Tuesday, 11 June 2019

TUESDAY, 11 JUNE 2019

TUESDAY, 11 JUNE 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—GCSB

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: At what specific time on Tuesday, 28 May was he or his office first contacted by the GCSB telling him that they had told Treasury that the GCSB did not believe any hacking had taken place, and when did he relay that information to his ministerial colleagues or their offices?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister responsible for the GCSB): On behalf of the Minister—

SPEAKER: No, I think the Minister is an Acting Minister.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am. I disagree with the member’s characterisation of what the GCSB said. However, to be helpful in terms of the timing of my contact with the GCSB and the relay of that information: at 8.02 p.m., Treasury issued its press release; at 8.43 p.m., my office first spoke to the GCSB; at 9.43 p.m., Minister Little spoke to the GCSB; at 9.52 p.m., Minister Little contacted the Prime Minister’s office; and at 10.25 p.m., Minister Little contacted Minister Robertson by text.

Hon Tim Macindoe: It’s not funny, Grant.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many—

SPEAKER: Order! Which member interjected?

Hon Tim Macindoe: I did.

SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why was there a period of hours between him finding out and passing it on to senior colleagues, in light of the fact that he’s made clear that “I’m satisfied that I acted appropriately, in a timely way, with all the information I had.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There wasn’t a delay of hours. Immediately upon the conversation between Minister Little and the GCSB, he put a call in to Minister Robertson. Minister Robertson was not available and did not pick up, so Minister Little immediately contacted the Prime Minister’s office and spoke to the Prime Minister’s deputy chief of staff.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he’s aware of the cyber-security one-stop shop, otherwise known as the Computer Emergency Response Team, established in April 2017 by one Simon Bridges, and does it not say “that in the event of a data breach, an individual should contact the relevant business organisation”?

SPEAKER: That question is not in order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you, sort of, clarify why it’s not in order?

SPEAKER: Because it doesn’t relate to the primary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: But it should.

SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: He is on his last warning for this sitting session.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions in relation to the alleged unauthorised access of Budget 2019 material?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which they were made and given.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why has she over the last 24 hours variously said that GCSB advised Minister Little that there was no hack, or to that effect, at 9 p.m. on the Tuesday—several hours later—and what did she say the exact time is?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same as what has been relayed, as has just been advised by Minister Little—at least on his behalf—that contact was made close to around 9 p.m. with Minister Little’s office and that he had a direct conversation sometime thereafter. He was in a meeting at the time and there was a delay. So I think you’ll find I said it was a couple of hours; it might have been maybe an hour and 45.

Hon Simon Bridges: When were she and Grant Robertson told the dispute wasn’t a hack, and who specifically told them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As Minister Little has advised—or at least on his behalf—his office was advised at close to 9 p.m. At about that same time, the chief executive of DPMC also made contact with the GCSB, and I was advised thereafter in close proximity. Then contact was made, from that point, with various Ministers who needed to be kept informed, including Minister Robertson.

Hon Simon Bridges: So, to be clear, did she know from 9 p.m. or thereabouts on the Tuesday of the GCSB’s quite different position to the press releases of Treasury and Minister Robertson?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is not new information. As we have pointed out a number of times, at the time that the statement went out by both the Secretary to the Treasury and then, subsequently, the statement by the Minister of Finance, no Minister had been advised of the GCSB’s views around the use of the word “hack” versus “unauthorised access”. We were advised around 9 p.m. that night that they would prefer the use of the word “unauthorised access”. To be clear, we still did not know what had occurred and we did not know who was responsible. I note that the member asking the question knew the answers to both of those questions. He, however, chose not to say anything until Thursday morning.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did she know about the releases sent out by Treasury and Grant Robertson before they were sent out?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said already and as is on record, after the Secretary to the Treasury briefed the Minister of Finance I was informed of the briefing. That was probably about 7.25. I did not know the exact content of the statement but I only assumed it was similar to the briefing itself. So I actually saw neither statement, but I knew that both were based on the briefings that had been received.

Hon Simon Bridges: Did she know that they—that is, Treasury, and repeated in Minister Robertson’s statement—alleged that there was sufficient evidence that the material obtained by the Opposition was obtained by “deliberate and systematic hacking”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As has been relayed several times now, that was the information that was provided to the Minister of Finance, and that was the belief of the Secretary to the Treasury. As the member well knows, that’s now the subject of a State Services Commission investigation. They’re looking into those very matters, but, yes, that was the information provided to us at that time. We did not know who was responsible. I note that the member will have known that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the primary question, which mentions her Government’s statements and actions, is she aware that section 252 of the Crimes Act states that a crime is committed if someone “intentionally accesses, … any computer system without authorisation,” and either knows that they are not authorised to access that computer system or are reckless as to whether they are authorised to do so? That’s the fact of the matter.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I am advised that that is the advice that is given when someone is able to gain unauthorised access, and, of course, that is the language that we were advised at that time. In fact, I can recall a time in Opposition when it was brought to our attention that unauthorised access to information was able to be gained via the Ministry of Justice website. When that was brought to then member Clare Curran’s attention, she took it directly to the then Minister Judith Collins. But I just relay that as a form of comparison.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think using a search bar is “unauthorised access” or “an attack”, as she and her Ministers said repeatedly the Wednesday after she knew that wasn’t so?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think you’ll find the language that we used was around unauthorised access, because, again, that was the advice that we were provided. Again, I note the member is taking that particular language quite personally. The member needs to remember that at that time we did not, in fact, know it was him who was responsible.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statements, made several times today, that on Tuesday, throughout the evening, she and her Ministers “had absolutely no idea what happened”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, we certainly were asking a number of questions, because we had been advised it was unauthorised access. Of course that led us to ask questions, but we did not know who was responsible or exactly how access was gained. That was something that we were advised of on Wednesday and then on Thursday, when the member himself confirmed it was the National Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Arising from the Prime Minister’s answer about an example of what to do, is she aware that in Budget week, a political party was given the information about the National Party’s spending, but rather than do it, sent it back to them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I think you’ll find there will be a range of different responses from different members or political parties, and each of us holds our own responsibility with how we deal with those situations. I know the member argues he acted in a completely appropriate way. That’s his call, not mine.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does she believe her Government put out releases alleging “deliberate and systematic hacking”, when from the top down it had “no idea what happened”, as she confirmed today, and, in fact, by 9 p.m. that evening, it knew that wasn’t true?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I’ve said many times, the Secretary to the Treasury briefed that there had been a systematic hack. That was the information provided both to the Minister of Finance and to myself. The Minister of Finance, as you can imagine after Treasury put out a statement, was asked a number of questions by the media. He put out, simply, a statement using the language and the references made by Treasury, because that was the information that we had.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why all of the next day, the Wednesday—when she and her Ministers knew what the GCSB had told them, that is, they didn’t believe there was hacking—didn’t they, that is, her Government, publicly correct that allegation of hacking?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, we followed the advice we were given and used the word “unauthorised access”. Again, we still, at that point, did not know who was responsible. I know the member saw it as an allegation against him; we didn’t necessarily see it that way at the time. But, again, we did use the word “unauthorised access”. That’s, at least, certainly my recollection.

Hon Simon Bridges: Didn’t her Government sit on a fundamental mistruth all of Wednesday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, but, again, I do raise that the member opposite actually knew the full story and could have enlightened all of us at any time.

Hon Simon Bridges: Didn’t she know there was no criminal hacking, and yet did nothing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. In fact, as I’ve said, we did not know whether or not the unauthorised access was legal or illegal. It was still a matter for the police, and that is where we left it. As the member will well know, when issues are referred to the police they do tend to be things that you then don’t comment on beyond that point.

Hon Simon Bridges: Instead of changing her language, why didn’t she do the right thing and publicly make clear there was no criminal hacking?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because—actually the member has just used the word “criminal”; we did not know whether what had occurred was criminal or not. We simply did not have that advice. Had we spoken to the police, that would have been direct interference in an operational issue. That member would have had a lot to say about that if we did. We waited for the police to conclude their work. I would acknowledge this is the first time the member’s had a chance to question me about the Budget and I note his priority is that this is the only thing that he thinks matters to members of New Zealand. Again, these are all political calls and, clearly, this is his one and I wish him well.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she not like answering questions about incredibly false impressions she and her Government left?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. I just thought the member might like to listen to New Zealanders and where their interests lay. I was just trying to give him a little helpful tip.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of the fact that on Wednesday, the Treasury secretary continued to talk publicly of deliberate and systematic hacking, and the Deputy Prime Minister that afternoon said National had done illegal activity, shouldn’t she, or one of her Ministers, have corrected the incredibly false impression they left all of that day and into the next?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We did not know whether or not a criminal act had occurred. Again, including the fact—as I said in the House that day—we were making no accusations over who was involved. Secondly, the State Services Commission is looking into the issue around the agencies, and I’ll leave that for them.

Hon Simon Bridges: When did she find out that the police had found no wrongdoing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was Wednesday evening, I believe. From recollection it was around early evening-ish, sometime after 6 p.m., I believe.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the Prime Minister’s view, would 2,000 hits on the same website in one day look like an accident?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly, that was one of the things that the Secretary to the Treasury brought to the table. I think that was the basis on which he used the word “systematic”. Again, we’re leaving that for the State Services Commission.

Hon Simon Bridges: In the week before the Budget, would it be so unusual to see 2,000 hits on a very popular website?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows, the Budget actually hadn’t been released at that point, and that’s probably the point, isn’t it?

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is it that on the Tuesday, having found out information, her senior Minister Grant Robertson could put a press release out a bit after 8 p.m., but when she found out the police had found no wrongdoing, at around 7 p.m. on the Wednesday, she didn’t think to correct the fundamentally misleading position she left New Zealand with about the National Party?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said the day after, on Wednesday, we were not making an accusation about the National Party. We did not know that the National Party was responsible. As it turns out, they were.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to Budget 2019?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The coalition Government has received an overwhelming response from the people of New Zealand to the Wellbeing Budget. There’s been a vast amount of correspondence, but in the interest of a concise answer, one person with a background—

SPEAKER: Chance would be a fine thing.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —in mental health work emailed us to say, “For years I have desired a greater prevention approach to wellbeing, especially through mental health education for our rangatahi in primary and intermediate schools. I am impressed and relieved by the prevention focus of this Budget, particularly for mental health and justice, and utterly delighted to see that resilience will be taught to our tamariki through our schools. I am immensely grateful for your commitment to the people of Aotearoa”. I’m proud to be part of a Government that has put the wellbeing of New Zealanders at the heart of everything we do.

Kiritapu Allan: What international reactions has he seen to the Wellbeing Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In its report on the Wellbeing Budget, credit-rating agency Moody’s said that, “[the] budget highlights [this Government’s high] fiscal flexibility, demonstrating its ability to raise spending while maintaining its commitment to preserving budgetary surpluses and reducing debt further over the next five years. This underpins the government’s very high fiscal strength and supports the broader credit profile.” Meanwhile, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, one global business leader Richard Branson called this year’s Budget “A brilliant blueprint for the rest of the world.” It is pleasing to see international recognition that this Government can make significant investments in the wellbeing of New Zealanders, while managing the books responsibly.

Kiritapu Allan: What responses has he seen from social sector organisations to the Wellbeing Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Just to choose a couple, the Salvation Army said that, “This wellbeing Budget, with its greater socioeconomic approach, is a step on the path towards lifting New Zealanders out of poverty. We welcome the Government’s focus on our most vulnerable communities, including those with mental health and addiction issues, children and families in challenging situations, and Māori.” Meanwhile, the Children’s Commissioner said that the Wellbeing Budget “takes seriously the need for a step-change in the way we support the wellbeing of New Zealand children”. What is clear is that, avowedly and explicitly, this is a Budget prepared through the lens of children, something unheard of previously. I repeat: I am very proud of this Budget.

Hon Amy Adams: Has he seen reaction to Budget 2019 that describes cancer patients, the hearing impaired, and maternity services as big losers in this Budget, and calling the Budget disappointing, or doesn’t he read those stories?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I know that every Minister of Finance gets both positive and negative reactions. We’re working very hard in the area of the Ministry of Health’s work across all of the areas that the member mentions, but it is somewhat reflective on the Opposition that they are so negative about such a great Budget.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What evidence did he ask for or receive before his press release at 8.18 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 May to substantiate the claim “the material is a result of a systematic hack”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): My full quote indicates that I was basing this on Treasury’s statement and advice. As with all of my interactions with the Treasury, there were questions asked, but those matters are part of the State Services Commission investigation. I do not want to prejudice that inquiry any further than the comment that I’ve already made.

Hon Amy Adams: Did he obtain legal advice before making his statement, and if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. My statement simply repeated the advice that the Treasury secretary had given.

Hon Amy Adams: So when his own statement recorded that this was “extremely serious”, why did he not seek legal advice or corroborating evidence to back up the claim of systematic hacking before issuing his press statement linking illegal behaviour to the Opposition?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The matter had been referred to the police. That was the state of the situation. My words in the statement echoed what Treasury had already said.

Hon Amy Adams: Is it his usual pattern to simply parrot what he’s told by officials?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s a mixed bag on that count.

Hon Amy Adams: Did he at any time before 8 p.m. on 28 May warn the Secretary to the Treasury of the seriousness of making a criminal complaint involving a New Zealand political party and making public statements to that effect without him having clear and compelling evidence to do so?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Treasury secretary had already referred the matter of the access to the Treasury system to the police before he met with me. Other matters beyond that are the subject of the investigation.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Was he aware of who was responsible for the access to that Budget information at that time?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Amy Adams: Was the Secretary to the Treasury made aware of the advice from the GCSB prior to his appearances on numerous television programmes on Wednesday morning?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That would be a matter that would need to be answered by the Secretary to the Treasury. I do note that the question of his advice and actions is the subject of the State Services Commission investigation.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the State Services Commission is investigating. None the less, the Minister is responsible to this House to answer questions about the behaviour of officials. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will expect to answer oral questions on this matter. With those two caveats, I don’t think that can be regarded as addressing the question. He simply said he won’t answer.

SPEAKER: I anticipated the possibility of this one coming up, and, therefore, I did do a little bit of homework before. I think in this particular case there is a very clear ruling from someone we’re all quite familiar with, Mr Speaker Smith from 2012: “Where there is an independent inquiry by a statutory authority, I have to respect an assertion of it not being in the public interest to comment while that inquiry is under way.” There are a number of similar Speakers’ rulings, and it’s also clear in McGee, that, in the end, I cannot overrule the view of a Minister with regard to the public interest.

Hon Amy Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just seeking to clarify, sir—I totally accept your ruling. It’s been made very clear, repeatedly, by the Government that the State Services Commission inquiry won’t investigate what Ministers have done. My question wasn’t about what officials had done; it was about whether the Minister had warned or, effectively, passed on what we now know is the GCSB advice. The State Services Commission won’t look at that—we know that—and so I would argue that that ruling doesn’t apply and that the question was very much around what the Minister had done, not what the officials were doing amongst themselves.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order, the member’s last supplementary question was directly about what the Treasury secretary did or hadn’t done with the—

Hon Amy Adams: No, no.

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —GCSB. Actually, it was precisely about questions regarding the secretary and the GCSB, not about the actions of Ministers.

SPEAKER: Now, what I’m first of all going to do is warn the Hon Amy Adams that she must not interject during a point of order. I’m now going to ask her, because I think time has passed on a little bit, to read exactly the same question again so it can be answered again.

Hon Amy Adams: Certainly, sir. Was the Secretary to the Treasury made aware of the GCSB advice the Ministers had received prior to making his television appearances on numerous programmes on Wednesday morning?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I simply do not know the answer to that question.

Hon Amy Adams: Why did the Minister not immediately publicly correct his statement after receiving advice from his colleague the Hon Andrew Little of the advice from GCSB?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I have previously stated, the matter had been referred to the police. I did not use the words that are upsetting the member after that time; I simply referred to the advice that I’d had by Treasury that the police were then investigating the matter.

Question No. 5—Housing and Urban Development

5. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many unique applications have successfully pre-qualified as eligible KiwiBuild buyers, and how many of these occurred in the last three months?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Five hundred and twenty-six unique applications have had their eligibility as KiwiBuild buyers confirmed; 145 of these occurred in the three months to 31 May.

Hon Judith Collins: Does the criteria for KiwiBuild pre-qualification reflect his statement that “this Government is committed to providing the opportunity for home ownership to families who are currently locked out of purchasing their first home.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he concerned that official documents show that five of the pre-qualified KiwiBuild buyers had deposits of between $500,000 to $650,000—effectively meaning they could buy their KiwiBuild house with cash?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No. The data the member is referring to is raw data, unchecked. It’s very clear that, for a number of the entries, the data had been entered into the online form on the KiwiBuild website by prospective KiwiBuild buyers incorrectly. In fact, Radio New Zealand, who first reported this story, was told by the KiwiBuild unit that a number of the examples where people had entered what seemed to be a large deposit were cases where, in fact, people had assumed they were supposed to enter the total budget for the house. So, for the purposes that the member is trying to use it, the data is quite unreliable.

Marja Lubeck: What is the average household income for people who have bought a KiwiBuild home so far?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The average household income of a KiwiBuild buyer is $104,000 a year, and 56 percent of families who are KiwiBuild buyers are below that income level, with a quarter of KiwiBuild families below $80,000. The majority of KiwiBuild buyers have individual income of below $65,000, and this is important because homeownership has fallen 13 percent for families earning between $97,000 and $117,000 since 2007. These people are exactly who the KiwiBuild policy is for.

Hon Judith Collins: So how robust is the KiwiBuild qualification process, if people can simply qualify with incorrect information?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: They don’t qualify on the basis of that information. All people who complete pre-qualification have all of that information vetted individually by staff of the KiwiBuild unit.

Hon Judith Collins: What concern does he have that documents show that 150 of the pre-qualified KiwiBuild buyers were not New Zealand citizens—the very people he said, before, he wanted to help?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have no concern at all. Those rules are very clearly laid out for prospective KiwiBuild buyers, and their applications are all subject to a detailed vetting by staff from the KiwiBuild unit.

Marja Lubeck: How does the KiwiBuild buyer criteria compare to other programmes such as HomeStart or the Welcome Home Loan?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I thank the member for that question, because the KiwiBuild eligibility criteria treat assets in exactly the same way as the Axis Series programme, the HomeStart deposit assistance, and the Welcome Home Loan policies, that have been operating for much of the last decade. Those policies provide direct financial assistance to buyers and do not contain an asset test and do not try to prevent families or parents helping their children into their homes. I’ve seen reports that the lack of an asset test for KiwiBuild is unfair, and I’d say to Ms Collins that she should have raised that issue around the Cabinet table in 2014.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will eligible decile 1-7 schools benefit from the Government’s additional funding to replace parental donations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): There are around 1,703 schools that could receive additional funding through their operations grant of $150 per student if they choose to forgo asking parents for donations. As an example, a decile 2 school with around 500 students could be getting around $3,000 per year from parental donations presently. If they opt out of gaining that $3,000, they could gain an additional $75,000 in Government funding that the teachers and staff can then use to support children’s learning. I’m very pleased to say that this year’s Budget takes a major step towards making school education free again.

Jan Tinetti: Will decile 1-7 State integrated schools be eligible to opt in to the scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More good news. Yes, I’m very pleased to say that parents in State integrated schools can also benefit from this policy, although I should be very clear that the proprietors can still charge compulsory attendance dues and request donations to cover the property and insurance costs that the Government does not pay for.

Jan Tinetti: What are the next steps for eligible schools to participate in this scheme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Details of the opt-in process will be made available to schools in July. Boards of trustees will need to opt in to the scheme by 14 November in order to start receiving their funding in January 2020. I encourage them to consult with their school communities and to reflect their views when they make the decision about whether to opt in to the scheme or not.

Jan Tinetti: What does the funding to replace school donations for decile 1-7 schools mean for parents?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m aware that many parents feel enormous pressure to pay donations to school, even though they are supposed to be just that—voluntary donations. In fact, some parents feel that if they are unable to make those contributions, they feel shamed by their local community, even where the school goes to some great lengths to ensure that doesn’t happen. I’ve had feedback from principals around the country saying that this will be a huge relief. It will remove a lot of pressure from parents who simply cannot afford to pay.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: What is the expected increase in National Land Transport Fund revenue over the next two financial years as a result of increases in fuel excise duty on 1 July 2019 and 1 July 2020 and accompanying increases in road-user charges?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The increase in fuel excise and road-user charges is funding road safety improvements to save lives and much-needed infrastructure to get our cities and our regions moving. The funding this provides will allow $537 million more investment over the next two financial years. The alternative is gridlock in our cities, lost productivity in the regions, and more deaths on our roads.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he confirm that when the Government’s petrol and road-user charge increases from last year and the Auckland fuel tax are added to the total that he’s just given us, the total new taxes over three years are around $1.5 billion plus GST?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’d have to go back and check the member’s numbers, but I’ll take him at his word. The transport system relies on $4.5 billion of expenditure every year to keep it moving, and, since 1927, every New Zealand Government has used fuel excise and road-user charges to generate the revenue to keep the transport system moving. Our Government is no different from that and nor was the former Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What will motorists get for all this additional tax in terms of major new roads?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, what they’re getting, for the first time in a decade, is a balanced approach to transport. We’re investing in roads, motorways, rail, public transport, walking, and cycling, and not just the eye-watering expensive motorways that carried only 4 percent of vehicle journeys that that Government spent 40 percent of the transport budget on.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think the Waterview Tunnel in Auckland was a bad idea?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It was another excellent policy achievement by the last Labour-led Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Then why, with all the extra taxes, does he have no new plans to increase capacity in our key motorway networks in our growing cities?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We’re investing more than ever before across the entire transport network. We’re investing more in regional roads, outside of the six urban centres, than that Government did over the last three years that it was in office. We are investing in a modern multi-modal transport system to give Kiwis the transport choices that they want.

Kieran McAnulty: Are the excise increases in line with past practice?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I note that the previous Government raised petrol excise six times while it was in office and increased it by 17c on the litre, and this raised a total of $4.9 billion while it was in Government.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the best way to invest in capacity for our motorway networks is to invest in the complementary alternatives so that commuters don’t have to sit in traffic and can take faster trains and frequent public transport services?

SPEAKER: Order! There were multiple interjections on that occasion—five separate members interjected.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The answer to the member’s question is yes. This Government is the first in New Zealand in a long time to put at the centre of its transport policy the insight that cities of any scale—if they only have roads and motorways to give mobility around the city—will be permanently condemned to gridlock. We need to invest in integrated transport systems that include walking and cycling and public transport alongside the roads and motorways, so that when the motorways get clogged, a certain number of people will choose to leave their cars at home and take public transport, allowing the roads to move more freely for everybody else.

Question No. 8—Health

8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about investment into mental health and addiction facilities?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Good news. Last week, I visited Gisborne, which currently has no dedicated residential addiction treatment beds, meaning some people in Tai Rāwhiti have to travel to get the help they need. That will change as a result of the Wellbeing Budget. Last Thursday, I announced funding of $15 million to $20 million to develop an innovative new inpatient unit combining both mental health and addiction services. It is part of the $200 million set aside for capital investment in mental health and addiction facilities over the next two years.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why did the Government decide to dedicate $200 million of investment into mental health and addiction facilities?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report of the inquiry into mental health and addiction confirmed what, I think, most members of this House will have heard from their constituents: our mental health and addiction facilities are often run down and out of date. Chapter 2 of that report described the frequent complaints about shabby and depressing facilities. It also highlighted the need for more rehabilitative and detoxification facilities, such as the project announced last week in Tai Rāwhiti. We’ve heard those concerns from the community, and that’s why Budget 2019 set aside $200 million to tackle the legacy of under-investment in mental health and addiction facilities.

Angie Warren-Clark: How does investment into mental health and addiction facilities fit into the wider capital investment programme in health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Budget 2019 included a capital investment of $1.7 billion over the next two years in our hospitals and other health facilities, including mental health and addiction. This will result in better, more modern facilities for both patients and staff. All of this comes on top of $750 million in Budget 2018, meaning a total of $2.45 billion has been allocated to the Government’s first two Budgets to start making up for years of neglect. By comparison, a total capital investment in health in the nine Budgets from 2009 to 2017 totalled less than half the amount we have already set aside in our first two Budgets, even including $290 million funded from insurance following the Canterbury earthquakes. And, most egregiously, in Budgets 2015 and 2016, there was no capital investment in our health system.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all of his promises in education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes, I stand by the promises this coalition Government has made, which include ending charter schools, making the first year of tertiary education free, increasing student allowances and living-cost payments, scrapping national standards, funding schools to stop asking for parental donations, the largest ever increase in property funding for New Zealand schools by a Government, restarting Te Kotahitanga, developing a 30-year strategic plan for New Zealand education, support for gifted learners, and developing a school leavers’ toolkit, among many others. We’ve also removed NCEA exam fees, provided over half a billion dollars in funding for learning support, including 600 learning support coordinators, and provided the largest amount of increase in funding for teacher supply initiatives in a decade.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he stand by his promise to ensure that schooling is genuinely free, given his decision that disadvantaged families in deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools are excluded from the donations bill and are being denied an opportunity to have reduced costs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. When the Labour Party costed the policy, in Opposition, we were clear that we had costed for uptake of the policy by all decile 1 to 7 schools. We had to start somewhere and, of course, we targeted the policy deliberately at those schools that had the highest concentration of disadvantaged students, which are the lower decile schools.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of his promise, what does he say to the New Zealand Principals Federation, who have said that schools feel “short-changed” by being excluded from the donations policy, and why has he proposed such an inequitable policy in legislation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Once upon a time, the National Party were decrying this Government for not targeting additional funding enough. This policy is targeted at the schools that have the highest concentrations of students who are disadvantaged and whose parents can’t afford to pay. A cursory analysis of the amount of locally raised funds that schools generate suggests that deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools raise significantly more funding through locally raised funds than lower decile schools are able to.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will he admit that he has broken his promise to provide incentive payments for all State and State integrated schools in exchange for their agreement not to ask for parental donations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think the member listened to my original answer. If she listened when we announced the policy, we were very clear that the policy costings were based on decile 1 to 7 schools taking that policy up. In the future, it may well be that we’re in a position to extend it to other schools. That’s, of course, a decision for another day.

Hon Nikki Kaye: How can parents rely on his promise to modernise school buildings in New Zealand, given he’s overseeing the largest ever underspend in school property and shown he can’t even deliver on projects announced by him and the last Government?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: They can rely on us to deliver on that because we’re getting serious about dealing with the critical skills shortages we face in the building and construction industry, which has been one of the major constraints to Government building projects across the board. We are actually tackling that problem so that we can be certain that we can deliver on school property projects. One of the things that we’ve done in this year’s Budget is move to a four-year allocation for school property so that we can better plan the pipeline of property projects, which will allow the building and construction industry more certainty so that they can be more certain of being able to deliver.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Why has he failed to deliver on promises including all students having access to digital devices, the uncapping of Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (ORRS) funding for children with complex needs, reduced teacher-child ratios in early learning, free driver training in schools, personalised career advice for—

SPEAKER: Order! I just want to check that these are all commitments that the Minister of Education has made—[Interruption]—not the Opposition spokesperson on education.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that is being slightly pedantic, because he’s actually—

SPEAKER: No, not—[Interruption] Order! Not at all pedantic. It’s what the Minister has responsibility for.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An interesting intervention from you, but surely it would be for the Minister to make the distinction when it comes to answering the question, in which case his answer might be a very short answer.

SPEAKER: It could well be. It’s one of the problems that you have when you have someone in the Chair who is vaguely familiar with education policy. I don’t want to get back to the way that some previous Speakers ended up as coaches, but there’s a pretty simple way of doing the question, and that is: “Does the Minister agree with …”.

Hon Nikki Kaye: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, in his previous answers, actually addressed, in my view—he was given a long leniency at the outset to list a range of promises and, from my perspective, he’s already addressed some of his promises that have been made as Opposition spokesperson. So he’s already gone there.

SPEAKER: Right, OK. We’re now getting to the last chance. I think I’ve given the member, who is now a relatively senior member, some advice as to how to phrase her question to make it in order, which is “Does the Minister agree with X, Y, and Z, which was said by the Hon Chris Hipkins before the election?”—that would be in order.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does the Minister agree with Chris Hipkins, who promised all students having access to digital devices, the uncapping of ORRS funding for children with complex needs, reduced teacher-child ratios in early learning, free driver training in schools, personalised career advice for high school students, additional funding for 100 percent qualified teachers in early learning, restoring postgraduate students’ eligibility to student allowances, and the more than 40 promises not delivered so far?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member that the member is quoting is, in fact, very visionary when it comes to education, and so I do agree with the commitments that he has made. I note that we’re only halfway through the parliamentary term and that many of the initiatives that the member raises are currently being worked on, and progress is being made on some of them. I did, of course, notice the uncharacteristically petty statements that the member who was asking the question made about the—

SPEAKER: Order!

Question No. 10—Economic Development

10. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What is the Government doing to enable more innovative, knowledge-intensive, high-value firms and start-ups to grow and scale within New Zealand?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): The Productivity Commission has highlighted that the development of innovative new products and services and jobs is currently inhibited by low per capita investment in our productive businesses. There is a particular gap in our early stage capital markets beyond seed or angel investment where companies are looking to scale up, and that’s why in the Budget we announced the creation of a $300 million pool of capital to support New Zealand’s venture capital markets through a new fund of funds model, which will also attract private sector contributions. This Government recognises the importance of lifting New Zealand’s productivity.

Jo Luxton: What are the objectives of the new venture capital fund?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Helping to fill this hole in the capital cycle has three main objectives. The first is to increase the number of start-ups that can progress and develop into successful companies, and so employ New Zealanders; the second is to increase the volume of technology that’s commercialised, which has the benefit of increasing productivity across the economy; and the third is to build capacity in the sector so that institutional and other investors, over time, better service this part of the capital cycle. The effect of this will be that more start-ups in New Zealand stay for longer and grow, which will produce wider productivity benefits.

Jo Luxton: How will the new fund operate?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The new fund will be administered by the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation via a separate fund to be legislated. It will be invested via the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund by private sector capital managers. It’s expected that the addition of $300 million to this market will be leveraged by investors from private sector players. Two-to-one matching by investors would see a total investment of around $1 billion. Most of the funds will be invested within five years, enabling more of New Zealand’s high-potential businesses to thrive and grow. After 15 years, the funds are wound up and all of the money is returned to the Crown for the future pre-funding of superannuation.

Question No. 11—Defence

11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What announcements has he made regarding defence capability?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I released the coalition Government’s Defence Capability Plan 2019. Re-examining the defence procurement programme was a key plank in the coalition agreement, and today we have fulfilled that commitment. The plan includes priority investments to meet the challenges identified in the Strategic Defence Policy Statement of 2018 and to support the coalition Government’s foreign policy objectives relating to Pacific reset and the impacts of the climate crisis that we are facing. At its heart, the new capability plan is a humanitarian plan. It readies New Zealand to be well-positioned for the future, allowing the defence force to contribute to the security of our friends in the Pacific and maintain awareness of our vast maritime domain.

Mark Patterson: What planned capability investments are included to support the Pacific reset?

Hon RON MARK: In order to increase the capacity of the defence force to respond to events in the South Pacific, an enhanced sealift vessel will be introduced in the late-2020s to complement HMNZS Canterbury, with an additional vessel being scheduled to replace Canterbury in the mid-2030s, maintaining a two-vessel sealift fleet. New Zealand Army personnel numbers are targeted to grow to 6,000 by 2035 to allow for the sustainment of concurrent operations in the Pacific while maintaining efforts at home and globally.

Mark Patterson: What other investments are included in the plan?

Hon RON MARK: To improve awareness across our vast maritime domain, the plan includes an enhanced maritime awareness capability to complement the P-8s: maritime satellite surveillance in the mid-2020s and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles after 2030. Planned investment is retained for a dedicated Southern Ocean patrol vessel, and replacements are planned for the maritime helicopter and offshore patrol vessel fleets. As technology rapidly advances in the information domain, the plan includes an uplift in defence intelligence personnel and cyber-security and the support capabilities required to meet that.

Mark Patterson: What announcements have been made about the Hercules fleet?

Hon RON MARK: The highest priority project within the plan is the replacement of the Hercules fleet. The current Hercules have served us well since the 1960s, but they have reached the end of the road. Today, I announced the selection of the C130J-30 Super Hercules as the preferred option for the replacement of our ageing Hercs. We need a proven performer. This aircraft is tried and tested and proven—actually, there are about 400 in service over 21 nations. We cannot take risks with what is one of the most critical military capabilities for operating at home, in the Pacific, and around the world. Detailed costing information will be sought through the United States foreign military sale process for the Super Hercules, with the final business case scheduled to come to Cabinet next year.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she stand by all of her statements, policies, and actions on road safety?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s policy to invest $4.3 billion in road safety over the next three years, including $1.4 billion to upgrade thousands of kilometres of unsafe roads across New Zealand, and increased funding for road police to fill the 110 vacancies left unfilled by the last National Government.

Chris Bishop: Has she had a conversation with her colleague Stuart Nash, the Minister of Police, about why Vote Police in Budget 2019 contains only $331 million for the road safety programme—a cut of $10 million, down from $341 million the year before?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, I can understand the member’s confusion and concern. I have discussed it with my colleague. The figure used by the police is simply a placeholder figure only.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The $331 million figure, if members are interested in hearing—and I think members opposite will be quite interested to hear that the New Zealand Transport Agency and police are currently finalising the development of a new road safety partnership programme which will confirm the investment levels in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 financial years. So the Government has already approved an indicative road policing funding allocation of $1.045 billion over three years. That is an $85 million increase on the last National Government’s road policing budget.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not related to the answer. The question was about whether or not the Minister had a conversation with her colleague the Minister of Police. I didn’t hear that addressed in the answer at all.

SPEAKER: Well, it was addressed right at the beginning.

Chris Bishop: OK. I missed it. Will she commit to more breath tests being conducted in 2019 compared with 2018, which was only 1.4 million?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It does take time to rebuild after years of neglect—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’ll just ask the member to sit down for a second. [Minister continues] No, I’m going to ask the member to sit down. Mr Brown, you’re not normally one of the noisier members but you are just behind an open microphone, so we’re hearing you especially, as well as a number of other members. So can we please just settle down a bit.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So police have already invested an additional $2.8 million to purchase 2,700 new breath-testing devices, which will be phased into use in 2019-20, after, of course, the under-funding meant there was a significant reduction in road policing and enforcement under the last National Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, is this information available on a computer site?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, the information for the Estimates is available on a computer site. The member could access that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she also confirm that Winston Peters will also be saying that that’s a serious criminal activity as well?

SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise. He knew that question was out of order.

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is it true that, under the last Government, road policing numbers were cut by 111, but by July of last year, under this Government, road policing numbers were up to full muster again?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That is absolutely correct.

Chris Bishop: Does she stand by her tweet about car fascists, and what is the definition of a car fascist?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I think the member will find that I admitted that was over the top. It was not the right language to use. But the way the member and many of his colleagues have been misleading about what I meant in that tweet I think is also unhelpful. I think that it’s very important that all New Zealanders have a right to get around safely, especially our young people. They should have a right to walk and cycle safely, and anyone who opposes safe infrastructure is opposing that choice.

Chris Bishop: Does she stand by her statement that “a huge percentage of the community are much more comfortable travelling at the safe and appropriate speed … and would be quite happy to not be under pressure to drive at 100km/h”; and is it correct that the basis for the statement is a survey of the Aro Valley Green Party transport subcommittee?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: In fact, it is not. When it comes to the targeted safety reviews that we are progressing on the most dangerous roads in New Zealand, there has been overwhelmingly strong community support for the safer speed. In fact, I receive a large number of letters and correspondence from communities around New Zealand who would like to see safer speeds. But I want to emphasise that this Government has at no time had any policy of blanket speed reductions. What we are talking about is targeted speed reductions on the most dangerous roads—the top 10 percent—and that is where people are dying.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Question of Privilege on Cyber-security and the Parliamentary Precincts

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege on cyber-security and the parliamentary precincts.

Motion agreed to.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 30 May on the .

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very proud to take a call on the world’s first wellbeing Budget. Our Government is not afraid to tackle the long-term issues, the difficult issues, the issues that were neglected for the best part of a decade. The Wellbeing Budget took immediate action on a raft of different issues, coupled with long-term systemic change.

One of the most important issues that the Budget tackled was mental health. During the last election campaign, I was taken by the very strong feelings that were evident out in the community. Everywhere we went around the country, people were talking about the state of our mental health services. And no one—no one—that I met and talked about mental health with said that they were happy with the adequacy of mental health services in our community. Last year, after the Government announced its inquiry into mental health and addiction, in my electorate in West Auckland, I ran a couple of workshops designed to get feedback from the local community that we would then channel into the inquiry in the form of community submissions. I want to say that there were some incredibly heartfelt concerns that were raised by people in our community in West Auckland.

I’m very happy to say that after the Wellbeing Budget, the people of West Auckland can rest assured that the Government has listened and we now have a Government that is, at last, taking mental health seriously. It was great to have the Prime Minister in West Auckland last week debriefing the local community on what the Budget meant for our people.

One of the big initiatives of mental health in the Wellbeing Budget was to put trained mental health workers in doctors clinics, iwi health providers, Pasifika primary health organisations, and even in tertiary education institutions, so that people can get care when they need it. For example, when a GP identifies that a person is in need of support for a mental health or addiction issue, under this policy, as it’s rolled out, they will be able to physically walk with the patient through to see a trained mental health worker to help out.

This new layer of services will be rolled out over the next five years. We wish that it could all be done straight away, but it’s important that we take the time to train up more qualified mental health workers and build the facilities that are needed. We’re also expanding access to addiction treatment centres, and I think everybody’s well aware of the close connections between substance abuse and addiction on one hand and mental illness on the other.

The other really critical item in this part of the Wellbeing Budget is expanding the nurses in schools programme. It’s been stunningly successful. We rolled it out in Budget 2018 to all decile 4 high schools, and in Budget 2019 it’s now being extended to a further 5,600 students—so a good number of decile 5 schools.

We’re also investing in homelessness. Again, the connections between homelessness, between mental health and addiction, are very well documented. Research by He Kāinga Oranga at the University of Otago, in conjunction with The People’s Project, the Housing First provider based in Hamilton, has shown that homeless people have very, very high mental health needs. They found, for example, that, of a sample of 300 long-term homeless people that they had helped to house, in the five years prior to those people being helped, they had had more than 10,000 inpatient nights at mental health facilities—10,000. That’s 10 times greater than the general population. That same sample of 300 long-term homeless people, over that five-year period, had had 50,000 prescriptions, the great majority of which were for antipsychotic or antidepressant medication. That shows the incredibly strong connection between mental illness, addiction issues, and homelessness. So we announced in the Wellbeing Budget $197 million to house another 1,044 people experiencing long-term homelessness.

I want to say this about Housing First: it’s an internationally acclaimed way of dealing with people who are experiencing long-term homelessness. It’s all about breaking the cycle. It says to people, “We will put a secure, warm, dry roof over your head, and then we will help you deal with the other challenges and the other issues that you have in your life.”, which are often mental health issues, addictions, and other things. Housing First has already, in the last two years, housed 720 households, including 431 children in Auckland alone, and that’s all in the last couple of years. It’s now helping to house long-term homeless people in Auckland, Hamilton, Christchurch, Tauranga, and Rotorua. I want to acknowledge the former National Government, who picked up a pilot project and put some $20 million into it. I’m very pleased that our Government, in the last two years, has invested more than $260 million into extending Housing First across the country.

I want to also talk about one of the other big announcements in the Budget, and that was the billion dollars that we are investing in getting rail back on track. The previous Government took a hands-off approach and left the rail network in a state of managed decline. It was one disaster after another under that Government, because they simply wouldn’t give KiwiRail the money that it needed to maintain and invest in a rail network that could do the job of moving people around efficiently through our larger urban centres and moving freight around the country. Budget 2019 makes the first critical step in turning that around and building rail as the sustainable backbone of our 21st century transport system.

This issue, the future of rail in New Zealand, is supported by all three parties that support this Government. Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens all believe that rail has a critical role to play, unlike the former Government, who actively suppressed a report by EY—a report that had been commissioned by KiwiRail—that showed that the rail system delivers $1.5 billion of economic value to this country every single year. That Government suppressed the report. One of the first things that I did as transport Minister was give KiwiRail the green light to release that report so that the public of New Zealand could see how much they had been missing out on under the last Government.

In the Wellbeing Budget, we have allocated $375 million for new wagons and locomotives, $331 million to invest in the track and other supporting infrastructure, $35 million to begin the process of replacing the Cook Strait ferries that are nearing the end of their lives, and $300 million allocated by the Provincial Growth Fund—thank you, Shane Jones—for investment in regional rail initiatives. This Government understands, with the support and the leadership of New Zealand First, that, actually, the rail network has a critical contribution to make to prosperity in regional New Zealand.

Hon Ron Mark: Make the Wairarapa come alive.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I thank the member for mentioning Wairarapa, because it was our Government that recently invested $200 million out of the National Land Transport Fund in upgrading the Wairarapa line, which is a lifeline—an economic lifeline—for the Wairarapa, taking visitors and tourists, as well as moving freight from the region, down to the port of Wellington.

Hon Ron Mark: And workers from Wellington.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: And workers from Wellington going to the Wairarapa. It is a great example of supporting our regions by investing in a modern rail system.

We also included in the rail allocation the Crown’s share of the cost reforecasts associated with the City Rail Link in Auckland, after the former Government failed to take into account inflation and normal cost escalations. The City Rail Link, I’m very pleased to say, will carry the equivalent of 16—one six—extra lanes of traffic in and out of Auckland CBD every day during peak hours. It will double the number of people who live within 30 minutes’ travel of the Auckland CBD.

This Budget shows our Government’s focus on wellbeing. We’re taking mental health seriously, we are breaking the cycle of poverty and despair by tackling homelessness, and we’re investing in a sustainable, modern rail network that can contribute economic value to the whole of New Zealand. I am proud to be part of this Government and to have a chance to serve in a Government that will deliver something as significant and visionary as the Wellbeing Budget.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Well, the Opposition has named the Budget this year “The Botched Budget”, and it’s not hard to see why. We are spoilt for examples of why this is the botched Budget. Certainly, you can look at the chaos of Budget week, can’t you? From Tuesday morning through Wednesday, through Thursday—the utter shambles, incompetence, and duplicity we saw from the Government, that alone would make it a botched Budget, wouldn’t it? But, actually, far more importantly than that, it’s a botched Budget because it shows that this is a Government that has failed to deliver on its promises to New Zealand. That’s why this is a botched Budget, because this is a Government that has failed New Zealand, it has failed to keep its promises, and it has failed to live up to even a quarter of its own hype.

The Government has failed to deliver on their promises around the economy. They have failed to deliver on their promises about living within their means. They have failed to deliver in health, in elective surgeries, in cancer treatment, in maternity care. They have failed to deliver on education, when they can’t even manage to keep teachers in our classrooms. They have failed New Zealanders, when New Zealanders are facing $50-a-week-higher rents and they are facing more and more petrol taxes. They are looking desperately to this Government for something that gives them better job prospects and something to help them with the rising cost of living. In this Budget, all they saw was a failure to deliver in the Prime Minister’s so-called year of delivery.

I want to talk a little bit about those economic promises that this Government has failed on, because you can talk about wellbeing all you like but every sensible commentator makes the point that the economy is what pays for wellbeing. The economy is what gives Governments the ability to do anything at all. Now, Labour might think it’s somehow lost trendiness or, somehow, it’s not en vogue anymore to talk about the economy, but understand this: if you don’t have an economy, New Zealanders don’t have jobs, they can’t feed their families, they can’t pay the rent, and the Government has no money for health, for education, for roading, for policing, for the things that New Zealanders care about.

So we do care about the economy, and what we saw in this Budget was that the economy that was growing up to 4 percent a year under National is now down to, basically, 2 percent growth.

Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

Hon AMY ADAMS: It has halved—2 percent growth, the latest Treasury estimates tell us. In just 18 months this Government has destroyed our economic growth plan, halving it from 4 to 2 percent. That’s the equivalent of about $5 billion in lost revenue because of the economic mismanagement of this Government. The proof is right there for us to see: 13,000 more New Zealanders on unemployment benefit under this Government because of that economic mismanagement.

What the last speaker didn’t tell you, when he waxed lyrical about the Budget and spent a lot of time talking about trains, is that he’s had to fund $100 million annually—every year, $100 million blowout on the cost of emergency housing because more and more people are in their cars under this Government, and under that Minister in particular.

I didn’t hear anywhere in the Minister of Finance’s Budget speech him crowing about the fact that the number of new jobs in this economy has gone backwards. Not only is it not growing, it has gone backwards; there are fewer jobs for more people. I simply say to the Minister of Finance: how can you talk about wellbeing? How can you put a wellbeing sticker and a pretty picture of a woman—who’s gone to Australia because things are so bad here—on the cover, when New Zealanders can’t get jobs? When there are fewer jobs for more people? More people in cars, more people on benefits—that is not wellbeing.

On the economy: this is a Government and a Budget that is all talk but absolutely no plan. How do we know that? Well, you look to the economic priority in the Budget document—as I did, and I know my colleagues did—and what was the big-ticket item on the economic growth plan? KiwiRail; that’s it! Subsidies for KiwiRail is the Government’s economic plan. Well, that is not going to help rural New Zealand which can’t get workers, which can’t get staff to their regions, where families are finding it harder and harder to pay the bills. That shows us exactly how little this Government gets economic growth, that they don’t understand its importance, they have no plan to grow it, and, frankly, they seem to think even having to talk about it is, somehow, a bit distasteful. Well, I’ve got news for them: there is no wellbeing without a strong economy and this Government and this Budget is butchering it.

This is a Government that has shackled our economy with uncertainty, with higher costs, with red tape, and with more taxes. If we know anything about Labour Governments it’s that when they run out of their money they come after New Zealanders for more of theirs. This is a Government that has already brought in seven new taxes—seven: fuel excise tax, three rounds of that; regional fuel tax; GST on online goods; brightline extension, ring-fencing of losses; GST on mobile roaming; WorkSafe levies; and tourist taxes. This was from the no-new-taxes Government. They have already spent all of the billions of dollars in surpluses left to them by the last National Government. They have run out of money, they have blown out the debt obligations and promises they made to New Zealand, and now they’re coming after New Zealanders for even more tax from New Zealand families who are struggling to get ahead. This is a Government who has failed to deliver on their promise of being economically responsible.

Do you know, when they took office one of the first things Grant Robertson did was put out his Budget Policy Statement, in December of 2017, and he laid out the spending track for the Government. “Look at me, look how prudent I am”, he said, “look at how we’re going to manage everything we’ve promised New Zealand on this spending track”. Well, here’s what he didn’t talk about on Budget day: that spending track, from December 2017, has now blown out by $9.6 billion. That’s just on operating—$9.6 billion is how much more this Government is already having to spend just to try and keep pace with the things that they said they would do, and even then they’re not keeping pace.

Now, Nikki Kaye has done a great job highlighting all of the broken promises in education. So with $9.6 billion more operational spending, $20 billion more debt, this is a Government that is still failing to deliver on their promises. Let me repeat that: $20 billion more debt from this Crown than when they took office. When they took office—

Hon Shane Jones: Repetitious, tedious, boring.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I know Shane Jones finds the economy boring, because it doesn’t make him any better off. But I’m sorry, Mr Jones, $20 billion more for my children and grandchildren to have to repay does matter. Now, I know it’s not a roundabout outside your house but this stuff matters to New Zealanders, and $20 billion is what this Government has loaded up on the credit card for New Zealanders, because they cannot manage an economy.

You can’t trust Labour with an economy. You can’t trust Labour with your taxes. You cannot trust them to live within their means. Now, in National, one thing we understand is that you’ve got to earn money before you spend it, and earning money is a hell of a lot harder than spending. Labour knows how to spend, we know that. They don’t do it well, they don’t do it effectively, but they have completely given up any pretence of knowing how to earn it. That is why you’re already seeing them spend $9.6 billion more going straight on to the credit card bill of future generations.

Now, I just want to close by talking a little bit about their failure to deliver in health, because when I see constituents in my office, the thing they talk to me about is they can’t get elective surgeries. They can’t get cancer treatment drugs. They can’t get midwives, particularly in the rural communities that Jacqui Dean and Hamish Walker and others represent in the South Island. This is a Budget that has completely failed to deliver maternity services. It has failed to give any hope at all to cancer patients. Pharmac’s budget went up by less than the population increase. In real terms, they’ve gone backwards. There is less money for more people to provide lifesaving medicines.

I don’t know how Grant Robertson can talk about wellbeing, when he is failing to provide even keeping pace with population growth in our Pharmac budget. I don’t know how we can talk about wellbeing, when he is saying to cancer patients and pregnant women in the South Island, “I’m sorry, there’s nothing here for you. But don’t worry, there’s a billion dollars for KiwiRail”. Well, maybe the pregnant mothers in Lumsden can wait for a train and hope that gets them to Dunedin Hospital. In my own electorate, important road-safety projects cancelled just in the last two weeks because of this Government’s failure to provide for the health and safety of New Zealanders. They want to provide rail, but in my electorate, roading projects have been cancelled—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Rubbish—rubbish. Where are they?

Hon AMY ADAMS: —we’re not getting maternity services. Absolutely true—absolutely true, I say to that Minister. I’ll put it to you in writing and you can apologise to me when you realise I’m absolutely right. They have cancelled road-safety programmes. This is a botched Budget that does nothing for the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): There’s always an air of sarcasm, arrogance, and sneer when that member Amy Adams addresses the House. There’s something that speaks of the notion of “born to rule”. Hard to rule when you’re in the wilderness, hard to rule when you’re in the wasteland. In the wasteland, you find feral creatures; those who lack trust, those who thought it was a very good idea to undermine constitutional processes and not take responsibility and then hide, thinking that they could deface, they could undermine one of the most popular Budgets of $87 billion, allocated under the rubric of wellbeing.

Now, given their inability to strike a blow, they thought they would go low. Now we know that the Opposition Leader’s office left it to the resident hacker occupying the mid to backbenches of National. He’s got form in this matter—Mr Bishop’s got form in this matter, and we know that he’s got a very cosy and quite an unhealthy relationship with members of the police force, but I’ll have more to say about that at a later date. Don’t think for a moment we’ve heard the last of his attack to undermine constitutional integrity around the Budget process.

But let me come down to the more meaningful matters, to ordinary day-to-day Kiwis who don’t want to hear this din, who don’t want to watch this undignified—don’t want to see the politicians on the opposite side of the House not earning their pay. They don’t earn their pay when they attack independent civil servants who occupy a particularly important bureaucracy. Unfortunately for them, they concede that to be the counter-narrative that would cause them to triumph over us and our Budget—miserable failure—and Kiwis up and down the motu have said, “We don’t want to see this type of wastefulness in terms of the Opposition’s approach to this important document”.

Now, of course, the document not only allocates overdue funding in mental health but it reminds us that if we’re going to revive the economy, we have to focus on the regions, and they have found no greater champion than my good self. But I am finding nine years of decay, nine years of broken promises, nine years of delay. There is only so much that I’ve been able to do in the 18 months, but let us recite some of the modest contributions: nigh on $900 million put aside to drive initiatives in the regions. What are those initiatives? Those initiatives not only are digital connectivity but ensuring that freight, goods, and services have an option other than tarmac-ing our way into debt.

What we have done is provided, at long last, a robust economic platform for KiwiRail. Now, I know there are rail haters over there. I know there are rail baiters over there. But we campaigned on rejuvenating and re-establishing with a place of priority and the pūtea, in terms of our broader transport infrastructure and network. And it’s very popular. People are going to vote for it, because we have already made our political promises that out in the regions, we will not let rail decay any longer. But I don’t want to steal the thunder of a host of other provincial MPs and the announcements that they will make once we’ve worked through a process of utter exactitude, very, very thorough high probity, and, conveniently, those sums of money will favour those provincial areas that need our attention and support.

Let me also talk about the importance of David Parker’s contribution. Our Government re-established the contributions to what I call the Cullen fund. Now, the Cullen fund administrators—one or three of them talked, a tad injudiciously, to the media, but they have learnt that political power resides in Parliament, not on their parched documents which they describe as their mandate. Political power resides here, and through the Budget—the utter demonstration of political power—Mr Parker has guided us in our thinking, and $300 million will ensure that we do not see leakage and seepage amongst that class of entrepreneurial investors, because we’re sick and tired on this side of the House of funding people such as the rich American who wandered off with the lucre from the last regime. We want those businesses in the technology and the agribusiness sector to stay, either in our regions but certainly in the country, and we’ve been prepared to put the pūtea where the mouth is. So, in that respect, I think that Mr Parker has opened up a tremendous new opportunity which might be regarded as a fellow traveller to the very good work that the provinces are seeing our side of the House do.

Now, of course, the capital budget is something that’s near and dear to my heart. Capital enables us to strengthen the long-term infrastructure of the country. Not only has our capital allocation met our commitments for military spending—more to come in that regard—but it has ensured that five years’ worth of neglected investment in education can be dealt with—five years out of 10 years. This spurious nonsense that comes in terms of health underspending—look at the last nine years. That’s what we’re actually fighting in respect of health underspending. So what the capital allocation of $14 billion has done is bought at least two years up front of redressing that historical neglect in the health area. In addition to that, as I’ve already commented on with my characteristic modesty, now the Provincial Growth Fund is fully subscribed in terms of the pūtea into the fund, and there is nigh on a billion dollars to continue to allocate on the basis of a criteria that will withstand any level of rumour or exacting scrutiny. So I invite the Auditor-General not only to be exhaustive—stay on the right side of the line, Auditor-General. Do not comment on political mission; comment on administrative efficiency.

Now, I’d just like to round up the speech in terms of contributing to that area the last Government gave up on, and that is turning the lives of our young people around who are either not in training, not in education, and often on the couch. Not only have we got the military contributing to that in a significant way—and, actually, there’s a career path there now for them, because the size of the workforce, if I can use that expression in the military, is going to grow substantially. This is a practical demonstration of putting our rhetoric into utter reality. I can’t think of a New Zealander that is not proud to have their families associated—and those that aren’t proud, I don’t want to know them—with the military; our uncles, our grand-uncles—their deeds are festooned around this House. But not only that, we’ve got Willie Jackson, the Minister of Employment, taking the fight into the most difficult areas of our rural communities, which successive Governments have failed to penetrate, working with those families that come from gangs, working with those families that have been afflicted by years of drug abuse and other types of social abuse. That’s what a Government of compassion should do. That’s what a Government who’s got equity in terms of one of its key pillars is going to deliver on.

Now, sure, this may not capture a lot of the media attention, but let me tell you, in the Gisbornes, in the Nūhakas, in the Wairoas, in the Te Kahas, in the Ōpōtikis—the areas that were carpet-bombed through fiscal neglect under the last regime—they’re now feeling the fiscal love. That particular area is going to be one of the barometers that people will look at as to whether or not we’ve intervened and turned the lives around of those families that have been in the shadows for far too long.

Now, naturally, I speak with some passion about this because, disproportionately, they are my people. They are Ngāpuhi, they are Ngati Porou, they are Ngāti Kahungunu. They could very well be Tūhoe, but I’m very cross with them. They opposed the road, and they’ve unwisely believed that their hillbilly priorities for Te Urewera are more important than us tarsealing the road, but we’ll deal with that and them at a later state, because you cannot come forward and preach the gospel of Treaty reconciliation without working with your broader community. I’ll have more to say about them at a later date.

So you can see there are some very practical, earthy interventions in most difficult areas, and we’re proud to say we’re not a Government just for the big end of town—that was the last Government. We’re a Government down at the grassroots. We’re a Government at the churches, at the schools, at the rugby clubs, and in the community. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, it was very enlightening to have a lecture from Shane Jones on various topics. He gave us a lecture on arrogance, and I can’t help but think of all his references to “to the victor goes the spoils” and all the false modesty that he talks about—every eye in the regions rolls when he talks about his characteristic modesty and the “first citizens of the region”.

Then we had a lecture about distasteful behaviour—this from the man who famously abused his ministerial credit card. Then we had a lecture from him on wastefulness, and this from the man who’s spent tens of thousands and hundreds and millions of taxpayers’ money so that he could buy trees to have them mulched up by his friends in Ngāti Hine. Then we heard about “utter exactitude” from Mr Jones, when he didn’t have any idea how many jobs have been created so far. We thought it was 54 plus 118 bureaucrats. He said maybe 560, but that includes a whole lot of part-timers, including the five people who spent one hour each mulching those very same seedlings up at Ngāti Hine—so, utter exactitude!

Then we heard about leakage and seepage, and that is too terrible to contemplate from Mr Jones. Then we heard lectures to the Auditor-General, in his usual way, and then he talked about the nephs on the couch. Well, how on earth he thinks he’s going to help the nephs on the couch by (1) doing away with any welfare sanctions to encourage them to get off the couch, (2) to be part of a Government that’s presided over a colossal drop in the number of new jobs being created in this economy, from 10,000 new jobs a month under the National Party—so more than 200,000 jobs over a two-year period, the last two years of the National Government—to a situation in the past three months when we have lost jobs. We haven’t created any new jobs across the country; we’ve lost 4,000 jobs. So he talks about getting the nephs off the couch, while his Government is presiding over an evaporation of new jobs in order to get those nephs off the couch. Then, of course, he’s part of a Government that wants to liberalise dope, so I don’t know how that’s going to help either.

Back on to the Budget. I knew what we were talking about when we heard about the Budget. The striking moment, to me, was on Tuesday after the Budget, Tuesday last week. I tuned in to Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report to listen to the Prime Minister, the Tuesday after the Budget, thinking that she would be out there, all guns blazing, talking about the wonders of her new Budget, and the amazing thing was she never mentioned it at all. She didn’t talk about it. So we had the Prime Minister the week after the Budget in her first round of major media interviews—she didn’t want to talk about the Budget, and that strikes me as speaking volumes in terms of the complete botch-up that was this Government’s Budget in 2019.

It was a flop because there was lots of spending, sure, there was lots more borrowing—that’s sure—but there was no economic plan at all outlined in this Budget. So we stand here as a country which, when the Government had come into power, was growing at not far off 4 percent GDP growth. Last year, that growth had fallen away to just over 2 percent, and that’s a colossal difference. Every 1 percent of GDP relates to about $3 billion, and so that fall-off in growth has ramifications for the whole of the economy and for our New Zealand way of life and our wellbeing. Every time I listen to Radio New Zealand in the morning, on Morning Report, I hear about New Zealanders saying, “Oh, isn’t it terrible that we don’t have access to the latest drugs and pharmaceuticals that Australians have access to?” Then I hear schoolteachers saying, “Isn’t it terrible that we don’t get paid the same as Australian teachers get?” There’s a very simple answer for that, and that is that the Australians are much richer than us. They’re much richer than us because they have a stronger economy. That is why it’s so important to have a plan to actually grow the economy.

So anyway, let’s go through the Budget. I do wish Vicky all the best in Australia. That was another element of the fiasco that was the communication of this Budget, and I won’t go into the question of the leaks and the hoax and all the other elements to it.

Now, if we look at the spending—the spending—there is $3.8 billion of new spending in this Budget. Just so people can get a sense of how that stacks up, the first year I was a Minister, in the 2015 Budget, we had allocation of $1 billion of new spending. We were fighting our way out of a hole caused by the global financial crisis and the earthquakes in Christchurch. People seem to forget very quickly what was going on. We inherited unsustainable spending and had massive debts that we had to climb our way out of, and so we were disciplined about our spending.

They’ve opened the taps full throttle, and what have we got? Well, we’ve got a lot of spending on mental health, and I think most New Zealanders would agree that’s well worth spending on. So we give them a big tick for that. The question, though, of course, is not what spending you announce; it’s what you actually do and what you achieve with that money. That’s a critical thing, and we’ll be watching closely to ensure that people with mental health needs actually get better access to mental health services over the next couple of years. There is a bit of money on family violence, and that all makes good sense, but very little else that you can actually point to for all that money. No extra money for pharmaceuticals.

Of course, having done all that, the first piece of legislation that the Government brought into the House was their petrol tax increase that New Zealanders are just waking up to the full ramifications of at the moment. I don’t think they quite appreciate that there’s about $1.5 billion plus GST—so about $1.8 billion—extra taxation that this Government is taking out of motorists over three years—$1.8 billion. That is contributing to, obviously, the cost of living and making it more difficult for people to get around to do what they need to do. It flows through to all parts of the economy, anything that moves, whether it’s something carried around in a truck—delivered food, groceries, ice cream, or new TVs; you name it—anything that’s moved is going to be more expensive because of the increase in fuel taxes.

People can understand that. They don’t mind, I suppose, if they could see that they’re getting something for the money, but, as we’ve heard from Mr Twyford, we’re taking a whole lot more money. And then his reaction has been to cancel a whole lot of projects and then talk about doing a whole lot of other weird and wonderful things somewhere in the future—maybe a slow tram down Dominion Road. But 20 months into Government, we don’t have anything like a plan put together. The New Zealand Transport Agency is in a state of chaos and dysfunction. So we’re paying more and getting less. It doesn’t surprise me that motorists are somewhat irritated at the prospect of paying more for their fuel and their petrol and being told they should be grateful—well, small mercies, they’ll get to go slower on the roads, thanks to this Government and its approach to transport.

Then, also, when they spend, of course, they spend in a highly wasteful manner. I just have to mention the Provincial Growth Fund, and I’m very keen to see the Estimates hearings with Mr Jones in the next couple of days and get a sense of just actually what he’s done. We know he’s announced a whole lot of things, but what has he actually done in 20 months with the Provincial Growth Fund money?

Then we look at the borrowing. They’re going to borrow an extra $20 billion, and all young New Zealanders will have to pay that in the future. The only point I’d make on that is these are supposed to be the good times. Let’s not forget that the export prices that New Zealanders are getting at the moment, as shown by our terms of trade, are colossally high. These should be golden years for this country. We should be roaring ahead right now. We should be rolling in clover. Instead, the growth is falling away, new job creation is falling away, and we’re adding debt, and that is an indictment on the economic management of this country.

When we look at the plan—we’re scurrying through this document here trying to find the plan for the economy. “Transforming the Economy”—one of the five sections is “Transforming the Economy”. What is the number one policy to transform the economy? A billion-dollar subsidy for rail. Well, thank you very much, folks, there you go—there you go. You’ve got it. You’ve heard it here, you’ve seen it here. We’re going to give an extra billion dollars’ subsidy to rail to buy some new wagons and to make some new tracks, and that is going to be the key policy to transform the New Zealand economy.

No wonder people are depressed. No wonder business confidence is falling through the floor. What are they actually doing around increasing the flow of foreign investment in this country? Well, they’re turning those taps off. They don’t want it.

What are they doing in order to expand New Zealanders access to natural resources with which to make the money? Well, they’re saying that we’re so rich—so rich!—that we don’t need any access to extra oil and gas—we don’t need that. Eugenie Sage stands up and says we’re so rich we don’t need to look for gold—we don’t need to look for those things.

What are they doing in skills? Well, they’re spending all the money on a pointless free fees area—pointless free fees, which has got no new students through the universities. And, if you looked in this Budget, you will find not one extra cent for quality and research in universities. There’s nothing about that. I’m waiting for the vice-chancellors to jump up and down like they always did when we were delivering Budgets, when we were giving lots of money to the university sector in order to improve its quality. We haven’t heard anything there.

And then what do we see on infrastructure? Well, we see a Minister that’s great at cancelling projects and not coming up with any new ones. So what a botched Budget. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I’m incredibly proud to stand and speak in this Budget debate on behalf of the Green Party and talk about how the Green Party is driving fantastic change through our support through the confidence and supply agreement with this coalition Government. It really starts with understanding what really matters to all of us. I’ve heard the Opposition say that, well, you can’t have wellbeing without a strong economy. I think they’ve actually got it quite the opposite of how it works.

The economy is one small part of human society. It’s the part that measures our commercial transactions. But, in order for us to have those commercial transactions and for those to generate productivity and wealth, it actually relies on a whole lot of unpaid transactions: the care that parents give to their children, the care that they give to elders, the ordinary things that we do in our daily life that don’t make us money; that supports the paid economy. On top of that, human society is reliant on a healthy natural environment. We are reliant on our planet in order to have a functioning economy. So the idea that we could somehow just focus on GDP to the extent of all else and have a functioning economy is actually quite wrong, and it didn’t really work for the last National Government.

What we are doing in this Wellbeing Budget is taking an approach that actually makes a lot more sense, and that is understanding that the economy relies on people and natural resources. We have to manage those natural resources responsibly for future generations, and we have to ensure that people are receiving decent wages for their work; that they have an affordable, safe, secure, dry, and warm place to live; that we’ve invested in the infrastructure that enable people to get around our towns and cities and around our country; and that we’re investing in infrastructure that’s going to enable our exports and our goods to get to market efficiently. If we’re doing that in a way that increases climate-destabilising pollution, well, it’s not really going to make us better off in the medium term, or even in the short term, really.

So what is at the heart of this Budget that I’m proud of? Well, the huge commitment to dealing with our mental health crisis. I think that is truly something that the previous National Government had not dealt with, and it was something we heard loud and clear from New Zealanders—that we had to deal with it. Again, if we’re not looking after people’s mental health, we’re missing out on their productivity; we’re missing out on the contribution that they’re going to make to our society and to our economy.

We have in this Budget real action on climate change and a real commitment to transition our economy to one that is not reliant on climate-destabilising pollution, because that does not enrich us. But there are many opportunities for people to be involved in things that make our lives more productive, and that is what this transition to a sustainable economy is about; it’s about increasing the benefits to humanity while decreasing the cost and the cost of pollution.

We have a commitment to sustainable land use, and I know this is something that New Zealanders are really passionate about. It’s not just because it’s great for our economy; it’s because New Zealanders love our country. We love the land, we love the forest, and we want to see it used in a way that doesn’t destroy the things that we love about it, like our waterways. It is entirely possible for us to have a flourishing economy and clean up our waterways. In fact, those two things go hand in hand. If you have your old-fashioned approach to economic development, not counting the costs of pollution, then you might think that we’re doing really well, but we’re not doing really well if we are poisoning our waterways. That comes to the heart of what New Zealanders care about.

Rail—I thought it was really interesting to hear from the National Party transport spokesperson that they don’t understand why rail is an important investment for a productive economy in this country. Even if you don’t take into account the cost of pollution and the fact that we need to transition away from fossil fuels, rail improves the productivity of our existing road network. This isn’t rocket science. I mean, it’s something that I would have thought the National Party would understand well. We have a road network. We need to make better use of it. We need to enable more people and goods to move around the country at lower cost, and if we can invest in the complements to improving or maximising the benefit of our existing rail infrastructure, that is going to be a direct productivity gain to New Zealand, because we import all of the fuel that we use to run our cars and trucks, and we import all the cars and trucks that we use to move people and goods. If we can move more people and goods with fewer cars and trucks and less fuel, that is a direct productivity gain to New Zealand’s economy right there.

Of course, the experts in logistics understand this, and I don’t mean, you know, the political hacks who speak for the Road Transport Forum. I mean Don Braid, the CEO of our largest and most successful freight company. Don Braid knows what he’s talking about, and he says that it makes sense to invest in rail. It’s the second corridor. It’s all part of having a more efficient transport network. This isn’t about ideology, and I would think that in 2019, we could move away from this right/left approach to transport where the right is into subsidising cars and trucks and having an inefficient network. It just doesn’t make any sense.

So rail is going to improve the productivity of our transport network. It’s going to reduce pollution. It’s going to make our roads safer for people who are travelling by car to have fewer big trucks on some of our rural roads, which are being put under enormous pressure from some of the freight that needs to be moved on them. So it’s just about finding the sensible, balanced approach to investment that enables the network to work better. That’s at the heart of the Wellbeing Budget: taking a perspective that can take into account all the different ways in which things impact upon each other. In the case of transport, that is how the rail network improves the efficiency of the road network, how the rail network improves the safety of the road network, how the rail network reduces the cost to businesses and people of moving around New Zealand.

Of course, it’s not just that that I’m proud of. As Minister for Women, I’m proud to see one of the largest budget increases for the Ministry for Women, which will be very important to meet our commitment to leading the Government’s response to the Mana Wahine inquiry. Another huge commitment this Government has made is to pay equity. Now, this is something I’d be really interested to hear the Opposition’s view on, because how does this fit into a successful, thriving economy? Well, if women aren’t underpaid for their work, that’s beneficial for the economy. It’s fair and it’s right, and this Government is committed to reducing and eliminating the gender pay gap in the core Public Service and ensuring that we have the right support so that that pathway can be followed in the private sector. The economy, of course, benefits from people who are doing this vitally important caring work being paid the wages that they deserve. That gives them more money to spend on housing, shopping, groceries—all of those things that help increase the economic transactions within our country.

So we start by understanding that people are at the heart of our economy and that people rely on a healthy natural environment. It’s simple. It’s something that I think speaks to the values of New Zealanders, who love their natural environment, who believe that people should be paid fair wages and that they should have the means to have decent, affordable housing. It is going to take time, and I really want to acknowledge this. It’s interesting to hear the Opposition claim that we should be spending more money in all of these areas, we should be spending more money on infrastructure, but we shouldn’t be spending more money, because somehow that’s economically irresponsible. It is a completely incoherent narrative. We should be spending money. We should be ensuring that we’re investing in infrastructure that’s going to support our population and protect our environment. We should be ensuring that New Zealanders are getting fair wages for their work. And we should be investing in the services that New Zealanders expect in their health system, front-line services to help those survivors of domestic violence—another huge Green Party win in this Budget, led by my amazing colleague Jan Logie. This Budget is just the beginning, and we have a long way to go to make up for the 10 years of neglect under that last National Government.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party. It’s a great pleasure to speak in this Budget debate—a little bit later than I would have liked, having spent the time that the Budget was initially read circling in Cook Strait, looking at all the clouds and wishing I was here. ACT and I have great powers; unfortunately, controlling flight schedules and weather is not among them, but it did give me time to think about what exactly it is that defines New Zealand. What else would you think about while circling in Cook Strait? It occurred to me that this is quite an unusual country in its national DNA. It’s not particularly old. It’s not ethnocentric; it’s one of the most diverse. It’s not a theocracy; we are a country that practises a great deal of religious tolerance. We don’t have an all-powerful State; we are a free and prosperous democracy. Yet something holds together our country as coherent and prosperous, and I’d put it to you that it’s this: if you look at a map of the world, New Zealanders are people who are children of pioneers. Either we or our ancestors have travelled further for a better tomorrow than anyone else on the planet.

That pioneering spirit is a nice starting point to review the events of Budget week, because I have to say that those of us and our ancestors who came so far for a better tomorrow could only be disappointed, first of all, at Gabs Makhlouf, Treasury’s secretary. Now, he’s been a disappointment for a long time for the gradual erosion of standards at Treasury, the place where people seriously do exercises talking about their moon feelings, where the top economic graduates no longer seek employment—in fact, where they don’t even employ economics graduates anymore. But Treasury in the last week, under Gabs Makhlouf’s leadership, has gone from being academically mediocre and lacking rigour to downright dirty. Gabs Makhlouf’s act, talking about a bolt being attacked, could only be a deliberate attempt to throw the public off the trail and fudge the definition of a hack, when he could only have known that the access was perhaps not strictly authorised but nothing like the hack or the concerted attack that he made it out to be. I think it should be put on record that that is a real disappointment.

But I have to say it wasn’t a whole lot better from the National Party. To spend the whole week attacking a website betrays a lack of alternative vision, and we’ll come to that later. But I think that’s a real problem for New Zealand.

Hon Shane Jones: No vision.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I think that if Shane Jones thinks he’s going to get off the hook, then he should know that the Government has been an enormous disappointment. We were promised to be world leading, promised that we would have a wellbeing Budget like no other, and the truth is that there is nothing substantial that anyone in the Government can point to that makes this Budget different from any other. There was revenue—

Hon Shane Jones: Rail.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, Shane Jones says rail was different. Shane Jones needs to learn some history. Governments in New Zealand have been investing in rail since the 1880s. That might make it new by New Zealand First standards, but rail is not new.

Hon Shane Jones: Legacy! Legacy!

DAVID SEYMOUR: This is a legacy of Winston Peters, perhaps, but not much else. Shane Jones is chirping in about a legacy. That’s the only legacy in this Budget.

The fact is that the Government cannot point to things that are distinctly different in this Budget. This Budget had revenue and expenditure, spending money on things the Government thought would be politically popular and attempting to raise revenue in a way it thought it could easily get away with—hugely disappointing. And disappointing because the real problems that this country needs to face up to and solve, the kinds of problems that deny many New Zealanders the kinds of lives that we and our ancestors travelled further for, for a better life than anyone else on the planet, the kinds of problems that need to be solved, well, those are things such as productivity. Productivity growth in New Zealand is in the tank. It has been 0.3 percent on average for the last decade. It is a shocker.

It’s things like our education system. We’ve got two-fifths—nearly half—of students coming to the level of NCEA level 2 without the basic literacy and numeracy standards that are demanded by international examinations or international benchmarks such as PISA. That’s a real problem. We have a housing market where housing in our largest city is 10 times income. Those are real problems: productivity growth, a long tale of educational underachievement, and a housing market that is out of control. Those are problems that we could have solved in this Budget but which the Government has failed to do anything meaningful about whatsoever.

What do they have in education? The big idea is a handout to certain types of school—or not to the school, actually, but to the parents. It is a cash transfer to people the Government thinks might vote for them—$150 each—but it is dressed up as education policy. That’s all this Government can do in education: shovel some money at people it thinks might vote for them. It has no other ideas in education. We need a revolution in education. We saw, in charter schools, what can happen when we give communities the power and the ability to write their own scripts, to create schools that relate to and engage their own children. We need a lot more of that. This Government could have brought back charter schools. It could have given parents and students a lot more choice in education. It could have actually had more children like Hope coming through the ranks—Hope being the girl who said to me at a charter school, “I never knew I was smart until I came here.” That’s the kind of thing that the Government could have been doing—actually unleashing the dynamism and the creativity of private sector educators to engage New Zealand’s most disengaged kids—but there’s nothing of the sort, just a cash transfer.

What about the housing market? It’s one of the most extraordinary things: over the last 25 years, you were almost better off buying a section in Auckland behind the regulatory cordon that prevents people from building on all the land that is out there—you were almost better off buying that land—than Apple stocks. Only the Government could push the price of a section in Auckland up 900 percent in 25 years simply by regulating that you can’t build anywhere else. Well, the solution is simple: we need to change our planning laws and we need to change the way we fund infrastructure. That’s how you free up land and help people develop sections and build homes that they can afford, but there’s nothing like that in this Budget. All you’re seeing is tinkering—a little bit more Government intervention and Government home building—when the real problem is not going to be solved by KiwiBuild, which builds houses, but by reforms to infrastructure and land-use planning that provide more sections.

Then we come to productivity. People on $48,000 with Working for Families face a 30c tax rate and 25c of Working for Families abatement. How are we going to be an aspirational and achieving society when so many people lose 55c out of their next dollar? What’s this Government done? It has increased the amount of tax and transfer. The ideas I’ve alluded to are the ones that this country needs; the ones in this Budget from this Government will take us nowhere.

In the very short time that I have remaining, for something a little bit lighter, I think we should all wish good luck to Manu—he’s done well; to Laura—she’s very funny; to Randell, actually—New Zealand can’t handle anymore Randell. Sorry, mate! But if you really want to see justice done in this season, then you’ve got to text “WILLIAM” to 3333, because William and Amelia deserve to win this season. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I understand this is a split call. I call Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I quite often get the privilege of following that previous speaker, David Seymour, and I always call it “leading with your jaw”; it’s right out there just ready to be—he started with this vision of flying around Cook Strait in the fog, trying to land, and just the analogy of his own party flying around for years looking for somewhere. I think there’s a little airport provided in a place called Epsom, I believe, where they’re able to land their little planes and take off from, but I’m not—I just couldn’t help but think, “What a shame he wasn’t on a Virgin Atlantic flight at the time.” owned, of course, by Mr Branson. He may have, while he was reading, picked up one of the flight magazines and got some words of inspiration from that man, who has actually looked at this Budget and has said, “Wow!” This is the man, a household name, a man who’s taken his industry, his airline, his record companies, and many others around the world. He’s looked at this—he’s been highly successful—and he has said, “This is actually what success should look like.”

I had a bit of a lightbulb moment when I was in the Budget lock-up. I have said previously—a bit of a sad life—that I’ve read the last 21 Budgets. With this one, I was expecting to go to the appropriations to work out where the money was, and it was a lightbulb moment when I read that it says, actually, you start off by working out what it is you want to achieve. It’s about, yes, you need the economy; yes, you need jobs; yes, you need to ensure you have the money to achieve things—and I’ll talk shortly about how we’re going to achieve that as well—but, most importantly, were just the words at the start: “When people are able to lead fulfilling lives with purpose, balance, and meaning to them, it means improving the state of our environment, the strength of our communities, and performance of our economy.”

Well, again, I’ll allude to the previous speaker. Those economies we came from, or sort of economies—we have all come from other parts, whether it was the Pacific 800 years ago or, more recently, from the Middle East, more recently from Europe—we all came away from countries where we just didn’t get the opportunity, because they were so unfair, because the wealth was locked in at the top, because all the power was locked in at the top. So what our ancestors did—those ancestors the previous speaker spoke of—they did come to New Zealand, they did come with an expectation of being able to use their skills, to develop their skills, and that’s what this Budget’s about. It’s about making sure that it isn’t only the immigrants. And I think, in my own electorate, in Ōhāriu, we are blessed with some very highly talented immigrants; people who, I can see as I stand in the market on a Sunday, are contributing greatly, because that’s what immigrants do, because people come—they’ve escaped from that.

However, we’ve got to actually recreate those immigrants, those people, because then I look around the main streets. If you look around any shopping centre in New Zealand, you’ll see those same people that need to migrate. They need to migrate not physically; they need to migrate into our economy, and that’s what this Budget is about. It’s about making sure those internally in New Zealand get the same opportunities, get the same inspiration. As I go through what we’re trying to achieve there, with even the education in there, apart from fulfilling the venture capital gap, again a very important part of it is that, as we build those industries, we make sure the capital is there.

But, more importantly, we go to actually what we’re going to achieve in education: bringing people out of the schools, making sure they’re work ready and life ready. That’s what it will do, because that will enable—I can use that analogy again—them to migrate to be part of New Zealand society, not to have to work three jobs and still be part of the working poor. Because if you’re doing that, you actually can’t partake in those good things about New Zealand; those good things that visitors to New Zealand see, those good things that actually those who come here and are able to get on to the “working train”—get on to mainstream in New Zealand, which is most immigrants—are able to do, as we were all able to when we got here. This Budget, if I can use the analogy, is about ensuring that those people are able to migrate on to the mainstream in New Zealand so they can produce, so they can be part of a productive New Zealand society.

If I can finish, in the time left to me, just today, the Opposition—they’re sitting here, saying, “This is such a bad Budget.” What have they done? They’ve obfuscated. They’ve sat there and tried to distract. The first two questions on Budget day—you know, they were from the Leader of the Opposition. I liken his performance over this to—let’s just say that he had a gold nugget in his hand, which was what he discovered. He could have done two things. He could have gone on the booze. He could have gone down the pub, thrown it on the bar, and had a great binge. Or he could have thought, “I’ve got a gold nugget here. If I spend this right, I could own the pub.” What has he done? What have he and his colleagues done? They’ve gone on the binge. They’ve had a binge and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. I call Raymond Huo—five minutes.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. First of all, in terms of what happened to my forehead, just look at the other guy! But this time the other guy happened to be a big tree and some fallen branches. This was a result of poor gardening skills while battling strong winds. But back to the Budget debate.

As the Guardian newspaper said, “New Zealand ‘wellbeing’ budget promises billions to … [the] most vulnerable”, and the very first wellbeing Budget in the Western World has received widespread praise. We are tackling the long-term issues facing New Zealand such as mental health, homelessness, child poverty, family violence, and under-funded infrastructure. The Wellbeing Budget is designed to tackle those issues facing New Zealand. I want to thank the finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, for delivering the world’s first wellbeing Budget, which has received widespread praise from credit-rating agencies to social sectors. I’m proud that New Zealand has become the first Western country to design its entire Budget based on wellbeing priorities and to instruct its Ministers to design policies to promote and improve wellbeing.

As Mr Robertson said, many New Zealanders were not benefiting from a growing economy in their daily lives. The reasons can be complex, but one of the reasons is that for almost all Budgets, GDP is taken as the primary measure of economic performance. “This is because GDP is a measure of market production, which therefore tends to focus policy on the interests of producers rather than on the wellbeing of consumers.” I quoted that part from a well-researched book called Wellbeing Economics: Future Directions for New Zealand, by Paul Dalziel and Caroline Saunders. This book is one of the series published by BWB, Bridget Williams Books Ltd. They are short books on big subjects from great New Zealand writers.

The wellbeing concept is nothing new. In the United Kingdom its Government launched in 2010 a nationwide wellbeing programme. Closer to home, the mission statement of the Australian Treasury begins with a simple phrase, “to improve the wellbeing of the Australian people”. The OECD has extended the concept to a wider audience. The OECD offers advice and analysis on economic issues to its member countries. Its mission is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social wellbeing of people around the world.

We’re tackling the long-term issues facing New Zealand such as child poverty, mental health, family violence, and under-funded infrastructure. We are delivering a plan to address those issues; notably, as I said, homelessness, child poverty, mental health, and under-funded infrastructure. We’re delivering a strong surplus and low debt with net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP being forecast to be 19.9 percent in the year 2021-22. We are investing in New Zealand’s crucial national infrastructure. We’re building a productive nation in the digital age through innovation and social and economic opportunities. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Well, Mr Assistant Speaker, I’m pleased to speak in this debate on the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill. From my perspective, Budgets are about priorities, following through on promises, but also it’s an opportunity to see the window and the soul of a Government, to see the nature of their character. What I would argue is that this Government has blown the chance of a generation to make a huge difference to New Zealand, because of failed priorities and a lot of broken promises.

I want to address at the outset the issues that have been raised around the release of Budget information, because it is relevant. It is relevant when we’re dealing with issues of integrity of a Government, of Ministers, of senior public servants, and it cuts to the heart of whether you can trust a Government and their behaviour. I want to talk more about that, because it is my strong view that they have been handed not only billions of dollars, in terms of their Budget, but also they have failed to deliver on the core priorities around education. Why is that? It’s, in part, because some of those coalition partners have come in and a weak Prime Minister has not stood up to them and has let them have their priorities, over education. I’m going to set that out in terms of a number of the broken promises that have occurred.

It is important because, as National has highlighted on our website www.laboursreportcard.co.nz, this was a Government that promised big in education—more than a hundred promises that they made—and they have not delivered on at least 50 of those promises. So what we expected in this Budget in education was a huge amount of funding in terms of wellbeing. They promised around social workers and they promised around guidance counsellors. Of all of the areas that one would have thought they would have turned up and provided additional funding for, it would be those. But they failed. They failed to deliver on their promises.

The next thing that we saw, and it’s very characteristic of this Government—and again, in my view, it demonstrates a Government that is more about PR and spin than actually tackling some of the long-term issues in New Zealand—was that they said “We’re going to spend $1.2 billion over 10 years on school infrastructure.” Well, let me tell you a few facts about school infrastructure. The first is that it was a National Government that went and did condition assessments of every school in New Zealand, and we were handed legacy issues around those portfolios. We increased the school property budget by 40 percent in the middle of the global financial crisis, with the Canterbury earthquakes. Then this Minister has the nerve to lecture us last year on a lack of investment in school property. He comes along with less than what we had spent. And then, this year, in this Budget, we find out that there’s about $170 million of underspend. What it shows is complete incompetence. So what I say to New Zealand is: this is a Government that has bad priorities. They can’t deliver the fundamentals in education, and that is demonstrated in an area like school infrastructure where we’ve got overcrowding and we’ve got delayed projects because the Minister is incompetent.

The next point that I want to make is that $1.2 billion over 10 years is not going to even keep up with growth. The Minister delayed the Auckland growth plan, for example, for which we indicated we may need to spend $2 billion on school infrastructure in Auckland.

So as we go through the next year and a half, National will be raising these issues and saying that it is not OK to have deep PR and spin around an area like school infrastructure. We’re going to have overcrowded schools, we’re not going to have the funding that we deserve, and, actually, they are investing, arguably, not even for business-as-usual.

The next area that I want to raise, which is core to their broken promises, is that there are some big promises that they made that people relied on, and the area is the school donations policy. Chris Hipkins—and I questioned him in question time today—went out there in the campaign, and the headline was that Labour were going to end school donations. Well, here’s a fact: there are 700 schools for which the Minister of Education and this Government have broken that promise. They have been excluded, and what we are hearing from people like Lorraine from Lynmore Primary School and from other schools in Tauranga is that you’ve got not only schools that relied somewhat on those promises but also we’re embedding deeply inequitable policies, and National will be talking more about that.

The next area that I want to talk about in terms of broken promises is early learning, and my colleague Nicola Willis is going to talk more about this. We’ve got a situation where this huge number of promises that were put up during the election campaign, including 100 percent qualified teachers in early learning, reduced teacher ratios in early learning, new childhood centres in areas where there is disadvantage—none of these promises have been delivered.

The next point that I want to make is that not only have we got a Government that can’t deliver on the fundamental issues and promises that they made but we have had the largest ever industrial action in education in our nation’s history. Of all the areas that you would have thought this Government would not cut funding to, it would be teacher pay, so what I want is members opposite to stand up and explain to me why it’s acceptable that there is around $100 million being cut around communities of learning, which is additional payments for teachers. So here is an example of the priorities of this Government: not only have they got the largest ever industrial action in education but they’ve also managed to cut the potential salary payments for a number of teachers in this Budget at a time when they’re in the middle of collective bargaining.

I want to talk about that collective bargaining. We are at 12 months of gridlock in primary. We are at more than eight months of gridlock in secondary. The fundamental issues have been pay and workload. In my view, it is incompetent for the Minister to have gone out there and say, “We’re not going to shift the bargaining parameters.” They’ve just stuck their heads in the sand, and they say that there’s no more money, when we’ve got money being spent on planes and racing and in a whole lot of other areas. So what we say to the teachers of New Zealand is that it is correct: this is a question of priorities and, actually, this Government has choices. It’s made bad choices. It needed to get to the table a lot earlier and prioritise both pay and workload. We expect that the Minister will come out tomorrow with a range of large promises, and our message to New Zealand is how about delivering on the existing promises that they’ve made—and New Zealanders can see that at our report card website.

The final point that I want to really address is that, look, as I’ve gone around New Zealand—I have done more than 70 meetings and public meetings—I’ve talked to people about their priorities for education, and the point that a number of people say to me is that it really does matter what you spend your money on. This is two Budgets in and we see a huge amount of wasted money, and people do understand this other point. They understand that if you have a Government that is weak on the economy, it’s less money for education and it’s less money for health.

What we know is that the economy is slowing and we’ve got a smaller amount of the pie. We’ve got a situation where Chris Hipkins has been weak and hasn’t been able to even address his existing promises, and so what National believes are the priorities are a few things. The first is, Minister of Education, it is time. Let’s settle this, Minister. Let’s settle this, Prime Minister Ardern. It is time—it is 12 months for primary and eight months for secondary. This Government needs to prioritise workload and pay.

The second thing is that this Government need to fulfil their promises in a range of areas. They haven’t done that in this Budget and they need to, and we will be holding them to account for those promises.

The next thing I want to say is that National will be out there and we will be advocating positive policies, particularly in areas like those children who have additional learning needs, and I want to make a comment on that. We saw huge promises by the Government members when they were in Opposition around children with additional learning needs. We literally saw them promise that every child with additional learning needs would get the support that they needed. Well, it turned up in this Budget—yes, with some roles around additional support—but schools have no idea who is going to get those roles. They don’t know what the priority is. It’s not clear that we’re going to be able to actually deliver that workforce. So in the core areas of supporting those disadvantaged children or supporting children with complex learning needs, this Government talks big but doesn’t deliver.

I would argue that this is a Government that is failing to deliver the basics in education. When the Minister can’t even keep teachers in classrooms, or even provide the classrooms in the areas where we need them, it is a failed Government. This Government does not prioritise education, and National will.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to discuss the Wellbeing Budget of 2019. It is a Budget that I’m truly proud of—New Zealand’s first wellbeing Budget ever, and the first wellbeing Budget in the world.

I am also really proud of what we’re doing in education. In Vote Education, $11.4 billion is what the Wellbeing Budget of 2019 is investing in education. It is the biggest in our history. But before I address what Nikki Kaye, the previous speaker, said, can I talk about the thing that I am truly proud of, and it’s really different. One of the things I’ve heard other speakers say is, “This is the same old Budget. It’s the Budget that we’ve heard before.” It is not. One thing, as I begin, is that there is $1.9 billion for mental health. Have we ever seen the previous National Government commit that much to mental health ever before?

Hon Members: No.

Hon JENNY SALESA: “No.” was the answer to that—$1.9 billion for mental health. Another thing that’s different for us is there is a half-billion-dollar investment in Māori. Have we ever seen the previous National Government investing that much in Māori?

Hon Member: No.

Hon JENNY SALESA: “No.” was the answer to that. The other thing that’s different is the investment in Pacific: $113 million investment in Pacific. It’s historic. We’ve never seen a Government before invest this much in Pacific, and also, both Māori and Pacific are a priority for us in this Budget. That is also different.

The other thing that’s different—with my Minister for Ethnic Communities’ hat on—is that we are investing in our ethnic communities. In April, I came through and I announced a $1.8 million investment in ethnic communities as a direct response to what had happened over in Christchurch on 15 March, but in this Budget we are investing $9.4 million in addition to that original $1.7 million, and it is because we have a growing ethnic community right across Aotearoa New Zealand. When you look at the numbers, one of the things that we’re doing in this Government that’s different is we are investing in more staff in the Office of Ethnic Communities because there are so many of our ethnic communities that we need to serve. We’re also going out to have further conversations with imams, with Muslim young people, and with Muslim women, because we want to ensure that we continue to be an inclusive society in Aotearoa, that we are welcoming, and that we assist our ethnic communities to grow stronger.

Another investment that is different in our Budget is the $12 million that we are investing in combating rheumatic fever to address the high rates of rheumatic fever for Māori and Pacific young people. We are looking at investing in this. Two-thirds of our rheumatic fever cases are in South Auckland, so what are we doing as a Government? We’re making sure that we invest this money in Auckland, because the majority of the cases are Māori, as well as Tongans and Samoans. They have the highest rates of rheumatic fever. We’re interested in addressing it.

The other thing that we’re doing differently this time—and this is from evaluating what happened in the last rheumatic fever programme—is that we are listening to the providers and we are listening to our whānau and our families, who tell us that the programmes that worked most successfully for Māori and Pacific whānau was the one where they helped us co-design the initiatives. They actually give us the advice on what is the best way to ensure that the whānau know more about the signs of rheumatic fever and know more about the importance of taking the medication to ensure that kids with sore throats are actually treated with a full dose of the treatment.

I have so much more, because I’m so excited for this particular Wellbeing Budget: $1.7 billion to fix hospitals over the next two years. This is a fantastic investment by our Government. The other thing that we’re doing differently is we are sitting down, we have had a construction sector accord that we as Government Ministers—seven of us—have already signed an agreement with industry, because when we are fixing our hospitals we would like it to be of good quality. We would like the hospitals—not only the ones that we need to fix because of the lack of investment from the previous Government over nine years but as we’re building new hospitals, we want to ensure that it is of good quality and long lasting and that the materials that go in are really good long-lasting materials.

We also have—and addressing the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, in terms of education—a 10-year investment in schools; $287 million this year for the first wave and $913 million for the next four waves of investment. The difference between us on this side of the House and the previous Government is that when we actually say that we’re investing these many millions, we actually allocate the funding—

Hon Member: Yeah, it’s real money.

Hon JENNY SALESA: It’s real money—to ensure that we’re building these schools; and, yes, we have the programme of build for schools throughout all of Aotearoa. When we look at the investment in education, $27.4 million is the investment for Pacific. If you ask, “What is that investment going to do?”, it’s going to do several things. One of the investments is to ensure that as we work with our whānau, with our families, that we’re ensuring that we welcome them into schools, that there are churches that convene Pacific families. We’re ensuring that we work more with those families, because we know that when we work with our families, when we sit down and have various programmes and show them all of the things that their students are doing in the schools, when they are more supported by attending community sessions, they are then better able to support their students at home.

Another example is that we’re investing in early literacy programmes. We’re expanding various programmes that have been evidence-based—10 new schools a year—the programmes that are working with our families to ensure that they have better literacy skills.

Another example is this programme called Tapasā. Now, Tapasā is a cultural competence tool. What we know from talking to young people, as well as teachers and as well as parents, is that they tell us things like this—these are according to our learners and our Pacific parents: “a good teacher”—and I quote from this particular document—is one who “understands … my identity, language and culture is important … pronounces my name and words in my language properly … does not make fun of [myself]”—this is the students that are talking—“or my [whānau] or my parents” when they come through the schools and they do not speak fluent English, because when students feel that they or their parents are being put down, they don’t feel welcome in schools. So this particular cultural competency tool is a framework for teachers; teachers who actually work with the majority of our students. In this Budget, within that $27.4 million, we’ve invested money to ensure that it is a tool that more of our teachers—I’m not talking about Pacific teachers or Māori teachers; I’m talking about the majority of teachers who teach our students in schools—actually get to know how to appropriately support our students in schools.

There are so many things that I would like to talk to—

Dr Duncan Webb: So much to deliver.

Hon JENNY SALESA: So much to deliver. In terms of Māori, one of the things that is an investment—a huge investment—in Māori is Whānau Ora. This is the largest investment ever that any Government has made to Whānau Ora: $80 million. I speak of Whānau Ora because it’s an investment in both Māori and Pacific—about a third of the Whānau Ora money goes to Pacific families. I hear a lot from our families, from our providers, as well as from our young people that this is a really important programme. Why? It’s because it is a programme that reaches right across. It’s actually a really good indication of what a wellbeing Budget looks like—when you have health, when you have housing, and when you have education all coming together to address issues.

I do have one last example of an initiative that is a good example of wellbeing. It is one that I as Associate Minister of Education and as Associate Minister of Health have worked on over many months with the Minister for Sport and Recreation to ensure that we have this particular programme, which is a health and wellness programme in schools. It is going to be led by Sport New Zealand. It is an investment of over $47 million. It is one where Sport New Zealand will work in schools—level 1 to level 8, primary school to the end of intermediate—to ensure that we encourage healthy eating and encourage more active sport and physical activity, because one of the things that we are wanting to address is childhood obesity. Our rate of childhood obesity is way, way too high, and we must absolutely address it moving forward. Thank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m going to start, unusually, by quoting one of the Labour MPs that spoke a few minutes ago. That member said that Budgets that have a focus on wellbeing aren’t new. So it’s fascinating that members opposite get obsessed about saying this is the first wellbeing Budget, when, in reality, Budgets for decades have focused on the wellbeing of New Zealanders. What’s interesting is that if you ask New Zealanders to talk about, or describe, what wellbeing is for them, I don’t think they’d need 140 different indicators that Stats New Zealand have come up with, and I don’t think at the top of the list—or actually anywhere on the list—they would be talking about measuring their moon feelings; that side of the House seems to think that that’s important. No, instead what they would be talking about—what most New Zealanders would be talking about when they think about wellbeing—are simple things like having a job, having somewhere to live, being able to pay your bills, having world-leading health and education for our families, having freedom and choice, feeling safe in their homes and communities, and making sure that we protect our beautiful environment. That’s what National believes in.

It was really interesting, because I had a conversation with a young man earlier today, and in his words: “Wellbeing, in this supposedly world-first wellbeing Budget”—he was shocked at the billions being spent on trains and air force planes. That did not feature in this young man’s description of wellbeing. But what he did want to know is that when he finishes his study, there will be jobs available for him in New Zealand. But what do we have instead? We had 10,000 jobs that were being created in the previous Government; now there’s a loss of 4,000 jobs a month. So if one of the key elements of wellbeing is having a job, I say good luck to the Government, because you’re going backwards, not forwards.

There’s been a lot of discussion in the House about this botched Budget, so I don’t want to dwell too much on it. One of the key things for a Government—the Prime Minister and Ministers—is to act with integrity, to not mislead the New Zealand public, and to make sure that documents and information that should be held with the highest secrecy and regard is protected. What we’ve seen in this example of the 2019 Budget has just been an absolute farce. But what’s worse than that—what’s worse than that—is we have seen that Labour is failing to deliver on their promises. I’m going to talk about that quite a bit in this Budget debate speech.

When we talk about wellbeing, you can’t just talk about social wellbeing if you have a sick economy. Unfortunately, that’s what we’re seeing under this Labour Government. We are seeing an economy that is getting sicker and sicker by the day. So instead of the 4 percent growth that they inherited, it’s slid back to 2 percent—and guess what? It’s sliding back even further.

I’m not going to talk at length about the employment policies or the oil and gas ban and the restrictions on foreign investment, because I know they’ve been traversed. But instead, as I said, this is a Government that is failing to deliver on their promises—very simple promises. KiwiBuild—100,000 houses. That was the hope that New Zealanders were sold; they have been totally ripped off, because in that very simple one-line promise, Labour is failing to deliver. This is ordinary New Zealanders who had an aspiration about owning their own home. How many have we had? I don’t even think we’ve hit 100 yet. I think it’s still in the sort of early 80s. Where are the $10-cheaper GP visits? Where’s the 100 percent qualified early childhood education teachers? Where’s the no new taxes? Oh, we’re at seven already, and counting.

We’re also seeing, unfortunately, a lift in the number of people on benefits. National quite clearly believes that Kiwis are better off in paid work, so that they can live independent lives and they can provide a better future for their children. We also firmly believe in supporting the most vulnerable, while ensuring they work with us to improve their lives. We believe that New Zealanders should be given a hand up and not a handout, and that those who can work, should.

I do want to talk about social development, because one of the promises that Labour made was to overhaul the welfare system. So after months of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, how many recommendations do you think the Government accepted out of 42? How many? Give us a guess. Three recommendations; three out of 42. And, actually, two of them were Labour’s election promises anyway, so you can hardly count those, and they take effect from April 2020, so it’s not particularly immediate. But what they have delivered is hard-working taxpayers picking up the tab for children that their own fathers won’t financially support, which is absolutely appalling. To quote Steve Maharey, they’re “deadbeat dads”—this is not my quote, it is Steve Maharey’s.

So, unfortunately, one of the other areas that the Budget is promising is another 15,000 people on jobseeker and emergency benefits. Fifteen thousand—there’s nothing about wellbeing in that. If you look at the number of children living in poverty, those who are hit hardest live in benefit-dependent homes. So why is it that the Labour Government is forecasting 15,000 more people on benefits? That is not a life of opportunity. That is not a life of a great future for the children in that household. There is nothing in this Budget—oh, sorry; indexing means, on average, $11 a week for a beneficiary or a benefit-dependent family by 2023. So, I’m sorry; I correct myself: $11, when, actually, when we were in Government we gave an immediate boost to benefits of $25 a week—immediately, not in 2023.

We’re also seeing, unfortunately, a forecast of an increase in the number of parents on the sole parent benefit. As I said before, if the Government was serious about lifting children out of material hardship, they would focus on policies that work to support sole parents into work. But, actually, what did we see cut from the Budget? We see expectations of less childcare assistance. So how does that make sense? If we want people to be independent, if we want people to be able to take care of themselves and their children financially, to give them a hand up, then why would you reduce childcare assistance? It just does not make sense.

We are pleased that some of the National initiatives that have been incredibly successful are being continued: the Integrated Safety Response programmes in family violence with police and other agencies; Housing First for those who are experiencing chronic homelessness—pleased to see that that’s been continued—and also funding for the transition for kids in State care. The things they are funding were National initiatives anyway, which we’ve managed to prove that they work, and the Government now is just putting dollars alongside it.

Unfortunately, this Budget isn’t really about wellbeing. What this Budget is about is Labour failing to deliver on their promises. It’s incredibly underwhelming, and the flip side is the economic health. It’s really easy for the Government to spend money, but what New Zealanders are asking is, where is the plan for the economy to be more healthy? Where is the economic plan, when we’re losing $4,000 jobs a month? How is that supporting young New Zealanders’ futures in New Zealand? But, actually, this picture says it all. Here’s a young woman and her daughter who pursued a better life opportunity in Australia because the Labour Government clearly isn’t delivering it for them here in New Zealand. They’re now on the cover of another magazine, telling them what a great life it is in Australia instead of at home in New Zealand.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Oh, what a stupid speech that was—and a sad speech, really, coming from someone who should know better, a previous Minister. I probably should put her name up, but at the moment things aren’t going too well for our National Party mates. Here’s the problem that they have. It’s that no one cares about this stupid hack strategy. No one cares. I know they think they’re brilliant because they went and pressed this button and pressed that button and no one saw anything. Mark Mitchell knows that desperateness. And Simon thinks he’s a genius but everyone else thinks he’s an idiot. People care about what’s in their pocket. People care about real things, not the stupid hack story. Look at the polls, and if you looked at the polls, they would realise how this is the most idiotic strategy I have seen in politics. Every day they think they’ve got a coup, but the good thing from our side of the House is that Simon is hanging in there, and, as I’ve said—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member will use the—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Simon Bridges—my apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker. Simon Bridges is hanging in there and he knows he’s got the full support of his relations in the Māori caucus, as we well know.

What a wonderful time for the Māori caucus, and where are the Māoris today? I was looking for them when I came out, and they’re gone. They’ve left because they know that this Wellbeing Budget delivers for Māori more than any other Budget that National and their friends in the Māori Party have ever delivered in the history of Budgets. I don’t want to go too hard on the Māori Party. They’re good people in there; some of them are relations. Of course I’ve got to read—look, the Māori Party have come out in support of this Budget. The Māori Party, the National Party’s friends, have said, “it would be churlish not to acknowledge the generosity of the Labour Party.” They welcome “the Labour Government’s recognition of fundamental change to the system.” I am glad that the Māori Party finally woke up. It finally woke up and realised that the path to redemption lies through us, the Māori caucus.

It is a Māori caucus that is getting support from everywhere. Annette Sykes, that warrior woman, says, “A great beginning. I have to agree with the sentiment that Māori should be glad that this is the beginning of change.” But here’s the other one; another one of Mark Mitchell’s mates, Tau Henare. Tau Henare loves this Budget. He’s a National Party member—oh, well, he was, but they kicked out all the Māori who were doing well. They kicked Nuk Korako out. Now if anyone opens their mouth too much, they kick them out. So they kicked Nuk out; they kicked Tau out—he wanted to be the Speaker. They kicked him out—see you later, Tau. Now he makes a living in social media, but he’s doing all right, our Tau. But Tau says, “Yep, I’ve got to take my hat off to that Māori team in Labour. Best performance for a very long time.” Ngā mihi to National Party’s former wannabe Speaker, Tau Henare.

Where is the apology? That’s what I’ve got to ask today. Where is the apology from the National Party members? In fact, where are the Māoris? Where are they? They don’t come into the House any more when I speak—Shane Reti ran out the door.

Tim van de Molen: Is that all of them, or just the ones that member says is Māori enough?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m just so sad. I’m sad because—no, there are some good ones there. You know that. I’ve already named the good ones before. Actually, they’re all good people. But last year, Shane Reti was telling us what a terrible Budget—where’s that Shane Reti? Oh, he is here, old Shane. Last year he said, “I want to send a message to the Māori caucus of Government: where were you?” Well, this is where we were, Shane Reti. We were strategising for this year.

Last year we were talking about universality, because—as some of the dumbos in the media don’t understand, and some of the dumbos on the other side—you need two types of strategy: a universal strategy and a targeted funding strategy. You need a universal strategy for a lot of our people who are not part of Māori organisations, who are not on the Māori seats, who don’t pursue Te Reo Māori, who are not part of Waipareira Trust, not part of the Manukau Urban Māori Authority, who don’t watch Māori TV. We have to access those people. We do that through a universal strategy. We’ve done that for ever and a day, but it’s through a targeted strategy—a by-Māori, for-Māori strategy—where we know we can get some turn-arounds, and that’s why sometimes we have to really invest in Māori organisations, and we have. We have.

I’ve got so many papers here, and I want to read some of those numbers out. We’re putting $80 million—$80 million—into Whānau Ora. Well done to Peeni Henare—well done to Minister Henare. That’s just for the commissioning agencies—$116 million altogether in Whānau Ora, a kaupapa that my good friend Jo Hayes said that we had forgotten about. Where is Jo today? Where is Jo Hayes today?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member shouldn’t mention the absence of other members. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker—my apologies. But we were told that we’d forgotten Whānau Ora. Peeni Henare came up with the goods.

Kelvin Davis—$96 million, in terms of corrections and Whānau Ora, going through the prisons so that we can get things right for our people. Mark Mitchell knows about this, because whatever you say about Mark, I know he cares about whānau. He might have a different philosophy but I know that he knows that when you apply some targeted funding to what’s happening in those prisons, you can get a bit of a turn-around. So Kelvin Davis—doing the business in terms of the families.

There is $26.4 million over two years for He Poutama Rangatahi. Now, that’s coming through Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund. Isn’t Shane Jones doing a great job, and New Zealand First? We were told that they would block Māori funding, that they didn’t care about Māori funding, but more money is going up for Māori than ever before, and who’s leading the way? Well, obviously the Māori caucus first, but New Zealand First second with people like Shane Jones supporting He Poutama Rangatahi, where we are getting our nephews off the couch.

We’re also putting money into the regions—regions that have been starved of funding by a selfish National Government. For nine years, they refused to support our regions. I go into these regions, into these areas, and they say what a mean, horrible, cold lot they were, led by Mark Mitchell and Lawrence over there—Lawrence, the mayor from Napier. Lawrence Yule—you know, I thought he was a good mayor, but, at the time, they forgot all about funding our regions. We have turned that around through the Provincial Growth Fund—

Lawrence Yule: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to make a personal statement that I was never the Mayor of Napier; I was the Mayor of Hastings.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Happy to give an apology, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m going to make a ruling on that. It’s really important. Some members do make mistakes. As I’ve said before, every member has the right to be heard in the debates. What the member could do is take a call.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—well said too, might I add. Can I finish off today, though, by saying we’ve got all this targeted funding now. We’ve got great people supporting us, like Annette Sykes and Tau Henare—I wouldn’t say he was a great person, but Tau was a formidable National Party MP—and people like Shane Te Pou, John Tamihere, Tariana Turia, and Larry Parr. A lot of people are coming in behind us.

I want to say today that, for us as a Māori caucus—and I’m proud of our Māori caucus, proud to chair it along with Meka Whaitiri—the $32 million that we set aside for kōhanga reo was one of the happiest days. A number of us attended that, and that was all about equity. That was about supporting a group of people who were ignored by the National Party—and the Māori Party, might I add. In 2011, they put their equity claim up. They were totally ignored by the National Party and, sadly, by my whanaunga Hekia Parata, who said, “No, we want you to get everything in shape at the kōhanga.” They’ve done that. They’ve turned things around, and I want to mihi particularly to our matriarch there, Whaea Iritana Tawhiwhirangi, for her magnificent work through the years for the kōhanga reo.

The $32 million allocated by Minister Kelvin Davis has got them on track in terms of the equity funding. Waihoroi Shortland was brought to tears, and it was a wonderful day watching Wassie Shortland talk about the tautoko for the kōhanga reo. That’s where the hope is. That’s where we’re going to start, with our tamariki.

Tēnei te mihi ki a tātou katoa, tēnā koutou, kia ora rā.

[I thank you all gathered here, greetings to you all.]

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): My worst fear has been realised: following the Hon Willie Jackson, being the next speaker after him! What I like to do in the House is write notes down to respond to the previous speaker, and I don’t have a lot of notes here to actually respond to Willie. The one thing that I’d acknowledge—and I agree with him—is that I want to acknowledge the Hon Tau Henare. I was very proud to serve with him, and I acknowledge the work that he did when he was in this Parliament, which was considerable.

I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. The first thing is around the Budget and defence. I was very proud to be defence Minister in a National-led Government, in the last term in Government, and we did a lot of work—by my previous colleagues Gerry Brownlee and Jonathan Coleman—around doing a defence white paper. I myself, at the time, went around the country. We held public meetings up and down the country, seeking the public’s input in terms of what they would like to see from our defence forces; whether or not they wanted to see niche capabilities, and what they actually wanted to see us deliver in the next decade with our New Zealand Defence Force. Out of that was driven the defence white paper. Out of that was driven our Defence Capability Plan. It was a commitment to $20 billion of spending over the next 15 years, and it was a very comprehensive road map for us in terms of upgrading our defence property, investment into our personnel—our people—and investment into equipment so they could go out and do their job.

I was worried about the commitment that the incoming Government had in terms of continual investment into our defence forces because during that campaign, the finance spokesperson, Grant Robertson, came out when asked where they would make cuts—because at that stage, they were being challenged by the Hon Steven Joyce around the fiscal hole, which now he’s proven to be right about—and said, “We’ll be making cuts in defence.” So when you have the incoming finance Minister saying publicly that they were going to look at defence to make cuts, that of course rang warning bells for us—and certainly for me, specifically, because I hold the portfolio. Of course, I started pouring enormous amounts of pressure on Ron Mark, as the incoming Minister, and also Labour, as the incoming leader of the Government. So I’ve been very pleased to see that the Hon Ron Mark has continued to be able to retain the investment. I’m not happy in the reviews that he’s undertaken, because we do see that as kicking the can down the road and delaying that investment, but we’re pleased to see that they’ve maintained the investment.

The point that we made when this Budget was released—and it was released as the Wellbeing Budget, and the leadership team, led by the Prime Minister, went all around the world and they told everyone that this was going to be a special wellbeing Budget, something that no country had ever done, something that had never been seen in the world before. They laid out five priorities—five priorities—that were going to be focused on in this Wellbeing Budget. The five priorities were—the Hon Willie Jackson will know them. I don’t know if he wants to tell us, but I’ll repeat them. They are: taking mental health seriously, improving child wellbeing, supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations, building a productive nation, and transforming the economy.

So when the Budget came out—and I think one of the members highlighted the investment into education—we saw that there was a $20 billion - plus investment into defence. That didn’t line up with their five priorities in a wellbeing Budget, and, actually, I think that’s why they’ve come under enormous pressure from their own membership, because they weren’t expecting that. We were happy to see that investment continue to go into defence. In fact, we’d been applying pressure to this Government for the last 18 months to ensure that that continued to happen. So I wanted to clear that up, that little misconception that for some reason the National Party doesn’t support defence. We do and we always will. We’re proud of the work that they do; we’ve got the best defence force in the world.

We’ve just had an announcement about a drawdown in Taji. I personally think that we’re making the wrong decision there. If it’s aligned with our partners, we have no choice; we’re not a big enough defence force to be able to stand up an operation ourselves that’s sustainable in Iraq in support of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people. However, history shows that we go in there—we’ve done a very good job of defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They’ve done a very good job of dismantling the caliphates that were in Syria and Iraq. If we leave too soon, history shows that a vacuum is formed and it’s very quickly filled by groups like ISIS again. I hope that I’m proven wrong, but I just feel that a June 2020 time frame is way too ambitious, in terms of being able to retain the gains that we’ve made and the commitment that we’ve made in the past years, led by our outstanding New Zealand Defence Force personnel and our Anzac-type mission that we’re running with the Australians in Taji and in Baghdad, Iraq.

The other thing that I wanted to say, just in relation to the defence portfolio, is why are they doing a sole source? It’s apparent they are, looking at the announcement and the questions that were asked in the House to the Minister today. As an incoming National Government, we made enormous investment into our Ministry of Defence around procurement because we inherited some very poor decisions that were made under the previous Labour Government, in terms of the procurement of equipment. We identified that, actually, we needed to invest into our capability inside the ministry, and we did that. The incoming Minister had an audit done; the audit showed that we’ve got a world-class procurement system. Why aren’t we using it? Why are we going to a sole source? Why aren’t we making sure that we maintain a competitive tension inside that process so that as a country, as a small nation—where, actually, every dollar counts—we’re getting the best possible deal that we can? Instead of been wedded to—and this was already signalled by the Minister back in 2016 when he was in Opposition, that they’re going to go for a C130J Hercules, when we’ve got world-leading technology in systems like the Embraer, or even the Japanese C-2 aircraft which they’ve invested heavily into.

Now, I don’t know if they would ever meet the standard or the requirements that we have, but we’ll never get to find out, because we’re not going through a proper procurement system. In actual fact, it diminishes us in the eyes of the companies and the countries that are trying to work with us because they’ve already invested quite a bit, in terms of bringing aircraft here and engagement with us and a willingness to engage. We’ve now come out and said, “No, we’re going to go through a sole source process.” It’s not right.

The other thing that I would mention is that we committed a lot of time, on this side of the House, the Opposition, in fighting a capital gains tax and the introduction of a capital gains tax on Kiwis. I think that, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you support, most Kiwis would accept that a Labour Government comes in and they borrow more, they tax more, they spend more. The economy generally slows down, and I’ll give you an example of that: when the global economy last went into recession back in 2008-2009, the Labour Government had already put New Zealand into recession 18 months ahead of everyone else. We’re heading down the same track. We keep being reminded about the situation that’s happening globally. At the moment, we’ve gone from an economy they inherited with 4-plus percent growth; they’ve managed to stall it back to 2.5 percent or less in less than 18 months. So they have got us on the same track.

So we managed to deal to the capital gains tax but, of course, we knew what was coming. What’s come? We’ve got the fuel excise tax, times three, we’ve got the regional fuel tax, we got GST on online goods, we’ve got brightline extension, we’ve got ring-fencing of losses, we’ve got GST on mobile roaming, we’ve got WorkSafe levies, we’ve got a tourist tax. When we came into urgency—and, of course, we sat through the weekend; that’s fine, it was a long weekend—most Kiwis weren’t the slightest bit interested in what was happening in Parliament. They were more interested in getting away with their families and enjoying the long weekend. Meanwhile, the Government was busily beavering away here passing bills through urgency, so that when people woke up the next morning they were going to be taxed more. They were going to have more money taken out of their back pockets. That’s the reality of it.

One last point on justice—unfortunately, I’m running out of time. We haven’t seen any major investment in the justice portfolio; we haven’t seen any reforms come to this House. We were told by the incoming Government—there were some very big bold speeches and statements made—that this was going to be the biggest reformist Government in a generation in relation to our criminal justice system. We had the massive summit with huge cost blowouts that they ran. We’ve just had a report that’s come back from the advisory group. I want to acknowledge the advisory group; there are some very good people on there that I admire a lot, and they’ve come and they’ve met with us and they’ve taken the time with our caucus. I have to say, though, the report doesn’t tell us anything that we didn’t already know. These are issues that, as a country, we’ve been dealing with for decades and will continue to be a big challenge for us. We just have to get stuck in and come up with solutions.

I’m pleased that on this side of the House we’ve got some real solutions. We’re doing some heavy lifting around our policy work that we’ll bring to the country next year for the election in 2020. But, sadly, we didn’t see any reforms, we didn’t see any investment, we haven’t seen any changes. In fact, the only policies that have been held on to and that haven’t been given additional investment were the ones that the National Party brought in our last term of Government. A very disappointing Budget by a Government that’s not delivering on its promises.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk about the most anticipated Budget in 10 years. Here it is: the first wellbeing Budget, a first for the world.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. As I travel the country and people talk to me about our Prime Minister, one word that comes through is the word “genuine”. That she is a genuine person and that she understands people. She particularly understands people who may have had a hard time and who need some support. One of the key aspects here is around mental health, and I’ll get back to that in a second but I first need to acknowledge the previous speaker, Mark Mitchell.

Generally, Mr Mitchell makes sense but today I wasn’t quite so sure, because he spoke about that in 2008 the previous Labour Government left the books in a mess. Well, the previous Labour Government—nine years of surpluses paid down net debt to almost zero; started the Superannuation Fund, now worth $40 billion; started KiwiSaver, now worth $35 billion. In fact, the previous Labour Government had the books in such good shape that when the global financial crisis came, the National Government were able to borrow, and they borrowed around $60 to $80 billion to get through those challenging times, but that was because the Labour Government left things in a good state.

I’d like to talk about rail. We have a wonderful network here in New Zealand—a wonderful rail network. It’s been built by generations of New Zealanders. It’s a fantastic resource that we have. This resource has not been utilised over the past few years and I am proud that this Government is starting to make the first step towards utilising that wonderful resource that we have. We’re investing $1 billion in this Budget on rail, and $300 million on regional rail. That $300 million, particularly, comes from the Provincial Growth Fund and I’d like to acknowledge our colleagues in New Zealand First for the work that they do there. That’s $300 million on regional rail. Now, the member opposite, Lawrence Yule, former Hastings mayor, he’s excited about the regional rail because they’ve got rail right through the Hastings region. One of my colleagues, Tim van de Molen, he’s excited about the rail heading up to Auckland, the passenger rail.

We need a diverse transport system—a diverse system that caters for road, rail, and coastal shipping. This is the first step towards moving towards a diverse, balanced transport network, and that’s what we need in New Zealand. The previous Government built a lot of roads and we do need roads, we acknowledge that, but we also need rail and we will move towards coastal shipping as time goes on.

One of the key things about passenger rail is productivity, so when you’re sitting on a train and you’re sitting next to a table you can open your laptop and you can start working; you can be productive. You get certainty of arrival time, particularly with the rail that will be launching next year between Hamilton and Auckland. You don’t have certainty of arrival time when you’re in a car travelling up to Auckland; you hit the Southern Motorway and you’re not really sure how long it’s going to take. So people in the Waikato region are particularly excited about that. That’s the first one—rail.

The second one I’d like to touch on is education. People know I’m a former schoolteacher, in education—certainly something that’s very dear to my heart. We have allocated $1.2 billion for classrooms; the biggest spend in a decade on classrooms. Now, one of the key messages that I receive from principals, particularly the growth areas like, for example, the Waikato region, is that the funding for new classrooms has not kept up with the demand. But we’ve heard that and we’re committed to addressing that. We’ve got a 10-year growth plan, which will be coming soon—it’s just passing through Cabinet—and that will provide certainty for those schools. Previously, there’s been a three-year plan, and it’s sort of been a little bit haphazard at times. But this will give those principals and those schools certainty in those growth areas. We’re also removing school donations for decile 1 to 7 schools, and we’re investing in special education. Now, we acknowledge that there are a number of challenges in special education, and we are working hard to address those because teachers need that support, and we’re investing in that area.

I did touch on mental health, and mental health is, probably, the centrepiece of this Budget around wellbeing; $1.9 billion for mental health, and that allows for access for free mental health services, and not just for those people who are living urban but for those who are living rural as well. The mental health of our nation is of utmost importance, and I’m proud of this Budget.

JO LUXTON (Labour): I’m absolutely thrilled to stand here and take a call in the House this evening to talk about this Wellbeing Budget—the first wellbeing Budget that we are seeing in New Zealand, and the first wellbeing Budget that we are seeing throughout the world. We had a member opposite mention before about the fact that this wasn’t the first wellbeing Budget, because the previous Government thought about people when they developed—

Kieran McAnulty: They thought about it a lot—did nothing.

JO LUXTON: Apparently, they did. They talk up about how good the economy was under them—under the previous Government, it was going great guns. But at whose expense? At whose expense was this so-called economy going at great guns? We had growing numbers of homelessness. We had children living in cars. We had children living in poverty. We had hospitals falling into disrepair around our ears. Our schools were falling into disrepair. We didn’t have teachers coming into the profession. We certainly didn’t have mental health workers coming into the profession, and what we saw was the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Well, if that is their definition of a wellbeing Budget, that apparently the previous Government has delivered, well, they should be ashamed of themselves—ashamed of themselves.

This Wellbeing Budget, it puts people at the centre. We had a previous speaker the Hon Amy Adams call this a botched Budget that does nothing for the wellbeing of New Zealanders. Well, I challenge that member and say taking mental health seriously, improving child wellbeing, supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations, building a productive nation, and transforming the economy—how does that not do anything for the wellbeing of New Zealanders, I ask that member? This Budget looks long term and intergenerational to make change for generations to come. It thinks beyond the three-year parliamentary cycle, unlike what we have seen in the past.

I debated what to talk about in my contribution today, and there’s so much to talk about, so many good initiatives in this Budget. But the one thing that transcends everything, in my view, is the amount of money that is going to be put into mental health: $1.9 billion. Outstanding—the most we’ve seen spent in the mental health space in many, many years. Mental health has the biggest impact on everybody. It affects our day-to-day happiness, it affects our productivity in the workplace, it affects our personal relationships, it affects our social relationships, it affects and impacts on everything people do, every day. It affects, in fact, our quality of life.

We’ve heard the word “transformational” talked about a lot, and this Government will be a transformational Government. We hear members opposite saying, “Oh, you know, it’s not going to be transformative.”, but, actually, our people that need and use the services in mental health—the services that are going to be new services, new initiatives—this will be transformational for them and their families and their children. This will help to transform their lives.

In the area where I live, in Ashburton in particular, the amount of money that is going to be put into mental health towards new initiatives is going to go a long way. We’ve seen mental health suffer with the M. bovis issues that have been predominant in the Ashburton electorate. We have horrendous youth mental health issues, and one of the things that this Budget is going to work towards is increasing the number of staff working in the mental health space, so when someone goes to the GP, there will be a mental health worker on site, because that is something that has been missing for such a long time. People that go to their GP and get given a referral to have an appointment with a mental health worker—they may be ashamed, they may be embarrassed, and they don’t end up going, because they feel alone. Well, with this initiative, they will visit the GP, and their GP will physically walk them down to the mental health worker, and that will be transformational.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to be talking on this Budget. The year of delivery—well, I think we’re going to find the word “wellbeing” a very overused word in time, because I just don’t think that this Budget actually delivers on what it says is wellbeing. I don’t think most people understand what that nice, cuddly word means—“wellbeing”. But, even if you did have a warm glow from that, I don’t think that this Budget actually delivers on that. The issue around trying to strive for better outcomes and deliver better outcomes—I just think that this is a Government that’s failing to deliver on its promises.

The reason I say that is that I do acknowledge there are a couple of good things in the Budget. The first one, as the previous member Jo Luxton spoke about, is around mental health, and it’s a substantial amount of money. Everyone in this House wanted to see something happen around mental health. But the issue, I’d have to say to you, is that a year and a half—in October 2017, all the consultation had been done, the money was in the books, and yet this Government chose to be political about mental health and wait 18 months before it actually came out with something. It’s the lost 18 months that is the worry about what’s gone on, purely for political grounds. The other thing is, I think the issue around looking after our more vulnerable members, around how their benefits are going to be calculated in future—good thing. But it does come with a financial cost. That, I think, were two of the good things about this Budget.

But the worrying thing about this, the worrying thing about what this Government’s doing at the moment, is that it is overseeing a dramatic decline in economic activity in this whole economy. What we’ve seen is, in the last three years when the National Government was in power, we averaged a growth rate of 3.3 percent. Now we have, as a result of the policies that that coalition, and particularly the Labour and New Zealand First members, have gone about doing, is that we’ve now got an economy that’s close to 2 percent. Many people will say, “Well, it’s only 1.3 percent. What does it matter?” What it means is that when you’ve got a $300 billion economy, that means, as a result of poor decision making, ill-advisable comments, and money being wasted in areas that people see little benefit—and then you overlay that with a whole lot of issues like let’s think about doing a capital gains tax, let’s look at changing all the labour laws, all those sort of things—naturally, people have got concerned.

All those worrying things that have been talked about and those new things that have been put in place have made people very uncomfortable. Particularly, it’s the business owners that have been affected. People say, “Well, that’s only the rich.” Well, it’s not, actually. It’s the 530,000 businesses we have in New Zealand, most of whom—the vast majority—are owned by husbands and wives who live all across this country and employ lots and lots of New Zealanders. It’s their business, what they are noticing right now—it is that small decline, fewer people coming through the door, ordering the coffee in the morning or just ordering the new piece of equipment that might’ve otherwise been going to go to their factory but they’ve now put it on hold. That slow decline; it’s only 1.3 percent but it represents, across New Zealand, a $3 billion decline in economic activity.

What it means—more worrying for this Government—is that it’s lost a billion bucks in tax revenue. It’s lost a billion bucks of tax revenue that Treasury 18 months ago was saying “You should be expecting to get this money.”, and, of course, Grant Robertson went out spending like crazy. That’s why we saw, before the Budget—he went to every Minister and said “You need a 1 percent decline in your budget.”, because that was Grant worrying about what was going on. That is why this Budget actually hasn’t allowed them to spend what they want to spend. They may talk about a new school-building project of a million-whatever dollars—actually, it’s little changed from when we were in power. Actually, those figures are not—health is down, all those sorts of things.

But even if you accept that, the other thing that’s showing why Grant Robertson is failing as the finance Minister is the rubber hits the road around debt. If you look at the Budget forecast in the so-called Wellbeing Budget, if you look at page 134, current debt is $60 billion—$60 billion. Under the projected arrangements, that is going to blow out by another $8 billion to $10 billion, whether you look at it on a net or gross debt level. This Government is talking a good shop, and Grant Robertson’s saying “Look, we’ve got debt under control. We’re keeping it at 20 percent.”, and the numbers are fine in terms of percentages—it’s roughly around 20 percent—but when you’ve got a growing economy, what Grant’s doing, what the Minister’s doing, is growing debt in real terms. He is taking on another $10 billion worth of debt. Ten billion dollars’ worth of debt, even at low Government interest rates, is a substantial increase in not only the interest you have to pay on it but also what you have to do in terms of repayment.

This is a Minister that is gearing up, indebting this nation, as he continues on a spending path while at the same time overseeing a gradual decline in economic activity. I think that is the most worrying thing about this Budget. That this was a Minister, when he was in Opposition, who used to say to our Minister of Finance, Mr Bill English—now Sir Bill—all the time, “You know, you’re growing debt.” Then we talked about per capita debt and all that sort of stuff—when the Minister comes to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we talk about the net debt growing, I’m sure he’ll be saying, “Oh, it’s all about per capita debt, and there’s no change.”

This is a Government that’s going to put $10 billion of extra debt on this nation and at the same time spend three billion bucks to the Hon Shane Jones, spending up large around the country, another billion that he gave Winston Peters on foreign affairs, and what more? We’ve got another billion bucks in this Budget—another billion bucks—that’s just gone to KiwiRail, which we know will go to Northland. There’s five billion bucks out of the $10 billion of additional spending. Is it good-quality spend? I’d have to say to you I don’t think it is.

I don’t disagree with some of the principles of what they’re trying to achieve, but to spend five billion bucks when you could’ve spent it on some of the more important things, like increasing the budget for Pharmac, not by $40 million but actually giving it a decent dose so we can actually bring about and introduce more life-saving drugs into New Zealand—those are the types of things I would’ve liked to have seen in this Budget, and you’d hardly say that it’s a transformational Budget on that basis.

What is in here for the ordinary New Zealander? Yesterday, I held a public meeting in Beachlands. I had probably a hundred people, and one of the things I was saying to them was the issue around what this means for ordinary New Zealanders. I think the only thing you can point to is to say that for school donations, there’s $150 that parents are not going to have to write a cheque out or provide that cash for, but, of course, that excludes decile 7, 8, and 9 schools, so those people, those vulnerable people, those vulnerable children that go to those higher-decile schools, they will still be in this zone where their parents will have to write out a cheque. That’s not looking after the vulnerable and needy in New Zealand. I think that’s a travesty, that this Budget hasn’t focused on the most vulnerable.

It is a difficult role for Mr Robertson because he’s overseen such a decline in this economy, and that’s constrained him and he’s had to make hard choices, but I don’t think the choices he’s made are good for New Zealanders. This is not a Budget for New Zealanders; this is a Budget for one or two people, and I just don’t think that we’re getting the fairness and equity that everyone in the Government likes to talk about. What I think we’ve actually got is we’ve got a Government that wants to tax more, wants to borrow more, and wants to spend more. It’s interesting that the very first thing we did after the Budget, in urgency, without the scrutiny of a select committee, was to pass two new tax bills: one relating to the tourism tax, another one as a fuel tax imposed on all New Zealanders across New Zealand. Why are we passing additional tax bills if we’re doing a wellbeing Budget?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Budget 2019. Well, that was a brilliant analysis from the speaker before me, Andrew Bayly. He basically said it comes with a financial cost. Now, obviously, sustainably growing our economy is important; we completely agree with that, but so is the health of our people, the health of our communities and the environment. We’ve heard a lot of criticism from the Opposition, and that is obviously their job, but they shouldn’t really confuse people with their messaging. Now, David Seymour was actually the one who said there’s nothing new in this Budget. That was misquoted by the Hon Louise Upston. It wasn’t a Labour MP; it was actually one of their own Opposition members who said that there’s nothing new in this Wellbeing Budget.

But I think it’s all been very negative, and I’d like to just bring it back to a little bit of positivity and just bring us up again, talking about these record investments that we’re seeing in this Budget. For example, if we look at the record investment that we’ve made in education—my colleague Jamie Strange mentioned it already. This is for the first time ever that we are seeing a multi-year commitment to building our new classes and our new schools. This Budget provides a $1.2 billion funding in a 10-year school programme, taking away the uncertainty of future Budgets so that people actually know what is coming and don’t have to be thinking of what they might be facing. So that’s in contrast with what a traditional Budget would do, and that is one of the new things that we’re doing here. So this is actually the largest-ever investment that is made by a New Zealand Government.

The other record investment that we’ve seen that people have mentioned is about health. This is starting the process of rebuilding the neglected area of mental health. We know that many New Zealanders are affected by this, and, in fact, on a recent survey I ran in the electorate that I’m based in, in Rodney, health and mental health was the number one concern for people in an electorate that most people maybe don’t associate with people that need the help.

What this Budget does is it actually expresses the values of our coalition Government, and we’re showing that there’s a different way of dealing with the issues, a different way for the Government to work and address the wellbeing of our people. So instead of having a Budget that focuses on a very limited set of economic data such as GDP, we are actually measuring success in a very different way, in line with our values, in line with fairness, protection of our environment, and also in line with the strength of our communities.

Coming back to the GDP growth, we’ve heard the National Party talk a lot about the GDP growth, but how can you ever make a claim to having a rock star economy when, actually, under that economy, we’ve seen that things like child wellbeing, homelessness, and the ability to swim in rivers and lakes have absolutely gotten worse over the years.

What the National Party, in their speeches, have done is they have conveniently forgotten that under their watch a decreasing share of the economy has gone to working people. Louise Upston mentioned families and children relying on benefits. Well, actually, what the National Party never talks about is that the changes they made over successive Governments to employment legislation have created the working poor. These are not children in families that are relying on benefits; these are children in families where mum and dad are holding two or three jobs, still doing it tough, and still not being able to make ends meet. So these households are struggling, and this is what we’re saying. You cannot rely on GDP as a measure of success when you’re seeing children in households where mum and dad are holding multiple jobs still not being able to be looked after properly.

So this Budget is doing things differently. It’s starting a whole programme of change. We are ensuring our young people are well equipped with the skills they need to go into the workplace and people are equipped with the skills that they need to cope with any changes in the future. We are looking ahead. In the Budget—as my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson before spoke about—we’re doing Mana in Mahi, so we are actually increasing the jobs by 2,000, getting young people off benefits into meaningful work, and that is actually on a way to creating 4,000 jobs. Now, everybody will agree there’s more that we need to be doing, but this is just the first start.

I’d like to finish with my favourite line in the Hon Grant Robertson speech, and that is, 51 years after Robert Kennedy’s speech on the limits of GDP, “we begin through this Budget to value and [to] measure all that makes life worthwhile in New Zealand.” This Budget is showing that our Government is looking ahead 30 years, not three.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Liz Craig, you have five minutes. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is a Budget to be proud of, and it’s going to make a huge difference to many, many people’s lives. I just want to think back to the inquiry into mental health and addiction. The panel travelled through the country last year, and they heard many, many stories from many people. They heard from people that were grappling with their own mental health and addiction challenges, they heard from families bereaved by suicide, and they also heard from workers in our mental health system, working with really, really stretched conditions, and also those in our community trying to hold things together. What they heard was that our current system is just not working and that people are not getting the services that they need. They heard about young people falling through the gaps, and, even with people when they got services, they actually didn’t meet their needs. So this is why this Budget is making mental health a top priority and we’re investing $1.9 billion in a mental health package so that we can get on and start implementing many of those recommendations that the inquiry put forward that we should be doing.

One of the key planks to this is looking at these new front-line services that we’re putting into doctors clinics and also many other health services in our community. What that will mean is that those with mild to moderate needs, particularly, can turn up to their GP and get put in touch with a key mental health worker. What that mental health worker will do is navigate that often difficult pathway to accessing the services they need. For some of those people, it may just be a few sessions with that mental health worker and to be able to develop some strategies and think through where they can go. But, for others, they might need long-term support or even referral to specialist services. So what that person will do—the mental health support worker—will be walk alongside them on their journey, and that’s going to be really, really important.

What we’ve got is those challenges with the current workforce capacity, and so what will happen is these services will be rolled out over five years. But the Budget puts aside significant investment so that we can train that workforce and also make sure we’ve got the facilities that we need so that those services can be rolled out.

One of the other things that the package does is it puts significant investments into suicide prevention, and, certainly, this is an area of significant unmet need in my own community and around the country. The Ministry of Health is working on a suicide prevention strategy, but what Budget 2019 does is it puts an extra $40 million over four years into suicide prevention services so that those at most risk can actually access the support they need.

The other things we are looking at investing in are extra resource into telephone counselling and also internet-based supports so that people have got the flexibility of accessing services and support how they need them. For many people, this may mean that they can actually get that support without even leaving home, which is really important.

The other thing, for young people in particular, is what we’re doing is extending nurses in schools. Currently, it’s in up to decile 1 to 4 high schools, but what we’re doing is extending it up to decile 5 high schools, and that means an extra 5,600 students have got access to a health professional in their school that they can go and talk to, and that can serve as an entry point if they need it into other services for them, which is really critically important.

So there are a lot of things that we’re doing in addressing unmet need in mental health, and we really, really need to do that, but one of the other areas of significant investment in health is in our ageing health infrastructure—our hospitals, our facilities—where we’ve had almost a decade of neglect, and we’ve got, you know, the legacy of their mouldy hospitals and rundown and earthquake-prone buildings, and we haven’t actually gone along and addressed them. So there’s a lot of money put aside there—$1.7 billion over the next two years—to make significant investments in rebuilding and refurbishing our hospital buildings, and that will make a huge difference to many people working in those facilities and to patients as they come in.

So, basically, what this Budget does is it’s starting to tackle some of those huge long-term challenges in our mental health services and our health infrastructure. But it also does a lot of other things. So we’ve got investments into rheumatic fever, which is critically important for children in terms of the lifelong impact that can have. We’ve got rebuilding our classrooms and our schools. We’ve got other significant investments to address family violence. We’re looking at making a lot of changes that will positively impact families reliant on benefits. So this is a significant milestone Budget, and I’m proud to commend it to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I want to commend the last two speakers, Marja Lubeck and Liz Craig. Neither of them blamed the previous Government for everything that’s wrong in the country—very unusual.

There are two things in my experience in public life which inevitably lead to one losing an argument, and that’s abuse and mistruth. There’s no need to abuse or accuse to prove a point, and in this House we see too much of it. I’m referring, of course, to the issues around the Budget hack. What a farce for the Government, but, more so, what a farce for Treasury to think that when their website had been visited 2,000 times, they were under pressure from an anonymous hacker. I would be extremely disappointed, if I was Treasury, to think that only that number of people were interested in me. Frankly, it proves the Treasury, really, have little value to us.

Anyway, I’m also proud of our performance in Opposition. Our role is to hold the Government to account and ensure the integrity of democracy is upheld—a very important role for the Opposition and one that I think we should continue to carry out and be proud we do carry it out. This Budget’s been referred to as a botched Budget, a Budget of broken promises. But I want to deal with what I would refer to as a broken Budget, and my colleague Andrew Bayly touched on that a few moments ago.

That’s the issue that we’ve got in this Budget with a significant lift in Government debt. In fact, across Government the debt is lifting from some $111 million to $130 million-odd in the next year or so, and that’s, plainly, in my view, irresponsible. The issue I want to raise with respect to that though—well, two things, really. One is that as the economy slows, that debt’s likely to increase. The other one is that a fair bit of this debt is being slid into the agencies of Government—in other words, the Housing New Zealand Corporation and things like that. That’s a dangerous practice, in my view, for a Government, because they don’t have direct control over the activities of that debt. I think that is where we see the real risk of increasing Government debt. I’m a little nervous about that. I think it’s a disappointing factor of this Government.

Missing out in this Budget, I think, are teachers, Pharmac, seniors, and early childhood education funding—and more on that later, as I want to talk about that with respect to some rural issues. The surgical waiting list is a big issue for us in New Zealand. I remember some seven or eight years ago, when I first came into this business, it was a big issue for our electorate offices. It’s becoming a big issue for our electorate offices again now. I think that points significantly to either an underspend in health or a misdirection of funds or a direction of funds that’s taken a new track. It is the biggest worry most people have, particularly when they get to my age, when they can’t afford to have those operations that they so desperately need to keep them mobile and keep them moving.

The other victim, I think, of this Budget is all things rural. We don’t want massive handouts in rural New Zealand; we want a hand up for those that need it and some decent policy to enable us to thrive as rural areas. Despite Shane Jones’ $3 billion fund, Infometrics today in its Regional Wellbeing report, effectively, tells us that the Wellbeing Budget is not creating any wellbeing at all for provincial New Zealand. In fact, the self-professed champion of the provinces is anything but. He and his policies are failures. He’s failing to deliver in the year of delivery. Some of the billions will no doubt stick, but as we have seen so often before with what I would refer to as Government subsidies, most of it is frittered away. So it’s somewhat ironic that I want to speak a little later about the tree policy.

Other things that affect rural New Zealand—the midwife situation. I want to point out that for a rural midwife, a large part of their time is spent travelling. That’s just one of the facts of rural New Zealand. We’ve got to deal with that in rural New Zealand. But they get paid the same amount, whether they’re travelling in rural New Zealand or whether they’re sitting in the middle of Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch and have to drive around the corner. That’s another challenge and disadvantage for rural New Zealand.

I want to move on to education now. The report from Infometrics says, particularly about education in rural New Zealand—and, in fact, in my electorate; it points specifically to a part of my electorate—that especially in knowledge and skills, the low level of children attending early childhood education is a significant problem for rural New Zealand. I think that points directly to our rural secondary schools, which are challenged. They are challenged in many ways that urban schools are not challenged, and it is extremely difficult for them. We have young people leaving town to go to school elsewhere because the numbers and the resources available in our small rural or even provincial secondary schools are not adequate to provide the same amount of service and the same opportunity that kids in urban New Zealand get. That is a serious challenge for us, and it, I think, is an issue that we’re going to have to deal with and deal with urgently in rural New Zealand. It received no further assistance in this Budget, and the other issue that it creates in rural children is a lack of aspiration, and that’s big for us. I think that’s what keeps our people in our provincial areas. That’s what keeps people working in our productive sector.

This brings me on to the billion trees project. Sure, it’s a result of the last Budget but it’s received again additional funding in the course of this Budget. There are a few things that I think are causing distortions in this, and I want to make the point right from the start that we’re in favour of the right tree in the right place. I think that goes for the National Party as well. Certainly, there is plenty of room in New Zealand for more trees to be planted, and those trees need to be planted. They create a whole lot of benefit for us. But I want to talk about a couple of things that I think are distorting the market. One is the overseas investment exemptions which have been granted solely to planting trees that for every other sector of landownership in New Zealand, from an overseas investor perspective, is very difficult to attain. Planting trees, you’ve almost got an automatic exemption. That’s creating a distortion in rural land prices which I don’t think is necessary to have. In fact, the market would probably take care of it.

The other one I’m critical of—and I don’t have an answer to it, but the short-term carbon market is a long-term tragedy for New Zealand, more especially if those trees cannot be processed, and many will not be; they’ll sit there for ever. You only need to read the environment commissioner’s report on this matter to understand the challenge that that creates for us. As I said, I’m certainly in favour of more trees, and the trees should be planted in the right place. It’s ironic that as I speak here today, we’ve had also a report out today stating very clearly that our meat and milk receipts are at record levels in New Zealand. Both of those things are threatened by the policies that have been instigated in the last year or so and funded to some extent in this Budget. It is a challenge for us, the environmental factors around some of these things, but we need to find ways and make plans that give us a great future.

I’m very much along the lines of the right tree in the right place; I’m also going to talk briefly about the right train in the right place. I think there is a place for rail in New Zealand, but it’s got to be in the right place. I think some of our decisions around rail are, again, going to distort the transport situation significantly, very much along the same way that we distort—once Government enters any business enterprise in New Zealand, they create distortions. There’s no question that I think the rail in the wrong place is going to create distortions. There are some parts of New Zealand where we certainly need rail, and the boost to it will be welcome; however, it is also a risk for New Zealand, and I think it’s something we should be very cautious of how we deal with.

I want to give the Government a couple of accolades, one around the mental health, because I think that there was certainly a great cause to spend more money in mental health. I think the challenge for the Government is going to be how they spend it and whether that spend gets the result they’re hoping for, because there are some significant challenges in that area. I suspect that some of that investment should be put into resilience of our communities, because that’s where a lot of these mental health issues arise from.

The other area I want to talk briefly about, and I know Mark Mitchell spoke of it a bit earlier, was the contribution to defence. I look at Ōhākea air force base out of my window, and I’m just hoping that there’s still an aeroplane or two for me to look at when I have nowhere else to go but look out the window—and that could happen to be, in the future. But I also think that it is important that we maintain our defence spend in New Zealand, and I think that’s a positive part of this Budget.

The other issue I’m concerned about is the petrol tax, and the reason I’m concerned about it is that if you live in Levin and you think that we’re collecting all this extra petrol tax and it’s heading off to Auckland to pay for some light rail going to the airport, you’re going to be pretty disappointed. As the next couple of roads of national significance are finished leading to Levin, there’s going to be some significant challenges in that area, and that, I think, will disappoint people. The other thing petrol tax does is it impacts on rural New Zealand to a greater extent than anywhere else because, unfortunately, we’ve got so far to travel. That’s one of the factors that happens in rural New Zealand, and it also puts pressure on the poorer families in rural New Zealand. That pretty much concludes my time—

Kieran McAnulty: Oh no!

IAN McKELVIE: —it’s a shame, eh?—but this is a complex Government making some increasingly simple matters very difficult. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I want to commend that last speaker, Ian McKelvie. As I listened to him hold up and congratulate the Government about the focus on mental health in this Budget, as I listened to him recognise the importance of planting more trees, as I listened to him acknowledge the need to tackle some of the challenges that the rural areas and our young children are facing, I thought, “He’s got a conscience and he’s found his voice.”, unlike the rest of his colleagues, who, in the last nine years—year in, year out of those nine years, all we got was tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, to the extent where it fuelled greed in this country.

But what we ended up inheriting from that lot was a decimated system of public sector, where the workforce was beaten, year in, year out—they were too afraid to ask them for anything—where our schools, our hospitals were under-invested and, frankly, could not deliver the services that people in need required, where they refused for nine long years to acknowledge that there was a housing crisis. So that’s the inheritance that we’ve had to pick up from that previous lot, and I want to acknowledge the previous speaker because he, at least, has found his sense of empathy. He, at least, has found the recognition and acknowledgment that this Government is on the right track.

Our first Budget, the foundation Budget, was about addressing the neglect of the nine long years after that last Government. This Government—I stand in immense pride with all of my colleagues here, with the coalition Government, with the support partner. All three parties are united. This is the first wellbeing Budget in New Zealand. In fact, it is the first wellbeing Budget in the whole world. Yes, others have talked about it—yes, others have talked about it. But for the first time ever, we are prioritising wellbeing. We are putting people at centre stage of all of our policies.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister. I want to thank her for her leadership in driving and delivering this Budget on behalf of the coalition Government. You see, when she first took office as Prime Minister, she started demonstrating by word and action that what was required in this nation of ours was leadership that recognises the responsibility—that it was important to be fiscally responsible, that it was important to be responsible stewards of our economy but also to start talking about the values of compassion, aroha, kaitiakitanga.

That’s what our Prime Minister led from the outset. I remember, that first year, as we went out into the community, into the maraes, her voice was, as somebody said to me, “akin to the sweet melody of sparrows in the early morning of a new dawn.” I said, “It’s a real shame that the people feel that but in the House, when you listen to the Opposition, their speeches are akin to the screeching and croaking of vultures.” And that’s what we continue to hear from them time and time and time again. So I want to thank the Prime Minister.

I want to acknowledge also Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance, because this is landmark policy. This is legacy policy. This legacy policy means that the work that we have begun this year will endure into the future. I want to acknowledge Winston Peters, the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of New Zealand First, because, I hate to say it, as the senior member of the House, he’s provided gravitas. He’s provided sound advice and counsel in any which way, and I acknowledge that we would not be here delivering this Wellbeing Budget if it were not for the support of New Zealand First. Similarly, for the Green Party, I think the wonderful support that they have given has enabled all of us to begin anew with laying the strong foundations to begin not only to deliver on the basic day-to-day needs in health and education and housing and support for families with young children but also to lay the foundations to start tackling the long-term challenges that our country faces. As my colleague on the other side nobly made mention of, mental health—the first time ever that mental health has been recognised and we’re taking it seriously. It is long term, but the long-term foundations that we’re laying down for mental health mean that nobody who needs support will be without support after we’ve completed rolling this out.

To be frank, in the Pacific communities, sometimes when we talk about these issues, these issues are swept aside, and for the first time ever I am feeling a sense of confidence in our community that these are things that we should be talking about and that help can be made available to anyone and all peoples who are needing that particular support. So we’ve laid out the priorities for this Wellbeing Budget to make it absolutely clear about the direction that this country needs to head in: taking mental health seriously, with a focus on those under 24 years old, and improving child wellbeing, something where we inherited over 300,000 young people—children—living in poverty after the previous lot had finished. We know children don’t live alone; they live with parents, they live with whānau, they live with aiga, and if these children are not receiving the basics, it means those families are also not receiving the basics. Building a productive nation, looking to the future, restoring the infrastructure that was under-invested in by the previous Government, transforming the economy to look at just transitions so that we’re taking climate change seriously—we’re showing them the “what” and the “how” but, importantly, if people who are still doubters about the reality of climate change need to understand the whys, they need only look to the Pacific to understand why we need to be united in tackling climate change.

Also one of the priorities which I am really especially grateful for, which the Minister of Finance has been very adamant about right from the outset, is improving Māori and Pacific skills, incomes, and opportunities, because for so long—for so long—as Willie Jackson and many others of my colleagues on this side have known, there has been so much need, and in order for us to address those needs, we need, firstly, to acknowledge the value of cultural values: the way that things are done in Māoridom, the way that things are done by the many diverse communities of the Pacific. I think for so long nobody has actually dug a little bit deeper to acknowledge that the world view of Māori and the world view of Pacific is just as important as the world view of others, and so this Wellbeing Budget gives us an opportunity to begin the work now, firstly, to base all of our solutions on Māori values and Pacific values, but it’s Māori-led solutions and Pacific-led solutions, because only Māori and only Pacific can tell what their wellbeing is.

How do you define wellbeing for a Pacific person? The work that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples started last year, in engaging right across the region and picking up, from the young people in particular, and identifying what those goals were—of thriving Pacific languages, of a prosperous community, of a healthy, resilient population, and with a particular focus on the next generation, a generation that I often proudly promote throughout New Zealand and around the Pacific. That generation of 6Bs—the rising Pacific population that this New Zealand country will rely on in the years to come; the rising Pacific population that I’ve referred to as people who are “brown, beautiful, brainy, bilingual, bicultural, and bold”, because they have an interest in what happens to this country, not only to Aotearoa but across the region as well. When that lot is long gone, when we are no longer here, it is that generation that will inherit this country and inherit this region, and they have an interest in knowing what is left for them. They have an interest in knowing that they have every opportunity to prosper in Aotearoa.

One of the fundamental things that the young people told me was the value of languages and culture, and I want to thank the coalition Government for the $20 million that will be invested in establishing a Pacific language unit within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples with specific functions. That’s going to require the ministry working across the board with the Pacific communities of Aotearoa, but it also means that we link up with the Pacific so our languages are valued—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the honourable Minister but your time has expired.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Minister who just resumed his seat, Hon Aupito William Sio, gave some pretty glowing words around the Labour Government’s Budget with regards to the next generation, with care for young people and the generations that are to come in New Zealand, but I don’t see that reflected in this Budget for midwifery and maternity services. I just don’t see it. In the lower half of the South Island, in rural New Zealand—which is a long way away from the city dwellers who inhabit the other side of the House—in those rural places, we are sorely missing support for midwives, and not just the midwives, the support for the mothers and their babies; that very same next generation that the member who has just resumed his seat was so very concerned about.

Now we have the situation in the lower half of the South Island, in the Southern District Health Board area—which, by the way, is where Hon David Clark, Minister of Health resides, lives, holidays, and has his family. It’s within that context that he is, literally, turning a blind eye in practice, and in this Budget, to the needs of the mums and the needs of the babies.

Marja Lubeck: What rubbish.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: What rubbish? See, now, I just quote the member from over the other side of the House, a city-dwelling union representative, now Labour list MP. [Interruption] She just said, in response to my comments around midwife services and support for mums and their babies, “Rubbish.” [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Settle.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Well, here are the facts about those mums and young babies: in Lumsden, their maternity hub has been closed by their Minister of Health to the extent that a young mum had her baby not in a safe environment but on the side of the road in an ambulance—not because she wanted to but because she was some way away from the base hospital in Dunedin. Labour is a very unpredictable thing sometimes, and the baby arrived in an ambulance. If that doesn’t talk of neglect by this current Government and this Minister of Health, I don’t know what does.

But it gets worse than that because, in the Upper Clutha, which is another area of the South Island which is even more remote from good health services, there is no maternity hub. There’s strong population growth, but there is no maternity hub. In fact, there are very few midwives, because they feel so unsupported by this Government, by this Minister of Health, and I’m not seeing any changes in this document, this so-called Wellbeing Budget. I’m not seeing any support in here.

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

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I come fresh from the dinner break and watching One News and the 7 o’clock programme. It was interesting. On that, there was a very brave woman, Kristi James, who is a young woman who lives in Hawea Flat and formed a group calling for more midwifery support for the Upper Clutha a couple of years ago now. I had quite a bit to do with Kristi and her colleagues and their toddlers, who are always very entertaining at a meeting. All Kristi wanted for the Upper Clutha mums—that is, for Hawea Flat and for Wanaka and the Upper Clutha—was decent midwifery services. That’s all she wanted. She didn’t want anything gold-plated; she just wanted somewhere where she knew she could safely have her baby.

Now, Kristi was on the news tonight, and I want to congratulate her and her partner and their beautiful little boy, Makail, for his safe delivery, but it was only just safe because, as so often happens with labour, this one didn’t quite go according to plan. So while Kristi and her partner were meeting with their midwife—one of the very few midwives who are still working in the Upper Clutha, because they are so under pressure—it was discovered that in fact, yes, Kristi was ready right then, right now to have her baby. Having had previously a Caesarean, this wasn’t a great prospect for a young mum, facing right then, right now the prospect of having a baby. Whereabouts? In her midwife’s office.

We can only give thanks that that little baby was very safely born, and by the look of him he’s just a bundle of joy, and I’m sure everybody would agree with that. But where was the wellbeing for that family? Where was the wellbeing not only in this so-called Wellbeing Budget of this year, but Labour is failing to deliver on their promises to the young women of the Upper Clutha. Of course, it’s not just the Upper Clutha. I know that I have a number of colleagues who wish to speak on this aspect of the Budget where rural New Zealand—and, in this case, the mums and the dads and the babies—have been let down. Where was the funding for them?

Of course, the health Minister, David Clark, lives in that area. He holidays in that area. David Clark, the health Minister, made big promises in Opposition. I remember it very, very well. I remember back in 2017 on the campaign trail, David Clark, the then Opposition health spokesperson, railed against the so-called underfunding of health services by our Government. He railed. He got his other candidates to stand up and rail against what they called the underfunding, and yet two Budgets later we have not seen the money promised by that health Minister.

So I want his colleagues to stand up in the House this evening and in the latter parts of this Budget debate and explain to me and explain to my colleagues, particularly those of us in rural areas, and more than that to explain to the dads and to the mums and to the babies, why they have not supported the most vulnerable in our society by supporting maternity services and the midwives. So that’s my challenge to this Government—this wellbeing, transformational Government, who have failed to deliver on their promise to the mums and dads of New Zealand.

I invite them, when they leave this House—and David Parker is sitting across the House; David Parker was the MP for Otago—

Marja Lubeck: Honourable, remember?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —the Hon David Parker—between the years of 2002 and 2005. What did that member do for the mums of the Upper Clutha who were in his electorate at the time? And what is he doing now? I invite the Hon David Parker to get to his feet and tell this House what he is doing for the mums, for the dads, and for the babies of the Upper Clutha, because, of course, this goes a whole lot wider than just the mums and dads. This goes to many, many parts of rural South Island. It is not good enough.

And when the Hon David Parker is finished, I’d like to hear from the Minister of Health. I’d like David Clark to get up and explain to this House why, after two Budgets—two Budgets, one of which is the Wellbeing Budget, or maybe the well-intentioned Budget—Labour is failing to deliver on its promises for health, for the young people, the next generation and their mums and their dads, so that mums like Kristi James, who faced either a 3½ hour trip to Dunedin Hospital or having it on the floor of her midwife’s office, actually had no choice. Is that wellbeing? Is that something that this Government is proud of? Is that what “being kind” means? If that’s wellbeing, well, I can tell that Government that it is not working for rural people in New Zealand.

I just know that colleagues on this side of the House will also give their perspective on how this Government is failing the very vulnerable people in New Zealand. Oh, they are talking the talk. They are very good at talking up this very special Wellbeing Budget. Well, here’s the thing: talk is cheap, but delivering on that talk is what we really need in rural New Zealand. And for two Budgets—two Budgets—they have absolutely failed in that endeavour.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance): Indeed, talk is cheap. The member asked what I did for health services in Otago.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Not much.

Hon DAVID PARKER: She says, “Not much.” Actually, Dunstan Hospital was in a severely degraded state under the prior National Government. The last Labour Government, with some advocacy from the then Minister from Otago, rebuilt Dunstan Hospital. What capital works of any significance have occurred in the Otago, now Waitaki, electorate in the nine years of the last National Government?

Kieran McAnulty: Nothing.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Nothing—nothing. What capital works are proposed under this Budget in respect of the Otago region? A new, billion-dollar hospital for the tertiary facility at Dunedin.

Next month, I will have been in this Parliament for 17 years. I’ve been through a number of Budgets under the last Labour Government, a number through the National-led Government, and now some in this. I can say, hand on heart, that this process has been different. As a Minister in that process, it has been different to any that I have—

Brett Hudson: Oh, nonsense.

Hon DAVID PARKER: He says, “Nonsense.” Well, I’m expressing my personal opinion here, and it was different for me. I’m going to cover a couple of the areas in which it was different. Before doing so, I just want to reflect on when I was speaking to the Trans-Tasman Business Circle in a speech that was largely about economics. It was about the new venture capital fund and also the sustainable land use package that’s in this Budget. They asked me at the end what I thought would be the most transformative part of the Budget, and actually, in truth, it was the bit that they were most interested in. They weren’t so interested in the issues that I was speaking about, although they found them interesting. They were most interested in the mental health, violence, and addiction package. The package that pushes against our problems in mental health, family violence, and properly funds addiction services, or helps fund addiction services is, I believe, the most transformative part of this Budget.

Why is that? It’s because the chief science officers, together with the departmental heads, Ministers, and the Prime Minister, agreed that amongst the priorities for the Budget, we were to take mental health seriously, and that then drove a cross-departmental process that also required all the Ministers with an interest in these things to work together to develop the package. So they put aside their excessive focus on their own departmental priorities and their own ministerial priorities, and they worked to bring a package that crossed all of these ministries, broke down the silos, and delivered what I think will be the biggest lasting effect of this Budget, which is the very significant increase in funding for mental health, violence, and addiction.

I can attest to seeing that happen in respect of that area of policy, but also in respect of the sustainable land use package, the same thing happened there. It was a ministerial grouping that included me, the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, the Minister of Forestry, Shane Jones, the Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage, and the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O’Connor, as well as Nanaia Mahuta.

We came together and we actually agreed that in order to overcome both our climate change challenge and—particularly in this Budget, actually—our water challenge, we had to come up with a package that had three parts to it. It had a package that changed the regulatory settings, because we do need some regulatory change. We need to establish the Climate Commission. We need to strengthen our policy framework around water quality. We needed to do some policy work in respect of waste. So there was a policy part of the package. We needed better information and tools for people who are going to be implementing these changes that we want of society. So we invested in things like improvements to OVERSEER and also to provide assistance to councils to update their plans, and to have better information sets for people to take decisions upon, including information sets that farmers need when they are in farming. Then, the third part of the package was extension services through the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) but also through the private sector in order to enable farmers to implement these changes on-farm through farm environment plans.

Now, we sat around the table and we said, “Well, what are the priorities within there?”, and we agreed as a group of Ministers that, actually, the bulk of that money needed to be spent on the outreach services and that the MPI part of this was actually important because we needed to enable farmers to identify what is the bit of land that’s losing most sediment, what’s the most eroded piece of land that needs to be fenced off from intensive grazing pressure, what is the little stream that needs some riparian planting, and what’s the change in methodology that’s going to make sure that we don’t have excessive nitrate application at a time when the plants can’t absorb the nitrogen and so it’s lost to waterways? So we agreed to that.

We also all agreed that these packages were linked. You can’t have the money for the support for farmers to change if you haven’t got the regulatory underpinnings that require better performance of both regional councils and farmers. By the way, we weren’t just picking on the rural sector. We know that there are sediment problems in respect of subdivisions in urban areas that have been degrading some waterways. So we as a team got around and we agreed our priorities.

Then the amount of money was a bit less than we wanted initially, so we got together and we reprioritised it. We didn’t just argue for our own corner, but we actually came together through this wellbeing framework to actually address what was one of the priorities, which was transitioning, growing, and modernising the New Zealand economy while ensuring a just transition to a low-emissions future, which is one of our five priorities. It also touched on building a productive nation by supporting businesses, and it also touched on Māori aspirations in respect of their development aspirations for underdeveloped Māori land. That’s how the process worked, and I can tell you, from someone who’s been around here for 17 years, that it was different to any other process that I’ve been involved in in respect of Budgets.

The last matter I want to raise is in respect of the venture capital fund that we have created. There’s $300 million, which will be matched by some private sector funding at the rate of probably $1 or $2 per $1 that the Government commits, so there’ll be between half a billion dollars and $1 billion going into early stage venture capital markets. There is a hole in the venture capital cycle at the moment. Early seed, or what is sometimes called angel investment as well, is supported. Later stage financing is also well supported not just from New Zealand but overseas, as evidenced by the fact that Rocket Lab has raised something like $200 million in to that one company in the last year. But there is a gap in respect of early stage series A and series B rounds. This has been well catalogued, and it’s not disputed by anyone, actually, that we have a hole in these capital markets.

Now, we’re in the middle of this technology revolution born of affordable computing power, robotics, sensors, big data in the Internet of Things, and—

Stuart Smith: Big google search.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it’s a lot more than a google search, but if you’ve discovered that, you’ve made more progress than when you spoke last time. But this combination of technologies and the digitalisation of economies is producing real challenges in the Western World that we’re going to have to deal with through the future of work and just transitions as we move towards a low-carbon future. So those are some of the challenging sides of it, but the opportunities lie in these new digital technologies, and we must make sure that New Zealand gets our fair share, or, indeed, more than our fair share, of these opportunities that lie in those technological innovations.

Now, we know that one of the productivity challenges in New Zealand is that we have low per capita capital investment in our productive enterprises. Part of that is caused by excessive investment and bidding up our speculative asset class prices like residential property, but part of it lies in under-investment in the productive sector. So this will assist by having money coming via the New Zealand Superannuation Fund through the Venture Investment Fund to private sector venture capital funds, who will make the investments into these series A and series B capital rounds, which will enable more of our high-growth companies to thrive. Fewer of them will have to sell themselves overseas prematurely for want of capital adequacy in that part of the market in New Zealand. That’s not to say that they shouldn’t sell themselves overseas or be bought out at times. We’re not prohibiting that; we just don’t want that to be caused by inadequacy in that.

Through this, we are on the journey from volume to value. It’s one of the reasons why New Zealand exports are going up after they went down under the last Government. It’s another example of us mobilising capital from speculation to productive investment.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): That speech from David Parker was a sign of this Budget by this Government—it’s a sign of neglect towards rural New Zealand. That’s the difference between the National Party and Labour. In reality, we’re working hard in Opposition to actually get to the grassroots of New Zealand to actually find out what’s going on, compared to this lot here, who have spent the last nine years doing absolutely nothing. They need about $250 million to $300 million worth of working groups, and at the end of the day, Labour has failed. They have failed on all of these promises that they gave to New Zealand during the 2017 election campaign.

The fact that the honourable Minister David Parker—he’s not a bad bloke. He’s from Dunedin, so he’s a good guy. The fact that he had to use his speaking notes—this is a Minister of the Crown who needs his speaking notes because there’s so much spin and branding in the Government. The economy has slowed so sharply, meaning there is, basically, no money left over to go around.

So let’s have a look at this Wellbeing Budget. It’s all about the Wellbeing Budget. In my eyes and to Southland eyes, basically, it’s just a branding exercise. The Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, said that “the purpose of Government spending is to ensure citizens’ health and life satisfaction, and that—not wealth and economic growth—is the metric by which a country’s progress should be measured. GDP alone, she said, ‘does not guarantee improvement to our living standards’ and nor does it ‘take into account who benefits and who is left out.’ … To measure progress towards these goals, New Zealand will use 61 indicators tracking everything from loneliness to trust in government institutions, alongside more traditional issues like water quality.”

Well, what does that mean to a mother who is facing her worst nightmare in the middle of the night in rural Southland, in the back of an ambulance, giving birth to a 10-pound baby? What does wellbeing mean to that mother, when, for the sake of $200,000 or $300,000 per year—to ensure that Lumsden primary birthing unit is maintained? The fact that this wellbeing, well-intentioned Government—the spin Government, I like to call it—was warned time and time again by the community over the last 12 to 14 months that there will be babies born on the side of the road. The community was told, “You’re being confrontational, stop being so emotional. Stop making up irrelevant facts.” The very fact that two mothers within 11 days—this is only a month after the Lumsden Maternity Centre primary birthing unit was shut down by this well-meaning, Wellbeing Budget Government. What does that say to rural people across New Zealand? For the sake of $200,000 or $300,000 dollars to ensure the safety for rural mothers and babies in Southland—it’s not there. “Sorry we’ve spent it all. We’ve spent $3 billion on students. We’ve spent $10 million on vaccinations in Papua New Guinea.”, which is about 33 or 34 Lumsden Maternity Centres per year. For the sake of $200,000 or $300,000 per year to ensure the safety of rural mothers and babies across Southland, what is that saying to them? Rural people across New Zealand are sick of being treated like second-class citizens.

National took office in 2008. The health budget was $12.9 billion. We had the Christchurch earthquake, we had a global financial crisis—we borrowed to keep critical health services going. We borrowed to ensure that the safety of rural New Zealand was maintained. What do you think the “Spray and Walk Away” Government does, despite receiving billions extra in revenue? “Oh, we’ll just shut down a primary birthing unit right in the middle of rural Southland. It will only cost about $200,000 or $300,000 dollars to run. That’s all right.” And what do you think the wellbeing health Minister did when I warned him in early May—three weeks after the maternal hub, which is basically just a room for check-ups, and a room which provides emergency birthing equipment—[Interruption]—listen to them, they’re all going at it—what about wellbeing of rural mothers and babies in Southland?

This Government has failed Amanda McIvor, who gave birth in an ambulance on 26 May. They failed baby Levi, who was a 10-pound boy born on 26 May. They failed the father, Gordon Cowie, who had to follow behind this ambulance, not knowing. The fact that that mother had to leave Lumsden Maternity Centre primary birthing because it didn’t have critical lifesaving equipment—which I warned the health Minister about a month prior. What do you think he did about that warning? Basically, he chucked it in the bin. He said, “You’ve given me no new information. The community’s basically providing facts which aren’t quite true.” Then, the following day, what do you think the well-meaning Prime Minister said about the baby being born in the ambulance on the side of the road? “I’m satisfied they have an excellent standard of care” for maternity units in Southland. The mothers of Southland were told, “Please plan your births better.” Luckily, I don’t have to give birth in my time—obviously, being male—but I know it’s pretty hard to plan your birth. We’re living in 2019, and this Wellbeing Budget Government says to mothers, “Please plan your birth better.” I think this is disgraceful.

The Government members over there are yelling out. I say to them, if they’re so well-meaning and wellbeing, are we going to follow the example of rural Queensland? Five years ago, 40 primary birthing units were shut down—40 primary birthing units in Queensland, Australia, were shut down five years ago. What do you think has happened to the death rate of babies—what do you think?

Hon Members: Gone up.

HAMISH WALKER: It’s gone up from six baby deaths per thousand to 23.5 per thousand, because the Government over there has forced rural mums to give birth on the side of the road while trying to make it to hospital. My question to the Government is: if a baby is born on the side of the road, blood will be on your hands, but what if we follow the unfortunate lesson of Queensland?

What do you think this Government’s done for Māori since taking office? What’s happened in the last two Budgets? It’s absolutely nothing. But to make matters worse, Lumsden Maternity Centre, the district health board, and the Government have gone ahead; they haven’t even consulted iwi. They have not consulted iwi, and in my books that’s a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. So what’s the Government going to do about that now? You’ve basically silenced us, you haven’t consulted iwi—and that is a breach of the Treaty. If you want to look after Māori, you don’t breach the Treaty of Waitangi.

I think it’s incredibly disappointing that in 2019, we’re in a state where rural New Zealanders are being treated like second-class citizens. If the Wellbeing Budget meant so much, why, on the day after a mother is forced to give birth on the side of the road in an ambulance, is the Prime Minister saying to rural mums in Southland, “You need to plan your birth better.” and “We have an excellent standard of care.” Well, if I live in a country where an excellent standard of care is giving birth in an ambulance, I think that’s reasonably sad.

The National Party was formed and founded by farmers—

Dr Duncan Webb: For farmers.

HAMISH WALKER: —for farmers, and that’s why the National Party backs rural New Zealand. The Government MP Dr Duncan Webb is laughing. Duncan, would you be laughing to a rural mother who gave birth on the side of the road—after being warned time and time again? Why is that a funny matter? Rural people are being treated like second-class citizens, and that’s why the National Party backs rural New Zealand. That’s why we have allocated a huge sum of $400,000 to ensure Lumsden Maternity Centre primary birthing unit is reinstated next year, so that we don’t have the awful situation of forcing more rural mothers to give birth on the side of the road.

Three hundred thousand dollars or $400,000—they’ve spent $2.5 billion of new money. They’ve spent over $2 billion on a slow tram down Dominion Road. Guess what percentage of Aucklanders won’t use that tram: 99.5 percent of Aucklanders won’t use that tram. Three billion dollars to try and bribe students to vote for them; yet this year, they’ve realised that’s a failure: “Oh, we’ve had 300 or 400 less students enrolled in tertiary education”—another failure by this Government. Next election, they want to have a cannabis referendum to try and get the youth to come out and vote. Well, I back the youth of New Zealand—they are not that stupid. National will reinstate services at Lumsden Maternity Centre, because we actually value the safety and we’re going to ensure that no more mothers give birth on the side of the road.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the next is a split call. I call Dr Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do you know what? Gee, we’re doing well, you know? We are doing so well. We are a Government which has the reins on the economy firmly in hand. Our growth is good. It’s steady. We’re prepared for the international environment. Our trade Minister negotiated a trade deal—the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement—that has put us in the driver’s seat for international trade. And do you know what? Our unemployment rate is way down: 4 percent—4 percent. Our employment rate is, believe it or not, lower than the popularity rating of the Leader of the Opposition: 4.2 percent; I do find it ironic that it’s the unemployment rate and it’s the Leader of the Opposition all in one breath. You know, there we are aiming for debt below 20 percent by 2021—we’re on track.

I find it astounding—I find it absolutely astounding—that the Opposition reprimand us for looking at things other than GDP. Yes, oh my goodness, there’s 65 other things that might be important—that might be important—about how culturally connected we are, about whether our children learn Te Reo, about whether our people are the victims of sexual and domestic violence. You know what, it’s about time we started measuring how we’re doing on there, because we want to spend New Zealanders’ money wisely.

I’ll tell you one thing I’m heartily sick of: I’m heartily sick of the other side talking about hard-working New Zealanders as if they’re not ordinary people. I’ll tell you about a hard-working New Zealander who came into my office; she brought in three kids, including a whāngai, a young child who she was looking after for another family member.

Now, she’s someone who will absolutely benefit from this Budget. She’s studying, she’s caring for three kids, and she’s working part-time. Her school fees are going to disappear; $150, perhaps, that she won’t have to pay, that’ll go straight to the school from the Ministry of Education. Her minimum wage will go up or has gone up this year. Her little bubs that was asleep in the carry-cot there, she’d have a Best Start payment for that kid. That is addressing poverty. That woman and her partner can now make choices which are better for her, for her partner, for her children, and for her wider whānau, and I’m proud of that. I’m proud of being part of a Government that has looked at a family like that and said, “You know what, there you are caring for our most valuable things, our tamariki, studying hard to try and get ahead and upskill for our modern economy, and filling shelves at the supermarket in the evening.” That New Zealander is gold, and we need to look after them. The fact is that this is a Budget that has done exactly that.

You know what, we have put, yes, an enormous amount of money into health, and mental health in particular. And that’s because, as you heard from Minister Parker, the Cabinet sat down and said “Where is the best dollar spend? What is the biggest impediment to our people doing well, leading the lives that are worthwhile and which they value and which they determine?”, and it’s mental health. Because if you can’t get out of bed in the morning, if you’re suffering from depression or anxiety, whatever it might be, that’s an impediment. We want to help people find the way through that so that they can lead flourishing and rewarding lives.

You know what it’s really about? This Budget is about dignity. It’s about looking at people and giving people back the dignity that the last Government took away, so that the children don’t have to go to school and be ashamed because their parents can’t afford the school fees, or that a woman doesn’t have to feel that she’s begging when she goes to Work and Income and has to disclose the name of her child’s father to get a few more dollars—now, that is an atrocious humiliation, what we needed to do in New Zealand.

You know what? I’m a city slicker. I’m probably more of a city-slicking unionist than Marja Lubeck is; she’s a really great rural MP, if I may say that. She lives way out of the country up north there.

Kieran McAnulty: What do they know?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Not much. But you know what, I was over in Greymouth and when I was at the Paroa pub there, talking to a crowded room about this fantastic Budget, now they loved it. They might love some things that don’t leap to my mind. They were so excited about KiwiRail, a billion dollars to fix up that train wreck that the other side left behind so that they can get their goods to market through the alps. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m absolutely delighted to take a call in this Budget debate. I am so proud of this Government’s Wellbeing Budget. Last week when I too, Dr Webb, was out talking to people around this Budget I heard so many fantastic things, people coming up to me from all walks of life saying “Well done.” People saying, “This is fantastic, you are putting people back at the centre.” They were saying to us as a Government that we are dealing with long-term issues: those around mental health, those issues around family violence, and those issues around child poverty. Those are the issues that matter to the people out there, and they told us that last week.

But the one area that I really am most proud of in this Budget is the work that we are doing to improve child wellbeing. That is so important to the future of this country, if we can make this country a fantastic place to be a child. When I was growing up, it was a wonderful upbringing. We were proud in this country that we felt this country was the best place to be a child in the world. We would spout that and we would talk about that often. There weren’t many instances when I was growing up of seeing people in severe poverty.

But, unfortunately, that has changed over the years. Unfortunately, now we see far, far too many children who are living in terrible, terrible poverty. Just recently I went through and saw—and remember that I was a principal of a decile 1 school—just about four months ago some of the worst poverty that I have ever seen. It was poverty where children were living next door to each other in parked up cars, poverty where there were just shacks, in fact, poverty where children were really struggling to even attend school. Last week, I went back to that same area and I saw hope in the eyes of those whānau and hope in the eyes of those children.

In fact, the particular school that those young children go to, there’s about 50 whānau, 50 families, in this particular area. The particular school where they go to was telling me that they don’t get donations in, or very few; about a thousand dollars of donations. But the families always feel very sad that they can’t pay those donations. They feel guilty. They try really hard to pay. After this Budget—it’s a decile 4 school—that particular school will be getting not the $1,000 they’re getting in now, they will be getting $85,000 towards supporting those children from those families, and supporting those children from poverty. But the families won’t have to feel that guilt and shame any longer. And those families said to me that that made a big difference.

The other area that those parents said to me last week that was making a big difference to them and their children was getting rid of the NCEA fees. They’ve always felt guilty about the fact that they couldn’t pay those fees for their children, and the NCEA, those children or young people were not getting that qualification because they simply couldn’t afford to pay it. From this Budget that is not a problem any longer. Those young people will be getting that qualification and those families will not feel the guilt or the shame about not being able to pay them.

One of the other areas is that we have put in—and I’ve heard my colleague speak about that here before—the increase of funding for early childhood education services, 1.8 percent that is going in to help those. This is the second time—last year and this year—that we have had an increase in that early childhood services funding, the first time in the last decade. So two years in a row this Government has been able to put money into early childhood.

I was talking to the head of our local kindergarten service in Tauranga just over the weekend, and to me he said that increase was great and will help the sector maintain their service. That is a big thing for those people. It might not sound a lot but it will help maintain those services. And he is looking forward to the future work that we are going to be doing in that area of early childhood. He said to me “This is the first time that I have felt hope for the sector in a long time.” I am proud of this Budget. I am proud of what it’s doing for children, and I’m especially proud of what it’s doing for education.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): This was meant to be a wellbeing Budget. We listened and we heard all the hype beforehand and, the supposed hack aside, we waited until the Thursday of the delivery of the Budget. And, you know, for me as a new MP, I’d have to say I was incredibly disappointed all round. And I say that because against the backdrop of significant decline in business confidence and a falling of GDP, we produce a Budget that increases debt by about $20 billion. At the same time, the job growth in New Zealand has gone from 10,000 a month—that’s 10,000 a month, that’s a lot of jobs—we are now minus 4,000 a month.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How many?

LAWRENCE YULE: Minus 4,000. A turn-around of around 16,000 jobs a month in not much less than 18 months.

I was also interested in the Prime Minister’s speech. The Prime Minister is a revered position, and as the leader of this country she chose to go off what I’d call a normal prime ministerial speech, and deliberately did so, and spoke about mental health. Good on her for doing that, and I’ll come back to that in a minute. But what was missing was any plan, any confidence, or any reassurance on the economy of New Zealand, and an export-led growth economy at that.

I acknowledge the Minister David Parker sitting over there, filing his notes. I’m not sure he was here on the day of the Budget. But, that being said, when the Prime Minister speaks, New Zealanders want to see a balance of things. She used her whole speech, largely, on mental health, and I think New Zealand actually deserves better than that and it needs a more all-round approach from this Government.

I actually congratulate the Government for the money that’s being spent on mental health, and I think that, across the Parliament, we accept there’s more that needs to be done. However, that is a lofty goal—$1.9 billion on mental health—and numbers I’ve seen indicate that up to 6,500 people are going to need to be employed to deliver that programme. Now, that’s a lot of people, and they’re not just anybody off the street; these are properly trained people that can help people in some of their darkest hours.

I give the plaudits for the mental health but not in many other places. You see, as we sat in urgency, the first thing we did was put the price of fuel up by 4c a litre this year and next year. Then, not long after that, we considered school donations from deciles 1 to 7. We’re not too worried about 8, 9, and 10, apparently, but 1 to 7—they can choose to have $150 if they don’t charge fees. What came out from—

Hon Tracey Martin: Ask for donations.

LAWRENCE YULE: —Minister Twyford, though, was that—sorry, donations—basically, all of that help to a family was going to be eaten up over the next two years by the extra fuel charges they’re going to pay when they fill their car. So, on one hand, it’s a wellbeing Budget, but the first thing they did, under urgency, was stick the price of fuel up by 4c a litre this year and again next year.

Then, if you look at the delivery model, there was great concern exposed before the last election around housing. We talk about it just about every time in this House at question time, and that’s because the Labour Government, and the Labour Party when they were in Opposition, promised 100,000 KiwiBuild homes. I haven’t seen the most recent figure, but I understand around 86 have been built. Across New Zealand, that particular policy has been a laughing stock.

I then look at really serious issues in my own electorate, which I’ve spoken about in this Parliament before. In Hastings, in the last 12 months, there has been a reduction of 12 Housing New Zealand houses—not an increase; a reduction. This transformational Government—this transformational Government that’s going to sort out all these ills—is on target to deliver five new houses in Hastings in two years in Housing New Zealand. They’ve demolished a whole lot. They’ve sold some. Guess what? That’s exactly what the National Government did as part of the last term. This Government is no different. But what I say in the year of delivery is: how can it be that there are 300 people in my community living in motels and Housing New Zealand can build only five houses in two years?

When I stand here listening to the wellbeing and I hear about mental health, I look across all of that and I say, “Some things are still very wrong here.” I didn’t get a chance in the general debate to talk about sanctions on beneficiaries who wouldn’t identify the father. I’m strongly opposed to that approach. I understand the rationale of the Government and they want to be kind to everybody, but I guarantee we’ll come back into this Parliament in three or four years’ time and there will be an increase in benefits given to people who won’t identify the fathers. Ultimately, what that does is takes away the responsibility, or minimises the responsibility, on those fathers. Fathers have a role to play in the financial support of their children, and every time we undermine this, we simply send the wrong signal.

I now look at the contributions that were made in this Budget and the choices that were made. Good on New Zealand First for managing to extract another billion dollars towards rail, $1.7 billion to aircraft, but when I go back in to my electorate and when I look at the Budget commentary in my own newspapers, it was pretty devoid. Normally, there are two or three pages on the Budget. In my own electorate of Tukituki and in Hawke’s Bay, there was not much over a page. The reason for that is because there was very little in it for the people in Hawke’s Bay—very little. There were a couple of small things but very little.

The commentary I hear when I go out and talk to people is not that there was a brilliant Budget; the commentary is that, actually, a whole lot of choices have been made and we don’t necessarily agree with them. You see, I have spoken previously to KiwiRail executives, to Peter Reidy when he was the CEO, and I have a view—and it’s been espoused to me—that there’s only one railway line in New Zealand, really, that is profitable, and that’s the one from Auckland, Hamilton to Tauranga. All the rest don’t make any money. Maybe there could be one in the middle of the North Island, but it’s marginal. For this Government to come along and say “Aren’t we great? We’ve given a billion dollars.” pays lip service to the fact that the National Government, over nine years, invested over $2 billion in supporting KiwiRail, and even then couldn’t make it work.

Against that backdrop, imagine the disappointment of what I call normal New Zealanders—what Scott Morrison would call quiet Australians; we’ll call them quiet New Zealanders—when they see that a billion dollars has been spent on railway projects, largely to try and win Northland, and $1.7 billion on aircraft, while the increase to Pharmac, against that, is around $40 million over four years. When you raise that with people, they say “How can that be, Lawrence?” And that’s what they’ve said to me.

I ask this Government to actually constantly think of its priorities. There is a growing need in New Zealand for better access to cancer drugs, and there is a view amongst New Zealanders that we’re not doing well enough compared with Australia. So when you invest, effectively, $2.7 billion on large projects—I accept we need some planes; but trains, a billion?—how does that resonate with a quiet New Zealander who wants a fair go for somebody who gets in difficulty with cancer?

If I look at some of the promises that were made by the Labour Party in particular prior to it coming into Government, it promised no new taxes. It’s introduced seven to date. It promised $10-cheaper doctors visits for all. That’s not in the Budget. It promised $20 million for access to lifesaving medicines for New Zealanders with rare disorders. That’s not in the Budget. It also promised no one would be sleeping in cars last winter, and again this winter. Guess what? Some are—some are. It also said it was committed to not housing people in motels, but that’s increased threefold in the same period of time.

If I go into my own electorate—I accept that it’s better if they’re living in a motel than living in a car, but in my electorate alone, if a Government agency can build only five new houses in two years, then what is the Government doing in my city and my district to help wellbeing? The Government is failing to deliver on their promises. For my electorate of Tukituki, it was a hollow experience and we don’t read too much about it.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Look, as I do in many of my contributions in this House, I want to start on a sombre note. The passing of Sir Hekenukumai Puhipi was a significant blow to Māoridom and, indeed, the country. I know that, in particular, Hekenukumai was influential in much of the policy development and also what you’ll find in the Budget around mātauranga Māori, and I want to acknowledge him.

Can I also lament the loss of Dan Bidois’ father very recently. I want to acknowledge that. It’s very difficult losing a parent in your time in the House here, and I want to acknowledge that; also the mother of the Hon Andrew Little. We say in Māori, rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou [salvations to the dead, and we return to the living].

Well, well, well. Mr Yule, I’m sure—he’s quickly forgotten the big smile he had on his face in the recent Budget announcement of Mana in Mahi in Hastings, where the good people of Hastings and the Hawke’s Bay came together with Minister Willie Jackson. He might have been on the front page of the three-page paper! But I do remember Mr Yule sitting there with a big smile, with his community from the Hawke’s Bay, from Hastings in particular, congratulating this Government on their funding and support of young people into work.

Mana in Mahi, I think, is one of those particular kaupapa that you’ll find in this Budget that is aspirational for our young people. It will see our people get off the couch and into the jobs and the training that is required to move our economy in this country. I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister, I want to also acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister and New Zealand First, and, of course, Te Pāti Kākāriki, the Green Party, for their support of the Minister of Finance in a fantastic Budget.

That side of the House don’t really understand, actually, what our country is calling for. They’re looking for a systematic change. The people on that side of the House have only focused on the announcement on Thursday; there were so many big announcements in the build-up to Thursday. The Budget was massive for our people. Sure, on the Thursday of the delivery of the Budget there were some fantastic announcements and I, for one, am really happy for the kaupapa of Whānau Ora. I heard through multiple general debates in this House that this Government didn’t support Whānau Ora, that this Government has done nothing for Whānau Ora—$116 million into Whānau Ora is nothing to turn your nose up at. It is new money; it is on top of the money that was already there for Whānau Ora. What we know is the transformation that that will have on Māori whānau and Pasifika whānau across this country will be monumental. We’re really proud about that. If you factor in the entire Budget, there is so much to be had there for families.

What that side of the House hasn’t mentioned, yet they’re quite happy to support it, is indexing of benefits. That is a massive step for our people to make sure that they have the money to live the life that they deserve. This side of the House took that very seriously. We knew that there needed to be changes, significant changes, in the social welfare area and this was one of those changes that we knew would make a significant difference. Nowhere on the hustings will you hear somebody complaining about that. In fact, the families that I’ve spoken to in my electorate in the past week—

Hon Member: Probably in the National caucus.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Oh possibly, yeah, most likely actually—but what I can say is, last week, in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau, it was well received.

I recall, during Christmas, there was a kaupapa at Ngā Whare Waatea Marae where Whānau Ora were supporting those who didn’t have much during Christmas; they had no food, they had no presents, they couldn’t give tamariki the happiness of Christmas and New Year festivities. They pleaded to this Government to make a change; in particular to me, as the Minister for Whānau Ora. When I saw the lady who ran that particular kaupapa last week, on Wednesday evening, she cried. She gave me a big hug and said “Peeni, you delivered. Thank you very much, you and this Government have delivered for our people.” It’s people like that, who are truly connected in the community, that I take my advice from. Their handshakes, their tears, their hugs, their kind words towards the view of this Government in supporting our people; it truly is magnificent to see and truly humbling.

We delivered $80 million for new commissioning in Whānau Ora, $116 million across that. My colleague the Hon Willie Jackson has already talked about the over $570 million, new money, in targeted Māori assistance. Minister Parker has already mentioned how some of that, in fact a significant proportion of that, will be utilised to unlock Māori land—idle Māori land that has been unproductive. The last Government, actually, thought that only unlocking legislation would do that. We were quite clear, on this side of the House, that there are better ways to do that. That particular announcement is one that excites me, because we know that tribes, as they come into a post-settlement era, we know that community and hapū as they come into a post-settlement era, can actually utilise that money to unlock the potential of their land, and there is so much potential—so much potential in the land, so much potential for those communities and those whānau, wherever they may be.

I want to talk about some of the rural sector, because we’ve heard from that side how that party are the only party that care about rural New Zealand; by farmers, for farmers. You know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? I stand here as the grandson of a former board member of Federated Farmers, and I’m a little bit embarrassed by that, but what I can say are three words: Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). What an amazing opportunity for rural regions right up and down this country. Not only is Mr Yule sitting front row in the announcements in the paper, so too are many of the other MPs right across this country. I recall, even recently, the member Andrew Falloon sat next to my colleague here Jo Luxton and, of course, Minister Jones, with a big smile on his face because he saw the investment that was going into Ashburton and Timaru. He saw that. That wasn’t off the back of the National Party, that was this Government delivering for our people wherever they might be, and that is super exciting for our regions right across the country. In Te Tai Tokerau, the PGF has delivered so many opportunities for growth in that region. We have acknowledged for many years—many, many years—that there has been an under-investment in those regions, and this Budget, once again, delivered to those people.

Mental health—this side of the House has always been quite clear that, actually, one of the biggest mechanisms of productivity in the economy of this country is actually the mental health and wellbeing of the people who work in it. We’ve made a commitment on this side to make sure that mental health is a priority for this country. I’m also proud that a significant proportion of that is to be used for kaupapa Māori. Kaupapa Māori services in mental health—and the Minister of Health has just walked into the House with a big smile on his face hearing that, because he knows that for Māori communities, kaupapa Māori - driven services is what will lift the mental health and wellbeing of those people. You combine that with Whānau Ora, combine that with all of the initiatives that come out of the Wellbeing Budget, and I’m proud to stand on this side of the House and endorse that Budget.

In the final minute and a half of my contribution I want to say this: we’re not complacent on this side. We know that the Budget is certainly a good start, but there is so much more work to be done. In fact, I heard no less than two MPs from the National Party quote my grandfather, and he said “[We] have come too far not to go further, and [we] have done too much not to do more”. On this side of the House we truly believe that we have so much more work to do. The Wellbeing Budget, as the Minister of Finance has already said, is a good start but there is so much more to do.

Minister Parker touched on systematic change. He’s witnessed it in some 17 Budgets during his time here in the House. On that side of the House they’re still focused on the old view of economics and Budget. On this side of the House it’s a new world, it’s a new era, and we’re really excited to be supporting our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister, this entire Government, in the work that we’re doing. The Wellbeing Budget, as the Minister of Finance has already said, is just the start and I look forward to representing this Government in our communities to make sure that even more benefits are felt by our people, wherever they might be in Aotearoa.

In conclusion, it is true: we have come too far not to go further, and we have done too much not to do more. Kia ora tātou.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stand on behalf of disabled people tonight to condemn this Budget for the miserable and miserly Budget that it is. Can anyone else point out one other vote that went backwards in this Budget? Can anyone point out one other vote that went backwards—flush with money—one other vote that went backwards? They picked on the disabled; the disabled vote went backwards. The only vote in this Budget that went backwards: disabled vote, $7 million backwards from what it was last year.

Hon Dr David Clark: Tell the truth.

Dr SHANE RETI: It’s absolutely true, look at your own figures—$7 million less than last year, $1.351 billion compared to $1.344 billion. We know the National Disability Support Network said actually they needed $250 million—$100 million for providers and $150 million for the needs assessment and service coordination (NASC), and they went backwards. Clearly, there must be less disabled people. Really? Clearly, their need must be less. Really? I don’t think so. Certainly, that’s not what we’re hearing from the sector. There is no justification for $7 million less spending in this Budget than last Budget.

Where is this $7 million coming from? Well, we know where some of it’s coming from: the much trumpeted $58 million that went into disability last year. In fact, when I say trumpeted, I mean that literally because, in reply 17179, the Minister wrote to me and said, “Oh, I just want to point out that in Budget 2018, we made an additional $58 million available for disability”. Well done, yes you did. This Budget—$54 million, and decreasing by $2 million to $4 million every year successively. That’s where $4 million of the $7 million disappeared from. It wasn’t continued. Big item last year, nothing this year.

What, then, is going to be the impact of that $7 million across the sector? Well, we know several things. We know that before the Budget, $90 million of cuts needed to be found by the disability sector. When you explore that and when you, sort of, find out where could those cuts come from, and you maybe ask some written questions, you get from Minister Genter something like, “I do not believe the expense of answering this question within six working days can be justified”—really? Reply 17174. Well, maybe it’s different if we say, “Can you tell us where the cuts are coming from?” Reply 17178: “I do not believe that the expense of answering this question within six working days can be justified.” Really? You don’t want to tell the disabled community where their cuts are going to be coming from.

But I can actually tell you where the cuts are coming from, because, in the document disability financial sustainability programme update, that is where the cuts are coming from, and, actually, everyone in this House tonight will be interested to know, in their region, in the people you answer to, where the disability cuts were coming from. The $90 million that the Minister and the ministry were pulling from the disabled budget that help account for the $7 million less; I’ll tell you in each of your regions where the cuts were coming from.

In Northland, in my own region, they were going to cease previously grandparented day programmes. These day programmes are very important. Forget Me Not take in Alzheimer’s patients, keep them during the day, give them a hot lunch—nope, that was going to be removed. If we move to Auckland—what was Auckland going to do? What was their plan to fit this Budget? How did they help take $7 million off the disability budget? Well, here’s what Auckland was going to do: they’re going to not allocate behavioural support to under-five-year-olds. Really? Let’s be very clear what behavioural support is. It improves the life of a person with an intellectual impairment whose behaviour is challenging. That’s what they were going to remove. Let’s also be very clear, very specific—they were going to have no referrals for under-fives unless they were medically fragile—wow. Aucklanders in this room, that’s what your Government was going to do to the disability sector, in writing.

Let’s move further down the island. Waikato: what were your budget cuts going to look like for disability? Well, what Waikato suggested they do to meet the Minister’s objective was that all community clients requiring personal care and who are continent will have a maximum of three hours per week. That’s what you could look forward to if you were disabled in the Waikato, and only those clients presenting with very high risk will be referred to Explore over the next three months. The Hawke’s Bay—yep, you were also targeted. What were you going to have? Well, in your residential arm, all your clients were going to be reviewed as they moved from the child rate to the adult rate, and those who get home management, they were all going to be reviewed as well.

Whanganui—yes, we’ve got some MPs from Whanganui here—tēnā koe, Harete. Let’s see what your team were going to do for the disabled. Shower support—half an hour daily as the standard allocation—wow. Reduce showering time to half an hour. Oh, and by the way, we could potentially make the half-hour the default. While we’re there, why don’t we also remove meal preparation? Let’s do that. Let’s remove meal preparation from all other packages, and offer “prepared meals”. That’s what Whanganui was going to do to meet this Budget.

Moving north to south even further, Taranaki—Taranaki, you are also going to have a consequence of this Budget. For you, it was needs assessment for children with autism under six—needs assessment for children with autism under six; they weren’t going to get referrals for further support, all to find—in fact, it was $90 million they were looking for. In the Waikato, what was it that the cuts were going to be for you? The most effective, and, possibly, easiest strategy for achieving the reduction is to reduce the average size of the allocations made at the entry of a new client. This is because no pre-existing client has expectation or dependence. So before they come into the disability service, before they get their expectations up, set a low bar before they even get there. That was particularly for Hutt and for Tai Rāwhiti, I would add—that was how it was going to be for you.

Although there is one forgiving moment here: the folks at Tai Rāwhiti actually pushed back a bit, and they said, “Oh, this is too harsh. You just can’t do that.” All credit to them, they pushed back against the Minister and said, “We do want to take this opportunity to highlight to you our general concern about the potential impact of Budget constraints and allocation reductions in the Tai Rāwhiti area. As you know, Tai Rāwhiti is a vulnerable community characterised by a young population, with a high proportion of Māori, and higher than average social deprivation.” Well done, Tai Rāwhiti. At least you pushed back against this madness, against what the Budget cuts were going to be for you.

Wairarapa—let’s reduce coordination delegation. Yeah, that makes sense. Wellington—child development services, your team referrals; let’s increase the threshold so that less of them get referred on. Yeah, that’s a good idea. Nelson-Marlborough—let’s review any of your household management plans, so that any over three hours get cut back. Christchurch—Christchurch were quite savage, actually. What shall we do with Christchurch? Well, let’s reduce your support package allocations, let’s reduce your client packages, and let’s put new referrals on a waiting list from now on. Yeah, a caring Government? I don’t think so. Children under a certain age—oh, let’s not give them household management except in extreme circumstances. They also wanted to get into autism. Let’s remove autism spectrum disorder as a condition to receive disability support—wow, really? A caring Government? Let’s also not add foetal alcohol syndrome to the eligibility criteria. Oh my goodness, every region was pinged.

I’ll conclude with Otago-Southland. Otago-Southland said, “Let’s take an hour off every single disability support package. Let’s take an hour off them all, and, actually, for those in residential care, let’s see if we can reduce them by two days per year. Maybe they won’t notice if we take off two days per year.” That’s how this Government was planning to meet the $7 million that they chopped off the disability budget. It was $90 million around about February-March. All the needs assessment and service coordination centres were told: “Reduce by $90 million.” They came up with these suggestions; it was trimmed down to $7 million. The only vote, I would submit, that went backwards. This Government has picked on disabled people because they can’t fight for themselves. Well, this side of the House will fight for disabled people in New Zealand. This side of the House will stand up to them and hold this Government accountable for a miserable and miserly Budget.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Partnership Law Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That the Partnership Law Bill be now read a first time. The Justice Committee has been nominated to consider this bill.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I move, That the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

The primary purpose of this omnibus bill is to give full effect to the policy to expand the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds. This policy would be enacted by the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. The bill will ensure that the intent of the expanded youth justice jurisdiction is applied consistently across all criminal justice processes from 1 July 2019 through changes that are consistent with or consequential to that policy, and ensures urgent interim court orders related to custody, guardianship, or restraint are made in line with intended and established processes which will serve the best interests of the child. Minor legislative errors are also addressed through the bill. The bill makes technical and consequential amendments to 11 Acts and a related set of regulations, including the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017, the Bail Act 2000, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The bill will come into force on 1 July 2019.

I would like to acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee for its thorough consideration of this bill. I also want to acknowledge the shortened select committee time, but the implementation date and original legislation was put in place by the previous Government, so this truncated select committee was required to meet that deadline as set by the previous Government.

The first and most substantial set of changes recommended by the committee is managing the process for related charges for 17-year-olds. From 1 July 2019, 17-year-olds charged with serious offences listed in Schedule 1A of the Oranga Tamariki Act will have these charges transferred to an adult court at first appearance. Schedule 1A comprises a list of offences which carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment or more. There is a technical issue where a 17-year-old has been charged with both a specific serious offence as well as a less serious offence. Often, these charges will be related to the same incident or series of incidents. Therefore, it makes sense for the charges to be heard together, consistent with the standard criminal procedure.

The committee made changes to the bill to ensure that related less serious charges can be heard together with the serious Schedule 1A charge in the adult court. This change keeps the interests of the young person, complainants, and witnesses at the centre of the process. It will also reduce costs by avoiding inefficiencies in the legal system and wasting court time and resources. If this change was not made, there may have been two separate proceedings to deal with alleged offending that occurred at the same time or as part of the same series of events. This could see one proceeding in the adult court for the serious charge and another in the Youth Court for the less serious charge. This would mean that complainants and witnesses may need to give evidence in two separate proceedings related to the same incident. The changes align with broad criminal procedure and allow the court to consider the full context of the alleged offending.

The committee also recommended changes to the bill that specifically provide a definition of related charges, a process to transfer the less serious charge to the adult court so it can be heard together with a related more serious charge, a process to ensure that family group conferences happen at the appropriate time, rules to prioritise the interests of children and other young people who are jointly charged with a young person who is alleged to have committed a Schedule 1A offence, appropriate management of charges where a 17-year-old has different pleas for the Schedule 1A offence and the less serious charges, and a process to ensure that if a 17-year-old is found not guilty of the serious charge, the less serious charge can be transferred back to the Youth Court for resolution. These are necessary changes to the bill. They are consistent with the policy enacted in 2017 and will improve the bill’s workability, taking into account the many different situations that may arise.

The committee recommended two changes related to the transactional provisions of the bill, and these are linked to the related charges matters I’ve just set out. The first transactional change relates to 17-year-olds with proceedings under way in the adult court on 1 July 2019. The change clarifies what happens where further charges are filed against them on or after 1 July 2019 in relation to the same incident or series of incidents. In line with the approach for related charges, the committee recommended that where the new charges are related to the same incident or series of incidents, they are joined to the charges already under way in the adult court.

The second transitional change expands the existing transitional provisions to include 18-year-olds who committed offences as 17-year-olds before 1 July 2019 but the proceedings for that offence have not started until after 1 July 2019. This change is consistent with the existing transitional provisions in the bill. These require that, where possible, 17-year-olds are given the full benefit of the extended youth justice jurisdiction if their proceedings have not started before 1 July 2019, even when their offending happened before that date.

I intend to move technical amendments via Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage. These amendments will further clarify language to improve both the certainty and the workability of the law for related charges. As I outlined in my first reading speech, the bill clarifies the operation of urgent interim orders that may be required in court proceedings under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. The bill also fixes drafting errors in the 2017 changes and a cross-referencing error in the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.

This bill ensures that the expansion of the youth justice jurisdiction to include most 17-year-olds is implemented effectively and efficiently. This bill will support the judiciary, the New Zealand Police, and other key stakeholders to treat 17-year-olds consistently through all parts of the youth justice jurisdiction. The changes made to the bill following the select committee’s consideration further support these objectives, and I thank them again. I commend the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill to the House.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you. I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill, and at the outset, I want to indicate that from National, we will be supporting this bill. Firstly, we want to commend the Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, for the work that she has conducted in regards to continuing on the work previously under the Hon Anne Tolley as well. As she has rightly indicated, it’s a work that was much needed. It was a transformation of the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act and hence on to the Oranga Tamariki Act as well.

I can remember being in the meetings at the Dingle trust over in Dilworth where a number of young people talked about extending the age of care but also the age within the youth jurisdiction and in the youth justice jurisdiction and the importance of that to include 17-year-olds up until the age of 18. So it’s been consistent in that process. As we did previously, we’ve extended the age of care up through from 17 to 18, and it was only right that we also then extend that age threshold up to the age of 18 in youth justice as well. So this bill is consistent with, though, that intent, and that’s critically important.

The key aspect of this bill is to tighten up the legislation, particularly around the procedures and processes relating to 17-year-olds within this youth justice jurisdiction. As I indicated previously, under a National-led Government, it transformed the outlook for children, and that was quite critically important, as we’ve heard as well. Many of the children talked about the need to still have support in that process of transition, and we’ll talk a bit more about that transition process as well. Also too, it’s finishing off the work to be completed by 1 July, as the Minister has indicated.

The purpose of the changes in 2017, obviously, was to ensure vulnerable children and young people have the best chance to have a safe, stable, and loving home, which will help them grow into successful, independent adults. I think that’s critically important. So while the changes and amendments are technical, the underlying principle is that we want them to have that stability. I know, previously, when we’ve had the expert advisory panel and when they talked about this, one of the critical issues under Whakarongo Mai and that the rangatahi that had been through this process, both in care and in youth justice, actually talked about was having a stable process to help transition them through their life journey. I think this is critically important, and we mustn’t forget that, as well.

A majority of the reforms of the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act under the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill do come into force and include related charges for those 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction.

I do want to again indicate, as the Minister said, this was to take effect on 1 July 2019. I however do have to—and we’ve always said this; I know the Minister’s smiling there—say it’s just about the timing. And you sure know this. It’s in our departmental report and also too in the Social Services and Community Committee report. We were just a bit disappointed, to say the least, about the fact that it’s legislation we would have supported anyway—and we still are—but we just sort of wondered, with the time frame that we had, with such important legislation, why does it take so long? I’m not going to overstate it, but I’m just going to keep putting it back on the record. I just think—and I know the Minister would agree as well—we just needed to get on with it and get it done, but now we’re having to rush that process.

I do want to say, though, this is becoming a bit of a trend in other bits of legislation. So I thought, well, hang on, just pause for a moment. Let’s just have a see whether this legislation is a trend with other parts. So the average process—most people in the House will know—is around about six months. That’s 182.5 days. That’s the average process. Now, it can differ in there. So the average of that would be around 130-140 days. But it is disappointing that we are seeing a trend here—that we are seeing a trend.

If I think about the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill, which was for just cause, that was six days. The Social Security (Winter Energy Payment) Amendment Bill—now, that had to be rushed through; why, because there was a drafting error last year—20 days. Let’s look at the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill—29 days; Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill—33 days; Families Commission Act Repeal Bill—51 days.

I can go on—I won’t, because then you’ll tell me that I’m going outside of the scope. I just want to make a point that this is becoming a little bit shoddy, and I just want to say to the members of the House they’d be saying exactly the same thing to us. If there is a pattern that’s emerging, then that’s actually important, because you have to give trust and confidence to the people that are out there who have actually elected us into roles of responsibilities. I’m not going to labour the point—sorry for the pun, Mr Assistant Speaker—but I will say that I just think it’s really important, if it is significant pieces of legislation like this, then let’s just get it done in time. You wouldn’t have had any arguments from this side. We would have supported it absolutely through the whole process. The only one key point that we just had a point of contention with is why did it have to be rushed in such a short time frame?

In the time that I have, I just want to point out a few of the technical areas that I think are really important—and especially for those who are out there in voter land that will be listening on their TVs tonight—about the significance of this bill and the importance of it. So I look forward to the committee of the whole House, where the Supplementary Order Paper 247 will be put on to the Table, just to clarify some of the technical and minor changes as well. I won’t go through those, because they’ll be in the committee stage.

I do want to talk about what comes out of the select committee report. There were some proposed amendments, which I think are critically important and I just want to state for the listeners that are out there. So the 2017 Act differentiates between two types of offences for 17-year-olds: Schedule 1A, which is specific serious offences, and non - Schedule 1A, less serious offences. Now, this is an important point, because a number of the submitters talked about this. If there were offences for those that were minors—those were youth and young people—were they still going to be able to go through an appropriate process to have a judicial process? So the answer is yes. For those offences that are Schedule 1A, which would have a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, then those offences will be then elevated to an adult court as well, in that process.

Where some of the challenges are that I think are really important are where in some cases there are complexities where there are both Schedule 1A and non - Schedule 1A offences. Again, according to the bill, it’s been amended so that it will allow for both of those charges to be taken up and heard in one court hearing, which will be in the adult court, which means that, again, it actually has greater efficiencies that we think are critically important as well.

The Oranga Tamariki Act will not consistently allow related charges for 17-year-olds to be heard with a Schedule 1A charge in the adult courts. This means there was a risk that two separate processes would be required to deal with the alleged offending that occurred at the same time as a series of related incidences or against the same person. The committee does not believe that it is in the best interests of the young person and complainants or witnesses to undergo a separate court proceeding for the same incident or of serious incidences as well.

We are looking forward to the committee stage. We do support this bill through its process and into its completion. We look forward to its implementation. I want to say that the one thing that will be the role and responsibility of being in Opposition is ensuring that there is the capacity and capability to deal with those changes. I know we’ve had some reassurances on the other side. We look forward to them. The only reason we’d be holding that to account is because we don’t want to have the unintended consequences of young people falling through the cracks, falling through the system, and the very intent that we’ve talked about in this bill, which is to provide an appropriate transition process, a safe and stable environment, we think that’s critically important. So it’s to that end we will support this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. The very nature of this particular bill is very technical. I want to touch on a particular kaupapa. In the last 12 months, I attended a kaupapa on the marae in Kaikohe, which was a partnership between Oranga Tamariki, the Department of Corrections, and the Ngāpuhi rūnanga. It was a significant initiative because it actually looked at ways that we work with young offenders to make sure that they don’t fall into the recidivist pattern of offending. This particular legislation actually brings all of those facets into line. It has been tricky. It’s been running alongside a significant review of the judicial system, more broadly speaking. But, in particular with the age group that we’re talking about in this bill, it is very technical in nature, and we want to make sure—as Mr Ngaro has already mentioned in the House—that those young people and their families have the best opportunity to make sure that they can lead fulfilling lives, and that is the ultimate underpinning of this particular bill.

So the technical nature has already been touched on by the Minister. She covered it quite clear with Schedule 1A and around the convictions. We have to understand that this amends 11 Acts and related sets of regulations, including the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act, the Bail Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. That, by definition, is technical. So to bring it all in line to align with the policies that we have for our young people to give them the best chance is important.

The bill will ensure the intent of the expanded youth justice jurisdiction, which Mr Ngaro touched on very briefly. It applies across all criminal justice processes from 1 July 2019, and we might consider that. As Mr Ngaro has said, he talked about some six months or so before this particular bill has come here and other ones have gone through in a truncated process. I think, actually—and I want to commend the Minister, Minister Martin, for her work in lining up all of these ducks—it has been difficult, it has been challenging, but she’s driven by the purpose of making sure that this works for all the people that it’s intended to, which is why this is a significant policy move, and I want to acknowledge the Minister and the work she’s done on this.

The urgent interim court orders related to custody, guardianship, or restraint are made in line with intended and established processes which will serve the best interests of the child. That’s where we must always remember, as Minister for Whānau Ora, putting whānau and the children at the forefront of policy decision-making like this is how we should be operating. I too look forward to the progression of this bill right to its completion and once again thank the Minister for leading this particular piece of work, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. As my colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said, this was a piece of work that was started in the previous Government and is being continued by the Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin. So National members will be supporting this legislation in the second reading, but I want to just reinforce some of the points that my colleague made about the timing. Part of it is, you know, it’s been signalled for a very long time that these significant changes to Oranga Tamariki in a whole range of areas come into force on 1 July this year. It’s 11 June, and we’re on the second reading of a piece of legislation that will be enacted and comes into force on 1 July, which is pretty concerning.

I was actually just listening to the speaker before me, the Hon Peeni Henare, who talked about the fact that this legislation that we are discussing today amends 11 pieces of legislation and the related regulations, so it is particularly complex. To have a situation where the process through the House is a shortened one makes it that much more challenging to ensure that we fulfil our responsibility as legislators and put good legislation into the House. So I don’t accept the Hon Tracey Martin’s comment that it was the previous Government’s fault that this is a shortened report back. When she became a Minister, when she came into office in 2017, this time frame for 1 July 2019 was well known. So in terms of getting legislation ready in a timely manner and into the House to enable a select committee process, to enable sufficient scrutiny of the legislation, I actually don’t think is too much to ask for. So I do want to put that criticism to the House.

My colleague the Hon Alfred Ngaro actually went through a number of examples to demonstrate that this is now becoming quite a repeated exercise for the Government in their legislative programme. You know, I accept that some of the other pieces of legislation weren’t quite as complex as this one, but what really struck me in the select committee process for this particular piece of legislation is the number of changes that were recommended in the select committee process by officials. For those people who are watching the debate or listening to it who perhaps might not have been party to what happens in a select committee process, the legislation is drafted, then, based on submissions that the public make, the bill can be amended or improved, which is good news. In this case, though, a significant number of changes come from officials themselves, and the concern that I and other members had with that on our side of the House is, actually, why hadn’t this work been done earlier, and why had those recommendations been kind of left to what feels like, on 11 June, the 11th hour?

So we’re not debating the merit of this piece of legislation and the policy behind it, which, of course, we introduced, which basically means that the age is lifted for those who are before the youth justice system. That’s fantastic—basically, you know, significant changes around procedures and processes related to 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction. But where the concern is is the number of changes so late in the piece, and I do hope—I do hope—that we’ve got it all right, for two big reasons. A lot of this focus is around the young people themselves and their experience in the justice system. But, actually, I also want to make sure that for the victims of the crimes that these young people committed, it is now right—that in the 11 pieces of legislation that we have amended and that we are on the second reading for today, we got it right. I sincerely hope, given the time pressures involved for the victims of those acts, that there isn’t a gap, there isn’t a mistake. That’s why process is important. That’s why the ability for scrutiny of the legislation, not in a rushed time frame, is so important.

Some of the areas of change that we talked about—the Minister went through some of them—were around the process of joint charges with another person, for example. You know, it sounds all very technical. The word being used—that this is, you know, “technical” changes—actually, I disagree with; some of these are quite significant. So, basically, the Oranga Tamariki Act currently allows children and young people to be tried jointly with adults. Part of it is making sure that children and young people are dealt with in the Youth Court as much as possible. The intention is to keep the proceedings in the Youth Court when none of the co-defendants choose trial by jury, and that includes the adults who have been charged with an offence equivalent to an offence listed in Schedule 1A, which is the serious offending. But the point I want to be clear about is, you know, for most people, the process of how the justice system works and the joint charges with another person—whether it’s a family group conference that can be suspended, whether it’s one trial or two—at the end of the day, yes, it has to serve the young person that’s before the justice system, but we have to make sure that every single process is concluded so that we don’t ever have a situation where the victim of that crime feels as if they’re the one that’s been hard done by.

It’s been really interesting, because just in the last week the Government has been talking about the fact that the justice system is failing victims. So, you know, when we have a process that’s rushed, with legislation like this Oranga Tamariki legislation, it is a concern, and I think it’s important to note, that we do get it right. You know, the Minister’s gone through a lot of the changes and talked about how important they are for the young people themselves—I agree with that, which is why we introduced the policy change in the first place. But the justice system equally has to work for the victims of that crime. That’s where all of the changes that occurred in the select committee process—and just referring to the departmental report that the select committee worked off. Twelve of the recommendations are completely new ones—completely new recommendations that came from officials. That’s actually a lot in a select committee process. So it is important that the ability for—well, actually, the public don’t get to scrutinise those because it happens after the bill was originally drafted. Those changes weren’t in the original bill, so the public don’t get to make a submission on that. Had there been more work done in the original piece of legislation, we perhaps wouldn’t be in this position.

As I said, the bill comes in on 1 July. We’re sitting at 11 June, so there’s not many days, and there’s a significant—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Whose legislation was it originally?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —Supplementary Order Paper in the name of—well, actually, this Government’s been in place for, what, 20 months now? Plenty of time to be able to work on the legislation, make sure it’s correct, bring it to the House in a timely manner, and not reduce the opportunity for public scrutiny. But they don’t like hearing that. It’s really unfortunate. Time and time again, the Government arrogantly jams legislation through the House with either no select committee process or a minor one—which, actually, is poor, poor practice—and doesn’t allow sufficient public scrutiny. I’m hoping we’re not back here in a few months’ time to fix yet another piece of legislation.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to make a contribution at the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. I just want to begin my contribution by addressing a few points made by the member who’s just resumed her seat, Hon Louise Upston, who talked about the poor process, the rushed process, and she said—and I quote—“It’s important to note that we do get it right.” I just want to remind the member that this process has resulted because that member’s Government—the previous Government—brought in a law with absolutely no regard to the implications that that law would have on a number of pieces of legislation. So, if that member stands up—and to her colleagues who have stood up in the House and talked about poor process—I say to them on that side of the House: practise what you preach. You should have got it right in the first place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Don’t bring me into the debate.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: They should have got it right in the first place, and then we wouldn’t be here having to fix this before a law that they enacted has to come into play on 1 July. So it’s just a little bit rich when members opposite stand up and talk about the lack of process around this piece of legislation.

However—and I say this for those who may be watching—by and large the process that we undertook in select committee was actually robust. It was constructive, and I’ve got to thank, at this point, officials because there were quite a few technical pieces to this bill. I want to thank officials for their patience in going through all those little bits with us so that we could actually fulfil our responsibilities, which members on the other side of the House have alluded to.

Now, the decision to raise the upper age of the youth justice jurisdiction was already made; that was made by a piece of legislation that was passed in 2017. As my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare said in his contribution as well, we must bear in mind that, at the heart of this omnibus bill, which gives full effect to that policy to expand the youth justice jurisdiction to include 17-year-olds, is young offenders and the fact that all of us in this House want to make sure that the policy that relates to them is consistently applied. That is the crux of the bill that has just gone through the select committee process and that we are here debating at its second reading.

As I mentioned previously, there are a few technical points to this bill as well, and I just want to go into the changes that were recommended by the select committee, because, of course, this is a second reading and that’s what the focus should be on. There were some specific changes to the bill that were suggested and that the select committee report includes as well, just so that this policy can actually operate in the smoothest possible way. One issue that we spent quite a bit of time discussing at select committee was the technical issue where a 17-year-old has been charged with both a specified serious offence as well as a less serious offence. Actually, we went through quite a few different permutations and combinations of the various types of charges, the various scenarios, the different ages of people, the different people who might be involved in the same incident or same series of incidents as well.

Often, charges will be related, as I mentioned, to the same incident or same group of incidents, and so there was a lot of thought that was put into ensuring that there was a consistent or a standard criminal justice process procedure that resulted. That reduces costs by avoiding inefficiencies within the legal system so that we don’t waste court time and resources as well, but also ensures that complainants and witnesses who ordinarily may need to give evidence in two separate proceedings related to the same incident would no longer need to. So, as I mentioned previously, lots of different permutations and combinations that we went through—transitional provisions and changes related to that, which were discussed through the select committee process as well.

I also just want to thank the submitters who put in some written submissions to this bill. As with many bills around Oranga Tamariki or the broader social development space, many people who submit actually talk about their personal stories and their experiences. Sometimes it’s a little bit outside the scope of the bill, but I still want to thank those who took the time and made the effort to actually share with us stories that were very personal to them as well.

Many points have been made about the technical changes to this bill. All I want to do is commend the Minister and, once again, the officials of Oranga Tamariki for their time and their patience with us. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak to the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill tonight at its second reading. Back in 2017, the then National-led Government introduced and passed the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill. That was a truly transformational piece of work, and this bill simply follows on from that work that was set in place. It’s an omnibus bill and, by its very nature, impacts on several other Acts—we’ve heard tonight 11 or 12 of those other Acts and some regulations. The minor changes to those other Acts are mainly because of the references to the term “young persons” or “young person” as it appears in those other Acts—as well as also amending some of the references around bail, the taking of and retaining of bodily samples, plus some transitional provisions about the jurisdiction that will apply depending on the date that this bill is enacted.

For instance, for a 17-year-old with proceedings under way in a District Court on 1 July 2019—next month—proceedings will continue in that court, including for any related charges that may be brought or filed on or after that date. So, for instance, if this is an offence that has being referred to the District Court now and other charges are laid in relation to that offence, they will continue to be heard in the District Court or the High Court.

The purpose of this bill is to bring 17-year-olds into the youth justice system, and that, as we’ve heard tonight, is something that’s very non-contentious across this House—in fact, is supported by the National Party. The direction of travel was in fact strongly recommended by Judge Andrew Becroft, our now Children’s Commissioner, and it aligns also very well with UNROC, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, who referred in our report back to UNROC in 2016 that this was in fact a very suitable move for New Zealand to be taking. This work, as I’ve said, is a continuation of the work of the National-led Government back in 2017, when we did make those massive changes to the way that we deal with our young people, and those changes now see us with Oranga Tamariki, the organisation that’s responsible for the wellbeing of our children, especially our children that are at risk, our youth offenders, and children in State care.

It’s very pleasing to see this legislation being put in place now to ensure that our under-18s—our 17-year-olds—are no longer being dealt with in the adult criminal justice system but are now being dealt with in the youth justice system. By dealing with them within the youth justice system, it does give the system another opportunity to wrap around the services and the support that these young people need. It gives them another chance at changing the direction of their lives, because it is not a very healthy outcome for them to be dealt with in the adult court system and, indeed, in the prison system.

The Social Services and Community Committee received 13 submissions and, as we heard from the previous speaker, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, almost half of those were out of scope. Even for the ones within scope, some of the comments that were made in those submissions were out of scope. But, as the previous speaker has mentioned, it was an opportunity for people to voice their thoughts and provide their feedback, and we certainly value the contribution that they did make.

We’ve heard articulated very well by the Hon Louise Upston earlier about the number of changes that were made to the bill during the select committee process. And as we saw, the departmental report produced and delivered to the select committee—I did take note that it was a truly collaborative effort and cross-agency and I thought that was very indicative of the philosophy behind Oranga Tamariki, that it is indeed cross-agency. So we saw the Ministry of Justice and the New Zealand Police working with Oranga Tamariki in preparing the final report to the select committee.

One of the issues that I did have with this process and the changeover to the new system, which was questioned during the select committee process, was the capability and capacity of the system to cope with the extra workload that is coming on 1 July. We were given absolute assurance—in fact, “absolutely” was the word that was used when I asked the question. So we have faith that the system is well prepared to take on the extra workload that will be coming as a result of this law change on 1 July.

But it has brought up the questions around the legislative programme of this Government and why it is that we are constantly dealing with truncated processes, when, in fact, at any time over the last 20 months this piece of legislation could have been debated in this House, but here we are with the implementation date only three weeks away and we are still only in the second reading. So we were given good assurance that the system will be ready to cope.

There were some technical parts of this bill that did receive a lot of attention from the select committee members. And, as we heard from the Hon Alfred Ngaro earlier, the Schedule 1 offences, being at the high end of offending and those that would normally attract a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment—so at the very high end of offending. Now, some members of the public may have thought that by bringing 17-year-olds into the youth justice system, this may have been a way of being soft on crime. But, actually, those Schedule 1 offences will still be heard if they are committed by a 17-year-old. They will still be heard in the District Court or perhaps the High Court.

There is an exception to that Schedule 1A offending if it’s committed by a 17-year-old and they are jointly charged with a young person or child. We did have to give some consideration to how those two cases should be dealt with, and it was agreed that the proceeding remain in the Youth Court should the 17-year-old be jointly charged with a Schedule 1A offence. The reason was that in that scenario it would save the duplication of effort in running two separate courts, the Youth Court and the District or High Court, but it was also better that we had the defendants and we had the witnesses also only having to be involved in one process. So if the offender does commit other related offences to the Schedule 1A offence—so, for instance, they’re charged with a Schedule 1A offence and then other minor charges—those minor charges will also be heard at the same time in the District Court or High Court. So there is no separation of the charges where a Schedule 1A offence is involved.

I thought it would be relevant to mention a report that was done by Judge Andrew Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner. Out of his report I note the following, and I quote, “To be involved in the Youth Court is daily to confront young offenders, almost all of whom are not part of the education system. … anecdotally it is thought that up to 65-70% of offenders in the Youth Court (and only the most serious 20% of offending results in Youth Court charges) are not formally ‘engaged’ with the education system. … Technically, many are not truants, because they are not meaningfully enrolled at a secondary school to be a truant from. They are simply not in the formal education system. They are drifting. They are between schools. They may have been excluded, are not now enrolled elsewhere, or are awaiting placement in alternative education. Or they have drifted out of alternative education and are waiting for a course, seeking employment, or sadly, and too often, simply doing nothing”.

This bill is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle, but it does give these 17-year-olds another chance, and I commend it to the House.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m grateful for the opportunity to stand on behalf of the Green Party to support the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill, to offer a short speech. Most of the changes have been canvassed by members across the House tonight. But I think it’s important, as the only Green Party speech, to be clear, firstly and briefly, that the proposed legislation is to fix three main issues, in the large: firstly, to fix legislative errors related to interim orders in the Oranga Tamariki legislation; secondly, consequential amendments that were missed when previous changes were made to raise the upper range of the youth justice jurisdiction to 17 years old; and, thirdly, to address some minor drafting errors in the 2017 Act and the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003.

Putting that up front, I did also think that I would acknowledge one of the main Social Services and Community Committee’s changes that came through from submissions that were made, which included an instance or a hypothetical where, from 1 July 2019, 17-year-olds charged with serious offences—listed in Schedule 1A of the Oranga Tamariki Act—will have these charges transferred to an adult court at first appearance. The committee made changes to the bill to ensure that related less serious charges can be heard together, and that’s just about consistency and efficiency.

There was some earlier comment, which I thought I would include in my contribution to offer perhaps a perspective that hasn’t quite been put up yet, about wanting to make sure that we keep the impact on victims at the centre of this good justice process, and I completely agree. Ensuring efficient and consistent processes is also ensuring easier streamlined processes for victims and their families as well. So the Greens do stand specifically in support of those select committee changes that came through.

I did want to add to my contribution that in actual fact this Government was long, shall I say, chastised by the United Nations for not having 17-year-olds included in the youth justice definition. So this is actually long past time that we are finally putting this into place. We had been on notice continuously, reporting period after reporting period, for this being the case, so I’m glad to see that. But research into cognitive and emotional intelligence abilities actually says that that development continues right into the 20s. So I think I’m just adding a point of difference flavour for the Green Party—that we acknowledge that in actual fact the same amount of close support that is offered to the youth justice people appearing before the youth justice system could actually go further, just to make sure that we are providing good support for people in that cognitive, emotional development phase.

Lastly, I wanted to acknowledge that this bill is technical. It has a narrower focus, picking up on those three main things that I’ve already outlined, but I did want to put on notice that even as of today, after having spoken to the Minister, other issues around the work of Oranga Tamariki and particularly the wellbeing of tamariki Māori is happening alongside legislative changes, and it came through in ministerial commitments to the Budget as well as her commitments in terms of practice, and I am continuing to support her in that work as well. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

AGNES LOHENI (National): It’s with pleasure that I rise to take this call in the second reading of the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. This is a good example of cross-party support for issues that often transcend our political colours, and this one is one of them. I’m pleased to say that National started the process of social welfare reform alongside the Māori Party in the last term, and the result was a shift to focus on the most valuable, the most vulnerable members of our society—our children, our tamariki.

The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017 was a comprehensive piece of legislation that took the focus away from welfare and moved it to a care-based approach focused on the wellbeing of our children, because oranga—wellbeing—is what we sought. Our view was to move the power of decision making back to those that were best placed to make good decisions for our at-risk whānau and tamariki, and that is, of course, whānau—the family-focused approach. Too often, the subtlety is lost on those seeking to make political gain on the back of our most vulnerable whānau. We sought to move from a dependency model to an empowered model. That approach would include better measurements of outcomes, stronger input from whānau, and a greater focus on positive outcomes for tamariki.

The Act also focused on the less pleasant things with our tamariki—our children—and that is criminal offending. Even in these situations, we are dealing with vulnerable young people. This bill tightens up legislation, particularly around procedures and processes relating to 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction. It is a sad fact that our dependency-based approach to family wellbeing has led to dissociation, disillusionment, and a sense of hopelessness amongst our youth. This is reflected in the sad statistics we have around youth offending, and it is necessary that we address youth offending, both from a restorative perspective and an accountability perspective.

Supplementary Order Paper 247, in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin, which is before us today, deals with accountability for youth who find themselves in the criminal justice system. It looks specifically at managing criminal charges for 17-year-old youth. Where a youth has committed a Schedule 1A offence punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment or more, the Oranga Tamariki Act does not easily allow related charges—for example, non - Schedule 1A offences—for 17-year-olds to be heard alongside the very serious Schedule 1A offences. These Schedule 1A offences are automatically transferred from the Youth Court to the District Court or the High Court, yet less serious related charges may still have to be heard at the Youth Court. This sees the untenable situation arise where a youth may face two separate hearings for a related series of charges.

The Social Services and Community Committee does not believe that it is in the best interests of the young person, complainants, or witnesses to undergo separate court proceedings for the same incident or series of incidents. Hearing charges separately could also substantially affect court time and resources.

Proposed amendments will allow the Youth Court to send related charges to the adult courts to be heard alongside any Schedule 1A charges, and it will, equally, allow adult courts to refer charges back to the Youth Court, where appropriate. The proposed new section 276AA(6) in new clause 4G assists greatly in defining related charges. The proposed amendments also suspend family group conferences, should Schedule 1A charges apply. At first glance, this may seem harsh or counter to what we all hope to achieve by having family group conferences for our youth—namely, better accountability and buy-in from all affected parties—but the proposal is sensible. The hearing of Schedule 1A charges and related non - schedule charges will be determined by an adult court where family group conferences do not apply.

It would not seem sensible to try family group conferences where outcomes from them would be superseded by the adult court’s findings in relation to the more serious charges a youth faces. Therefore, inserting new clause 4B, which inserts new section 247A to specify when family group conferences would have to be suspended or would not be required is a pragmatic enhancement to the Act. There is also greater clarity where a youth is found not guilty of a Schedule 1A charge but pleads guilty to lesser, non - schedule charges. The proposed new clause 4H, amending new section 276A, allows greater ease. Where charges have a guilty plea or verdict, they can be transferred back to the Youth Court, where it is in the interests of justice for this to occur.

Overall, this gives full effect to aspects of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017 by seeking to ensure that the benefits of the policy to include 17-year-olds in the youth justice jurisdiction are fully realised. It does this by amending legislation to ensure that the extended youth justice jurisdiction is applied consistently across the justice system. The inclusion of 17-year-olds in the youth jurisdiction will take effect on 1 July 2019. It addresses drafting errors in the 2017 Act, including unintentional provisions relating to interim court orders, and it does this by making a consequential amendment to the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 to correct a cross-referencing error. All these matters require enactment before 1 July 2019 to ensure amendments made by the 2017 Act are consistent with the policy intent.

On this side of the House, given it’s a very technical bill, we would have preferred more time to scrutinise this through the select committee process and to have allowed more time for members of our community to make submissions and to have had their voices heard on this very technical bill. But, ultimately, this is the direction that the National Party was moving in to, and we would not want to hinder this. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I must compliment the previous speaker, Agnes Loheni, for pointing out, as she did, that this bill is fixing drafting errors from the 2017 changes. It’s good that someone on that side of the House has reminded those at home that this is actually a drafting error which is being fixed here today. Of course, being an irony-free zone over there, when there has been so much made of the odd drafting error made on this side of the House, it’s good to see that that irony-free zone-ness doesn’t preclude them from mentioning it; so, well done to that previous speaker.

The essence of this bill, of course, is around moving 17-year-olds into the youth jurisdiction. The debate at the time of the legislation was to ensure that this didn’t become an opportunity for adult offenders, particularly gangs, to do what they do with 16-year-olds now, which is to use 16-year-olds, knowing that the punishments around them and the regime around them will be lesser than for adult offenders. So that’s why it’s so important that when we look at the bill, that everything is done and that that doesn’t become the case. Particularly, I know the frustration in the past of dealing with offenders of different ages who were being dealt with in different jurisdictions and where they had lawyers who saw the advantages of being able to have two cases, witnesses, and being able to actually lay the blame off against a co-offender who might have been appearing in another jurisdiction. So that was why it became very important for those who didn’t quite understand what we’re doing here, that where there is an offender charged with a Schedule 1A offence, that that offence will be heard in the adult court despite whatever the age of the offender at the time. That’s very important, particularly for victims, because the last thing we want to do is have victims not only have to give evidence twice but also the possibility of, again, lawyers being able to lay blame off to other jurisdictions.

The other part of the bill that is very important, of course, is what happened in the transition. When any law is passed or changed, there will always be necessary transition; what happened with an offender who was arrested for a crime and went into the system, when, in fact, that person is 18 and the offence was committed when they were 17. So it’s important that the 17-year-old will actually be given the benefit of being able to remain in the youth jurisdiction, where the proceedings only began when they were 17-year-olds. So, again, this is an important part of this bill, to ensure that everything does gel and that the implications of having 17-year-olds now remaining in the youth jurisdiction do, firstly, not become an opportunity but, secondly, results in fair treatment for all, particularly the victims. So I commend this bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Mr Assistant Speaker, good evening, tēnā koe, magandang gabi. It’s a privilege to take a short call. This is my first time to speak. I express our support for the bill. The omnibus bill provides for a further definition, a finishing-off of the Oranga Tamariki legislation of 2017 by the National Party. At that time, the legislation was a major effort towards change, a programme that was built for a more child-centred and care and protection - focused system. The object was to prevent trauma and to provide early intervention as much as possible. This was part of the National Government - led programme and efforts to better understand the lives of the more vulnerable people, our young people.

This helps the Government to help change the lives of young people and help them with opportunities to improve. The honourable Minister Tracey Martin has done very good work on this and has already clearly read through the bill and the notes of the bill. It provides for a criteria and consistency for providing 17-year-olds with the opportunity to remain in the youth justice system, which is a big, big help for them. Instead of being pushed into charges in the adult courts, they are allowed to elect to stay within the youth justice system or elect to be tried by a jury—but it is still at their election, which is empowering to them.

I think that the bill is especially laudable and praiseworthy for the fact that not only does it prevent the risk of processes being done twice and all the persons involved—the complainant, the witnesses, the families of the complainant, and the accused themselves—to relive the processing of the offence.

As a formerly practising lawyer for many years, I do understand that oftentimes the damage that’s done of going through the process of the court system—while it is there for everyone’s betterment, the trauma that it does to everyone that goes through it is extreme, and that this bill seeks to avoid that is very, very good.

So apart from the fact that it does provide for efficiency, timing, declogs the courts, and all that, I would like to point out that the main valuable contribution that it does is really the fact that it avoids further trauma and provides our young people with the opportunity to have a bit of control over the destiny that they have and that they face. For these reasons, I happily support the bill and commend the bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s an absolute privilege to stand in this House to speak on the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. I know in the very brief time that I have I’m going to keep it brief.

The youth justice principle is about holding the young person to account. This bill includes 17-year-olds. So when you first appear in court, if you are charged with a Schedule 1A offence, which I might note will only come into effect on 1 July, and if you have other less-serious charges, what the Youth Court does is (1) appoints a duty youth advocate, which is a lawyer, in the language of the Youth Court, and (2) Schedule 1A will transfer the charges to the District Court. On a lesser charge, if it was held today, it will remain in the Youth Court. What that means is that the court then adjourns that matter, if the young person does not deny the charge, to a family group conference for a later date. So now we are in two courts: we’re in the Youth Court and then we’re in the adult court; one lawyer there, one lawyer here, and different dates.

The young person goes that way with all its supports under the Youth Court and then he or she travels that journey in terms of the support with the adult court. It is a common-sense approach that the last Government did not put into practice. So, really, what this is is just to remind the House that youth justice is about holding young people to account but at the same time provide the support system to assist them not to reoffend. In that sense, I just want to say that Schedule 1A comes into effect on 1 July, and speeding up the process will make sure that due process and due accountability is supported and held for young people, whether they’re in the Youth Court or the District Court. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m delighted to take a call. Look, I was so hoping that the honourable member who’s just taken her seat would just elaborate a little bit further on why she personally was enthusiastic about the bill.

Hon Member: Pronounce her name.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Anahila? Anahila’s great. Even though she might be on the other side of the House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Members should use the full name.

SIMON O’CONNOR: That is true—that is true.

Hon Member: Do it.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, no, actually, I won’t, not because of any disrespect for that member but because she might theoretically try to compete with me in Tāmaki. I can’t give her any advertising.

Now, look, this is a good bill. National is keen to support it—

Greg O’Connor: Say her name.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —but there are a couple of aspects—[Interruption]. That’s right. There are a couple of aspects—I think a member on that other side, maybe of an eponymous name as myself, is having a bit of a moment or a turn.

This is a bill that this side of the House supports, but I think it’s important in the second reading that we, once again, put on the record our concern that this has been too fast.

I certainly acknowledge, as the speaker who has taken her seat has noted—with such an honourable name—that 1 July is when this has to come into effect. While this side of the House acknowledges this and will work, obviously, as we have done, our point of protest, for want of a better word, is that this could’ve been introduced to the House earlier. This piece of legislation is not new. National has always supported it. The changes that needed to be made, including those drafting errors which members have noted, we were already aware of. I suppose that’s our basic principle: this could have been introduced much earlier. It could’ve gone through a more rigorous select committee process.

It’s one of my concerns, particularly in this social services space—and I’m sorry it harps on to a theme of the past—we’ve seen many mistakes which have entered into social services legislation, and particularly in this Parliament, and we’ve had to come back and fix them. I’m more than happy to admit the mistakes that have come through the original drafting. When they are raced through to be amended in this fashion, there is a higher risk that either more mistakes will happen or we’ll have overlooked other mistakes.

Look, this is an omnibus bill, as has been noted. I think it’s probably important particularly for Ruth Dyson to note what an omnibus bill encompasses around this, so I’m going to take my time for that honourable member. An omnibus bill, this one—obviously, the principal Act is the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. That’s a rename, of course. It used to be the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, but the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill 2017 renamed that. We have the Bail Act 2000, which was very memorable—not to me; I wasn’t here but, I’m sure, for some honourable members—and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act 2017. Being an omnibus bill, it also is dealing with the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003, the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

While touching on some of these, and there are some others to come, why it’s particularly relevant, as has been heard by a number of other speakers, is that this is primarily a piece of legislation—sorry, a bill; it’s not legislation yet—that’s dealing with our 17-year-olds and how they will be dealt with in the criminal justice system. Importantly, the criminal justice system and the way it operates is not in a single piece of legislation; it moves across many. Through this particular omnibus bill, which I think is a very efficacious and effective way of dealing with things, we’re able to move changes throughout these bills.

The flip side to this—and I’m pleased we’ve avoided it and commend the Minister for this, otherwise we’d have had to go through and amend 12 or so pieces of individual legislation, and that would really slow down the House. As this speech clearly indicates, I’m really never keen to slow down important pieces of legislation.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015, the Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014—

Hon Tracey Martin: What does it do to that Act?

SIMON O’CONNOR: The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Act? Again, it’s important on that one. It’s really good the Minister is asking what it does. I’m a bit concerned; the Minister proposing the bill should know. I’m disappointed. I have immense respect for that member. Fundamentally, of course, a victim’s order is that the person who’s been offended against has an opportunity, if you will, to speak to or against—depending on what word you want to use—the violent offender. So this, particularly when it comes to Schedule 1A, the delineation between what are serious and non-serious—

Hon Tracey Martin: Excellent, well done!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Look, it is wonderful. I’m pleased the Minister is taking notes. That’s really good. The Sentencing Act 2002, the Victims’ Rights Act 2002—probably something that could’ve dealt with a little bit more discussion there, actually. It’s something I think all sides of this House are very much focused on, the rights of victims. We’re not going to get the chance—or maybe we will, in the committee of the whole House—to make sure that the rights of victims are not undermined in this way because we’ve moved a 17-year-old into the youth justice space. Finally, we’ve got the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Regulations 2004, and these themselves are building on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995.

So, look, it’s an enormous amount of legislation, and, yep, I read through them a little bit ad nauseam, but what’s important to illustrate is why it is important not to rush a select committee process. Each of these pieces of legislation have been amended in small—and in some cases, substantial—ways, and I’m always just a little nervous in this House that in order to fix the mistakes, rushing to do so will cause us problems down the line.

Obviously, the select committee took the little time it was given prudently—13 people and/or groups spoke and we now have, well, a changed bill in front of us and, importantly too, a fairly substantial Supplementary Order Paper No 247 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin.

Look, a number of colleagues have touched on what are the key aspects. Fundamentally, the principle at play here is that someone who is 17 should preferentially go through the youth justice system. I overall agree with that, I think it’s a prudent approach. I think it’s equally prudent that we’re separating out those very serious offences so that they remain in the adult court. But if I was to use a personal anecdote, having visited often, of my own free and voluntary will, the old Mt Eden prison, one of the things that always struck me, particularly working in the youth yards, was that young people would come in—yes, having committed crimes—to a fairly soulless place, a damaging place to them as individuals, and, importantly in this context, they were often then in touch with very professional career criminals. At the end of their particular sentence, at a young age, they would come out not only young—perhaps, arguably, more broken, maybe a little bit retrospect on the decisions they’d made—but, again, importantly for this context, they came out slightly more professional in their crimes than when they started.

So for me personally, the longer we can keep them out of the adult court and, in effect, the adult sentences, the better. So I think that’s an incredibly positive—look, separating out the nature of the offences is quite important. I don’t think New Zealanders at large would agree with a wholesale pass, if you will, of young people to the youth court for all offences, so I think that’s positive. Fundamentally, this was something that National, in the previous Government, was looking to exercise, so we’re not completely—well, we agree with primarily everything that’s here.

Suspending family group conferences, that’s prudent I think—quite practical, Minister. What’s happening there—again, if there’s an intention to charge then there’s an opportunity to actually suspend those conferences. Again, there’s a bit of delineation between whether the young person’s going to the adult court or to the youth court, and I think it’s maintaining a good equilibrium there. Look, elements around the joint charges with another person; that is, again, prudent. I suppose what it illustrates is that a lot of thought has been given to the variety of circumstances in which a young person’s going to find themselves. It’s very easy in this House to take the singular example of a single 17-year-old—single by number, not their relationship; the bill doesn’t deal with that. I’m sure that’s not going to be an issue moving forward. But a single person who actually—what we could be dealing with here is a young person who of their own right has committed a crime—or, as this section’s looking at, if they’ve committed a crime with someone else—how do you try both those people? An opportunity to make sure we’re not having the victims having to come forward first.

So I think I’ve covered most things; I suspect there’d be a lot more that I’d like to cover but I don’t think I’m going to achieve my final purpose, and the Hon Ruth Dyson knows it.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the member who’s just resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, on sharing his knowledge with us for an entire 10 minutes, which I found extraordinarily impressive. There are very few more important subjects than the issues of how to turn around the lives of young offenders, and it’s great to hear support across the House for the measures contained in this bill. On that note, I want to commend the leadership of the Hon Tracey Martin in this regard, and wish her all the best in what is going to be a huge amount of work going forward but one which I know she will find, as we will find as citizens, immensely satisfying.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Building Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I introduced this bill to the House on 15 August 2018, and it is with pleasure that I now begin its final passage. Everyone in this House of Parliament wants a New Zealand that is a safe place with safe buildings, and I’d like to thank and acknowledge everyone in this House who is supporting this bill. We live in a beautiful and yet unpredictable country, and the current system for how we manage buildings when the worst happens needs to be better. As Minister for Building and Construction, I’ve overseen a tremendous amount of work on this piece of legislation, and we’ve reshaped the ways we manage buildings to make it fit for purpose for New Zealand today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.