Wednesday, 31 May 2017

WEDNESDAY, 31 MAY 2017

WEDNESDAY, 31 MAY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2017—Health, Education, Housing, Police, and Tax Cuts

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Did the Minister of Finance tell him that Budget 2017 invests less in new initiatives for health, education, housing, and police combined than it spends on tax cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: No, because if he had, he would have been wrong. The new initiatives highlighted by the member include $3.9 billion for health; $1.2 billion for education, including tertiary; $1.5 billion for housing, including the accommodation supplement; and $400 million for police, bringing the total to $7 billion against the total cost of the personal income tax changes of $6.25 billion over the 4 years. This is, of course, only operating expenditure, not capital, and these figures do not take into account the clawback on the tax changes, nor the rather large $130 billion - odd in baseline spending over 4 years on these particular portfolios that the member identifies.

Andrew Little: In light of that confirmation of my original proposition, why did he give a tax cut of a thousand dollars a year to himself and me, but not put one cent of new money into insulating cold, mouldy homes owned by either homeowners or landlords?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because we have now made a law change to make it compulsory for rental homes to be insulated. We went through a long and large period of assisting landlords and people with the insulation, and now we are actually offering a law change that will ensure that landlords are required to do the insulation. In terms of the tax cuts, I note that the member, at least recently, was in favour of threshold changes.

Andrew Little: Given that paediatrician Dr Innes Asher has told the Government Administration Committee today that we need to improve home insulation to reduce the number of kids going to hospital with a respiratory disease, why are more sick kids the price he is willing to pay for tax cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I agree; we need more insulation. That is why this Government has changed the law to ensure that it takes place. The member can try to ignore it—as he tries to ignore many things as he desperately searches around for something not to like about the Budget—but that is the reality of it. We are very focused on increasing the amount of insulation in homes.

Andrew Little: Why did he give the members of this House—including Maggie Barry, who has just arrived—a total of $130,000 a year in tax cuts while cutting funding for elective surgeries?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member needs to stop saying that things are being cut when they get more money, because he has no credibility when he does so.

Andrew Little: Why did he think it was more important to give a tax cut that puts $20 a week into the pockets of MPs than it was to end the freeze on per-pupil funding for early childhood education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, the member is wrong. He needs to stop taking Grant Robertson’s advice to questions, because the data is wrong. Actually, this Government does believe that it is important to adjust the tax thresholds for hard-working Kiwis around the whole country. This Government does believe that. Up until quite recently, Mr Little believed it too. He recently quoted that thresholds should be adjusted from time to time and that he is supportive of it.

Andrew Little: Why should he and I get a tax cut given that funding for Computers in Homes, a programme that helps close the digital divide for our poorest families, has now been ended?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member’s tax situation was not uppermost in the Government’s mind when it was considering making sure that people on the median wage and on the average wage did not have to pay 30c on the dollar in tax, at the same time as it was considering very large investments in public services—$7 billion over 4 years—and very big investments in infrastructure. Those are the decisions that this Government made, and we believe that it is a very balanced Budget.

Andrew Little: Does he see that the cost of $2 billion of tax cuts, $400 million of which goes to the top 10 percent of earners, is that we do not have the money for health, education, housing, police, and infrastructure that Kiwis want and need?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not know what planet this member is on. There is $7 billion—$7 billion—for more public services in this Budget, and he tries to pretend it is not there. No wonder those members are not getting any cut-through. You know, they have had more positions on this Budget than Sean Spicer has on Donald Trump. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Less interjection, please, from both sides of the House.

Economy—Growth, Labour Productivity, GDP, and Commentary

2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Will he tell New Zealanders the true state of this country’s economy; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes; and, for the member’s benefit, I regularly inform New Zealanders about the true state of the economy, including as recently as last evening in Christchurch, then this morning in Christchurch, and in the Budget speech last week. In the Budget speech I reported that we have a strong and growing economy. Today the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report confirms that the financial system remains sound and is operating efficiently. Of course, there are always risks to be managed, and this Government continues to prudently manage these risks, as it has for the last many years.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is he claiming that GDP growth will be over 3 percent, when many experienced economists, such as Michael Reddell, a former Reserve Bank adviser, and David Snell, an Ernst & Young executive tax director, and a whole host of others are stating that the real growth will be under 1 percent?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Of course, there are a wide range of commentators. I appreciate that the member has been talking to Mr Reddell a bit, but in terms of the economic predictions, this is not just me. This is Treasury and the Reserve Bank. I see that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) came out and said that it sees a strong economy for New Zealand over the next 5 years. ANZ has just come out and said that business confidence has lifted in May, and it is expecting strong growth. Of course, the members can find, I am sure, some people who disagree, but I think the general consensus is that New Zealand is growing very well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If, when mass immigration of 2 percent is extrapolated from the figures, these economists say that the growth rate is 1 percent or lower, are they lying or is he?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have said many things in this House, but lying about the economy is not one of them. Actually, I think Mr Peters should stop living up his own slightly wonky dream of the New Zealand economy, because a whole bunch of Kiwi companies are working hard, delivering growth, and delivering job growth, and Winston Peters comes to this House and tries to pretend it is not happening.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, why is labour productivity decreasing by 0.7 percent, and how are hard-working Kiwis benefiting from the so-called growth that he constantly refers to—or are the officials wrong and he right?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three supplementary questions there—or, in fact, four. The Minister can address any of them.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are talking about the actual figures as reported by Statistics New Zealand, which, I am assured, is not part of Mr Peters’ conspiracy—which I think probably includes Treasury, the Reserve Bank, NZIER, and most of the banks—that, apparently, New Zealand is not growing. But Kiwis know it, in fact. They have seen good, strong job growth. We now have, for the first time, over 2.5 million New Zealanders employed. They have seen wage growth ahead of inflation, and one piece of evidence in favour of that is the number of Kiwis returning from overseas to live in this country—unlike when the member was last in Government, when they were rushing to leave the country.

David Seymour: When a near-record 60 percent of New Zealanders say the country is heading in the right direction, after three terms of Government, are they lying, or is Winston Peters on “Planet Cuckoo”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: All I can say is the Hon Mr Peters obviously does not like the good news that the New Zealand economy brings at the moment from all the hard work of Kiwis and companies. He is determined to talk it down, and I encourage him to keep doing so, but he is a long way from reality.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that Treasury’s output gap forecast shown here in this graph—all those lines are National’s lines—will be negative for 10 consecutive years, since National came into Government and next year as well? If that is true, according to Treasury, how will Kiwis benefit from the so-called growth, or are his own officials wrong and he and “Junior” over there right?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not know who the member thinks he is fooling, but the reality of the situation is that New Zealand did borrow money through the global financial crisis, and we did borrow money through the Canterbury earthquakes. The member may have only just now woken up and realised what happened over the last 8 years, but the reality is that we are now back in surplus and investing in the New Zealand economy.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for Winston Peters to explain to the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He cannot seek leave—[Interruption] Order! I have dealt with the first point of order. You cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. I have a further point of order.

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the rules of this House that we refer to one another by our names. It is offensive to refer to someone as “Junior”.

Richard Prosser: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance from Mr Prosser. It is not helpful—[Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to stay to complete his very interesting line of supplementary questions, I expect cooperation. It is certainly not helpful to the House when such insults are cast across the House by any member. And, in fact, this question has been marginal from the time the first supplementary question was asked when there was reference to members lying, or somebody else lying, and it was repeated from both sides of the House. I, perhaps, should get tougher by ruling out some of the supplementary questions that are being asked at the moment to return some decorum to the way this House functions.

Grant Robertson: Does Budget 2017 show exports as a percentage of GDP decreasing or increasing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We now know we are definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel when we get to that one. Exports are targeted to increase, and the Government’s target is that they be at 40 percent of GDP by 2025.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. I did not ask about exports generally; I said exports as a percentage of GDP.

Mr SPEAKER: And I listened. It was not easy to listen to the answer. I think it was answered, but I may well have been wrong. The reason I could not hear it clearly enough was because of interjections from my left-hand side. I have addressed it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why will he not admit that when these economists say that real GDP growth is low, real GDP growth per capita is low, wages are stagnant, productivity is down, manufacturing is down, and output cap forecasts have been down for almost 9 years—why does he not admit that these economists are telling the truth and that he is not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that members are actually allowed to accuse other members of not being truthful in this House, and, certainly, Mr Peters is not being truthful if he continues with those accusations.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If I am not telling truth, relying upon these Treasury forecasts, and the latest one is June this year, is he prepared to sack them or what?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot read what his graph says; it is too far away.

Mr SPEAKER: It does not matter. That question was whether he is prepared to fire some Treasury officials on the basis of that information.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, yes, I do get a lot of advice from Treasury officials and, actually, their advice is that the New Zealand economy is growing strongly, particularly relative to most other advanced economies in the world. The member may choose to deny it, but it just happens to be reality. I am not sure about his relationship with that reality.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was Lincoln University’s Greg Clydesdale wrong in 2014 when numbers were much less and he said: “For 20 years, New Zealand has maintained high levels of immigration in the hope it would generate economic growth. We can now conclude, thanks to a wealth of evidence, that the policy has failed. We were sold a lemon.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not familiar with the eminent professor’s work that the member refers to. I am familiar with a whole host of other organisations and agencies, including the IMF, Moody’s, OECD, Treasury, Reserve Bank, Statistics New Zealand—generally seen as reasonably reputable—who suggest that the New Zealand economy is travelling very well relative to most of the developed world. We currently have the second-highest rate of adult employment in the OECD—it is 67.1 percent, and, actually, if we want to keep growing, and this Government does want to see us keep growing, we will have to bring in some skilled migrants in order to do so. I know the member hates migration, but then he wants to stall the economy and it is pretty obvious from his line of questioning that that is what he would achieve if he ever got near the Treasury benches.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why persist with that sort of argument, when former Reserve Bank adviser Michael Reddell says “I’ve done the OIAs, I’ve asked Treasury and MBIE for any work they’ve done in the last few years on the economic benefits of immigration. There’s nothing hidden. They just haven’t got any substantive analysis or evidence to support current policy.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate the member’s elevation of Mr Reddell to something like economist sainthood status this week, but there are other economists, he may be surprised to learn. There are a range of them, from a range of organisations. Can I suggest he read a little more widely.

Economic Programme—Performance

3. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic plan delivering for New Zealanders?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): This Government’s plan for growth is sensible, conservative fiscal policy; strong, orthodox monetary policy; and an ongoing programme of microeconomic reform that is enhancing the competitiveness and confidence of Kiwi businesses. We have experienced positive economic growth in all but one quarter of the last 6 years. As a result, unemployment has been steadily falling and wages are rising. Budget 2017 was an opportunity to provide a bit more support to New Zealanders to help them get ahead, whether raising their kids or saving for a house.

Todd Muller: What else is the Government doing to keep this economic plan on track?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A key condition to enable a growing economy is the provision of new infrastructure for growth. This Government has grown infrastructure spending considerably and commenced major transformative investments, such as the ultra-fast broadband programme and the roads of national significance. Budget 2017 boosted infrastructure spending by a further $4 billion for further new schools and health facilities, key transport links like the City Rail Link, and additional water storage through Crown Irrigation Investments. All up, we are investing a total of $32.5 billion in new infrastructure over the next 4 years

Todd Muller: How do New Zealanders know the Government’s economic plan is working?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This question could have been written for Mr Peters. New Zealand has a positive economic outlook, driven by our strong economic plan and confident New Zealand companies, which are investing, innovating, exporting, and creating skilled jobs. Employment is forecast to keep growing strongly in the years ahead, and unemployment is expected to steadily decline. Nominal GDP is now forecast to be a cumulative $23.9 billion higher over the next 5 years than was expected at the half-yearly update.

Todd Muller: What risks are there to New Zealand’s future economic growth? [Interruption]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I might be looking at them. Under the Government’s strong economic leadership, New Zealand is shaping globalisation to its advantage. We are embracing increased trade, new technologies, innovation, and new investment. But we must remember that as a small and open economy New Zealand is exposed to a number of risks, some of which the Reserve Bank highlighted in its Financial Stability Report this morning. Our domestic sectors of dairy, housing, and banking all require ongoing vigilance to ensure any shocks are well managed, and there are also political risks facing the global economy, particularly among those countries looking to pursue more inward-looking and isolationist economic policies, which, of course, could potentially affect New Zealand.

Budget 2017—Health, Education, Housing, Police, and Tax Cuts

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Why does Budget 2017 invest less in new initiatives for health, education, housing, and police combined than it spends on tax cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): As I explained to that member’s leader only minutes ago, the member’s calculations are wrong.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a question on notice that required authentication through your office. You would not have accepted this question had the calculations been incorrect. The question asks why for a matter that had to be authenticated.

Mr SPEAKER: No, authentication is required for me to accept that the question is valid enough. Having then accepted the question, it is certainly in order for the Minister to then dispute it, and that is exactly what the Minister has done.

Grant Robertson: Does he believe that he has dealt with the housing crisis such that it is not as high a priority to deal with as giving tax cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, firstly, I do not agree with the member’s characterisation but, in terms of housing, the Government is making a very big investment in housing. Minister Adams, for example, has just announced a $2.2 billion investment in building 34,000 houses in Auckland over the next 10 years. The Government is investing hugely in increasing the accommodation supplement. It is investing in the Housing First programme and in emergency housing. On top of that, this Government believes it is time to reward hard-working Kiwi families and allow them to keep more of their own money. I appreciate that that is completely anathema to Mr Robertson. He would see no time ever where that was the right time to do that, but this Government believes now is the right time.

Grant Robertson: Why are tax cuts a higher priority for him than addressing homelessness as a crisis in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I just explained to the member, if he had listened, that addressing homelessness is actually something that a good Government with a strong economic plan can do, alongside providing more income to Kiwi families. I have to say, the member seems alone in his protest against tax changes. The Green Party voted for it, New Zealand First voted for it, and his own leader, on 27 April this year, said: “They have indicated they might move thresholds. I think that’s fine, because that should happen periodically.”

Grant Robertson: By how much were the tax changes greater than bracket creep for inflation since the last tax changes in 2010?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member refers to the process by which the thresholds would be increased if you responded to inflation. The lowest threshold is ahead of that inflationary change; the middle threshold is less than that. I do not have the exact numbers for the member, but the middle threshold is less than the inflation adjustment and the bottom threshold is greater. I appreciate that the member would not want to see any change under any circumstances, but his leader does.

Grant Robertson: Does he believe that New Zealanders care about their fellow citizens such that they would rather see investment in health and housing and education than in tax cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member needs to get some more talking points, because this Budget invests $7 billion in all those things over 4 years. Last week the member was pretending that Working for Families did not exist, he then pretended that accommodation supplement changes did not exist, and now he is pretending that the Government is not investing in public services. He needs to look at the Budget as a whole and then come up with some talking points that respond to it.

Budget 2017—State Highway Network

5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: What investment is the Government making into New Zealand’s state highway network over the next four years through Budget 2017?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The next 4 years will see $9.1 billion in capital invested in New Zealand’s State highway network, continuing this Government’s strong track record in infrastructure. This is the biggest ever investment in the country’s highway network, and it is a core part of the Government’s commitment to building the infrastructure we need for a growing country. Budget 2017 provides $812 million for the reinstatement of damaged sections of State Highway 1 between Picton and Christchurch following the Kaikōura earthquakes. All up, Budget 2017 provides essential investment that not only provides for a more resilient and safer transport system but also the increased capacity to support economic growth right across the country.

Jonathan Young: What are the key roading projects that the Government will be delivering?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government is delivering the biggest ever investment in the country’s State highway network, and there are many projects that the Government will be progressing over the next 4 years. They include the completion of Auckland’s western ring route, the northern and southern motorway improvements in Auckland, the East-West Link in Auckland, the Pūhoi to Warkworth highway, the Huntly and Hamilton sections of the Waikato Expressway on State Highway 1, the Pekapeka to Ōtaki Expressway, and many others. All up, the Government expects to open 540 new lane-kilometres of State highway over the next 4 years. This will be the largest increase in State highway capacity in many decades.

Jonathan Young: How will the Government’s biggest ever investment in the country’s State highway network benefit New Zealand motorists and businesses?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government has embarked upon the most ambitious development of new State highway motorways and expressways seen in several decades. A key focus of Government funding will be the completion of the roads of national significance projects. These are lead infrastructure projects that link our major cities with the regions and link our export sectors with the key ports. They help promote economic growth while increasing the ability to move people and freight around safely and reliably. We are also investing more in regional roading projects right across the country, which improve journey times and reliability, and remove bottlenecks. The regional investments are also hugely important for our growing tourism sector.

Budget 2017—Climate Change

6. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Why did he not mention climate change once in his Budget speech?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): There were any number of important initiatives that did not get mentioned in the Budget speech, because it is limited, unfortunately, to only 45 minutes. However, if the member looks at the Budget in further detail he will see it makes a number of key investments in areas to reduce New Zealand’s carbon footprint. If the member would like to move that next year’s Budget speech be extended to 90 minutes, on the basis that we are able to have the privilege to give that Budget speech, I would be happy to include every possible initiative in a 90-minute speech. He will also be pleased to note a Ministry for the Environment report showing New Zealand’s 2015 greenhouse gas emissions fell, even as the economy and population grew.

James Shaw: Why did Budget 2017 allocate only $1 million a year of new money to reduce climate pollution but an extra $210 million to subsidise polluters through the allocation of free carbon credits?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For the member’s benefit, the $4 million in terms of climate change emissions work is actually policy work to develop the next stage of the Government’s programme, which has proven to be very effective, because we are seeing the economy becoming more carbon-efficient. The Productivity Commission is currently investigating the next stages of that work, so we are making good progress. We have big investments in things like the scientific investment in one of our biggest contributors to emissions, which, of course, is the agricultural sector. That is making good progress. So the Government does invest from time to time in different initiatives, but you would have to say that our emissions are heading in the right direction.

James Shaw: Well, in that case, are New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions higher or lower now than when National delivered its first Budget in 2009—are they higher or lower now than they were then?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of emissions, gross emissions have grown between 1990 and 2015, but they have actually flattened out in recent times despite population increases. They will always be slightly higher from 2009—

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I am just explaining to the member.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether our net greenhouse gas emissions were higher or lower. He responded with gross greenhouse gases.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is absolutely right. At this stage he has responded by discussing gross emissions. The Minister has not yet completed his answer. I will deal with the matter at the end of the answer if we have not seen the issue of net emissions addressed.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was saying to the member, gross emissions in 2015 are slightly lower than in 2014 and have been stable since 2003. But the net emissions—I do not have the exact figures in front of me for the member, but it is, after all, the gross emissions that are most important from the climate’s perspective, in terms of reducing the carbon added into the atmosphere.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not clear that the Minister addressed the question in terms of the net emissions since National came to power, as compared with today. It was a very specific question.

Mr SPEAKER: But I am absolutely clear that the Minister did. He said he did not have that exact data with him in the House today. I consider that given the general nature of the primary question, that is an acceptable answer.

James Shaw: May I assist by seeking leave to table documents prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that climate pollution has increased by 20 percent since National came to power.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Parliamentary Library information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

James Shaw: How much does his Government estimate that New Zealanders will have to spend between 2021 and 2030 on paying other countries to offset New Zealand’s climate pollution for us?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is difficult to say. It depends on a range of possible scenarios. I am sure that the Minister for Climate Change Issues would be happy to debate that with the member. Perhaps he would like to put down a question to her.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is actually a Budget question to the Minister of Finance in relation to the fiscal liability to New Zealand of the offset requirement.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the member is making, but when I look at the question—how much money will New Zealand have to, effectively, send overseas during the period 2020 to 2021—well, the Minister addressed it straight away. He said he could not finalise that figure at the moment and that it depends on a number of scenarios. So the question has been addressed—I accept not to the satisfaction of the member on this occasion, but I cannot assist the member further.

James Shaw: May I seek leave to table Government analysis, dated 25 May 2017, showing that it will cost almost $10 billion over 10 years.

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to clarify that that information is not already publicly available to all members.

James Shaw: It is not.

Mr SPEAKER: Then on that basis I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Government analysis. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

James Shaw: Given that the OECD said last week that ambitious climate action “offers numerous economic opportunities and can spur economic growth”, why is his Budget not more ambitious for New Zealand when it comes to creating a low-carbon, high-value economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to the member at the outset, New Zealand actually has a strong record of improving carbon intensity. Our economy is growing, and we are increasing the size of the population. But the intensity, in terms of carbon emissions, is dropping. I note the member has asked me a number of things about the cost of emissions out from 2021 to 2030. Those will be the subject of future Budgets. In the meantime this Government is focusing, with the Productivity Commission, on working through a range of next-stage options to reduce carbon emissions. We are doing that in a way that I believe the member supports. He was very positive about that Productivity Commission investigation being undertaken, and we are very genuine about making sure that that is done, and done well, and that New Zealanders see the options and the trade-offs in reducing carbon emissions over the next decade.

James Shaw: After 9 years and nine Budgets, how has it gotten to the point where a young Kiwi like Sarah Thomson feels that she has to take the Government to court in order to get action on climate change?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would say to Sarah that this Government is very focused on reducing emissions and improving environmental outcomes, but we are doing it in a way that ensures we can afford those changes by growing the economy at the same time. We could all do what the Greens want to do, and handicap a whole bunch of our productive industries—and, yes, you would get emissions down. There are many poor countries with low emissions.

Dr Megan Woods: Did he not mention climate change in his Budget speech because he did not want to draw attention to the economic distortions caused by his Government’s refusal to finally bring agriculture into the emissions trading scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I have already given my reasons why it was not included in the speech. The speech was simply not long enough to cover every initiative. But I invite the member to go out and campaign at the upcoming election, actually, on charging farmers a whole bunch for emissions, and she could work alongside Grant Robertson, who wants to take everybody’s tax reductions back.

Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a submission from New Zealand Oil and Gas that states that the Government’s failure to bring biological emissions from the agriculture sector into the emission trading scheme is creating—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just check whether that is a submission that is available publicly.

Dr Megan Woods: It was a submission on the emissions trading scheme review. I am not sure whether it is available publicly.

Mr SPEAKER: Then it is available to all members already.

Abuse of Children in State Care—Potential Royal Commission of Inquiry

7. MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister for Children: Will she support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the institutional abuse of children, and if not, why not, given calls from organisations and members of the public?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): No. As I have previously said in the House, any kind of abuse of children in State care is absolutely abhorrent. I note that successive Governments have decided against holding an inquiry and the previous Labour Government introduced the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (CLAS), which was extended under this Government. This service provided more in the way of help than an inquiry ever would, helping people access their old records, funding counselling sessions, and referring them to agencies for investigation. The lessons from this service fed into the expert advisory panel’s recommendations, which underpin the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. We have also taken steps to resolve claims directly and quickly in a way that is personal to each case. An inquiry would not resolve the claims of individuals or provide payments or offer personal apologies.

Marama Fox: Does she not consider the Children’s Commissioner’s State of Care report on the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service report chaired by Judge Henwood, of which over 1,100 children who suffered abuse at the hands of the State form the basis of that report, a compelling enough reason to hold a royal commission of inquiry; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Children’s Commissioner’s State of Care report’s recommendations echoed the recommendations of the expert advisory panel. As I said in my primary answer, they underpin the formation of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. In fact, I think that if the member goes back to all of those recommendations from that State of Care report, she will see that Cabinet endorsed all of them. In fact, I am confident that Cabinet went further than the commissioner’s recommendations. The design of the new system, which is being rolled out by the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, is working very closely with the current Children’s Commissioner and his office. The recommendations of the CLAS are all on the website. Most of them have been, or are being, addressed.

Marama Fox: What confidence does the Minister have that the new reforms are in the areas needed if a royal commission of inquiry has not identified those areas to ensure that we do not have another 100,000 children and vulnerable adults put into institutional care, with almost half of those being Māori?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Thankfully, the era of borstals and 100,000 children in State care are long gone. The 1988 Pūao-te-ata-tū report highlighted the historic and widespread abuse and trauma suffered particularly by Māori and helped shape the then ground-breaking Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and the findings and the recommendations of the CLAS report were made available to the expert advisory panel. As this new ministry rolls out the new system, which encompasses prevention, intensive intervention, care support, youth justice, and transition support, and reports to this House on a regular basis, I am absolutely confident that we can make sure that this never ever happens again.

Budget 2017—Investment in School Property

8. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: What investment is the Government making in school property in Budget 2017?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): I am pleased to advise the House that this year’s Budget provides $456.5 million for education infrastructure and associated costs all over New Zealand. This will provide six new schools, two new school expansions, the relocation of two special education schools, 11 special education satellite units, and around 305 new classrooms nationwide. We inherited a school property portfolio with lots of issues such as leaky buildings, poor maintenance, and issues with earthquake strengthening. We prioritised extra money to tackle big issues such as earthquake strengthening, weathertightness, and major redevelopments to modernise and transform schools into 21st century learning environments.

Todd Barclay: What investment will be made in school property in the Wānaka region as part of Budget 2017?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I am pleased to confirm that $19 million will be invested in Wānaka’s school network as part of Budget 2017. This includes around $16 million for a new primary school in Wānaka and around $3 million for six new classrooms at Mount Aspiring College. This is about ensuring that we can futureproof for growth in Wānaka and give certainty to the community about education provision for many years to come. This Government has put more than $5 billion into school property. Further announcements will be made in the coming weeks.

Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by her statement that the $350 million announced in Budget 2014 to get ahead of demand “provides for nine new Auckland schools by 2018.”; if so, how many of those new schools will be open by 2018 as promised?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I do stand by that statement for a couple of reasons. In this Budget we will be ahead of the $350 million amount; it will be at $400 million, so we are well ahead in terms of funding. We will be ahead over 17,000 students, and in terms of the new schools we have announced, those new schools in this Budget, some of them will take longer than 2018 but the overall point is that we will be definitely making that commitment of more than 17,000 students, and what is important is that some of them need more classrooms. That is why we have delivered them first.

Crown Land and Building Programme—Affordable Homes

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: What is the minimum number of new affordable houses which will be delivered as part of the Crown Land and Building programme she announced on 16 May 2017 and how is affordable defined?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): At least 4,500, but up to 10,000, in addition to the 16,000 market homes and 13,500 new, modern social houses for some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders. As I stated 2 weeks ago and last week again in the House, we use the KiwiSaver HomeStart cap of up to $650,000 to ensure the policy aligns with the ability to access other Government first-home buyer support. Our experience to date suggests that a number will, in fact, be priced well below this level.

Phil Twyford: Was the reason she did not include the actual number of affordable new homes, which is a little more than 4,000 over 10 years, that she did not know it or that she was so embarrassed that it was such a small number?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The member completely mischaracterises what I said, which is that we would have a range that we are aiming for, which is between 20 and 50 percent. So we have said there will be a minimum of 20 percent, which is the 4,500, but, actually, shortly after that announcement I headed out to launch a development with Melissa Lee where, in fact, 100 percent of them were going to be affordable homes. So to come up with a random number somewhere in the band of 4,500 to 10,000 was not particularly helpful. The difference is that we know the numbers in our policy. We have costed them, we can speak to them, and we are more than happy to answer questions on them.

Phil Twyford: Why has she proposed such a small number of affordable houses compared with Auckland’s needs when the Reserve Bank today said that the rate of house building is “insufficient to meet population growth and address housing shortages”?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, this is exactly the point. When we made the announcement we pointed out very clearly that this is about what the Government is doing with the less than 5 percent of land that we own. As a Government, our primary responsibility is focusing on building social houses for those in need, making sure we have an affordable programme to fund it, and making sure there are opportunities for our tenants to transition. By contrast, Labour is not building any social houses, it cannot fund its project, and it is not being up front about where it will be. We have never pretended that this is going to be a new house for every Aucklander, nor, frankly, speaking as a Government, should it be.

Andrew Bayly: What further information does she have on the Crown building project?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The House might be interested to know that when we were setting the affordability criteria for the Crown building project, we were very mindful of the fact that of the nearly 1,436 homes already sold at Hobsonville Point, 28 percent of them have been sold at or under $550,000, and these range from one-bedroom apartments to three-bedroom terraced homes. What we are not doing as part of the Crown building project is building dreamt-up numbers at fantasy prices on land that we do not own, cannot identify, and cannot pay for and that is magically free of any existing properties.

Phil Twyford: How is it credible to promise only 4,500 affordable homes—only half of which were a new promise—when Auckland has a shortfall of 40,000 homes; last year only 7,000 new homes were completed, according to Auckland Council; and only 5 percent of those were affordable?

Hon AMY ADAMS: What we are doing is showing what the Crown will do on its 5 percent of the land in Auckland. We have always said that the largest part of responding to Auckland will come from the 95 percent owned by the market, which is why this Government is supporting things like the HomeStart scheme, like Resource Management Act reform, like the national policy statement on urban development, and like Point England, which Labour is opposing. What is not credible is to pull numbers out of the air that you cannot fund, cannot build, and do not know where they are going.

Phil Twyford: Why should the public take her press release about building houses seriously 4 months out from an election when, after 9 years, this Government has presided over a 2,500 reduction in the number of State houses and a nationwide shortfall of 60,000 homes, built up under her and Nick Smith?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I reject the member’s comments. What I would say is that it is because we are a credible Government with a proven track record of doing what we say we will do, which is in sharp contrast to the Opposition.

Budget 2017—Investment in Science and Innovation

10. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How does Budget 2017 investment in science and innovation support a growing economy?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Science and Innovation): The $372 million extra funding through the Innovative New Zealand programme in the 2017 Budget is designed to generate more of the skills, the ideas, and the scientific capability to drive the New Zealand economy forward. The funding includes $82 million for the Government’s pre-eminent applied science fund, the Endeavour Fund, which supports excellent, higher-risk research with the potential for long-term transformative impact in areas of future value; $132 million for tertiary education to ensure young New Zealanders obtain the skills we need; and $75 million for Callaghan Innovation’s research and development growth grants. It is all about adding more value to our export volumes. Investment in innovation is designed to lift our productivity, and thereby provide for our future prosperity.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does Budget 2017 provide for high-impact, transformative science?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: As well as providing ideas and innovation to help our companies be more internationally competitive, a strong science and innovation capability provides the evidence for fact-based decision-making for the Government and investors. It also provides solutions for many of our national challenges. Budget 2017 will invest an additional $81.9 million of new operating funding over 4 years to support high-impact, mission-led programmes in science to the Endeavour Fund. New Zealand science already makes a powerful contribution to areas like improving water quality, ensuring our children get a good start, supporting good health in older populations, and developing new industries that create exports and jobs. The Endeavour Fund complements the Government’s other investments in mission-led science, and demonstrates its commitment to creating a highly dynamic science and innovation system.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants more, I need less interjection from the Minister.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will Budget 2017’s science and innovation investment contribute to the global store of knowledge?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Of the new operating funding allocated in Budget 2017, $40.5 million is to help reduce the risk to life from natural disasters and hazards, and to explore the unique environment of Antarctica. The $21 million over 3 years from 2018 that is dedicated to Antarctic research will provide an enhanced platform for new scientific discoveries by Kiwi researchers in one of the most dangerous, dynamic, and awe-inspiring places in the world. New Zealand has had a formal presence in Antarctica for over 50 years, and the continent is a hugely important region for research in the natural world in the past, the present, and into the future.

Health Services—District Health Board Funding, Auditor-General’s Report, and Mental Health Services

11. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his office’s statement that the $644.8 million calculated by the Ministry of Health as the amount needed by DHBs to meet their total cost pressures this year was a “wish list” figure, and is that why they only received $400 million for cost pressures?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, although I would note that the member’s question refers to last year’s Budget, while the rest of Parliament has jumped ahead to Budget 2017. I am assuming it was an honest mistake, but I would ask the member to keep up with the play.

Dr David Clark: Was the Ministry of Health wrong when it said that the district health boards (DHBs) needed $644.8 million to meet all demographic, wage, and inflationary cost pressures this year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, I would invite the member to get out from behind the eight ball and start focusing on Budget 2017. But, as I said in the primary answer, yes.

Dr David Clark: What was the wish-list figure for district health boards to meet their total cost pressures given to him for the 2017-18 year by the Ministry of Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, we have now got up to date. But, look, the standard formula around cost pressures is the DHB allocation plus around 1 percent savings of the baseline each year.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully, and I did not—

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member to repeat the question.

Dr David Clark: What was the wish-list figure for district health boards to meet their total cost pressures given to him for the 2017-18 year by the Ministry of Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As I said, it is usually around the amount of the allocation plus about 1 percent of the baseline.

Dr David Clark: Has he seen the Auditor-General’s damning report, tabled in Parliament today, which, although narrow in scope, finds that in-patient units have high occupancy rates, sometimes beyond their capacity, that the pressures on in-patient units and community services need to be addressed, and that more work is needed to systematically gather and use feedback from people using mental health services and those supporting them?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, I have seen that report. That was an audit taken 14 months ago; there has been extensive work by the Ministry of Health since then. In the back of the report there is a letter from the Director-General of Health, Chai Chuah, that details what has been done. There has also been a Health Quality and Safety Commission initiative taken around discharge planning. It is an important report, of course. It is a very helpful report, 3 months out from the election, and the points that it highlights are being addressed and will be helped, of course, by the $224 million of mental health funding allocated in the Budget—part of a record $888 million for health overall, taking the Budget to a record $16.77 billion. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I certainly do not expect the member to address any member—it may well have been me, actually. I do not expect that member to say that to any other member in this House. He can proceed with his supplementary question.

Dr David Clark: When will he finally concede that a review of mental health services and funding is urgently needed, given the evidence and requests made in the People’s Mental Health Review, the resignation of Mike King from the committee reviewing the suicide strategy, the petition of the Life Matters Suicide Prevention Trust currently before Parliament, and, now, today’s damning report on mental health provision, delivered by the Auditor-General?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Last week I was meeting with health Ministers at the World Health Organization, and they were all saying that of the three major disease groupings—non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases, and, finally, this big one around mental health disorders—mental health is the big one that everyone across the Western World is really focusing on. It has changed a lot, even in the past 2 years. So what we are going to do is make sure that $224 million goes to improving and strengthening services, and, as I say, it is part of a record $888 million for health in this Budget.

Conservation, Department—Funding and Impact on Native Birds

12. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: E hia ā tātau momo manu kei te noho tino mōrearea, e ai ki Te Kaitiaki Taiao a Te Whare Pāremata?

[How many of our bird species are in serious trouble, according to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?]

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Talofa lava. I welcome Dr Jan Wright’s report, which has identified 54 species of birds as being in serious trouble. That is broadly consistent, actually, with the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) own assessment, as released in the Threatened Species Strategy 2 weeks ago. The Government is under no illusions whatsoever about the danger our native birds are in. That is why we have committed to Predator Free 2050, that is why we have set up a board that has a plan to enact it, and that is why we have spent $45 million on the Battle for our Birds in the last 2 years and the War on Weeds and wilding pines. There is more conservation work being done in New Zealand today than at any other time in New Zealand’s history.

Metiria Turei: Why has her Government cut DOC’s funding in real terms by $422 million since 2009, when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has now described the situation with our native birds as “desperate”?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I agree with Dr Jan Wright that we have a serious situation with our threatened species, and that we need to do something about it. That is why DOC has moved so quickly into the space of appointing someone who, at a senior leadership team level, will have responsibility for biodiversity. This is an important thing to all New Zealanders, and, as Dr Wright pointed out in her budget, it is not something that one department can do alone. The member remains—and is at least consistent in this—completely wrong in the idea that DOC’s spending has not increased. It has; $107 million in this year’s Budget is not a decrease by anybody’s standards. There has, in fact, been a 20 percent increase in the Government investment in DOC since 2008, when we came into Government.

Metiria Turei: Given her decision to cut DOC’s funding, will she—[Interruption] I know you do not agree; look at your numbers. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the member to complete the question.

Metiria Turei: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given her decision to cut DOC’s funding, will she also accept responsibility for the extinction of the toroa, our wandering albatross, given the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s latest report, which describes this great bird as being in serious trouble and at risk of extinction?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I guess, because the member has never been anywhere near Government, she does not understand very much about the Budget process. The increase in spending in DOC is at $107 million this year. It has been a 20 percent increase since 2008. The member’s wilful misrepresentation of the figures is pretty pathetic, even by that member’s standards. When we look at the birds that are in danger—the whio, for example, has had a 48 percent increase in bird numbers in the Kahurangi National Park alone. Those are figures that were released today. That is because of predator-scale biodiversity protection by DOC.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister accept that she and her Government have failed New Zealanders and the kākāpō when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment finds: “To say we have brought the kākāpō back from the brink of extinction is not correct; rather it continues to teeter on the brink of extinction.”?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This Government and the Department of Conservation have worked tirelessly on the recovery of kākāpō. I feel that the work of Dr Andrew Digby and the kākāpō recovery team has been overshadowed by some of the misunderstandings that that member is helping push out there. The kākāpō is a species that is in grave danger, it is one that we have put a great deal of resources into, and there may well be a time when genetic diversity with that particular breed does need another level of action. But at the moment, the results speak for themselves, and we have greatly increased the number of kākāpō in New Zealand that are breeding to a high level. Genetic diversity and the size of a gene pool of such a critically endangered bird is a problem, and it is one that we all need to grapple with. We have scientists on it, and Predator Free 2050 and its board, who have just received a report on this.

Metiria Turei: Supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! Is the member seeking a further supplementary? No, the Greens have used their full allocation.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understand, the allocation is 5-4. It would be worth checking.

Mr SPEAKER: My recording shows six, but on the basis that Mr Shaw is indicating there were not—it is hard for me to keep a tally, and the Greens are normally very accurate in their accounting—I am going to accept that there is room for one more supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: Yeah, we’re good at maths. Turns out we’re good at maths.

Mr SPEAKER: But I will be checking my maths later.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister accept that her and her Government have failed the Department of Conservation and our conservation estate when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has revealed today that “… one in every three [of our native birds] is not far off from following the moa and many others into extinction. The situation is desperate.”?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: It would appear to me that the member has just recently caught up with what most of us have known and understood for more than a decade, and that is that our vulnerable threatened bird species are under threat. As I said in my first response, the New Zealand Threatened Species Strategy, the first one that has ever been released in New Zealand, has detailed pretty much the same things that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has detailed. So we are very aware. We have put a great deal of resources into this and a great deal of thought. The Predator Free 2050 board has met four times. It is about to announce its chief executive, and the plan is well under way. Threatened species are a concern to all of us on this side of the House, and the unknowing, ignorant stance from that member is woeful. I would check your maths—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 30 May on the .

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I cannot tell you how incredibly proud I feel to be standing here, speaking in support of this Budget—the ninth that this Government has delivered, the first for Steven Joyce. I think this Budget by itself tells a story of what this National-led Government has brought to New Zealand.

Just take yourself back to 5 years ago when the Budget represented an $18 billion deficit on the back of the decade of deficits we had inherited from Labour, the global financial crisis, and the Christchurch earthquakes. We had an $18 billion deficit just 5 years ago. So what has happened since that time? What has happened since that time? Well, we have had 200,000 extra jobs created just in the last 3 years—200,000 in 3 years. Every single year since we have been elected we have had 50,000 more elective surgeries, thanks to the good work of health Ministers across our Government. Every year we have 7,000 more students leaving with NCEA—7,000 young New Zealanders every single year, who head out into the workforce with the basic skill set that they are going to need to get ahead.

We have had a 57 percent reduction of teenaged mums on benefit. That is a staggering number. And bear in mind all of this is in a period when we have been fighting back from staggeringly high levels of deficit. Since 2010 we have seen $2 billion in ACC reductions—$2 billion just off ACC. That is real money back into the pockets of every New Zealander, and over that time we have now committed to and funded ultra-fast broadband, the best internet connectivity in the world, to 85 percent of our people—85 percent of New Zealanders—making us one of the very best connected countries in the world.

So where are we now? Well, here we are 5 years later; we have done all of that. We have done all of that. We have served New Zealand well in times of fiscal constraint, and now in 2017-18 we are going to have a surplus of $2.9 billion, growing out to more than $7 billion of surplus over the forecast period. So what does that mean? Well, surpluses mean we have choices. We have shown how much we can do, even when times are tight. Now that we have got the economy back in the right shape, now that the books are in credit, and now that we are doing what every Kiwi household has to do—and that is earn the money first before you think about what you are going to do with it—we are in a position to make sure we can give even more to New Zealanders.

So what are we looking at in this Budget? Well, we are looking at another 215,000 new jobs over the next 4 years. We are looking at—well, we are not looking at; in fact, we have provided a $2 billion increase in salaries to 55,000 of the lowest-paid care workers in New Zealand. Fifty-five thousand workers get a massive increase to their salary that they absolutely deserve, and we are very happy to be able to give it to them. But on top of that, even having done that and having paid for the Kaikōura earthquakes we are still able to see a Budget that puts record amounts into health and puts record amounts into capital.

At the centrepiece of it all we have the Family Incomes Package with another $2 billion, meaning 1.3 million households, not people—1.3 million households—are better off by an average of $36 a week. If you do not think that is significant, let me put it to you like this. It means that now up to nearly 60,000 children—Ms Tolley tells me this is the updated information—are lifted out of living in households on less than the median wage. That is 60,000 children who will be better off and who will move above that critical line thanks to the work of this Government—not just the work of this Budget but the work of the last 9 years to get New Zealand to this position.

What is really remarkable is that helping 1.3 million families, lifting nearly 60,000 children out of that sort of hardship, is opposed by the Labour Party. This is a package so inherently good, so inherently well-targeted at those who need it, that the Greens are supporting it, New Zealand First is supporting it, the Māori Party is supporting it, and ACT, United Future, and the National Party are supporting it. All Labour members can think is to oppose the Government at all costs and then find a reason why. Does it not just show you how unready they are to be in Government? No plan, no vision, no policy—all they know how to do is oppose.

You have got a package that makes so much sense that everyone else in Parliament supports it, and yet they are scrambling around, desperate and dateless, trying to find a reason not to vote for this. And I just say this to the House: if the Labour Party members are going to spend a week complaining about this package, a week criticising the accommodation supplement changes, let them come out and tell New Zealand absolutely clearly that they are going to cancel them. I want to hear them say: “We didn’t vote them in, we don’t agree with them, and we’re gonna cancel them.” They will not, of course. They absolutely will not. There will be weasel words and obfuscations and distraction while they point at the squirrel over there, or something else that is going wrong. Let them be upfront. Are they going to keep the package, or are they not? Are they going to poke holes and then quietly keep it in there, or are they actually going to stand by their thinly-veiled opposition, which is based on nothing more than that all they know how to do is oppose?

Let me talk for a minute about the capital spend in this Budget. When I have been going around talking to people around New Zealand, and I have talked to them about what they wanted to see from this Budget, one of the things that came up was infrastructure. Whether it is social infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools and houses; whether it is tourism infrastructure, which my colleague Paula Bennett has been championing; whether it is roads, whether it is broadband, or whether it is rail, we have got to make sure that we are setting New Zealand up not just for now but for the future. This Budget not only has $4 billion of new capital spend this year but over 4 years it represents $32 billion that we are going to be putting into building world-class infrastructure across New Zealand. That is not just about the here and now; that is something that every single New Zealander, when they are driving to work, when they are sending their kids to school, when they are connecting to the internet, and when they are turning up at A & E—every New Zealander benefits from that. We have picked up the deficit hole that we were left. We have turned it around. Now, thanks to the fact that we are in surplus, we can go further and really futureproof the economy.

I note $3.9 billion into the health sector—again, a record investment. And, as I said, even when we did not have a lot of money to throw around, we were still getting better performance from our sector. I mentioned the 50,000 extra elective surgeries every year. Now we have got things like another $60 million into Pharmac for new cancer drugs. We have got a $100 million mental health innovation fund, to make sure that as well as continuing to grow the traditional health response, we can think in innovative ways about how we hardwire community-level mental health responses into some of our social services, like education, like corrections, like justice, and like social housing.

This is a Government that has funded the Housing First programme, because it knows that for the people who have been on the streets for many, many years—I read a story the other day about a guy who had been homeless for 33 years. Now he is housed, and he was saying what a difference it makes. But it is not just about the roof over his head; it is about the support that we have put in place to go around it. This is not a new problem. Homelessness is not a new problem. The solutions from this Government are new, they are effective, and National is the only party in this House that has a credible, meaningful approach to how we are going to address it. We are not going try to take over from the private sector and suddenly be the uber-builder of every house in New Zealand. We own 5 percent of the land, and our focus will unashamedly be on helping those in need through accommodation supplements, through social houses, and through providing pathways into affordable homes. That is the role of the Government. We are already spending $2.3 billion every year on housing support, and yet Labour wants us to take over building every house that this country needs. Imagine what your tax bill will look like with that.

In my time left, I want to talk a little bit about the $321 million social investment package, because this is something Prime Minister English has championed over the course of many, many years. He knows firsthand the critical importance of working better to target the $61 billion that goes into our social services every year. So much of that represents misery, and we are not in the business of servicing misery; we are in the business of reducing it. That is what social investment is about. We are putting more money in to find new ways to work better with the group that has traditionally been left behind by Governments over countless years and over countless cycles. We are not prepared to accept that. We do not accept that there is a group that you are just never going to get to. We are going to try new ways that are evidence-based, carefully integrated, and cross-agency, and we are going to expect and demand results.

This is a Government that is not satisfied with “good enough”. We are not satisfied with business as usual. We are certainly not satisfied with borrow and spend. We are going to earn the money, get the economy growing, invest in what the country needs, and look after the people of New Zealand. That is why this is a Budget that will see this National-led Government going strongly into the election, and that is why it is a Budget I am incredibly happy to stand and support.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): The reason that this Budget misses the mark so badly is that it gives MPs $1,000 a year extra in their pocket, but it does nothing for the housing crisis. It does nothing for overcrowded classrooms. It does nothing for the gridlock on the roads in Auckland. It does nothing for mental health services that are stretched to breaking point. All it is, is a very badly targeted election bribe. Out of the $2 billion tax cut, $400 million goes to the top 10 percent of earners—$400 million. The wealthiest earners get the equivalent of $35 a week from this tax cut, but people on the lowest incomes get only $5 a week. That says it all. That is why Labour is opposed to this tax package—because it will increase inequality. It will make inequality worse. That is why we do not support it.

For about the fifth year in a row, the National Government’s Budget has totally missed the bus when it comes to housing. Perhaps the biggest challenge the country faces is the housing crisis, and what is in the Budget for housing? There is $100 million for Nick Smith’s old vacant Crown land programme, which he promised 2 years ago would generate 500 hectares of land and about 10,000 houses. Well, in the last 2 years not a single house has been built as a result of that policy—not a single new house. It has cost $100 million already. The Government is now chucking another hundred mil at it, but it is a policy that has been a total failure.

What else is in the Budget for housing? There is another $155 million for operating funding for emergency housing. This was already announced last year after the winter of misery, when we saw people sleeping out on the side of the road in South Auckland and families living in cars. This was already announced back then, and the Government made all sorts of big promises about extra emergency housing, but in the 6 months to 31 March it delivered only an additional five extra beds of emergency housing—in 6 months, after all those promises. That is just typical of the way this Government has not delivered when it comes to housing.

The biggest item to address the housing crisis is the accommodation supplement in the Budget. I think everybody would agree that an increase in the accommodation supplement will provide some short-term relief for the half of the population of this country who are renters. It will provide some short-term relief, but surely it is a total capitulation, and it is the ultimate evidence of the failure of this Government’s housing policy that in the 9 years it has been in Government there has been a half-billion-dollar increase in rent subsidies to private sector landlords—half a billion dollars extra on the accommodation supplement.

The Budget puts an extra $300 million a year into the accommodation supplement. Everybody knows that a fair chunk of that will end up in the pockets of landlords. That is what will happen. That is what Treasury advised the Government 2 years ago when it was considering this policy. That is what Treasury advised—that landlord capture was a real risk and, actually, the risk of putting up the accommodation supplement, in the absence of any real initiatives to address the supply shortage and the excess of demand, would mean that it risked driving rents even higher.

I want to quote the independent economist Shamubeel Eaqub. He said this about the Budget: “There was more money for the accommodation supplement and emergency housing. Both bottom of cliff stuff. There is no material and aspirational investment in significantly boosting housing supply.” I think the Government thought it would get off the hook on housing by Amy Adams announcing a so-called 34,000 extra houses to be built in Auckland. She announced this the week before the Budget, and it is no coincidence that she waited until Bill English was out of the country. Frankly, if I was making this announcement, it is so embarrassing that I too probably would have waited until the PM was out of the country.

In fact, if you unpick this claim of 34,000 houses—actually, it is 26,000 because they were going to demolish 8,000 State houses to get there—about 6,000 are supposed to be State and community housing, leaving 20,000 homes to be market or affordable. Well, the Minister confirmed today that she is only prepared to guarantee that 20 percent of those will be what she calls affordable. That means 4,000—well, she had already announced half of those already, so, in effect, her big Budget housing announcement was 2,000 extra affordable houses. No wonder they waited till the Prime Minister was out of the country.

This Government is completely in denial about the housing crisis. There is a 40,000 shortfall of homes in Auckland that has built up on National’s watch. Last year Auckland Council confirmed that only 7,000 new homes were built, and we know that only 5 percent of them are affordable. It is getting worse every year under National. This Government has had 9 years to get to grips with the housing crisis. It has shown that it is simply not up to it. It still denies there is a housing crisis. It has delivered a long line of policies designed to make it look as if it is doing something but actually deliver as little as possible.

Last Budget, Steven Joyce announced a $1 billion line of credit for councils to borrow money so they could invest in the infrastructure to enable new housing. Not a single dollar of that fund has been expended in 12 months—not a single dollar. Not a single new house has been built as a result of it. The Crown Land Development Programme that Nick Smith announced 2 years ago—not a single house has been built as a result of that policy. The special housing areas were the centrepiece of this Government’s housing policy for the last few years. It promised 39,000 extra houses in Auckland; less than 3,000 have been built, 3 years later.

The Government promised to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA), but all Nick Smith’s incessant tinkering has done is make the RMA more complicated, more bureaucratic, and more expensive. Now the Minister is reduced to stealing parkland from communities in Auckland to build houses on. That is how far this Government’s policy has fallen. I am talking about the Point England debacle, where National has taken 12 hectares of publicly owned urban parkland to build houses on.

The Government has had its turn. It is time for a fresh approach when it comes to the housing crisis, and that is what Labour will bring. Instead of 4,000 affordable houses in Auckland over a decade, Labour will build 50,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers. We will stop the State house sell-off. National has presided over a reduction—a net reduction—in the number of State houses in the last 8½ years of 2,500, in the middle of a housing crisis. It has taken $1.8 billion out of Housing New Zealand in taxes and dividends and interest payments. That would have been enough to build 5,000 extra State houses. Is it any wonder that this Government is spending $100,000 a day paying moteliers to put homeless families up? That is an admission of total failure.

We will not just redevelop State housing land. Amy Adams’ State house redevelopment plans lack ambition. We need to build houses. We need to get serious about it. So not only will Labour deliver 100,000 affordable homes for first-home buyers; we are going to set up an affordable housing authority to cut through the red tape, to build whole new communities—on the scale of a Hobsonville or a Tāmaki—with a mix of all kinds of different housing styles that people want and need, and a range of different affordable price brackets. We will genuinely reform the planning rules, not the kind of tinkering that we have seen from Nick Smith.

Labour will abolish the urban growth boundary that chokes off the supply of available land and drives up the price of sections and housing. We are going to get rid of it. We are going to replace it with a smarter approach—a long-run, spatial-planning approach that will protect the natural environment, foster good urban design, but bring down the artificially inflated cost of urban land. We are going to reform the broken system for financing infrastructure by bringing in infrastructure bonds paid back by a targeted rate.

Unlike this Government, which has its head in the sand in relation to the demand forces that are driving up house prices, we are going to ban foreign buyers from buying existing homes. We are going to tax speculators, and we will cut back on the immigration in Auckland that is such a massive demand pressure on housing, because we believe that it is time that Auckland had a breather while infrastructure catches up. That is why we will cut back on immigration.

Finally, we will deliver $1.2 billion of insulation subsidies, because we think that it makes sense to make sure that all rental properties are warm and dry.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): It is my pleasure to speak on this Budget, which is a Budget that is delivering for all New Zealanders. I want to deal with the strong economic forecast that the Budget documents laid out. I want to speak about the improving fiscal forecast and I do want to talk about the investment in public services and infrastructure for growth that we have seen in this Budget, reducing debt as a net percentage of GDP, and the Family Incomes Package.

Not many countries around the world today—developed countries with developed economies, such as New Zealand—can point to such strong economic growth over an extended period. We are looking at this Budget prospect of 3 percent growth—in excess of 3 percent growth—every year for the next 4 or 5 years, which, collectively, will lead to a significant expansion in the New Zealand economy. Why is that important? Because it is only a strong economy that delivers the jobs, the incomes, and the opportunities that all New Zealanders want for themselves and their families. That is why we focus so much on strong economic growth in this country.

We have seen the 137,000 jobs that have been generated out of this economy in the last year. That is hard-working New Zealand businesses taking a risk, investing in taking on new people, investing in new plants, investing in new businesses, taking on the world in a competitive environment—and succeeding—and providing new jobs for New Zealanders. That is what this economy is all about, and this Budget shows the success that we have had. We have seen an employment rate that is one of the highest in the world. We have 76 percent of working-age New Zealanders in work. There is no other country that compares—our friends in Australia have only 72 percent and our friends in the European Union have barely 66 percent—and that is because there are so many jobs in this economy. We have seen a jobs boom in this country over the last few years.

In terms of the strength of the economy—

Fletcher Tabuteau: You realise it might be indicative that they can’t live on anything else.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —what we have seen—“Professor”, you might listen if you have a chance here—in the last few years is, notwithstanding a substantial drop in dairy incomes over 3 or 4 years ago, we still managed to expand exports every year, year on year through that period, which demonstrates the diversity and sophistication of the New Zealand economy. Part of that, the export education sector, which I will talk a bit about later, continues to grow—about $4.5 billion. The high-tech sector, which is driven in part by the ideas and innovations coming out of our R & D sector, is a big part of that diverse economy. It gives us the ability to ride our way through storms.

When I first came into Parliament 5 years ago, we had lectures every week from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and others about the woeful state of the current account deficit in New Zealand and the fact that the current account deficit had been nearly 7 percent of GDP back in 2008, when the previous administration, the Labour Government, was in power. We were losing literally 7 percent of our GDP, in terms of current account deficit. We were told that the end of the world was happening and it was never going to turn around. What we have seen is a continual upswing. Now we are looking at about 3 percent of GDP at the moment and delivering strongly, because that is the strength of the New Zealand economy. We have seen the construction sector growing. We have seen a strong response from the housing sector, in terms of building new houses.

When we move on to the fiscal side, we look forward in the Budget to a series of increasing fiscal surpluses—that is, that the Government is spending less than it is drawing in terms of revenue. That is important. When investors are deciding whether to invest in hiring a new person or building a new business or taking a risk, they can look at the state of the New Zealand Government books and say that, yes, what they are doing is sustainable. They can continue doing what they are doing at the moment for the next few years. They’re not going to have to lurch off in a wildly new direction because what they are doing cannot be sustained. They can have confidence to invest. While having those surpluses, we can continue to invest in capital expenditure such as investing in infrastructure, building those roads, fixing the railway, and investing in quality new schools. We are able to do that without increasing our debt because we have cash in excess in the surplus.

So over the next few years we will not have to borrow extra money. We will be able to reduce our debt as a percentage of GDP because the economy continues to grow, and that enables New Zealand to be much more resilient for the next crisis that comes along—and there will be another crisis of some sort. We hope that the geological disasters that we have had in the last few years will not repeat, but you can rest assured that there will be another global financial crisis at some point down the line. There will be recessions somewhere down the line, and New Zealand, as a country, needs to be resilient. That is what we have shown—that we are going to be resilient and that New Zealand is able to respond and borrow if we need to in those circumstances. But we cannot do that if, like many other countries in the world, we have a high level of debt going into those periods. That is why we are determined to get that debt down and give ourselves the flexibility that we need to grow.

In terms of my area, I do have the privilege of having the ability to guide our science and innovation spending and our tertiary sector, and we have made substantial investments in both those areas as part of the Innovative New Zealand part of the Budget. Following on from a very substantial infusion of new funds last Budget—more than $700 million—this year we are putting another $300 million in in order to strengthen the scientific and innovative capacity of New Zealand over the years so that our companies can be more competitive internationally, infused by quality ideas and innovations coming out of our universities and through our Crown research institutes, and so that we can continue to see the massive investment by the private sector in R & D. We have seen that growing by 29 percent over the last 2 years, partly encouraged by the growth grants through Callaghan Innovation.

Through our tertiary system we can continue to deliver the skills that are required for a growing economy and a more highly sophisticated economy. That is why, for the first time, we have had an increase across the board for tertiary providers—about $70 million over the next 4 years. That is why we have continued to put extra resources into the Performance-based Research Fund, which is that part of the tertiary system that rewards research excellence. We have done that consistently over the past few years so that those wellsprings of knowledge and scientific ability and that capability can be built up in the economy and used by our companies to make them more internationally competitive.

The other primary contribution that the science sector makes is that it helps inform our decision making in Government so that we have fact-based decision making around the regulations that we bring in—the challenges such as water quality and the way that we deal with preserving our biological heritage, such as the work that Maggie Barry has been working on. The extent to which we can deal with those national science challenges that we are funding depends on the capability within our system. They help us preserve and enhance what is special about New Zealand.

Science is about delivering new ideas, innovation, and skills to help power the New Zealand companies so they can be more successful internationally, but it is also about helping us preserve and enhance what is special about New Zealand, which is the quality of our environment and our high levels of social cohesion. It is also, fundamentally, about us contributing to the global store of knowledge. We may be a small country but we are not freeloaders. We do not just sit back and accept all the scientific work of the rest of the world; we contribute to it. That is why we have invested an extra $20 million-odd into Antarctica research. It is an area that we are close to, and we can make a contribution. We can understand what happened in the ancient history of the ice down in Antarctica to get a better understanding of our global climate history. That is why we continue to invest in our understanding of the geological challenges of New Zealand—the earthquakes, the volcanoes. We are on the Pacific Ring of Fire, and the rest of the world expects us to know a bit about that. We make that contribution and that is why we continue to make the investment that we do.

This is a confident Budget for a confident nation that has its best years ahead of it. For 8½ years this Government has provided strong, stable Government that has enabled New Zealanders to have the confidence to invest. The economy continues to grow. We have got a great set of fiscal forecasts out ahead of us. Steven Joyce has done a great job, and it is a privilege for me to be able to condemn—to commend this Budget to the House. Thank you very much.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand this will be a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes—Peeni Henare.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I want to take one of the phrases by Dr Martin Luther King, who said that too often when Governments are confronted with significant issues in their communities, they suffer from paralysis by over-analysis.

We keep hearing from this Government about data—making sure we are inputting the right data. I heard the Minister who spoke earlier on in the debate today suggest that this Government wants to find the correct data so that the communities that most need assistance from this Government actually get it. Here is the data she is looking for: drive down Surrey Street in Manurewa and find families living in their cars; drive down John Walker Drive in Manurewa and find families living in their cars. Offer an accommodation supplement to those families—the families that need the assistance.

It seems to be a case of amnesia by this Government. Not long ago—in fact, almost a year ago—was the anniversary of the great work that Te Puea Marae did with the whānau in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Indeed, that goodwill spread right across the country. Whānau from the regions were coming to Tāmaki-makau-rau to go to Te Puea Marae to seek the assistance that this Government was not giving them.

We see a continuation of this. We see a long winter of poverty; not the kind of poverty that was traditionally thought of in New Zealand—“We are still not doing too badly.” Maybe they had to cut a few corners here and there to get by. It is a different kind of poverty. Those families that are living on Surrey Street in Manurewa, in their cars, and those families that are living on John Walker Drive, in their cars—I can tell you they are working families. They are working families. They are mums and dads who are working hard, trying to make life better for themselves and their families.

I can tell you, from my experience of the people who are coming through the offices in Tāmaki-makau-rau, those hard-working families will not be any better off for the measurements proposed by this Government in the recent Budget. Government members can say all the numbers they want. They can talk about the accommodation supplements until they are black and blue in the face. I say to the House that accommodation supplements are not available to those families living in those cars. That is a serious problem. It is a serious problem because this Government has chosen to ignore them—ignore them.

I mentioned earlier that amnesia has set in in this Government. It has forgotten that the people out there are actually struggling. The Government thinks that throwing numbers around in the Budget, as announced last week, will actually make the lot of our people better—homes being built in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

Homelessness and housing still remain the No. 1 issue that comes through my office. I cannot say to those people: “Live on a false promise. Here, put a false promise over your head and hope that it provides accommodation for you and your family.” I cannot say to them: “Here is a consent form that has been approved by this Government and this council. Put this over your head and encourage yourself and your family to live underneath it.”

This Government is suffering from paralysis by over-analysis, because if Government members were actually out there in the communities, they would see the true issues facing our people in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Tāmaki-makau-rau is our biggest city—another city that, because of the lack of action from this Government, is actually paralysed. I say “paralysed” because people are sitting in their cars. Work productivity is down. Infrastructure is failing. People cannot travel across Tāmaki-makau-rau.

It is often said that in the Māori electorates it is always difficult to travel. I think of my colleagues on this side of the House. Rino Tirikatene has to cover the entire South Island and part of Pōneke. It takes me 3½ hours to drive through several suburbs in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Would I wait for a bus? No, because the public transport system is inadequate and unreliable due to a lack of funding and due to a lack of investment from this Government.

We need a change, and in September this year—23 September—that change is going to come. I encourage all of the whānau out there to have a good hard look at the numbers in the Budget presented by this Government, to see exactly whether or not there is something for them. I can promise them that in September there will be.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I am going to uncharacteristically join the National Minister Paul Goldsmith, in condemning this Budget, as he did. This Budget completely failed to fill the gaps and the deficits that National has created over the last 9 long years. My good colleague Peeni Henare has hit the nail on the head. That failure in Auckland actually shows the failure that the Government has had in investing in infrastructure right across this country. The Government has managed to spend, in the last 9 years, about $9 billion on its roads of national significance, and, somehow, while spending $9 billion of the public’s money, has managed to make congestion worse, has managed to make the road toll worse, and has managed to emit more and more carbon emissions.

So what is that about—spending $9 billion to make things worse? That motorway that Peeni Henare talked about—that is not a motorway. That is a car-park. Aucklanders are spending their entire annual leave entitlement sitting in car-parks on the motorway. They are sitting in traffic and congestion and not going anywhere. So productivity is worse after that $9 billion has been spent. In this year’s Budget, under the title of the Government’s goal to reduce congestion in the five major cities, what it says is “not on track”. “Not on track” is what this year’s Budget says about reducing congestion in the five major cities, after that Government has squandered $9 billion on the roads of national significance.

I think the phrasing is really important. It is not on track, because that Government is failing to take a balanced approach to transport and ensure that it does get things on track, and that it does invest in rail as well as in roads. Taking a balanced approach and taking an approach that actually invests in public transport, as well as investing in roading, would be a much better way to go. But no, the Government has not learnt a thing, because in this year’s Budget it is taking the same old failed approach—the same old failed approach—and it is time for a fresh approach.

I want to spend my remaining couple of minutes talking about Hamilton, because someone has to. The Hamilton to Auckland commuter train service ought to have been funded in this year’s Budget. It is long overdue. It will cost only $1 million, and the Government could not even see its way to do that. Nor is the much-promised Waikato Medical School funded in this year’s Budget. The local MPs from the National Government are fond of talking that up. They say they wholeheartedly embrace it. Well, they have failed to influence the Minister of Finance. They have failed to influence the Minister of Health, to ensure that that venture got off the ground.

Also in Hamilton, news in today is that in the last several months at Waikato Hospital, in just the emergency department alone, 20 nurses have resigned—20 nurses in our emergency department, which is stretched to the hilt, have left because they cannot cope with the stress of working in National’s underfunded health system. So that is what is happening. We are losing our best and brightest because they cannot cope any more with the failure of that Government to invest properly in health, to invest properly in our infrastructure.

So what else do we read today about what is happening in Hamilton? Well, today we read that yesterday in Hamilton there was a brawl outside a vege shop, a place where they sell food, because the shop owner has armed his staff with baseball bats. He has armed his staff with baseball bats because he knows that if they have problems in that vege shop they will not get a response from the police, under this Government’s undervaluing and underfunding and under-resourcing of the policing system in places like Hamilton. So they have taken matters into their own hands, and guess what happens next? That is what this country looks like, under a National Government. People outside a vege shop brawling, with baseball bats, against each other because of shoplifting that is going on in that shop.

This is not the country that I believe most New Zealanders want. The country that they want is the sort of country that is going to be delivered only by the fresh ideas and the fresh approach of the incoming Labour Government. I look forward to that.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): I think when we have taken a moment to reflect on the calls that the Opposition has taken, we can truly see the lack of depth, the lack of thinking, and the complete absence of innovative ideas emerging from the Opposition benches. There is really nothing that Opposition members have suggested by way of policies that have been costed and realistic that will make a jot of difference. New Zealanders are not silly. They will see that.

For the remainder of my call I am going to be looking at the issues that have been satisfied by this Budget across my three portfolios, beginning with conservation. Despite what the bad arithmetic of the Opposition forces might suggest, the Department of Conservation (DOC) has certainly improved its funding base since National came into Government, by about 20 percent. So we have increased the operational funding. We have increased the capacity for the Department of Conservation to engage at a more meaningful level with businesses and partners, and that has resulted in a $100 million gain for conservation across species recovery. These are very important measures that matter a lot to New Zealanders, and matter very much to me as the Minister of Conservation.

I am very proud to be part of this Government and say that more conservation work is being done in New Zealand today than at any other time in this country’s history, and it is working. The report that came out today from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, endorsed our Predator Free 2050 approach. She was perhaps not as aware of the detail of what the Predator Free 2050 board is doing, but it was configured as a Crown entity, and in December I appointed the board. It has met four times now, and it is about to announce its new chief executive and to roll out its plans and call for applications for landscape-scale predator control around New Zealand.

In addition to that, the Department of Conservation has trained up nine specific rangers who will be Predator Free 2050 rangers, and it will really help communities with an amount of funding—around $300,000—that will enable those communities to determine for themselves what predators they want to get rid of and a plan for getting rid of them, in traps in their community, and an overall strategy. So DOC is doing its very best to help, and the $76 million Budget package that came to DOC will not only be a wonderful and welcome investment in our great walks and our conservation estate and infrastructure, so that visitor experiences are of the highest possible order, but it will also enable us to earn money off the conservation estate—more than we are at the moment.

The Great Walks are running at a loss. We need to be able to charge realistic amounts. So, with our new Budget money, we are going to be investing in an IT system that will be world class as a booking system, which means that we will be able to bring in differential charging. That means that New Zealanders who have paid their rates and their taxes and have already made a considerable investment into DOC land and facilities will be given a discounted rate, but international visitors coming here will be charged more.

We as a Government do not agree with slapping another arbitrary tax at the border on every visitor who comes here. Tourism is too important to us. We do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

A lot of visitors who come here do not go to our natural estate. Dr Wright, in her report, talked about user-pays—so users of our great walks from overseas will pay more, and I think that is entirely appropriate. In discussions with New Zealanders, many of them have agreed with it. DOC has put up its prices across some camping grounds and some walks in the last little while, and that has not been condemned at all. In fact, it has been welcomed.

As part of our new range of access to the natural environment in New Zealand we will be using some of that $76 million to build two new Great Walks, as well as a new network of day walks and short walks. The feedback that we have had from the tourism industry and from New Zealanders is that they want to have a bigger variety of walks available, such as 2-hour to 3-hour walks, and 1-day walks. We all know the pressure that the Tongariro Alpine Crossing is under. Our response to that is to develop more walks around it to give more choices. Incidentally, we have put in a lot more Portaloos—some 20 more—just to accommodate the large number of people, and we have a particular plan for Tongariro that we are working through at the moment with iwi and other partners.

I have also just announced $21 million of new funding to launch our third Battle for our Birds. Some of the Green detractors tend to say that the Battle for our Birds money should not be regarded as normal predator control. It is, of course, in response to a beech seeding, or beech mast. But what it will actually do—and the one I have announced will be the largest in New Zealand’s conservation history—will be to cover 880,000 hectares by aerial 1080 drops, and there will be a very well-thought-through and well-planned series of trappings to follow that. That is predator control on an epic scale. It is exactly what Dr Wright and others have been saying for a long time that we need to do, which is kill the predators to save our threatened and endangered species.

New Zealand’s Threatened Species Strategy, which I released a couple of weeks ago at the Threatened Species Summit in conjunction with the National Science Challenges, has really given a good opportunity to New Zealanders and to NGOs and others to have their input into our strategy. Broadly, we agree with Dr Wright’s finding that our endangered species need our help, and we have done a lot to do that. DOC is also announcing next week that it is employing a new senior member of its biodiversity team, who will be pulling together translocation issues and a lot of the other challenges that exist with smaller gene pools with endangered species.

On to arts, culture, and heritage. Radio New Zealand—I love it. I have listened to it all my life, I worked on it for a period of time in a former life, and I am delighted, as the Minister, to be building on the work that the Hon Amy Adams did as my predecessor to announce an 8 percent increase in Radio New Zealand’s base funding. Over the past 8 years, while its funding stayed the same, it has proved how efficient it is at making do with what it has, and it has brought in much-needed efficiencies.

It has performed terrifically well, and that was seen in a wonderful way, actually, with the Kaikōura earthquakes. At times of crisis, New Zealanders turn to trusted public broadcasters, and Radio New Zealand is an extraordinarily high-performing group of people. So there is $11.4 over 4 years, with $2.8 million a year being a permanent, ongoing amount for them, and that will assist them to buy new, modern technology and improved capability and to expand regional coverage.

When I rang the board chair, I would say that his response was euphoric. They were very relieved. They were very pleased that they will be able to continue to grow and expand into the Pacific and to make their product—which includes the excellent 9th Floor series—more widely available, and they will be able to do more of the top quality news and current affairs that they do so very well.

First Encounters 250 is about James Cook’s arrival in New Zealand. So, in the same way that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage planned ahead for the 4 commemorative years to mark 100 years since World War I, we are planning ahead now for First Encounters 250—as we are calling it—to be held in 2019, commemorating when the Polynesian navigator Tupaea and James Cook came to New Zealand. All of the landing sites will benefit from a total funding in the Budget of $5 million. We have an extra $3.5 million to fund a flotilla of tall ships and the replica of the Endeavour. So, between October and December 2019, New Zealanders will be very well aware of how excellent it is to commemorate our first encounters, or Te Hā—the sharing of the breath—between the European, the Māori, and the Polynesian.

When we look at Pukeahu, which has been our tremendously successful National War Memorial Park here in Wellington, there are about to be three more memorial elements going into that. We had the Australians—appropriately, in the Anzac tradition—with the first memorial. The French, the Belgians, and the English, as well, and the Americans are all ready to go with theirs. We have got another $4.8 million over 4 years so that Pukeahu can be developed, and we will certainly be encouraging young people to come to Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre.

In terms of superannuation, because of the link to after-tax wages, the changes that we are making to the tax system will have real flow-on benefits to around three-quarters of a million New Zealanders who receive New Zealand superannuation. For a married couple, that means New Zealand superannuation will increase by about $13 a week on 1 April next year, because of the tax changes on top of their normal adjustment. If you add that up, that is a 35 percent increase in superannuation since National came into Government. That is more than twice the rate of inflation. Around 15,000 superannuitants with high housing costs will also see an average increase of $29 a week from the accommodation supplement changes to help them with their housing costs.

On top of that, of course, is the $2 billion pay equity TerraNova case agreement for care and support workers. As somebody whose mother was in a residential care home with dementia for a period of time, I can say very honestly that the people who work at the front line of care for our older people in New Zealand—it is a vocation. They do a terrific job, and they absolutely deserve another $100 a week, or over $5,000 a year, as a result of that $2 billion increase. Thank you.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand that this is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

BARRY COATES (Green): Talofa lava, ile fa’asamoa, lau afioga Mr Speaker. I rise to speak about the Budget. To me it is a little bit like a dirty river. You know, occasionally it looks nice and sparkly on the surface but if you dive down into the details it will make you sick. What is more, it is going to, I think, get this Government into trouble.

Let me just run through an analysis of this Budget. I think it is a classic election bribe. The key question is this. There is money being paid to those people who need it—and there are people who desperately need the help from this Budget—and those people need to ask where the money came from. Where did this money come from? How come the Government has this surplus that is now being paid as an election bribe through tax cuts and Government grants? The answer comes from some analysis done by Victoria University and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. What they did was an analysis of the Budget based on real terms, not just nominal money, and based on per capita spending, which is what should be done to provide a realistic comparison.

What they found is that between the Budget time and 2021, education expenditure, rather than increasing as the Government would have us believe, will fall by 7.9 percent. They found that health spending will fall by 7.5 percent. They found that core Government services will fall by 15.1 percent. And one of the measures that the Government seems to regard as a measure of its own success and performance is that it is putting $1 billion into incarcerating more people in prisons. That is a measure of failure, not of success. Even more tragic from this Budget is that it shows such a lack of vision and ambition to meet the challenges that New Zealanders are facing today.

In those areas that I talked about—in healthcare, the Green Party and Labour are undertaking an inquiry into aged care in New Zealand. What we find out from people across New Zealand is the failings of our health system—and why? Because there is not enough money to keep pace with people’s needs. The work by Professor Bagshaw shows that there has been underfunding to the extent that 29 percent of people are having unmet needs for their GP and primary healthcare and a further 9 percent cannot get surgery or secondary care.

In education, we see teaching assistants paid virtually the minimum wage and not enough teachers and teaching assistants to help those with special needs. We see child poverty remaining high in this country. We see emergency housing being required for people so that they do not have to live in their cars. We are seeing the most unaffordable housing in the world. We are seeing gridlocked transport in Auckland as Aucklanders spend more time in their cars than they do on holiday.

We see a 20 percent increase in our emissions, our greenhouse gas emissions, and runaway climate change from this Government. We see failure in conservation, such as in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment today, and that is a function of 9 years of neglect of the Department of Conservation, with constant reorganisation and budget cuts. We see that 62 percent of our rivers we cannot swim in because they are going to make us sick, and we see anaemic economic growth on a per capita basis of around 1.1 percent.

What kind of record is this from the Budget? What we see is that people are heading into this winter in cold and damp housing, or they are homeless, or they are struggling to pay the bills. We deserve better. On 23 September there will be an election. The Green Party has solutions. We want our chance to stand here and produce a Budget that will meet these challenges of the future and raise the level of ambition for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak to the Budget and, in particular, agriculture and biosecurity. There is a very good, positive thing in that Nathan Guy has managed to get some more money for biosecurity: $18.4 million of seriously needed money, and it does not go far enough. When National came in in 2008, very, very quickly there was a cutting back of the biosecurity spend, an atrocious thing when we were already having biosecurity incursion after biosecurity incursion. We are paying the cost of those, and generations ahead will pay the cost of the effect of those biosecurity incursions.

Nathan Guy, when he took on the role, did set about rebuilding the biosecurity spend back up to what it was in 2008, and now he has passed that in real terms. So that sounds good. [Interruption] It does sound good. In real terms, equivalent money to now, there was $209,000—sorry, $209 million spent by Labour, no doubt, and then $203,000—$203 and a half—

Hon Members: Million.

STEFFAN BROWNING: —million, thank you, guys. [Interruption] It feels like that in terms of incursions—this lower rate. So $203 million is what the spend dropped back to in 2009. Now it is up to $244 million and that is good news, but in terms of incursions and response and ability to respond, it goes nowhere near enough. The reason for that is that freight has gone up 24 percent, and there has been a 70 percent increase in foot passengers coming into New Zealand.

On the Primary Production Committee we went up and we had look at some of the activities at Auckland Airport, and there was a high level of professionalism amongst the staff there. But they are still struggling. Still people come in—story after story of people coming in. They even declare the food items they have got with them and they are still let through. It is not running perfectly. So there has been a 70 percent increase in foot traffic, a 24 percent increase in tonnage, and only a 20 percent increase in the biosecurity spend, which was already well below the need.

Myrtle rust at the moment is being addressed as best as possible, it seems. Well, it is not as best as possible. If there is a find, no one is allowed to send stuff out, naturally enough, from that property. It does not stop the neighbour or someone three doors down taking some pōhutukawa seedlings 500 kilometres away to another area.

The Ministry for Primary Industries and the Minister for Primary Industries have been loath to set in better plant controls. Now myrtle rust has been found on some bigger trees, and we are yet to understand exactly where it comes from. This lower level—the stopping of plant material moving—is because of an assumption of how it comes in. Even if it is coming in by wind and is not human-induced incursion, the people out there trying to get seed to protect our biodiversity and to store that—to have that genetic material—want more time. They need better support. The Minister has made some progress, but we need significantly more progress in biosecurity.

The last thing I will say is that there was nothing in the Budget for organics. There was nothing in the Budget for organics, and that is where the extra value both in sustainability and actual economic gains is to be had in terms of agriculture. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Sometimes fate plays into one’s hands, and it is a great pleasure for me to follow the two Green members who clearly think there should be something in the Budget for everyone—and so do I—but there is not. There never has been for many years now, and I think the issue that we have just got to take out of those last two speeches is that if we do not generate enough money, we are certainly not going to be able to put money into everyone’s pockets.

But the issue that I want to talk about is that everyone comes to Parliament for a reason. I know Steffan came for a reason as well, but everyone comes to Parliament for a reason—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr Browning.

IAN McKELVIE: Oh, Mr Browning—sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Browning came to Parliament for a reason. We come to Parliament for a reason, and for 6 years I have sat in this Parliament and watched our Prime Minister and finance Minister lead a country that was desperately needing to get itself back into surplus, that was struggling to pay the bills that we needed to pay, and that was struggling to get our people in a position where they could live in a more comfortable manner.

Finally, after some significant effort, we have got to that position, and, from my perspective, coming into this Parliament—I guess I came here for a number of reasons, but one of them was most certainly to see the people who do not have every opportunity in New Zealand get as much opportunity as they can. I think that is the absolute key of this Budget. We have, at last, been able to get to a point where we can encourage people with some help and some assistance, to get them in a position to be able to support their families better than they otherwise would have and to take a greater part in our community than they otherwise would have been able to take.

Clearly, from a Government perspective our objective must be to get those people into a position where they can earn enough money not to rely on Government assistance, and, obviously, the role of a Government is to facilitate people’s ability to get where they want to get. I want to congratulate our finance Minister and the hard work of our Ministers in this Government to get us into a position, after some 9 years, where we could finally start to alleviate the pressure on many of our families in New Zealand.

I am also, in another life, the chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand. I take a special interest in mental health and special needs in our education sector, and I think, at last, we have got ourselves to a position where we are able to invest more money in the solutions for both of those issues, which are seriously challenging our community and will continue to do so. But, none the less, this Government has finally got to a position where it can invest in those people and help them get along a lot better than they otherwise would have. It will be interesting to see the outcome we get to that in the next few years.

The next thing I want to talk about is the opportunity that tourism has given New Zealand. We heard the last two speakers both speaking about the number of people coming across our border, and, of course, as a result of the last Budget, we do have a border clearance levy—or the one before, I think—that they actually pay. They pay their own way through customs, so it is not as if we need to add more budgetary money to that every year to get them through our borders, because that is taken care of by the levy.

But on the tourism issue, some of our communities are seriously challenged by a lack of infrastructure and a lack of people living in them, and, of course, they are the pristine areas, which Minister Barry talked about in her contribution a few moments ago, that many of our overseas tourists are so keen to come into New Zealand to visit and participate in and that we, obviously, as a country are so keen to share with them. So the investment that we have made of some $112 million in an infrastructure fund to help those councils to provide that sort of facility for those tourists, and the significant investment that the Department of Conservation is making in developing new walking tracks, upgrading its current facilities, and providing infrastructure for tourism, is also hugely interesting for our community. I think it is of great benefit to an electorate like the Rangitīkei.

A number of other issues were dealt with in the Budget, and I want to talk very briefly about the issues that affect my electorate and many other electorates—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting the member. I wrongly set the timer in the anticipation that I was going to get a full 10 minutes from the member. I now understand it is only a 5-minute speech and, therefore, he does have only 1 minute left to go. I apologise to the member.

IAN McKELVIE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was ready to go for a full 10 minutes, as well.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, the member can, if he wants to—his call.

IAN McKELVIE: No, no, I am quite happy with my lot. I am very pleased with the way it is going, and so I will make the most of it.

Other issues that I want to very briefly talk about are the clean-up that is going on in our environmental area. This Government has made a contribution to cleaning up our environment that is second to none in the history of New Zealand. Our farmers are contributing significantly to that same clean-up, and I think we are doing very well with it. We always have challenges, and, at the end of the day, we have been in this country, farming and dealing with things in the manner that we have, for well over 160 years now, and, of course, there have been people living here for many years before that. It is inevitable that when we live in a country like this, we are going to change the way things work, so it is also essential that the Government assists and promotes the cleaning up of those areas to make sure that we get a much better result as a result of that. I think this Government’s contribution to our environmental clean-up is just huge and is second to none. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for saving me 5 minutes to speak. This is a very comprehensive Budget. Any Budget needs to make sure that the economy keeps growing, because economic growth is the basis for many things we try to do, such as Better Public Services and social investment. For that reason, this Budget invests another $1 billion in a growing economy through the Business Growth Agenda. This agenda covers a range of areas such as Innovative New Zealand, Trade Agenda 2030, the tourism and film industries, etc.

Infrastructure is the basis for economic growth. This Budget delivers a record $4 billion in the next financial year for new infrastructure, and in the coming 3 years we will have another $7 billion. So, all together, in the coming 4 years, we will have $32.5 billion in new infrastructure. That is particularly important because we do need to have good infrastructure for our economic growth.

This Budget is about delivering for all New Zealanders. When this Government came into office in 2008, we were faced with many challenges due to the global financial crisis and, later on, the Canterbury earthquakes. We overcame those challenges thanks to hard-working New Zealanders and this Government’s responsible management of finance and its sound economic policies. Now we want all New Zealanders to share the benefit of our economic growth, so this Budget delivers $7 billion for Better Public Services, which include education, health, law and order, and other areas.

We focus on the livelihood of all New Zealanders, particularly those who need more support. So this Budget invests $2 billion in the Family Incomes Package, which really helps lower-income families in New Zealand.

This is a comprehensive and well-balanced Budget, and this comprehensive and well-balanced Budget is based on sound economic policies and good economic growth, and, as I said, this good economic growth did not come easily, because we did face a number of challenges. Now our economy is performing. This Government has a record—a very good record—of delivering for all New Zealanders, and with this continuous economic growth we will be able to continue to deliver for all New Zealanders.

I am particularly pleased to see the large injection in education—a large injection of new money for education. There is $1.1 billion of new operational funding for education—$1.1 billion of new operational funding for education—which includes $385 million for early childhood education. This investment will enable us to have 31,000 new places for early childhood learning. We believe that the early childhood years are particularly important to any child’s development and future learning capability, so we want to provide as many young people as possible with the strongest start in life, and this funding will enable us to do that.

In addition to that, of course, we have many other areas. Law and order is another area that I am very pleased with, because we are going to have $1.2 billion of new operational funding for law and order, which will enable us to recruit 1,125 new police staff. We also have lots of money for other areas like justice and corrections.

So, overall, we believe this is a very comprehensive Budget. It will deliver for all New Zealanders, and we believe that with this Government, we will be able to have a better future. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Talofa lava, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am a proud Samoan, Tongan, and New Zealand - European New Zealander, but, I have to say, as the days, as the weeks, as the months, and as the years go by under that National Government, I feel more and more dismay. I feel more and more like a stranger in a different country, and more and more concerned for what this country is looking like under that Government.

At the beginning of the year, I remember reading an opinion piece that was in the New Zealand Herald. It was an opinion piece written by a man who said that more and more, as he went to his local shops, he was confronted with the homelessness that is increasing and he was confronted with higher levels of poverty. This man said that all he wanted to know was that his taxes were taking care of this. All he wanted was to know that he could pay his taxes and he would not have to see these sights on a daily basis. But has that happened? No. Those problems have increased, and, instead, what we see is that Government coming into the election year with a bribe for New Zealanders, saying: “We can’t make your public services better. We’re not going to do anything about the poor state of the education system. We’re not going to make the health system more accessible. We’re not going to do anything about the housing crisis. But we are going to give you a tax cut, which means that we can’t fix any of those problems that we know you want us to deal with.” It is an election bribe, and it is irresponsible.

All we want to know as New Zealanders is that those issues will be taken care of by whoever is governing the country, and, let us face it, they are not being taken care of. I listened to the Minister of Education, Nikki Kaye, talk today about her so-called investments into education. I have heard her talk on a number of occasions about how she thinks her National Government is putting more into property than ever before. But when we look at the Budget, what we actually see is that, in real terms, there has been an $80 million cut in what is going into education in terms of education spend. It is not acceptable.

I recently heard through some west Auckland principals that the Minister of Education took some international guests to one of our newer schools—I think it might have been a Hobsonville school—to show them what New Zealand schools look like, what the properties look like, and what kind of facilities we offer to our kids. Well, actually, what I would like the Minister to do is take some of those international guests to some of my Kelston schools, and then see how proud she is when she takes them through those schools, which have had very, very little investment. In fact, they have gone backwards under this National Government.

I am so ashamed about the fact that schools like the ones I have in my electorate are treated like poor cousins in this country, yet we have schools like the one in Hobsonville, which the Government is so happy to show off to international visitors. The growing inequality under that Government is disgusting, and you can see it so clearly in our education system. The Government should be ashamed of the fact that it is doing nothing to address that. Instead, what it has done is it has gone out and said: “Here’s a few tax cuts. Vote for us, because some of you will have a few extra dollars in your pocket.” Never mind the fact that so many New Zealanders will have to send their kids to rundown schools, or that so many of them will not be able to rely on the health system when they need to.

One of the biggest issues that I have in my electorate, like so many other electorates in the country, is housing. What did we see in the Budget to address it? Do I have any confidence that this Budget is going to deliver something different to families who have been forced to live under makeshift tents, to families who have been living in cars, or to the tetraplegic woman who was living in her modified van? Do I have any confidence that this Budget is going to deliver something different for those families? Absolutely not. I have no confidence whatsoever, and what I am really scared of—and, hopefully, this will not happen—is that if that Government is given any more time after 23 September, we will continue to see this country spiral downward. I am scared that we will continue to see homelessness get out of control; that we will see more and more families not being able to afford to buy their own homes; and that we will see more and more children living in damp, mouldy, cold houses and having to be admitted into emergency wards, in the middle of the night, in hospitals that do not even have the capacity to be able to deal with them. That is what I am really scared of. It is really important that New Zealanders know that that is what they would be set up for if they decided to vote for this Government.

We have heard the Government members talking about these tax cuts and trying to make out that families will be better off. The reality is that 800,000 of the poorest New Zealanders, even from their tax cuts, will get nothing. We have got 500,000 low-income working Kiwis who will get a net of $1 a week extra. That is why we have termed this Budget the “One Dollar Bill Budget”. It is the “One Dollar Bill Budget”, and, unfortunately, the vast majority of the tax cuts that the Government has offered—and I do not know why anyone would be surprised, because this is the National Government and this is what it does—will be going to the highest 50 percent of income earners in this country, not to those families who really need it. And we MPs fall into that category. I think it is embarrassing that the Government thinks it is appropriate that MPs, along with other people who are earning similar salaries, should get a tax cut and be better off from this Budget when there are so many families who simply will not be better off from what it is offering.

Things have got so bad with regard to the housing crisis that it is not just about families not being able to buy their first homes and it is not just about families not being able to afford their rentals, but the fact that because of the situation we find ourselves in, we have a whole lot of dodgy people out there exploiting the desperation of New Zealanders.

I see that in my own electorate. I saw that recently with a family who could not get a house, were in emergency accommodation, and finally got a rental and were paying $550 a week for something that was completely inadequate. It had sewage spilling out on to their carport two times in the first 4 weeks that they were there. They had a landlord who refused to do anything about it, and no tenancy agreement signed up to, but these people continued to stay there—a grandmother, her daughter, her daughter’s partner, and two children under the age of 5—because they had nowhere else to go. The moves that we see in this Budget in terms of the tax cuts and in terms of increasing the accommodation supplement are not going to change this family’s situation. Nothing is going to encourage less dodgy practice from this landlord. In fact, it is that landlord who is going to be better off with the increase in accommodation supplement that that Government has put out there.

I have seen it time and time again. I do not know whether the National Government members are just deliberately closing their eyes and being blind to the reality of what goes on, or whether they are genuinely naive. I have seen it time and time again with landlords who know exactly what their tenants are entitled to, particularly with caravan parks—particularly with one caravan park I can think of in west Auckland—and boarding houses. They know exactly what their tenants will be entitled to, and they charge them to the hilt knowing how much they can exploit from them, including the accommodation supplement. So when that Government celebrates the increase in accommodation supplement, we sit over here shrugging our shoulders and looking at them, rolling our eyes, thinking: “This is not a good move. This is an admission of the fact that that Government has failed in respect of providing housing for New Zealanders, and so now, instead, what it has to do—all it can do—is throw a few extra dollars out to what really is the landlord, not the tenant, who is going to benefit.”

I have talked about the health system, I have talked about the education system, and I have talked about the housing situation that we face as a country, and I do want to just spend the last moments talking about social development. I am so sick of the Government talking about how it just needs to be about a reduction in beneficiaries, because, actually, the real aspiration should be making sure that when families go off a benefit, they are actually better off—not just saying that getting people off benefits is the win and trying to claim it as a win. We are seeing more and more people leaving benefits for prison—hardly social investment, if you ask me—and we are seeing fewer and fewer New Zealanders leaving the benefit to go on to study. Where is the aspiration for those people? We are seeing a larger number of people going off a benefit and the Government having no idea where they have gone on to.

This Budget is irresponsible, and on 23 September we need to vote this Government out.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on this Budget. I actually think it is a bumper Budget. It is a bumper Budget for us all—all except, I think, the Labour Party. That is the only group, I think, that does not believe that this is a good Budget.

I think this Budget needs to be seen in the context of a growing economy. That does not come about just through good luck; that comes about through good management. That is particularly at a Government level, but I think we also need to acknowledge all those business people who are hard-working, and all their staff and employees who work in those businesses, earn those incomes, and provide and make those goods and services for New Zealand. But, unlike with some of our political opponents, that requires teamwork, and this Budget is about sharing the benefits of the growth with many.

I think that if we reflect on last year, 137,000 new jobs were created in New Zealand—137,000 jobs that provided opportunities for young people, for people who have been out of work, to get into gainful employment and build the self-respect that comes with having a job. As a result, we have delivered increasing Budget surpluses. We had the 1.8—last year. And we are going to have an increased Budget surplus this year. The reason this is so important is that it creates the opportunity, the money, to invest in a whole range of things.

I just heard that previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, say that it is a pitiful amount and that we are not doing enough. Well, I disagree with that. If you think about the $500 million that has gone into policing, with 880 new sworn officers over the 4 years—

Sarah Dowie: How many?

ANDREW BAYLY: 880 sworn officers, with 245 specialists who are going to be focusing just on solving crime. I think that is really important. In my area of Hunua, Counties Manukau is going to see the benefit of another 91 new police officers.

In addition, $11 billion was announced for new spending, additional spending, on infrastructure, motorways, and roads. Of course, I am benefiting in my area from the triple-laning of the Southern Motorway. Investment in rail—I know the member opposite will be particularly keen about this, with the investment in the City Rail Link and with what we are doing in Wellington. Hospitals all around the country have been progressively done up with massive spending. And schools—in my area, I am lucky to have had two new schools announced. I have had Ormiston Junior College come on board, and also, very recently, the Flat Bush is going to get a new school.

Then there is the record investment in health: $3.9 billion. Part of that, of course, is that just settlement with care workers—very important, just, appropriate, and good to see. Of course, I have many of those places in my electorate. The substantial increase in the operating budgets of the district health boards—I think the Opposition has not been clear about this, but I want to just remind people that it is a massive improvement. What I particularly like about the health budget, in my area, is the $52 million that is going to go into double-crewing of ambulances in little places like Waiuku—some of you may know where that is. A little place like Waiuku, in the bottom of my electorate, is likely to see the benefit of double-crewing of ambulances. I was actually talking to someone about it yesterday. Then there is the $220 million that is going into mental health—a troubling issue for us all. We have had issues in my electorate, and I am particularly grateful and happy that we put that money into it.

Then there is housing. We heard that good speech from the Hon Amy Adams earlier today, with 34,000 new homes over the next 10 years in Auckland—34,000 new homes. In my electorate I have got, over the next 5 years, approximately 13,000 sections coming to the market—13,000 sections.

This now brings me to the issue around the Family Incomes Package. As we know, we have got the three elements that we have talked about—a $2 billion package—and these are going to deliver huge benefits for New Zealand. There are 1.34 million families who are going to benefit, along with 750,000 superannuitants because of the lower tax rates, and 41,000 university students because of the changes in the accommodation supplement. I think this is a great Budget, I really do. I think this is going a long way to addressing the vulnerable people in our society, creating opportunities for people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity—Mr Bayly was starting to eat into my 5 minutes. I wanted to have the opportunity to speak today because this is a fantastic Budget—a Budget that delivers for all New Zealanders. We are the Government of infrastructure, the party for education, and the party for health. National is seeing the stewardship of a strong, stable, growing economy, a stable political environment, and the Opposition cannot grasp that—that we have made choices based on the success of the economy, of all of those who participate in it. Over the last 3 years there have been 200,000 jobs created, low unemployment, and more people experiencing higher incomes. This is the landscape that gives us choices.

The Government is New Zealand’s infrastructure Government. We are seeing huge investment into schools, hospitals, housing, roads, railways, ultra-fast broadband, and broadband. Southern District Health Board (DHB) is experiencing a $31 million increase this year, bringing total Budget spending on Southern DHB to $914 million. Over the last 9 years this Government has invested an additional $223 million into funding for Southern DHB.

Everyone is sharing in the benefits of a growing economy. Everyone supports this Budget except for the Labour Party. The Labour Party voted against tax cuts. The Labour Party voted against helping the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Labour voted against people earning more than $22,000 a year being $11 a week better off. The Labour Party voted against people earning more than $52,000 being more than $20 better off. Labour voted against around 750,000 superannuitants, and it voted against over 41,000 students benefiting from the Family Incomes Package. That is disgraceful. We are the Government that has handed more benefits from the growing economy to those very people who are the success of our economy. The Labour Party voted against a more prosperous and a better New Zealand. The Labour Party voted against around 60,000 fewer children living in families receiving less than half of the median wage—that is what they did by voting against these tax cuts, and that is shameful.

Education has experienced huge benefits from this Budget, and it is worth acknowledging the Hon Hekia Parata and the Hon Nikki Kaye, who have worked tirelessly to deliver a $1.1 billion injection of new operating funding over the next 4 years into education. The largest ever investment into education has been delivered by this Government. If I was the Labour Party, and claimed to be the beneficiaries and the stewards of the education sector, I would be embarrassed. I would be embarrassed that I voted against education spending, I would be embarrassed that I have not supported those very people who benefit from the increase in education spending.

Take South Canterbury Principals’ Association president Jane Culhane: “We’re absolutely thrilled that there’s been an increase in operational grants”. Take John Paul College principal Patrick Walsh: “It’s largely a thumbs up to the budget, by and large it appears the Government has finally listened to what the sector needs and have responded.” These sector representatives are impressed with the Budget; they are supportive of it. Take principal Phil Palfrey from Kaitao Intermediate: “I am also impressed with the money going to early childhood education.” This is the largest ever increase into early childhood education, and the Labour Party voted against it. Listen to Anna Simmons, a nurse and a mother of two: “The education investment is really important, I have two young children and I want to see them have the best start in life.”

This is absolutely fantastic. We have talked about the early childhood education investment increases, and the universal increase to operational grant funding and targeted funding has been the largest ever—$60.5 million over 4 years will be used to boost schools’ operational grant funding by 1.3 percent in 2018. Over $450 million of additional operating funding for the next 4 years will go into our schools. This is the largest ever increase into Vote Education, and for the 100,000 people who work across our communities, within our communities across this country, they are experiencing a Government that is listening to what they see as being beneficial to them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Having listened to that member, Todd Barclay, you could be forgiven for thinking you were at kindergarten listening to show-and-tell. That person had the biggest, the brightest, the shiniest thing you have ever seen and it is Budget 2017. The fact of the matter is that the budgets that we should be talking about are the budgets of everyday New Zealanders, people who are struggling to make ends meet and are listening to this debate and saying: “This is so far disconnected from my reality. How is this really helping me at home?”.

Think about those on fixed incomes. Where will their extra $5.13 a week go? Probably, actually, on bills. It is not discretionary income. It is not the kind of extra, added, bit on top, to afford that little bit extra, or something different. Actually it is going on maintaining the status quo, and that is the reality of people who are managing budgets on a day-to-day basis, being responsible, and struggling to make ends meet because the cost of living is increasing. It is just getting, overall, much harder.

Yes, Labour did vote against the Budget, which delivers tax cuts to those earning more. They get more—very simple. But those who are on lower incomes, fixed incomes, working a couple of jobs, are getting less. It is simple arithmetic. Why would we accept that? And sure, you could have the argument that you get something now, and a little bit is something, but when it is going on maintaining the status quo, not even helping people to get ahead, that indicates that the Budget creates a further structural inequality that we just cannot accept and will not accept—we cannot accept and will not accept. That is an important difference, for anyone listening to the Budget debate, about Labour’s position—a hard decision. Labour is the only party that voted against the Budget that has delivered something. But that was because we believed that that “something” was simply not enough—simply not enough.

I have heard the debate in the House today, and it boils down to a number of simple things. Families are struggling, and that has created a number of challenges. But if we look to some of those things that are creating pressure in our communities, we cannot ignore the issue of housing. Whether it is homelessness, the insufficient provision of State houses, the inability to get the priority ranking to go into those State houses, or private rental markets driving up the affordability for people looking even within their own home town for a rental—these are the types of pressures that people are feeling on a day-to-day basis.

Take a young woman whom I spoke to just yesterday. Her husband is working—fantastic. She is so proud. He has been given a job, albeit under the 90-day situation. They are fluctuating hours—anything from 30 hours in a week to 80 hours in a week. They have one child who is 5 and is going to school. She is very proud about that. She is proud about her husband working to support her and her child.

The thing is there is no housing availability where she lives, so she went into Work and Income to see whether she could get assessed to be in a Housing New Zealand house. But because they have a fluctuating income, they have insecure work—no, they are not eligible. She rings me, desperate: “Can you help?”. Well, we will try to help, but here is the reality for her. Housing New Zealand is under pressure and overloaded in the system, the private rental market is actually ratcheting up the cost for people who are struggling, and it is very difficult for them to get in, so that extra accommodation supplement will be sucked out by landlords, and the rental market in itself in many small communities is actually insufficient to deal with the growing demand. These are the realities that people are working with.

Take another girl who came into my office. She is looking after two of her children and a kaumātua. From week to week she is grateful for the support that she gets from Work and Income to be able to be in a hotel, because it is better than being in a car. But every week, when she has to go and renew that amount from Work and Income, she has to pack up all her gear, go into the office, get the approval, and then go back to the hotel, which hopefully has not let the room—with a kaumātua. Now that just simply cannot be right, can it? Is this the kind of Budget that delivers to the most vulnerable? Is it? Is this the kind of Budget whereby we can be in this House and claim that it is the biggest, the brightest, the shiniest thing going and it is helping the most vulnerable? I do not think we can.

So we need to be responsible in terms of the way in which we ensure that the structural inequalities of a system do not put those who are at the top of the tree further up the tree, and those who are down at the bottom, right into the ground. That type of structural inequality is the reason why I came to Parliament. I do not think it is good enough, and I think we need to re-prioritise where the emphasis of a Budget should go.

And this is a hard debate. It is not an ideological debate now. We are at a tipping point in New Zealand where crisis exists in the mental health system. We cannot ignore it. Young people are not supported in the community unless they present with acute mental health symptoms, and then if they do, and pass the test, they go into an acute service and are medicated. Actually, what they would have needed probably is respite care and a specialist adolescent service to be able to help them. The system is broken. It is not getting fixed by the biggest, brightest, shiniest Budget that is being promoted today. It cannot be the case.

I went to the A & E department at Waikato Hospital. It just so happened it was the day when the crisis team was called. A woman fainted in the aisle and everybody came out and tried to help her. Within a period of about an hour you had at least 50 people going through A & E. Many of them were sent from their GP service to go into the hospital service. What is that indicating? The system is broken. So there is structural damage being done to our society in the way in which Budget priorities are being set, and if we do not do something about it, this is only ever, ever, ever going to get worse. Should we tolerate that? No. Should we try to do something about it and have a constructive discussion in this House about the way in which Budget priorities are set—that it is actually OK for those who are earning a lot not to be given a tax cut—so that we can reorient the priorities into the areas that are going to give the most benefit to those who need it?

I wish that we were speaking on a Budget where we were talking about building more State houses, to relieve pressure on the system, beyond Auckland, out into the provinces, out to where I know that many of our communities are looking to the types of regional economic development opportunities that keep people in their community and keep their young people in their community.

I wish we were talking about a Budget that ensured that when we invest in education we are investing in the operational grants that really help the core of what makes the system work, so that parents are not stressing out about having to fund-raise for some of the core things that schools need to have to keep a good education system and learning environment thriving.

I wish we were talking about a Budget that ensured that those children aged between 16 and 24 who are classified as not in education, employment, or training are able to be supported into positive pathways. The simple fact of the matter is there are far too many—around about 30 percent in our region—in that category, and if they continue to not optimise their full potential through any pathway, they are headed for the “big house”, where there is a significant investment by this Government, in Te Awamutu, and I do not want that to happen.

I wish that we were talking about the kind of Budget that simply restored equity, and that restored the kind of equity that meant it was OK, actually, for those at the top of the tree to kind of come down a bit so that those on the ground, in the dirt, can lift their sights higher. We restore the balance. That is the type of society I want to see. That is the type of show-and-tell that, I think, is a useful one to have in this House. It is not about the biggest, the brightest, the shiniest thing going; it is actually about ensuring that we get the priorities of this country right, so that everybody can benefit.

The last thing I want to talk about is simply this: when we think about opportunities for regional economic development let us spare a thought for our community providers, our non-governmental organisations, and our faith-based organisations that are picking up the slack right now, because people are struggling. They will do it because they have always done it. They will do it on a shoestring. They would do it on the end of the shoestring, because they know it needs to be done. If we really wanted to build the type of society that not only fills the gap but thrives most where there is support, it is in this space. And I do not think that they got the support they needed in this Budget.

It is a shame that we are not talking about the Budget I really want to talk about. It is not about the biggest, the brightest, and the shiniest; it is about getting the priorities in the right place.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I would like to start first of all by thanking the speaker for her comments on the Budget. I would also like to congratulate Minister Joyce on this first Budget of his. I think it is a very good Budget, and I think it is a very good Budget because it does what it says it is going to do: it delivers for all New Zealanders. It has a particular emphasis on some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders. Our Government has always been focused on growing the economy. We are focused on growing the economy because that means people can get jobs, and we know that when people have jobs they do not have to be on a benefit any longer. We know that in the last few years 50,000 more young people are not living in a family that is on a benefit. So we unashamedly want to grow our economy to grow jobs. What has happened in the last few years is that by growing this economy we have been able to deliver a better quality of life and better well-being for New Zealanders.

What I would like to talk about today is about disabled people, because disabled people often tend to be some of our most vulnerable, and also about Cantabrians, who have had a pretty rough time over the last 6 years, as well. Of course, the centre of this Budget is the $2 billion a year Family Incomes Package. That is really important, because that will ensure that Kiwi families—every Kiwi family—can share in the benefits of the growth of this economy. What that Budget package does is it makes changes to tax thresholds. It also makes changes to Working for Families, and it makes changes to the accommodation supplement.

The accommodation supplement is something that has been under pressure for the last few years, and it will make a significant difference to help Kiwi families get ahead. This Family Incomes Package has been carefully designed especially to help low and middle income families, particularly those with young children and particularly those who have high housing costs. I can give you an example of that. For example, if you take a family in Christchurch with three children, if both parents are working but perhaps on a pretty minimal wage, this package will deliver over $100 a week to them. That is $5,000 a year, which can make a significant difference to that family’s life. It really shows that the benefits of managing the economy well, growing the economy, and trading with the rest of the world can deliver for all New Zealanders.

I would like just to take a minute or two to talk about disability and disabled people. This Budget invests an extra $205 million over 4 years to maintain and improve Disability Support Services. The sector will get this extra funding, and it will mean that in 2017-18, this coming year, we will be spending $1.2 billion on Disability Support Services. It is a large amount of money, but it has to cover quite a lot of services. For example, it will support community-based home support, when people come into the house of a disabled person and look after them at home, to keep them safe and secure in their own homes. It also pays for personal carers. Some of our disabled people have to have people come into their homes a couple of times a day to help them with their personal care, to make sure that they can get out of bed, get looked after, get showered, and be fresh for the rest of the day. It also helps with caregiver support and residential care, and also that money will help with some equipment services. Those equipment services can often make a big difference to a disabled person’s life.

This money is on top of the $1.6 billion for carers, and that is particularly significant for disabled people because the relationship a disabled person has with a carer who may come into their home a couple of times a day is very close. They have been telling me for a long time that they feel that they should get a higher wage, and they are pleased to see that, and they are also pleased to see that they have a greater opportunity for more education and training, because some of our disabled people really do have some complex caring situations. So this money will support 32,000 New Zealanders and their families, and make sure they can get the services that they need across New Zealand.

One of the most exciting things about this Budget for me is the $27 million investing in Enabling Good Lives. Enabling Good Lives is about ensuring that disabled people have more choices and more control in their lives, and more choice and control over the services that the Government delivers for them. It is really about giving them more opportunities to live a good life, because disabled people just want to live a life, like anybody else. We know that the current system does not work well for all disabled people, and so we are working towards developing a new system that is based on the Enabling Good Lives principles and visions. That will include individualised funding. Right at this moment the Government is working with a co-design group to work out the changes that can be made and what they will include.

The sorts of things that they will be including are access to independent facilitation. We talk about independent facilitators as maybe a navigator or a tūhono. These are people who will work with a disabled person to make them think about what a good life would look like for them, and then also work with them to develop networks so that they can feel connected to their community. It will have a strengths-based assessment process, and that is really important, because that is about focusing on what disabled people can do, rather than what they cannot do, and making sure that we give them the opportunities that they can enjoy. It will also have a personal budget for disability support, and that budget could be funded from several Government agencies. It could be Health, it could be Education, it could be, perhaps, ACC. Because it is funded for multiple agencies, it has more flexibility and choice. Also, we must make sure that the way we deliver that flexibility and choice is matched to the individual, as well. Some people will be able to manage that themselves, and other people will need to have a management system around it, as well.

We are going to make sure that there is some capacity building for the disabled people themselves and their families, and that is so that they can make the most of these opportunities that are coming their way. Finally, there are referrals to other agencies. This is for additional services, a type of social investment approach where there may be a service or a good that can be bought, one-off, that will improve the quality of life.

The transformation of the service is first going to be focused on the middle of the North Island, for people who get Disability Support Services around the Palmerston North area, but, with the excitement and the energy and the looking forward to this co-design process, we are hoping that we can roll that out across the country further. I am really looking forward to seeing the results that they come out of the process with, because they are very aware that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the way we deliver disability services. These services are really important to disabled people. The way that the public thinks about disabled people has changed enormously over the last 20 years, and therefore the services must reflect that.

I would also just like to make couple of comments about Christchurch. This Budget gives a wide range of further investments for Christchurch and Canterbury, and of course that is on top of the $19 billion that has already gone there since the post-earthquake period. But there are a couple of unique things I would like to draw to your attention. The first is $812 million for the reinstatement of the State highway between Picton and Christchurch. This is enormously important for Christchurch and Canterbury. It connects us to the rest of the South Island, and it is important for everybody who is along that road. We want to make sure that people can travel up and back across the South Island, but also that our tourists can come there and support our businesses in the area.

A second thing that is important in Christchurch is $9.6 million for investment into our Antarctic programme. Of course, Christchurch is the gateway to Antarctica. We work with several different projects down there. We have the Americans, we have the Italians, and we do science backwards and forwards. It is a very important part of the Christchurch and the Canterbury economy. So that is to support science going further to Antarctica.

The third thing I would just like to comment on is nearly $5 million for the Port Hills fires. We seem to have had every disaster in our area—earthquakes and fires—and therefore we need to fund for that.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am very, very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill. I want to pick up on something that Minister Wagner has just said in her contribution. It is to do with Canterbury and the rebuild there, and the much-touted figure that the Government talks about having put—$11 billion, or $15 billion, or whatever it is—into the rebuild of Canterbury. Well, the question in my mind is: what happened to the $15 billion of overseas reinsurance that the Earthquake Commission (EQC) was supposed to have and is meant to have come in and is meant to have covered that? It seems to me that this Government is very good at coming up with Canterbury as an excuse for soaking up lots and lots of money when, in fact, that money should have been—and we were led to believe it was—coming in from overseas. So that is a genuine question that I have.

I turn to the Budget itself, and what a weak, watery, insipid offering we have been served up with this, Steven Joyce’s first and last Budget. When I look at these meagre offerings, I am given to wonder who it was who actually had the first turn with the teabag, because these appropriations that New Zealand has been given—honestly, it is very much like a watery second cup of tea out of the same bag. I wonder whether the Government saved the first turn of the teabag for an event that may be happening in Epsom—who knows—really quite soon.

Todd Muller: Focus. Focus.

RICHARD PROSSER: I am focused, sir. This Budget will be much less memorable for what is in it than for what is not in it, and it is not a visionary Budget. It is not an aspirational Budget, unless of course you take aspirational as meaning aspirating—in other words, it is gasping for breath. It is choking to death. It is not a visionary, forward-looking Budget. It is a classic, steady as she goes, election year Budget—slightly less than more of the same.

There are a few lollies in there, but no grand vision and no great plan. Steven Joyce has not indicated that he has this marvellous agenda for taking the nation forward—so, actually, it is fortunate that he is not going to have to. What will happen is that on the morning of 24 September, the nation will wake up to the glorious news that Winston Peters is the new Prime Minister. We will then set about repairing the economy. Now, before the Nats on the backbenches get too despondent—and they have every cause for being despondent, because in a little over 4 months’ time a good number of them are going to be adding to the ranks of the unemployed—fortunately for them, at least according to Mr Joyce, those ranks are diminishing, so job prospects may be out there for the myriad dozens of National backbenchers who end up getting dumped at the election, partly as a result of this Budget.

There are some good things in this Budget—before they get too despondent, there are some good things—and the Family Incomes Package is one of those good things, in a relative sense. That is why New Zealand First supported it. It is going to be short-term welcome relief for those families who are struggling to make ends meet on low and middle incomes and who are struggling to pay rent. So it is a very welcome and necessary coat of paint over the rust, which, as I had mentioned earlier in the week, has to last only about 4 months, and that is great. Then we will come in and sort it out. So the accommodation supplement—

Todd Muller: Stop now.

RICHARD PROSSER: Listen carefully, Mr Muller, and you will learn. The accommodation supplement increase is probably the greater part of that beneficial effect, such that it is within the tax package. It is a necessary thing for people to be able to pay rents that are too high. But what this Budget does not do, and what it could have done, is address some of the reasons why those rents are too high in the first place. Rents in New Zealand are too high, the way that house prices are too high, because there is simply too much pressure on the available stock.

You can beat around this bush as much as you like, but it does not get away from the unavoidable reality that a significant proportion of the overpricing in our housing market, and, following on from that, the overpricing in our rental market, is down to foreign ownership. That is because we do not place any restrictions on who can come into this country—well, not even come into this country; they do not even have to come here. Anyone from anywhere in the world can ring up or get online and buy houses, as many of them as they want, sight unseen, in New Zealand; people with access to virtually unlimited money at virtually zero interest. So there is no restriction. When you have an unrestricted ability in a market that has a limited supply—when you have an unrestricted ability to purchase—then the market will rise to meet that demand. That is patently obvious. It does not matter what the Government says—the truth of the matter is that an enormous proportion of the overpricing, both in housing and in rentals, is down to foreign ownership.

The Budget could have addressed that, and it did not. In other jurisdictions there are punitive taxes and there are stamp duties applied. In the parts of the world where they do allow foreigners to buy property, there are stamp duties and various taxes applied to foreigners who purchase property. In that sense, the nation that is selling off its land from under its feet—in the way that we tend to do in this country—does get something of a fiscal return for it. This Budget did not address that.

The accommodation supplement will go some way to plugging the hole in people’s weekly budgets, which has come about because rents are too high, and the Labour Opposition is quite correct in saying that that accommodation supplement will end up in the pockets of landlords. Yes, that is what happens with rent. That is where it goes. So, in a sense, through increasing this accommodation supplement, yes, we are assisting families, but we are also assisting what are, in many cases, foreign owners to pay off the mortgages that they have taken out with foreign banks to buy houses in our country. We do not just allow them to purchase property in this country; we pretty much pay them to take it. This Budget could have addressed that, but it did not.

It is not just houses that are affected. Land is being sold off to foreigners in all senses. Forests are going. Farms are going. Landcorp, the Government’s own State-owned farmer, is selling off farms to the Chinese without even going through the Overseas Investment Office (OIO). When it does go through the OIO, it is simply a rubber stamp. All of this affects the bottom line of the nation. The Government talks about it being investment. It is not investment. It is plain and simple change of ownership. That is all. In the case of productive farmland, and in the case of rental housing, it is actually worse than that, because not only does the ownership change but the profits that come from the farming operation, and the profits that take the form of rent that is paid, go offshore as well. And we wonder why we are struggling. We wonder why this country is struggling to raise GDP. We wonder why we are struggling to raise incomes in a relative international sense.

The banks claim that there is lots of confidence out there. Well, I am not surprised that the banks have confidence. The banks are all foreign-owned as well, and they are creaming billions of dollars a year in profits that also disappear offshore. This Budget does not do anything to address that. They pay very little in the way of tax, like the other foreign corporates.

This Budget could have been visionary. It could have looked forward. It could have looked at tax settings and the ways in which tax settings can be used to enrich a nation. When we take the increase in family incomes and the accommodation supplement, yes, the tax changes could see families on low and middle incomes being better off by $30, $40 a week—$100, maybe—with the supplement. If we were to take GST off food, that would maybe, out of a $300 weekly grocery bill, give those families another $45 in the hand. Yes, that would cost the Government about $3 billion in lost revenue, but apply that against the fact that large foreign corporations currently are avoiding paying about $10 billion in tax, which they would be required to pay anywhere else in the world.

We seem to be kowtowing to veiled threats that the likes of Facebook and the likes of Google will pull out of the New Zealand market if they are required to pay their fair share of tax. That simply will not happen. We need to call their bluff. Companies of that sort are not going to walk away from a First World market with 5 million people. They will pay their share, as they are being required to pay it in other First World nations like Australia, which is cracking down on them.

Too much of what this country sends offshore still goes out with most of the value contained in it. A progressive tax system put in place by a Government with a vision for the future could do something to address that. If we look at the number of logs that go out from our wharves every day, every week, and every month, with most of the value still contained in them—value that is going to be extracted by foreign companies, foreign sawmills, and jobs for foreign workers—that trade could be arrested by a visionary and progressive taxation system that this Budget could have put in place to make it unviable for people, for forest owners and for cutting-rights owners, to send logs offshore in an unprocessed form. But we did not see any of that. We saw a visionless Budget from a finance Minister who does not have a future, and in about 3½ months’ time all that is going to change. Thank you.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I like Richard Prosser, because he is a principled man—he is a principled man. He is a man who stands for his principles, and with his party members he stands for the things they believe in. They are principled because the things that they disagree with they will vote against, whether it be around changing the flag, whether it be around Whānau Ora, or whether it be around issues around Treaty claims, and so forth. But, in this case, Mr Prosser and New Zealand First members drank the cup of tea that they talked about. They drank the cup of tea because it was strong enough, and it was enough to give some relief to New Zealanders, and they were there. So I thank Mr Prosser. I thank New Zealand First. I thank the Greens and all the other parties that voted for it. They may not have agreed with all of the Budget, but they certainly felt that there was enough in there to give some relief. It was a cup of tea that would give some relief to the families and to those communities out there, to give them a difference. So Mr Prosser, thank you, and I appreciate the support that you have given to this Budget.

Mr Assistant Speaker, fa’afetai mo le avanoa. It is Samoan Language Week. I just want to acknowledge that up and down the country many aoga amata—Samoan language nests—are celebrating Samoan Language Week, so as the Minister for Pacific Peoples I want to acknowledge the importance of Samoan Language Week.

It was post-Budget when I was up in Auckland speaking at a Pacific business and providers post-Budget breakfast. One of the things I talked about when relating to the Budget was that it is similar to when we think about a normal household, where people in the household will go out, they will work hard to make sure that there are enough resources that are inside the house to be able to pay for the things that matter most to those in the household—to the family members, for those who are present there—like the things that are important around education, so that the children who are there and the young people have access to good education and the opportunities and the pathways that it provides. There are issues around health, for instance—I talked about how in the Budget it is important for us to think about those things that are important around health—and around employment. So the analogy that I gave was that the importance of the Budget was, in a sense, no different to a household where people have worked hard to make sure that they have sufficient in there to meet the needs that are there for them and their family as well.

So I am proud that this Budget is entitled “Delivering for New Zealanders”. Previous Budgets have been called “Working for New Zealanders”. So it is showing that, as a Government, not only have we worked hard for New Zealanders, as in other New Zealand households, but now we are delivering for the things that matter most to New Zealanders up and down the country—things, for instance, around public services and the investment through this Budget that we are making in public services.

The way that I explained that was that under this Government we have made sure that when we think about public services we are actually saying, first and foremost, that if we are going to ask for change, and help other families and other communities to change, we need to ask that of ourselves first, as a Government and as the departments that are there as well. Under public services and Better Public Services targets is where the Government is saying: “Let’s make sure that we’ve got our house in order. Let’s make sure that we’re doing the right things.” When we serve our community to deliver on the things that matter most, that is important.

The other part of the Budget is around record investment and infrastructure. For those of us who live in Auckland, we know what the challenge is in our roading—the infrastructure that we have there. For the first time, this is a Government that has committed a serious amount of investment—over $11 billion over 4 or 5 years—to invest in infrastructure up and down the country. That investment is not only in that, but there is also previous investment around the Housing Infrastructure Fund as well. So this is a Government that is delivering—and through this Budget—on record investment in infrastructure.

This is a Government that wants to improve the resilience of our country and future shocks. Mr Prosser was talking about Christchurch, but it is not just Christchurch. Let us think about Kaikōura as well. We all know the cost there is to ensure—when these incidents happen, these tragedies that happen at times in our country, then we need to know that we have got enough to ensure—that we can cater for those needs as well, and also too, just recently, with Edgecumbe.

The last thing around the four elements of this strong economy and this Budget is that it is strengthening families by lifting their incomes. This is significant because it also continues on the theme, as I said, with previous Budgets, where it is working for families. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. She talked about, when we talk about the Budget here, what it does actually mean for those who are actually at home, in our communities, now thinking: “So how does that make a difference?”. We can now say this: over 154,000 low-income families will benefit by an average of $35 a week. That is $1,800 a year under the Family Incomes Package, and that is really significant.

Let us think about that, and I wanted to give a few details and think about how we can maybe drill that down to some of the families whom we are working with. So I decided to get some examples, and there is a tax calculator that people can work on. So let us take an example, for instance, that there is a family of five. They could be in west Auckland—in Henderson. There is a mum and dad, and both are first-generation Kiwis wanting to show their three kids the importance of hard work. They are both working. Dad is a labourer and mum works part-time. Together they bring in a modest wage of $52,000 and pay $420 a week rent for a three-bedroom house.

The changes in the Budget are designed to help families just like them. The changes to tax thresholds and the family tax credit will mean that this family will get an additional $67.70 in their pockets every week to spend on the things they care about. But that is not all. Not only that but our changes to the accommodation supplement mean this family will be better off by almost $135 a week. So that is the Budget that we can see that happens in the homes and the communities. And I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, because she said: “How does that make a difference?”. So I wanted to take some time to work through that.

Let us take another example, for instance. People may be asking, in our communities: “What about other examples?”. So let us take a single mum. She is 27 and has two young boys aged 5 and 3. She is no longer with her husband—she is on her own; she is a single mum—but is doing everything she can to be a good role model for her kids. She works 25 hours a week as an office administrator and earns around about $19 an hour. She is hoping to do some accountancy studying once her youngest is in school. The changes to tax thresholds and family tax credit will mean that she gets an extra $46.83 every week to help out. She has been receiving $165 to help her with her accommodation supplement.

With the changes in the accommodation supplement, the recategorisation of the different areas is significant, which means that she will be better off to the tune of $134.83 every week under this Budget. I wanted to get down to that detail; I know it is in the weeds, but I think it is important. I think it is important so that people out in our community—everyday people—actually understand that this is what it is that is making a difference.

You can take it from us, but let us have a sense of what the response is of the people in the community—those who are working every day out there with those who are vulnerable and those who are in need as well. Here are some of the comments. They are from the chief executive officer of Community Housing Aotearoa, Scott Figenshow, and this is what he says: “We congratulate Government on the proposed changes to the Accommodation Supplement. Government’s message has been that investment in housing is an investment in good social outcomes. … This is a big investment and is long overdue. It shows real commitment to delivering for many low income Kiwis … We are pleased to see Government build on the success of the Housing First model by budgeting $16.5 million into these programmes for the next four years, and extending this over New Zealand. The $27 million investment into Māori housing over the next three to four years is also positive.”

These are the words from those who are experiencing that this Budget is a good Budget. This is a Budget that is meeting the needs of our community and is making a difference. I am going to read one more, because I think it is important. This is from the Invercargill & Districts Budget Advisory Service, and this is what it is saying: “An extra few bucks a week may be the difference to meet day-to-day living expenses and saving a little bit for things that don’t crop up every week, like car registration and school fees.” These are people who are working in housing and they are people who are working in budgeting, because they know that this is a Budget that makes a difference. We went from working for New Zealanders, and now we are delivering for New Zealanders. We know that in this Budget it is actually dealing with some of the things that are important.

I want to quickly make mention—because there was some concern around whether we are addressing the issues around housing. The Hon Amy Adams talked really clearly about how we have got a plan. The extra investment means that in Auckland alone, over the next 10 years it is 34,000 houses—social houses—that are being invested in there. The concern is also around homelessness. So people may have heard—the fact is that there is the extra investment of $16.5 million into the Housing First initiative, which has a proven track record. It is a programme that initiated in Canada, was piloted in the Waikato under The People’s Project, with the Wise Group, and that made a difference because there were over 274 chronic homeless, who, over the 2-year period, had a rate of retention to residency of 95.7 percent. That is significant because they know that when they can stabilise those conditions they can have a wraparound service that does meet their needs.

We on this side of the House—and I also want to acknowledge all of those others who voted for the Budget—recognise that for some it may not be the full-strength cup of tea, but it is enough to make a difference. We are proud of this Budget. It is delivering for all New Zealanders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Michael Wood—5 minutes.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): New Zealand is a good country. New Zealand is a very, very good country, and our people have so many strengths. They are decent, they are hard-working, they are resilient, and they have big aspirations. People in New Zealand have aspirations for themselves and for their families, but they also have aspirations for the communities that they live within.

One of the things we pride ourselves on in this country is that we are compassionate. We care about the people who are around us. We want everyone to have opportunities to succeed, not just ourselves. We have always been a country that has left the next generation better off than we are. Taking those strengths and those aspirations into account, what any Budget should do is look at the problems that we face as a country and build on those strengths and aspirations, to make this a better place for our communities and for the next generation.

I want, in my comments, to address in particular two areas in which this Budget has signally failed to offer any vision or any leadership in terms of our shared aspirations. The first is around our economic performance—it is around our economic performance. So much of our success is our country—our ability to raise prosperity, to share prosperity, and to deliver social services. To be a place where people want to live and where the next generation can do better is based around our economic performance, but as soon as you lift the hood on the economy, in this Budget, you see that not all is well.

Fran O’Sullivan wrote a column the other day, after the Budget. Fran is a straight shooter. She does not take sides. She goes to the data and she tells it straight. Here is what she said. This is her commentary on the Budget: “But in truth, we are failing as a nation when it comes to ensuring higher wages, productivity and exports. There is no realistic chance of the Government meeting its goal to lift exports to 40 per cent of GDP by 2025 …”, which was this Government’s goal when it did have some ambition, when it first came to office. There is nothing in this Budget—absolutely nothing in this Budget—that will change any of that.

She goes on to say “The lack of substantial growth in real wage rates is another failure.”, and that is evident in this Budget as well. It tells us, for example, that housing prices are still going to keep growing above wages in this country. Here’s something interesting—she says: “It is really quite disturbing that the Government is having to fund a massive increase in Working for Families tax credits and the level of the accommodation supplement simply because for many families their take-home pay packets are not sufficient to live on.”

A Budget and a Government with vision would be tackling this big problem. Let me say it here in this House: the problem of low wages and low productivity in this economy is not just this Government’s fault; it has been a 30-year long-running problem in our country. We have a Government here that has had 9 years. We have got a Government that does have surpluses. We have got a Government that says itself it has got options to make this a better place. We see nothing in this Budget to address any of those issues around our productivity, which is the fourth-lowest in the OECD, and around real incomes, which so many people are struggling on, and we are now having to subsidise, to the tune of billions and billions of dollars.

The extra tax cut that I get in my pocket, as a result of this Budget, will be helpful, and it will be helpful for some other people. But when we face so many social deficits, whether they are in health, in education, or in mental health—and I am sure members of the House read the report this morning from the Auditor-General, telling us that people who leave mental health wards are being discharged not into better care, not to family members, but are sometimes sent to caravan parks because there is no other accommodation available.

This is a Budget that could have done so much more. It is a Budget that is tactical and political, and maybe on those terms it is a clever Budget. Maybe the members opposite feel a little bit proud about that and think it will help them a little bit come 23 September. I am not so sure about that. But the people of New Zealand deserve better than a clever and tactical and political Budget. They deserve a Budget with some vision. They deserve a Budget with some fresh ideas on housing, health, education, and fixing our infrastructure in Auckland. Believe me, building more roads in Auckland is not a fresh approach, and it is not going to fix anything like the traffic problems that we have in Auckland. We actually need some serious investment and game-changing investment in public transport, and there was not really a drop of that in the Budget.

We deserve vision in this Budget. We do not have it, and I certainly will not be voting for it. I want to see a fresh approach in our country. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Louisa Wall—5 minutes.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Talofa. Tautoko Vaiaso o le Gagana Sāmoa.

[Greetings. I support Samoan Language Week.]

It is Samoan Language Week, and hopefully I have not hashed it too much. But I really just wanted to pay my respects to our Samoan community. I really want to start with a focus on the Budget tax cuts. In a lot of the speeches across the House, there was an emphasis on reward—that this Government was going to reward people, was going to reward individuals, was going to reward families by giving them tax cuts because they have earned them. You reward someone in recognition of their service, their effort, and their achievement. So I want to congratulate the Government, on behalf of Susan St John and the Child Poverty Action Group, because what the Budget has done is lift about 50,000 children who live in severe poverty out of poverty. So congratulations—50,000 children have been elevated out of poverty through your Budget measures.

But, in highlighting that, I want to say that there are another 150,000 children who get nothing. Who are these children? Why are they not being rewarded for being citizens of our country? Why are they not being cared for, to the value of everyone else? Because, actually, they are beneficiary children. They come from beneficiary families, and this Budget has absolutely ignored them and continues to entrench the poverty that they are living in. So congratulations—150,000 children continue to live in severe hardship.

I really want to focus on the education budget, and it is really relevant because this week I found out that, of the 214 schools that are overcrowded in New Zealand, five of them are in Manurewa. Rowandale School has 127 percent capacity. It is 27 percent overcrowded. Clendon Park School 119 percent overcrowding; Finlayson Park School 117 percent overcrowding; in addition to Hōmai Primary School and Manurewa East School.

In Rowandale School’s case, it needs six new classrooms. It is interesting because of where Rowandale School is and where Clendon Park School is—and this is the only other aspect of the Budget and some of the announcements that the Government has made that I can say thank you for, because, at the moment, the Government has removed over 200 Housing New Zealand houses. In my community, I have got 300 families on the waiting list. The Government has removed over 200, but it has said to me that it is giving us between 600 and 800 more. We just have to wait. I have said to officials: “How long do we have to wait? One year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years?”. Very soon I am going to have another 600 to 800 State houses around those schools. So I am just wondering how many extra classrooms Rowandale School and Clendon Park School are going to need and how long it is going to take for them to be serviced.

I want to highlight Linda Stewart’s contribution to this whole discussion about how much extra funding has been received. So there is $60.5 million in operational grants over 4 years, and 4 percent of schools with the most at-risk students are going to get another $2 per child, per year. So that $60.5 million over 4 years should be seen in the context of an annual need of $50 million. So, in fact, again it is a bit of a “Thanks for the $60 million, but actually we need $200 million.”

The other issue with the education budget is that it is not even catching up with inflation pressures. We had the Post Primary Teachers’ Association President Jack Boyle say that there is going to be some extra funding, particularly in the school property area, but that is at 1.3 percent, as opposed to the 2.6 percent in inflation. So, in fact, the money you have given to education—again, thank you for 50 percent of the need, but actually there is a whole lot of unmet need in that area.

What I really want to conclude with is that there is a lot of poverty in our communities. There is a lot of stress on our families. But there is also stress on the public servants who are serving our communities. I have just highlighted one: our school communities. Actually, I think there are some health and safety issues at the schools under these circumstances. Teachers are stressed, schools are stressed, everybody is stressed, and think there is a looming disaster. We already know our suicide statistics are horrendous, but the biggest challenge we have, actually, is retaining the workforce. It is not being supported to meet the demand. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Todd Muller, 5 minutes.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): On Sunday afternoon I was having a coffee at Henry & Ted in Papamoa, when in the space of 5 minutes three separate people whom I had not met in my electorate before—I did not know them—came up to me and offered their personal congratulations on the Budget we handed down last week. That was reinforced by the afternoon of doorknocking that followed. The feedback consistently was that this was a Budget that has genuinely delivered for many, many people in this country.

Firstly, I will talk about the economic platform. That has not really been covered in the debate I have heard thus far this afternoon. We have a GDP growth average for the next 5 years of 3.1 percent. It has been many, many years since any Government has been able to stand in this House and project that degree of economic stability and performance based on what we have achieved over the last few years, and it is a credit to this Government and its prudent financial management. In the last 3 years 200,000 jobs have been created, with another 215,000 over the next 4 years. We have low employment. It has dropped to just over 4 percent. We have one of the highest participation rates in the OECD.

In my community this is not aspirational rhetoric; this is real. On Wednesday the Bay of Plenty Times covered the establishment of the Rangiuru Business Park, one of the largest in the country, with an expectation that that will need another 4,000 jobs over the next 3 years. On Monday the Bay of Plenty Times highlighted that when you look at the current state of activity and the projection of that activity over the next 3 years, local businesses across a number of sectors have pointed to a need for a further 6,850 jobs in Tauranga, in the Western Bay, over the next 3 years. These are real jobs and real impacts on people and families and it is happening in my community, and I am proud to be part of a Government that is doing its part—only its part; it is a much wider, connected New Zealand effort, but we are playing our part in making that happen.

That, of course, needs a whole lot of infrastructure investment to continue to support that degree of activity. The numbers that we announced last week, quite frankly, are staggering. There is an additional $4 billion over the next year but $32.5 billion over the next 4 years. These numbers just roll off the tongue at one level, but when you actually look at the scale of the investment that is planned in this country over the next 4 years—roads, rail, hospitals, schools—we have not seen the likes of this building programme for a generation. This is Think Big in its relative context. If you look at the amount that was spent in a capital context back then, for the size of the economy, $32 billion of investment in underpinning infrastructure is of a similar scale and it should be acknowledged.

I would like to talk about the people, and my very good friend and colleague Alfred Ngaro spoke very passionately about the reality of what this means for individual families. I would like to talk a little bit about the $2 billion Family Incomes Package and what it means for Tauranga. Take, for example, a Bay of Plenty family, a family living in Tauranga, with three kids, renting for $520 a week, and the family brings in around $70,000 a year. Their tax reduces by $20 per week. Their Working for Families increases by $40 per week. The accommodation supplement increases by over $100 a week. That is a real difference for that family, and it deserves to be acknowledged, not shouted down in opprobrium. It deserves to be acknowledged.

Nanaia Mahuta mentioned earlier that this debate should be beyond ideology, but, with respect, when a Budget hands down an impact for a family in my electorate that is $160 in the hand more than what they have now, that is real, that is changing them, and it deserves to be acknowledged. For a single mum with two kids on $55,000, paying $520 a week, tax is down by $20 a week, Working for Families is up $20 a week, and the accommodation supplement is up well over $100 a week. Why? Because Tauranga and the surrounds of that city have moved from the lower area of support to area No. 1, so the highest amount of accommodation supplement is now on the table for my community.

These are significant impacts, and it is why I can stand here with huge pride around how we have managed the economy over the last 8 years. As Alfred Ngaro said, we have focused on working with, and for, families and now, on the basis of a strong economic platform, we can assist more and more families. Last year we lifted benefits for the first time in 40 years. This year it is $2 billion for those who most need it. Next year I am sure that the National Government, with its economic focus, will deliver even more. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Alastair Scott—5 minutes.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): This Budget has been enabled by a growing economy. That is the prerequisite to everything that has been announced in the Budget. People slide 3.5 percent off the back of their tongue and do not really consider what that means. Three point five percent means that there are more people in work today than ever before, working on behalf of their families and communities, and paying tax, which brings about surpluses—surpluses that enable us to have choice. Just only a few years ago the Government’s books were essentially at break-even.

The 2017-18 year will see $2.9 billion in surplus, rising to $7.2 billion in 2021. That is a result of a growing and strong economy, and I just want to re-emphasise that that is a prerequisite to having any of these announcements that we are talking about today. We have the highest employment rate ever, at almost 70 percent of those over 15 years of age. We have more apprentices in the economy than ever before, enjoying what is just the beginning of a construction boom. You cannot find plumbers, apprentices, or painters anywhere in the Wairarapa electorate, let alone in Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch. It is important to recognise that those surpluses are what will be paying for the extra cops, the new classrooms, and the better hospitals that we deserve as a community.

We must continue to maintain the momentum that has been built by this Government. I would like to, at this point, acknowledge the support of New Zealand First and the Greens as well as our expected coalition partners, in support of the family tax package. In other words, everyone in this House, except for Labour, is supportive of supporting those who are least well off—those who are struggling with their accommodation and those who receive Working for Families, and that part of the Budget is absolutely targeted at those who are less well off.

Just ask those guys across the House—that is why they are supporting it. And that is why Labour members are struggling to find something to oppose in this Budget, because in their hearts they know that this Budget is affecting those who are least well off. So 50,000—Minister Tolley has updated it; 60,000 children are affected directly by this Budget, by the combination of those three things I have just mentioned, by bringing them above what is one measure of child poverty, and that is those children who are living in a household that receives half of the average or median income. About a third of those kids who were below that line are now above it. That is a huge improvement in the standard of living for those at the bottom of the pile.

We are always going to have a bottom 10 percent, but it is important to acknowledge and recognise that those people at the bottom—the bottom 10 percent, let us say, or 5 percent—are far, far better off when the economy is growing, when the economy is heading the right direction, when people are working, when people are paying taxes, and when there are surpluses to give the Government choice in what it is spending the taxpayers’ money on.

Let us not forget the taxpayer. Let us not forget the taxpayer, because this Budget delivers for all New Zealanders, particularly those who do pay tax. This is a dividend of success. With these tax cuts—$10, $20 a week—those in the relevant tax bands are receiving the dividends of success and all I hear from the other side, or, I should say, the Labour Party members, is that they want more money. They want more money to spend on behalf of the taxpayer. For some reason they believe, in their sanctimonious attitude, that they have a better idea of how to spend taxpayers’ money.

This Budget—this debate—is very positive. It supports those who are least well off, the most affected who need the support in this community, and I commend it to the House.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, nei te mihi atu ki a koe, otirā, ki tēnei Whare. Tuatahi kei te pīrangi au ki te mihi atu ki a rātau kua hinga i ngā rangi kua pahure ake nei, kai Rotorua wētāhi, kai Te Tai Hauāuru wētahi, kai tēnā, kai tēnā o ngā marae o te motu. E tika me mihi ki a rātau, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātau katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, I acknowledge and thank you but at the same this House. First, I want to pay a tribute to those who have fallen in days just past, some in Rotorua, Te Tai Hauāuru, and on individual marae of the country. It is fitting that I acknowledge them, so my appreciation to you collectively and to us all.]

Well, I was waiting for the Budget speeches because it has been a tradition in this House for the leader of the New Zealand First Party to give it a name. We wait with bated breath every time he stands to give his speech, and we go: “Here it comes. Here it comes.” The “mother of all Budgets”—no, perhaps not. But I have given this Budget a name. This Budget that we proudly stand next to the National Government to deliver is the “Budget for whānau”.

I know, I have heard people go “But there is no money in there for whānau.” But I want to tell you, Mr Assistant Speaker, if I might, that I understand what it is like to get 20 extra dollars in your pocket and know that you are going to be able to buy extra bread this week; an extra three, four, five packs of meat to feed the whānau from that $20. I understand what it is like to get an accommodation supplement increase when you have got too many kids and not enough bedrooms so that you think “I can’t afford to pay the rent this week.”, or “I can’t afford to pay the mortgage this week.”, and you try to juggle all those things around. I know what it is like to have a relief—a relief come to you that this week you are going to have an extra $100 in your pocket, or you are going to have an extra $40 in your pocket, or you are going to have an extra $50 in your pocket, to be able to do what—to spend it on our children.

This Budget is about whānau. It may not be enough, and it is probably never going to be enough, and I would have liked to see the Working the Families tax credit applied universally. In fact, we tried to get that done. That did not happen, but it was increased and so was the accommodation supplement, and so I guess that is the B-game win that we wanted; the A-game would have been universal application of Working for Families tax credit. That would have put $72 extra in the hands of the lowest-income people—and those are families on benefits. That did not happen, but we have had an increase and we have had some tax cuts. For who—the rich? I have heard people say these are tax cuts for the rich. Well, these tax cuts do not affect anybody with over $70,000 of income.

I stood in front of Victoria University students and I stood in front of Auckland University students in the last 4 days, and asked them all: “Put your hand up if you’d be happy for an income under $70,000.” In a room of about 300 to 400 at Victoria University, about 30 people put their hands up. Everybody else expected to earn well above that, because they had means and they were getting an education. In this Budget people were standing up and telling them there was nothing for the student—nothing for the tertiary student. Well, except for their families who support them, who now have extra income in their hands from Working for Families tax credits, and from the accommodation supplement. So this is indeed for the whānau.

But what did we get in Vote Māori Development? I want to remind this House that when the Department of Māori Affairs was fully funded, it had an annual operating budget of $800 million and that was wiped overnight because people ran scared about iwi versus Kiwi and all of those services mainstreamed by a Labour Government. Let us just remember that, because since the Māori Party has been in an arrangement with the National Government—

Hon Member: An arrangement’s right—there’s a technical term for it too.

MARAMA FOX: —invited to sit at the table, a coalition agreement—I do not care what you call it; we call it a relationship accord—we have clawed back and clawed back and clawed back every little cent we could and put it back into Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) so that we could provide kaupapa Māori - specific services for our people.

There is suicide prevention money. This year an extra $8 million of suicide prevention money through TPK was announced, so that it can go straight to the grassroots. I feel like a proud mum because in the 2014 or 2015 Budget that was my one and only bid. I had one chance—I was going to start Eminem, but we might get told off—and went for the $2 million that we got that year for suicide prevention, so it could be rolled out to kaupapa Māori, youth-led initiatives with a special focus on the LGBTIQ or the rainbow community. I have seen the implementation of that money and I feel like a proud mum. It is doing amazing things and now we have secured an extra $8 million for suicide prevention that will roll out over the next 4 years specifically to continue those kaupapa. “Crumbs”—well, it is not crumbs when it saves lives. It is nowhere near crumbs when it saves the lives of our nation’s young people.

What else have we been able to get—$250 million for Whānau Ora since 2010. There is an annual budget now of $73 million for Whānau Ora. Somebody said: “Oh, it’s only going to affect another 2,500.” Well, add those to the 45,000 families we have already helped over the last few years because of this initiative. And who would have thought this Tory, right-wing Government would give this Māori organisation pūtea and said: “Do with it what you will. Make sure you make it happen.” And they have—and they have.

So we go on. The annual budget for the Māori Housing Network is almost $20 million. This year alone we got $27 million with a special focus on homeownership pathways. I know it is not enough. How many houses is that going to build? It is a pilot and it is going to build 160 houses and it might do something like capitalise on your Working for Families tax credit or capitalise on your accommodation supplement. It might be a way that people who normally would not have a pathway into homeownership finally do. It is a pilot and when that rolls out and we show you that it can be successful, we will be asking for more—don’t you even worry.

I believe that we should have got more. I would like to see an operating annual budget for TPK of $800 million to $1 billion, but there are a few things—let me tell you about three things in the last 3 minutes—that we managed to secure pūtea for that have been mocked and disapproved of by the Opposition.

One is kōhanga reo. Kōhanga reo get $5 million in this Budget. There is a lot that we need to do to fix what is going on with kōhanga reo, but they have been announced, they have got a new board, they are moving forward, and they are engaged with the Ministry of Education. But in this Budget we rang them up. We said: “I get to punt up some Budget bids. What would you like? Tell me what you need and I’ll see if we can make it happen.” They said: “Marama, we need to get our babies to kōhanga safely. We need to improve participation by ensuring they can get there in a van that is up to standard and that they are secured in approved child restraints, so that when they arrive we can give them the best possible care.” That is what we did and that is what they have, and, despite what has been said by the Opposition, they are extremely grateful. Had they asked for something else, I would have tried for that.

The other thing that we have done is Passport to Life and in the last 2 remaining minutes I am going to tell you about that. Passport to Life—what a fantastic initiative, what a wonderful idea. If we want our young people to be engaged in civics education, to participate in our communities, to be proactive and not sit on the side and give the finger to the man—unparliamentary. If we want them not to give the finger to the man but to come and participate in society, they need some key documentation that they do not have any more like they used to—like a bank account, and the subsequent education around financial management; like a tax number, so that they can understand the machinery of government and when they go to work what their tax dollar does for them; like an enrolment to vote, so once they understand the machinery of government and who gets to make decisions on their behalf, they can realise their voice; like a driver’s licence, because 90 percent of young people in front of the Youth Court do not have a driver’s licence, but 90 percent of young people who are engaged and employed do. It is a no-brainer. We must help our young people get to having a driver’s licence, but if we put the education around it, what are we teaching them? How to be responsible for the lives of others. How to be responsible for the lives of others and, if they do a defensive driving course, how to anticipate danger and then make adjustments so that they do not encounter that danger. These are excellent life lessons that will have our young people participate in their communities.

But here is the last piece of documentation that is on that list. It is a passport. Why a passport—an actual passport? Because as soon as you get a passport in your hands when you are a young person, do you not lift your eyes above your valley, from out of your town, and away from Kaikohe, and do you not understand that the world is your oyster and you think: “Now I need to sit down and make a plan on how to get there.”? I am so proud of Passport to Life. I endorse this Budget.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Nuk Korako—5 minutes.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. Hallelujah, sister—I mean, what you have just critiqued is almost $100 million worth of Māori development in this particular Budget. What I want to do, though, is bring this back and probably continue a little bit on what my colleague Marama Fox from the Māori Party—sister—actually started with, and that is talking about whānau and that is talking about families. I want to bring it local as well and talk about the Port Hills.

Budget 2017 is indeed good news for people of the Port Hills, and particularly for families. Last weekend and earlier this week I was out in the communities of the Port Hills and there was a unanimous message that I received, and that was the fact of how great for families this Budget 2017 is indeed. When I was at the Halswell Sunday market, manning my electorate stall, I was talking to parents who are raising their young families. These families will be getting an annual increase of more than $3,000 per annum from this particular Budget. We also have families across the Port Hills who will benefit from the accommodation supplement, and who will see increases of up to around about $55 per week, on top of the increases they will get from the tax reductions and also Working for Families.

It is not, though, just the $2 billion worth of Family Incomes Package that will actually benefit people of the Port Hills—oh no. There are a number of other things as well. I was in Woolston on Monday, visiting some of the innovative manufacturers that are driving jobs and wage growth in the Port Hills. Under this Budget those businesses—they told me—will take advantage of the changes that make it easier for them to be more innovative and make it easier for them to pursue a lot of the growth opportunities, particularly overseas. These businesses are also being supported around the creation of jobs, through this Budget, to improve the experiences for the businesses, particularly in dealing with the Government.

Many people choose to live in the Port Hills because of the stunning natural beauty as well, so our communities are made up of people who really care about protecting the environment, particularly those who live along the Ōpāwaho, or the Heathcote River. They know all too well how important it is and the work that we are doing for the environment, particularly in cleaning up our waterways. So in this Budget another $1 million has been put in to continue that great work around cleaning up our waterways.

There is also new funding for combating climate change—another $4 million. This is where we are getting a lot of positive feedback from the Port Hills people, particularly around the environment and what the National Government is doing for that environment.

This is the next part of it, because we have a number of retirement villages within the Port Hills. On Monday I was there to deliver a card and give my wishes to another centenarian within the Port Hills, and there was a double whammy here. When we look at this, superannuation is linked to after-tax incomes, so the Family Incomes Package will give our senior citizens another $13 extra per week, and that is in addition to the usual adjustments, particularly under this Budget.

But the double whammy was that I met some very, very happy and now very content support workers and they are the ones who are going to get in this Budget—it is going through the House now, as we all know. There is another $2 billion in a pay rise for these workers who look after our seniors. This is a Budget for all New Zealanders. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Maureen Pugh—5 minutes.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): New Zealand’s economy is performing extremely well, and that is a tribute not only to this Government but also to the hard work of New Zealanders over the past 8 years. We have worked through the tough times together: the global financial crisis, the Canterbury earthquakes, and, more recently, the Kaikōura earthquakes. We are now coming out the other end of those events and starting to enjoy the benefits of good economic growth and, of course, excellent fiscal management.

We all know, in our own households, that when we get a little extra income, we have more choices about the things that we can do with that bit extra. We might treat ourselves and get some of those “nice-to-haves”, we might take a holiday or maybe, like me, we would buy a new pair of shoes, or we may be a bit more responsible and spent it on a long-term investment, like home maintenance, perhaps paying down a bit of our mortgage, or improving our incomes so that we can continue to improve our lifestyles. These are the same choices that the Government has when we have a strong and stable economy and we also have faith in the future of this country.

We are now in a position to continue to invest further. We can invest now in Better Public Services, in the infrastructure that we need to support our growing economy, in reducing our debt, and in lifting the incomes of low to middle income Kiwis. As I trip around West Coast - Tasman, I can see the increase in confidence and the investment in staff and equipment, such is the growing confidence in the business sector and the confidence it has in New Zealand’s future.

Tourism businesses in South Westland are enjoying the biggest growth in New Zealand. They have enjoyed 11 percent growth. At the moment, the retailers in Springs Junction and Murchison are actually making the most of the diverted traffic, and they are bulging at the seams. If you want a job, go and see Jerry at Springs Junction. He is working 24/7. He will give you accommodation and free food.

Well over 200,000 jobs have been created across New Zealand in the past 3 years, and over the next 4 years we are expecting another 215,000 new jobs. The average wage is set to increase to $64,000 by 2021, and that is only 4 years away. That is up by more than $17,000 since this Government came into office. The percentage of people whose income is now received through a main benefit is the lowest it has been in a March quarter for 20 years. That is a spectacular result.

I have seen the investment in the West Coast by this Government, in things like the new $28 million Taramakau rail bridge, the new $78 million Grey Base Hospital, and the newly announced integrated family health centre in Westport. The Ultra-fast Broadband Extension programme is now being rolled out in Hokitika. The diggers are on the ground now, installing it. It is soon to be rolled out in Reefton, Rūnanga, Westport, Murchison, Wakefield/Brightwater, Ruby Bay, Motueka, Kaiteriteri, and Tākaka, such is the confidence that this Government has in the technology that is needed to bring these places in New Zealand into the 21st century.

But we are not stopping there, either. Over the next 4 years an additional $503 million will be invested in Police, Justice, and Corrections, and this includes 880 new front-line staff. Of those, 24 will be sent to the Tasman policing district, and that district includes Marlborough, the West Coast, and Tasman. The investment that this Government is making in health will be increasing to a record $16.8 billion, and $1.5 million of that will be going towards the wage increases for the 55,000 care and disability workers—an outcome I am very proud of this Government for achieving.

The shining star, as we have heard many times over the course of this debate, is the $2 billion that are being invested in the Family Incomes Package. I know that this increase is a very big deal for the families in West Coast - Tasman. This is a Budget that delivers for New Zealanders, from a Government that cares about people and knows how to get things done.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members might be interested to know there are 7 hours and 44 minutes remaining. The next call is to Labour—a split call.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to join the debate in my capacity as Labour’s spokesperson for export education. The Labour Government changed the education legislation in 1989 and opened the market for international students. The export education sector contributed about $2.6 billion per annum, and that was the figure in dollar terms when I left Parliament about 2½ years ago. I have since learnt that the figure in dollar terms is about $4.5 billion now. So it is a no-brainer that export education is a smart and sustainable way to grow our economy.

However, such an export education sector might be subject to abuse and would put more pressure on our public education system. Right now schools across the country are overcrowded and hundreds more are at risk of overcrowding. In Auckland alone the education ministry has warned of critical pressures and would expect about 107,000 additional students in the city by 2040. Some of those students, quite contrary to the public perception or belief, may not be Kiwi kids—namely, those whose parents are either New Zealand citizens or permanent residents—but overseas students enjoying the same entitlements as our domestic students.

How would that have happened? Whistleblowers have told me that some international students over the last 8 years or so got themselves enrolled in low-quality courses, graduated from poor private training establishments (PTEs) as quickly as possible, and then applied for an open work visa. Once the open work visa was granted, that international student would sponsor his or her spouse, and once they were here they would bring in their dependent children and then enrol at our publicly funded schools as domestic students.

I am not criticising the policy around open work visas per se or addressing any issues related to immigration—I will leave them to my immigration spokesperson. What I am saying is that there should be clear guidelines to help protect our public education system and prevent the system from being abused. Right now nobody knows about the size and scope of the problem. And guess what? This National Government has no idea about the problem at all.

Chris Bishop: Oh, rubbish.

RAYMOND HUO: That is not rubbish. That member would like to know that in answers to written parliamentary questions about the numbers of dependent child student visa holders who were enrolled in New Zealand State schools the Minister of Education said that the Ministry of Education did not collect the data. In response to written parliamentary questions about the numbers of spouses and dependent children of the holders of post-study work visas, the Minister of Immigration said that he did not know. All we know is that half of the 39,142 first-time, fee-paying international students enrolled in the year 2013-14 went on to convert their student visas to work visas or other types of visas. There will about 130,000 international students in New Zealand this year.

Export education is a smart and sustainable way of growing our economy. I salute the export education sector. I salute the good quality PTEs and home-stay parents for their hard work and contributions. But there are three key issues I wish to reiterate. Firstly, schools across the country are overcrowded and hundreds more are at risk of overcrowding. Secondly, good PTEs across the country are not on an equal footing when competing against the small number of PTEs that offer low-quality courses to those so-called international students whose intention is not to study here but to take advantage of our school system. Thirdly, Labour will close the loophole. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Just before the dinner break we had the Hon Nicky Wagner deliver her contribution to this appropriations discussion. I was at the time thinking about a quote from George Orwell, strangely enough. Her contribution reminded me of this: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” I think what that speaks to is that this Budget is about perspective and experience. I think it is kind of like a two-tone or a two phase—there are two worlds in which we live. This Budget may be delivering to one of those worlds, but I do not believe that it is delivering to the other.

Why I say this, and I have often spoken in this House this year about it, is that coming back to my office, after the summer break—in the first few weeks that we were open in New Brighton, we had 80 calls into our office. Most of those calls were about financial hardship and our constituents’ inability to actually get support from the Government agency Work and Income. The pushback that happened from the Work and Income office to the MP’s office is completely inappropriate because Work and Income is actually set up to support those most vulnerable.

Why I bring this up is that when I was thinking about Nicky Wagner’s contribution today, it was very much reflective of what we are going through in our city. It is a tale of two cities. It is a recovery of two halves, in our city. When you go anywhere but the eastern suburbs, there is work being done, there are playgrounds being built, and there are buildings being built. You come out to the eastern suburbs and it is still dusty, munted, and broken. Our people see ourselves as different, as other, from the other Cantabrians, the other people in Christchurch, because this Government actually has a perspective and a pathway for one that is not for all.

There is a level of financial hardship in our communities that this Budget does not touch. This Budget actually increases those inequalities that we are experiencing in our community. I have to say, as far as I am concerned, thank goodness for our community agencies because they are picking up a lot of the response that the Government actually should take responsibility for.

In this Budget the tax cuts mean that there are no increases in State and social housing. In this Budget the tax cuts mean that there are no increases in health outcomes. In this Budget the tax cuts mean that we still have kids, way too many children, in poverty. In this Budget the tax cuts mean that kids with special needs, like those with autism, cannot access the support they need to be able to go to school and actually lead the fulfilling lives that they deserve.

This Budget does increase inequality. There are still too many children in poverty, there are still too many people who are homeless, and there are still way too many people who are looking to access decent mental health services. There are still too many young people killing themselves.

In the appropriations for the community and voluntary sector, there are three items I want to highlight. There has been no change to the appropriation to support volunteers through the volunteer centre, there has been no change to the appropriation to support community funding through the Community Organisations Grants Scheme, and there has been half a million dollars cut from Charities Services, which is the organisation that is there to support the capacity- and capability-building of our community sector.

If this Government has got a two-phase Budget that does not recognise the people at the bottom and its reliance on the community sector to pick up the tab, and is not funding the community sector to actually build its capacity and capability, then I actually want to refer to another of George Orwell’s sayings as I conclude: “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable,”. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Thank you and talofa lava, Mr Deputy Speaker. Speaking on this Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill in this debate, I want to begin by responding to a comment that was made by the previous speaker, Poto Williams, who just resumed her seat. She is a member who I have a lot of respect for, but the statement that “no increases in health outcomes are achieved under this Budget” is just simply, patently incorrect. I want to speak to a community that has been, for some time in New Zealand, if not misunderstood then possibly neglected in thinking by Government departments around how we deliver services to them, and which is benefiting significantly from this Government, and that is the LGBT community in New Zealand.

Budget 2017 invests an extra $60 million over 4 years into Pharmac services, and that is an extra $20 million over the 2017-18 year. What this has meant in real terms is that there will be more access to cancer drugs—and this is something quite close to my heart as a very dear friend of mine is undergoing cancer treatment right now; hepatitis drugs, which are close to being a miraculous cure, where up to 90 percent of hepatitis sufferers achieve a complete remission; new antibiotics, particularly those that are useful for treating children who have antibiotic-resistant symptoms; and, importantly for members of the LGBTIQ community, the funding of HIV medication at a much earlier stage in their treatment. This is something that has been neglected for many years, including, I have to say, under the previous Governments.

Drugs like Truvada have been available for some time, and I am delighted that, now, HIV patients will not have to wait until they have a CD4 cell count of 500—which, effectively, means they are very, very ill. They will be able to get access to drugs like Truvada and other drugs that are very complicated, and often served up in a multi-drug capsule. These include, sometimes, mixtures of transcriptase inhibitors, nucleosides, reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, and strand transfer inhibitors. Scientifically, these are well beyond my understanding, but, in simple terms, they have the ability to extend not only the life expectancy but the quality of life of those patients massively, and also have the very positive benefit of reducing the ability for those people to pass on HIV to others. Last year, unfortunately, we had the highest infection rate of HIV in New Zealand for some time, and this will be a very real help in reducing infection as well as assisting those who are suffering from HIV. So I want to commend that part of the Budget in particular.

On the Government Administration Committee we deal with a wide and varied range of issues, and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is one of the departments that we scrutinise. I was particularly pleased to see the Hon Maggie Barry announce $303.9 million of screen grants—a huge investment, over 4 years, into our screen production industry. This is money very well spent because the return from the film and TV sector over the last year was around about a $3.3 billion direct return. That does not account for the fact that 18 percent of visitors who arrived to tour around our beautiful country—to places like Northland, Whanganui, and the far south—listed The Hobbit trilogy as a key reason why they chose New Zealand as a visitor destination. I think this is money very well spent, and, in real terms, it is keeping 14,000 people working across 24,700 contracts, in highly paid and quite skilled work, and there are technological contributions that the film industry makes. The techniques and technologies perfected in film have later gone on to be used in a wide range of other areas, like artificial intelligence, like robotics, and like healthcare imaging, for instance.

Again, I think this is an example of a Government that is united, that is focused on raising incomes of working New Zealanders, and that is focused on a better standard of life for all New Zealanders. It is a Government that cares about parts of the community that in the past were neglected. I am delighted about, in particular, the Pharmac increase, which has seen HIV sufferers given better treatment earlier and will, I think, lead to a reduced spread of that pernicious disease.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Were the remarks of Raymond Huo in his speech not interesting? What did he say? He said “Export education is a no-brainer. It’s a sure and sustainable way to grow the New Zealand economy.”, and he waxed lyrical about the importance of export education, which has been growing in recent years to $4.5 billion worth of value to the New Zealand economy. They are very interesting words, because in a few weeks’ time—in a few days’ time, actually—the Labour Party is going to announce its much-vaunted immigration plan. This is the plan to reduce the number of migrants in New Zealand by around 50,000 to 10,000 migrants per year. I know who the Labour Party will be targeting. It will be targeting all of the international students who come to New Zealand and enrol in our universities, our high schools, and our private training establishments to learn English and to learn lots of other things, who want to make a contribution to this economy.

So it is very interesting that, already, the new list MP for the Labour Party is very much out of step with his leader, and very much out of step with the other comments that Labour members have made as well. The reality is that export education is a worthwhile contributor to this country. It is funded again in this Budget through the various agencies that do that within New Zealand, and it is something that the Government stands fully behind, unlike the Labour Party opposite.

The other thing in this Budget that I want to highlight in this speech is the very much welcomed Family Incomes Package. This is a great package. In fact, it is so great and so impressive that every party in Parliament decided to vote for the bill implementing it—other than Labour. I want to put on the record again our appreciation in the National Party for the Greens acting with principle—acting with principle—and doing the right thing in deciding to vote for what is a good package that puts more money in the hands of those who need it most. I also want to say thank you to New Zealand First for doing the same; for acting, in this case—not always, but in this case—in a principled way and deciding that, actually, the benefits that accrue under the bill and under this Budget to low-income workers are worth voting with the Government on.

It is just a shame, I think, that the Labour Party has decided that the 1.3 million working families who benefit to the average of $26 per week—I actually think it is a regret that members in Labour decided not to vote for it. But that is fine—they made their bed, they will have to lie in it, and they will have to explain to New Zealanders in the coming weeks and months, on the election campaign trail, why exactly they did vote against giving working families an extra $26 per week on average, why it is they voted against Working for Families increases, and why it is they voted against tax cuts at the bottom end of the income scale. In reality, they are isolated, very much like their economic policy when it comes to New Zealand.

The response from Labour to this Budget had a few stages. First of all, there was just utter confusion. I think it was more like shell shock, actually. I mean, Andrew Little was so shell-shocked in his speech that, after 9 years of a National Government, in the ninth Budget presented by the Government, he could make only 17 minutes. He could not even go the full 20 minutes. I mean it was just embarrassing. And, actually, the Labour members opposite knew it, because their heads were down, they were on their iPads or on their iPhones abusing people on Twitter and doing various things, as they are wont to do. He could not even make 20 minutes. It was actually just embarrassing. That was the first response.

Then there was anger. Then there was anger. We got that through the Labour members’ speeches on the Budget bill. There was a lot of anger out there. I will tell you when there was a lot of anger was when Phil Twyford was sitting in the House and he worked out that the Greens were voting for the Budget and Labour was voting against it. He was not happy. You know, we all know that Phil likes to get very worked up in the House. Well, he was very worked up that night. So that was the second response: there was a lot of anger.

Then the third response was denial. They just wanted to pretend the whole thing had never happened—that it was not a National Government helping out low-income workers. No, that was still too difficult. Let us just pretend it was a bad dream, that we did not wake up on Thursday morning and that was actually what was happening! But it was what was happening, and so, because of that, Jacinda Ardern decided not to turn up to The Nation. She was given an opportunity to do an interview with The Nation and explain away why Labour was voting against the Budget, and just decided not to turn up. So Labour was not represented on The Nation. It was just all too hard. We will just deny it happened!

Then there was confusion again. Then we were right back to the start, and there was confusion again. Andrew Little was on Morning Report on Monday morning, trying to explain cuts to the Budget. A cut in Andrew Little’s world is what happens when you have an increase that is not as much as you think it should be. That is what a cut means. It was just embarrassing.

So there was confusion, anger, denial, and then confusion again. That is the Labour Party’s response to most policies from this Government, and that is why this is a good Budget and why everyone should vote for it.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): This whole entire Budget was based around—the Prime Minister said, and a lot of the different Ministers said it before the Budget—the social investment approach. What the National Government has done is made quite a nice sound bite for the media and it has done quite a good job selling what the apparent definition of the social investment approach is.

I had a lot of hope for this Budget. I did have a lot of hope for this Budget, because after 8 years of Bill English saying one thing and not delivering on the social investment approach, I had hoped for Steven Joyce to come out and actually start delivering on what the Government’s promise of the social investment approach was.

Hon Anne Tolley: Come on, Darroch. You can do better than this.

DARROCH BALL: And I have been listening—yeah, well, the Minister of Social Development says it is ridiculous, but I want to get through to the evidence that we have here, which the Government continues to deny and the Government continues to not look at and read. It says it uses robust and evidential-based approach, but it does not do that.

Actually, I have been listening to all of the speeches from National over the last couple of days, and a quote from Mark Twain pops into my mind: “It ain’t the stuff you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s the stuff you know for sure that just ain’t so.” And what that means is that the members on the backbench of the National Government need to stop reading the bullet points and the one-liners and the rhetoric and the hot air that the Ministers give them to say, and actually understand that what they are saying just ain’t so.

I would like to say one thing that I heard Marama Fox say, actually, earlier on today, which was that she was proud to stand up and back this Budget because this was the Budget for whānau. Well, I would like to ask Marama Fox and National how on earth, after 9 years of this Government—that is a better part of a decade, the better part of a decade under the social investment approach, under Bill English, who was the Minister of Finance and is now the Prime Minister, and the social investment approach is Bill English’s baby—why after 9 years all of those key indicators that make up the social fabric of our country, all of those statistics, are going in the wrong direction.

I have got a little list here. Youth unemployment and disengagement is going up and always has been higher than—

Hon Anne Tolley: Down. Down. Down.

DARROCH BALL: —the 2008 levels—always. Youth crime is increasing. Child abuse numbers—up. Domestic violence cases—up. Rental costs for people in our country—up. Housing inaffordability for the people in our country—up. Living costs—up. Numbers of children in poverty—

Hon Anne Tolley: Down.

DARROCH BALL: —up. But you do not want to ask the National Government or the Minister of Social Development about children living in poverty. There are 16 different measures, and they do not want to pick one. They do not want to pick one, because if they did, if they had to pick one, that means they would have to acknowledge that there was a problem, because all the statistics are going up and if they have to acknowledge there is a problem, they have to do something about it. They do not want to do anything about it, because it is in the too-hard basket. All that that Minister needs to do is pick one definition of child poverty. It just does not happen.

The last one that I have got on my list is the gap between the rich and poor. That is going in the wrong direction too. It is increasing. So how on earth, in the last 9 years, the better part of a decade, under the guidance of Bill English and a social investment approach—if the social investment approach is working, then how come all of those statistics are in the bad column?

But what is it saying? You see, the point is this: the Government says one thing—what the social investment approach is, what the meaning is, and how it uses it—and the reality is another. What the results are, is another, and I have got a pile of evidence here that I am going to go through and I hope I have got enough time. But this is what it says that it is. The Government repeats this day in and day out: “Social investment is about applying rigorous and evidence-based investment practices”—it is important to understand that Government members repeat that all the time—“to develop, purchase, and deliver social services so decisions can be made that improve the lives of New Zealanders.” Hey, that sounds great. That sounds good, and it sells it to me and it sells it to the media and it sells it to all of the other voters of New Zealand, who just listen to that one sound bite. But if you dig a little bit deeper, if you look at the evidence and the information and the data that this Government has—and that it bases the social investment approach on—it does not make sense.

Here is the question from the quote I gave from Marama Fox earlier on. Here is some evidence for Marama Fox to have a look at, and then come back out here and say that this is a Budget for whānau. This report is by Growing up in New Zealand. It is a report by the social policy evaluation and research unit. This was published in 2017, funnily enough.

Here are just a couple of points that it highlights. This was actually a study about growing up in New Zealand, providing a contemporary, population-relevant picture of what it is like to be a child growing up in New Zealand in the 21st century, and this is from 2010 onwards. So it is very relevant and it was published this year. Here are a couple of points that it highlights: “At four years of age, one in seven … of the cohort children were living in the most deprived decile of the NZDep scale.”—one in seven at 4 years of age. Is that something to be proud of, Minister? Is that something to be proud of? Or do you not want to acknowledge it? Is this the social investment approach working? One in seven—one in seven. What other points have I highlighted in this report? “When the cohort children were nine months old, fewer than four in ten mothers experienced no material hardships.” Fewer than four in 10, fewer than 40 percent, actually had no material hardships. But that is just one report.

Now, this is a report from Treasury on the Government’s programmes to deal with “neets”, to deal with young, unemployed, disengaged “neets”. What did it have to say about the “neets” programme, bearing in mind that this is being invested in, in this Budget that has just been passed? This is the same programme that the Government is going to reinvest in. Thinking about the social investment, which the Government has said needs rigorous, evidence-based research to base it on—here is the evidence. Here is the research. Here is the data about educational participation and about the “neets” programme: “We did not find any significant change in the likelihood of staying in school.” through that programme.

What about time spent on benefits? Surely even a little bit—that would improve on a little bit. “Participation in [this programme] was associated with a higher rather than lower benefit receipt in the following two years …” after the programme—a higher receipt. It is going in the wrong direction. But this Government is standing up and saying that this is the result of the great social investment approach.

What else did it say? Employment rates—surely you want to get the young people who are disengaged and unemployed back into employment. “The limited impact of [this programme] on qualification attainment is mostly likely a reason for the programme’s lack of labour market benefits.” There are no labour market benefits. There is no improvement in employment rates. There is no improvement on getting off the benefit, and yet this Government continues to use the same old, tired rhetoric that is absolutely wrong.

I have got a few reports here. Let us go into one that is on the Family Start home visiting programme. I know that was an announcement by the Minister. She said that they were going to reinvest in it. Let us look at the evidence that was produced just last year about the very programme that the Government is going to reinvest in for the social investment approach: This report says: “We find no statistically measurable impact … on participation in the B4 School Check. A concerning finding is an estimated reduction in enrolment with a primary health organisation at age 1 … By the nature of our data,”—is that not a word that I used before that the Government uses all the time, which it says backs up its approach—“we are restricted to examining outcomes that are captured in administrative records.”

But here is the best bit: “Administrative data currently offer few direct measures of children’s cognition, parenting behaviours and attitudes, or the home environment. This means that our study captures only a subset of programme impacts that are of interest.” But this Government is standing up—and it has this data: this is all from Treasury; this is all from the Ministry of Social Development itself. I mean, I could go on about the iwi panels, but I would like to challenge anyone from the National Government to stand up and, firstly, deny that this is true—deny that everything that I have read out, and the things that I have not, are true.

The second thing that I challenge the National Government backbenchers to do is stand up and table or point out or read out from one study—one study—that backs up the social investment approach and shows that it actually works. All the bad statistics, all the bad things—the measurements and measuring sticks about our social fabric and our social well-being in our country are all going in the wrong direction, and it is because of this blind ideology of the social investment approach, which is the baby of Bill English. It is ridiculous, and what it does is highlight that when the National Government members stand up and talk about the things they know, the fact is it just ain’t so. Thank you.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Lau afioga I Le Fofoga Fetalai ae tainane Le paia maualuga I Sui usufono o Le palemene a Niu Sila Faafetai mo Le Avanoa e fai ai sa’u fa’amatalaga I taualumaga o Le Fono nei.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I greet you in my mother tongue of Samoan. It is Samoan Language Week. It is the language spoken in heaven, but it is only the third-most spoken language in this country, and the second-most spoken language in Auckland. I know you have a connection to Samoa through your beautiful wife, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I greet you in Samoan here today.

I rise to speak in the Budget debate, because it is done through the reading of this, the Appropriations (2017/18 Estimates) Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the Minister of Finance, Steven Joyce. It is his first Budget, but it is a Budget that carries on the fine work of our Prime Minister, Bill English. It is a Budget that focuses on quality public services. It is a Budget that is prudent, that manages debt over the long term whilst being compassionate to those New Zealanders who need Government assistance, and it is a Budget that has been welcomed by many, many New Zealanders across our great nation. I know Darroch Ball, the previous speaker, does not believe me, but I would like to quote from just some of the external sources out there—the people, actually, who matter. These are the New Zealanders out there who are receiving services, who believe in this Government, who have faith in this Government, and who are supporting us in our ninth year in Government.

Corin Dann said that “help with housing supplements is essential and [it is] the right thing to do”. It is the right thing to do. Scott Figenshow of Community Housing Aotearoa said: “We congratulate Government on the proposed changes to the Accommodation Supplement. Government’s message has been that investment in housing is an investment in good social outcomes.”

Darroch Ball: That’s not investing in housing.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: That is right, Mr Ball—good social outcomes. Finally, Kirk Hope of Business New Zealand said that it was about “Increasing the two bottom tax thresholds”, and it was “a positive investment in family incomes for many.”—for many. He said: “Investment in infrastructure, innovation and trade in the 2017 Budget is positive.” Do not believe me, Mr Ball; believe independent commentators, believe the NGO sector, and believe business interests all around this country, which are in agreement that is a positive Budget, it is a decent Budget, and it is the right thing to do.

Of course, we have heard tonight about the flagship policy, which is of course the Family Incomes Package: $2 billion per year to support low to middle income New Zealanders with tax cuts and an increase in the accommodation supplement. But what does this mean? What does it mean, practically, for New Zealanders out there? Well, we know that 1.3 million families, on average, will benefit, on average, by $26 per week. That is over $1,300 dollars per year, on average, per family from these reforms. In Maungakiekie, of course, that means families—and they have been giving me feedback since the Budget—can purchase clothes for kids. They can spend it on treats like taking the kids out for a meal, and they can save for holidays.

The package also helps those facing increasing housing costs, and if you qualify for an accommodation supplement it means for a two-person household you can qualify for a supplement of up to $3,900 per year. For larger households that amount goes above $4,000 per year—$4,000 per year. That is real support for families. It gives them more choices. It means that they can spend on the things that they want to do and that they want to spend on, and it means they are not being overtaxed and burdened by rising costs in the economy. It also improves their well-being, their wealth, and the ability of New Zealanders to live the lifestyles that they choose.

Darroch Ball: This is just hot air.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I said, the feedback from my constituents in Maungakiekie has been hugely positive. The No. 1 priority for them is jobs—jobs so that they can look after their families, so they can clothe and feed their children, so they can go about their lives. Mr Ball seems to ignore this feedback. I do not know which electorate he represents, but he needs to get out a bit more and start listening to people, because what they are saying is that in the last 3 years we have had over 200,000 jobs created—200,000 jobs—and over 215,000 jobs will be created in the next 4 years. That is over 2½ million people employed—2½ million people employed—and that is more than at any other time in our country’s history.

Darroch Ball: That’s because the population is growing.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr Ball might ask, you know, what about social investment? Well, I can tell you, in all the social investment models nothing beats someone getting a job. You can go to a prison and talk to prisoners who are about to get out on parole or release. You can go to markets and talk to people. You can doorknock, as I did earlier this week in Māngere, and they will tell you that a strong economy—jobs—is what they are after. They also want rising incomes. So this family incomes policy is a great way to reward those hard-working low to middle income families out there who, by and large, are not actually interested in politics and just want to go about their business, live their lives in their own communities, and benefit from the fruits of a bulging economy and the great nation that we are.

The management of the economy is important, and it helps the Government, first, to afford first-class services—and I will talk a little about health and education—but also to prepare for any major shocks. We have had Kaikōura, we have had Christchurch—natural shocks—but there are also external shocks from a world economy that at any time could go into recession. The feedback from the families I talk to—I was doorknocking with the Māngere candidate, Agnes Loheni—and the feedback from business owners in shops and from elderly folk who were at home during the time when we were doorknocking earlier this week has been largely positive. The migrants and the families we talked to—migrants from India who run businesses, Croatian families, and Samoan families—understand the importance of immigration, but they also understand the importance of hard work. Those were the families whom we were talking to who are particularly attracted to what this Government has to offer in this Budget.

Of course, there is investment in our schools.

Darroch Ball: Ha, ha!

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: You are welcome to come along, Mr Ball, to the 24 classrooms that were opened last year at Ellerslie School to the new learning environments that we saw opened in Sylvia Park School. Those are the sorts of things that actually make a difference to local communities. Those are the sorts of things that families want to see. They want their kids in modern learning environments and able to get ahead through education. They also know that roads are important—for example, State Highway 20, and the East-West Link that runs through my electorate of Maungakiekie. Those investments—the $1.8 billion for the East-West Link, the second-biggest roading project in this country—are going to make a huge difference not just to businesses in my area but also to those in local communities who want to go about their lives, go to the sport on Saturday, go to work from Monday to Friday, be part of their community, and use quality public services.

I am especially proud that the Minister of Education has brought in reforms. We have had very good successive Ministers of Education, from Anne Tolley in 2008 right through to Hekia Parata. Now we have got Nikki Kaye, and $386 million of operating funding over 4 years. That will make a difference to schools that are looking to invest in their children and that are looking to provide the services that their parents demand. Of course, people still enjoy the 20 free hours for preschool children, and what I am particularly proud of is the funding that is going into those kids who are at-risk, require a little bit more resource, and require a little bit more help. We were able to build on those kids’ learning outcomes.

I am proud of this Budget. It is a Budget that, as has already been said, is well supported within this House. The Green Party, which opposes almost everything that this Government does, is voting for this Budget, and New Zealand First is voting for this Budget, and yet we have got Labour members over there who are, sadly, not quite following through. This is a great Budget. This is a Budget that will continue the fine work that has been done by this Government, and I just want to wish you well in this special week, Samoan Language Week. Ia manuia lava le vaiaso o le gagana Samoa. I wish you well. Thank you very much.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Fa‘fetai mo le avanoa, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity—and in recognition of this being Samoan Language Week. I just want to correct the previous speaker, Mr Lotu-Iiga. We are not voting to support this Budget. I am very proud that we will be voting against the Budget. Here we are tonight, spouting off, almost like a laundry list, what has been bought and spent and sold and traded in this Budget: who has put a few million dollars there for this; who has put a few million dollars there for that. The bigger thing that we all need to be talking about, really, is the value settings and how this Budget is going to make any real impact and make any real difference to the future, because of the challenges we are facing today.

This Government does not get to slash State housing, sell off Crown land to wealthy developers, and then finally start building a little bit again, while celebrating. You do not get to pretend to celebrate that without being called out. It is election year; the Government has been in there for 9 years, and, finally, “Ooh, we’d better start building a programme for building houses.”—on land, I might add, that has been empty and neglected for years and years, to the point where the local church community in Naenae set up an occupation. That is right. This Government has pushed our religious leaders into protesting. That is what this Government has done. They are fed up, and they have occupied empty Crown land.

In this Budget you do not get to lie down and let the speculators run riot in our communities, to the point where in Manurewa—over 90 percent of the sales of homes in Manurewa go to investors—and to the point where the Clendon Work and Income office on any given day has a long line down the road of people lining up, desperate because they cannot pay the rent and feed their whānau. You do not get to do all of that and then stand up in this House and read out a Budget that has no measures in it to curb speculation at all. You do not get to do that without being called out. You do not get to be at the forefront of a renting crisis. For example, the principal at one of my local schools has told me that 60 percent of his roll is transient—that 60 percent of his roll is just moving through, visiting.

You do not get to be at the forefront of that renting crisis for families, where you are making no improvement in the availability or the affordability of houses, and then celebrate an accommodation supplement that is just literally feeding billions of dollars—billions of dollars are flowing from Government accounts—to landlords over the next few years, while the families themselves are no better off. You do not get to do that—

Hon Anne Tolley: You can’t complain about a renting crisis and then go crook at landlords. Good God! Really; talk some sense.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Even the Government’s own officials, Minister—if the Minister would just hear this out—have confirmed that the accommodation supplement is at high risk of increasing rents. We have already seen online—we have already seen investors getting all excited about this accommodation supplement. They have been telling each other: “Woo, look at this! We can hike the rents up. Look what the Government just did for us.” You do not get to champion that, and be at the forefront of the impact on things, like 60 percent of school rolls being transient, and celebrate that without being called out.

The Greens in Government will initiate a progressive homeownership rent-to-own plan. We will build the thousands of houses that we need to make a real difference for the future, one that is not going to support a 60 percent transient roll in schools in my community. The Greens in Government will have a strong State housing programme and will not slash State houses, while in the meantime using emergency housing to hide families away in motels—get them out of the parked cars and off the streets so that in election year, voters do not have to be confronted by them.

Strong State public housing, restricting rental rises, having minimum 3-year tenancy terms for families to put down roots—those are just a few of the things that a Government with leadership for the future can actually do to make a real difference for the future of our New Zealanders. Thank you.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): The Green Party will not be voting for this Budget. This Budget is a failure on many levels. It fails to tackle the biggest challenges of our time. As Marama has pointed out, it fails to tackle the housing crisis. It will not clean up our rivers. It will not tackle climate change. It even fails to fund the Department of Conservation (DOC) properly, despite the desperate plight of our iconic native birds. The report out today by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment highlights yet again the dire situation they face. Four out of five of our native birds are in trouble. One-third is at real risk of extinction. Our unique birds help define our national identity—the kiwi, the kea, the kākā—and it is not just our birds; many other species are at risk of extinction. New Zealand is, effectively, a Noah’s Ark with thousands of unique and endemic species, hundreds of which are critically endangered.

DOC carries a huge responsibility, not just for us but for future generations. The Green Party wants to see our native species do more than just hang on to survival. We want to see them thrive and flourish. But DOC cannot do that on less than 0.5 percent of the Budget—not when we have a biodiversity crisis, and not when DOC has to manage 30 percent of New Zealand’s land area and increasing pressure from tourism.

In real terms—in real terms—we know that DOC has been underfunded by a total of $422 million since National came to power. Now, following the Minister’s vehement denials last week, we double-checked these figures provided by the Parliamentary Library, and our conclusion is unchanged. This year Vote Conservation is $26 million less in real terms than in 2009. By refusing to adjust Vote Conservation funding for inflation, National has ensured that DOC has lost the equivalent of 1 year of funding over the last 8 years. We note that Forest and Bird has done its own analysis on a subset of Vote Conservation and has come to the same conclusion: funding has been cut in real terms.

No organisation, no matter how efficient it is, can possibly be expected to deliver the same level of protection for our species on less and less. This is not acceptable. DOC now keeps saying it cannot do everything. Not doing everything means that DOC only does robust population monitoring of a handful of most threatened species. Not doing everything means that DOC is forced to prioritise which of the 800 ecological management units, which are areas of important ecological diversity and species, to manage. And yet, DOC has not even integrated these ecological units with the conservation status of threatened species, so it is not able to tell us whether its approach is protecting the critical habitats of these threatened species. It cannot tell us whether it is protecting the habitats of our threatened species, because it has not done that most basic high-level planning that is necessary. DOC is so underfunded it has even been forced to close its field office in Hawke’s Bay. It goes on and on as to what DOC has been forced not to do—I can compile a huge list. Only the Green Party will fund DOC properly.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 30 May.

Part 4 Dispositions of Māori freehold land and other land (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 4. Pita Paraone has the call. He has 3 minutes’ time remaining.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): How long, Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): 3 minutes.

PITA PARAONE: Oh, good. Last night when I was interrupted, I was talking about the issue of mortgages and the possibility of the likely unwanted disposition of land due to non-payment of a mortgage. We have heard, from those who support the bill, that this is a bill that strengthens the retention of Māori land. Can I suggest to this Committee that where Māori land is to be subject to mortgage, then there is every likelihood of the possibility of land being lost to those who lend money. I know, as a trustee on a forestry land trust, together with my tuakana Peeni Henare, that we have as a term within that trust that we cannot mortgage the corpus land. If that is what is intended in this bill, then I do not have an argument. But I am not quite sure whether, in fact, that is what is covered in this bill, so I would like some assurance from the Minister that that is indeed the case and that the land will be secure.

That is not to say that governance bodies should not be allowed to raise money by mortgage, but the security should not be against the land—maybe against the crops, maybe against the trees that are grown, or maybe against any other asset relating to the land, but not against the land itself. I think that the intention of the bill, to minimise the risk of Māori land being sold—that will increase if that is the case. So I would just like some assurance from the Minister for Māori Development as to whether or not that is the intention—to allow those in governance bodies to be able to raise mortgages against the Māori land.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Just to remind ourselves, we are, like you rightly said, Mr Chair, on Part 4, which covers the dispositions of Māori freehold land. Hopefully, the Minister for Māori Development will answer a lot of the questions that were asked last night in the Committee to just give some clarity around some of the questions that we did pose to him. This is a very important part of this bill because, if you look at the principles of this bill, the major difference with this bill and the Act is the actual removing of the word “retention”. There is no “retention” in this bill that we are debating, hence why we need to scrutinise Part 4—dispositions of Māori freehold land—so that those concerns of Māori land loss are actually taken care of.

Can I just pick up on a contribution from the previous night from the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee, when he made reference to, and made a clarification around, clause 99 “Sale of parcel” and clause 100 “Sale of parcel in ordinary cases”, and he talked about, I believe, clause 101 and clause 102, “Exchange of parcel”. What I wanted to make sure of, and maybe the Minister can answer, is that when you look at clause 103, in this clause particularly, it talks about how it applies to the governance body in terms of the exchanging or selling of land. It clearly lays it out in terms of subclauses (1), (2), (3), and (4).

The question I want to pose to the Minister is this: in reading clause 103(5), it says “If an order is made, the governance body may sell or exchange the parcel of land without complying with section 100 or 102 …”, which, as the previous speaker, Pita Paraone, alerted the House to, was a mechanism to protect Māori land. So I wanted some clarity from the Minister that I am not reading into that particular clause that governance bodies can actually sell without going through the checks and balances as guaranteed in both clauses 100 and 102. So that is a question that I would like the Minister to take.

In my previous statement—and I have gone back to just check on the contribution I made the last time, in terms of Part 4, particularly around preferred entities and preferred recipients, which were both in clause 96. I made a statement that the disputes resolution in clause 96(3) talks about Part 9. Just to be really clear, the question I wanted to ask the Minister is that in Part 9 it does not actually talk about a preference of whether a preferred recipient trumps a preferred entity, and Part 9, the disputes resolution, basically just talks about the process of how you go to get your disputes resolved. So I want to make that question really clear—whether the Minister could just alleviate that concern.

In terms of this part, I have tabled some amendments, and I would like the opportunity to explain. There are about seven—one, two, three, four, five—amendments to this particular part. The first one is to clause 132. In this clause—it probably references the decision-making thresholds, where we have 75 percent, 25 percent, or 50 percent shareholders. So I will allow the Minister in the chair, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, to turn to clause 132, and where you have got subclause (3A), where it talks about land not managed under a governance agreement. So this is land not managed under a governance agreement. We have got subclause (3A)(a), (b), and (c), and we have got a range of 75 percent holding, 25 percent holding, or 50 holding. So, my amendment to clause 132 is this: for consistency, I have asked whether the Minister would consider—well, my amendment is instead of having 25 percent for land between 7 and 25 years, that we just round it up to 50 percent. So my first amendment is just replacing 25 percent with 50 percent, in clause 132(3A).

Turning now to clause 145, “Registering dispositions under Land Transfer Act 1952”, I do want to draw the Committee’s attention to the submitters. Some submitters, in the analysis of all the submissions, did reference the cost to Māori land owners through this particular mechanism. I am just giving a rationale for my suggested amendment—that in clause 145(3), where it says: “If the instrument has been recorded in the Māori land register, the Registrar-General may treat the instrument as complying …”. My amendment is simply to replace “may” with “must”. So that is amendment No. 2.

If we turn to clause 148, it talks about the orders about compliance with enactments after instruments recorded. I ask the Minister to go down to subclause (2), where it talks about “The application may be made by any person with an interest in the matter.” I guess the concern I have there is that it is quite general and it is quite broad. My amendment is, in clause 148(2), to replace “with” with “who the chief executive determines has”, and that again is trying to bring it into terms that anyone can have an interest in land, trying to bring it back into the domain and authority of the chief executive.

Clause 154—no, we will stop there, because we are getting into Part 5. Those were my three amendments to Part 4, in terms of explaining why I have put the amendments there. They are given to try to tidy up, to strengthen, to be really clear, because the part is about ensuring that we do not lose any land through any unwanted actions or provisions as provided under this part. Thank you very much for that.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe Mr Chair, tēnā tātau i tēnei pō i a tātau e whaiwhai haere nei i ngā kōrero. Ka ngana nei au ki te whakautu i ngā kōrero kua puta i tēnei pō, inapō anō hoki, nō reira, tēnā tātau.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and salutations to us this evening as we follow the contributions. I will attempt to respond to the accounts that have emerged this evening and last night as well, so acknowledgements to us collectively.]

I will try to cover some of the issues raised by members this evening, as well as go back over some of the issues raised last night. I will do the best I can to reference them for members.

In terms of the member Meka Whaitiri—she made reference to clause 103(5). Just by way of explanation to the member, this arrives from section 137 of the current Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which enables the Māori Land Court to authorise a governance body to rationalise or improve landholdings if it is impossible to achieve a threshold for sale. They must have a land management plan approved by the owners to do this. So that is in respect of clause 103(5).

The issues about the mortgage have been raised by a number of members, and I will try to pick those up, in particular the ones raised by the member Mr Pita Paraone as well as by Rino Tirikatene last night. All mortgages have a power of sale. That is the point of a mortgage. It is simply commercially naive for anyone to think that a lender would accept a mortgage security that could not be enforced to recover a debt if there is a default. The wording of the bill simply reflects the fact that a power of sale is implied in every mortgage of land. This is, in effect, part of another piece of legislation called the Property Law Act.

Lenders cannot somehow hide this from borrowers, because, as everyone knows, there are strict disclosure obligations placed on lenders by the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. But the real question that has been raised, and it is a fair concern raised by a number of members, is about the security of the land. What is available to people to raise development finance for Māori land, where the land itself does not have to be put up for security? The member Pita Paraone sort of raised that, in some ways.

There is something in Part 4 of the bill that deals in ways that you will not find in the current Act. I hope they will be advantageous. For example, the bill not only provides that buildings, fixtures, and crops can be mortgaged separately, away from the land itself, as mentioned by the member. It also authorises those things to be transferred separately, under a power of sale, keeping the land absolutely safe.

Another way the bill makes it easier to avoid putting Māori land at risk under a mortgage is the provision in clause 128 for governance bodies to create and mortgage leases, instead of putting the freehold at risk. If Māori land is mortgaged, the bill makes it easier for mortgagees to partition out enough to cover the debt without having to sell all the land when there is a default.

Added to this, under clause 152 it will be the Māori Land Court, rather than the High Court, that will have a supervisory role over a mortgagee’s actions under a mortgage over Māori land. I would suggest that these are all positive measures that add to the bill’s focus on the protection of Māori land. Further, owners can put it in governance agreements that Māori land cannot be mortgaged, but it is their choice. It is not prohibited in the bill. So I hope that allays members’ fears in respect of putting up Māori land for sale.

The other parts that other members raised—this one comes up repeatedly and I really want to put it to rest, once and for all, and that is the whole question about the loss of Māori land. We talked last night, and actually throughout this whole debate, about the fact that at the moment the law does not allow Māori land to be sold unless owners holding at least 75 percent of the shares agree. That has been discussed quite a lot. This bill not only keeps this high threshold but strengthens it by making it possible for owners to increase those thresholds to up to 100 percent. By doing so, as I said last night, it pretty much makes it impossible to sell that land. So let us put that to rest.

But last night Peeni Henare claimed that clause 13 of schedule 4 makes it possible to sell land with only a 50 percent majority. That was his point last night. Well I can assure the member that that is not the case. The threshold he was looking at is the threshold for exchanges, not sales. That was the difference. He was talking about thresholds for exchanges, not sales.

Under this bill, the owners of the Māori freehold land will not be able to sell it unless they can meet the strict and high thresholds that I have talked about. So let us be clear. There are a number of them. One, no one will be able to sell Māori customary land, period, even if it is converted to Māori freehold land. Two, no one will be able to sell Māori freehold land reserved as whenua tāpui. Three, no one will be able to sell Māori freehold land held in collective ownership. Four, no one will be able to sell Māori freehold land solely owned by a whānau trust. These are absolutely strong protections that uphold that principle that I talked about last night, about taonga tuku iho.

The issue about representative entity, which the member Meka Whaitiri talked about, was also raised. A representative entity is one of the entities referred to in clause 96(2) as a preferred entity. Preferred entities will have a right of second refusal, in the event of a sale of Māori freehold land, and will be able to receive a gift of Māori freehold land.

If a hapū or iwi associated with a particular block of Māori freehold land has a trust or governance entity, and the owners of that land recognise the authority of that trust or entity to represent their hapū or iwi, then it will qualify as a representative entity for the land. It could be a rūnanga, a trust board for example. It might be a post-governance settlement entity. The definition of representative entity is set out in clause 158(3).

So, for completeness, I note that if the land in question is managed by one of the new governance bodies, called rangatōpū, or by a Māori incorporation, or an ahu whenua, or a whenua tōpū trust, then that entity will also qualify as a preferred entity for that piece of land.

I note also that last night the member Peeni Henare referred to issues around the kaiwhakahaere. Those are better dealt with in Part 5, so I will hold on to comments in respect of Part 5. I understand that he has a Supplementary Order Paper and we can discuss it at that point. So I hope that those comments have been helpful to members.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you for the clarification, Minister, on some aspects of the questions that were asked last night. I was wondering, in terms of the role of the kaiwhakahaere as it applies to clause 97(3)(a) and the ability of a kaiwhakahaere to dispose of land on behalf of owners if permitted under their appointment, whether the Minister is satisfied that there are sufficient checks in this decision-making process to ensure that there is accountability to the owners of any action taken by the kaiwhakahaere.

In relation to the points made around the preferred entity, I think the issue that we need to flesh out a bit more—because it will come up in Part 5—will be the fundamental whakapapa connection that Māori have to land, which may not necessarily be reflected in a category of interest classified under a preferred entity. So to give you an example, under the Māori Trust Boards Act—for all sorts of reasons there are peculiarities of interest under some trust boards that are a bit wider and may, I guess, be a step away from the direct land interest of a grouping or category of owners. I am just wondering, in terms of the intent of the legislation, whether the Minister is satisfied that the preferred entity category is close enough to the whakapapa connections that people have to their tribal lands and that that will not get lost in the decision-making process.

It is, I guess, a kind of academic thought, but when you think about some of the problems that people have with some of their preferred entities, their trust boards or their rūnunga and things like that, it is probably a question we should ask and get some satisfaction that we have thought about these things in the Committee stage.

The other aspects that I want to comment on are the issues around dispositions, knowing that we spent a bit of time in the Māori Affairs Committee going through the various clauses relating to dispositions. This was to ensure that there were sufficient protections around the disposition of Māori land. Now, I heard the clarification, and we certainly received it at the select committee, that by resolution whānau could actually raise the threshold to 100 percent and make it very difficult to dispose of Māori freehold land, but by resolution a progressive grouping of ownership interests could lower the threshold to dispose of Māori land. Would that be the natural consequence if a resolution could overturn the stated thresholds that are reflected in the bill? This would be, again, the type of question that we should think about as we are peering through the various clauses of the bill to give ourselves satisfaction that we are not creating any unintended consequences, and I would appreciate a response from the Minister.

The other interesting clause that I want to come to is clause 128, and in particular subclause (3A)(a) to (c), and that was around the decisions around the granting of the term of the lease. We know lots of parcels of land around the place where there are grazing leases, quite long leases in things like that, and you need a higher threshold for a shorter-term lease and a lower threshold for a longer-term lease. If the intention is actually to ensure the viability and that there are good economic financial lease arrangements on the various bits of land, the reverse would have been true: to try to ensure that it was easier for owners to have a lower threshold for a shorter lease and to review those leases in a more regular period rather than have what the current situation is—longer lease periods with very low income and return back to whānau. So that is also a matter that I think it would also be good to get clarification from the Minister on.

As we work through the rest of the bill, it is important to make sure that we can provide the level of clarity, because—I will come back to the key point that I raised in the first reading and in my initial contribution to the Committee stage: Māori land owners will need a lawyer to navigate this bill. It has been really difficult in terms of the consideration of it at the select committee. Even though we think we have had very good advice from officials and worked our way through various aspects, you actually have to be in every clause and thinking about it and looking at it from every angle to the degree that you feel that you understand it. But then again, everything interweaves across the parts, and I struggle when I am asked to give a bit of an upshot of it to people who are keen to understand in this area what all the changes mean, to give a really concise and precise response.

I say that, well, it is a big bit of legislation. There is a lot that impacts on the ways in which Māori land owners can configure themselves and create governance agreements. The intention is around improved governance structures, but we will have to wait and see for the Māori Land Service to establish itself to see how that helps. The intention is to provide thresholds of decision making that strengthen the principle of retaining land, but you still have to wait for the Māori Land Service to see how you may be better supported to utilise land. So that is not a very good way of presenting such a complex piece of legislation but also an important piece of legislation. There would be no other law affecting Māori, other than Treaty settlements, but Māori land is fundamentally one of the key bits of law that absolutely everybody has a passion about.

My one concern, and I have said it time and time again, is that if humble whānau who just want to utilise their little block of land out in the boondocks are saying “Look, jeez, we’ve heard that there’s a good thing going on and we want to get into it. How are we going to do that? What’s the first step? Where do we go to?”, I do not think the changes are really happening, because most of the opportunities for Māori land owners exist within the context of what has been shifted to the Māori Land Service. And although a new CEO has been appointed for the Māori Land Service—

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: Not quite.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: “Not quite.”, the Minister says, but it has already been promoted. So the cart has been put before the horse. The point of that, though, is that while there may be perceived benefits of the Māori Land Service, the design of that service and how it meets the aspirations of Māori landholding interests throughout the rohe is very unclear. I will take an example within an area I am working in at the moment. In the King Country about 10 percent of lands are in Māori shareholding, Māori trusts. Some are productive, some are not. I think some would benefit from the Māori Land Service potentially, but it is still unclear.

This is about putting the cart before the horse, and in order to have a genuine and constructive debate about the utilisation of Māori land, surely you would want to know the what design of the service is that has been geared to support them. We have not got that. What we have is a difficult piece of legislation, but, Minister, let me come back to the three things that I raised. It is really around the belts and braces of the kaiwhakahaere and their decision-making process being accountable to landowners, the issues around the preferred entity being a step away from landowners’ interests and whether you are satisfied about that, and the decision-making threshold of 100 percent. So dispositions could be a very high threshold but that threshold could by resolution be lowered below 50 percent—and I would appreciate that view from the Minister—in order to dispose of land. They are three small but important questions. It would be useful to get a response to be able to help our people navigate their way through this legislation in Part 4.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Mr Chair, I recall the last time, when I was, rightfully, told off by Mr Chair for saying “Mr Chair, Mr Chair, Mr Chair”, so I was trying really hard not to do that this time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. You should say it at least once, though, to indicate you would like a call.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: OK, well—I was trying, I promise. OK—fair enough.

I do want to pick up where my colleague Nanaia Mahuta left off, because the Greens want to be very clear that we do not agree with—I mean, whether the formalities have actually gone through or not, what we understand is that a CEO has, in fact, been put in the process before the bill has even gone through the House. Budget allocation has happened before the bill has even gone through the House, where a CEO process is happening before the Māori lands—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is that in this part of the bill?

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Sorry?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just check.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes, OK.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is it the appointment process?

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I will go back to the bill first. So, for example—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right. I will take the member’s assurance.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: I am going to go back. I know that the Minister has addressed some of the disposition of land through his speech previously, just tonight. I did just want to put on record that under the legislation—for example, in clause 100—it would seem that for the sale of a parcel in ordinary cases, there are restrictions and limits to the way in which a parcel of Māori freehold land may ordinarily be sold. I accept that. I accept that clause 100 sets out that the sale must go to either “a preferred recipient in relation to the land,” or “a preferred recipient or preferred entity in relation to the land,”. But what I just wanted to say is that while I accept that, and it could be legally true, I wanted to make sure that what we are saying, though, is that it is still possible—yes. It is still possible for the sale of a parcel of Māori freehold land.

Yes, we have put down on paper what seem to be good restrictions, but we are just not saying that we are preventing the sale of Māori freehold land. I am not proposing that that is the purpose of what we should be doing—preventing sale—but I just wanted to make it absolutely clear, for my understanding of it, that we can at least not be purporting to say that we are preventing the loss through sale completely. While I understand Minister Flavell is reiterating the protections, my point is that it appears that in clause 100 we are not preventing it. It is still open—it is still a possibility that in ordinary cases, the sale of a parcel of Māori freehold land can go ahead.

I think my colleague Nanaia Mahuta may have also picked up on clause 130—yes, that is in Part 4—which is entitled “Lease of parcel for residential housing rent-free”. I understand that this is another change where—OK. So in the bill, clause 130(1) states: “A lease may be granted over all or part of a parcel of Māori freehold land for the purpose of residential housing and rent-free, but only in accordance with this section.” If you come down to clause 130(2), it states: “The term of the lease must be—(a) 99 years or less;”—so 99 years or less; the term of the lease must be 99 years or less—“or (b) for the life of the person to whom it is granted.”

I have no political issue with that, but I am just trying to jog my memory on whether we discussed lesser terms and what the benefits or downfalls of having different terms may be. I am only trying to pick up on the impact of long-term impact leases and what that has done.

I understand that further down in clause 130 it does actually restrict the lease. Clause 130(5) does restrict the lease. It states: “The person to whom the lease is granted must be—(a) an owner of the land; or (b) a beneficiary of a whānau trust that has an interest in the land.” I do understand that distinction—it is all within the same clause—but I ask whether the Minister would not mind recalling the discussion on the different terms of the leases. I am just genuinely querying whether 99 years or less, even if it is to a current owner or beneficiary, can be—

NUK KORAKO (National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): One more.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I do want to acknowledge the submitters. I opened my contribution tonight with the importance of this part, Part 4, which is about the disposition of Māori land. I did have a contribution around the preferred recipients, but this is a completely different point, and it is in relation to the preferred entities.

I do want to acknowledge the many submitters—very expert submitters—who came in front of the select committee. Two in particular were the Māori Land Court judges and the New Zealand Law Society in relation to the preferred entities. They believe that the definition was poorly drafted; that is what they said. By way of an example, to express what they meant, they talked about incorporations in all areas—my area, Te Tai Rāwhiti—with perhaps 10,000 shareholders and one shareholder who is, by reason of separate whakapapa, a preferred recipient for land in the Taranaki area and then Te Tai Rāwhiti incorporation being regarded as a preferred entity for the land in Taranaki.

So the question there, which both the Māori Land Court judges and the New Zealand Law Society said, is that by allowing this particular preferred entity—in terms of, I believe, either iwi authorities or post-settlement entities—there is potentially a risk there, if there is someone who may have an interest in another part of the country, that that land could actually go to an iwi that is totally not related to the land. That is a submission put in by both the Māori Land Court judges and the New Zealand Law Society. It was just important for me to make sure that I raised that particular point, because this bill actually does allow post-settlement governance to be considered preferred entities.

In fact, it is interesting to note that—and I am quoting from the official detailed submission analysis for the Māori Affairs Committee, where there is a reference in there around governance groups. This is the officials’ comment on page 70: “Amongst other struggles with large governance bodies is actually finding and identifying the owners of the land that they are administering.” So I just wanted to put those points on record that both the Māori Land Court and the New Zealand Law Society really had some concerns around the definition of preferred entities. I just want to note that their suggestion was factored, but it did not result in any changes to the particular clause 96, which talks about the preferred entity. So it is important to acknowledge the many good submitters who came through in front of the select committee. Thank you.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I just want to move the discussion to clause 144, where reference is made to recording dispositions on the Māori Land Register. The bill is quite clear where it says that any instrument affecting the disposition is to be recorded on the Māori Land Register. I can only assume at this stage that the Māori Land Register will form part of the Māori Land Service. What I would like to have some clarification on is where, physically, those records will be held. Will they be held in one central office, or will there be several offices of the Māori Land Service?

I have some difficulty in accepting what is here in the bill without knowing just exactly how and what the Māori Land Service will look like, because if we take, for instance, the transfer of Māori land and the succession to Māori land, the actual records are retained by the Māori Land Court at the moment, and there are, I think, seven or eight different registries of the Māori Land Court. I know that the whole issue of the Māori Land Service is a contentious one and probably forms the basis of some of the reasons why there are objections to the bill, but I would like to have some clarification from the Minister as to what the physical service will look like, because that will take a lot of space in terms of the different documents that will be involved.

Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: For another day.

PITA PARAONE: Yes, I would certainly like to have some clarification, but the difficulty is that we do not know just what that service will look like, other than that—according to this clause—the records will need to be held on a register. But we do not know, and we can only presume, that that register will be held by the Māori Land Service. That is in clause 144(1), which says: “This section provides for the recording in the Māori land register of an instrument executed by the parties—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to haul the member back now. In Part 8, there are extensive provisions about that area, and I am going to rule that that is the right place to argue about the location of registers, because that is the part that is about registers. Does the member want to continue now on another topic?

PITA PARAONE: No, I will not.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in his name to Part 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Meka Whaitiri to clauses 132, 145, and 148 be agreed to:

in clause 132(3A), delete paragraph (b);

in clause 132(3A)(c), replace “25” with “7”;

in clause 145(3), replace “may” with “must; and

in clause 148(2), replace “with” with “who the chief executive determines has”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Authority to act in relation to Māori freehold land

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now come to the debate on Part 5, which is a debate on clauses 154 to 201 and schedules 2, 3, and 4 in relation to those parts.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and it is good to see you back again. Just to set out it again, this is a major piece of legislation, and Part 5, of course, brings another part to the equation, which is about the provisions to enable owners of Māori freehold land to appoint governance bodies to represent them in relation to Māori land, and also to allow the Māori Land Court to appoint kaiwhakahaere—which was the point of discussion from some members earlier—to act as agents for the owners when there is a clear need to do so.

One of the main features of the bill is a new governance for Māori freehold land. This part shifts the right to appoint and form governance entities to the owners of the relevant freehold land themselves. This is to be done through a process of decision making and registration, instead of requiring a discretionary decision from the Māori Land Court by way of application, hearing, and adjudication. This change is consistent with the principle of rangatiratanga, which is at the forefront of this particular piece of legislation, and contributes to a new framework in which the aspirations of owners for their land are supported and facilitated.

The bill provides a wide range of options for structuring governance bodies and governance arrangements, with compliance measures limited to those things essential to ensure that the process is fair and absolutely transparent. This means that owners will be able to set things up to suit their own needs and aspirations and their own tikanga, as well as their own preferred way of operating, whether that be with a commercially orientated focus or with a strong conservation focus.

It has been clear for some time that owners have been looking for more flexibility and more options in setting up governance arrangements. The rangatōpū model responds to that call for better alternatives to ahu whenua trusts. Owners will be able to form an entity under other legislation to be their rangatōpū, such as a company, or they can form their own private trust. This will not disturb the current structure or constitution of existing ahu whenua trusts, whenua tōpū trusts, or Māori incorporations, which can continue unchanged under the bill. They have a choice to move or transition into the new rangatōpū model, but they will not be compelled to do so. This part also sets out a clear, straightforward legal framework within which governance bodies may operate that protects the interests of owners if things actually go haywire or go wrong.

Specifically about the kaiwhakahaere discussion that is going to come up tonight, this bill provides a mechanism for the Māori Land Court to appoint a person as a kaiwhakahaere to act as an agent of the owners of Māori land that does not have a governance arrangement in place. This regime is similar to that found in the current Act and has been part of the legal framework for Māori land since 1974. The role of the kaiwhakahaere is to represent owners for—mostly—one-off, specific issues such as responding to a notice issued by a local authority or implementing a decision of the owners. The kaiwhakahaere regime supports the principle of whakawhanake—development—and taonga tuku iho, as it involves the owners. This is within the purview of the court and is a protective mechanism—absolutely.

So those are some of the points, I am sure, that are the starting point for our discussion this evening. I am sure that when we get to some of the parts of the amendments presented by Peeni Henare or whoever else is putting forward those amendments, I will be able to flesh those out a little bit more. Ka nui te mihi.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti. Part 5 is all about governance and the new governance arrangements for Māori freehold land. Can I start with clause 154, the overview of provisions, and just make an opening comment, which is that a governance body can be managed by its kaitiaki. I did not get to speak on Part 1 but what I would have said is relevant right here, around the terminology kaitiaki.

A couple of things come to mind. Fundamentally this governance model is one that has been around but is now including Māori terminology over the top of it—well, I hope it is over the top of it. My comment around that is that just putting a Māori name or term on to this role does not actually change the fact that it is like a trustee’s role or a company director’s role. When thinking about a governance model, if it was a Māori governance model, it would not quite look like this, I do not think. My comment around that is putting this terminology on it does not make it that way.

The Māori Land Court judges said that these arrangements were complex and uncertain. Some of the complexities, I think, in supporting what I have just said, are that we have had around three decades of case law around all of this that is relevant to the existing Act, the current Act, and so that is now removed.

The interesting thing for me, looking at the new arrangements—and, as the Minister said, there is a wide range of options available to Māori land owners around which governance option they take, including the existing ones. So the existing governance arrangements continue. We get these new terminologies, so we have another layer and some new types of entities coming into force, overlaid by this concept that it will be managed by its kaitiaki, whether it comes from the current legislation or the new legislation.

My question is: just how many types of entities are we going to end up with? I support my colleague Nanaia Mahuta’s comment on the previous part. These new arrangements are meant to make the governance of Māori freehold land easier and more simplistic, and yet, from my view, having the number of entities or possible entities is going to be difficult for our people or anyone to navigate—so, those who are in the 5,000 existing trusts that are moving, under the new regime, to having a rangatōpū, or remaining where they are but with the overlay of these new concepts and new way of operating.

In clause 156, under “Rights of owners of Māori freehold land managed under governance agreement”, I was interested in subclause (2)(a). It says that an owner of Māori freehold land basically “(a) retains beneficial ownership, but not legal ownership, of the land while it is managed under the agreement;”. I wondered why it was that option, because there are other potential or possible arrangements that could have been. Once it is taken over by this new governance entity, why exactly is it that the owner of the land becomes the beneficial owner and not the legal owner? Because I would have thought that you could have other options, like a custodian trust, to take that responsibility so that the governance body could still operate under the terms of its governance and the owner would have their rights protected as well. I am not saying that it will not be protected. I am just not sure and I just do not understand why you could not retain legal ownership and still be the beneficiary of that land.

I want to jump to subpart 2, clause 189, “Court may appoint kaiwhakahaere”, and again it is my hope that where we apply Māori terminology to this new role, which as the Minister said is really to act as an agent, I hope that in future the court recognises that. I want to say in this debate that that is what kaiwhakahaere is, for this purpose, but that is not what kaiwhakahaere is, in my understanding of the terminology. That is the first point that I want to make.

I want to look at clause 190, “Purposes for which kaiwhakahaere may be appointed”. One of them is in subclause (2)(b)—that is how you say it—“to set or negotiate the terms of a sale of the land under section 100(4)(c):”. I am wondering why you would need a kaiwhakahaere for that purpose. If the decision has already been made to sell that land, why would it be that the court needs to appoint a kaiwhakahaere for that purpose, when you would think that to get to that decision the owners and the relevant governance organisation would have already gone through a robust and rigorous process to get to that point, and so I wondered why that would be the case.

I want to speak in support of my colleague Peeni Henare’s Supplementary Order Paper 322 that replaces clause 197(1). It basically means when the court, in appointing a kaiwhakahaere for that purpose—the clause says it may require the chief executive to arrange a meeting of the owners. This change compels the chief executive to do that, so “… it must—(a) direct the chief executive to arrange a meeting of the owners in accordance with”—those relevant clauses, and it must—“(b) direct the kaiwhakahaere to report to the owners, at the meeting, on any matter referred to in section 196(1).”

So I support this Supplementary Order Paper 322. It is really important that the owners have confidence in those arrangements that are being carried out by the kaiwhakahaere. It is critically important that the owners of the land actually feel like they have been reported back to, and so I support Supplementary Order Paper 322.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. We are talking about Part 5, and, like the Minister for Māori Development explained, this introduces the governance arrangements that are part of this bill. For me, I think it is important that we acknowledge the many submitters who came in front of the Māori Affairs Committee, who raised—and there were varying views from those who submitted on this particular part, particularly from those from existing governance bodies as to what it means for them, and from those who, maybe, have desires to trigger some of these arrangements that are part of this part. I just want to acknowledge those who did come, and what they did say. Like I said, it was a mixed bag of people who supported the intention of what is trying to be achieved under this part. There were also some concerns they raised, and I do want to table them in the Committee.

Of course, there were submitters who agreed that a custom-designed governance agreement to suit their particular needs is something that we need to support. They clearly urged the Government to provide education and support to fully understand the new provisions, and, I guess, that has formed part of the Budget we heard last week—$1.8 million. Who said that? A number of groups: Ngāti Koroki Kahukura, Ngāti Ranginui iwi, and, of course, Willie Te Aho. They were absolutely saying that they saw the need there, but, obviously, need some support from the Government to make sure that they fully understand what these governance arrangements are intended to do.

Other submitters talked about wanting clear governance arrangements that are owner-appointed, and governance bodies that operate owner-approved governance arrangements. They wanted to make sure that it is not thrust upon them—that, as owners, they both pick the governance arrangement that best suits them and also that they determine what their agreements will look like. Those submitters were Taurewarewa Urupa Maungatautari Interim Trust, Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu, and Wairarapa Moana Inc.

Then you go to some concerns from some submitters, who talked about the transition into the new governance model—and I mentioned that when I first started this contribution. They were from Ngāti Ranginui iwi, Tuarōpaki Trust, and Wairarapa Moana Inc., and Willie Te Aho. What it means is, again, having some clarity for those existing organisations and what this particular clause means for them in terms of transitioning. I think it is important that we also acknowledge that.

I want to talk about what the Māori Land Court judges considered of the governance model, and to back up my colleague Adrian Rurawhe about the complexity in this particular part in making sure that the bill does address some of the concerns that the Māori Land Court judges raised in their submissions. Importantly, I also want to talk about Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou. In their submission, in terms of Part 5, they also believed that the new governance bodies should be sustainably funded to undertake their governance roles, and expressed concern that this will create economic strain. In Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou’s submission to the select committee, they raised, again, the issue around who would pick this up if they were expected to transition from their current structure to this new structure. I think that is, again, a very, very valid concern, which the key bodies that I have mentioned came before the select committee to address.

I just wanted to set that platform. I want to come back to the particular parts, but I think it is important that I acknowledge those organisations that have operated in this space for many, many years—sharing their expertise with the select committee and raising those concerns, again, around education support, around making sure they are owner-appointed and owner-approved governance arrangements and that the transition to the new governance is not a financial burden to those organisations. I will pick up the rest of my contribution later on in this debate. Thank you very much.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Tiamana. Just carrying on from Meka Whaitiri, when she was talking around the submissions process and a lot of the feedback that was received. There were questions that actually related to this Part 5, around governance bodies, and there were all the questions coming out around why a rangatōpū model is needed. There were other parts of it about what to do if the incorporation is actually happy with the status quo, particularly with their current governance structure. The other part was what involvement the Māori Land Service will have in the establishment of these new bodies.

I just thought that, for the benefit of those who were not there for the submissions—the submitters were listened to. I think that this is very clear in the way that Part 5 of this bill has actually been crafted to address the concerns from a number of the submitters. For instance, it was really clear for some time that the owners had been looking for a more flexible additional option for setting up a governance arrangement. What a number of them said was that, under the present bill, it was very, very restrictive in some ways. That was where the genesis, in some ways, of the rangatōpū model was introduced. This rangatōpū model responds to the call and provides, I believe, a better alternative to an ahu whenua trust established by the Māori Land Court. The rangatōpū model will enable Māori land owners to design their own rules—so that is even tino rangatiratanga—for governing their whenua using a consistent and really clear legal framework.

What it does too is that owners will be able to form an entity under other legislation, like companies for example, to be their rangatōpū, or they can form their own private trust. So there are extra options that this new bill actually provides. Under the current Act, trustees are exposed to personal liability, and this was something that was highlighted quite a lot around the present Act and exposure to personal liability if the assets of the trust are not enough to meet the trust’s commitments. That was one of the major ones. So this bill provides an option, similar to charitable trusts’ registration, to avoid this by registering a new rangatōpū as an actual body corporate.

Looking at this, I believe that the rangatōpū model supports owner autonomy, and this is one of the reasons it was crafted this way. By providing choice and freedom—it was more around giving landowners more options to be able to govern their whenua. The other part of it is that it also allows the governance arrangements to be structured in a way that will gain more confidence from the financial and the banking sectors, and this was another thing. It is actually a better model because it is quite transparent and there are different options to it, so if you were looking for finance and all that, then it would actually be a lot better under rangatōpū in this new legislation.

I think that the other parts of it—because talking about commercial models and things like that, there was a question also about tax implications. I remember at Tuahiwi there were major questions around whether the bill ensures that all governance models, including new and existing ones, would continue to qualify for the Māori tax authority regime. So this is also being included. There was a thing where, if I have a Māori incorporation but I remove it to a rangatōpū, what would the costs around the tax implications be. So that has been addressed in this bill. Kia ora.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair; I did call only twice this time. I have just a couple of quick comments probably, more than queries. I too want to add a Green Party query. I note that in Part 5 of the bill, “Authority to act in relation to Māori freehold land”, clause 154(2) “A governance body, whether it is a body corporate …”, it comes down to the use of the word kaitiaki—“… kaitiaki, being the persons who occupy a position in the body that is comparable with that of a director of a company.” It was important for me to make sure that I queried that sort of comparative mention inside the actual legislation, where the notion of kaitiaki can be seen as being quite different to that of a director of any company, being driven from different agenda and different purposes. I think it is important for me to be able to put the Greens on record, in highlighting that feeling, which is quite disconnected for me a little bit.

My understanding in Part 5, and I think the Minister laid it out at the beginning, was that this enables owners to appoint different governance bodies and kaiwhakahaere—that is fine. I think my understanding is that the bill, in Part 5, is shifting the right to appoint governance bodies for Māori freehold land from the Māori Land Court to the owners, and it also widens the range of options—I think that is my understanding of Part 5. It would be appreciated if I could have some confirmation of that understanding. So we are shifting that appointment right from the Māori Land Court to the owners, and then we, of course, are opening up, I think, the range of options for what those governance bodies will look like.

I appreciate the Minister outlining that the new rangatōpū model seems to be a better alternative to the current ahu whenua trusts in some cases. But also—and I think this was the important thing for me—there is nothing to compel current land trusts or governance bodies to switch to that new rangatōpū model if they do not want to. However, what I think I am getting at for this whole Part 5 of the bill is that inequity comment. While some of the submitters absolutely commented on a need for wider alternatives of governance, is there going to be an equitable opportunity for all governance models or land organisations to be able to move over to the better model if it is going to be a better model?

Some are querying and are worried that this availability of a new model is a good thing, but they are unsure or are not confident in their own ability to actually be able to transition over. I think what I am trying to get at here is the difference in equity when it comes to how established or how organised different trusts or governance bodies is around the different whānau parcels set up around the country, and regardless of what Part 5 is trying to do, with good intentions, in the legislation, whether or not any of that will actually change the equity problem and the difference between less-established and more-established governance bodies that currently may or may not be able to benefit from the new options and the wider range of governance options that are available. So I think that was my main query at this point. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Thank you for that—excellent. I want to spend some time on clauses 157 and 158. Clause 157(1) specifically refers to: “The owners of 1 or more parcels of Māori freehold land may appoint a governance body for those parcels …”, with the exception of whenua tāpui. Minister, you did highlight that in your opening statements, but it is useful to go through and highlight what whenua tāpui is. It includes: (a) a papakāinga housing site: (b) a marae: (c) a meeting place: (d) a recreation or sports ground: (e) a bathing place: (f) a church site: (g) a building site: (h) an urupā: (i) a landing place: (j) a fishing ground: (k) a spring well, catchment area, or other source of water supply: (l) a timber reserve: (m) a place of cultural or historical interest: (n) a place of scenic interest: (o) a place of special significance according to tikanga Māori: (p) a wāhi tapu or wāhi tupuna …”. So that is a very important exception, in terms of where a governance body can exercise its role.

However, I want to focus specifically on clause 158. It seems to me that if people just pragmatically accept that Māori trusts—those whenua whānau trusts—are operating well, they will continue to operate well. But for those smaller groupings of landholding interests and collective owners who are not organised, who do not have a governance arrangement, who do not have the capacity to pull themselves together—what might clause 158 provide? I know—potentially, for the Māori Trustee to come and scoop along all these interests and act on their behalf. That might sound somewhat sceptical, and it is intended to be, because if there was a concern out in our community about an entity that has the capacity right now to shadow or oversee the interests of unorganised groupings of interest, it is the Māori Trustee. It is ready now. It is a nationwide entity.

Again, some people may perceive that as a bit sceptical, but if you look at clause 158(1)(e) and (f), “an existing statutory body” definitely would apply to the Māori Trustee. It says as much in clause 158(3) that follows, and it is named. “[A] representative entity” could be another organisation—let us say an iwi authority or the like—but if you look at the way in which Māori landholding interests are being coordinated, often they are being coordinated by Māori corporate bodies or the Māori Trustee. So that gives me cause to ask Minister Flavell whether there is an assurance that this legislation has not been designed around building a big mogul of an operation of the Māori Trustee, and that the Māori Land Service is not set up to help that aspiration. It is somewhat cheeky, I know, but you can see all the dynamics of the perception. Does the perception, Minister, reflect the reality? If not, I am happy to take a clear assurance in the Committee. But it is very evident to people who are following this debate and wondering about what is underpinning some of the aspects of this particular legislation that might disenfranchise them from their interests.

We did also hear people who were happy to live the rest of their lives knowing that their whenua tupuna was not going to be utilised and was going to be there for time immemorial. OK, that is that. But for those groupings of interests who might think that they would want to do something, I think they will be shaking in their boots at the prospect of Big Brother, the Māori Trustee, coming alongside and saying: “Boy, have we got a deal for you. We can make it all really very simple. All you have to do is sign over your interests to us, and we will take care of it. No worries—just ‘spray and walk away.’ ” Ha, ha! It is pretty much like that. So, Minister, it would be good to get an assurance. Perception is not always the reality, but, Minister, it is very evident that this is one of the clauses that creates a perception and a nervousness that the possibility of the Māori Trustee overplaying an interest on behalf of unorganised Māori land owners could actually overshadow, I guess, some of some of the intended benefits of the legislation.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I just wanted to take a quick call, really, to address again some of the issues that have been raised and, indeed, to address the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled under the name of Peeni Henare. I think it is appropriate to do so tonight in particular, as we sit around Part 5. But if I can just address one or two of the matters that were raised by members, just to say again, a kaiwhakahaere is needed only if there is no governance body in place, to implement, and not make, owner decisions to sell if they meet the 75 percent threshold. That is the first point. It is important just to set that out and say it absolutely clearly.

That leads on to the issue that the member Peeni Henare has in his SOP. I would suggest to the Committee that the amendment proposed in the SOP is actually unnecessary because the bill already makes discretionary provisions for the owners to be kept informed. I refer members to clause 191, in particular subclause (2). It sets out the responsibilities of the kaiwhakahaere. Under clause 191(2), “A kaiwhakahaere appointed for a purpose”—blah, blah, blah—“must (a) consult with the owners about actions the kaiwhakahaere proposes to take on the owners’ behalf; and (b) keep the owners informed about actions the kaiwhakahaere has taken …”—you can read the rest. Pretty much it is setting out very clearly what kaiwhakahaere can do, and it covers off those issues that the member Peeni Henare raises.

If I can go to clause 197, again it sets out what the court may require a kaiwhakahaere to report to owners. It, basically, addresses the issues that the member raises. It already gives the Māori Land Court the power to direct the calling of a meeting of owners at any time and to direct the kaiwhakahaere to report to the owners on matters specified in clause 196, which is, obviously, the clause ahead of it. So, in terms of addressing the issues raised by Peeni Henare, I believe that those issues are already covered within the bill, and therefore we will be voting accordingly and not support that amendment.

Adrian Rurawhe raised, in clause 156(2), I think it was, an issue about beneficial owners. This is just to advise him that, under the current Act, the owners are the beneficial owners, and the trusts and incorporations are the legal owners. This is the same under this bill and allows the governance bodies to manage the land effectively for the owners. There is the element of difference between those two definitions. The beneficial owners have the benefits of ownership, and the legal owners have the responsibilities of ownership. That, I hope, addresses the issues raised by the member for Te Tai Hauāuru. A number of members have raised the issue about a Māori Land Service, and I know that it is not in this particular part. Suffice it to say that that is still being built, and any conjecture in respect of the appointment of chief executives, etc., is a little bit early. We can come to that later on in the discussion. I hope that has been helpful to members.

MATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh, Mr Doocey, it is really unusual to do that after your own side has just had a call. It is an indication, really, of lack of confidence in Minister Flavell, and I do not think you really meant that.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Talofa lava, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I just want to highlight that this subpart in Part 5 provides in clause 154(1)(a) “for owners of Māori freehold land to appoint a governance body to manage the land on their behalf under a governance agreement;”. I have questions for Minister Flavell in a couple of areas, and the first is about clause 158. Clause 158(1)(f) notes “a representative entity.”, and then the relationship between clause 158(1)(f) and paragraph (b) of the definition of “representative entity” in clause 158(3) is about that representative entity being “recognised by the owners of the land as having authority to represent the hapū or iwi.”

My question, really, to the Minister is whether or not saying “a representative entity.” in clause 158(1)(f) is, in fact, sufficient, or whether it should say “an authorised representative entity.” The reason I bring it up is to ask whether it is possible to actually have more than one representative entity recognised by the owners of the land. I would really appreciate the Minister’s outlining the process to determine who is the legal representative entity if that were ever to happen, what process has to be gone through to discern who is actually the representative entity—so, what is the mediation process—and, in fact, whether it could end up with an entity going to court to determine that it is, in fact, the representative entity.

I think if that is an outcome of the relationship between these two particular clauses, then that is not a good process and it should be clarified, which is why I highlighted whether clause 158(1)(f) should say “authorised representative entity.”, because then you have already taken care of the fact that it is the body that becomes the governance body. It is just a question, so I am just wondering whether the Minister or the officials have thought of that. Then I ask what the solution is, if it is possible for the recognised owners to actually end up having two different bodies having the authority to represent the hapū and iwi. I also want to focus on clause 189, “Court may appoint kaiwhakahaere”, and the relationship between clauses 189, 190, 192, and 193, because essentially the kaiwhakahaere is required because there is not a governance entity.

So in reading these clauses—and I have not really had a relationship with this bill. I want to acknowledge those on the Māori Affairs Committee who have. But one of the questions that has come to my mind is that it seems that the relationship between the chief executive of—what is the name of the entity?

Marama Davidson: The Māori Land Service?

LOUISA WALL: Yes. The chief executive of the Māori Land Service—thank you—has, in clause 193(2)(a) to (f), a whole lot of power. He or she is the one who ends up calling the owners together and is the one who ends up writing a report, and it is through that mechanism that the court then determines who the kaiwhakahaere is. So that is the chief executive of a Crown entity who is acting on behalf of Māori. I do not think that is appropriate. Obviously, the Minister does, but I am just wondering about the independence of the Crown and the courts. Are they not supposed to be independent? Well, the courts are supposed to be independent. So, in fact, what the courts will be doing is giving effect—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member. She is getting way ahead of herself. She is now talking about Part 9. Just about her whole speech—

LOUISA WALL: No, no, no—clause 193.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes, and what I am saying is that the dispute resolution process to which—yes, the member does have to sit down.

LOUISA WALL: Sorry.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The dispute resolution process to which she is referring and asking questions about is set out in Part 9 of the bill.

LOUISA WALL: I am talking about clause 193(2)(a), which directs “the chief executive to arrange in accordance with section 194 a meeting of the owners”, and then they write a report, and if it satisfies the court, that then determines who the kaiwhakahaere is. That is what I was highlighting. I was highlighting the fact—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK, sorry. I thought the member indicated that she thought that was disputed. Keep going.

LOUISA WALL: No, no—thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, can I have another call, please?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.

LOUISA WALL: Thank you, Mr Chair. So I do think, given the relationship between the Māori land owners, the Government—so, the CEO of a Crown entity—and then the courts, it actually creates a scenario where, in fact, it is the Crown and then the courts that are colluding with each other to some degree to then appoint a kaiwhakahaere, who is supposed to represent Māori interests. It just—from my perspective and the perspective of Māori, I think that they would find it abhorrent that, actually, the CEO can write a report that then enables the court, to all intents and purposes, to take a governing body out of their hands and put it into the hands of an entity that has been appointed by the CEO of a Government department and the Crown. I actually think it is incredibly ironic.

So it would be really interesting for the Minister to kind of explain that philosophy, not only to us here in the Committee tonight but to Māori, who obviously have taken a great interest in this particular piece of legislation and will, I think, continue to. So I have risen to take a couple of calls because I think that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and I would appreciate it if the Minister, if he has considered those two particular issues—I ask whether or not he and his officials could provide some advice to the Committee. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. Before I hear anyone else, I am going to refer the member—and I should have probably done it a little bit more quickly—to Speaker’s ruling 37/4 and probably Speaker’s ruling 38/5. The member suggested that the court could be colluding with the Government. I think that is a reflection on a court—it is a reflection on a court—and something that members are not meant to do. People can talk about the decisions of courts and they can talk about the law, but they cannot suggest that judges collude with, or are directed by, the Government.

NUK KORAKO (National): I move, That the question be now put.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I just wanted to make a comment on clause 165(1)(c). The clause is “Grounds for rejecting application for registration of governance agreement”, and that “The chief executive must reject an application to register a governance agreement if”—and this is paragraph (c)—“the Māori freehold land to be managed under the agreement—(i) is held by a sole owner or by joint tenants”. It is that particular clause that I would just like some clarification on. What if the sole owner happens to be a minor and it is in the best interests of the minor to have that interest protected by the possibility of making an application to register a governance group for those interests? I just ask the Minister to make a comment on that.

The other point that I would like to make is in regard to clause 170—“Registrar-General to record change of ownership of land”. Now, that is, again, a departure from what is in the process at the moment, where the Māori Land Court keeps those records. This suggests to me that this is the first step to removing Māori land as such, to become part of the general land ownership of the country, by passing that registration to the Registrar-General. I just ask whether the Minister would like to comment on those two points, please.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, I think it has all been relevant to date.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): In the time I have got, I would like to talk to my two amendments that are on the Table and, just by way of explanation, draw the Committee’s attention to clause 154. If you turn to clause 154, when looking at the bill, one of the concerns I had was an accountability clause, which was obvious when you went through the particular section, in terms of—when we are talking about governance bodies—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but the time has come for me to report what progress we have made.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.