Estimates Debate — In Committee

The House is in Committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2018/19 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates, divided into 10 separate debates, covering the sectors set out in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2018-19. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson of the select committee nominated by the Government as the major committee reporting on the sector. Other calls will be allocated to parties on a proportional basis and may be taken as parties see fit during the 10 sector debates.

At the end of each debate, the question will be put that the votes in each sector stand part of the schedules. The time taken on each question is in the hands of members, depending on the parties’ use of the allocation of calls. However, this debate expires after 11 hours. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. All of the votes are available for debate. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’ve just listened very carefully to your explanation of what may be debated, particularly your extolling the Chamber to be somewhat forward looking when it comes to examining the Estimates. I’d simply ask how that aligns with the Speaker’s decision this afternoon not to have the House discuss what has been a financial failure: Census 2018. Does that, in fact, mean that some of the questions that should be asked of the Government and answered by the Minister cannot be posed in this Estimates debate?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Speaking in response to that, no, I think the Speaker was very clear that all of that may well be discussed in the Estimates debate concerning Vote Statistics. Those questions can be asked of the Minister retrospectively. We come first to the votes in the economic development and infrastructure sector, B.5, Volume 1. The question is that Vote Business, Science, and Innovation and Vote Transport stand part of the schedules.

Economic Development and Infrastructure Sector

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to stand and speak on the Estimates for Vote Business, Science and Innovation. We looked at the Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Communications, Economic Development, Energy and Resources, Infrastructure, Regional Economic Development, and Research, Science and Innovation appropriations—all up, around $2.2 billion dollars’ worth of taxpayer funds being utilised.

During that time we had a number of Ministers come and appear before us and present their views and also answer questions. It is no surprise that I might just focus in right now on the area of Energy and Resources. We had the Hon Megan Woods come and present to us on that particular area, as well as Research, Science and Innovation.

Members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee questioned the Minister, particularly around the Government’s decision around banning new offshore exploration permits. This occurred, of course, on 12 April. The Prime Minister announced that it would not issue further permits for offshore and oil exploration, and usually this would be the role of Minister of Energy. A number of members questioned the Minister on this. We were very interested to hear her view, and also I was interested to understand different aspects of energy security and the part that this plays in making energy affordable and also secure for New Zealand homes, hospitals, schools, businesses, and industries.

The Crown Minerals Act requires the Minister of Energy to promote exploration with a significant purpose of reducing sovereign risk in order that investors will have confidence to invest. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy have, in my view, done exactly the opposite and there has been a chilling of investment and a chilling of confidence. This was one of the concerns that the committee has had, as well as the Opposition and no doubt many people throughout the country.

The decision was a surprise here and abroad, especially since the Prime Minister said on 19 March—what I’m pointing out, and this is regarding the block offer that is very much part of the regime that the Minister Megan Woods is responsible for. The Prime Minister said, “What I’m pointing out is that every Government around this time of the year actively considers how it will manage block offers and that’s what we’re doing and that’s going to take weeks, maybe months.” It was only a few short weeks later that the announcement was made, and to say that it was signalled is probably a stretch. In fact, the Minister at the Estimates hearing did say—and she finally acknowledged—that the Government had not consulted the industry, but she did say its intentions had been signalled. You would have to say that that was a surprise to just about everybody in the industry. And you know, I think it’s important—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! I’d just like to remind the member that he is chair of the select committee reporting on the select committee’s views during the appropriations considerations.

Yes, indeed, and even though I do refer to some aspects of the past, they were the context by which questions were asked of the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You just need to tie them back into your select committee.

Indeed—indeed. So, we looked at this particular area. We looked at sources and security of electricity supply. This is very important for New Zealanders. I’m sure the Minister would agree to this as well. That’s one of her responsibilities: to ensure that there is security of supply, as she reiterated to us regarding the electricity price review—that making electricity prices fairer for people and affordable is very important as well.

I was concerned to hear that, in terms of the Government’s target for 100 percent renewable generation, even though there was this decision made on 12 April, there is a need, stated by MBIE and also by the Minister, to have a forward reliance on gas. Therefore, the question was asked, in terms of enabling this hydrocarbon industry to be accepted in the future, what would it require? I proposed a question, and the question was simply this: if they could become a net zero carbon industry through different technologies and through afforestation—forests that perhaps they even own or lease themselves—would this industry that is so essential to New Zealand’s energy security be an acceptable industry to the Government? The answer was no. I am confounded by that answer, and I think that was one of the big surprises that I came to hear in that hearing, because we do have a battle against emissions, not an industry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about the allocation of $1 billion for regional economic development. Everybody here in this Parliament is concerned to see that the regions of New Zealand—the wonderful regions of New Zealand—get their chance to prosper and to continue to prosper, as they have over the past few years. We’ve seen boom times right around New Zealand over the last few years, partly as a result of the good quality Government that we had previously. We see record low levels of unemployment, good growth in most areas, and real opportunities for young people and old people to get ahead.

Now, we’ve seen this Government allocate $1 billion a year for the next three years to the Provincial Growth Fund. I was perhaps unkind to refer to the Minister responsible, Shane Jones, as being deliberately tricky about the figures in question time because he said, when talking about the $1 billion for the fund—of course, a quarter of that $1 billion was existing money that they’ve rolled over from such things that the previous Government had done, such as tourism infrastructure funds and many other elements that were fed through to help the regions deal, particularly, with the pressures of the tourism industry. Then, of course, another quarter of the $1 billion is actually over the next 10 years—it’s not next year at all; it’s about planting trees over the next 10 years. So the Minister has been deliberately tricky with the figures. But, nevertheless, there is still a large amount of money being put into this fund.

As I go around the countryside talking to mayors and economic development groups and businesses around the country, if there’s money on offer, of course people are keen to get some of it. And so we encourage people to get cracking and make the most of it. But what we worry about is that in their enthusiasm to shovel the money out the door as quickly as possible, there will well be plenty of poor-quality spending. And so that’s why we’re working hard to keep a close eye on the Minister and make sure that there is some clear, objective rationale for the decisions that are made on which projects to fund.

What we’ve seen and what we discussed during the Estimates hearing was the gross regional bias that has developed. About 37 percent so far has gone to Northland; 1 percent has gone to the entire South Island so far. There have been a couple of announcements in the last week that might have got it up to 2 percent. When the Minister was asked about that, he gave three excuses: firstly, to the winner goes to the booty; secondly, to the victor goes the spoils; and, thirdly, when pressed, he said, “Well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.” He doesn’t take the job seriously, and he should when this sort of money is involved.

In terms of getting information out, it’s been like getting blood out of a stone in trying to get some detail about the projects that have been funded. So we’ll be pushing hard there to ensure that there is good probity and that the principles of the fund are followed up—one of the principles being that we should not socialise the losses and privatise the gains. And when we look at some of the projects that have been funded, recently the chair and trustee of Ngati Hine Forestry Trust made it quite clear there would be substantial financial gains to the beneficiaries of that project, for example. And we’d be very keen for the Minister to explain that.

Meantime—the broader point is that everybody is in favour of strong economic development for the regions, but economic development is about more than just feasibility studies and a few projects. It’s much broader. It’s about how the Government goes about its work. It’s about investing in infrastructure and roads. And so it’s a bit odd for a Government to be talking about pouring money into the regions but, at the same time, taking much more out of the regions in terms of regional roads.

Taking away the road north from Tauranga to Katikati is not going to help the regional development in that area. Taking away the four-lane highway to Whangarei is not going to help Northland in any way, shape, or form. Taking the money away from the road from Ōtaki to Levin is not going to help the region there to prosper. And so they give with one hand and they take away a lot more with the other.

Meantime, private sector investment in the regions is drying up as people keep their hands in their pockets because of the uncertainty that this Government is creating around industrial relations policy, around foreign investment, and around tax policy. Who’s going to invest in a new business if you don’t know whether you’re going to have to pay a capital gains tax in the next couple of years? That uncertainty is making it much more difficult for people to invest. And then, fundamentally, there’s uncertainty around the way that the Government goes around making its decisions, as seen through that oil and gas decision, which will have a massive effect on Taranaki and was based on no advice and no Cabinet decision. While we hope that good value is got out of this $1 billion fund, we don’t have much hope.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take this call—the first from the Government. It’s a real privilege to be able to do this on behalf of the coalition Government. Can I just acknowledge the members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their hard work. We spent every single minute with our ministerial colleagues taking them through their paces. I don’t know whether to applaud the chair or not. There were certainly times when the theatrics were on full display, but, none the less, it was an admirable attempt by the Opposition members on the select committee to do their job and to have their say.

I want to just also cover the areas that the appropriations outline or express, and that’s economic development itself. Can I just applaud this Government’s vision for a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy. It also included energy and resources, and the Minister for that portfolio certainly gave a robust and convincing display when questioned.

I also want to quickly, I guess, rebut or just give another side to the Minister for Infrastructure and for Regional Economic Development. We’ve heard from one of the select committee members, Paul Goldsmith, about his view on what went on, and can I just say that there was no deliberate trickiness in the Minister’s answering of questions—rather, a fulsome high-vis approach to the questions that were asked. And those will remember, unfortunately, the Minister had somehow borrowed a high-vis jacket of a train driver called Shane and came to the appropriations wearing it. But it was a high-vis performance, as such, because when I had the privilege of talking to mayors and those working in economic development agencies last week at the Local Government New Zealand conference there was nothing but praise for the fund. In fact, they offered to—and I haven’t talked to the Minister yet—help in the probity issues and to distribute the funding more quickly and better, in terms of the local processes that they have in place. So that offer is there.

I guess there is no question in my mind about probity issues; rather, it is that this fund is so popular that the regions are gearing up and, you know, we don’t want to take the first cab off the rank for applications. Rather, there is a criterion there, and it’s really important to deliver and respond to any probity issues so that the process is thorough. The officials have taken into account that those projects meet criteria, hence the delay. I think the Minister gave a very serious presentation about what was happening in the Provincial Growth Fund. Look, probably to just complete the statement made that it was possibly to “socialise losses and privatise gains”, that is something that this Government has been well aware of for the previous nine years, to say, “Look, let’s hope that it’s anything but.”, and I think our track record will speak for itself.

The rest of the committee—certainly, we covered research, science, and innovation, and tourism. Look, despite what you may have seen, I think the team from the coalition Government did an outstanding job.

I want to just reflect back to the vision for economic development. I know that when you look at what the vision looks like, it’s about an improved quality of life, and I know that no one will argue with that. Better standards of living—no one will argue with that. But this vision is about setting the pathway for a 30-year journey. I think the Ministers certainly outlined their contributions to those visions admirably and put those in place, and I think you will see some great work ahead.

I just remind members not to bring the Chair into the debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, we’ve just heard five minutes of pretty much nothing—nothing concrete, nothing that one can say “This is what the Government is doing for the regions.”, other than highlighting the fact that the Minister for Regional Economic Development, with his billion-dollar slush fund, wears a high-vis vest. Well, how many jobs is that going to create in the regions? How many people are going to come off the couch because the Minister wears a high-vis vest in the regions? Not one.

But what is happening is, quite rightly—Paul Eagle, the previous speaker, mentioned the Local Government New Zealand conference—that local governments are unfortunate in that they believe that there’s enough money for all to fulfil their wildest dreams and ambitions for their own districts. But, unfortunately, that’s just not going to be the case. There have been thousands and thousands of hours spent through the local communities putting proposals together for the Minister to sign off on. But we know that there’s a billion dollars, and we also know that a billion dollars does not go very far, except when one can take $5 billion out of the regions—except for the roading network fund that the Opposition had in place—when they can tax regions through regional tax.

When they can increase petrol tax by 20c a litre, then there is some money available to be dollied out in a lolly scramble fashion to try and win votes. That’s the end of it. There’s going to be no real, underlying infrastructure—because that’s what we’re here to talk about. There are no infrastructure projects labelled with that Provincial Growth Fund.

In fact, in my electorate and in Rangitīkei, on the other side of the Manawatū Gorge, one of the projects has been postponed because these guys cannot afford to deliver the stuff that they said they were going to do. Their priorities are mixed up. They’re focused on free tertiary education. I know we’re not on education, but it demonstrates the priorities that that Government has overriding the infrastructure demands and needs of the regions.

I’d like to talk, and I’d really encourage Minister Twyford to talk to Minister Hipkins and others, particularly Minister Robertson—and I echo some of the words that Mr Twyford said in the select committee. He is a very strong advocate—a very strong advocate—of public-private partnerships (PPPs). Minister Twyford said that there is money in the system and there is money available and that we need to use this money to build, own, and operate the Auckland light rail—build, own, and operate. That’s a PPP. It’s not just a partial PPP—it’s not just a build and hand over. It’s not a build and own but not operate; it’s a build, own, and operate model that Mr Twyford was very supportive of in the select committee Estimates hearing for the Auckland light rail project.

So my question to the Government is: what’s the difference between that infrastructure project and, let’s say, Dunedin Hospital? Why can the Government not see that using PPPs is—as Mr Twyford quite articulately said in the select committee—an excellent way to use the private sector capital for the benefit of the taxpayer?

Now, I just implore Mr Twyford to keep talking that way and to talk to Mr Hipkins, because Mr Hipkins is not interested in carrying on PPPs in the education sector. He’s knocked a bunch of them on the head, despite the fact that we have a number of them around the country.

The Government’s still talking about PPPs for Waikeria Prison. That’s good—keep talking. The Government doesn’t necessarily have to build, own, and operate. It could just build and own. It could just build and hand over.

But please, Mr Twyford, keep talking to your colleagues, because that is a key tool to enable and build greater infrastructure in this country for the benefit of the users of that infrastructure and also for those who are paying for that infrastructure—i.e., the taxpayers. So a lot of those guys across won’t agree with Mr Twyford and they won’t agree with me, but, for once, Mr Twyford and I can agree on one thing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this Vote Business, Science and Innovation, which covers off nine portfolios. There are a number of Ministers that are working very hard within this cluster of portfolios to come up with a plan to transform New Zealand’s economy—a plan that will take us into the 21st century and is future looking and is making sure that we are putting in place a plan to make sure that we are well set up for the future.

I’d like to address some of the issues that were brought up by the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I would like to mention the members of that select committee and the hard work that they did put in over the course of the hearings. I remember how much work goes in for some members who are preparing for those Estimates hearings, so I’d like to congratulate those members for that.

The chair of the select committee brought up some concerns that were canvassed at select committee around the oil and gas decision. For example, he brought up the questions that we discussed about the security of supply—one of the three central tenets of any energy system that a responsible Minister has to be looking out for, along with sustainability and affordability. I was able to reassure members of the committee that with 100,000 square kilometres of New Zealand’s offshore area under exploration permit and able to be converted into mining permits, we certainly have enough there for this very long-term transition we are about to undertake.

It was also brought up at select committee the—I think it was described as a chilling of confidence and investment in New Zealand through the decision. Well, I’d like to reassure some of the Opposition members of that committee, who were a bit worried, that over the last couple of weeks we’ve seen some substantive decisions around investment in New Zealand that show that industry understands what a long-term transition we are undertaking.

We have, of course, seen Methanex renew its gas contract out to 2029, and, significantly, we’ve seen Todd Energy invest $100 million in a peaking plant, which shows that they understand this is a multi-decade transition—one that this Government has the courage to face. We understand that fossil fuels are not our long-term future, and we have to be putting in place the plan to ensure that our people and our communities are looked after. And that’s where my work here intersects with that of my colleague who has also been discussed in this debate, the Hon Shane Jones.

Minister Jones is in charge of a once-in-a-generation effort to get some things moving in our regions. This is a Government that has committed a billion dollars a year of investment in neglected parts of New Zealand, and part of that ties in with the work that we are doing in Taranaki with the Just Transitions Summit plan. This is a Government that is not content to let communities squander and, in 20, 30, 40 years’ time, wake up one morning and realise they’re living in a Welsh mining town. It is our Government’s responsibility to make sure that we are planning for the long-term future. And it is exactly that premise that is driving Minister Jones’ work as he goes around the country. I would never presume to speak for Minister Jones. I’m nowhere near as erudite or as loquacious as my colleague; so I will leave it for him to talk more about the regional development fund.

What I would like to stress is that these portfolios that come under this vote all come together with a group of Ministers who are putting together a plan to transform New Zealand—a plan where we can have a future where people have opportunities, where there are jobs, where we don’t have neglect, where we have investment. And that brings me to another of the portfolio responsibilities that I have under this appropriation, which is research, science, and innovation. And I was very pleased to be able to speak to members of the committee about the very substantial billion-dollar commitment that this Government has made to research, science, and innovation. We have seen, just in the last couple of days, that, under the last Government’s settings, we slipped down the innovation rankings globally. That is not something that we as a Government are content to do. We know that innovation lies at the heart of the transformations that we want to see for this country, and that is why we have made a substantial investment in this area. We need to be making sure that we have well-paid jobs all around our country, in our regions, for the betterment of our country.

Thank you very much. I’d like to speak to Vote Transport under this economic sector. I’d like to talk about the issues that were raised at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when we heard from the Minister of Transport. We had the Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter there. I’m not sure where Shane Jones was; he was probably off doing something else on that day. At that select committee hearing we discussed, quite extensively, the funding of transport in New Zealand.

This side of the House is deeply disappointed with the way in which the Government is funding and taxing New Zealanders, by billions of dollars, over the new few years—in extra fuel taxes, extra road-user charges, and extra regional fuel taxes. These are taxes which we don’t believe New Zealanders need to be paying, but this Government is so hell-bent on doing anything they can to get light rail into Auckland that they’re taxing New Zealanders around the country for the privilege of subsidising light rail in Auckland.

Today, in question time, I asked the Minister questions about his extra fuel taxes. It turns out that the Government, by their own numbers, are extracting an extra billion dollars in extra fuel taxes from New Zealanders over the next three years. That funding is going towards, particularly, subsidising trams in Auckland. At the same time that the Government is doing that, they’re ripping $5 billion from the regions around the country. We discussed this in the select committee, because, on this side of the House, we were reflecting concerns expressed by New Zealanders up and down the country, who are seeing roading projects—important economic development opportunities—being lost because of the policies of this Government. I know that there are members opposite who actually care about regions like Northland, who care about regions like the Bay of Plenty and Tauranga. Those MPs opposite that purport to care about those regions should actually be the ones out there flying the flag for these important economic development opportunities.

When one talks to people up in Northland, the number one economic opportunity that they talk about is a four-lane carriageway from Northland to Auckland—the number one economic opportunity, which has been slashed by this Government. There are also a number of projects around the country that are being re-evaluated, unashamedly, by the Government. There are lives that are being lost on the road between Tauranga and Katikati—a project which was shovel ready; it was at the procurement stage, and it got ripped from the community right when it was about to get started.

At the same time that this Government is ripping $5 billion from the regions, taxing people more, they’re also giving councils up and down the country the ability to raise extra taxes through regional fuel taxes. I look forward to being on the campaign trail with those members opposite in a couple of years’ time and reminding New Zealanders that the policies this Government is implementing will see many more taxes going into place. It’s not just Auckland—at the select committee we did discuss the Auckland regional fuel tax, and the fact that the Minister’s letting the council off the hook with extra funding, but those fuel taxes are going everywhere around the country fairly soon.

A particular area we did focus on in the select committee was the light rail scheme. I asked the Minister what the benefit to cost ratio was for light rail in Auckland. The Minister simply doesn’t know what the benefit to cost ratio is for light rail in Auckland. Despite the fact that they’ve committed to $6 billion worth of light rail in Auckland, they don’t know what the benefit to cost ratio is. But, more importantly, they’re actually getting the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to change the modelling and change the analysis to fit the project particularly. Let’s get this clear: the Government doesn’t know what the benefit to cost ratio will be for $6 billion worth of light rail, or trams, in Auckland. They’re changing the way in which NZTA models the data and assesses the projects just to make it fit for that project. At the same time, they’re taxing New Zealanders by an extra billion dollars, through extra fuel excises and road-user charges, and Aucklanders will be paying even more.

We know, based on the cost of fuel and how it’s already gone up by 20c a litre under this Government—and Phil Twyford’s extra taxes, which amount to another 25c a litre—that New Zealanders will be paying 40c to 45c more a litre by the end of this term than they were paying a year ago. That’s 40c a litre that this Government is taxing people, putting petrol prices up, and seeing cost escalations under their policies.

I don’t believe this Government’s got it right on transport. I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to fund Auckland’s trams, and I don’t believe New Zealanders should have to put up with the great weight going on top of the cost of living because of this Government. They are costing New Zealanders in the pocket. They’re making poor policy, and we oppose it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak after the gentleman who shares two-thirds of my name. I would just like to clarify a few things. I’d like to address a few things. The member opposite talked about the Auckland fuel tax. Now, I’m sure Tim Macindoe would agree with me—why should Hamiltonians pay for Auckland’s infrastructure? Yes, Auckland has some challenges up there, but why should we pay for their infrastructure? And that’s exactly why the Minister has put in the Auckland fuel tax—in order to pay for many of the projects that the National members will, quite possibly, look to take credit for when they are rolled out. But they key point is there—it is around user-pays.

The member opposite mentioned around 10 four-laning roading projects that he says this Government have canned. Well, the reality is that those projects were never funded. Yes, they were talked about during an election campaign, but there was never money put aside for them. Effectively, they were pipedreams.

And I’ll just mention one more thing before I move on to others, and that’s the light rail up in Auckland. The member talked about light rail, effectively, not really being something that people would want or something that would be useful. Well, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund have expressed interest in investing in light rail. The super fund—a very credible fund; a very important fund for our nation—have expressed interest in supporting light rail. Now, they only express interest in projects that are solid, in projects that will make a difference, and in projects that are well costed and that have a good business case. So I’d just like to mention just a couple of things there.

The Minister Megan Woods talked about the tech sector. And I’d just like to highlight, for a moment, the wonderful things that are happening in Hamilton, in terms of the tech sector. We have got a thriving sector, primarily based around Waikato Innovation Park, which is a wonderful facility where start-ups can come and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’d just remind the member that you’re actually talking about the Estimates, right? It’s not a general debate about your electorate.

Sorry, Madam Chair. I got a little bit broad there.

I am proud of the fact that this Government is investing in the regions and investing in infrastructure in our regions. We have got an infrastructure deficit in our country; we’ve got a lot of ageing infrastructure. You only have to talk to any council in New Zealand and they’ll talk about bridges, they’ll talk about roads, and they’ll talk about other key aspects around water and other things that are suffering. So we’ve got a Government here which is taking a long-term view on infrastructure. It’s not a view of, “Let’s just throw a bit of money here, throw a bit of money there.” No, we have got a plan around dealing with the ageing infrastructure, and in particular the infrastructure in our regions.

I’m proud that we’ve got a Minister for Regional Economic Development who is absolutely passionate about our regions. As someone who was born in the regions, someone who was born down in Nelson and primarily lived around the Waikato region, I’m absolutely passionate about investing in our regions. A lot of people in the regions have been sucked into the cities, and the regions have been suffering, and I’m proud that this coalition Government will be investing $3 billion over three years in our regions. It’s around economic growth in our regions, and it’s around opportunity in our regions.

I’d just like to finish, in my last minute and a half, by moving back to transport. I was very pleased to read in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, that the Minister is taking a multimodal view of transport. So he’ll be looking at roading, he’ll be looking at rail, he’ll be looking at coastal shipping, he’ll be looking at safety, and he’ll be looking at cycling and walking—a multimodal approach. For example, rail is an area that certainly needs a lot of investment, and at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee we had the CEO of KiwiRail present to us and say, “We need more investment in rail.”, and this Government, as outlined in that Government Policy Statement, and as outlined in Vote Transport, will be investing more in rail.

The National Land Transport Fund is administered through the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and the NZTA now have the opportunity to invest that money in rail, rather than just roading, and so we’re going to see more investment in rail. We’ve already seen it around the rail track around Gisborne there, and we’re going to see it right across the country—that investment in rail. We’re going to see investment in coastal shipping. We’re going to see investment in regional roads.

Just to close, I reiterate the fact that this is about multimodal transport, and that’s absolutely vital. Rather than the obsession with pork-barrel, four-laning, we’re going to see a multimodal approach. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just as help for members debating, if you look at Speakers’ rulings 127/3 to 127/7, 127/3 is a very good Speaker’s ruling, dating back to 1935, that suggests that, “The discussion must be fastened on to some item in the Estimates, and if that cannot be done, generally speaking, the discussion is irrelevant and therefore out of order.”

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take this opportunity to focus on research, science, and innovation. We have heard again and again that there is around one billion dollars for R & D tax credit policy—policy that is still going through the development phase. We also heard that there is a total of $1.2 billion for research, science, and innovation appropriation in 2018-19. If we look at this amount of $1 billion that is allocated for R & D tax credit policy, there is only around $200 million for the rest of research, science, and innovation.

Another thing to note, which was brought to the Minister’s attention during the Estimates hearing, is that this amount that is allocated for research, science, and innovation is not substantially or unusually larger than what we have seen in past Budgets. If we look at the past Budget—that is, the 2017-18 appropriations—it was around $1.1 billion, and in the 2018-19 Budget, it’s $1.2 billion. So it’s not that the Minister has been able to get a substantially larger amount for research, science, and innovation.

One thing to note here is that the Minister is taking a big chunk of money out from growth funds from next year and is putting that towards R & D tax credit policy; so this $1 billion is not actually new money towards research, science, and innovation. During the select committee process during the Estimates hearing, another interesting thing to note was that the Minister had not done any homework about the Estimates hearing, and that is the same for the R & D tax credit policy, as we can see in the proposed document. But I can fully understand that the Minister has no choice about R & D tax credit policy, because that is a Labour Party policy, and, yes, she is the Minister, but she has no choice; she has to go ahead and implement the R & D tax credit policy in some form. But, for the Estimates hearing, she had a choice, because, for every question that was asked, she kept giving speech-like long answers, beating around the bush to fill up the time.

A simple question was asked, which was: “How much of this $1 billion that is allocated towards research and development tax credit policy will go towards existing business research and development?” She said she could not give that answer; so she could not tell us how much of this $1 billion would go towards existing business R & D. Let me put this the other way around: if she is unable to tell us how much of this will go towards existing business R & D, how can she assure us that this will add to New Zealand’s business R & D? There is no assurance that this R & D tax credit policy will add to New Zealand’s business R & D.

The next question was about how this is going to be monitored, because we know that, in other countries, like in Australia, we have seen people using creative accounting skills to claim R & D tax credits. The Minister said there would be a penalty-based regime through the IRD. Was there any money allocated from this appropriation for the IRD? No, there is no money allocated for the IRD to go out and monitor compliance. So this is going to be another layer for businesses to make sure they’re compliant with and that they understand what research and development means according to the legislation. So they would have to check the definition and make sure they’re complying, and the IRD will have another layer of going out and monitoring these businesses.

Then, as a person who is very passionate about small and medium businesses, the next question was about whether R & D tax credit policy will help small and medium businesses. Will it help high-tech, high-growth industries that keep investing and reinvesting so that they can grow in the first few years? The Minister had to admit that there is nothing for high-growth, high-tech industries that do not have any tax-liable income. So, yes, they need to have tax-liable income, which means they need investment. They will have to go out and find some money to invest in their business. Once they have tax-liable income, they can come and claim this R & D tax credit.

Any business that is spending less than $100,000 will have to get their research done through an approved supplier. The Minister could not give that answer; she needed help from an official, and that’s fine, but how can we give more importance to research that is done by an approved supplier than research done by the business company directly? So this is another layer of administration that is going to be added on to businesses, to go out and find an approved provider of research, so that if they have tax-liable income, they can claim R & D tax credits. So it’s a joke. This policy will not add to our business R & D. Clearly, there is no assurance of this policy—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the previous speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, who I do enjoy the company of in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We actually do have a very good select committee, I have to say. I do enjoy going along to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We have a bit of banter and we have some good robust discussion. But let me just put the member across the Chamber straight on a couple of issues.

The first thing to do is, clearly, talk about Vote Economic Development. The R & D grants, or research and development grants, that are going to be allocated—up to $1 billion over the next four years—are a huge incentive. The member has just asked a question to the committee about what the Minister knows about what increases there are going to be. Well, let me tell you about a report that just came out on Radio New Zealand this morning, saying that, in the first quarter, the 26 percent of businesses that have been applying for grants has now, in the second quarter, gone to 50 percent. So they’ve nearly doubled already with the thought that research and development grants are actually going to be coming on.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: It’s working.

It’s definitely working. There’s your answer right there. Callaghan Innovation, although it was a fantastic model, set up to encourage businesses to put money into research and development, was a very slow, clunky, and prohibitive process that many businesses removed themselves from. This is a very clear, clean cut way to manage research and development and get better innovation to look at getting more capacity, capability, and better productivity from our added export value economy that we are building; and a great job of building it, this Government is doing, too.

Now, up to $100,000—the member makes a comment—and she’s right to say that if you’re not spending over $100,000, you will have to go through an accredited supplier. Well, there are six outlets currently in New Zealand which can take up that research, science, innovation, and development process for you, for you to get your 12.5 percent tax break. There are currently six. I see that as a massive opportunity. What about the innovation of setting up science and innovation projects around the country that can take on these small works and look at the grants that will be available to them as a business being set up to do this very thing, which is exactly what this $1 billion research and development fund is set up to do: to drive our economy and look at better ways of creating wealth opportunities and business export opportunities for New Zealand—box ticked; job well done.

I want to move on now and talk about the Provincial Growth Fund—we’ve got the Minister in the chair today, the Hon Shane Jones, who is the champion of the regions—and why this fund was actually set up and the great job that it is actually doing. We need to stimulate our economy. The rest of the world is talking doom and gloom, and talking about economies around the world that are looking at stalling, but if we don’t do more in our provinces and the regions of New Zealand, we’re going to be faced with exactly the same problem. The previous Government invested $11 million. Now, $11 million right up until this new coalition came along was a hell of a lot of money—probably more than they’d had previously for some time. But $11 billion is not going to cut it. The department was so small and underutilised and there really wasn’t much chance at all for any innovation coming out of the public sector to encourage driving our economy in the provinces. Now we have set up a $3 billion fund, with $1 billion per annum.

I’ve got a few of the announcements that we’ve really got here. So far, to date, we have got allocation spending for feasibility studies, first and foremost, and funding to help with projects such as roading, such as rail projects. Look at Gisborne, I think they got $5 million; Wairoa to Napier rail got $5 million; $811,000 was given for a feasibility study to unlock the potential of $350 million of tourism dollars, which we’re going to see a massive boom in over the next eight years with our economy. These are absolutely sensible approaches to it. But a billion dollars—I just want to go back to that figure; so far, $126 million, I believe, Minister, has been allocated to date, that has actually being announced, that has been given, and there are a lot more great, positive outcomes to come.

We’ve got roading projects. We’ve got rail projects. We’ve got forestry projects. We have got innovation and science projects. We have got a whole lot of things, and I’d recommend that the members get together and download this fantastic document so they can see. It’s funny how they quite often take the time to poo poo this Government for coming up with such a big, hairy audacious goal such as $3 billion going into our provinces. Now, all of a sudden, they’re saying, “Oh, please, sir. Please can my province have a little bit of that too, because under the previous nine years of the previous Government, we haven’t had the same sort of support?”

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great pleasure to be able to stand and take a call on Vote Transport in this debate this afternoon and, for the first time, to be able to stand up and feel genuinely enthusiastic about the direction of the Government in the shaping and the support for our communities. Transport is one of those issues where sometimes we don’t recognise what a critical role it plays in our lives—that, actually, it shapes our towns and our cities and our ability to move around and get to where we want to go and how much time we have to spend with our families and do things we love, as well as being essential to the running of business.

For the last nine years, and the six that I’ve been in this House in Opposition, I’ve heard our debates and our discussions about transport all centred on this idea about these roads of national significance. Having lived in a community where one of those was imposed on us, cutting through a beautiful, beautiful part of the country—in which now the people in my community spend their time stuck in cars driving through that scar on our landscape—it is wonderful to see within this Government the direction of rebalancing and moving away from spending where it has been $11 billion—

💬 Matt King: Let’s go back to the Amish days!

—over the last few years on seven roads. And I’m hearing a member of the Opposition saying that what I’m obviously speaking about is going back to being Amish and using horses and carts. That’s the level of their discourse: it’s either $11 billion and seven roads or you’re back to horse and cart. Well, actually, I think I’ve got a slightly more modern view on public transport and transport than that.

Actually, what we are talking about is getting great public transport and supporting people to be able to live their lives and be healthy and well and get around easily. We know that how we’ll achieve that is through good public transport and rail and walking and cycling, as well as safe roads. So what this Government has done is several things. Part of it is rebalancing towards our regions. So we’ve heard from the Opposition, “What about this terrible ripping money out of regional communities?” Well, actually, it flies in the face of all of the evidence of this Government. What this Government is doing is putting money back into our local roads, our regional roads, rather than these tiny little vanity projects that the previous Government flew a flag for, which hardly affected anyone at all.

So what we are doing is now putting money into over half of the country. The transport movements happen on our regional roads, and nothing really was done, nor was money put, towards the safety on those roads to enable people to move around safely. This Government is changing that, and this Government is putting the investment into getting our major city moving as well. That is around enabling rail to be considered in the National Land Transport Fund and system, which is critical for our future. Rail is central to the future vision of transport. I heard a previous member of the Opposition talking about how the Government is obviously kind of doctoring the books by looking at changing the cost-benefit analysis and that’s really just to justify rail when it can’t be justified—I really, really wish they would catch up. Our communities, our public health experts, and our transport experts have been telling us for a really long time that we need to start recognising the value of things beyond just being able to move from here to there in the quickest possible way.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to focus my comments this afternoon on the appearance of the regional economic development Minister, Shane Jones, at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. Wasn’t it an extraordinary appearance? What we saw wasn’t an open and upfront Minister willing to answer questions. What we saw instead was an hour of the Minister bluffing and blustering.

He started off talking about his so-called billion-dollar fund. He claimed that regional growth funding was increasing from $11 million to a billion dollars. Well, less than a minute later—less than a minute later—he had to backtrack on that myth; because it is a myth. He had to admit that it’s not $11 million and it’s not $1 billion; it’s going up from $228 million. A lot of the billion-dollar fund that he tries to talk about as new funding isn’t new funding at all. It is, in his own words, “re-designated money”—re-designated money. So it’s not $1 billion. He recycled the money from existing Government programmes in regional growth.

But more concerning than the make-up is how he’s spending it. We all accept that Northland needs assistance. Indeed, Northland was one of the five regions that the previous Government identified as needing help, and that was the genesis of the Regional Growth Programme. We did a lot of work through things like the QRC campus in Paihia and through things like the Kaikohe Growing Regional Opportunities through Work programme, which engaged young people to break the cycle of unemployment. But it can’t escape anyone’s attention that more than half of Shane Jones’ fund has gone to that one region of Northland alone.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How much of it?

More than half has gone to Shane Jones’ home region of Northland—coincidentally, the one region that he’s hanging his hopes on to save New Zealand First in the next election.

The troubling aspect of this “Shane Jones election fund” is that there’s nothing robust about it. Mr Jones has admitted that Northland has, in fact, only asked for $40 million, and they’ve received $60 million. They’ve actually received more provincial growth funding than they’ve asked for. I compare that to the entire South Island—the entire South Island—which, in Mr Jones’ own words, has asked for 15 percent of the fund. But how much have they received? How much have they received, Mr Jones? Two to three percent.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

Two to 3 percent. And why is that? Well, Mr Jones was pretty upfront about that; he chose to attack the mayors. Mr Jones’ response was to attack every mayor in the South Island. He claimed they lack “the skills and advocacy of Far North Mayor John Carter.” Now, John Carter is a good mayor; I’ll give him that. But is he half a billion dollars better than every single mayor in the South Island? I would argue not. It’s an outrageous slur on every single mayor in the South Island, and Mr Jones should apologise.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What an excellent choice, might I say? I was on the West Coast of the South Island on Sunday, as part of the 5,000 people who protested against the Government and their, effective, ban on so much of the mining that’s been going on for generations on the West Coast. Someone mentioned that Shane Jones had been there recently, and they were not saying that he was the “Hero of the West Coast”, as he described himself today in Parliament, but they did say, “Shane came and threw us a bit of money.” But what we were also there for was the opening of this major bridge halfway between Greymouth and Hokitika. That was, of course, all funded under a National-led Government and all built under a National-led Government. There was no Minister there other than the Hon Damien O’Connor, and there were a lot of placards mentioning his name, and none of them were flattering.

Unfortunately, Mr Jones wasn’t there. I thought he might have stayed for that. It would have been a good thing to have stayed for, but he was, obviously, otherwise detained; and Mr Phil Twyford, the Minister of Transport—because, of course, this debate is about transport as well—was otherwise detained as well. I was very happy to be there, along with Maureen Pugh and the Hon Paul Goldsmith, because we wanted to talk about regional development. We wanted to talk about transport, and we wanted to talk about what was actually important for the people of the West Coast. So there were 5,000 people, many of whom would have been Labour Party members or voters in the past, and they were very upset. Along with them, of course, were 1,000 trucks and lorries, which is a pretty impressive turnout, and all using oil and petrol, and things like that: the things that the Labour Party used to actually value but now no longer do. It’s good that the Hon Shane Jones is having a bit of a smile, because he also likes, I think, the oil and gas but, unfortunately, has been done over in this Government.

I listened before, to my detriment, to Jan Logie talking about roads—roads of national significance and how dreadful they all are. Well, having driven on these roads, they’re fantastic. That’s where roads should be going: roads that are actually safe by design, not safe by just hoping that everyone’s going to drive correctly and within the law, but roads that are safe by design. Not one death so far—and we’re touching wood as we say it—on the roads of national significance. Not one death. That is an amazing record, particularly when we consider that, on many of these roads, the speed limit is 110 kilometres an hour, and I’m sure people do even more than that. Incredibly safe, properly built roads; that’s where we should be—not goat tracks, as the Greens would have us have; not just sticking up a few chains between things and saying, “Well, that’ll do. Here’s $20 million; there, that’ll sort it.” No it won’t. It’s not going to sort out the Katikati to Tauranga road. It’s not actually going to help people’s lives be saved—actually, not just their lives, either; the incredible injuries that occur on roads through, in many cases, poor design, but also through not driving to the conditions and to the road design. These are the sorts of things that the Government should be looking at; not worrying about a tram going down Dominion Road from Auckland CBD through to the airport so that tourists and some others can have some fun time on it; not taking an hour for that tram to go from Auckland CBD to the airport, when you can actually get there at the moment using the Waterview tunnel—by the way, funded and built by National—in 20 minutes.

These are the sorts of decisions that a Government should be making, which should be looking at a country that should be growing, not going back into the past, not giving up on the fact that we are still a country of only 4.6 million people. Although, if you listen to the census that the Hon James Shaw is so proud of, he probably thinks we’re now about 3.3 million because he’s lost about a million people in the census. That’s where we should be going. We should be looking for growth, not for bringing our economy backwards. We should be going forward with our economy. It should be promoting people based on merit, not based on anything else. It should be looking after industries. It should be looking after regions such as the West Coast: an area that will, in fact, come back once National is back leading our Government; an area of the country that is the salt of the earth; that was the birthplace of the Labour Party and that will be its death. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Tēpu; ā, rau rangatira mā, huri noa tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora anō tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Chair; to the illustrious gathering around the room, greetings, greetings, hello to one and all.]

I just want to touch quickly on transport as a part of this particular appropriation and just acknowledge some of the words—I was going to say “wise words”; debatable—from the previous contributor, Judith Collins, who talks quite a bit about the “roads of National Party significance” all around the country. There was a lot of investment in there. Well, she was right in saying that actually there was some significant investment in the eastern arterial in the Tauranga region. Many millions of dollars were spent on that particular stretch of roadway. Whilst, yes, to its credit, there haven’t been any fatalities on that particular road, let me say that, actually, the people of Tauranga are pretty disappointed, to be fair, because they’re being pinged, not just once but twice. So who are the real champions on that particular stretch of road? Well, it’s not actually the Government. While the Government might have stumped up, actually, it’s mums and dads from Tauranga that are actually paying the cost of that particular roadway. There are a lot of people that are quite angry that these toll roads are there. They’re having to stump up for them. Was it the answer to Tauranga’s transport woes? I say no.

In fact, Tauranga’s transport system is still incredibly clogged up, and anybody that has sat in the traffic around the various highways and motorways around there knows that and will absolutely support that, which is why I’m pleased to be supporting a Government who’s got a GPS which is centred around looking after the safety of our people out on our transport networks, but also looking for multimodal methods of transport. The people of Tauranga are looking forward to having other options out there—be it cycleways; be it a train system—so that they can move themselves around. That is definitely something that the people of Tauranga are looking forward to.

In terms of the Provincial Growth Fund, which I have great pleasure in actually shouting about when I head out there out on the hustings as I’ve been doing for the last couple of weeks of recess, the Provincial Growth Fund is widely heralded around the rohe of Waiariki, and I had great pleasure in seeing that today was the day that Minginui and Te Whāiti—very small forestry towns in the heart of the Bay of Plenty—thanks to the Provincial Growth fund, they actually have access to the internet; really, really simple things like that. Because of the Provincial Growth Fund, because of the investment that was made in the native plant nursery there, part of that agreement too was also that they were going to be able to have access to the internet, something that so many of us across New Zealand take for granted. But today, they may just be sitting there in their sheds and their garages in their humble little houses, from Te Whāiti, from Minginui, actually watching us online, because they can do that as of today. And I’m pleased that the Provincial Growth Fund has actually gone and announced that.

Speaking of that particular announcement, the investment of $5.8 million into that small community of Minginui for their native plant nursery is something that you just can’t underplay. Because of that significant investment, the nursery has been able to go from an operation which employs nine people to an operation that has the capacity to employ 90 people. And for what purpose: for actually growing trees, which is something that, as we understand fully as a country the impact of climate change, they’re only doing the work that we need them to be doing—to be growing the seedlings, growing these trees so that we can get them out there and help mitigate our country’s impact on the environment. So in terms of Minginui, the Provincial Growth Fund, which was much talked about in the Estimates hui, is very welcome.

And just before I go, I also want to acknowledge the investment that’s been put in to Rotorua as well, through this particular fund. A couple of projects have been invested in, to the tune of about $800,000, and all with the goal of expanding provincial New Zealand—looking to where the opportunities might be down on the lakefront, in the middle of the redwoods forests. That kind of investment will help the research into the actual bigger funding of the growth in the Rotorua region. So the Provincial Growth Fund is a great thing, and I have nothing but support for it.

It’s a pleasure to speak on the Vote Transport Estimates debate, and we had the pleasure of Minister Twyford’s presence during our select committee. He spoke about transport options and about supporting economic growth, safety, and resilience, and then he proceeded to tell us that he was canning the most safe, resilient, and biggest economic driver of growth in Northland—the road of national significance. Now, the spin doctors have obviously told him to use the word “gold-plated”—he loves using the words “gold-plated dual carriageways”. That’s what he likes to use.

He should talk about “gold-plated trams”. That’s last century’s technology. Trams are what you see in those black and white movies, the sped-up ones—those are where you see the trams, not in today’s world.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Ha, ha! There we go.

Absolutely correct.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Say it with a straight face, sunshine. Go on.

OK. So what he’s doing is he’s robbing Peter of thousands of millions of dollars to give Paul tens of millions of dollars. So you’ve taken billions of dollars out of the roading budget, and you’re giving back tens of millions.

I asked Minister Twyford about this very question. State Highway 1 in Northland—OK, we used to be known as a bit of a backwater a few years ago. In the last five years, we’ve grown out of this world! That road is not fit for purpose, that State Highway 1.

💬 Jamie Strange: How many bridges you got?

Ha, ha! They’re not fit for purpose—not fit for purpose, right? There were 50 points in the Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan—50 drivers of growth. The number one priority identified in that action plan was the northern motorway, OK? It has widespread support from all of the community, all the mayors—pretty much everyone. It’s the number one priority for all the councils in Northland. Mayor Sheryl Mai, Mayor John Carter, Mayor Jason Smith, and Bill Shepherd, the Northland Regional Council chair, all travelled to Wellington and met with Minister Twyford for an hour and a half, pleading with him to spare the Northland motorway and build it. And you know what? They wasted their time. It fell on deaf ears. He basically said, “No way.”

I see from the Government’s new Government policy statement priorities: City Rail Link; Auckland Transport Alignment priorities; light rail Auckland; Auckland Transport Alignment Project funding; and rail. Those are the five; the sixth one—tail-end Charlie—finally, is “road safety and State Highway 1 initiatives”. So it’s all about rail and it’s all about Auckland.

Minister Twyford uses the term “review, re-evaluate”; I think he should just come up and be honest and say he means “cancel, slash, and burn”. This Government is pulling down a National Party initiative, which was the roads of national significance—they’re ripping them down. The rest of the developed world is building dual carriageways—that’s what the rest of the world is doing. Instead, we’re promised some extra passing lanes—and I’m referring to Northland here. Minister Twyford, in answer to a direct question from me, said we’re going to be getting extra passing lanes, maybe some barriers, maybe some rumble strips, and a couple of intersections. So the motorway that we were going to build from Whangarei to Northport—the busiest road in Northland—and they’re replacing it with a roundabout. That’s all we’re getting.

This Government is nearly one year in, and all we’ve got to show in Northland are these reflectorised little posts running down the busiest part of the road, just out south of Whangarei. And you know what’s happened? It’s been a total failure. They’re covered in road muck. The reflectorised strips are smashed all over the road. It’s a band-aid. Our State Highway—a makeover won’t cut it. We have to have a dual carriageway, engineered camber, and gradient suitable for trucks.

So Northland is getting stiffed by this Government, and it’s going to take a little bit more than Shane Jones’ slush fund to fix that. I didn’t want to mention his name because it’s been mentioned so many times, but it’s going to take a little bit more than Mr Shane Jones’ slush fund. Northlanders are unhappy, like the West Coasters, and like the people from Taranaki—poorly thought-out policy driven by idealism not realism.

There’s a $500,000 feasibility study for rail in Northland; I’ve offered to do it for a fraction of that price. I’ll knock out the report in half a day and then I’ll take Northland taxpayers out to lunch. Thank you.

Northland is a land of contrasts. In contrast to the very positive, uplifting, by and large humble “Provincial Champion”, we have heard from the current sitting member of Northland, who has delivered a hate speech to the region he purports to represent—“hate speech” in the sense of not acknowledging that the assistance spread around the regions has been driven by none other than the leadership of John Carter and Murray McCully. Oh, things were different in comparison and in contrast to the current member, but let me not be deflective.

There have been some unkind things said about the stewardship of the fund. The fund, as I reflected in the House, required the members of the Opposition to understand the Public Finance Act. Now, Mr Falloon may have worked for the ACT Party. He may have been a member of the ACT Party. He may have worked for Mr Joyce, but he has no understanding of the Public Finance Act. The Public Finance Act requires the steward of the fund to ensure that when investments of a capital nature are made, such as forestry, we account for a certain percentage of the investment’s life. And, wanting to cling faithfully to the dictates of the Public Finance Act, I answered in that fashion. It is not my fault that the members of the committee did not understand it.

Now, in respect of the other allocations around the motu—sure, the South Island, as reflective of a slightly chilly climb down in the South, is ordinarily a tad more conservative, but they are now fully engaged because they realise it is a once-in-a-lifetime shot, in the sense that this is a Government that has opened up the fiscal purse to address historical neglect. Now, some of that neglect is in the West Coast, but it can also be found further south, and the neglect will require not only some fiscal elixir but it will require us, where appropriate, to change the law. As befits a “Provincial Champion”, these perspectives have to be constantly brought to bear. It doesn’t mean that one voice carries the day on every given occasion, but it does mean that the provinces should have no fear in terms of a loud voice coherently articulating the concerns.

Let me carry on with some of the individual initiatives that have been stigmatised by the Leader of the Opposition. Go, I say to him, to Minginui and tell them that what they have received is beads, blankets, and trinkets. That is the very place where his colleague the former Minister of Treaty settlements described the living conditions as hideous. I think it’s a very low day when the Leader of the Opposition seeks to appeal for the diminishing number of voters of Colin Craig’s old party. He will not prosper with that type of stigmatisation, that type of demonisation. In fact, the real demon sits several seats along from him, and as the caucus politics grow more feverish he will learn that that is the demon that will possess him, and he will not be leading that party into the next election. But I must not digress too far.

The other matter that I think it’s important that we cover is that forestry as a portion of the fund is an overdue investment into an area that has not only been neglected but will be sorely needed in the regions—not only for climate change, and other speakers will cover climate change—but to revitalise and bring land back into a higher level of productivity. Now, you may think that these matters don’t have a certain level of media sex appeal, but I have found that they are inordinately of great interest to the media, and you can rely on the first citizen of the provinces to continue to do what the other side of the House is refusing to do: be consistent, strong advocates. I think it was very cruel of Mr Falloon to deprecate his own former parliamentary colleagues. I can’t be held to account for the fact that the National provincial advocates of that time are inordinately more effective, more informed, and more collaborative. Thank you very much.