Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill

I move, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill be now read a second time.

This is one of the regular features of the House of Representatives where we deal with two matters in one debate, the first being that around the Supplementary Estimates for the 2020/21 year and then the first of the imprest supply bills. I thought it might be useful for the House at the outset to know exactly what these two bills are about. So the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill seeks appropriation by Parliament of changes to appropriations and new appropriations for the 2020/21 year, the year in which we have just completed, that the Government agreed to—

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not yet—eight days to go.

—well, still going; we’ve still got a few days left, Mr Woodhouse is correct—between April 2020 when the Estimates closed and early April 2021. These Supplementary Estimates, which I presented to the House on Budget day, contain a larger than usual number of new appropriations but fewer changes overall to new and existing appropriations when compared with the Supplementary Estimates for 2019/20. For those who are interested, the bill makes changes to 507 annual appropriations and 102 multi-year appropriations. Members may recall last year that due to the unfolding impacts of COVID-19 and our ongoing and rapid fiscal response, a Supplementary Order Paper was required to incorporate changes to the previous version of this bill that were made after the finalisation of the Supplementary Estimates for 2019/20, and the total number of changes was a greater number as a result.

Colleagues across the House will be well aware that the period that we are dealing with here represents a significant amount of the expenditure in response to COVID-19. Many of the appropriations included for the first time in this bill provide authority for spending from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund that the Government established as part of Budget 2020. Funding from that is reflected in the bill and includes many, many initiatives, and I’m sure my colleagues will speak to those initiatives over the course of this debate. What they encapsulate are the urgency of the Government’s response.

So a bill like this normally would be looking at matters that perhaps have arisen during the course of a financial year or times when appropriations either had not enough money or money had to be shifted around. This year and the previous one are different from the past, because we were needing to respond in real time, and that kept happening. And it’s interesting. When you look at the Supplementary Estimates that are here, you, for example, see the resurgence support payment. That was a payment that we had to bring into place as we learnt more about the impacts of COVID on businesses and workers. So that’s the payment that was paid out when there was any kind of alert level rise and is now available at any point in the future, God forbid, that we might need to have an alert level rise.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: How much is left?

So that resurgence support payment was created. It was designed with business because, as Mr Woodhouse is no doubt applauding the Government for doing so, the wage subsidy scheme, parts of which are also contained in the Supplementary Estimates here, needed to be supplemented by something that moved beyond wages to some of the fixed costs that businesses had when there was an alert level rise. So the resurgence support payment was designed in consultation with the business community, and that is funded in here as well.

But the scale not only of the economic response and the rapidity of it that meant that we needed to use this mechanism for the funding—is also set in context here by the health response that took place. And so within the Supplementary Estimates, you will see items around personal protective equipment (PPE) purchase, items around the additional support and staffing that was required right across the health sector. We needed to do that in real time. I acknowledge my colleague, Dr Clark. I can remember some of the conversations that we had as we were trying to estimate what the cost would be of getting that PPE into New Zealand. Where were we going to source it from? Those decisions were needing to be taken day by day. And as I said and remarked at the time, what is reflected in these Supplementary Estimates is the kind of decision making that Governments of many different stripes over the years have struggled with: being able to make decisions quickly and deliver quickly. And we made some fundamental changes to deliver this support within the Supplementary Estimates—in particular, the number of decision points that a Government has.

So a Government has always traditionally had one decision point a week, and that is the Cabinet meeting. That wasn’t good enough in COVID. We had to have two and three and four decision points a week, and that required us to spend money in ways that was not envisaged in the original appropriations that we did. Equally, it required us to take a least regrets approach, and that was about saying we need to get this money out there. We need to support organisations and businesses, and if it wasn’t working or the design was not quite right, we were prepared to go back and say we will change it. And again, Governments have not always been as good as they might be in acknowledging when things don’t work, and that’s something that I think we’ve learnt through this process. So all of that adds up to the Estimates that are in front of us here today, and as I say, there are many, many different initiatives, which colleagues will no doubt delve into, that make up the money that is being sought via the Supplementary Estimates.

The second of the bits of legislation in front of us is the first of the imprest supply bills. The bill is needed to provide the sole parliamentary financial authority for Government spending in 2021/22 until the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill is passed. As the deadline for the third reading debate on the latter bill is to be completed within four months of Budget day—that is, 20 September—this imprest supply bill is for the first three months of the 2021/22 financial year. In addition, it’s standard practice for imprest supply bills to cover the materialisation of fiscal risks and the uncertain timing and spread of expenditure, including changes to appropriations that might actually be fiscally neutral.

This bill also includes an allowance for the unallocated portion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund should additional spending be required to respond to the ongoing impacts of COVID-19, and members will be aware that at Budget 2021, we retained a buffer of $5.1 billion within the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund as a contingency in the event should there be—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Very prudent—very prudent.

—resurgences of COVID-19 in the community. It is indeed, as Dr Clark says, both prudent and responsible, even though we are moving into an era with the vaccination programme where that is less likely to be required.

The imprest supply bill seeks to provide sufficient authority for the Government to incur a maximum of $35 billion in expenses, $5 billion in capital expenditure, and $1 billion of capital injections. Although this is higher than we would seek in a normal year, not least because of the ongoing impact of COVID and the COVID response fund spending, it is actually lower than what was provided last year. And I think there you can see the trend. When I look at the total amounts of various imprest supply bills, the first one I was responsible for was around $19 billion, then around $30 billion, then around $52 billion, and now back to a total of $41 billion. I think members can see the trends there that we are bringing that back down now to more regularised levels of expenditure, but in acknowledgment that we are still in uncertain and challenging times, we are still in a period of time where spending is sometimes harder to predict than it would have been in the past.

And I would seek to remind colleagues that this is the money that makes sure that we can spend it. It is not unusual in any means whatsoever. It is simply the way our system works so that the funding is available to be spent as it is required. As I said, while it’s larger than it is in earlier years, I do think the ongoing uncertainty of the economic environment requires us to have this in place. Most importantly of all, it is a limit not a target—something that I’m fond of saying to my colleagues on other matters as well. It is a limit not a target, and I believe, if I am correct, that last year only around a quarter of the imprest supply was actually required. So the pattern here is that the money is not always needed. But in order to make sure we do not go unappropriated, in order to make sure that we have the resources available to the Government to do what we need, we set out a limit to which we cannot spend beyond. But if we are tracking as we did last year, only a quarter of that was provided. So I commend these bills to the House. They are an important part of the way that we manage finances in New Zealand, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to be speaking on the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and I have no doubt that every member of the House, certainly those who are going to speak on it, will have dived deeply into all 1,024 pages of the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations, which, as the Minister eventually pointed out, has eight days to run before we reach the end of this. I must say I was super impressed with the Minister’s ability to gild the lily about this Government’s performance and then to portray himself as some kind of grinchy Minister of Finance, controlling the spending with really super-tight fingers on the Government’s purse. He said this is a limit, not a target. Well, actually, he should’ve taken some of his own advice.

Let’s start with the positive. We are now coming to the end of the most extraordinary period, fiscally, I think this country has ever seen, certainly in peacetime. It was necessary and appropriate for the Government to do a lot of things quickly and expensively. We acknowledge that. We supported those changes through, firstly, last year’s imprest supply, which basically wrote a blank cheque to the Government for about $50 billion. As the Minister points out, these were in areas that were vitally important: the wage subsidy, personal protective equipment, managed isolation and quarantine, the vaccine roll-out—matters that, as he said, were “in response to COVID-19.”

He talked also, interestingly, about the Resurgence Support Payment for businesses, but, boy, they were led kicking and screaming into doing that, and still maintain that the wage subsidy was somehow a support to business. Well, actually, it wasn’t. Businesses were the agents between the Government and the employees who were out of work, potentially at risk of losing their jobs. It was a necessary and appropriate response, but let’s not pretend it supported business. It supported their workers, but even in service industries with high levels of personnel costs, that would still only constitute about 66 to 70 percent of the cost base of an average business. It was those non-wage costs that were killing business last year: the rent, the leases, the stock that was already on the water and eventually needed to be paid for but couldn’t be sold, the relatively high fixed cost for things like IT and insurance. None of those were being helped by Government.

The National Party called repeatedly for some support for business, because, after all, we had a $50 billion fund. We knew that businesses could collapse, and eventually the Government did, I think, come, albeit not to a party but at least to some form of rescue. But to say that the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund has only been used in response to COVID-19 is simply not accurate. In fact, it’s disingenuous, because there’s no doubt that that $50 billion fund was a slush fund for Government largesse and for matters that had nothing to do with COVID. I’m indebted to the reporters of Stuff, actually, for reminding me of some of the things that the COVID Response and Recovery Fund was being spent on. This was as early as August last year they were saying this, so goodness knows what the list might be by now.

But I wonder if members were aware that the ad campaign featuring two naked actors as porn stars, as part of a Netsafe initiative, was actually paid by the COVID Response and Recovery Fund. Like, what, did our kids spend six weeks off school watching porn because of COVID? A long bow to draw to say that that was a COVID-related initiative. That was one of 250 programmes which Stuff analysed and found had little or nothing to do with COVID-19.

Actually, we only need to look into the transport space, because I’ve been doing that quite a bit lately, and see in here the eye-watering amount of money, over $1.3 billion, being taken out of COVID Response and Recovery and put into the National Land Transport Fund. Now, it may be necessary to do that, because, frankly, the Government has made such a ham-fisted job of getting any of these projects up off the drawing board and into reality that over time, the costs of those projects have gone up. But let’s not pretend it had anything to do with COVID—$1.3 billion, and there are a number of examples right through the Supplementary Estimates of COVID being used as a slush fund to pay for other things.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out, $50 billion and 15 months later, we’ve got $5.1 billion left for a so-called resurgence. Who honestly believes that if COVID makes a comeback to the degree that it did in February and March last year, $5 billion would be anywhere near what we need? It will be chump change. The wage subsidy, I think, was $14 billion on its own, for the six to 12 weeks that that needed to be paid out for—$14 billion—and he’s trying to tell us that because they went on a drunken spending spree last year and left only $5.1 billion in the kitty, we won’t be back here with another urgent imprest supply bill if COVID hits again. Why? Because $50 billion wasn’t going to be enough, and the reason $50 billion wasn’t going to be enough was because it wasn’t spent on COVID.

Now, the other theme of these Estimates, as was examined by the Finance and Expenditure Committee over the last couple of weeks, was the degree to which certain things were not spent. I think this is an interesting study of the non-delivery of things that this Government has said it was going to do. Now, we’ve heard a lot about mental health today and over the last few days—five acute beds out of a $1.9 billion appropriation in Budget 2019. We are returning to the centre mental health services appropriations because the Crown has not got their act together. The response from Treasury was to say this money has been returned to the Crown as part of the Budget process so this could be redirected towards other high-priority initiatives or used to improve the Crown’s financial position. Well, those are weasel words for saying the Government didn’t do what it appropriated funds to do, and so it’s returning it back to the centre.

There are a number of health examples just like that. Maternity services: now, it was an interesting answer from Treasury about why we were actually returning maternity services funding, and it was because forecast demand didn’t eventuate. Now, it is true: we are having fewer children—in fact, a concerningly low number in our reproduction rate at the moment. But, actually, that’s not why this is being returned. This is being returned because lead maternity carers are leaving in their droves and are no longer claiming under section 88, leaving mothers struggling to find a lead carer and having to rely on the district health board for core midwifery services when they go into labour and birth.

Actually, what the Government could’ve done—should’ve done, and the previous Minister of Health is here and knows it—is that had he listened to the very report that was commissioned by the previous Government and recommended significant increases in maternity funding for lead carers, we wouldn’t have been in this situation, for two reasons. There would’ve been more lead carers still in the business, and those women would’ve been able to find a lead maternity carer and therefore this funding would’ve been spent.

So there’s two themes here: COVID as a slush fund, and some serious non-delivery by this Government, and, frankly, the worst examples of that are in our health system.

I am so delighted to stand up and speak in this debate on the appropriation bill, particularly as the member for Taieri, where we have got fantastic examples of wellbeing and the wellbeing approach, both in terms of the Hillside Workshops, but also some other work that is going on in Balclutha.

First, though, I just want to bring us back to what this Budget is about, which is recovery and safety. I was given a stark reminder of this during an all-night Zoom session last night with the women parliamentary leaders from around the globe. I was very privileged to attend that conference as the women’s parliamentary ambassador for New Zealand. I was aware, as many of us are in a kind of fuzzy way because we are quite immune from COVID here, that COVID is having a really negative effect on women and girls in countries where the virus has raged out of control. Last night brought that into a very clear focus for me, with the number of 47 million women and girls who will be catapulted back into poverty as a direct result of this virus. There was speaker after speaker from country after country who spoke very emotionally about the impact that COVID has had on women and girls in their countries, supported by very sound research and evidence. The speakers included people like the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Chlöe Swarbrick from this House, former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and President Macron from France.

In the introduction to that conference, it was mentioned that the countries that had women leaders were outperforming those in the race against the virus from those who didn’t. It mentioned that there were a handful of countries, but only one leader was actually mentioned by name, and that was our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. That really brought that home to me—how lucky we are in New Zealand to have a response to COVID that put safety first, and a Budget that puts safety and recovery at the heart.

The women and girls in those countries will not only be catapulted back into poverty; it affects every level of advancement that we have made as women over the last 20 to 40 years around education, around the workplace, around health. We know that marginalised groups are impacted most when there are crises, and that is the same for COVID. We may not have felt it to such stark extent here, but it is happening globally, and I am so pleased that we have a Budget that ensures that our safety comes first.

On to wellbeing. I don’t know who was more excited about the $85 million announcement for the Hillside expansion, myself as the MP for Taieri, Grant Robertson as the Minister of Finance and a former South Dunedin boy, or perhaps the former trade union leader Jim Kelly. Jim, if you’re watching, I would like to tautoko you for the work you did. We were all enormously excited. To say that doing wagon assembly at Hillside amounts to doing Meccano lessons is, quite frankly, disrespectful. It is a serious business, assembling trains, and it will breathe new life into our region. It also shows that we are very serious about our climate response and that we are looking at much more responsible, more efficient ways of carrying around freight.

Now, Jim Kelly, whom I mentioned, former Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) man, was not able to make it down for the exciting announcement about Hillside, unfortunately, so we invited his daughter, Lisa Kelly, to speak, and she represented him beautifully. It was quite a daunting thing to do. There were people from KiwiRail, there was the Prime Minister and the finance Minister, there was my predecessor, Clare Curran, who had done so much to fight for the revival of Hillside, and there were rail workers who had been in the job for many, many years, and Lisa spoke so well that she was asked to go on breakfast TV the next morning with John Campbell.

After the event, the finance Minister had a little bit of time before his next appointment, and he actually went up to Jim Kelly’s house to have a cup of tea and to talk about the old days in South Dunedin. Jim Kelly was sitting there with a Hillside mug that I had found him at an op shop down the road, and when I posted photos online, I got emails not only from constituents but from around the world saying how proud they were of New Zealand and comments like “Only in New Zealand”. So that’s why it’s been so exciting for us.

I just want to mention briefly my predecessor, Clare Curran. She did play an incredible role and was mentioned on that day in terms of reversing the National Government decision to close down Hillside in 2012. That was a devastating move for our region. It cost 90 jobs, and through her tenacity and the work of Jim and also the Rail and Maritime Transport Union and other advocates, she was able to secure $19.97 million from the Provincial Growth Fund, and that was to make Hillside into a mechanical hub and a heavy engineering facility. The opportunities for that are fantastic in terms of not only assembling wagons but also looking at engineering excellence across sectors. We have Telford farming school not too far down the road, looking at farming innovation. We have a marine sector and we’re very close to coastal beaches. The world is our oyster if we can get engineering excellence happening, and Hillside is the place to do it. It will also create 445 jobs both for Dunedin and Christchurch, 300 of them around construction and around 150 of those directly related to rail services. It is going to boost our Otago economy and it is going to make railway more self-reliant. And for anybody that says, “Oh, this is just looking after the boys. And what about the girls?”, the RMTU have some research that they put out in 2019, noting that there’s been a 14 percent increase in women’s involvement in the rail sector.

But not only are we delivering on our manifesto commitment to invest in rail and create jobs, we are also creating trades opportunities and trades training, and nowhere is that better seen than in Balclutha, which is also in my electorate. I was lucky enough to go there last night for an event around job opportunities. What does one get when one puts a job and an opportunity together? One gets “Jobbortunities”—and I did have to say that because I made a promise to those present—and 100,000 New Zealanders have gone into free trades training. What Jobbortunities does is it marries employers with those looking for jobs. So it’s a little bit like speed dating and is run by the indefatigable Ruth Carraway, who is an absolute taonga in our electorate. Not only is it about matching these skills with the opportunities; there is wraparound support, which is really important.

So, for example, in Milton, the trades apprentices meet once per week to do their paperwork together. They convene together. They support each other to get their important part of the mahi done. That programme, which has secured funding from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) under this Budget for another year, has created 104 jobs. That’s double the original target. I’d really like to acknowledge the forces behind not only Ruth but also the mayor, Bryan Cadogan, the Clutha District Council, MSD, employers, and job seekers. So those are just two examples of how the Wellbeing Budget that is based on recovery and that is based on safety are affecting my electorate, and I can tell that people in my electorate are very, very excited.

There is one other element that I seem to have time to touch on—and I will—and that is the announcement which will mean so much to so many people in Taieri, around lifting the weekly benefit rates. So that will be between $32 per adult and $55 per adult, in line with a key Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendation. This can’t come a moment too soon. As members are aware, the first changes of $20 per week will kick in very soon, from 1 July, and then will be implemented over time through to April next year. It is not only the right thing to do; it is the right thing to do by our economy. An economy that can close the gap of inequality is going to be better for everyone. Nobody knows that more than the people who live in Taieri, who work hard or who live there because they want to make the most of the flat lands because they are unable to work because of disabilities. They love this Budget.

I am so proud, as their member, to be able to stand here and tautoko not only our finance Minister and the whole team but also the people like my predecessor, Clare Curran, and the Jim Kellys of the world, who fought the good fight and have lived to see this day and this Budget. I commend the bill to the House.

This bill contains what the Government hoped would be their dirty little secret. That secret relates to the way that Ministers wanted to fund a land purchase at Ihumātao. I want to take the opportunity in the House today to set out for this House and for members of the public the disingenuous way that the Minister of Housing, together with the Minister of Finance, set out to, I believe, intentionally pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders about how the purchase of land at Ihumātao would be funded. What this bill does is it confirms Parliament’s authority for spending last year that was authorised in the interim under last year’s imprest supply bill. Contained within it is a specific new appropriation, a supplementary appropriation that was not contained in last year’s Budget, and that is a specific appropriation of $30 million to purchase land from Fletcher Building at Ihumātao.

Now, that line item almost didn’t make it to this bill, and I want to traverse why that was, because this is a matter that you would have thought was very straightforward if you were to simply interpret the press releases from the Minister of Housing, and the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Willie Jackson, and the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. On 17 December last year, they put out a press release and they held a press conference on the black-and-white tiles here at Parliament about an agreement that had been reached on the future of Ihumātao. They talked about the purchase of the land. As you can imagine, one of the things that people were interested in was: “Well, $30 million, that doesn’t come from nowhere. Where are you going to get the money?”

And, of course, one of the principles of a parliamentary democracy is that Ministers aren’t laws unto themselves who can just write cheques from the taxpayer purse whenever they want. They can’t just dip into the taxpayer reserves and pay for whatever they wish to at any time. We have a formal Budget process. That Budget process requires the Government to set out line by line, in detail, what it is seeking funding for and how funding will be spent. We were all aware that there was no line item in last year’s Budget that put aside $30 million for purchase of land at Ihumātao.

The question was asked: how is this going to be funded? I will quote from the Minister’s own words in the press release. Housing Minister Megan Woods said, “the land is being purchased from Fletchers … under the Land for Housing Programme as the parties have committed that there will be housing on the site.” Now, if that were the case, then Ihumātao wouldn’t be in this Supplementary Estimates bill, because that appropriation already existed. It was part of the KiwiBuild appropriation. It had been set out clearly in the 2020 Budget. But members on this side of the House were fairly concerned when we heard that it was going to be funded from Land for Housing, because it simply didn’t stack up, because the Land for Housing Programme was set up as an appropriation with the purpose of getting more houses built at a quicker pace than would otherwise be achieved.

Now, in the case of Ihumātao, what we know is that Fletcher Building had been planning 480 homes on the site. So our question was: well, how can this purchase by the Government be accelerating houses being built, when they’re not even prepared to commit to a single house being built by a single date? And they still haven’t, by the way, detailed how many houses will be built or when they’ll be built by. So it was clear to us that it was a very big stretch to say that this money was being spent in a way that would get more houses built quickly. So that then raises a question: if the Government is saying in its public communications that it is funding something out of a particular fund, within appropriations, and yet it doesn’t seem to meet the purpose of those appropriations, then what should it do?

Well, that is why we end up here today, because the Government does have the ability to vote itself more money for projects that occur on an ad hoc basis, but it has to go through a very formal, rigid process to do that. That formal, rigid process is that it has to seek imprest supply. Technically, departments need to make that request, and then those extra appropriations need to be put in the Supplementary Estimates bill. And it was not until I wrote to the Auditor-General to say, “Hey, what’s going on here? Why is the Government claiming it’s using the Land for Housing fund for this purchase when it doesn’t fit with the purpose of that fund?” that the Auditor-General went and had a good look at it and said, “Well, actually, yes, you’re right; they’re not going to be able to use the Land for Housing fund, because technically it doesn’t meet the requirement.” So they’ve set themselves up a new appropriation.

Now, the Minister of Housing has tried a game, I believe, of wool pulling over eyes by saying, “Oh, look, this sort of technical thing happens all the time.” Well, she is correct in so far as that from time to time, officials forget to put things in the Supplementary Estimates process or imprest supply process. But she is wrong to suggest that Ministers forget to be up front with the public and say, “You know what? We can’t fund it from Land for Housing because it doesn’t meet the purpose. We have forked out an extra $30 million for it.” That is what happened. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that Ministers hoped it would be buried in this bill and nobody would notice. Well, we noticed and the Auditor-General noticed.

Now, I want to highlight for you the fact that, actually, Ministers knew before they put that press release out in December that this was all going to be necessary, this process today. Now, the reason they knew was because Treasury had raised a red flag. Treasury had said to Ministers in advice earlier in December, “Look, you can’t use the Land for Housing Programme in this way. We do not recommend doing this.” Actually, it is because the proposal is at odds with the Land for Housing Programme’s intent, operating model, and scopes of appropriations. There is a risk that audit considers the expense does not fit with the appropriation scope and it is unappropriated spend.

Ministers had been warned. They got that advice from Treasury prior to doing their press release, saying that they would use the Land for Housing fund. So I do not accept that this was some technical error. Ministers had been explicitly told that they couldn’t use that fund, and yet, in their press release, they said that’s how it was being funded. I believe that that is disingenuous in the extreme.

Then, we have the next piece of advice, which is that, actually, if you want to do this technically correctly, you need to set up a new appropriation. Now, Ministers went ahead, and, according to the evidence we have from the Auditor-General, they did that in February. They set up a brand new appropriation that now finds itself in this Supplementary Estimates bill. They agreed to establish $29.9 million of delegated authority to sign the sale and purchase agreement. Now, that happened on 9 February, Madam Speaker, and you may be asking, as anyone would, “Oh well, when they made that decision, did they announce that to New Zealanders? Did they say, ‘Look, actually, we’ve realised this isn’t actually a Land for Housing initiative. We’ve appropriated an additional $30 million.’?” Well, I believe that would have been a transparent, upfront thing to do. It should have been what happened, but that is not what happened. The first we knew of the fact that there was this new appropriation was when the Auditor-General wrote back to us to spell out what had actually happened.

So I think that, yes, in this bill, there’s the technical issue that officials omitted to request the correct approvals to get the authorities from Parliament, didn’t do the requests for the new appropriation to be included in the appropriation bill. There’s all of that. But it would be wrong to blame officials, here, for technical errors, when what is really at stake is the fact that Ministers knowingly put them into that state of confusion by obfuscating about the way the Ihumātao land purchase would be funded.

And I’ll tell you why they were a bit vague on this: because they did not want to front up to New Zealanders and say, “We’re going to use $30 million of your money to buy a piece of land, and not a single house will be built.” I will challenge the Government: if houses are going to be built with the supplementary appropriation in the bill today, then tell us when, tell us how many, and tell us tomorrow.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill, and I thank Nicola Willis, the member on the other side of the House who has just finished and is sitting down, for her scrutiny of the actual bill, because it was really disappointing when the other side of the House didn’t even bother with a shadow Budget for this one, unlike other Opposition parties. But any which way, it’s good to see someone is scrutinising the bill—

💬 Damien Smith: The ACT Party has an alternative Budget.

—and is actually paying attention, just in case there was an $11 billion hole. Maybe that’s why they didn’t do a shadow Budget. But, yes, I will acknowledge the member over there from ACT, who did have a shadow Budget. At least there is an Opposition here in the House today.

We’ve heard from previous speakers—particularly the Minister of Finance in the first reading and second reading of this bill—that Budget 2021 is about securing our recovery from COVID. It lays the foundations for coming out of COVID stronger by addressing our long-term challenges while making sure we can continue to grow our economy.

Now, last week I had the pleasure of sitting down in the Porirua City Council business growth forum, where the Minister took us through a number of the initiatives which are in this bill, and what was really interesting was that we had an independent economist come and speak directly after the Minister who took us through the growth figures for Porirua City. Now, Porirua City, for those who are not familiar, is the biggest city within my electorate of Mana. What they took us through and took the audience through was that there have been a number of indicators that show that, unlike some parts, Porirua City is growing. We had a GDP in 2020 of 2.8 percent, compared to 1.6 percent for the rest of New Zealand. Employment is up 1.9 percent, compared to 1.6 percent for the rest of the country. Productivity is also up. The reason why a lot of those indicators are up is because of the construction industry, which is the main industry that comes out of Porirua, and the reason why the construction industry is up is because of a number of the initiatives in this bill.

One of the biggest decisions that the Government made last term when they were hit with COVID was to keep the apprenticeships scheme going. We saw that there was a significant increase in apprenticeships, because what we saw with the global financial crisis was that one of the first things that were laid off were the apprentices, but, actually, last year we made a conscious decision to keep that apprenticeship growth scheme, which is a big part of the construction industry—again, going back to Porirua. But what we saw was that pre-COVID, only 14 percent of apprenticeships were actually held by women. The Apprenticeship Boost scheme has seen that contribution from women in apprenticeships increase from 14 percent to 30 percent. So that fits not only the investment that is in this bill but those decisions that were made last year.

I wanted to touch on some of the other initiatives which are in this bill for women which were in Budget 2021—in particular, women’s health. I’m really heartened to see our colleague and Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, who, yesterday, was out with her community, having a look at the floods, and some of the investment that is in here is very personal to a lot of us on this side of the House, such as for the cervical-screening programme, which saw an investment boost of $53 million. So that will go towards a new test which will replace the current smear test, and 1.4 million women between the ages of 25 and 69 will be eligible for this test. It’s a simple swab that can be done in the privacy of their own home, or wherever they want to take the test.

So, at this time, I just want to acknowledge our colleague—a big “Wassup!” to our sis. Hopefully, Kiritapu, you will be back with us soon, and we wish you well for the rest of your recovery post your treatment.

There was also an additional $66 million within this bill for a new breast-screening system. That’s a major upgrade of the IT infrastructure to establish a new system to proactively identify and enrol eligible women into this scheme. It is expected the upgraded system will reach an estimated 271,000 more women who are currently not in this programme.

So my biggest thanks as well to the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall for her advocacy in this area, and also to the Minister for Women, the Hon Jan Tinetti. You know, we have got the biggest women’s caucus on this side of the House, so with representation comes advocacy for these really important schemes, which we’re seeing in Budget 2021.

I also want to give my acknowledgment to another female Minister, the Hon Poto Williams. Now, there was some conversation on the other side of the House just before me, around Crown Māori partnerships and around Ihumātao. Actually, what Minister Poto Williams has managed to do is she’s expanded a really critical piece of Crown Māori partnership around Te Pae Oranga in the police-justice portfolio.

Now, Te Pae Oranga did start in 2013, when the panels were established in the Hutt Valley, Gisborne, and Manukau, and in recent years—back in 2018—the Hon Stuart Nash increased that number of what they call iwi panels. It was gifted the name Te Pae Oranga by the Māori King in 2018. It is an initiative that is widely supported by Māori leaders across Aotearoa, and there are currently 16 panels in different locations around the country. I’ve got on the list Moerewa, Waitematā, Auckland City, Papakura, Māngere, Hamilton, Rotorua, Whakatāne, Gisborne, Hastings, Taranaki, Masterton, Lower Hutt, Nelson, Christchurch, and Invercargill, and two more will be in place by the end of this month. So Budget 2021 has supplemented the appropriation for the current panels by giving additional funding for 12 more te pae oranga, or iwi community panels, taking it to a total of 30 over four years. What does that come down to? It comes down to the priority on this side of the House that we want to deliver on our commitment to reduce reoffending and keep our communities safer with this significant investment.

This investment works. An evaluation published in 2019 showed that the programme reduced harm from reoffending by 22 percent. That’s evidence-based. That is investing in programmes that absolutely work.

The programme provides an alternative resolution path where community leaders support participants to account for their offending and help them to make a plan to put things right. Those plans include restorative actions that participants must complete and conditions they must follow. It is a really big step when you have to, one, go on to a marae and be accountable not only for your actions but also be accountable to your aunties, to your marae leaders, and to your community leaders for the offending that you have done—so, first of all, they have to take account for their actions. Two, they have to take account for their actions in front of their community leaders, and then, three, they work through a plan to make sure they stop that reoffending, and, again, it has stopped that reoffending by 22 percent. So by understanding that what works for Māori works for everyone, Te Pae Oranga is a key enabler of a more humane criminal justice system through delivering tikanga Māori restorative justice services focused on accountability, education, and preventing of reoffending.

Another really good initiative that was also funded through this appropriation bill was the $70 million to fund new rangitahi youth panels. I know that in Porirua, my home town, which is in Mana, there has been a rangatahi panel which was released last year.

The Rangatahi Courts are for young people who have admitted the charges they are facing—again, accountability. They have accepted that they are accountable for their actions, and then what happens is they go through a family group conference. So this is, again, bringing the young person, one accepting that they’ve done wrong and accepting their actions, and then having the community leaders, community judges, and then their family to work out a plan for how that young person can take responsibility for what they have done as well as working out how to make sure that that young person does not offend again, because in the end, it comes down to these young people. You could lock them up, but if you don’t give them a plan around rehabilitation and around recovery and they’re released, then they’re going to reoffend again.

So this investment of $70 million—$70 million—for rangatahi youth court is, again, around accountability and around plans for making sure that our young people are supported so that they don’t reoffend. It could be as simple as a driver’s licence course, because for a lot of people, we understand that the entry into the justice system is through not having had a driver’s licence course.

There is also funding within this bill for 35 fulltime-equivalent positions within police to support and enable these programmes Te Pae Oranga and the Rangatahi Courts. Funding has also been allocated to explore future referral pathways into this programme from Ara Poutama Aotearoa and the judiciary. On this side of the House, this Government is committed to supporting initiatives that will have a meaningful impact on an individual and that will strengthen its commitment to the Māori-Crown relationship.

So, once again, I’d like to commend this bill to the House. I’d like to acknowledge all the Ministers who have been involved in pushing this through for their advocacy for our women and for our young people. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. On behalf of the Green Party, I rise to support the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill.

I just want to start my contribution by emphasizing the importance of Government and Government spending to all of our wellbeing and our future. I believe that we are at a moment in time when it has never been more clear why we need a strong, accountable, democratic, and transparent Government that can help ensure that all people in our country have the basics of what they need, and that we’re able to work together to confront the incredible challenges that we are facing—COVID was just the beginning of that. Obviously, with this Supplementary Estimates bill, we see a lot of initiatives to help ensure that we were able to respond effectively to COVID. I think it’s worth noting that billionaires didn’t save us from a pandemic. Having more billionaires doesn’t help the world respond to a pandemic. Having private corporations—some of them were able to play a role, and that was useful, but ultimately it’s Government who can coordinate and act on behalf of the people. And when Government is transparent, accountable, and democratic, we are able to work together so that we’re all better off, because, as individuals, we could not stop a pandemic. We could not keep ourselves and our families safe from a pandemic without everyone else in the country also doing certain things to ensure that we could all be safe.

So, obviously, you hear a lot of debate in this House, sometimes quite critical of Government spending. I would like to say that in the private sector, if you talk to any venture capitalist, they don’t expect every investment they make to be a perfect success. In fact, the majority of them aren’t. But it’s important that they put the money in and they try. It’s no different when it comes to Government. We need our Government to be doing the absolute best it can, but we can’t expect everything to work perfectly. The amount of criticism that comes from those people trying to pick holes in various Public Service initiatives where things haven’t worked out perfectly, unfortunately, undermines the very concept that we need Government.

But I think it was very clear that New Zealanders understood just how important it is to have a competent and caring Government. That was pretty obvious at the outcome of the last election, when the Labour Party increased their vote, the Greens increased their vote, and we are parties that have a much more modern view of the role of Government in everyone’s lives and that it can be a positive contributor. Why? Because we need a public health system. We need infrastructure. We need housing. We need affordable housing. None of that can be delivered well by an individual, competitive, private market. We need Government to do that. When it comes to responding to climate change, it’s going to be 10 times, 100 times, 1,000 times more challenging than responding to COVID-19. And I don’t know that everyone in this House really understands just how pressing and urgent it is that we respond to climate change.

Now, I want to acknowledge the Labour Government where they have recently made some steps in the right direction to respond to the Climate Change Commission’s advice to ensure that we do have policies that are helping us as a country, as a team of 5 million, reduce our contribution to catastrophic global warming, so that our kids and their kids have a chance at a future. We’re already seeing the impacts and effects of climate change. We’ve had three dry years in a row. We’ve had some parts of the country affected by drought. That’s particularly bad for a range of reasons. It’s not good for our farmers. It’s not good for people who live in areas where they have to have water restrictions. The drought is contributing to higher electricity prices and, ironically, more carbon emissions from our electricity because our lake levels are lower because there wasn’t substantial investment in an alternative to coal 10 or 20 years ago when we needed those plans to be made. Of course, the Government’s working on it now, but we are going to have to burn more coal in a dry year. Then, conversely, we have these periods of drought, and then we get hit by epic storms and flooding, which affects infrastructure in places around Canterbury and Ashburton.

Now, this is just the beginning, because, in fact, other parts of the world that are closer to the Equator are already suffering worse impacts of climate change. The economic and human consequences of climate change are going to be devastating. I’ve just been reading a book recently, and the latest reports coming out from our globally accepted institutions that have the best science are saying the window of time is running out to take action on climate change. Our kids, actually—it’s going to be too late for them. If we don’t act right now, it’s too late for them. So if you care about your kids, then this is something that we all have to take very seriously and work together on.

I think those parties—and there will be voices, of course, that try to stir up fear and anger. I’ve seen a lot of that in the last few weeks. Voices out there—actually, not just the last few weeks, the last few months. Whether it’s fear around recognising and finally taking action on our commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whether it’s fear and anger over practical policy responses in the transport sector to how we can reduce emissions, I have seen members of this House and others go out there and try to stir up anger, fear, and hatred—things that will divide our country and make—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will come back to the bill.

—that will make it harder for us to respond to climate change.

In this Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, I just want to call the attention of the members to one thing: energy and resources, oilfield decommissioning—an additional $200 million almost. I think this is a perfect example of where Government has to come clean up the mess of the people who have privately invested in fossil fuel extraction and profited from it, but then left a mess for the public to deal with. This is another really good example of why we need Government. We need Government setting the rules and regulations, monitoring, ensuring that private industry is playing its role, and we need Government ensuring that it’s addressing inequality in our society, because unless people have enough resource to have a warm, dry, affordable home, to put food on the table, they’re not going to be able to care about environmental issues, they’re not going to be able to worry about climate change and respond to it, and that’s where climate change and inequality—responding to these two twin challenges together is absolutely essential.

While I think the Labour Government made a good start with the Budget in 2021—the increase to benefits is long overdue and happy to see that. Of course, the Green Party would like to go further and faster, and some of the initiatives here in the Supplementary Estimates, of course, will be addressing that, but again, this is just the beginning. These are just baby steps. If we’re truly going to meet the challenges of the next decade and the decades after that, we are going to need a much more bold and transformational approach, and we are going to have to work together. But we’ve shown that we can do it. We did it with COVID. We’ve had literally the best result of pretty much any country in the world in our response to COVID, and that was coming from a pretty difficult situation, because, of course, we had nine years of underfunding of our health system—total decimation of public health from the previous National Government. And the previous coalition Government was taking the steps to rebuild the Public Service after it was rendered quite impotent under the last National Government—building it up and were able to step it up in a really short period of time in 2020. And although it wasn’t perfect—of course nothing’s ever going to be perfect with humans—I’d say it’s as good as it could have been. We need that kind of national pride and spirit and togetherness in how we approach climate change.

Climate change and responding to inequality must be central to our economic strategy in the recovery and from here on out. Of course, we see many other countries doing that. The United States has made responding to climate change absolutely central to their economic strategy. There’s no point thinking we can get rich in the short term by continuing to do things the way we always have done when, in fact, it’s going to cost us heaps more. Five, 10, 15, 20 years from now, our trading partners are not going to be looking at us and wanting to deal with us if we aren’t pulling our weight in the global fight against climate change. And there will be severe economic consequences to those parties—God forbid they should get into power, because they’ve made it very clear in the last few weeks they’re not going to do a God damn thing to respond to climate change. They’re going to complain and they’re going to fight for the status quo every step of the way, and they’re going to try and make people very, very angry, but luckily New Zealanders can see beyond the fear, they can see beyond the anger, and I know New Zealanders are up for this fight.

In the normal course of human events, people who do a thing over and over get better at it, or at least that’s what I believed until I heard Julie Anne Genter give a speech and reflected on the fact she’s been in Parliament for 10 years and that’s what we got. It might have been difficult for people listening at home to tell from Julie Anne Genter’s speech, but this is the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. It’s part of the Budget cycle. It’s legislated as a requirement under the Public Finance Act 1989. It requires that if the Government spends money and then its Estimates turn out to be wrong, it bring this new bill to Parliament, and this bill is about all the changes from what the Government budgeted to what it actually intends to spent.

I think it’s really good that we have in this country a principle that people spend money on behalf of taxpayers only with the permission of this Parliament. To put it in its most simplest form: no taxation without representation. There’s a process where the people can vote for and examine expenditure by the Government, and, actually, all of the changes in the new appropriations—the Supplementary Estimates, as they’re called—are laid out here in these pages for all to see. That’s open and transparent government and a very good thing. But at the same time, it is extraordinary to note how much expenditure has gone up in this year’s Supplementary Estimates and on what.

To take something extremely simple, you have a look at, I don’t know, say, what do we have here—actually, I’ve got to find some better examples. Hang on, I’m on a page where they’ve actually saved some money. We’ll go back to the start: Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety. Implementation of COVID-19 Assistance for Primary Industries: $4,682,000 extra spending. COVID-19 Assistance for Primary Industries: $13,985,000. In Fisheries: Aquaculture Settlements, they spent $11 million less than they thought—not a bad thing. Settlement of Litigation: $40 million more. Subscriptions to International Organisations: unforeseen $330,000 of expenditure. If you go through the next ones, $16 million more, $81 million more, $22 million more, $11 million more, $952,000 more. As you go down the page—and I’ve just picked the first page—you see the Government spending far more than it had intended—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Didn’t like the second page.

—just about every step of the way. David Clark says why don’t we look at the second page. Well, what does it say there? COVID-19 - Cultural Sector Response and Recovery: $35,257,000 more than they thought when the Budget was passed last May. Cultural Sector Response and Recovery: $12,928,000—two identical lines, a total of $48 million in additional spending. Next line: $2.25 million extra, $1 million extra, $268,000 saved. Line after line, we see a Government that has spent dramatically more than it had budgeted. The fact of the matter is that this Government has gone spendthrift in the middle of a crisis.

Here’s the facts: this Government has had $100 billion—$100 billion—printed by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, $60 billion that has been borrowed fiscally by the Minister of Finance, and that’s why the economy is running hot, but it’s busy and stalling. It’s an economy at the crest of a slump, on a short-term sugar hit from enormous expenditures, enormous money-printing, and enormous borrowing. Those are the realities, and this Government—what has it done? Well, it’s been incredibly fortunate that it’s had not only low interest rates and lots of borrowing; it’s also been incredibly fortunate to have had a very simple response to COVID-19. It’s among the most successful countries on earth in dealing with COVID-19, along with other countries that are islands.

In fact, I asked the Minister for COVID-19 Response can he identify another country in the world that had more natural advantages in dealing with a pandemic than New Zealand. Now, any of the members on the Labour benches who were shouting out before—can they tell me which country their Minister for COVID-19 Response named? Which country had more natural advantages in dealing with COVID-19 than New Zealand—anyone?

💬 Hon David Bennett: It would have to be North Korea.

Silence. Silence from the Labour Party. David Bennett says North Korea, and that’s where he’d like to retire, you know. He’d be amongst friends. That’s where he’d love to retire. But the Labour Party, they yap, yap, yap. They shout away, and then they get asked a simple question: did any country have an easier run into COVID with more natural advantages? Silence. Silence from the Labour benches, and that’s the problem. They’re never good at answering the hard questions.

Here’s the difficulty they face: the COVID challenge is becoming more complex. So all of this money-printing and all of this spending has happened in an environment where COVID was relatively simple: “We’re an island. Lock ‘em down, lock it out, and we’re going to be OK.” But the rest of the world is moving on. There’s vaccines, there’s variants of the virus, there’s new technologies, there’s COVID fatigue, and as we move into this “COVID 2.0” world, they actually are going to find it a lot harder to deal with it. So far, we’ve had monetary policy, fiscal policy, and the fact that we’re an island that have kept things going and allowed this enormous spending.

But here’s the next question: what is this Government doing to ensure the New Zealand economy will be productive into the future? What have they done? Well, here we go: central planning of the economy through carbon emissions, a zero carbon Act that will not reduce by one gram New Zealand’s carbon emissions, and here’s the reason why: the Treasury is giving the advice. The Treasury has said every gram of carbon saved by the zero carbon Act will free up carbon units to be emitted by someone else. So all this banning and taxing of different technologies and trying to work out what sort of utes Toyota is producing and the Prime Minister getting herself in a tiz is all for nothing, but, ooh, it’s going to have an effect on energy prices. It’s going to have an effect on the economy. It’s going to deindustrialise New Zealand and send those high-paying jobs to Australia. That’s what it’s going to do.

What else is this Government doing? Jim Bolger had a bit of a mid-life or, shall we say, later-life crisis and said, “Let’s bring back compulsory unionism.” The National Party said, “That’s going to take us back to the 1970s. They’re wrong. The 1970s was a great time. This legislation, this proposal, is going to—

💬 Angela Roberts: Yeah, I was born in the 1970s—a great time.

Angela Roberts is arguing, and I can’t argue back, because I wasn’t there and she was. The fact is that this compulsory unionism takes us back to 1894, the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, an Act where 1 percent of a workforce, such as a thousand workers in hospitality, can force compulsory union agreements on a whole sector, even if everyone involved votes against it twice. That’s why these extra Estimates and these appropriations are not ultimately affordable, because you’ve got an economy on a short-term sugar hit, a Government that is constantly attacking hard-working people just trying to build a home, family, and business out of their own efforts—attacking them with new rules and regulations and policies that will make them poorer, and when the short-term sugar hit of monetary and fiscal stimulus runs out, then the chickens will come home to roost.

But, of course, there is a better way—there’s got to be a better way. The ACT Party is alone in this Parliament as having produced an alternative Budget that shows us how we could cut the middle-income tax rates to 30c for all those hard-working middle New Zealanders, how we could balance the Budget by 2025, and do it without reducing expenditure on public services such as education and health. We wouldn’t reduce it one cent, and then we’d respect the businesses that pay the bills and make this country go. That’s a better alternative. This is profligate waste. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Ā, kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou. The House is resumed. Members, before the dinner break, we were debating the second readings of the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill. It’s call No. 8.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say, if you recall just before the dinner break, I think Mr Seymour was speaking and, frankly, I don’t know what economy he is living in. Do you remember Marvin from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy? He made him look cheerful, he really did. What a naysayer. What a doom and gloom merchant. Here were are, we’ve got an economy which is humming along quite nicely, particularly given current circumstances. We’ve got Treasury and the Reserve Bank for the first time agreeing with each other that things are going well, with GDP growth projections which are outstanding. We’ve got projections that job growth’s going to hit 200,000, and yet he’s telling us we’re on some kind of temporary sugar hit. Nothing could be further from the truth. You know why? The reason is that this Budget is a carefully planned, sustainable Budget for the future.

As I was flicking through this glorious document, I stopped on page 34 and genuinely was just having a bit of a read, and it talked about the Ka Ora, Ka Ako healthy school lunches programme and the fact—and you can look at it and you can go to the Estimates themselves and look at what it’s going to cost. But I tell you this: to really put it in perspective you have to go and see it in action, so I did exactly that only last week. I went to two schools in my electorate. I went to Mairehau High School and Linwood College and talked to both of those schools about what the lunch programme was doing there. I didn’t just talk to the principal or the teachers; I talked to the kids themselves, and do you know what I saw? I saw with my own eyes hungry kids grabbing lunches. I saw one fellow look at me cheekily as he grabbed two, and I thought “That is bloody good.” because there’s a kid that’s hungry and he’s going to get well fed. Then, at the school gate as they leave or at the canteen as they leave, they’re there at 3 o’clock, and if they want to grab the three or four spare ones for their siblings at home or even their mum and dad—go for it. So there’s no waste.

People have come to me and they’ve said, “Oh what’s all this school business? What’s all this about? Surely, it’s all going to waste.” You know, I’ve got two things to say to that. If I had to make two school lunches so that one hungry kid gets fed, I’d do it anyway, and, secondly, they’re not getting wasted; they’re getting eaten, and it’s a fantastic initiative. The fact that those teachers tell me that those kids come to school, they stay longer, they turn up more often, and they learn better—that is what this is about. That is why we are absolutely committed to relieving poverty, because poverty causes barriers like that. Look, can I just say what a fantastic job our Ministers have done around poverty and education.

I’ve got to speak about period poverty because, you know, I think it’s time some of us blokes stood up. I haven’t got any daughters. I’ve got three sons, so I’ve never had to spend too much time talking about it. But if there’s a young woman and there’s a barrier and her barrier going to school is period products, I’ll be the first to say we should absolutely be supplying those period products so that she can come to school and learn on the same footing as anyone else. So I’m absolutely in favour of it. Jan Tinetti, great Minister, good friend—fantastic job in getting that in place. I would have recognised Willow-Jean’s work in there as well, and her sister, who’s done a lot of work in the period poverty space as well.

Of course, this isn’t even touching on the fact that we’ve managed to get rid of school donations in many of our schools so that people can send their kids to school, engage in all of the activities and what have you, and not have to struggle finding whatever it might be—150 bucks a year, when they actually can’t find it—and, of course, NCEA fees are gone. So we’re absolutely committed to free—genuinely free—education, to removing barriers, and that’s just part of this Government’s commitment to eliminating poverty.

It was great to hear the support of Julie Anne Genter. Of course, Julie Anne Genter is going to say it’s a good step in the right direction, but the lift in benefit level is a huge change to the lives of many, many New Zealanders, and I absolutely endorse the fact that people need to be able to, even if they’re living on a benefit—the fact that they’re living on a benefit should be no bar to leading a meaningful life with choices. Vocational education, adult education, reinstating adult education, saying to people, “We want to give you opportunity.”—that’s what this Budget is about. It is building our human infrastructure, making sure that people can grow and learn, and that doesn’t even touch the sides of the physical aspect of it. But I do want to say that this is part of the wellness Budget framework. So those aspects of the Budget go straight to the heart of saying that we want people to be able to live the lives they choose, the lives that they define as flourishing, and to grow in that regard. That’s a critical aspect of the philosophy that underpins this wellness Budget.

But, of course, the other thing we’re doing—Megan Woods. I think it was in Auckland today that she was announcing the housing infrastructure package, the accelerator fund: $3 billion to unlock city councils. We can talk about some of our city councils perhaps not managing their assets as well as they could, not rolling out that infrastructure, but we’re not here to lay blame. We’re here to move ahead. We’re here to give opportunities to people. So if we need to help councils to fund infrastructure, whether that be roads, whether it be drainage and three waters, or whatever it is, we are very much prepared to partner with others, including the private sector if it works, to unlock that land so that more houses can be built. Only today, I read a report of a senior economist saying that by 2022 we will have a surplus of houses in Auckland because, for the first time in a generation, we are building more houses than the growth in population needs. So at last, this Government, from all the work it’s done over the past four years, is catching up. The race was being badly lost by the National Government but this Government is catching up.

Of course, the other thing we’re doing in the housing space is making homes warmer. There is increased funding for insulation, and, coming from Christchurch, I can tell you it gets pretty chilly down there, and insulation is fantastic because not only does it make us warmer; it saves money and it saves energy, and that is a fantastic initiative as well. That is directed at the people who need it most. A very, very substantial subsidy to people, who can then go and insulate their homes, stay warm, save on the energy bills, and, of course, save on emissions at the same time, particularly if they’re using oil heaters and the like.

In terms of those main benefits, this is only the first step. In April next year, they are going to go up in keeping with the Welfare Expert Advisory Group recommendations, and some of those benefits over the term of this Labour Government will have gone up by 38 percent. Now, what that tells me is that prior to this Government, who has progressively raised benefits over its time, there was abject poverty. People—particularly people with kids—simply couldn’t get by. This Government is committed to changing that, and, of course, the other thing we’re changing in this Budget is the ability to earn—so the ability to earn whilst you are on a benefit is increased.

So here we have a Budget which, in fact, is building a foundation for the future. We’ve got an economy which is doing really well, but we know that in the future there are bottlenecks—infrastructure bottlenecks—and, of course, the climate change question that we must address. This Government is committed to making some of those choices, because the last Government sat on its hands and did nothing for far too long—nothing on climate change, nothing on infrastructure, nothing on schools, nothing on hospitals, and nothing on mental health—and this is a Government that doesn’t apologise for working hard, trying, and keeping going. We will continue to do so. A fantastic Budget that is putting in place a great economy for now and—

Order! The member’s time has expired. This is a—

💬 Simon Watts: Mr Speaker, well, what an absolute—

Order! Order! This is a split call. You seek the call now.

💬 Simon Watts: Mr Speaker.

I call Simon Watts—five minutes.

What absolute self-gratification coming from the other side of the House after that speech, my goodness, what a lot of that. Duncan Webb mentioned the words “sustainable Budget”. Well, I tell you what, there is nothing farther from the truth when he said that in this Government’s Budget.

I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the MP for North Shore to speak on the Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill and Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. National opposes both of these bills.

The last 18 months have been unprecedented, and these bills here provide the formal mechanisms to authorise Government to incur expenditure, both operational and capital. As the Minister outlined, it impacts some 507 different appropriations, which is a large number.

I want to acknowledge the COVID-19 response costs which are actually included within these bills, and while I’m on that, I want to acknowledge those healthcare workers, those police, and those defence and ambulance staff that worked during the COVID-19 response to keep us, as Kiwis, safe and the work that they continue to do. We are very proud of you, and we appreciate all that you do.

In simple terms, these bills provide the authority for the Government to spend taxpayers’ money—money paid out of the pocket of Kiwis in this country—and Kiwis deserve that money to be spent wisely and not to be wasted. Well, this is where the train comes off its tracks. Hidden within these appropriations are about 250 Government pet projects, as outlined by Michael Woodhouse before. In effect, it’s a slush fund to cover expenditure that should have been under the geyser of COVID-19-related, but isn’t, and includes, for example, $276 million for operational DHB deficits and the Ihumātao land deal that my colleague here mentioned before—in effect, sandbagging.

But what is also included is the resurgence support payment and wage subsidies. While this absolutely helped Kiwis and Kiwi businesses to survive and to flourish through a period of significant challenge last year, I also want to acknowledge those businesses that were left outside and left in the cold because they didn’t receive the support from this Government that they required: 5,000 of those people working within our travel sector and commercial landlords who did not receive one bit of support from this Government, but did support out of their own back pockets Kiwis and did what they could do for our communities. I want to thank them for that.

Not only that, but this Government are also through these bills, in effect, authorising an open chequebook for $41 billion: $35 billion for operational spending and another $6 billion for capital spending. But we all know that this slush fund that they’re signing off, this open blank cheque will not go to the areas which it is required. Will it go to the Ashburton bridge? No. Will it go to Lake Road on the Devonport Peninsula to fix congestion? No. Will it go to stop sewage going out on to our beaches on the North Shore through fixing waste water and stormwater infrastructure? No, it will not.

This appropriation is larger than in prior years: $19 billion, $30 billion, $51 billion, and, this year, $41 billion. It is still significantly more, and the Minister tried to brush this over. But we are told that Government spending is hard to predict. Well, tell that to Kiwi households who are trying to make ends meet by working two jobs, by trying to balance the books who actually only spend what they earn. You know what? That’s because they understand what personal responsibility is—something that that side of the House do not understand, but something that Kiwis do.

Kiwis are sensible people. They expect a Government that is transparent. They don’t allow and they don’t want wasteful spending. They want a Government that understands the realities of the challenges of this nation. People want leadership, accountability, and delivery, and only a National Government will deliver this.

Order! The member’s time has expired.

The people want aspiration, leadership, and delivery. That’s exactly what they wanted at the last election, and that is why they voted 50 percent for the Labour Party. That is why we have 65 seats in this Parliament, because at the last election the voters of this country saw that rabble over there and said, “They are not aspirational for us. They cannot deliver for themselves, let alone this country.”, and they know that that speech from that member sums up them perfectly. In the space of one minute, that member said that we should be spending less and then said we should be spending more, and that sums up the National Party right there.

It was exactly the same as their response to our COVID response, which this Budget builds on. At one point, they had one spokesperson saying we should open the borders; at another point, they were saying we should close them off. At one point they were saying that we should spend more on businesses, and now they’re saying we didn’t spend enough. I think that, there, sums up why they only have 33 members in this House and why they are focused on themselves, when we on this side of the House—demonstrated by this Budget—are focused on New Zealanders and rebuilding from our phenomenal response in COVID.

Now, don’t take my word for it. Look at the international organisations that have reviewed the respective COVID responses from around the world. Think about those countries throughout the COVID response that that side of the House urged us to follow—countries that have now entered their second or third nationwide lockdown. New Zealand stands alone in the developed world as a country that went hard and went early, and that is why we are now enjoying economic growth that, really, is the envy of the world. That is why, through this Budget, we are able to invest in our rebuild. We’re able to invest in our future.

I find it just incredible that that side of the House, when they were in Government, raised the minimum wage every year that they were in, and every time we do it, they say it’s a bad idea. They crow about the fact that they increased benefits, but when we do it, it’s a bad idea.

I think New Zealanders can see rubbish when they see it, and I think they can see it tonight. When that side of the House flicks through, stands up, and says they’re outraged, and then, like Mr Watts, spends two minutes explaining to New Zealanders what this bill is about instead of actually talking about what National would do, they haven’t given any ideas or any alternatives; they just don’t like it. It’s the party of “No”. “No-no National”—that’s all they are. What this Budget does is lift people’s opportunity.

The previous speaker had the gall to talk about families that have to work two jobs. Why are they opposing raising working standards? Why are they opposing raising minimum wage? Why are they opposing raising benefits when they know that for small businesses in areas like I represent—like Wairarapa—their turnover is dependent on people’s capacity to spend? Yet, in this Budget, which lifts thousands of people out of economic difficulty, they will finally have some disposable income, which will support small businesses. Those members do not care, because they do not like the idea of beneficiaries having dignity in the money that they receive.

They do not care about those that are wanting to improve their lives, and that is why they opposed the training incentive allowance. Do you remember that? Do you remember the training incentive allowance that brought the Hon Paula Bennett off the benefit and into work? The first thing she did as Minister for Social Development was pull the ladder up after her. She removed the training incentive allowance for other people to have those opportunities. We have reinstated that because we are wanting to give people hope again.

We know the value of work and we want to help people get back into work, earn money for themselves, and regain dignity in their lives because, on this side of the House, we believe in people. We want to give people a chance. We know that everyone has something to offer.

That is why I firmly believe the Labour Party won every single seat except Epsom in the party vote. That is why, despite last week at Fieldays, the National Party were crowing of being the party for the farmers, and they were disgusted by the positive comments that we were getting. They refuse to accept that we are delivering for the regions. We are the party for every New Zealander; this Budget sums it up, and they hate it.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it’s a Labour call.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a Māori Party call.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: How’s that work—how did they get two in a row?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because the Māori Party didn’t take their call.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, they’ve gone—that’s it. They don’t—you can’t swap it out.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it—I’ll explain—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, we’re making new rules.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s a determination of the Business Committee, and so that’s what the speaking order is. When the Māori Party don’t take their call, it goes to Labour.

I rise in support of this bill. It’s been a very interesting thing to listen to both the National Party and the ACT Party make such a plea and yet fall so far short of anything that they can say that’s positive about what has happened here. It actually does speak to a total lack of energy on the other side that they just cannot muster anything in this situation.

We’re in a situation where we have a Budget and a bill that’s all about vision. It’s about a vision for a better New Zealand and it comes after what was admitted by the Opposition to be one of our greatest economic crisis. This was a time which we could have actually very much failed at. Yes, we are an island, but the right calls were made at the right time, and as a result we have actually survived a very catastrophic event and we’re doing very well. This Budget doesn’t just look backwards to that but it looks forwards to what sort of society will be absolutely resilient in the future. So we have a Budget that actually looks at pulling children out of poverty and it looks at building jobs and it looks at actually changing the way that this economy works so that it’s environmentally actually sustainable, and I’m extremely proud of this.

What do we need to do to make those things happen? Well, we’ve heard my colleagues talk about things like Lunches in Schools, but we also need to get some of those fundamentals right. We need to make sure that families can sustain themselves, and that means we need to lift wages. It means we need to make sure that our hospitals are actually working well, and so are our houses—they need to be warm and dry.

I was talking to Dr David Gellar during the campaign in 2017, and he was talking about when he had started in his practice, he had started working in trauma, because that’s what happened in a hospital—there was a lot of trauma coming in—and by the time he had matured as a doctor, the actual reason people were coming into the hospital was different. It was chronic disease, and that chronic disease came out of things like bad housing. We had children with rheumatic fever and we were just ignoring that situation, and we had children living in cars. That was one of the reasons that inspired me to come into politics. It was actually being in a situation where a Government had turned a blind eye to the fact we had children in those kinds of conditions. So it is a holistic approach. It is about bringing children into stable housing, bringing them off the street, out of the cars, out of an underclass, and back into the mainstream of our society.

One of the things we’ve done with regards to that is we’ve put benefits up. We are going to have people at a dignified level right across the board, and, alongside that, the working class. Most people in our country are going to earn a decent living, and a lot of this is supportive of that so when people need retraining, they will get retrained. They will actually be able to do an apprenticeship in something that will be helpful. In addition to that, we will put work out there that actually makes this place a better place to be.

I’m extremely proud of the amount that’s being spent on infrastructure, because for all the hue and cry, there wasn’t actually money being spent on maintaining our roads and there wasn’t actually money being spent on looking forward to a situation where public transport would do what it must do in a world which is challenged by global warming. Now, we’re going to have a situation where we not only have better roads but we’re thinking carefully about how we use them, and we’re making the best use of things like public transport and we’re bringing back a sense of community. So when we are building things, we’re not just building them by rote.

Recently, there was a look at the infrastructure spend on roads. The Mill Road project got redesigned so that it is much more efficient. It is going to be one that builds itself around actually public transport, and our suburbs in Auckland will be built around transport hubs, and that will be a wonderful thing. One of the real roadblocks to that was that the councils were also being starved for money, so they are going to be helped by a huge package. It was announced in the Budget, but, actually, a lot of the detail was announced today. That is $3.8 billion of Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, and that will be something that is available to people to actually jump start a lot of housing in Auckland. As an MP based in Auckland, I am thrilled to see that, because it was stopping that growth.

This is a situation where we are going to apply that first $1 billion on the basis of criteria that were announced today. So money will be granted and it will be granted to councils or iwi or developers where it is going to mean that we can intensify greenfield or brownfield sites that we will be developing and giving money to groups that wouldn’t otherwise get it, so it would have been road-blocked. We’ll be spreading the projects into different regions and we’ll be making sure that it goes into situations where there might be co-funding by third parties, so it actually brings about enough funding for those things to happen. We’re very considering of things like the pipeline of work, so it will absolutely make a difference right now to the ability to build housing, and those councils and iwi and developers will be able to get that money if they want to do feasibility studies or design, and they will be able to build all of the infrastructure which is actually stopping them at the moment. So we will be actually moving in an area that’s extremely important to really bringing children out of poverty and creating a much better society.

So this is a Budget that’s all about vision. It has one at its centre. It’s not just wellbeing; it’s what wellbeing means. What wellbeing means to me is a much more equitable society where if you’re on a benefit you’ll be able to live—it won’t actually stop things happening—and where the children in those situations won’t be punished just depending on what kind of family they were born into. It’s a really important development, and it wasn’t happening before this Government actually took the reins. So that’s leadership—that’s what’s important. There’s a whole lot of money that really has gone into making sure that we have been protected as a society from COVID, and it was money absolutely well spent. But there’s also a lot of money that’s going into a vision for New Zealand and it’s a vision I’m extremely proud of.

Now, I just wanted to talk about walking and cycling in Auckland, because I, for one, am extremely proud of our commitment to build a walking and cycling pathway from the city centre into the North Shore, and I just wanted to point out to people something about that. That actually means that you’ll be able to get from Lincoln Road, which is in the west, and you’ll be able to cycle along—and I actually do cycle along. I go on my scooter along that pathway. You’ll be able to cycle right into the city. You’ll be able to go across K Road, right down, you’ll be able to go across the bridge, and you’ll actually be able to go as far as Takapuna. That’s a beautiful thing.

I think we forget that some of this is about having a good life, that that makes a huge difference to New Zealand, and when the original bridge was built, it was actually built without thinking about that stuff. People were basically living in two separate cities with the bridge connecting them. This is one city and it’s a very beautiful city, and it’s going to be even more beautiful after the announcements today that were made about the Hauraki Gulf and protecting it.

This is a cohesive plan, people, and that is what the Labour Party has. It has vision. It has a cohesive plan, and it’s about equity and inclusiveness and fairness and a good, good quality of life for New Zealanders—the ones who get the lunches at the schools and the ones who actually have parents working, trying to make those ends meet beyond that—because it’s become a very difficult thing and it’s got to become easier for all walks of life in New Zealand. I’m extremely proud to be part of a Government that’s doing that. I commend this bill to the House.

There is nothing so comfortable as basking in the warm embrace of delusion, and that’s what we’ve seen tonight from successive speakers from the Government. Let’s be very clear: firstly, this bill is here because of a degree of mismanagement of the Budget. We’re only a few days away from the 2021 Budget kicking in, but there is a gap in the Government’s available spending permission, and so they’re now filling in—and Michael Wood throws his head back. Well, this is a guy who is really not at all in control of his portfolio—a man who is totally a victim of the maddest officials that are available in Government, giving him all sorts of wacky advice about how to reduce emissions from transport.

The last speaker, Helen White, just spoke about how lovely it is that you can walk from Lincoln Road all the way through to the North Shore somewhere or ride a bike, or perhaps an electric bike. Wonderful! The estimate is there’d be about 3,000 people a day who might use that. How much does that reduce the transport emission profile for New Zealand: 0.04 percent—0.04 percent—and at a cost of about $200,000 per tonne, $200,000 worth of the cost of emissions. For every one tonne of emission reduced, the cost of that bridge will be $200,000. Well, how many of the 4,000 families currently living in motels could benefit from some of that money? I don’t see too many of them skipping with delight about the prospect of riding a bike across the Auckland Harbour Bridge—can’t afford a bike, let alone an electric bike.

Then there is, of course, the 23,000 families who are currently waiting for a State house, five times the number of just four years ago. What’s gone wrong? Well, what’s gone wrong is we’ve got a Government that’s extremely good at making announcements—extremely good at making announcements—but very, very poor when it comes to anything like delivery. Where would you see a better example than in the area of mental health that’s been covered by the television coverage tonight and was a subject of the House today—totally deluded responses from the Government. Three years ago, I think it was, they put up $1.9 billion to provide better facilities for people who are suffering from mental illness. No one’s going to argue that that’s not a good idea, but it’s no good if it’s not delivered on, and in all that time of the $1.9 billion—$1,900 million—half of $1 million has been spent. The Minister comes out in front of the House today and on the TV tonight and he says, “Oh, I’m very worried about this. I’m going to have”—guess what?—“a review.” He’s going to have a review.

So the Minister of Health for four years has sat there never asking officials about what was happening with that money, never looking at his appropriations to see where it’s all going, never expecting a report from Treasury. And where were Treasury? One of the most useless Government departments in the nation. Where were they? Nowhere to be seen, because that’s not their thing. They don’t like that—they like saving money. So they’ve put that $1.85 billion now across to one side and let the suffering continue, and where was the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet? Where were all the bloated officials in that department who are supposed to be there to guide Ministers through their portfolios on that? Nowhere to be seen—nowhere to be seen at all.

If you go through all of the indicators for how a society should be working, you’d get no better description of the things that matter to people than was used by the great Labour Prime Minister Norman Kirk. Quite apart from some of his more prosaic sort of statements, that actually weren’t written by him—I do know who they’re written by—he said that the key things are housing, health, education, personal security, and having a job. Well, let’s go through those. We’ve just covered off health, and what a mess that’s in. I’ll come in a minute to the debacle that’s out there over the COVID-19 vaccinations. It’s an absolute mess. There is nothing consistent about that roll-out from one end of the country to the other—

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Into the conspiracies. Just ask some interesting questions.

—nothing consistent at all. Well, I’ll tell you what, Minister Wood. There may be a lot of consistency in the tiny wee world that that member lives in—tiny wee world that he lives in—but across the rest of the country there is no clarity whatsoever.

Then you look at the stats I just gave on housing—4,000 families in motels, 23,000 families waiting for a house—and then, of course, the debacle over the massive property price rise that we’ve seen under the watch of this Labour Government. Why has it happened? They’re scared to tackle the problem, which is land supply, better State regulation, etc. When we were in Government, they fought us all the way—all the way—on the Resource Management Act, fought us all the way on the special housing areas. Nothing was right, because they had a plan: “Just build 100,000 houses and everything’ll come right.” Well, 800 houses into it after four years. That’s not exactly a stellar performance—absolutely hopeless.

Then there’s the issue of personal security. Why have gangs and gang membership grown so much in New Zealand in the last four years? But I see the member over there laughing, because we know that a lot of them consort with the gangs. They go and ask them how they’re feeling about things. They invite them into their office to have a bit of a chat: “Why are you harassing people? Why do you commit so many murders? Why are you selling drugs in our community? We don’t like it, but, by the way, you’re OK. Carry on, and we’ll see what we can do for you.” That’s the sort of attitude that’s got us in big trouble.

So there’s four out of the five things that they should be getting right, and then you come to the issue of education. Look at the shocking truancy figures for this country. They are unbelievable. The member over there’s laughing, because, of course, you don’t need to go to school—just take a holistic view of life. Duck down to the road and have a talk to some people about the things that really matter, and what are they? Nothing. Drugs, a bit of gang membership, an electric vehicle, if you’re lucky—you don’t need any education. That truancy figure is a massive and black indictment on the current Government. Well, now he’s shaking his head, saying, “Yes, you’re right.” He’s suddenly woken up to what it’s all about. But that sums up the Government’s position.

We heard, of course, the speaker earlier on—the V8 ute driver from Wairarapa—was saying how important it is that we follow the Government’s lead on COVID-19. Well, COVID-19’s a thing that’s happening; it’s what Governments deal with. But then you see this situation developing this week where, suddenly, electric vehicles are going to be the salvation for us. Oh yes, the electric vehicles are going to be the salvation for us: every car manufacturer in the world listened to Jacinda Ardern last week and they are now planning mass roll-outs of electric vehicles in New Zealand. I don’t think so—I don’t think so. So what we’ve got is a very small part of society who are going to be able to participate in this wonderful new emissions-free society. But what will it cost others?

Here’s a question: what would you do if you knew that a country was the best in the world at producing protein—the country that can produce protein with a lower carbon emission than any other country in the world. Would you go to that country and say, “Produce more. We need more of that. We want to shut out the rest of the world from producing the same product with a much bigger carbon emission profile.”? Of course that’s what should happen, but no, not in New Zealand. We’re saying to our farmers, who are the best producers in the world and who are very conscious of the environment that they work in and work with, and telling them, “Produce less—produce less.”

💬 Angela Roberts: No, we’re not.

And if they’re—well, the member over there says, “No, we’re not—no, we’re not.” Well, I tell the member over there to catch up with what her Government is doing, and then she will be able to speak authoritatively on this matter, because that is exactly what’s happening. Stop production—a lower turnout of production off our farms.

This is an imprest supply bill that allows a ratty Government to continue very, very low-quality expenditure without achieving anything for New Zealand. Not one of those bad statistics is going to change as a result of the Government exercising their massive majority here tonight. I say to them: why so timid when there is such a big majority? It’s because they simply can’t deliver on what they’ve got and have no capacity to develop new ideas, least of all to deliver on them. Thank you.

Thank you—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member. This will be less than 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I arrive as the final member of the Labour Party to speak on the appropriation bill, and I do so with extreme positivity and ambition. I am absolutely ambitious about what we are doing here on this side of the House. The thing I want to talk about the most is partnership—partnership—because when it comes to partnership, this Government is prepared to work with business, we’re prepared to work with the local councils, and we are working with iwi.

💬 Hon Member: Yeah, right!

Now, this side of the House say, “Yeah, right!” and I say, yes, sir, we absolutely are. We are talking about—I’ll bring it back home. I’m going to bring it back home to Hastings, because in Hastings, where it’s happening, right on the housing front, we are building houses. We are building hundreds of houses.

I want to take you back to an interesting story that I had when I was earning the privilege to be the local member of Parliament for Tukituki. I talk about an area in Raureka, in Campbell Street, where for years the National Government left this land with empty State houses to wrack and ruin. The neighbourhood in Campbell Street was so distraught about what was happening there that they called a neighbourhood meeting and we stopped the sell-off of that State land, and when Labour came in, guess what happened? We’ve now built a whole community of housing there in Hastings. I was there when the first shovel was turned and I was there when the first family moved in. This is a neighbourhood that’s been recreated through investing in housing.

It takes innovation and teamwork to build houses. We also are growing jobs through building houses. We are working together.

As a local person who’s lived in Hawke’s Bay all my life, and in Hastings, I have never seen so much investment coming into our region. It’s because of this investment that we are growing jobs, and it is because of that that we’re able to keep a really good pathway forward for young people coming and wanting to live in Hastings. Yes, because we’re building houses, affordable homes, we’re seeing young families wanting to return to Hastings.

I want to talk about a couple of examples in our region where housing development has been accelerated through investment and infrastructure. I’d like to talk about an area in Flaxmere. Waingakau it’s called, and there the Government has invested $16 million into infrastructure—that’s stuff that you need to get under way to be able to build the houses. Again, I was there when the first soil was turned and, again, I was there when the first family moved in. That’s the difference that we’re seeing. That’s how we can keep rebuilding and focusing on what truly matters in our region.

Another project I’d like to talk about in Hastings, back on the home front, is one where we went through shovel-ready COVID response and recovery. We were given $9 million by this Government towards redoing an area of State highway for safety. As part of that, we had local businesses who were able to turn in and get some more jobs going. We saw people being redeployed and brought in to start on contracting work. We had tradies—tradies who are really big and important in our district. They were building and they were getting the roads under way. Topline Contracting invested in 11 new apprentices. Those people who didn’t have work came in on the ground and started working. That’s the type of opportunity and that’s the type of investment and ambition that I’m talking about.

Now, I’d like to talk about the regional housing programme, where in Hastings we are making real progress. The development has accelerated again: 40 more houses being built in Kauri Street, right in Mayfair. I know that there are members over there who try to turn up and tell me that that’s not happening. Come along, come and visit, come in—I’ll happily take you to Kauri Street and knock on those doors and you’ll see those houses going.

We have got a fantastic council that’s working with us and iwi and building homes. That’s what’s happening in Hastings right now. On the ground we are delivering and we are accelerating the housing project. We are accelerating housing, and that’s where we’re building. I’d like to say that we had 534 building consents issued in 2020—the highest level of homes being built in our history. The previous high was 390 houses back in 2006. Now, this major new building programme includes Government investment in public housing for 180 public houses being built over 2020 and 2021, with purchasing intentions for a further 488 homes. These are real, real numbers. These are real homes, real houses, being built here.

Now, let’s just make sure I clarify for you, again, that it comes down to the best thing about this building programme and accelerating the infrastructure fund is it grows jobs. It grows more jobs. It also creates more business, because in Hastings our economy is absolutely booming. This is a region going forward. I am so proud of Hastings, because that’s what we do. We get stuck in, we work with Government and with iwi, council, private developers—everybody working together. That takes partnership, and that’s what this Budget is about. It’s about investing in really hard-working New Zealanders, growing jobs, lifting wages, and going forward.

That is where Hastings has been one of the standout success stories in this country. It’s because we’re built on a backbone of investment, and when things are going well, we also see significant investment in our region. We’ve had Rockit Global just open a multimillion-dollar new horticultural plant, we’ve had Heinz Wattie’s come and invest, and we’ve just seen the opening of the Tomoana pet food company.

More jobs every day are coming through, doing it hard because we have a region of hard-working New Zealanders, and this is what this Budget is truly about. It’s about backing hard-working New Zealanders, backing businesses, going forward—because this Budget is delivering and will keep delivering. This is a recovery I’m proud of.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies, can I correct the vote? There should have been two votes cast in favour for the Māori Party.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to seek leave to be able to put that.

I seek leave to put that there should be two votes cast for the Māori Party.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That will be added.

Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill read a second time.

Imprest Supply (First for 2021/22) Bill read a second time.