Thursday, 1 June 2017
Volume 722
Sitting date: 1 June 2017
THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 2017
THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 2017
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 6 June the Government will look to complete the Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill and the Care and Support Worker Equal Pay Settlement Bill, and make progress on a number of other bills on the Order Paper.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
State and Social Housing—Emergency Housing
1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Housing: Can she guarantee that all 3,422 people on the Priority A Housing Register who urgently need a place to live will be housed within a month; if not, why not?
Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: Mr Speaker, fa’afetai mo le avanoa. Vaiaso o le Gagana Samoa. Most of the people who are priority A on the social housing register are already housed. Their place on the register indicates that they are in need of a social house but not that they are not currently in some form of housing. For those without current housing, the Government has a range of options, including emergency housing places in a motel or boarding house, transitional homes for families to stay in, or financial support for private rentals. Anybody on the social housing register who is in need of housing should contact the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), and help will be available for them.
Metiria Turei: How many of those 3,422 people are now living in their own homes?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Our goal is to get people who need it into a social house as soon as possible, which is why we have made reducing the time to house priority A clients by 20 percent a Better Public Services (BPS) target. But our first priority is safe, secure housing while they are on the register, and we have a range of options available to us to use.
Metiria Turei: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat that question for the benefit of the Minister.
Metiria Turei: Sorry, what was that? Point of order, to repeat the question? How many of those 3,422 people are now living in their own homes? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked. It will now be answered.
Hon ALFRED NGARO: We know that there are a number of measures. There are, currently, approximately 900 on the social housing register that cite homelessness as a reason for requiring housing. Of the 4,197 people on the last census who were without habitable accommodation, 1,430 were living in rough and improvised dwellings, what most New Zealanders would understand as homeless. Also, too, the Government has been supporting families through the increasing of social housing by 66,000 social houses, and it is planning to increase that by 6,400 by 2020 to 72,000. Special needs grants were paid out—9,200 grants last quarter—to 2,616 families and individuals, totalling $8.8 million.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification. In answer to my primary question, the Minister said that most of those people had already been housed. My supplementary question was: how many of those people have been housed? The Minister has not answered that second question. In two opportunities, he has talked about other numbers and other categories of people, but not the 3,422 on the priority A housing list.
Hon Simon Bridges: There was some difficulty with the member’s question—it was very imprecise. She talked about “their own home”. It is difficult to know what that means, and so the Minister, in answering it, gave some numbers that addressed that.
Mr SPEAKER: I listened to the question twice—on two occasions. To me, the question was quite clear—my understanding of the question: how many of those have now moved into a home of their own? We have had two attempts at answering the question, and I do not think it has been answered satisfactorily. But beyond two attempts, I think the best way forward is that I will allow the member, as she continues her supplementary questions, two additional supplementary questions.
Metiria Turei: If the Minister has a plan to house everyone on the priority A housing register, by what date will all of those people be housed?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Our goal is to get people into social houses as soon as possible, which is why we have been reducing the time to house priority clients by 20 percent, a BPS target. But our first priority is to have a safe and secure house while they are on the register, and we have a range of options available to them.
Metiria Turei: Does this mean that the Government has accepted that a number of families will remain sleeping in their cars over this winter; if so, how many?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: This Government has been working hard to ensure that all families who are in need are provided for. It is the first Government that has provided emergency and transitional funding. Last year we committed $354 million for emergency housing—the first time permanent funding has been committed—which will provide 8,600 emergency housing places per year.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yet again, the Minister has not addressed my question.
Mr SPEAKER: No. On this occasion, I do not accept what the member is saying. The member actually asked two supplementary questions, and should have asked only one. The second part was not addressed, but did not need to be because the first part of that supplementary question was addressed, in my opinion.
Metiria Turei: What do the Minister’s officials advise will be the number of people who are homeless over the 2017 winter?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: Of the number of long-term vacancies, including those who are currently with housing at the moment, there are 890 on the social housing register who have cited homelessness as a reason for requiring housing. Of the 4,197 people in the last census who were without habitable accommodation, 1,413 were living rough or in improvised dwelling—what most New Zealanders would understand as homelessness.
Metiria Turei: How many families sleeping in cars and in garages are considered an acceptable number over this winter by this Government?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: This Government takes its responsibility for any of those who are regarded as homeless, and our efforts have been very clear. Again, it is the first Government that has put in $354 million into ensuring that any person who is in a homeless situation can be cared for.
Metiria Turei: By when will all of those people he has described as homeless be housed?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: This Government has been working with all of those who are in need and has been putting an effort into making sure there are around 8,600 emergency housing places per year. Under any terms that is an effort that no other Government has made. We know that emergency and transitional places are currently on track for approximately 900 places available, and are on track to have 1,598 by the end of this month. As we speak, Minister Adams is now opening a 70-unit, purpose-built development in Auckland to provide emergency and transitional housing in South Auckland.
Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm the latest Housing New Zealand figures, which show 3,422 priority A people waiting for a home and also 1,805 empty State houses, including 159 that are empty pending sale?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: The number of long-term vacancies, excluding those that have been meth-contaminated, represents just 1.2 percent of the Housing New Zealand stock.
Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that Budget 2017 forecasts spending over $15 million on emergency housing each year for the next 4 years; in other words, the Government expects the need for emergency housing to remain at record high levels because this Government does not intend to solve the housing crisis?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: This Government does intend to address the issue around homelessness and emergency housing, hence the reason why the $354 million that is invested—the first of any Government—is the attempt to ensure that 8,600 emergency housing places are provided for every year.
Crime—Dairy Robberies and Youth Justice
2. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: What does she believe is the cause of the recent increase of violent robberies of dairies?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Young thugs who think it is OK to bash and rob hard-working New Zealanders.
Darroch Ball: Should dairy owners have to worry about their safety and security selling legal products; or does she agree with Nicky Wagner that they should not sell cigarettes if they do not want to get robbed?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: First of all, that is not what the Hon Nicky Wagner said, and, no, I do not believe that dairy owners should be at risk of being beaten and robbed when they are selling legal products.
Darroch Ball: What does she say to Sunny Kaushal from Crime Prevention Group, when he says of her announcement of $1.8 million to protect high-risk businesses: “It’s too little too late, and their focus should be on the criminals and not on the shop owner.”?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sure that that gentleman would be well aware of the fact that the announcement today is very welcomed by the dairy owners and the wider community, but also that the police have been putting in a tremendous amount of work with extra foot patrols, with visits to dairies, and with community meetings to ensure that we are addressing both parts of this issue.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What else is the Government doing to address aggravated robberies of dairies?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This afternoon the Government announced a $1.8 million fund to help improve security in small, individually owned businesses such as dairies and superettes. This is a practical measure that will make a real difference to some of the most at-risk businesses. In addition, earlier this year the Prime Minister announced a significant boost to police numbers, with 880 new police being recruited to fight crime across the board. Of those police officers, 236 will be going into Auckland, which has experienced the bulk of the aggravated robberies.
Darroch Ball: Does she not see that the youth justice system is too lenient on young offenders, given almost half of all those robberies are committed by 15- to 19-year-olds, who continue to blatantly reoffend?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, as usual, the member mixes up the facts. [Interruption] Yes, he does, all of the time. Aggravated robbery is a serious offence that carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison, so it is not a slap on the wrist, as that member has described it.
Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document that was compiled by the Parliamentary Library, which gives police statistics that show that almost half of all of those robberies are committed by 15- to 19-year-olds and that there is a decrease in convictions in court for that same age group.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information, which will have been sourced from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. Further supplementary question? Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Mark, please control yourself.
Darroch Ball: Now, that is typical. Does she agree that but for the increase in tobacco taxes and the cotton-wool youth justice system, she would not have to announce a knee-jerk, reactive, million-dollar spend on dairy security?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, that member is trivialising what is a very serious situation and a very complex situation. It is not as simple as cigarettes. If the member had done any research, he would have found that, in fact, these are robberies that are spur of the moment—the violence is spur of the moment. Cigarettes, cash, and other things are taken, so to blame one particular item itself shows that member’s lack of understanding of exactly what is happening in these dairies.
Mental Health Services—Auditor-General’s Report and Budget 2017
3. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Health in light of the Office of the Auditor-General report on mental health; if so, why?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because he is a hard-working Minister who is dedicated to improving the quality of our health system—for example, investing an extra $224 million over 4 years in mental health services, including $124 million in new innovative approaches to mental health services. This is part of the extra $3.9 billion being injected over 4 years into Vote Health, which will take the total health investment to a record $16.77 billion starting at the end of this month.
Jacinda Ardern: Is it acceptable that, after 9 years in office, acute mental health patients are being discharged with no handover, no plan, no follow-up, and no suitable place to sleep?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have had a chance to read the Auditor-General’s report, and it does point out that there are some patients who are discharged in unsatisfactory circumstances. If the member has read the report, she will see there were a number of recommendations made about improving that and that the Ministry of Health has taken those recommendations up. In fact, in the period after this field work was done on this particular report, it has taken a number of steps, which are referenced in the back of the report in a letter from the Director-General of Health to the Auditor-General.
Jacinda Ardern: Does he think it is acceptable, after 9 years in office, that acute mental health patients are being discharged to caravan parks?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is no doubt, from this report, that there is work to be done, and there often is in a range of social services in regard to any Government. But in relation to this there are three things that are going on now that the member should be aware of. One is the additional funding that I talked about in answer to the primary question. The second issue is the work that is being done by the sector, the district health boards (DHB), which have got together to do the planning that the Auditor-General has recommended. Thirdly is the mental health strategy, which will shortly be coming out for consultation, which looks at new cross-Government services for the issues in mental health.
Jacinda Ardern: Can the Prime Minister name one—just one—new mental health initiative from the $100 million of funding that was the centrepiece of the social investment package in the Budget?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, I can announce a number of them, and I would appreciate it if I had a little bit extra time, given the member has raised the question. Firstly, for example, there is $4.1 million for the Ministry of Social Development to trial integrated employment and mental health services. There is $11.6 million to help the Department of Corrections better manage and support prisoners at risk of self-harm. There is $8 million in Vote Māori Development to extend the Rangatahi Suicide Prevention Fund. There is $100 million for DHBs to support local mental health and addiction services as part of their new budget spend, and an additional $100 million—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister must resume his seat. I have a point of order.
Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do so to assist the Minister. Jacinda Arden asked about the contingency fund. Those initiatives, which are smaller initiatives, were announced alongside and were already known about. We are asking about the centrepiece of the social investment package. That was a very specific question.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, I listened to the question. I will go back and look at it again, but it was about initiatives that are there to help with mental health. The Minister was taking the opportunity to announce more than one initiative, so I think the answer is certainly sufficient on this occasion.
Jacinda Ardern: I will give you a second go. Supplementary—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I appreciate you giving me a second go, but I do not need one.
Jacinda Ardern: What did the Minister of Health tell him the contingency fund of $100 million over 4 years in mental health would be used on when in the select committee yesterday the Director-General of Health could not answer that question?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I have listed for the member a number of new initiatives. I appreciate that it does not fit her narrative and Dr Clark’s narrative to be talking about the extension of the Rangatahi Suicide Prevention Fund or helping the Department of Corrections better manage and support prisoners. I appreciate that they want to play political games; we are interested in actually extending and developing mental health services.
Jacinda Ardern: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he does not know what the centrepiece of his Budget, $100 million in mental health, was to be used for, thus telling us that it was simply a way to bat back on mental health, because there is a crisis and it is a political problem?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With respect, I take offence at the suggestion that this Government is not taking mental health services seriously. The member does not want to hear about the new initiatives, so she is trying to talk about the contingency fund, which is currently being allocated. What I am saying to the member is that there are a range of services that are being invested in, plus the contingency fund. She can play political games if she likes, but, actually, I think this is more serious, and $224 million into mental health services is a serious response to a serious issue.
Jacinda Ardern: What projects are in the $100 million contingency fund for mental health?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is a contingency fund. The clue is in the name. They are currently being allocated. The member may want to play political games with mental health services, but, actually, I am interested in the work that is being done to improve them, including, for example, the extension, which the Māori Party has encouraged us to endorse, of the Rangatahi Suicide Prevention Fund, which I think is a serious initiative; the programme in the Department of Corrections, to better manage and support prisoners at risk of self-harm through mental health issues; and the work that the Ministry of Social Development is doing to trial integrated employment and mental health services. Labour may want to play—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now going on for far too long.
Economic Outlook—Reports
4. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the prospects of the New Zealand economy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): New Zealand’s economy has now grown in 23 of the last 24 quarters, and the prospects for future growth are positive. The ANZ Business Outlook yesterday shows a net 38 percent of companies expect their businesses to improve over the next year. That is 10 points higher than the historical average. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s quarterly predictions this week state: “Recent developments continue to point to a bright domestic outlook and the construction pipeline remains solid.” It also expects unemployment to fall to 4.3 percent. This morning’s terms of trade data show another increase of 5.1 percent—the second-highest level that our terms of trade have been since 1957.
Brett Hudson: What is underpinning these high levels of confidence in New Zealand’s economy?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government’s programme of consistent economic reform is helping companies get ahead, whether it is in simplifying their interactions with the Government, supporting them into new export markets, or providing the infrastructure they need to keep growing. The Government’s strong economic plan is giving businesses the confidence to invest in their companies, to hire new people, and to compete internationally. In addition, people can see they can reap the rewards of their hard work, whether that is letting them keep more of what they earn, or the Government investing in more social services in their communities.
Brett Hudson: How is the strength and stability of New Zealand’s economy perceived internationally?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Moody’s commented on last week’s Budget, saying: “The Government’s ability to fund spending on new measures, such as the family and incomes tax package, and maintaining fiscal surpluses is the result of significant fiscal policy flexibility gained from consistent fiscal prudence.” Fitch Ratings also commented, saying: “If the Budget continues to improve, there would be upward pressures on the ratings of New Zealand.” The Australian Financial Review has concluded by observing that New Zealand has “a strong economy that remains the envy of developed country peers.”
Brett Hudson: How is the Government using this current period of economic growth to deliver for New Zealanders?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Following the hard work of New Zealanders, after both the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes, the Government has returned the books to surplus, and our economic plan is delivering rising wages, rising employment, and falling unemployment. This strong economic and fiscal position gives us the opportunity to invest $7 billion more in public services for a growing country, significantly increase our infrastructure spend, pay down debt as a percentage of GDP, and deliver a Family Incomes Package to help families raise their kids or save for a house.
Budget 2017—Commentary
5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in response to statements his Budget was not visionary, “Well, no, I don’t even know why people would ever, sort of like what’s innovative, what’s visionary”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Unfortunately for the member, he is once again wrong. He has misinterpreted the quote. The questioning from Jessica Mutch on the weekend’s Q+A programme related to comments from the Auckland mayor, Phil Goff, about transport in that city. For the member’s edification, the Government is currently building in Auckland the City Rail Link, the completion of the western ring route, the Waterview Connection, and the northern corridor and southern corridor expansions. It is about to start work on the East-West Link, and is working on the Kirkbride Road entrance to Auckland Airport, as well as numerous other projects, which, for all I know, the member may have opposed. You can call it visionary or call it what you like, but it is a big programme of infrastructure for all.
Grant Robertson: Why would the Mayor of Auckland say that the Budget “ignored Auckland’s problems”—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has every right to ask his question.
Grant Robertson: I will start again, since they like it so much.
Mr SPEAKER: Not only will the member start again but there will be substantially less interjection from my right-hand side.
Grant Robertson: Why would the Mayor of Auckland say that the Budget “ignored Auckland’s problems”, and the chief executive of the Property Institute of New Zealand say that the Budget risked the Government being seen as not understanding the extent of the housing problems in Auckland or even caring about them?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the first part of the member’s question, I think the mayor has his mayoral hat on but his Labour Party membership in his back pocket.
Grant Robertson: Why would the Xero country manager, Craig Hudson, say that the Budget let down small businesses and the tech sector?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member has obviously run out of ideas, because it is the second time he has quoted the Xero guy in a week. But the good news for the member is actually, if he just looks a little bit further, he will find some people who are very supportive of the Budget. For example, Iain Hudson, who is the social policy director of the Salvation Army, said Budget 2017 delivers a substantial support to low-income working families, and “the Family Tax credit and increases in the accommodation supplement will make things easier for vulnerable working families”. He could look a little further and go to Marlborough, where Marlborough Family Budgeting Service coordinator Denise Best said “These increases are great and they will make a big difference,”, or he could go to the Waikato Chamber of Commerce—get out of Wellington a bit further—and go and see the CEO, William Durning, who says: “The budget has been very focused on investing in this growing economy and there are a number of initiatives on strengthening the existing spending … a … strong focus that has been taken on infrastructure,”. I have a number more—
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I have heard enough.
Grant Robertson: Why would a respected business person such as Kerry McDonald describe his Budget as having “no economic merit” and being pure political flannel?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have got a question, which is why he is still on Tuesday’s question—
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first question I asked in this series the Minister did not address, but we moved past that. He does not get to ask the questions; he gets to answer them.
Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have—I ask the member to please have a look at Speaker’s ruling 195/6: “The scope of question time has expanded in recent years. Members can now ask opinions and include hypothetical material. Questions no longer have to seek just factual material. It is therefore inevitable that there will be greater dissatisfaction with the replies to questions of much greater scope.” Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order?
Hon David Parker: Yes, Mr Speaker. That says that the answer can be broad; it does not say that the answer can be a question. So Mr Robertson’s point was correct.
Mr SPEAKER: No, at this stage—certainly the way Mr Joyce started his question was not terribly satisfactory, but we are going to give Mr Joyce the chance to now complete his answer.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, as I started to say, obviously—
Grant Robertson: Why would he do that?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, Kerry McDonald is a friend of old Winston’s, which is probably one reason why—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will address members the correct way.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The point I was making—
Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We have another point of order.
Denis O’Rourke: I believe that the Minister should be asked to withdraw and apologise for the way in which he addressed the Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to ask for the member to withdraw and apologise, but Mr O’Rourke may not have heard that I immediately interjected to the Minister. He is required to address all members of Parliament the correct way, and if we go to the stage of addressing people simply by Christian names, that will lead to disorder. So I have dealt with the matter; I am not going to take it further. Now can we have the answer to the question asked by Mr Grant Robertson.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Certainly, Mr Speaker. The point I was making is that the members between them have quoted the two people who have not been supportive of the Budget, and that is fine, because people are entitled to their opinion. But, actually, there are lots of others who have been supportive, and, for example, I speak of Kim Campbell, the CEO of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who said: “The books are certainly in good order and this allows the government to deliver a budget aimed at building prosperity from both a social and a business perspective,”. So there are different views, of course. I just think it would be more entertaining for the House if the member came up with some different ones on different days.
Grant Robertson: Has he considered that all the people who actually want to see some kind of vision from a Budget that lifts living standards, reduces inequality, and increases productivity might actually have a point, or are they all just wrong and he is the only one who is right?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I think the member is the only one who is wrong. If he would like some examples, I have some more quotes for him. There is a gentleman called Peter Vial, who is the New Zealand head of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, who said that the “Finance [Minister’s] … first Budget achieves a balance between continued careful fiscal management and sharing the benefits of sustained economic growth across the community. … It certainly provides most working New Zealanders with a tax cut. It also signals continued commitment to social investment, and that is laudable …”. I also quote for the member Kirk Hope, Business New Zealand’s CEO, who says: “Business welcomes the spending on transport and tourism infrastructure, help for exporters and co-funding for greater research and development through Callaghan Innovation. This is judicious investment in high-growth areas of the economy.” So there are plenty of people who are supportive, and I understand that the member has worked hard and found the two or three people who have been against it.
Budget 2017—Irrigation Investment
6. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent Budget announcements has the Government made regarding investment in irrigation?
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Budget 2017 is a great Budget for the primary sector. The Government has announced $26.7 million over the next 3 years, plus a capital boost of $63 million towards irrigation investments. While a reliable water supply for growers and farmers has made a major boost for economic growth, it also provides real economic benefits. Irrigation and water storage schemes help maintain river flows, take pressure off groundwater aquifers, and also provide social benefits, such as providing water into town supplies.
Barbara Kuriger: What schemes and communities will this funding help support?
Hon NATHAN GUY: I am sure there will be numerous support for communities up and down the country. In particular, the Waimea Community Dam near Nelson, the Flaxbourne community water project in Marlborough, Hunter Downs water, and the Hurunui Water Project are all potential candidates for investment. These schemes would provide a wide variety of land uses, including horticulture, sheep, beef, and arable. New irrigation schemes must meet stringent environmental tests. Any new developments or conversions must farm within very strict environmental limits set by regional and local councils.
Emergency Housing—Demand and Associate Minister for Social Housing’s Statements
7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: How many extra emergency housing places available to take referrals have been delivered over and above the 737 he reported for March 2017, if any?
Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing): I am pleased to be able to report that as of today’s date, the Government has secured around 900 transitional housing places across the country, an increase of 251 places over the figure reported at the end of March 2017.
Phil Twyford: How can he claim “It is great to see how the Government’s … funding is making a difference in the community” when the number of people in the Government’s at-risk category with severe and persistent housing needs has more than doubled in the last 2 years?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: There has been a reduction in available places over that period primarily, and that reflects that Te Puea Marae decided not to continue providing emergency housing over its service. The Government, however, has since made up some of that shortfall. Since 31 March it has secured an additional 251 new transitional housing places.
Phil Twyford: What does he say to Rev. Emily Worman, who helped to organise last year’s Park Up For Homes in Māngere, where hundreds of people slept in their cars overnight to highlight the housing crisis, who now says: “In Māngere East there are more beggars outside the shop … a lot of them are sleeping rough. There’s just constant pressure on food banks, there are all these cars parked around, just overcrowded and a lot of it is really hidden, there’s a lot of shame attached to it.”?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: I would say that the ministry is making good progress securing around 1,600 places by the end of June, with a balance of 2,150 places to be delivered by the end of 2017.
Phil Twyford: Why did he tell a National Party conference that the controversy over homelessness was manufactured by journalists?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have apologised for those comments. They were misplaced and I have regretted those comments that I made at that time.
Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked why he made those comments.
Mr SPEAKER: No, within the answer there were two words that I think means that he has addressed that question.
Phil Twyford: Why did he tell the National Party conference “I think that’s a bridge too far.” after the Prime Minister had said to him: “I need you to get close to Salvation Army policy analyst Alan Johnson. I need you to love him.”?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: My comments were about the work that we have been doing as a Government to work closely with community housing providers up and down the country. I have been doing that with them. It is a reflection of the work that we have been doing. I regret those comments that I made. They were misplaced; they were poorly made.
Housing—Supply and Government Measures to Address
8. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she stand by all her statements?
Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing) on behalf of the Minister for Social Housing: Yes, in the context that they were made.
Denis O’Rourke: Does the Minister confirm that of the 34,000 new homes in Auckland she has mentioned, 8,300 are replacements for existing State houses and, therefore, the Government has really committed to only 25,700 houses over 10 years, or only about 2,500 per year?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: What I can confirm is this: in the Crown building project we will see 8,300 old, run-down social houses replaced by 13,500 new, warm, dry houses to support some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders. I can also confirm to the member that we are increasing social houses. There are 66,000 social houses. We are planning to increase that by 6,400 houses by 2020, to 72,000 houses.
Denis O’Rourke: Is the Minister telling the people of Auckland that 2,500 more homes per year is the best her Government can do for direct investment in house-building in the face of the massive and worsening housing crisis in that city?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: What I can say to the member is what this Government is doing is it is supporting families. We are spending $2.3 billion on housing support this year, supporting 310,000 families, which will increase the accommodation supplement boost announced as part of the Budget. We are increasing social housing, special-needs grants. We have paid out 9,218 grants last quarter to 2,616 families and individuals, totalling $8.8 million. We have also, too, last year, committed $354 million to emergency and transitional funding, which means 8,600 emergency housing places per year. I can say that this Government is doing its role in taking seriously the responsibility to housing.
Denis O’Rourke: Would Auckland not be much better off if the Government committed to a much bigger investment in its house-building programme, thus greatly increasing desperately needed housing stock, than spending hundreds of millions of dollars more per year on the bottomless pit of accommodation supplements, which will not add one more family home?
Hon ALFRED NGARO: I can say to the member that last year there was an inquiry that had three different political parties that came together. Out of the 20 recommendations, one of those was a review of the accommodation supplement, which has not happened for some time. This Government has reviewed the accommodation supplement—the first time that it has done that—to increase that amount to those who are in need.
Budget 2017—Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage
9. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What support does Budget 2017 provide for New Zealand’s arts, culture and heritage?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): We allocated a total of $21.2 million of new funding, including an $11.4 million investment into Radio New Zealand, $4.8 million for the ongoing development of Pukeahu National War Memorial Park, $5 million in additional funding for the 2019 First Encounters 250, and—along with my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges—$305 million was allocated to support the New Zealand film industry, both globally and domestically. This is the fund that has supported 50 international productions and 23 New Zealand productions in the past 3 years.
Maureen Pugh: What will an $11.4 million funding boost over the next 4 years mean for Radio New Zealand?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Building on the work of my predecessor, the Hon Amy Adams, the 8 percent increase in Radio New Zealand’s base funding will assist it to buy new, modern technology and improved capability and to expand regional coverage, supporting the great advances it has made towards becoming a multimedia source of quality news and a trusted public service broadcaster in times of emergencies such as the Kaikōura earthquake.
Jacinda Ardern: Can she confirm that despite telling the Save the St James group in December 2015 that she was looking into avenues to support its restoration, 18 months later she has not only failed to follow through—she, instead, denied its application for support—but still had the audacity to have a photo op with a building that is facing ruin on her watch?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Oh, when we talk about audacity, that member takes the biscuit, having been heard of not at all over a long period of time. I acknowledge the heritage significance of the St James Theatre as a category 1 building, and, along with the local member of Parliament for Auckland Central, the Hon Nikki Kaye, I am engaged actively with my officials and with those associated with the St James in a real sense for the provision of services to that wonderful theatre. That member has done absolutely nothing at all for the St James.
Maureen Pugh: How will an additional investment enable the ongoing development of Pukeahu National War Memorial Park?
Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Since its opening in April 2015, the park has been embraced by New Zealanders and has established itself as a place for remembrance and commemoration, not only here but internationally, attracting more than 122,000 visitors and 20,000 schoolchildren. The new funding will mean the park can continue to provide its highly successful education programme at the Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre. It will also assist with the installation and upkeep of the memorials. We will also be unveiling British, Belgian, French, and American memorials. They are in the pipeline, and will be installed by next Anzac Day. I absolutely thank and congratulate my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, on the heavy lifting he did on the park and on Arras Tunnel. It has been a triumph.
Benefits—Sanctions and Impact
10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Will she apologise to a young woman who had a child conceived through rape, whose benefit was reduced for years because she didn’t want to name the father?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, absolutely. As Work and Income has said itself, it got it very wrong in this case. Although there is a legal obligation to apply for child support and name the other parent, the law explicitly lays out circumstances where a person does not have to do this, and this includes if a child is conceived as a result of rape. It is clear that, in this situation, Work and Income did not apply the law correctly, and I appreciate that this was extremely distressing and upsetting for the young woman. I sincerely apologise for that.
Jan Logie: Thank you for that, Minister. My supplementary is: does she stand by section 70A of the Social Security Act, which takes up to $28 per week per child from around 15,000 poor women and their children because they, like the woman I mentioned, have not named the father?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This particular provision has been around for decades, and the intent behind the policy is to encourage the other parent to take responsibility and contribute to the cost of raising their own child. I note it was introduced in 1990, and in 2005 the then Labour Government increased the deduction by $6 per week. This Government has no intention to change section 70A, but I have asked the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to do some research to see the effectiveness of that policy.
Jan Logie: Does the Minister consider it appropriate to deprive already poor women and their children of essential income, when the reasons why parents do not name the other biological parent are often intensely personal and private and, frankly, none of the State’s business?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said in my previous answer, the intent of the policy is to make sure that the other parent takes some responsibility for their child. That is what I have asked MSD to do some research on, to see whether the intent of the policy is actually reaping the rewards that we want to be sure that it is.
Jan Logie: Understanding all of that, in principle, does the Minister think it is right that women have to recount often traumatic and quite personal details to lawyers and untrained staff members, often in open-plan offices, in order to receive the financial support that they need; if not, on that principle, will the Minister commit to getting rid of this outdated law?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Under section 70A, if it is a woman, she simply has to name the father of the child. That is all they have to do.
Budget 2017—Financial Capability of Young New Zealanders
11. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: How does Budget 2017 invest in the financial capabilities of young New Zealanders?
Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): As part of Budget 2017, I announced an extra $10.2 million in operational funding over the next 4 years for the Commission for Financial Capability to scale up its Sorted schools programme and its community-based programmes. Once fully operational, over 90,000 Kiwi kids a year will receive financial education in primary and secondary schools throughout New Zealand. The community-based financial capabilities programmes will focus on vulnerable communities that demonstrate lower levels of financial capabilities or that have limited access to independent financial information.
Alastair Scott: Why is building the financial capabilities of young people important?
Hon JACQUI DEAN: Increasing the financial capabilities of our young people is important, because it teaches them how to be better with money before they enter the workforce. We want to empower young New Zealanders to be able to make smart financial decisions and engage competently with financial products such as KiwiSaver. We want young people to understand the value of savings, managing money, and the hidden costs of debt and credit. People with good levels of financial capability are more likely to make good decisions with money.
Mental Health and Addiction Services—Access and Funding
12. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: How many more New Zealanders are accessing district health board mental health and addiction services nationally now than in 2007/08, expressed as a percentage increase; and what is the corresponding percentage growth in funding for mental health and addiction services over the same time period?
Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: District health boards (DHBs) fund a wide and changing range of mental health and addiction services, from the National Telehealth Service through to services into the community provided by NGOs and primary care, and on to hospital-based services. Given this complex mix, it is not possible to specifically quantify the percentage increase in patients accessing DHB-funded mental health and addiction services. However, we do know that the demand has increased and so has the funding, including an extra $224 million announced last week in the Budget.
Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was given on notice, and it is actually the third time I have given a variation of this question to the Minister, on notice—so, over a period of weeks. I would have thought that the Government could come up with an estimate of these costs if it understood what was going on in the health service.
Mr SPEAKER: It is—well, I am not sure whether it is the third time—but it is certainly exactly the same question as the member asked on 2 May. Then, he was given an answer that, because of the complexity of the area—where there are NGOs providing help, there are DHBs, and there is Government help, etc.—it is just impossible to do so. That is a satisfactory answer. The member can continue to ask the question time and time again if he wants, but it is unlikely—when I consider the answer given now by the Minister and the Associate Minister on the Minister’s behalf—that the answer is going to change.
Dr David Clark: Does he think that it is acceptable that 60 percent of children under 12 in Canterbury with a mental health issue are not seen within the Government’s 3-week target period—60 percent?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: We are always concerned about mental health issues, and we are putting the resources behind those. Of course, we always want to see people treated as quickly as possible, but there is a significant cross-Government programme of work occurring at the moment to address the mental health issues and addiction needs of all New Zealanders, including children. What is more, the funding for that has increased from $1.1 to $1.4 billion. We have increased the number of mental health nurses, who are very useful to young children of course, from 2,800 to 3,400, and we have also increased the number of psychiatrists from 290 to 450. So we expect to be able to deliver quicker, closer, and more convenient services.
Dr David Clark: Does he think that it is acceptable that 62 percent of children under 12 in the Capital and Coast DHB area with a mental health issue are not seen within the Government’s 3-week target period, and that one in five is still waiting 8 weeks later?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: Of course we are concerned about mental health issues. It is very interesting that the World Health Organization has recently said that mental health is one of the third-greatest diseases across the whole of the Western World. What is more, we are investing in that. It is important to see the amount of investment and the programmes that are coming out of the Budget, which happened just last week. That extra $100 million for a new cross-Government social investment fund—I would like to mention that. That is about early intervention for targeted audiences—things like, perhaps, what you are talking to. We have also got the extra $4.1 million for mental health for families, particularly those involved in employment, and $11.6 million—
Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.
Hon NICKY WAGNER: —for Corrections. But this is all about trying to target special cohorts that need more support.
Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that fewer than half of the children under 12 in the Waikato DHB area with a mental health issue are actually seen within the Government’s 3-week target period, and that one in four is still waiting 8 weeks later?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: Of course we want to see all our young people supported and their mental health issues considered. One of the things that will help that is the extra $100 million for district health boards to support local mental health initiatives. That is part of the whole Budget that goes forward. On top of that, there is more money for young Māori, and that is particularly important too. I would just like to reinforce that we are putting more money and more resource into mental health, because we want to deliver better services to all New Zealanders.
Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that just one out of five children under 12 in the Hutt Valley DHB area with a mental health issue is actually seen within the Government’s 3-week target period, and that over half of the children are still waiting 8 weeks later?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: We are very aware that mental health issues are increasing around the whole Western World. That is why we are taking a significant increase in resource for mental health issues and are also creating a new strategy for mental health, which is going through the Cabinet process as we speak. This is something all Governments around the world are dealing with, and we are putting the resource behind it to make sure that we in New Zealand deal with it well.
Dr David Clark: Does he think it is acceptable that across New Zealand nearly half of the children under 12 with a mental health issue are not seen within the Government’s 3-week target period?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: Can I repeat that the National Government is very concerned about, and aware of, mental health issues, not only within New Zealand but also around the world. So, in response, we are putting in more resource, more mental health nurses, more psychiatrists, and we are dealing with these issues as quickly and as cost-effectively and as well as we can. We want all New Zealanders, whether they are young people or older people, to be supported if they have mental health issues.
Urgent Debates Declined
Mental Health Services—Auditor-General’s Report
Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr David Clark seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the Auditor-General’s report Mental health: Effectiveness of the planning to discharge people from hospital. This is a particular case of recent occurrence; the report was released yesterday. Although there is no ministerial responsibility for the Auditor-General, the report covers matters for which there is ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The fact that the matter can be raised during the Budget debate is a relevant factor, and I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 215/1. In light of the fact that the House is debating the Budget, I am not convinced that the matter is urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. I also note that the member has not yet spoken in the Budget debate and may use that opportunity to debate the matter. The application is therefore declined.
Budget Debate
Bills
Appropriation (2017/18 Estimates) Bill
Debate resumed from 31 May on the .
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I begin by congratulating my ministerial colleagues Steven Joyce, Amy Adams, and Simon Bridges on their splendid work on the Budget. They can be very proud of this effort, which shows a number of key things. The first is that at the end of 9 years in Government, this Government is brimming with good ideas. We are not a tired Government at all—and I go back to 2008, when I remember the Clark Labour Government putrefying before our very eyes. Then the second thing it shows is that we are a Government for all New Zealanders. We care about all New Zealanders. We do not govern in terms of a sectional interest, but we believe that it is our duty and our responsibility to look after every New Zealander, and that is why this was such a socially progressive Budget.
What is apparent from the reaction to the Budget from, particularly, the Labour and the Green parties is that there are a number of myths, and I want to expose those myths this afternoon—if you want to, call me a myth buster. The first myth is that the left has a monopoly on compassion. It comes through time and time again—only the left understand the needs of the poor.
Those members prefer the old Dickensian image that we are the nasty, hard ruling class and they represent the poor and the underprivileged. So when we were the Government that raised benefits for the first time in 40 years, they were stunned, and so it was with what we did for care and support workers. There is not one person in this Government who believes that those good people were not deserving of some support. They are wonderful people, and I think of the tremendous work that some of them in a rest home in Wellington did for my father in his last years. What wonderful service they performed, and—I am sure he would not mind my saying so—he was not the easiest of people to look after. May he rest in peace.
I can tell you this. Every person who is a care and support worker in that category deserves our support, and they got it from this Government, but the Opposition was simply stunned. One of the most egregious comments that those members made was that the Government was dragged, kicking and screaming, into a settlement, and I actually really took offence at that.
So it is worth looking at the procedural history of the care workers’ case, and can I begin by immediately acknowledging the lawyer for Ms Bartlett, Peter Cranney, who has had a long and distinguished career in the Council of Trade Unions. He is an outstanding lawyer, who did a very good job for the care workers. I promised him I would make those comments in the House, and I have done so. In fact, I jokingly said to him some months ago that it would be good to appoint him to the bench, if only to get rid of him.
But Peter Cranney did a good job for the Bartletts, and the case was commenced in the Employment Relations Authority in September 2012. It was transferred to the Employment Court a year or so later, it went up to the Court of Appeal, where the Bartlett team won, and then, after leave was refused by the Supreme Court, the case could have had a very different and long and tangled procedural history. There could have been a number of other hearings, and the best estimate that I have been given was that the case could have gone on for another 3 or 4 years.
This Government said: “Well, we’re not satisfied with that. We are going to do something for these people. We’re not going to prolong the litigation.” Our incredibly talented Minister of Health and our great and talented Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety got together and a group of us worked out a package, and I am so incredibly proud of that. So the first myth, that the left has a monopoly on compassion, is wrong—wrong, offensive, and completely and utterly inappropriate.
The second myth—and we saw it again today in the questioning of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage—is that only the left cares about the creative industries. Again, it is wrong. It is generally accepted—and I say this with all due humility—that my tenure as Minister for the arts has gone down in history as the golden age of the arts. But I think it is fair to say—and I am a fair person—that the golden age continues with my wonderful friend Maggie Barry. One of the things that I keep coming back to when we talk about support for the creative industries—and I will just mention again what Ms Barry has said. There is $303 million for New Zealand Screen Production Grants—$303 million.
I keep coming back to the rhetoric versus the reality. Of course, it was the National Government in the 1970s that created the Film Commission, and it was the National Government in the first term of John Key’s administration that saved the film industry, because I remember very well that it was really quite a dicey matter as to whether or not The Hobbit would be filmed in New Zealand. There was that rather unpleasant New South Wales trade unionist called Simon Whipp, who came over here to try to kill The Hobbit, and it was the National Government that provided the support so that The Hobbit could continue.
We continued that support with changes to incentives in 2012-13. We all know that as a result Avatar 2, that wonderful film, is going to be filmed here—like all of us, I am very interested to see what happens when Jake wakes up as a Na’vi—and this is the sort of support that this Government has provided time and time again to the film industry. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has outlined some other exciting things that this Government continues to do for the arts. So the second of the myths that we get time and time again that only the left cares about the creative industries—wrong, offensive, and totally misplaced.
The third myth that I want to discuss with the House this afternoon is that the left will do infrastructure better. Well, let me give you the best example—the best example—of the left doing infrastructure. It was in Wellington, it was under our Green former Mayor, Celia Wade-Brown, and it was the Island Bay cycleway. The Island Bay cycleway is such a disaster that the Tramways Union contacted me, asking for my help, and I was the one who said to the Tramways Union president: “You’ve got a good case there.” I wrote to the city council in support of the Tramways Union, because the buses cannot pass along The Parade. That is an example of Green infrastructure—an unmitigated disaster.
I was really annoyed the other day when Councillor Kedgley from the Wellington Regional Council was complaining that it was some kind of political stunt that we were not going to advance on the Basin Reserve. We all know there needs to be grade separation around the Basin Reserve, but who is responsible for the continual delays on the Basin Reserve? None other than the Green Party and the Labour Party and their buddies, because there is a sensible compromise that could be reached. We do need to move on that, but we are seeing no action, and it is because of a left-wing city council that is largely useless.
Let me say this: when we have an opportunity to do things, as my good friend the member for Ōtaki will tell you, look at what we achieve—look at the Kāpiti Expressway, and it is because of the tremendous work of Nathan Guy. But these days you would hardly imagine that it was the Labour Party and the Green Party who strongly opposed the Kāpiti Expressway. John F Kennedy would have been 100 years old this week, and one of my favourite quotes of his is “Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan”. Well, the Kāpiti Expressway is claimed by everyone as a great victory, but it is a victory for the National Government. The opposition came from the left. And, of course, with Transmission Gully, after all the talk, it is, again, Nathan Guy and Steven Joyce who have got these things done.
So, three myths: the left has a monopoly on compassion—wrong. The second myth: only the left care about the creative industries—wrong. And the third one: the left will do infrastructure better—
Hon Members: Wrong.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you so much.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you to the “myth-busting” Minister who can also lead the choir in the singalong for that contribution. If that is a Government that is brimming with ideas, not tired, and full of energy, then we are in trouble. That is exactly what this Government is: it is tired, it is out of ideas, and it has no fresh approaches. On this side of the House, we are brimming with ideas, we have got fresh approaches, and we are ready to lead this country with an eye to the future and not looking backwards, which is what our current Government is doing. And no more did we see that than in the Budget that was delivered last week. It was a Budget that completely failed to fill the gaps in the deficits that National has created after 9 years in Government. It was a Budget that was an irresponsible election bribe, which has exposed the Government for exactly what it is: a Government that has run out of ideas.
We cannot afford the election bribe that National has put on the table, not if we want to address the deficits that exist in our country and not if we are unprepared to put up with the state of many of our social services in this country. It is not something that we can afford. My colleague Damien O’Connor put this very simply when he said this is a Budget that increases inequality, and that is exactly what it does. The Government on the other side has tried to assuage itself by saying that it does the opposite, but this is not the case.
This is a Budget that means that families in my electorate of Wigram and families all over this country are having to dig deeper into their pockets when they want to take their family to the doctor. It means they are having to dig deeper when the school stationery bills come home. It means that if their children need specialist mental health services, a huge number of them are not getting seen within the 3-week period. This is a Budget that leaves a huge deficit for us and for our country.
What National tries to say is that its tax package is going to help these families. But let us unpick this, because this Budget is unravelling. If you look at how it is that that support is being delivered to families, it is through raising the accommodation supplement. We have said: “Fine. We will do it.” It is “short-termism” and it is not addressing the problems that exist, in terms of the housing crisis in this city, but given that this Government has failed to address the housing crisis for 9 long years, yes, it is something that we will adopt in the short term. It is not in any way a structural addressing of the housing crisis. We have also said, in terms of the increase to Working for Families, that we have always been a fan of Working for Families. We have never called it “communism by stealth”, unlike the Government’s history with this programme. This is a targeted way to deliver money to those in need. We have said we will accept something like that.
But let us not kid ourselves about the tax cuts. I get somewhere between $20 and $30 a week more in my pocket. The person who cleans my office, on the minimum wage, gets $1 a week more. How is this fair? How is this addressing inequality in this country? That person who is getting only $1 more a week is also going to have to pay more to go to the doctor. That person is also going to have to pay more, potentially, for their children’s school stationery bill. This is not what our vision for New Zealand is. This is not the kind of New Zealand that we want to see.
It is cynical electioneering that does nothing to address the shortfalls in health. So let us have a look at health. I think it was some time ago that we came up with the figure—the Hon Annette King—
Hon Annette King: About 2 years ago.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: —about 2 years ago—had that $1.7 billion figure calculated by Infometrics. That number will have grown. Did this Budget seek to address that shortfall in funding? No, it did not. Let us have a look. The mental health funding that we heard about in question time today was touted as if this was the largesse of the Government that was doing so well. One, it is too little, too late—what the Government is doing. The money that it has now put into it is not going to address the size of the problem we have. It has been fudged together in the last weeks in response to Government pressure.
We had the Minister of Finance, who was answering questions on behalf of the Prime Minister, who could not even answer the very simple question about what is going to be covered off with that contingency funding. The Minister had no idea. This is the man who stood up and delivered the Budget and said he had the answers. He had no idea, because his Government has no plan. It is short-term political opportunism, which means it has thrown that package together prior to the Budget.
Of the Government’s $50 million announcement for mental health services, let us not kid ourselves; $25 million of this is coming from the district health boards (DHBs) themselves. Half of that expenditure is the Government saying to DHBs: “Don’t spend more money on hip operations. Don’t spend more money on knee operations. Don’t spend more money on what people on waiting lists are waiting to achieve. We are going to put it inside the mental health ring-fence.”
I have seen this happen in Canterbury, where I come from. We have a Government that has for 6 long years woefully neglected the mental health needs and the health needs of a group of people who have been through a natural disaster. In Canterbury our DHB is having to use the money that it would otherwise use for hip and knee replacements to fund mental health services, which cannot cope.
This is the vision that the Government now has for the whole country. So I can tell you that if you need your hip replacing, if you need your knee replacing, then your DHB is going to have to push you further down the list, because the Government has decided it will not do anything to address the mental health crisis. What it will do is give its members and me a $20- to $30-a-week tax cut. Most New Zealanders whom I speak to think that the money would be better spent. I want to know that when an 8-year-old expresses suicidal tendencies, they can be seen sooner than in 12 weeks’ time. I have principals in my Wigram electorate telling me constantly that this is the kind of time frame we are looking at. It simply is not acceptable. It certainly is not something that I want a $20 tax cut in preference to. I want to know that we have a functioning mental health system.
And then let us look at education. So the Government has given schools an extra $140 million in operational funding over 4 years, so they can keep the lights on. Excellent! Pay their bills, and make up for last year’s funding freeze. But the Budget does not provide schools with the funding they need. Only $60.5 million of new funding will be for schools’ operational grants. Any electorate MP who goes around and visits their local schools will have heard time and time again the stories of the pressure that is being put on the operations grant. Not only have schools had a freeze on their operations grant but if they want to pay for the teacher-aides whom they need for their kids, they are also having to dip into that operations grant. It is this freeze on the operations grant that means parents are having to shell out up to $200 for the school stationery bill, having to pay for the whiteboard markers and the photocopy paper and the tissues for the classroom, because the schools simply do not have the operational money to put behind them.
That is this Government’s vision for this country. It is tired, it is out of ideas, and it is “short-termism”, with no eye to the future. It is not a Government that thinks: “How do we address the big issues of our day, like climate change? How is it that we can have functioning social services in our country, a functioning health system, an education system that is going to set us up for the future and make sure we are ready for the 21st century, and a country where we do not think it is acceptable that someone has to raise their child in a car?”.
This is this Government’s vision for the future—20 bucks a week for someone who earns as much as Government members in this House do, versus having a country that can address those issues that we simply must get to terms with. This is not a Budget we will vote for. This is not a Budget that serves the people of New Zealand well. It is a Budget that is short-term and something that has absolutely no vision.
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): It was interesting, listening to that member. I am not sure what planet she is on, because the circles that I move in have been celebrating, in a very significant Budget, a huge investment in the primary sector.
I was at a great event last night—the Ballance Farm Environment Awards in Invercargill. Farmers were coming up to me, saying: “Thank you very much for the investment in the primary sector.” It is probably one of the larger investments in the primary sector—$170-plus million invested in the primary sector, in Budget 2017. I told this audience of about 250 to 280 people in Invercargill last night that if it was not for the strength and the growth in the primary sector, the Government would not have the choices that it was able to make in Budget 2017—helping the most needy in our community, helping families, changing the tax thresholds, and making a significant investment into infrastructure.
I see the benefits in infrastructure investment on an almost daily basis, with the Kapiti Expressway. It is so disappointing to reflect on Labour and the Greens, how they opposed that, and now, of course, they are driving on it. They are silent on the fact that this Government has made the investment of over $630 million and it is fantastic for my region. This Budget will be hugely important to the people of Kāpiti and Horowhenua.
But, importantly, I want to focus a little bit more on the primary sector this afternoon. I want to also acknowledge the winners of the Ballance Farm Environment Awards last night. They were Peter and Nicola Carver from Taranaki. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well know them. They are young up-and-comers. They are focused on the environment. They are doing the right thing. They know that their land is their legacy for future generations to enjoy.
While the primary sector feels that it has been under a little bit of attack in recent times, last night was a night about celebration. It was acknowledging farmers doing the right thing. In my view we do not celebrate success enough. That is why this competition is hugely important. I acknowledge the late Gordon Stephenson. He was a Waikato farmer. In 1991 he mooted the idea of a farming environmental competition. In fact, he was ahead of his time. So I salute him and the brainchild that he had. This competition has done incredibly well.
If we think about the false perceptions that we hear from some of the environmental NGOs and some of the Greens and some of the other political parties in this Parliament about how farmers are destroying the land, it really disappoints me. Of course farmers do not get acknowledged enough. Just think about what has happened in the dairy industry in the last 15 years. Cattle have been excluded from waterways, and 26,000 kilometres of fencing has been done. That gets you in a plane from Wellington to Chicago and all the way back again. We do not hear political parties in this Parliament saying: “Actually, our farmers have done a huge amount in looking after the environment.”
There is a false perception in this Parliament, in my view, towards the primary sector. We have had numerous water reports this year, and it is really interesting how quite a few people in society, here in our small country of New Zealand, straight away like to go and blame our farmers. In actual fact, yes, farmers have got challenges, but we should think about urbanisation and we should think about industrial growth. We are actually all in this together. We all have to improve. I was really disappointed to see recently that kids from a dairy farm were being bullied at school because of the occupation that their parents have. That is really disappointing, to me. In my view, that just states that agriculture and the environment have unfortunately met a new low.
But then we think about the investment that I have been celebrating in the Parliament today—[Interruption] I am not sure whether Damien O’Connor quite supports it or not—$90 million invested into water storage projects. He gets rolled by people higher up in his political party, but he quite likes the thought of the Government potentially supporting Waimea, in his local community and apples growing on the plains. Yeah, he is sort of giving us a sort of subtle thumbs up, but he cannot influence his caucus about supporting water storage projects. This is a significant investment. It is about economic growth, environmental benefits, and social aspects with water going into some of the towns, which has benefits as well, but we do not hear that from the Labour Party. Then, of course, we have the critics on the other side of the coin who say: “Oh, we’ve got global warming and we’ve got all these issues.” Yet they do not think about mitigation measures, and that is investing in water storage projects so that we have greater rural resilience, particularly when we think about droughts.
What is also important in this Budget is the investment that is being made in biosecurity—my No. 1 priority—and that is $18 million, which I am really excited about. The border clearance levy is going really well. It was taken through the Parliament about 18 months ago, yet Labour and New Zealand First could not bring themselves to support that. This is an investment that is going to keep more pests and diseases offshore.
We are reviewing our import health standards. We are going to be looking at technology, whether it is electronics or sniffer dogs and the like, because there is more to be done there. We are going to be raising the awareness in New Zealand of biosecurity. Ultimately, it is about having 4.7 million New Zealanders who are a lot more aware of biosecurity. Although myrtle rust has been incredibly challenging for those small communities in Northland and now in Taranaki—where it tends to be getting more widespread—people are a lot more aware of the importance of biosecurity. It is the same as we work our way through with the oyster farmers in the South Island as well.
Can I conclude by saying that this is a very important Budget. The reason it is is that there is a significant investment in the primary sector. Importantly, we are also making a significant investment to do with fisheries management—$30 million. That will allow us to roll out electronic reporting, vessel monitoring systems—commonly known as GPS—so we will be able to track where all these vessels are around the country at any time. Then cameras are coming on-board all of these vessels, beginning 1 October next year. This will be the biggest roll-out of technology in any fishery around the world, and I am incredibly excited about it. This Budget investment in fisheries will also mean that we can do more in research, particularly in fine-scale research, and ecosystem health as well.
Just in this couple of final minutes, can I also say that it is great to see the primary sector leading the charge for the New Zealand economy today. We have just had our terms of trade out, which should be an opportunity to celebrate. But no one will do that in the Parliament today. Our New Zealand purchasing power against the rest of the world is at an all-time high in 44 years. That is because dairy is up for the March quarter—18 percent. Forestry is up 11 percent. Meat returns are up as well.
On a final note, can I acknowledge the sad passing of my father. Our family laid him to rest last week. Can I acknowledge the support that I have had across the House. When I think about the environment, I can say that my father was hugely focused on the environment, and we will be out, as a family, planting trees on our farm on the weekend, and remembering him and, also, the late Gordon Stephenson as well.
My father had a great ability to work right across the political spectrum. He had a great ability to work with urbanites and rural people. He could connect those two communities better than anyone else could. He worked with Annette King when she was the MP for Horowhenua. I had a great long chat to Darren Hughes last week, because my father, according to Darren, was quite instrumental in getting him involved in politics at a very young age. My father had a big involvement in getting me involved in politics, and I am very proud of the fact that I have had 12 years in this place. I just want to say thank you very much for the acknowledgments across the House for the sad passing of my father. Thank you.
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Nathan Guy, and express condolences for his situation.
I got into politics because I was concerned about a growing gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of New Zealand. It is something that I want to see come to an end. But we have seen, in this current Budget, another change from the Government where a set of tax cuts ensure that those who are at the wealthiest end of the spectrum are the ones who get the biggest cheque in their pockets. It just does not seem to care about those who are struggling most in New Zealand.
I want to talk a little bit about health, and particularly about mental health in New Zealand. This Government has underfunded the health system, and independent research by Infometrics looking at Treasury data estimates that over the past 6 years, the Government would have needed to put $1.7 billion more into the health system just to stand still.
There are consequences when that investment does not take place, and most New Zealanders know that our health system is struggling right now. It is stretched. There was a recent survey on unmet need that found that for primary care in New Zealand, one in four adults now struggle to afford to get basic primary care. Nearly a million adult New Zealanders are not able to get the care they need at the GP or at the dentist, or are not able to afford their scripts or get to their local practice because they do not have transport, or similar reasons. One in four—nearly a million—adult New Zealanders are not able to get the basic care they need in the New Zealand health system. I find that truly shocking. It is unacceptable.
Yesterday’s Auditor-General’s report found that the impact is spreading. It was released, and it was a bombshell. It looked at a very narrow scope, which was those who are at the hardest end of the mental health system—those with really acute need who have been admitted to hospital—and the follow-up that happens once they are released from hospital and go back into the community. That report found a number of things and made a number of recommendations to the Government, and one of those was that “inpatient units have high occupancy rates—sometimes beyond their capacities—and in some places there is little availability of community services, such as suitable accommodation, to discharge people to. In these circumstances, discharge planning can be late or incomplete, and may not involve everyone who needs to be included for it to be effective.”
The Auditor-General then went on to explain that nearly a third of people are not followed up on within the recommended 1 week. They are discharged into the community, some of them to caravan parks, and they are not followed up on. They are also being discharged on the basis of being least needy—i.e., they have not finished their treatment, but they are least unwell, as somebody with even greater need is coming into the system. There is no bed available, and they are kicked out on to the street without a plan, often, in place for their care. This is an appalling thing to be happening in a First World country. It should not be happening in New Zealand.
In fact, some district health boards had a 100 percent readmission rate within 28 days. That means that every patient they discharged came back into the hospital within a month—every single patient. They were not in a state where they should have been released back into the community. That is simply not acceptable, and the Auditor-General finds improvement is urgently, urgently needed.
We have had several such reports recently, highlighting issues in our mental health system that urgently need addressing. Notably, the People’s Mental Health Report was brought to Parliament. It contained the stories of 500 New Zealanders who had experience with the New Zealand mental health system, and it suggested some very sensible steps the Government could take. The first was a review of the current situation regarding mental health in New Zealand—a very reasonable request. The second was that funding should be allocated appropriately after the findings of that review to make sure that mental health was adequately resourced in New Zealand—a very reasonable request. The third was that more education is needed. We know there were successful education programmes—the likes of John Kirwan putting himself out there, explaining to New Zealanders that it is OK to admit that you need help—but that has dried up. The report’s final request was for independent oversight of the mental health sector so that the public can have confidence that Governments are spending money on mental health care wisely and that the right interventions are taking place. All of those were reasonable requests.
The Minister of Health, unfortunately, described that review as a review from anti-Government, left-wing activists. I think that was a very sad response, and an indictment on a Government that is out of touch with the needs of New Zealanders. We do need a fresh approach to these issues, and I think that was highlighted in that Minister’s response.
Another petition has been brought to Parliament recently by the Life Matters Suicide Prevention Trust, and it too has requested a review of services. Mike King was on the draft suicide prevention strategy group. He has resigned in despair at the failure of the Government to set real targets to reduce suicide in New Zealand. We have horrific statistics for suicide, and the Government seems to have no plan to deal with them. It is 9 years on—9 years of this Government—and things are getting worse.
Just today, I drew attention in this Parliament to the fact that nearly half of the children under 12 in New Zealand with a mental health issue are not seen within the Government’s target 3-week period. That means a child under 12 with a mental health issue is not being seen in 3 weeks—one in two New Zealand children identified as having a mental health issue. That is simply unacceptable, and the Minister across the House, Nicky Wagner, had no answer. She could not answer the question as to whether that was acceptable or not, and I think that speaks volumes.
We desperately need a Government that takes a fresh approach on these issues, one that is willing to say that things have not been done as well as they could have been, in the past—a Government that is prepared to do things differently, to bring a new set of eyes to the issue and adopt fresh policies to address the growing mental health crisis. For a long time, those in the mental health sector, at the coalface, have said: “What we need, actually, is care at the mild-to-moderate end. We need to intervene early.”
Labour has already announced a policy to put funding into primary health organisations so that people can go and see their GP, and, if they are diagnosed with a mental health issue—maybe anxiety or depression—they can get care for free right there at their local GP. They can be referred on to somebody in that same practice who has time to see them, who will follow up to make sure their scripts are being picked up and see what is going on for them, and who will be there alongside them. That is the kind of thing we need to have happen. Jacinda Ardern has announced a schools-based health system that would put a nurse into every State secondary school in New Zealand, to make sure that there are people available to talk to children who need help with mental health—depression, anxiety, and other issues that are becoming more prevalent amongst young people.
These are the kinds of fresh ideas we need. Instead, we have a Government that can announce nothing new, unfortunately, in the Budget, and that has announced a contingency as a political knee-jerk reaction just before the Budget was delivered. The press release from the Minister and the Budget documents say he will take a paper to Cabinet. That is the best the Government can offer after 9 years, and I think most New Zealanders would say that is unacceptable. When children under 12 cannot be seen when they have been suspected of having a significant mental health issue—it is simply not acceptable.
Then, the Budget overall for health was far short of what was needed. We know that just a standstill health system needed $650 million; the Government put in $439 million—over $200 million short of what was required to deliver just the level of service now in the health system. I do not think there are many people in this House who would say that our health system is all that it could be for a First World country. We can do so much better.
I think back to when the Hon Annette King was health Minister. She would not have put up with this. We would have seen health growing, becoming more adequate, and a better system for New Zealanders, but, instead, under the watch of Jonathan Coleman and Tony Ryall before him, we have seen the system’s funding dry up in real terms. Core Crown health expenditure as a proportion of the economy has dropped under that Government. It is spending less money on the healthcare of New Zealanders even though it says our economy is growing. It is inadequate. We need a fresh approach. We need to tackle mental health. Nearly everybody I meet and speak to has someone in their family who has been affected by a mental health issue—and if not in their family, then certainly in their circle of friends. This is a serious issue for New Zealand. We need to get serious to tackle it. We need a fresh approach, and we need to get on with it.
Hon Judith Collins: Mr Speaker?
Brett Hudson: Now, this will be good.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Revenue): No pressure! Actually, this is a fantastic Budget, and it is a Budget that I would characterise as a Budget for all New Zealanders—in fact, all New Zealanders except the Labour Party represented in Parliament, because every other party in Parliament voted for it. Having voted for it, what these other parties have signed up to is actually more money in the pockets of people who need that money.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Police would’ve got more, wouldn’t they, if that member was leader.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly, the Hon Trevor Mallard has said that Police would have got more. Well, do you know what, Mr Mallard? Of course, Police did get more—an extra 1,125 police staff coming in, partly paid for through this Budget. I think that is a fantastic thing, and I am so pleased that they have come in and they are starting to come through now. In my electorate, in Papakura, you can see that happening now.
You can also see that people in Papakura are very happy with the changes in the Budget. The fact is that you can do an awful lot in the world if you got some money to do it. This Budget actually gives a lot more people a lot more money, particularly those who have got children, who receive the accommodation supplement, and who have actually been finding it a little bit more difficult just because of the fact that prices do go up, and because of everything else in their lives, but now they have got more money in their pocket. They know that this Government having changed the tax thresholds actually means that they have still got more incentive to work, more incentive to take some overtime, and more incentive to take a pay rise.
It is really important that we as a country do have the economic grunt that we need to be able to deliver for all New Zealanders. Just referring to the care workers’ case, of all the people in this Parliament, I would say that most people would have had parents or family members who have had assistance from care workers—people affected by the agreement that has been reached. What that means for the people who do this job, which many of us would not want to do ourselves, is they do this job, they are going to be better respected, and they are going to be better paid. Actually, there are more opportunities for them, and I personally think that it is one of the best things that we could ever have done as a Government: to give the best help that we possibly can, not only to those care workers and their families but actually also for the people whom they are helping. So I am so pleased that we have been able to do that. Of course, you cannot do that if you do not have money. And, actually, you only get money as a Government if, in fact, you get the revenue in—which, of course, is my job, and it has been for the last 6 months. I have to say, it is a really fun job.
One of the things that we are doing in the Budget—it has been announced, and we are going to be continuing down this path—is actually making sure that every one of the multinationals that operates in New Zealand gets to pay something towards our tax. Actually, their fair share would be really good. I think that most New Zealanders would say that that is a really good thing. Very soon I am going off to sign a multilateral agreement on this with other countries. We have already got a bilateral agreement with the United States on it. We are actually going to be able to get some information that we need to make sure that Kiwis who are getting salary and wages and are getting their tax taken out as PAYE, or businesses based in New Zealand that are paying their tax, are not the only ones carrying the burden of tax.
It is really important that we do that. We cannot go off and just say: “You big multinational company, you come and do as we tell you.” You cannot do that all by yourself. We are dealing with companies that are bigger than us, with much more revenue than we as a country have, and much more power in many ways. So it is really good that we have been working on this for a long time and it is now coming into fruition. We have banked a little bit of that money, about $100 million of it—“little bit”: it sounds big does it not—in this year’s Budget, but we are expecting at least about $300 million from that process. So I think that is an incredible thing.
What we are seeing with this Budget is the value of having a resilient economy. It is a Budget that is actually a culmination after, I could say, almost 9 years in Government—or, from the Opposition’s point of view, 9 years of its opposition to every single one of our Budgets—and we have actually been able to do this because we have been so careful. Where we have invested it has been about getting more income into New Zealand; more money for New Zealanders, more money in Kiwis’ pockets; and more opportunities.
If we look at some of the things that small business, for instance—think about small business. Small business is the heart and the soul of New Zealand when it comes to innovation, start-ups—all those sorts of things. One of things that we have done in the Budget is to say: “Look, we’re going to sort out what we would call ‘black hole’ expenditure in the revenue area.” What that means is lots of businesses sitting around trying to think about innovative ways, trying something new, going into some sort of area and doing some work on it, and it actually does not result in anything of value in terms of an asset or income. At the moment, under the tax system, all that work that has gone on and all that money that has been spent is actually not tax deductible; it is actually tax-paid money that is paying for that. That is a really big imposition on business. So what we are doing is looking to see how we can make that tax deductible. That might not seem very big in the whole scheme of things, except that we are a country of innovation and drive and energy, and you cannot be a country of innovation, drive, and energy if you cannot try anything—if you cannot try and occasionally fail.
If you are too scared to fail, you are never going to do anything, and what we have to be able to do in this country is encourage our people to try things, occasionally fail—we would rather they did not fail—keep going, and get there. You only have to look at Peter Beck and his rocket to see that. New Zealand is now in the space age.
Brett Hudson: We back Kiwis to be successful.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, yes, he has had help from the New Zealand Government, which, by the way, means the New Zealand taxpayer. And do you know what? That puts us on the stage, but not only does it do that—it is not just an ego thing for New Zealand—
Todd Barclay: Puts us on the moon.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It does put us sort of pretty much on the moon, but what it really does do is actually give an opportunity for business, and, apparently, there is an industry out there. There is a need for people to be able to put satellites up in the sky in a relatively low-cost way, in a part of the world where there is not that much air traffic. Well, guess what—that is Māhia Peninsula.
So, you know, we can do these things, but we cannot do it all by ourselves as individuals, and that is why Peter Beck and people like him are innovators. They need a Government that understands that—a Government that is not going out picking winners, but, certainly, a Government that says that, actually, we can all shoot for the sky and we can have a go.
I was watching BBC News the other night—and I say that only because I only barely pretty much watch the news these days—and there it was, along the bottom of the thing: “New Zealand joins the space race”. Well, when was the last time New Zealand was on the BBC News and it was not for rugby? I tell you what, New Zealand is great when it comes to this sort of innovation.
Let us have a look at this for the infrastructure. This is a big infrastructure Budget—a really big infrastructure Budget. It is the trains—
Hon Member: Huge.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —it is the this, it is whatever, it is the roads—it is huge. And do you know what? That is because that is what we need.
We have been the beneficiaries of the fact that so many New Zealanders now stay in New Zealand. You know, we have got 600,000 New Zealanders living in Australia. Do you know what? We have got 60,000 Australians living in New Zealand. No wonder things are always a little bit different. But do you know what? We are not losing the 40,000 New Zealanders to Australia that we used to do—that is how come we have got 600,000 Kiwis over there. It is because that is what we used to do. We used to be able to plan for the fact that about 40,000-odd New Zealanders would leave every year. Now they are coming back.
I looked at the migration figures the other day. Last year 23,000 people came from Australia to live in New Zealand, and I bet you that most of them will be Kiwis coming here. They have made the right choice, because this is a Government that has worked for 9 years trying to make sure that we have made the very best opportunities available for every New Zealander, because you need to be able to do that.
We are a party that made some pretty tough decisions as a Government early on in our tenure, in our very first term, and that is because we inherited the global financial crisis. We inherited a decade of deficits. That was all the advice that we had. We had all of this—10 years of deficit. Day after day after day in this Parliament, we had the Labour Party crowing at us that we would have a decade of deficits. Well, guess what? We have now got a decade of surpluses, and I put that down to the excellent work of our finance team of the former Minister of Finance the Rt Hon Bill English and the current Minister of Finance, the Hon Steven Joyce, and all of our team here, who have backed our team. Unlike the Labour Party, we back our team. We work together. We work together for the benefit of New Zealanders, and this is paying out for us. It is playing out very well in terms of New Zealanders wanting to stay home. More people are coming here. More people who are highly skilled are wanting to come to New Zealand to be part of our Kiwi history, our Kiwi place in the world, because this is absolutely the No. 1 best country in the world.
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): First of all, I too would like to acknowledge the passing of Malcolm Guy, the former chairman of the Horowhenua County Council in the Horowhenua District when I was the member there. He was a fine man, who could straddle the political divide. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the passing of John Chadwick, the husband of Steve Chadwick, the Mayor of Rotorua, but also a wonderful man in terms of the work that he did for law and Māori in the Rotorua District.
I just want to comment briefly on the Hon Judith Collins’ speech and say to that member that I find it interesting watching the rewrite of the economic history of New Zealand. We are told that the country was left in such an appalling state when we lost in 2008, because Treasury had predicted there could be a decade of deficits. There were not any deficits, but there could have been. There could have been a decade of deficits. But, you see, the thing National members forget, time after time, is Bill English’s speech in December 2008—that is, after the election—when he was now the Minister of Finance.
Dr David Clark: What did he say?
Hon ANNETTE KING: What did he say? He said that this country had put away the funding for a rainy day. The rainy day came. It came with the global financial crisis, and so this country was in a far better position, because we had paid down Government debt, we had put money away into the Cullen fund, and we had protected many New Zealanders through Working for Families and by bringing in income-related rents and many other measures to protect them. So when we went into that crisis, this country was in a good position, and who was the economic manager of that?
Hon Damien O’Connor: Labour.
Hon ANNETTE KING: Nine years of a Labour Government. So I object to this idea that those members were left with an economy in an appalling state, because it is absolute rubbish.
But I have to say one great thing about longevity in this place: you get to see the annual Budget—you know, the many veils that are stripped off in the Budget process. The first one comes from all the controlled leaks and the early announcements of the goodies that are coming, and then you get the obligatory photograph of the Minister of Finance holding up his Budget at the printer’s office. Then you get the headline “What tie are they going to wear?”—well, of course, Steven got to choose from one of three ties—and then, finally, you get the presentation and the overenthusiastic standing ovation.
I have to say that in the over 33 years since I was elected to this place I have seen big Budgets, I have seen tight Budgets, I have seen miserable Budgets, and I have seen surprising Budgets, and they were all given some sort of a name. Well, we have had the “chewing gum Budget”, the “block of cheese Budget”, and the Black Budget. I have got a name for this Budget: it is called the “blowhard and blatherskite Budget”, because it was presented by the Minister of Finance, who is the master of blowhardiness and is the master of blatherskite. He is also the campaign manager, so he writes his Budget to suit the campaign for the election that comes in 4 months’ time.
Steven Joyce said “We don’t want to play political games with Budgets”—he said that today in an answer to a question. This Budget is all about playing political games. Government members crow about being the first Government to increase benefits for beneficiaries in 20 years, or whatever it was. Can I say to the member across there: your Government was the first to reduce benefits to beneficiaries in the “mother of all Budgets” of 1991. Some of us remember our history. You reduced the benefits, so let us say it is just about even, only you did not restore it to the level that it was.
I have to say, people have asked me why Labour is not voting for this Budget. I say that we do support the crumbs that are thrown to Working for Families, we do support the crumbs that were given in the accommodation supplement, but we do not support the inequity that has emerged from this Budget—the inequity that has emerged, because there certainly is. When you can find a full-time cleaner who gets a minimum wage increase, through the tax changes, of $11 a week, only to find that they lose their independent tax credit, so they are now $1 a week better off—one dollar. Inequity.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.
Hon Annette King: I was just getting warmed up, Mr Assistant Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I can see that. I apologise that I did not realise it was a split call and did not give you the bell at 1 minute to go, but you got a few seconds extra. There was a bit of licence there. I call the Hon Damien O’Connor.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast—Tasman): I am happy to concede a few seconds of wisdom for my colleague Annette King. If ever there was an example of this country desperately needing fresh ideas, it was the speech from Judith Collins. This Budget cannot be supported by any sensible, sound, fair-minded Kiwi, and I feel sorry that there are parties in this House—I feel sorry that they have been conned by a belief that this Budget will put New Zealand in a better space, because it will not. We cannot support increasing inequity in our society.
By every measure internationally, New Zealand is at the top of inequality across the world—the US, the UK, and New Zealand. That is a disgrace for a country that prided itself on egalitarianism, on equality of opportunity. Do not ask me, ask the former Tory Prime Minister Jim Bolger—even he admitted that the neoliberal politics that he oversaw have gone too far, and any growth that came from it went to a few at the top. This Budget simply enforces and endorses and supports that neoliberal, blind ideology that this Government has been running.
If ever there was an example of how off-track the Government is, the Minister for Primary Industries talked about money for irrigation storage—to further confirm that Government members just believe in the trickle-down theory. Government members think if they build big dams, the benefits will trickle down to everyone. They will not, and there are numerous examples in this Budget, like the one that my colleague quoted where a full-time single cleaner on minimum wage gets an extra $11 from tax cuts, but loses $10 from the removal of the independent earner tax credit. That is the kind of smoke-and-mirrors Budget that we have seen, and the people at the top get opportunities. The accommodation supplement, quite frankly, will put money straight into the hands of the landlords, and the landlords have been honest enough to come out and say that.
We have got some major changes here. We have had no real money or initiatives to solve the housing crisis. Even in places like Motueka—there are insufficient houses for the people there. The flow-on from the disaster that is Auckland comes right down through the country, and this Government has done nothing to address that terrible situation through this Budget. When the former National Party Prime Minister says it is time to give some power back to the unions, I think he too is looking for some fresh ideas—for a rebalance in our economy and our country that will allow hard-working New Zealanders to get a job.
I have been going to Federated Farmers meetings around the country, and they know that it is time for a change. They know that in spite of all their Tory mates in Government, if you go along, they know it is time for a change, because they know there is no vision, there is no strategic direction, and agriculture across this country is struggling to know where it is heading. They will get no leadership from the National Government, and I have heard that time and time and time again.
I would say there are a few facts that shocked the farmers. The Minister over there said that the Government is such a smart manager. The debt in this country has gone from $8 billion in 2000—Government debt, $8 billion when we left office in 2008—to $100 billion now. That is what this Government has imposed upon future generations.
Dr David Clark: They’ve borrowed more than Muldoon.
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It has borrowed far more than Muldoon. It has got 200,000 temporary workers in this country every year. It has got 47 percent of the private sector economy now in foreign hands. Those are the statistics that farmers understand, and what the Government said is: “We’ll build a few more dams and let trickle-down theory benefit everyone.” It does not work like that. Unless you have got a vision for a better future for the people of New Zealand—not just for companies, 47 percent of which are overseas-owned, but for hard-working Kiwis to know they have got a fair go. Build 100,000 more houses. These are the fresh ideas we have got. Put more money into mental health so that the schools do not have problems, so that families do not have problems, and so we do not have to spend $1 billion on new prisons.
We are a party of fresh ideas; we always have been. We have always, in Labour Governments, provided the change of direction, provided the new direction that New Zealand has benefited from, and a bunch of Tories come in and ride on our coat-tails. We need a new Government.
Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I was going to start my speech feeling sorry for the Labour Party, but after the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor, said that they are “a party of fresh ideas”, I thought it was time to laugh at the Labour Party. The Labour Party is in big trouble. It is in massive trouble.
Hon Scott Simpson: In tatters.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: It is a party that is in tatters. It is a party that is being destroyed by the principled Green Party that sits to its side. Frankly, the Labour Party should take its chance now and merge with the Green Party while it actually has a little semblance of credibility and of what the Labour Party actually stood for left.
Winston Peters, in this Parliament, always talks about parties and what they stood for when they first came in. I would love to see the Labour Party actually stand up for what it believes in. When was the last time we saw a Labour Party that was actually understanding of all New Zealanders?
Hon Members: 1972.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: I do not know if it was. I do not know. Go back further. When was the last time we saw a Labour Party that actually went out there and supported New Zealanders?
Brett Hudson: 1972.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: 1972 is the answer again. When was the last time we saw a Labour Party actually go out there and vote for a Budget when it was in Opposition?
Brett Hudson: Never.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Never—never. And why would it not vote for this Budget when the Greens, even New Zealand First, could vote for this Budget? But the Labour Party could not. It is because the Labour Party does not understand New Zealanders. The Labour Party does not even understand itself. It cannot even work out what its strategy is. The Labour Party is hooked on the mentality of neoliberalism and all those academic concepts that come from a party that is based in a Wellington environment, and has no concept outside of this room of what makes New Zealanders tick and what is required for this country going forward.
Let us have a look at some of the great articles that we have seen in the paper in the last day or so about the Labour Party. John Armstrong: “Labour is fast becoming a political cot-case.” That is a great article, a great headline, is it not? I just want to read a quote from that article: “Labour is fast becoming a political cot-case. … The Budget has simply served us another stage for yet another episode of Labour’s continuing comedy of errors.” That comedy of errors started many years ago.
But I actually—in my pity for the Labour Party—want to show some pity for Sue Moroney as well, because she was subject to that comedy of errors this year in the Labour Party list ranking. It was terrible, the way the Labour Party treated somebody who had worked hard for them in Hamilton for many years and then just dumped her unceremoniously through this parliamentary process.
The article goes on to say: “The decision made by the Greens and New Zealand First to vote in favour of the legislation enacting the Budget’s centrepiece $2 billion package of tax cuts, increases in Working for Families entitlements and major boosts in the accommodation supplement left Labour in not so splendid isolation. It was somewhat all bizarre. Labour’s intended allies pulled the rug from under Labour’s criticism of a policy package which would slot comfortably into Labour’s manifesto.” Labour will not back what its people demand and require, just because of politics. We cannot trust the Labour Party. The Labour Party will only say what people want to hear. It will not actually say what it wants to do.
We see this time and time again on tax. Tax is a great example of the Labour Party’s promise to the New Zealand public and its own internal division. Only a year or two ago, the Labour Party came and said: “No more capital gains tax.” No more capital gains tax under its leadership—that is a debate that has not been settled within the Labour Party. The finance spokesperson in the Labour Party wants to have a capital gains tax. The other one is income tax. This year Andrew Little came out and said no to income tax increases. There are going to be no income tax increases under Labour. After this Budget, he came out and opened the door for income tax increases.
The Labour Party says one thing and it believes another thing, and it would do another thing if it ever got a chance. Do not trust it, New Zealand. We cannot trust a party that will not actually stand in this House and say what it believes and stick to its principles. The principles of the Labour Party are gone. They are gone, and they had been a treasure to that party, which has been lost to this House and lost to Parliaments through New Zealand history going forward because the true Opposition now is the Green Party, not the Labour Party.
If ever we needed support for that, there is the other article I want to quote. It is from Peter Dunne. Now, I am not inclined to quote Peter Dunne very often; it is not really my thing. But Peter Dunne says this: “I have belonged to liberal democratic United Future (or the United Party as it was previously known). Prior to that, however, I spent more than 22 years as a member of the Labour Party”. If anyone knows what the Labour Party is about, it is Peter Dunne. The crux of what he said is here, where he says: “the Labour Party … is vastly different from the Party I joined as a university student, or even that which United Future supported on confidence and supply matters … Labour appears these days to be against everything, and for nothing.”
That is what it is. It is against everything, and for nothing. Tell us what it stands for? What would Labour do? What is Labour’s budget? Where would Labour spend the money? If it is not going to spend money on people needing more accommodation, if it is not going to spend money on families in New Zealand, where is Labour going to spend the money?
Hon Member: Where?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Where? I will tell you: it is on its union mates. That is where it is going to go. That is what the Labour Party wants to do. It will not spend it on New Zealanders.
Peter Dunne’s article says: “Whatever, the effect is that Labour and its image seem more and more out of time and irrelevant.” Never a truer word was said by Peter Dunne. But the article goes on, and it says this—and this is the heart of it, for all those students up in the gallery today; remember these words, OK, because this is the heart of the Labour Party—“For its part, Labour still seems trapped by having a singular view of the world which they believe voters will come to accept, then embrace, once they hear more of it.” That is what the Labour Party will tell all the young people in New Zealand. It will say: “We have a vision of the world that is right. As voters, all you need to do is just hear it, listen, understand, and believe it.” That is the Labour Party, and that is what it actually believes. The strange thing is that the Labour Party members in this House actually believe that.
That is why they never voted for the Budget: because they think they are above this place. They think they are above New Zealanders. They think they have got some destined position to tell everybody what is right and what is wrong. They will not listen to people—and they are nodding their heads in favour. I know, Poto, you are nodding your head in favour; I know it is what you believe. Just tell New Zealanders next time in an election. You do not have to go out there and not say it. It is going to be more believable if the Labour Party actually says what it believes, and not go out there and try to just be against everything.
Todd Barclay: “Faaf” knows.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Oh, “Faaf” knows a lot about the Labour Party.
We go on. The article says: “In this world, compromise and pragmatism are unwelcome dirty words, lest they dilute the ‘true’ message.” You see, the Labour Party believes it has a message that everybody will agree upon. It is like communism. Labour Party members believe that communism will happen. They believe that it is the way, and then they expect everybody to come in behind.
Why do the Labour Party members not actually go out there and start listening to New Zealanders, working with New Zealanders? Be with all parts of the New Zealand countryside, whether it is in Hamilton, Auckland, or Invercargill. Be with all parts of the New Zealand working environment. Be with all the New Zealanders who may not be working. Do not represent just the unions and your union mates. Do not represent just a group of academics who think they know better than everybody else. Represent all New Zealanders and what all New Zealanders can achieve. Until the Labour Party gets back to its roots and is actually a political party that you can identify with as a viable Opposition, the Labour Party members will always be on that side of the House.
In the next election the Labour Party members will not be sitting in those seats; they will be sitting in those seats where the Green Party members are sitting now. The Green Party members will come into these seats here. The Green Party has young members coming in. It has got new ideas. It has got people who are passionate about New Zealand. The Labour Party is old, it is tired, and it will not tell the truth about what it believes and what it wants to see happen.
Denis O’Rourke: When will he talk about the Budget?
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the New Zealand First Party members—they should not actually talk in this House. That is half their problem—that they stand up and say something. We all know the New Zealand First Party. About them: the New Zealand First Party—listen to this, young people—wants to take New Zealand back to 1955. It thinks New Zealand never got any better than 1955. If you go back to 1955, those were the best days of New Zealand, according to the New Zealand First Party—
Hon Member: Denis was in his prime.
Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, it was when Winston was in his prime, but most of that party’s members were actually in their prime then.
But this is a serious day, when we look at the demise of the Labour Party. A once serious Opposition that now has become the third party—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member’s time has expired.
Ron Mark: Mr Assistant Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member has spoken. Ron Mark has spoken in this debate.
Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, my record shows that the member has spoken in this debate.
Ron Mark: That is true. We are allocated two slots in this—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, you get only one. You can speak only once. So I am calling Simon O’Connor.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): How fortuitous that National trumps New Zealand First just like that—fantastic and I love it! I am very pleased to take this unexpected, slightly early, call—
Todd Barclay: Premature.
SIMON O’CONNOR: Absolutely—absolutely. Look, there is so much to celebrate, in many ways, in this Budget. It will not be a surprise to the House that I will focus, primarily, on the area of health, but I do want to start by in a sense echoing what my colleague David Bennett—the Hon David Bennett now—had to say, which is that we have had an Opposition that is almost catatonic in its inability to know how to react to this Budget. As many have noted, even after the Budget speech was delivered the Leader of the Opposition was not even able to speak for 20 minutes to attack the Government—not even able to fill 20 minutes to fulfil the role of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, which is to attack the Government. It tells you of a Labour Party that has lacked energy, lacked vision, and, in fact, I would make the argument, is actually in agreement with a lot of what this Government is doing, around the inability on the Opposition’s part to actually be able to launch a sustainable attack. It is further illustrated by the likes of the Green Party members, who, while they challenge the Government, actually supported some of its key measures.
One of the most ambitious elements of this Budget has been a $6.5 billion package to support New Zealand families—$6.5 billion extra spending in this Budget across three sectors. One is Working for Families. We have changed the rates there to ensure that families with children get more money. We have changed the accommodation supplement—in effect, providing more money for those most in need around their housing. And of course there is a tax package that is delivering tens of dollars every week into the pockets of New Zealand families. The Opposition members, as I said, had no idea—no idea—how to react against that, and I have seen the disappointment on the faces of my colleagues from Labour across the House. They knew that they should have supported this bill, that they should have supported those measures.
Look, I give kudos to the Green Party members. I am sure it was not always easy, but they actually stood and supported those measures. I know that they want more, and that is a principled position for them to take, but they actually had the gumption to stand and support $6.5 billion of extra spending to support New Zealanders, and I think that is absolutely fantastic.
Turning quickly to my own electorate, the great seat of Tāmaki, my people are incredibly pleased with this Budget. In fact, it is sometimes misunderstood when people think of the seat of Tāmaki—they immediately identify the likes of Ōrākei or St Heliers and feel it is actually a very wealthy, well-to-do electorate, and of course there are elements of that. But my electorate also takes in quite a high proportion of very low-income people. In fact, one only needs to turn their mind to the likes of Glen Innes or parts of Ōrākei, where we have quite a number of State homes and families in need. The reason why I mention them in particular is that people right across the electorate, from the very well-off to those least well-off, have acknowledged the benefits of this Budget—that this Budget actually delivers right across. In fact, it has often been put out, you know, the call for more tax cuts. In fact, the suggestion that has been put out is that National is just about tax cuts for the wealthy. One of the things I have always been struck by as I have gone around the electorate is the number of my constituents—and primarily National Party voters, seeing it is the safest seat in the country—who have been clear that they actually wanted to see more money put in to families, into infrastructure, into health, and into education before there is any further talk of tax cuts, and that is what this Government has delivered.
Just today, one of the great announcements has actually come from right on the border of my electorate in the fine suburb of Stonefields. My colleagues Nikki Kaye and the newly minted Associate Minister of Education, Tim Macindoe—and if his mother, who is my constituent, is listening, he is doing a great job—announced $20 million for further development at Stonefields School. Anyone from this House who has visited that school will know what a remarkable facility it is—what a marvellous modern learning environment. They have been handed $20 million to continue development, basically, of that school, which is going to see about another 450 students housed. That is actually quite important in my electorate. This Budget is, I think, foretelling what is coming in future Budgets from this Government as we continue to spend in education, as more and more people come to live in electorates like Tāmaki in the central Auckland isthmus.
I said at the start that I want to focus a little bit more on health. What an amazing story there is to be told about the New Zealand healthcare system—first and foremost, because of the amazing people who work in it. I always take these opportunities to acknowledge the doctors, the nurses, the care workers, the vocational support workers, and others who tirelessly work—tirelessly work—to support our New Zealanders. We as a Government do what we can to invest more and more money every year into health.
This Budget sees a record $16.8 billion—$16.8 billion—invested into health. That is almost $4 billion extra over the next 4 years. We have absolutely got to ram that home and make that absolutely clear, because we hear from the Opposition, time after time, a misleading figure that this Government is somehow underspending in health. One of the great fallacies in logic is that when you are spending $4 billion extra over 4 years, somehow you are underspending. I have looked over the figures many, many times to try to understand where it gets this claim from. It turns out that Labour has its own projection, if you will—its own sense, utopian or otherwise—of what the health spend should be. So, in other words, when it claims we are underspending, it is not a matter of fact; it is just in terms of a belief of what it thinks should be spent. What surprises me from the Labour Party is that when it attack us for underspending by something like $1.7 billion, it is not higher. Why is it not an underspend of $10 billion, seeing as it is just making up these figures? It is just not the case—it is just not the case.
We are putting an extra $1.76 billion into district health boards. They do a remarkable job. They are the primary funder, effectively, in this sector—$1.76 billion. The select committee at the moment—the Health Committee, that is—is considering a $2 billion settlement for home-care supporters. These are the people who go into people’s homes, often doing those hard—often difficult—jobs supporting people. There is a $2 billion package to see their wages increase, and I want to acknowledge quickly all of the members of the House who are sitting on that Health Committee at the moment working hour after hour through this week, and last week, and the week to come to make sure that that legislation goes through, because on 1 July this year over 55,000 Kiwis are going to see their incomes significantly rise because of this piece of legislation.
There has been an extra $224 million—$224 million—going into mental health. This Government is responding to an area of need, and, really importantly, mental health is one of three areas across the world where Governments are seeing—and I am talking primarily about the Western World and within the OECD—real pressure being put down. So chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—we are looking in the area of chronic diseases, infectious diseases, and mental health and we are responding to all of those.
I am sure my colleague the Associate Minister of Health and the Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Nicky Wagner, will be talking further around this, but I just want to acknowledge the great work that she has led in terms of getting $205.4 million for disability services—an increase, I should state, of $205.4 million over 4 years to support the disability sector. This is remarkable—absolutely remarkable—not only the level of support that the Government is providing but the level of increase. I hope that when she takes a call she will stress the work that she has done through the Enabling Good Lives programme. I am not sure how many New Zealanders have followed it. It is a relatively small pilot, as I understand it. It has been in Christchurch and Waikato, which is empowering. It is a pilot that is going to be rolled out across the country, but it empowers people with disabilities and their families to take control, if you like, of their own lives. One really small example of that is that they are actually able to have some choice and flexibility around how they spend their money. This is a transformative project, and it is a project that has been led by this Government. It is a project that has been supported and led by Nicky Wagner and supported by her other ministerial colleagues. It is making an incredible difference.
And so, if there is only one element of all the dollar values that I have thrown out here this evening, I would suggest to people not to hold on to the big ones of the $6.5 billion around the tax and Working for Families and family support. That is remarkable, but it is the $205.4 million over the next 4 years to support those in the disability sector that I think is just tremendous. Thank you, Minister.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.
DENISE ROCHE (Green): Over the last few weeks, I have had the great good fortune to be attending the E tū union delegates’ forums. These are gatherings in education of union delegates from a wide variety of different workplaces who have been coming together to look at what the big issues are that are facing them and their families and their communities. I was really impressed by these ordinary working New Zealanders who were taken off the job in order to get together to have a really good discussion about what it is that they want to see in their country. What is their vision for Aotearoa New Zealand?
I am pleased to have been joined by many of my colleagues from the Labour Party while we were doing this. What I found was that at every single one of the meetings that I attended—and there were about 11 of them—all those members, all those delegates, had first-hand experience of working together, of joining up and working together to make really good, positive changes for everybody. For everybody, not just for one or two, but for all of them—they had bargained collectively. They had sorted out problems collectively. Consequently, those workers received much better terms and conditions in their employment than other people who are non-unionised. It really does strike me that the Budget that we have is quite the antithesis of this. It is not about working together. It is not about making positive changes for most people. It is not about getting the best bang for our buck. It is, again, the typical divide and conquer tactics that we have seen with this Government, year after year after year, in the Budget.
One of the things that I did pick up from these delegates was the impact of low wages on their families and on their communities. We supported this Budget because of the simple fact that there was a modicum of relief for our poorest families, with the Working for Families increase—tiny increase—and through the accommodation supplement. While we supported that, we also, I think, have to recognise that in many cases this poverty alleviation is a subsidy for landlords. That is what the accommodation supplement is becoming. And Working for Families has become a subsidy for employers to keep wages low. We will continue to keep wages low and we will have to rely on tax credits like Working for Families unless we do something about redressing the imbalance of power between employers and workers, so that they can bargain effectively.
Over the last 30 years we have seen productivity in this country increase, but the share of that productivity to those who create it in the workplace has decreased. It is simply greed. Despite this—despite this fact—in this Budget, the Government once again gave handouts to those who were most well-off, in their typical divide and conquer type of way.
We could make dramatic—dramatic—change if we did work together, because we are all in this together. If we were the type of Government—and, I have to say, the Greens in Government will be that type of Government—that actually did think about all of us, rather than some of us, then we would be adopting and endorsing the living wage. We would be introducing that initially to people who were employed in the Government sector and then passing it on to those who contract with the Government. We have seen a missed opportunity with this Budget. We could be doing so much more to bring all New Zealanders up and to ensure that those who most need it get the most help. But this is not what happened here. In all good faith, we did have to vote for it because of that small relief but, as I say, we could do much better and we need to change the Government so that we can.
JAN LOGIE (Green): I want to continue on from my colleague Denise Roche’s theme, really, about working together and empowering people in our community to be able to look after themselves and look after the people around them. The Green Party wants a society where every family has enough to sustain itself. We want people to be able to live in communities that are empowered and free to be able to respond to the problems that they see around them and to be able to look after each other. It concerns me that we seem increasingly to have a real division between different communities in this country and their experiences of life.
There are some of my friends who get out in the garden after a day at work and after getting a fair pay packet, and they can go out at the weekend and their life is good. They get to enjoy the beauty and the vibrancy of this country, which, I have got to say, makes me so attached to this place.
And yet when I was driving to work at half past 6 this morning, or around then, and listening to the news stories, I was hearing stories of homelessness, on top of stories of mental health breakdown, on top of what I hear, through select committees, of domestic violence and sexual violence, and—just the degree of hardship. There is such a fundamental disconnect between the experiences of thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders and what some of us experience this country as—such a great place.
For me, it is at the heart of what it is to be Green, and part of it is to actually connect those realities and get rid of homelessness, get rid of poverty, and get rid of domestic and sexual violence. I know that most of my friends and the people I know, and many, many people I know who are doing well, want to be part of that solution. When they take a moment and they think about kids living in a car and going to school, they feel uncomfortable. It is not the country that they know. It tarnishes their experience of this country, and I want us to do something about that.
That is pretty much what this is about for me—being in here. It is a belief that we can do something about all of those things. We are not going to do it by decisions of the Government—of the Government knowing what is best. We are going to do it by listening to each other and making it possible for all of us to be involved in that. Some of the answer to that is about making sure everyone has got an income and is able to participate, and the Government getting those settings right. We are still just seeing a kind of acceptance of the hardship and a commitment to mitigate the pain rather than resolve it.
But another part of it is to re-empower our community organisations. As our community and voluntary sector spokesperson, I know that these people are supporting our families every day on some of those really tough issues. When I go visiting those people, their faces, so often—all too often, now—are grey with stress, because the families that they are working with are dealing with such complex issues. These organisations—these people trying to help them navigate the system and trying to support them—are not funded properly to be able to spend the time to do that properly.
Now the Government is thinking that it has got the answers to the communities’ problems—all you need to do is collect the data, and an algorithm will tell us the answer. That, actually, is now putting another barrier in the way of people going to get help. It is avoiding the fact that the solutions will come through relationship and resource, and that that happens at a community level. We cannot gag our community organisations from speaking out, and we need to fund them and actually encourage them to tell us when we have got it wrong—to make sure that we know what they are seeing in front of the families in their communities.
Hon CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): Can I first congratulate our new finance Minister, the Hon Steven Joyce, on continuing the hard work that the previous finance Minister, Bill English, did with his eight previous Budgets. Mr Joyce has delivered for all New Zealanders—families, those in need of better healthcare, those with aspirations for better education or a more quality education, and those who have aspirations for better infrastructure. These have been delivered via this Budget announced by Mr Joyce just the other day.
I note that we were all in the House during the various speeches of our Prime Minister, Bill English—resting on his years of experience, his financial knowledge, his fiscal knowledge of how this system of government works, and his 8 years as one of the most successful finance Ministers in the OECD. He has been working through and delivering for New Zealanders, through the Christchurch earthquakes and the shock that that had to the country’s system, as well as, of course, the personal cost to many New Zealanders. He has delivered through the global financial crisis, and still delivered a surplus for New Zealand last year, in last year’s Budget.
Mr Joyce has picked up on that, has broadened that, continued that, and has delivered a Budget that touches, I would say, almost every part of New Zealand. At the very least, 1.3 million New Zealanders will benefit from the changes announced for families in the Budget and the legislation recently passed—1.3 million New Zealanders. That is many, many families.
I have actually seen 12 Budgets in this House, and I have never seen a Budget that has put the Opposition in such turmoil. I had 3 years in Opposition when my 2005 class first came in. I listened to Budgets, and I listened to Mr Cullen and Labour go absolutely nuts, from 2005 to 2008—virtually doubling the tax take, creating inflation north of 5 percent, and creating double-digit mortgage rates. That is the last time we can compare Labour policy, Labour’s lack of fiscal discipline, with the current circumstances and the current Budget.
In fact, it was very interesting watching, from my new seat down the back of the Chamber, the behaviour of the Opposition MPs as Mr Little furiously tried to fill out his time but did not quite make it, when he was doing his response. Our Prime Minister totally owned Mr Little—totally owned him. I was watching Mr Little’s colleagues rolling their eyes and almost nodding off, a few of them, when not only Mr Little’s batteries in his iPad seemed to run out but his own batteries started to run out.
I looked at individual MPs over there—the outgoing MP for Palmerston North, for example, and I looked at Mr Nash. They are currently the representatives of areas that do have lower wages and some high social problems—that is quite true. I looked at them as the Budget was announced, and they were thinking: “Wow, my area is really going to benefit from this Budget.” The people whom Labour members forever talk about—and are looking for some reason to talk about—with the rhetoric about trying to help, are helped by this Budget. This Budget delivers for those exact people whom Labour members have been talking about over many, many years.
I do take my hat off to the political maturity, if you like, of Mr James Shaw and his putting principles in front of political rhetoric and debate in the House. I am sure he had a fair few robust arguments or discussions in his caucus. I respect the Greens’ opinions but I also acknowledge their voting for the recent legislation, as part of the Budget, that was passed. They were true to their convictions—the kinds of things we have recently heard them talking about—because this Government has delivered to those same people. This Government has delivered to those who are most in need—confident and outward-looking New Zealanders who are in need because of various economic issues affecting their families—be it through the accommodation supplement changes or the changes to the tax thresholds, etc., etc.
Underlying all of this is the fact that none of this can happen unless we have a strong, growing, confident economy. Every single Budget that this National Government has delivered over 9 years is driving a more confident and a stronger, resilient economy for all New Zealanders. Again, there was political maturity shown by the Green Party, but Labour is in isolation. Labour’s default position—its Princes Street branch—is perpetual opposition. It opposes anything and everything, without thinking what it could have done, without thinking to join the rest of the House and vote—probably for the first time, I think, for the leading Opposition party—for a key Budget element to assist those whom it claims to be representative of. Labour members did not vote for it. They missed the opportunity, and they are destined to stay in Opposition until such time as they are more true to the principles they espouse again and again.
The Budget itself is full of good economic metrics, like the 2.7 percent current account deficit. For years, through the 1990s, through the 2000s, members opposite would talk endlessly about the perils and how bad the current account was. I do not hear them talking about it any more, whatsoever. It was down from about 6.5 or 7 percent not that long ago. I do not hear members on the other side talking about the 750,000 superannuitants who will benefit from the increases in after-tax wages. I cannot see them rocking up to Grey Power this week and next week when they are doing the rounds, and saying: “Oh, look at the positive impact of this Budget on your superannuation.” And it is not only this Budget. In fact, every single Budget since 2008 has delivered higher after-tax wages, on average, for New Zealanders, therefore resulting in an increased superannuation for 750,000 New Zealanders.
Solid economic growth has been delivered and continues to be forecast, in and around 3 percent—unheard of for this country. Growing job opportunities for our families come only from that growth and only from the discipline that we have seen, not only in this Budget but in previous Budgets. It is about getting productivity out of Government spending, to keep inflation low and, therefore, mortgage rates low for our families. So as we talk about the Budget and as we read the Budget, the direct result—the economic metrics, etc., etc.—is that families across New Zealand, in their homes, are benefiting, and will benefit, from the changes announced in this Budget and the ongoing strength and resilience of the New Zealand economy.
We have seen natural disasters and we have seen economic crises around the world, be it the global financial crisis, Christchurch, etc. The Christchurch earthquake’s impact on our GDP was, I think, around 12 to 14 percent, or thereabouts, of our economy—huge. But, of course, we all did the right thing by rebuilding Christchurch, and we will again if we have to, if that happened somewhere else, as we have recently seen in Kaikōura. Having a strong balance sheet and a growing economy gives us the ability to deal with a disaster if, in fact, sadly, it comes across our shores, be it a domestic natural disaster or some economic event across the world.
We have choices now, and we have shown those choices in this Budget: changing the tax thresholds for many New Zealanders, and changing the accommodation supplement, with the end result being that more New Zealanders are keeping more of their own hard-earned salary and wages in their hands. This results in lower mortgage rates for those same families.
The Reserve Bank just yesterday put out its strategy report for the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand financial sector. It did a scenario of changes in mortgage rates. It did a 5 percent—which is roughly where we are now—a 7 percent, and a 9 percent scenario. For all those New Zealand families who are enjoying the benefits of a strong, growing, confident economy and country, just remember to have a look at your mortgage payments that you make every week or every fortnight, and double them—because under Labour those interest rates were double. Your family will suffer tremendously if Labour were ever to implement some of its policies. It should not be allowed anywhere near the strong, confident balance sheet and economy that we now have. Thank you.
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I want to give the member who just resumed his seat, Craig Foss, some credit—not a lot; just a little bit—because after that 10 minutes it is clear to see that he is tired and out of fresh ideas. He has taken it upon himself to remove himself from the House. On September 23 we will be sending some of his other colleagues out of this place, when we have a change of Government. I am really looking forward to that because, if you are a young couple who is trying to scrape together a deposit for a house, who has an aspiration to buy a house—because that is what most Kiwi couples want to do—this Budget is completely bereft of anything substantial for them.
The Minister said: “Where’s the aspiration gone”? Well, the aspiration, for most Kiwis, is still there. They want to be able to buy a house. They want to be able to have a shelter over their heads for them and their families. But if they were looking for this Budget to deliver anything for them, well, there is nothing there for them. That is why this Budget is a complete and utter failure. It is hush money for people out there to try to make the issues—the fundamental issues around health, housing, and education—disappear.
But the Government is taking New Zealanders for dummies. New Zealanders know that this Government has had 9 years to do something about housing, and this Budget has done nothing for them. They know that this Government has had 9 years to do something about health, and this Budget has nothing for them. It is smoke and mirrors. The public knows that this Government has had 9 years to do something about education, yet their children are still going to schools that are overcrowded, and there is no long-term plan to do anything about it. I call this a “Specsavers Budget”—“Should’ve gone to Specsavers”—because there is no vision at all. That is what this Budget is. If you are looking for a solution for your family to be able to take that step into the first-home market, well, there is nothing here for you. That is where I think this Government has made the ultimate failure in this Budget.
What is there in housing? I think there is room for only 1,200 houses in Auckland, when I understand it needs 40,000 a year. Twelve hundred—that is all this Government has got. It is woefully inadequate. If this Government thinks that a little sugar hit now is going to make a big difference to those families who want to buy and own a home, then it “Should’ve gone to Specsavers”. That is the issue that some of the people who Mr Foss was talking about are really concerned about. It is not just those young couples; it is their parents, who are having to fork out the deposits for their children. Or it is the grandparents of those young couples, who are forking out deposits for their grandchildren just so they can have a shot at the Kiwi Dream. I think that if they were looking at this Budget to have some hope—for those who want to buy a house, or hope to help their children, or hope to help their grandchildren—there is nothing in it for them.
The other issue I wanted to talk about was health. My colleague and friend David Clark asked the Associate Minister of Health today about what was in this Budget for mental health. Again, the answer is “not a lot”. Realising that there is a crisis in mental health, the Government has sprinkled $50 million on an issue that is much bigger than that, and, if you look at the detail, it has actually provided only $25 million. There is another $25 million that the district health boards (DHBs) themselves have to provide from within their already tight budgets. We are talking about DHBs that said to the Government and the health Minister that they needed about $650 million just to keep up with inflation pressures and population increases. And what did the Government stump up for them? The answer is, well, not enough, by quite a lot—just $400 million. So the health system is short about quarter of a billion dollars of what it needs to deliver and just to stay still.
My biggest concern about that is around mental health, because I am sure most MPs are hearing from their communities the massive difficulties with mental health that are happening in communities. My electorate is Mana. It used to have the old Porirua Hospital on site. It is not there any more. But, as a result of history, there are still a lot of families in my community who are still dealing with decades of mental health problems. There is also, up the Kāpiti coast, an outfit called Te Ara Korowai, which has had its budget funding cut. There is also, up the Kāpiti coast, in the Kāpiti youth services, a small organisation that helps young teenagers in Kāpiti to deal with not just sexual health issues but also mental health issues, and the people there are scratching away every year just to stay afloat.
This Government is starving them not only of the money but also with the administration to get their hands on the money just to stay alive. And that is not a Government with vision to make sure our young people are the best that they can be; that is a penny-pinching Government that does not realise what is going on in the community and is not meeting the mental health needs of youngsters. That is going to have a huge effect on those young people as they get older, and we need to deal with those issues now.
In education, this Government is also telling one story out of one side of its mouth, but the reality is completely different. In my electorate there are three schools that are absolutely packed to the gunnels. It is Rangikura School, it is Paremata School, and it is Papakōwhai School.
Grant Robertson: Overcrowded.
KRIS FAAFOI: They are overcrowded and they are in need of some help, but the Government has been completely missing in action in that conversation. And that is not surprising because, again, the Government has underfunded the education sector for the pressures that it is facing by about $80 million.
It does not take an Einstein—and I am sure there is not one over there—to realise that if you are underfunding the education system by $80 million, it is going to have an effect. It is going to have an effect. And it is happening because of overcrowded schools and the kind of impact that is having on those schools and those children and those communities, and that is happening in my community.
This is a “Specsavers Budget” because there is no vision. If the Government did just one thing, it should have taken a really strong approach around housing. In my area there is a patch of land on the Castor Loop. This Government demolished about 50 or 60 homes on that pot of land about 7 years ago. In my last 2 minutes, I just want to talk about this pot of land. This Government said it was going to replace those homes for the low-income families that it displaced. Well, that pot of land now looks like a park. There has been 7 years of inaction because the Government does not have any vision when it comes to helping low-income families with housing—none whatsoever. It cannot even confirm to the House that the homes that it wants to build in this Budget are going to be affordable.
So we really do need a fresh approach. I am going to put this speech on Facebook later, and I want people out there to think about the kind of Government and kind of Budget this really is. Is it a Budget that is going to help deal with some of the fundamental issues, like whether people have a roof over their head, whether someone in their family who has mental issues is going to be looked after, and whether their kids are shoved into classrooms like sardines? That is the reality of what is going on out there.
Do not take the Government’s spin that this is good for families; it is not. For high-income earners like me—I get $1,000. For those on the lowest of incomes, I think it is about $200, max.
Hon Maggie Barry: The member should give it away to charity.
KRIS FAAFOI: Why do you not give it away?
Hon Maggie Barry: Why don’t you?
KRIS FAAFOI: Ha, ha! Give it away full time, Maggie. Ha, ha! Just give it away.
This is a Budget that is bereft of ideas and vision in the most important areas of health, housing, and education. I want people to think about that when they cast their vote on 23 September, because it is time for a fresh approach.
Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I will start with New Zealand families because, of course, New Zealand families are the foundation of our country. They are our future and they are incredibly important to all of us across this House.
But I do want to run through a few facts and figures, because I think the Budget this year is the Budget that shows that this Government cares for all New Zealanders. So I am going to start with the Family Incomes Package, which illustrates the economic savvy of our finance Minister, unlike that displayed by the member who just resumed his seat, Kris Faafoi, who decried an expenditure of just over $400 million as if it were a mere bagatelle—as if $400 million was just a snap and just a fraction of the money that the Labour Party and the Opposition would just keep throwing at things to make them better. Well, they tried that. In the Labour Government, members had 9 years to try that, and that did not end terribly well for them.
This Government cares for families, and this Budget supports families. There is new expenditure of just over $2 billion a year in the family support package, and that will provide reward for New Zealanders’ hard work. New Zealanders have worked hard over the 9 years. We understand that. We not going to throw their money around and waste their money. We are going to use New Zealanders’ hard-earned money, and we are going to put more of that money back into their own pockets. It is so important that New Zealand families have a direct share in the benefits of what is turning out to be a strong economy now and into the future.
I am just going to go through some of the facts and figures around the Family Incomes Package. On average, 1.3 million working-age families will be $26 better off under this package, and 136,000 low-income families will benefit by increases to the accommodation supplement. Labour did not do that—Labour had the chance to do that—and 136,000 families will benefit. People earning over $22,000 a year will be $11 a week better off. That is significant in a family. People earning over $52,000 a year will be $20 a week better off. That is significant. Around 750,000 superannuitants and 41,000 students will also benefit from the Family Incomes Package.
This Government has crafted a Budget for all New Zealanders, but I want to leave families there for a moment because how does that expenditure fit into the wider Budget that this Government has crafted? This Budget is about delivering better services for what is a growing economy. The Government is allocating $7 billion over 4 years in this Budget to sustain and expand public services in health, in education, in law and order, and in social development.
I just want to pause there and congratulate the Hon Paula Bennett, Minister of Police, for her very sensible and proactive announcement today that she is putting extra resources into assisting retailers and shopkeepers who are coming under sustained attack from “young thugs”, I think they were described as today. Minister Tolley said today that young thugs are going into shops and undertaking aggravated robberies on hard-working New Zealanders. I would love to see Labour decry that expenditure. It is nuanced, it is a good investment, and it will benefit small businesses in New Zealand.
I will move on to small business, but there are just a couple of other figures—
Grant Robertson: Well, that would be good, because the Budget didn’t.
Hon JACQUI DEAN: You see, Labour does not want to hear the figures, but here they come: over 4 years, $3.9 billion dollars in New Zealand’s health sector. Now, I am a member and I take an interest in the Southern District Health Board and the South Canterbury District Health Board. There will be extra funding going into both of those health boards to deliver more health services for New Zealand: more elective surgeries; better healthcare for rural people, for pregnant women, and for the elderly—all sorts of healthcare—and more for the South Island. I celebrate that, as I celebrate the expenditure across New Zealand.
There is $1.1 billion for schools and early childhood centres—and thank you, Hon Nikki Kaye, for putting the expenditure and funding towards a new school for Wānaka. Wānaka is one of the fastest-growing areas in New Zealand. The Minister recognises that growth causes pressure and has responded by funding a new school for Wānaka—of course there are new schools throughout New Zealand—and four new classrooms for Mt Aspiring College. This is a Government that looks ahead, understands the nature of growth and caters for it.
But I want to go to small business now. I started talking about small business in the context of Auckland shopkeepers who are under attack by a number of young thugs, and this Government is prepared to do something about that. I want to talk about the direct investment into small business. First of all, I will talk about economic growth. Without economic growth you do not get benefits for a small budget, but with an expected growth of 3.1 percent over the next 4 years there will be a good environment for small business and for enterprise to thrive. This expenditure in skills—we need more skilled workers, we need more immigration, and we need more people coming in to fill the skills gaps. But, at the same time, we need to be training up more workers to fill those gaps.
I want to talk about the $100 million in tourism infrastructure. Tourism is another great success story for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, but with the success and the increasing number of tourists do come pressures. Those pressures fall largely on small tourist routes, many of which are in the South Island. This $100 million package will go a long way in helping to provide those things like toilets and parking spaces—dealing with the pressures around freedom camping and dealing with the pressures around tourist drivers. That is a very positive Budget announcement that will help small business; those tourism businesses in tourism areas that are feeling the strain of growth—not such a bad thing.
I also want to reference the increased expenditure announced in the Budget around irrigation. We know that in South Canterbury, Canterbury, North Otago, and Central Otago their local economies have hugely benefited from the investment in irrigation, but, also, as a benefit of that, the environment has benefited, as well. Water quality is benefiting from irrigation—not a popular message, I hear, for the Greens, but I direct them down to the Ōpuha Dam to have a look at the water quality enhancement as a result of investment in irrigation; the community benefits and the environment benefits.
I want to zero in now on the small business portfolio and talk about several well-funded initiatives in this Budget, in particular under the umbrella of the Better for Business – Result 9 programme. This is about making the environment easier for small business to do business with Government. The one thing that small businesses need is the framework to enable them to go about their business, and when they have to interact with Government—with Inland Revenue, with Immigration, with Work and Income—they can do that with ease. I do direct listeners and viewers to business.govt.nz, which has received extra funding; it gets $3 million annually. That is the website for small businesses to go on to have a look at the employment relations builder and to have a look at how they can make their New Zealand Business Number work.
Finally, I want to finish by talking about the small-business roadshows. We are travelling the length and breadth of New Zealand, taking the Government to small-town New Zealand. We want businesses to understand that there are training vouchers available to them through Callaghan Innovation. There is assistance for them now in the changes to paying provisional tax.
All of these things are designed to make doing business easier in New Zealand. Why? Because small business is a major contributor to the New Zealand economy. Small business makes up the vast economic endeavours in small-town New Zealand, as it does in the cities. It should be supported. It is supported under this Government. This is truly a Budget that sets the framework for success, continuing success, not only in small business—which is my portfolio—but for all New Zealanders. Thank you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Kennedy Graham—a 5-minute call.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The strongest message about this 2017 Budget is that the Government has no vision, no ambition, and no idea of how to address the challenges facing our country. It believes it has shown some positive vision by offering some tax relief to struggling families. In this, it is half-right. The tax legislation has already gone through. It goes some way to alleviating child poverty, which is why we voted for it. But the vision stops there.
With the goal of addressing our other national challenges—rivers, housing, transport, conservation—the Government is failing because they lack the vision. With the goal of helping to address the global challenge we all face—climate change—it is failing because it lacks perception. It simply does not recognise the problem for what it is—the magnitude of the problem of dangerous climate change and the urgency of addressing it.
James Shaw noted during question time yesterday that the Budget omitted the phrase “climate change”. The UN Secretary-General has warned that humanity has never faced a greater challenge than climate change, and the New Zealand Minister of Finance fails to mention it—fails to mention the greatest challenge facing humanity. Mr Joyce toyed with the question as if it were a passing amusement. There were, he said, many important initiatives that did not get mentioned because he had only 45 minutes. The greatest challenge ever to face humanity, and the New Zealand Minister of Finance could not refer to it in a 45-minute speech.
New Zealand voters might assume that the Minister of Finance does not think climate policy has a financial dimension and, therefore, it does not need to be in the Budget. But, no, he did know that. James Shaw asked how much New Zealand might need to spend during the decade of Paris—2021 to 2030—through paying other countries to reduce domestic emissions to offset for our national failure. “That”, said the Minister, “is difficult to say. It depends on a range of scenarios. Best to speak with the climate Minister. She’ll have an answer.” There is probably no greater abrogation of ministerial duty—a ministerial duty of care—than to wilfully refuse to take responsibility for climate change, but the Minister of Finance of New Zealand did that. “Too difficult to say.” he said. “Talk to someone else.”
Mr Shaw sought to table the document that would assist the Minister. The answer was in the document. Government MPs refused leave—refused to have the information tabled. Such a wilful refusal to face facts in respect of the magnitude and urgency of the climate threat is a dereliction of duty.
This Government does politics as if we are still in the 1990s. It sees economic growth as relying completely on the free market, loaded with false loans and long-term derivatives. It sees the threat of climate change as just another problem to be solved through greater effort on the basis of existing economic orthodoxy. That is where it lacks vision. But perhaps it lacks the courage to have a 21st century vision.
Let us assist with the Green vision of 21st century fiscal management. A Green Budget would place all Government policy within the framework of a planned transformation to a net zero emissions economy—net zero by 2050 for domestic emissions, without reliance on international offsets. Anything done internationally to assist others would be additional. The transformation will be both rapid and just. It will begin with amending the Climate Change Response Act to fundamentally reshape national climate policy, starting with an independent climate commission and focusing on an effective price signal across all sectors. We shall achieve net zero domestic emissions by 2050, or very close to it. One of the greatest challenges will be whether we can get agreement on how the Budget should tackle the greatest challenge ever to face humanity.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Gareth Hughes—a 5-minute call.
GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I think possibly one of the most charitable things you could say about the Budget we are debating is that it was not a Budget for New Zealand and it was not a Budget for the nation; it was a Budget for the National Party. After previous Budgets where the National Government sold off the assets, delivered tax cuts for the rich, achieved record levels of debt, and engineered a national housing crisis, it comes up with this. Well, Minister Nick Smith sits there—the Minister who is not responsible for building houses, because the houses are not being built. He is the Minister who has engineered and has acted like the architect of house prices that are now 11 times wages in Auckland, a Minister who has seen house prices inflate by $100,000 a year—look, all the facts are clearly there.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Flat for 8 months.
GARETH HUGHES: National has been the architect of the housing crisis. Minister Nick Smith, who is trying to debate with me across the Chamber, is the person who is the most responsible for it in the country, but he is the Minister who is prepared to blame everyone else. First, it was a problem of success—right—that there was so much interest in housing. It was a problem of success. When everyone stopped laughing, the Minister moved on to his next excuse, which was that it was a question of other people’s responsibility. It was not the Minister’s responsibility; it was the Labour Party’s responsibility, it was the Green Party’s responsibility, or it was the councils’ responsibility—everyone else, except Nick Smith.
But I am getting distracted, because this Budget was all about exactly what this Government does, and when it comes to housing, it picks up something—something shallow, something superficial, something to get a newspaper headline—but it is not the actual substance. When you look at housing, the accommodation supplement changes are an admission of failure—an admission that house prices have increased too much and that it is now simply unaffordable for too many, and a whole generation is locked out of homeownership. This is a Government that, only 2 years ago, rejected this exact measure, but when it was time to get a media headline, that is when it went for it. It is the same with the tax changes. After 8 years of short-changing public services, of scrimping, in election year it comes out with these changes. It is kind of like the school bully who takes your school lunch money every day, but the day when he is running for class president, that is when he is prepared to give a little bit back.
This has to be one of the most political Budgets in modern New Zealand history. It is a Budget designed for political headlines, from a Government that—look, I take my hat off to those members; they are good at politics, they are good at the spin, they are good at getting on the John Oliver show, and they are good at starting a public conversation. The problem is, though, that it is not a public conversation on the important issues, like climate change, as Kennedy Graham said. It is not about the record debt levels. It is not about the systemic problems that have seen our economic performance decline over time. No, the public conversation we see under this Government is spaghetti on pizza, it is whether we run or walk up and down hills—it is these types of conversations.
In 4 months’ time we could see a very different Budget being drafted: a Budget that is not going to focus on just the headlines and the politics but that is going to focus on the leadership and the substance; a Budget that is going to start building houses to end the housing crisis; a Budget that is going to clean up rivers—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: We already have—doubled the rate.
GARETH HUGHES: Now, Nick Smith is interjecting again—the Minister responsible for our dirty and unswimmable rivers. In 4 months’ time we are going to see work started on a Budget to clean up and deliver swimmable rivers in New Zealand; a Budget that is going to look after our families and support our kids, that is going to lift people out of poverty, that is not going to see people sleeping in their cars and on the streets in rough conditions; a Budget that is going to manage the economy and focus on innovation. This was the missing piece of this Budget—a focus on headlines and political points but not a focus on the future, not a focus on embracing our strengths in New Zealand, which is investing in innovation. This is a Government that continues to throw money at last century’s economy, like dirty fossil fuels and coalmines; a Government that could be investing in clean energy, IT, education, and innovation. I cannot wait to start work on that Budget in 4 months’ time.
CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about the Budget. It kind of reminds me of a bad movie that you have gone and seen, and you get home and your mate gives you a call to ask what that movie you had been anticipating was like, and you say: “Oh, it was budget.” That is exactly what we have got here—this is a “budget Budget”. Seriously, we have got fake announcements coming out, with Minister Maggie Barry talking about conservation, rubbing her hands gleefully together: “We are going to give so much back to our country. Battle for our Birds is going to get $21 million; $76 million is going to infrastructure to help out with the conservation.” What a load of spin! The $21 million dollars they announced was in July last year. Do not get too excited, people; this is just to tidy up some seeding problems so they can actually napalm the forest with 1080 a little bit more.
The reality is that the $76 million, although it is being put into conservation, is there to put in some infrastructure for tourism, so it should go against the tourism budget. It is not going to help our natural flora and fauna, or protect our species that are on the brink of collapse. The latest report that came out from Dr Jan Wright just yesterday says that over half of our native birds are in serious decline and looking to be extinct, the numbers are so low. Yet this Minister was rubbing her hands together gleefully while we are all waiting with anticipation for a big announcement last week, and what happened? Nothing. No new announcements, no more Budget announcements, and then we asked the question—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where are you on 1080?
CLAYTON MITCHELL: You have had your turn, Minister. Then Minister Maggie Barry stood up in the House and talked so proudly. She said that her Government over the last 9 years has increased spending in conservation. What a crock of nonsense! The Minister who speaks with a velvet tongue—what do they call it? “Velvetleaf tongue.” We should call her “the Minister who speaks with velvetleaf tongue”. “Rusty Myrtle” herself, stood up there, and she genuinely does not understand—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will withdraw that description of the Minister.
CLAYTON MITCHELL: I withdraw that description of the Minister.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No, you just say “I withdraw.”
CLAYTON MITCHELL: I withdraw.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Very good.
CLAYTON MITCHELL: We now have a situation where, initially, I genuinely thought the Minister just did not get it, that she might have been a bit thick. But the reality is that what is going on when she talks so blatantly—[Interruption] That is my opinion. She talked so blatantly about this increase in funding for the Department of Conservation (DOC), I thought she does not understand the difference between real and nominal. So I gave her the benefit of the doubt, and we keep going, week after week, talking about spending on DOC—when is some serious funding going to come up—and she keeps sitting there with her hand on her heart.
To me, that is misleading, because I absolutely know she understands the difference between nominal and real, but she is just not telling the public the honest, absolute truth about the situation of the Department of Conservation. If you go back—in fact, I brought a copy down for the Minister, if she would like a copy, just so she can be very clear about this. This is my copy I am holding. I have got drawings all over it.
If you look and understand the difference between what the cost of product was 9 years ago, for example, at 1.75 percent accumulated—which is the Consumers Price Index (CPI) average compounded index increase over that period of time—you have about 15.75 percent increase. So something that cost you $100 9 years ago will cost you $115.75 today. Costs of wages, costs of product—everything is going up. In fact, in the last quarter this year, it has gone up by 2.2 percent, so I am being very generous when I say it is only 1.75 percent.
That means that when the Minister was spending $316 million back in 2008, if you add in the compounded index for that now, we are getting close—just in this Budget alone—to around about $170 million less today than what we were getting back in 2008. You cannot disagree with that. Anybody who understands basic mathematics understands that you have to increase funding—it has got to be indexed to keep up with inflation. She has not, and then she puts spin and rhetoric on and says: “I’ve got $76 million”—let us underline this—“over 4 years”. Just about everything that the Government has come out with in this Budget is over 4 years. Well, it is pretty presumptuous to think you are still going to be here in 4 years. The reality is that people have had a gutsful of your spin and nonsense.
When you add that into it, with the $21 million in funding for emergencies, to deal with the Battle for our Birds, we are talking about $170 shortfall, from 2008 just to this year, in comparison. We are not talking about the accumulated losses that the Department of Conservation has been struck so hard by, with hundreds of job cuts, with tracks that have been shut, and with wildlife that is on the brink of extinction—and this Minister thinks she is doing a good job. Well, I say billy-o to her. It is time to hop it.
Righty-o, we talk about water. Water is a major part of our environment. It is the lifeblood of our country in actual fact. Like a business has cash flow, countries need a clean, potable, drinkable, usable, swimmable, enjoyable, and plentiful supply of water. What we are seeing now is another fake announcement by Minister Nick Smith—who is standing over there with his back to the wall like a naughty boy at the back of the class. He sits there and tells New Zealanders that by 2040 we are going to have 90 percent of our rivers swimmable. What a joke. What an absolute joke that a priority is not put on the cleanliness of our streams and rivers—that we are not riparian planting, and making sure that we have got a clean environment that we can hand over to our families in the future. It is an absolute indictment on this Government, and it should be ashamed of itself, and he should go back and stand in the corner like he just was. That is much better, Mr Assistant Speaker; maybe we could make a rearrangement of some of the seating. As I said, the reality in terms of water is something quite different.
We, over the last number of years—certainly, it has come to some serious attention now—have seen this Government going down a path of separation, creating laws and advantages for the Māori Party, which is absolutely hell-bent on creating a divide between New Zealanders and Māori. The reality is, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters spoke about it in the House, it is about ownership of water. This is a commodity that is for all New Zealanders. It should be there for everybody equally, and I acknowledge the positive nodding of one’s head over there, Mr Naylor—you obviously agree with that. Yet this party is being wagged by the Māori Party, which says it wants to own the water. And when the Rt Hon Winston Peters said that, Marama Fox yelled out: “No we don’t. We don’t wanna own all of it, just some of it.” That is what she said. They want to own some of it. They have been denying it in the paper, saying that they do not want to own the water, but in actual fact right here in this House the Minister said: “We just want to own some of it—just the Crown water”. Well, goodness me! It is a terrible indictment that this could even be considered in this House—that water gets a new owner, in the name of iwi; a group that thinks it has got special rights and conditions over it. What a joke.
The other issue that we have got with our water is the fact that huge amounts, billions of litres of it, is sent off globally at no charge. The cost, from a person taking 1,000 litres of our natural, beautiful spring water is $1.12 for 1,000 litres. That is the cost to produce it through the councils, to draw it out of the ground. One litre of water sells for $2.60. You multiply that out—that is around about a 2,558 percent mark-up that those companies are making when they send that water offshore, overseas, extracted from New Zealand—and what do we get for it? Absolutely nothing. What a disgrace. You are selling our best natural resource, giving it as a priority to people to send off overseas and make vast sums of money at the expense of New Zealanders not being able to have their fair share of it.
The reality is that we need to put a priority back on water being in the hands of all New Zealanders equally and fairly, and if there is an excess of water that we can actually sell off overseas and make a profit, we should be getting our fair share of it. New Zealand First has a very strong policy with regard to water. As it is a natural resource, we believe in a regional policy, where 25 percent of money earned from any natural resource should go back directly to the region that it has come from.
I just want to finish off, a little bit, with regard to this $26 a week family support package—I have only got a very short amount of time—that the Government talks about. And yet squeezed into that Budget, the Minister talks about 25 percent increase to the Earthquake Commission levy and we have got a 40 percent increase in the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act. All up, that is a huge cost that we have worked out to be around about $24 per week to average New Zealanders. So this, if you are being polite, is a Budget with “Two Dollar Bill” at the helm, and it is a disgrace for New Zealanders. You should be ashamed of a Budget that is a “budget Budget”.
JONO NAYLOR (National): I would just like to start this contribution with a little bit of a correction. Mr Faafoi referred to Specsavers before, and I think Clayton Mitchell, the member who has just sat down, might also like a visit to Specsavers, because he seemed to mistake nodding off to sleep for nodding in agreement, on my part. So I think we just want to start with a little bit of clarification around that.
However, one point, when I was not asleep in that last contribution, was when the member described 1080 as “napalming our forests with 1080”. A little bit of a science lesson might be in order, as well. Napalm, if you want to destroy birdlife in New Zealand, would be a great way to go about it, so no one is suggesting that we actually napalm forests. But what we did hear is that while over the last 50 years we have managed to not lose any of our species, what we do know from this recent report is that if we were to stop using 1080 in New Zealand, we would see 12 species become extinct within 10 years. I think it is quite irresponsible to portray what has just been said by that previous member.
Now I want to shift my focus to this current Budget. When thinking about this current Budget, I have to say the sonnet from the famous poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning came to mind. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, in her 43rd sonnet, said “Oh how I love thee, let me count the ways”. And when comes to the Budget of 2017, I have to say “Budget 2017, how much do I love thee, let me count the ways”.
Well, the No. 1 way that I love this Budget is that as a result of this Budget, 1.3 million working-age families will be $26 a week better off, on average. Another way in which I love this Budget is that as a result of it, 136,000 low-income families will benefit from increases to the accommodation supplement. How I love this Budget is that people earning more than $22,000 a year will be $11 a week better off, and how I love this Budget is that people earning over $52,000 will be $20 better off.
I love this Budget because to my dear mother, who said to me “Yes, but what’s in it for superannuitants?”, I can look her in the eye and say: “Mum, superannuitants will be better off because the policy of this Government is that superannuation is tagged to the median after-tax income.” And guess what? In the tax breaks that are being offered to people under this Budget for next year, superannuitants will also see—750,000 of them, in fact—that their incomes will go up as well.
There are so many reasons to love this Budget on a whole bunch of grounds, and people have canvassed them widely. I just want to focus for a moment, though, on something that has not necessarily received a lot of attention, but is very, very important. It is the wise management of New Zealand’s finances. What we have seen over the last eight Budgets from our now Prime Minister, the Hon Bill English, is wise management, which has allowed us now to be in a place of surpluses when Treasury has been predicting that we would be having deficits for a lot longer.
What this allows us to do is start to repay some of that debt that we had to accumulate over the last while to help rebuild Christchurch and to help maintain core public services. We do not resile from the fact that money was borrowed during a difficult time to meet the requirements that we had as a country. So it is responsible now that we are in a place of surplus, and now that our economy is performing so well and getting us the surpluses that we so badly needed to get—and we have—to pay down some of that debt and to build infrastructure, because we do not know when the next earthquake may strike and we do not know when the next global financial crisis may hit.
So we are taking a responsible approach with this Budget. We are actually seeing that something is being sorted for a rainy day through the repayment of debt and through the building of infrastructure. That is what a responsible Government does. That is what a responsible Government that is accountable for providing well for all New Zealanders does—not just cherry-picking for the ones that we want to look after but providing for the welfare and the ongoing support of all New Zealanders. This Budget is a good Budget, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of it in the future. Thank you.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, I want to really focus on how the economy has allowed us to be in a position to make some really good choices. Firstly, I would like to talk about the $812 million that has been set aside in the Budget for the reinstatement of State Highway 1 and the rail corridor through the Kaikōura earthquake area. I can report that there is great progress going on there. It has been greatly appreciated by not only the people in Kaikōura and Hurunui but all of New Zealand really that the Government stepped up immediately and made a commitment to reinstate that part of State Highway 1 and the rail corridor. I think that is something we can do because we are in a position financially or fiscally to actually make those choices when they come along.
One of the things that our Budget allows us to do, and that we have put some money aside for, is to actually put ourselves in a good position for future shocks that might come. One of those—quite a small sum, $134 million, I guess in the scheme of things in the Budget, is for our Trade Agenda 2030. That is vital for us—our trade. We are a trading nation, we cannot afford to sell goods to ourselves—we just simply will not get anywhere in the world—and we have to get out there and try to grow those exports as quickly as possible. While 2030 might seem a long way off, in the trade world that is not the case.
We currently export 53 percent of our goods to countries that we have free-trade agreements with. The goal—the really stretched goal—is to grow that to 90 percent of our goods being exported to countries we have free-trade agreements with. That will cost money and that will take expertise, mostly, and it will also take a great effort from the people who own the businesses to get out and burn shoe leather on the streets of the world, trying to sell their goods. That is a great goal. They are also being backed up with a flying squad to help businesses that face non-tariff trade barriers. For those who are not involved in trade, those non-tariff trade barriers are very real at the border. They can cost a lot of money, they can cause goods to be turned round and sent back to the country of origin—there are all sorts of little tricks that go on in the trade world and we have got people who are very good at navigating those difficulties. We have put money up for that, and I think they really need a lot of acknowledgment for that.
But moving back onshore, irrigation has been spoken about before but I would just like to slightly correct the New Zealand First speaker who said there were billions of litres of bottled water going offshore. There are 9 million litres, which is many, many orders of magnitude less than was indicated by that speaker.
There is $26.7 million going towards irrigation and a capital injection or boost of $63 million for Crown Irrigation, and it was alluded to by my colleague Minister Jacqui Dean about the environmental good that that can do. I would like to focus on what is called MAR, or managed aquifer recharge, which is, essentially, digging a leaky dam and allowing the water to leak from that dam into the aquifer, recharging that aquifer. One of the places it has been trialled is in Hinds in mid-Canterbury and that has a red zone at the moment, with quite high nitrate levels in the water. What they have found from that trial is that it has worked exceptionally well. It is perhaps not leaking as well as they would have thought, but it is raising the level in the aquifer, or the pressure in the aquifer, and causing it to flow through and wash out some of those nitrates. We have to lower the nitrates going in, but we need to deal with what we have got there and these smart tools will really enable us to make a major change in our environmental outcomes.
I would like to point out that actually what we call red zones, in Europe are nowhere near that. They would not be green exactly, but they would not be anywhere near red, so we are in a good position with our water management. We can do a better job and we are putting the money up to make sure that we do. I also know that in my electorate there will be two irrigation schemes looking very closely at that: the Flaxbourne irrigation scheme and the Hurunui water projects. So with that, I commend this fantastic Budget to the House.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I listened very, very carefully to the contribution made by Jono Naylor, and what I was listening for was one—just one—statement about how this National Government Budget was going to make life better for people in Palmerston North. Just one would have been good, and I did not hear a thing. He had 5 minutes, and he did not say one thing about how this Budget is going to make life better for people in Palmerston North.
That surprised me. That surprised me, because I want to say that Jono Naylor has always been a strong advocate for people in Palmerston North, and of the four candidates that the National Government has put up against me in Palmerston North, Jono Naylor was by far—by light years—the strongest one. But, surprisingly, he is not standing at this election, and I think I know why. It is because what Jono discovered is that despite the fact that he is a loud and proud advocate for Palmerston North, and despite the fact that as a former mayor he knows the community better than any of the other candidates that the National Government has thrown at Palmerston North, he discovered that being in the National Party, even when it is in Government, is not a place to get progress for Palmerston North. That is why there was not one thing in Jono Naylor’s contribution about what this Budget is going to do for Palmerston North.
Let us look at the challenges that Palmerston North faces right now. We have a housing crisis in Palmerston North. I know that everybody focuses on the housing crisis in Auckland, but, just like many other provincial centres around the country, we have our own housing crisis, OK? Housing has always been affordable in Palmerston North; it has been one of our strengths, but house prices are growing faster now than they are in Auckland. House prices are growing faster in Palmerston North than they are in Auckland. It now takes more of the household budget than ever before to service a mortgage or pay the rent in Palmerston North.
We have nearly 200 families who are in need of a State house. That means they are in urgent and desperate need. It is almost impossible to get on the waiting list for a State house these days, and yet in a city of 87,000 people we have nearly 200 families who urgently need a State house. So where was the statement in this Budget about how this Government was going to build the houses that we need in Palmerston North? Now, land is not an issue in Palmerston North, because this National Government has torn down houses in Palmerston North. It has not built them; it has torn them down. What is worse is that it has left that land empty for year after year after year after year.
The very least it could have done was to sell it off to a private developer who would build houses. I would not have been happy with that, but it would have been an awful lot better than leaving a Government asset completely un-utilised at a time when we desperately and urgently need houses. Where was the statement in this Budget that the Government would build houses on land that the Government already owns, that had houses on it before, that is zoned appropriately, and that is ready to go? There was nothing—nothing—because there is no vision and no hope in this Budget for people who need an affordable home to rent or to buy.
What was there? There was a boost to the accommodation supplement. Now, that might sound good. I understand that if you are on incredibly low wages—because, let us face it, this Government has done everything it can to stifle wage growth in New Zealand—getting a boost to the accommodation supplement might sound quite good, but this is the problem: it will fuel demand. And at the same time this Government is doing nothing to address supply. I ask the economic geniuses on the other side of the House: what happens when you fuel demand but you suppress supply? What happens? What happens? Can anybody in the National Government tell me what happens when there is not enough supply and there is too much demand?
Can anyone on this side of the House tell me what happens?
Tracey Martin: Prices go up.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Prices go up—thank you. Prices go up. Everybody on this side of the House knows it. It is Economics 101, and yet the economic geniuses over there cannot even answer that question—prices go up. So the National Government is pouring fuel on the fire, and who gets burnt? It is low-wage people who are trying to pay their rent or trying to put enough aside to afford their own home. The accommodation supplement will simply drive prices up. People will not have any more money in their back pocket as a result. It will be money in, money out. Who benefits? The landlords benefit, not the tenants.
In Palmerston North we have a mental health crisis. It has been going on for a number of years. I am sad to say—and this is not news, but I am sad to say—that there have been suicides in the mental health ward at the hospital. We have enormous waiting lists. Just yesterday there was an article about how it is taking teenagers 8 weeks to access the mental health services that they need. We have a problem with our mental health services in Palmerston North. Where was the initiative to address that in this Budget?
When we say that the health budget is missing $1.7 billion, what we mean by that is that every single year that this National Government has been in power it has failed to give health enough money to address population growth and inflation. So, in real terms, every single year the health system has had less and less money to do what it needs to do to provide the treatment and support that New Zealanders need. That is what we mean when we say it is $1.7 billion short, and this year was déjà vu all over again, because, once again, the National Government has not put enough money into health to deal with population growth or inflation. That means, in real terms, that the health system has less.
The education system—well, it is the same in Palmerston North as it is everywhere else in the country. Our schools are bursting at the seams because of population growth. Yet does this Government provide enough money to deal with that? No. Parents are paying more in donations than they ever have before. I can say, as a parent of three children at school, it seems like every single week we get another bill in the emails, for more money—just to provide what ought to be the basics for every child at every school. Now, my family can afford that, but, for so many families, that demand to pay more and more money, week after week after week out the household budget, just so their kids can get a basic education—that is too much. The pittance that this Government is giving low-income people in tax cuts will be blown away by the additional costs for education and health.
In Palmerston North we are facing a spate of burglaries in dairies, like many other parts of the country. We have had our community police station in Roslyn closed. We think it is very likely that the community police station in Highbury is on the chopping block as well. The police are withdrawing from good old-fashioned community policing, where they are embedded in their community, where they know who the troublemakers are, where they know the families, and where they know how to prevent crime as well as respond to it quickly. This National Government is making it harder and harder and harder for the police to do their job, and—what do you know—crime rates are going up as a result. Dairy owners in my city are living in fear for themselves and for their families, because this National Government is failing to provide the resources we need to keep our city and our community safe.
The National Government has made a lot about how this Budget is going to make ordinary Kiwi families better off. It says that, on average, people are going to get $24 in their back pocket. Well, the truth is the people at the top—
Hon Jacqui Dean: It’s $26.
Hon Simon Bridges: $26. Don’t nickel and dime us.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —the people like Simon Bridges, like Jono Naylor, like Jacqui Dean, like Grant Robertson, and like me—get the bulk of the tax cuts. So I will be able to use my enormous tax cut to pay those school fees and the camp fees, and to be able to pay for the additional health costs that come along—to pay for the scans and what have you that my family need from time to time. We will be able to pay for all of that. But those families at the bottom, who already have the least and who already struggle with all of those costs, are not getting enough out of this Budget to cover the additional costs that they will face because of this Government’s failure to invest in public services.
Do not have the wool pulled over your eyes. That is what I say to everybody in New Zealand. Do not have the wool pulled over your eyes by this National Government. It gives with one hand and it snatches away with the other hand. The truth is that people’s back pockets will be emptier as a result of this Budget. That is the shame of it—that is the shame of it. National Government members stand up in this House and claim to be putting money in the pockets of working people, when the truth is they are making life more and more unaffordable and people will be worse off as a result. It is time for a fresh approach—an approach that only a Labour Government can offer.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill
Second Reading
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill be now read a second time. The bill establishes a new law to govern space activities conducted from New Zealand and by New Zealand nationals offshore. It covers the launch of space objects, such as rockets and satellites, into outer space and regulates space launch facilities. It also engages a regime to govern certain high-altitude activities, such as high-altitude balloons.
People rely on space for everyday services like telecommunications, high-speed internet, navigation and place-based information, climate monitoring, and emergency management. The rapid evolution of space technologies is creating new opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship. Recognising the potential for significant economic and innovation benefits, the purpose of the bill is to facilitate the development of a space industry whilst providing the necessary protections to manage the risks associated with space activities and to meet our international obligations.
The best example so far of all of this is, of course, Rocket Lab, a highly innovative space enterprise, which has recognised that New Zealand is an attractive location for space business. Last month Rocket Lab launched its first test rocket on the Māhia Peninsula, which was a major milestone in the development of New Zealand’s space industry. It is the first visible sign of a space industry in New Zealand and is an achievement that Rocket Lab and all New Zealanders can be incredibly proud of. New Zealand is now one of 11 countries currently able to launch satellites into space from their own territory and the first to launch from a fully private orbital launch range.
However, the Government’s interest in space is much broader than rocket launches. For example, New Zealand has the potential to become a niche player in other parts of the global value chain in this area.
On to the bill, which establishes a licensing and permitting regime to enable New Zealand to authorise and have ongoing supervision of space activities conducted from New Zealand. The design of the regime has been informed by international space law and practice and by the experiences of other like-minded countries, a number of which are in the process of reviewing their own space laws. Significant thought has gone into ensuring that the bill is flexible enough to deal with rapidly evolving technology and market demand. Equal importance has been placed on keeping compliance costs as low as possible. The lesson from overseas experience is that this is necessary to avoid stifling economic and innovative opportunities and to underpin New Zealand’s advantage as a location for space activities.
The bill achieves these objectives by establishing a decision-making framework that is risk-based and proportionate. It avoids unnecessary prescription by, for example, allowing the decision maker to tailor the conditions of licences and permits to provide a graduated approach to risk management, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. The bill’s regulation-making powers provide the necessary scope to deal with future technologies and applications. The bill also keeps compliance costs down by enabling the decision maker to recognise, in whole or in part, authorisations granted in other jurisdictions.
Can I thank the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their careful and constructive consideration of the bill. I also wish to thank those who took the time to make a submission on it. The committee’s report includes many sensible recommendations that will help ensure that the bill achieves its objectives and will strengthen the functionality of the bill.
One of these recommendations is clarifying the rules around the photography of space debris. The committee has recommended changes to the bill to make it clearer that a debris protection area can be declared at sites where a launch termination or accident has occurred, but only if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to comply with any international agreement in relation to the protection of sensitive space technology. The bill does not prevent the public viewing, photographing, or filming of space launches. These changes aim to balance the public’s freedom of expression with the need to ensure that New Zealand can meet its international obligations to protect sensitive rocket technology. As I have already noted, New Zealand has an opportunity to become the location of choice for commercial launch providers servicing a growing demand for small satellite launches.
The projected growth in satellites in orbit is accompanied by increased concerns internationally about space debris. We read about that in the newspapers this morning. In recognition of this, the bill elevates orbital debris mitigation to a threshold criterion for the granting of a licence, giving it the same priority as public safety. This will ensure that the Minister can decline an application if he or she is not satisfied that adequate orbital debris mitigation measures are in place.
I am confident that this bill provides a comprehensive basis for regulating space activities and managing risks, balanced against the need to enable the development of a New Zealand - based space industry. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Labour Party takes pleasure in joining the Government in support of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill. I think it is fair to say that whilst there have been activities in New Zealand relating to outer space activities, including the Awarua space station near Invercargill, it has been the success of Rocket Lab that has triggered the legislation, because we have had the ability not just to monitor what is happening in space but to launch things into it.
In respect of Rocket Lab, I know I am not meant to bring the Speaker of the House into the debate, but I am aware that whilst Mr Joyce, I think, thinks that Rocket Lab is his biggest success, those who deserve the accolades are those who have been the innovators and funders of Rocket Lab. Those who funded Rocket Lab at the start were actually—that funding started under the last Labour Government, and I think it was the Hon Trevor Mallard who was the Minister for Economic Development at the time. These things do take a while to come to fruition, and it is indicative of how, if you do have a visionary Minister or Government and you have the right regimes to enable New Zealand innovators to prosper, we can diversify our export base of both goods and services that we sell to the rest of the world. Of course, Rocket Lab is, essentially, an export company. It will be providing services to those that want to launch satellites. Those customers will generally, if not always, be customers from overseas who are paying money to a New Zealand company—it used to be completely New Zealand - owned; it is now partially New Zealand - owned, as it has sold some of its shareholding to overseas venture capitalists. I do not criticise it for doing that.
In respect of some of the other activities in New Zealand, the Awarua space station is an interesting example. That came about because New Zealand can see into parts of the sky that other countries cannot. So when the European Space Agency was trying to monitor its activities, it had a need to have a geographic base somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere that could see the parts of the sky that it could not see from its existing tracking stations. Through some very good work, actually, from the Southland economic development agency—I might have given it the wrong name, but the economic development agency in Invercargill—in particular, a man called Robin McNeill, who is an electrical engineer—
Hon Simon Bridges: Venture Southland.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Venture Southland—thank you. Venture Southland. It managed to entice the European Space Agency funding to contribute to the cost of the monitoring station there, which has been operating since. It ebbs and flows in terms of the amount of work that it receives, but he was one of the submitters on the bill who gave the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee some very good advice. As the Minister has already said, some of the changes that were made at the select committee reflect that advice.
New Zealand’s obligations as to what can or cannot be put into space arise in respect of non-military applications from international treaties. The bill does not try to restate those treaties, but one of the submissions that we received at the select committee was the desire that it was making it clear that New Zealand was not embarking upon warfare or quasi-warfare through our space initiatives. We are not North Korea. We are putting satellites up—we hope more successfully—but for peaceful purposes not for war purposes. So the purpose of the bill has been clarified to say the purpose is to “facilitate the development of a space industry and to provide for its safe and secure operation …” and to “implement … international obligations of New Zealand …”, which I have already alluded to.
To list some of those for the comfort of people—so, without limiting the details of those treaties, we note that it is not to “place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner” or to “establish military bases, installations, or fortifications on celestial bodies” or to “test any type of weapons or conduct manoeuvres on celestial bodies”. I think that was a theme that came through from a number of the submitters, that they wanted that made clear in the legislation. I think that was already the effect of the legislation, given the treaty that I have already referred to, but that was made clear by an amendment, or a change to the drafting of the legislation, that is recommended by the select committee.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.