Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill, Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)

First Reading

I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

What a fantastic Budget we saw delivered for New Zealanders by the Hon Steven Joyce last week. What a fantastic Budget for New Zealanders. You see, many Budgets can deliver, let us say, for public services. Some Budgets can deliver for infrastructure. Some can deliver for social investment. Some can see the debt of the country go down over time. Some can deliver a family package for incomes. But this is a Budget that delivered in all of those areas and delivered in all of those things for New Zealanders, from the top of New Zealand right down to the bottom. I think we should be really proud of that as a country, and the results it will deliver for New Zealand.

The reason for that is we have an economy that is growing incredibly strongly. It is growing at 3 percent or over, and, actually, over the next few years it will be growing above that, I think on average—peaking at 3.8 percent. Employment is rising. It has gone up a couple of hundred thousand in the last 3 years and is going up 215,000 in the next 3 to 4 years.

💬 Peeni Henare: How’s Māori unemployment going?

I am glad the member over there mentioned unemployment. It is declining and is set to decline to 4.5 percent—very low by developed countries’ standards—and we are seeing all of that happen. Meanwhile, surpluses for the Crown are growing. That did not happen by accident. That did not happen by us simply shutting our eyes and watching it all unfold. It happened because of great businesses around New Zealand that had the confidence to get in, to do it, to employ people, and to take on risk, and because of a Government that has continued to deliver fiscal macroeconomic and microeconomic reforms that have made a difference and have been consistent over time for New Zealanders.

What is also true is that you cannot have one without the other—you cannot have the better public services, the infrastructure investment, the paying down of debt, the Family Incomes Package that sees 1.3 million New Zealanders $26 better off, on average, without also having that strong economy that this National Government has delivered—from a global financial crisis to the figures and the economy that we have today.

What Steven Joyce has done in a range of areas is worth going through. In public services, there is $7 billion of investment—

💬 Hon Member: How much?

Seven billion—the biggest public services package, over that period, that New Zealand has seen. In health, in education, in law and order, and in social development this is the biggest ever total spend. What that means for New Zealanders is better mental health services. It means more police—1,100 more staff out there making New Zealanders, hard-working Kiwis, safer on our streets and in their homes—and it means a new ministry for children that will make a really significant difference to those vulnerable New Zealanders. In terms of infrastructure, it is an incredibly strong Budget on something we know a growing economy, a growing New Zealand, deserves—$4 billion of investment this year. This is the biggest capital spend we have certainly seen, in real terms, this century. It really will make a difference.

Of course, it is not just that $4 billion—that is the new spend. Actually, in context, we are talking about $32.5 billion that the Government is investing in infrastructure around the country: the New Zealand Transport Authority, for roads; Housing New Zealand, for housing; rail; broadband; better schools; and better hospitals.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: How many bridges?

We are the Government of infrastructure, Mr O’Rourke, and we are investing in it like never before. Take my own area—there is $9 billion of investment over the next 4 years in State highways alone—$9 billion and 540 kilometres of new lanes around New Zealand. [Interruption] Well, that would be rail as well as roads. We are doing a bit of that too, I might say. This is incredible investment in infrastructure, a growing economy, and a growing New Zealand.

There is a families package that will make a real difference to New Zealanders. It will make a real difference to those low and middle income New Zealanders who may be struggling to make ends meet, and who will receive real money in their pockets. It will make a real difference to those with families, because of what we are doing with Working for Families. It will make a real difference for those who, perhaps, have housing stress, whether that is in Auckland, Tauranga, or other parts of New Zealand. Simply put, 1.3 million Kiwis will receive an average of $26 more every week because of what we are doing—a couple of billion dollars of money that they have worked hard for, that they deserve back in their pockets, and that we are putting back in their pockets because we have got the economy that can afford it, we have got an economy that is growing, and we are making the decisions that mean we can invest back in them. It comes in the form of income relief, it comes in the form of Working for Families relief, and it comes in the form of accommodation relief for those New Zealanders who deserve it and are working hard. That is a really interesting thing, there.

💬 Hon Member: Why does Labour hate it?

All the while I hear behind me—well, credit where credit is due, actually. What we know is that the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party are supporting it. They might do so begrudgingly, but credit where credit is due. They are voting for it.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Only one bill—not the rest of the Budget.

They know that those New Zealanders, those 1.3 million working New Zealanders—Mr O’Rourke, you know. The member over there knows that they deserve what we are doing. They know that, as we can—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Our friends.

—we will do more. Our friends in New Zealand First and the Green Party—they know that, but Labour voted against it.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Proudly.

Now those members are working out, or trying to work out—I will be interested to hear from the member Jacinda Ardern—why they did that. They are working out why they did vote against it.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Principles.

Iain Lees-Galloway does not know. He knows that in Palmerston North there are thousands of New Zealanders and families who deserve the relief that we are providing. We are giving them that—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wonder whether the member would like to yield so I could explain what I know about what is going on in Palmerston North.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is just interrupting the debate.

There is a member who is clearly worried about his seat. Because what—he is leaving! He is giving up the ghost early. He knows we have got a great candidate in that seat, he knows we have got the policies in Better Public Services, in infrastructure, in paying down debt, and in relief for families that will make a really, really big difference.

Of course, what we do not know is what Labour members would stop. My challenge to their next speaker—they did not support the package—is to tell us what they would stop. Would they support the infrastructure investment? Their former leader Phil Goff makes it quite clear that he thinks—fair enough, he is fighting his corner—it should be more investment. Well, would they stop the half- billion-dollar down payment we are making in the City Rail Link?

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Are you kidding me?

Would they stop the investment that is going into infrastructure in Auckland, Ms Ardern, and right around—[Interruption] I doubt they would. She is confirming; I doubt they would. Would they stop better public services—the $7 billion more going into health, into education, and into law and order? I doubt it. So I would like to know what they would stop. Would they stop, when all is said and done, the Family Incomes Package that means $26 a week, on average, to 1.3 million Kiwis who deserve that money? What is it that they would stop? They voted against our bill, they do not know why, and they do not have a clue what they would stop.

I think we heard it right from Claire Trevett this morning—there is a window of opportunity for Labour, come 23 June, where it gets to have the power back. Labour gets to have the power back because, at that point in time, it is the caucus members who get to decide their leader—23 June. Well, I have got another 23rd of the month that I would like to bring to Labour’s attention: 23 September. It is called election day, and we have got the policies on this side of the House that back New Zealanders and that deliver a brighter future for New Zealanders. I am really proud to be part of a Budget that is delivering for all Kiwis.

Malo, Mr Assistant Speaker. Quite frankly, that last contribution from a Cabinet Minister, Simon Bridges—the first speech he is able to give after the Budget and he spent 5 minutes talking about the Opposition, rather than being able to even muster enough from his own Budget to be able to promote it. He managed 5 minutes—5 minutes—on his Government’s Budget and he is meant to be a Cabinet Minister selling the great vision that the National Government has for New Zealand. The reason he probably mustered only 5 minutes is, frankly, a Budget should be the way that people are able to see the priorities that a Government has for the country—its vision, its plan, and its ideas. And the fact that after 9 years we saw two things from this Budget is extraordinarily telling.

The first thing that you can tell from this Budget after 9 years is that it is election year. That was patently obvious in the headline figures that came out of that. The second thing that was clear from this Budget was that when it comes to the hard stuff, when it comes to the difficult problems that, unfortunately, New Zealand is undeniably facing, when it comes to issues like homelessness, the massive social deficits that we have, the poverty, the deprivation, the unfortunate gaps in our education system—all of the hard stuff that everyone acknowledges are wicked problems that Governments have to grapple with—it was out of ideas. How do I know that? Because when the opportunity arose and the Government confessed that it had a surplus and the ability to spend some money on those social deficits that exist in New Zealand, on the hard stuff, it chose to spend $1.9 billion on tax bracket changes—$1.9 billion.

Now the Minister over there might characterise, on average, a $26 a week change as a “game changer”. I do not. I do not consider that a game changer. I consider the incredibly high house prices for New Zealanders—that is a game changer. I consider the fact that rents have gone up since 2008 in Auckland by 40 percent—that is a game changer. I consider the fact that 90,000 kids cannot get a job or get into education in this country—that is a game changer. Now there is no denying that families are doing it tough, but the things that would make a difference for them are loosening up on some of those heavy costs that they are facing, those things that they cannot change that they have to pay for, like putting a roof over their head or putting their kids in schools. Those are the costs that make a massive difference to the kind of disposable income that they have, and this Budget gave up. This Budget gave up on those big issues.

So, yes, Mr Bridges asks us what we would spend the money on. Well, yes, actually, Working for Families is a brilliant way to get money to people who need it most, and what did the Government spend on that? It spent $373 million—when it spent 450. In 2010 it cut out of Working for Families, so it has barely even restored it. But, yes, we acknowledge that was probably money well worth being spent. But $1.9 billion on tax bracket changes? That is not the kind of spending you are going to see from this side of the House, because we know that a well-functioning society and a New Zealand that we can be proud of, that we can take heart in, knows that it has to get the basics right.

The basics that we have not got right, right now, are the ability for you to walk into your nearest hospital and get the services that you need or for your local school to be the best school it can be or for your children to be able to go to an early childhood centre and have a qualified teacher teach your child in the most important stages of their development. Those are the basics and we cannot get that right. So that is where this Government has absolutely got it wrong.

I think probably one of the most frustrating things for a taxpayer off the back of this Budget is that the 26 bucks game changer that the Government claims—they are paying out, and more so, in all of the areas where the Government has failed to acknowledge the problems that we have. Just look at what the fiscal update for 2017 itself has told us. It told us that New Zealanders could expect, through to 2019, wage increases cumulatively of 6.2 percent, but at the same time cumulative house price increases of 17.7 percent—three times the amount that they can expect their wages to increase will go into housing costs. Again, the hard stuff has gone totally unaddressed.

In this Budget, what did we see? The Government is funding Crown land for 1,200 houses—that is it. That is it in the face of a massive housing crisis. That is the best you can hope for from this Budget. It is an admission of complete failure. And nothing is a better admission of failure than the accommodation supplement. I know, intellectually, Nick Smith is sitting there accepting that they have just gone and subsidised landlords.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No we haven’t.

They have. You absolutely—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.

—the Minister absolutely has.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Garbage.

That is what an accommodation supplement is.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is not.

It is an admission of failure when your house prices and your rent prices are going up at the extraordinary rate they have been in the last 8 years—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, promise to reverse it.

—it had to move on the accommodation supplement, because it was not keeping pace.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: If you believe it, promise to reverse it.

It was not keeping pace, Minister. You had no choice. No. No. We accept that you have failed. We accept that you have failed, and that is why the accommodation supplement change was necessary. We accept your failure, Minister Smith. We accept it. We reluctantly accept it. But do you know what we need? We need some fresh ideas on the housing crisis. We need to start building State houses again, not selling them off. We need to make sure that we are closing the tax loopholes that exist. We need to make sure we dampen down demand by stopping people who are based overseas buying in the residential housing market, and we need to get on and build affordable houses. Those are the ideas that this Budget needed to contain and it did not.

Again, when it comes to health, $1.7 billion has been cut out of health in the last 8 years—$1.7 billion. That is an extraordinary amount. Yes, the Government made it look like it was investing this new chunk of money into health, and we know it needed it. Waikato Hospital just one weekend ago shut down elective surgery, because it could not deal with the demand walking in its door. And what was the trigger for that? Not some great natural disaster—it was winter. Winter came on and suddenly our health services could not cope. It cancelled its scheduled surgeries. Now what does that tell us about our health system? Well, the Budget did not give us any answers. Yeah, it has put more money into health, but it is still $200 million shy of what it needed to stand still.

And even the investment that was made in mental health, which we desperately need—half of the investment that the Government announced, district health boards are going to have to fund out of their own back pockets, when they are already struggling. That is not an investment at all, in our book. Again, we have been really clear. Mental health services need a fresh look. We have got to review where the gaps are in services. It is a critical part of our health sector, but, actually, what the Government has announced goes no way near addressing any of the problems that we know exist.

Education is the next core area. If you have got a roof over your head and you can access health services, then education has to be the next area we have got to make sure that we get right. What did we see in education? It has had frozen funding from this Government, and what did it see this Budget? A 1.3 percent increase for operational funding. Following a freeze, 1.3 percent—what does that mean for a school? Well, that means a trade-off. I spent yesterday with a teacher-aide at one of my local primary schools. As she pointed out, the dilemma for her school is that if it increases her wages, it cuts her hours, because it cannot afford to do both. That is criminal, that situation.

Teacher-aides make a huge difference in a child’s life—their future trajectory in our education system is determined by the work that some of those extremely qualified individuals do—and yet we pay them a pittance, and we ask it to come out of a school’s already low operational budget. That is appalling. These are the kinds of priorities that Labour wanted to see in this Budget, and that is the indication of what kind of party you have in charge: where it places its priorities in the Budget. Instead, the headline figure out of this Government was a $1.9 billion tax cut, at a time when our core services are failing.

I always come back to a really, really basic, basic quote from Norman Kirk, because I admired him so greatly, and what he said at that time still remains true today: all that anyone ever needs is something to do, somewhere to live, someone to love, and something to hope for. This Budget gives us no hope. It gives us no optimism that this is a Government that deserves to be in charge, but it gives New Zealanders a clear message. If you want to get back to basics, get those core services right, and if you want fresh ideas for some of those gnarly problems that we are facing, then vote for a party that is going to give you some hope again, that is going to invest in the stuff that Kiwis care about. That is why we need a change of Government. That is why we need a Labour Government.

The problem with that contribution from the member for Mt Albert is that she did not answer the fundamental question about whether these tax reductions, these big investments in infrastructure, and these improvements in public services would be supported by Labour. She was blank on that fundamental question that we debate in this Budget debate.

I would say that this is the best Budget this Parliament has seen in more than a generation. It is a Budget that shows our economy is growing strongly. It is a Budget that delivers better public services. It is a Budget that involves the biggest investment in infrastructure—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Stuffed up ACC. Stuffed up housing.

—that our country has ever seen, and it is a Budget that delivers for 1.3 million New Zealand households $26 extra per week.

💬 Kris Faafoi: He’s a failure. He got rolled.

The challenge I would give to members who are interjecting opposite is this: let us look at New Zealand’s vital economic statistics. Let us look at the level of growth and how it compares: 6 straight years of 3 percent economic growth, and for the next 4 years at least 3 percent growth.

Let us look at inflation. When we came into Government, inflation was running at over 5 percent per year, eroding New Zealand families’ working base. What this Budget shows on that vital statistic is inflation at only 2 percent, and set to stay at that very level.

Let us look at one of the most important things. Jacinda Ardern talked about the right to a job. What this Budget shows is unemployment under 5 percent and 170,000 more jobs for New Zealanders over the next 4 years, and unemployment trending down to just 4 percent.

I look at another statistic, like interest rates. It matters for homeowners; it matters for businesses that are investing in jobs. Again, we see that vital statistic at less than 5 percent, and so strong for New Zealand.

I look at an issue like debt. I have stood in this Parliament speaking in Budget debates when New Zealand’s debt has been over 90 percent of GDP. That is what I came into Parliament inheriting from a Labour Government in the 1980s. I see in this Budget New Zealand’s debt level trended down to only 20 percent of GDP, and I commend the Minister of Finance for caring about the future and targeting a level of debt of between only 10 and 15 percent of GDP. I challenge people to look at this Budget and line it up with any that has been delivered in this country in the last 25 years, and tell me which Budget in the last 25 years has had better vital economic statistics for our country. There is not one.

💬 Kris Faafoi: 2004.

I say to the member opposite: tell me a country, a country like our own, that has had a better Budget than us.

💬 Kris Faafoi: He’s a joke.

Tell me whether—well, I ask the member whether he would rather have the Budget of Australia, where they have got substantive debt and increasing unemployment. Would he rather have what you have got in the United Kingdom? Would he rather what they have got in the US? You will not find, and I challenge any member opposite to tell me, a country right now that is in better economic shape than New Zealand, and that is another tribute to the success of this Budget.

I have to also agree with the commentators who have said that, actually, if you look at the families package in this Budget, it is big and bold, and in itself justifies a Budget. Not only to have the families package but also to have the package that is expanding public services and a budget that provides for massive growth in infrastructure spending—to have all that, all three of those components in one Budget, makes it truly stand out.

I do want to speak about the issues of building and construction. Firstly, this is a Budget that provides the billion dollars of funding to support our local authorities to grow the infrastructure—to grow the number of homes that are being built. This is a Budget that provides families under pressure with housing costs with over $600 million a year of additional support. I have heard those silly comments opposite, which claim that the accommodation supplement somehow just goes into the pockets of landlords. Well, you tell that to my constituents.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Where else could it go?

Well, I say this to the member: when the Government, this Government, increased the benefits for the first time in 40 years—is the member also arguing that when you increase the benefits, they just go into the hands of the supermarkets? To those who rent property, it is flawed economics.

What you see from this Government—it is freeing up land supply through the special housing areas, and there is $4.9 million of money in this Budget to support the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity. If you look at the money and funding to support the Resource Management Act reforms that this Budget is providing for, no wonder we have been able to achieve the longest and strongest period of new home construction that New Zealand has ever seen—now in its fifth year—and further statistics out today from the building numbers show that strength.

It is an appropriate time to also scrutinise alternative policies, and this Parliament has heard a lot about KiwiBuild. Well, let me just ask those members a few questions about their KiwiBuild policy. Labour says that the KiwiBuild policy of 10,000 homes a year is going to be delivered with 5,000 workers. That is what its policy says—5,000 workers are going to build 10,000 houses a year. Which planet is the Labour Party on? If you take the current rate of home construction in New Zealand—we are building over 30,000 houses and it is taking 145,000 people to build those homes. In other words, based on current construction, you would need 46,000 people to build an additional 10,000 houses a year. Labour says it can do it with 5,000. That is one-ninth of what anybody in the building and construction says is required.

Then you come to the issue of the funding. Labour says you can magically build 100,000 homes with $2 billion—100,000 homes with $2 billion. I can see the pig flying past right now, it is so unrealistic. What Labour is banking on—this is what it says, this is what it expects New Zealanders to believe: that if you take the $2 billion and you spend it on getting the resource consents and the building consents, and you build the infrastructure and you build the houses and you sell the houses, you can do that 25 times over, at 4 months per period, and somehow you build those 100,000 homes.

Then you come to the issue, and you ask the Labour Party: “Where are the 100,000 homes going to go? Where is the land?”. They are certainly not going to go at Three Kings. They certainly are not going to be at Point England. Those members do not know. They oppose houses adjacent to graveyards, they oppose housing in Māngere, they oppose housing in west Auckland—they have no idea where the land will come from. They have no idea where the funding will come from. They have no idea where the workers are going to come from. That is not a policy; it is a soundbite. It is an embarrassment.

This is a Budget that, in my view, has gone down better than any I have seen. The fact that the Green Party voted for the families package, that the New Zealand First Party voted for the families package—and it spoke volumes that the Leader of the Opposition, in critiquing the Budget, could not fill his allotment of time. I actually have some sympathy for him. It is damned difficult to criticise such a good Budget. It is no surprise that he could not fill his allotted time with his critique of it.

This is a Budget for our times. This is a Budget that builds on 8 years of hard graft by New Zealanders in improving our economy. It improves public services, it puts money in New Zealand families’ pockets, and it reduces debt—

Sorry, the member’s time has expired.

New Zealanders care deeply about fairness. That is obvious. They do not want to live in a country where there are record levels of homelessness and child poverty. New Zealanders care deeply about protecting our natural environment. They hate to see what has happened to our rivers over the past few decades. They want to take action on climate change. They want us to be investing in a clean, green economy and infrastructure that is going to reduce our carbon pollution and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. That is obvious in how this National Government has changed its rhetoric.

Now, sadly, it is not doing anything to actually fulfil the aspirations of New Zealanders to live in a fair society where we look after our environment. Oh no, National is the master of spin, and this Budget is evidence of that. There is no real action that is going to tackle our housing crisis in this Budget. There is no real action that is going to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. There is no action whatsoever on cleaning up our rivers or investing in the infrastructure we need to make it easier to get around our towns and cities without relying on a car. There is no real action to make it easier for households and businesses to buy an electric vehicle.

This Government is treading water and it does just enough to keep people’s heads just above the water—just enough tinkering to make it seem like they are doing something. Now, I am heartened by the fact that New Zealanders care about fairness and the environment, and I came to Parliament, along with my colleagues in the Green Party, to make good on our promise to deliver that for New Zealanders. We can do that. But the National Government, in this Budget, has continued its unfortunate habit of prioritising spin over substance, so we see it announcing policies that might, maybe, come into force in 30 or 40 years’ time—you know, like Aucklanders will get that rail link to the airport 30 years from now. Maybe we will start dealing with climate change in 2050 when it is a bit too late.

Rather than actually making our rivers swimmable, the National Government is going to change the definition of swimmable, so it means you are more likely to get sick when you go for a swim in our rivers. Rather than actually reducing rheumatic fever and meeting the Better Public Services target that it set 5 or 6 years ago, it has completely dropped the target to reduce rheumatic fever in this Budget and it has slashed the spending on it. That is because it was unwilling to take on the changes that need to happen to truly deal with the housing crisis. Well, the Green Party knows how to do that, and if this were our Budget we would be doing a lot more for families and a lot more for housing.

The Government has failed to implement an actual capital gains tax that would have made the tax system fairer and helped to reduce house-price inflation in Auckland. It has failed to bring in a reasonable standard for rental properties and protection for tenants. It has failed to deal with the fact that foreign capital is driving up house prices in Auckland, and, like many other countries in the world, we could have said that if one is going to buy a property in New Zealand, they must be a citizen or a resident.

The Government has failed, above all, to build houses. So when this Government gets up and talks about more houses being built, it is talking about there being consents—there are homes being built, but not at the rate that we need them to be to meet our record population growth. The only way to deal with that is to have a Government that is committed to increasing the supply of actual communities, not just big McMansions on the fringe of Auckland that are not really going to help anyone but the developers who make big profits off them. No, we need our Government to be leading on building affordable housing, building more State houses, and building the types of homes and communities with schools and parks and shops and all of the things that people need to live a good life. We could be doing that. That is what the Green Party will do when we are in Government.

This Government—the Minister of Health, Jonathan Coleman—has made the point that we are spending more on health than ever before. Well, it is about time that we increased funding to a point where we are actually going to be able to deliver the services that people need. What I have found, talking to people in the health sector, is that things are at a breaking point and the increase in this Budget is not enough to deliver the services that people need. It is not enough to keep up with record population growth. It is not enough to keep up with the increasing demand out there in the community, because we have an ageing population. We have an increase—a structural increase—in the need for mental health services, and this Budget does not do enough to help people who are in dire need. We have incredibly long waiting lists. We have a shortage of beds for acute care. Even worse than that, we have a lack of services out there in the community that would prevent people from getting to the state where they need that acute care in the hospitals.

What we need more than anything is not more spin from this National Government. We need a change in Government, so that we can start actually tackling these problems, and we have every opportunity to actually resolve them. We are on the cusp of a paradigm shift, globally, about how we look at the economy.

I heard, previously, Minister Nick Smith speaking and rattling off statistics about economic growth and how great our growth rate is. Well, Minister, how can our economy be delivering for New Zealanders, when we have record levels of homelessness—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We don’t.

—record levels of child poverty, record levels of pollution in our rivers, record levels of carbon emissions—and they are just going to keep increasing as long as this National Government is in power—and we have record house price to income ratios. The Minister says “Oh, we don’t. That’s not true.” Well, that just demonstrates how out of touch this National Government is. He thinks we do not have record levels of homelessness. He thinks there is no housing crisis. Ladies and gentlemen, this is your National Government—out of touch and out of time. It has not done enough, and we can do better. We know—we know—that investments in clean infrastructure will not only reduce our carbon emissions, they will make life better for people on the ground.

Ultimately, that is what the economy is for. It is not some fancy machine; it is just a word for how we spend our time and how we allocate our resources. Unless we are allocating our resources in a fair way—in a way that means that every child in New Zealand has a warm, dry, secure place to call home, that they have the opportunity to get an education that allows them to get ahead in life, that they have the opportunity to walk and cycle safely to school and to grow up in a New Zealand where they can swim in our rivers without fear of getting sick, and that they have an opportunity for meaningful work that makes this place a little bit better—then the economy is not serving us. And it is really not serving us right now. The reason it is not serving us on a global scale is that the people who have the most—the most wealth and the most power—are influencing politicians to make sure that they can get even more.

💬 Jonathan Young: You’re in the top 3 percent.

And it is time for those of us who have the most to say that we want to give more back, that we have got enough, and that we want to make sure that the most vulnerable in our community have the opportunities that they need.

We want to make sure that families who go out there and work 40 or more hours a week are not struggling to make ends meet, that they have a place to call home, and that their kids can get the health services and, perhaps, the mental health services that they need. We have this opportunity, and I believe the Green Party understands better than any party in this Parliament just how much things are about to change in this world. We have the opportunity to respond to climate change and to create an economy that is working for people and for the planet, and we can do this only if we work together. All of us need to start working together. The No. 1 priority, I think, for this Green Party is to improve our democracy. It is to improve the ability of ordinary people out there on the street to feel like they have a stake in this society, that they have a voice in this House, and that they have the ability to influence policy in a way that is going to benefit the greatest number—not just the wealthiest, not just the most powerful.

But an election is coming. An election is coming, and New Zealanders will have the opportunity to get involved and elect a Government that will actually deliver on their values of fairness and protecting the environment.

Talofa lava and greetings to the Samoan community in New Zealand and to the many great people of that nation. Before I come to the matters that I wish to raise, the previous member who spoke, Julie Anne Genter, said that this Budget does nothing for the housing pressures in New Zealand, and yet we announced $100 million more for housing on Crown land—$100 million of new capital funding to allow vacant or underutilised Crown land to be freed up for additional housing and developments. We know that one of the big issues around housing pressure is land, and so this Government and this 2017 Budget invest money when that member who just spoke said that this Budget does nothing.

It must be frustrating for New Zealanders to hear some of these speeches that are absolutely just alternative facts with no connection to what was delivered last Thursday in black and white ink to New Zealanders and to the media of this country. And yet Opposition members say such things, and they say such things with the desire that they will pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders, who know better because they see what is happening.

Presented by the Hon Steven Joyce and following eight Budgets presented by Bill English, this comprehensive and complex Budget now puts this country in a strong position and seeks to do the most for as many New Zealanders as it possibly can so that all New Zealanders can benefit, delivering for them prosperity, security, and opportunity. They can fulfil their dreams and they can live and prosper in a nation that gives them a platform to succeed. We never take away the responsibility of the individual to make something of their life, but what this Budget has done is make that platform strong, to enable New Zealanders with aspirations and to enable New Zealanders with vulnerabilities to be able to safely and securely live in this country and to be able to fulfil their dreams.

This Budget takes four significant steps to bring the benefits of a stronger economy to all New Zealanders. We have got to acknowledge the hard work of the previous Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister, Bill English, who is noted around the world as one of the best finance Ministers in this current time. Now we acknowledge the Hon Steven Joyce for the great work that he has done in bringing a Budget that is going to strengthen families and improve resilience in our nation—these Shaky Isles—this place that has in the past cost billions of dollars because of earthquakes, because of natural disasters, and because of flooding. All of those natural things have happened, yet with resilience we can withstand those. We can rebuild, and that is what we have done and that is what we continue to do.

We are making record investments into new infrastructure, which is going to help this country become even more efficient—

💬 Denis O’Rourke: What about railways?

—in the supply—yes, half a billion dollars is going to KiwiRail, to continue to support the work that it does.

There are billions of dollars going into our roading network so that we can efficiently get products to and from markets. I come from a region that really relies upon a strong, resilient roading network, and I am pleased that just 2 weeks ago the Minister of Transport came and signified the commencement of works on State Highway 3, heading from New Plymouth through to the Waikato and through to Hamilton. It is a $135 million investment in one of the most difficult pieces of highway network in the country, and we rely on that. Every time we have a slip and every time that road is blocked for one reason or another, those trucks that carry our products or carry products to us, which we desperately need, have to go all the way down to Marton and up through State Highway 1. It costs $1,000 extra per trip, every time, and that cost is worn by consumers, by the market. So, having that investment into State Highway 3 is tremendously important for the people of Taranaki.

💬 Hon David Bennett: And the Waikato.

And incredibly important for the people of the Waikato, that is right. Thank you, my honourable friend Mr David Bennett.

There is $2 billion invested into families to enable those people to step up and be able to do more with their lives. It is a great thing to see happen. Sharing the benefits of a strong economy—first, it requires a strong economy; first, it requires prudent fiscal management; first, it requires discipline in Government around its spending. And yet, during this time of discipline we have sought to improve public services to the people of New Zealand. We have lifted our goals for the betterment of New Zealanders. All this time we have lived with constraint, through those very difficult years—as Treasury said: “A decade of deficits in front of us.” Now we have years of surpluses in front of us, because during those difficult times we had discipline, we had foresight, we had strong management, and this is what our country is now benefiting from.

We have infrastructure investment, new schools, new hospitals, and new roads. We have rail that is moving freight up and down the country. We have resilience when some of those natural disasters occur, which enables these cities to be rebuilt. Kaikōura, State Highway 1—$812 million has been invested into State Highway 1 in order to not just open up that road but improve it, in terms of capacity and efficiency.

There is 3.1 percent average growth for the next 5 years. If the Australian Government could say that in its Budget, would that country not be happy? Over 200,000 more jobs created in the last 3 years, and another 215,000 expected by 2021. As a father, this is what I want for my son. I want opportunities for him. I am like families all over this country who see their young people and want them to succeed, who want them to stay in New Zealand, who want them to be part of our great future.

What it takes is a Government that can deliver, that can enable those businesses out there to have the confidence to create jobs, that has New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, that has a great trade Minister like Todd McClay out there, working hard, opening up markets for our fantastic export products. All of that enables us, as New Zealanders, to be confident, to be proud, to be very optimistic, and to take those steps of faith and risk that we know are very much part of building a future. This Government has delivered that, through this Budget.

Treasury’s latest forecasts show surpluses growing from $1.6 billion in 2016-17, to $7.2 billion in 2020-21. Because of that strength, because of those surpluses, and because hard-working New Zealanders get out there and make money and pay tax, we have so many more choices. We can do so much more in this nation. We have a great future in front of us, and I believe that that has been built upon, as I said, by wise management, good stewardship, and the right sorts of decisions during those very difficult times.

But this Budget now, which is comprehensive—yes, it is complex and it offers New Zealanders, as many as possible, the greatest advantage of living in this country. I believe that it breeds optimism and it breeds the confidence that our nation needs in order to engage even more strongly in the world in which we live.

The forecast of this Government, in terms of its management, is very, very strong—reducing debt to around 20 percent of GDP by 2020. The Minister of Finance has stated that he wants to see that figure go down to 10 to 15 percent by 2025 so that we have resilience to face the future with confidence, with strength, and with courage, and so that we will see this nation continue to prosper under the leadership of this Government. Thank you.

I want to talk about the housing crisis. The Government does not want to do that, because it is clear from its Budget that it has no new ideas about how to solve the crisis that it actually caused. For example, Jonathan Young said just a moment ago, with pride, that the Government was spending $100 million on homes on Crown land. But he did not mention that the Government is also—

💬 Matt Doocey: On Crown land?

On Crown land, yes. He did not also mention that the Government is spending $800 million on new prisons. So eight times more for prisoners than for housing on Crown land. Big, big deal. And the Government has done very little else about the housing crisis. The Government caused it through grossly excessive immigration, mainly in an attempt to keep wages down and to make Auckland’s consumer economy look good, and, secondly, by allowing grossly excessive foreign ownership of homes in New Zealand, especially in Auckland.

Those are the two main drivers. However much the Government wishes to deny it, that is the truth. The Government has spent years in denial on housing issues. But now the chickens have come home to roost but, sadly, those chickens are actually homeless people and, increasingly, they have nowhere to roost. They are the people who will now never be able to buy a home—never be able to buy a home—and will have the greatest difficulty in renting one. That is the reason why there has been a need for such huge increases in the accommodation supplement, because they cannot afford to rent houses without it, either.

That is not a record of success; that is a record of terrible failure. This is a half-pie Budget because it does not do half enough on housing, amongst many other things. I suspect that Steven Joyce will not dish out the other half, whatever that is, until much closer to the election. That is not the way a country should be run. The Budget should be designed to tackle the housing crisis as the nation’s No. 1 problem right now, not waiting until later for some lollies to make the Government look good on housing closer to the election.

While population growth from National’s immigration free-for-all does generate consumer-led growth, especially in Auckland, it does not produce anything in terms of more production for the nation or more productivity. But it does produce huge pressures on housing, health, and an array of other services, and that is the truth of that. We all have to pay for that.

So here we have it. National causes the housing crisis, now the worst in the developed world—the worst in the developed world—through a shameful legacy of neglect. There are going to be more homeless people in the news over this winter and more State tenants being pushed out of State houses because of inappropriate housing policies. There has been a budgeted expenditure of 34,000 more houses, which is grossly inadequate in relation to the sheer size of the housing problem. Actually, most of that is not anything new because most of those houses are just replacements for thousands of State houses that have been sold off and are budgeted by Housing New Zealand. It is not something new that the country can look forward to. The net result is not much more than 1,000 new houses from this Budget, and so that is pathetic. If you ask people in places like Whangarei, Masterton, Queenstown, and other parts of the country whether they think there are enough houses to buy or to rent, then I can tell you that they will have a very strong message for the Minister and this Government.

As far as Auckland is concerned, the projected shortfall there is nothing less than hundreds of thousands of houses over the next 10 years, while immigration continues at more than 72,000 per year and overseas investors are still rushing to New Zealand to buy up houses that are going up strongly in price in Auckland. The reality is we need about 40,000 more houses in New Zealand. The private market is not going to cope with that—by one of the Minister’s own admissions, in fact, the private market cannot cope and there are just not enough resources for that. This is something that this Government has needed to address over a long period, and that is what has got us to where we are now.

It is a vicious circle: excessive immigration causes excess demand, so the Government wants to bring in more people so that it can build more houses, but that creates more demand, and so on and so on and so on. It is a circle that will never be solved, and there is nothing in this Budget of any value at all for additional residential land, especially in Auckland. That is, I suppose, why Jonathan Young talked only about using parks and reserves like Point England for that purpose. Nor is there anything in the Budget to actually build the houses that will need to go on that land, either.

So what you can say about this Government’s Budget is that it is pathetic, as far as addressing the housing crisis is concerned. Not only that but it does not offer anything more than people who are seeking to purchase their first home already have. Now they have the HomeStart scheme, and the Government says it is doing something about the resource management legislation, but, in actual fact, it needs a much more imaginative and much larger scheme to help all those hundreds of thousands of people who cannot buy a home of their own simply because they cannot afford it and have no way of getting into it.

New Zealand First, on the other hand, does want to establish a new agency to—and we have wanted this for years—purchase and develop land ahead of time to augment the private market, to sell smaller sections for modest homes, and to build affordable homes and to sell them, over 25 years, to people buying a first home at a lower-than-market interest rate. That is the sort of policy that we need and that the Government has not provided.

There are other ways, like housing bonds, that can be provided so that the finance can be provided for new houses in New Zealand, and just ordinary Government borrowing. It is justified because these are assets on the Government’s books, on the Government’s balance sheet. They will not be a burden on the taxpayer and they will be worth it in both economic and social terms, because housing is a great investment—socially, in support of health services, in support of anti-crime objectives, and there are many other social and economic reasons why housing is such a great investment. Yet this Government, year after year after year for the best part of the decade, has done far, far too little to invest in housing in this country. It has relied on the private market to do so, when everybody in this country who knows anything at all realises that the private market simply cannot cope.

There has been a big injection of funds into rental supplements—$25 to $75 a week for two-person homes and up to $80 a week for larger homes, depending on location—but, in fact, that compensates only for the massive increase in house prices, which in turn has led to huge increases in rents, caused by National’s housing policies over the last 9 years. So, again, the Government is just playing catch-up. This is not good money; it is money down the drain, money that should be used to help people to buy houses, and money that should instead be used to actually build houses and develop land. All of that money should be going there. It should never have had to go into massive annual rental housing supplements. It should never have had to go there. It is going there only because this Government’s housing policies are a total and abject failure.

So, in summary, this is a disappointing Budget for thousands and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders because they know that the Government is not going to do anything about immigration, they know the Government is not going to do anything about foreign speculators—they know that that is going to continue—they know they are not going to get the assistance they need to buy homes, they know that there are not going to be enough State houses, and they know there will not be fairer policies for most New Zealanders on housing issues. This Government has been a total and abject failure, and anyone in this country who wants a house either to purchase or to rent will need to vote for somebody else.

Anybody believing all of the last 10 minutes of the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke’s speech would probably be left quivering, curled up in the foetal position at the terror, the peril of the issues the country is confronting. According to Mr O’Rourke, everything can be sheeted home at the feet of immigration and migration. Well, I think we need to have a sensible conversation about what is happening right now in migration and immigration, but you will not get that from New Zealand First members, because they deliberately obfuscate and they change data to suit their rhetoric. It is a rhetoric that has been spouted for—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member has only just finished his 10 minutes’ worth, which was heard largely, if not completely, in silence. Repeating the same phrase over and over and over and over again does little for his previous speech and will not be permitted in this speech.

The question, really, is the degree to which the comments the member makes, the drivers of the pressures that we are seeing—pressures on growth; positive pressures; things that need to be dealt with in terms of infrastructure and housing—can be put down to the issue of immigration. Now, it is true that some parts of immigration policy do actually contribute to growth. International education is a very good example of that. It generates over $4 billion in export revenue and employs 32,000 people in this country. But most of the drivers of growth generate demand for labour. It is not as if there are lots of migrants walking around Blenheim at the moment saying: “Gosh, we’ve got them there; we might as well plant some more vines. We might as well milk some more cows.” All of those primary industries are going gangbuster right now, and that is driving the very high demand in labour, which has created over 200,000 jobs in the last 4 years.

We have an unashamed Kiwis-first approach to migration policy, but it is true now, and likely for the foreseeable future, given the growth projections—including in the construction industry, so that we can increase the supply of housing—that it will be necessary to rely on the international labour market. National’s policies, which I announced in Queenstown last month, are sensible, pragmatic responses to that growing demand. We do need that temporary labour, and those workers need to come in—firstly having tested that there are not New Zealanders available to do the job—and then be clear about the likelihood of their duration of stay and whether or not they can gain residence. The demand is high, but the residence programme numbers remain the same, and, therefore, the price of admission has indeed gone up.

Now, this Budget has been a complex one with many moving parts, and if any one or two of the sorts of things that are in this Budget had been announced, it would have been considered significant—things like returning tax into the pockets of the hard-working Kiwis who pay that tax; transferring more of that tax paid to the families who need that help with their accommodation support or with the costs of raising children; a really ambitious plan for growing our infrastructure, whether it is roads, hospitals, schools, rail, and so on; increasing investments in public services; an ambitious and challenging social investment target so that we can assist vulnerable New Zealanders to remain confident, independent New Zealanders; and a plan to improve our country’s resilience by reducing debt to GDP down to between 10 and 15 percent so that we can continue to cope with the inevitable shocks that living in these shaky islands will produce.

Any one or two of those initiatives would have seen this Budget be a significant one, but we have put in about six or seven major, major Budget initiatives. The reason we can do that is because of very sound, sensible fiscal management over the past few years, when we had inherited structural deficits projected to be 10 years or more, a global financial crisis, and two major earthquakes. This Government saw through all of those things and is returning to a 2017-18 projected Budget surplus of $1.8 billion, with GDP growth forecast to continue to be above 3 percent on average for the next 5 years, peaking at 3.8 percent by 2019. That gives the country and the Government choices, and I think those choices have been really well finessed by the finance team supported by Cabinet and its caucus, and it has certainly landed extremely well.

One of the big choices that we were able to make was to end the problem with very low-paid workers in the aged-care sector and achieve what I believe was an outstanding settlement, which was funded mostly by Vote Health but also by a little bit of Vote ACC, for which I am responsible. That put more than $2 billion into the pockets of 55,000 women who work incredibly hard for our vulnerable, elderly, and injured, with the pay equity settlement that we know as the TerraNova settlement. That is what strong, sensible, fiscally prudent measures do, because despite the comments made during the first reading of the Care and Support Worker (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill after the Budget statement last week—the first reading of that bill to give effect to that settlement—that we were somehow shoehorned into this position, nothing could be further from the truth. The Government was not even a party to the proceedings that were before the Employment Court. Those parties could have kicked the can down the road for years, but we made a conscious decision that this had to be fixed. It was going to be expensive, it was something that we could afford thanks to that prudent fiscal management, and I am extremely proud of having done so.

As Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety I have been pleased to secure $8.7 million of extra funding for the Mediation Service and the labour inspectorate to ensure that there will be appropriate mediation services available for the raft of pay equity claims that will be made under the new equal pay and pay equity amendment legislation, which I hope to introduce to the House later this year and have passaged into law by early next year. I am very impressed to note that the parties that have already made claims under the Equal Pay Act have committed to continuing that conversation using the principles set out by the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles.

Another very good joint health and ACC announcement was the $59.2 million to ensure that all road ambulances would be double-crewed over the next 4 years. This is a very, very important issue—one that I think will add to not only the quality of the care that is given for emergency management but also the productivity question. It was an interesting conversation, I have to say, on Q+A on Sunday, when the Council of Trade Unions’ chief economist, Bill Rosenberg, pointed out that, in his view, productivity is not possible in the health sector and that it just is—you have to pour in as much money as it could possibly tolerate, but do not expect anything back out of it. Well, with respect to Mr Rosenberg—and I do have respect for him—I think that is just quite wrong.

One of the best examples of productivity gain, albeit it is not financial productivity, was in the research that was announced earlier in May that said that the Government’s policy of ensuring that patients wait no longer than 6 hours in the emergency department, which was introduced in 2009, has saved thousands of lives. Literally thousands of lives have been saved by the simple expectation that people should not wait longer than they need to, nor than is clinically appropriate. What that meant was that systems had to change. Yes, there was more money for that. Yes, for a growing population we have certainly put more money into Vote Health year on year ahead of the rate of inflation. But there was also an expectation that there should be more out of it, and the thousands—50,000 a year—more elective surgeries, the number of immunisations, the number of preventable illnesses, and the lives that have been saved in the emergency departments around the country are a very direct example of how important investments into health can have a financial and a clinical payback.

But, really, for all the rhetoric that we have had, particularly via my friend in New Zealand First, about how complex and awful and terrible and worrisome these things are, what this is really about is two choices. Do we as a country want to go forward or do we want to go back? Because shutting down the borders, sending tens of thousands of people away—as Labour would have you do—and having arbitrary cuts to migration, arbitrary cuts for fear of what that might do, is a very backward step.

This is a confident Government, a Government confident in the ability of New Zealanders to understand what is good for them, to meet the challenges of infrastructure and growth—and the only parties, I have to say, talking about 9 long years are the Opposition parties. For me, who has been in this caucus for those nearly 9 years, those 9 years have flown by. They have absolutely flown by, and what we have on this side of the House are fresh faces—and there will be more to come after the election—fresh ideas, and amazing new energy. The 9 years have flown by. I look forward, frankly, to the next 9 years, and this Budget is a very important part of it.

In the Budget there is a group of New Zealanders who missed out significantly, and that group is Māori. Māori got a measly, miserly 1 percent of new spending in the Budget. Compare that with the amount of spending that Corrections got, at 8.5 percent. We are going to spend 10 times more money on keeping Māori in prison this year than we are on keeping Māori out of prison.

I knew there was something up in the Budget when Steven Joyce announced that there was going to be $93 million worth of spending over the next 4 years for Māori, and then 10 minutes later Te Ururoa Flavell gets up and says there is going to be $122 million worth of spending for Māori over the next 4 years—so I am wondering where this extra $30 million comes from. Why is it that the Minister is pumping his own tyres? I looked at the Budget book and, actually, Steven Joyce was correct: there is only $93 million over the next 4 years for Māori initiatives and new funding. But if we just take out this year’s amount alone, $25 million is all that Māori get. If we start to scratch away at the surface, we find that they are actually getting crumbs.

The Māori Party members say they get all the benefits of sitting at the table with the Government. I say that, actually, they are outside in the foyer, sitting at the coffee table and getting the crumbs of what the Government lets fall on to the floor for them. If you are going to get crumbs, you may as well get crumbs that are recognisable. Instead, the crumbs are so tiny they are atomic—you need an electron microscope to see that they actually are crumbs.

Whānau Ora gets $2.5 million; just $2.5 million in new spending this year. When Whānau Ora was launched, Dame Tariana Turia said it needed $1 billion, and it is getting just $2.5 million. We all want Whānau Ora to succeed, because we all have whānau; so we want it to succeed. But it gets $2.5 million, and the Government and the Māori Party say that that is going to bring in another 2,500 whānau. Well, that would be good if it is true, but there are just around 10,000 whānau now after 9 years of Whānau Ora, and they are saying that just $2.5 million is going to bring in another 2,500 whānau. I just do not believe it.

Then I was looking through more of the announcements. There is going to be—and this sounds really good—$1 million for Māori health, for remote rural Māori communities to access health. I had a good look at it, and what the Māori Party is proposing to do is to buy a bus—a bus that it is going to convert into a clinic. That bus—just one bus—is going to drive around Mātaatua—the Mātaatua area and part of the East Coast. Mātaatua is Waiariki—Te Ururoa Flavell’s electorate, and another electorate that they have no hope in Hades of winning off my fine colleague here, Meka Whaitiri. So they are going to buy this bus, do it up, and that will cost about $250,000 to $300,000. They are going to start probably with a nurse, maybe a doctor, and a bus driver, so there is going to be a heck of a lot of money spent on salaries. There is going to be money spent on accommodation. There is going to be money spent on gas.

And how many times would a bus get around all of Waiariki and half of the East Coast in a year? I would say once, maybe twice. So you think of it: old Koro, whose gout is playing up, if the bus went through the little remote rural community a week before, is Koro going to say: “Um, nah, it’s all right. I’ll wait for Te Ururoa Flavell’s ‘Panadol on Wheels’ to turn up in 6 months’ time, and I’ll get my gout seen to.” No way. He is going to go into town, he is going to go to the doctor or the pharmacy and get the pills that he would have got anyway. He is not going to wait for some bus to turn up. This is electioneering at its worst. It is pork barrel politicking. I believe that the only two things that this bus that Te Ururoa Flavell is going to spend a million bucks on is going to dispense will be Panadol and Māori Party propaganda.

Then we look at the Māori Housing Network. It gets $3 million a year, or something. Now, the Māori Housing Network has apparently created 140 projects. Well, how many people can live in a project? It is like, how many people can live in a permit? There were 140 projects—and I wonder why it says “projects”, instead of giving us the number of houses that it has actually built?

💬 Meka Whaitiri: Eleven over 9 years.

Eleven. We heard Winston Peters say it the other day: 11 houses over 9 years. But, hang on, it does get better—379 Māori homes have had repairs. I feel fantastic for those 379 Māori whānau who have had their spouting repaired—that is fantastic—but when you think of the Māori population being 450,000 in New Zealand, that equates to about 0.08 of 1 percent of Māoridom getting their houses fixed or involved in these projects that have not produced houses.

Then there are the kōhanga reo. They get $5 million. I thought: “Oh, that’s excellent—$5 million.” You know, as a former school principal, I thought of what I could do with $5 million—until you look at what the five million bucks is going to be used for. It is going to be used—not to invest in kaiako, not to invest in children, not to invest in resources, but to invest in buying cars and vans and fixing the kōhanga reo vans. Now, if a shiny van at the front gate is the mark of success for kōhanga reo, then that side of the House—National and its mates the Māori Party—do not understand education. If it is going to put $5 million towards buying shiny vans and fixing vans, then it should have put double that amount into investing into kaiako, into tamariki, and into the resources that will help those children to learn Te Reo Māori so that they can graduate to kura kaupapa and be successful Māori there.

Māori youth suicide is going to get $8 million over 4 years. Now, that sounds pretty good—until you compare it with the $40 million that Labour has pledged to invest every single year to get health professionals into every single secondary school, plus another $40 million for primary mental health care in the communities.

Now Te Ture Whenua Māori is going to get $2 million for educating the community about Te Ture Whenua Māori. The Minister for Māori Development has said—having spent money on all these hui over the last however many years telling people about how great Te Ture Whenua Māori is going to be, but they still have to spend another $2 million just to convince people that it actually is of benefit.

💬 Adrian Rurawhe: It is more campaigning.

It is more campaigning. Then it is going to put some money into the Māori Land Service. The service has no business case. Nobody really knows what it is going to do. It has not been developed. It is going to start work, I think, 18 months after the bill becomes an Act. The Ture Whenua Act has just got widespread disdain throughout Māori communities; throughout Te Tai Tokerau, throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Of the 20-odd consultation hui, Labour MPs turned up to 14 of them and all 14 hui had motions from the floor to chuck this bill out. Nobody wants it, and yet the Government has got to spend another $2 million over the next couple of years convincing those people that it is right and the community is wrong.

Then there is Te Mana o te Wai Fund. This is the $1 million fund for whānau, hapū, and iwi to improve water quality—$1 million. I read somewhere the other day where the Government said that $2 billion is needed by 2040—$2 billion—to make water swimmable. Yet Māori get a measly $1 million to improve the health of the water—$1 million out of $2 billion. Now, maths was not my strongest point at school—as a student or as a teacher—but $1 million of $2 billion is less than 1 percent. It is a drop in the dirty river—that is all it is.

Family violence gets a bit of money. I say “a bit”, but here is the clincher: in this Budget a worker on the minimum wage—and Māori make up many of those workers on the minimum wage—will get one extra dollar per week. One extra dollar. There is nothing in this Budget for Māori. We do not support it whatsoever.

I actually feel quite uplifted by that speech. The reason I do is I know that it is a speech that member has been delivering in my electorate of Northcote. With its lack of structure, its downbeat message, and its general negativity, I am pleased that Mr Kelvin Davis will be taking that message to a much wider audience because I think that traditional Labour supporters need to hear the sort of negativity that is coming out of the Labour Party.

I was very disappointed with the very narrow focus that Kelvin Davis was taking there. You know, he should be looking at the big picture, because, Mr Davis, there is actually a lot in this Budget that is fantastic for Māori. I was very disappointed that Mr Davis completely ignored the $2 billion Family Incomes Package, which is going to lift the incomes of all middle to lower income New Zealanders. It is going to make a huge difference, and I can assure Mr Davis that many Māori will benefit from that.

We almost had a rare outbreak of consensus here in the House last week because those sensible Opposition parties literally came to the party with the announcement of the Family Incomes Package. We saw widespread almost-consensus in favour of what is a very good initiative to lift the incomes of 1.3 million New Zealand families. But we did not quite get there, because the Labour members could not quite bring themselves to vote for it. That was a real shame, because what they are not able to lay out for the public is what, in their minds, is the counter-factual. Those members are opposing just for the sake of opposing. I think in their hearts—you know, people like Stuart Nash would know that this is actually an excellent Budget. That is because it has managed to do what no other Budget in our 9 great years of Government has managed to do: it has actually lifted incomes at the same time as investing extensively in infrastructure, at the same time as insuring us against future shocks, but also, interestingly, on top of all that, investing heavily in public services. What other Budget has brought together all four of those elements at once? I mean, this is an artful Budget. The architect Steven Joyce has done a fantastic job of it.

I can tell you, the reception we are getting out in the electorates—you know, I was out on the main street of my electorate, Birkenhead, the other day. Boy, was I getting great feedback on this Budget. This is because it has actually covered all the bases. It has hit the right points and it is the sort of Budget that people were expecting to see. In this context, you have just got to look back over the last 9 years and the situation that the National Government inherited. They were dark days around the time of the global financial crisis. We were facing a decade of deficits. It was looking pretty grim. Debt was getting out of hand; it was set to peak at about 60 percent of GDP, and it needed real fiscal discipline, which was applied by the finance Minister Bill English over eight Budgets, to get us into this situation today where the Government now has real choices about how we are spending accumulating surpluses. That is something that now gives us huge choices. It enables us to actually start spending more money on things that people are requiring of the Government.

If you look at the state of the economy, in the last 6 years there has been positive growth in all but one quarter. The future outlook is good as well: average growth of over 3 percent over the next 5 years, peaking at 3.8 percent. But those surpluses are going to be the key: $2.9 billion in 2017-18, rising to $7.2 billion in 2020-21. When you think that we were dealing with an $18 billion deficit a few years ago—boy, have those books been turned around. It is a very positive story. It is an outlook driven by a strong economic plan that the Government has, and it is supported, actually, by confident New Zealand companies that feel confident to employ more people, to develop more products, and to look for more markets. We have got a great growth in jobs. We have had about 215,000 jobs added over the last 3 years, and over the next couple of years we are looking to add another 200,000 jobs. The unemployment rate is set to fall below 4.5 percent.

Very importantly, at the same time as we have got these economic gains—you know, debt falling below 20 percent of GDP by 2020—we are also dealing with the hard social stuff. I do not think even the most hardbitten Labour member could begrudge the fact that we have got 60,000 fewer children growing up in benefit-dependent homes than we did just 6 years ago. You know, that is a massive achievement. That is something—

💬 Hon Member: How many?

—60,000 fewer—that is going to be a real legacy for this Government.

If you look at the debt situation—so, 20 percent of GDP by 2020—we have now set a new target in the Budget of 10 to 15 percent debt-to-GDP ratio by 2025. Of course, living in an environment where natural disaster has been something we have been exposed to over the past few years, we know the importance, as a country, of literally storing up resources for a rainy day, because those rainy days have come in the past and they will come again. It is a great Budget, though, in terms of the $4 billion for infrastructure—a record amount in one Budget—that $2 billion for the Family Incomes Package, and, of course, $321 million for flagship social investment projects.

Last week I was at the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization annual meeting, and it was interesting meeting with other health Ministers from around the globe. What is very clear is that we are all facing a common set of challenges with the ageing population and the growth in population in Western countries, but we are also grappling with these three big disease groups: non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases, and the third big grouping—which has taken on much greater prominence over the last 5 years—of mental health issues. Around the globe, all Western countries are grappling with this issue of how do we adapt our response in the face of rising mental health demand.

Well, I can tell you, this $888 million in the Budget, this allocation of $3.9 billion over the next 4 years—record amounts for health under this Government, taking the total budget to $16.77 billion—is going to enable us to continue to improve and increase access to a range of health services, including mental health. So there is $224 million over 4 years for mental health—that is $100 million within the ring-fence—and $24 million spread for initiatives across Māori development, education, and corrections. But also, very importantly, there is $100 million that is going to focus on innovative solutions to what is a real societal challenge—that is, maintaining and improving the mental wellness, the mental health, of New Zealanders.

It is a great year for district health boards (DHBs)—$439 million is in there. That is going to enable them to continue to improve and increase access to services. Of course, none of this would have been possible without that steady, strong, long-term management of the economy. I am very proud that we are going to be investing another $38.5 million over the next 4 years for the further roll-out of the bowel screening programme. We are doing the Hutt Valley and Wairarapa DHBs, of course, and Waitematā DHB as well in July, and later this year, the Southern and Counties-Manukau DHBs. That is going to screen 700,000 New Zealanders every 2 years, and save 700 lives a year. It is an initiative that literally will be lifesaving.

We are putting in another $205 million for disability services. That is going to take the total spend to $1.2 billion this year.

Double-crewing for ambulances—a huge issue in Todd Barclay’s electorate. That is going to be massive for those rural electorates where they have been facing over the long term one ambulance turning up, 90 percent—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Coromandel.

Yes, Coromandel as well—Scott Simpson’s electorate.

💬 Andrew Bayly: Waiuku.

Andrew Bayly’s electorate, as well. So, you know, that is very well received out there by the constituents. That is going to be another initiative that literally saves lives.

But, of course, there is also $60 million over 4 years for Pharmac. It is important that New Zealanders continue to get access to the world-class drugs that they need and deserve. It is incredible, you know—3.5 million New Zealanders received a funded medicine last year.

But the big one is $2 billion for the care and support workers over 5 years, benefiting 55,000 of the hardest-working, lowest-paid New Zealanders, most of whom are on the minimum wage. They are going to see a rise in their incomes of between 21 and 49 percent.

I can tell you, I was in the Northcote local rest home, Anne Maree Court. The people were literally singing and dancing. They had the karaoke machine out. They were very appreciative. So there is a lot to sing and dance about around this Budget, and I just wish that Labour would get on board and cheer up about it.

You might be surprised that Jonathan Coleman and I actually agree on something. I listened to his speech and there was a line that he gave, and I thought: “You know, that Minister is dead right.” What he said is “Now that the Government is in surplus, it has choices.”, and it does. But, unfortunately for the vast majority of New Zealanders, it has just made the wrong choices, and it is a shame.

You know, you talk to the vast majority of New Zealanders—and I have talked to a lot of my friends about this—and no doubt, because we are politicians, people engage with us in a way that they would not normally. You ask them: “Do you want a tax cut?”, and do you know what? Most people say: “I would love a tax cut.” Then you say to them: “But would you like a tax cut, or would you rather have a fully funded health system, an education system that delivers for all our children, a housing network that actually means that first-home buyers can afford something, social housing that actually means that those who find themselves in desperate situations have somewhere to go, and a police force that is funded so that when you are in trouble the police are there and there are plenty of community police keeping our communities safe?”, and, without exception, all my friends from the far right to the far left and everyone in between actually say: “Do you know what? What I want is a highly functioning country and a society that looks after its citizens.”

This is not the preserve or the ideology of the left. This is the expectation of the vast majority of New Zealanders, because it is the sort of country we grew up in, it is what we have come to expect, and it is how we sort of market ourselves overseas.

The irony about this Budget—and the Ministers and members on the other side in the Government have crowed about this quite a lot—is the party that in the past has been there for business and has been tough on law and order has delivered a Budget that does nothing for business and underfunds a police force stretched to the limits. It is quite surprising, actually, and the commentary has reflected this. There is a sort of puzzlement around what is going on.

Let me just briefly mention a blog that was put up by the New Zealand country manager of Xero. Xero is hardly what I would call a left-leaning company, and Rod Drury and I were at school together and he has done incredibly well in every single measure.

💬 Phil Twyford: Name-dropper.

Yes, well, thank you. He is a Napier Boys’ High School boy, of course. He did very well. It is a school of high achievers, apart from me. But one thing that the blog says is: “One other gripe is there’s little in the way of productivity support, access to talent, access to support for exporting for small businesses in general—and no mention at all of small business in the regions.”

I mean, you would expect that Labour would be standing up here and saying: “That Budget is all about businesses. There’s nothing for the workers.” Well, there is nothing here for businesses at all. There is nothing here for the regions. In Hawke’s Bay, where I am from, in Napier, the city and the electorate I represent, the business people were saying to me: “What has happened to this National Party? There is nothing here for us at all.”

The thing about productivity growth is that we cannot keep working longer and longer and expecting GDP to increase. We need to have a general increase in overall productivity, and yet the Government is putting no incentives in place whatsoever for companies to invest in the plant and capital and machinery and technology that would allow that increase in productivity. It is surprising, but this is one thing that we absolutely need.

Of course, that leads on to jobs. We absolutely need jobs—of that, there is no doubt. Our leader, Andrew Little, has articulated a fresh approach to employment. What we are going to do is actually create jobs for New Zealanders who want jobs, because we have faith in our young people. We do not say they are “pretty darn useless”; we say they are “pretty darn good”, actually. That is why Chris Hipkins has said we need an education system that is delivering for all New Zealanders, not just those who can afford to go to private schools and not just those in high-decile schools; for every single New Zealander. Equality of opportunity is the underlying political philosophy for most people—I would say for everyone—in the Labour Party. Yet if schools are not funded in a way that allows us to deliver that, then we cannot expect our young children to be educated, to develop, and to grow in a way that is going to allow them to become productive citizens. We are facing a lot of challenges in this country.

This Government did have a lot of choices, but it made the wrong choices. If it actually had invested in education, in healthcare, in a housing programme, and in law and order then it would be very hard for me to stand up here and argue about it. But the Government did not invest in any of these core social products, policies, and ministries.

Let me talk about police for a moment, which is my portfolio area. Police themselves have admitted that New Zealand, as a destination for methamphetamine, is “becoming more vulnerable”—i.e., there is a lot more meth coming into our country. The Police has admitted that despite the increase in seizures, the price of meth is lower, the supply of meth is greater, and the ability to access it is easier. Police are not winning the war on meth, and what the Police told the Government—it was quite specific—is that it needs 1,165 police over the next 4 years. Labour heard that, and we are going to supply them with 1,000 police over 3 years—we will do better than what Police itself wants. What did National deliver? It delivered 880 police. It had quite a comprehensive business case for how the police were going to use these resources to solve more crime, keep our communities safe, and put the bad guys behind bars. Yet when I have a look at the Budget and what the success measures are, I just shake my head and wonder whether we are living in a parallel universe.

The Government has actually said it is going to cut the budget for case resolution and support to judicial processes. In 2016-17, there were 100,000 cases prosecuted, yet this Budget is funding only 90,000 cases. It is as if Government members believe that crime is falling, and yet the stats simply do not show that. Our communities will tell you that crime is increasing, and the men and women on the front line have got the evidence. You cannot just say it and believe it is true if the stats say something different.

It is surprising that the budget for general crime prevention services has increased by only $11 million, or $42 for every crime committed last year, when the number of victimisations increased by over 11,000. In fact, that is 222 extra victimisations per week last year. Burglaries were up over 10,000, and that is mainly to do with P, yet we are not funding this part of policing in a way that is going to make a difference. The people in law and order whom I speak to around the country are concerned about this. Partly, they are concerned because they read about what is happening in the paper and they see what is happening on the news, and partly because they have an expectation of what law and order looks like in their community. We all, everyone in this House, grew up with the local bobby on the beat, who was—usually, in my case—a big, smiling, friendly chap who helped you out. That was in a day when, if you were mad or bad they would grab you by the ear and take you home. But the most surprising thing—[Interruption]—exactly, exactly; they were allowed to kick someone, and it worked. Community policing works, and at the moment, we are retrenching numbers from communities and putting them in the station, and they are just not getting the advice they need to solve crimes, and communities are not feeling safe. Sir Robert Peel, who was the founder of the modern police force, said “police are people and people are police”. That means we are all part of the wider community that is charged with keeping ourselves safe and our community safe. If the police are not there, then we cannot do that.

I suppose one of the surprising things is that the amount of money put into road safety policing has actually dropped—it has dropped by $12 million. Yet if I have a look at the road toll for the first 3 months of this year, 11 Kiwis more have died on our roads. We all know this—we all know that when you are driving along and you see a police car, the first thing you do is check your speed, and if you are travelling at 100 kilometres an hour, which I doubt anyone here would travel over, you tend to brake anyway. Well, you travel at 1 kilometre an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker, we know that. I suppose that all I am saying is that if you want to save lives, you do not cut the budget for road policing by $12 million; in fact, you increase it. This cut in road policing is one area of the Budget that I can confidently, but very sadly, say is probably going to cost Kiwis lives. Road tolls around the world are dropping; New Zealand is an outlier because ours is increasing.

I suppose, just to sum up, what Labour has done is it has put forward a whole raft of policies that have come about because we have listened to what Kiwis are saying to us. We have gone around the country and heard that people want an education system, a health system, a police service, and houses, and we have developed policies because of this. This Budget does not deliver in a way that we believe, and New Zealanders believe, fundamentally delivers for them. Thank you very much.

It is usually a pleasure to follow that member from Napier, Stuart Nash, because normally he is motivated, and he is enthusiastic, and he is full of vim and vigour and enthusiasm for his party. But today we have had a 10-minute apology of a speech from him on a really important Budget when Labour, again, has failed to deliver anything in the way of formed policy or debate or initiative or even any sensible opposition to what has been the first Budget produced by the new Minister of Finance, the Hon Steven Joyce.

My, what a great Budget it has been. What a great Budget it has been for the people of New Zealand, for families who are working hard, for superannuitants, for business people, for our young people, for those people who are struggling with high housing costs, and for people who have had tax creep occur. The new tax thresholds will kick in and give them some relief, and return back to them some of their own money, which is really what it is all about. What a good Budget this has been. This has been, absolutely, as all the commentators have been saying, a Budget that delivers for New Zealand and for New Zealanders.

It is a Budget that has come from a National Government in its ninth year of Government, after some very hard times early on in that term. In those early years, we had the global financial crisis to contend with and we had the situation of the Christchurch-Canterbury earthquakes to consider and to support. We have come through all of that with the careful, prudent management and economic steerage and stewardship that came from the now Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Finance. It is because of those careful, prudent years of steady-at-the-helm guidance that came from the Hon Bill English when he was Minister of Finance that we are in a position with this Budget to be able to make choices about really providing positive impacts for all New Zealanders. This is from a Government that cares. It cares for families, it cares for people, and it cares about getting things done. People around New Zealand, and around the Coromandel electorate, have certainly welcomed this Budget.

In my electorate—it is a provincial, rural electorate, and the local economy there is booming. In the provinces all around New Zealand, the economy is booming. In fact, people are telling me as I travel around my vast electorate in the Coromandel—the beautiful Coromandel—that they have not seen economic activity and economic growth like we currently have since the 1960s, and that is phenomenal. It means people are building houses, roads are being built, bridges are being built, all kinds of activity is occurring, and we are the net beneficiaries of that in the provinces and in the regions. We have been able to make that huge progress on the economic level, and in terms of the social advancements in health, education, and welfare, because, as a Government, we have got this careful stewardship of the economy that does give us choices.

At the very core of this year’s Budget is the Family Incomes Package and it is key to the Budget and it is key to what we are trying to achieve. Yet what has happened when the Budget was introduced? The Greens, very sensibly, and New Zealand First, very sensibly, voted in support of that, and Labour—who one would have thought would be jumping for joy at the opportunity to support struggling families and those in need of some improvement to their Working for Families arrangements—actually voted against it.

It was unbelievable that a Labour Party could vote against it. Not only did it vote against it—unbelievably, last weekend on TV3’s The Nation programme, having been invited to attend and present its argument, its case, its rationale for voting against this very good measure, nothing happened. It failed to turn up. It failed to show—no show. It was an absolute no show. I have been watching politics most of my life. I have never seen a situation where an Opposition party, in the ninth year of Opposition, would fail to appear on one of the country’s very good political programmes, and it was not there. It did not show. I tell you what: those members were probably still recoiling—

💬 Hon Todd McClay: Curled up.

—curled up in a foetal position somewhere in the Labour caucus room after hearing Steven Joyce deliver the Budget, because they did not think it was going to be a Budget that was going to be as generous, as supportive, and as positive as it was.

Economic growth is predicted to continue at the rate of over 3 percent for the next 4 years. If we are able to continue that growth, which I am confident we can, and if we are able to continue to produce surpluses through careful management of the economy, as I am confident we can, then that means that there will be even more jobs for New Zealanders, even more opportunities for New Zealand families, and even more benefits for us all as New Zealanders.

The unemployment rate is expected to fall to below 4.5 percent, and our employment rate is expected to stay at the top of the OECD nations. Now that is a dramatic change on where we were at the end of the Labour-Greens Government that was led by Helen Clark, when we had a decade of deficits being predicted by their finance Minister. We have managed to turn that around and get the country back on its feet in a way that was simply not ever thought possible by the Labour Party members. And they have no answers. They are bereft. They have no answers, no policy, no direction, and no leadership.

I have been given the privilege by the Prime Minister and my colleagues to serve as the Minister of Statistics, and there was an announcement in the Budget that I do want to draw the House’s attention to and it relates to an investment of $4.5 million to Statistics New Zealand that it will use over the next 3 years in order to fund an investigative programme into transformational census policies and processes. We come from a tradition of having a census every 5 years, and the tradition and the policy has been that on a given night, once every 5 years, a snapshot of statistical data would be collected across the nation and that data would be used to make all kinds of governmental decisions and businesses and individuals would use that information. But, of course, we now live in an age of technology when information and data has never been more freely available, never more accessible, and never more able to be analysed and used in ways that, actually, we could not even think about just a few years ago.

In this Budget there has been an allocation of $4.5 million. And what will that do? Well, it is going to be used to investigate a transformational census change, and that will mean that instead of potentially having census information collected on just one night across the nation once every 5 years, that perhaps we can look at mechanisms for capturing data and information on a progressive, moving schedule of time and place, and that is going to be really useful for the country and really useful for people who want to use that information.

I liken it a wee bit to a business that may have used to, in years gone by, conduct an annual stocktake where it physically counted every nut, bolt, and widget in its warehouse. It would not take long in the Labour Party warehouse to do a physical stocktake—mind you; there are a few nuts and bolts and widgets over there. But these days many companies no longer do that sort of thing. What they do is a rolling stocktake where they are checking stock and inventory on a progressive, rolling basis. This transformation of the census provides that kind of opportunity. So I think that this is going to be money very well spent. I think we will still have a need for a census every 5 years, but if we can add information to it progressively on a rolling basis over that period of time that will be all well and good.

Just in summary, this is a very good Budget. It is a Budget that delivers for New Zealand and New Zealanders. It reflects the hard work that New Zealanders have made over the last 9 years, in terms of coming to terms with some pretty tough times, and it is a very good Budget. It is the first Budget that Steven Joyce has made as Minister of Finance, and I for one am looking forward to him presenting many more to this Parliament—many more good Budgets from Steven Joyce for this Parliament and for the people of New Zealand. Thank you.

Fa’afetai lava, Mr Deputy Speaker, and talofa lava to all the Samoan speakers in Aotearoa for Samoan Language Week. This week has been quite bizarre in many ways, and the thing that I found most bizarre was when Steven Joyce was on television saying that the Budget had nothing to do with the election. I think that stretched the credibility of almost everyone in the country—maybe not Steven in his parallel universe, but we all know there is an election in 3 months and that this Budget was about that. I do not see the point in pretending that it is not. That is what it is about. That is what is always going to be about from any Government, and this Budget was a typical one for a pre-election Budget. Why not just admit it instead of pretending to be a bad spin doctor?

However, moving right along to the Budget and a couple of issues that we really need to concentrate on, and read my lips: we are not voting for the Budget. What we are saying here is if you look at the environment—in the environment this Budget has completely failed, and I am going to touch on that and I am also going to touch on education, because they both have created deep disappointment in the communities.

Before I do that, I just want to acknowledge that I am also from the Coromandel-Hauraki area, and I will tell you what is booming: we have a housing crisis and we have food banks booming. So along with all the rhetoric about how fabulous everything is, watch out for the global financial crisis that is coming our way, which economists like Steve Keen have identified. Watch out in the regions for what is really going on, rather than just what people want to see.

So water—what does the Government do for water in this Budget? Well, I have just come back from a local government conference on water this afternoon, and everybody knows that this is an important issue. Everybody even thinks that it is an election issue, but the Government has not really grasped that, so all that it did in this Budget was give $63 million to big irrigation. So even though the entire country is worried about the state of our waterways, concerned about water—and, in fact, Nick Smith spent a lot of time running consultations and making us all fill in forms about it—the Government did nothing for water. The only fund that is mentioned is Te Mana o te Wai Fund, and that is $1 million versus $63 million. And that $1 million—the hapū on the ground have told me that they have to raise half the money. So they cannot actually use the fund unless they have already got the money, but they do not have the money and that is why they need a fund. So that one is not a victory when small groups—it is fine if you are talking about regional councils and people who have access to money, but the groups that I work with, the champions of hapū and community groups working on cleaning up rivers, were really hoping the Government had heard the message that water was important.

James Shaw, in his speech, talked about broken systems, including our management of water. He is quite right, and this Budget has failed to address it. The $63 million the Government is giving to big irrigation is not the only dollop of money that it has given. It is subsidising—and has in the last few years subsidised—large amounts of money, including this $63 million, for schemes that will strip waterways and aquifers so that we could all become dependent on water as climate change absolutely destabilises our climate. But this is all it seems to be capable of—pretending that there is nothing coming straight towards us, that there are no enormous ecological changes under way, and that we have not already stripped the Canterbury rivers; that the rivers are not already struggling. People are gobsmacked that this Government not only does not mention climate change in the Budget; it also does nothing for water except ask people to come up with half the money for a very small fund. It is very, very disappointing indeed.

In terms of the other area I want to touch on, as the education spokesperson I have been on, I do not know, four or five panels in last 7 days. Some of that was before the Budget; some of it was after. After the Budget there was a definite tone in the teachers’ voices. They were not happy. The rural principals were not happy. The Early Childhood Council was not happy. They told us in no uncertain terms that they saw the Budget as an abject failure for education, and they told us why. They said that the operations grant, which has been frozen, has been increased by only 1.3 percent, which is not even a catch-up. The education system is bursting at the seams with broken buildings and children, and the money that has been put into the operations grant will not be sufficient to allow schools to do what they need to do. So they were furious that they were still stuck in that same place of struggling and taking money off families for what is supposed to be a free education system. It will entrench inequality.

They were also very disappointed in the early childhood education sector. They told us that this is the seventh year without any money for early childhood education, and they told us that each centre could lose up to $15,000 a year. They told us that the chance of actually being able to bring more quality teachers into early childhood education is gone in this Budget. They were very disappointed. The Government will say “Oh, but we gave $35 million over 4 years”—you can do the maths on that, because there is quite a bit in the Budget that is over 4 years; it is always important to remember that—“to help one part of early childhood, which is going to help some disadvantaged children.” But the early childhood community said that is about $2 per child. So it is not going to fix the crisis and disadvantage, and it is not going to fix the fundamental functioning of early childhood education. It is not going to allow schools to actually do their job, because they are going to be fund-raising yet again. So there is deep disappointment in the education sector around the Budget.

The compulsory sector and the principals whom we talked to were also very disappointed. They are struggling with a Government that underfunds them on a regular basis, and then does not listen to them. The Government is hell-bent on getting rid of deciles, but what we are afraid of is that it is actually just going to be rationing from now on. While the Government tries to find which child comes from which type of so-called deficit-based dysfunctional family before they get any funding, the rest of it, the public, quality, universal education system that people like myself were lucky enough to experience—people are not going to experience that. Rationing, competing, capping, and thinly spreading—I think it was the Post Primary Teachers’ Association that described the Budget as a “timid sprinkling” of funding. I thought that was quite a good description for what we see in the education sector—a timid sprinkling. A little bit here, a little bit there, but for the rest of it you are on your own. The schools are on their own. That is very, very disappointing, because there is so much rhetoric from the Government about the importance of education, so much rhetoric about participation in early childhood education, but, as we know, participation is nothing without quality.

Then we heard from the early childhood teachers who every 15 minutes have to report on their activities. That is going to ensure quality, but the money is not going to be there, and the respect for what they actually do is not there, otherwise why would you spend every 15 minutes trying to record? You can picture the scene in an early childhood centre—short of money, short of qualified staff, and then here we go. Sometimes some people are looking after five kids under 2. Just imagine trying to look after five kids under 2, but every 15 minutes you have got to fill in a form to say what you did, to prove that you are delivering quality. That is supposed to be a “data-rich”, evidence-based approach to education. It is ridiculous. The Budget has failed on education.

Just returning for a moment to the bigger picture, education and water are two passions of mine. I have been in this Parliament for 8½ years seeing Budgets that have failed both of them. I am really disappointed that we continue to have to listen to this Government crowing about its great achievements while the education system falls apart and while the education sector tells us that it is drastically and chronically underfunded by the Crown. It is the Crown’s job to fund education. It is not a business. And it is the same for the waterways. If we cannot have clean water and if we cannot lead from the front on clean water, we as a nation have nothing. We can suck it up and sell it all we like, but future generations will hold our names to shame for what we have done to our schools, to our early childhood centres, to our waterways, and, ultimately, to our entire society. These systems are broken. This was a chance to change them. The Government did not take it. And Steven Joyce says “Oh no, we’re on a track. It was never about the election.” People will see through this. I am looking forward to 23 September. Thank you.

If I may, before I start my speech I would like to give my thoughts to Steve Chadwick, the Mayor of Rotorua, whose husband sadly died on Friday of last week. I have just been, at home this morning, to John Chadwick’s tangi, his funeral. It was very well attended, and it was obvious the great affection that all of Rotorua and many others around the country had for John. I am sure, as a former colleague in this House, the thoughts of the Parliament are with her and her family at what will be a difficult time.

This was a good Budget. Contrary to the last speech, by Catherine Delahunty, it was a good Budget. It delivered for families and it delivered for workers, and it was able to achieve something that the Government has not been able to do over the last 8 years, and that is to start spending money in areas that are important for the economy, are important for society, and are important for New Zealand. The reason we are able to do that in this Budget is the hard work of New Zealanders and the focus of Bill English, as finance Minister and now as Prime Minister, on growing the economy through very difficult times to create surpluses that we can now apply to important areas of Government spending. That has happened only because of that hard work and it will happen only through continued hard work of this Government to focus on what matters for New Zealanders, to create opportunity, and to make sure that, as the Government has choices going forward in what it spends money on—because there are surpluses—so do New Zealanders have choices as well in so far as where they want to focus their activity.

The Budget does offer more in education. The education budget has gone up. We will spend more on education in the coming years than in any year before. Actually, as we go through all the policy areas, more money has been attached to them, but it is not just about more money, as opposed to what the last speaker said. It is about making sure that the Government spends taxpayers’ money, taxpayers’ resource, as carefully as it can. There is a return for the taxpayer, and that return is that they get more productivity out of the Government, out of Government agencies, and at the same time their taxes go further. This is a Budget that is delivering more money in the pockets of New Zealanders through changing the tax rates through the different bands, as well as recognising that movements are needed around Working for Families. Families up and down New Zealand will find that they have more money in their pocket. This is a Government that believes that they are the ones who are working hard, they are the ones who should decide what their money is spent on, and they should get to keep more of that money to make those decisions.

I am very proud that as part of Budget 2017 we have seen the largest investment ever in trade policy in New Zealand. Two months ago we launched Trade Agenda 2030: Securing our place in the world, the Government’s trade policy for the next 10 to 15 years. Trade is exceptionally important to a country like New Zealand. If we are not out there finding better access to markets overseas to sell our goods and services in, then the Government will not have the choices it has in so far as Budget surpluses, and New Zealanders will not have the choices that they have, they demand, and they deserve, because their economy will shrink. You see, we are an export nation, and we have to sell the goods and services overseas that we produce. The reason for that is we are 4.5 million people, and nobody owes us a living.

We must have a very secure place in the Asian market. We must have high-quality free-trade agreements (FTAs) that give us better access to Asia. We need to make sure that the European Union opens its markets to New Zealanders and does not put up barriers, so that New Zealanders and our goods and services can flow there more freely. We need to be out continually fighting for, arguing for, persuading for a better go for New Zealanders so that they can do more overseas. This Government has done that and I am very proud of our record.

We have set an ambitious target under Trade Agenda 2030 that 90 percent of our goods trade should be covered by FTAs by 2030. That will take detailed, focused work on the part of the Government. It will have to work closely with New Zealand businesses, but it is achievable. It is ambitious; we must be striving to do more because we will not become richer as a nation if we are merely selling to ourselves.

We have backed it up with $91.3 million of additional money over the next 4 years through this Budget. This is to support Trade Agenda 2030. Of this, $35 million will go to the primary sector exporters to help them do more in markets overseas—to see if we can reduce some of these non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that get in the way of them fairly accessing these markets. There will be a $27 million boost for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so we can have more trade negotiators and we can accelerate the pace at which we are negotiating. We are also investing $55 million—aside from the $91 million—into Expo 2020 Dubai, and what that will allow us to do is to showcase the very best of New Zealand, to make sure that we are relevant, that we have a place in the world, and that people are reminded of all the things that we have to offer them.

In reaching this target of 90 percent of goods trade by 2030, we will have to do more trade deals. We will have to make sure that we have a deal with the European Union, that we upgrade the current deals that we have—such as with China—and that we are out seeking opportunity wherever we can. It is not just about goods trade any more. Large parts of the New Zealand economy are now growing quickly, providing jobs, and they are involved in the digital services, in services themselves, and in investment. Over time, under a Trade Agenda 2030, I would like to see our services and investment profile receiving as much attention as goods trade does, because that is the area where, in services, young New Zealanders can exchange their high-quality and very expensive educations for higher-paying jobs everywhere in the world, including right here at home.

We want to focus on non-tariff barriers. The thing that is probably raised with me the most from business and industry—and people who are not involved in exports—is non-tariff barriers: all of those barriers that stop New Zealanders selling overseas that do not have a tariff rate attached to them. We want an all-of-Government approach to dealing with these, because that is fundamentally the No. 1 area where the New Zealand economy will grow the most through exports if we can reduce some of these barriers that our exporters face overseas.

This is not a matter of others changing their rules. The Government of New Zealand reserves the right to pass good law and pass regulation, as this House does. At the same time, we think we can line up some of our rules so that exporters can do better overseas. We are creating an NTB flying squad with that $35 million attached to the Ministry for Primary Industries. That flying squad will be made up of detailed, experienced individuals who, when a problem comes up for New Zealand exporters around the world, will be able to deal with it more quickly. We already have a lot of capacity in this area, but we want to focus and be dedicated because we think this is where the real challenges of the future will be.

We also want it to be easier for New Zealanders to engage with Government agencies when it comes to NTBs. We are creating an NTB clearing house so that exporters and business people will no longer have to wonder who they should talk to in Government; there will be an online portal where they will get a response within 72 hours and their concerns and requests will be directed by Government to the appropriate people who will then deal with it. All of this, again, is about that all-of-Government approach to fixing barriers so New Zealanders can export more.

The final thing we want to do under Trade Agenda 2030 is to help New Zealand companies do better overseas. We have a number of New Zealand companies that are world-beating. I want to recognise that BurgerFuel just this week has opened a burger restaurant in Indianapolis in America. It is fantastic that they are over there doing that. That is New Zealanders doing well on the world stage. Who would have thought that that was possible? No harm at all with that. We should be backing more New Zealand businesses to do this. We want to help them go from market access to market success, and the Government is going to apply effort and resource to help them here.

It does not matter whether it is a large company or a small company, this Government is ambitious for them. Be it BurgerFuel or Fonterra, we want them to do well overseas, because when Kiwis are doing well overseas, New Zealand is doing well also. This Government, more than any party in this Parliament, supports business, supports exporters, works hard for them, and wants to do more for them. We are unapologetically ambitious on their behalf. We are going to go out and find better deals for them in all parts of the world where they are available. We are going to help them to do more. We want the economy to grow through being an export nation. We back New Zealand businesses. We back the export economy, and Trade Agenda 2030 supports that vision. Thank you.

Well I have got to start by saying that it is interesting being back in the House, and the wonderful thing about this modern world is the connectivity that we have and the fact that we can connect up anywhere in the world through the internet and we can see things, hear things, that are thousands of miles away from us. The great thing was that I was able to sit there and watch the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ reply to the Budget speech, in the United States, with family who are following New Zealand First online. The bad thing about connectivity and the internet is that you get to watch Steven Joyce deliver the “Budget of all Disasters”, and this is it. So it is a pleasure to be back here and to be speaking in the House, but not so much a pleasure to be talking about this Budget.

Let us have a look at this Budget. The first thing we look for is what is in it, what is not in it and why, and what should have been in it and why. The one thing that stands out—a couple of things that stood out to me in Steven Joyce’s speech: he said that this is about delivering for New Zealanders, delivering more public services, the infrastructure, the resilience, and the incomes that they need to get ahead and provide for their families. What he did not say is that is “unless they live in the provinces and rural New Zealand.”—that is, in the regions. He went on to say: “This budget is about the opportunity we have to build on the platform we have all created and deliver greater prosperity for New Zealanders.” What he should have said was “to deliver to foreign investors, property speculators, and financiers like the ones in my caucus.” That is what he should have said.

Looking at his speech—it is quite astounding, actually—I go through page 8 and a couple of things leap out to me. Look at this: “$576 million for Defence Force upgrades, $763 million for new prison capacity.” Stop. What? This is in the same sentence, in the same paragraph—$576 million for Defence Force upgrades and $763 million for a new prison, at a time when crime is plummeting, when there are fewer crimes being committed, when the Government is trumpeting its success over the last 9 years in law and order. Why would they be building a new prison and spending more on prisons than they are on the Defence Force? It is absolutely mind-boggling for anyone in America to read this nonsense. There is “$63 million for Crown Irrigation to invest in new water”—sorry, this is old money, previously announced. If you have a quick look, you will find that the Government keeps announcing these figures and not spending it. Not spending it—why? It is because the people who are wanting the money have got to put up the half—we know that. That is the sort of give with one hand and take back with both—give it with one hand from Steven, and the Prime Minister takes it back with both.

Then “$100 million for the Crown Land Programme”—old money re-announced—and “$450 million for KiwiRail for the rail network around New Zealand”. “Hallelujah!”, people say, “This is great.” But, wait, most of that goes on reparations for the Kaikōura earthquake. So we are left looking at two figures: $450 million for the KiwiRail network for the whole of provincial New Zealand—“$436 million for the first stage in Auckland’s City Rail Link.” For anyone in the provinces reading that one paragraph, they have got it all. They know where the Government’s priorities lie, and they know where they do not lie.

It is interesting when one has a quick look at the press release put out by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 29 May, which pretty much summed it up for Kaikōura people: “Kaikōura business people and residents hit hard by the recent earthquake have been dealt two new blows, says New Zealand First. Like the rest of regional New Zealand they were virtually ignored in the Budget, and face rates rises of around 6 per cent each year for four years.” We are talking about business owners in Kaikōura facing ruin—some have gone, many are just holding on, while most homeowners and businesses have not got insurance payouts yet.

It is interesting to note further down, in the comments made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “It is disappointing to learn that too often at meetings”—and this is information direct from people in the provinces, directly from the people in Kaikōura—“decision makers comment that Kaikōura businesses are falling over, but new ones are starting”. Well, sorry, what about the families of those businesses? Hello, National: the party that once, apparently, used to represent small business and medium business; the party that once used to be interested in small-business people who employed other Kiwis. What about the families of those businesses that are falling over? What about the unsecured creditors?

You see, the people who make these types of comments so flippantly are the shining examples of the National Government’s view of business, their ethics, and their values. The fact that a proud family business is forced to close its doors after decades of successfully operating in and serving its community means nought to Steven Joyce and means nought to this Government, whose members have made their fortunes playing the spectrum market or clipping the ticket as bankers. Those people in National’s caucus think nothing of a statement that says: “Well, a few businesses in Kaikōura have fallen over, but, hey, there’s some new ones started up.” They do not give a stuff about the unsecured creditors, at all.

These are members of the caucus who have never hammered a nail, never turned a wrench, and never welded a beam, or toileted a patient. These are the reef fish of the New Zealand economy. These people see a closed family business in Kaikōura as an unfortunate piece of collateral damage and nothing to be concerned about. We in New Zealand First are appalled at that attitude.

If we look at some of the other utterances and the statements that have been made by this Government, I think one of the things that it needs to understand is that provincial New Zealand provides the backdrop. Provincial New Zealand provides the roads that the tourists travel on. Provincial New Zealand provides the scenery, the visitor information network, and the toilets. It deals with the freedom campers and it provides that local infrastructure that underpins the tourism market that this Government promotes internationally and pats itself on the back for increasing. Well, that increase comes with a price tag that has to be borne by ratepayers, taxpayers, and provincial New Zealand.

What does the Government get out of this? It was prattling on about the increase in tourism and how much its coffers are bulging through an increase in tourism, with no mention of the amount of GST that it rakes off, no mention about the cost to Masterton, Martinborough, Carterton, the West Coast of the South Island, Franz Josef, Kaikōura, or Bay of Plenty—no mention of the cost of the infrastructure bill that comes with that increased tourism. Oh no, just pat yourself on the back, National, that you have increased tourism! It is as though there is no debit side to the ledger. Well, the debit side to the ledger is carried by provincial New Zealanders, and where are they represented in this Budget? Ha! Even the Government members are silent on that—not a mutter, not a murmur out of them. They put their heads down behind their tables and they say naught, because the sad reality is that they know that they could nominate a dead dog, tie a blue ribbon round its neck, call it “Bill”, stand it in an election in provincial New Zealand, and right up until 2017 it would have won.

But there is a move coming. The move is coming built on the realisation of provincial New Zealand that they count for naught. Well, now it is starting to get a little active. But have a look at what this Government has budgeted for Auckland. Compare it with what it has budgeted for the rail networks in Gisborne. Compare it with what it has not put in—you know, where is the vision? For the amount of money that it is spending on roading it could actually extend this further. It could actually move the Auckland port up into Northland. It could actually relocate and free up land in the Auckland area, something that Aucklanders would be happy about and something that would give Northland a hell of a shock to its economic arm. But the Government is not interested in that, because it has no vision. It would rather focus on metropolitan areas because that is where its votes lie. It would rather focus on—well, let us say it—those people who are funding its coffers and on that part of the electorate that is paying into its coffers for its campaign, because that is where its resources and its votes lie. There is nothing for provincial New Zealand.

Provincial New Zealand has woken up. Provincial New Zealand saw in what was achieved in Northland a hope and a vision for itself, something that it once used to enjoy from a proud National Party. But that party is gone—long gone. And it is not just us saying it over here; this Budget says it. Rural New Zealanders are saying it. We have only got one thing to say: bring on that election. Bring on this Budget. Walk out on the election trails and wave it around, and tell everybody that you are helping provincial New Zealand. From everything I have read in this Budget—and it did not take too long at all—there is nothing.

What provincial New Zealand knows is that in biosecurity alone it is forgotten. Black-grass, pea weevil, myrtle rust, velvetleaf, and fruit fly: these are the legacy of the National Party on rural-provincial New Zealand, and it will not forget it.

The next call is a split call. Brett Hudson—5 minutes.

Well, listening to that contribution from the previous speaker, Ron Mark, I can only surmise that he has been on a trip to Colorado recently. It is an absolute pleasure to speak to speak on this Budget. It is a Budget that is delivering for all New Zealanders. It is a Budget that understands that the Government needs to invest in a growing New Zealand. It is a Budget that understands the work that is being done for New Zealand with the Business Growth Agenda, and provides further investment to keep economic growth going strong. And it is a Budget that acknowledges that in strong economic times, particularly when we are forecast to continue at growth rates of over 3 percent for the next 4 or more years, now is an opportunity to share an economic dividend with hard-working Kiwis and their families. Kiwi families on lower and middle incomes have been working hard, and while their wages may have been outpacing inflation, they still have challenges in their lives, and this is a way, through this Budget, that we can help to give them some relief. We are doing that with our fantastic $2 billion Family Incomes Package, a package that includes some changes to tax thresholds that will allow hard-working Kiwi families to keep hold of a bit more of the money that they earn for themselves.

In the debates that have raged in this House since Budget day many people have talked about tax breaks and giving money back. There is no giving money back; the shifting of the tax threshold means the Government is not going to take those hard-working Kiwis’ money to begin with. That is why it cannot possibly be termed a bribe. You cannot bribe someone by not taking their money in the first place. But in not taking an amount of money from people, whether it is on the bracket that is shifting from $14,000 up to $24,000 or, indeed, from $48,000 to $52,000, what we will do is put more money in hard-working Kiwis’ pockets, and when you take that and match that with what we are doing with the Working for Families adjustments and with the accommodation supplements, we are going to see about 1.34 million Kiwi families, on average, better off by $26 a week.

Those larger families, and people who live in parts of the country that tend to have higher accommodation rentals, will get even more. It is a Budget that clearly targets support at Kiwis who are working hard but who still have challenges in their lives. It is one that will make a real difference to them.

On top of that, we have announced a further round in our Innovative New Zealand programme—$373 million. This is the sort of money that goes into supporting initiatives that are funded, perhaps, out of the Marsden Fund or through Callaghan Innovation—those initiatives that we have that help to encourage New Zealand businesses in particular to invest a bit more of their profits and a bit more of their retained earnings into research and development areas, areas that will help them to deliver even greater products or services that markets within New Zealand and abroad will want. This thinking and this approach is the sort of approach that will help us to remain at the forefront not only of our primary industries, where we can continue to add value to our products and services and our goods there, but also, importantly, speaking from my experience, the ICT industry. That is an area where companies like Xero, Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, and others demonstrate very clearly to us that Kiwis can do anything, and, given the opportunity, they will. Our R & D grants—our growth grants in particular—are a means to help Kiwis to invest a bit more in creating their own success.

The point I will make on these, before moving on, is that one of the fundamental strong points of those growth grants is that they match Government money not on a whim but against the opportunity that companies have to raise private funds. So in order to get the incentive from the Government, the company has to have shown that its ideas have excited enough investors to want to put their own money at risk that the Government can have confidence in the potential success of that business. It means that we are not just backing our winning industries. It means we are backing Kiwis who have got ideas that people in the market place can see have merit.

This is another fantastic Budget from this Government. It is one that provides an economic dividend to those who deserve it the most. I have absolutely no problem in commending the actions of this Government to the House.

I call Dr Parmjeet Parmar—5 minutes.

Last week was a great week. It was Budget week. The hard work of all Kiwis, supported by this National Government, means we have been able to make choices that only a very few other countries have. While several countries around the world are playing catch-up after the global financial crisis, we are in a very prestigious position, after seeing what Budget 2017 delivers. It delivers for all New Zealanders.

The most remarkable and thrilling news leading up to the Budget was that the surplus is bigger than forecast, and I believe this has been one of the biggest offerings of this National Government to New Zealand. Through Budget 2017, again we have shown that this National Government—our finance Minister Steven Joyce and our Prime Minister Bill English—knows how to run the country in a very sound manner. There are still predictions of another global financial crisis, so it is really important that we deliver success for New Zealand, and there is nothing like being in such a sound position as we are in.

Kiwis know that this National Government is about delivering better public services. We are about delivering the best possible value for each and every taxpayer’s dollar. Kiwis know that this National Government has been, and will be, fair to all hard-working families and businesses. This is why providing all the support that is needed for families that are at risk of remaining behind is necessary.

We have been able to do all this because our economy is so strong under this National Government. We are investing hugely to diversify our economy. For example, in Budget 2017 we are investing $178 million for tourism infrastructure. Leading up to the Budget there was the big announcement of close to half a billion dollars for 1,125 police staff, and then in Budget 2017 we saw $786 million to increase prison capacity in response to the increasing prison population.

The prison population is increasing because we are tough on crime—

💬 Hon Member: Ha!

We are tough on crime, and this brings our investment in the justice sector to $2 billion over the next 4 years.

For infrastructure there is $11 billion, bringing our infrastructure investment to $32.5 billion over the next 4 years. We are talking about education infrastructure, health infrastructure, justice sector infrastructure, defence infrastructure, and, of course, transport. Looking at transport, $9 billion is just for some key roading projects, and I am really looking forward to the opening of the western ring route. I am really looking forward to the East-West Link. We are investing close to half a billion dollars towards the first stage of the Auckland City Rail Link. These are the kinds of things that are going to make a real difference in people’s lives in Mount Roskill and in Auckland.

Talking about housing, Minister Amy Adams is doing a great job. She has announced 34,000 brand new houses. We are going to replace 8,300 old, run-down houses with 34,000 new houses. Analysis shows that this is adding 3½ houses on each street in Auckland. That is the magnitude of this announcement. It is a big commitment, and we know that we can deliver it.

I know that the Labour Party members are very nervous about this Budget 2017. They are very, very nervous, because they oppose the income tax package of $2 billion to help low and middle income families. Yes, they are very, very nervous, since they oppose that income tax package bill. By opposing that bill, they have sent a message to low and middle income families that they do not care about putting more money in their back pockets. All they care about is their politics. All they care about is playing a position in the House.

The Labour Party is about taxes up, spending up, and hardship up for families and businesses. There is another very interesting thing that is up in the Labour Party, and that is the popularity of its deputy leader. That is actually more than the Labour leader’s popularity. But to counter all these ups and ups and ups in the Labour Party—the ups that its members like—there is one thing that is steadily staying low and it is going to stay low because of Labour members’ opposition to the income tax package. That is their rating. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Clare Curran—5 minutes.

You know when a Government is actually very nervous. It is when its members start delivering election bribes instead of true reform. That is what this Government is doing. The Labour Party is certainly not nervous. The Labour Party is very disappointed in the Government. It is very disappointed with this Budget. After 9 years, this is all the Government can come up with—a tax cut that increases inequality. There is a bit more for people at the top, and bugger all for those at the bottom.

At a time when we have got a housing crisis sweeping the country—not just in Auckland, but sweeping the whole country—and our health and education systems are under severe pressure, why is it that this Government throws out some poorly targeted tax changes that will not address the big issues, and gives those who are struggling the most a very small amount, if anything at all? In fact, many people will be worse off. If you are single and on the minimum wage, you will get $1 a week. If you are a family with one child, you will be worse off. If you are a family with teenagers, you will be worse off. This is a Budget that gives with one hand and takes with the other, and it does not address the big issues.

Finally, though, the Government has acknowledged that there is a housing crisis. The Government is calling it severe housing stress. But how is the Government addressing it? It is addressing it by bumping up the accommodation supplement, from $890 million to $1.5 billion. The frightening thing is that it is as though the Government is using those who are suffering severe housing stress as a conduit to hand landlords an extra subsidy.

Housing agencies and private landlords demand proof of income when you let a house. They know how much you get. What is to stop a raft of rent increases next year, just before 1 April? In fact, almost all of the myriad of housing cases that are coming through my electorate office at the moment are as the result of people who have lost their houses because they could not afford them any more. The lease had run out, the landlord had not renewed the lease, and the rent had gone up. Therefore, they are in a position—I have got case after case after case where people are unable to find rental accommodation that they can afford.

And in health—60,000 people throughout the country have been denied elective surgery and 500,000 cannot afford a GP. No big-picture approach—no addressing the $1.7 billion that needs to go back into health; not even catch-up funding.

Here is what is happening in Dunedin: I will give you an example of a mother with an 8-year-old daughter. Last week she received $478, made up of income assistance, accommodation allowance, and family support. She was homeless for 8 weeks before securing a two-bedroom private rental for $325 a week. Why am I telling you those numbers? Because that is 68 percent of her income, with electricity at $45 a week, and a car that costs $65 a week. Because she is a seasonal worker and needs transport to her job, she has no choice but to take her car. This leaves her with $43 to provide for her daughter and herself to live on.

How is she expected to survive? Currently she can receive up to 75 percent a week in the accommodation supplement. This may rise by $30 a week. What happens when she needs to go to the doctor? What happens when the education fees go up for her daughter? What happens when all of the other costs in the systems—the housing system, the education system, the health system—that are not being addressed impact on her income? That is paltry; it is not addressing the real issues, and it is time—it is time for a Government that takes a fresh approach, that will deal with the systemic issues in housing, health, and education. It is time to change the Government.

I call Adrian Rurawhe—5 minutes.

Malo lava le soifua, Mr Assistant Speaker. Manuia soifua, manuia Samoa, fa’afetai lava e Te Māngai o Te W’are. I am pleased to take this call on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill. I think that after 9 years of Government the National-led Government, along with its support parties, has failed to deliver with this Budget. It is playing catch-up in housing, playing catch-up in health, and playing catch-up in education, and it is actually time for a new, innovative approach—a fresh approach—and that is what a Labour-led Government would be delivering if we were delivering a Budget.

I think the tax cuts in particular—I want talk about that. It reminds me of what George Orwell wrote in his book Animal Farm: “All animals are created equal, but some are created more equal than others.” This is what this tax cut regime delivers, because the top 10 percent of income earners receive the total amount exactly, or similar, to the lowest 50 percent. That is not fair—it is not fair. It is poorly targeted, and I do not agree with it. I am proud that the Labour Party is the only party in this House that voted against that kind of regime. I would never vote for a watered-down version of the families packet that it should be and that the Government has failed to deliver.

So I stand here in this debate and say that I am proud that we listened to the concerns of the people, and the concerns that they told us about in my electorate, Te Tai Hauāuru, and others throughout the country. The concerns that they had were about housing, health, jobs for the rangatahi, and education. Those are the things that they told me, and I am glad that we put their interests first ahead of these poorly targeted tax cuts.

The Māori Party has made a big deal about all this money that it has supposedly secured for kaupapa Māori issues. Well, around 1 percent of the total new spend in this Budget has been targeted for Māori initiatives. I want to talk about that, because, as we always hear in this House, there are a number of areas we are particularly not doing well in. For example, the number of homeless people living in this country, a huge number of those—40,000—are Māori families. They are living in garages and cars and caravans, they are two and three families to one house—that is not sustainable. It is not sustainable, and I go back to my point that if we want an equal outcome for all of our people, no matter who they are, sometimes you have to put the funds—actually, always—where the issues are, and this Budget fails to do that, miserably, because 1 percent of the new spend is going to a particular group in New Zealand that needs a lot more than that.

We have heard in this debate so far that only 11 new houses have been built. I would imagine that my predecessor the Hon Dame Tariana Turia, who released the housing policy in 2014, would be very disappointed with the outcome over the last 3 years, that through that initiative only 11 houses have been built for Māori whānau—and this after the Māori Party voted to sell off State houses. How does that happen? How is that good for our people? Well, I will be going back—I have attended a number of meetings in my electorate, and the people are dismayed about that fact. That is something that is not going away. It is a fact that I am going to repeat, because our people—all New Zealanders—deserve better than that. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)

First Reading