Thursday, 6 June 2013

Thursday, 6 June 2013

Thursday, 6 June 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Electoral Act—Registration and Recognition of Political Parties

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, as I indicated to the House yesterday, I wrote to the Hon Peter Dunne concerning the recognition of the United Future party under the Standing Orders, the party having been deregistered by the Electoral Commission. I have now had a chance to consider Mr Dunne’s response. He has given me an assurance that his party expects to file an application for re-registration early next week. The Electoral Commission advises that its checks will take some 6 to 8 weeks to finalise. Once the Electoral Commission has done so, I will revisit the matter. In the meantime, the United Future party remains a recognised party under the Standing Orders.

The consequences of loss of recognition are significant, and I consider I should follow fair and proper process in determining this matter. The member and his party should have a reasonable opportunity to put the matter right.

The 2011 change to Standing Order 34(1) was made to deal with a situation that arose in respect of new parties. It is silent on a party that ceases to be registered under the Electoral Act 1993 during the term of a Parliament and it gives the Speaker no express authority to cease to recognise a party on that basis. However, the Speaker is responsible for ruling when such questions of interpretation or application of the Standing Orders arise and for deciding cases not otherwise provided for in the Standing Orders, which I will do if required. I also intend to raise the matter with the Standing Orders Committee for consideration in its review of the Standing Orders.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am, it is fair to say, very concerned about the ruling that you have just given. In my view, and in the view of others with whom I have consulted, it is very clear that when a party is no longer a party under the Electoral Act, then it is not a party for the purposes of this House. You are absolutely right—it has significant implications. If you go to Standing Order 34, “Recognition of parties”—Standing Order 34(1)—it is all based on Part 4 of the Electoral Act and parties being recognised under that. If parties are not recognised—and Standing Order 35(1) is something that must happen, and I understand Mr Dunne did not comply with Standing Order 35(1). You had to write to him, which is the wrong way round. He should have told you of his change of circumstances.

There are several points that I do want to make. The precedents that I know of are two. One is that of Mr Chris Carter. When Mr Carter left the Labour Party, the recognition happened on that day. There was no question of waiting. On that day the Labour Party was, one, stripped of a vote; two, stripped of funding from whips and the deputy leadership; and, three, stripped of party funding. This decision leaves Mr Dunne with $100,000 over and above his entitlement according to the determination for which you are responsible.

This decision leaves him on the Business Committee, when he should not be a member of that committee according to the Standing Orders of this House. This decision, I presume, will affect the vote this afternoon, when, according to Standing Order 140(1)(a) and (d), he will receive treatment to which he is not entitled. There is no United Future party in this House, and he should be treated in the confidence vote this afternoon as an independent member because he cannot be the member of a party that does not exist, and he accepts that it does not.

I just want to put on the record that I think this is an important test for the Speaker, and I think we have had a decision that is wrong.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): It is a very serious matter, and I think it is important that all emotions are laid to one side when discussing these matters. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is a point of order, and I do expect to be given the same courtesy that Mr Mallard was. I think the interesting point that Mr Mallard misses is that in the section of the Standing Orders that deals entirely with the proceedings of this House and Parliament, Standing Order 34(1) makes it clear that “Every political party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act”—most certainly—for the “general election or at any subsequent by-election, [where a member may be elected] is entitled to be recognised as a party for parliamentary purposes.” You are quite right to say that it is completely silent on the other matters that Mr Mallard raises.

With regard to the analogy with the Hon Chris Carter, he, in fact, chose to leave the Labour Party and, as such, being recognised as an MP, he was able to take with him the resource that is normally collectively applied to a party’s resource. This is not a circumstance like that. The circumstance here is exactly as Standing Order 34(1)—the pre-eminent part of the Standing Order—states. Mr Dunne was elected as a member for the United Future party, a registered party under Part 4 of the Electoral Act at the time of the last general election, and is entitled to be recognised as such.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): My point of order—is this microphone going?

Hon Members: No.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My point relates to Standing Order 34(4).

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can’t hear you.

Hon Member: Speak up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I would like to speak up. Perhaps the chap up there at the studio can organise what is going on. If you look at Standing Order 34(4), it refers to—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I am having now is your microphone is not working. It is hard to hear, but I think if the member continues to speak up, I will be able to hear. [Interruption] But I will not be able to hear it if I continue to get interjections from the Labour front bench.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Nobody was—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on a point of order at the moment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Is this microphone working?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, it is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Right, thank you very much. If you look at Standing Order 34(4), it refers to a—[Interruption] Well, I think—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a point of order. It will be heard in silence, and if it is heard in silence, I will have no difficulty hearing the member, even if his microphone is faulty.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If you look at Standing Order 34(4), it refers to a “recognised party”. To be a recognised party, that party must be registered. The issue comes down to what is the import or the fact of registration, because it is different from the fact and import of deregistration. To nullify that by saying we are going to wait 6 weeks to find out whether the claim by Mr Brownlee and others is meritorious is, I believe, a false reading of the Standing Orders before you. We have suffered in the past from losing a member: losing outside-of-office facilities, outside-of-office staff, parliamentary leadership funding, and parliamentary secretarial staff as of that day, in the same way that was outlined to you in respect of a former member Mr Carter.

You are saying that, somehow, you can write to Mr Dunne and find out whether he qualifies sometime in the distant future. With respect, the Electoral Commission has told you that United Future is not registered. I believe you should have acted instantaneously, or, even more important, asked whether it made an inquiry over the last year as to whether that registration was, in fact, legitimate or otherwise. But to give the kind of leniency you envisage now on the basis that you have no real precedent to act upon is, I think, erroneous. Standing Order 34(4) talks about a recognised party. United Future has not been recognised from the time of its deregistration.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Sometimes it is said that the law is an ass, but the law is not that stupid an ass that the phrase in Standing Order 34(1) that says “Every political party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act …” is the test. That is the test. The United Future party is not a party registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993, and you know that, and that is the end of the matter. In terms of your jurisdiction, you have jurisdiction to accord funding only to parties that are registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act.

My second point is that Mr Horan is now in the same position as Mr Dunne, and Mr Horan does not get the resources that Mr Dunne gets. How is that fair? That is not correct, and I would call upon you to do your duty.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a matter that is serious, but it is also a matter for which there is no precedent. I have decided, after taking advice and giving serious thought to this matter, to allow the member and his party some time to put the matter right. I accept that the points that have been made by Mr Mallard, by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and by the Hon David Parker are made genuinely, but they are, in fact, challenging a ruling that I have made, and that in itself will lead to disorder. I have made my decision—[Interruption] Order! No. I have made my decision. My decision stands. But—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: A new point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wishes to raise a fresh point of order, I will hear it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, for one, would like to see the legal advice you got upon which you constructed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a fresh point of order. We are now continuing to litigate a decision I have made. This—[Interruption] Order! I do not want to have to ask members to leave the Chamber, but I will if this matter continues to be relitigated today.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order—it is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will hear it.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The appropriations under which Parliament expends money are very specific, in that no entity or organisation can expend any money unless it is covered by an appropriation. I just want to seek an assurance from you that you have clarified that the relevant appropriations allow you to make the ruling that you have, because if that money continues to be expended and it is not allowed under the appropriations, then the entire House ends up in some very, very great difficulty.

Mr SPEAKER: I can give that member his assurance.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 11 June—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is now the business statement.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: When the House resumes on Tuesday, 11 June the Government will look to conclude the financial review debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities, State enterprises, and other public organisations and make progress on the Immigration Amendment Bill, the Legal Assistance Amendment Bill, and the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. Tuesday, 11 June will also be extended into the morning of Wednesday, 12 June to allow the Government to progress some non-controversial legislation. On Wednesday Paul Foster-Bell and Claudette Hauiti will deliver their maiden statements at 5.30 p.m. and 5.45 p.m. respectively. Wednesday is also a members’ day.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): We have no questions to ask. This Parliament is a farce.

Mr SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered. A paper has been—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: Looking after your mates.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Hon Trevor Mallard will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I will leave the House before I do that. I will not apologise for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Points of Order

Speaker’s Ruling—Release of Advice

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a point of order only because of some of the feeling that has been expressed. The relevant precedent here—not actually to do with parties—was actually, for the benefit of the Opposition, when Harry Duynhoven found that he was technically disqualified from being a member of Parliament. I recall extensive—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have ruled on the matter. That matter is now closed.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First wishes you to know that if your ruling is that we cannot see the legal opinion on which you make your judgment, then we are going to boycott this Parliament for the time being.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had a very unusual circumstance in the Parliament, which is that the New Zealand First Party has walked out. The reason for walking out that was stated was that you would not release your legal advice for your reasoning with regard to the United Future issue. I would ask you whether you can tell us why you will not release your advice on this issue, because it is a pretty important matter.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not a matter of legal advice; it is a Standing Orders matter.

Dr Russel Norman: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Speaking to the point of order?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): Well, then, my question is not about legal advice. My question is: what advice has the Speaker received on this issue, and will you release—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating the issue. The matter is closed. I will answer the question. I have sought substantial advice before making the decision I made earlier. [Interruption] Order!

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am being as polite and direct as I can. My question was: will you release the advice?

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask that, in the circumstances, you provide us with written reasoning as to how it is that you have found that the United Future party is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon David Parker: I have not finished my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Parliament is being brought to disorder by members continuing to relitigate a ruling I have made earlier. If members continue to do that, I will have no choice but to ask those members to leave the Chamber.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from David Parker first, but if it is a continuation, I—

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order was a new point of order. It was a request that you release reasons as to how it is that you have found that the United Future—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member please resume his seat. My ruling gives the reasons and the justification for my decision. That is the end of the matter.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order, or is it concerning a decision I gave earlier?

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it concerning a decision I gave earlier?

Chris Hipkins: It is clarifying a clarification that you gave on the ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Then it is only in that—[Interruption] Order!

Chris Hipkins: No, no, this is a very important point.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then it is a matter of relitigating a decision I have made, and I do not want to have to ask—

Chris Hipkins: It’s not relitigating—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure the Speaker that it is not relitigating the decision. In his answer to my earlier point of order, the Speaker indicated that he had received advice that there were no issues with regard to the appropriations. The appropriation I have in front of me states under its scope—and it is on page 110 of the information supporting the estimates—that the scope of the appropriation is limited to funding for the United Future parliamentary party to support its leader’s office. You indicated to me that you had received some legal advice—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —that the decision you had made was not in breach of that.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

CHRIS HIPKINS: This is a legal matter. People go to jail for spending money that is not covered by an appropriation.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I indicated to the member that I had received advice.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a general—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: “Pick me, pick me, pick me.”

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Bad lunch, was it, Gerry?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In a general sense, could you indicate for the benefit of the House whether there is any Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that, if you were of a mind to, would prevent you from releasing any advice on a particular matter to the House that you have ruled on?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not aware of any Standing Order that would prevent me from doing so.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2013—Affordable and Social Housing Initiatives

1. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: What measures did the Budget set out in order to address issues of housing affordability in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is concerned about housing affordability because of the potential impact of rising house prices on the broader economy and because of the inherent unfairness of planning law that locks low and middle income New Zealanders out of the housing market in our larger cities. The Government has worked with local councils to create accords aimed at giving councils the tool kit to improve housing affordability. The first accord is being negotiated with Auckland Council, and special housing areas are expected to be designated later this year. The accord targets 39,000 new homes in Auckland over the next 3 years. The legislation is before the House and being debated.

Todd McClay: What other measures did the Government take in the Budget to help improve the provision of affordable housing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government introduced the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill. It also introduced the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. The Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill will extend income-related rents to community housing providers, and transfer needs assessment to the Ministry of Social Development. We have some way to go to repair the damage done by Labour to State housing in New Zealand.

Hon David Parker: Is it correct that the Budget referred to in the primary question was passed with the support of Mr Banks, who is currently facing charges for electoral fraud in the courts, and by Mr Dunne, who is no longer the leader of a legal party, who is still receiving funding from the Budget that he passed as the leader of a party?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget actually has not passed yet. I expect it will—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked a question; he now deserves to have it answered.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I expect the Budget will enjoy a comfortable majority in this House, as it enjoys broad support from the public.

Todd McClay: What is the likely impact of the Government’s measures on house prices across New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s measures are aimed at increasing the supply of housing to the market. We would like to see an effect on the market reasonably quickly. However, it will take some time to work through the processes with councils, and, of course, to ramp up construction from the currently very low levels in Auckland, at around some 5,000 houses a year, to achieve 39,000 houses over the next 3 years. We would imagine that over the next 2 years or 3 years it will have some positive impact on fast-rising house prices.

Hon David Parker: Given that the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the Reserve Bank, and Treasury all support taxation of capital gains, why does he believe he is right and these organisations are wrong?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out to the member yesterday, those organisations advocate a comprehensive capital gains tax. The Opposition advocates a capital gains tax that exempts most housing. We have discussed in the past in this House the merits—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not about Labour Party policy. My question was why it is that the Minister of Finance refuses to adopt a capital gains tax when it is recommended by those other bodies.

Mr SPEAKER: And I thought the Minister was halfway through an answer that was explaining that. Would the Minister please continue.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government supports the existing capital gains tax that applies to those who trade in property, and is enforcing that rigorously. It does not support a comprehensive capital gains tax that includes families paying tax on the gains in the value of their house every year. We do not support that, and nor does the Opposition.

Hon David Parker: Why does he think it is fair to tax income from wages but not tax income earned from capital gains?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What happens in the New Zealand tax system is that capital gain from trading is taxed alongside wages. Of course, what the member forgets is that a lot of the people who earn wages see their wealth as being in their house. That is why he, like the Government, does not support a capital gains tax on the family home. What we do support is changing the planning laws to increase the supply of housing, because one of the fundamental unfairnesses in New Zealand is that if you have a high-value house and you are already in the market, you enjoy the benefits of compact city planning, but if you are outside the housing market, you are cut out of housing altogether.

Todd McClay: What are some of the risks to the economy from unsustainable increases in house prices and excessive credit growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have only got to look at economies like Ireland, Spain, and the US to see what happens when property prices rise excessively and then the bubble bursts. It is important that we avoid these if we possibly can. On the way up, fast-rising house prices tend to push interest rates up higher than they otherwise would be and push the exchange rate up. When the bubble bursts, you get significant damage for those households that lose the value of their asset, and a banking system that could be put at risk.

Privacy Issues—Information Security in Government Agencies

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of State Services: What responsibility does he or his Government take for 73 percent of public sector agencies not having formal security standards and procedures to protect private information about New Zealanders, as the report yesterday to the State Services Commissioner shows?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of State Services): We are taking responsibility. Successive Governments have not ensured that public sector agencies have focused on technology or privacy as a priority, and the figure the member quotes is a reflection of that. We are changing that. As laid out in the Cabinet papers and press conference yesterday, the Government has commissioned an extensive work programme to address this long-term problem. It is under this Government that we have increased the powers of the Government Chief Information Officer by giving him a leadership role across the State sector and significantly increasing the resourcing of the Government Chief Information Officer.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Prime Minister continue to deny that there are systemic problems with regard to the protection of people’s privacy in public sector agencies when this KPMG report explicitly shows a lack of good security and privacy practice right across the State sector and when the Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff, is adamant that privacy breaches absolutely reflect systemic problems?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would refer the member to the Government Chief Information Officer’s interview on Radio New Zealand this morning, when he was saying that a systemic problem is when the system actually is not working. That is not the case we have now.

Hon Phil Goff: Was the Government employee the Government Chief Information Officer as accurate in that comment as he was about New Zealanders having trust and confidence in the Government’s ability to protect their personal details, when Colmar Brunton said 60 percent of New Zealanders have no trust in the Government to do that?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I would point out that this is a member who constantly seeks to access Defence Force information—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your attention has been distracted. I asked a question of the Minister. He is not answering the question; he is attacking me.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the Minister just address the question.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member’s question was about confidence in the security of information, and I would point out that this is a member who constantly seeks—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the Minister please just address the question that was asked.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not agree with his assertions.

Hon Phil Goff: How do privacy breaches affecting over 120,000 individual New Zealanders in the last 2 years alone not constitute a systemic problem?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, as I said, I do not agree with the assertions he is making around this. There is work to be done around privacy, and the Government has a very clear programme of work under way to address these issues. But I might note that nothing happened during the term of the last Labour Government in this regard.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question related to 120,000 personal breaches of information in the last 2 years. I did not ask him about 4 years ago, 6 years ago, or 10 years ago. Can I get him to focus on those breaches over the last 2 years.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked whether that then constitutes systemic failure, and the Minister said he does not agree with that.

Hon Phil Goff: Why should any New Zealander feel confident that Government agencies are able to protect private details about them when the Government Chief Information Officer has warned that the reason that only 12 agencies were identified as having serious security weaknesses was that the others did not even have the reporting processes that would enable them to know whether or not they had a problem?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The reason they should feel confident is that, as we described yesterday, we have laid out a very clear programme of work to address these issues. We are strengthening up the mandate of the Government Chief Information Officer and we are going to make sure that public sector chief executives are very focused on IT security and management.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the lack of comprehensive—[Interruption] If Mr Banks would stop interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member please start his question again.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the lack of comprehensive security systems protecting privacy compounded by a lack of integrity at the top of the system, which led former National Party president Michelle Boag to state, in relation to Judith Collins: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government Minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be threatened, that’s very … dangerous.”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I can say regarding privacy of communications is that that member was sent details of a dead soldier, which he then distributed—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a helpful answer. It was a very political question, which I accept. I ask the Minister to make an attempt to address it.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There is a well-established precedent here that when you ask a political question, especially one attacking a political colleague, you will get back as good as you give. That is the firmly established practice. So if you want to change that, you should make a new ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not proposing to change that. [Interruption] Order! I am not proposing to change that. I am asking the Minister to please address the question.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This member talks about the leaking of communications—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You do not answer a question by starting with an attack on the questioner.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member Mr Goff wants to hear an answer, then he will hear the answer. If he does not now want an answer, we will move on.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This member raised points about the leaking of confidential information, and, indeed, that often is a problem across the public sector. I would point out that the member’s form with regard to using illegal channels to access Defence Force information and, furthermore, leaking the details of a deceased soldier—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I did call for a point of order, and Gerry Brownlee, who is Leader of the House, continues to interject during it.

Mr SPEAKER: We are still waiting to hear the point of order.

Hon Phil Goff: Well, I will give it when you bring the House to order, because that is what the Standing Orders require of you.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to make his point of order he will make it immediately, otherwise I am moving to the next question.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a Standing Order, which until now has been enforced, that points of order are meant to be heard in silence. That was the point that Mr Goff was making, and it was a fair point. I would ask that you respect his point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I called the member to make his point of order, if he wanted to do so.

Hon Phil Goff: I take offence at the comment made by the Minister, which is quite untrue. I never leaked the details relating to the privacy of any dead soldier. I take offence at that, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise for making it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has taken offence, then would the Minister please stand, withdraw, and apologise because the member has taken offence.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will please—

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, you invited Mr Goff to make his point of order, and throughout that point of order Mr Banks constantly interjected, and again you did nothing.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection. [Interruption] Order!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I suggest maybe the technicians need to look at the sound system because, with respect, it appears quite genuinely that there is a sound problem. You appear to be able to hear everything on this side of the House, but nothing on that side.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member continues to make that sort of point of order, he will be leaving the Chamber.

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the narrative, the member over there the Very Reverend Dr Clark made a disgraceful across-the-House abuse at my bench mate, which was insulting and demeaning to the whole of Parliament. Could you drag him back in and get him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I am looking for the member. He is not here so I cannot drag him back in.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is getting to the stage where we are having points of order that are now frivolous. If it is a serious point of order, I will hear it. But if I conclude it is a frivolous one, then I will be asking any member who raises a frivolous point of order to leave the Chamber. Does the member wish to continue?

Iain Lees-Galloway: The Minister Jonathan Coleman quite clearly called a member on this side of the House a coward. That is well outside of the Standing Orders and I expect him to withdraw and apologise for that comment.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I did not hear it, but if the Hon Jonathan Coleman did do that—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister did yell across the House calling someone a coward, he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I am not going to apologise if you are not going to give me the chance to explain what went on. I am sorry. I will leave the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call question No. 3, I can advise that it will be asked on behalf of Barbara Stewart by the Labour Party.

Superannuation Rate—Effect of Overseas Pensions

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): On behalf of Barbara Stewart—[Interruption]

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We had earlier a series of points of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters protesting the rights of registered parties to be in the House and pointing out that in his opinion some unregistered parties should not be here. Given that he is the leader of a registered party and he stood up in this House and said that because they were dissatisfied with some proceedings, New Zealand First was withdrawing from the House for an unspecified period of time, how can they be out of the House but actually then require people in another party to ask their questions? That is the height of absurdity.

Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Standing Order 381(2), which states that a member may ask a question on behalf of another if that member who is absent has given authority to the member to do so. I am advised that such authority has been given. [Interruption] Order! If we want to have a record number of expulsions today we are certainly heading the right way.

Brendan Horan: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order from Brendan Horan?

Brendan Horan: Yes, it’s a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, it better—[Interruption] Order! I will hear the member, but, if it is a frivolous point of order, expect my threat to be fulfilled.

Brendan Horan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is noted. This is a very serious point of order. I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 10 to be discharged, as I think it would be helpful for those of us who wish to actively participate in the democratic process. I believe that there is a precedent for this in the 1996—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to discharge members’ notice No. 10. Is there any objection? There is.

3. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) on behalf of BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she consider that the direct deduction policy of overseas pensions from New Zealand Superannuation under Section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 is consistent and fair?

Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes.

Chris Hipkins: When an overseas pension is paid to a pensioner, what justification is there for applying section 70 to the spouse in respect of their own entitlement to New Zealand superannuation?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: This policy has been tested in courts of law over recent years and every single time the policy of deduction under section 70 has been found to be maintaining the status quo.

Chris Hipkins: Has she received advice on the human rights implications of applying section 70 to the spouse of a pensioner who receives an overseas pension; if so, does the advice raise the possibility of a claim under the Human Rights Act by the spouse?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I cannot confirm that advice, but quite possibly the 2007 Labour - New Zealand First review of this policy may well have considered such matters, which led to no substantive changes in this policy.

Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question on behalf of Barbara Stewart—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot raise supplementary questions on behalf of a member. Supplementary questions are being raised by—

Chris Hipkins: OK, in that case, just to clarify, Mr Speaker, New Zealand First has transferred its supplementary question allocation to us.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that.

Chris Hipkins: How would she respond to a possible human rights class action by the New Zealand superannuitants affected by the direct deduction of overseas pensions?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: We will just have to wait and see, if that was to come about.

Chris Hipkins: Does she review the use of her chief executive’s discretion under section 70 in so far as it affects overseas occupational pensions under the direct deduction policy; if so, when was the last such review?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Mr Speaker, can I ask what the very last part of that question was?

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please repeat the entire question. The reason it was not heard was because of the level of interjection that is coming from my right-hand side of the House.

Chris Hipkins: Does she review the use of her chief executive’s discretion under section 70 in so far as it affects overseas occupational pensions under the direct deduction policy; if so, when was the last such review?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: I understand that the last review of all the policies in and around section 70 and the deduction of overseas pensions was by the Labour - New Zealand First coalition Government in 2007, and no substantive changes to administration or policies were put in place subsequent to that review.

Chris Hipkins: Is she aware of the concerns expressed by the United States, Canada, and other Governments on the direct deduction policy, to the extent that these concerns will impede future social security agreements between New Zealand and these countries?

Hon CRAIG FOSS: Sorry, I cannot confirm whether the Minister is aware of that, but I do know that those particular issues have been raised for quite some time, and I think they were considered as part of the 2007 review by New Zealand First and Labour, where they did not come out with any findings—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.

Tourism Promotion—Effect of Hobbit Campaign

4. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he received on the effect of the Hobbit movies on tourism and visitor numbers?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister of Tourism: The Minister has received reports from Tourism New Zealand that January to April holiday arrivals for 2013 were up 10 percent on last year’s arrivals, with visits from the US up 23 percent. It is no coincidence that this follows the release of the first Hobbit film and the launch of the “100% Middle-earth, 100% Pure New Zealand” campaign, which has been particularly strong in America. In the first 3 months of the year, 8.5 percent of visitors to New Zealand said that The Hobbit was a factor in choosing to come here. Those 8.5 percent of visitors spent around $153 million, which can be partially attributed to the Hobbit movie. This means more money in the pockets of our local businesses, which is great news for the accommodation and hospitality sectors, tourism operators, and businesses such as Hobbiton Movie Set and Farm Tours, Weta Workshop, and the Lord of the Rings tour companies.

Dr Jian Yang: Is he aware of any opposition to The Hobbit that could have undermined these tourism benefits?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes, I—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member Andrew Little please refrain from such loud interjections.

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes, I am aware of some groups who would have preferred The Hobbit being filmed offshore as opposed to here in beautiful New Zealand. I am also aware of groups that claim that the economic benefits of The Hobbit were unsubstantiated. This was particularly confusing when some of the leaders of these groups took an unexpected journey of their own to the premiere of the Hobbit movie. There is no doubt that The Hobbit has helped to increase visitor numbers. New Zealand tourism is benefiting from the decisive action taken by the Government to ensure The Hobbit was filmed here.

Dr Jian Yang: What does the future hold for Hobbit-related promotion of New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Next month Weta Workshop will be collaborating with Tourism New Zealand at San Diego’s comic conference to attract future Hobbit-inspired visitors. Weta is expecting an additional 40,000 tourists—that is actually a big deal—this year already, and other businesses are reporting increased numbers. Hobbiton Movie Set and Farm Tours manager, Russell Alexander, said that the film set was at the coalface of the tourist boom, with January to March visitor numbers almost double those of the previous year. “It’s been a fantastic summer.”, he said.

Housing, Affordable—Auckland Housing Accord

5. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I particularly stand by my statement thanking the member for putting up hoardings of me all over Auckland. I am disappointed not to have had a response to my offer to recycle them for my next Nelson campaign. I also stand by my other statements.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his comment in the New Zealand Herald that Aucklanders need to “accept lower quality developments if they want affordable housing”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the full statement here. I said this: “We need to have an upfront discussion about the balance between affordability and quality. Affordability has been given too little weight.” This statement is based on the authoritative analysis by the Productivity Commission, which pointed out that over the last decade we have been building houses in only the very top quartile, over $700,000. If we are to deliver more affordable homes for New Zealanders, then we actually need to change that balance.

Phil Twyford: What does he say to Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society who says that the bill “is a serious assault on our planning framework which can only lead to … slums.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The greatest threat to Aucklanders on low incomes is having house prices continue to go up by 13 percent per year. That is why this Government is committed to a comprehensive programme to improve the affordability of housing for all Aucklanders.

Phil Twyford: Can he point to the provision in the bill that will prevent special housing areas with lower quality standards being imposed on residents of established suburbs in Auckland, who are already fearful of more relaxed development rules?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make it quite plain that the Government’s objective is both affordable and quality homes. But it is not possible to have a situation where, for instance, on the rural fringes of towns, including my own, in Nelson, local neighbourhoods are insisting on very large sections, very minimum sizes, wanting to exclude, for instance, social housing, and to somehow pretend that this Parliament is going to get a solution to the challenges that we have around affordable housing.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked the Minister to point to the provision in the bill that would prevent the situation of slums occurring. He did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the Minister please address that part of the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The special housing bill—the member is happy to read it; it is before a select committee—allows areas to go ahead only where there is the agreement of both the council and the Government. I reassure the member—

Phil Twyford: You can just override the council.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, indeed. This Government is committed to providing additional housing, and I assure the member that we are focused on both quality and affordability.

Phil Twyford: If a leading commentator says that his bill will cause slums, if the Auckland Council says it will not sign his housing accord, and if two-thirds of New Zealanders say the Government is not doing enough to promote affordable housing, is it not time to rethink his policy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not at all. If I look at the 9-year record of the previous Government, 90 percent of the houses that were built under the previous Labour Government were over $650,000.

Hon Tony Ryall: What? Ninety percent?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ninety percent of the new houses built during Labour’s period were for only the very top income group. This is a Government that is committed to building affordable homes for all New Zealanders—thus, the reforms and the programme that we have before the House.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was originally set down for the Minister of Finance. I seek leave for it to be put back to the Minister of Finance.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is so sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Climate Change Policy—Emissions Trading Scheme

6. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by the Minister of Finance’s statement: “Well, we’ve got climate change policy built around the emissions trading system, which has bipartisan support”?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept the scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is real, or does he share the view of the finance Minister that, well, “It [only] may well be”?

Hon TIM GROSER: We accept that the science points to risks, but we also understand that there are major questions around the numerics, around the extent of climate change, and around a number of other factors that feed into this equation.

Dr Russel Norman: Do those uncertainties around the numerics justify the Government weakening the emissions trading scheme so that it no longer has any effect?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, we are not weakening the emissions trading scheme; we are maintaining the emissions trading scheme on its current settings.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the latest OECD economic survey of New Zealand, which came out a couple of days ago—you might remember it—which recommends strengthening price signals in the emissions trading system, or does he think, as John Key seems to think, that the emissions trading scheme is a far-left idea?

Hon TIM GROSER: Once again the member is partially quoting from the OECD survey. What I recall quite clearly, although I do not have it in front of me, was a very clear statement that said the New Zealand emissions trading scheme is the most advanced scheme of its type in the world.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the OECD in its recent country report about New Zealand that “encouraging investment in greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and transport infrastructure will require stronger price signals from the emissions trading scheme”, or does he think that a stronger emissions trading scheme is some kind of far-left idea, as John Key seems to think?

Hon TIM GROSER: Quite clearly, a stronger international price would drive an adjustment in a faster direction, but the underlying policy is that we are aligning ourselves with world prices. At the same time, our proportion of renewable energy is going rapidly towards the 90 percent target.

Dr Russel Norman: Does this OECD report not demonstrate once again that the international economic mainstream is actually much closer to the Green Party policy of a stronger carbon price, rather than the National policy of completely gutting the emissions trading scheme, which is an extremist policy by international standards?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, I do not accept that at all. It is a selective reading, once again, of the assessment.

Dr Russel Norman: How can the Minister continue to argue that New Zealand is being responsible and mainstream on climate change policy, when New Zealand is the fifth-worst country in the OECD for total greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis; are we not at the extremes of the OECD on climate change policy?

Hon TIM GROSER: The member knows perfectly well why New Zealand is in that position on a per capita basis, but the reality is that, since 48 percent of the emissions come from agriculture, we are the most carbon-efficient major agricultural country in the world. If we were to reduce our emissions by killing agriculture, as the member consistently advocates, we would actually worsen climate change internationally.

Land Transport Management—Legislative Reform

7. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What are some of the benefits of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill passed by the House on Tuesday?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Now the Land Transport Management Amendment Act, it puts in place the Public Transport Operating Model, which is an ongoing partnership between regional councils and public transport operators for the planning and contracting of public transport. The Public Transport Operating Model was developed through a collaborative process involving the public transport sector. It has a high level of support from operators and regional councils. The Act also simplifies the process for putting in place public-private partnership arrangements, and removes the provision to implement a regional fuel tax. Opposition to this Act is opposition to public transport.

David Bennett: Why is the Government amending the public-private partnership arrangements in the original Land Transport Management Act?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The bill simplifies the process for approving public-private partnerships. The Government wants to ensure that there is a more straightforward process, which will reduce the barriers or potential barriers to the use of these partnerships. We believe that using public-private partnerships is a legitimate way to address some of the longstanding transport infrastructure needs of the country.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Can the Minister confirm that this law strips Auckland councillors of their democratic right to decide how to spend their own transport budget of $459.5 million—or one-third of Auckland ratepayers’ money—and that it makes this task the responsibility of the unelected board of Auckland Transport, which is now bound to follow his Government policy statement? Why does he hate democracy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. That is, to say the least, a very jaundiced view of the collaborative arrangements we have as a Government with Auckland Council.

Earthquake Commission—Official Information Act and Privacy Act Requests

8. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he satisfied with the time the Earthquake Commission takes to respond to Official Information Act and Privacy Act requests; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): I am satisfied with the Earthquake Commission’s response to these requests inside the statutory time frames. Since 4 September 2010 the Earthquake Commission has received over 5,000 Official Information Act requests. There are 17 full-time staff doing nothing but processing those requests, and we have a recruitment programme to have another three staff put into permanent roles. In a word, the agency is overwhelmed. I would note that the Ombudsman’s advice and comment have been acted upon by the Earthquake Commission in trying to deal with this particular volume of work.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he aware that over 2,000 people have signed an online petition calling on him to urgently amend the Earthquake Commission’s claims management system, in light of the months people have to wait for an Official Information Act request to get the information they need to make an informed decision on the future of their homes; if so, what is his response?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not aware of that.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Earthquake Commission’s decision to extend the time for processing Official Information Act requests to 6 to 7 months meet its statutory obligations to comply with the Official Information Act; if not, what steps has he taken to require the Earthquake Commission to comply with the law?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, quite evidently, it does not. But, as I said, there has been a huge inundation of Official Information Act requests since 4 September. That has heightened in recent months. What I have done is require the Earthquake Commission to work with the Office of the Ombudsmen to get good processes in place. The State Services Commission has been asked to see whether there is capacity in other State agencies to assist with the process. I would note that there has been a 40 percent staffing turnover in this particular unit of the Earthquake Commission, and that makes things very, very difficult, but we are prepared to take more staff on. We are doing our very best to speed up that process, but the volume is so big that it is overwhelming.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: When was he first advised that, due to the Earthquake Commission’s continued inability to comply with its obligations under the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act, the Chief Ombudsman, in conjunction with the Privacy Commissioner, will be undertaking an investigation under the Ombudsmen Act into the Earthquake Commission’s management of its requests for official information, as stated in her letter to Brent Hamlin after he was stonewalled by the Earthquake Commission for 6 months?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have been aware of the difficulties that the Earthquake Commission is having in dealing with not only 726,000 individual insurance claims but also over 5,000 Official Information Act requests since 4 September 2010. We have had engagement with the Office of the Ombudsmen, and we would welcome any suggestion the Ombudsman has for how this process might be sped up.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: when was he first advised that the Chief Ombudsman, in conjunction with—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the Minister please address that part of the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I thought I had. I was saying that this is something that I have been watching for quite a time, and that, as far as I can recollect, it would have been in one of the weekly meetings that I had with the Earthquake Commission in recent weeks. I cannot pinpoint that week just here.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the letter from the Chief Ombudsman to Mr Brent Hamlin, concerning the Earthquake Commission’s continued inability to comply with its obligations, and notifying that she will be undertaking an investigation with the—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Where is the privacy waiver?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the letter is from the Ombudsman to the—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is someone else’s letter.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is raising whether there is any issue of—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I understand. I have permission from Mr Brent Hamlin to table the letter in Parliament.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Is that being tabled?

Mr SPEAKER: It does not need to be. She has assured the House that she has got permission to table it. She is seeking leave to table it. I put the leave. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Environmental Work—2013 Green Ribbon Awards

9. NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcement has the Government made to recognise outstanding environmental achievement?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Yesterday at Parliament I hosted the Green Ribbon Awards, which recognise the outstanding contributions made by individuals, organisations, businesses, and communities to protecting and enhancing New Zealand’s environment. This year’s awards had more than 200 entries from 46 towns and cities across the country, and the finalists covered initiatives in a wide range of areas. Eleven category winners from around the country were announced, with the Sustainable Coastlines Charitable Trust awarded the supreme winner for its work to protect and sustain our coastlines. Can I congratulate all of last night’s finalists and winners.

Māori Economic Development—Initiatives

10. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement with respect to Māori whanau “our priority is the wellbeing of the most vulnerable members of society, and we will do everything we can to fight for that”; if so, how has he improved the wellbeing of the most vulnerable members of society?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): I thank the member for that question. As Minister I have improved the well-being of our vulnerable Māori whānau by establishing the Kaitoko Whānau programme, which has 51 community workers working among the vulnerable families, and the Ōranga Whānau programme, which has 21 community workers looking after new young mothers of vulnerable whānau. I have established community gardens—1,124 of them—through Māra Kai for people who have no food. I have established cadetship programmes for Māori unemployed, with a 98 percent success rate and retention rate. I have established a professional group, trade training, and various kinds of them. I have established a literacy programme for deciles 1, 2, and 3 schools throughout the whole country, recognising that education is a vital part of vulnerability. Also, we have led the Government to establish a Ministerial Committee on Poverty, and, through our working with that committee, $100 million has gone towards insulating low-income households, and this is on top of the 8,000 Māori whānau who have already had their homes insulated. Through this committee we had breakfasts in schools for deciles 1, 2, 3, and 4, and more to come in other schools—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have not finished.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that the Minister has got a lot of programmes under way, but that is a sufficiently long answer. [Interruption] But there will be an opportunity, I am sure, in the supplementary questions.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree that he has failed to improve the well-being of Māori in the Te Tai Rāwhiti - Tūranga region—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please start his question again.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree that he has failed to improve the well-being of Māori in the Te Tai Rāwhiti - Tūranga region and across Ngāti Kahungunu, given that since 2008 housing costs for Māori have increased by 5 percent while incomes have fallen by 14 percent; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have most certainly worked in the Tai Rāwhiti area, with the programmes that you have just heard, giving some credibility, food on the table, and programmes that lead towards employment.

Grant Robertson: Not affordable housing, though.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I do not build houses; I insulate them.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree that he has failed to improve the well-being of Māori in the Te Tai Rāwhiti - Tūranga region and across Ngāti Kahungunu, given that Māori unemployment in the region has averaged around 15 percent over the past 3 years?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: During the years leading up to the recession, you had 9 years to do something to prepare Māori for this recession.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have not finished.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order.

Chris Hipkins: It is a very brief point of order. It is in two parts, the first of which is that I do not think that you had 9 years to do very much when you were in Opposition. The second is that it is generally accepted that Ministers should not begin their answers to questions with an attack on the questioner.

Mr SPEAKER: The first point is absolutely relevant. The Minister should refrain from bringing the Speaker into the debate. But I would ask members to have a look at the review of the Standing Orders of 2011, when it was noted that it occasionally happens. It is unhelpful for any member to raise the point of order. It is a matter for the Speaker’s discretion. Would the Minister please continue with his answer.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Thank you. I have worked tirelessly in the Tai Rāwhiti district in trade training and establishing schemes—[Interruption] For example, getting people without—he talked about jobs. Why do you not listen to your own question? I am creating opportunities for people without skills to do trade training and get a job.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree that his initiatives to reduce smoking among Māori have failed, given that smoking rates for non-Māori have decreased from 2007 to 2012, yet smoking rates for Māori remain unchanged; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Do you give up things when they are—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not—

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Sorry.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not give up.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The cessation of smoking programme is a long-term thing, and it is going to take ages to get people to actually give up smoking completely. In 3 years’ time a packet of 20 smokes will cost $20, and already people are saying it is too dear and they are dropping off. So we have just got to persevere with this if we want a healthy New Zealand.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree with the assertion in the Regional Economic Activity Report issued by his colleague Steven Joyce that the reason unemployment is higher in these regions is that too many Māori live there?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have no responsibility for that report.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Māori Affairs does have ministerial responsibility for his own views on things, so he can say he has not seen the report, he could answer that question in a number of other ways, but simply saying that he does not have responsibility is not a correct answer.

Mr SPEAKER: And I accept the point the member has raised. The member is part of a Government, and, clearly, the Government has a responsibility. I will ask the member Rino Tirikatene to put the question again.

Rino Tirikatene: Does he agree with the assertion in the Regional Economic Activity Report issued by his colleague Steven Joyce that the reason unemployment is higher in these regions is that too many Māori live there?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: No. Unemployment is high where people are not trained and do not have the qualifications or the skills. Māori are represented in those underachieving areas, and so we are usually put off first when there is a recession that we have not prepared for, and we are the last back on when there is work.

Rino Tirikatene: How can he claim he is making gains for Māori by being at the table when in every major statistic that matters—income, jobs, housing, and well-being—Māori have gone backwards under his watch?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The member is selectively picking out things to say that Māori are not improving. Māori are totally succeeding. I have here this document, which I am prepared to give you, Rino. It will cost you a donation to a family in need—would you do that? It shows that the Māori Party under my and Tariana’s leadership has got $1 billion—$1 billion—through the Budgets to Māori people, and that is a party of three. What have you done?

Kyoto Protocol, Second Commitment Period—Withdrawal

11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he concerned by the continued increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 levels, that recently breached 400 parts per million at Mauna Loa?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes, and that is why I am concerned about the glacial pace of negotiations internationally towards a global solution to the problem.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Why is New Zealand—with what the OECD has described as its advanced emissions trading scheme whose price signals need strengthening—the only country that made a binding commitment in the first Kyoto Protocol period and has not made a second commitment?

Hon TIM GROSER: There are actually nearly 100 countries that have no unilateral target, no conditional target, and no statement about whether they will even put in place policies. They account for about 22 percent of emissions, which is 100 times the level of New Zealand emissions. I think that is where the problem lies.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister agree that the problem actually lies in his inability to recognise and acknowledge that the framework convention makes a distinction between the countries that he just identified as not having been required to have legal obligations and those that have, and that he is trying to get out of the group of those that have?

Hon TIM GROSER: That is precisely the crux of the problem. When Kyoto deals with only 14 percent of emissions, leaving 86 percent of emissions outside, we will never have progress. The entire focus internationally should be on a global agreement.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In determining New Zealand’s commitment—presumably sometime this year—will the Minister reconcile his supplementary answer in question No. 6 today that “we are aligning ourselves with world prices” with today’s indicative carbon spot price of 57c for certified emission reductions and 5c for emission reduction units?

Hon TIM GROSER: Absolutely. The world price is what it is. It reflects the fact that not sufficient countries are doing enough in this space, and that the eurozone is responsible for most of the carbon price, and is in the middle of a deep recession.

Budget 2013—Heart Disease and Diabetes Prevention and Care

12. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Health: What initiatives are included in the Government’s 2013 Budget boost for heart disease and diabetes?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): New Zealanders with or at risk of developing diabetes and heart disease will benefit from a $35.5 million boost of new funding over 4 years, which includes around about $16 million to further increase the number of people getting heart and diabetes checks, in order to facilitate better diagnosis of those with diabetes and pre-diabetes.

Hon Annette King: Are the predictions for the number of people at risk of developing diabetes set to decrease over the next 4 years; if not, why, having stated that diabetes is one of our fastest-growing long-term conditions, does the funding that he is crowing about today decrease every year from 2014-15 of his 4-year project?

Hon TONY RYALL: Because those numbers are consistent with what has been announced in the Budget.

Brendan Horan: Setting aside his answer yesterday about “a vast majority”, will the Minister acknowledge that there are numbers of diabetics who are finding—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to restate his question. He cannot ask any member of the House to set aside an answer that was given in the House yesterday.

Brendan Horan: Will the Minister acknowledge that there are numbers of diabetics who are finding that the CareSens meters are not a safe and reliable medical device, and because of this are putting their lives at risk daily?

Hon TONY RYALL: Patients who have concerns should talk to their pharmacist or general practitioner.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 5 June on the .

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Well, what a great Budget it was this year. We know that it is a great Budget when the Opposition does not want to talk about it. Day in, day out we have had question time since the Budget, and day in, day out the Labour Party has wanted to talk about anything except the Budget. Where have the questions on the Budget been? No, they have not been there. In fact, we have had to ask our own questions on the Budget because the Opposition does not want to attack us on it. Instead, it has gone and talked about things that the people of New Zealand do not think are important, and continues to do so.

In the justice portfolio I have to say, yet again, that I am so outstandingly excited and pleased with the work that is going on right across the justice sector, as we work towards our Better Public Services targets. Part of that, of course, is about reducing reoffending rates, and that is something that the Labour Party could never do. All it could do was build new prisons and put more people in jail. It went from about 5,000 prisoners in 1999 when Labour came into office, to 8,500 by the time it left office, only 9 years later. Labour members are the people who would not deal with recidivism and would not put in the programmes dealing with reoffending that they needed to.

This Government, in this Budget—even though it is a tight Budget and even though there is not a lot of money to splurge around as we are trying to get back into surplus—has put in an extra $4.4 million to expand restorative justice. This is a Government that actually deals with reoffending, that actually deals with crime, and that actually gets crime down. So across the justice sector, across corrections, across the police, and across the justice ministry we have these targets, which are all about reducing crime. We have got targets for ourselves for 2017 of a 20 percent reduction in violent crime, a 15 percent reduction in recorded crime, a 5 percent reduction in youth crime, and a 25 percent reduction in reoffending. That is a whopping target to give ourselves.

How are we going so far? Well, after 18 months on these targets we currently have a 9 percent reduction in recorded crime, a 7 percent reduction in violent crime, a whopping 14 percent reduction in youth crime, and an 8 percent reduction in reoffending—an 8 percent reduction in reoffending already. It is a shame that Labour never cared enough about people to actually bring down these rates, but we are doing it, and we are doing it at a time when the rest of the world is in economic turmoil. We look at what is happening in Europe, we look at what is happening even over in Australia, which has been always the lucky country, and yet it is starting to find it pretty tough as well.

We have got through this very difficult time by being very careful, and by focusing on what matters. What matters actually is the people of New Zealand and what they want. They want less crime, and they are getting it. We are delivering it. At the same time, what we are doing is we are giving the technology tools to our workers in the justice sector, the police, corrections, and in the ministry so that they can make better use of their time, and they do not have to spend as much time travelling to and from the police station, the courts, or wherever. They can actually use iPads, iPhones, and everything else so they can access the information they need. This is about safety for them. It is also about efficiency, and it is about keeping crime down. We are going great guns.

I would like to acknowledge my colleagues in the justice sector, the other Ministers: the Hon Anne Tolley, the Hon Chester Borrows, and the Hon Chris Finlayson. I am so proud of the way that we work together. We are just a fantastic team. I have to say that we support each other, but we also have a great team in the Justice and Electoral Committee, chaired ably by Mr Scott Simpson, MP for Coromandel, just in case the Labour Party does not know where the Coromandel is. Labour never held it. The great thing is that Scott Simpson is doing a fantastic job, and before him Tim Macindoe. I am just so proud of it.

Let us come to ACC. My goodness, I am so proud to be the Minister for ACC. No, I really am, actually. We are going great guns in ACC. National came into office, and we inherited an absolute financial mess in ACC. But also we actually inherited a situation where 14,000 people were lingering on very long-term payments from ACC.

Jami-Lee Ross: How many?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was 14,000 people. Since then we have been able to rehabilitate 3,000 people, so now there are 11,000 people on these long-term benefits. At the same time those numbers are continuing to drop and ACC is now able to do some other things to help people, and to help prevent injuries, which I think is something it should be doing. ACC has a real role in preventing injuries, and preventing people from ending up losing their independence. If that does happen for a period of time, ACC has a role in trying to get them back to wellness or to as much independence as they possibly can.

The biggest risk to ACC and its viability, now that it is, by the way, fully funded in the work account and the earners account, is a change of Government to a Green-Labour alliance—a Green-Labour alliance. That is the worst thing. Under the Budget—[Interruption] I know that Mr Little hates it when I talk about ACC, because it is such a good-news story, and he was so ineffective as the Labour spokesman that in fact Sue Moroney had to take over, and she has been fabulous ever since; I have really enjoyed working with her.

What we are doing is we are signalling a levy drop. That is in effect a tax refund for all New Zealanders who work. So that is around about $300 million down, a levy drop in the next year, the 2014-15 year, and probably a drop of about a billion dollars in the year after that. So we are already delivering, through this, about a 40 percent drop in levies from the time that we took office. If you look at any of the work that is being done around this, the biggest risk to ACC is a Greens-Labour alliance. That is the biggest risk.

Then I have my other portfolio of ethnic affairs. It is a lovely portfolio. I just love ethnic affairs because this Government is all about diversity. We celebrate diversity, unlike the Labour Party, which patronises people and behaves like it does. Look how badly it treats women over there. One of the great things we have done in ethnic affairs is that we have been able to take ethnic affairs and we have been able to focus on the really great things out of diversity. The EPIC conference is all about ethnic people in commerce. What we have done—it started last year, and, yes, it was my idea, OK, but there is more of it this year, and we will do more of it next year—is we are bringing together ethnic people in business and saying, look, the whole of New Zealand has to be focused on business and making this country do really well and perform, so let us actually connect people from traditional, mainstream New Zealand businesses with the many people who have come to New Zealand and who choose to be New Zealanders. These are great people. Let us get them together, and let us help.

Last year we started it off. We had a great inaugural conference of about 200 people. This year, just a couple of weeks ago, I was at the opening—well, yes, I did open it—and there were about 400-odd people there. It was fantastic. It was a great success. I have heard fantastic feedback about the Office of Ethnic Affairs and the work that it is doing, along with our many ethnic communities, but it is also about building relationships with more mainstream parts of business, like the New Zealand Institute of Management. We now have a memorandum of understanding with it so that it in fact is learning from the many advantages of ethnic diversity in the workplace.

One of the great things that I could announce—that I have announced, but obviously no one in the Labour Party wants to talk about it—is about extending Language Line. Language Line is something that ethnic affairs has had running that has helped many people who have had to interact with Government agencies but who did not necessarily feel that confident at speaking in English. Language Line is the basic telephone translating service that has been available to Government departments and people interacting with them. We are now extending that service to private businesses, to be able to provide it to them on a user-pays basis. Because the Office of Ethnic Affairs is only a little agency, it does not have a lot of staff, and we want to make sure we do it right. What we are doing is that we are expanding the service out first to the big banks, and then it will go further and further from there.

My vision of this would be to be able to say that anybody who wants to access any form of business or any social service should be able to contact those services or use Language Line to help them. That is something that I think businesses and the people of New Zealand will all benefit from. It is actually about making the very best of the 4.5 million people who choose to call New Zealand home. We are a little country, our population is even less than that of Melbourne, and yet we are a great little country. I think New Zealand is a fantastic country, the best country in the world. I am proud to be representing this Government. This Budget is a great Budget, and we know how great it is because those members never want to talk about it.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Questions for Oral Answer—Withdrawal of Unparliamentary Remark

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the heat of the debate earlier I made a comment that was unparliamentary and inappropriate. I withdraw and apologise.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed on the .

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): Just so we get the numbers exactly right, there are 10 members in Judith Collins’ faction. Just so we get the numbers exactly right, there are 10 in Judith Collins’ faction. Steven Joyce could not get out of here quick enough. He could not get out of here quick enough. He even walked in front of Judith Collins just to make sure he made the point. Judith Collins is so busy on Twitter—she is so busy on Twitter—she is not doing even the fundamental bits of her portfolio. Marie Shroff, not a woman known for major exaggeration, is in the paper this morning criticising the Government, saying that it is lagging behind on privacy issues. She said that she lamented the behaviour of the Minister. Well, we do that every day on this side of the House. We lament the behaviour of Judith Collins because she is failing in her duty as a Minister to look after the privacy concerns of New Zealanders.

What this Budget will be remembered for is something that that Minister knows a great deal about. This will be the Budget that will be remembered for National looking after its mates. We saw no better example of that than we have over the last few days. This Budget will pass today—we know that. We can see that on this side of the House. It will pass today with the vote of John Banks, who the police have said broke the Local Electoral Act. He is currently in court with a private prosecution because he broke the Local Electoral Act.

Scott Simpson: Mark Peck.

GRANT ROBERTSON: He should not be in this Parliament. He was handed a cheque, Mr Simpson. He was handed a cheque by Skycity for $15,000 and he did not declare that. He asked for a donation from Kim Dotcom and he did not declare that. That is the shabby behaviour that will prop up this Government and that will pass this Budget. And then we have Peter Dunne, who is not the leader of a registered political party. He is not the leader of a registered political party, and yet he retains that status and all the funding that goes with it. This is a shabby Government, propped up by shabby parties, which has delivered a shabby Budget. The members on the other side of the House should hang their heads in shame when they look at this Budget, because the message that they are sending to New Zealanders is that they will look after their mates, not your mates.

I think the other thing that this Budget will be remembered for is what happened during the urgency debate around the Budget. I want to make very clear to this House that the process that the National Party went through when it was passing the carers bill was obscene and against our democratic process. Professor Andrew Geddis from Otago University put it this way. He said: “I think National just broke our constitution.” That is what it did.

Hon Hekia Parata: Oh!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Hekia Parata dismisses it. Well-known constitutional law expert Hekia Parata dismisses that!

Hon Hekia Parata: No need for disparagement, I just don’t agree.

GRANT ROBERTSON: She does not agree with it. Well, she should go and read Andrew Geddis’ piece and see that what he is saying is that National fundamentally undermined the rights of New Zealanders by shoving that legislation through under urgency, by not having a proper regulatory impact statement, and by denying the rights of those carers to go to court. That is what happened under this Budget.

And do you know what? Under this Budget, John Key keeps claiming a mandate for this and a mandate for that. Well, I have decided that Mr Key does know something about man dates—he has been on a number of them. He went on one with Ian Fletcher, and that certainly got someone a job. He went on one with Skycity, and that certainly got it a deal. He went on a man date with Warner Bros as well—that got it a deal. Steven Joyce caught the bromance bug. He went on a man date as well, with Shell. That is the kind of man date that the National Party believes in, not the mandate for the public of New Zealand.

The one thing I want to focus on in this speech in terms of the content of the Budget, for Judith Collins’ benefit, is around employment. I want to make very clear that if anyone in New Zealand believes that this Government knows what it is doing with the economy, knows what it wants to do for New Zealand, and has a plan, they should take a look at the unemployment statistics and they will think again—146,000 New Zealanders are unemployed.

Jami-Lee Ross: It’s coming down. It’s coming down.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Jami-Lee Ross says that it is coming down. Well, I hate to let the member know that that is 41,000 more New Zealanders unemployed than when National took office. Also, since National took office, the number of 15 to 24-year-olds unemployed has gone up by 12,100. The number of 15 to 24-year-olds who are not in employment, are not in education, and are not in training is up by 12,000 to 79,000 people—79,000 young New Zealanders not in employment, not in education, and not in training. That is the failure of this Government: the failure to invest in our young people so that they have the opportunity to achieve their potential. That is the failure of this Government.

What the Government said in the 2011 election campaign—and everybody on this side of the House remembers it because National Party MPs repeated it on the election stand—was that there would be 170,000 extra jobs created by this Government by 2015. Well, what we discover in Budget 2013 is that National will fall 61,000 jobs short of that target.

Dr Megan Woods: How many?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Sixty-one thousand—the population of Nelson. That is how far National will fall short of its promise made in the 2011 election campaign to create extra jobs. The Government does not have the policies or the commitment to focus on creating jobs. In fact, it has a policy agenda that goes in the other direction from creating jobs, by creating a two-speed economy where the regions of New Zealand do not have the support and the resources to create jobs, and by putting in place employment relations legislation that will drive down wages and that will deny people their rights at work. The Government has policies that are against work and that are against jobs, not in favour of growing them. That is why the Government will fall 61,000 jobs short. In the last year only 8,000 extra jobs were created in New Zealand. That is why the Government is falling short, because the National Party does not have the policies that are required to make this happen. But what is worse is that, in this Budget, National has recommitted again to a target of 170,000 new jobs in the next 4 years. So having completely failed to achieve the promised target in 2011, it has decided to make up the same target again. It is a recidivist offender, the National Party. It keeps making up these promises, and it keeps failing to deliver.

People in New Zealand who heard John Key’s statement that there would be a brighter future have been let down. They have been disappointed. The vested interests of New Zealand see a brighter future. The Skycity deal-makers see a brighter future. But the ordinary, hard-working, wage-earning New Zealanders do not have that brighter future. That has been put aside, put on the scrap heap of slogans, along with being ambitious for New Zealand. That is what this Government said it would be: ambitious for New Zealand. At best at the moment the Government can say that it is ambiguous for New Zealand. That is the best that it can say at the moment, because this Government has failed to put up a plan that will actually drive the kind of job creation that is needed in this country.

The Labour Party has been absolutely clear about what we believe should drive job creation. We want to pull the big levers in our economy. We want to change monetary policy so that it actually allows people to create jobs, with a stable and lower exchange rate. We want to make sure that we have fair procurement rules, so that New Zealand Kiwi companies actually get a fair go at bidding for Government contracts. We want to make sure that we have apprentices as part of those contracts, so we do not have people on the scrap heap. If Phil Goff’s promise to New Zealanders had been allowed to be fulfilled, we would have had people training so that they could do the Christchurch work. Instead, that side of the House has decided that it is OK to import workers into New Zealand because it sat on its hands. We need to pull the smaller levers too. We need to get in there and assist 18 and 19-year-olds who are on the dole, by making the dole payment a subsidy for an apprenticeship. There is a practical policy that this Government could have picked up, and it has failed to do so. Today in industries like the building industry they are thousands of workers short because that Government sat on its hands.

This National Government has no plan to grow jobs. Its own Budget tells the Government that it is falling woefully short of its target. This is a shabby Budget, backed by a shabby Government, with two support parties in John Banks and Peter Dunne. In terms of Mr Banks, he should not be able to be in this House, and in terms of Mr Dunne, he should not be able to receive his allowances as a party. Today, I hate to say, is a day of great shame for our democracy in New Zealand. This Government has shown that its approach to supporting vested interests does not end outside this House; it happens in this Chamber as well.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, otirā, tēnā tātou huri noa i tō tātou Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and, indeed, greetings to us throughout our House.]

I am delighted to stand and participate in this debate, because Budget 2013 has been the fifth Budget in a row in which we have seen our Government put its money where its mouth is, which is into education, unlike the Opposition. There have been five Budgets since we have been in Government, and in each of those Budgets we have raised the investment in education. The amount of $9.7 billion—$9.7 billion—reflects a 74 percent increase in early childhood education investment—

Dr Megan Woods: Why did you cross out the date on the Manning proposal?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: —which the Opposition loves to rant on about, but, actually, this Government does stuff about it. We have 95.5 percent—

Dr Megan Woods: Why did you change it? Why did you let that community down?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: If Dr Woods would care to listen, instead of ranting, she might learn something, and it is that in early childhood education we have invested $1.5 billion in Budget 2013. That is a 74 percent increase. A shipload of money has gone into early childhood education in the last 5 years, and it has had an effect. We have seen the numbers of kids participating in early childhood education increase to 95.5 percent—

Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not certain, but I think there was some unparliamentary language used a moment ago—

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Shipload.

Hon Maryan Street: Shipload? Thank you for clarifying that for me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It had me confused as well. I can understand where the member was coming from.

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry, Mr Horan. I did not see you at the back.

Brendan Horan: I was going to suggest that perhaps our Te Reo could help there, and it could be a waka-load.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a frivolous interjection, designed to break up a speech. If it happens again, the member will get a yellow card.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Ā, tēnā koe e te Mana Whakahaere. Mehemea tērā mema e pīrangi ana ki te whakarongo i roto i Te Reo Māori, ka mōhio mai a ia, kei te kōrero ahau mō te kaitā o te pūtea mō te mātauranga.

[And thank you, Mr Speaker. If that member wanted to listen to what is being stated in the Māori language, she might understand that I am talking about the funding for education being massive.]

I hope we have illuminated that point of view. This is a great Budget, generally and specifically, for education. New Zealand has a world-class education system, and it is top performing for most but not for all. This Government is ambitious for each and every New Zealand child and young person. We are not happy with averages of four out of five, in the case of Māori one out of two, and in the case of Pasifika two out of three. We want it to be the situation that five out of five young people do well in the New Zealand education system and are able to step out powerfully and strongly on the next step of their lives.

This Government understands that the long-term, sustainable remedy for unemployment for any young people, but certainly for the higher levels of unemployment amongst Māori and Pasifika, is an excellent education. That is what we are dedicated to delivering, and that is why we have a Better Public Services set of targets of 98 percent of young people being engaged in early childhood education in 2016. We are at 95.5 percent, and that has occurred off the back of investments that have increased by 74 percent since we came into Government and cast our first Budget in 2008-09.

In the secondary area we have a Better Public Services target of 85 percent of 18-year-olds securing National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 in 2017. We know that business as usual would not get us to 85 percent. We are ambitious. We are aspirational. We mean what we say. We want meaningful qualifications for every one of our 18-year-olds. On the current trend we will not get there and that is why we are investing. We have increased the investment into the compulsory sector by 30 percent in the five Budgets that we have passed. So again we are investing. In 2013 we have over 500 million new dollars being invested in education. Together with the contingencies that have been provided, that is $1.04 billion over the next 4 years in early childhood education, in secondary education, and in the secondary-tertiary transition space. I have talked about early childhood education, but the story gets even better in secondary schooling.

We know that our education system, as I have said, is a world-class education system. It is seventh on the Programme for International Student Assessment. Disaggregated, New Zealand European, Pākehā, or Palagi are second in the world. That is magnificent. It tells us that our education system is extremely capable of performing for the majority of students. However, Māori are 34th and Pasifika are 44th. We are unique in the 65 countries measured in the Programme for International Student Assessment in being both top performing and having the lowest equity. Our Government is not going to do what members on those Opposition benches did in the 9 years they were in Government, which was publish reports and wring their hands. What we are doing is focusing on how we get a lift across the system for every one of our students. Too many of those being left behind are Māori or Pasifika, come from poorer homes, or have special educational needs, or permutations thereof. We are not prepared to sit on the sideline and say: “Oh well, that just happens.” No, we are focused on how we raise achievement across the board.

We are doing that in education in the secondary and primary area by investing in national standards. The most comprehensive data said we can participate in samples, but this Government had the courage to say: “No, samples are not enough.” We need to know how each and every child is doing in our education system. We will have year 2 of national standards data this year, It will be better than last year’s, next year’s will be better than this year’s, and we will continually improve, as we have done in NCEA and in other parts of the education system.

We know that the two in-school contributors that make the biggest difference to education are the quality of teaching and the quality of education leadership. That is why in this Budget we have put nearly $40 million into a quality teaching agenda. We know that we have to invest in raising quality, and, by the way, $340 million over the next 4 years is going into professional learning and development. We need to both attract the best and the brightest into the profession and make sure that the 82,000 who are already in the profession are constantly getting the opportunity to improve their skills through professional development, so that they can, as the chief review officer said so simply yet so profoundly, cause learning to happen, and know that it did. Our system relies on that happening for each and every child.

One of the biggest challenges we have is the diversity we have within schools, not so much the diversity between schools. Therefore, that means the quality of teaching can be very variegated within schools and we have to address that. These are all the hard issues that this Government is addressing, and we are doing it by putting money where it will make the most difference. We are putting it where it will be most sustainable. So the quality teaching agenda is a very big part of that.

But we also know, in particular for Māori students, that on average they do better in kura kaupapa than they do in mainstream. We have to address both. But one of the things that this Budget has done is invest in over 280 scholarships to recruit kura teachers into the kura kaupapa stream—that is, teachers who are capable and excellent at both speaking and teaching in Te Reo Māori. It has the highest attrition rate. Teachers who go into kura last about 3 years, because it is so tough teaching in that area, yet it turns out the best possible results for Māori students. So we have recognised that—the first Government to do so—and are investing in that area. We have also recognised that mentoring and support to keep kura teachers who are already in kura kaupapa there, and we have invested $12 million in how to support them.

We have also recognised that out-of-school requirements are needed to help students do better, whether that is homework centres, or whether that is one-on-one mentoring. So we have invested nearly $6 million into mentoring.

Parents—parents are the unsung heroes and heroines of our education system. It is parents who make sure that their kids value education, that they get to school each day, and that they have the understanding that doing well at school will set them up for a very good life. Parents are the people who people our 2,500 boards across the country. There are 16,600 parents who volunteer every 3 years to be on the boards of trustees of schools. We have recognised that and in this Budget have made an 85 percent increase in the funding for school boards and for volunteers, to give them the skills and tools they need to be successful.

Finally, we have also recognised that communities have great initiatives about how they can engage with their schools so that students stay at school—because obviously if you are at school you are going to do more learning than if you are not—and how we can ensure that when they are at school they are well behaved and they are learning and their fellow students can learn. So we have put into this Budget an initiative fund of nearly $2.5 million, which will respond to communities having ideas about how we can get stronger engagement.

The three things that make the most difference to the quality of education that a young person will have in school are the quality of teaching and the quality of leadership—and we have invested in this Budget in those—and, out of school, the strength of parental and community engagement, and we are investing in that. We used an evidence base. We have increased funding in this Budget for schools by 30 percent and for early childhood education by 74 percent. This is a great education Budget. I am very proud of it and of the Minister of Finance for recognising the absolute criticality, the importance of education. Thank you.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): The Minister of Education mentioned three things. There are three Ds about this Budget, and those are distraction, desperation, and despair. National campaigned on a promise of a brighter future, but this Budget has cast New Zealand under a long black cloud.

In the health sector there is a serious problem of the Government’s own making, which the Minister of Health has wilfully and dangerously refused to accept. He is ignoring the problems caused by the new diabetes testing meters—the CareSens brand. Minister Tony Ryall and Pharmac are deliberately taking away from people the Accu-Chek and other meters, which diabetics know are reliable and trust. In question time he averts from and avoids acknowledging the concerns our diabetics—both type 1 and type 2 diabetics—have issued, and they must be listened to. I have news for the Minister, Mr Ryall: diabetics have been to doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, and doctors, nurses, and pharmacists have had it up to here with the complaints not only about the meters but also about faulty testing strips. I have been contacted by large numbers of people who are reporting problems with the CareSens meters.

Scott Simpson: How many?

BRENDAN HORAN: The meters will not work in temperatures below 10 degrees Celsius. How useless is that for New Zealand? They are much like the interjections from that member over there. They give unreliable results. In my hand here I have an example. This photo was taken by Helen Lockley of New Plymouth. She has given me express permission to use this. Her young son has diabetes, and an accurate meter is essential for her and him to be able to manage his sugar levels. This is scary. Here we have the Accu-Chek meter reading 4.0 and the CareSens meter reading 5.9.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How do you know which one’s right?

BRENDAN HORAN: This is scary because these meters are not consistently different. Like that member’s interjections, they are inconsistently different, and I would say that this is actually a very serious—serious—problem that I am talking about. It is really not one that you should be interjecting on—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker; I mean that member over there. Here we have the comparison of the two meters: the white Accu-Chek meter on the left and the black CareSens meter on the right. They were careful to take the readings from the same drop of blood at the same time. As I said, the difference is life-threatening to a diabetic. One meter reads high; the other meter reads low—well, not low but correct—and that person would then be seeking some insulin. We would not tolerate such discrepancies at the supermarket or the service station, would we? And we should not tolerate such discrepancies in people’s essential medical services. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left and my right are interjecting on each other. Neither has the floor. If you want to interject on the speaker, that is fine by me.

BRENDAN HORAN: Tony Ryall adopts a see no evil, hear no evil approach. He will not acknowledge that there are problems for many type 1 and insulin-dependent diabetics. As if diabetics did not have enough problems, here is one that our very own Government is creating. There is something wrong, Mr Ryall—listen, acknowledge, and fix it. It is pretty simple, really. I am very worried that someone will have to die before that Minister will listen. Please, Minister Tony Ryall, listen to these Kiwi men, women, and children because they are suffering and they are scared.

Vote Transport—Tauranga residents should not be carrying the burden of a road built to move large transporters heading to the Port of Tauranga. Residents of Tauranga were justified and correct when they called on their council to make the residential street safe and secure from heavy vehicular movements. The council built Route K as a toll facility. It had little other choice. The traffic modelling at the time supported the road’s construction. It has been only most recently, however, that the transporters have begun to appreciate Route K’s financial value to them for ease of access and the cost-efficiencies that it provides to the Port of Tauranga. There is little doubt that the Port of Tauranga is strategically perhaps the most critical port in the country. It is efficient and can turn ships round and move product faster than its competitors, which struggle to match its efficiencies. As a transport link, the Port of Tauranga will become increasingly important and can only add further demand for capacity on roads already struggling across the city.

The northern arterial route or link planned for over a decade away must be brought forward. Route K is costing local ratepayers over $10,000 a day in interest alone, and there is no doubt that this road is a critical transport link and was needed for the Port of Tauranga. The road was always planned to be adopted as a critical part of the State highway network. It was built to those standards and not as a residential road. It is time that the road is adopted into the State highway network where it belongs rather than be a noose over the ratepayers of Tauranga. However, the issue is no longer in the hands of the local council, but is now being managed by senior New Zealand Transport Agency administrators. So be prepared, Tauranga, for an announcement—to come, I imagine, close to the election—that the road will join the State highway network, and, in the meantime, ratepayers will for the sake of a political ploy continue to face huge interest at a cost of over $10,000 a day that they should never ever have had to pay.

This Budget is impractical. The Prime Minister promised the people of Welcome Bay that he would have a tunnel built under the Hairini interchange and thus reduce travel congestion into the city. This, sadly, will not be the expected outcome for the locals, as a critical congestion point is the single-lane Hairini Bridge at the end of the proposed tunnel development. What the Prime Minister has not told the people of Welcome Bay is that the real reason for the tunnel is not about ease of access to the city for the residents but more about getting the heavy transporters on their way through the interchange quicker and to the port efficiently. People of Tauranga, all that is planned is the tunnel. Nothing else on the city side of the tunnel will happen. Welcome Bay congestion will remain until the bridge and the road leading into the city are widened. Traffic modelling again is being ignored, simply to justify the Prime Minister’s long-overdue promise.

Funding for regional safety programmes has been reduced by up to 30 percent, and sustainable transport programmes developed under the prior Government dropped from funding altogether unless they can demonstrate safety factors. This has placed at risk many of the extremely successful programmes developed across our region. Alcohol, speed, and pedestrian safety remain critical injury concerns throughout the Bay of Plenty. These are behavioural issues that can be managed only through robust district education campaigns, and to do that requires funding. An additional and critical issue facing city traffic is the intention of the Ministry of Education to pull out of student transportation to school and to transfer student transport across to the public bus network. This is significant for local bus operators, and the city as it scrambles to provide safe cycling and walking facilities to cope, but there is real concern from the transport engineers about how well the roads will cope with the increasing capacity.

Then we turn to the kiwifruit industry. It is a significant part of the economy of the Bay of Plenty—great people, great businesses, great employment, great export earner—and it is critical that the Government support and, where necessary, fund the recovery of the kiwifruit industry. It is one of the most important productive and significant income earners the country has ever seen. That little tasty green goodness is responsible for over 20 percent of the GDP of the Bay of Plenty. Service providers, contractors, and entire communities rely on the success of the industry. Formalisation of the national pest management strategy is the first step, but the Government must not take its eyes off the ball. The industry will continue to need support. I will note that the industry plays an important role in exporting. Zespri last year earned over $1.6 billion and is one of the few Kiwi brands that resonate around the world, encapsulating what we aspire to on the world stage: quality, innovation, and food safety and security. The Government must prioritise its focus on taking the best that kiwifruit has to offer and applying those principles more broadly across the primary sector, so that more industries can escape the commodity trap. As a nation we must address scale, address distance to market, address investment into research and development, and encourage innovation, and the Government must begin to show leadership in this area.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): It is great to be able to make a contribution in the Budget debate here this afternoon. Bill English stood up here on 16 May this year and delivered his fifth Budget. It was fantastically well received by the electorate at large. Just look at the polling numbers for National over the last couple of weeks since Bill English stood in this House and rolled out his fifth Budget. We need to acknowledge Bill English because he has weathered very tough economic times and steered a fantastic path for this small but powerful country of ours.

We have come through one of the worst recessions in the history of this country under the leadership of John Key and the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This Budget, which was read out on 16 May, means that we are going to get into surplus next year, 2014-15, which is fantastic when you think about all of the things that this Government has had to weather. We are going to get back into surplus.

We are forecast to stay on a growth path of around 3 percent. When you compare us with other countries around the world, this is fantastic. Of course, unemployment has dropped. It is the lowest it has been for about the last 3 years at 6.2 percent. When the Opposition members stand up here this afternoon and say that there are no jobs, they are wrong. They are fundamentally wrong, because this Government backs businesses. Businesses are the ones who are going to continue to grow the economy, and the Government backs them to the hilt. What is also interesting is that we are seeing ACC levy reductions. Next year we are going to see a reduction of around $300 million, which is the size of a tax cut. When we came into office, the ACC was an absolute mess. Nick Smith and co. have sorted out the ACC—with the Minister for ACC, Judith Collins—and turned the ACC round so that we can now return those levies to hard-working families and businesses up and down the country.

We are also putting more money—$5.1 billion over 4 years—into health and education. We heard from Minister Parata this afternoon about her focus and the Government’s focus on education. We have also heard in the last couple of weeks about the real focus that we have on lifting the performance of the health system across New Zealand, and Minister Tony Ryall is doing a fantastic job in that space. There is more money going into science. We are focusing on housing for vulnerable people, as well. This is a fantastic Budget, and we need to acknowledge Bill English and the sterling work that he has done there.

I want to spend some time in my contribution this afternoon talking about the Ministry for Primary Industries. It has the strategy of “grow and protect”.

Andrew Little: Tell us about meat exports to China.

Hon NATHAN GUY: What the Opposition members do not want to hear about is the growth part of the primary industries, because they do not care about growth. Andrew Little chips in, over in the back seat in the Opposition. Oppositions members do not want to hear about the prosperity of the Primary Growth Partnership. They do not care about businesses working in partnership with the Government. We have invested in 13 projects in partnership with industry that are going to realise a $7 billion—

Andrew Little: You left the meat sitting on the wharves.

Hon NATHAN GUY: —that is a $7 billion prize, Mr Little, by 2025, and that is going to be year on year. The Government cares about businesses and it backs them. The Opposition does not.

Just today I have announced another funding round for the Primary Growth Partnership. And, of course, what we are also going to do is grow the economy with free-trade agreements as well, which are going to be a big part of our exports doubling. Currently, primary industries are worth around $30 billion. We have set a target of $60 billion by 2025. Free-trade agreements are going to be a part of that, as is also the Primary Growth Partnership.

But, of course, the problem that the Labour Party is going to have, if it is ever lucky enough to get into Government, is that the Greens are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Andrew Little nods there. He knows that. He realises that that is a problem, because that is worth about $2 billion a year to us. So here we have the Labour camp, sort of on the fence, unsure whether to support free-trade agreements, and the far left part of a potential Government—heaven forbid if it ever happened in the future—is against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

So what I also want to focus on with the primary industries is biosecurity. That is my No.1 priority and it is something that I cannot afford to take my eye off, and neither can my officials. We have a world-class biosecurity system. It is interesting that the Opposition members cannot even read the Budget. They are out there saying there has been a funding cut in biosecurity. If they just looked below the top line in the Budget, they would realise that $5 million in funding was brought forward for the Joint Border Management System in 2011-12 and $1 million for the mergers with the Ministry of Primary Industries. What Opposition members have not realised, of course, is there is no funding cut in biosecurity. Why would I allow that to happen, when it is my No. 1 priority? So the challenge to Opposition members is to make sure they get their facts right. If they are going to stand up in this House or go out and talk to farmers—who do not care and do not listen to them anyway—they should make sure that their facts are right.

Opposition parties should clearly know and understand that this is my No. 1 priority. That is why 30 new front-line biosecurity officers are being recruited now, and 56 have been recruited in the last 6 months. I have such a focus on biosecurity that we are working on Government-industry agreements—and I acknowledge the stakeholders who are working through this—so that we can be ready to respond to incursions and threats in the future. We are working closer than we ever have worked with our Australian counterparts on foot-and-mouth preparedness. Just tonight we have got a couple of officials flying up to the UK to be a part of the simulated exercise happening in the UK called Operation Walnut—a real focus on biosecurity.

Can I also just comment on and mention also meat exports into China. There has been an issue with certification, which the Ministry of Primary Industries will learn from. Unfortunately, it happened. It should never have happened. As the regulator, the ministry issues about 12,000 documents a week. This is bread and butter for the ministry. There will be learnings that will come out of this. We do not want this to happen again. I need to acknowledge that we have reached a solution with the Chinese officials. I need to acknowledge them. I acknowledge also that the meat industry has played a part in this as well, and it has been very supportive in finding the resolution. We are going to host some Chinese officials down here to get a broader certification process under way.

Hon Member: Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless. Talk about 101.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Opposition members, instead of harping on, should be supporting this Government.

What I also want to focus on in this Budget debate in particular is the $80 million out of $400 million that is going into irrigation. It should be applauded. It should be applauded by Opposition members, but, of course, they are confused. Their spokesperson on agriculture, Damien O’Connor, is unsure whether to support irrigation or not. When Mr O’Connor visited Hawke’s Bay with Shane Jones they both said: “Oh, it’s a very good case. It’s in an obscure part of New Zealand, but, by and large, it looks pretty good.” Then we had the failed former MP for Labour up there, Stuart Nash, saying there was no way that Labour would support any water storage irrigation projects. So on one hand you have got Labour sort of saying “Yes, we support it.”, but on the other hand you have got one of its failed ex - list MPs out there saying “We don’t support it.”

So I am very confused as to whether or not Labour backs rural New Zealand. Here we are, having just come through the worst drought that we have had in 70 years. You would think that Labour would be supporting water storage projects—400,000 hectares of land potentially under irrigation. Labour does not care. Labour does not care about rural communities.

I could run through a list, and I am going to run through a list in the last moment I have got. Labour wants to introduce a capital gains tax. That will go down like a cup of sick in rural communities. It is going to lift income tax for the higher earners as well. Well, that will not go down well. There will be a higher company tax. Labour is against any dairy expansion, with the far left greenies involved. It wants a wider, more expansive emissions trading scheme. It wants to have a limit to water use. It is not going to back the 90-day probation period for new employees. It does not support the roll-out of broadband into rural communities. There is no support for irrigation. It wants to stop projects like Transmission Gully and the Kapiti Expressway. The list goes on. Of course, Labour wants to unwind any Resource Management Act reforms. It is not interested in returning money to hard-working taxpayers in terms of our ACC rebates. It is going to rack up more debt.

Rural New Zealand does not believe anything that Labour or the Greens say. That is why we hold all the seats that we do hold. That is why I am hugely passionate about the primary industries. That is why it is a real focus of mine and is the engine room of the New Zealand economy.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Let me quickly acknowledge, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, in light of your announcement earlier today—and I know this will not be the time for lengthy acknowledgments—your enormous and huge contribution not only to the House but to its good order. It is an honour to be speaking in your presence and under your chairmanship this afternoon.

I think the most interesting observation to make about the last speaker, the Hon Nathan Guy, is that for once we have a National MP who understands what a drought is, who understands not only what a drought is but what its impact is on the local region and on the economy. You see, the last lengthy drought we had was in 2007. Every time this Government recounts our economic fortunes going back to around about that time, it never ever talks about the lengthy drought that caused the recession that took place in this country even before the global financial crisis. This is a Government that has a selective memory. It did not understand what was happening then, and, frankly, if you look at this Budget, it barely understands what is happening now.

We heard the ridiculous comments about ACC from the last speaker and also from the Minister for ACC earlier this afternoon. It was as if by magic the Government has turned round this great corporation that is so important to the wealth of the nation. It has done nothing of the sort—it has done nothing of the sort. Government members contrived a crisis that never existed, they hiked the levies, they have ripped off every worker and business in this country, and they have now realised that they over-egged the pudding. When they got advice at the end of last year to reduce the levies, they thought: “Oh, we don’t want to admit we’re wrong. We’ll have to blame the officials, but we’ll do that further down the track. We’ll leave the current levies in place, and we’ll over-levy the nation to the tune of $1 billion to $2 billion a year for another year, while the economy is trying to recover.” That is how short-sighted and, frankly, how shallow they are.

I want to talk about the area of justice and the justice group of votes. They are very important, and what is happening there is a crying shame. We have seen that the biggest proportion of Vote Justice goes into legal aid. Legal aid is very important. It applies in a number of ways. It applies to those who are impecunious—those who are on low incomes—and those who are facing the full force of the State, through police prosecutions and Crown prosecutions, and they are entitled to assistance to defend themselves, especially when their liberty is at stake. Legal aid plays a very important part.

Legal aid was cut by $15 million in last year’s Budget. It has been cut by another $12 million a year in this Budget, and the trend is a continuing cut in that area. When we see the figures—the new legal aid regime took effect last year—and when we see what the impact has been, the number of legal aid lawyers has fallen dramatically, by nearly 300 in a year. Those are lawyers who were available to do legal aid work who are no longer doing it—and not just any lawyers, but senior lawyers as well. So bad has it been in a single year that the Government now has had to put together a special programme and a special package to draw back senior lawyers who have since left the system because it has got so hard and, most important to them, it has become so unfair.

The number of firms doing legal aid work is falling rapidly, because partners in law firms are now saying: “Listen, the time it takes to make the application and to get a fair rate is just too hard for us.” Although this is good for young, developing lawyers—put them on a bit of legal aid work and give them a bit of courtroom experience, under the supervision of senior partners—it has all just become too hard and law firms are rapidly retreating from that type of work, no matter how important it is constitutionally and for our system of justice.

But one of the most important areas in which we are yet to see the impact of this, which we will see under this Budget, is the area of family law, because this Government is now putting through its legislation that is about minimising the role of lawyers in this very difficult area of work. It is an area of work where the people who are the users of the justice system in the Family Court—usually separating parents—need not just legal advice, but support as well. This Government now has a programme that is about minimising it and reducing it, and it plans to significantly cut the cost of legal aid in the family law section.

The reason it will justify that is to say: “The warring parents can get on and do it themselves, with a facilitator, and we don’t have to have independent representation of children any more. We’re going to scrap most of that, because the parents who are tied up in the stress, the distress, and the tragedy of the separation—well, they’ll be in a perfectly fit state to represent the best interests of the children.” That is the thinking of this Government. So it will cut legal aid to the parents, and it will cut the access to legal advice on the representation of children. They will no longer have independent advice. Sure, the Government will save money; it will save money in that area, but we know where it is going to be picked up. It will be picked up in a whole heap of other areas: in the criminal justice area, in the health area, and in other areas of Government spending. Of course, on top of all this we have had the mishandling of the legal aid project, which is now under yet another expensive legal appeal.

The other area that is very important is the community law centres. That is another area that has been struggling for some time to keep the attention of the Government. The last Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, did a good job of providing ongoing funding to the community law centres, because he recognised the important role they play. This Minister is doing her level best to make it harder and harder for community law centres. So, sure, we have got funding for another year. The Budget says there is funding for a year after that, but it is subject to conditions. The community law centres now have to meet a whole new heap of expectations, guidelines, and rules. They are required to get out of the education mode that is so important to the work they do, particularly with things like youth law and disability law, where the heart of their work is educative work. That will go over time, and they will be left with giving interim advice to the people who walk up to the community law centres.

The funding that is in the Budget this year is conditional upon making changes, and the community law centres know that they are now up for a major upheaval, and it will be in the area of consolidations of centres and mergers, and that is going to be very difficult. It will take away the whole notion of community from community law centres if this Government mishandles it, or at least handles it as badly as it has done the legal aid project. Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not let this Government make that mistake again. It would be a travesty if it does.

I want to talk about victims’ services. We heard the Minister of Justice earlier today and, indeed, yesterday making an announcement about victims’ services. The only thing she talked about was restorative justice. It is the quasi-parsonical aspect of criminal justice. She acted in her quasi-parsonical way to say that the Government has put $4 million into restorative justice.

But what about the other aspects of victims’ rights? You see, she announced yesterday that there is another $739,000 extra going into victims’ rights, and you know what? That is money that the Government has already got. It is money it collected from the offender levy. It has collected so much of it and spent so little that it has been able to beef up its total spending this year by $5 million. That is the unspent amount of the offender levy. It was a great idea to collect it, but the Government does not know how to use it.

Sure, there has got to be much better support for victims and for victims’ services, but the Government is playing ducks and drakes, and it is playing with smoke and mirrors, if I can mix my metaphors in that way. There is no extra $739,000, and this Government’s commitment to victims and victims’ rights can be seen in its Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill, which is the biggest joke around. It is going to cost victims. It requires the victims of serious crime to step up and take the initiative against the offenders who have caused them considerable harm, humiliation, and injury. They have to pay for it, and the threshold for getting it is so high that very few will actually be ordered. It is a cynical attempt at pushing the criminal justice button out in the community, without making a commitment to do anything at all. If there is one thing this Government should be funding, it is the processes under that bill that we are yet to debate.

Finally, I want to touch on the Crown Law Office under Vote Attorney-General. We are seeing the vote for Crown law reduce heavily because the Budget for Crown solicitors is being cut massively. Some Crown solicitor offices are suffering cuts of up to 35 percent—35 percent. We know what the price of that will be: fewer prosecutions on fewer charges, more criminals getting away with it, and sentencing that will reflect the fewer charges. Actually, it will do no good for criminal justice, and no good for peace and good order in our society. The Budget is a joke.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I would be very keen to talk about the Budget initiatives as they relate to my portfolios of immigration, veterans’ affairs, and associate transport. But before I do, it is interesting to reflect, 3 weeks since the Budget was read, on the reactions of some, and, in particular, of our friends on the other side. Mr Parker—

Hon Members: Our friends?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, of course. Well, our friendlies, then—I like to be friendly. According to Mr Parker, Labour believes the Government should return to surplus and, indeed, said: “We would have in 2014-15.” That was said under a headline, among others, in an article by Audrey Young, who wrote: “The one thing alternative finance minister, Labour’s David Parker, won’t be criticising … is the Government’s confirmation that it is on track to return to surplus in 2014-15.” I contrast that with the comments that Mr Parker was making only a year ago on Budget 2012, when he said not only that the Government’s path to surplus in 2014-15 when it was first announced was barely achievable but that the Government was placing an overemphasis on a return to surplus ahead of the other priorities. How he can say that then, and then turn round a year later and say: “Well, of course they’re going to be back in surplus in 2014-15, and so would we have.”?

Well, what I do not understand—and Labour members can explain it for me if they can—is how they can reconcile that in light of the legacy of 10 years of deficits and the very difficult decisions that this Government has had to take, decisions that they would not have the wherewithal or the attitude to make, and then add on top of that all the unfunded spending promises that we have had since the 2011 election. I do not have time to go through all of them, but there is Sue Moroney’s extra paid parental leave and Clare Curran is wanting to resurrect Television New Zealand and subsidise $160 million for wagons to be made in New Zealand. I think Mr Little has just mentioned reversing the legal aid changes. Then there is the in-work tax credit. I am not quite sure where Labour is on the in-work tax credit. I think Labour campaigned on it, then went quiet on it, and who knows where that will be if Labour has to coalesce with the Greens. There is removing the changes to student loans and allowances—the list goes on.

So here is what I do not understand: if returning to surplus is so easy, how does Labour reconcile the fact that it was not prepared to make any of the hard decisions that this Government has had to make with the fact that it has opposed every single one of those decisions in every single Budget and every single bill? Add a whole pile—billions—for the 100,000 houses Labour was going to build, remember? Who knows how that is going to be paid for. The mixed-ownership model would not exist, and so we would not have all those really good things we are going to fund out of the Future Investment Fund, like 21st century schools. What happens to 21st century schools? Either we go deeper into debt for them or we do not get 21st century schools.

Hon Member: Borrow and hope.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No idea what that choice is going to be, but that is right—tax and spend, borrow and hope. One thing we can rely on about Labour is that it does not change. Tax and spend, borrow and hope. That is before we even get to the Greens, whom they would need to rely on for confidence and supply.

The single electricity market—well, Parker’s comments were very interesting on the single electricity market.

Hon Nathan Guy: What did he say?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He told Cabinet, actually, when he was near it, that having a single buyer would result in higher capital and operating costs, it would be risky and uncertain, it would put investment proposals on hold, and it would be poor at sustaining cost pressure on operating costs.

Scott Simpson: Who said that?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mr Parker said that—that is a very good question. But when challenged on the inconsistency of the announcement in April against his publicly made statements as Minister for Energy and Resources in 2006, he said this: “Well, things have changed.” Well, I know what has changed. David Parker is no longer a Minister and Labour is no longer in Government. Talk is cheap. Following that up with action is much, much harder. So it is great to be a lion in Opposition; we will see what happens when push comes to shove.

I am the Minister of Immigration. It has been my great privilege to hold that portfolio over the last 5 months, having taken over—and it was left in very good shape, I have to say, by the Hon Nathan Guy—during the last reshuffle. Immigration New Zealand is in much, much better shape than it was in in 2008, when we took office. If there is a better example of a department in disarray under a Government asleep at the wheel in 2008, I cannot think of one. The Pacific division was in complete disarray, there was inconsistent decision-making against the rules that had been put in place, and it was slow and lacking in timeliness.

I have been very, very impressed with the staff and their effort to turn round that organisation in very difficult circumstances. The performance improvement measures in the Budget are plain to see. Customer satisfaction with the overall quality of the service of Immigration New Zealand has gone up, from 73 percent in 2010 to 85 percent in March, and it is still climbing. The quality of the decision making, the accuracy of the decision making, in just 2 years has gone from 77 percent to 96 percent. That is just about as good as you get.

Of course, the funding lines, as for many of the departments in this Budget, are flat and slightly dropping. We have asked our public servants to do more with the same—perhaps a drop in real terms. That is a challenge, but one way that Immigration New Zealand is meeting that challenge is through changing business process, changing technologies, and changing branch structures away from a traditional branch structure, which is perhaps less nimble in responding to changes in demand for visa applications, to an online service through the global management system that will be coming online nearer the end of the year. It is a very large IT project that will revolutionise the way people interact with Immigration New Zealand. There will be changes to visa acceptance centres and a much more nimble framework within which to be able to make those decisions.

We want our immigration staff to do three things: be fair, be consistent, and be timely. I have been very, very impressed with their attitude towards that change. I am very confident that the online visa processing—which is, of course, a Better Public Services target that Chris Tremain as Minister of Internal Affairs has—will have 70 percent of transactions with the Government online by 2017. Immigration’s target is 80 percent, and I am confident that by 2017 we will be able to achieve that target and help Mr Tremain look as good as I know he is in that portfolio. So I wish the Immigration staff and team all the best in that endeavour.

The portfolio of veterans’ affairs is also a considerable privilege to hold—a portfolio where the Government has, I think, provided very strong benefits to our war heroes, our veterans. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that in the last 10 years, with a diminishing number of veterans—and it is true that our World War II veterans are reducing in number as they get older—we have been in a number of recognised emergencies, not the least of which are Afghanistan, East Timor, the Solomon Islands, and so on. So we are creating a new raft of veterans who have served with distinction in those theatres. As a consequence, the War Pensions Act, which is now 58 years old, is probably not as fit for purpose as it needs to be. Cabinet has approved the changes that will be made, and I am looking forward to introducing legislation into the House later this year to give effect to those changes, to make sure that we continue to serve our veteran communities in the way that we have in the past.

Of course, we are coming up to a significant period of commemoration. From next year we recognise two significant milestones. There is the 70th anniversary of two important World War II theatres: the Battle of Monte Cassino, at which, of course, New Zealand forces served with distinction, and D-Day. But, of course, 2014 also marks the centenary of the start of World War I and, as Minister of Veterans’ Affairs in New Zealand, I am responsible for the commemorations that will be taking place at Gallipoli in 2015. I am pleased to report that progress is well under way on that.

I want to finish by just touching on some of my responsibilities as Associate Minister of Transport—in particular, the delegation for road safety. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the people of New Zealand and the police who patrol our roads on the fantastic outcome last Queen’s Birthday weekend—last week. For the first time since records began, no one died on our roads this Queen’s Birthday weekend. That was despite the fact that the weather was very challenging. We had high winds in the South Island and torrential rain in the North Island, yet we were still able to achieve a zero death toll. It continues a trend starting probably 4½ years ago, I think it would be fair to say, that the rate of death and injury on our roads has been reducing.

The Government is committed to the Safer Journeys Action Plan 2013-2015. There is a new 2-year plan under way. The low-hanging fruit has, I think, been picked and it is a little harder now, and it will probably take longer to change some of the behaviours and the engineering and to increase the safety of the vehicles on our roads. But I am very confident that we will continue the excellent work that has begun, and I look forward to, probably, a road toll that might be a record this year—I do not want to tempt fate by suggesting that we will get there.

All of those things, I think, are part of a Budget that is solid. It is sound. It has been well received by the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, and many other commentators, and I commend it.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The National Government is missing a huge opportunity to invest in smarter, greener infrastructure. Unfortunately, the result is going to be that households and businesses spend ever more on transport, even as the Government has to raise the petrol tax and has to raise the road-user charges to pay for its political priority projects, which will not actually do any good for the New Zealand economy.

The previous speaker, the Associate Minister of Transport, Michael Woodhouse, mentioned that the accident rate on our roads has been reducing. It is not that surprising. What is good is that we have seen an increasing safety record on our roads for quite a long time now. I think it has been declining very steadily for the past 20 years.

But what is actually happening here is that New Zealanders are driving less. That results in fewer accidents as well. We have got the statistics right here, which show that vehicle ownership is starting to decline per capita, and vehicle kilometres travelled per capita are declining. This is part of a worldwide trend that has been documented in the United States, in Australia, and in Europe. In pretty much every rich country we have reached peak vehicle use, and now people are starting to look for alternatives. Unfortunately, the Government is not investing in those alternatives.

We have this opportunity to get a win-win. We have this opportunity to invest in better transport choices, which means buses and trains, safe walking and cycling, and rail freight and coastal shipping. By investing in all of those modes we reduce the cost of congestion on our roads, we reduce the cost of ongoing road maintenance, and we reduce the number of accidents on the roads as well.

Because I know that members in this House say a lot of things that often are not correct, in the case of Government members, I think it is important to back up what I am saying with some facts and with some graphs. I have some graphs here showing exactly what the National Government’s transport spending is going to be over the next 3 years. For every single category, whether it is road safety, new public transport infrastructure, new walking and cycling infrastructure, public transport services, local roads, local road maintenance, or even maintenance and renewal of State highways, all of those amounts are very, very small. But when you come to the new State highway category, look, there is many, many times more spending on that than on any other part of our transport sector. That is a very unbalanced approach to transport. It does not take into account the changing trends in how people want and need to get around.

It gets worse. If you look at the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding, which goes out 10 years, you actually see this number for new State highways increasing, increasing, increasing. In 2021, when fewer people per capita are going to be driving, the Government is going to be spending a record amount on new State highways, and no more on public transport infrastructure, no more on walking and cycling, no more even on road maintenance. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are well aware of the challenges to local roads in some of our regions in New Zealand, where the amount of money for local roads has had to be reduced to pay for the National Government’s priorities. Unfortunately, those priorities just do not stack up economically.

I personally am very, very concerned because if we look at the National Infrastructure Plan, 90 percent of the money in the National Infrastructure Plan—the part that was not to the ultra-fast broadband—is going on a few of these State highways that were picked for electoral reasons by the National Government. When we look at the New Zealand Transport Agency’s own evaluation of the economic benefits of some of these projects, it shows that they are simply not going to be good for the economy. They have a low economic efficiency. The Kāpiti Expressway’s is 0.2. That means that for every $1 we spend, we lose 80c. We do not even break even on this project. We are just spending money on a road for the sake of it. Transmission Gully is 0.3 to 0.5. The Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway is probably, at best, 0.8. These are multibillion-dollar projects that will benefit only 4 percent or less of all of the vehicle trips in New Zealand. It does not make sense to spend 75 percent of your money on new transport infrastructure for 4 percent of the vehicle trips.

The National Government is not spending money on roads, and it is not spending money on productive infrastructure. It has removed all of the other funding from every other category that would give New Zealanders real choices about how to get around and reduce congestion, and be good for our exporters who are looking for rail freight options. Instead of doing that, it is sticking with its promise, the promise it made in Opposition before it looked at the numbers, and it is sticking with it for the next few years. For the next 10 years, unless we have a change in Government, New Zealand, we are not going to have real transport choices. We are not going to reduce congestion in Auckland.

Just to put it in perspective I made a pie chart, because it really does show exactly how unbalanced—

Hon Simon Bridges: What sort of pie is that? It’s a blueberry pie.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: For the benefit of the Minister of Energy and Resources, I am going to explain a pie chart to him. The largest share of new money for transport infrastructure is going on a few new motorways. That does nothing to give Kiwi households and businesses an opportunity to reduce transport costs.

Also for the benefit of the National members who do not really grasp economics very well, I would like to talk about transport costs. Central government spends about $3 billion a year on transport infrastructure. All of that money, for the most part, comes from road-user charges and petrol taxes, which it has just put up so it can pay for its transport priorities. About $1 billion to $1.5 billion is spent on transport by local councils. That, of course, comes from New Zealand households’ rates.

So you have got local and central governments spending $4 billion to $4.5 billion on transport. The vast majority of that is going on roads, and, of course, because of central government’s fixation with a few very low-value highways, most of it is going on just a few motorways that are going to cater for about 4 percent of the vehicle trips. But New Zealand households and businesses are spending at least three times that much. Yes, that is right. They are spending over $12 billion a year on vehicles and fuel to run them. That is a direct cost to our economy because it is all imported. It is all contributing to our current account deficit, and it is the third-largest item of expenditure for your average household. Your average household is spending money on its house, on food, and then on transport.

If we were able to do the same amount of activity, if we were able to get to school, to get to work, and to trade our goods and reduce some of that money that we are spending on petrol, on imported oil, and on vehicles, that would be a direct gain to the economy. That is the smart green opportunity that the Green Party supports, and that is actually mainstream in most countries around the world. If only National members understood, if only they had actually travelled and lived overseas. Obviously Minister Steven Joyce and Minister Brownlee, from small towns like—[Interruption] They just do not understand; they just do not get it.

That is the only conclusion I can come to, because Aucklanders would like to have the opportunity to have the city rail link. Whether or not they take the train, Aucklanders know that they will benefit from having a world-class public transport system just like every other big city in the world. The city rail link would cost $2.4 billion—probably even less. The city rail link would cost $2 billion but it would revolutionise Auckland’s train system. That small piece of infrastructure is actually going to more than double the capacity of our existing rail network, and that makes sense.

It makes sense to use our existing infrastructure in a more intelligent way, rather than just throw money at some motorways out in the provinces that only a small number of vehicles are going to be using. If I could just sum up by saying that the Green Party is well aware of the economic opportunities we have to use our existing infrastructure in a smarter way, and it is actually going to cost less.

I have heard Government members today mention that somehow they are getting to surplus. One of things they are not counting in their surplus is the fact that they are tying us into a 25-year loan for Transmission Gully. It is a private loan, so it is going to cost us even more than if they just went directly and borrowed the money through the Government. By doing Transmission Gully—a $1 billion project that will deliver maybe $300 million to $500 million in benefits, so it is a real money loser—they are going to the private sector for finance. That means that the overseas banks that finance it will have future New Zealanders, 25 years from now, paying back, and the banks will be getting a rate of return of about 12 percent to 15 percent for a project that will carry less than 1 percent of all the vehicle trips in New Zealand.

That is the choice. You could pay for a private loan overseas for a project that is not going to make much of a difference to reducing transport costs or reducing congestion, or you could have the city rail link. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on this Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill. I just want to declare that the Budget of 2013 delivers over $480 million for our Pasifika families and communities. What I am quite proud of is that our Pasifika communities know that when the going gets tough, the tough get going. They work harder for themselves and for their communities. Our story is not just a migration story; it is actually now a Kiwi story.

What I am actually really proud about—and we talk about the fact that the landscape in our communities is changing—is that our Pasifika communities are now seeing that the National Government is a Government of choice. Here are the simple facts. When we look at the number of Pasifika MPs who are in Parliament there are five: two for Labour, one for New Zealand First—Mrs Asenati Lole-Taylor over there—and two for National. So the landscape is changing. I want to acknowledge Mr Su’a William Sio when he said that the Government needs to be careful about the decisions that it makes that will impact the choices for the Pasifika community. He went on record last year and said that on Radio 531 PI, and he declared that some of those choices may impact up to 30 percent of Pasifika votes. Why? Because the Pasifika community is saying that, actually, this National Government is now a National Government of choice for our Pasifika communities.

I want to quote this. I was at the launch of the Salvation Army’s report More Than Churches, Rugby and Festivals. What I agree with in parts of this report—and I know that Mr Sio was there. Unfortunately, he left a little bit earlier, so he could not actually speak, but I got to speak on this report. What it actually says is this. It talks about the factors and that it is time for these issues to “serve as a challenge to our national and local leaders, and to the Pasifika community”. What it is actually saying is that it is time for us not to blame the Government but to actually take some responsibility. It is a shared responsibility that we need to take.

That is what this Government is doing—$480 million that is benefiting our Pasifika communities. Sir “Papa” Tom Davis said this: “Whatever walk of life you choose, pursuing your dreams will bring personal satisfaction that you are making the world a better place. Your conclusions may be challenged along the way, therefore it is important that you do all you can to ensure that the decisions that you make are the right ones.” I want to frame this. My Budget speech for our Pasifika community is simply this: our Pasifika community is not a problem to be fixed in society. That is not what this Budget says. This Budget says that our Pasifika community is in pursuit of a potential to be realised and a dream to be fulfilled. This is the Government of aspiration, and these are the things that we are doing. This 2013 Budget supports these aspirations through improving access to quality education and training; provision of more choices in health, housing, and social service; affordable insulated housing; and jobs that provide them with good incomes and propel them along their chosen career pathways—$480 million towards our Pasifika community.

I want to focus my speech on five key areas: housing, social development, welfare reform, health, and education. Let us take housing. It is the topical issue of the moment. The housing budget in 2013 delivers $100 million over 3 years into the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme. This will target low-income households for home insulation, particularly those families with children and with high health needs. It is expected to insulate around not 10,000, not 20,000, not 30,000, not even 40,000, but 46,000 homes—46,000 homes insulated. The Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme will provide real health benefits to our Pasifika communities.

Let us take education. It is an important topic. In the education budget 2013 we are investing $173 million in early childhood education, of which $41.3 million will support participation, especially for vulnerable children—98 percent early childhood education participation by 2016. Last Friday—and I am sad that the member for Māngere has gone—we were in Māngere with the Prime Minister, and we went out to one of the early childhood education centres, the Nukutukulea language nest, just off Kirkbride Road. There we were. In 1988 those people had formed this trust. They had seen the need for early childhood education and the language coming together. By 1998 they had formed their first early childhood education centre. I can say this: by 2008 they had had a grant of $1.1 million, which allowed them to have a purpose-built early childhood education facility. Marina Vaha is working there. Not only does it have 50 children there plus a waiting list but its Education Review Office report has shown that it has excelled in all areas—language, literacy, numeracy—using the Te Whāriki programme. This is a great programme. They were so excited to have the Prime Minister present there. This was again affirming the results that they had had that the leader of this country was present there. They began to tell him about all the wonderful things they are doing, such as home-based schools programmes. The community was out there at large, in South Auckland, in Māngere, in the Pasifika community. The Prime Minister was mobbed by the little kids. But, most important, does it make the boat go faster? Is education improved for our Pasifika children? Yes, it is—absolutely.

We know also that for Māori and Pasific trade training there is an extra $43 million, and another $5.9 million will be targeted for new mentoring programmes to help vulnerable students achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. Again, I am sorry that the member for Māngere across the way has left, because I was with him at the Manukau Institute of Technology graduation service—

Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member does not need to raise a point of order. A member cannot refer to the absence of another member from the Chamber. I know that it was not intentional, but it was sloppy—it was sloppy.

ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that that was not intentional. I just want to acknowledge my fellow colleague. I was at the graduation service and I know that Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor was there too. Three hundred Pasifika students—300 Pasifika students—with everything from diplomas to degrees to Master’s degrees were celebrating their success in education. They got up. They were proud. They were also telling the rest of the community that through education, through the work that we are doing, through the scholarships and the funds that we are providing, they were proud to receive their awards for the hard work that they had achieved—300 students. But we do not hear the other side talking about that. Why? I will tell you this: at that graduation, one of the leaders of the community said that it is about time we start talking about the successes for our community and for our people, rather than the other people talking about all the things that go wrong. Why? Like I said, our Pasifika community is not a problem to be fixed but a potential to be realised. We realise that.

Here is another issue. Last Friday we went out into the Māngere community again. We went to STRIVE Community Trust at the Ngā Tapuwae Community Centre, which has youth programmes for mainly Pasifika students. What did the people there do? They welcomed the Prime Minister into that place. Sharon Wilson-Davis was there and Bill Peace was there and they told the Prime Minister that they have a programme called the Key programme. The Prime Minister stopped for a moment. They said that the reason they have called the programme the Key programme is that it represents him, the successes that he has made, and the aspirations that he has given to them. That programme has had success for the youth and young people of our community.

I could go on and on. I will not. It is a great Budget. It is a great Budget that is surely benefiting our Pasifika community. I commend this Budget to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am pleased to be able to offer some thoughts on the Budget. If the rhetoric matched the reality, then why is it that during the period of the National Government 2008-12 average real incomes for Pacific Islanders rose by only $2, while for the rest of New Zealand it was an average of $54. Why? Because the personal taxation threshold that was introduced by National benefits only the high-income earners. Most Pacific Islanders, like many Māori, are not in the high-income bracket. If the rhetoric matched the reality, then there would be some very serious responses to Māori and Pacific householders who are saying: “What has this Budget really done for me?”. So how does the Government measure up against the household test of Māori and Pacific whānau?

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Very badly.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I would tend to agree—very badly. One question that would be asked is: “Does it enable more money to come into my household?”. Well, simply, no. The personal taxation threshold that National set actually dropped the amount of tax for high-income earners, while the burden was being borne by those who earn in the middle to lower income brackets. They did not see a real benefit from that. In my electorate 75 percent earn on average $40,000 or less. They do not see any real benefit in their pockets when they come home, week after week, with their wage packet. So once power goes out, once rent goes out, once food goes out, and once petrol goes out to get people to work, there is very little left in the pockets of hard-working, modest Māori and, I would say, Pacific families to be able to have a little bit left over. Although I acknowledge that good things are happening in Māori and Pacific communities that are fighting against the odds, it is not widespread enough and it should be.

In fact, what Māori and Pacific communities show, by and large, in the tough times is that the spirit of community, the spirit of cooperation, becomes a critical factor to success and innovation, and provides an opportunity to ensure that they are buffered against the ebbs and flows of what happens in the tough times. We have been through some very tough times under this particular Government. Many households, certainly in my electorate, in the Māori community, comprise two adults with two incomes made up from four jobs—that is, two adults and two incomes made up from four jobs, but it is the equivalent, really, of a very modest household earning component. That cannot be right. People are breaking their backs, working two and sometimes three jobs to bring in the most modest of incomes.

This is not a Budget for the low-income and the modest-income workers, for the hard-working Kiwis, and it is certainly not for Māori and Pacific workers. This is a Budget that does deals for mates. Let us look at it again. The cost of living challenges for many whānau will not be alleviated by this Budget. As I said, power prices are going up. Old people on fixed incomes dread wintertime. They choose which lights they turn on at night. They choose whether or not to have a heater on to heat the whole house, or just to heat one little room. It is difficult. Although I acknowledge from the other side that money has been set aside for warm homes, let me say this. Many Māori and Pacific families are renting private rentals. I have had the briefings in my own electorate from the people who actually do the insulation schemes, and they cannot encourage enough private homeowners who are renting those homes out to take up this subsidy. Why? It is a measly $2,300-odd of an amount that they pay, on top of the subsidy they get. They want more money from their tenants, and it is such a silly justification. But this is some of the reality that many of those renters are facing when they hear the rhetoric about more money being put aside for warm homes, yet those landlords are not taking up the subsidies, because they have to fork out a little bit more money to be able to insulate those homes so that kids can feel warm at night, so that those kids do get the colds that so many of them do, especially from living in damp, older homes.

I do not think the regional petrol tax is a benefit to a lot of people who are already forking out quite a bit to get to and from work. In fact, if more money had been put into public transport, that would have probably helped a far wider range of lower-income people to get around cities like Auckland. Instead, no. We see the petrol tax going up.

The other measure of a household, about whether or not this Budget is really meeting the standard of proof test, is this simple question: am I secure in my job? Well I can say this. Out in the provinces probably more jobs have been lost than ever before under the term of this Government, and that is a sad reality. The sad reality is that in many provincial towns, people lament the loss of 10 or 20 jobs. As small as that number may seem to the House, that is 10 or 20 incomes into that little town. In a town like mine, Huntly, where we survive on the back of the coalmines, losing 67 jobs under the recent restructuring of Solid Energy was a huge blow to the community. We lamented that, because we knew that the median age of the people who were losing their jobs was too old for them to travel to Australia and work in the mines over there. So they did have to reskill. They did have to try to look for other jobs in our own communities, and sadly many of them could not be placed. But that is the reality of the provinces. The simple measure for a lot of households, in terms of this Budget, is knowing that there is job growth happening. Simply, under this Government, it is not happening fast enough.

The provinces tell a very different story. They tell a story where they want some hope, where they want some opportunity to be able to do things, work differently, have regional growth commitments and investment opportunities, so that local people can be employed in their own communities. No, that is not the case. They do have to travel to Australia. Under this Government we have seen more people going over to Australia than ever before. Why? Because it is easier to be a fly-in, fly-out worker—go over there for 6 weeks, then come back to your whānau for 2 weeks—than find a job that pays well over here. That is a sad indictment on where New Zealand’s priorities are under the National Government.

But it would not be that case under a Labour-led Government, because we recognise the importance of the regions and of the provinces. We recognise the importance of people being able to work in their own communities. We recognise the importance of ensuring that central government, local government, and business collaborations are absolutely vital to the future of our country. And we recognise that, at the end of the day, New Zealand is a great place to live and we have to have Kiwi jobs here for our own people so that they do not see Australia as the land of opportunity. We have to look back here.

This Budget from the viewpoint of education cannot be a success. If we look at the huge challenge to improve Māori and Pacific education, the stellar policy that is being held up is charter schools. Well, it simply will not fix a lot of the issues out there, yet it has been paraded as doing just that. What charter schools will do is siphon off public money into private companies for a profit with little or no public accountability for how they are delivering education to those students, to those parents, and to those communities. How can that be good?

I do want to recognise that there are some small gains. Māori trade training has always, always been an opportunity to invest in the space of skills and it has shown over time that it can be a very positive investment. But where the Government’s investment falls short—in all the areas that the industry training organisations will feed back to you—is that if you do not get the pastoral care right, or if people are not work ready, you can pump a whole lot of money into Māori trade training, but they may not stick the distance, because there is a lot more going on for young people. I am not putting this challenge on the Government alone, but it is a challenge that should be recognised if you want Māori trade training to be successful and to ensure that more Māori are going to lift their skills to be able to take up opportunity.

This Budget shows that the Government’s priorities are in the wrong place. How can we in a country like New Zealand accept that funding a convention centre for more pokie machines is a good signal to New Zealanders? How can that be the case? It just does not make sense. In fact, in small towns, in small communities, they are fighting tooth and nail to have a sinking lid on pokie machines.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am extremely proud to stand and speak in this Budget debate and to support the Minister of Finance, Bill English, in the Budget that he delivered here 3 weeks ago. It is a Budget that I do believe is delivering for rural and provincial New Zealand. It is delivering for families, small businesses, and communities alike. I can be quite confident in saying that because, as I have been out and about in the various small towns and communities in the Taupō electorate, that is what they are telling me. There are some very sensible, very practical solutions where funding is focused where it actually counts and where it makes a difference for hard-working New Zealanders.

Families are the backbone of our communities. That is clear. This Government has continued to support those families. We know that some families are missing out and that is why we have had a particular focus on those more vulnerable families in this 2013 Budget. We are also boosting the support for low-income families who are entirely dependent on the State.

There are a couple of things that families up and down the electorate are pretty clear about in terms of what is important to them. It is important to them to be in homes that are warm and dry, and they want to be able to know with confidence that they can buy their groceries each week, that their job has got some continuity, and that their children have the best education possible. This is a Government that is doing that. More important, the very recurring theme that constituents raise is that they want to know that their lives are improving, and that is exactly what this Government is doing. By focusing on the economy and where it counts, and by getting into black, that is where we are heading.

One of the aspects that we have heard a lot about in this Budget is housing. We have made improvements in housing in a number of different areas through the home insulation schemes that are making houses warmer and drier and with legislation that we have initiated to actually make homes more affordable. We all know that for hard-working Kiwi families it is a dream of theirs to own their own home. This Government is actually being very practical and very sensible in making changes that make that a reality for those families. For many families living in Auckland it just seems incredibly unattainable right now, so it is great to see that we are actually making progress in the area of affordability of housing.

But the areas that I am particularly pleased about, though, are what we are doing for parents. We have had a number of debates recently here about paid parental leave. Well, this is a Government that has actually increased paid parental leave by $67 a week. In other countries, if we look at other countries around the world, they struggle to keep the entitlements that they have put in place for parental leave and initiatives like that. We have also made sure that the Working for Families programme is better targeted so it actually gets those who need it the most. I think those are important measures.

If we look, for example, across the Tasman—we are often compared with Australia—the Government there has made cuts in its Budget to its support for families. It has made cuts. But not only have we held our entitlements, we have actually managed to increase them. If you look at Australia, the Government has removed what it had as its baby bonus, where it paid $5,000 for each newborn child. It has introduced means testing for family tax benefits and some families in that middle tax bracket, who often seem to be hit from all directions, are losing entitlements. So I think it is really important that we have that as a perspective and as a measure when New Zealand is doing so much better than Australia in terms of maintaining the support and growing the support for families—and that is despite the fact that we have had this global financial crisis.

The difference is that on this side of the House we are very clear about having the fix for these issues at the top of the cliff. You know, we have the numbers batted to us from the Opposition parties about the number of children in poverty, so I think it is important for us to just put a bit of perspective around this bit. After 9 years of surpluses that were at record numbers, after 9 years of a Labour Government, there were 240,000 children in poverty. So, after the worst economic times this century, the number of children has increased—absolutely—but, actually, the Labour Government did very little about it. This is a Government that is very practical, very sensible, and is focusing the support exactly where it is needed, and that is at the top of the cliff rather than at the bottom, catching those vulnerable children when it is far too late.

I think those are the sorts of things that New Zealanders are responding to. If you walk down the street in the Taupō electorate, not one person—not one person—has complained about something that we are doing in the Budget, because they know it is sensible, they know it is practical. We are focusing exactly where we need to and some of these areas are in health, for example. As a mum you want to make sure that you are preventing your children from getting sick. What does that mean? It means things like immunisation. It means getting checks before your child is really ill.

It also means things like cancer checks. We have got more money towards prostate cancer checks and breast cancer checks. Those are practical, sensible solutions. We have got $35.5 million towards diabetes and heart disease checks. We have got significant increases in the number of children being immunised. All of these things are smaller numbers—then we talk about the $14.5 billion into health—but they are numbers that people on the street can actually understand and they can see where that difference is being made. You have got a mum getting cancer treatment sooner, or you have got a child that is being immunised, or you have got a child getting surgery without waiting too long. It is those simple, practical things that make a difference for everyday hard-working New Zealanders. That is why they are supporting this Government in droves, because the things that matter to them are the things that we are delivering. They are the results that we are delivering.

I was absolutely staggered—absolutely staggered—in the House yesterday to have one of the Opposition parties raise this mind-blowing idea about having nurses in schools. Well, there are already nurses in 860 deciles 1, 2, and 3 primary and intermediate schools. Hello! We have nurses. They have been there for quite some time, and, in addition, this Government has put more social workers into schools. This is what I mean about practical, sensible solutions at the top of the cliff, not waiting for those vulnerable children to become statistics. We are making practical solutions, whether it is nurses or whether it is social workers in schools. It bothers me quite a lot that Opposition members in this House do not even take the time to figure out what support is already in our schools for our families and for our communities.

Here is another example of a very practical solution. We are very clear on this side of the House that the ultimate responsibility for feeding children lies with parents. We are absolutely very clear about that, but, also, we do recognise that it takes a village to raise a child. So here we have come up with a solution that embraces Government, that calls on private enterprise and on the community, and that also calls on the parents of the children involved by having a partnership with Sanitarium and Fonterra and expanding what we have had in place for quite some time.

So it is quite irresponsible for members to be in this House and talk about the fact that this Government has done nothing about providing food in schools for those children. We have already had programmes, and we are now extending them. We recognise very clearly that if we want to raise students’ achievement, we need to focus on the barriers to learning. Clearly, children cannot learn if they are hungry, so we are taking care of that.

In early childhood education it is fantastic to see that the numbers are going up. We all recognise that if children have access to education before starting school, they are going to do better. We are putting money into boards of trustees—the school leaders. We are putting $2.4 million into connecting communities. To respond to the comment from the member Nanaia Mahuta, who spoke prior to me, in regard to the $19 million to establish partnership schools, well, as a parent I actually think it is a really good idea if parents have choice about their children’s education, and I do not think that that is a problem. I am just staggered to be in this House to hear Opposition members who are defending unions, and unions’ choice. Actually, this side of the House believes that parents should have more choice about how their children are educated, and Opposition members should be very willing to say that if someone is not measuring up, parents should be able to choose another school and make sure that their child is getting the results that they deserve.

That is why New Zealanders can see that this side of the House is delivering real results in education and in health, and it is coming up with initiatives to solve community issues like children attending school without having breakfast. It is very solutions-orientated, and that is why I am enormously proud to be part of the John Key - led Government and to be supporting a Budget that was so well delivered by the Minister of Finance, Bill English.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is an enormous pleasure to follow the very capable senior whip and member for Taupō, Louise Upston, and her speech commending this fifth Budget by Bill English. It is a Budget that builds on the momentum that the previous four Budgets have set in place, and it absolutely guarantees the next steps towards a much brighter future, not just for this current generation but for the generations yet to come, because this is a Budget that delivers for all New Zealanders where it counts. It is a Budget that continues the very prudent, careful, responsible fiscal stewardship of Bill English and John Key and this National-led Government. I do not think, in fact, that the team of Bill English and John Key is being given enough credit for the terrific job that they have done in steering our country through the worst economic conditions since the 1930s, and not just here in New Zealand. Those international conditions have been the most challenging to face several generations, so I think they have been doing a great job for New Zealand and they have been doing a great job for the people of Coromandel. In years to come, Bill English and John Key will be treated well by history for their steady and careful prudent management of our economy during these most difficult times.

There is nothing weird, there is nothing strange, and there is nothing irresponsible or unusual in this Budget. There is nothing that involves the printing of great wads of money from a photocopier buried deep in the bowels of the Beehive, and there is nothing unfair in terms of tax hikes or further borrowing that is unnecessary. There are no capital gains taxes and there are no attacks on hard-working families or business folk in New Zealand. There is no nationalisation of the electricity market. There is nothing weird, strange, or unusual about this Budget. It is just good, stable, prudent, careful management and stewardship of our economy during difficult times, and on top of all that we are rebuilding Christchurch.

It is an absolute privilege to be the MP for Coromandel, to be the MP for the most beautiful part of the country—4,500 square kilometres of New Zealand. It is almost more attractive than the deep south. We are the beneficiaries of the lowest cost of living increases since 1999, and we are also the beneficiaries of after-tax wage growth of 22 percent since September 2008. That is a huge achievement. That is real dollars, real income, and real spending power in the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders. What is more, we have the lowest mortgage rate since 1965 and economic growth of 3 percent, which puts us in a position of being the envy of the world. What does all this mean for the good people of Coromandel? Well, let us just take a look at tourism for a minute, because it is well known that Coromandel is, in fact, the Queenstown of the North Island. Hundreds of thousands of people visit each year, and they come and see, and share, our pristine beaches, our magnificent bush and walking tracks and, of course, our hugely successful new Hauraki Rail Trail cycleway.

The cycleway has been a magnificent success in absolutely every regard. It is part of the John Key plan for a nationwide network of cycleways. It was opened only 13 months ago and already it is meeting and exceeding every possible projection that was set for it. Originally, the projection was that after 5 years some 45,000 people would have used the cycleway, but in January, February, and March of this year alone, over 36,000 people took advantage of that new cycleway—36,000 people—and, according to a study organised by the University of Waikato, each of them spent on average $103 in our region. That has enormous benefit to our local economy. That is a huge positive input of cash and money and enterprise into our region. So it is not just locals who are enjoying the Coromandel and its pristine, beautiful treats and delights, but, of course, it is international tourists as well.

Budget 2013 provides a massive $158 million of extra funding for tourism. Included in that package is a very good, new scheme that involves the spending of $28 million over the next 4 years to co-fund business innovation and growth in the tourism sector. The initiative is called the Tourism Growth Partnership and it is a scheme that means that Government will partner with enterprise and individuals and entrepreneurs from the tourism sector to co-fund up to 50 percent of new ventures and new, exciting, innovative tourism ideas. This is real investment not only for New Zealand but for Coromandel.

It is a pleasure to be one of the final speakers in this Budget debate and to commend again the work of Bill English and the finance team for what is a good, stable, clear Budget that puts us firmly on the track to being back in surplus next year, and that is a great thing. I am very proud to be part of a Government that has presented such a good Budget to the people of New Zealand.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take the final Labour Party call in this year’s Budget debate. It is a Budget that demonstrates very clearly that this Government has its priorities all wrong. This Budget, like so much of what the National Party does, is about John Key’s mates, not Kiwis’ mates. That is what this Budget is all about. This is a Government that has totally and utterly failed to adapt to the changing global economic environment. The merchant banking outlook has failed the world economy, and clinging to it harms, not helps, us here in New Zealand. Yet this Government refuses to confront that reality and deal with that reality.

The Labour Party accepts and acknowledges that things have changed. Economic growth has to be based on the real economy and on businesses that create products and services that bring real growth and real jobs to New Zealand, not on speculation. The National Party is all about speculation and divvying up and selling off what previous generations have built up for New Zealanders. It is not growing anything for the future. It is divvying up and hocking off what we have been left by those who came before us. It is not creating the brighter future that John Key promised to New Zealanders. It is not leaving a brighter future legacy for future generations of New Zealanders. It is content simply to divvy up and hock off what we have left. That is not going to lead to a better New Zealand for future generations of New Zealanders.

This is the same National Government that is doing backroom deals to trade the misery of pokie machines for a convention centre. This is not a Government that is focused on looking after those at the bottom of the economic pile. It is interested only in those at the top—its mates, the people who benefited from the tax cuts, the people who have given money to the National Party—not the people at the bottom of the economic heap who are facing ever-rising costs of living. They are losing their jobs, yet the National Party does nothing. They are suffering from increases in GST, yet Bill English rubs his hands together and happily takes that money so that he can continue to dish out tax cuts to those at the top of the heap.

But the single biggest thing that this Government has failed to deal with in this year’s Budget, Bill English’s fifth Budget, as in all of Bill English’s Budgets, is the fact that New Zealand has the largest deficit in the world. New Zealand has the largest deficit in the world—even bigger than Greece’s. So when Bill English talks about Greece and how New Zealand should not follow the road that the Government in Greece is following, what he fails to acknowledge is that, in fact, we are in worse shape than Greece. We have a bigger deficit than Greece’s, and Bill English is not doing anything about that. He is leaving for future generations of New Zealand masses and masses of debt—masses and masses of debt—because rather than growing the real economy, the productive economy that will lead to more jobs for New Zealand and more income for New Zealand in the future, Bill English is interested only in hocking off what little we have got left. That is totally wrong.

This is a Government that has got its priorities all wrong, and I guess the reason for that is that this is a Government beset by scandals and by distractions—from John Key’s cup of tea deal, which has landed up in John Banks now being in the dock in court, through to Peter Dunne rorting the parliamentary system so that he can pretend to be a party leader and claim over $120,000 in extra funding every year, by pretending to lead a party that does not even exist. Then we have got the Aaron Gilmore saga. He lifted the veil on the arrogance that pervades the National Party, because those people think they are better than the rest of New Zealand. They genuinely believe that they are better than the rest of New Zealand. And the reason the National Party got rid of Aaron Gilmore was not necessarily because of what he did but because of what it betrayed about the true state and the true attitudes of those who are in the National Party. But, actually, give Aaron Gilmore credit. At least he paid for the drinks that he was shouting at a National Party conference, unlike Phil Heatley, who was quite happy to clock it up on his ministerial credit card. At least Aaron Gilmore put it on his own credit card and paid for it himself, unlike Phil Heatley and unlike the member Bill English, the Minister of Finance, whose first decision as Minister of Finance was to work out how much more he could rort out of the housing allowances available to Ministers of the Crown. His biggest priority was working out how much more he could pay his cleaner. He was not interested in cleaners on the minimum wage—he was not interested in them at all. He was interested in getting more cleaning for his house. It did not matter about all the minimum-wage cleaners who are out there, who have been completely ignored by this Government. Then, of course, we had the Pansy Wong scandal. Pansy Wong resigned from Parliament in a corruption scandal. Richard Worth resigned from Parliament in a scandal, but we are not allowed to know what that was. John Key lost confidence in Richard Worth but will not tell anybody why.

This is a Government that has accumulated scandals. Over 5 years it has accumulated more scandals than any other Government in that period of time—more than any other Government in 5 years. Bill English, John Key, and their colleagues have been accumulating baggage and accumulating scandals, and it has distracted them from their real job of governing in the best interests of all New Zealanders. This is a Government that is stuck in the past, that is stuck in a rort—in a rort, that is right; I was going to say “a rut”, but “a rort” is just as good because that is what it is. The Government is in a rut, rorting the system, and it is not interested in what is happening to ordinary, everyday New Zealanders.

Let us look at the Government’s education budget. What did it do in education? It cut funding to Te Kotahitanga, one of those programmes that has got a proven track record of delivering for people who have not been succeeding in the education system. The Government cut that, and it gave $19 million to charter schools. It increased the funding for private schools, and cut funding for teacher professional development. That says a lot about its priorities. Here is another one that is a cracker—not many people have picked this up yet—it cut $4 million out of special-needs transport. This is the money that transports kids with special needs from their homes to the schools. The Government cut $4 million out of that budget—$4 million came out of that budget. Five million dollars—$5 million—came out of the budget for teacher training scholarships. This is a Government that really does not care about a quality teaching workforce. It is deregulating. We do not have to have qualified teachers in charter schools. It cut the funding for professional development for teachers, and it cut the funding for teacher training scholarships. This Government is not interested in a qualified, registered teaching profession—oh no, not at all. It ignores the fact that quality teaching is the biggest in-school influencing factor on student achievement. Of course, it ignores all of the out-of-school influences on student achievement, so why should it be focused on the in-school ones, given that it will not do anything about the out-of-school ones either?

In this year’s Budget, of course, the Government found more money for Novopay—that absolute shambles that Bill English, Hekia Parata, and Craig Foss signed off on, despite the fact that it had 147 known defects. No one—none of those three rocket scientists who signed it off—thought to ask: “Oh, there are 147 known defects. What are they?”. No one actually thought to ask what they were. None of those Ministers on their $250,000 a year salaries bothered to actually read the briefing papers they got given. Bill English’s signature is scrawled on it. He did not date it, surprisingly, but I suspect that that is because he did not really read it. They signed off on it without even reading it and without asking the basic questions, and New Zealanders continue to pay for their mistakes. Millions of dollars—millions and millions of dollars—are going into Novopay to clean up the mess made by the incompetence of the three Ministers who signed off on Novopay without checking out the details first.

As for the money, the new money, that the Government promises in this year’s Budget, we find when we read through it carefully that a whole lot of that money comes from lower than expected rolls in primary and secondary schools. So it is not new money at all; it is money that the Government is just taking from one part of the education budget and moving to another. It is smoke and mirrors stuff. But what is clear overall is that this is not a Budget that demonstrates a Government that is committed to education or committed to the things that work. It is not a Budget that is focused on the needs of ordinary, everyday New Zealanders. It is a Budget that is focused on John Key helping out his mates, not helping out Kiwis’ mates. It is about Key’s mates, not Kiwis’ mates. New Zealanders deserve so much better from their Government. That is why after the next election, when they have a Labour Government, they will have a Government that is focused on the future, that is focused on positive policies that will make a real difference—

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

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): And since 2008 New Zealanders have been receiving much better from their Government. I am very proud to be a member of the John Key - led National Government, and I am incredibly proud to support the 2013 Budget presented by the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English.

As we conclude the annual appropriations debate, it is notable that speakers on this side of the House have spoken about specific facts and figures that demonstrate that this is indeed a Budget that builds on the momentum of the four Budgets that preceded it and that there are significant signs of real progress in all of the Government’s well-publicised priorities. Members on this side of the House are united in our support for the Budget, proud to promote it, and delighted by the reception it has been receiving in our electorates. The fine folk of Hamilton West tell me that it is a well-measured and well-balanced package, and they are very pleased with its provisions.

New Zealanders, of course, have been through very tough times, but they are increasingly confident and optimistic. They can see that National is, indeed, Building a Brighter Future for everyone—not for just a few but for everyone—which has been our unrelenting focus since we came into office in late 2008.

By contrast, speakers opposite have avoided the details in the Budget, ignored the considerable evidence of substantial and sustainable progress, and resorted to a combination of mock outrage, disingenuous criticism, such as those we have just heard repeated again by the member for Rimutaka, and personal attacks—some of them being nasty personal attacks. Their approach has been uncoordinated, unconvincing, and embarrassing.

Budgets contain many details and are about figures, but, ultimately and more important, they are about people. This year’s Budget delivers particularly encouraging news for those New Zealanders who have suffered a great deal in the 5 years since the onset of the global financial crisis and the previous Government’s reckless spending, which combined to plunge our country into recession just months before we were elected.

I commend to those who may have missed them the speeches delivered in this Budget yesterday by our indefatigable Minister of Trade, the Hon Tim Groser, and another by the same Minister in the general debate on 15 May. Perhaps it is our shared Christian names, or our youthful blond locks, but I thought they were two of the best speeches I have heard this year. The figures he produced, comparing New Zealand’s economic performance with some of the most prosperous nations in the OECD, exposed the shallow nonsense of our critics opposite, and highlighted the gains we have made. He noted that New Zealand, along with Australia, is growing faster than any developed country in the world. It is currently at 3.1 percent growth and it is projected to continue at between 2 and 3 per cent for the next 3 years. He noted that the annual increase in the cost of living—currently less than 1 per cent—is about as low as it has been for three decades.

Opposition members love to talk about families struggling to put food on the table. Well, I am proud to point out to them that not only have food prices not risen in the past 12 months, they have actually fallen slightly.

Meanwhile, let us have a look at how this Government is assisting those people, whom Labour once claimed to represent, to boost their incomes. After-tax wages have increased by 20 per cent since 2008—20 percent—more than double the cost of living. When this Government came into office in late 2008, a New Zealander working a 40-hour week on the minimum wage was paid $480 gross per week. The PAYE on that wage was $78. This Government has increased the minimum wage incrementally every year since then. So the same worker in June 2013 earns $550, and, thanks to the significant tax cuts that we introduced in 2010, now pays $77.50 in PAYE on that higher amount. That alone is an extra $70.50 for that person per week from the income that that worker worked so hard to achieve, which he or she can now retain, and he or she may well be entitled to other forms of support, such as Working for Families, which could be in the region of $280.

Life is difficult for those people—no question about it—but they are significantly better off than they were when Labour was in office, and they will be better off again as we keep building a more productive and competitive economy and delivering better public services. We must maintain that determination if we are to make further progress in reducing our rate of unemployment. That is why our welfare policies and the further initiatives announced in this Budget are so firmly focused on helping everyone who is looking for work to find it. Although an unemployment rate of 6.2 per cent is still too high, it is trending downwards and it compares very favourably with all of those countries we like to compare ourselves with. Again, as Tim Groser told us yesterday, if you look at a country like Sweden, which currently has a youth unemployment rate of 25.1 percent—25.1 percent youth unemployment—you realise we are not doing so badly.

We are reducing debt, we are rebuilding Canterbury, and we are on track to returning to surplus in 2014-15. It is a remarkable record. It is a tribute not only to the work of our excellent Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister, and his Cabinet but to hard-working, realistic New Zealanders from Northland to Stewart Island, who understand what needs to be done and who support our clear programme and our Business Growth Agenda to achieve it. We are delivering a brighter future. This is a great country of great people and great opportunities. This is a Budget that is fair, visionary, and well-targeted, and I repeat that I am proud to be associated with it. I congratulate Bill English on the fine work that he is doing, and I know every member of this side shares that sentiment.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is a pleasure to close off the Budget debate for 2013, because the contentions set forth in the Budget by the National-led Government remain, I think, intact, despite the benefit of 16 or 17 hours of debate here. What is pretty clear, as a result of this debate but also the public debate around the Budget, is that the Government is on track with its plans, and so New Zealand is on track. As has been pointed out, we are on track to surplus. We are on track to a more competitive economy that is creating more jobs and lifting incomes, and that can do better; we are on track with Better Public Services, despite a recession and despite considerable efforts to contain expenditure; and we are on track to rebuild Christchurch, which is in itself a very substantial task. If I can, I acknowledge the enormous effort of the Christchurch community through difficult times. They deserve all of the support, including the $2 billion extra allocated to them in this current Budget.

The Budget is another step in the John Key - led National Government’s approach to sensible economic policy, and that is to focus on considered and consistent change over time. At no stage has this Government overreacted to the pressures of uncertainty in the global economy. We have not overreacted to the fact that, in 1 year, we had an $18 billion deficit—9 per cent of GDP. We have set out to explain the changes we are making to take considered steps, rather than radical steps, and to bring the public along with us, because the most important change in this economy is the change that sticks—the change that is supported by the public. That is what contributes most to our long-term economic prospects.

The Budget came at a time when confidence in our economic direction was rising, and I think we can say that the Budget has helped with that. The track to surplus has come to be seen as something of a symbol of whether the economy is on track, and the fact that we can confirm in this Budget that we are on track to surplus has helped lift confidence in the economy.

Unlike our Opposition parties, we know, and we believe, that the essential decisions made in the economy are made in households over the kitchen table, in businesses in the smoko room, and in organisations that are planning their futures over the next year or so. What is really important, what has become clearer, is that those people are now approaching those tasks with some optimism. It has been a while since they have done that. They have shown resilience and they have shown perseverance, and now New Zealanders are starting to enjoy some very well-deserved optimism. They understand that they have become much better at handling economic uncertainty, and that there are pay-offs for reorganising their households and their businesses in the same way that the Government has got to go through the same process. Relative to most other developed country economies, they are in pretty good shape, enjoying moderate and consistently rising incomes, moderate and consistent new job creation, and improving prospects for more of that.

Through this debate we also learnt a bit about the Opposition. I think two things stand out in what we have learnt about the Opposition. The first is that the Greens are leading Labour by the nose. The Greens are leading Labour by the nose, because they are more energetic, they have got more initiative, they have got more energy, they have got a sharper, tougher leader who goes right to the edge of personal abuse—as he did the other day—they are more active, they have got more ideas, and they are deciding the tone of the Opposition. And it is not just the public who can see that; we can see it in here pretty much every day.

I am sure, though—[Interruption] Hang on. We have also seen the Greens bare their teeth. We have seen them bare their teeth, and it was a snarl. It makes very clear what the tone of that kind of Government would be. The snarl, the put-down, the personal abuse—that is the style, and we see the subtle versions of it day after day. They make the Labour Party look polite. But I think there is one reason why they are getting pretty snarly—they are getting frustrated with the Labour Party.

The Labour Party is in year 5 of Opposition—year 5 of Opposition. What it will do, what it is doing, is blaming David Shearer. Look, Labour members are blaming David Shearer for the Labour Party being so hopeless. David Shearer has a very hard job, and I know because I have had that job. I can say that with feeling.

But Labour’s problem is not David Shearer; it is the rest of them. He is a reasonable guy who is developing some rapport with the New Zealand public because he is the only face of Labour that is not tainted with the failed Clark Government—the only face of Labour. But the rest of the Labour Party members are simply lazy. What they thought would happen—this is the little equation in their heads: “Recession! National will cut stuff all over the place, and the Government will fall back in our laps.” That is what they thought would happen, so they have not rethought anything in 5 years—they have not rethought anything in 5 long years. And I have been wrong. I have to own up to being wrong about Labour, because I used to say that by about year 5 Oppositions start getting a grip—about year 5. And I was wrong because Labour has not got a grip yet.

Even in Labour’s own corner of the political spectrum, all its voters are working with us on innovative social policy that is starting to have a real impact on long-running, complex public policy problems. We are engaged every day in gritty, responsible discussions with people who are starting to wonder why they vote Labour. So if Labour cannot get its own supporters criticising the Government—because they do not; they work with us—then it has got no hope of getting the wider public to oppose this Government.

We are proud of this Budget as part of a series of five Budgets that has helped New Zealand dig itself out of a hole that was a big, deep hole, the product of a worldwide recession and the failures of the previous Labour Government, which drove us into recession before the financial crisis. In that context, we have supported the most vulnerable New Zealanders when they most needed it, and we can now, if we stick to this path, offer not just the most vulnerable but every New Zealander the prospect of a better job, the prospect of a better income, the prospect of a country with a sense of direction, the prospect of a New Zealand growing faster than Australia, and the prospect of a New Zealand that can build a brighter future on the huge opportunities across the Asia-Pacific region. We have only just begun.

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after “That” be omitted and substituted with the words: “this House has no confidence in the National-led Government because it has failed to deliver on its promises and because it has put vested interests ahead of the interests of hardworking New Zealanders.”

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not raise this point of order during the vote. How can Mr Dunne vote as a party, when his party has been deregistered? I do not object to Mr Dunne voting, but I cannot see how he can vote as the United Future party, when that party has been deregistered at law.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will recall that I gave a ruling earlier today. The member is welcome to have another look at that, but at this stage I am continuing to recognise United Future as a party here in this House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Bill read a second time.

Tabling of Documents

Electoral Commission—Decision on Status of United Future

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I seek leave to table the decision of the Electoral Commission that United Future is no longer a political party at law.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be so tabled.

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

Bills

Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Debate resumed from 5 June.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): When we were interrupted, I was talking about the responsibilities that local boards had under the transitional arrangements of the Auckland Council, and what they will be given permanently. They include community engagement, preparing local board plans, monitoring the local board agreement, and preparing local by-laws, although not agreeing them. They are also directly responsible for negotiating the standards of services delivered locally; identifying and communicating to the governing body the views of local people on regional strategies, policies, plans, and by-laws; providing local leadership; and developing relationships with the governing body, with the community, with community organisations, and with special-interest groups in their area. They also have to provide input into council-controlled organisations’ plans, initiatives, and any additional responsibilities given to them by the governing body. For the most part, local boards in Auckland have been fulfilling their roles well.

Although, where I live on Waiheke Island, there is concern that the local board is neither engaging effectively nor advocating strongly enough on issues that our community holds dear. One of the latest issues is the decision of the local board to allow Auckland Transport to reopen a 750-metre piece of road to two-way traffic after a 3-year period of it being closed to vehicles and utilised as a safe walking, cycling, and horse riding route, and a safe route for children to get to school. The community, sadly, has become incredibly divided on the issue, despite the discovery that the local board had made a decision, based on information from Auckland Transport, that the esplanade road would not get the maintenance that it desperately needed if the local board continued to keep it closed to vehicle traffic. It desperately needs this maintenance because otherwise this road is going to fall into the sea.

Anyway, most of the community is quite opposed to opening it to two-way traffic, and so far there has been a public meeting, a festive fun day and walk around the esplanade, and a couple of surveys, and the issue is still dragging on. The one member out of five on the local board who has advocated for a more reasoned approach or a compromise has been sidelined and shut down. However, since we live in a democracy, the other board members will continue to be challenged on their decision making by our feisty community. The decision will be remembered, no doubt, in this year’s elections.

Local decision-making and local control—even if it is messy and even if it goes badly—is the heart of local government. It is prudent to remember that this was one of the key issues during the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. I think we forget that there was a royal commission, which received thousands of submissions on what was then the prospect of changing the shape of Auckland and amalgamating eight councils into one body. Of those thousands of submissions, nearly a quarter were from the Hauraki Gulf, including Waiheke Island. So that is from about 0.8 percent of the entire region’s population, and I am still proud of that fact, because it highlights just how seriously our community takes local government.

The other thing that it is prudent to remember is that the legislation that created the super-city actually ignored quite a lot of the recommendations from the royal commission. We never did get our Māori seats on the council. We should also remember the mad haste with which this Government and its axeman—or should I say ACT man, the then Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide—went about amalgamating the eight councils, which meant that the democratic rights of Aucklanders were simply ignored. Until the latest attack on local government, with the changes to the local government legislation this year, other councils have at least had the ability to have a vote on whether they would amalgamate or not. We have seen that in Nelson and we have seen that in the Hawke’s Bay area.

This Government is hell-bent on emasculating local government and local democracy. It started with Environment Canterbury when it sacked the elected councillors and appointed commissioners, and it perpetuates that lack of democracy by taking away the rights of Cantabrians to hold elections for regional councillors until 2016. We have seen the erosion of local democracy in the Auckland Housing Accord, which ran roughshod over the Resource Management Act and the consenting process, and overrides Auckland Council’s unitary plan preferences for a compact city. It is also evident in the appointment by the Government of the hearings panel that will be hearing Auckland’s unitary plan. We have seen it in the Resource Management Act reforms, and we have seen it as recently as two nights ago, when the Government delivered itself the power to wrest control of ratepayers’ money that is allocated to transport with the Land Transport Management Amendment Act.

This bill, at least, is fairly innocuous. It allows local boards to carry on their good work of representing their communities and of advocating for their communities, which, in an environment where the rules are constantly being changed by this Government, becomes increasingly difficult. I applaud their efforts. They work very, very hard, and we will be supporting this bill.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak in favour of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). It was introduced last night by the Minister of Local Government, Chris Tremain. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation with a very clear purpose. It is a bill that amends the Local Government Act so that Auckland’s local boards can delegate various functions and powers to a committee of the local board or a council officer. This is needed, of course, because on 31 October this year those transitional powers will expire. This is a piece of legislation that absolutely replicates the current provisions and does not add any new policy.

The Greens have just said that they support it. Well, is that not a surprise? This from a member, Denise Roche, who is clearly confused: “Local government is messy, and even if it goes badly, that is democracy.” Well, that is the kind of sensible solution that really characterises the Greens. They talk against it, they talk down to it, but, wow, actually, they support it. Goodness me! It is a rare thing indeed to have them support anything.

Let me remind this House that ratepayers in this country absolutely have to know that their council is spending their money wisely on services that matter to them. New Zealand’s 78 councils spend a lot of money—some $7.5 billion of public money each year. Since 2002 council debt has quadrupled from $2 billion to $8 billion, and, on average, rates costs have increased by 7 percent per annum. There are some spectacular failings—absolutely spectacular—so it seems to me it is a very prudent form of the management that this Government is taking over the Resource Management Act reforms. This piece of legislation—a necessary piece of legislation—dovetails perfectly into our wider purpose, and actually gives this Government some say over the less able councils. We feel strongly that ratepayers need good representation and we are not about to sit back on our hands and let things like Kaipara happen.

This piece of legislation is all part of what we need to do as a Government to ensure that the regulations that went through in 2010, after Cabinet agreed that local boards should have the power to delegate, actually do allow them that power. To talk about local boards representing local communities and not to speak in favour of this legislation would be truly illogical. The Greens just skirted that in their funny little planet way. But it is apparent even to them and to others in this Chamber, even though they try to grandstand around the fact that they not happy with the wider reforms and use that as an opportunity to criticise us. Even they appreciate that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) needs to go through, so there is not a lot more to be said. I will not take up any more time of the House on this piece of legislation that pretty much everyone agrees on. I commend it to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I am glad the member Maggie Barry mentioned the Resource Management Act reforms. I am glad she mentioned this Government’s track record in dealing with local government, because there is quite a lot to say. There is quite a lot to say about this Government’s relationship with local government, because it is a long time—it is a very long time—since this country has seen a Government that has had more contempt for local government, a greater willingness to take powers away from local communities and to ride roughshod over the aspirations and rights of local communities around this country. There are many, many examples that we can talk about, and we will, before this 10-minute speaking slot is out. We will talk about some of those things.

Labour is supporting this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a straightforward bill that cleans up an anomaly in the Auckland Council establishing legislation that allows local boards in Auckland to continue to delegate functions as anybody would naturally want them to do; to delegate the day-to-day business to council staff or back up to the governing body in Auckland Council.

But Maggie Barry mentioned this Government’s difficult relationship with local government, and I am going to talk about the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, a bill currently before this House that is very relevant to this Government’s troubled relationship with local government. The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that was passed only a couple of nights ago is another example of this Government trampling over the democratic rights of local communities and giving more and more power to Cabinet and to the executive arm of Government.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation—need we say any more? The elections for the Canterbury Regional Council were suspended by this Government, as if Canterbury was Fiji. The Local Government Amendment Act—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.