Thursday, 4 June 2009

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn for a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 16 June, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Budget debate, the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4), the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement (Regional Agreements) Amendment Bill, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill, and other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that Wednesday, 17 June will be a members’ day.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could advise us on the status of the Immigration Bill, which has slipped down to No. 17 on the Order Paper, and whether we can expect large Supplementary Order Papers on that bill.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The Immigration Bill will be dealt with when the House finds time to do so.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Dr Richard Worth—Confidence

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement at question time yesterday that he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister on Tuesday, 26 May 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, did the Prime Minister express confidence in Dr Worth as a Minister on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, given that he has said subsequently he already lost confidence in Dr Worth on that date?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has made his view clear that he lost confidence in Richard Worth. The consequences of that include Mr Richard Worth’s resignation from his ministerial post.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that answer addresses the question that I asked, which was quite straightforward: why did the Prime Minister express confidence in Dr Worth, given that subsequently he has said he had already lost confidence in Dr Worth at that date?

Mr SPEAKER: I was momentarily distracted while the Hon Bill English was answering, so could he repeat the answer to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has stated that on that day he did lose confidence in Dr Worth. It may have been later in the day; he would need to go through a fairly detailed sequence of events to work that out. It is clear that as a result of that loss of confidence, Mr Richard Worth tendered his resignation as a Minister. He is now no longer a Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Prime Minister lost confidence in Dr Worth on 26 May 2009, why did Dr Worth continue to hold responsibilities as a Minister and receive remuneration for that position for a week afterwards?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because the circumstances in which the Prime Minister lost confidence in him merited investigation in the interests of due process. As that member and every other member of Parliament knows, it is easy to make allegations about people. Allegations are often heard. Before a Prime Minister acts decisively, he or she needs to establish the facts of the matter.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Prime Minister had lost confidence in Dr Worth, and given the fact that the police investigation has not even started yet, why did he not require the resignation of Dr Worth on the day that he lost confidence in him?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For just the reasons that were given before in answer to the previous question. Allegations can be made. A Prime Minister might draw some conclusions of his or her own, but would need to go through a process that demonstrates natural justice and establishes the facts of the matter.

Hon Phil Goff: Given that we have not gone through that process, why, therefore, has Dr Worth been asked to resign?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister did go through a thorough and decisive process.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister now accept that it was a mistake simply to take the word of Richard Worth with regard to the complaint that I referred to him privately on 6 May, and to accept Dr Worth’s word that there was no substance to that complaint, given the parallels between that complaint and the subsequent complaint that led to his resignation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the Prime Minister does not accept that. As a result of the enquiries he made regarding the earlier allegations, the results of those enquiries were communicated back to the Leader of the Opposition’s office about a month ago. If the Leader of the Opposition had concerns about how the complaint was handled, he had ample opportunity to raise those.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister recall, in the conversation that I had with him on 6 May, that there was extensive evidence by way of telephone logs and texts of communication between Dr Worth and the complainant; if so, why did he say there was no hard evidence not to accept Dr Worth’s word that there was no substance to the allegations?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is correct that the Leader of the Opposition made those statements in the phone call. That evidence was never presented to, or sighted by, the Prime Minister. After his investigations into the allegations were completed, the results of those were communicated directly back to the Leader of the Opposition. If he felt that more evidence should have been produced or a different conclusion could have been reached, he had the opportunity to communicate that to the Prime Minister, but he did not.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister decide to force Dr Worth’s resignation only after he found out that the media were aware of a complaint that had been laid with the police?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is not correct.

Hon Phil Goff: On which date was the Prime Minister or the Minister of Police first advised that the police were investigating Dr Worth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would just have to go back and check the exact chronology there, but I think the Prime Minister would be able to tell you that it was on the day that Richard Worth’s resignation was announced.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What is the status of commitments I received from Dr Worth at a formal meeting with him as Minister of Internal Affairs at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, considering that he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister a week earlier?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly any undertakings or commitments made by the Minister in his capacity as a Minister were made on behalf of the Government, and they will be honoured and followed through on.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did the Prime Minister allow Dr Worth to hold formal meetings and give formal commitments as the Minister of Internal Affairs a week after losing confidence in him?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave to earlier questions, which is that the Prime Minister went through a thorough and decisive process of establishing the facts of the matter before Dr Worth offered his resignation.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the office of Dr Richard Worth, Minister for Land Information, showing his continued decision-making role in the appointment of the technical reference group for the review of the Overseas Investment Act, dated 29 May, which is 3 days after the Prime Minister had lost confidence in him.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Benefits—Projected Spending

2. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the forecast for benefit spending, excluding New Zealand superannuation, over the next 4 years, and by how much does this exceed the Treasury forecast of December 2008?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The forecast of total benefit expenditure, excluding New Zealand superannuation, over the next 4 years is $32.067 billion. That is $3.851 billion higher than the 2008 December economic and fiscal forecast.

Sue Bradford: How, then, will axing the $10.5 million a year Enterprising Communities job creation scheme assist in reducing these higher benefit costs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are in times when we are making tough decisions on what we continue and what we do not. The Enterprising Communities scheme did some good work in times past and when the economic situation in New Zealand was very different. We are in different times now and we are making different decisions.

Jo Goodhew: What reports has the Minister seen about projected benefit increases?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In addition to the increasing number of people coming on to the unemployment benefit, officials are forecasting increases in the invalids and sickness benefits, as well as increasing costs in supplementary assistance. Sickness benefits are forecast to increase 15 percent, costing $385 million. Invalids benefits are forecast to increase 2.5 percent, adding another $129 million.

Sue Bradford: Why, at a time of rising unemployment, is the Government cutting one of the last remaining programmes that helps particularly vulnerable unemployed people do socially and environmentally useful work in their communities?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that we are making some tough decisions at this time, and we need to focus on providing services to more people. We could, for example, spend $145,000 over 3 years funding an arts centre that resulted in one full-time job and six part-time jobs, or we could spend the same amount of money and get full-time, unsubsidised jobs for 32 people through programmes and industry partnerships.

Sue Bradford: Has the Minister considered re-establishing a community economic development unit or function within her department, as proposed in the Green New Deal stimulus package released a couple of weeks ago; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen that package and we have been looking at it. The officials are doing a bit of work around it at the moment, and I would be very pleased to talk to the member further about it if we think it will gets the sorts of results we are interested in seeing.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister advocate to her colleagues in Government that it picks up the whole Green New Deal package, which contains proposals that would save nearly half a billion dollars a year in unemployment payments and create roughly 42,000 jobs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure this Government is interested in continuing conversations with the Greens on some of their proposals. I look forward to seeing how they go.

Hon Annette King: How many jobs that would reduce the need for benefits has the Government saved through initiatives from the Job Summit so far?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am reluctant to give the exact number on that, because I do not have it in front of me. But from memory it was about 223 jobs the last time I looked at it, and the number is growing daily. We had over 83 organisations of 100-plus employees there.

Government Spending—Returns on Major Capital Expenditure

3. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has the Government received on the returns on major capital expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): On 1 July 2008 the previous Government acquired KiwiRail Holdings for $690 million. Since then, taxpayers have provided further financial support of $322 million. Yesterday’s financial statements show a current valuation, made by PricewaterhouseCoopers, of $349 million or barely half of the acquisition cost. Taxpayers have thus lost at least $300 million, with no chance of recovering that loss.

Amy Adams: What other financial issues related to Government capital expenditure is he aware of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There will certainly be ongoing financial issues relating to Government capital expenditure on KiwiRail. We expect it will take several years to sort out that mess. That matter comes on top of a track record of capital cost blowouts, such as the prison building programme where costs escalated by over 30 percent, and the new Supreme Court that started out as a $19 million project and ended up costing $83 million.

Amy Adams: What plans does the Government have to ensure that future capital spending is better directed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economic outlook has changed considerably and the Government will need to ensure that every dollar of capital is spent effectively. One step we have taken is to establish the National Infrastructure Unit to oversee major capital expenditure. The unit will ensure that New Zealand’s long-term infrastructure needs are well understood, that major projects are subject to proper economic appraisal, and that the Government improves its procurement practices across the board.

Question No. 2 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): May I please correct my answer to a question regarding the job support scheme. I want to give the member Annette King the correct number that she was asking for. I gave the wrong number. The job support scheme has created 303 jobs, and it supports over 700 workers.

Self-responsibility—Minister’s Comment

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her reported comment “… we need to encourage a level of self-responsibility …”; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I will give the context for that quote. The full quote is: “Looking after those people who need it most is important. We are only strong as a nation if we look after our most vulnerable. But we need to encourage a level of self responsibility, looking after yourself, but caring about others.” I stand by that comment.

Hon Annette King: Did she consult the Minister of Māori Affairs before announcing the axing of the Enterprising Communities scheme, which encourages a level of self- responsibility, and which provides many services to Māori; if so, what did he say?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, we consulted fully on the changes in the Budget relating to the Ministry of Social Development. I am pleased to say that we are working on other initiatives that look to help Māori into employment. Some of those initiatives came through in the Budget, and we will be pleased to announce more as we go further ahead.

Hon Annette King: Why did she say: “The money that went into Enterprising Communities hasn’t delivered the employment outcomes hoped for.”, in light of the success of the apprenticeship support scheme in Ōtorohanga, which has seen unemployment of people under the age of 25 reduce to zero since 2006, and youth crime drop by 75 percent; the Te Whangai Trust, which has trained long-term unemployed people with massive social problems, with 20 of them getting jobs as a result; and the Greenways Trust, which provides work for disabled people, to name but some; or was she not aware of such programmes before she made her decision to axe them?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To be clear on some of the ones that the member has raised, I can say that certainly the Ōtorohanga scheme has been very successful, and its funding continues; the funding has not been cut. It has 3-year funding—it has funding for next year—and I am pleased that it will be going ahead. Ōtorohanga currently has just 48 young people on the unemployment benefit. Te Whangai Trust is in the same situation; its funding has not been cut. It had a contract for $173,000 last year, has a contract for $96,000 this year, and has a contract for over $60,000 for next year, as well as the $142,000 it gets in job subsidies.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Mayor of Ōtorohanga, Dale Williams, who said: “It’s disappointing that it’s being axed. It’s been the catalyst for facilitating a whole lot of projects around the country that are very worthwhile.”; if not, why does she not give him a call to find out how successful it is?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it was the member’s own party that brought in the Enterprising Communities scheme, so she should know that it provides start-up grants for 3 years. When those 3 years are up, those community enterprises are supposed to be self-sustaining. They are doing some good work out there. We are not axing any of the current Enterprising Communities grants. They will see out their 3 years, and I wish them all future success in becoming sustainable.

Climate Change—Agriculture Sector Obligations

5. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently taken to help New Zealand’s agriculture sector meet its climate change obligations?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): On Tuesday I announced that the Government, as part of the Primary Growth Partnership, will establish the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research. This bricks and mortar centre will be focused solely on developing solutions for reducing New Zealand’s agricultural emissions. The work of the centre will be vital in securing New Zealand’s future economic growth by delivering effective and affordable abatement technologies to the primary sector.

Shane Ardern: Why has the Government decided to establish the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealand meets its climate change obligations. Because of our unique greenhouse gas profile, with around 50 percent of our emissions coming from agriculture, very simply we have to find solutions to reduce agricultural emissions. The ongoing funding certainty from Government will provide the incentives for scientists and industry to commit to long-term projects required to solve these emission challenges.

Shane Ardern: What other steps is the Government taking to support research into agricultural greenhouse gas?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This centre is just the beginning. Our intention is that the New Zealand centre will link internationally and play a major role in an international research centre. A ministerial steering group is currently developing a set of principles to guide New Zealand’s work in this area, as well as funding commitments. My colleague the Hon Tim Groser informs me that the concept of an international research centre has been received with considerable interest and support overseas. This is of global significance to a collective effort, and New Zealand must be at the forefront of this work.

David Garrett: Has the Minister seen any reports on the cost to the agriculture sector of an emissions trading scheme; if so, how do those figures compare with the $6 billion reduction in GDP and decline in farm values of over 40 percent projected by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen a number of reports with various figures and costings for the agricultural sector. It is absolutely critical that we embark on finding abatement technologies to minimise the economic impact on the agricultural sector, because the sector is so vital to the economy of New Zealand.

Vote Education—Cuts

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will cuts in Vote Education “ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens”, as she stated yesterday?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The premise of the question is that Vote Education has been cut. Well, that is not the case. We have made some reprioritisations but, despite a tough economic climate, Vote Education in Budget 2009 rises from $10.5 billion to $10.8 billion. I am very proud of that quality investment in education.

Hon Maryan Street: How does she reconcile cuts to adult and community education with the views of her colleague Bill English, who, when National Opposition education spokesperson, said: “For more than 50 years, night classes have provided a leg-up for people wanting to return to the education system. National supports these low-cost courses. The current system of night classes through schools works well and should not be tampered with.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There will still be funding for adult and community education in some schools, to community providers, to the Rural Education Activities Programme, and to wānanga, and other tertiary institutions, but in tough times we have to focus that money on funding literacy, numeracy, and foundation courses. I know that members of the Opposition are really disappointed that there will not be any taxpayer subsidy for courses such as how to dance at a party. I understand there is a rather disturbing YouTube video that shows that Mr Mallard and Mr Hodgson could perhaps have done with attending that course. But this Government has to redirect its funding to higher priorities.

Colin King: What new initiatives in Budget 2009 will help the export education sector contribute to the economic recovery?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is very important for us to support our export education sector, and we have been able to do that through Budget 2009. The previous Government taxed schools with a $900 export education levy for every international student. Despite tough economic times, we have managed to more than halve that figure to $420. That leaves more money in the hands of schools and will help them to attract more international students. We have also committed an extra $2 million to international education promotion over the next year to help attract more students to New Zealand.

Hon Maryan Street: What does the Minister say to the Arai Te Uru Kōkiri Training Centre, a Māori training provider of Māori and Pasifika young people in Dunedin, which, with the disestablishment of skills enhancement funding, will be unable to run its 10-year-old chef training programme, or does the Minister think that is a hobby course like Moroccan cooking?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The skills enhancement programme was one that was continually undersubscribed. The target market for that programme is the focus of our Trades in Schools and our Youth Guarantee initiatives, and we will announce more about them shortly. Those very students will be picked up and brought under those initiatives in a more focused way.

Hon Maryan Street: What effect will cuts to industry training funding have on the Pipiwai Agriculture Training Centre in Dannevirke, and will it be able to continue to provide its land-based training courses in fencing, farm machinery handling, and business and finance to mainly young Māori men, or does the Minister think those courses are hobby courses like gardening in the wind?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are not cutting funding to industry training. The only difference we have made is that although the previous Government gave a CPI adjustment, for the first time, to industry training last year—it had promised it for the out-years but had not funded it—we have said that we will not continue it. If we are cutting funding, then in fact the previous Government must have cut funding to industry training for the previous 8 years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why has the Minister claimed support for export education, when her budget shows that she has cut the educational counsellor network, cut the export education innovation programme, reduced the number of international doctoral research scholarships from 38 to 10, and cut out the domestic status for German and French masters students, which has been part of the New Zealand - Europe relationship for decades?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have to answer only one of those questions. In answer to the member about educational counsellors, I tell him there is a great deal of concern amongst the export education industry that in fact those counsellors are not as effective as we would like them to be. But we have not cut them; they are still in place. We are merely cutting back on some of the funding. All the previous Government wanted to do was spend, and some of the spending was ineffective—some of it was very ineffective.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a press release dated 30 January 2006, in the name of the Hon Bill English, entitled “Night school classes under threat in the Bay of Plenty”.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a speech given by the Hon Bill English on 18 March 2005 to the Community Learning Association Through Schools conference in Christchurch.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a report from the Westport News of Wednesday, 3 June, entitled “Budget cuts kill courses”.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a press statement, or a cutting—

Hon Maryan Street: It is an article from a newspaper.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article from a newspaper. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table two further articles: one is from the Waikato Times entitled “Night classes face chop”, and one from the Manawatu Standard, entitled “Dark times loom for night school”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two press articles. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Unemployment—Reports

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on unemployment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen a number of reports on unemployment. Although unemployment is increasing, jobs are still available. In the week ended 22 May 2009, 1,474 people went off the benefit, compared with 1,361 at the same time last year—that is, 113 more people cancelled their benefit. That same week, Work and Income had 904 new vacancies on its books.

Kelvin Davis: Why was nothing in Budget 2009 targeted at reducing the number of Māori unemployed, or at retraining and upskilling Māori so they are better positioned to gain employment once we come out of the recession, as we all know that the Māori unemployment rate is set to spiral?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I disagree with the member’s assertion. Quite frankly, heaps in the Budget will go to support Māori employment and training.

Hon Members: Name them!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let me give members just one example, perhaps, of many we could give. The Open Polytechnic has opened about 1,500 training opportunities for those who have been made redundant or who are on the 9-day working fortnight, and that is having success for Māori with its flexibility.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister advise the House on how New Zealand’s employment market is holding up in an international context?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Compared with similar countries our employment figures are holding up quite well. On the official household labour force survey our unemployment level is at 5 percent, while that of Australia is at 5.4 percent, that of the UK is sitting at 7.1 percent, that of the United States is at 8.9 percent, and the formerly high-flying Irish economy is struggling under 10.6 percent unemployment.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Minister aware that Pacific people are disproportionately affected by this recession, with their present unemployment rate being 13.1 percent; if so, why was nothing in Budget 2009 targeted at reducing the number of Pacific unemployed, or at retraining and upskilling Pacific people so they are better positioned to gain employment once we come out of this recession?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As far as Pacific people are concerned, I received a letter just last week from a group that said how thrilled they were with the investment into infrastructure, because they see that as generating many jobs for their people. They can work on our roads; they can work on those sorts of projects. I commend the Minister of Finance for investing in those projects and for opening up jobs for all peoples.

David Garrett: Has the Minister seen any reports on the number of people being fired without reason and ending up on the unemployment benefit as a result of the 90-day trial period law? Does she agree that ACT’s amendment, which brought the legislation into effect earlier, was a good one?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not seen any reports of undue stress for those people. Instead we are seeing people get opportunities that they would not normally have had. We are hearing from employers that they are offering jobs because they know that those people can get into the jobs. It has been quite positive. I thank that member for raising the issue.

Katrina Shanks: When did the unemployment rate start to increase?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Opposition may laugh, but it is great that, after three consecutive quarters of unemployment levels rising under the Labour Government’s watch last year while when its members sat back and did nothing, we saw the ReStart redundancy package, the Job Support Scheme, and the success of the Prime Minister’s Job Summit within months under this National Government. All we get is scaremongering and exaggeration of numbers from the Opposition; there was no real action when it had the chance.

Vote Education—Cuts

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What were the major cuts to Vote Education and what was the reason each was made?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I will say again that, overall, Vote Education rises from $10.5 billion to $10.8 billion this year. In anyone’s language that is an addition, not a cut. We have reprioritised some funding. One example is that we are not proceeding with the teacher-child ratio changes in early childhood education, at a saving of $275 million, because that money would have done nothing to increase participation in early childhood education. Instead, teachers would have been soaked up by existing services, making it harder to staff new services in areas of great need. We have been unable to proceed with very large commitments made by the previous Government to the tertiary sector, because there was no funding for them. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard has the floor.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister take ministerial responsibility for the list of Budget 2009 education savings on her ministry’s website?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Allan Peachey: What new initiatives have been funded through Budget 2009?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a large number of initiatives, and I am very proud of them all. One in particular of which I am extremely proud is that the Government will be investing an additional $51 million in special education services to help more students access the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme. These children have high to very high needs, and we will be helping more of these children than the previous Government did. In fact, when this initiative is fully rolled out, an extra 1,100 children will be assisted with special education services.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will the approximately 1,000 teachers to be dismissed in 2011 be selected: will they be selected from schools that are performing well, or will they be selected from schools that are performing poorly; will it be done on a random basis, with one teacher selected from every second school; or will it be done by way of the answer that Bill English has just whispered into the Minister’s ear?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have decided that we will review the complexity of the formula-driven funding entitlements and funding streams administered by the Ministry of Education. The savings of $50 million will represent just 1.5 percent of the school staffing cost. The Government, like everyone in tight times, has to look at all areas of expenditure to ensure that funds are being spent effectively to improve educational achievement.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the question was a longer one, it was relatively simple. The question asked how the teachers who are to be dismissed will be selected. That was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member reflects back on his question, he will realise that he built an assertion into it. If I recollect correctly, he asked how the 1,000 teachers—

Hon Trevor Mallard: We are agreed on the figure. We’re not arguing about that.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that the honourable Minister gave a rather different response to that assertion, and that is the dilemma. When the member puts an assertion like that into the question, it is difficult to get the exact answer he is looking for, because there is no evidence that that is exactly what will happen.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that across the House we can agree that 1.5 percent is approximately 1,000 teachers. I do not think the Minister will deny that. She certainly did not deny it by way of her answer.

Mr SPEAKER: We must not debate the answer by way of points of order. The member obviously has further supplementary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just go back to my original point of order. There was a plain question about how the teachers to be dismissed will be selected. That was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I accurately reflected the member’s question; let me see whether I can accurately reflect the answer. I think the Minister said that the formula by which these resources are allocated will be reviewed. I take it from that answer that there will be a change to how the resource is allocated, but she cannot tell the member exactly what he wants to know at this stage. The member can pursue that in further supplementary questions.

Allan Peachey: How has the Government supported parental choice in early childhood education and care?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am very proud of the fact that we are bringing kōhanga reo and playcentres into the 20 free hours early childhood education scheme. The previous Government had an ideological point of view that only teacher-led early childhood services could be quality services. Well, this Government believes that parent-led services can also be high quality. We are happy to support parents of children in those institutions. I look forward to the Opposition visiting kōhanga reo and playcentres and telling them why they do not deserve to be classed as quality services.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that, to use her figure, 1.5 percent of teachers will be dismissed in election year and she does not yet know how they will be selected?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I said to the member in answer to my previous question was that we would be reviewing the complexity of formula-driven funding entitlements in the funding streams administered by the Ministry of Education. The savings of $50 million would represent only 1.5 percent of school staffing costs. We will be in discussion with the sector about how that may be achieved.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and, especially, Speakers’ rulings make it clear that if a short answer can be given, it should be. The answer to my question was yes, and that should have been the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member knows that he should not use points of order to debate the answer like that. He must stop doing that. It is totally contrary—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m saying I agree with her.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should be not interjecting—[Interruption] Both sides will not interject when I am ruling on a point of order. I urge the member not to abuse the point of order system. It is not in keeping with the Standing Orders.

Budget 2009—Support for the Arts

9. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What has the Government done to support the arts in Budget 2009?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Budget 2009 has provided extra funding to artistic and cultural organisations in order to provide security in tough economic times. National is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to world-class cultural experiences. This was achieved by the injection of some new funds and the reprioritisation of poor-quality spending proposed by the previous Government; for example, the grandly named Gallipoli memorial project that in reality was a grant of over $350,000 to enable a single unnamed painter to paint a couple of landscapes. This Government is determined to ensure the arts receive value for money in tough economic times.

Todd McClay: What reports has the Minister seen about the Government’s Budget announcements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am very pleased to have received very grateful and supportive messages from those actively engaged in the sector who appreciate the constraints we all operate under in tough economic times. Regrettably, these contrast with reports I have seen from the Opposition spokesperson for arts, culture and heritage. She accused the Government of “slashing the regional museums budget by $20 million.” If she read the Budget carefully, she would have seen in black and white that a largely unused, one-off appropriation she and her colleagues signed off had returned to baseline.

Todd McClay: What other reports has the Minister seen of engagement with the arts, heritage, and cultural sector?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have seen reports addressed to me as Minister from the Opposition spokesperson who is responsible for Labour’s engagement with the arts and cultural sector. In three separate requests for a briefing by officials she has repeatedly shown a complete ignorance of the name of the ministry, which she managed to get wrong in new and innovative ways every time, while also asking the chief executive of the Arts Council to brief her on the activities of the ministry. I intend to see that her briefing, which I am delighted to say will proceed, begins with the correct name of the ministry and ends with lessons on how to read Budget documents.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Why did the Minister tell the public during the election campaign that National would maintain the current level of taxpayer funding for arts, culture, and heritage, then go out and cut overall funding in the Budget; and does this not demonstrate that his word is about as good as a personal guarantee from John Key?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, the Government identified a number of savings to taxpayers as a result of its value-for-money review earlier this year. That allowed reprioritisation of the low-quality junk spending that that lot preferred. We want to concentrate on practical assistance to front-line arts and cultural services. When the member receives her briefing and learns the correct name of the ministry, she will learn a lot more about that.

Tobacco Point-of-sale Advertising—Effect of Ban

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Health: What international evidence has she received to suggest that banning point-of-sale tobacco advertising can lead to a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco use amongst teenagers?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I have received advice from the Ministry of Health summarising recent international developments relating to tobacco product displays in retail outlets. The report noted that a Western Australian parliamentary committee that was considering a bill that included a measure banning tobacco displays in retail outlets has accepted that in other countries a decline in the smoking prevalence rate in 15 to 19-year-olds had accelerated following a ban on tobacco displays.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the Minister of Health’s assertion on 4 March 2009 that “there is no international evidence that shows a clear link between banning tobacco displays and reducing smoking rates.”?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I suggest that that member ask that question of the Minister. I am not responsible for comments he makes.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question is set down to the Associate Minister of Health, because she holds delegated responsibility for tobacco policy. She represents Government policy in respect of tobacco policy, and she has been asked by that member how she reconciles two positions within the Government. She is required to answer that question. She holds the delegation.

Mr SPEAKER: She answered the question. She said she is not responsible for what another Minister might have said. And she is a Minister outside of Cabinet, so that seemed to be a perfectly reasonable answer. [Interruption] She was asked to reconcile two statements, as I recollect the question. It is perfectly within the Minister’s ability to say she cannot reconcile those two statements.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect—not immediately—on that ruling as it applies to Associate Ministers when substantive Ministers are making comments in an area where Associate Ministers have delegated responsibility. It has certainly been our impression in the past that, as with any other Minister, when they get the job, when they have the pay, and when they have the cars, they should answer the questions.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that is a disingenuous request on the part of Mr Mallard. This sort of issue has been dealt with over and over again by Parliament. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 165/3, which was given in this House by Speaker Wilson and which, I think, goes right to the heart of this issue. It deals with the quality of an answer. An answer may not be satisfactory for the person who asked the question. None the less that is the end of the matter, as it cannot be further debated. An answer is given, and an answer is accepted.

Hon Peter Dunne: Mr Speaker, I draw to your attention to Speaker’s rulings 147/4-6. I submit that Speaker’s ruling 147/4 goes to the heart of this issue. It states: “it is necessary to know what delegated area of responsibility each Associate Minister has. Associate Ministers cannot be asked questions across the whole portfolio in the way that a portfolio Minister can.” I submit to you that the Associate Minister was answering the question in respect of her delegated responsibility. The supplementary question that was posed to her related to the conduct of the portfolio as a whole, and that was what Speaker Hunt ruled as not being permissible back in 2000.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. I think the Hon Peter Dunne has raised a very pertinent ruling in Speaker’s ruling 147/4. I think that my ruling would be that the Hon Tariana Turia answered that question within the requirements of her portfolio responsibilities.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did she advise the Minister of Health to accept the recommendation of the Health Committee that the Government require tobacco and cigarette displays in retail outlets to be out of sight; if not, why not; if so, why was she ignored?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The Minister and I have certainly discussed this issue, and my understanding is that the Minister stated that the—

Hon Darren Hughes: What did the Minister advise? [Interruption]

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Are you asking me a question too?

Mr SPEAKER: That will be the end of interjections. I am on my feet. The Minister does not need to respond to interjections from other members. The Hon Tariana Turia can complete her answer.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I certainly agree with the statement the Minister of Health made on 3 March, which said we are continuing the efforts to reduce smoking rates and tobacco use, and to explore new effective initiatives to support that. They include the ongoing discussion between him and me on the banning of tobacco at the point of sale.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last series of points of order we were told that the Associate Minister could not comment across the whole of the portfolio. Then we had an answer that was a quote from the Hon Tony Ryall. But Mr Lees-Galloway’s question was about the advice the Associate Minister gave to the Minister in terms of her delegated responsibility. Reading out a quote from Mr Ryall does not tell us what advice she gave him in an area she has responsibility for.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable Minister want to speak to the point of order?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I am happy to answer the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point is simply this. If the Minister gave no answer at all, which is also permissible in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, then the Opposition would be on their feet and really going to town about that matter. The fact is that the Associate Minister attempted to give an answer. For Opposition members to virtually tell you that they think that answer is not good enough breaches many of the conditions for answering questions that are long established in this House.

Hon David Parker: The Leader of the House misunderstands the provisions of the Standing Orders if he thinks that Ministers can merely get up and say they will not answer a question because they do not want to. They could claim that there is a public interest in their not answering questions, but, unless they claim that, they are required to address questions.

Mr SPEAKER: One of the dilemmas I have with some of these questions is the difficulty for the Speaker in determining whether the Minister has answered the question in a manner that is consistent with the Standing Orders. With primary questions it is much easier, because the question is on notice and Ministers have time to prepare answers for them. With supplementary questions like this, it is more difficult. What I am prepared to do for Ian Lees-Galloway on this occasion is—as I realise that he is getting very close to the end of his supplementary questions—to allow him to repeat his question without the loss of a supplementary question.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did the Associate Minister advise the Minister of Health to accept the recommendation of the Health Committee that the Government require tobacco and cigarette displays in retail outlets to be out of sight; if not, why not; if so, why was she ignored?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: No, I did not advise the Minister of that, because he sat on that select committee and heard that advice. But I have certainly talked with him about the matter of tobacco displays and the banning of them, and the Government has agreed that at some point we will look at that issue, when we have all the evidence in front of us.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does she agree that the refusal of National Ministers to accept her advice as Associate Minister of Health is in fact one reason why, in her own words, “this brave country” is failing to act on tobacco displays?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite right that you expect Ministers to address questions and do a much better job of requiring that than has been seen in the past. But the difficulty we have here is that the question just asked resolutely refuses to acknowledge the answer that the Associate Minister just gave. It was incompatible with that answer. She said she gave no advice, because the Minister was on the jolly select committee. Now Iain Lees-Galloway is saying the Minister did not take the advice. Well, how could he, since none was given?

Mr SPEAKER: The particular issue involved here is not one of order. If a member who is asking questions wishes to waste a supplementary question by ignoring an answer that has been given or repeating a question he or she has already asked, that is the right of the member who is asking questions. I should not rule out the question. My dilemma now, though, is whether the Associate Minister will remember the question she was asked. Can I check with her whether she remembers it? I am happy to have it repeated.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does she agree that the refusal of National Ministers to accept her advice as Associate Minister of Health is in fact one reason why, in her own words, “this brave country” is failing to act on tobacco displays?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It is difficult for people to take advice when one does not give it.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What was the reaction of the participants who attended the recent Māori Tobacco Intelligence Summit to the proposal to ban tobacco displays?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The participants were all deeply committed to reducing the prevalence of tobacco smoking amongst Māori communities, and there was a very positive response to my speech.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister explain how she could discuss the issue of point-of-sale advertising with the Minister but not tell him what she thought?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: That was not the question I was asked. I was asked whether I gave the Minister any advice about the select committee, and I said no, I did not.

Pig Farming—Sow Crates

11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is it his opinion that keeping sows in crates for weeks on end where they cannot even turn round is cruel; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): It is my opinion that it is cruel and unacceptable to have sows in crates indefinitely. This Government is committed to best practice in animal welfare, which is why, after viewing the recent disturbing footage, I have taken action and demanded that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee review with urgency the pig code of welfare. I hope the member and members of the public will make their views known to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

Sue Kedgley: Will the Minister make a commitment in this House that he will personally visit a range of intensive pig farms in New Zealand, preferably with the media, so that he can see at firsthand the suffering of pigs in sow crates, or will he continue to rely on the advice of the chair of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, who claimed on television recently that pigs are probably happy in sow crates?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have already visited a number of pig farms. I did not do so with the media, because I will make sure that best practice in animal welfare is delivered based on science and reason, not on blind emotion, as that member would wish it to be.

Sandra Goudie: What reports has the Minister seen on the review of sow crates?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen reports that the previous two Labour Ministers of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Sutton and the Hon Jim Anderton, refused to ban sow crates and emphasised the need for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process to be followed. I have also seen a report of the deputy leader of Labour, the Hon Annette King, on Newstalk ZB last month, supporting this Government’s approach to the sow crate issue and agreeing with the actions I was taking. This is the responsible approach, and I thank Labour for taking that approach.

Sue Kedgley: On the Minister’s recent visits to intensive pig farms in New Zealand, did he discover that the practices that were screened on television recently are widespread in some pig farms, and will he therefore do as he and the Prime Minister promised and use his powers as Minister to require changes to the pig code, including the phasing out of sow crates; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I ask that member to familiarise herself with the Animal Welfare Act. By law, I cannot override the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process and ban sow crates immediately. Sections 70 to 79 of the Act make it absolutely clear that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process must be followed. That is the law that was passed by Parliament. I intend to adhere to the law, and I think that member should stop being irresponsible and should adhere to the laws of this land.

Aorangi School—Buildings

12. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been achieved in honouring the commitments that the Ministry of Education made to Aorangi School in 2006 to replace the rotting buildings so that children are no longer forced to learn in cramped, damp, and cold buildings?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I am advised by the ministry that it is meeting the costs of health and safety issues as and when they arise. With regard to the review of the school’s overall capital programme, this review will be concluded shortly. I have arranged to go down and speak to the school’s board and principal in 2 weeks’ time.

Rahui Katene: Why have students at Aorangi School had to continue learning in dilapidated and relocatable classrooms riddled with rot and moisture and with no insulation, even though the previous Minister of Education announced in June 2007 that Aorangi School would be rebuilt as a “21st century learning environment”, and the Prime Minister made a commitment before last year’s election that he would not let pupils “freeze at my old school”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I want to ensure that the children at Aorangi School are in a suitable learning environment. That is why I decided to review the school’s request for additional capital and why I will go down and speak to the school’s board and principal in 2 weeks’ time to discuss it with them. I assure that member that I am advised that at least $270,000 has been spent on health and safety issues, including an electrical upgrade, the installation of heat pumps and dehumidifiers, and ongoing monitoring of air quality.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 3 June on the .

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Budget debate, because, first of all, I have the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Finance, Bill English, on what has been recognised across the country—and, indeed, in countries around the world—as a fantastic job done in setting out this Budget. It was a job done under difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, he has come up absolute trumps. It is a great credit to his skill and also, I must say, to the Prime Minister’s, for the work they have done together, along with fellow Ministers, people of the caucus, and our coalition partners, in presenting this Budget to New Zealand at a time when the country knows we are going through global turmoil, from a financial perspective.

People in this country are saying “Thank goodness we have somebody like Bill English to lead us through this difficult period.” They are saying “Thank goodness we didn’t have to sit and listen to another Cullen Budget.” They are saying “Thank goodness the leaders of our country are in good control.” Right across the country there is a resounding first-class tick for the Budget presented by Bill English. He is to be sincerely congratulated on the presentation.

Let us look at some of the things this Budget does. The first thing it does is to cushion New Zealand from the sharpest edges of the global recession. That in itself is an amazing feat. Not only has it done that but also it has added to the opportunity and the future of this country.

Let us look at some of the other things in the Budget, not just the fact that it has cushioned New Zealand from the recession. There is also new spending in so many areas. At this time, we must respect the fact that Mr English had the ability to come forward and to make further funding available for some necessary areas. There is new core Crown spending of $2.9 billion that, combined with the recent tax cuts, will support this economy and get it back on its feet a lot quicker than we would have had otherwise, and a lot quicker than most other countries will be able to do.

Budget 2009 directly supports jobs through a $323.3 million home insulation and clean heating campaign. We have allocated $50 million for a national cycleway network. There will be a multibillion-dollar infrastructure boost. We all know that those things are sorely needed around this country. It is a shame that the previous Government took 9 years and did little, yet, in this Government’s first Budget, it has come up trumps and has been recognised for it.

One thing I will talk about, particularly from a Northland perspective, is the issue of home insulation and the clean heating campaign. Northland, as we know, is an area with serious housing problems. My friend and colleague Hone Harawira has been on about the issue of housing in Northland ever since, and before, he became a member of Parliament. He and I have worked to get this programme under way. The shame of it was that we had to wait until we got into Government to have these issues addressed, because the previous Government did little about it. My friend and colleague from Northland and I are proud of the fact that this Government will make this money available to the people of New Zealand. The impact it will have in Northland will be enormous. We estimate that about 180,000 households are eligible for grants of up to $1,800, regardless of income. On top of that, people who hold community service cards will also be eligible for grants of up to $3,000. That starts on 1 July 2009, a little under a month away.

It is also important to note that the impact of this scheme is twofold or threefold. Not only will it make the homes of the people in greatest need more comfortable but also it will cut down on heating costs. If we have properly insulated homes it means that the way in which people can heat those homes will be far more efficient. But there is more. Not only does it mean that there will be, therefore, savings for individuals but also it means that it will reduce the demand on health care. As we all know, a lot of sickness is generated by people who live in unhealthy homes. This Government decided to get involved in this initiative not just so that New Zealanders would have warmer homes, which is a great thing, but also so that people would be a lot healthier. I think particularly of our young children in Northland. They are great young kids who need the opportunity to have a good future, who need the opportunity to have an input into this country, and who need the opportunity to make a contribution for themselves. Those children will have a far better start in life as a consequence of this programme, and I am really proud to be part of that.

To those of us in Northland this initiative will mean that we will see a great step forward, right across the community. Right across the community Māori and non-Māori will benefit from this. The whole community will step up and we will be far better for that. It means lots of things. It means that we will get better productivity out of those who are working, because they will be less stressed about the fact that their children are unwell. It will mean that there will be more money to go around, so that people will be able to better provide for their children and their wider family. It means that in the community itself, people will be able to make a greater contribution to the community in which they live. So many positives have come out of this sort of initiative, and we are all proud, I am certain, that we are doing this sort of thing.

The second thing I will talk about is the matter of superannuation. I am pleased to say, and again I am proud, that we have a Government that has guaranteed that superannuation will continue. It has absolutely guaranteed that superannuation will continue. Firstly, the age of entitlement is at 65. We know that that age will continue to be 65. Secondly, we are keeping the level of superannuation at 66 percent of the average income for couples. It is important to recognise that for a couple the level is at 66 percent. Those are the sorts of figures that we are talking about. The issue around the Superannuation Fund is something that Opposition members like to talk about and frighten people with. But, of course, if they were honest enough to tell us about the facts of the fund, they would have to say that at its peak it was going to contribute only about 12 percent of the money—

Hon David Parker: 25!

Hon JOHN CARTER: There are different figures. But the point is that even if that member was right—and sadly he has never been before, so why would he be today—the fact is that the majority of the funding for superannuation is going to come from the consolidated fund.

One of the things that this Budget will do is ensure that we have a prosperous and buoyant economy so that we can afford the superannuation that so many of our people in New Zealand need. That is one of the reasons why this Budget is so positive: it gives the people in need the greatest opportunity, it gives them a good start-up, and, just as important, it ensures that an income from the State will be provided to those who need it and rely on it as they get older.

I have to say that I am proud of this Government. I am proud of Bill English and the Budget he has delivered. I am proud of the way in which John Key is giving leadership to this country. I have to say that I am proud to be part of this Government and to be a Minister in it, because this Government is taking steps and going forward, whereas in the past we have not seen that. This country needed leadership. It has it from John Key, it has it from Bill English, and it will continue to get it from this Government.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I am indeed glad that Mr Carter raised the superannuation issue and talked about the benefits of this Budget for Māori and non-Māori. I say to Mr Carter that for Māori and non-Māori this Budget will go down in history, especially for those in their sunset years looking to retire, as a big loser for them and a great lie. The day after the Budget 53 percent of New Zealanders stated in a ShapeNZ poll that they do not believe Mr Carter. They do not believe the National Government’s claim that the deferral of contributions into the Cullen superannuation fund will not result in a reduction in the entitlements for superannuation when they retire or, indeed, in a lifting of the age of entitlement, as well.

I say to Mr Carter that this Budget is a typical Tory Budget. If we look at the last 40 years’ history of superannuation in this country—if we back to Robert Muldoon, and if we look at Hansard—we would see the same set of speeches. We would hear about how proud National members were of Sir Robert, who overnight bribed people with their own money and gutted superannuation. I am sure—I know, because I worked in the building in the 1990s—that there were similar speeches.

If we advance a few years to the early 1990s, we will see that Jim Bolger made the “no ifs, no buts, no maybes” speech. He said he would not raise the age of eligibility. There were similar speeches about the age of eligibility being raised from 60 to 65, and about how proud National members were of that pre-election commitment, which turned out to be one of the great lies of New Zealand history.

Let us move on and consider Bill English’s period, a few years later in the late 1990s, under the Shipley regime. The proud Budget speeches came out then, as well. And who was Minister of Finance? It was Mr English, and National cut superannuation three times. I think Mr Carter was in Government then. He got up and made another of those speeches about how proud he was of the leadership of National as it slashed national superannuation, as it refused to inflation-proof it, and as it lied to the people of New Zealand—as it did in Muldoon’s time, in Bolger’s time, and in English’s time, and as it is now doing in John Key’s time.

It was John Key who went to the country with a cast-iron guarantee, almost signed in his own blue blood, that National would not tamper with superannuation. What it has done is defer the pre-funding of the Cullen fund for 10 years, based on a lie. It is based on the premise that if we have debt we should not fund superannuation. Well, if that is the case, as John Pagani said on Q+A, that would rule out most New Zealanders if not all, or all those with a mortgage. Under that thesis they would never provide for superannuation ever, would they, because they have a 20, 25, or 30-year large debt called a mortgage. That is another great lie of the National Government, and 53 percent of New Zealanders, as I said, do not believe National. They do not believe that, because of the deferral, the age will be held, and they do not believe that their entitlements will not be cut.

I have looked at Mr Carter’s proud speeches about courage and leadership. Courage to Mr Carter is a self-congratulatory attitude about the fact that for the first time in 40 years National has held the age of eligibility and has not altered the current entitlements in superannuation, and, for the first time, has not slashed and burnt the current 66 percent entitlement. But what National members did do was go round to the back door and gut superannuation, through the deferral—

Paul Quinn: They locked it in!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That silly member over there says they locked it in. I hope the Hansard people are getting every word that genius says. He joins a long list of National folk who said one thing on superannuation before the election and then went back on their word. National members lied to people. They went back on their word, and no one believes that member.

Do members know the greatest crime in this Budget with regard to superannuation? It is the fact that there is no longer the same certainty. For a decade prior to this crew getting into Government there was certainty about superannuation. Promises about entitlements were kept. It was, of course, a Labour Government that reversed the triple cut that Mr Carter and Mr Williamson put through in the 1990s, and it was a Labour Government that set up the Cullen fund, which acted as smartly as Kiwis do when they are managing their own domestic budgets.

What do Kiwis do if they know that there is a big expense coming up, like the need for a new washing machine in the house in another 6 months? Average Kiwis, smart people that they are, start to put money aside, because they know the expense is coming. Indeed, the Cullen fund operated on the same principle, given that we know the age of folk, when they will retire, and what the bill will be. The other great lie is that the fund will contribute only 12 percent. That is rubbish—it is more like 20 percent to 25 percent. Labour said that, given the age of entitlement, we knew when folk would retire and we would make provision for it. We said we would create certainty and take away the fear people have as they move towards retirement. The great sin in what the National Government has done is that there is again fear and uncertainty for every person in his or her 40s and 50s. All those people had 10 years of certainty about superannuation, because the Labour Government said: “Here are the rules, here’s the age, here’s how much you’re going to get, and we’ll guarantee it, because we’ve logically made provision for it.”, as Kiwis do every day in their domestic budgeting. But now fear and uncertainty have been unleashed. What do I mean by that? Well, commentators every day are saying that we need a debate about the age of eligibility. They are saying we need to look at what the Australians have done in terms of lessening it.

Hekia Parata: Who are those commentators? Are they National Ministers?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, some will be National Ministers, of course.

Some people will be sitting at home now and thinking “Hang on a minute! Is history going to repeat itself? In my 50s, as I move towards retirement, a decade away—which is simply too short a time to recalibrate—”

Paul Quinn: You will still be bludging off the taxpayer.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a pity about the fool on the second row opposite. If anybody knows about bludging, it is that member. The fool on the second row cares nothing about the elderly. Let him go and barrack at the Grey Power meeting in his patch—oh, he does not have one! Let him go to an Age Concern meeting and sit there, like a stuffed dummy, and barrack at the old folk. Let him go and sit in public meetings and barrack at those people in their 50s who do not have the time to recalibrate their arrangements because he, and his ilk, again, for the fourth time in 40 years, pulled the rug out. I know what the old boys and girls at the Rangiora Grey Power would do to him, and I know what the old boys and girls at the North Canterbury Age Concern would do to him: they would treat him with the disrespect that he deserves. All he can do is sit there and barrack away.

So the great sin in this debate is that Kiwis no longer have the certainty they once had. For 10 years Kiwis knew that if they did all the right things—pay the mortgage, look after the kids, and ensure that their debts and their affairs are in order—the Government would look after them. For 10 years Kiwis could say: “The Government has told me what I have to do, and the Government will look after me.” And we know that Kiwis are generous—we need only look at KiwiSaver. Kiwis stepped up to the plate and said they would make their contribution. They decided to contribute to their retirement. They said that as well as getting superannuation, they would up put their own money. They were generous, they were strong, and they did that.

Today, as the debate in the media and among political parties moves along, we see a headline in this morning’s New Zealand Herald—I do not mean the interesting individual on the front page. That headline says it all: “Super at age 65? Don’t bet on it”. Now that that debate has been ignited, and the consensus has been destroyed, folk in their 40s and 50s are rushing around trying to work out what they have to do to enjoy their retirement, for which they have worked all their working lives.

The great betrayal is what the National Government has done. Yet members opposite sit there and want to be congratulated because, for the first time in their history, they decided they would not move on the age of eligibility or cut the current levels of entitlement—yet. But we know what they will do at the next election. They will go to the country and say: “Look, it’s been 3 years. We haven’t put money into the Cullen fund, and we are billions of dollars behind.” They will tell New Zealanders: “You have a choice. We’ll up your taxes and put the money in, or we’ll have to look at changes to the age of entitlement.” But they will not say that before an election. I say to them, as they barrack away like the old bellows in the second row, that they should not take my word for it. They should look at the history of the National Party from Muldoon, to Bolger, to English, to Shipley, and to Key. They are condemned by their own history.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague’s very fine speech, but I point out that the National Party has obviously found a purpose for Paul Quinn. That purpose is him moving to another seat from his own to yell and scream when members are making their Budget speeches, because he does not want to hear what his Government has done. I ask you to restrain Mr Quinn from his practice, and he did it yesterday as well, of moving to another seat in order to yell and scream at the member speaking.

PAUL QUINN (National): There are a number of references about moving around the House; I refer to Speakers’ rulings 63/1, 63/2, 63/3, and so on. The issue is that a member is not allowed to move seats to advance his or her ability to interject. Since I have been a member of the House, a number of people, including Speakers of the House, have commented that it would not matter where I sat because my beautiful, baritone, melodic voice would be heard anywhere. So I put it to you that moving from my seat does not advance my position.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Although I am indebted to my learned colleague Sue Moroney, I take no offence. It simply shows what a thug Mr Quinn is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): It is not helpful to cast aspersions on individuals. The member Sue Moroney makes a valid point. People should not deliberately move seats to disrupt a speech, and I accept that as a general principle, but there has to be a level of threshold. I have made this point before: if members interjected only from their seats, we would lose one of the ambiences of this House. Members who will be speaking drift generally towards the front benches, and the exchange backwards and forwards creates a debate. This is a debating chamber. People did not build this place to be a lecture theatre, and interjections are part of a debate. But the interjections should be to the point, hopefully witty, somewhat insightful, and not just a barrage of noise.

The member interjecting was noisy. He made the point that he can be heard from anywhere in the Chamber, and I do not doubt him on that. But if it goes beyond the point where I cannot hear, or others cannot hear, then I certainly will ask members to be quiet. Mr Quinn should take note that members have objected to the level of noise, and he should consider how he interjects. We will see how he goes on interjecting on the next speaker.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier): Mr Cosgrove is big on courage. In fact, he spent his entire speech talking about courage in relation to superannuation. So let us talk about courage for a minute and ask Mr Cosgrove a question, although that will be difficult now that he has—

Paul Quinn: Scattered.

CHRIS TREMAIN: —scattered. We will have to ask that question of members of the Labour Party. Oh, he is back in the Chamber. Fantastic! I look forward to asking this question of Mr Cosgrove.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that one of the Standing Orders of the House is not to mention the absence, or otherwise, of members. I did not want to interrupt the speech, but that was a flagrant breach of the rules.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with you, given only six National members are in the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, I tell the member that that is not a point of order. I am dealing with the matter, and making sure it is straight.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Seven.

Hon Tau Henare: Points of order are supposed to be in silence. I want to raise the issue that within the space of 10 minutes that member has raised two points of order just as an opportunity to have a whack back at whoever raised the initial point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Tit for tat.

Hon Tau Henare: And there he goes again. I think that once is OK, but when it happens on a regular basis, somebody has to stand up and say that that is enough.

Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, I do not want any more on this, thank you. We do not have a “three strikes and you’re out” rule in this House, and we do not have “enough is enough”. The point Tau Henare makes is right, and I have chastised Clayton Cosgrove and said that his point was not a point of order. If I have to continue to make that point, then members can be assured I will take some action on that.

Hon David Parker: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Is this a fresh point of order?

Hon David Parker: It is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Point of order, the Hon David Parker.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not going to take a point of order earlier, but the reality is that there were two breaches of the Standing Orders by Mr Tremain. He first referred to the absence of a member, which you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker, have already addressed. He also said that the member, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, lacked courage. That imputation is also in breach of the Standing Orders, so if Mr Henare is to stand on his high horse, then I think that the National member Chris Tremain should be brought to order for that breach, as well.

CHRIS TREMAIN: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, I think I can deal with this; I want the debate to carry on. The member has raised only one point, in actual fact, and that is about the questioning of a member’s courage. I listened to the speech carefully, and I did not construe that the speaker said the member lacked courage. The speaker said that he was talking of courage, and raised an issue about courage, and he was then going on to raise issues about how one might measure that. So he did not cross the line. He might have been going on to say that all of these values are found in Mr Cosgrove, and one can only assume that he has great courage. He may not have been going on to say that; we have yet to hear what the speaker is going to say.

CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes, it was a question that I wanted to put to Mr Cosgrove, because he spent a lot of his speech talking about courage in relation to superannuation. Let us talk a little about that. Have you, Mr Cosgrove, in this recession used that courage to double up on your mortgage and then go out and invest that double mortgage in the sharemarket?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Me, personally?

CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, I have not.

CHRIS TREMAIN: No, he has not. Yet he is implying this Government should invest hard-earned taxpayer money; that we should go out and borrow it, put it on the bill, and invest it in the sharemarket. That is financial lunacy.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very serious point of order. The member has asked me a question, and I want to inquire of the member whether he would like me to give a full answer to it. He has asked me a question, so if he wishes to yield I am happy to give an answer.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, that is not a point of order. The member is entitled to ask, by way of interjection across the House, whether the member yields. If the member yields, the call then falls to the member asking the question. But the member has not yielded, so I want him to continue.

CHRIS TREMAIN: I got a no from his answer, and that was what I wanted to know. The member was not prepared to invest his own money in the sharemarket, but he is prepared to invest taxpayers’ money.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The member talks about courage, but he won’t hear the answer, will he?

CHRIS TREMAIN: I am here. I am not prepared to invest my own money in the sharemarket at this point in time. There—I am telling the member what the situation is. And I am not prepared to invest taxpayers’ money in the sharemarket at this point. So I tell that member that it is not a matter of courage. The member talked about courage, so I wanted to ask him that simple question.

Hon Steve Chadwick: The Budget.

CHRIS TREMAIN: To the Budget. Since being fortunate in being elected to power in 2008, this Government has been about action. With the help of United Future, the ACT Party, and the Māori Party, and more recently with some support from the Greens, we have been about putting things into action and going forward. It has been absolutely fantastic. No more is that the case than with Budget 2009, which takes steps to ensure that New Zealanders are cushioned from the sharpest edges of the recession, but also, and more important, focuses on the future and on providing jobs as we go forward.

I will particularly focus on the investments we have made in this Budget that will create jobs. As I have sat through this Budget debate, I have heard challenges from the Opposition many, many times, asking how the investments will create jobs, what they will do, and where the jobs are in this. That is what we have heard from the other side of the House. So I will pick up on a couple of points in that regard. I want to focus on one of the unique ideas that came from the Job Summit, and that John Key is delivering on in this Budget. It is the cycleway. I recall yesterday that a lot of calls were made from the Opposition—

Sue Moroney: How many jobs?

CHRIS TREMAIN: And those calls are coming now. I will start with just a little analysis of the Otago Central Rail Trail, and a couple of quotes from some tourists who have enjoyed that cycleway. This quote is from Stephen Bigarelli from Australia, a tourist: “It is a really great trail and one I can see becoming more popular over time. I am sure I will be back to do the trail again. Keep up the good work, I wish we had trails in Australia that were as good.” This quote is from Mary Bennie from Australia: “We completed a return Trip … while holidaying at Wanaka in March. Fabulous weather, views, and experience. When next back we plan to do more. Your brochures are great and so too the web site. Congratulations”. These are examples of quotes from genuine tourists who are coming and utilising that trail, and that is providing a serious number of jobs. I have talked to Mr Parker, because I understand that the trail is in his former electorate, Otago. There are 16 tour operators. That is not just 16 jobs; that is literally tens if not hundreds of jobs. There are four bike and transport hire companies. Do members think that they employ people? Yes, they do. They employ a heap of people. There are 25 small towns and hamlets that provide accommodation, varying from basic to luxurious, and where cars, four-wheel drives, cycles, dirt bikes, and canoes can be rented. All of these are businesses employing people, so this cycleway is providing a product.

The $50 million cycleway package will extend that product throughout New Zealand. I say that, yes, it will start with iconic trails around the country. I know that in my own province of Hawke’s Bay a bid is being put in to have a trail going through it. This is exciting stuff. I visited Taupō and Rotorua, and I saw the trail that is starting to progress along the Waikato River. What an amazing opportunity that is! I say in response to challenges from the Opposition that the trail will provide jobs. It will provide jobs not only in terms of making the trail but also in terms of the hundreds of other businesses that will form around it. We will create not just one or two products; we will create a large number of products. When Australian tourists like the one I mentioned come here, they will look at the cycleway and see that they have a whole raft of opportunities to come and do. It will expand the product base, and expand the opportunity. I cannot understand why Opposition members shout asking how many jobs there will be, because hundreds if not thousands of jobs will be created over time from this cycleway. It is absolutely fantastic, and it is just one of the opportunities coming from this Budget.

There are hundreds of opportunities that I can speak about in this Budget. The home insulation package that we are getting together with the Greens on is a wonderful opportunity. That will create jobs. I cannot stand here and say that the package will create 50 or 100 jobs, or 223, but I can say that it will create jobs because it will provide businesses with contract work. You see, it is not Governments that create jobs, although I guess the previous one did through the bureaucracy; it is businesses that create jobs. This home insulation package will create hundreds of jobs, and it will retain them. Not only will we improve the environment and create healthier homes but we will create jobs, with $323 million in this particular part of the Budget alone. It is the second area creating jobs.

In the health area there will be a $3 billion investment in health services over the year. There will be 800 more health professionals, which will increase elective surgery capacity. That is 800 jobs in addition to all the jobs I have just talked about in respect of the home insulation package and the cycleway. We are already talking about thousands of jobs that this Budget will create. That is fantastic. The improvement of maternity services has gone down particularly well in my home electorate. The fact that fathers and mothers can stay in the maternity ward for a little longer than they were able to before will ensure that breastfeeding is going well, before they go home. How can anyone complain about that? That is absolutely wonderful.

Education will have $1.68 billion going into it from the Budget. I understand that that is one of the biggest spends in education going forward. Napier Intermediate School can now be sure that it can proceed with spending funds on its buildings, and that will provide jobs. A number of construction companies, sparkies, and plumbers in Napier will be able to get jobs there and retain people. Again, this is a wonderful opportunity.

The investment in standards for literacy and numeracy is also absolutely wonderful. I will spend my last 2 minutes speaking about the standards in literacy and numeracy because this gets to the heart of the concerns of a constituent who came into my office recently. She said that she wanted to understand more about numeracy and literacy, and that she had gone to one of the teachers at her school to ask for the progressive achievement test results. My constituent initially found it pretty tough to get the results out of the teacher. She finally got the progressive achievement test results back, which was good, and she found out that two of her children were not doing very flash in one particular area, based on the national levels. She asked why her children were not doing well, and what she could do to help with their improvement. We have to understand that this is not just the teachers’ responsibility; it is the parents’ responsibility as well. When parents understand that their child has an issue, they can ask what they can do to help. Do members know what that teacher’s answer was? It was that she should not worry about it, as it was a problem across the whole school.

National standards in literacy and numeracy will make sure that we understand where there are issues in literacy and numeracy across a whole school, and they will allow head teachers and teachers to be accountable in that regard so we can address those issues. That, for me, is critical. Parents are not saying that they do not want anything to do with it; they want to put their hands up. It is a partnership in learning, and that is what I am passionate about. This $36 million for literacy and numeracy standards will go a long way towards that partnership. It will start to improve the 25 percent of children in the education system who are not making the grade. I think it is wonderful. It adds to what this Government is doing with the cycleway. It adds to what we are doing with the infrastructure spending. I could stand and speak for another 10 minutes on the $1.5 billion that has been set aside for the broadband fund. I think that is absolutely wonderful.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I regret that the time of the previous speaker, Chris Tremain from Napier, has expired. He is a great speaker, and a man who knows what is going on. Mr Tremain is in touch with what is happening on the ground. He has been talking about jobs, jobs, and jobs, and that is what this Budget is largely about. What else is this Budget about? It is about police, education, health, and the front line: all the things on which this Government was elected last year to deliver for New Zealanders. That is what this is all about.

We have heard from Opposition members, whose benches are almost as vacant as the gaps in their logic at the moment. They have been standing there, telling us that these things are not important, and saying that the people of New Zealand do not want more police out on the beat. Those members are happy with the crime statistics that this Government was left with. That matter is not important to them. They are saying that what we want to do in education is not good enough, that everything was fine, and that we should not spend money on that.

All members opposite want to talk about is tax cuts. Well, soon after the Budget, Mr Goff said that Labour would not have delivered tax cuts either. Those members cannot have it both ways. They cannot be “whacking it on the bill, Phil”, and at the same time saying: “You have to get your feet out of the trough, Goff.” I say to the Leader of the Opposition, and to all of his very strong supporters who have rushed down to the House to defend him today, that they cannot have it both ways. Health and education are at the front line.

The good times are over, and New Zealand is saying: “Thank goodness we rejected that previous fair-weather Government at the election last year.” Our Government and Bill English have delivered a Budget for New Zealand that is about fiscal responsibility and getting New Zealand through the downturn.

Do members opposite know what their problem is? They have no ideas. They have lots of excuses, they do lots of complaining—

Paul Quinn: Exactly, yes!

TODD McCLAY: I say to Paul Quinn that members opposite do lots and lots of whinging, but they have no ideas. The Budget is about improving growth and productivity and getting New Zealand through the downturn, so that when we do get through it we are stronger for it.

All we have to do is to ask people in the street or to pick up local newspapers. In my home town of Rotorua one can read the Daily Post. Its reporters went out and asked people in the street what they thought about the Budget and the tax cuts that were not delivered. In those street interviews not a single person mentioned—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Maisie did.

TODD McCLAY: Maisie in Rotorua is a wonderful, wonderful woman, and her husband is a fantastic singer. She said that she was concerned about all the scaremongering over the pension being taken away. Bill English delivered for her and said that her pension was fine and that it would not be touched, and I am happy to give her that assurance today.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Her husband can go back to singing.

TODD McCLAY: That is right, her husband will be singing now. He is a fantastic singer.

Members opposite should stop scaring the most vulnerable people in our community. John Key promised, Bill English delivered, and we have kept the rate of superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage for people aged 65 years and over.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Tell us about the funding for construction trade training.

TODD McCLAY: I do not want to argue with the member. We are talking about fiscal responsibility.

The focus is on the areas that are important to New Zealanders. It is about creating jobs. The honourable, intelligent, and smart member from Napier is right: Governments do not create jobs; business and industry do. This Government is about supporting business and industry. How will we do that? Since this Government came into office about 6 months ago its sole focus has been on removing unnecessary regulation so that businesses in New Zealand can thrive. We are in the deepest recession in 60 years. With this great Budget we will work our way through this recession and, at the end of that, businesses will be in a better position not only to re-employ people but also to keep them in their jobs.

We are investing in lifting the literacy and numeracy skills of our young people. What does that have to do with jobs? It is so that when our young people come out of schools they have the skills to get better jobs and be more productive members of society. It creates a more productive public sector. I am yet to meet anybody in my electorate who says: “Please, Todd, when you are down in Wellington, go and tell that great Prime Minister of yours that we do not want a more productive public sector.” Not a single person has told me that. People are saying that, but they are not coming to my office; they are speaking only to the newspapers.

What about law and order? An extra $900 million has been allocated to justice. That is money well spent. There will be 600 more police: 300 in South Auckland and 300 in other parts of the country. The message that this Budget delivers to New Zealand is that it is time to get tough on crime. It is not time for excuses any more. We had 9 years of excuses; it is time to get tough on crime.

What did the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, say after the Budget? She is a great, great Minister who is delivering for the people of Rotorua and the people of New Zealand. She said that there is no better deterrent to crime than having police officers out on the beat and on patrol in our communities. Well, in Rotorua we agree with the Minister and we welcome that announcement. We need more police to tackle violence, to maintain order, and to ensure that all New Zealanders can feel safe in their homes, on their streets, and in their communities. What do we hear from members opposite? They say that they do not think it is a good idea. They say that they do not want New Zealanders to be safer. They do not want New Zealanders to be safe in their homes or on their streets. Those members should be ashamed of themselves for coming to this House and saying that. Over the next 4 years another $162.5 million of operating funds will be allocated to the police. That is a commitment to the police and to everyday mum and dad Kiwi battlers—New Zealanders.

What about parole? We know that under the last Government far too many people were getting out on parole, or, at least, the wrong types of people were let out on parole and were committing crimes again far too quickly. This Budget delivers 246 more probation officers. There is more money for parole, for home detention, and 1,000 extra beds in prisons.

Hon David Parker: There’s too much parole? How does that work?

TODD McCLAY: Absolutely there is too much parole. Under the previous Government everyone could come out of prison. The previous Government said: “It is your right to spend a little bit of time there and we will not police you. You have spent a third of your time in prison, you are good people again, we know you have had a horrible upbringing, and we do not care at all about the victim. It is all about you, the criminal, and we will let you back out and will not pay attention to you when you are out there.” Members opposite should go and say that to the mums and dads in New Zealand whose children have been hurt by people let out of jail too quickly because there were not enough parole officers. So, yes, let us get tough on crime. Let us put more money into home detention and parole. Let us have more probation officers and more police on the street. Let us have much more law and order, because that is what this country has asked for, and it is what this Government is delivering.

Education is a pet topic for every member in this House. The biggest problem is that most of those members want to focus on their pets rather than on thinking about their children. There is more money for education and schools in the Budget. There is an extra $1.6 billion for better schools that deliver more for our children. Again, all we hear from members opposite is complaints. They think there is a better way. New Zealand did not agree with them last year, but they still think they know what is best for New Zealand.

There is $34 million allocated for school Internet services. That will do wonderful things in all parts of New Zealand. The rural parts of my community are looking forward to this extra funding. In some of our rural areas where the Internet is not as good as it should be, after 9 years of a Government that talked so much about these things, kids will get better services from the Internet.

I said that an extra $1.6 billion had been allocated for education. This Budget is all about children. We should do everything we can for them. Where do we start? We start with the youngest people in society, with early childhood education. Any minute now members opposite will start yelling about “free”, but this Government has delivered on another promise. There will be 20 hours’ education for young children in kindergartens, playcentres, and kōhanga reo—

Hon Steve Chadwick: That was Labour’s policy. Labour did that.

TODD McCLAY: Mrs Chadwick knows as well as I do that many, many young people in Rotorua attend playcentres and kōhanga reo. There was no subsidy or support for them at all under the last Government. This Budget is about every single child in New Zealand having opportunities, and it is about delivering to them and to their mums and dads. We can do no better than to make sure that our youngest children are given every opportunity.

What about health? It is another great topic that we speak about a lot in Rotorua. There is an extra $750 million for health services. Where will all that money go? It will not go on managers and on people doing reports to justify their existence, as they did under the previous Government, but it will be delivered in the areas where New Zealand wants it delivered: the front line for doctors, nurses, and operations. We will do that, rather than having lots of bureaucrats writing letters saying: “We know you are on the waiting list; we are really sorry. By the way, the Labour Government does not think there is a waiting list. We will tell you some time in the future when you will get into hospital to be treated.” That will not happen under this Government, because there is $3 billion for district health boards over the next 4 years, funding for the long term, and $116 million for front-line health services. They are very important.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): This Budget proves that the pretence is over and the scales are lifting from the eyes of New Zealanders. They now understand that there is a difference between Labour and National. There are a number of differences; perhaps the most important difference is one that relates to integrity. Over the 9 years Labour was in Government, it made affordable promises. What Labour said it would do, it did. It did not do what it said it would not do. Labour kept its promises. The difference between that and the current Government is already clear. The Government has no integrity. National made unaffordable promises at the election in order to win the Treasury benches—promises it knew it could not keep. National has been forced to break its promises. That is the difference between John Key’s Government and the previous Helen Clark Government. That is the difference between John Key, and Phil Goff and Annette King. The integrity of Phil Goff and Annette King is their most important trait. They will never trade their integrity for the baubles of office and they will never make promises they cannot keep, unlike the National Party.

Why did the National Party do this? Why did National members make so many unaffordable promises in order to bribe their way into office, despite the fact that the international turmoil had already begun, that the IMF had already warned of a very significant slow-down in the international economy, and that Lehman Brothers had already gone into liquidation? Despite that reality, why did National tell journalists who at the time asked “How can you make these tax promises in light of that?” that it could? National still persisted in the myth that that was affordable, because it wanted to get the Treasury benches.

Most New Zealanders were pretty happy with what the previous Government had delivered to them. We delivered the third-lowest Government debt in the world. That would not have been achieved by a National Government, because every time the Labour Government ran a Budget surplus, National said that that was wrong and that there should have been more tax cuts. Had it not been for those responsible surpluses in a time of plenty, the National Government would not have inherited the third-lowest Government debt in the world and have the room to move that it has now. Neither would the Government have inherited the lowest unemployment in the world, an honour we shared with South Korea; we flipped from lowest to second-lowest from quarter to quarter.

The previous Labour Government cut taxes to companies from 33 percent to 30 percent. We had very substantial tax cuts—over $100 per week—for families with children, in the process lifting 130,000 children out of poverty. We established the Superannuation Fund to secure the future of superannuation for people as they age, in the knowledge that an increasing proportion of the population will be reliant on superannuation. In order to secure superannuation for them in the future, it was necessary to pre-fund from the current generation, who will receive that superannuation in retirement, rather than forcing cuts in the future or unreasonable costs on following generations.

It was that legacy that the National Government tried to claim as its own. It tried to say that New Zealanders could have all of that, plus tax cuts. National said there was no difference between itself and Labour, except for tax cuts. Well, that has been exposed as the lie it always was. Within 6 months of the new National Government passing those tax cuts under urgency, it was here under urgency again last week throwing them away. But it went further than that; it also cut contributions to the Superannuation Fund.

A lot of commentators are asking: “Where to from here for New Zealand?”, and that is a wise question not only in respect of superannuation, which is now at risk—and my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has just traversed that recently so I will not go into that again—but also there is the broader question of where New Zealand goes in the future in terms of our economic welfare, the state of our environment, the fairness that we have between generations, and the wealth of our poorer people. Where do we go?

The reality is that for New Zealand to be better off, we have to address some of the fundamentals in our economy that are left unchanged by the Government in this Budget. What has the Government done to improve the productivity of the economy? The answer is, virtually nothing. It has done nothing for skills training of any significance; in fact, there are more cuts than there are gains in real terms. The Government persisted with its cuts to research and development. In order for us to get wealthier as a country, we have to sell more overseas; we have to sell more higher-value products. So what has the Government done towards that end? Nothing. The Government has done nothing. It persisted with its very significant cuts to the research and development tax credit and to research and development in the agriculture sector. Fast Forward was having matched funding from the pastoral sector. It was funded and the money was sitting in a bank account, but that money has been withdrawn by the current National Government and replaced by a much smaller fund. How does that increase productivity and grow our exports? It does not; neither does the abolition of the research and development tax credit.

New Zealand has a problem with private sector savings. Private sector savings are too low. We need to save better so we can afford to invest in plant, to invest in the decent wages we all want in our economy, and to improve the product mix that we sell overseas. On the savings front, National has persisted with its cuts to KiwiSaver. Savings will be worse relative to what they would have been, not better. How is this a vision for the future? How does this address New Zealand’s current account deficit? It does not. Year by year our current account deficit makes us poorer as a country. We own less and less of ourselves every year, and more and more of it is owned by overseas corporations.

How does this Budget make that better? It does not. What does it do to reclaim ownership of our financial institutions? What does it do to improve the savings of those who invest in institutions, be they New Zealand-owned or overseas-owned? It does nothing. This Budget does not take New Zealand forward. It cements in intergenerational inequities in respect of superannuation. Superannuation will not be secure. It is a mark of disrespect to the intelligence of New Zealanders that National has cut contributions to the Superannuation Fund and has then tried to pretend that future entitlements are not at risk. No one other than National thinks that. National is not honest enough to confront the reality, because Mr Key made another promise in the election, and that is that superannuation would not be cut. He has breached his promise for his unaffordable tax cuts, so he does not want to be seen to be cutting superannuation. But in reality the effect of the cuts to the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund make that almost inevitable.

Those cuts will be maintained for more than a decade. National has said that the cuts to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will not be restored until at least a decade away. What will National do before then? Will it prioritise the funding of Government superannuation, or tax cuts? I suggest that tax cuts will come back on to National’s agenda. National will try to bribe its way through another election with more promises of tax cuts. It will strip money out of the State-owned enterprises by increasing indebtedness on the balance sheets of energy-related State-owned enterprises, in order to hide the terrible reality that it is creating for New Zealand. National will try to fund future tax cuts before it restores the funding of the Superannuation Fund. That is irresponsible; that is cynical politics. It creates intergenerational inequity. In addition to that, National is not doing anything in this Budget to grow our economy.

I will say one positive thing: the insulation fund is a good idea, and I thank National and the Greens. I also make the point that the insulation fund was already in place at the last election, and had National not canned it since the election, it would not have had to reinstate it. But it is a good policy, and I know that because I helped to design a lot of the details of it. It is somewhat ironic that I am here supporting what was going to happen anyway. But the fundamentals of this Budget are poor. The Budget does not lift New Zealand’s productivity, it does not address savings, and it does address export earnings.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Is it not good to listen to Labour members talk about how much they care for superannuitants and poor people? We have just come out of 9 years of surplus upon surplus.

Hon David Parker: Which that member opposed every year.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, here we go! I hear the crocodile crying again. In a nutshell, this Budget documents the appalling economic legacy of mismanagement during the last 9 years. That is the first thing it does. Every economic commentator from the top of the North Island to the southernmost tip of the South Island, across to the Chatham Islands and back again to Taranaki, says that it is a documentation of mismanagement and poor economic literacy on the part of the previous Labour Government.

I start by making the point that there is a difference—I point this out to the former Minister who just resumed his seat—between superannuation and the Superannuation Fund. I rode in a taxi last night, and the woman asked me about her super, and whether she would still get it at 65. I said that absolutely she would be paid her superannuation at 65. She asked about what the Labour Party has been saying over the last week about the Government not putting money into the Superannuation Fund any more. I said to the taxi driver that that had nothing to do with superannuation; they were two separate things. She was over the moon that somebody had actually explained it to her. She also said that Labour members were a pack of mongrels for scaring the community. She said they were a pack of mongrels for going out amongst old people in our communities and saying that the National Government had cut superannuation.

I have seen campaigns of misinformation before, but this takes the cake. I tell members why it takes the cake. No one can jump on the superannuation wagon like Winston can, but even he would not have had the temerity to go out and put fear and worry amongst the people in our community.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Are you sure?

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, I am pretty sure. Here are some facts for David Parker and Clayton Cosgrove. Between 2000 and 2008—I just want to do some maths—labour productivity grew on average by about 1.3 percent a year. Let us now add that fact to the fact that Government spending grew by nearly 50 percent. Then let us put that alongside the current account deficit, which was near record levels. What do we get? New Zealand being left dangerously exposed to the overseas financial markets. Without a very hard Budget in very hard times, the IMF would have been knocking on our door. We would not have been have been knocking on the IMF’s door; the IMF would have been camped outside. They would have been knocking on our door if Labour had come anywhere near the Treasury benches for a fourth time.

David Parker said the pretence was over. I have to agree with him. The pretence of the last 9 years is finally over. Labour dined out on its third way theory for 9 years. But that third way put us in a perilous situation. All it needed was the world economy to start failing, and we would be in a serious situation. We are. I congratulate Bill English on what is not a slash-and-burn Budget. Many people accuse him of having a slash-and-burn mentality, and many people out in our communities requested a slash-and-burn Budget. He and Cabinet were able to deliver a middle-of-the-road, “steady as she goes”, “tighten your belt” Budget. It did not have everything for everybody, but it did have things that will set us on the road to recovery.

Here are just three little policy points as a diversion. The first is the cycleway. Instead of seeing it as some sort of individual programme, I see the cycleway as an opportunity for small, provincial areas and Māori communities to get into the tourism market, and as an opportunity to build businesses around their communities rather than leaving those small communities for the bright lights of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and maybe Dunedin. The 9-day working fortnight should not be seen as just some sort of gimmick. It should actually be seen as an opportunity—certainly in Māori quarters—to use the 10th day of the fortnight to learn the Māori language. The boot camp idea should not be seen as a punitive measure against young people. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity to rekindle the service and sacrifice of the 28th Battalion. The premise is changed in the way these policies are done, and I think we are on the road to recovery, as Mr English said.

Clayton Cosgrove said that the last 10 years—he pinched an extra year; Labour was in power for only 9 years—were 10 years of certainty. The funny thing is that Labour railed against the Hon Pita Sharples about how he was not delivering anything for Māori. Let me tell the House that at least he made a Budget bid. When we had lots of money, when there was surplus after surplus, the former Minister of Māori Affairs did not even bother to turn up. He did not even bother to turn up to the office of the Minister of Finance and ask him for some money. He spent all of his time down at McDonald’s. How dare Labour members say that there is nothing in the Budget for Māori! The previous Labour Government did not even bother. It was not that its Minister of Māori Affairs forgot; he did not even bother to make a Budget bid. Yet he and Labour have the gall to get up and have a crack at the new Minister of Māori Affairs, who is only 6 months into the job and has delivered a package as best he could, given the appalling economic situation that faces this country.

I turn very quickly to congratulate my friend from the Green Party Metiria Turei on her elevation to the party co-leadership. I also want to send my commiserations to a very, very good friend, and, I know, a true working-class hero, Sue Bradford.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): A few weeks ago employees at the Ministry of Health were being hailed as the stalwarts of our health system as they were paper-shuffling heroes who were keeping us safe from swine flu. But now those same employees are facing job cuts. I heard that officials have been given mere days to prepare plans for restructuring departments like the Ministry of Health, so it is almost certain that we will have yet another round of job cuts in the ministry. While the officials who are giving the Government advice are being purged and cut, the front lines of preventive health care are also being attacked. Well-functioning health prevention initiatives are being thrown into the bin with this Budget.

Of course, there are some things to praise in the Budget. We are pleased to see the increased funding going to those who work in hospices, the increased funding for insulating homes, and a small increase for aged care. But other parts of the Budget relating to health seem to be bizarre. Indeed, I am left wondering whether the Minister of Health hired Lindsay Perigo as one of his secret purchase advisors—I think those advisors are getting around $2,000 a day—to give him a few tips on how to sabotage preventive health because that is what this budget has done, just as the Greens predicted it would weeks ago. This Budget has sabotaged initiatives in preventive health, nutrition, and obesity. It has effectively switched the whole focus of the ministry away from trying to tackle the root causes of ill health such as poor nutrition and obesity, or from trying to prevent people from becoming ill in the first place. That is why I predict the Budget will be known as the Budget that purged very good nutrition, obesity, and preventive health programmes, and literally expunged nutrition and obesity from the Ministry of Health’s priorities.

For example, the Government has axed the $16 million Mission-On programme. It was a package of initiatives that was aimed at improving the lifestyles of young New Zealanders by improving their nutrition and getting them more involved in physical activity, which included a whole lot of positive initiatives aimed at improving nutrition within the school and early childhood environments. The Budget has also axed the regional coordinators of the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme, who were working very effectively in schools, and axed the budget of the nutritional social marketing campaign Feeding our Futures, the Green Party’s $3 million a year nutrition fund that was set up to help schools with healthy eating and edible garden initiatives. Its funding has been reallocated into something called the Community Response Fund, whatever that means. I have not been able to figure that out. Then there is a reduction in the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action budget, and a vague reference in the Budget to the fact that the whole work programme for Healthy Eating - Healthy Action is being revised to reflect the Government’s priority areas of work. I take that as code for saying that funding will be switched away from healthy eating and focused instead on physical activity. The sector has been waiting for some great announcement about some new physical activity measures, but it has not yet come.

In the back of the Budget we have the statement of corporate intent from the Minister for the next 3 years. If one looks at the statement of corporate intent, one finds that there is no mention of the word “nutrition”. There is only one very vague and oblique reference to obesity. These things have been expunged from the Ministry of Health and are no longer priorities for the ministry, nor is there any funding for them. The Budget has also axed funding for the Obesity Action Coalition. This was probably about 0.0001 percent of the health budget. In fact, I may have even left off a zero in that quick calculation. The funding was infinitesimally small in the grand scheme of things, but the Obesity Action Coalition was doing great work in trying to improve nutrition and reduce obesity in New Zealand. Axing its funding seems to be a particularly petty, political, unfortunate, and short-sighted decision.

All of the decisions I have just referred to are purely political and astonishingly short-sighted. Presumably, those decisions were made as a result of sustained lobbying from the food industry. I predict they will cost the nation dearly in terms of poor health and increased expenditure of the health budget, because the reality is that poor nutrition is the leading cause of premature death and disease in New Zealand. It contributes to more than 8,000 preventable deaths a year. If people do not believe that, they need only to look at the Ministry of Health statistical chart I have here. It shows poor diet accounting for 8,000 to 9,000 preventable deaths. The Government is ignoring the single largest cause of preventable death and disease in New Zealand. The reality is that we are spending almost $1 billion a year on treating obesity and type 2 diabetes, etc., but the Government is ignoring those problems. They are no longer its priority. We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. A third of our children are obese. A lot of experts are saying that unless we get serious about the problem, obesity-related illnesses will skyrocket and overwhelm our health system. But the Government is ignoring them. The Government is just sweeping this under the carpet, presumably because of food industry lobbying. Until we reduce the numbers of people with preventable illnesses in our hospitals and the amount of resources being spent treating preventable illnesses, the health system will remain in crisis. But instead of tackling the root causes of ill-health, the Government is putting its head in the sand and is heading in exactly the opposite direction. It is rolling back public health initiatives, removing nutrition and obesity as priorities for the Ministry of Health, throwing out very important initiatives, and saying it will leave it all to individuals instead. What a cop-out!

The Government’s axing of nutrition and obesity initiatives from the Budget follows a consistent pattern that we have seen ever since this Government took office. In February this year, out of the blue, the Minister of Education axed the school food nutritional guidelines, which the Ministry of Health had spent more than 4 years and about $4.5 million of taxpayers’ money developing. Papers obtained under the Official Information Act reveal that the Minister did this without seeking any advice from school principals or the Ministry of Health officials who had been working on the guidelines for many years. She did it without any justification, for purely political reasons, presumably to placate the food industry lobbyists. Although she sought no advice from officials about whether the guidelines were working, she asked the Ministry of Education officials whether there were any risks to axing the guidelines and they said “Numerous studies have shown poor nutrition and health adversely affects educational achievement, and Pacific and Māori students are especially vulnerable in this respect,”. They went on to report that tuck shops are the primary source of lunch for around half of students and account for up to 30 percent of their diet. But the Minister ignored that advice and the growing body of research that shows that children who eat well are better able to concentrate and learn in class.

Instead of investing in initiatives to improve the food our children eat, the Minister of Education has spent $30 million on independent schools. Perhaps that will allow tennis courts at Christ’s College and other private schools to be upgraded to Olympic standards. Did the Minister not think that some of that money could have been spent on trying to get all Kiwi kids in New Zealand healthier, perhaps with a nationwide investment in school gardens in primary schools? Imagine just $1 million going into setting up school gardens where kids could learn about planting, harvesting, and cooking vegetables. That would have been a visionary initiative.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. This Budget talks about the road to recovery. It is a road that Māori have travelled on many an occasion, to have been often diverted, sometimes stonewalled, and many times turned back. But it is a road we travel constantly in the search for justice, and in the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our everyday lives. I am reminded today of the great Māori Land March of 1975, which led to the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Treaty settlement process, and I am reminded of the foreshore and seabed hīkoi of 2004, which gave birth to the mighty Māori Party and the review—and, hopefully, the repeal—of the filthy, racist legislation that is the Foreshore and Seabed Act—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot use the word “racist”.

HONE HARAWIRA: Even in respect of legislation?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note, having had this debate myself to some extent in previous years, that the rule, as I understand it, is that a member may not call another person a racist person, but is entitled to describe events or, as in this case, legislation as racist. On that basis, the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings are concerned about calling people racist—quite rightly—but not things.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The word “racist” applies not only to a particular member but also to parties and members of this House. I am sure there is another word the member can use.

HONE HARAWIRA: If I might—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have ruled. I ask the member to continue with his speech.

HONE HARAWIRA: Very well, but I am happy to have used the word, and happy to have used it in reference to the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I am also reminded of the march for Māori representation in Auckland, just over a week ago. All these events were challenges to the nation that the commitment our tūpuna made to the promises of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are challenges we take seriously today, tomorrow, and until such time as those promises have been honoured. We turn to this legislation with the same outlook, the same commitment, and the same desire to see the Treaty promise honoured—and I do not mind admitting here today that that road ahead does not look as if it is getting any shorter or any easier to travel.

While we are on the subject of roads, I note that there has been an increase of $1 billion in highway construction projects each year for the next 3 years, with a long-term plan of $10 billion over the next 10 years. For those who think that $1 billion is a lot of money to spend on roads each year, let me put that figure into perspective. One billion dollars is a little more than the Government gets every year to turn a blind eye to the deaths of 4,700 New Zealanders killed every year by the murderers masquerading as tobacco companies.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Ban cigarette displays.

HONE HARAWIRA: After 9 years, it is a bit rich to hear that member saying that now! It is the total amount offered for the theft of 60 million acres of Māori land over the last 170 years, and it is about what it will cost to build the “Waterview Criminal Bypass”, which my good friend Melissa Lee sees as an important investment in the security of Mount Albert. But given how keen New Zealanders have been to take up a more carbon-conscious future, and their growing understanding of the perils of peak oil, we have to wonder why so much money is being spent on roads and how little is being spent on public transport. Spending $50 million on a national cycleway is a great idea, but it hardly signals a genuine investment in alternative transport.

We see a Budget allocation of $172 million for 600 new police officers, and $10 million for Tasers, even though the recorded crime rate has gone down by 8 percent, and as if either of those measures will turn around the levels of crime, which are determined not by police numbers or by police brutality but by the level of poverty that this country is willing to inflict on its own population. For the same strange reason, it is difficult to understand why we will be spending an extra $385 million to increase prison capacity, when every intelligent criminologist tells us that building more prisons leads to neither a decrease in crime nor an increase in rehabilitation. Then we find that of the $385 million, $24 million has been set aside for the planning and design of more prisons, as if after 200 years of the criminal insanity that masquerades as corrections policy in this country, the Government does not yet know how to build the mind-numbing, soul-destroying blocks of concrete that we call jails.

On top of that, we also find that $145 million is to be spent on double bunks in cells. I am sad to have to report in advance that double-bunking may ease the prison population crush, but it will also substantially increase the number of rapes, fights, stabbings, maimings, murders, suicides, and attacks on prison officers, which will be a natural outcome of this policy of simplistic sadism and senseless stupidity. I know this because it is already the experience of every Western nation in the world. In fact, the Dominion Post last week reported the alarming comments of the president of New Zealand’s own Corrections Association, Beven Hanlon, who stated that overseas evidence confirmed the fact that double-bunking will lead to overcrowding, and that overcrowding will most likely result in “a dramatic increase in assaults, suicides, rapes and escapes, and increased psychopathic behaviour among inmates.”

On the upside, we are glad that even though the squeeze is on, we are able to get agreement on substantial new money for Māori initiatives. We are glad that the Budget of 2009 more than doubles the allocation for Māori that we saw just a year ago. In 2008, although $53 million was allocated for Māori, most of that was re-routed, refashioned, and re-badged money already allocated to Te Puni Kōkiri. However, in 2009, thanks to a new National Government and a breath of fresh air from the Māori Party, we now have more than $120 million set aside specifically for Māori in housing, education, social development, Māori affairs, and Treaty negotiations. We are glad of the million dollars being spent to straighten out the last Government’s policy, which actually prevented kōhanga reo and playcentres from accessing the early childhood education entitlement, and we look forward to seeing more Māori children in kōhanga reo, puna reo, and preschool education.

While I am talking about kōhanga reo, I want to pay tribute to the newly honoured Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, who was a pioneer of the kōhanga reo movement, and who will no doubt take as great a delight in seeing her mokopuna benefit from the 20 hours’ free early childhood education scheme as she will from the Queen’s Birthday honour, for which she will be teased mercilessly for months to come.

We are glad of the extra $22 million of new money to streamline the process of Treaty negotiations between iwi, hapū, and the Crown, and to reduce the time required to settle claims. We are glad of the extra $20 million of new money to help reduce the underachievement of Māori students in mainstream schools. We are glad of the extra $16 million of new money to settle several Māori aquaculture claims. We are glad of the extra $12 million of new money to help Māori build homes in rural communities—communities that are the backbone of Māori culture. We are glad of the extra $3 million of new money for a programme to help whānau learn and use te reo in the home. We are particularly glad of, and thankful to the Green Party for, getting a Government commitment to home insulation, which will benefit many, many Māori families. Of course, I am personally very, very glad of the extra $1.2 million of new money to help iwi radio with operational costs.

We know that the most important issue facing us is how we prepare ourselves as catalysts for recovery. We know we must put the effort into helping our people to face a new future; we know that future depends on our being able to respond intelligibly and effectively to the changing political and economic climate, and to those challenges that lie before us all. Could Māori have done better? Yes, we probably could have, but we are not crying about what we got, at all. In fact, given the current economic climate and the fact that we have been in the job for only a few months, what we got is a bloody great start and heaps more than those miserable buggers in the last Government gave to Māori, even with all that Government’s massive surpluses. We look forward to getting on with doing whatever it takes to ensure that the money we have been able to secure, thanks to the National Government, is used to help Māori to become more and more independent, and more and more positive, in the years ahead. Kia ora tātou.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak in this Budget debate, and my first port of call is a quotation from the Minister of Education, who said in question time yesterday that the education budget would ensure that “… New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens.”

At the beginning of the year, and with much fanfare, we heard of the Job Summit. We in the Labour Opposition only heard of it—not being invited to it—and we heard the promise that it would bring New Zealand quickly and early out of this recession. One of the main planks of the Job Summit was to do with upskilling the workforce. It was to do with taking existing and future workers, young people and people already in employment, and improving their skills, their literacy and numeracy, their trade skills, and the kinds of skills that young people—young men in particular—acquire through trades training. Yet what we have in this Budget is exactly the opposite. We have cuts made to education in a way that will impede the development of young people, the development of our labour force, and the rapid recovery of New Zealand from this recession.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Education took an expensive helicopter ride to get an overview of the problems with education in the Auckland region; that action earned her the nickname of “Chopper Tolley”. In the wake of this Budget brought down last week, “Chopper Tolley” takes on a whole new meaning. We see cuts being made to those areas of education that are often the areas that deliver quick and enduring skills acquisition to the widest possible range of our population. Surely that is what we need to do in a time of recession. This is the moment for a Government to invest in education and skills training to accelerate the country out of a very hard landing, and out of having additional people on the dole queue.

I want to begin with the universities and the approach to the universities that this Government has taken. First of all, we see the vice-chancellors’ response, and it is damning. It is not often that the vice-chancellors actually move in a bloc, but when they do they are formidable. This is one of those moments, and the Minister of Education would be wise to listen to them. Apart from simply disagreeing with them—

Hon Member: Does she know what they do yet?

Hon MARYAN STREET: I am not sure whether she knows what they do, but she has probably been told by now. Instead of simply disagreeing with them she needs to listen to them, because they have said—and they are not known for extravagant language; they are known for accurate and temperate language—that this Budget deals a body blow to the universities, and that it represents lost opportunities. More than that, they said it makes the future of universities, and the Government’s contribution to universities, doubtful. It makes the contribution from the Government, and any commitment the Government has to universities, uncertain. How can that be when the universities are the peak of training and education for people in this country? The higher-skilled people are, the better they should be paid, and that is where a high-skills economy should take its workforce.

Somebody from one of the universities commented: “Yes, this is a bleak Budget indeed. Does this cut in funding to our sector”—that is, the university sector—“mean we will be forced to turn potential students away, or increase fees so education becomes the plaything of the rich?”. Those are real possibilities for the university sector. There is much more to be said about the cuts to the tertiary education sector, and, as the students association said, the brighter future of the National Party is now a distant glimmer.

I want to move to the area of adult and community education. That is the area in which the Budget made the most savage chopping. Mrs Tolley, who will go down in history as “Chopper Tolley”, and not just for the helicopter ride, has taken to the adult and community education sector with a vengeance. In fact, newspaper reports that I have in my hand straddle responses from the length and breadth of the country. They describe the uproar that is happening in communities around this country as they register the 80 percent cut in Budget funding for this quiet, community-based, and effective delivery mechanism of tertiary education and skills acquisition to thousands of Kiwis.

We could start with the Ashburton Guardian editorial yesterday, which gets it in one: “If ever the future literacy levels of New Zealand were placed in jeopardy, it will be through such short-sighted cut-backs to community education funding as announced in last week’s Key Budget.” It goes on to state: “The Menorlue adult and community education centre at Ashburton College, which caters for around 2,000 people a year”—2,000—“through 150 courses, are anxious that they are going to be closed. They cannot see how they can remain in place with an 80 percent cut in their funding.” Fairfield College in the Waikato runs about 50 night classes each term. The five schools in the Hamilton area, and Cambridge High School as well, as Mr Deputy Speaker will know intimately, cater to thousands of adult learners each year. They say that they are unlikely to be able to sustain these programmes for adults in the future.

The list goes on: Kaikorai Valley College, Logan Park High School, Bayfield High School, and Taieri College. They employ about 200 tutors. They offer affordable education to over 7,000 adults a year. They will not be able to continue to do so. In the Manawatū 955 people are enrolled in 76 courses at Queen Elizabeth College. And on it goes. Whakatane High School is anxious about its programme, aimed at a largely Māori population. The Westport News says the local school is anxious about its ability to sustain its contribution to upskilling the workforce.

But, more than that, we go also to industry training funding in the Budget. That funding supports skills acquisition on the job. The Budget has cut the CPI adjustment for 2010; that is $9 million gone. It talks about reducing growth in funding for—guess what—embedded literacy programmes, so $2.6 million has gone from there. It talks about reducing the Industry Training Organisation strategic leadership fund; $3.5 million has gone from there. A total of $15 million has gone from industry training funding. But they are the people who have been strategically contributing to the Skills Strategy, which was developed by the previous Government, and has been junked by this short-sighted National Government. This is a travesty. This is the moment when there should be additional funding for skills training, yet we are seeing a cut across all of those areas. Skills training could give us quick wins and quick gains by upskilling members of the workforce. This is a travesty.

NICKY WAGNER (National): This debate on the Budget has been extremely interesting. It has been absolutely fascinating, because it has highlighted the spendthrift nature of the previous Labour Government; its “spend, spend, spend; we’ll be right” attitude. Labour members just do not seem to get the fact that the world is in recession and that we need to focus on quality spending, not quantity. This debate just reinforces the need for the change of Government. Thank goodness the people of New Zealand, the smart people of New Zealand, as identified by Clayton Cosgrove just a few minutes ago, voted National last November. Thank goodness they voted National so decisively, because after 9 long years of a Labour Government, our Government can now get on with building a new, stronger, and better New Zealand We had 9 long years of mediocrity, 9 long years of lack of aspiration, and 9 long years of a downward trend economically. It is absolutely time for change, and with this Budget we are on the road to recovery. At last, New Zealand is picking itself up, dusting itself off, and getting on with the job of building a better nation for New Zealanders.

And what a pity about the global economic conditions. National is coming into Government at a time of the worst international financial crisis in decades—maybe, ever—and with the cupboard bare. There was nothing left for a rainy day after Labour had squandered the opportunities of the very best economic times for decades. Once again, National has to pick up the pieces after another loose-spending, unproductive Labour Government. So many of the things we would like to do, to develop and grow our people and our country, have to be put on hold while we firefight for all New Zealanders. The problem is that Labour just does not understand wise money management. It never has and it never will, and this debate echoes that.

Bill English’s Budget does all the right things to cushion New Zealanders from the worst depths of the world recession. It does all the right things to support and create jobs. It is absolutely focused on keeping as many people in work as possible, and that is exactly what it should be doing. That is the priority. The Budget has provided a multimillion-dollar infrastructure boost. Of course that will increase productivity in the economy, but essentially that multimillion-dollar infrastructure boost is to create hundreds, maybe thousands, of new jobs. The Budget has created a $323 million home insulation and clean heating fund. Of course that is to conserve electricity, of course that is to create healthy homes, but essentially it is to create hundreds, maybe thousands, of new jobs. The Budget has funded $50 million for a national cycleway network, and even though the Labour Party does not seem to like it, of course that cycleway will attract tourists, of course it will provide health and recreation benefits, but essentially it is to create hundreds, maybe even thousands, of new jobs, because all these things are about keeping New Zealand working.

This Budget, in the face of the world’s worst depression, also safeguards all the entitlements that New Zealanders expect and enjoy. It maintains all benefits, student support, and Working for Families, at current levels. It also—and this is the debate of the day—locks in national superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage at age 65. I will say that again; Labour members do not seem to understand it: the Budget locks in national superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage at age 65. Labour, in its typical scaremongering fashion, is trying to frighten the most vulnerable and the elderly by speculating on the future of superannuation entitlements. There should be no speculation. For the third time, I say that the Budget locks in national superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage at age 65. We know that Labour does not understand wise money management. Its members think that because we have deferred payments into the Superannuation Fund, the world will fall on Chicken Licken’s head. They want National to put money away for superannuation now, when it is not even due until 2030, when we are broke, and when our credit rating is at risk. That is not smart. No individuals in their right mind would borrow—would borrow—to play the overseas stock market, when the world economy is so depressed. So why, oh why, would Labour members think that the Government should do that?

Luckily, Bill English has a few more financial smarts than the Opposition. He has focused on reducing debt, and we have avoided the credit rating downturn that would have cost New Zealanders $600 million a year—$600 million dollars a year—when right now we need every single cent to grow jobs and to help to cushion New Zealanders from the effects of the recession. None of us wants to be paying extra interest charges for nothing. Interest charges do not create jobs; interest charges do not provide social services. Why does Labour not understand that? The best way to ensure there is funding for superannuation in the future is to stimulate and have a healthy, growing, and productive economy, with new businesses, new jobs, and a better quality of life for everyone. Thank goodness that the shonky financial management of “Whack-it-on-the-bill-Phil” Goff has gone!

The Budget also improves public services. It focuses on the things that matter most to New Zealanders. It focuses on health, it focuses on education, and it focuses on the police. There is a $3 billion boost for health over the next 4 years, which is focused on front-line services. The thing that is of most interest to me, and that I am particularly pleased to see, is the allocation of $103 million extra—that is, $103 million on top of the usual funding—for maternity services. This money will allow more young mothers to spend more time in hospital with their babies, and it will provide for more continuity of care for mothers and their babies by providing more funding for general practitioners, for lead maternity carers, and for mothers and babies, to work together to keep these children healthy in the long term. There is more funding for the Well Child programme, and more funding for the Plunket hotline.

All of these projects are enormously valuable, but I will also look at education. We all know that young people are our future, but it is educated young people who are so important for us. What we are doing in education is adding an extra billion dollars of new spending. That money will improve facilities and lift educational achievement. As an ex-teacher myself, I am really keen on the focus on literacy and numeracy for young children. There is absolutely no doubt that the building blocks of literacy and numeracy allow children to develop and learn so that they can go on to extra education. Finally, I say that Bill English has produced a good Budget. It is a good Budget, because it is a balanced Budget, and it is a Budget that will put us on the road to recovery.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): This Budget was apparently signed off by a Government whose front-man had publicly proclaimed that he was ambitious for New Zealand. I ask members whether they remember anyone saying that. I spent the last week traversing my way through different aspects of the Budget in an attempt to find anything that even remotely resembles that ambition, given that New Zealand entered the difficult times with the kinds of books that—despite the comments of the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner—most nations could have only dreamt of entering a recession with. The unemployment rate was the lowest in the OECD, and Government debt was at 17 or 18 percent. The National Government would have preferred to give tax cuts rather than deal with the debt, which actually enabled us to enter the recession in better shape than many other countries were. We have a well-regulated banking sector to boot, with no need to find the level of bail-out funding that overseas jurisdictions have needed to find. So New Zealand was in pretty good shape to enter into the recession.

Did the previous Labour Government know we were moving towards difficult times? Well, yes, we did. During the last election campaign, we told New Zealanders that National would never be able to afford the types of tax cuts it signalled would occur if it was elected—and that did not take into account National’s decision to allocate 30 percent of its first round of tax cuts to a mere 3 percent of the top income earners in this country. We said that National was irresponsible in making promises that we knew it could not keep. We backed off from making some commitments that we wanted to make during the election campaign last year, because we knew that we could not afford to deliver on them. We thought it would be dishonest to go ahead with those promises. We backed off from making those commitments, because we wanted to keep the promises we made.

Mr Key was not so circumspect; he was given the National Party leadership in order to win the election. That was his job, and he would say anything, or do anything. He acted on Crosby/Textor advice in order to be elected. It is all very well for that experienced money-market bond trader to say that his experience in the market is one of his credentials for becoming Prime Minister, but then he said that he did not know that the recession was going to be as bad as this. Well, how bad did he think it was going to be? Was it better or worse than he thought it would be, when National passed the tax cuts under urgency before Christmas? Was it better or worse? Or were the tax cuts designed just to be written up by the media as part of National’s 100 days of action? Were they undone by the passing of legislation under urgency on Budget night so that the breach of faith would be removed from the agenda as quickly as possible?

My message to Mr Key is simply this: he cannot have it both ways. What occurred internationally was already having a flow-on effect on the New Zealand economy. This effect was reflected well before the last election. It was also reflected in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. There was no damning opening of the books, as we saw in 1984 and, indeed, in 1990. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update was designed to prevent that from happening. It was aimed at stopping a political party from making promises that other parties knew it could not keep.

All of the information was on the table, but that did not stop Mr Key. The people who voted for him do not deserve this Budget. It represents a betrayal of Mr Key’s personal guarantees on several counts, but, most of all, it puts paid to the idea that he was ever ambitious for New Zealand. I think he was just ambitious. Apparently, Mr Key has a new persona in the Back Bencher: the “Blue Baron”. I have not been over to see it yet. When I first heard it described, I thought the name was spelt “barren”, because this Budget is barren. It is bereft of the ideas that one would expect from somebody who put his personal guarantee behind the promises that he made.

One area that I want to focus on in this Budget response is the impact that this National Government has had on this nation’s fledgling efforts to grapple finally with our lack of savings. This issue has not been addressed since another National Government, riding high on a major electoral victory, destroyed the last superannuation scheme that a Labour Government had put in place in 1974. I honestly thought that the days of members’ using superannuation as a political football were finally over. I seriously thought we had achieved final agreement. Everyone had signed up.

My entire political career, and even my life before that, is tied up with the superannuation issue—the promises, the parties’ outbidding of each other, and all those things. In 1974 New Zealand had Labour’s superannuation fund, and in 1975 we had the famous dancing Cossacks ads. I remember having to ask my parents what that was all about; of course, it was an attack on the superannuation policy. I did not get to vote in the 1975 election, but a lot of people did, and they voted to get their money back. Was that a good thing? No.

Then, in 1984, Labour promised not to introduce means testing, as a kind of counter to the Muldoon attack on the Labour Opposition. Muldoon had said that Labour would introduce means testing, because he knew that the Government could not sustain universal entitlement at 60 years of age. It was known that it could not be sustained. So Labour promised that it would not introduce means testing. How did Labour get round that, when we could not afford universal entitlement at age 60? We introduced the surtax. In my view, that was not the right thing to do. When we make a statement that we will not go down one track, to then go down it but call it something else does not take away from the fact that we are not doing the right thing. The right thing was not to make the promise. Getting rid of the surtax was actually the right thing to do. That was a core promise made in the 1990 election campaign. Does anyone remember the speech made by Mr Bolger at the time? He said “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”; he gave a cast-iron guarantee that the surtax would be removed, but, of course, the surtax was not removed until 1997.

In 1999 we had the cutting of the threshold for superannuation from 65 percent of the average wage—below which it could not fall—down to 60 percent. That was a dishonourable action taken by a very dishonourable Government, which paid for its tax cuts by cutting the base threshold for the pension. In 2000 the incoming Labour-led Government restored the threshold to 65 percent.

Finally, we brought together the last two elements of the jigsaw: the Cullen fund, which partially pre-funded the cost of superannuation into the future, and KiwiSaver. What do we have now? Here we go; it is happening all over again. I think it is important that we think about what this means.

In 2031, when withdrawals are expected to commence, the fund will be short by $35 billion. It is ludicrous for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to say that investing in the fund is borrowing to save, when the detailed analysis shows that we will be much worse off if we do not take the opportunity to continue to invest in the fund. By 2031, if we continue to contribute to the fund, $124 billion will be in the fund, including the tax revenue generated from earnings. With a contribution holiday of 11 years, the amount will be $86.5 billion, and we will have $14 billion less debt. I can add. We will be $23.5 billion worse off as a result of the decision not to invest in the Superannuation Fund.

The Government says that people would not have a mortgage at the same time as a superannuation scheme. It says that anyone would pay off his or her mortgage before saving. That is what the Government says. It is rather ironic that this is the Government that decided to cut the mortgage diversion component of KiwiSaver; that shows that it does not believe its own rhetoric.

I think the National Government has to front up on this issue. It has given up on a mechanism that enables political parties to commit long term to the current superannuation thresholds: 65 years of age, universal entitlement, non - means-tested, with 65 to 72 percent being the range of the proportion of the average wage that the payment represents—the married rate. The decade of deferrals is irresponsible in the extreme. The obvious consequences will not be felt until we have all left this place. The reason that Mr Key will not need to honour his promise to resign when superannuation is cut—and it will be cut—is that he will not be here to resign.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): How out of touch was the speech that we have just heard! If any of the members opposite bothered to go out and speak to the public they would understand that the public gets it. The public have been spoken to as if they are stupid for far too many years now, but when we present them with transparency, with choices, and with a Budget that is making responsible decisions in these dire economic times, the public understand. When we give people a long-term focus on turning this situation around for the betterment of New Zealand, they understand it. However, when we scaremonger and try to tell New Zealanders facts and figures that are not true, they understand. They are responsible, and they understand that they have the best people as the servants of their money and of them. That is what we have seen with this Budget.

No Budget is easy to pull together, and this one has been especially difficult. This is the first chance I have had to speak in the Budget debate. I want to acknowledge the work done by Bill English. It has been an interesting process to go through, when we know that the need and the demand are out there but there is less money in the till, and we have to think about how that is spent and where those priorities are. The Government has had to do more with less, but we have managed to achieve that. In the middle of the biggest global economic downturn in generations this Government has managed to deliver on its promises.

I am especially pleased about that when it comes to social services spending. Today I want to talk a bit about that social services spending and what it means for New Zealanders. We are at a stage where more people are going on the unemployment benefit. The number of those going on to the domestic purposes benefit, the sickness benefit, and the invalids benefit has increased, as well. The reality is that jobs are harder to find. They are not out there in the same capacity. We are making sure that we deal with that, which we have stepped out to do in this Budget. As members heard in question time today, there is more money in the Estimates of Appropriations so that we can pay out those benefits in a timely manner. When we compare where our country is with Ireland, it is an interesting comparison. Ireland is at a stage where it cannot help people into work; there simply are not the jobs there. Its biggest focus is just on paying out benefits within 28 days.

How lucky we are to be in New Zealand and have the sort of system we have via Work and Income whereby when people first walk in, they are talked to about how they will get a job, where those jobs are, and whether they have a CV, and they are then put on a Straight 2 Work programme, which the previous Government set up. We always said that we would back what works, and that we did not have to come in, change everything, and put everyone into turmoil. We said that it was about putting our own priorities there and backing what works. A lot of what the previous Government put in, as far as the job focus within Work and Income, is working. We have had to put more resources behind it. We have had to put more people on the front line. We have had to put more of a focus on why employers should come to Work and Income and put their jobs there first, so that we can put in those people who are most desperately looking for work—those who are on a benefit. A lot of work is going into that.

There is a change of focus in that sort of direction as far as making those sorts of opportunities available. Last week I spoke to my counterpart in the UK, who was here for just a day, and he said he had trouble recognising that we talk to people about work first, then talk to them about putting them on a benefit, how that works, and what would work for them. We have heard so much scaremongering from the opposite side of the House, and about how those opportunities have not been picked up or continued by the community and voluntary sector, but that sector understands that the Pathways to Partnership money is staying. We have moved some of that money forward from out-years because the need is now, and we needed to step up and recognise that.

Right from day one when we became the Government, it was hugely concerning to us that we saw a sector that would have increased demand and decreased funding from non-governmental money. Those social service agencies out there that are working in the not-for-profit sector were finding that the trusts were drying up, the philanthropy was not the same, and the donations that they had come to expect to present their services were no longer there. That story was not happening once or twice; it was happening all of the time. We wanted to step up and say that we would play a role in this short-term need, and that is what we have done.

We have continued Pathways to Partnership as it has been in previous years. The previous Government spent about $59 million on Pathways to Partnership, and that $59 million was obviously rolled over into the next year, so none of that funding was cut. It has continued and the sector can rely on it, and that was important to us. We made a CPI adjustment to that money, so that it was guaranteed. On top of that was just $20 million that we had to think about how to spend. We did not want to think about it on our own.

The difference with this Government is that we will not stand around and say that we know what is best for New Zealand. We want to give communities a say because we know that they know what is best for them. We got those people around a table and we asked them: “If you had this amount of money, what would that mean and how could we best utilise it to keep those essential social services running in these dire times?”. We came up with the Community Response Fund. We decided that we would bring some of that $20 million forward for this coming year because it is needed now. Equally, we think that things may be still tougher next year—certainly, the trusts and philanthropy will not be getting the same returns on their investments next year—so we have brought a bit more of that money forward. I am hugely proud to say that there will be another $64 million there for those agencies to work out how they keep those essential social services running.

I will be clear one more time: the money from Pathways to Partnership stays. It is quite funny because we heard last week the uproar from Labour asking where the line in the Budget for Pathways to Partnership was and whether we had taken it away. If those members had known anything, they would understand that under their Government there was no line in the Budget for Pathways to Partnership. The money for Pathways to Partnership comes from a number of different votes, and it is how those are added up in the Budget that determines those amounts. There was a little bit of thinking that had to go on by the Opposition, but it seems that those members finally grasped that, yes, the money is there and it is just being spent in a different way in these different economic times.

While I am talking about community organisations, I will talk about Enterprising Communities. There are a few myths going round at the moment that we are cutting those organisations that are currently working and doing a good job. I have a quote from the Hon Darren Hughes, who in August last year said about Enterprising Communities: “organisations and groups develop initiatives that will lead to economic growth, local job opportunities, and long-term sustainability. Community projects are supported financially by the MSD for a maximum of three years and are expected to achieve long-term sustainability from here on.”, and that is exactly it. With Enterprising Communities, what is happening is what happened under Labour. Organisations thought they could generate employment, they were given a lump of money in the first year, and that lump of money went down in the second year, because, members should remember, they are trying to get sustainable so they can run themselves. It is a short-term, 3-year funding project, and in the third year the funding was considerably less again because they were building themselves up into being sustainable and running themselves. All of those that are currently in that 3-year cycle will stay in that cycle, and we will support them to get out of it. They have my complete backing to see them get to a place where they are sustainable.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Just wait until they apply to the contestable fund!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member on the other side, the little snappy turtle, has her head up and is trying to bark something out. Let me make it clear: the previous Government was the one that said the funding went for 3 years and the organisations had to make themselves sustainable. I want to be quite clear about Enterprising Communities and where it is at. It is true we are not taking on new contracts under Enterprising Communities; we have other priorities and have made different decisions.

That member was also yelling across the House in her most dulcet tones about health camps. I think it is time that she stood up and recognised that for 9 years the previous Government did nothing. For 9 years the previous Government did nothing with health camps, and those camps became run down. They did not get the sorts of things they needed, and for 9 years nothing happened with health camps. I think us taking 9 months to make sure they are OK is a good thing, and we are in very positive discussions with those health camps. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): During the election campaign John Key, Bill English, and other National members spoke at length about the need to make sure that our economic priorities as a nation are not overshadowed by environmental considerations. Well, unlike National, we on this side of the House believe that promoting economic growth and sound environmental outcomes are not mutually exclusive. Here in New Zealand we trade literally and physically on our clean and green image. In the global market place, demonstrating that a product is environmentally sustainable is increasingly a key issue for New Zealand goods and services.

This Budget was a chance to solidify New Zealand’s reputation by promoting growth, encouraging investment, and creating new jobs while maintaining leadership on environmental and climate change policy. The tragedy of this Budget is that it truly is one of lost opportunities. Bill English, John Key, and National failed to provide a plan for a sustainable future. All around the globe Governments are using opportunities presented by the economic crisis to invest in what we all know is the necessary and inevitable transition to a lower-pollution economy. Governments are doing so in Australia, Britain, and the United States, but these sorts of measures are completely absent from Bill English’s Budget. Where is the investment in improved fuel efficiency, increased public transport, renewable electricity generation, or the other essential initiatives to achieving long-term, low-pollution economic growth? They are all missing. Since taking office in November, National has simply walked away from a strategy for long-term, low-pollution economic growth.

Debate interrupted.

Tabling of Documents

Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I apologise for interrupting my colleague. I seek leave of the House to table a statement from a complainant whose case I took to Mr Key. It sets out the nature of the concerns she has with respect to Dr Worth—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think we know what the document is. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just come down to the Chamber from my office, where I heard the leader of the National Party, the Prime Minister, Mr Key, challenging me to present the evidence. I am doing just that, so perhaps the whip would reconsider his answer.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I am more than happy if the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member will seek leave again.

CHRIS TREMAIN: No, hold on. That is not what I am asking. If Phil Goff is happy to wait for 5 minutes, I will check as to whether that tabling is OK. Then I would ask him to seek leave again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): We are getting outside actual points of order here. Leave has been declined in an exchange that is probably not within the realms of order. I think a message has been passed.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, I am happy for the Government whip to make that phone call.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed on the .

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Instead of the plan that we hoped to see in the Budget, National has simply caused uncertainty, which is haemorrhaging jobs and investment. It has stalled the emissions trading scheme, repealed the renewable preference for new electricity generation, and removed the biofuels obligation, all of which cost Kiwi jobs and new investment. The record reflects that National’s policies brought the emerging carbon market to a halt. That market would have been a major opportunity for our country to maximise our geographic, skills-based, language, and time-zone advantages. That opportunity was thrown away when the emissions trading scheme was put on hold, and the NZX put TZ1 on the market. The record reflects that the same policy has cost us enormous international investment in the forestry sector, along with hundreds of new jobs, while 8 million seedlings rot in the ground as foresters sit on carbon credits but have no certainty as to whom they might be able to trade them with. The record reflects that when the Minister of Energy and Resources, Gerry Brownlee, repealed the biofuels obligation under urgency before Christmas, an international company pulled out of building a 60 million litre bio-diesel plant in the Bay of Plenty, and the expansion of production plants in Auckland and Waharoa are on hold indefinitely as a result.

There is little in this Budget to remedy this appalling situation. Admittedly, Gerry Brownlee has attempted to fix his mishandling of the biofuels obligation by throwing $36 million at the sector in grants. These grants are an attempt to restart the domestic biofuels industry after decimating it via the repeal of the biofuels obligation. This Government has the temerity to accuse the previous Government of poor-quality expenditure. What could be poorer quality in the current economic climate than wasting $36 million? The Government could have and should have simply kept the biofuels obligation as a means of encouraging the production of biofuels in this country.

Where is the support for renewable energy generation in this Budget? New Zealand has an abundance of renewable energy resources that very few countries enjoy. Our hydro, wind, and geothermal resources mean that we are ideally placed to build an energy system that is affordable, sustainable, and reliable, but we hear nothing from National on this issue. Does National support the 90 percent by 2025 renewable target? Gerry Brownlee called it aspirational and said that he would be making an announcement in the coming weeks. That was in February, which was 3½ months ago, and we still have not heard anything. He continues to talk about a review of the New Zealand Energy Strategy, but still there is no action. All the while, a ministerial working group is beavering away on the design of the electricity sector. I ask the House how this group can do its job while the Minister refuses to do his, and will not provide basic direction on matters of policy, like whether we have a renewable energy target, and if so, what it is. What is worse is that electricity generators have told the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee that they are already putting the development of new generation projects on hold because of the uncertainty around the emissions trading scheme and the ministerial review. These projects take years to bring to fruition, and given our country’s need for more generation capacity every year, New Zealanders will repent at leisure over the Minister’s inaction. Let us hope that we do not do so shivering in the dark or, almost as bad, relying on foreign gas imports for the first time to keep the lights on.

The National Government has made New Zealand a laughing stock internationally over its constant hand-wringing and flip-flops on the emissions trading scheme and on climate change generally. This complete lack of direction and ability to provide any form of credible leadership is costing New Zealand dearly in reputational terms. Just the other day Nick Smith came up with another excuse to further delay any progress on climate change policy. The Government negotiator told representatives at the Bonn Climate Change Talks that New Zealand would not confirm any 2020 pollution reduction target until it had undertaken public consultation. This announcement continues the parade of other excuses that he has used for not setting a target: awaiting new data, harmonisation with Australia, and investigating a carbon tax. The list goes on and becomes less credible and less consistent.

Finally, I have a few words about the home insulation package. Although almost everything that the National-led Government is reviving from Labour’s programmes in this area is less generous than Michael Cullen had promised and would have delivered, it is at least something. I pay tribute to some of the as yet unsung heroes of this story, because there is no sign that they will get credit for their contribution from the current Minister of Energy and Resources. As the New Zealand Energy and Environment Business Week notes, the package is in no small part the achievement of a decade of research by the likes of the Building Research Association of New Zealand, and Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman, a public health research pioneer at the Wellington school of medicine and health sciences at Otago University. Professor Howden-Chapman secured around $7 million to undertake research into the impact of unhealthy home environments on New Zealand’s chronically high levels of asthma and other respiratory illnesses during the term of the last Labour Government, between 1999 and 2007. The main funding for this scheme came from the Health Research Council, but Contact Energy, to its credit, also kicked in $600,000 over 3 years. The Ministry for the Environment came to the party at a similar level.

The Budget says that $323.3 million will be allocated to home insulation and heating over the next 4 years, starting on 1 July. It is not entirely clear from the Budget documentation, but $100 million of this money seems to have been taken straight out of Vote Health; $80 million is existing Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority money. So the new money here is $143 million over 4 years. Again, it is not clear from the documentation how the Government intends to make this money available. If it is on an annual basis, we are talking about only $36 million of new money—that is, not taken from other sources—available for home insulation each year. That will provide for grants of about $1,800, which was the figure mentioned in the Budget speech, to only 20,000 additional homes per annum. So it is a move in the right direction, but it is a long way from the 60,500 additional homes targeted every year in the Budget. With so much detail missing while Gerry Brownlee cobbles together the actual details of the package between now and 18 June, the jury remains well and truly out on the implementation of this first collaboration between National and the Green Party.

This truly was a Budget of lost opportunity. The country could ill afford it. The balance between our environmental integrity and economic well-being can ill afford it. New Zealanders can ill afford two more such Budgets. If this Government continues as it has begun, one thing is for sure: two more Budgets are all that it will ever get to deliver.

Debate interrupted.

Tabling of Documents

Dr Richard Worth—Complaint Regarding Conduct

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I seek the leave of the House to table a statement from a complainant whose case I took to Mr Key recently regarding the conduct of Dr Richard Worth.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. Leave is granted. The papers may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed on the .

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): It is a pleasure to speak in this Budget debate. As I listened to the member Charles Chauvel speak in the debate, I thought about what specifically his proposals were. Right through the Labour members’ Budget speeches there is a whole lot of rhetoric about lost opportunities. They say that the Government should do more, but what would those members actually have done, and how would they have paid for it? I think that if they were really interested in adding to the debate, they would have come out with an alternative budget and told us exactly how they would have paid for the huge promises that they had made. They pluck stuff out of the air. How were they actually going to pay for things like the $1 billion they promised for home insulation? It is pretty easy when Labour members are in Opposition; they can say just what they like. They do not have to put their money where their mouths are.

This was a very sound Budget. It was exactly the Budget that the public expected. It was the Budget that the public demanded. It was the right Budget for the times. I defy Opposition members to say that they would have produced a high-spending, irresponsible Budget, because, when it comes down to it, I do not think they were actually interested in seeing New Zealand’s international credit rating downgraded. That would have been completely irresponsible.

This is a good Budget. There is new money for health and education. We have put 40 percent of that new money into the health area, and we are producing stuff that the last Labour Government did not produce in 9 years of lost opportunity. Look at the $6.5 million a year that is going into funding eating disorders services. That was something the last Government talked big on but never ever delivered on. We are getting feedback from families who have family members with eating disorders. They badgered the last Government for almost a decade to do something about it. Their sense of relief is absolutely palpable.

When we talk about unfunded promises, we have just to look at what the Labour candidate in Mt Albert is saying at the moment. I would not be surprised if Labour’s senior whip had a word with Mr Shearer. He is running around saying that if Labour was in Government, it would have paid $3 billion for the, frankly, unaffordable tunnel option. Labour members know they would never have built the tunnel. Mr Shearer actually said yesterday that he accepted that the tunnel option is not going to happen, so of course he can say whatever he likes. How would those guys have actually paid for it? Quite frankly, they know it was unaffordable.

When we look at economic management, we see that those members are the people who spent $1 billion on a trainset. If we are facing economic problems, why would we go ahead and pay $1 billion for a trainset? Is that the way to stimulate the economy?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who got the sack as Melissa’s minder?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If Trevor Mallard actually had an interest in contributing to the debate, rather than spending mindless lost evenings blogging rubbish on the new Labour members’ blog, he would sit down, as Labour’s associate spokesperson on finance, and draw up his plan to run the economy. Quite frankly, those guys over on that side of the House have no plan. There is no plan. What would they do? What would they have been doing in this situation? I can tell members that they would have been doing nothing different.

Hon Darren Hughes: Tell us about your strategic genius on the campaign trail.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, members want to talk about Mt Albert. I tell them that there is no way that people will be voting for those guys to be back in Government for a long, long time. The feedback we have got in Mt Albert about the Prime Minister and his performance has been fantastic. Those guys can laugh about things around the country, but the reality is that the day after the Mt Albert by-election none of those people on the other side of the House will go to a Cabinet meeting. They can laugh about it, they can entertain themselves with titillating electoral tittle-tattle and stories from the campaign trail, but they will not sit on the Treasury benches for years and years. The mouth of the party, Trevor Mallard, is over there; why does he not go back to his office, sit down, type up some stuff, and tell us what those guys would be doing if they were in Government? They have absolutely no answer.

The immigration portfolio, which I am responsible for, is pretty tight at the moment; there is not a lot of money to go round. The Auditor-General’s report Inquiry into immigration matters was released today. It shows that when those guys were in charge they could not manage the Immigration Service. It was 9 years of complete mismanagement. That comment shut members opposite up; Trevor Mallard is even leaving. There were 9 years of mismanagement by Labour of the Immigration Service, and we have had the results today. The report shows that one in five decisions that happened on Labour’s watch was of abysmal quality. When we look at the Pacific division, we see that 40 percent of its decisions were of low or poor quality. That department is just another example of a department that we have been left to sort out.

If one looks at the portfolios of health and immigration and at the economy, one sees that all that Labour has left behind is one heck of a mess, and we are left to sort out the whole thing. Labour members can laugh about it. When one looks at what has happened to the health system, one sees that Labour has left a situation in which people do not get the elective surgery they need, they cannot get access to hospitals, they cannot get operations when they need them, and the morale of the hospital workforce is absolutely at rock bottom. Frankly, it was a relief for Labour members when they lost the election. They were out of ideas and out of time, and they had no answers left for the health system.

Do members know how many questions on immigration Labour members have put in the House in the last 6 months—the whole time they have been in Opposition? How many questions have they asked about immigration?

David Garrett: How many?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Zero. Do members know how many questions on broadcasting they have asked?

Brendon Burns: Your turn will come.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is Brendon Burns over there. Apparently, he is the Labour spokesman on broadcasting. He has done absolutely nothing. Do members know how many questions he has asked in the House about broadcasting? He has asked zero questions. Do members know how many questions on tourism Labour members have asked in the House?

Katrina Shanks: How many?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I cannot tell the member that. They probably asked some questions about the cycleway.

But I can tell members that Labour members have asked no questions on immigration. Do members know why? It is because Labour members are so embarrassed about their record when they were in charge of immigration. There was a litany of poor decision-making. The Auditor-General’s report found that there was no corruption in the Immigration Service, but, quite frankly, I think Labour members are lucky that none was found. Why do they not want to ask questions about immigration? Because they were holding the reins when all the mess was going on. What we have today in the Auditor-General’s report is a litany of disaster, which Labour was in charge of. The report shows us that this Government was absolutely right to take action on the Pacific division. Forty percent of the decisions made by the Pacific division were questionable at best; many more were substandard. Only four out of 10 of the decisions made in that division were thought to be good decisions. The former Ministers over there knew about that. They knew about the problems of the Pacific division. Do members know what they did about those problems? They did absolutely nothing. So when Pete Hodgson—supposedly the Labour Party’s strategist, and I think he is its spokesman on immigration—does not get up to ask a single question about immigration in 7 months, getting up to 8 months, members know why. Those guys are running scared on immigration.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would not laugh; there are people on that side of the House who do not want those guys to ask questions about immigration. It is no coincidence that Pete Hodgson does not ask any questions about immigration.

It is the same with broadcasting. If Labour managed broadcasting so well when in Government, why does Brendon Burns not get up to ask questions in the House? I think it could be a case of his not being allowed to ask a question, because, quite frankly, Labour members are deeply divided over how to manage broadcasting. They know that their broadcasting policy, under the great Steve Maharey, was a complete failure. They saddled TVNZ—

Hon Darren Hughes: Good fella.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: He may be a good fella, but I tell members that his broadcasting policy was a failure, and those guys know it. That is why they will not ask a single question about it. All that we get are questions about when we last spent time in Palmerston North—that sort of mindless stuff. The direction of the questions on health has been completely hopeless.

Those guys over that side of the House have lost their mojo. There are five stages of grieving. They had 3 months of denial; now we are seeing anger. Labour members are at stage two. I am not sure what is next, but it will get a lot worse for them because they are settling into the reality that the public has rejected them. They realise that they have no economic plan. All they can do about this Budget is to make a whole lot of totally unfunded promises, but there is no substance to them. Bubbling along in the background is the fact that Labour members are very unhappy with Phil Goff—I can tell members that now.

The Budget is great. It is what the people want. Labour members have no answers. We need to congratulate the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister on a great job well done.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I seek leave to correct an answer from question time today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not to be. The member may resume.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In question time I inadvertently gave an incorrect figure for the Job Support Scheme for the week ending 22 May. The number of jobs saved under the Job Support Scheme is 259.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed on the .

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): When listening to this Budget debate one cannot help but note the contrast between this Government’s Budget and the Budgets and policies of the previous Labour Government. Extraordinary policies came in under Labour Budgets and, at other times, things such as Working for Families, KiwiSaver, 20 free hours’ early childhood education, interest-free student loans, apprenticeships, primary health organisations, and, of course, the Cullen fund, which gave guaranteed funding—

Hon Darren Hughes: English fund.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is the English fund now but it was the Cullen fund when it had money in it. Funding for superannuation was put aside and guaranteed for all New Zealanders. People like the previous speaker, Jonathan Coleman, are fast approaching the age when they will be drawing on superannuation. I can see the anxiety all over his face. He knows, as a baby boomer, that his superannuation is at risk.

We saw Bill English getting accolades from his team in the Budget debate because National did not cut interest-free loans for students or contributions for Working for Families. The fact that Bill English treated those entitlements and that funding as somehow discretionary and as if it was a plus, or a bonus, that it was not cut shows the National Government’s true colours. I do not trust the National Government and the longevity of those policies. The policies have made it through this time, but what will happen in times to come? National is a party that was vehemently opposed to those policies. It labelled Working for Families as socialism by stealth, and interest-free loans as totally unaffordable, totally irresponsible, and some sort of ridiculous action from the then Labour Government. We saw the funding being allowed through and not cut this time, but I ask all students and families out there to watch this space and watch what happens in the future.

We have already seen the slashing of employer contributions to KiwiSaver from the high 4 percent maximum employer contribution to the now low 2 percent. This Government is intent on shattering the dreams and the security of people in their retirement. Dealing to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund must be one of the most irresponsible actions of this Government, and, indeed, there have been many. With the slash of a pen, a big hole of $37 billion was made in the future funding for superannuation. The Prime Minister says that it is all right and that we have his personal guarantee that superannuation will be maintained. Nicky Wagner said in the House today that it would be maintained at age 65 and at 66 percent. We had also heard our Prime Minister, John Key, say that we had his personal guarantee that we would get tax cuts. The National Party campaigned absolutely solidly on personal guarantees for tax cuts. But what did we hear? “Sorry, we cannot afford it.” I ask what any Government will be in a position to do when all of this money has been sucked out of the Cullen fund—money that was to have provided superannuation for people.

These times call for certainty and investment in people: in skills, training, and jobs. The boost from the previous Labour Government’s investment in skills and training had absolutely never been seen before. I saw Helen Clark when she announced the return of apprenticeships at a public meeting. I saw her get a standing ovation. I ask members why she got that standing ovation for the announcement of the return of apprenticeships. Was it just young people who applauded? No, it was not. It was older people who saw a future for their children, for their girls and boys—to have an apprenticeship that would give them the skills to enable them to have a fantastic career in the trades. Applause also came from business people who saw a big gap in training with no support from the National Government in the 1990s. Those business people saw a future in terms of developing the skills that enabled our economy to thrive while Labour was in Government. When apprenticeships were reintroduced, those accolades did not come from just young people; they also came from businesses and parents alike.

This National Government had its Job Summit, which was going to deliver. Representatives from the whole of New Zealand were invited. Not many, I have to say, were from the disabilities sector. There was no one from the Labour Party. But representatives from the rest of New Zealand were working with the Government to find ideas—bright, new, wonderful ideas—for innovation. I congratulate in this House all those businesses, those organisations, the Council of Trade Unions, and the myriad of organisations that did front up. I offer my sympathy to those who were not invited, and I know there were many who could have made a meaningful contribution. But to those who did take part, I say that I know and acknowledge that there were many great ideas. I waited, as did my colleagues, with real anticipation to see where in this Budget that funding would be for the skills, innovation, training, and all the things that would boost productivity and would work through the difficult situation this country is in. But there was nothing. There was absolutely nothing in terms of developing skills and developing innovation. There was nothing except, perhaps, the cycleway—$50 million for the cycleway. I ask Government members how many jobs will be created from that cycleway. They have been asked before and we have not had a response.

Speaking of jobs, we have not seen job growth, but instead we have seen job cuts. We have seen the public sector decimated, with the loss of some 1,200 to 1,500 jobs. It was not a capping, which was promised. The Government said that public sector jobs would be capped. No; we have seen the axing of jobs. We have seen cuts in education, in the primary, secondary, and tertiary sectors. And where have we seen money being injected into schools and the education sector? We have seen an injection of cash into private schools. When we look at the tax cuts that happened, we see that they went to the rich. We are now seeing the exact reverse of Robin Hood’s policy. We see this Government’s tax cuts and its funding of private schools at the cost of public schools as the robbing of the poor to give to the rich.

We can talk about déjà vu in other areas. In 1991 the previous National Government cut out the Apprenticeship Act and dumped the new pay equity legislation. National has returned to Government, and what do we see? There is no money for skills, training, and innovation, research and development tax credits have been axed, and pay equity has been dumped again. Social workers and special needs assistants in schools in this country were well on their way to having their pay gap addressed. One of the chants we heard from National before the last election was that it would close the pay gap. Well, that was one opportunity to see two very valued groups of workers get a pay jolt. What did we see? We have seen that project axed. We have seen no funding for wage increases for public servants or for those who really need it. The losers in this Budget are our families, our children, public servants, teachers, tertiary education staff, low-paid workers, and our environment. Those are the losers. This is a mean-spirited Budget. It is an insult and an assault on the people of this country. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call in this Budget debate. We have heard a lot over the last 2 days about the need to preserve employment, the need for fiscal stimulus, and the need to keep the economy growing in the face of a worldwide recession. One of the reasons I believe that we are in a recession is due to the many hundreds of millions of dollars that have been lost in finance company collapses over the last 2 or 3 years. In fact, it is estimated that some $5 billion to $6 billion is tied up in moratoriums and receiverships or has otherwise been lost. This is a subject I have spoken on many times since giving my maiden speech in Parliament in November, and I have called for an inquiry into the collapse of finance companies at the Commerce Committee level.

Just yesterday, as I stood on the corner of New North Road and Mount Albert Road, campaigning in Mt Albert at 7 o’clock in the morning—and a frosty morning it was—I came across a local teacher who told me about his parents who had mortgaged their home in a Blue Chip New Zealand scheme. Unless the situation was resolved in the next 6 months, they simply would not be able to carry on and would be forced to sell their home.

The last time I spoke on this subject I talked about the idea that any company that wanted to vary its moratorium or to bring a proposal to its bondholders should first of all seek the approval of the court rather than go back to its bondholders. I have to say that was not my original idea; it was an idea I gleaned from listening to a person with expertise in this area who was talking on this issue. I wish that I could give him credit this evening but because of the rules of Parliament I cannot, but I hope to do so at some stage in the future. I said at the time that I was aware through discussions I had had with colleagues that there was at least one company that presented to its bondholders a proposal for a moratorium that the directors did not believe could be achieved. In fact, I was told that the directors of this particular company were secretly planning to go back to their bondholders 12 months hence to seek a variation of that moratorium.

When making those comments I did not specifically identify the company involved, although I understand that some 12 companies or more are involved in moratoriums. I then went on to discuss certain aspects of the moratorium on the Hanover Finance group of companies and held up in my hand the Hanover Finance document relating to that moratorium. Last week I received a letter from David Henry, the independent chairman of Hanover Finance. I should record that David Henry was appointed on 1 April this year, subsequent to the passing of the moratorium. He alleges that my comments contained a number of errors or omissions that needed to be brought to my attention. I totally refute the comments of Mr Henry; I do not believe I made any errors or omissions. Mr Henry went on to allege that in holding up the Hanover Finance moratorium I was insinuating that Hanover Finance was the company I was referring to when I said that there was at least one company out there that took a proposal to its bondholders that it did not believe it was capable of fulfilling.

I do not believe I insinuated that whatsoever; they were two totally separate topics. But for Mr Henry’s benefit, and for the benefit of members of this House, I am very happy to record that Hanover Finance was not the company I was referring to. In fact, at the end of my speech I intend seeking the leave of the House to table the letter I received from Mr Henry, dated 22 May.

However, Mr Henry’s letter raises a number of other issues that I think further confirm my view that if a company wants to vary its moratorium it should go back to the court, rather than to bondholders. I think that if one of the options we as parliamentarians have is to pass a law, that would be the case. Mr Henry disputes my calculation as to how much the Hanover Finance shareholders would be putting into the moratorium. In particular, he refers to the fact that the directors estimate that they put $66 million of additional equity, by way of property, into Hanover Finance. That may or may not be true, and certainly that is the directors’ estimate, so without a question that is what the directors have said.

But one of the things that is not disclosed in the moratorium document—and I have it with me; it is a rather substantial document—is what debt is associated with those properties. What is the debt, if, in actual fact, $66 million worth of property was transferred into Hanover Finance with no debt whatsoever? If those properties were to achieve only 50c in the dollar, then without a doubt there would be a $33 million additional capital contribution. If, however, those properties were worth $166 million, and there was $100 million of debt associated with them, it would require only for the proceeds of sale to drop from $166 million to $100 million before the net proceeds would be wiped out. In this rather extensive document I have in my hand, I cannot see any reference to the actual gearing on those properties. It does make reference to the fact that the detailed experts report is available on the website. My staff tried to find that report today on the website, and have been unable to do so. I guess, not surprisingly, it has been taken down, because this was passed into law 6 months ago.

What I am highlighting is that when one is dealing with property, and particularly vacant property—and I understand that a number of the properties passed into Hanover Finance may well have been vacant, residential sections—one is dealing with very, very uncertain values. If a company wanted to vary its moratorium, I think it is quite prudent for parliamentarians to require the company to go to the court. I repeat that I have no evidence that it was Hanover Finance, which is what the Hanover Finance chairman believes.

One of the other issues that Hanover Finance raises in its letter is the level of disclosure. It suggests that I was being disingenuous and was suggesting that the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers was not fully reflected or that its views were not fully displayed. Hanover Finance makes the point that there is very, very full disclosure in this document. I acknowledge there is very full disclosure; it is a very substantial document, and the very detailed experts report was available on Hanover Finance’s website. One of the things that I note is not in the document, or I certainly could not see it, is the fact that over the last 2 years prior to the moratorium, the directors of Hanover Finance passed dividends of $84 million to shareholders. That is my understanding. I cannot see a reference to it; I read about it on blog sites. That has, no doubt, been disclosed in the annual reports of Hanover Finance in previous years, but I cannot see it, particularly in this moratorium. I would have thought that that is the sort of information that would be disclosed. The chairman of Hanover Finance, Mr David Henry, has offered to meet me and to brief me fully on Hanover Finance’s finances. I intend taking him up on that offer, and, if necessary, raising this issue on a future occasion.

The House is involved in a Budget debate. We are discussing issues of the economy and how we reflate the economy. One of the reasons we are in this situation is that many hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost; literally billions. Those are the losses of hard-working people, mainly the elderly but not totally. They are the constituents of all of us in this House. I repeat, I made a speech 3 weeks ago calling for the House to make a law that would require that any company wanting to vary its moratorium would first have to go to a court, and I believe that to be very, very much the case. That is my speech.

I seek the leave of the House to table a document from Hanover Finance to myself, dated 22 May 2009.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be no objection. Leave is granted.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): Kia ora tātou. Nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I stand this afternoon to speak for the people of Manukau East as their member of Parliament. It is a community with 185 different ethnic groups residing within it. It is represented not only by me as the local member of Parliament but also by the Hon George Hawkins, Su’a William Sio, and Dr Ashraf Choudhary. [Interruption] We have no confidence in this Budget. I see that Mr Hide is not surprised at that. We have no confidence in this Budget, because it does not have a plan to protect and create jobs, and to support New Zealanders through the economic crisis.

This Budget fails on three counts. First, it fails to invest in people, and to develop the innovation, the skills, and the training that give us a strong economy.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What does that mean, exactly?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: The member knows exactly what it means. The reality is that this Government has failed with the Budget, on three counts. The second count is that the Budget fundamentally undermines the future well-being of New Zealanders by creating a $37 billion hole in our future funding for superannuation. I feel for those in the 30-40 year age group. Thirdly, the Budget repeals tax cuts promised by the National Party in the election campaign, when its members knew full well that those cuts were unaffordable.

This Budget should be about integrity, about honesty, and about keeping one’s word, but on all three counts the Key Government has failed. While the world economy dithers, and while the Government uses that as an excuse—which is understandable, but a man’s word is his bond—the Prime Minister has failed not once, not twice, but three times when he promised this country tax cuts. He promised them, but then he did not deliver to the low and middle income groups that really need them. He promised that tax cuts would be for all New Zealanders. It was Mr Key’s personal guarantee in order to win the election. But the promise was reckless; he knew that the world was slipping into recession, because of his background and training as a money dealer in New York. So this Budget is about leadership, and leadership is the ability to motivate and inspire others to follow. The Prime Minister did that; he won an election. But was it an honest win, or did he mislead this country by promising tax cuts that could not be afforded?

Nathan Guy: Are you talking about the pledge card?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: No, I am not talking about that. Either the Prime Minister was oblivious to the catastrophic recession when he announced his tax cuts, or he did know about it but chose to continue with the cuts, anyway. And that is not good enough. A man’s word is his bond, and he failed.

I listened to Paula Bennett, and I was reminded that non-governmental organisation heads tell me that when social welfare problems are raised with that Minister, all they get is a laugh and a giggle, to solve the problems. Well, I tell the Minister that that is not good enough. Much has been said on this side of the House about the impact of the Budget on New Zealanders who will turn 65 after the year 2031. That year, 2031, is not too far away. The Government’s decade of deferring payments to the Superannuation Fund will inevitably have two major impacts. The first is that it will reduce the level of superannuation people will receive, or, second, it will necessitate a raise in the age of entitlement for superannuation.

But this Budget also has an impact on today’s superannuitants in a way that has not yet been discussed. In the fine print of the Economic and Fiscal Update, it is revealed that the following risk has “been removed since the 2008 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Update:”. This is found on page 107 of the volume containing the Minister of Finance’s Executive Summary. This Budget has scrapped the “Energy Subsidy for SuperGold Card Holders”, which was being developed by the fifth Labour Government. Officials had been instructed to look at that very thing, and in the Budget papers presented to Parliament by National, not only were no new Government concessions offered but the most important one for older people—help with paying their power bills—has gone. Staying warm in winter is vital to maintaining one’s health as one gets older, so that is a callous cut and it will cause unnecessary stress and strain, and a curtailment of activities for the elderly. I am aghast at the temerity of a Government that gave tax cuts to the wealthy but gave nothing to superannuitants.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.