However, unlike many other countries, our economic recovery is gathering momentum. Our debt remains very manageable and we are on track to return to surplus by 2014-15. There are 50,000 more jobs in the New Zealand economy than 2 years ago, and household disposable income has risen by 20 percent over the past 4 years. Now that the economy is recovering, we need to bring down the Government’s debt, bring the books back into balance, and start to pay down debt. This is crucial for New Zealand’s long-term prosperity. You only have to look at the drama still being played out in Europe on a daily basis to know how excessive borrowing and debt ends, and the ultimate economic and social cost that it creates. That is why we have also set out a clear strategy and path to bring the Government’s books back into balance. We set out a plan, we have stuck to that plan, and that plan is working for New Zealand. We are not engaging in the harsh Budget cuts that we are seeing in other countries, notably in southern Europe. To the contrary, we are spending more in areas where a difference can be made and we are also spending much more effectively.

The 2013 Budget provided new operating spending of $5.1 billion in the current year and over the next 4 years. This includes significant new spending that will benefit Kiwi families in areas such as early childhood education, aged care, welfare reform, tertiary education, and healthy homes. We have also allocated $1.5 billion of capital spending through the Future Investment Fund, including $426 million for the redevelopment of Christchurch and Burwood hospitals. Looking forward, we also allocate $1 billion to investment in 21st century schools and new classrooms, and a further $1 billion to priority health investments.

With the Business Growth Agenda we have set the specific goal of lifting our exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025. Through initiatives in building export markets, building innovation, building skills, providing safe workplaces, building public infrastructure, building natural resources, and building capital markets, the Business Growth Agenda is a comprehensive plan of work, which is working to achieve a better platform for New Zealand businesses to compete on the world stage. Achieving our export goals requires New Zealand to develop stronger linkages with international markets and be a stronger player in research and development. It is particularly important to develop these linkages with emerging markets as relative consumer power moves swiftly from west to east. We need to further develop our relationships in China, India, South-east Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. To achieve those goals, the Government, in Budget 2013, announced a $400 million internationally focused growth package. This includes investing an additional $50 million a year in science and innovation, across business research and development, commercialisation, and core science research. Forty million dollars a year is going into New Zealand’s tourism and events industry to attract and increase earnings from high-value international visitors. Ten million dollars a year will go towards marketing our international education sector to raise the profile of New Zealand’s quality education system overseas, and there is $2 million this year for the development and launch of the New Zealand Story.

The Government has a very balanced programme involving sound financial management, carefully targeted spending and investment, and improved public services for all New Zealanders. If I can make a brief comment about today’s events before I conclude, I say that there are many confused people around wondering why it is that the Government is polling so well when, for various reasons, they think that the Government should not be polling so well. Well, I think that, more than anything else, New Zealanders, New Zealand families, recognise that this Government has a very strong and focused economic and fiscal strategy for New Zealand. It is notable to say that since Bill English went through his Budget in May of this year, the Government’s fortunes with New Zealanders have continued to improve and increase. The New Zealand public is endorsing this programme of the New Zealand Government. The Government will continue to require careful and sometimes difficult policy choices to ensure growth, prosperity, and jobs. The New Zealand public know that we will face up to those decisions and we will take those decisions well, and that is what they are supporting through this Budget and through the economic and fiscal decisions that this Government is making.

What we did not hear from the Acting Minister of Finance, Steven Joyce, in his contribution was how the Government is going in respect of its promises at the last election. One of the Government’s promises was 170,000 more jobs. It has fallen off that target. It is already clear that it is not going to make that promise that it made at the last election happen, or anything like it, and, as a consequence, the Minister did not address it. We have not heard anything of that promise. One of the shiny promises National used at the election was “Wave Goodbye to Higher Taxes. Not Your Loved Ones.” Since then 200,000 New Zealanders have left permanently for Australia—200,000. That is much more than the combined population of Dunedin and Invercargill, much more than the population of Hamilton, and much more than the entire population of Napier and Hastings combined. We did not hear anything of that.

We did hear reference to growth rates. He made reference to the growth rate. He ignored the fact that our two largest trading partners, Australia and China, have had a higher growth rate than New Zealand. He ignored the fact that the latest OECD report made for salutary reading. The OECD survey records that New Zealand’s imbalances remain high. It lists some of them in the report, and the Budget that the Minister has just referred to does not fix them. For a start, it said that New Zealand has high levels of external liabilities, and it records—it does not put it in these terms—that the imbalances in the New Zealand economy, where we do not meet the cost of our imports and interest from the value of our exports, are already bad. It shows up in New Zealand’s net international liabilities, which are just about all on the private ledger and are amongst the highest in the developed world. Every year to the end of the forecast period, whether it is the OECD or the IMF recording them, they remain amongst the highest, if not the highest, in the developed world. The IMF says our external deficit is the highest in the developed world. The OECD says it is the second-highest, after Turkey.

The OECD also says that the consequences of the underperformance of the New Zealand economy in our two-speed economy are not visited upon New Zealand evenly. It records that we have become an unequal country and that under this Government that has got worse. We should not be surprised by that, because 40 percent of the income tax cuts that the National Government brought forward after coming into office went to the top 10 percent of the population. The OECD report that I have got in front of me, which is a June report—it is this very month’s—is OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2013. It records that New Zealand’s tax system is in the lower half of tax systems in terms of its redistributive effect, so it is less redistributive than other tax systems overall. The report says that, in particular, in respect of capital income—and it is income in an economic sense, but in terms of a tax definition it is capital income—it is one of the least redistributive tax systems in the world, or in the OECD certainly.

I am going to repeat something it says here. It says tax changes meriting consideration are those that are more conducive to both growth and equity, and then it lists some. I quote from page 31 of the report: “New Zealand belongs to a group of five OECD countries with particularly high pre-tax capital-income inequality ... As much of this income, especially at the top levels, takes the form of capital gains, the lack of a capital gains tax in New Zealand exacerbates inequality (by reducing the redistributive power of taxation). It also reinforces a bias toward speculative housing investments and undermines housing affordability,”. So the OECD is saying we are unequal, we are becoming more unequal, in respect of this gaping hole in our tax system we are amongst the most unequal in all of the developed OECD countries, and we have this strange tax system that does not tax economic income. It taxes a subset of it, which is taxable income for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, and it excludes capital income. The OECD is saying that not only would New Zealand be a fairer place, but our economy would be stronger if we removed that imbalance.

Why would that be the case? Well, if we remove that imbalance, we then get New Zealanders investing their precious investment capital on the basis of the productivity of the investment or the profitability of the business that is being invested into, rather than on the basis of the tax bias that currently favours speculative housing. The ANZ in the last week has said, in respect of the latest data, that New Zealand has external imbalances, which are worrisome and are not fixed. It is effectively saying—again, it does not use these words, but it is effectively saying—that another promise of the incoming National Government, which was to rebalance the economy towards exports and export-related jobs, has not happened, because its policies will not achieve it, and that as a consequence it should be getting a fail on that.

The second recommendation of the OECD was that we should have a tax system that uses environmental taxes to “help enhance the quality of growth”. That phrase “help enhance the quality of growth” is a quote from the OECD. It states that such taxes could include congestion charges, or a tax on polluting activities, or the removal of free permit allocation under the emissions trading scheme, which it goes on to discuss. So it makes two very helpful suggestions. It says that if we want to have a stronger economy, then we should be doing things that this Budget is not doing. Those are that we should be moving not to increase taxes overall but to change the mix of tax so that we remove some of the distortions in the economy. We would, as a consequence, if that happened, be a wealthier nation, with more jobs for our people and lower debt, and we would be a wealthier country over time.

The Labour Party says that we should have a capital gains tax excluding the family home. That would improve the economy, it would improve the equity of society, and it would take some of the heat out of Auckland house prices. The Reserve Bank data that the Acting Minister of Finance, Mr Joyce, today did not know about—and he admitted in question time that he did not know about it—shows that we have increased by billions of dollars the additional household debt that is owed by New Zealanders secured over their homes.

The Acting Minister of Finance had a question on notice to him put down today that said: “What progress is the Government making to ensure future generations of New Zealanders are not saddled with excessive debt?”. So we in the Opposition party, as is our right at question time, asked him a supplementary question to that. We asked the Minister what the situation was in respect of the extra debt that was being taken on by the household sector in their mortgages, because this was a question about New Zealanders being saddled with excessive debt. The Minister said that he did not know. He said that he did not know, despite the fact that the Reserve Bank carries a data series that the Minister should have known about. I find it hard to believe that he did not know that it shows that with Auckland house prices increasing at the rate of 15 percent per annum at the moment, we have got rampant house price inflation in this two-speed economy. The data series shows that already we have got over $180 billion of mortgage debt in New Zealand and that it is increasing at a very fast rate. The Acting Minister of Finance, Mr Joyce, denied knowing that today in the House.

We have just heard a speech here in respect of this Budget, and again he does not address this terrible misallocation of resource in New Zealand, where we have got rising house prices and we have got an export performance, outside of the primary produce sector, that is woeful. The Minister again likes to dice his statistics and put ever more reliance on primary production and the related manufacturing, and to deny the reality that we have had huge numbers—thousands—of job losses in manufacturing outside of the primary sector. We have had decreasing export receipts, in real terms, by 17 percent outside of that primary sector. The Government’s Budget will not do anything to fix that problem.

I rise today to speak in general terms about the Government’s economic and fiscal strategy as related to the bills in front of us, the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill.

I think that perhaps the short version of the Government’s economic strategy at the moment is for the country to borrow like crazy in order to maintain some level of economic activity until the next election. If you look at what is happening with the current account deficit, a $10 billion a year current account deficit, essentially we are either borrowing from offshore or selling our existing assets. Either way you look at it, we are degrading our capital base. The Government hopes that running very large current account deficits between now and the next election will keep the economy ticking over, and that people will feel like things are going OK. At a superficial level, if you look at GDP numbers, there is some truth in that. But, of course, anyone can borrow their way to a bit of economic activity. It is not that hard to do. Even Steven Joyce can borrow his way to a bit of economic activity.

💬 Hon David Parker: MediaWorks have done that too. What’s happened to them?

That is right. MediaWorks recently demonstrated the particular problem with this strategy of borrowing one’s way to economic prosperity.

The strategy of the Government for the New Zealand economy is to borrow more every year. If you look at the projections that are in the Government’s own Budget—that is, the projections for the New Zealand economy—they are for the current account deficit to increase through to 2017 until it is $17 billion a year. So the strategy of the Government is that in 2017 New Zealand will borrow or sell assets worth $17 billion. That is how we will fund economic activity in New Zealand. That is what these very large and growing current account deficits mean, and they are in the Government’s own numbers.

I think what people need to realise is that the Government is trying to pull a swiftie. The swiftie is this—and Mr Key has done this on numerous occasions. Mr Key says: “Oh, the Government is going into surplus possibly in the next few years, therefore the economy is going well.” This is what he says. He says that the Government is going into surplus, therefore the New Zealand economy is going well. He hopes that New Zealanders will not follow what he is saying but will just think: “Oh, yeah, things seem all right.” He is hoping that New Zealanders will not notice that the Government’s economic plan is to borrow $10 billion this year, and increase it every year through to the end of the projected period.

It is not just that the borrowing, the current account deficit, is increasing every year in nominal terms, as Mr Joyce pointed out today in question time; it is actually increasing as a proportion of economic activity, increasing as a proportion of GDP. Under the Government’s own projections, the current account deficit is 5 percent currently, and rises through to 6.5 percent of GDP in 2017. So the Government’s strategy is that they think: “Well, we’ll just say the Government’s surplus is fine and people won’t notice that, in fact, the economy as a whole, the country as a whole, is in a deep deficit.”, and it is a deficit that under the Government’s own projections is getting worse every year. So every year, in order to finance economic activity in New Zealand, we have to sell off some of our assets—maybe some of our large corporations or maybe some land, some kind of capital assets—or we have to borrow from overseas about $10 billion this year, and every year going ahead. It increases to $17 billion a year by 2017, according to the Government’s own projections.

That is the sleight of hand that is happening right now in terms of economic management by this Government, and that is the lie that it is hoping the people of New Zealand will not wake up to before the next election. It is hoping that the people of New Zealand will not realise that a Government surplus—a wafer-thin Government surplus—is not the same thing as a national surplus. In fact, the Government’s strategy is for a massive national deficit. National’s plan for the New Zealand economy is to borrow like crazy, and borrow more every year. That is what the current account deficit is.

In this Parliament we have been questioning for some time various finance Ministers and associate finance Ministers about current account deficits. At the beginning of the questioning, Bill English did not really know what a current account deficit was. We questioned him about it at some length, and he did not know what it was. However, by 2010 he had woken up to it, to give him his due. In the 2010 Budget he recognised the problem, and he said: “We need to rebalance the New Zealand economy.” He was very clear about that. He said it many times, on average twice a week in this House.

What he meant by that was that we had to deal with the current account deficit, because that is the No. 1 metric of the imbalances in the New Zealand economy. He set himself the goal of making the tradable sector improve its performance and the non-tradable sector stop growing so quickly, so that we could get the two back together again and the tradable sector could help us get out of the hole. The tradable sector is the part of the economy that exports offshore or competes with imports—it is that part of the economy. The non-tradable sector is the rest. We need the tradable sector to be competing with imports or selling exports in order to pay for all the things we want from the rest of the world. Bill English said repeatedly that the single-biggest vulnerability facing the New Zealand economy is the net external liabilities. This is what he said in 2010.

According to the Government’s own projections, New Zealand’s net international investment position, our net debt to the rest of the world, is currently about $150 billion. Under National’s economic plan in its own Budget, the net debt increases to $208 billion by 2017, according to the Government’s own figures. Judged by Bill English’s own criterion—the external imbalances, the current account deficit, the biggest vulnerability facing our economy, as he described it—there is no way to describe the Government’s plan other than as a failure. There is no other way to describe it, based on the Government’s own numbers, based on its own criterion for judging its economic performance.

Bill English even said back in 2010: “You’ve got to look at the country’s position as a whole; not just the Government books. You’ve got to look at the nation’s books.” That is what he said. He said: “You can’t just look just at the Government books”—that is an important part of it and we agreed with him—“You’ve actually got to look at the nation’s books.” When you look at the nation’s books as a whole, we are borrowing or selling assets worth about $10 billion a year, and under National’s plan that increases to $17 billion a year.

I hope when people go through the next 12 months or so, running up to the election—and I do not know whether we are going to be successful at this, because the Government has the best spin doctors in the game; there is no question about it—the people of New Zealand wake up to the fact that a Government surplus is not the same thing as a national surplus. It is not the same thing as the country being in surplus. In fact, under National’s plan, there might well be a very small Government surplus, but there will be a massive nationwide deficit.

We do not know whether we are going to be able to communicate that basic fact through, because it is a bit complicated, truth be told. The current account deficit is not the kind of thing that most people spend their time talking about amongst their friends or thinking about or arguing about. But, in fact, it is the most important number that people need to know about the New Zealand economy and how it is going in terms of paying our way with the rest of the world.

When I asked the Reserve Bank Governor about this, when he appeared in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, he said that sooner or later there will be a correction, and the correction will be either one that we impose upon ourselves, by actually helping our tradable sector and getting out of the enormous hole of debt we have got ourselves in, or one that is imposed on us by our creditors. Our creditors will say either: “We’re not going to lend you any more money.”, or “Well, we’ll keep lending you money, but it’s going to cost you a hell of a lot more.” That kind of correction will happen in due course.

There were those financial traders, the Prime Minister amongst them, prior to the global financial crisis who said that debt does not matter—right? They said that debt does not matter. The fact that there are these huge imbalances in the American economy is irrelevant. They said: “What does it matter? Debt doesn’t matter.” Well, it turns out that debt really, really, really does matter. That is what the global financial crisis proved. The market does not always accurately price true risk around debt, and eventually there is a radical correction. That is what the global financial crisis was.

New Zealand is in the same position. We are building up massive stocks of external debt. At the moment it is pretty cheap, so we are borrowing more, hand over fist. The Government’s strategy is to borrow more and more and more for the country as a whole, but sooner or later there will be a correction, and when that correction comes, it will have very significant consequences for New Zealand. It is much better that we manage ourselves out of this hole, rather than have someone else impose their particular bailout formula on us. That is why it is so critical that we get on top of the external imbalances that Bill English himself identified.

The green economy, I would argue, is part of that solution, but it is only part of it. What we are seeing most of all from this Government is a failure to deal with the single, very important problem that Bill English himself identified. If he does not deal with it, it is going to create a major problem for the next Government—that we are going to have to deal with this incoming huge debt burden of a current account deficit.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I want to talk about—actually, I do not want to talk about it, but I am compelled to talk about it again—this Government’s incomprehensible irresponsibility when it comes to biosecurity. Three-quarters of New Zealand’s economy is based on agriculture. Directly or indirectly, somewhere north of 75 percent of this country’s income, its export earnings, is generated by the things that we fish from the sea or grow in the ground: the forestry, the vineyards, the orchards, the market gardens, and the arable crops. From the green dairy pastures of the Waikato and “the Naki” to the even greener farms of Southland, from the great granary that is Canterbury to the vineyards that are Marlborough, the bulk of New Zealand’s wealth comes from down on the farm.

Then there are the animals, which provide a great part of that wealth. So I want to talk about foot-and-mouth disease. I think it is important that we address the subject of foot-and-mouth disease, because this Government’s approach to biosecurity, its irresponsible “Look, mum, no hands.” approach to biosecurity, means that the prospect of this country succumbing to foot-and-mouth disease, from which we have until now remained free, is a matter not of if but of when.

Some time in the dim distant past, the continent of Zealandia broke off from Gondwanaland, drifted off, and sank. Then, about 23 million years ago, or thereabouts, according to those learned types who profess to know about such things, it began to rise again. The New Zealand of today, these islands that we call home, is the bits of that continent that now protrude above the waves. Those waves have served us well as a biosecurity moat.

Until the advent of man, the only creatures that were able to inhabit these islands were those that could fly or swim or had the good fortune to be blown here on the wind—birds and bats and insects—but no mammals other than marine mammals and, perhaps, the elusive and possibly mythical waitōreke, the native otter. In the absence of predators, birds lost the ability to fly, as we know.

This was a genuine paradise, free of pests and diseases and, in fact, anything nasty. The wheels began to fall off that, of course, with the arrival of the first waka and the rats that came ashore as part of the uninvited cargo that our first-nation people brought with them. Shortly thereafter, in geological terms, more waka began to arrive—different waka; the big ones with the tall masts and the square, white things on top, and the pale-faced occupants. They brought other creatures with them—the four-legged cloven-hoofed ones, which today are the basis of our agricultural sector in our economy. They too in the early days lived and evolved in splendid isolation, free from many of the diseases that subsequently ravaged the stock from which they had come, back in the old countries of Britain and Europe.

The pigs and the goats that were released on our outlying islands by Captain Cook almost 250 years ago are, even today, a source of clean, genetic material for our breeding and medicinal industries, despite the best efforts of the Department of Conservation to have them wiped out for the crime of being non-indigenous. Well, maybe they were not always indigenous, but I would contend that they are now, just like the pine trees, the grapevines, the wheat, the kiwifruit, the spuds, and all the other things that form the basis for our way of life and our way of earning a living, and, I might add, just like people.

Humans are no more indigenous to these islands than any other johnny-come-lately organism that has flown or drifted or blown in on the wind during the past 23 million years. We are all interlopers, and until recently we have been protected by the moat, which is the ocean that surrounds us—no longer, however. In this day and age there are other ways for people and things to reach these shores. There are great steel waka and mighty aluminium birds, and they carry people and goods and creatures and organisms from the far reaches of the Earth.

One of the things that they have not carried yet, but which one day one of them will, is foot-and-mouth disease. When that horrible virus arrives—and it is a case of when, not if—the results will be terrible for this country, for the entire agricultural sector, and for the entire economy. The Ministry for Primary Industries’ own website carries the following blunt warning: “If FMD reached New Zealand virtually all exports of meat, animal by-products and dairy products would stop. They would not resume until at least three months after the slaughter of the last infected animal. The country’s trade reputation would be damaged, unemployment would rise (up about 20,000 jobs) and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would lose $10 billion over a two year period.”

The website also says: “Foot and Mouth (FMD) is a highly contagious viral disease which affects cloven-hoofed animals such as sheep, cattle, pigs, goats, llamas and deer. It can be spread by saliva, mucous, milk, and faeces, and can be carried on wool, hair, grass, footwear, clothing, livestock equipment and vehicle tyres. It can also spread quickly over long distances by wind. The virus likes damp, cool conditions and is easily spread when animals are penned up. It does not like warmth and humidity, but in the right conditions it has been shown capable of surviving several weeks in the soil, or on grass, sheep wool, or cattle hair. Clinical signs of the disease vary between species, but blisters on the nose, mouth and feet are consistent. Animals stop eating, become depressed and lame and salivate a lot. There is no cure.”

The only protection we have as a nation against the arrival of foot-and-mouth is the ability to be vigilant at the border, to be prepared for the arrival of the virus, to detect it before it makes landfall, and to stop it before it gets in. In the face of this reality, this Government is cutting the biosecurity budget. The report of the Primary Production Committee on the 2012-13 estimates for Vote Primary Industries states: “The Minister stated that biosecurity is one of his top priorities. We note that close to 60 biosecurity jobs in the ministry were disestablished, and the number of dogs working at the border has been reduced; at the time of the hearing, there were no dogs at Wellington Airport.

The Minister was asked the reason for the decision to cut the biosecurity budget and front-line services while many risk items continue to cross New Zealand’s border. The ministry has indicated an intention to hire 40 new staff, and the Minister explained that the budget was restructured to reflect demand more accurately. The dog shortage resulted from dog handlers resigning, and the ministry is looking for replacements. The Minister acknowledged that New Zealand is always at risk of incursion, and he believes that the ministry’s biosecurity system is very effective.

We asked whether disestablishing Biosecurity New Zealand would adversely affect the ministry’s ability to respond effectively to biosecurity incursions. “The ministry believes, on the contrary, that the disestablishment of Biosecurity New Zealand has been beneficial; it has allowed the ministry to group teams by expertise within the ministry’s structure.” And yet the Government has cut $6 million from Vote Biosecurity.

The report continues: “Furthermore, we heard that the size of the ministry allows it to respond to situations comprehensively. Some of us are concerned nevertheless that reduced border security will increase New Zealand’s risk of biosecurity incursion.” Members are indeed concerned. There are some exceptionally fine people on that select committee, by whose leave I sit on a regular basis as an observer.

Fine members from all parties are well aware of the danger inherent in dropping the nation’s guard in this incomprehensively irresponsible manner. Yet, I quote again: “The ministry believes, on the contrary, that the disestablishment of Biosecurity New Zealand has been beneficial; it has allowed the ministry to group teams by expertise within the ministry’s structure.” Incredible.

All we have to do is make the smoke thicker and the mirror shinier, and the foot-and-mouth virus will not notice the fact that we have cut $6 million from the budget, or that there are no sniffer dogs, or that anyone with the right passport can waltz across the border with their person and their luggage completely uninspected, and it will not be able to get in. That is truly incredible, or perhaps it is completely insane.

Just last week we heard about a shipment of palm kernel from somewhere in Asia, which was found to have a goat’s leg in it—a goat’s leg. How disgusting. That is like finding a finger in your mince pie, only a whole lot worse and a whole lot more serious. At any rate, we think it was a goat’s leg. We are not sure whether it was from a goat and we are not sure which country it came from, and we would not have known it was here at all if the farmer had not reported it. All we know for sure is that it was from a cloven-hoofed animal and it came from a country in Asia where foot-and-mouth is endemic.

We import rubbish like palm kernel from countries that do not care about health or hygiene or quality control, and, at the same time, we cut the biosecurity budget and leave the door wide open, and we will get foot-and-mouth because of it—not if but when. Six million bucks is all we are saving in the name of demonstrating that foolish ideas like SmartGate are the wrong way to go, and in the process we are throwing away our entire livestock in dairy industries and costing the country $10 billion and 20,000 jobs. It is a disgrace and it is probably criminally negligent.

This Government has failed to adequately resource biosecurity. It has failed the agricultural sector, it has failed the entire economy, and it will deliver us foot-and-mouth. The Government has failed completely. It is a disgrace and it should resign. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to speak on this Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and I would be keen to bring the debate back to the matter before us, which is the Budget that was delivered by Bill English. The fifth Budget that he has delivered confirms that New Zealand is on the right track. We have forecasts of economic growth, more jobs, rising wages, and a return to surplus by 2014-15.

In talking to business people up and down the street, there is no doubt that this is still not an easy time to be in business, particularly if you are in retail. We have had 5 years now of the global financial crisis and difficult times—headwinds—that many business people and families throughout New Zealand have struggled with and struggled against, combined with the devastating Christchurch earthquakes, which have made for a particular challenge for New Zealand. But although these challenges remain, the economic recovery here in New Zealand is gaining momentum, driven by low interest rates, investment, and strong export prices.

Economic growth at 2.4 percent for the year to March 2013 is almost the same as Australia’s. If we cast our eyes at the traditional countries that we compare ourselves with, we are looking at 2.5 percent in Australia, so that is just a fraction above in Australia. There is 1.8 percent GDP growth in the United States, 1.4 percent in Canada, 0.2 percent in Japan, 0.6 percent in the United Kingdom, and minus 1.1 percent in Europe. So when you compare New Zealand’s progress with those countries, you have to say that, all in all, this Government’s financial management has been very effective and it has done well.

In the meantime, wages are growing, the cost of living increases have been modest, and interest rates are at 50-year lows. Household income has risen 20 percent in the past 4 years, and it is expected to rise by almost 20 percent more in the next 4 years. With regard to the fiscal outlook, as we have heard many times, and as we have indeed heard people on the other side of the House commenting on, we are on track to be back in surplus by 2014-15. People might say that that is all very well and good. I have heard in the past Labour members saying: “Oh, yes, we would have done that as well if we were in Government.” Well, Labour’s track record certainly does not indicate that. Yes, it is true that the Labour Party ran surpluses while it was in Government, but it was bequeathed a very well-organised Government by the 1990s National Government, and it continued in a reasonably fiscally prudent manner in its first 6 years. Labour should be congratulated on that, but the problem was not what it did during the first 6 years; it was what it did in the last 3 years in particular, bringing in a number of decisions and new spending areas, which meant that although Labour managed to maintain surpluses while it was in Government, when it left, the projections for the next 10 years were of continued deficits. The projection was that this country was going to have 60 percent of its GDP in debt by 2020 if we had carried on in the way the Labour Government was going. No right-minded Government or country would want to be putting itself in that position.

So we did have to make substantial changes. To go from a position where we were running a deficit of $18 billion only 2 or 3 years ago, because of a combination of wanting to maintain a level of support for the most vulnerable in our society, dealing with the Christchurch earthquakes, and having a massive deficit, to a position now where next year we will be back in surplus is, I think, an achievement that everybody in this Government can be proud of.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Hear, hear—laudable.

Thank you. That is not to say that we have solved all the issues facing New Zealand. Government spending is still large. Total Government spending is equivalent to about 43 percent of GDP, and that is too large, in my opinion. I might add that we hear a lot about the Opposition saying that we should be worried about the current account deficit, and somehow we need to increase savings in New Zealand. I agree that both of those things are an issue, although I am intrigued to know what precisely Russel Norman is suggesting we do about it, because, ultimately, although the Government is getting itself back into surplus, individual New Zealanders in their homes or in their businesses make decisions about whether they want to borrow money, invest offshore, or bring in fresh capital. That effectively underlies the current account deficit. It is people making free decisions. I do not know what Russel Norman is suggesting—whether he is suggesting that somehow we should stop people making free decisions. What precisely he is proposing to do to stop or to change the current account deficit issue, which has been around for 40 years, I do not know.

It seems to me that the only way you can really solve the issue over the long term is to grow the economy substantially—and everything that the Greens suggest is generally against growing the economy—and to increase savings. That is why I am always left puzzled when I am told that we should increase savings, but the two overwhelming themes of Labour and Green Party policy tend to be to bring in a capital gains tax. Well, if you are trying to encourage people to save, why would you then increase taxes on the result of saving, which is capital? If you save all your life and you put your money into your house or your business, they are now saying that they will introduce a capital gains tax in order to—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Take it off you.

—take it off you, and somehow that is going to encourage saving. I have never quite understood that logic. It is interesting. It is a bit like the Greens always understanding the logic of needing to increase taxes on cigarettes in order to stop people from smoking, but they refuse to accept the same logic when it comes to the point that you do not increase the taxes on working and income, because that may discourage work. The logic seems to depart from their understanding at that point. Then, when it comes to saving, if you are trying to encourage people to save, why you would increase taxes on saving, through a capital gains tax, is beyond me.

The other theme of their policy always seems to be about saying that just a little bit more inflation would be a good thing as well, so we always have to push away the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and somehow soften our line there, focus less on inflation maybe, print some money—no, they are not quite sure whether they want to do that any more. Again, that does not fit very well with the idea of increasing savings, because when inflation robs the savings of the thrifty, and when money can no longer be relied upon as a store of value, particularly if you are into quantitative easing, then savings and investment are undermined. So if you are talking about increasing savings while at the same time you are undermining the value of money, then you are going backwards and forwards at the same time, which is, in essence, what they seem to be talking about.

Just to carry on—where I see the challenges for this country is still in what is forecast as relatively modest growth for New Zealand. I think we have done very well through difficult times, but we could be doing better still. How do you increase growth? Well, there seem to be two areas, really. You increase your use of resources, and the Government is working very hard in the oil and gas area on trying to encourage us to make a living in this country, and that is important. I am glad to see that one or two people on the other side agree with that. The other area is about increasing productivity, innovation, and entrepreneurship in our businesses and our communities. That is what the Business Growth Agenda is all about. Some features of this Budget that I could mention briefly are the $100 million a year being put into an internationally focused growth package, providing extra research and development assistance to businesses, additional funding for tourism, and more resources for marketing New Zealand to international students. Those are the sorts of things that I think will make a difference in terms of encouraging innovation in those important sectors.

Let me look at the package for science and innovation funding, which has increased by $50 million. We are investing millions and millions of dollars into research and development in this country. That is designed to help New Zealand businesses grow and create genuine jobs that will build the savings and, ultimately, will solve some of the issues that the other side are talking about. I also want to mention the ACC levy cuts, which will see another $300 million being freed up by reducing ACC. That is a result of effective management of that system. The reality is that the New Zealand economy is built by a host of small businesses, and those small businesses struggle very hard with ACC levies. You feel like you have got on top of things. I remember it well. You feel like you have got on top of your business, that you are doing well, and the next thing you know a huge invoice comes from ACC. I think the best thing we can do to encourage businesses around this country is to reduce those levies. I am very proud of this Budget, on account of that basis. Thank you very much.

That was the sacrificial lamb to John Banks, otherwise known as Mr Goldsmith, who I think is now the chair of our Finance and Expenditure Committee. If that speech is reflective of how that committee is run, I can see why Winston found it far more interesting to talk about Peter Dunne. We need a far greater and more spirited delivery from the putative Minister if he wants to follow the track of other former, very important, formidable personalities who have chaired that committee.

💬 Hon Craig Foss: That’s correct—yes.

Yes, but I have to ask myself why was the senior whip of the National Party not promoted recently? Rather than going for the sitting member from Rotorua, I think that that party needs to address why it continually passed over talent, such as the member from the Taupō area, who was, unfortunately, as we say in Māori, put to the side—not quite to pasture; that is for the pompadour down there on that side of the House.

Let me come back to this Budget. Firstly, if there is an area where the Budget fails miserably, it is on jobs. That failure is shared evenly on that side of the House, although the Minister of Māori Affairs—and we had him at the select committee today—I think is particularly responsible for failing to advocate and influence the actual thinking and prioritisation amongst that side of the House, because if there is an area where unemployment stinks, it is amongst the young Pasifika and Māori. It is so bad that the recent OECD report—not that I am often taken to reading such dry narratives about the New Zealand economy, but where I find it agrees with my thinking, of course it deserves to be amplified—goes on to say that the transition from school to work, notably amongst ethnic minorities, is woeful and it is actually hindering the development of the country’s human capital. Why is the Government going to go and bring 30,000 Filipinos into New Zealand and leave thousands of young Pasifika and Māori decaying on the unemployment scrap heap? The Minister of Māori Affairs boasts that as a consequence of a $2 million initiative, he is going to address that wasted talent amongst the tangata whenua, yet this Government is preparing to manipulate immigration laws and bring in swathes of overseas workers at a time when our own people need to be incentivised—and, I say in my area of the north, forced—to go into training and take up those jobs. But, no, it is so much easier to import labour with all those challenges and watch our home-grown talent get lost.

There is nothing in the Budget that deals with these intractable issues, but what is in the Budget—and on this side of the House I join my colleague Mr Parker in saying this—is that there is definitely a case for being very judicious about maintaining current levels of expenditure, and ensuring that until such time as our export markets flourish to our benefit, we need to be very judicious about tracking expenditure going forward. So there is no inordinate disagreement there about what the Government is seeking to do to ensure that our creditors continue to see us as a safe bet. Where this Government has failed in that regard is that it has all of its priorities wrong—totally wrong. There is far too much energy, far too many trophies being hunted from a selected, narrow caste of economic Titans—not the least of whom are those in Auckland in the casino industry. That has been traversed and we accept that the contract is probably going to be put in place. Legislation, as I understand it, is probably going to wend its way through the House, but that is not going to change the fact that it has caused a great deal of stink, and I hope that comes to rest on the people responsible for that—not the least of whom are Mr Joyce and Mr John Key.

Today we witnessed an extraordinary event: Labour policy yet again being pinched by the current Government as it moves forward. I would like to see whether it takes the money out of the Mighty River Power sale proceeds to fund the rail loop. I should imagine that that is the only place it is going to get the capital. So what it is going to do is cause New Zealanders—in a diminishing number, I might say, because the majority of them will drift overseas—to buy the State-owned enterprises, and then it will use that dough to fund Labour Party policy. Labour Party policy, I say as the former transport spokesperson who actually had a considerable bit to do with the construction of that part of the manifesto, which was very pithy and lucid and clearly identified the way to unlock productivity—[Interruption]; modesty, modesty—is to unclog the roads and ensure that we have a modern, efficient, futureproofed transportation system in Auckland.

It is not for me to congratulate anyone, but it is for me to acknowledge from this side of the House, and amongst our confreres, politically speaking, up there in Auckland, that it has been a long and arduous task, which we have followed up. So I am only disappointed that that level of sophistication has not been brought to the Wairoa to Gisborne railway. No, if you are in the regions, you starve under this Government. If you are in the regions, it does not care about taking a strong facilitative approach for the forestry sector. If you are in the north, tourism is withering as a consequence of a very niggardly approach being taken to meeting the costs of boosting tourism. I have been told by tourism operators up there in the north that they receive in that part of the country a miserly sum of money. It is given where the National Party believes that it has its stronger friends.

Not only do we have a situation where rail has been starved but we have got this half-baked notion that somehow the South Island’s productivity is going to grow by building a new port and destroying Picton and Blenheim in the process. I have yet to hear how Gerry Brownlee hopes, in the context of a broader Budget debate, to fund this new port—a port that will be inordinately expensive and a huge resource management process—and why he would want to devastate two very pleasant communities, Picton and Blenheim, in the process. I can only imagine that he imagines he is going to attract international capital to underwrite the costs—if that is the case, then fess up about it—or he is going to further raid the transport fund for another pet project.

Earlier we heard from Mr Goldsmith that, in theory, saving was fine, but, in actual fact, it would never happen because Labour proposes to pursue a capital gains tax, which will deflate the value of housing. No, for the average household with one house seeking to create a home for mum, for the kids, and for the whānau, this policy, which he fears, is not designed to cause those people to find themselves in “Strugglers’ Gully”. This policy is designed to hit the speculators and those who, as a consequence of no capital gains tax, as a consequence of a loosening of financial lending from our major banks for residential purposes, have driven the cost of housing beyond the pale. It is our proposal that nothing in this Budget is actually going to influence the cost of housing in Auckland. All it is going to do is simplify the process for a narrow range of landowners who have had the gift, as a consequence of no capital gains tax, of holding land in certain areas of Auckland, and the value of that property will explode. The benefits associated with the provision of this housing will not be shared equally; they will once again fall to a narrow caste. Good on them for being investors, but do not imagine perpetually that you are going to be able to get away without having to meet your obligation through paying a proportion of your wealth by dint of capital back to the State.

We heard today that the Government has yet to finalise a deal not to do with rail loops, etc., but to do with housing in Auckland. I have got absolute confidence that that is going to end in tears. There is nothing that this Budget proposes that is going to simplify the process for your average Kiwi to get themselves into a home, because there is nothing happening in the regions that would cause investment to move out of our largest city, which is turning into a form of Buenos Aires, and actually support the Whangareis, support the New Plymouths, support the Gisbornes, and the Rotoruas, which is why, as our policies roll out in that particular area, more of them will come home to the whare Ropū Reipa. Kia ora tātou katoa.

We come to some 5-minute calls.

One of the headlines in Budget 2013 that has not received a lot of focus in the appropriations debate was this one on the Radio New Zealand website, which said: “Whanau Ora gets financial boost”. So in my time I want to bring some attention, or balance at least, to the debate by celebrating some of the transformation that is taking place under the radar in the name of Whānau Ora.

I have come across a clever analysis made by Dr Fiona Cram of the difference, described as Māori 3.0. If you will, Māori 1.0 was the bad old days, when the Governments hoped Māori “might ‘pass into’, and assimilate” into non-Māori life. The task of the Pākehā was to “smooth the pillow of a dying race”. Those were the days of integration.

This was followed by Māori 2.0, which Dr Cram describes as: “… half an understanding of what Māori wanted. In other words, it was based on looking at how Māori differed from non-Māori with a gaze still hazy with deficit-based interpretations.” In essence, Māori were defined by how they were not achieving. They were defined by disparities in health, in income, in housing, in justice, and even in accuracy of data. There is merit in Māori 2.0, in equality of citizenship rights—article 3 rights. This cannot be said to be a thing of the past when we are still suffering 8 years’ difference in life expectancy and when Māori leave school earlier and with fewer qualifications than their counterparts and access fewer health outcomes.

So the Māori Party is working hard to make a difference there, whether it be by this Budget, with this Budget having $100 million for home insulation, $21 million to reduce rheumatic fever, low or no interest loans to people who cannot access credit by other means, and $47 million for apprenticeships and cadetships. But, as I said earlier, fixing up the gaps is only half the issue here, and this is where I suppose we get to Māori 3.0.

Māori 3.0 is the story of Māori aspirations and dreams, according to Fiona Cram. It is about whānau working out ways to improve their own lives and to take up fresh opportunities and gains—to be more self-managing. Our people are tired of others telling them what to do, whether it be the Big Brother of the State or its various organs, whether they be the Government departments or the agencies that appear to run too many families. The Māori Party has always said that our voice is the voice of the people. It is not what we will do to them; it is about what the people actually will do for themselves. In essence, that is Whānau Ora and the possibility of a plan that drives change for people’s own lives.

One of the key findings that has come out in research is that whānau planning is a change tool for whānau. Common goals identified include financial planning and stability, building on cultural knowledge, healthy lifestyles, greater confidence in parenting, engaging in community life, and coping with grief and loss. There is a fantastic comment in Fiona Cram’s article, which I do want to share with the House, that emphasises the wider potential of Whānau Ora as the key instrument of Māori 3.0. She said: “Unless there is some serious contemplation of, and action for, structural change within government agencies and services then Māori 3.0, if it lives on, will continue only as a contained back room affair rather than the outrageous portent of Māori wellness and prosperity that it has the potential to be. But then wasn’t it Moana Jackson who asked a question along the lines of, ‘What has the government got to fear from a healthy, articulate and dynamic Māori population?’ ”.

At the end of the day Whānau Ora is an example of what distinguishes the Māori Party from pretty much every other party in this House, which might be best described as dominated, I suppose, by class ideology. An environment focus maybe? Left or right? Māori is not left or right. We are kaupapa-driven.

Is Māori 3.0 worth the investment that Fiona Cram talked about? I say, yes, it is. Professor Mason Durie said: “Whānau potential is high and ready to be unleashed; Whānau Ora provider networks are extensive, committed, innovative and ready to learn from each other; and Whānau Ora is already anchored on solid foundations that will bring fresh opportunities and gains for whānau in the decade ahead.” That is what Whānau Ora is all about.

In debating the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, I would like to start with Vote Health. The supplementary estimates increase ministerial servicing and policy advice by around $74,000. I am concerned that the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, is being badly serviced and badly advised about the needs of people with diabetes and also about the CareSens blood glucose meters. Today Minister Ryall said that he did agree that people with diabetes in New Zealand deserved reliable blood glucose - level meters, and I am heartened by that.

I am also pleased to report that Pharmac has been in touch with me and has asked me to pass on information from people with diabetes who have been having problems with these CareSens meters. I have sent Pharmac over 18,000 words of communication. One of those communications was from a young mother who just contracted diabetes less than 3 months ago, during her pregnancy. This young mother is having problems with her CareSens meter. This young mother is a health professional. She is a haematologist. Her mother and older sister have type 1 diabetes. Her father is a doctor. So it concerns me that someone with this degree of awareness about diabetes would write to me about problems with the CareSens meter. If this person writes to me, then we know there is a problem.

I would say that all MPs here can join me—there is room—to really push and help New Zealanders who have diabetes. They have diabetes through no fault of their own. They measure their day by the measure on their blood glucose meters. Their very next step is dependent on it, and they deserve to be healthy and they deserve to be safe. It is a real concern that the Minister’s claims of $10 million in savings will be at the expense of these Kiwis with diabetes, as many people have real problems with the new meters. My heart goes out to the young people and young parents, especially, and the elderly who have diabetes. They are having such terrible trouble with these CareSens meters.

Looking at Vote Housing, there would have to be real concerns regarding the multilayered bureaucracy here, including the bumbling and inept Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. The board has taken a highly inappropriate and heavy-handed approach to an industry of very good tradespeople. Had the Minister for Building and Construction put into the supplementary appropriations the tiny sum of $600,000 to fund discipline and enforcement—and that $600,0000 is less than what Ministers pay themselves for a Wellington housing allowance, I might add—then much of the problem the Government has made for itself here would be resolved. But, no, Maurice Williamson ignores the Ombudsman’s report and backs a board that lacks integrity and also lacks the support of the bulk of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers in New Zealand.

Coming to Vote Social Development, there are changes to over 50 line items, but what I do not see is a change to focus on the real needs of children. We need to provide an environment where children can be safe and can grow to be great adults and where families can be safe.

In the supplementary estimates for Vote Transport, KiwiRail gets an equity injection of $322 million, yet it is not able to maintain the track and run the business safely and properly. Less than 12 months ago KiwiRail solemnly promised that permanent workers would be the ones to do the core maintenance work. Those promises are shattered this month as the company is bringing in contractors to perform essential maintenance. It did not just happen somewhere out on an isolated track; it happened in the main depot at Tauranga, just rubbing salt into the wounds of people who were employed by KiwiRail and took it in good faith.

What are we also seeing? Just last week we saw the Wellington transport shambles as the trains are out of action after a small storm left the seawall breached, ballast scoured by seawater, and tracks hanging in mid-air. That is no way to run a train service. I would say that in Europe and in other parts of the world, they get snow all the time. They get wind and rain, but the thing is they look after their lines so they do not have the continual interruptions that we have not only to our transport system but also to power supply, water supply, and other essential services. It is just not good enough. You know, we need to pull New Zealand into the 21st century. Thank you.

The Labour Party is always keen to grab an extra call when we get the opportunity and to talk about the Budget and the Government’s appropriations and, frankly, about what this Government is not prepared to do. What it is not prepared to do is follow the good advice from the OECD that says that New Zealand has the greatest level of inequality than at any point in its history, that it has greater levels of inequality than most OECD nations, and that it is failing to implement the policies that would not only grow our economy—get our economy out of the two-speed situation that it is in at the moment—but also reduce the inequalities between the very rich and the very poor that we are seeing growing day by day under this National Government.

The kinds of things that this Government is refusing to do are exactly the things that the OECD thinks we should do. We should have a capital gains tax to achieve two different things—firstly, to ensure that investment in New Zealand is placed into the productive economy and that we do not have incentives in our tax system for investors to chase the speculative dollar in the rental property market. At the moment, we have far too much money invested in the rental property market, which drives up prices, keeps young New Zealanders out of the housing market, and is making houses more and more unaffordable across the country but particularly in Auckland. It means that the investment money that is going into those rental properties is not going into the productive job-creating sector.

That is what we should be encouraging investments in in New Zealand. But the Government refuses to because it knows that its vested interests already have their money tied up in rental properties, and they want to make their tax-free profits off the New Zealanders who have to rent their properties, who cannot afford to buy a home of their own, and who are stuck in the rental trap. Who is making money off that? It is the National Party’s mates who are getting away with it, tax-free and scot-free.

We in the Labour Party agree with the OECD when it says that we should be implementing a capital gains tax. But we should be doing more, and that Government should be doing more, to grow jobs in New Zealand. This is where Labour has a plan, and the National Party clearly does not have a plan. What Labour would do is it would reduce structural costs in the economy, like the cost of electricity. We want to bring down the cost of electricity, redistribute those super-profits that the electricity companies have been making for years, and give those profits back, not only to New Zealand households—because it is important that New Zealand households get a break and get a bit more money in their back pockets—but to New Zealand businesses as well, particularly New Zealand’s small businesses and start-up businesses that need to reduce their costs as much as possible so that they can get on their feet and become viable, profitable, and long-lasting, and so that they can become job creators as well.

Labour wants to return about $450 million a year back into the New Zealand economy. It is money that is being taken out of the economy by unjustified profits for the electricity generators. That has been independently assessed to be able to create about 5,000 jobs in the economy. National talks a lot about creating jobs but it never delivers—it never delivers. The Labour Party has policies that will deliver jobs for New Zealand. We want to get the price of houses down by implementing a housebuilding programme in Auckland and in other parts of the country that not only makes things easier for New Zealand households, for hard-working Kiwis who are trying to get on the property ladder, but also it creates a demand for skilled tradespeople by creating jobs for them.

That is what we need in this country, and that is what this Budget should have delivered—a hands-on approach to real job creation, not magic numbers that the Government cannot deliver on. The Government keeps telling us that it can deliver 170,000 jobs, but we have never seen them. Every year it keeps predicting that these jobs are going to come, but it never shows us a policy that is actually going to deliver them. We think that a Labour-led New Zealand Government should follow the orthodox practices that are being implemented by countries around the world, including a capital gains tax and a greater emphasis on the exchange rate, so that we can again make business costs more predictable for our small businesses and start-up businesses. That is what the Government should be doing, and that is what Labour will deliver when it is elected at the next election.

What rubbish! What rubbish we hear about Labour’s energy policies. In the last 4 years of that Government over there power went up 27.9 percent, and in our first 4 years it was 13.6 percent and we did a multibillion-dollar infrastructure upgrade in that period of time. When I asked the previous speaker, Iain Lees-Galloway, where the 5,000 jobs are going to come from, he had nothing to say. I think New Zealanders need to hear those sorts of speeches and the emptiness of them and hear these people across the way, who say that they can do so much. Yet when you look at it, when you look under the cover, there is nothing there to show.

This Budget is a Budget that will continue to take New Zealand forward. We know that—we know that. We know that this Government is very proactive. We are seeing economic activity increase. We are seeing jobs increase. We are seeing that New Zealanders have the best cost of living situation in years and years and years—the lowest interest rates in decades. All Opposition members can do is hue and cry about what they are going to do, and we know that this is just puffery. It is empty. There is nothing that they can say that is going to make substantial improvements.

I want to talk just very briefly about communications. We know that this Government is prioritising the ultra-fast broadband build, and we know that we are going to see some significant improvements in our economy because of it. The World Bank analysis published in 2009 “suggests that investment in Broadband infrastructure has a higher flow-through to nationwide productivity than ...” any other area of electronic communication. What it says is: “Across a range of countries, this analysis shows a 10-percentage point increase in telecommunications ... via Broadband would be expected to increase economic growth by between 1.2 and 1.4 percent.” So we know that we are living in an age—[Interruption] Oh, listen to them. Come on, come on, come on, Trevor. Listen to them. We know that we live in this age where electronic communication via ultra-fast broadband is going to make the difference, that we have New Zealand companies that can transact business across the globe, and we can see the ingenuity and innovation of this place having a great effect for our companies.

I have to say that New Plymouth was one of the first places—and the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who is sitting up there, will acknowledge; good to see you, sir—where ultra-fast broadband was rolled out, so that is fantastic. It is fantastic to see a Government supporting our city.

We know that we are seeing some great advances in this, in education and in health. I am glad Opposition members have woken up. It is going to be dinner time soon. They can have their dinner then go back to sleep. We are going to see a fantastic increase in the ability of people in the health sector to access specialist care via ultra-fast broadband. We know that those places that are way away from some of—

💬 Hon Member: What a rambling mess—we’re talking about the member.

Ha! Those opportunities are going to be enhanced in a major way. It is great to see. I think that, just in closing, in September last year we had the Australian broadband committee come and visit. The Commerce Committee, which I chair, hosted it. The committee came to look at what we were doing, and members commented that they felt that we had a really good way of putting it together, which was a public-private partnership. We know from all of that that we are seeing that New Zealand is ahead of the game compared with our Australian compatriots.

Their original cost was estimated to be around about $33 billion. Some analysts are now projecting that it is going to cost around $94 billion, where we have capped our Government roll-out costs at $1.35 billion. We are ahead in so many ways. We are going to see some tremendous advances. We are beginning to see it already as schools, hospitals, businesses, and private homes are connected to this ultra-fast broadband. It is making the difference in so many different ways, and this Government is doing it.

We return to 10-minute calls. Darien Fenton.

Well, I must say that I feel sorry for the National backbenchers. I know that they have to stand up and spout the party line and the lines written for them by the research centre, but they are getting a little bit boring, can I say. Can I also give the National backbenchers and, in fact, the front bench a bit of a warning. They are sounding more arrogant by the day, and arrogance is the first sign of a Government that is going to lose. The fact is that this Government has turned its back on the unemployed, on the underemployed, and on New Zealand families, and that is what happens when politicians talk only to themselves. That is what the National members do. They talk to themselves, they talk to their research unit, they get the lines, and out they come.

The fact about this Budget is that the biggest con job that has been imposed on Kiwis is the promise around creating more jobs.

💬 Andrew Little: What a joke.

What a joke. John Key promised New Zealanders 170,000 jobs not once, not twice—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: How many times?

Three times—three times: once in the election in 2010, once in Budget 2011, and once in the election campaign. And, look, there have been mass redundancies. We are not seeing jobs created. In the last year there have been mass redundancies at Dynamic Controls, Rakon, Solid Energy, Norske Skog, Tīwai Point, Axiam Metals—[Interruption] Yes, I am getting there—and mass redundancies at Nuplex Industries and Aquaheat. Look, I could go on and on. But today, in the saddest announcement, we heard that job losses at New Zealand Post will result in the loss of 130 jobs in the Waikato, 160 in Wellington, 75 in Dunedin, and 125 in the heartland and satellite sites. So today we have got a lot of New Zealand Post workers feeling very fearful for their future job prospects. They know that it is not a good time to be looking for another job with secure hours and good rates of pay. Have we had any sympathy, or any mention of that, from any of the National Party speakers? Have we? Any sympathy? No. Silence, just silence. The tragedy is that these are good jobs, decent jobs, well-paid jobs, where workers can earn a living and support their families. We cannot afford to lose jobs like these, but we are.

This is a time when inequality is growing and Kiwis are struggling. And what is the Government’s answer?

💬 Sue Moroney: They haven’t got one.

Well, no, it does actually. It does have an answer: cut wages. Let us cut wages, of course. Let us cut the wages of Kiwi workers by taking the axe to Kiwi workers’ rights and wage negotiations. I have been wondering whether the National Party thinks that the wage gap of 30 percent with Australia is not big enough. Perhaps it wants to make it bigger.

💬 Sue Moroney: Bill English said it wasn’t big enough.

Well, he did—that is right. And, actually, John Key said: “We would love to see wages drop.” We have not forgotten that.

If National thinks that the gap is big enough already, why on earth would it be proposing changes to employment law that will have a knock-on effect on jobs and wages right across this country? This Budget is meaningless until the National Party starts to understand that. Why on earth would the Government be proposing laws that mean that employers can refuse to negotiate collective agreements? They can walk away from them. But, even worse, why would the Government be proposing to cut the rights of Kiwi workers to meal breaks and tea breaks, with a miserable provision? We all know that John Key and John Banks enjoyed a cup of tea.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: They like a cup of tea.

They had a cup of tea. They had a cup of tea. They got their heads together to plan to cut the wages and the tea breaks of New Zealand workers.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: All day.

All day, that is right.

Today Statistics New Zealand released its Survey of Working Life for the December quarter, and it makes very interesting reading. There are two things about the headline results. First of all, Kiwi workers are positive about working, despite the National Party’s insistence and the picture it tries to paint of Kiwi workers as being lazy, ungrateful, and unmotivated employees who have to be forced out to work by Paula Bennett and her police people in Work and Income. But buried in the statistics are some other things that tell us a lot more about the issues that are facing Kiwi workers. The first thing is that one in every 10 jobs is temporary. That means that those jobs are casual, or they are fixed term, or they are jobs working for a temporary hire agency, or they are jobs for seasonal workers. These are really hard jobs. These are the hard jobs, where families cannot get ahead.

I want to share an email I had recently from someone I am going to meet. I think he sent an email to most politicians, and it said: “To whom it may concern, or help, or desperately searching for someone who gives a toss. After more than 3 years of working as an independent contractor with my own courier business, I am at my wits’ end, and stress is killing me. I work a 60-hour week and haven’t had a day off, other than weekends and unpaid statutory holidays, in more than 3 years. I earn $8 an hour.” This is John Key’s New Zealand, people. This is John Key’s New Zealand—$8 an hour. That is just absolutely and utterly shameful. He is a contractor—Nicky Wagner is looking puzzled over there. He is a contractor.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She always does.

Yes, that is right.

The second thing that was interesting about the survey was that 18 percent—or nearly two out of 10 workers—feel more stressed at work. Ten percent have experienced discrimination, bullying, or harassment, and nearly a quarter are working between 41 and 59 hours a week. In fact, 6 percent are working more than 60 hours a week. Two in every 10 workers thought the chance of losing their jobs in the next 12 months was high or almost certain. So there is real insecurity and real issues out there.

But the fact is that the National Party never talks to real workers. I heard Nick Smith say today that it was “only $2”, when he was talking about prescription charges. That was a great “let them eat cake” statement. Go back to McGehan Close, Mr Key, and tell them that. And we have now a Minister of Labour who has never had to face an employer trying to cut his pay. And to make it even worse, he does not even understand his own law. Here is a beauty. A couple of weeks ago Simon Bridges told bFM: “at the moment, you must belong to the union for the first 30 days [of employment]. We’re saying no, actually the employee has a choice.”

💬 Sue Moroney: What? That’s not true.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s not true.

Of course it is not true. Fact check, Mr Bridges. You are the Minister of Labour. Get your facts right. No one is forced to join a union in this country in their first 30 days, or otherwise. In your new job, your employer cannot pay you less than a union agreement rate, whether you are in the union or not. But, of course, Simon Bridges wants to take that provision away.

And then, of course, there is Jami-Lee Ross’s bill, the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill. Jami-Lee Ross has been given the job of running up the more extreme agenda of the National Party, when it comes to workers’ rights. Simon Bridges and John Key like to pretend that they have got this moderate approach, this—what do they call it—moderate law. But Jami-Lee Ross has been given the job by the National Party to run up this extreme bill, which shows the worst of the National Party. It shows that in the beating heart of the National Party it still hates workers, hates unions, and wants to punish them by making it impossible for workers to strike, and by giving employers the right to lock workers out, replace them with temporary workers, and starve them into submission. That is absolutely Orwellian. It is—what is the word?

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Dickensian.

Dickensian and Orwellian.

So, despite this Budget, we are heading for a very divisive phase in New Zealand. The constant grinding down of families and workers is not going to help build our country, and that will continue under this Government. You would think that after 5 long years of this Government we would have got to a point in this Budget where it would provide assistance for people who lose their jobs, and to help build higher-value, higher-wage industries. We are just seeing the destruction of that. We are seeing the Government completely ignore what the manufacturers are saying.

💬 Andrew Little: They don’t care about them.

It does not care about them. That is right. Because it knows best.

So I go back to what I said at the beginning: watch out for arrogance. It is creeping into your speeches, and it is creeping into your Prime Minister. People are noticing it. They do not like it. They do not like being told that their issues do not matter, that they should not be listened to, that the National Party knows best, and that people who oppose its views should be ignored or, in some cases, even punished. Unfortunately, this is a Government that talks big, hangs out with its mates in the boardrooms, and ignores those who work hard to make a living but just cannot get ahead—just cannot get ahead. Thank you.

Contrary to what the members on the other side of the House say, this Budget confirms that New Zealand is on the right financial track. It has forecast economic growth, more jobs, rising wages, and a return to surplus by 2014-15. New Zealand households and businesses have faced some pretty tough times over the last 5 years, but the economic recovery is gaining momentum. It is driven by low interest rates, driven by investment, and driven by strong export prices. The National Government is managing our finances extremely well. We are on track to meeting our two fiscal targets. We are on track to meeting our two fiscal responsibility targets: to reach surplus by 2014-15 and to bring our net core debt back down to no higher than 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

The Government is focused on building a competitive and productive economy because, actually, that is the only way we are going to earn our way out of this and make a living in the world. This Budget creates a $100-million-a-year, internationally focused growth package to support increased trade and investment, which, in turn, will create jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders.

We are also delivering Better Public Services, particularly for low-income families. We are insulating more houses and providing more social housing, more rent subsidies, funding for children for treatment of rheumatic fever, and budgeting services. But, actually, it is paid employment that is the best way to lift vulnerable families out of poverty. The Government is investing almost $200 million to help New Zealanders into work.

And, of course, of most interest to me, the Government is totally committed to supporting the recovery and the rebuild of Christchurch and Canterbury. That rebuild is gaining momentum. Every day people are moving into new houses or moving into their newly repaired homes. Local shopping centres are opening up. Two hundred and fifty groups of workers are working on our streets and on our infrastructure, and they are getting great results. New commercial buildings are opening all across the city. The people of Christchurch, although still struggling with what we have lost, are becoming increasingly inspired and excited by the opportunities for our city. The Government, in this Budget, has increased its share of the rebuild package to $15 billion. With other investments and insurance payments, that means that Christchurch and Canterbury will get a $30 billion - plus spend over the next decade or so. That will be a real boost for our region and beyond.

So, in conclusion, this Government sees a brighter future for New Zealand. This Government particularly sees it in trading with our Asian neighbours, the people who live in our part of the world, whose economies are growing. Our challenge is to make sure that our economy is both fiscally sound and very competitive. This Government and this Budget ensure that New Zealand is well on the way. Thank you.

I think anyone listening to this debate must be appalled that a speaker from the Government, there to promote her Government’s own Budget, could not even get halfway through a 10-minute call before she resumed her seat. There is so little for Nicky Wagner to say that is glowing about her own Government’s Budget that she could not even get to the 2-minute bell before she sat down. I think that that probably just about says it all.

But the OECD had a lot more to say today about that Government’s poor performance with the economy, because the OECD report actually tells it like it is. It tells us that this is a Government that actually does not have a brighter future at stake for New Zealanders. It tells us that this is a Government that is deliberately putting in policies, through its Budget, that actually grow inequality in this country. That is not the path to a brighter future. But before I talk too much more about what the OECD had to say, I think that we can already see from what is happening in New Zealand that the Government got it wrong. It has got it wrong. We do not have to be academics to know this. We do not have to read great long OECD reports to know this. We can just pick up the newspaper or look on the internet and see that this very day we had 500 job losses announced from New Zealand Post. One hundred and thirty of those jobs were from my city of Hamilton—130 jobs going today in Hamilton alone. Not only does that have severe implications for those 130 workers and their families—so we are talking probably 400 or 500 people who are going to be directly affected by that announcement in Hamilton alone today—but also it has a significant impact on the local Hamilton economy, because when those reasonably well-paid, decent jobs go, the wages of those jobs go from our economy as well. Those 130 workers will no longer have the wages to spend locally. Those wages will disappear from our economy, and the very next thing that will happen is that other small businesses will have to make further redundancies in their companies because the economy is in a downward spiral. That is the impact of the lack of a plan from that Government.

The previous speaker for the Government made much of the fact that it would be reaching surplus in 2014 or 2015. We agree with that in Labour. We think that it is an important goal. But I think that when National actually gave that commitment to New Zealanders at the last election, most New Zealanders expected that the Government would reach that goal by growing the economy—that that is the way the Government would get to surplus by 2014. Well, it is not so, and the Budget documents expose it. The Government is not going to reach surplus by growing the economy and improving economic growth in New Zealand. The way that it is getting to surplus is actually by keeping ACC levies higher than they need to be. So what the Government has done is reach into the pocket of every worker in New Zealand and every employer in New Zealand and kept their ACC levies—some call it a tax—and kept that tax higher than the ACC wanted it to be. The other day during a select committee hearing we found out how much the Government is taking out of workers’ pockets: $400 million at least is being taken out of workers’ pockets through ACC levies in order to create the illusion of a Budget surplus for that Government in 2014-15, and $150 million is being taken out of the pockets of employers in this country for exactly the same purpose.

If that Government understood how to grow the economy, it would not have to do that. It would not have to resort to keeping a higher tax on ACC than is necessary. If that Government understood what drives economic growth, it would much prefer to see that $500 million to $600 million this year back in the pockets of workers and businesses so that they could spend that money in the economy and actually get the economy moving. But, no, no, no, this Government chooses instead to take that out of their pockets and put it in the Government’s accounts to create the illusion of a surplus.

One of the main things that the OECD report said today was that the Government’s policy settings are growing inequality in New Zealand. I want to talk about inequality, because this week a very important case has gone before the Employment Court. I want to congratulate both the Service and Food Workers Union and a very courageous woman by the name of Kristine Bartlett on her standing up for New Zealand women. She is taking a case to the court around equal pay. She is asking the court to rule on whether it is OK for her to be paid $14.32 an hour as a caregiver in a rest home with 20 years’ service. That is the sort of inequality we see. She has been working for 20 years as a caregiver in a rest home, and she is on a little bit above the minimum wage. She is going to court to ask whether that is fair. That woman, on her $14.32 an hour, has much more courage than the Minister of Women’s Affairs, who is the person who is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to stand up for New Zealand women. Where is she on this issue? Well, what Jo Goodhew, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, has to say to Kristine Bartlett is that if she wants decent pay, she should go and do a man’s job. If you want a decent rate of pay, Kristine Bartlett, according to the Minister of Women’s Affairs, go and train to be an electrician, go and train to be a plumber, but do not do that very important work of caring for people in rest homes.

Well, I was there from this side of the House and from Labour to congratulate Kristine on her courage, because I know the courage and the commitment that it takes to actually be the person who stands up and says that it is not good enough. It is not OK to have the gender pay gap that we have in this country, and it is not OK for someone to have worked for 20 years in a field that actually requires a lot of intellectual capability, is a very physical job, is a very emotional job, and is a very, very skilled job, and here she is on $14.32 an hour.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Prior to the dinner break I was talking about what a sham the idea is that the Government is going to get to surplus by the financial year 2014-15. It is a sham because the New Zealand voting public thought they were being promised that the National Government was going to do that by lifting economic performance and by economic growth. Now they have found out that they have been duped, because, in fact, the National Government is putting its hands into workers’ pockets and employers’ pockets and getting that surplus through having higher ACC levies than ACC itself said it needed to be able to pay for the cost of injuries and rehabilitation in this country. So it is a sham from the outset.

Then I moved on to talk about the fact that the OECD today raised concerns about the Government’s policies that are creating more inequality in this country and that are actually moving resources from the people who need resources to those who do not. We saw that with the Government’s tax cuts. It was the wealthy people who did the best out of them, and it was the poorest people who struggle on a day-to-day basis to get by. As a result of that, we find that a sole rest home worker, with her union, is having to go to court to try to contest equal pay, to try to contest whether the Equal Pay Act means that she should be getting paid more than $14.32 an hour after 20 years of service at a rest home, doing some of the most skilled work and some of the most valuable work in this society, looking after older people—and, yes, Mr Hayes, that is difficult work. It is physically challenging, it is emotionally challenging, it is intellectually challenging, and it ought to be paid more than just a scrape above the minimum wage.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Women’s Affairs has no plan to actually value low-paid work. In fact, the Minister of Finance has said that he thinks that it is a good thing that we have low wages in New Zealand. Bill English said that he likes the idea of having a 30 percent wage gap between Australia and New Zealand. He thinks that that gives us an economic advantage. That is the sort of flawed thinking that has got this country into the mess we are in today.

Could I say to the previous speaker from across the House, Sue Moroney, that if getting to surplus in 2014-15 is such a sham, I am prepared to wager one dozen bottles of Ata Rangi pinot noir—Ata Rangi won first prize late last week at the Gold Awards; first prize for the whole Greater Wellington area—if we are not in surplus in 2014-15. If you are not prepared to take that wager on, we can see that it is you who are offering the sham—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—it is Labour that is offering the sham, not this side of the House. These bills, the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill, continue the Government’s economic and fiscal strategy and provide funding for the Government to operate until the 2013 Budget is passed. There is no sham in that. That is why we are here tonight, Ms Moroney. The bills are about responsible management of the Government’s finances. I have to say, Ms Moroney, that we are on track to return to surplus and to begin to reduce debt by 2014-15. I am prepared to put up my own money against your lie, because that is what it is. That is the sham.

I would draw attention to an article in the Dominion Post earlier this week. In fact, I think it was either yesterday or the day before. It was written by Lew Evans, Professor of Economics at Victoria University. You see, as we discovered at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning, not only do Mr Cunliffe and the Labour Party want to introduce a capital gains tax on every business and farm, force households to pay an extra $500 a year under an emissions trading scheme, and spend and borrow more money, but in their rush to appeal to the political left and scratch every political itch, they ignore the economic impacts of their ideas. The plan on electricity outlined in this article under review is playing politics with the value of New Zealand’s economic assets, and they do not care, Ms Moroney, whom it affects.

Let me quote from this article: “The model proposed by the Greens and Labour of a single electricity buyer with price discrimination has been likened to Pharmac. The only feature the two have in common is that both face some trouble in getting supplies and investment in New Zealand. In the case of Pharmac, there are benefits to be balanced against these effects. Pharmac funds pharmacological drugs on a list it approves for New Zealand. Drugs not on the list that have health and safety approval can still be used, but they are not funded …”. The article goes on to say: “In contrast, a single buyer in electricity will be a monopoly buyer in an industry where supply is sensitive to price. A single buyer may also have to be given regulatory powers to make operational decisions for suppliers. For example, there may be alternative uses for water that are more profitable than producing electricity at the single-buyer price, meaning regulation would be needed to require generating firms to use water for power generation.” Have you thought about that, Ms Moroney? No, I do not think you have thought about that.

It continues: “A second reason is that the wholesale market for electricity is operating relatively effectively yet it is to be restructured with no definable purpose. The proposal entails reducing the price paid for electricity from particular sources of generation and lowering the price of electricity to households. The reduced price reduces returns to private owners. The government, which owns power companies, will lose dividend revenue and receive less tax revenue from the privately held electricity firms because their dividends are lower. Assuming the lost Crown revenue is to be replaced by increased taxation …”. That is what the Labour and Green Opposition in this country is offering our community. “In targeting the ‘market’ in ‘electricity market’ the proposal would produce an unstable commercial environment.”—an unstable commercial environment—says Lewis Evans, Professor of Economics at Victoria University, in this week’s Dominion Post.

He goes on to say: “It is tempting to draw comparisons with health and education where the state does buy services. However, in these, labour rather than capital determines cost. Capital and date of establishment are less of a factor in costs and profitability and so there would be an opportunity for the price manipulation of the proposal … The investment and price effects of the single buyer for electricity suggest that a better comparison would be the New Zealand Electricity Department of the 1960s and 1970s.” That is where the Opposition wants to take us back to—the 1960s and 1970s. He goes on: “In that era taxpayers paid, and politicians made pricing, investment and operational choices in the electricity sector.” That is why David Shearer is so low in the polls—because our community knows that “The associated planning and control of electricity produced some poor investment decisions and meant that the price of electricity was not its cost.”

That is why it is important that we pass this legislation tonight, and it is why it is important that our country does not let us go into any form of Labour-Green Party - run Government. The best option for the community is to stick with the National-led Government, which is building a stronger, more stable economy that can weather global storms and deliver opportunities, higher incomes, and more jobs for New Zealanders. Budget 2013 continues to do that. I can tell you, from the experience of my electorate, that households in the Wairarapa and businesses there have faced some pretty challenging times in the past 5 years—for example, because of the global financial crisis, the Christchurch earthquakes, and with continuing global uncertainty, especially in Europe. And in some parts of the Wairarapa, especially in retailing, businesses are still facing quite difficult circumstances and difficult challenges. Although these challenges remain, the economic recovery is gaining momentum, and it is being driven in that direction by low interest rates, by investment, and by strong export prices. What I see happening right across the Wairarapa electorate is jobs being created. I have just done some checking on my computer this evening and discovered that there are more than 50,000 more jobs in this economy today than we had 2 years ago. The fiscal outlook has improved markedly because of the National-led Government’s sound management, and that is why you guys—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

—that is why the Labour Opposition is at 30 percent in the polls, because the community can see through things like the capital gains tax, which they do not wish to have.

I remember that when we came into office in 2008 we inherited a set of Government books that had debt running at 60 percent of GDP by 2020, and no prospect of a Government Budget surplus ever again. This Government is on track to meet two key fiscal targets—first of all, to get back into surplus in 2014-15. Ms Moroney, I am waiting for you to pick up my wager. Or are you the sham?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I meant is Ms Moroney the sham, not you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I was not thinking about you at all. And we will have a surplus in 2014-15—

💬 Sue Moroney: Dame Moroney to you.

Lady Moroney, if you like—Lady Moroney. We are going to have a surplus of $75 million in 2014-15. I am really proud to be part of a Government that is taking this country in that direction.

Furthermore, we must follow the work of the Ministerial Committee on Poverty. Budget 2013 confirms important initiatives to support low-income families, because it is important in places like Masterton and Dannevirke that we do that. I am really pleased that this Government is spending $100 million over the next 3 years to insulate 46,000 more homes, which is very important at this time of the year, more than $21 million over the next 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in children, and an extra $1.5 million for budgeting services. Some of that will go to the budget service in Dannevirke, and some will go into the budget service in Waipukurau, and I support that. Furthermore, we are supporting a whiteware programme to help beneficiaries buy new appliances. This is excellent legislation, which I support fully.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak generally on the Government’s economic strategy as it relates to the bills before us—the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill. As we heard earlier today from my colleague Dr Russel Norman, the Government strategy effectively boils down to borrowing more money, enough to prop up economic activity, mostly in the non-tradable sector—the Christchurch rebuild is going to add some to that—so that it can scrape together an ostensible surplus in the Government books and make GDP look a little bit better by the next election.

The problem with this strategy is quite obvious. It is completely unsustainable, in every sense of the word, and it does not reflect true progress, economic or otherwise. The Government’s own forecasts show that its strategy is going to lead to our current account deficit growing to $17 billion by 2017. That means that in 4 years we will be spending even more money than we do now, and even more than we are going to be earning as we make our way in the world. This is completely unsustainable. This imbalance in our economy is going to result in the quality of life of New Zealanders being worse, because there will eventually be a correction. The sooner we face up to the true fundamental structural issues in our economy, the better off we are going to be.

The Green Party stands for a clean, green economy that works for all New Zealanders, not just the few, not just the Government’s mates, and not just those who are already doing very well under the current circumstances. The Green Party has been setting the agenda and leading the debate on policies that will deliver a smart, green economy for all New Zealanders. A perfect example of that is the initiative that the previous speaker, John Hayes, referred to, which was the home insulation scheme. The Green Party worked very hard to negotiate the home insulation scheme with the previous Labour-led Government, and worked very hard again to ensure that it continued to exist under the National-led Government when it came into office in 2008. The National Government scaled back quite significantly the proposal that the Green Party had put forward. It was about one-third of what the Green Party was proposing, but we were able to convince National that it was a good idea to invest in insulation, and that it was a great way to create jobs in the wake of the financial crisis in the building sector, and it has been proved to have enormous benefits not only economically in terms of energy efficiency but also—and even more so—in health benefits.

So those are the kinds of smart, green ideas that the Green Party has been putting forward and that are being taken up by both of the big parties. Thank goodness the Green Party has been in Parliament to talk some sense into both of the big parties. Unfortunately, the National Government is not taking up our smart, green ideas on climate change. Today in the United States, President Obama gave a historic speech calling for urgent action on the most serious issue of our time. He admitted that we cannot continue to drill, mine, and extract fossil fuels and also meet the challenge of climate change and provide a healthy, stable climate for our children and grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren deserve to inherit a world where they can live, be healthy, and do well without having to worry about increasing frequency and severity of storms resulting from human-induced climate change.

The issue is so clear and stark. The choices we have in front of us are so clear. In the future we will look back at this time in 2013 and ask ourselves: “What was the National Party thinking? Why didn’t they take this opportunity to help us futureproof New Zealand’s economy so that we could do our part?”. I know that New Zealanders care about our future. I know they care about our planet. I know they care about their children, their grandchildren, and their grandchildren’s children who are yet to be born. I know they are willing to do their part. What is unfair is that this National Government is not taking the steps. It is denying New Zealanders the choice to transition to a clean, green economy that would work for all New Zealanders, not just the few and not just the National Government’s rich mates.

The National Government has its head in the sand on this issue. We have asked Government Ministers time and time again whether they recognise the challenge of human-induced climate change. Do they recognise that it is real, as President Obama of the United States has said? The US is a large trading partner that the National Government is trying to court for a free-trade deal. President Obama has said he has no patience for climate change deniers, and yet our Minister of Finance has made statements in this House to the effect that climate change may well not be real. So it is clear that the National Government has its head in the sand. All the Government has done on the issue is weaken an already very weak emissions trading scheme. Essentially, it has become a meaningless and complicated charade that gives big subsidies to polluters.

Let us come to the issue of affordable housing, as the Green Party has also been leading the debate on affordable housing. The Green Party has been speaking about the merits of a capital gains tax since the early 2000s.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is there anything that you didn’t invent?

Well, it was not me, but it was our former co-leader Rod Donald, who was begging the Labour-led Government in 2002 to institute a capital gains tax. The Labour Party is capable of learning, and it has come on board with many policies, such as a capital gains tax. I think Labour members advocate very well for it now, and I do give credit where it is due, but it was Rod Donald who was begging the Labour Party to institute a capital gains tax back in 2002. It would have contributed quite a lot of revenue to the Government’s books, and it would have potentially dampened the housing price bubble that we are continuing to see in Auckland.

The National Government is supposedly going to achieve affordable housing through its Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill—which has been introduced; it is still before the House—by enabling developers to set up in special zones where they will be completely free from the Resource Management Act, completely free from agreed unitary plan or district plan rules, and under orders of this particular bill, if it passes into law, to provide areas that are mainly housing. We have seen in other countries that rural subdivisions or fringe subdivisions that are mainly housing have been incredibly harmful for the economy. In fact, it was those car-dependent, housing-only suburbs where house prices collapsed first, because people were too far away from services and jobs and they could not afford to keep driving to those services and jobs. As their transport costs increased, the value of their houses collapsed, and they found themselves owing more money than their houses were worth.

The National Government is a lot of talk and no action on housing, it is a lot of talk and no action on climate change, and, as we have seen today, it is a lot of talk and no action on transport. We have seen the Government finally admit that rail is the best option to address congestion, to ensure that Auckland is able to grow in a sustainable way, and to ensure that business and economic interests are met by our transport.

💬 Phil Twyford: Thank you for supporting Labour policy.

Of course, the Green Party has been an advocate of rail in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand for quite a long time. We have led the debate, actually.

💬 Phil Twyford: You’re a very good supporter.

The Green Party was begging the Labour-led Government in 2006 and 2007 to electrify the rail line. I know that the member Phil Twyford was not here at that time, in 2006 and 2007, so it was not his fault, but Michael Cullen did not want to electrify Auckland’s rail line. It was the Green Party that managed to force the Clark-Cullen Government to contribute the money for electrification, to ensure that Auckland’s rail development could go forward. Now we have the National-led Government trying to claim credit for what was essentially a Green Party initiative, committed under the Labour-led Government in 2007. Now the Government is trying to claim credit for the City Rail Link and for future rail development, to which it will not commit funding.

When the National Government says 2020 will see the start of construction of the City Rail Link, that means that John Key will be long gone, and New Zealand will be stuck paying back the heavy debt that was incurred by this Government on these crazy motorways that have no economic case. Unfortunately, the National-led Government, although it has finally admitted that rail is the future for Auckland, is still delaying the solutions that Auckland really needs. The Green Party will continue to argue for the economic solutions that will help New Zealand.

I rise to speak to the second reading of the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. The performance of the economy and the measures outlined in the Budget—the fifth presented by Bill English—are very bad news for our political opponents and very good news, in fact, great news, for New Zealanders. Let us do just a quick recap on the roll-call summary of the successes resulting from this Government’s management of our economy. Economic growth is at 2.4 percent. It is about the same as Australia’s growth, and certainly higher than that of almost every other developed country. Our economy is forecast to grow between 2 percent and 3 percent a year over the next 4 years. Wages are growing, cost of living increases have been modest, and interest rates are at 50-year lows.

💬 Scott Simpson: Wow! How much?

At 50-year lows. It is incredible. There are 50,000 more jobs than there were 2 years ago, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 6.2 percent, which is still high, and we are working very hard on improving that, too. It is tracking in the right direction, though. Currently it is at its lowest level in 3 years. Household income has risen by 20 percent in the past 4 years, and is expected to rise by almost 20 percent in the next 4 years.

Earlier this afternoon we heard an accurate, excellent, insightful, and entertaining history of the Labour Party from the Hon Chris Finlayson.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Too short.

It was too short. In fact, it could have gone on for many hours. Usually what we see of Labour is sad and getting sadder by the day, especially if you go by its tragic showing in today’s polls. The Herald-DigiPoll revealed that its support has slumped by 5.5 percent to—where is that sign—just 30 percent. The question is: can David Shearer survive the drumming in the weekend’s Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election? I do not know. Or will it be the other, devious, David—the Cunliffe who would be king—who has often been spurned, even by his own? In fact, as the Hon Jonathan Coleman said a little bit earlier this afternoon, the only thing that actually unites Labour members is their loathing for David Cunliffe. But will the devious David do a Kevin Rudd and try to white-ant his way into the leadership by constantly undermining and plotting?

💬 Scott Simpson: Possibly.

Possibly—who knows? Mr Shearer is perhaps far too trusting, as, again, the Hon Chris Finlayson so eloquently pointed out earlier this afternoon. Those qualities of trust and loyalty, which are fundamental to the National Party and are core values of the tight team that is this caucus, are very rare and endangered qualities, indeed, in “Camp Labour”, and unknown in the Greens.

Remember that when we came into office—just a little history lesson of my own—we inherited a set of Government books that had debts running to more than 60 percent of GDP, with no prospect of Government Budget surpluses ever again, or at least in a generation. The fiscal outlook has improved markedly as a result of National’s sound management. We are now on track to surplus in 2014-15, which is when we can start to reduce the core Crown debt back down to no higher than 20 percent of GDP by 2020. That is an aim, that is a target, and that is a goal. We are going to get there because we are a united team with a plan, and we stick to it, unlike the bozos on the Opposition benches.

We are achieving all of that while still spending $5 billion on new initiatives this year and over the next 4 years. These are funded in part not by borrowing, not by doing what we really cannot afford to do, but by reprioritising existing spending. It is a remarkable turn-round in our Government’s books, I think you will agree, colleagues—yes, indeed. That reversal of fortune is all about the same sort of consistent common sense that most of us would apply to running our own homes. On this side of the House and for all sensible New Zealanders we do not allow ourselves to get into deep debt and just keep borrowing until no one will lend to us any more—and then, of course, you can print some more, if you are the Greens. But, oh no—wait, wait—they have rescinded on that. The Greens have changed their minds. Last week they sold out on their cornerstone financial policy—

💬 Simon O’Connor: Flip-flop.

They flip-flopped over it—exactly right—because they are so desperate for power. They are so desperate for power, and their prospective Labour cronies did not much like Russel Norman’s favourite solution of quantitative easing. Labour members, of course, are well able to recognise policies that would consign them even closer to political oblivion, because, let us face it, they have had a heck of a lot of practice. So they backed away from it, and the Greens then quickly gave it away. So much for principles. So much for the Greens sticking to their guns. That is exactly what you call consistency, Green Party - style.

💬 Scott Simpson: Unprincipled.

Unprincipled, opposed to everything—they even oppose their own once-beloved flaky policies eventually.

A feature of this year’s Budget that was presented is a $100-million-a-year, internationally focused growth package that provides extra research and development assistance to businesses, extra funding for tourism, and then more resources for marketing New Zealand to international students, which is an excellent way of improving our education here as well. It has many benefits. This will result in an increase in trade and investment, which, in turn, will create jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders—something the Greens will never get, and Labour struggles with. Within the package that was announced in the Budget, science and innovation funding is increased by $50 million a year. This takes the Government’s annual investment in research and development to—how much—$1.36 billion.

💬 Scott Simpson: How much?

It is $1.36 billion. That is a lot, and it is the highest-ever amount to be spent in this area. In my electorate of the North Shore, we are at the cutting edge of many science and technology industries. New funding over the next 4 years will include around $75 million for business research and development grants. That is an area where North Shore business AFT Pharmaceuticals has really benefited already. It had last year a research and development grant of $3.8 million, which, it told me, will make a really significant difference to the company’s growth and help it to increase its sales from $50 million annually to its projected $150 million growth within the next 4 years. I would have to say that that is within reach and it is a target that the company is going to achieve because we were there to help. We gave it research and development money at a time it needed it, so, with some assistance from us, it was able to build on its own business and really grow.

ACC levy cuts are going to give another $300 million to the economy. That is good for businesses and good for households next year, and it is going to be increasing after that to around $1 billion. There is no doubt at all that businesses on the North Shore and beyond, throughout New Zealand—

💬 Scott Simpson: The Coromandel.

—will benefit. Even to the Coromandel, Tāmaki, and Botany—it is all go. They will benefit from these significant ACC levy reductions. This is a Budget that has made a difference to New Zealanders’ lives where it matters most. Let me give you some key examples of that. I know that Labour and the Greens do not pay attention to these things, so perhaps if we give them the examples and go through them slowly, they might learn something. Following work by the Ministerial Committee on Poverty, we have introduced several important initiatives to support low-income families, and this includes $100 million over 3 years to insulate 46,000 more homes for low-income families, and more than $21 million over the next 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in children.

There are also increases in budgeting services so that people will be able to learn to manage their own finances. One of my favourites is a whiteware procurement programme, which the Hon Paula Bennett came up with. It is a good one because it is practical, it is down to earth, it will make a difference to people’s lives, and it will enable beneficiaries to buy new appliances under warranty, using Ministry of Social Development repayable grants. As Paula pointed out, often what was happening was that beneficiaries were buying cheaper whiteware and cheaper equipment and it was breaking down, there was no warranty, and it was a disaster. So I think that is the kind of practical, imaginative solution that really will help people. Again, it is an unknown to the brayers and naysayers on the other side of the Chamber, who will remain in political oblivion for a long time to come, given the lack of talent in their line-up.

The Minister of Housing, Dr Nick Smith, is to be commended, too. I think that he is an excellent Minister. The trial on Housing New Zealand Corporation properties of a warrant of fitness scheme is, again, another common-sense approach in respect of the rental housing stock, and we may be able to take that further. Over 4 years our social housing policy is going to include an extra $46.8 million for extra income-related rent subsidies. That is all part of this Government’s wider support for high-needs tenants. So we do look after people.

Health was a very big winner in this year’s Budget, and the focus has been to provide better front-line facilities. I know from my 30-odd years in the media that health stories are often in the news for all the wrong reasons, particularly under the tenure of the lamentable lack of leadership shown by the former health Minister Annette King, who did a woeful job. As I said earlier today, she is the worst health Minister in 50 years—or even longer, probably. In my own electorate, the North Shore, the North Shore Hospital was in the news for all the wrong reasons, and it was down to Annette King’s mismanagement and incompetence. It seemed that everybody had a story to tell about it—long waits in the corridors, having to go to Australia for treatment, all of those kinds of things. But those things have now been turned round under the competent and visionary leadership of the Hon Tony Ryall and the rest of the team in Cabinet, who, supported by a united and very talented caucus, will take this Government where this country needs to go. So I commend the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill to the House. Thank you.

Let us do an audit. What have we got across the other side of the House tonight? This is Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We have got a Labour leader whom no one wants. In Christchurch they are getting a Clayton’s hat that was not wanted in “Waimak”. The people of Māngere have a member they do not know. And then there is Raymond Huo—Raymond Huo, whom no one knows, because who is Huo? It is Raymond Huo. That is the opposition to these bills, the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill, in Parliament tonight.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, members are entitled to be addressed by their correct name. Even if Mr Banks is imbibed tonight, he should actually treat members with respect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not necessary, but I ask the member to refer to a member of this House by their correct name.

It is a bit rich to ask members to refer to other members by their name when the insults come across, but I am intimidated by the .22 fuse on the other side of the House.

The ACT Party and the people of Epsom support this legislation. The ACT Party and the people of Epsom do not want those people on this side of the House. The ACT Party and the people of Epsom stand for sound money, not money printing. The ACT Party and the people of Epsom stand for keeping the lid on spending growth, not shaking down taxpayers for more when they are hard-pressed. The people of Epsom are absolutely delighted that this member, who represents the people of Epsom, has kept those people opposite where they belong—eternally in Opposition. Those people opposite are divided like I have never seen before: they are leaderless, they are rudderless, and they have no policy at all, no sense of direction, and no understanding of the economy. It is a rabble over there, and people watching television tonight, and listening on their crystal sets, would be aghast if they saw those turkeys on the other side of the House.

Lower taxes so New Zealanders can create jobs is what we stand for—economic growth and employment opportunities, not new taxes or tax increases or capital gains taxes. We stand for no tax increases, no capital gains taxes, no unnecessary borrowing, no unnecessary debt, no unnecessary taxes, less government, lower taxes, more opportunity, more entrepreneurialism, more taxes paid to the Government through honest endeavour, and a decent tax system that works for everyone.

If we want world-class infrastructure in Auckland, we need to put the avgas into the Auckland economy, and this Government is putting the avgas into the Auckland economy. I am glad that the project I have been campaigning for since 2001—the inner-city rail loop—is going to get away in 2020, when I think the timing is about right. Of course we need to have a look at the structure of the debt, of course the Auckland Council is borrowing $1 billion a year—a frightening rate—and of course the Auckland Council will have to sell assets to help fund its share of this rail loop. It makes sense. If we are going to have 12 to 15 trains going into the tunnel every hour now, we can have 30 trains going through the tunnel every hour in the future. It is part of an integrated transport system. Roads completing the motorway network and providing better infrastructure in Auckland is what this Government is all about.

But this Government still needs to tighten the belt. These Opposition members of Parliament when on this side of the House ran debt to 36 percent of GDP—36 percent of GDP—which is one of the highest in the OECD. The present Minister of Finance and others have got it down to 33 percent, and we believe that it should be 25 percent of GDP. If expenditure was 25 percent of GDP, we could have tax cuts and tax rates at 25c in the dollar, and that would make sense.

This Government on this side of the House is taking this economy out through the global recession with a lot of responsibility. The people listening tonight will be very, very pleased that those “goosesters” on the other side of the House are not on this side of the House, because what they will be doing is they will be supporting the Green Party and the printing—oh no! That is right. They are just going to borrow more money; they are not going to print any more money. As of last week, Dr Graham has told us he is not going to print any more money. He said it was a silly idea, the people say it is a silly idea, and the Green Party has at last woken up to the fact that if a silly idea looks like a silly idea, it is a silly idea and should be stopped. We are here because they are over there, and long may they stay there.

Following on from that speech from the member from Epsom, John Banks, I just want to congratulate the Green Party. I think the central rail loop is something that the Green Party has long advocated for, before the Labour Party actually did, and it is something that the Green Party should take great pride in—that their advocation for that issue led to fulfilment in National coming to the party, unlike the Labour Party over there. That is the party that tried to take credit from the Green Party in this House just at this very last moment, and it tried to indicate that that was an issue that the Labour Party had determined many years ago, when it was, in fact, a Green Party issue.

It is such a shame that the Labour Party has to try to take things off the Green Party at this stage of the political sphere. It does not accept that the Green Party is the true leader of the left, that the Green Party represents new ideas and new vision for the left, or that the Green Party is the party of Opposition. It is sad for the party of the Labour Party because that is a party that had a great history in this Parliament. It had a great history in the history of New Zealand, in fact. Many great Labour leaders have come through this Parliament. It is a shame that we are seeing the end of the Labour Party. We are seeing the end of the leadership of the Labour Party, which it has been so proud of, and it is being taken over by the Green Party.

That is a very big shame for the Labour Party, but it is great news for the New Zealand public. It is great news for the New Zealand public because the New Zealand public will never support the Green Party. The New Zealand public will never support it, beyond the fringe elements that will vote for it. The New Zealand public knows that it needs a centrist party that looks after the interests of our economy, that looks after the interests of our people, that delivers the right social services in education and health, and that protects our people through law and order. That is what people want from the Government. That is what they get from a centrist National Party Government. That is what you do not get from a far-left Labour-Greens Government, or a far-left Greens-Labour Government, as you would see under the Green Party taking the mantle of the left wing.

I think the last speaker, John Banks, touched on that in his speech. He spoke about the good people of Epsom. Well, the good people of Epsom are very similar to the good people of Hamilton East. We understand the importance of—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What, they’ve both got a criminal as an MP?

What was that over there?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They’ve both got an MP with a conviction? I thought Mr Banks was the only one with a conviction. Have you got one as well?

This is the list member from somewhere near Christchurch who could not retain his seat, and who is now standing in a nomination that he is going to lose, I betcha. Look at this. Next month this will be the time line for Clayton Cosgrove. At the moment Clayton Cosgrove will be standing around. He will be prancing around this Parliament, trying to get some media coverage, trying to say some things so that he is seen by the people of Christchurch. He will be prancing around for media coverage, but then—you wait. In 2 weeks’ time Clayton Cosgrove will go to ground. He will go to ground because he will have had the word by then that the Labour Party hierarchy does not want him to stand for that seat.

💬 Hon Member: They don’t want him in Christchurch.

They do not want him there. They know he would not win it. They will go for fresh blood into that seat, will they not, Clayton Cosgrove? Clayton Cosgrove will come back to this Parliament in a month’s time and he will say “It was never about me. It was never about me. It was not about me. It was just about the party.” This man, who always stood for the party—I remember the days when he used to go on the list for the Labour Party. This time he will not be. He is seeking a nomination, but he is not going to get it. He knows he is not going to get it, and it is a shame for Clayton. I do respect that man. I think he has got a lot of potential in this House. It is a shame for him that he is going to miss out on the nomination for the seat.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Chris Finlayson wouldn’t even say that.

But going back to this Budget, and the mention of Chris Finlayson. Yes, Chris Finlayson gave us an excellent exhibition of the history of the Labour Party—how the Labour Party has shafted leader after leader. When we think of the Labour Party at the moment, we think of that great political and economic genius in the Labour Party who is stuck in the back row, Mr David Cunliffe. He cannot progress from being beside that door. He represents the real Labour Party. He represents the true beliefs of the Labour Party. It is unfortunate that the Labour Party has lost its way. Those true beliefs are very much in line with the Green Party. They are very left-wing politics.

But we are looking at a Government that delivers a good balanced Budget for New Zealanders. Let us remember that. New Zealanders out there have some of the lowest interest rates they have had for many, many years. New Zealanders out there have a growing economy. Contrary to what the Opposition may say, we have a growing economy in this country. New Zealanders out there understand that our Government is rebuilding our second-biggest city. New Zealanders understand that this Government is investing in health and education. New Zealanders understand that they are getting a balanced Budget from a balanced Government that is looking after all their interests. This is a Government that considers the issues, looks at what the solutions may be, and comes up with proactive, sensible solutions that work.

This is not a Government that seeks to just take advantage of the winds that may be blowing at that time. This is a Government that looks at the issues and dictates what is needed, and infrastructure is a big part of that. When I started this speech I congratulated the Green Party on its work in that infrastructure field. I think it is very important for Auckland that we see this infrastructure go ahead, and it is very important for Hamilton, as well, because a strong Auckland means a strong Hamilton. It is that simple. Our biggest asset in Hamilton is Auckland, and our connection with Auckland is so important. When that rail link goes ahead, that is good for Hamilton, it is good for New Zealand, and it is good for Auckland, so it is in the best interests of this country going forward.

That is the kind of thing that you see from this Government. We look at what the issues are, we look at what the options are, and we give the best result. You are seeing a Government that responsibly manages its books. On the left, you see an Opposition that wants to have a capital gains tax—not a real capital gains tax that is on every property but an exempted capital gains tax that is discriminatory and against certain groups in the community. That is what they want to do over there. We are building a more productive and competitive economy. The investment—

💬 Darien Fenton: Cutting wages.

Cutting wages—it is a load of rubbish from the Labour Party over there. Darien Fenton would not know about wages. She comes into this House and makes comments like that about cutting wages. That is simply not the case. It is not the case. We are building a stronger economy that delivers stronger job opportunities and wages for New Zealanders going forward.

We are delivering better public services. Last Friday we had the opening of the new rehabilitation centre for older people at the Waikato District Health Board’s hospital in Hamilton. There has been $400 million spent at that hospital base.

💬 Hon John Banks: How much?

There has been $400 million spent on the Waikato District Health Board’s building of the new health base for the Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions. My good friend Todd McClay was there to cut the ribbon and open the building.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Fantastic.

Was it not a fantastic building? As Associate Minister of Health I think he enjoyed the opportunity to come and do his first formal opening—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: I met hard-working local MPs.

He met hard-working local MPs, but he actually met hard-working local doctors and nurses who have worked so hard to make that institution so effective.

The fourth thing the Government has been doing is rebuilding Christchurch. We had the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, Gerry Brownlee, at the select committee this morning talking about that.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Where is the big fella?

This is Clayton Cosgrove, the member who wants to be a member for Christchurch but will never be the member in Christchurch. Unfortunately, he cannot get that seat, but it is good to have you here, Clayton, in your list capacity, adding value for the members of Christchurch. I am sure they value it immensely. But that is a big rebuild. It is something that this country needs to do. We cannot leave our second-biggest city alone. The Green Party does not think we need to rebuild that city. The Green Party thinks that if it degenerates into bush that will be great for New Zealand. The Green Party does not want to see any roads or infrastructure in that city. The Green Party does not want to have a rebuilt Christchurch. Well, that is fine. That is the Green Party mentality, where we are all going to go back to five-acre blocks and raise one cow and one sheep each—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.

I have got to say that after that speech—well, I will not even dwell on that speech. The speech I want to dwell on is that of John Archibald Banks, the Hon John Archibald Banks. He is the man who already has one conviction to his name, from some years ago, and now he is up for a second crack. He supported the three-strikes legislation, and he is on his way to No. 2, and there will be a No. 3.

This man used the word “shakedown”. I have got to say that if anybody knows about a shakedown it is John Archibald Banks. This guy is like a Chicago gangster. The only thing that is missing is the trench coat, the felt hat, and the violin case. But he has got the brown bag, of course, and it was full of cash. For that man to stand up, inept as he is, and talk about a shakedown is incredible. I have got to say this guy has got a chin, a glass jaw, but he has got a chin a mile long and he leads with it. If anybody would know about a shakedown, having already experienced the long arm of the law, with a conviction, it would be John Archibald Banks. What a cracker—old “Brown Bag” himself. If anybody would know about putting his hand out, dipping it in the honey jar—

💬 Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard you loud and clear recently, saying to another member that members must be referred to as honourable members, and no name-calling by the “goosesters” opposite.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, well, that is just—

Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. Sit down. That does not help. You brought up a point of order that was one that had some merit, and then you added on to it and defused the whole argument.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just say that, as far as I am aware, Mr Banks is the honourable—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. I am inviting you to carry on with your speech.

OK. Well, I will use his correct title, the Hon John Archibald Banks, because that was the name, I think, that the police hung around his neck when they photographed him and booked him before he was convicted. The Hon John Archibald Banks—booked, charged, and convicted. He loves the court system. He was the police Minister at one point, was he not? I think he was. He used to keep certain photographs on his desk, I am told, and talk to his mate Emmet Sharkey over the radio transmitter as he drove in, in the ministerial limousine. I remember. It was: “Breaker, breaker 91. I am in the artillery vehicle. Come in. Are you there?” He loves the court system so much that he is going back for another crack. You know, the revolving door. Well, I say to Mr Banks: think about your words very carefully. If anybody would know about a shakedown, that boy certainly would.

But I want to say this, as we address the legislation before us. I am also mindful of another contribution that was made tonight by the Hon Chris Finlayson. He interjected on Mr Twyford a couple of times as the Greens played “one lollipop for you, and two lollipops for us” in terms of who led the charge on transport and housing. I just say to the Greens: here is the go. We collectively managed to change the minds of these geniuses over there, and the big engine that could not, Gerry Brownlee, is now the big engine that could. He was decoupled and is now recoupled to the Auckland City Rail Link. So rather than playing competitive, silly, childish politics, let us actually celebrate that we actually managed to change the minds of these geniuses over there. But Chris Finlayson summed it up. He interjected on Mr Twyford by saying: “It’s our idea now.”—“It’s our idea now.” I have got to say, Mr Finlayson, good on you for telling the truth, because they opposed it, they railed against it—excuse the pun—and Gerry Brownlee went out there utterly, utterly opposed to it.

You ask some of the manufacturers and some of the business associations up there and they wonder who Gerry Brownlee is as Minister of Transport. They say they have never seen him—which I find reasonably hard to believe, but anyway—he is elsewhere. There is no transport strategy. So they have dipped into their big pockets, and suddenly a road to Damascus experience has occurred and this side of the House has managed to talk some sense into them and they have changed their minds. So I agree, Mr Finlayson, it is your idea now, or the National Party’s idea now, as its members go around Auckland and try to explain why they have had the biggest U-turn—from the biggest member—in our history and actually backed Auckland City. But I say that this legislation and these appropriations are very interesting.

💬 Hon John Banks: Oh, now we’re on to it.

Well, again, Mr Banks would know about appropriations. He appropriates a lot to himself. He just cannot remember whether he signs the cheque or not, or who gave it to him. So I say to Mr Banks, cool your heels.

Maggie Barry got up and talked about what National inherited as a Government. Well, I have got to say that there are porkies, porkies, and then there is what Maggie Barry talks about. That is a different level of porkies. Here is the deal—here is the deal from the noxious weed. When that Government came into power, it inherited 9 years of surpluses—9 years of surpluses from this Government and zero Crown debt, zero Crown debt. Maggie Barry might have been a bit too close to the compost heap or the Roundup, I do not know, or the fertiliser, whatever it is, but her memory of history—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: 1080.

—or 1080. Her memory of history has left her and is bereft, because the truth is, the facts are that there were 9 years of surpluses under a Labour Government and zero Crown debt. That is not spin, that is not public relations—

💬 Hon John Banks: Yes, it is.

No, old “Shakedown” over there. That is actually historic fact. It was Bill English, I think, who actually conceded that on coming to Government. If we look at this economy, there has been a lot of talk about how great this economy is—

💬 Hon John Banks: Because it is.

Well, as for the good people of Epsom, I do not know whether they are coming up with any brown bags of cheques, Mr Banks. I do not know. You might be able to remember their name.

Here is the problem with this economy: it is a two-speed economy. You go into the regions and they are withering. You go to any region in this country and they are doing it hard. The people are doing it hard and the unemployment is up. We have 90,000 young people not in education and not in training.

I say this as a Cantabrian: the biggest opportunity to build something out of the tragedy that was, and is, the earthquake was the ability to train those young people, get them off the dole, and use the dole, as we proposed, as a help to the boss and the employer to take them on and train them as apprentices. Mr Brownlee got up here 3 years ago and said we were going to need 30,000 or 40,000 people to rebuild Christchurch. Fact? True. The opportunity was—because an apprenticeship takes around 3 years—that we could have had 40,000 young people, unemployed young people, off the dole, paying tax, earning a wage, swinging a hammer, and having a superb qualification and contributing to the rebuild, had Mr Brownlee and Mr Banks, that rotten pile that holds the house of National up, actually said they would do that and back those young people rather than provide the gateways, pathways, caves, roads to nowhere, and cycleways that have generated very few jobs.

They could have done that—a practical thing. They say we could not afford it. We said: “Use the dole. Use the unemployment benefit. Give that to the boss, the building firm. Let him use that as a bit of help to get that person off the dole, to train them, and to give them a bit of help, because the cost of training a young person in year 1, when you have got to supervise and before they can add value, is quite substantial. It does not cost the taxpayer any more than the cost of allowing 90,000 young people to languish on the dole. But these geniuses over here did nothing. So now what are we doing? We are importing our Irish, Filipino, and other friends and brothers and sisters from overseas to fill those jobs because the businesses that are going to reconstruct the houses, and the plumbers, the carpenters, and the sparkies cannot wait 3 years, nor can the earthquake victims, to have their lives and their houses restored.

It is a two-speed economy when you look at it age-wise. Younger New Zealanders are locked out of first home ownership. Again these geniuses, after substantial policy about housing was produced by this side, suddenly realised—Crosby/Textor got a poll up—there is a housing problem. That is except Mr Brownlee in Christchurch, because there is no manufacturing crisis in New Zealand, no housing crisis in Canterbury; it does not exist. But 5 years into their term they decide they are going to do something about it.

Then we had the other economic speeds, of course, where exporters and manufacturers struggle while the speculators flourish. I asked these geniuses in the debate last session whether they think it is equitable that the top 10 percent in this land got 40 percent of the tax cuts. I give them the opportunity again to say yes, that is equitable. Oh no. The old “Tumbleweed” at the back does not say anything. No, silence, because they know that there is no credibility in trying to say that the top 10 percent getting 40 percent of the tax cuts is equitable, while manufacturers and young people and others, and the unemployed and those on fixed incomes and benefits, get nothing, very little, and struggle away as prices go up. It is a two-speed economy.

Take Auckland. Growth is rampant in house prices, but not in production and not in jobs, of course. If you want to sell a house, you are on the upside. If you want to buy a house, especially if you are young, and you cannot get the deposit, you are locked out. You are—they are locked out, Mr Assistant Speaker. No, you are never locked out; you are always in.

It is two-speed, of course, in regard to fairness. We talked about the tax cuts. We talked about the tax cuts. What do the elderly people say when they get their first or second winter power bill at the moment? John Key says, of course, that they are not paying too much for power. They should be grateful, Mr Key says. The people should be grateful. Simon Bridges says the same thing. They say the people are not paying too much for power. But if you ask them at what point people will be paying too much, they cannot answer. I say these people over here have a lot to answer for, but they will not answer this question. They will not answer the question as to whether their policies are equitable, fair, and whether they are helping—

I am sorry, the member’s time has expired.

It is interesting to be following that member, Clayton Cosgrove, in this debate. Earlier in the afternoon we were given a very good and fulsome history lesson by the Hon Chris Finlayson—a history of that once-proud Labour Party and its various leaders and their leadership problems. It is interesting that one aspect the Attorney-General did not allude to during his very, very good history lesson was the history relating to one Mike Moore, a former leader who was, at one stage, the member for Eden. He was the youngest MP in the House at that stage. In 1975 he was soundly thrashed by Aussie Malcolm, and then he spent 3 years in the wilderness. Mike Moore came out of his 3 years in the wilderness as a carpetbagger in Christchurch.

Why is all this relevant? It is because it is very well known that Clayton Cosgrove, who is not actually famous for very much, treats Mike Moore as a trusted and learned mentor. So now we are told that “mini-Mike” is likely to become the carpetbagger—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I have said this on a couple of occasions tonight. One must refer to people by their correct names.

I understand that Mr Cosgrove will become the Clayton’s carpetbagger candidate for Christchurch East and that is, I guess, following the history and the pattern of his mentor and long-time friend, the Rt Hon Mike Moore.

But we are here this evening to discuss and debate the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and, of course, the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill as well. These bills continue the Government’s very good economic record, and its fiscal strategy of careful, prudent, studied stewardship of our finances and the country’s books. These bills are about responsible management and a return to surplus, being back in surplus, in 2014-15. So these are good bills. They are about building a competitive economy. They are about delivering Better Public Services and, more important, they are also—for Mr Cosgrove’s edification—about rebuilding Christchurch.

New Zealand households have had a very tough time over the last few years, as have New Zealand businesses. We have faced, as a nation, some very challenging times during very challenging global economic circumstances and, of course, the Christchurch earthquake has been devastating. But, although those challenges remain, economic recovery is beginning to occur and all the indicators now are heading in the absolute right direction—economic growth at 2.4 percent, almost the same as in Australia, and higher than in almost every other developed nation. Wages are growing, the cost of living increases have been modest, and interest rates are at a 50-year low. Household income has risen 20 percent in the past 4 years and is expected to rise by almost 20 percent in the next 4 years.

So these are good indicators. They are good indicators for the country and they are good indicators for the people of Coromandel, because the next decade will be one of enormous great opportunity for New Zealand as we see strong growth out of Asia. The real challenge for us as New Zealanders is to make sure that our economy is both financially sound and very competitive. The good people of Coromandel this evening will be listening in and they will be conscious that as they sit down tonight and listen to this debate in the most beautiful electorate in the country—what is commonly known as the Queenstown of the North Island—they are happy. They are happy with the direction that this John Key - led National Government is taking New Zealand. Coromandel people know that the careful, steady, prudent fiscal management by Bill English and John Key is taking New Zealand in the right direction and that we are on the right track. The fiscal outlook has improved markedly as a result of our sound management, and we are on track for surplus in 2014-15 when, of course, the Government will be able to start reducing debt.

Remember that when John Key and National came into office we inherited a set of Government books that had debts running to more than 60 percent of GDP by 2020 and absolutely no prospect of returning to surpluses again in the foreseeable future. But now forecasts show a surplus of $75 million in the 2014-15 year, and we are achieving this while still spending $5.1 billion on new initiatives in Budget 2013. So that is an outstanding result. In fact, it is a remarkable turn-round for the Government’s books, and I am very proud to be part of the National Party team bringing about this turn-round for New Zealand.

Last week I had the privilege of hosting a visit to the Coromandel electorate by the Hon Nathan Guy, Minister for Primary Industries, and on the Thursday of last week we visited the Ngātea school, which is the Hauraki Plains College. There they have an agricultural farm, the Hayward Farm, where the school pupils at Hauraki Plains College can learn practical agricultural skills, and the Minister was delighted to see them doing fencing, chainsaw repairs, quad bike riding, and all the sorts of good things that young aspirant agricultural farmers want to do. So this new generation of young farmers were learning the skills they need—hard-working farming families helping to produce the very high-value protein products for a hungry world, which we will be exporting and will be continuing to export over the next foreseeable future.

All the indicators are looking good, and over the next decade or so New Zealanders will be presented with what could possibly be the most beneficial, superb, and favourable trading conditions that we have had in several generations. These young students on the Hauraki Plains understand the bright future that is ahead of them. They are keen to get into farming, they are keen to get into agriculture, because they understand how important agriculture has been in our history and will be going forward into the future.

But it is not just farming that will be confronted with a bright future. It is also good to understand that our aquacultural sector will be booming as well. I also took the opportunity to take Minister Guy up to the Coromandel Harbour, and, as I said, we went out on the worst day of the week in terms of the challenging weather. We went out to see Greenshell New Zealand’s mussel farms at Wilson Bay, where the Government has doubled the size of water space available for the growth of Coromandel mussels. I was very pleased to be with Peter Vitasovich and his team from Greenshell New Zealand. Interestingly enough, that company won the New Zealand Food and Beverage Exporter of the Year award just the other night, and that was a great-news story for it.

In Katikati, which is part of the Coromandel electorate, there is a company called Puma Darts, where they are exporting their high-quality game darts, the sorts of darts that you throw at a board in a pub or a club somewhere around the world, and they are—[Interruption] Yes, indeed, they could do that for a leadership dart. They could throw a dart in there in Katikati, and the Puma Darts people could probably find a target for the Leader of the Opposition. But there they are, export-led, they are doing great things on behalf of the New Zealand economy, and doing very well. Also in Katikati is a terrific business called Triodent, where they are exporting over $50 million a year of their specialised dental products to the world—$50 million a year in export dollars, coming out of Katikati.

Budget 2013 continues the message of building momentum. The Budget confirms that New Zealand is on the right track, that the Government is on the right track, that the party that is in power is on the right track, and that people are liking that. Opinion polls in the New Zealand Herald produced this morning show that New Zealanders are liking that, and they are not liking the prospect of the alternatives that they are confronted with. They do not like that at all.

💬 Maggie Barry: Who could blame them?

Who could blame them, indeed? So responsible management of the Government’s books and careful, prudent stewardship of the finances is what this Government is all about—nothing weird, nothing wacky, nothing strange, nothing unusual, no printing of money, no borrowing unnecessarily, nothing weird or unusual at all. It is just steady as she goes, good, stable Government from a good, stable set of hands on the Treasury benches, and that is something that the New Zealand public are enjoying, and are warming to. They like it. They like the bright future that is available to us. These are good measures. I commend them to the House.

As we near the end of this debate on the Appropriation (2012/13 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2013/14) Bill—and we have had to listen to Labour members whinging and whining because they do not like hearing the truth, and they have had to listen to the truth for the last 2½ hours—I would like to tell the Labour Party that failure is an option, because at 30 percent in the opinion polls the Labour Party has chosen failure. We know that the Labour Party has chosen failure, because it keeps David Shearer on. It sees its polling ratings going down the drain, and it has no hope of getting back into office at the next election, because New Zealanders appreciate the economic plan that this Government is following. New Zealanders appreciate the growth rates that we are seeing in this economy. They appreciate the extra jobs that are being created in New Zealand, and they do not appreciate what the Labour Party stands for.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The Tony Soprano of the National Party.

I hear David Cunliffe has just woken up, and I know why he has woken up. He has woken up because tomorrow the Labor Party leader is getting rolled. The only thing that Mr Cunliffe needs to worry about is that it is not happening here in New Zealand—it is probably happening in Australia—but Mr Cunliffe is excited because he is inspired at the moment. He is inspired by the low opinion poll rates. He is inspired by what Kevin Rudd is doing across the Ditch, and he is hoping that some day Labour Party members will be circulating a petition on his behalf. The reason why they are going to have to start circulating those petitions is that New Zealanders know that we are succeeding as a country on the back of economic growth in Budgets that this party has been passing.

Let me give the other side some numbers, because it is important that we drum this home. It is important that we remind those members how well we are actually doing as a country. At the moment, after-tax wages are up 22 percent. That is huge, considering the global financial crisis that New Zealand has been through. Our economic growth rates are currently sitting at 2.4 percent.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Just make it up.

That is better than most developed countries in the world. Ruth Dyson does not like to hear it. She thinks it is made up. But, actually, Ruth Dyson, let me tell the Labour Party and the other side of the House that we are growing faster than the US, we are growing faster than Canada, faster than the UK and the eurozone—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Get a real job.

David Cunliffe would never have achieved this, because Phil Goff and David Cunliffe did not even know their figures at the last election. They would never have achieved this. We are growing faster than the UK, growing faster than the US, and growing faster than the eurozone, and off the back of a global financial crisis—a global financial crisis and a Labour Party leadership that saw the economy starting to tank in 2008 when Labour was in office. We know that these are good growth rates.

Unemployment is actually doing quite well at the moment too, at 6.2 percent. At 6.2 percent, that is better than most developed countries at the moment. We have got a lower unemployment rate than Canada, the US, the UK—lower than the OECD total—lower than France, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, and Spain. It is those two at the end that we have to think carefully about—Greece and Spain. If the other side ever got into Government, we know that we would have a similar story to that of Greece and Spain, because the Labour Party is the anti-growth party. The Labour Party is the anti-growth party that does not support New Zealanders. It is the anti-growth party, with its mates in the Green Party, that would be taxing New Zealanders a huge amount. Those parties would be spending huge amounts more than otherwise is necessary. They would be putting in more red tape on New Zealand businesses. They would be putting more red tape on New Zealanders as they are just trying to get ahead, and that would be anti-growth.

Those parties like to tell the country that they care about manufacturing. They like to tell the country that it is in a crisis and that they are going to have the solutions for it. The only crisis when it comes to manufacturing is the leadership, the examples, and the story we are getting from the Labour Party, because since 2008 the manufacturing sector as a whole has grown by 9.2 percent—

💬 Su’a William Sio: What’s the unemployment rate?

—as measured by GDP by industry. When Labour was in office in 2008 the manufacturing sector actually shrunk by 12 percent. I heard William Sio wake up. Let me tell you about William Sio. I spent 3 years on the Manukau City Council with William Sio. Every time there was a policy and an option to increase rates and increase spending, William Sio was always there. He was always there to spend more money. He was always there to tax the good people of Manukau more. He never cared about trying to cut costs or trying to get rates down. He never cared about sensibly balancing the council’s books. He was always wanting to spend more money. If William Sio and his mates on the other side ever occupied this side of the House, we would see those types of policies. We would see a whole lot more spending. We would see a whole lot more debt. We would see a whole lot more anti-growth policies from Labour.

Let me give those members a couple of numbers—60 and 20. Those numbers are worth remembering, because under the economic plan left by the Labour Party, in 2020 we would have seen debt reaching 60 percent of GDP. Under our plan, debt in 2020 will be at 20 percent of GDP. If the other side does not think that that is significant, I can tell you that New Zealanders out there who care about debt and who care about the economic situation that this country is in know that 60 percent of GDP sitting there on the debt books is bad. They know that Labour would have pushed hard for that. They know that Labour would have succeeded in that area, raising the debt up to 60 percent of GDP. That would have been very destructive for New Zealanders. That is why the anti-growth and anti - New Zealand Labour Party should be kept out of the Government benches and should not be allowed near them.

We know that the Green Party has now artificially said that it will be abandoning the printing of money, but do we actually believe that? Do we actually believe that the Green Party will not be printing money? Because about the only way that the Labour-Green Opposition could ever pay for its policies is to print more money, and that would be disastrous for New Zealanders.

I want to talk a little bit about New Zealand’s housing situation, because I am pretty excited about what this Government is doing in housing. In Auckland right now we have a huge housing problem, which we need to address quite quickly. I would have hoped that the Labour Party would get on board with our housing plan, because the Auckland Housing Accord and the special housing area policy that have been put in place as part of this Government’s economic plan are going to see housing really take off around the country, especially in Auckland, where we need a lot more housing, where we need a lot more growth, and where we need a Government that will be there assisting New Zealanders. That is exactly what we are doing—that is exactly what we are doing. In New Zealand, under the special housing area policy that is part of our economic plan that Nick Smith is pushing forward, we are going to see 39,000 houses built in the next 3 years—39,000 houses built in the next 3 years. That is almost a quadrupling of the housing that has been built in the past few years. That will have huge impacts for New Zealanders.

In the health area we have got a fantastic story, because Tony Ryall is really a health Minister that any future health Minister should be modelling themselves on, not Annette King. Maggie Barry was absolutely right today when she said that Annette King was one of the worst health Ministers we have seen in 50 years. Tony Ryall is the model. Tony Ryall is the model. In health we have had 35,000 more elective operations in this year compared with in 2008—8,000 extra operations every year.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Another one of Slater’s failures.

I am a bit concerned about Trevor Mallard. We know he likes to attack police officers. We know he likes to threaten their jobs. He is probably wishing he could do that to me right now, but I am not part of the police, Trevor Mallard. Trevor Mallard, you should stick to what you are good at, threatening police officers, because that is about all he is good for.

In health and education we are seeing huge improvements in policies. We know that New Zealand is growing. We know that jobs are being created in the economy. We know that the unemployment rate is on the way down. We know that New Zealanders are supporting what we are doing. We know that New Zealanders appreciate the growth that is happening in the country. They appreciate the National-led Government. Let us hope the anti-growth and pro - money printing parties on that side of the House never get into Government.

Three short minutes to take apart what that member thinks is economic policy—Jami-Lee Matenga “Soprano” Ross, who complains that New Zealand is worse than Greece and Spain. By next year we are going to have a worse current account deficit than Greece, on National’s watch. National, the party that has never run a surplus in 15 years, and Labour, which has never run a fiscal deficit. Who do you trust: Labour, which has never run a deficit, or National, which cannot run a surplus? Those members say we are the anti-growth party. Take 30 years of data. It shows that New Zealand’s economic growth rates are higher under Labour than under National.

This is the wind-up of the supplementary estimates debate. I want to say two things about revenue. The first is that it is great to have a body as august as the OECD validate Labour’s tax policies, because in its survey of New Zealand it has said two hugely important things. The first is—duh—that New Zealand needs a capital gains tax. We are one of only three countries in the developed world that does not have one, and not having one makes our property roller coaster worse. But those cynical National Party people are banking that their political success is all about the propertied middle class not getting too worried before the election. Let us hope that their balloon is burst.

The OECD warned us that the New Zealand tax system is contributing to one of the worst levels of inequality in the Western World. That is the fault of this Government, which gave huge tax breaks to the rich and put up GST for everybody else. The top 10 percent got 40 percent of the winnings and the poor paid more tax, and that is wrong. That is like Robin Hood in reverse.

I have got only a minute left. I just want to point to a couple of icebergs that are coming right at the revenue portfolio Titanic that the august Todd McClay, the glossy chap down the back, has just picked up. The first one is the billion-dollar bungle that is about to happen—the billion-dollar rebuild of the Inland Revenue Department computer, which is going to make Novopay look like a walk in the park. The word is that the Government has already got Steven Joyce to do that bit of Todd McClay’s portfolio because it can see that it is a disaster waiting to happen.

The second one is the Government’s sweet deals for its mates, like MediaWorks, which, under the Alesco case, I understand—I am advised—agreed that it would pay a $22 million tax debt. But, under its restructuring, that has somehow been forgotten, except that the Prime Minister thinks that that is OK because it is powerful. Well, that is the sort of behaviour that undermines the integrity of the New Zealand tax system, and I expect the Minister of Revenue to take a call and tell us in the very next call why that is wrong. If he has got any integrity, he will stare down his boss and say that he will not intervene in the MediaWorks tax dispute.

💬 Hon Todd McClay: No, I can’t.

He is saying he will not. That is good. Tell it to John Key—you might be the shortest-lived Minister in the history of the Government—because he has just said that a wet bus ticket will be just fine.

The other iceberg coming down the track is the tax-finance interface. The OECD said three things really clearly. It said we need to get a strong savings rate, because we have got a savings deficit and it is growing; to make superannuation sustainable; and to have a realistic exchange rate so that we can grow manufacturing. All of that is in Labour’s policy.

Labour is the better economic manager. History proves it. Do not believe the spin from the intoxicated National Party. Labour is the party of growth, jobs, and fairness—long may it be.