SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : Dr Don Brash has moved a motion of no confidence in this Government. One of the reasons behind that, as we saw on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times last Sunday, is that this Government has no confidence in a number of its own back-benchers. We are starting to see the emergence of the managed-exit list, and we are starting to see the likes of Jill Pettis, Dianne Yates, Russell Fairbrother, Jim Sutton, Paul Swain, and Dover Samuels being shown the door—a back door, by the way. Not only that, but after the Māori Affairs Committee meeting today we will see the end of Parekura Horomia, by the sounds of things. No doubt television and other media outlets will have plenty to say about that later on.

After listening to question time today, I would say that the House will see the end of Judith Tizard. She gave a hopeless performance. She described her own job over the last 7 years as being hugely rewarding. For whom? It certainly has not been hugely rewarding for the people of Auckland. After the Telecom leak we will see the managed exit of David Cunliffe, and after the sad little Budget we saw last week—I see Trevor Mallard has his hand up to be the next Minister of Finance—we will see the managed exit of Dr Michael Cullen.

There are some serious issues, though, relating to my areas of corrections, police, and, more particularly, prison forecasts. In recent days, documents released under the Official Information Act have shown that the number of limitations to the current prison forecasts are in serious danger, because no allowance, according to these documents, has been made for the additional 1,000 police staff agreed to as part of the confidence and supply agreement.

That tells members on this side of the House something quite simple. It tell us that Cabinet members sat around and made the decision to approve the 1,000 extra police—and we will wait and see whether that actually eventuates—purely and simply on the basis of keeping Winston Peters quiet. They did not worry about the downstream effects. They did not worry about the policy problems it will cause in corrections, in justice, or in the court system. They just wanted to keep Winston Peters quiet. I see Brian Donnelly is sitting there with a smirk on his face. He knows, as everybody in this Parliament does, that Peter Brown’s days as the deputy leader of New Zealand First are just about over. The plotters are out. Barbara Stewart is smiling. She will put her name in the ballot. She might as well; everybody else will.

It seems to me that the Economic and Fiscal Update raises very serious questions around corrections and police. When we look at the Statement of Fiscal Risks, we see this statement about the corrections department: “The Department of Corrections has estimated that a further total of $209 million capital and $25 million operating funding may be required . . . The Minister of Finance has yet to fully consider the quantum of this risk.” In other words, the cost of building those prisons will not stop at $890 million. That is a major headache for the Minister of Corrections, who has turned his back on the private sector coming in and effectively managing prisons in New Zealand for no other reason than he cannot move himself out of his ideological ditch and he refuses to look outside the policy square.

In the justice area—the area of the heavyweight new Minister of Justice, Mark Burton—we have seen, in terms of the specific fiscal risks, that the associated flow-on cost of those 1,000 extra police has yet to be quantified. We see that: “The Minister of Finance has yet to fully consider the quantum of this risk.” That tells members on this side of the House that there were no fiscal discussions with Dr Cullen about the downstream effects of 1,000 new police. A dirty little deal was done to keep Winston Peters and New Zealand First happy in their confidence and supply agreement, with no serious policy considerations being given to the flow-on—

Jill Pettis: What about Alamein?

SIMON POWER: There goes Jill Pettis! I say to Mrs Pettis that she should speak up while she can, because time is running out.

There are real problems around police, as well. The Budget documents find real fiscal risks. The Minister of Finance has yet to fully consider the quantum of the risk in just adding 1,000 front-line police. So not only do we have risks in Vote Police but we also have them in Vote Corrections, Vote Justice, and Vote Courts. All of us in this Chamber know what a shambles the court system is in when judges are forced into the position of having to remit $56,000 worth of fines at a time in relation to an individual who appears in the District Courts in the lower half of the South Island. We have seen that reparation payments are not met and cannot be pursued or tracked down because the court system is in crisis.

None of these issues was given serious policy consideration during the Budget rounds. The only thing this Government was interested in was stitching up a messy little deal with New Zealand First in an attempt to tie it down for the next 12 months. That is bad government and it is appalling financial management. It is one of the many reasons why Dr Michael Cullen has just read his last Budget. Nothing happens by accident in the Labour Party. Anybody who thinks the front-page story in the Sunday Star-Times was not fully authorised by a silent nod from the ninth floor is very naive indeed. The usual kite-flying exercise went on. The usual back-door negotiations are under way for the dignified exit of a number of back-bench MPs who, in select committees today, are getting rattier, testier, and more brassed off by the minute.

Members on this side of the House will not give an inch. We will be making sure, at every select committee, in every legislative debate, and during every question time that this Government is put to the test. The cracks that are starting to appear will quickly turn into large, large ditches, and it will be very interesting to see how the Government manages to hold on. Although the members of the front bench may have sat and smiled through gritted teeth while Judith Tizard did her best to stumble through question No. 1 today, they have only to swivel their heads to the Labour back bench to get a reading on what is really going on. They are not happy.

Hon Bill English: Why are they keeping Judith? Why isn’t she on the managed-exit list?

SIMON POWER: Mr English raises a good question. There has to be a good reason in all of this as to why Judith Tizard’s name has never appeared on the managed-exit list. Why is that? One would have to imagine—[Interruption] Well, it cannot be because of workload.

Hon Bill English: Because she’s a rising star?

SIMON POWER: She cannot be a rising star, because she has not moved from her seat in 6½ years. The real question is why the Prime Minister does not just come out and tell those members that they are gone. Why does she not just do the decent, upfront thing, cull them out, and bring in such stars as the woman from Southland—whose name I cannot remember—who was here for a quarter of an hour in the last Parliament? She will make a huge difference to the way in which this House runs.

Members on this side of the House have no confidence in the Budget, no confidence in this Government, and no confidence in this Prime Minister. Their time is nearly up.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) : Why does the National Party not tell Don Brash to go now? If it is so interested in telling everyone else what they should do, it should tell Don what the honest thing to do would be.

Let us think about a child who was born in this country 20 years ago. What future does the National Opposition offer that young adult today? Does National offer more investment in education and skills training? No, because it voted against every single dollar in skills training and investment in education in the last seven Budgets. Does National offer a growing economy with first-class infrastructure, telecommunications, and connections to the world? No, because it voted against every Budget that included those priorities in the last 7 years. National even said it was opposed to making telecommunications in New Zealand more competitive—and it did nothing about that issue in the 9 years it was in office during the 1990s. When this Government invested billions of dollars into transforming the economy of New Zealand for the benefit of the people of New Zealand, the National Party voted against every single clause in every single bill that opened up regional development, industry development, and economic development.

National, the same party that, when in Government, gutted this country in the early 1980s and all through the 1990s, dares to compare New Zealand with Australia now. Before that 20-year-old adult whom I was talking about was born, New Zealand had income levels comparable with Australia’s. That is true. But we fell behind in the 1980s, and who cheered that along? Dr Brash, when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. We fell further behind when that young person was a teenager in the 1990s. National was responsible for those policies. When the people of New Zealand chose a new direction at the dawn of this century, we started to catch up with Australia again. But, of course, the National Party has not caught up with that, either. Now the same party that sabotaged New Zealand while it was in Government in those times compares us with Australia.

It seems to me National Opposition members would do us all a favour if they headed to Australia themselves, as Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen did. Dr Brash, in my view, is the modern Sir Joh. He runs down this country. Dr Brash seems to be ashamed of New Zealand, and he offers nothing but the vision of a banana republic. Every single day the National Party talks about doing more for this, that, and the other thing, and the only prescription it has for doing so is to lower tax and revenue so that it cannot be done. That is simply ludicrous. Dr Brash should take his policies and cringing about New Zealand to Queensland, as Sir Joh did.

Unemployment in New Zealand is under 4 percent, for the first time since the mid-1980s. Dr Brash used to write forecasts, which I used to rail against, that suggested unemployment in New Zealand should be steady at 7 percent, and that that should be the level of unemployment forever. That is what Dr Brash’s policies were. Now unemployment is at half that rate, and what does he say to that? He says we should all go to Australia, where, of course, unemployment is higher than it is here! Now that unemployment is at half the rate we had under National, he dares to question the competence of this Government.

Dr Brash wants to take away the jobs of young New Zealanders and to give tax cuts to affluent, elderly, middle-aged people like himself and me. Well, how does that work? That is the National Party’s entire economic policy. I could hear the panic this afternoon from John Key at the only policy the National Party actually has, which is tax cuts. What will happen if the Government actually gives some tax cuts, sooner or later? What will happen to National’s policy then? It does not have any other policy. There is no other vision for New Zealand except for tax cuts, and what happens if it loses that policy? It will be interesting to watch as National’s panic increases.

Do National Party members speak with any pride about our culture and uniqueness? We never hear them do so. We heard a question in the House today about the spiritual qualities of the tangata whenua in New Zealand. I sat over there in the House while Doug Graham introduced the Treaty settlements for Tainui. He was in tears about the role of the tangata whenua in this country. Now the National Party continually sneers at that. I suggest to National members that they should get their priorities and their values right. They run down, deride, and belittle New Zealand in every speech they make.

A week before the election Dr Brash, the leader of the National Party, said the haka is just a half-naked person jumping up and down. Is that the kind of spiritual dimension the National Party brings to our multiracial community? Dr Brash is a walking example of cultural cringe. He is ashamed of New Zealand, and his colleagues are becoming ashamed of him. I am just waiting for the next election day, with all the support we are getting, to see what will happen. That is why National members are already saying they will dump Dr Brash later this year. They know they need someone better than him to offer to young New Zealanders, and they know going back to the failed policies of the past offers those young New Zealanders nothing.

What does Don Brash actually offer New Zealanders? He offers them a ticket to Australia; he says they should go to Australia. Well, let us look at some of the elements of Australia. Do we want race riots like those that occurred in Cronulla to happen in New Zealand? Do we want the kind of treatment that Australian Aboriginals have had over the years to be dealt out to our tangata whenua? We should be very proud of what we have established in New Zealand, not cringe about how good the Australians are, no matter how good they may be in some of their more successful areas of activity.

The Progressive party supports this Budget because it continues to lead us along a path to a better, fairer, and stronger New Zealand. We want to see a vital and thriving small nation here that is proud to stand as a leader in international forums—as we do—and punch miles above our weight all over the world. Everyone knows we do that, and we should say it more often. I remember that last year, when a World Bank survey stated New Zealand was the best place in the world to do business in, there was sneering from the Opposition. If one said that in the Australian Parliament there would be cheering, because Australians support their own country. This Budget, of course, continues to transform our economy. It invests in our priorities, skills, and infrastructure. It invests in our own identity as New Zealanders. Those are the ingredients that will create a future where young New Zealanders can realise their potential.

I have been talking at primary industry sector conferences throughout New Zealand, and everywhere I go there is confidence and optimism about the future. People are creative and innovative. They are not whingeing, moaning, and cringing about how good Australia is; they are getting on with developing their opportunities in this country. We should be supporting that and talking those opportunities up, because New Zealand has great opportunities for its young people. The National Party, which claims to have support from the primary industries and rural New Zealand, should be telling our best and brightest young people to join in as scientists, managers, marketers, and so on in the primary sector industries, which, of course, are the engine room of this economy. All that those young people are told by the leader of the National Party is to get a ticket to Australia.

The last decade has been one of productivity for New Zealand, and this Government has been right at the centre of doing something about it. We are pouring money into protecting the biodiversity and biosecurity of New Zealand—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was cut.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I was waiting for someone on the Opposition side of the House, which is illiterate in terms of its understanding of New Zealand Government and departmental budgets, to say something like that. That was Mr Ardern’s statement, but he does not have a clue. The baselines for biosecurity have gone up by 89 percent since this Government came in. What Mr Ardern discovers is that occasionally we do not spend the money on one-off incursions, because we have fixed the problem. We have spent $80 million on eradicating the painted apple moth, so I say to Dr Smith that we do not have to spend money on it again. We can spend less on incursions because we have eradicated the painted apple moth. Mr Ardern cannot count, but I would have thought that Dr Smith would be a little bit better than him. Dr Smith has been a Minister of the Crown, so members might think he would understand Government accounts a little better than that. I notice Dr Smith is silent now. He should check out the facts and engage his brain before he engages his tongue.

We should celebrate the country we live in. None of us should fail to be proud to be New Zealanders. None of us should fail to be proud of the way our country conducts itself in world and international affairs. We have magnificent achievements in this country. We have a lot to be proud of, and I wish the National members in Opposition would stop cringing in front of our Australian cousins and start celebrating the country that they aspire to lead one day. One does not lead a country by running it down.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : The tragedy of this Budget is it has no vision for New Zealand and gives no prospect of growth. It is from a Government that has run out of steam and ideas, and all we have is another dose of cringing political correctness, another dose of big government, and more waste of hard-working taxpayers’ money.

There is a famous old saying that the last bastion of a rogue is patriotism, and an appeal to patriotism is what we heard from Jim Anderton. If we on this side of the House make any comparison with Australia—where people are receiving tax cuts and increased take home pay, and where higher economic growth is projected—then Labour’s only claim is that somehow we are being unpatriotic. We are not; we are proud of this country and want it to do better. That is what we will be consistently arguing for in this Budget debate.

We have just heard from—can members believe it—the Minister of Agriculture. I was hoping to hear what this Budget might do for the export sector, the most important part of our economy. I waited for 10 minutes and I heard absolutely nothing. It is interesting that the Minister of Agriculture had slot No. 49 in Labour’s Budget debate. What does that say about Labour’s level of commitment to agriculture? It is no wonder members of the Nelson branch of Federated Farmers told me yesterday that they were embarrassed that Jim Anderton was representing the Government. They are looking forward to some of the capable people on National’s side of the House looking after the agriculture portfolio.

Hon Jim Anderton: Oh, really?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is what they said.

Hon Jim Anderton: Yeah, right!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let us go through it. They asked Jim Anderton what he thought about dog microchipping. Do members know what he told them?

Hon Member: And he’s No. 3!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He is No. 3. The farmers said that Jim Anderton had let them down. They asked him about biosecurity, because we have just had another breach of biosecurity in my region. A weevil has come into the region and is threatening our economy to the tune of millions of dollars, and what did the Minister for Biosecurity say?

Hon Members: He’s No. 3.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He is No. 3. He said absolutely nothing. Our own council has said that such are the failings of Jim Anderton and Biosecurity New Zealand that the ratepayers of Nelson will have to pick up the bill. Such is the failing of the Government in that regard.

Now we come to the big issue of this Budget. Labour has increased taxes from $37 billion, when it came into office, to $51 billion in this Budget. That is a 50 percent increase in the tax take. What differentiates National members on the Opposition benches from those on the Government benches is that Labour members think that money is theirs. They think that money belongs to them, and that running an $8.5 billion surplus and taking all that money from New Zealanders is OK. National members say it is not; we say those hard-working New Zealanders deserve a tax break. That is what divides this House.

It was interesting that, during the election campaign, Mr Anderton stated that the best thing we could do for business would be to give it a tax cut. I wondered whether we could trust Mr Anderton and whether we might see, with him at No. 3 in Cabinet, some tax relief for business. I wondered whether we would have recognition that it would be better for the farmers and businesses of New Zealand to be able to keep more of their money and invest it. But the arrogance of Mr Anderton—and of Mr Maharey sitting next to him—is that they believe they can spend the money of businesses better than those businesses can.

I will now talk about some of the specifics of where the Government has got things so awfully wrong.

Hon Jim Anderton: When were you in business?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was proud to be in Government for 9 years, during which we took this country out of the red and into the black. I am very proud that in every one of those years we saw a drop in unemployment and huge economic growth. It is sad that—far from seeing New Zealand’s economic circumstances improve—we now have a Budget that projects a pathetic growth of just 1 percent in the next year.

Let me talk about some of the waste in this Budget. This Budget provides for an increase in the budget for one of the areas I am interested in—that is, energy. The Government is to give another $5 million to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. Well, how is that authority doing? This Government has given it $100 million, but its own review shows that energy efficiency has become worse. So why would a Government reward with more money an agency that has actually produced a worse result? It is bizarre—only a Labour administration could do that.

Then we have the big hit of the Budget—the key export industry of New Zealand: agriculture. Do members know how much extra money is going into research and development in agriculture in order to transform the New Zealand economy? The Government is putting $3.2 million extra into the area of agricultural exports. Well, it is interesting: that is less than half the amount we should allow for inflation over the period of that agricultural research budget. So I would ask the next Labour speaker to please explain how we are to transform the New Zealand economy with an increase in money for agricultural research of less than what it takes simply to account for inflation. It is interesting that we are to spend $3 million on agricultural research—and $13 million on a feel-good, “touchy-feely” Green campaign to buy New Zealand goods that we all know will not do one iota for the New Zealand economy.

I want to hear, from the next Labour speaker, when the Government will provide hard-working New Zealanders with a tax break. We know Labour has put taxes up by an extra $7,000 per household since it has been in Government. Why will Labour not give those hard-working New Zealanders a tax break? Why does it insist on closeting money away so that in this country we now have “rich Government; poor people”? And National makes no bones about saying that the direction of the economic strategy of the Government in Australia—a country with higher growth and less tax—is where New Zealand should be going. Is it not interesting?

One of the things I would have liked to see in this Budget was some reform of the Resource Management Act. Was there any mention of that in Dr Cullen’s speech? There was none, at all. Yet, in the report that came out last week from the world economic study on competitiveness, do members know where New Zealand was ranked in terms of the quality of our environmental regulation?

Lindsay Tisch: Wouldn’t have a clue.

Chris Tremain: Tell us.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There were 68 countries, and New Zealand ranked No. 68—the absolute bottom of the pops. I would have thought that members opposite would say we needed to address that ranking and improve it. But where in this Budget do we see any mention of the desperate need to reform the Resource Management Act? If Jim Anderton had bothered yesterday to listen to the members of Federated Farmers in my community of Nelson, he would have heard that their No. 1 priority was reform of the Resource Management Act.

Hon Jim Anderton: They didn’t say that at my meeting—never got a question on it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They did say that at their meeting. In fact, they even had a competition, where all the members of Federated Farmers could list their bad experiences with the Resource Management Act. I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he supports the Resource Management Act.

Lindsay Tisch: Silence!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is absolute silence. He has no idea, because the Minister is as connected with the farming community on that issue as he is in respect of the issues of microchipping dogs and biosecurity.

This Budget is a huge disappointment for New Zealand. It will go down in history, probably, as the “colander Budget”—the Budget that leaked heaps. That will be the only thing for which this Budget has any notoriety, and it will see New Zealand living standards fall further behind the standards of those countries we need to compete with. I want to hear, from the next Labour speaker, about how we will stop New Zealand’s economic growth from wallowing down in the lower levels of the OECD. We are falling further and further behind countries like Australia and others in the OECD.

I want to hear a Labour member tell us where the strategy is for economic transformation. This Budget is a recipe for economic stagnation; that is why this Government should go. Its members are tired and decrepit, so they should give up the ghost now. Let us have a Government that can produce some growth, give some tax cuts, and put in place some of the economic reforms that will give this great country of ours a go.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) : It is a pleasure to follow the 50th speaker in this debate—a man who came from nowhere and, after 2 days as deputy leader, went straight back. I have to say to Dr Smith, I notice that if anyone is tired in the House, it must be him, because his memory is, I think, a little faulty. The 1990s, I say for that member’s edification, were 9 long years of absolute and utter decline in this country. That member sat on this side of the House for the first 3 years, he will remember, and then for the next 6 years, basically, like most National members, he begged to be shot. That is how bad it was to be a National member in this House during that period of time.

Those members should think about the health system, and about the fact that National drove the unemployment rate to 11.9 percent. They should think about the fact that every single region in this country was shrinking, and people were wondering who would be left to turn the lights off, after National was finished with them. In the end, the only thing that saved National from utter destruction was that it was defeated by this Government, and its members were able to go off and lick their wounds and start to think about what they would do in the future. I tell Dr Smith that the 1990s will be remembered as an utter disaster—a shame—for National, and that is why its members are still sitting on the Opposition benches listening to Dr Michael Cullen deliver his—not first, not second, not third, not fourth, not fifth, not sixth, but—seventh Budget in a row.

That is why Dr Smith is sitting over on the other side listening to the seventh Budget—a Budget that has delivered on the commitments made in the last election. We do it because we say we will do it, and we have delivered in this Budget. It was a Labour Budget that illustrated our values. Ordinary New Zealand families are actually getting back more from tax than they paid. No one could give them a tax cut bigger than the one they are getting from Working for Families now. They are getting back more than they are paying, now, from Working for Families, yet the rocket scientist, Dr Nick Smith, comes in here and asks why we do not give a tax cut. People are already getting back more from tax than they are paying. The Budget is one that New Zealand can have only by having a progressive Government comprising Progressive, Labour, New Zealand First, and Greens—these people here who believe in investing in this country. They are not prepared to allow a deficit to build up around issues like health and education; they want to see a continuing high level of investment in the things New Zealanders voted for at the last election. I know it hurts Dr Smith to hear that, but that is what they voted for.

But from the other side, what do we get? It is a predictable reaction: “Lets cut taxes.”, they say. National has only one policy—that is all it can say. It says for people not to invest, but to cash up all the gains—but gains gained when? Were they gained under National in the 1990s? Did we have money in the bank when National was in Government? Were we, as Dr Smith said, in the black? No! We got into the black after 6 hard years of work by members now on this side of the House—the parties that made up the Labour-led Government during those 6 years—but the National Party wants to cash it up. That is the kind of mentality that National has: “Let us not invest; let us cash it up. We have some money after 6 years of the other side doing some work.”—so National wants to go and spend it on tax cuts. That is what it wants to do. Then, because National cannot do that—being on the other side of the House—it says that New Zealanders should go to Australia.

I want people to think about that line for a second. Can anybody imagine an Australian politician—no matter what the provocation; no matter how good it is in Tonga, New Zealand, Hong Kong, or America—campaigning on the theme of their people going to another country? Can anyone imagine Labor, the Democrats, the Greens, the Nationals, or the Liberals campaigning for Australians to go somewhere else? That is why New Zealanders are looking at the National Party right now and saying that patriotism is not part of the value set of that party.

The National Party does not stand for New Zealand. It is a little like saying we do not think the All Blacks are doing very well, so they all should go and play for the Wallabies. They lost in Paris and that is no good, so they should all go and play for the Wallabies. because somehow they have a better trainer, or whatever. An Australian politician would never do that. An Australian politician would rather eat a dingo than recommend another country to live in. Frankly, I would rather eat a tuatara than recommend a New Zealander go and live somewhere else. But National members do not believe that. They are now running a campaign, with billboards, about people on this side of the Tasman leaving the country and going over there. Well, I have to say those members have just turned themselves into what we always knew—that is, the biggest joke possible.

The second thing is they tell people to go across the Tasman because they will pay a lower tax rate. But the top tax rate in Australia is 45 percent. It is 39 percent in this country. The company tax rate is 33 percent in Australia, and 30 percent in New Zealand. GST is 12.5 percent here, and 10 percent over there. Do we pay stamp duty when we sell a house? No, we do not, but those who go to Australia can enjoy paying 2.5 percent in Sydney, for example. Do we pay a Medicare levy in this country? No, we do not. But across the Tasman they pay 1.5 percent of income. Does any employer in this country pay a payroll tax?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not yet, but Minister Cullen is working on it.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Mr Smith would know, because he knows a lot about business. He has been in business, I understand. Employers here do not pay a payroll tax, but in Australia they pay 3.6 to 6.8 percent. For accident compensation we pay 1 percent on average, or less than 1 percent, but they pay 2.47 percent. Paid parental leave in this country is 14 weeks, but have a guess how many weeks—how many days, how many minutes even—they get in Australia. They do not get any—none at all. Tertiary fees on average are $3,736, but in Australia one can enjoy paying just under $5,000. In terms of superannuation could a well-paid man like Dr Smith retire and look forward to superannuation, and Bondi Beach—which he used to think was something done in the bedroom, until last week, but now he knows that Bondi Beach exists? What he now knows is that if he goes across there, as a well-off person he will not get any superannuation, because it is asset tested. In this country superannuation is universal.

The National Party does not tell people that. It tells them simplistically to compare something that advantages the National Party because it wants all New Zealanders to love Australia and not their own country. So it tells them things that are not true. It makes comparisons that are false. It pulls the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes and says: “Why don’t you go across to Australia and get a lower tax rate?”—whereas they will not. That is the bottom line. That is what is wrong with the whole National Party argument. Instead of coming clean and saying that the real choice for New Zealanders, 6 years after they have begun to grow their economy again and get some real expenditure on the kinds of things that might make a real difference—like health, education, research and development, roads, and all the things that will make this country strong—and instead of arguing how to make the pie bigger, how to make us richer, how to make us stronger in this century so we may well pull ahead of other countries all over the world, as we are beginning to do, National wants to cash up the gains we have already made.

That is not a strategy for investment. That is not a strategy for saying that we know what the real drivers of growth are—education, investment in health, infrastructure, strong investment in the environment, making sure our kids have the skills, making sure our firms are globally competitive. That money does not come from putting individual tax cuts back into the pockets of people, when we need the money to invest. That is the simple choice. Right now in Australia the same debate is going on. The business sector is saying they did not want those kinds of tax cuts, because the drivers of growth come from public investment in roads, health, education, and infrastructure. We know that is where the drivers of growth come from. That is what our Government is doing. That is why this country has grown, year on year, for 6 years. That is why as we go into an economic cycle we are going to ride this through, because we have invested in making the country stronger. New Zealanders know that. They believe in their country. They believe in the Government. That is why they put us here, and that is why we are paying them back in spades—with an outstanding Budget by Michael Cullen.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : It indeed is a sorry, sorry assault on listeners’ ears to hear so much gibberish coming from Minister Maharey, the retired sociologist who has reinvented the language; the man who says that spending on welfare dependency is an investment, whereas, as John Tamihere says: “Minister Maharey just can’t call a spade a spade.” Spending is spending, and when it is spending on welfare dependency, Mr Maharey is just in absolute denial.

Dr Cullen’s Budget 2006 has just cemented in two of the biggest election bribes—the largest expenditure bribes—in the history of New Zealand. The first is the $1 billion interest-free student loan scheme. The second is the $1.5 billion Working for Families bribe.

Hon David Benson-Pope: What about the billion dollar National Party lie?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Mr Benson-Pope of all people, like Minister Maharey, has encouraged that expenditure, as something that will move New Zealand forward—whereas it will do the very opposite.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Be careful, you nasty little man.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you could get Mr Benson-Pope to just repeat what he said.

Hon Mark Burton: He said you were a nasty little man.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Oh, did he? Well, coming from a 5-foot gnome, that is not bad.

Anyway, I would like to ask whether we could get Dr Cullen to come up to Port Waikato and speak to some of the young women and men sharemilkers in the electorate who have just paid for their last herds with commercial loans, because it is such young people who are the backbone of the New Zealand economy. They get up at 4 a.m. During the winter they work in particularly difficult conditions and they often go to bed very late at night. They work extremely hard, and they pay big taxes. To cap it, those taxes go to subsidise the interest-free student loans that Dr Cullen has perpetrated on New Zealand. If we are ever going to move forward, that is not the sort of incentive we should be giving our young people.

Of course, the Working for Families package is just a form of rechurning by this Labour Government. Labour just cannot believe what people right around the world know—and it is quite simple—people want to have clear incentives like tax cuts. Labour cannot believe that, and it is in denial of the fact that over 600 New Zealanders are leaving permanently for Australia, on a weekly basis.

I want to spend some time today talking about an area that this House often does not debate—that is, the area of research, science, and technology. I think that most commentators around the world regard it as an extremely significant driver of growth. Yet we have the trio—Prime Minister Helen Clark, Minister Maharey, and Dr Cullen—all talking it up but doing very, very little about it. They did nothing about the 2002 Knowledge Wave Trust recommendations. In fact, as with tax, they are in denial over those very significant recommendations. What did Helen Clark say in the Speech from the Throne on 8 November 2005? She said: “My Government believes that science and innovation are critical to driving our prosperity.” But what are the facts? Under this Labour Government over the last 7 years, the investment in science and technology as a percentage of GDP has actually gone down. It was 0.59 percent in 1997, and now it wallows at 0.54, after 7 years of a Labour Government.

What does the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, say about Budget 2006? He has the gall to say: “Economic transformation lies at the heart of this Labour-led Government’s ambitions for the future.” He went on to say that “Budget 2006 was a Budget for the long term.” Well, what do we know? When that tawdry Labour Government came in, in the last quarter of 1999, growth was at an unprecedented rate of 4.9 percent. But what was the growth rate in the quarter when Dr Cullen gave his Budget speech? It was 0 percent, and it is predicted to grow at a rate no greater than 1 percent in the next year. How do we compare that with what is happening across the ditch in Australia? Here in New Zealand, the Labour Government’s growth rate is predicted to be less than 1 percent over the next year, while Australia will charge on at a rate of about 3.6 percent.

What do the commentators say about Dr Cullen’s so-called transformation Budget? Rod Oram, one of the Labour Party’s friends, simply said that Cullen’s transformation Budget would not change much. Colin James wrote in the Business Herald: “And ‘economic transformation’ is at best slow-acting. Tepid injections into the research science and technology … budget underline that.” He also notes that Dr Cullen put a target of 0.68 percent of GDP on public investment into science, research, and development, but that he put no date on it. It is just like the Labour Party when it first came into office and said it would get New Zealand up into the top half of the OECD by 2010. Where are we? We are wallowing down at about No. 17 or 18, and there is no prospect whatsoever of that position improving. So that is the sort of commitment that this Labour Government has for the vital area of research, science, and technology.

Let us look at the figures for that area. The biggest spending amount was $626 million in 2005-06, which will rise to $647 million in 2006-07. The Government is planning to spend $100 million over the next 4 years. I applaud the fact that the Government is putting anything into that area. The Government aims to put $250 million into the Performance-based Research Fund by 2010. This time, the amount will go up again by about another $20 million. Indeed, that fund is a very important part of the research effort. But the point is that the Government says that science and innovation are critical to driving our prosperity. There has been the billion-dollar bribe of interest-free student loans, and $1.5 billion has been put into social welfare dependency, yet in the context of what really drives our economy—areas like science, research, and development—the amount put in is approximately 5 percent of what the Government is putting into the social areas, and that will result only in further welfare dependency.

I also say that the Government has surrounded this spending with language such as “investment”. It has changed “spending” on welfare dependency to “investment”, and it has totally forgotten the fact that the spending it has carried out will act only negatively in driving New Zealand’s economy into the future.

I want to make two further points about the science and technology area. The first is that the amount of the most prestigious fund—the Marsden Fund—has stayed the same this year as it was last year. That relates to one of the areas of basic research, where there is market failure and where there is a place for the Government to invest. It is an area where only 15 percent of internationally regarded, peer-reviewed, high-quality applications are put in and funded, but the Government does not recognise it. Instead, the Government has said it will put another $100 million into the Venture Investment Fund, which is an area it started 3 years ago. Only $60 million has so far been invested; there is $40 million to go. The Government has done no assessment as to how effective the fund is, but it has said it will put another $100 million into it. So here we have a Labour Government that is totally ignoring the most relevant part of science, in terms of basic research, by making no change, but instead is sprinkling another $100 million into the Venture Investment Fund. Labour’s tinkering around with science, research, and development will not grow New Zealand’s economy.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : In his stirring speech last Thursday, the Rt Hon Winston Peters referred to this Budget as an “MMP Budget”. But I ask when—since 1998, at least—a Budget has been as influenced by a support party as Budget 2006 has been influenced by New Zealand First. It cannot be said that the Alliance, the Greens, the Progressive party, or United Future ever had an impact on any Budget, from 2000 onwards, that came anywhere near the impact that New Zealand First has had on this Budget. What impact, for example, did ACT have on the 1999 Budget? It had no impact whatsoever, yet National was dependent on ACT’s vote for confidence and supply, in the same way as Labour is dependent now on New Zealand First.

What this Budget shows is how key election pledges can be delivered by a support party, even when it has only seven members, if it is determined, true to its word, prepared to put its money where its mouth is, and puts the interests of the people of New Zealand ahead of the political ambitions of its caucus members. New Zealand First has shown how a party with a few members can punch way above its weight.

What did ACT deliver for the few people who voted for it? It delivered a dancing bear and the highest-paid territorial soldier in the country. What did National deliver for those who voted for it? It delivered a leadership bun fight. What did New Zealand First deliver for those who voted for it? I will tell members what New Zealand First delivered through this Budget for the 130,115 wise people who voted for it. First and foremost, this Budget delivered the first tranche of the additional 1,000 frontline police and 250 additional support staff. That first tranche came at a cost of $164.3 million in operating expenses, and $52.3 million in capital expenses. When the total package is finally played out, it will be worth more than $500 million. Those who voted for New Zealand First can justifiably say: “We did that. We did that for all New Zealanders, to provide greater security and to reduce crime.”

The racing industry was in dire straits. For years the industry, which is important to the economy of the country, had bemoaned the uneven playing field it faced. An industry that employs 20,000 people was in jeopardy, because for years politicians turned a deaf ear to the industry’s pleas for help—National, Labour, the lot. Who came riding in on his black and white charger for the industry’s protection? It was no one else but Winston Peters and his band of merry men and women. The rescue package that was recently announced will reduce Government income by $136.5 million over 4 years.

Lindsay Tisch: It was National’s policy, word for word. The industry knows it.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: National pinched the policy off New Zealand First in the first place. Lindsay Tisch should go back and have a look at his 2002 manifesto—there is nothing in there. I say to Mr Tisch that we know what thieves in the night they are. Some would argue that the Government had no right to have that money in the first place, but if it had not been for the 130,000 people who voted for New Zealand First, the Government would have continued to rip off the industry.

What about the additional $126 million funding boost for aged care in the Budget? If members look at the confidence and supply agreement they will see it there. What about the additional $64.2 million increase in market development assistance, and the $63.7 million increase over 4 years for Tourism New Zealand to promote New Zealand? Members should look at the confidence and supply agreement and see that Labour has agreed to prioritise measures to significantly grow our export sector, and it has nominated 2007 as an export year. What about the announcement that the Tauranga Harbour Bridge will no longer be tolled? Did Bob Clarkson negotiate that? He did not. It is in the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First. While Bob Clarkson was scratching his nether regions, Winston Peters was negotiating on behalf of the people of Tauranga. That was magnanimous behaviour—the mark of a statesman.

There is also the mark of a statesman in the funding for Official Development Assistance. The funding for that has been increased by $84 million, with the first target area being bilateral aid in western Pacific countries, and the second being maintenance of viable communities in those countries—Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands—in free association with New Zealand. Once again New Zealand First can put up its hands and say that it has stuck to its manifesto and long-term policies, and that it has delivered as a result of the confidence and supply negotiations.

I make one more comment about the hallmark of New Zealand First, which is embedded in this Budget. New Zealand First has long had a policy that all petrol and road-user charges should be used on transport-related expenditure. We battled with National, when we were in Government with National, because it opposed that policy, but now we have seen an announcement that means we have won our case.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : As my colleague has said, this is a genuine MMP Budget—one that honours the supply and confidence agreement New Zealand First has with the Government. If we look at the Budget, we see that it involves five of the eight parties here in this Parliament. We in New Zealand First are really pleased to see that the policy platforms we took to the country at the last election will actually make a difference to the lives of all New Zealanders—and that is basically what being in politics is all about. The difference between this Government and the National Party is that the Government knows how to operate in an MMP environment, and it also gives parties some credit when it implements their policies.

How let-down those National voters must be feeling, given that the Bondi Beach brigade, in the form of Dr Brash and others, is advocating that everyone should go across the Tasman and get a tax cut. There were no constructive policies and there was no constructive debate; it just ran down New Zealand and put up billboards to advocate that everyone should go across to Australia. I hazard a guess that not one of the National Party team will resign during this parliamentary term to go and live in Australia. Neither will any member resign at the end of the term in order to live across the Tasman. That is rather ironical, I believe, although I must say that the leader of the Bondi Beach brigade, Dr Brash, may have the opportunity to go there sooner rather than later.

New Zealand First fought a lone crusade at the last election to address the plight of our seniors. Other parties were very happy to pay lip-service to senior citizens but they did not decide on any specific actions to help seniors. New Zealand First said that too many of our seniors were struggling, and that we were serious about improving their lot in life. Our seniors are entitled to live with dignity in their golden years, and this goes hand in hand with lifting the base rate for superannuation to 66 percent of the net average wage. This is the first step for New Zealand First.

The sum of $126 million went into the aged-care sector. The sector has been neglected for years, and this additional sum is a small step towards assisting the sector. We know it is an extremely important sector, which will grow in importance along with an ageing population. It is absolutely essential, however, that the increase flows through to the aged-care sector. Higher wages for the service providers of care to the elderly are absolutely essential. Those of us who went down to the demonstration yesterday know that an extra 51c an hour—the equivalent of one pack of peanuts—is not enough for the workers in this sector. The separate nurses’ claim must be resolved totally independently of this new money. District health boards have already been funded for the Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement, and they should pass that money on to those nurses in the aged residential care sector, as well as to the district health board nurses. New Zealand First wants better outcomes for our seniors. Of course, our golden age card emphasises our concerns for that group, and we will be waiting to see that coming through in the next Budget and implemented in the next year.

We in New Zealand First were very pleased to see an additional $40.8 million allocated to the oral health of New Zealand primary school children. The school dental service is in dire need of this funding and it is very concerning indeed to find that less than 40 percent of eligible preschoolers are enrolled in the service. That is an appalling statistic, and one the Māori Party, no doubt, is absolutely horrified by. However, when one actually does the maths for the allocation, one finds it is less than $2 million per district health board, and I know that district health boards need far more money than that to rectify the situation. Some district health boards have planned for projects that require four times that amount. Those projects will obviously have to be downsized. I hope they will actually be implemented, and we will be following that through very closely.

So New Zealand First celebrates the parts of the Budget our confidence and supply agreement has delivered on. We are very pleased with those, because we value investment in New Zealanders and we want to put New Zealanders first.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I begin by thanking the two preceding speakers for those very positive comments. I am sure most people in this country would acknowledge that this Budget is a clear demonstration of the results of collaboration and working positively for the future of New Zealand.

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the Budget will acknowledge that Budget 2006 continues some very strong progress made by the Labour-led Government in investing in our country and our people. We are focused on transforming New Zealand’s economy into the dynamic, knowledge-based, innovative society and economy that we need to have, and we will do that by improving the quality of life of Kiwi families young and old and by building pride in New Zealand’s unique national identity. This country has a proud history of social innovation. Over the past century, in particular, we have created a society that is about fairness, inclusion, and ensuring everyone gets a fair go. That is the Kiwi way.

In the past 6 years the Labour-led Government has reinforced the relationship between social and economic development. We have put a much stronger emphasis on the well-being of families. We have taken a much more active approach to social assistance, with case managers increasingly focused on supporting people into sustainable work rather than simply processing support. The results show that that approach is working, and working very well. Currently, 2.1 million New Zealanders are in work. Our labour force participation rate is the highest ever, at 68.5 percent, and we have the second-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, at 3.9 percent. The number of New Zealanders receiving an unemployment benefit has fallen by an extraordinary 72.4 percent since 1999, when National left to us the appalling legacy of 161,000 New Zealanders unemployed.

Jill Pettis: How many?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I tell Jill Pettis that 161,000 New Zealanders were unemployed. The figure is now at 44,500, and is continuing to improve.

Hon Chris Carter: What is it now?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The figure now is 44,500, and it is continuing to improve. Indeed, the total number of beneficiaries has fallen by nearly 30 percent over the same period, and the number of children living in benefit-dependent households has dropped by 20 percent. That is very good news indeed for our young people.

Economic and employment growth gives us more resources to invest in social development, parents, children and young people, workers, students, job seekers, people with ill health or disabilities, older people, and communities—to invest, that is, in families, young and old. Labour invests in New Zealand’s future, while Dr Brash is busy investing in Australia’s. National Party billboards may be a big thumbs up for Australia, but they offer no vision for New Zealand.

It is vital that all our families enjoy more opportunity and security, and share in the progress that New Zealand is making. Budget 2006 confirms that the Labour-led Government has the policies to deliver those goals. Over the next 4 years the Government will invest an additional $5.8 billion of operating expenditure and an additional $460 million of capital expenditure in families young and old. A strong family is, of course, a secure family. A strong family enjoys the economic independence of paid work whenever possible, and has security and protection for family members who, for whatever reason, are unable to work. The purpose for our social assistance system is very clear: we must support everyone who can work to get into work, and to stay in work, and we must provide protection for those who cannot work. For families to thrive they must have access to work, and that work must be financially worth it.

Budget 2006 fulfils the Government’s pre-election promise to extend tax relief to working families through the Working for Families package. From 1 April this year 85,000 families have been entitled to extra support through extended eligibility to and reduced abatement for family assistance. This involves new spending of $360 million in 2006-07 and $1.8 billion over the next 4 years. By 2007-08 the total Working for Families package will be $1.6 billion every year. Around 350,000 Kiwi families will be gaining from the advantages of this tax relief and associated support.

Let us be clear. An average New Zealand family with two children will have the lowest tax burden in the OECD, thanks to the Working for Families package. OECD data confirms that in terms of a single-earner family with two children, on average earnings, Working for Families tax credits have taken New Zealand from having the eighth-lowest tax take to having the fifth-lowest tax take in the OECD. In the process New Zealand has overtaken Australia, which is lying in sixth place. The 1 April extension to Working for Families will further reduce that overall tax take. If other countries remain unchanged, New Zealand will then be ranked the lowest in the OECD for tax take. For families with children, Working for Families has made a huge difference.

Of course, these are not facts that National Party members want to share with New Zealanders as they continuously talk up Australia and talk down their own country and their own countrymen and women. The National Party has confirmed that it would borrow billions of dollars and need to cut health and education spending in order to deliver its misguided and poorly targeted tax cuts. What National has not given us is a serious alternative approach to targeted tax relief that would tell New Zealand families whether they would lose the tax relief they are currently getting under Working for Families to pay for tax cuts for high-income earners and National’s mates.

Let us look at the response of ordinary Australians to their Budget. According to a poll conducted for the respected Melbourne Age, two-thirds of Aussies would have preferred more spending on services, ahead of tax cuts. That is just what we have delivered in New Zealand—an investment in the future of all New Zealanders.

The OECD also confirms that for an average person the overall tax take, taking into account all Government contributions, transfers, and tax credits, as a proportion of gross earnings is already lower in New Zealand than in Australia. Even after Australia’s recent Budget, Treasury has advised that New Zealand’s tax wedge for the average family will remain lower than Australia’s—Australia’s tax cuts being targeted, of course, at the higher tax thresholds. National keeps claiming that the grass is always greener in Australia. Ordinary New Zealanders need to know that the OECD, for one, does not see it that way.

Budget 2006 further invests in the future of New Zealanders. Quality affordable housing is, as we know, fundamental to the health and well-being of families and communities. Housing has a really strong impact on a family’s health, education, and employment opportunities, and on a community’s safety and cohesion. In the 1990s National sold 13,000 State houses, despite mounting demand and poverty. On taking office Labour immediately began rebuilding that asset, adding 496 houses into the network in 2000 alone. This coming financial year we will add another 815 houses, and by 2009 we will have added a total of more than 7,200 extra homes since 2000. Budget 2006 adds $62 million of capital, over the next 3 years, to the $597 million already earmarked to continue that programme. In addition to the provision of extra homes, Budget 2006 also sees further spending on modernising old State houses, community renewal projects, healthy housing projects, and energy efficiency.

The Budget is investing $9 million over the next 4 years to strengthen and expand family violence prevention and support services. This is an important first step in our programme to improve family violence prevention. A safe community respects the rights of everyone living in that community. A safe community is one where everyone can access the services they need. A safe community has high levels of trust and support among its members. A safe community is also free of crime. Removing crime from our communities is not just important for its own sake, it is also vital in order for us to achieve the other qualities of a safer community. That is why Budget 2006 furthers our work towards safer communities, in a number of areas. It provides $164.3 million in operating costs and $52.3 million in capital over the next 4 years for the first slice of the 1,000 front-line sworn police and 250 non-sworn police promised under the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. More than $10.8 million over the next 4 years has been allocated to Victim Support for it to continue its restructuring, and that funding will enable Victim Support to hire more practice specialists and other key staff, adding to its core volunteer workforce.

We are investing for the future through investments in transport, the superannuation fund, and more teachers, through lowering the costs of doctors’ visits, and through helping with access to job training. Budget 2006 builds on progress made in creating a dynamic, innovative economy that will raise the living standards of all New Zealanders. As the economy slows we are continuing the wise fiscal management we have demonstrated. We have paid off the mortgage. Our total financial assets exceed our total liabilities for the first time in this country’s history.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) : I thought that during the time I have been in this House I have heard pretty much every loopy idea available to mankind, but today I have learnt something new. From listening to members of the Government, I have heard that somehow it is patriotic for members of this House to sit back and do nothing as our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner strips this country of its capital, strips this country of its skill base, and sees our nation sink into oblivion. Somehow it is unpatriotic to point to the blindingly obvious fact that the Australian Budget brought down a couple of weeks ago is a huge wake-up call for all New Zealanders.

I say to the members opposite who have loyally read out the research notes that have been distributed by the ninth floor of the Beehive that New Zealanders have passed judgment already on this Budget. New Zealanders, from one end of the country to the other, know that this Government has no answer at all to the big challenges confronting New Zealand in 2006. [Interruption] I tell Mr Carter to enjoy his time, as it is coming to an end. My colleague the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred to this Budget as the “Bondi Budget”. He correctly drew attention to the fact that in the last 6 years we have seen the gap between average after-tax income in Australia and average net income in New Zealand, which was previously 20 percent, move up to 33 percent—that is the advantage that Australia has over New Zealand.

Let us look at a few simple facts. New Zealand is currently struggling to achieve growth of 1 percent, and Australia’s growth is 3 percent and is probably headed for 4 percent this year. Australia has a free-trade deal with the United States that is now into the back end of its second year, and New Zealand has none. If we look at those facts, we can see that by the time we end up with a National Government in this country—in 2 years’ time—that gap could be well over 40 percent. That will present a real challenge to this country in terms of retaining its capital base and its skill base.

I want to spend a few minutes of my time today talking about foreign affairs and defence, because there are some interesting developments under way in this area—developments in which my colleagues and I have had some modest part to play. First of all, I have taken the view, since being appointed to take responsibility for these areas for the National Party, that New Zealand is too small, too geographically remote, and too dependent upon international trade for its livelihood for us to afford the luxury of political bickering where the national interest is at stake. I have made it clear to members opposite, to the Ministers who carry those responsibilities, that this side of the House will work with them wherever possible to try to achieve the important goals that lie ahead for this country. Some Ministers have reciprocated that offer in very material ways. I see Mr Sutton is in the Chamber; I acknowledge that he is one of those Ministers, as is his colleague Mr Goff.

One of the most important foreign affairs objectives that New Zealand must seek to achieve in the next few years is the improvement of our relationship with the United States of America, our second-largest trading partner. There is little point in dwelling on some of the detail of that relationship in the last decade or two. Much of it has been suboptimal, and I think there is little value to be gained in focusing on that detail today. Suffice it to say that I think we have reached a point where there is an understanding and a growing realisation on both sides of the relationship that we need to do something quickly to improve the relationship, and that both parties have to work harder at it than has been the case in the past. I believe there is growing appreciation—again, on both sides—of the absurdity of two countries that share so much history and so many values finding it difficult to find points of agreement in many aspects of the relationship.

Indeed, in relation to the trading arrangements at the moment, I am sure that some commentators on the international stage must shake their heads in wonderment as nations that have brought little to the table in terms of international affairs, and nothing in particular to their relationship with the US, are favoured with free-trade agreements with that country, to their considerable advantage, while New Zealand sits outside any such arrangement. That, to me, highlights in very stark terms the need for us to make some progress and to lose no time in seeking to make that progress.

I emphasise that this is not a short-term project for this country, and I think that Government Ministers will acknowledge that this project will take years, not months. This project will not be completed within the term of this current Government, which makes it important that there should be a degree of bipartisanship in terms of the way in which we move forward, as far as it is possible to achieve that. That is why the National Party has made a commitment to work with the Government in a bipartisan way to move the New Zealand - US relationship ahead over time. That is why the leader of the National Party, Dr Brash, my colleague Mr Groser, and I accompanied Ministers Goff and Cunliffe, along with a group of very high-powered business leaders, to the recent business partnership forum in Washington. We wanted to make it clear to the US administration and to the American people that the objective of improving the relationship is shared by both the Government in office in this country and the alternative Government of this country. I was delighted to be a part of that approach, and—led by Dr Brash—to play the National Party’s role in that important mission.

Today I want to reflect on just two or three specific areas of the relationship where I believe it is timely for us to move forward and where I see some glimmer of hope. First, it is important that New Zealand should secure some relaxation of the current restrictions that apply to New Zealand servicemen training with their US counterparts. That matter was raised by Mr Goff when we were in Washington—and it is a point that has also been raised by the Leader of the Opposition—because the current arrangements simply do not reflect the quality of the relationship in some of the more difficult parts of the world. Sure, there is provision for waivers of the presidential directive that was brought down 20 years ago, and, sure, such waivers are given. But when we reflect on the fact that we are expected to fight alongside each other in the trouble spots of the world, it seems silly that we are not able to train together more freely. I believe that in that respect the point made by Mr Goff and Dr Brash in Washington had some resonance, and, indeed, I see that at least some goodwill is being brought to further consideration on that matter in Washington.

Second, we need to see the current restrictions on US technology and intelligence, in terms of access for New Zealand forces—also a product of the presidential directive of 20 years ago—given some sort of review. The fact that the purchases of equipment that we make at the moment take place on a commercial basis rather than the advantageous terms of 20 years ago is a cost to this country, but, more important, New Zealand needs to move as far as possible down the path of interoperability with the forces of Australia. That will be difficult—indeed, some would say impossible—unless we can see further leeway through the removal of the restrictions that apply to our access to US technology and, indeed, US intelligence.

It is also important that we should make further progress on the completion of a free-trade deal with the US. Every New Zealander will be richer as a consequence of our achieving that objective. I personally believe that it is a medium-term project, not a short-term project, but it is one on which we cannot afford to miss any opportunity. There is always the very long shot that some unfortunate developments in the US might result in that country seeing some advantage in picking up at short notice a New Zealand offer.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) : I have listened over the years to a number of Budgets being announced in this House and I have found it very, very interesting, especially when one is in Government and the Budget is being delivered, to hear the responses of those on the Opposition benches. Things really have not changed very much at all, except for the responses made by Opposition members, and specifically the National Party, to this Budget, which have been very predictable—unusual, but predictable.

The strands of Opposition members and their contribution to the debate has been twofold. Two threads of deliberation and contribution have been made by the National Party to this Budget. One is the mantra we heard before the election about tax cuts and how they would benefit our people. The other one is unusual. It is unusual because it is the first time I have ever heard a member of this House encouraging people to go to Australia. So those are the two threads I want to talk about—the mantra of tax cuts and how they will benefit our people, and the new one, whereby Don Brash wants to emigrate to Australia.

I will pick up on the second one by way of a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Herald yesterday. It was sent by a New Zealander who has family who live in Australia. It states: “Don Brash and patriotism. As a loyal National voter I have one message for Don Brash—shut up. I am unimpressed by the anti-New Zealand rhetoric and offensive tax-rate billboard campaign. Let me give Dr Brash some perspective. I have family in Sydney.” This is not from somebody who is just claptrapping here, from this Parliament; he has a family in Sydney. “The husband left a $45,000 job in Auckland for a $70,000 job in Sydney, yet the family is saving next to no more than it was in New Zealand. The reason is simply a myriad of user-pays fees, expensive sports club fees for the children, huge stamp duty on house buying, hugely expensive insurances and so on. The result? Five more New Zealanders will be coming home sooner rather than later. National’s tax-rate campaign is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. Are you actually trying to make us feel bad for staying in this great country on purpose?”.

That letter to the editor certainly was not canvassed by the Labour Party. It was from a member of the National Party. I have listened to all this, and it makes one wonder. Could one imagine Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee in their speedos, lying on a towel on Bondi Beach? Could one imagine them in their bikinis, under the sunshine at Bondi? I would say that the best policy would be to repatriate every New Zealander, not just in Bondi or Sydney but from all around Australia. If we want New Zealanders to come back to this country, then just get them to picture Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee in their bikinis, lying in the sun on Bondi Beach! God help the Australians! That was in the New Zealand Herald.

I was interested to hear the comments made by my colleagues in the Māori Party. They said that this Budget has nothing in it for Māori. Certainly, I acknowledge that the Budget does not mention the word “Māori” many times, but I say to those members on the other side of the House—a group of people who I would say are “Ngāti knockers”—that if they look very carefully at the Budget documents they will see in them a lot of goodies for Māori.

I will talk about the Budget in terms of housing, health, tourism, and education. But, first, I will talk about the health budget. The sum of $10.6 million is going to the health sector this coming year—

Jill Pettis: Extra.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: There will be $931 million extra this year. Do Māori go to the hospital? Of course they do. When we go to our hospitals we see a lot of Māori patients being looked after? Do Māori belong to primary health organisations? Of course they do. Do Māori women have babies in our maternity wards in our hospitals? Of course they do. Do Māori have access to primary health care? Of course they do. Does the Labour Government provide funds for health, hauora, and Māori providers? Yes, it does. Do Māori Party members understand what Budgets are all about? No, they do not. I do not blame them—I can understand that—because instead of looking at the detail of the Budget and at what is provided in it for our people, they are looking for the word “Māori”. If I were a member of the Māori Party I would certainly be looking for the word “Māori”.

But I want to tell my colleagues that there is more good news. There is better news for us in housing. That is an area that is close to my heart and to the heart of my colleague the member for Te Tai Tokerau. Labour is investing $659 million in the building of an extra 7,200 State houses. I say to members of the Māori Party—to the “Ngāti-knockers Party”—that the majority of State house tenants, 39 percent of them, are Māori . About 13,000 State houses were flogged off by the National Party—and I can see my colleague across the other side of the House is looking very disappointed. He cannot believe this. When National was last in Government it sold off 13,000 State houses. This is the reality. This is not just claptrap talk about the Budget and all the high-flying phrases used. How many families do members believe were displaced? Labour will build an extra 7,200 State houses by 2009.

What is in it for Māori? Let me tell this House, and the Māori Party in particular, that 21,139 State house tenants are Māori. I ask whether they can beat that. Never mind about the kōrero—the claptrap is easy. This Government delivers. I am proud to be a member of a Government that delivers for our people, and I am proud to be a member of a Māori caucus that does not go around the radio stations talking a lot of humbug or writing claptrap in letters to the editors of newspapers. In fact, we deliver for our people.

In education we are spending an extra $361 million, with a budget per year of $4 billion. Do our Māori kids benefit in kōhanga reo? Do our Māori kids benefit in their primary education? Those members should think about it. Do our Māori kids benefit in their secondary education? Of course they do. So where is all this claptrap coming from—claptrap that says: “Oh, poor Māori. We have to have the handouts identified with the label ‘Māori’ on them.”? Well, I say to this House that the majority of Māori are intelligent people. We accept the challenges that are set down by the community. We do not want something for nothing. We do not want handouts. We are as good as anybody else, and we want to be treated just like anybody else. We want to be treated equally, with equity and dignity, in this country. This Budget actually does that.

I challenge anybody who is really serious about saying what is good for the Māori community to stand up and counteract some of the facts I have put before the House to consider, especially my colleagues in the Māori Party who almost every day bleat about how Māoridom is hard-done-by. We are spending $1.3 billion on roads, and part of that expenditure is going up north to Te Tai Tokerau, to tarseal the road to Cape Reinga. Has any other party in Government done that? Some months ago members of the National Party were gnashing their teeth and frothing at the mouth about the underspending on our roads. They should look at the situation now. They were ambushed, outclassed, and outflanked by Michael Cullen. I say to those people who talk a lot of humbug and who want to knock the contributions to Māoridom that have been made by this Government that they had better think again. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Have a nice day.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : On 14 February 2006, the beginning of this parliamentary year, the Prime Minister made her statement, and in the context of a very political speech, she said: “An economic transformation has always been central to this Government’s economic policy.” Well, the quintessence of transformation is a concept of sudden and dramatic change, and presumably the Prime Minister had it in mind that such an economic transformation would be beneficial to the country, would be worthwhile, and would bring benefits. The Minister of Finance, however, would not see economic transformation as containing any element of dramatic change. He has made it clear that for him the most effective way to bring about economic transformation is by what could be called “glacial incrementalism”.

The Budget of 2006, despite the rhetoric of the previous speaker, hardly showed courage or imagination. If economic transformation was to be its watchword, then it failed utterly. Looking back at the period of the Labour Government, it is no wonder so many people feel only a sense of dismay. Let me take three examples, in the short time I have available, through the time frame of this Government that demonstrate in a clear way incompetence, loss, and poor judgment. The first example is the proposal by Singapore Airlines to take a 49 percent share in Air New Zealand. That proposal required Cabinet approval. Running an airline is a very fraught business. It is well illustrated by the fact that all the major United States airlines, with the possible exception of Southwest Airlines, are in chapter 11. It is a state of managed bankruptcy, under American law.

The New Zealand Cabinet was then, and is now, a Cabinet wholly lacking in business skills and experience. In fact, the only person in the current Cabinet with business skill and experience is Mr Sutton, a farmer. Its members simply could not assess the merits of the proposal. They could not see the business case, so, of course, they rejected it. We as taxpayers fronted up with $885 million in October 2001. We invested a further $150 million in 2004 as part of a rights issue, and significantly more money will be required if the Government remains determined to compete on the international aviation stage in a business environment that is very hard and very ruthless.

Let us take a second example. This Government has been extraordinarily lucky, and I believe that its luck is about to run out. The speed at which New Zealand is being transformed into a branch office of Australia is truly frightening. One commentator has said: “If we are not to become a nation of store persons and shop assistants, sales managers and tourist guides, then we need to get a much firmer grip on our economic destiny.”

I am not sure whether members opposite know this, but 600 people each week leave New Zealand to settle permanently in Australia. That is a staggering loss of resource for many of those people who are our best and brightest—tradesmen, tradeswomen, and professional people. We can ill afford to lose them, yet the Government seems to be complacent about that loss. As we all know, and as we are constantly reminded, the gap between Australian and New Zealand incomes continues to widen dramatically. Why is it that when Dover Samuels retires from Parliament he is going to go we know where—Australia? We are simply not prepared to confront the challenges of an ageing and diminishing skills base.

I believe that the ideological differences between National and Labour are stark, as this Budget has demonstrated. The world competitiveness scoreboard for 2006, which was released earlier this month on 11 May, has New Zealand’s placing falling from 16th to 22nd. Meanwhile, Australia has risen from ninth place to sixth place. The scoreboard itself ranks the competitiveness of 61 national and regional economies based on 312 criteria. The section on New Zealand lists the challenges facing the country as including these things: encouraging skilled migrants; ensuring secure and affordable energy and water; improving workplace productivity, management, and business capability; and reducing compliance costs. What does the Budget do about that? Sadly, not very much at all. National believes that the strong fiscal surpluses provide the basis for significant tax cuts, and that the ideology of the Labour Government is enabling Australia—our biggest competitor for skills and capital—to charge further ahead.

At the moment members may be aware that the Government is carrying out a review of the Immigration Act. That is great, but sadly it seems very reluctant to critically consider changes to the migrant categories. There is a requirement that those in the business investor category have a sound knowledge of English, generally to the standard of the old University Entrance qualification. I am not arguing the case that skilled migrants do not require good English, but in this category—the business-investor category—that is quite different. A well-designed business investor programme would bring significant capital flows to New Zealand, and business investors are, of course, well able to afford staff to assist them in their daily lives in New Zealand. Let us just remember for a moment that Samuel Goldwyn, who emigrated from Poland to New York and went on to create the fabulous film studio MGM, knew nothing of English when he left Poland.

I conclude with a final example. In the last few days we have seen the disgraceful illustration of the Minister of Communications commenting about the prospects of Telecom and saying that that company might have to cut its dividend payout to fund increased investment. That statement was instrumental in wiping $157 million off Telecom’s market capitalisation.

Jill Pettis: Telecom shares have gone up.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Jill Pettis responds by saying that the share price has gone up. That naively is similarly what the Prime Minister said yesterday. It may be that the share price of Telecom is trading at higher levels now than it was before the comments were made, but what Jill Pettis overlooks is that for those who sold because the Minister made those comments, their losses have been truly significant. It is no wonder that a stench is forming around this Government. It is such a tragedy that when there was the opportunity to do good in this Budget, the Government has done bad.

JILL PETTIS (Labour) : That speech was made by the honorary consul for Monaco, Richard Worth. An extraordinary revelation was made this week and I think it is important to debate it further, because it has not received much coverage. I refer to the release of the email from the Exclusive Brethren to David Henry, the Chief Electoral Officer. This issue has nothing to do with David Henry. He was quite properly and professionally responding to questions that the Exclusive Brethren put to him. Those questions were around statements such as: “We, a group of Christian businessmen, have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million, with the goal of getting party votes for National.” We had thought that the amount was $500,000 but the email now reveals that it was $1.2 million.

The Brethren church asked the Chief Electoral Officer questions such as: “1. Does it compromise National’s position if we communicate to MPs and candidates our strategy? 2. Does it compromise National’s position if we show them draft publications before they are published? 3. Is there any legality prohibiting us printing ‘Vote National, Vote Brash’ and including a photo of Dr Brash on the pamphlets? Can this be done without compromising National’s funding position? 4. To what extent can we legally advise, direct, assist, communicate with other National MPs and candidates?”. It is very, very clear that the Brethren have been dishonest and the National Party has been dishonest. It is no wonder they are such good friends.

I have been actively involved in politics all my life, really, but more actively involved as an adult, since 1972. I have never ever seen Brethren members at a political meeting in my life until the last election campaign, and I would have been to more party political meetings than any of those five Tories sitting together in Opposition. I have been going to political meetings since I was aged 8, in the Hylton Hall, Somme Parade, Aramoho, in Wanganui. Chester Borrows said, at the Grey Power meeting in Hāwera two Mondays ago, that some new National MPs have never been to a political meeting in their lives, and that when they came into Parliament it was the first time they had ever been in such an intense political environment. That comment was made by one of National’s own MPs at a public meeting.

The Brethren were involved donkey deep in the last election campaign. They were involved in telephone polling. They were leaflet-dropping as late as 6 p.m. on the Friday night before the election. We have always played by the rules in our electorate. In the electorate of Whanganui, the old National Party always played by the rules and we had a very good gentlemen’s and ladies’ agreement whereby we stuck to the rules. But the Brethren were delivering leaflets as late as 6 p.m. on the Friday night before the election. That had not been seen or done before. When will those National MPs who are washing their hands like Pontius Pilate and saying it was not them, because they do not know any Brethren, come clean about that?

At National Party election night functions, when those MPs had to concede defeat, we looked around the rooms and saw the same old National Party faces—the same old National Party tried and true supporters who have turned out year after year and done the donkey work, which is not particularly glamorous. No Brethren were to be seen at those National Party functions, at all—not a Brethren in sight. All of the hard work, the pamphlet deliveries, the telephone polling, and the megabucks of dollars that were poured into the National Party campaign came from the Brethren. It did not come from the usual loyal National Party supporters.

It is time that the National Party and the Brethren came clean, because we know what this issue is all about. It is about a $4.5 million return to the Brethren over 3 years in education funding—a $4.5 million return over 3 years. That is a 450 percent return, which is better than the return on Telecom shares. The Brethren are no slugs. They know that getting $4.5 million from National is far better than the return available from Telecom any day of the week. The Brethren are not slugs when it comes to managing money. They get $1.5 million already for their 12 Westmount Schools. National said it would double the funding of private education, so that is $3 million per year for the Brethren—$4.5 million of extra funding over 3 years. There is not a word of denial from those Tories over there, because the new ones know that they would not be here without the Brethren.

It is time the Brethren and the Tories came clean. The Brethren tried to say they were motivated by moral issues, and did not like the Civil Union Bill. Well, what about some of the members who sit along National’s front bench, if we are talking about moral issues and voting history? The Brethren were not concerned about moral issues at all; they were just concerned about power, influence, and money. We were not born yesterday and the Tories can try to convince us as much as they like that their mates, the Brethren, were not involved in the campaign. We know they were involved, because we saw them at meetings and we had never seen them before. They did not open their mouths, of course, but they were there, and some of them turned up to the polling booth. You can bet your bottom dollar they turned up to the polling booth!

The National Party is not only dishonest about its association with the Brethren but is disloyal to New Zealand. The National members run New Zealand down for political gain. They should be honest and tell us how many of their children or siblings have gone overseas in the past. It is a good thing that New Zealanders go overseas and gain overseas experience. In fact, John Key bragged about his overseas experience and the success he had in the finance sector there. I do not think it was a bad thing that John Key went overseas; I actually think it was a good thing that he went overseas and gained some experience. He came back at a time when taxes were the same as they are now, so I ask the National members not to hand me that rubbish about National being concerned about matters of taxation.

The other totally dishonest thing about National is its position on race relations and race-based issues. The National Party members would love a Cronulla Beach - type riot. It would be absolutely right up their alley, and they would salivate should something like that take place in New Zealand—not that I think for a moment it ever will, because most New Zealanders are very fair-minded. I am just amazed and surprised at the friends that the National Party has. I remind the Māori Party of the old adage: “You’ve got to have a long spoon if you want to sup with the devil.”

Our Labour Government is delivering for New Zealanders in ways that have not been delivered before. The transport component of the Budget was particularly exciting for those MPs who live in provincial New Zealand. I am thrilled at the roading works that have been accelerated in the South Taranaki - Whanganui area, and in Taranaki itself. The Bell Block bypass, the Rugby Road underpass, the Normanby bridge realignment, the Tangahoe bridge widening, and several Wanganui projects moved up the list quite considerably. I am delighted that $58 million will go into industry training and the Modern Apprenticeship scheme. There are 8,000 apprentices currently in training in New Zealand. Apprenticeships are a brilliant scheme, but were abolished by National in 1991. One of the first things that Bill Birch did when he became Minister of Finance in 1991 was to help to get rid of the former apprenticeship scheme. That was a shame and a disgrace. The National Party talks about training but forgets to mention that by the way, the National Government abolished it. The other exciting expenditure is on tourism. New Zealand is a country that has a lot to show off to the rest of the world, and I commend the people involved in winning the silver award at the Chelsea Flower Show.

We are proud of this country, and Labour is prepared to back it.

KATHERINE RICH (National) : She is bitter all right, she is bitter! For those listeners who have just tuned in that was the valedictory speech of Jill Pettis. Anybody who has read the Sunday Star-Times will see that she is on Helen Clark’s hit list. No doubt some backroom deals are going on, but I doubt whether Jill Pettis has been offered anything other than being Ambassador to Namibia right now. The Ambassador to Namibia is all that is on offer for Jill Pettis. Was it not rather telling that that member started to talk about the Budget in only the last minute of her speech? That bitter and twisted diatribe about all and sundry had nothing to do with the Budget we heard delivered last Thursday.

In last Thursday’s Budget there was nothing for business—not one sausage, not one skerrick that will make any difference to business here in New Zealand. All the Government did with last Thursday’s announcement was confirm a total lack of understanding about business, and what it takes to create an economic environment that will make it easier to do business in this country, not harder.

Of course, there has been the endless self-congratulation about Lianne Dalziel’s review into business regulation and compliance costs. I say there is something quite wrong with a Government that thinks announcing another business review is something to celebrate. There is nothing to celebrate in announcing a review. It might be newsworthy, but it is not exciting. Actually doing something as a result of a review is exciting, and that is what this Government has no track record in doing.

Leading up to Monday’s announcement there was that predictable release to the local papers telling reporters what Lianne Dalziel would announce. She launched her new image—with some nice pictures, I have to say—and the idea that she was looking across the ditch to Australia to get some new ideas about looking at regulatory reform here in New Zealand. She was drawing on the work of Gary Banks who has recently written a paper called Rethinking Regulation. The build-up to the announcement got many business people thinking that something would be done—the expectation was built that there would be something in the review for them, perhaps a tax cut, perhaps some announcement into the area of employment law reform, or perhaps changes to the Holidays Act. Businesses rightly had their expectation raised, but there was none of that. What was the announcement? Another review.

Well, the response from business was understandably cynical because they had seen it all before. The rhetoric surrounding this review was exactly the same as it was in all the previous reviews that had been announced. Members who have been here a while will remember the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs in 2000 launched by Paul Swain, the then Minister for Small Business. Paul Swain said that he would be the Minister who would “wage war on red tape”. The objectives of his review were pretty interesting. I will read them: “The objective of the Panel will be to provide advice to the Government on ways to reduce unnecessary and over-burdensome compliance costs to business arising from central and local Government regulation (excluding tax legislation).”—of course—“This may lead to either the amendment or repeal of existing regulation, or to changing administration procedures.” That was written 6 years ago.

What Lianne Dalziel announced had some business people quite rightly feeling a sense of déjà vu. Certainly, their complaints have not stopped and business has not seen any result of that compliance cost review. That is why business people are suitably cynical about what Lianne Dalziel has announced. Ministers Tamihere, Hodgson, and Barker—who were also Ministers for Small Business—announced similar kinds of initiatives—

Simon Power: It’s a powerful line-up.

KATHERINE RICH: Yes, absolutely. Although Lianne Dalziel likes to pride her Government on having a Minister for Small Business, there have been so many of them that I wonder why she thinks it is something to celebrate. There have been so many business-oriented reviews, strategy papers, and blueprints, it is no wonder yet another review has drawn an audible groan from business people asking whether they have to go through one again. I ask members about the reports from the Small Business Advisory Group.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In the bin.

KATHERINE RICH: The first report went in the bin; the second report is obviously in the bin. If I was sitting on the Small Business Advisory Group, I would be wondering why I was wasting my time. Time and time again, business people put forward their recommendations to this Government and they amount to absolutely zip. This Government continues to commission advice and reviews, then does nothing about the advice when it is received. That is because the Government’s approach is all wrong.

On Monday we saw the Government congratulating itself and saying how great it was because it had commissioned a review. I think that is more indicative of this Government and what it thinks should be celebrated than of anything else. There have been so many reviews in the business area that it is not funny. There was the McLeod Tax Review, and there have been reviews done on the Holidays Act, the Employment Relations Act, and in other areas of business compliance costs. Lianne Dalziel has all the information there; she need only dust off her own copy of the report of the Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs. It is all there, but she chooses not to follow it and commissions yet another review.

The funny thing about Lianne Dalziel’s review panel is that it is all made up of bureaucrats. At least Paul Swain’s panel was made up of business people.

Simon Power: Good old “Swainy”!

KATHERINE RICH: At least good old “Swainy” had a few clues. The panel that will be set up by Lianne Dalziel is stocked full of bureaucrats. Will they really find the answers to problems troubling New Zealand businesses? I do not think so, particularly when this Government has said that it does not want any recommendations to do with tax, employment law, the Holidays Act, or the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The Government has its ideological blinkers on and somehow thinks that a silver bullet solution will come from some other area and not from the big areas business is currently troubled by. That is one concern.

We also need to look at economic development. This magical $64 million was announced that would go towards new business grant programmes, but the very, very small print stated that this was not new money; it was reallocated funding. So there was not even new money to help businesses go to trade fairs and do all the other things that will make a big difference.

Jill Pettis: Ten minutes and not one policy.

KATHERINE RICH: Jill Pettis says I should be talking about policy. I would think a member who had been here long enough would know that this is actually a speech on the Budget. Members are supposed to be talking about the Budget. It is fine coming from someone who spent only the last 60 seconds of her speech actually talking about it. She managed to totally ignore the Budget in her speech, but, because she knows so little about what we are doing here in the House today, she does not know that what I have been just discussing is totally about what is in the Budget—in fact, my speech has been solely on the Budget. I think she needs to go back to her office and fill out her CV, and perhaps raise her sights above being the Ambassador for Namibia—a good place to send Jill Pettis—and take things from there.

National would have liked to see in this Budget something tangible for business—something that would really have made a difference to all those businesses out there currently struggling under a poultice of regulation. When Helen Clark stood in this House at the beginning of the year and said she would take a fresh look at regulation, most people thought that would mean less regulation, not more. Although this Government continues to spout out the rhetoric of being business-friendly, it has not made one significant difference for business that will make it easier—not harder—to do business in this country.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) : I rise with justifiable pride to support this Budget. Labour has delivered on its commitments, many of which it made during the election campaign. Over the seven Budgets that have been made since Labour formed a Government, New Zealanders have learnt that Labour delivers on its promises. One of the reasons the country moved to Labour and away from National was the memory of National’s broken promises to older people—to Grey Power, and to any number of people in society it promised much and then whipped away what it had promised. Labour has not done that; it has delivered on its promises. It extended Working for Families to approximately 85,000 more families and removed the interest on student loans.

A young student was in my office the other day—a young Wellingtonian—who owes $100,000 in loans. She is a medical student in her sixth year. She will go overseas after about 5 years, but she now wants to spend time in New Zealand practising and learning on the job and setting up networks, because she knows now that she can afford to do so. She knows that probably she can break over half of that loan and pay it back within 3 or 4 years. Labour has kept that promise and will deliver to New Zealanders.

As the member for Wellington Central, I am particularly happy with aspects of this Budget. We have transport woes—maybe not as great as Auckland’s—and the transport package delivered to us. Before the Greens say that it was all about Transmission Gully, I say that it is also about railways, railway stock, the purchase of Wellington Railway Station, and those sorts of issues. In education, Labour’s work in Modern Apprenticeships is having a real effect on industries here in Wellington. I heard the speaker before me, Katherine Rich—who has just left the House—say there was not a skerrick in this Budget for business. How on earth does business get goods to market except on roads and rail? I would have thought transport, infrastructure, and things to do with telecommunications and broadband had an awful lot to do with business. I do not know where National is, but if that is not a skerrick for business, then it must have a very big skerrick to give out at some time.

Labour is also on about supporting firms and finding markets. Of course, for Wellington, there is huge input in the Budget for driving innovation through science. [Interruption] Now Wellington—the member who speaks such an awful lot and so many times may not know this—has more scientists per head of population than anywhere else in New Zealand. It has all the Crown research institutes, most of them centred in here.

David Bennett: No it hasn’t.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Hamilton has one, but Wellington has about four others. Wellington also has the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, and a number of other institutes and tertiary science. The commercialisation of science that is coming from this is really superb. So as a Wellingtonian, I am very happy with this Budget. But as a member of the human family, I am most delighted.

I wonder whether members could stop, because there is something pretty serious here. We are in here because we care about people; at least I am. We want to lead lives enhanced by love, and enjoyment of our families. This Budget gives us the leg-up to be able to do that. Poor health can put great stress on family relationships, particularly in relation to the responsibility we feel for the older generation. So we have put $126 million into this Budget to improve residential care and home-based support services for older New Zealanders. I see members over there shaking their heads. How can National even think of putting anything close to $126 million into helping older people, when at the same time its members want to give tax cuts to John Key? It does not make sense; it does not add up. That is why we won, and that is why I won Wellington Central—just on the argument alone, that it does not make sense. The civil servants in here understand that. People can promise tax cuts, but then they cannot deliver health care to the elderly. They cannot go out there and extend the primary health care strategy.

A man in Karori stopped me one day and told me he had a heart condition. He was aged 54, and he said that going to the doctor was extraordinarily costly. Going to the pharmacist was extraordinarily costly, so he asked when we were going to do something about delivering on that. We have delivered on that—and is that not good news?

Now I come to something fairly personal, which is about being overweight, and about the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action plan. I am going to make a pledge here: by the time this session ends in 2008, I will be 20 kilograms lighter. I have already reduced weight by 17 kilograms, because I believe that this is about walking the talk. Now we are no longer regarding the weight problem as something frivolous out there; it is something very real, and the Government has put money in, to back it up.

We have talked about the elderly, we have talked about people of my age, but we also have the school medi-checks for kids. Kids cannot learn if they are not well. Kids cannot learn if they have hearing difficulties, and the work we have done on that with the universal screening programme is particularly important. This is about families, this is about the value of life; this is about health; this is about education. Those are the important things in the development of a healthy society. So I come again to education, and look at the money we are putting in there, because we happen to believe, and to know through research, that early childhood education is the means by which we will reduce the deficit of illiteracy. We are doing the work about literacy, and about illiteracy in the workforce, because of the years and years of neglect for certain sectors of the population. But getting into early childhood education, and ensuring we have 20 hours there for people, is very important.

As well, a considerable amount of money has been put into the Budget for children who are disruptive. Children who are disruptive in classrooms damage not only themselves but the other learners in their rooms. That is a real problem for many people. In the past way of life, the practice was always to expel those kids and to drop them out into the community. But then we had the cost of prisons and everything else that goes with that. This work with disruptive children is not about throwing kids out on the heap; it is about working with the children, their families, and their teachers so that we do not lose those children. When I was a principal, I thought I was a failure if I ever had to expel a child. I probably removed more teachers from the payroll than I did students from my school

David Bennett: Oh, you were hard.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I worked extremely hard to make sure that kids were able to learn. I walked the talk, I tell that member—I do not just talk.

Now we come to the matter of being safe. Actually, part of being healthy, and being able to love and enjoy our families, is to feel safe at home, to know that our older parents are safe at home, and to know that our young kids will be able to come back through Cuba Mall, get on a bus, come home at night to Karori, and feel OK. We are going to increase police numbers. We have made that commitment—it is out there. We are doing it, in no uncertain terms, with the help of New Zealand First, just as I have had the help of that member there to get the funding for Transmission Gully.

We are also doing the work on something we are deeply ashamed about in this country—that is, the issue of violence in our families. That is something we have huge shame about and, again, we have to walk the talk. Again, we have to find some solutions to that problem. Part of the solution, I think, has been—I have always hoped—for people to be employed, to have jobs, to have their self-esteem rising, and to go forward with that. But it is obviously not enough. We have generations of neglect that we have to fix, so we have to move on in this way.

Then, there is housing—2,000 extra houses. New Zealand is home to all of us in this Chamber. We love it, or we would not live the lives we do, fighting to make it a better place. Unfortunately for us, we know New Zealand probably better than most people do. If we run clinics, we know it, warts and all. We know the problems in our society. There is much we can do as a community to make society even better. I would never stand here and say that we have reached the perfect nirvana in New Zealand; we have not. We have problems in our families; we have problems with the health of our elderly; we have problems with our young people. But this Budget, just like the preceding six, lays the steps down for moving forward, so we move forward inch by inch on behalf of the whole community. Progress is not about individual tax breaks; it is for the whole community. That is the only way we can be safe; that is the only way we can move forward; that is the only way we can ensure that we have a community that excels in love, peace, looking after each other, and caring for each other. National members may sneer at that, and they may want to go down the selfish road, but I believe—and the people on this side believe—that the community is the strength of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I note that the member, although she talked a lot about the health of New Zealanders, made not one mention of the long-term cost of people being culled from waiting lists—of New Zealanders being culled from waiting lists, in their thousands. There is not one word about those waiting lists in this Budget but, then, this is the Budget of an arrogant Government—the same as last year—that thinks it knows best how to spend the hard-earned taxes of ordinary New Zealanders up and down the country.

Those of us on the Māori Affairs Committee this morning witnessed the height of arrogance and ignorance in the Budget planning process. We were told by the Minister of Māori Affairs—after he was forced in the end to confirm it—that he, as Minister, had not made one bid in the current Budget round for new funding. He had not put in a bid for new funding in the Budget process. That has to be a first—a Minister of the Crown not making a bid for new funding. I doubt whether there has ever been a Minister who has not done that. This is a Minister who says his mission is to realise Māori potential, but who did not make a bid in the Budget round for new funding. Shame on him! It will be the first time ever. He is probably the first Minister ever to behave in that way. He should resign.

I come now to the broadcasting portfolio, and say I am not surprised that the Hon Steve Maharey is not going to talk about his contribution to the Budget round in respect of broadcasting. As we see, he has managed to get a measly $24 million over the next 4 years, most of which is going to NZ On Air for more local programming. No doubt, New Zealanders will welcome that, but we would have thought that this Government and Minister Maharey might have had the brains to work out, since they talk so much about unbundling and how they are going to move New Zealand forward—we will wait and see what happens there—that an ideal way to “sex up” their Budget would be to tell us what they are doing about the introduction of the digital platform. But do we see anything at all in the Budget that refers to the introduction of the digital platform? No—absolutely not! I would have thought that Minister Maharey might have had more going for him, and that he might have grabbed the opportunity to say: “Right, there was a big balls-upon the great leak, the Telecom leak. There’s a great hole in this Budget, so why don’t we tell the public, in this Budget, about the appropriations we are making”—if, indeed, there are some to be made—“and that we are going to have the digital platform, with TVNZ on digital, within months.” But, no, he is too smarmy. He sat there all last year, which was a disastrous year in broadcasting in terms of TVNZ.

Let us look at what happened to the company last year. It experienced a sharply reduced dividend; falling ratings; viewers deserting to TV3 and other channels; viewers signing up in droves to Sky television, because that is where the digital is but there is none in the offing from the Government; high-profile presenters departing under dubious circumstances; and a culture of extravagance that was still alive and well when we came into the new year. Worst of all, that organisation of the State had a finding of contempt made against it.

It was a disastrous year for television broadcasting under Minister Maharey. He sat on his hands and literally did nothing to curb the disastrous year for TVNZ. Now, he still seems to be doing nothing to reassure New Zealanders that, indeed, we are going to be brought into the age of digital TV. There was not one mention about that in the Budget. As I say, it was his opportunity to sex this Budget up. He missed it. It is a wonder nobody else did. Maybe the Minister of Māori Affairs should have seen the opportunity. Given that he struggled over the questions that were put to him this morning in the select committee, where he did not seem to know what the Budget process was all about anyway, I do not think we can look to him to sex any Budget up. But I would have thought that Steve Maharey, given his looks and the fact that the Speaker at one stage, I think, indicated that she thought he was quite pretty, would have the nous to do something exciting in the broadcasting area. He could have told us what all the months of consultation, the work of the free-to-air broadcasters with their digital group, and others, had achieved. The Minister himself has been making regular statements saying: “We’ll have digital on the way.”, but there was not one mention of it in the Budget.

That is an indictment on the Minister, who presided over a disastrous year—indeed, years—for TVNZ, and we now watch while New Zealanders leave in their droves and sign up to Sky television. Whether the new board is going to reverse the situation, who knows. Unless the Minister is able to somehow give us some indication soon of when the digital platform is to be introduced, there will be no viewers left. He has sat on his hands for all of the last 2 years with a group out there supposedly working on it—such as, Jo Tyndall, seconded from New Zealand On Air to the ministry. No doubt she is busy, busy working on something, although we do not know what, we have not been able to get any information out of the Minister on how far advanced the digital platform is. What are they doing? What does the Minister intend to do?

Broadband may or may not come. It suffered a huge set-back with the great “leaker” from the Prime Minister’s office. That left a big hole in the Budget. Nothing has been put there to fill that hole, and that is an indication of an arrogant Government that daily is putting more and more New Zealanders on benefits, as a cynical vote-gathering exercise, because that is all it is. In the meantime New Zealand slides down the ladder of economic prosperity, productivity, and economic growth.

We have a Minister who had absolutely nothing in the Budget in the broadcasting arena, other than a bit more funding for New Zealand On Air, but nothing about the biggest challenge facing television broadcasting—that is, the introduction of a digital platform. I am talking about the missing-in-action digital strategy, a whole lot of work going on for years, a whole lot of people who have busied themselves on this, and still absolutely nothing in the Budget. The Minister should fold his hands, pack his bag, and give the thing to someone else. Unfortunately, so many on the Government side are on notice. Who would he give it to? Mr Cunliffe, the great hope in the techno area, goodness me, the poor thing, he had to see his flower of the Budget leaked to the public, with Telecom losing millions off its share price. So he could not give it to Mr Cunliffe. So many of the Government members seem to be on notice, who could he give broadcasting to?

Broadcasting received approximately $24 million but there was not a whisper, not one word about the introduction of the digital platform. Do we live in the digital age or not? The Government seems to think we do not.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : I have listened to this debate for 3 days. For 3 days we have heard one of the most important debates of the year, and it concerns the Budget. The debate has shown what National stands for and what it believes in, and it is a very narrow vision, indeed. It shows that National believes in tax cuts.

What else does National believe in? Tax cuts. What else does National believe in? Tax cuts. When the Government cuts taxes moderately, how does National respond? National members say: “More tax cuts.” Tax cuts are its religion; its article of faith. National says taxes are bad and must be cut. Tax cuts are the meaning of life for National. It has no other message. It is a one-policy party—tax cuts. If we ask the National members what the meaning of life is, they will not say: “A fair and egalitarian society.” They do not talk above love. They do not talk about health or education services. They do not even give us the number 41. For them the answer to everything is tax cuts.

Well, tax cuts are not the only thing, and most voters, of course, disagree with National. They do not think that the future of New Zealand lies in tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Most voters agree with the Labour position—that, essentially, taxes are good. I am happy to have this debate because I am sure that most New Zealanders agree with Labour that taxes are good. Tax is the glue that holds society together. It is the cornerstone of civilised Western society. Tax is good. Tax is crucial to social cohesion and low crime. Tax is essential if every New Zealander is to get the chance to succeed, no matter how rich or poor the family he or she is born into. Taxes in New Zealand are low by international standards. They are not high—and that is an issue I will return to.

In contrast, National says tax cuts are necessary and that $11 billion worth of them are overdue. What an extreme position! It is obvious that National’s tax cuts would cut basic services like health, education, and superannuation. But perhaps even more important to me is the fact that National’s tax cuts would threaten the core egalitarian values that I, and most New Zealanders, hold dear. Tax cuts under National would lead to where we know its heart is. Its heart is in the right-wing vision where we would have increasing divisions between those who have and those who do not have, between those who are born into wealth and those who are not. It would increase the gap between the wealthy and the less well-off. We would see more crime. We would see poorer health and education services for most people. Of course, outside of the tax arena we would also see international policies like the disastrous war in Iraq. Under National, we would have been part of that war.

National’s assertion that we can afford grandiose tax cuts is based on an assertion that New Zealand is over-taxed. Well, the OECD keeps statistics on taxation, and it shows that for a one-earner couple with two children New Zealand is the fifth-lowest taxed country in the OECD. That is, fifth-lowest out of 29. In respect of a single person without children, we do even better. We are the third-lowest taxed in the OECD. On both measures we are better than Australia. So how responsible would $11 billion worth of tax cuts be at this point in the business cycle? A recent OECD report states: “It is important that temporary revenue gains and economic upswings not be used as pretext for permanent tax cuts that exacerbate inflationary pressures and create a legacy of high structural Budget deficits that only become apparent during subsequent downswings.” That is exactly what National is proposing.

On the subject of tax cuts, I have to say that some are appropriate. That is why the Government, this year and next, is funding $1.6 billion of tax cuts for families with children, which is an average of $88 per week in tax relief. A family with three children on $60,000 gets $130 a week. That is affordable and prudent. Members should not be swayed by the notion that tax is bad. Tax is good.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : At home, the news of the week was not about the Budget, because most of my relatives are intelligent and cynical enough not to expect anything from a Government that seems dedicated to the downgrading of all things Māori. No, the news was about the real money, the big deal—the $18 million Lotto pay-out that some lucky bugger up in Kaeō won. I am happy for that person in Kaeō, and real happy for his or her whānau that they got the big break but, for all of that, I still feel a sense of gloom, because it seems that the only way a lot of my whanaunga will be able to break out of the poverty cycle is through a game of chance, a wild gamble.

Last week, Dr Cullen did nothing to change that with his 2006 Budget. Whānau development is gone, local level solutions are gone, direct resourcing is gone, capacity building is gone, capacity assessment is gone, manaaki tauira is gone, Māori and Pacific scholarships are gone, and there is no new money for the Ministry of Māori Affairs. Members should not get me wrong; I am not saying Māori were not targeted—we were. Unfortunately, though, targeting for Māori in 2006 involves the same failed, racist policies of assimilation that Governments pursued back in the 1800s, when Māori kids were allowed to speak only English, and the only good Māori was a quiet Māori.

Well, it comes as no surprise, at all, to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that assimilation just does not work. It did not work back in the 1800s, and it did not work in the 1900s. In fact, assimilation was supposed to have ended with the Hunn report in 1960. So it is a worrying trend when those same racist policies are dredged up in this new millennium. Of course, they are dressed up in new words, but there has been no consultation with Māori nor, I suspect, with even the Government’s own Māori MPs. Surely they could not possibly be supporting the rubbish being foisted upon their own people in 2006 by that crowd.

The one-size-fits-all theory simply does not work—it never did. As the only party dedicated to defending Māori rights and advancing Māori interests, the Māori Party has an obligation to highlight the hypocrisy of this Government’s financial programme. There is no new money for Māori—that is a fact. The Government has given funding two flash new names—reallocation and reprioritisation—but the facts remain the same. Even with a $9 billion surplus, there is no new money for Māori. In fact, the real story of Budget 2006 for Māori is about what was not in it.

I congratulate the Minister of Finance on announcing a key focus on our families, young and old, but what about the 60,000 Māori families who will not get anything from the Working for Families package? Although it is lovely to hear the Prime Minister reading out fan-mail from people who do get the package, members can believe me when I say that those words are absolutely meaningless to the nearly 100,000 Māori kids who do not even know they have been denied by this programme.

The Government was also right to target health as a Budget priority, and we congratulate it on that. But we remind it again that a one-size-fits-all health Budget will not alleviate the massive health problems faced by Māori people throughout the country; neither will it ease the fears of the people in the far north who stand to lose their hospital and their doctors, because there is no money to encourage them to stay.

So when my people ask me what they got in the Budget, I get really sad when I have to tell them they have got nothing new. When they ask me why not, I have to say I just do not know—I do not know why there is nothing there for them; I do not know why the Māori MPs in Labour did not fight for them; I do not know why those MPs are so quiet about that; I just do not know what they are thinking.

Last month, Labour’s Māori caucus was told to host a press conference to promote the Working for Families package, but when asked by the media what the benefits of that policy were for Māori, none of them could answer. They were dumbfounded and struck mute when they had to defend a discriminatory policy they did not understand—and, with no cue cards provided, even I was embarrassed.

The 2005 Budget was notable for 1 hour’s worth of talk and no mention of the word “Māori” at all. The 2006 Budget is even more sinister because it mentions Māori as in the sense of: no consultation with Māori, no new money for Māori, assimilation for Māori, and “No, Māori, we ain’t listening.”

I normally like to finish my kōrero with a Māori saying but, seeing that this Budget gives Māori nothing, I turn instead to my Pākehā side. Although I am no great fan of Shakespearian tragedy, I cannot help but think of a line from Macbeth to describe this Budget: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : There is also a quote from Shakespeare about a pound of flesh—people tend to think that it is always about a pound of flesh. The focus on money by these other parties in the first instance, is outrageous. There is no doubt that Māori are a unique people. The contribution made by Māori to New Zealand is etched on the country at this stage. Māori culture reinforces the dynamic identity of Aotearoa New Zealand in a globalised society. I am thankful that Hone Harawira recognises his Pākehā side, because I have worked with Māori over the years who used to deny it—for example, Tau Henare.

Everything we do now must be measured for the contribution it makes to the future of our people. The groundwork has been done, the scene has been set, and this Minister of Māori Affairs has been part of it—not like the prattle of ancient and past Ministers of Māori Affairs, especially the one sitting in this House. [Interruption] How so? It is simple. Our growing asset base, falling unemployment rates, and rising participation rates in education and enterprise are what Māori are doing today, and that is what they are trying to establish in their growing population. All of these present opportunities have been imbued, developed, and strengthened by this Government.

This Budget provides for Māori, and I am glad that my friend Hone Harawira is sorry that, as he said, he does not understand. That is dead right; he does not understand. But I will help him learn it as he goes along. This Budget provides for Māori. It is about moving people from dependency to development. The Māori Party does not like this approach; it prefers our people to be trapped in the dungeons of doom and gloom. Well, I tell those doom merchants that the best way out of poverty—in fact, the only way out of poverty and dependency—is through work.

Māori Party members are concerned about beneficiary entitlement. They are arguing that beneficiaries should receive the in-work support payment. Without a doubt, beneficiaries are better off under this Government than they have ever been. But I want to make clear to this House that, with this Government’s approach, work always pays. If we are serious about moving our people from dependency to development, work must always pay. This Government has made significant inroads into supporting beneficiaries and their families. Child poverty has reduced by 70 percent under this Government. But, most important, this Government has given beneficiaries work. Research and experience shows that this Government has got 100,000 people off the dole and into work. Of those, 30,000 are Māori. They are off the dole and into work. That is simple logic.

Dr Sharples, as we have just heard Hone say, would tell the House to give all the money to Vote Māori Affairs. Then, in turn, it could all be given to Māori, and we would wait and see what happens. In 1999-2000, when this Government came into power, Vote Māori Affairs had $55 million. This year it had a 200 percent increase to $156 million—well-spent and well-managed money to help Māori development. The National Party, with its “mother of all Budgets”, slashed $1.3 billion in 1 day. It put the economy into a spin. And to resurrect the recession that was put on the people—members heard what Dr Cullen said this morning—National sold the State houses. That is what National did. That is National’s economic mentality. Those members marginalised people by thinking big with little minds and unkempt practices that do not have platforms of the macro and the micro. Dr Cullen will be remembered as the best finance Minister in Parliament’s history.

National sold the State houses, it put the economy into recession, it slashed $1.3 billion, and it is trying to do it again through John Key. That is supporting the greedy, not the needy. That is the right agenda. National members like John Carter know that. Hone Harawira knows that. Members should look at those two Hones sitting together. That is why they are together, because they support it.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that it is improper for the Minister to refer to me just by my first name. I would also like to point out that when he said that I said I did not understand, in fact what I said was that I do not know why the Māori MPs in Labour did not fight for Māori, not that I did not understand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The second part is not a point of order. The first part of it was, and the member needs to refer to the member by his proper name. While I am on my feet, I will just say that there is far too much of a barrage. It is a constant barrage. Interjections are OK; a barrage is not.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I turn to benefits for Māori in this Budget. Without a doubt the 2006 Budget improves the opportunities and the social and economic well-being of Māori. People do not want to understand that. The Government is continuing to deliver for Māori through the strengthening of core services in all areas. The Budget has expanded targeted tax relief to 85,000 more families. What is wrong with that? By next year 350,000 families will be getting $1.6 billion every year, the sum of the single-day wipe-off that those members’ financial policies created. That is tax relief of $88 a week. [Interruption] That is right, I tell Mr Brownlee. That means more money in pockets and more incentives to get into work. Working for Families will deliver more to working Māori. Cutting the student loan interest will deliver to Māori. That will make up for all this humbug about the Government not caring about Māori. In terms of beneficiaries, 251,000 New Zealanders were receiving an accommodation supplement, and 69,000 of those were Māori. The new in-work payment came into effect on 1 April. The in-work payment will support our people, because they need it.

Hon Tau Henare: What’s Te Puni Kōkiri doing?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Te Puni Kōkiri is doing a lot more than when that bloke was Minister—when he had those commissioners, and Fay Richwhite represented the Māori affairs policy in the National Government at that time. He knows that, because they used to go fishing with him on Thursday nights. That is how he tried to get the leaks out of the public servants. He knows that. Shame on him! There are expected decreases in child poverty. Those members know that.

In education, Māori will benefit from investment across the education sector. We are not talking about $5 million. We are talking about $166.4 million targeted towards tertiary education. The number of Modern Apprenticeships is up to 14,000. Additional funding for early childhood education and schooling is $28.2 million for a standard 20 hours a week of free early childhood care. I know that that member does not understand, but he will learn as time goes on. He should come over to this side. That is important.

Funding for more effectively managing disruptive behaviour in schools comes to $9.5 million. We should put some money into Parliament to control the disruptive behaviour on the other side of the Chamber. There is $89.3 million to provide an extra 455 full-time teachers. That is a great thing. It is no good having a great language strategy or a great Māori broadcasting strategy if we do not have people to teach it. Both Te Whakaruruhau and the Māori Televison Service have come in on time. There is $95.6 million to increase operational funding for schools. The total is $322.6 million. If people want to talk about money for the people, or support for Māoridom, it is all there.

The provision of interest-free loans is also there. Funding for Te Kotahitanga, a professional development programme to help teacher better engage Māori, has been extended to $10.9 million, which is actually more than manaaki tauira. Much has been said about axing that, but it is make-believe and mystery that is put upon our people by default. It is disgraceful. The Māori people know, along with Koro Wētere, that this is a great Budget for Māori.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) : We now know why Labour members had to get linguistics expert Clare Curran to come and give them a lecture on how to talk to people. I understand that remedial classes are being organised, as we speak, for the Hon Parekura Horomia in order that he might be able to more clearly follow the Labour line. The Labour line says that National has grabbed the agenda. National led the agenda right throughout the election and, bar some explosion inside National, it will be the next Government in this country. That is the internal Labour document that is supposed to have encouraged Ministers like Parekura Horomia to, for example, tell the truth. Well, that would be novel for a Labour Minister.

The same Clare Curran had a huge effect on the Budget itself, referring to the tax take as “an investment in the future” and to burgeoning numbers of beneficiaries as investing in people’s futures, and suggesting that the best thing Labour could do now is apologise for the way it has run the country for the last 6 years. That is the Clare Curran document. What is worse, do members know where all this “special information” that was given to Labour came from? It came from the United States. That is right. A US linguist is quoted liberally throughout the programme. A US thinktank known as the The Rockridge Institute is apparently where all this comes from; and the Center for American Progress also contributed.

Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there a doctor in the House? I am very worried about our colleague across the other side of the Chamber. He seems to be hanging on to his heart. He might have a heart attack.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that that is not a point of order. He should not interrupt the member’s speech.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I tell members that all of the points of order in the world will not stop Dover Samuels from being on the Labour managed-exit list. He is joined there today by his colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia. He is a man who is on the way out. I ask members to imagine this. This man is a Minister. We have already been told by Helen Clark that he is not a very good Minister, and they pay him a bit less than the other Ministers. None the less, he sits up there in his plush office. He turns up in the mornings, wonders what to do after he has done the colouring-in on the kids’ page in the newspaper, and then one of his departmental officials comes in. He says: “What’s going on?”. The official says: “Don’t worry. It’s all under control.” He says: “Thank you. That’ll do me.” And that is his day.

Then he goes to Cabinet and hears that a Budget coming up. He hears that Ministers bid for the funds they need to run their departments. So he goes back to the office and calls in the departmental head, and says: “What are we going to do about this?”. The departmental head has a look at it, shakes like a leaf, thinks “Oh my God, if they find out what we’re doing, we’re dead.”, and says: “Look, tell you what Minister, don’t put in a bid. Don’t ask for anything. In fact, offer to give some back, because we can’t use it. We’re so sloshing round in cash, we don’t need any more money, and besides that, there’s only so many hangis and huis we can have in one year, anyway.”

So then what happens? Parekura turns up, after the Budget has been read, finds out that he has made a huge mistake, and he is deeply embarrassed. He has turned up here today, wanting to say that everything is rosy. Well, the Minister, with all the help that a US linguist can give him, all the help from a US thinktank, all the help from the Center for American Progress, has not convinced anybody that he knows what is going on in his own portfolio.

The reality is that this is a hopeless outfit that is doing very little for Māori. How can he sit there this afternoon and say how marvellous Labour has been for Māori, when he knows that 60,000 Māori families do not get a cent out of Working for Families? They are simply the new poor of this country. They have been cast on the scrap heap and told by a Minister who has no care for them that that is the best they can ever expect. The only consolation Parekura Horomia can take from this Budget is that about 159,000 Māori did get a tax cut. They are the 159,000 Māori who are living in Australia. They are the iwi from across the ditch who have been lost to us. He sits there, telling us that this Budget was about investment in people’s lives; this was a Budget crowing about how well the Labour Party has done.

I will ask the Minister the same question I asked him at the select committee this morning, and I am still waiting for an answer. What does Te Puni Kōkiri do? One would expect, after 7 years as the Minister, that he might know. In an hour and a half this morning the Minister failed to answer that question. Do members know why? Because he does not know—that is why. When he woke up in Cabinet, when he was disturbed from his slumber at the Cabinet table, and heard that there was a Budget on, he wondered what the heck he had to do about it. I do not think he even knows who his departmental head is. It did not look to me like they talk very much, when they came to the select committee this morning. The only good news they could tell us was that they get $156 billion of funding a year, and the one thing they could tell us is that they have set up a second-hand computers in homes programme in Wairoa.

The rest of it, with all due respect to the Minister, was a great long list of huis and hangis for the great and the good, like Mr Jones who sits next to the Minister. He is Parliament’s greatest and most insidious double-dipper. He is the great white hope of the Labour Party—the great brown hope of the Labour Party—who is quite unable to survive on the minimal existence of a back-bencher’s salary. He has to go double-dipping, through Te Ohu Kai Moana. I cannot help thinking that Te Ohu Kai Moana is almost a metaphor for how Labour likes to treat Māori. The fisheries arrangements are a metaphor for how Labour likes to treat Māori. Give them a little bit, sort of, but do not let them touch it; do not let them decide what to do with it. Leave it to clever people, like Mr Jones, to work out what goes on, so that those 60,000 Māori families that are supposed to have an interest in the fishing rights around this country get nothing.

Mr Jones is sitting over there, saying how much he has done for the Māori people. He has done a lot more for himself than he has done for any Māori, I can say that much. There is the man who has golden pockets. We saw him up there, prancing up and down in front of the Māori Queen, in his pinstripe suit—a Bond Street Māori, if ever I saw one—with the hat on, looking like, well I do not know how it could be described. I am lost for words again. He leaves me like that most of the time. But what it really points to is the entirely cosmetic way in which Labour is trying to relate to Māori in this country.

There are some real issues; there are some serious issues. They are about the future of this country. One of the things that should worry anybody is the way in which the demographics are starting to point to the new population in this country. When we consider that, what we can see very clearly is that for future generations, when Māori will be more significant in the economy of this country, far too many will come from a legacy of welfare dependence, even in their middle class, because the Labour Government does not believe in allowing people to keep more of the dollars they earn in their pockets. I support the motion moved by Don Brash, leader of the National Party. This is an inadequate Budget, and we have no confidence in this Government.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I want to talk about the $126 million that has been budgeted over the next 4 years to go into the aged-care sector. I believe that $58 million has been targeted towards home-based support and $68 million towards residential support. When we first heard the news, those of us with real concerns about what is going on in this sector were hugely pleased. However, as the days have ticked on since the Hon Michael Cullen delivered the Budget, some disturbing evidence has come to light. When the sums have been done we realise that this big amount of money is falling into an even bigger hole. As we have suffered for years in roading, we are facing a crisis of momentous proportions in the aged-care sector.

The demographics are clear. We know how many elderly people we will have. We know the types of care that will be needed in the future. But what we are not completely sure about is what this Government or the major Opposition party are planning to do about it. As yet, nobody has come up with a long-term plan that older citizens can rely on. Even the generation represented in this House cannot, with certainty, plan towards their senior years when they will require additional support.

The crisis in this sector is twofold. First of all, we have a lack of futures planning, as I have just said. The second point is that our current delivery is in serious need of improvement. Although we welcome every morsel that can be thrown in its direction, we have to understand that we are not making ends meet. This sector is reliant on three groups. We are reliant on two sets of providers—those who are for profit, and those who are part of the not-for-profit sector who just want to stay afloat and be able to maintain their buildings and develop their services further. The other side of it is the staff, and it is the staff whom I want to focus on for the remaining time. Staff are currently paid the most appalling wages.

I want to reflect on the case of the nurses who protested outside Parliament yesterday morning. The reassurance they were given from Government speakers was appalling. They said: “You are so lucky that this Government has improved the minimum wage so many times in the last 6 years. Be reassured, the minimum wage will continue to be something that we will attend to.” However, most of us said: “These people shouldn’t be on the minimum wage.” The photographs that have caused so much controversy in a recent publication—and I do suggest that they were inappropriately used—reminded us of the very sensitive work concerning people’s dignity, which many of us may need to rely on in the future, that is done by an amazing workforce of people, and we pay them the most appalling wages. In my area, they leave the aged-care sector seasonally to go into the kiwifruit orchards to pick kiwifruit.

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

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : In the brief time I have this evening I will not be able to comment extensively on the Budget, so I want to just pick out one or two things that are near and dear to my own heart and to that of my party, and comment on those.

The first thing is that United Future is fully supportive of the Working for Families package. I do not care too much about what it is called; I think we should say that there is a mixture of targeted tax relief in it, and to the extent that some people receive more back from the Government than they pay in tax, there is also an element of what is technically called negative taxation in the package. But the really important thing is that the package is making a real difference to life on the ground for families with dependent children. My wife and I happen to be privileged enough to know quite a number of young families with dependent children, and I tell the House that those families are absolutely delighted with the additional amounts coming into their households each week through the Working for Families package. People are saying to me that it is good and that, at last, they can send their children to school adequately clothed and buy them some decent presents at birthdays and Christmas, and they feel like they are back in mainstream society.

I think it has to be admitted that when people leave the workforce, get married, or move into a relationship and have children, they feel a very real sense of having moved out of mainstream New Zealand. Other people are still going ahead, buying new cars and taking overseas holidays, and suddenly these people are in a different situation where they face the hard task, day in and day out, of making ends meet for their families. For those people the Working for Families package has undoubtedly made a huge difference. United Future is very proud not only to have had input into the design of the package but also to have supported it through the parliamentary process.

Having given credit where it is due, I say that United Future differs from the Labour-led Government when it comes to tax thresholds adjustments for personal taxation. In our view those thresholds should have been adjusted in last year’s Budget for the movement that has occurred in the rate of inflation since 1 April 2000 when the present tax rates, including the top rate of 39c in the dollar, came into being under the stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen. The Government, I believe, in failing to do that has created some real problems and real difficulties within New Zealand society. Dr Cullen’s inaction in that regard last year means that many thousands of taxpayers have moved up from the 19.5c band, which goes up to $38,000, and are now paying 33c in the dollar, and many more taxpayers have gone from the 33c band, which goes up to $60,000, and are now paying 39c in the dollar, purely because of inflation and the increase in the cost of living. To put that another way, because the cost of living has moved significantly since 1 April 2000—by around 14 percent—in real terms many hundreds of thousands of taxpayers are now paying more personal tax than they did in the year 2000.

Dr Cullen, in doing nothing about personal taxes, has allowed that to happen for the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are working people—the very people who, in the past, the Labour Party has traditionally sought to look after. So United Future and I are baffled at the way in which that group of people has been ignored by the Government after 7 years in office. For example, in 2000, average full-time workers in New Zealand were earning less than $38,000 a year and were, therefore, paying tax at 19.5c in the dollar. Now, according to the information released with the Budget, average individual wage earners earn $43,756 a year, and those people pay tax at 33c in the dollar—an increase of 13.5c in the dollar at the top end. In real terms they are, therefore, in some cases earning very little more than they were in 2000. Wages have gone up, but, as people shift through the brackets, at that top end taxes have gone up quite disproportionately and those people are now no better off.

The result is that we have created a dichotomy in New Zealand society. On the one hand we have people getting tax relief from Working for Families, while on the other hand we have all the other people who do not have dependent children and who have seen no shift in their tax position since this Government came into power. I think that that is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally unjust, and it is also fundamentally unnecessary. Dr Cullen has hinted today that, as part of the business taxation review, he may be able to also look at doing something about personal tax rates for those people who have seen no change in their position. I, for one, urge him to do so, because I think it should be done. It will make our society more inclusive and will send a positive signal to all New Zealand working people that, regardless of whether they have dependent children, whether they are single, or whether their children are now off their hands and they are back to the “Darby and Joan” type of situation, they will also benefit under this Government.

The other example I will talk about briefly is the quality of spending. I have been critical of the fact that the Government is spending too much, but there is also the question of quality. I will give a couple of examples. The Budget proposes $8.9 million to tackle bullying in our schools. I could tell people how to fix that problem much more cheaply than that. We could hire Ian McKinnon, the former principal of Scots College, and he could run seminars right throughout this country for secondary and primary school principals and teach them how to eliminate bullying from their schools. The point I am making is that we need to make sure that we are using real people to do real things that have real outcomes—that we are not just engaged in window dressing.

Another example I would mention is the $64.2 million that has been set aside to help exporters, or people who want to go into export markets, develop their overseas markets. I thoroughly applaud the intention behind that measure, but again I would ask the Government to think very carefully about what the delivery mechanism is, whether it will work, and whether it will actually produce real results in real time for real people.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I listened with interest to the member who has just resumed his seat, and the one thing I would say about the Working for Families package is this. I am aware of the case of a young business person who, because of the way in which that business operates, is able to dictate the level of personal income to be declared. Of course, since Helen Clark and the Labour Government brought in the Working for Families package, that person has decided that the personal income is too high. That person will now reduce the level of income so, as a consequence, that person will now attract a payment under Working for Families. That person will now receive from the Government in excess of $12,000 that he or she would not otherwise have been eligible for. Quite honestly, if this Government thinks that the system will not be manipulated, ripped off, and misused, then it is deluding itself. That will happen time and time again, as it does with all benefits. The best thing this Government could have done, if it wanted to help New Zealanders, would have been to take people out of the welfare trap rather than entrapping them in it.

I also want to reflect on some recent stories. We always know when a Government is on its way out—it is when we read stories about the fact that the leader of the Government is starting to say that this person or that person should go. Rather than let those people make that choice for themselves, the leader starts directing who should and who should not be here. I have to say that people like Russell Fairbrother, whom I have just spent a week overseas with, actually is not a bad sort of chap. He deserves the right to make a choice and to not be dictated to by Helen Clark as to whether he—or Dianne Yates, or Jill Pettis, or Dover Samuels, my old mate from up north—should stay here. What is wrong with the contribution Dover Samuels makes? It may not be good enough for Helen Clark but it has been good enough for Northlanders for a number of years. Members opposite know that when they reach the stage of starting to push people out of their party, they are in trouble. National went through it between 1999 and 2002, and I have to say it was a shambles. I can tell this Government that if it is getting to that stage, then it is definitely on its last legs.

I want to talk a little about local government. In 2002 this Labour Government passed the thing called “power of general competence” to local government. Local government thought that was great and that at last it had a Government that trusted it—a Government that was going to let it do things it felt it should do for its communities. Local government thought it would be able to do the things its communities wanted it to do and that it was uninhibited at last. It thought that was marvellous. Since then, this Government has passed 78 pieces of legislation that restrict, direct, inhibit, and manipulate what local government can do; that cause more cost; and that add costs to ratepayers. The legislation restricts, binds, and dictates to local government what it should do, to the extent now that local government has suddenly woken up and realised that the power of general competence is actually meaningless and does not stand for anything other than this Government manipulating and dictating what should happen, through local government, to ratepayers by a socialist Government.

There is also this thing called the Local Government Forum, where the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers meet with local government leaders three times a year. It is a forum in which they can talk about the wonderful, powerful things that should happen in local government, and in which the Government can ask how it can assist and what it can do to make things better. Boy, it is fantastic! Local government people thought it was great that at last they would have the ear of the Government. Well, that is the only thing they do get—and, quite honestly, who the hell would want an ear of this Government? It is all they get. It is just a talkfest. Nothing comes of it.

Back in 2002 the Government started a review of the financial area of local government to see how it could better fund local government. The review was to come out in 6 months’ time, sometime before the end of the 2002 financial year. But then it was postponed, but that was OK because in only another 12 months the Government would have the report. Then, in 2005, when the report had not arrived, the Government decided that perhaps a time frame should be set. It did that, and the date was set for January of this year. That has since been postponed until November of this year. I suspect that local government is starting to realise that, actually, this Government is just pulling the wool over its eyes—that it is not delivering much at all. To be fair, a couple of things have happened. This Government has allowed for some subsidies for small rural areas that are troubled by the ability to install sewage schemes in tourist areas, and that is commendable. But that is about the only positive stuff.

What about things like our roading, for instance, which is an area of huge, huge cost in, for example, Auckland? What about roading in our rural areas, or in our other metropolitan centres, or in our provincial cities? What has happened with that? Are those areas getting more money? Is that problem being sorted out? Can we drive straight through Auckland in the way we can drive through Melbourne now? Not on your Nelly! Not with this Government. This Government has actually done less for roading. It is interesting that it is now forecast that over the next 10 years local government in Auckland will spend $11 billion just to be as effective in 10 years’ time as it is today. In other words, no progress will be made at all, because this Government is not doing anything to fix the problems and to assist local government with the problems of roading. Quite honestly, it is an absolute disgrace.

In the short time I have left, I turn my attention to an area that New Zealanders are suddenly starting to become more aware of—civil defence. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Civil Defence is sitting in his old seat, the whip’s chair, because, quite honestly, given what he has done for civil defence, it would be a good place for him to go back to. About 2 months ago I put out a press release after discussing some issues with people involved in civil defence in New Zealand. They told me that it was a joke, that nothing happens, that there is no system, communication, or structure, and that there is no cohesion, at all. So I put out the press release saying that, to my knowledge—because I was still finding out what was going on—things were not as tidy as they should be and that things were not quite right. I said that we actually had a civil disaster in New Zealand and that it was called “the Minister”. But I got a statement back saying that I did not know what I was talking about and that my head was in the clouds. I was told that I did not know what civil defence was about, that everything was fine, and that it was good.

Since then, I have been doing some more work—in fact, the good thing is that in lots of ways I have not had to, because the Minister has been presenting it on a plate. What happened with the tsunami warning we had recently? We were meant to have a system that allowed us to know what was happening, but people had to listen to the BBC to find out what was going on. The Minister said there had been a bit of a hiccup. After another trial it has been found that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management does not actually connect with local government.

Even more important, I put down some questions to the Minister to find out what the structure was like. I wanted to find out what regional councils, local government, and the voluntary base were doing, and I thought the person who would know all those things was the Minister. So I asked him: “How many staff are currently employed for civil defence purposes in each territorial local authority?”. Most members would think that the Minister would be able to give me some facts and figures. Well, here is the answer, folks: “I am advised that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is not responsible for keeping records of the number of territorial local authority civil defence staff. You would need to approach each authority to get complete records of the information you require.” Well, bless my soul! He did not know about that, but I thought he may know about volunteers, because there is meant to be a volunteer structure. So I asked him how many volunteers there were. I got the same sort of answer—that he was advised that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was not responsible for keeping the records of who are volunteers. If the Minister does not know, who does? This Minister is incompetent in the portfolio of civil defence, and the best thing he could do for this Government in terms of civil defence is to go back to being a whip.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I am pleased to contribute to the Budget debate for 2006. I begin with something I have given before in this House—a tribute to Michael Cullen as Minister of Finance. Michael Cullen is one of the most principled, able, and compassionate men I know. This Budget is a Labour Budget, and we are proud of it. Only a Labour-led Government could produce a Budget that invests so much in New Zealand’s future and assists where necessary. I am delighted, as I have said before, that we have a social historian by training who is applying himself to the country’s books. That way, we get a clever head and real investment in the country through Government appropriations. We also get the right amount of heart. We get relief for families where it is needed most, acknowledging that paid work is the best way out of poverty but giving some assistance where it is most required, at times when it is most required.

This Budget delivers. It delivers on promises that we made in the election. It delivers on interest-free student loans. It will keep at home our investment in our young people and will improve our skills base. It delivers on Working for Families. Another 85,000 families will be eligible for tax relief as a result of this Budget, which will bring the total number of eligible families to 350,000 by the end of the roll-out. It delivers on promises we have made to our support parties, and our increasing of police numbers is but one example of that. It delivers on promises to families by lowering the cost of doctors’ visits, funding more teachers so there can be smaller classes, giving more operational funding to schools, and helping more people access job training.

This Budget also invests—most famously in transport, with $13.4 billion over the next 5 years. That is all of the revenue by way of petrol excise, road-user charges, and motor vehicle registration fees, plus another $300 million. This means that in the area north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which is an area that I have the privilege of working in, the troublesome intersections at both ends of Warkworth on State Highway 1 will be addressed; both Hill Street and Woodcocks Road will be fixed.

It also means improvements in another part of the country in which I have great interest—I refer to State Highway 3 at the Awakino Gorge. This will mean a great deal to the people of Taranaki - King Country. Business interests have repeatedly stressed to me, as a Government MP with a watching brief for Taranaki - King Country, the need to improve freight access to key export hubs such as Auckland and Tauranga. That will now happen through the investment by this Budget in transport, not only in the northern Taranaki, lower King Country area around the Awakino Gorge but also in terms of the huge investment going into roading and transportation in the Waikato. So those are particularly important items for me in seeing how the application of this 2006 Budget will roll out.

I also want to talk about health. There will be $40.8 million over 4 years for strengthened child and adolescent oral health services. That includes the rebuilding and re-equipping of the school dental service through additional capital expenditure. Today in the House the Hon Tony Ryall asked a question about the provision of health services to Māori, and he emphasised oral health services. The implication was that services were being provided on the basis of ethnicity, not need, and he cited oral health services as an example. He flourished a Government report stating that socio-economic status was a stronger indicator of health status than ethnicity. I cannot work out where that member’s missing synapse is that he cannot make the link between socio-economic status, need, and Māori. The facts are that the oral health needs of Māori are very pressing. The facts are that Māori 5-year-olds are twice as likely to have decayed, missing, or filled teeth as the New Zealand average. By 12 years of age the picture improves only slightly for Māori children, with nearly two-thirds of them having decayed, missing, or filled teeth. Why is it so hard for the Hon Tony Ryall to join the dots? Why is it so hard for him to make the connections and see that socio-economic status and need decide who gets services? If that means we deliver services to Māori, then we will stand up and say so. There should not be any imputation from the Opposition that that is a negative.

In fact, another Opposition member, Dr Jonathan Coleman, went on to ask a question about contracts—I think he actually said employment contracts—for radiologists, laboratory technicians, and technologists, or laboratory workers in general. He asked why special processes were built into those contracts for dealing with Māori. I have a story from the past. My mother used to take blood, as a phlebotomist, or a laboratory worker, in the laboratory in New Plymouth. In those days—it was a very long time ago—she learnt Māori phrases in order to ease the way with Māori patients. I still have the dictionary she used, and I still have her sentences written in her handwriting at the back of it. She had to learn to say things like: “This will hurt a little.”, “I need to take some blood.”, and “Are you in pain?”. Even then—and this was in the 1950s—there was a recognition of a need for a specific approach, even if it was about speaking the language. Now, an understanding about how the taking and processing of bodily specimens is viewed by Māori is more widely understood. Having such provisions in contracts is simply about respect, and respecting difference. The National Opposition would have us delete anything that represented respect and understanding in contractual arrangements. National members would shut their eyes to the reality of where needs are disproportionately found and bleat on as if dealing with Māori oral health needs were a crime. So I celebrate the fact that we have allocated specific moneys to children and young people’s oral health in this Budget.

We are working to build and promote our national identity as New Zealanders in this Budget. It is not about resurrecting No. 8 wire and buzzy bees, however important they have been and whatever nostalgia we have for those things. A new national identity is being built these days in New Zealand through young musicians, writers, artists, sculptors, and all the cultural strands that make up this country. Arts, culture, and heritage are central to building a national identity. The Government is helping to create a vibrant cultural sector, and we are proud that New Zealanders are seeing more of themselves reflected in a modern way on websites, in print, and on the stage. We have increased baseline funding for Creative New Zealand in this Budget by $10 million, ensuring that the level of support made possible by one-off funding last year can be maintained over the next 4 years.

Part of national identity is also coming to terms with our past and righting wrongs. I celebrate also the additional funding in this Budget to assist in arriving at Treaty settlements that will see historical Treaty claims lodged by 2008 and settled by 2020. That will go a long way to forging a new national identity.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : Last Thursday in this Parliament, Dr Don Brash moved in his Budget speech a motion of no confidence in this Government. I have to say tonight that that was the only sensible thing he could have done. The reason is that the Government has lost direction, has no vision, and has put nothing in this Budget that will benefit anybody in this country. In fact, this Budget is the biggest step backwards we have seen in years.

Nowhere has that been epitomised more than with the Minister for Biosecurity, the Hon Jim Anderton. I want to share with members tonight what the Minister for Biosecurity said before the Budget. Before the Budget he announced that there would be a $33.2 million increase in biosecurity spending. I thought that sounded great. Numerous reports had identified the problems with biosecurity, and suddenly the Minister was announcing extra money. Then came the appropriation for 2006, and if we look at the details we find that funding for biosecurity has actually been cut by $5.9 million—not increased, but cut. It has been cut!

Let us look at the details, and at what they state: funding for biosecurity enforcement will decrease; funding for biosecurity policy will decrease; funding for biosecurity standards will decrease; funding for biosecurity surveillance and incursions response will decrease; funding for policy advice—this is an area that the Minister clearly should have spent a bit of money on, based on the mistakes he has made so far—will decrease; funding for specific pest and disease response will decrease; and funding for the control of TB vector will decrease.

What funding has been granted in this Budget for the control of didymo? None, nothing, not a cent. So what do we do about that? Treasury estimates that it will cost New Zealand $285 million if didymo reaches the North Island—and, believe this, under this Minister it will, there is no doubt about that. Papers I have received under the Official Information Act show that the lack of funding was a big problem. In desperation, Biosecurity New Zealand was borrowing money from the moth fund. It was letting Cabinet make long, convoluted decisions, and it was left waiting with nothing happening to control the procedures or the issues. All this information was finally made available—some time after the incursion—so what would one expect in the Budget? Would one not expect that this Budget would now come up with something to control that? What did we get in the Budget? Not a cent.

The Minister talks about team effort, particularly when he is talking about marine farmers and the recent sea squirt invasion. What he means is: “You are on your own, mate.” This is not a team Government. The Minister means that if people want to control or protect their industry, they should come up with the dough and do it themselves. They should not wait for this Government.

Over the past 5 years there have been 229 incursions into New Zealand. In 2004-05 the following were found on aircraft passengers: 15.8 tonnes of fruit fly material—that is a big truckload to be found on persons in 1 year—and 8.243 tonnes of meat products. The list goes on: seeds, grains, dairy products, and cut flowers. So what do we do about it? We have an instant fine mechanism. In 2004, 8,810 people were issued with an instant fine. Now, a $200 fine sounds pretty good. But when we look at the fact that 6,237 of those people were non - New Zealand visitors, we see clearly that the fine system is not working. What evidence do we need if that is not enough? What should the Labour Government do? What should this tired, visionless Minister do? He should adopt National’s policy, which is to stick those people on the same plane out of New Zealand that they came here on. People who come into this country and flout our biosecurity laws should be sent straight out, and the instant fine should be increased.

Most incursions, however, enter our borders through sea containers. The Auditor-General has just released a report, tabled in this Parliament today. The report is called Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Managing Biosecurity Risks Associated with High-risk Sea Containers. It follows on from the Auditor-General’s report of 2002. It clearly demonstrates that no lessons have been learnt by this Labour-led Government—none at all. This Government lacks substance to deal with the problems. Half a million sea containers enter New Zealand each year. All of them have the potential to bring in a biosecurity risk that could devastate our economy. The report states that high-risk containers receive special attention—but do they? They should, but do they? The Auditor-General sought, but could not find, reassurance on that matter. The paperwork is there and the rules are there, but the action is missing. More important, there is no accountability. Here is another interesting comment from the report: “In our view it would help if the Quarantine Service and Biosecurity NZ worked together when they involved industry groups in strategic policy matters.” The Auditor-General actually had to say that. It is not happening. How dumb is that? It does not get worse.

This report has 15 recommendations, all of them vital for protecting our borders, but none more so than the recommendation that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry needs to: “enforce the requirement of the Import Health Standard for Sea Containers from All Countries …”. That is particularly interesting, given that the Minister and his department are about to announce the importation of honey. In other words, the Minister is opening up our borders to the possibility of European foul brood. Do we know what officials say regarding the concerns of the pastoral industry and other industries that have raised concerns? They say it is OK and not to worry because there will be an import health standard. Importers will clearly have to come under the import health standard, but the Auditor-General says that the import health standard is not working. I ask the House tonight how raw pork meat came into New Zealand if it did not come through the import health standard. The list goes on and it makes appalling reading.

The Government assures us that we have the best biosecurity in the world. I knew it was a false declaration when I heard it. It is just like a lot of the declarations made by people coming in from overseas—they are as false, obviously, as the sea container documentation that we have to believe in. But even I did not think that the Minister had allowed biosecurity to sink so low. Our biggest incursion threat is from sea containers, and basically we are just window dressing. The Auditor-General said in his report that systems are not being used, the training of staff is inadequate, containers are not being checked or fumigated properly, import health standards are not being upheld, and there is no incentive for importers to follow our rules—the worst punishment they ever get is a letter saying they got it wrong. Ironically, all this seems to be on top of the Minister’s being pleased about the trade values we have gained by New Zealand being declared bovine spongiform encephalopathy - free by the World Organization for Animal Health. I agree that that is good news, but it is just good luck, certainly not good management. What Biosecurity New Zealand needs is team work. It needs a new Minister. It needs a new Government. Clearly, it will not get that leadership from this Government.

This leads on to the forestry industry. The Minister of Forestry is the same Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton. How can we have faith in a Minister who attacks and threatens the very industry he is supposed to represent? If an industry dares to suggest that the Minister’s policies are wrong, he says that the industry could expect obstinate treatment from the Government. This is a group that used to be on good terms with the Government—it was set up to work with the Government. The Minister further threatened the industry by saying that it could not expect assistance from this Government. Well, we know that, and certainly the forestry industry knows that. The industry needs a new Government. It needs a new Minister. We can not let this Minister do to the forestry industry what he did to the small business and regional development portfolio.

It is time for a new Government. I endorse the motion of Dr Don Brash. Let us have a vote of no confidence in this Government, have an election, and get somebody who can do something for this country in biosecurity and forestry.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) : In rising to speak to this Budget debate I want to iterate that this Budget is about investing in an Aotearoa New Zealand way of life. It is a Labour Budget and it reinvests back into health and education. If it were a National Budget, in order to fund National’s proposed tax cuts it would have made cuts to health and education. It would not have done one thing at all to support low-income families in New Zealand.

This is a Labour Budget and it reinvests where it matters most. It is a Budget that values families, young and old, a Budget that resolves to assist in the transforming of our economy to one that strives to add value to what we do and how we do it, and a Budget that harnesses the strength and diversity that are the face of Aotearoa New Zealand today.

There have been several contributions to this debate from the Opposition members. Those speeches may have stirred their blood, but there was not one bit of imagination in them. Instead, what did they do? They pointed to Australia. I will make a brief contribution on this matter of Australia. Many Māori go to Australia for work, and for a new life and a new experience. But anyone who talked to those same whānau members who were over there, and who returned about 2 or 5 years later, would hear that their decision to come home was based on quality of life. Quality of life was the measure, rather than money. We know that people in New Zealand value the way of life we have here. It is a great place to live and bring up kids. It is a pity the Opposition does not recognise that, because, here in New Zealand, we are reinvesting back into what we think is a great country.

On the one hand, the Opposition members have spent quite a lot of time scoffing at the Government’s Working for Families package, which provides tax relief to families in work; on the other hand, they criticise the lack of assistance to families on a benefit. This is all under fake concern for the many Māori families who currently receive a benefit. Do National members ever say a benefit should be increased? No, they do not. Do National members ever say that women on the domestic purposes benefit should get more money? No, they do not. So National members criticise the Government’s Working for Families package, but they have no solution, and certainly not one iota of support, for families on a benefit. If at any point a smidgeon more money were given to families on a benefit, National members would be the first to cry foul. In my neck of the woods, one calls a spade a spade; in this case, it is a shovel, and National just keeps digging.

Now, more than ever before, Māori families are well aware that it is better to be in work than not. The Working for Families package provides support and assistance for that to be a reality. The biggest disincentive to families who have been receiving a benefit and who want to go into work is the difference in their take-home amount of money. If one gets more money in the pocket from being on a benefit than from being in work, the maths is not hard and the choice is quite clear.

With the child tax credit, in-work payment, accommodation supplement, and assistance with childcare costs, there is now a range of options for those people choosing to go into either part-time work or full-time employment. There are now more opportunities for families on a low-middle income who are currently in work. Working for Families sends the right message to Māori families who want to break the dependency mentality and get out and make a go of it. There are a lot of Māori families like that. For families who are still on a benefit, the incentives and support should be the same. It is better to be in work than not. If we really are concerned about Māori in this country, then we should make sure they succeed in education, continue to take up Modern Apprenticeships if they want to, aspire to tertiary education, and are supported into business ventures. The potential of Māori is severely limited by doublespeak like that from the Opposition, and I do not think it is a solution at all; it is a fake guise of concern. Do National members have a solution or any answers? No, they do not.

A number of areas that are signalled in this Budget will, I believe, make a difference to the lives of many families. Let us take the election platform on which this Government was elected. Talking to a number of young Māori, I know that one thing they were excited about was the removal of interest on student loans. That is great for them, especially if they are currently at university and thinking about how they will pay back the compounding interest. Another area that is beneficial to a number of students is the signal that Labour will raise the threshold of parental income for students to receive student allowances. That is fantastic. Student allowances have been extended to include PhD students, and that will benefit a number of Māori who are now pushing through the ceiling—exceeding the expectations of Opposition members—so that they can get ahead in life, not just for themselves but for their whānau. That is the kind of platform that Labour was elected to deliver on, and it will do that.

There are areas in the Budget that will be helpful to Māori. This Budget provides around $33.5 million over the next 4 years towards improving literacy, numeracy, and language skills within the workforce. Some 330,000 New Zealanders have very low literacy and numeracy skills. Many of those are Māori and Pacific Island people. At the core of a successful workforce and economy are literacy and numeracy skills, which are fundamental. Now, more than ever before, the Government is investing to make a difference to current and future workforce development. Many of those in the workforce will be Māori and Pacific Island people. Funding will go towards working with industry training organisations to improve the foundation skills of people who are employed at the low skills end of the workforce. This will make a great contribution to many employee circumstances.

The funding will be available from 1 July this year, and there is a number of areas in which it will help. It will help to improve workplace practices so that more employees and workers can access suitable training. About $7.5 million has been made available over the next few years for this. The number of professional development clusters for training providers and tutors in the Learning for Living exploratory projects will be expanded. A lot of those providers are Māori based. There will be funding for 200 additional study grants to increase the number of fully qualified adult literacy tutors. Again, a number of those are Māori. There will be further integration of literacy, numeracy, and language training with industry training. There will be around $15 million available over 4 years for this. The quality of training will be increased by supporting about 220 providers to meet the foundation learning quality assurance requirements. Some of those providers are Māori. So there are ways in which the Government is contributing to improving skills within the workforce. These initiatives underline the Government’s commitment to building a skilled and productive workforce that includes Māori, and that can contribute to the social and economic development of Aotearoa New Zealand.

How else is the Government supporting families? We are lowering the cost of visiting doctors, and one can see that this is really important when one gets out into the community. The Government Minister who spoke before me, Maryan Street, talked a lot about oral health. If members were to go to my electorate, they would see a mobile bus unit that takes dental health services around the area. That is fantastic. In Pukekohe—where the mobile bus unit visits—many of the children using it are Māori, and they benefit from access to oral health services. An additional $750 million health funding will be made available to families. In particular, I am most excited about the child health package that will provide new tools for primary health care, more well child checks, and a new universal newborn hearing screening programme. It will also allow for major improvements in oral health services, as I have already spoken about, for those aged under 18.

The Minister of Māori Affairs has already made his contribution to this debate, and he highlighted that $23.9 million has been reallocated into three new investment areas. Simply put, refocusing investment in areas with the potential to offer greater opportunity for Māori is really important. By doing that, Māori can better utilise their existing human, intellectual, and resource capital to get ahead. Times are changing, and the collective asset wealth of Māori can act as significant leverage to enhance and drive development aspirations. That is as it should be. Other ministries are best placed to deal with health, education, and welfare, but Te Puni Kōkiri should clearly work in the new Māori potential framework set out by the Minister. In time, this emphasis will lead to measurable gains that are a far better indicator for Māori than the disparity analysis that the previous National Government seemed fixated on. Māori do not want to be like Pākehā; they want to continue to be Māori in a dynamic and changing world. The Māori potential framework is better placed to assist this objective, and so is Budget 2006.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā tātou katoa. Te hunga ākonga tēnā koutou katoa. Last week, in a pre-Budget speech, Dr Cullen admitted: “At the best of times, Budgets are a juggling act. But this year it seems it is not just a matter of keeping balls in the air, but also managing a few flaming torches and tomahawks,”. The Māori Party tonight is consumed with the anger and grief of Māori communities as they respond to the flaming torches and tomahawks that have attacked Māori again, as they did last century, and the sustained attacks on our dreams and aspirations for education.

The flaming torch of colonisation is an image strongly associated with William Fox, who regarded colonisation as one of the great adventures of the 19th century. Fox believed that the Māori population was declining and that Māori people would be exterminated within his lifetime. Fox was convinced of the inferiority of Māori technology and culture when compared with that of the European and that the best way forward was by integrating Māori and Europeans into one economy and one workforce. On this basis, he believed that the Government should proceed as rapidly as possible with the purchase of Māori land.

In June 1869, when Fox became Premier, he sought to rule with the directive that the time had come to rekindle the sacred fire of colonisation that had almost flickered out. The Māori Party has been revisiting those words as we listen to the debate about one law for all, and about the reallocation of existing initiatives, and in the light of the Government’s failure to support amendments we proposed to the Education Amendment Bill. Our amendments would have protected the special character of kura kaupapa Māori, would have protected the diversity of early childhood centres like kōhanga reo, and would have offered land back to Māori owners—land that Māori owners had gifted to the Crown last century for educational purposes.

We thought about the fire of colonisation as we heard Labour MP Shane Jones defend the lack of any funding for Māori, and we feel let down that the current Minister of Māori Affairs did not even bid for funding in the Budget. Interestingly, even Labour’s former friend and Cabinet Minister John Tamihere has spoken out and called the Government’s treatment of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa a big wake-up call for Māori in relation to how Labour regards Māori education. Mr Tamihere’s assessment of the Budget was that it failed to meet Māori needs in providing fair funding in order for Māori to run health, education, and justice programmes, and that that would drive Māori voters towards the mighty Māori Party.

Although we commend Mr Tamihere for his guts in telling it how it is, the great tragedy remains in the aftermath of the savage blows dealt to Māori by this Budget and, in particular, to education. Education, kawa, tikanga, whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and mātauranga, have always been important to tangata whenua. In 1822 the Rev Samuel Marsden observed rangatira children as young as 4 years old attending important hui and asking questions, and their elders answering as fully as possible. In contemporary times that passion for learning has been given further shape by the increased access to whare wānanga, and to tertiary education in general.

But last Thursday that passion was rewarded with the cruelty of cuts to the manaaki tauira programme in Māori and Pacific scholarships. Every year over 9,000 students have benefited from that scheme. Manaaki tauira is a needs-based initiative, with eligibility based on income criteria, so that those students in financial need are supported. Each student receives between 10 and 30 percent of his or her tuition fees, which translates to about $400 to $650 per year.

The Maori Education Trust Board receives $4.3 million for manaaki tauira, and $0.5 million for Māori and Polynesian scholarships for higher education. The grants are administered by the trust board, a successor to the Māori Education Foundation, a statutory body set up in 1961 to promote and encourage the better education of Māori, and to provide financial assistance for that purpose.

The Auditor-General described the purpose of the manaaki tauira scheme as being: “to ensure that participation by Māori in tertiary education was not adversely affected when significant increases in tertiary fees were introduced in the early 1990s”. Introduced in 1991, the purpose of the manaaki tauira grant, therefore, was to provide financial assistance to Māori in tertiary education—based on financial need. Members should note that the emphasis is on “need”, not “race”.

Last Friday Te Mana Ākonga and other Māori student groups around the country met together in an emergency hui. One of the pressing questions arising from the Budget cuts may possibly have been whether Māori students are participating in tertiary education. The Māori Party is aware of the deliberate process set up to control the unprecedented growth in the Māori tertiary education market. Recent changes in the policy framework for the tertiary sector would preclude a return to the period of high growth in student numbers experienced between 2000 and 2003.

As this House is well aware, the existence of the three wānanga has achieved what successive Governments promised decades ago, and right up until now, but failed to deliver. Māori participation rates in formal tertiary education grew from having just under 30,000 students in 1994 to having three times that number—94,474 students—enrolled in 2004. Notwithstanding the latest change in policy, however, enrolments are still healthy at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, which is forecasting that it will enrol between 18,000 and 21,500 equivalent full-time students in this academic year. So we have not been wiped out yet.

A second question may well have been whether Māori students are no longer facing financial difficulty. Last week a full-time student and mother of three reflected on the impact of the axing of the manaaki tauira scheme, and said: “My whānau shifted away from our papakāinga so that I could study. Manaaki tauira helps with the books and the course costs. The manaaki tauira is an important incentive to keep going. It relieves the pressure. It is not just students who give a sigh of relief when manaaki tauira rolls out but, most important, it is the whole whānau.”

So often the rhetoric attached to any initiatives focused on Māori says that the Government is interested in need, not race. How will the Government front up to those 9,000 Māori students who will now face increased financial strife in order to buy textbooks, learning resources, and study materials, and to pay their fees? What rationale will be provided to justify Dr Cullen’s tomahawk slashing of their educational future before they have even had a chance?

A third question to be considered could be whether there were problems with the management of the grant. To get rid of something, to exterminate, or to terminate, one would think there had to be some sort of problem. Well, we are aware that in 2000 the Tertiary Education Commission had raised concerns about the quality of the Māori Education Trust Board’s financial management and the Ministry of Education’s monitoring. In response, the Auditor-General established an inquiry. The serious concerns raised by the commission were, however, not substantiated, but the Auditor-General did find that the ministry’s contract management and the monitoring of its contract with the trust had been variable, with specific concerns about policy and process, including variable levels of follow-up inquiry. In fact, the bulk of the inquiry’s recommendations dealt with the ministry’s mismanagement. So let us get it right—it was not the management by the trust board or, indeed, the Māori students that were at fault. If we are to believe the Auditor-General’s findings, it was the State—the Ministry of Education—that was at fault.

Finally, we can ask whether student fees are any longer a problem. The prediction from the New Zealand University Students Association is that although the Government has increased the threshold for fee maxima by 2.5 percent and institutional funding has increased by 2.5 percent, it is likely that there will be a funding shortfall in institutions, therefore resulting in yet more fee increases. Given that the “no interest on students loans” policy will cost $600 million less than previously forecast, the real question is whether the Government had sufficient opportunity to deal with the drivers of student debt, such as rising student fees. We have to ask Parekura Horomia, in pursuit of advancement in education and Māori Affairs, why it has not. What happened at the Cabinet table to allow this latest eradication to take place? The Government has taken away interest on student loans with one hand, but it has slapped Maori students—and only Maori students—with the other.

In Vote Research, Science and Technology for the third year running there has been no increase, thus there are cuts in real terms for Māori knowledge, development, and social research. The Government boasts that it is supporting families, yet it is slashing manaaki tauira. So Māori families bear the brunt. In closing, I say that the removal of the manaaki tauira and other higher educational scholarships repeats that pattern of treating the unique qualities of Māori education with disdain and contempt. We have to ask where the flaming torch will next take light and where the tomahawk will sever and destroy.

NATHAN GUY (National) : I am privileged to follow on from Te Ururoa Flavell. I feel that in terms of the Budget, Māori people have been robbed, just like rural New Zealand. I was interested in his comments that 9,000 Māori students are now going to struggle to fund their textbooks and tertiary fees—

Hon Dover Samuels: What’s National going to deliver to them?

NATHAN GUY: Do not worry about that. We will sort it out. Leave it to a National Government, not a tired old Labour Government.

Hon Dover Samuels: You want to get rid of the Treaty of Waitangi.

NATHAN GUY: Was the member’s name in the Sunday newspaper—getting ready for the drafting gate?

Hon David Carter: He’s the greatest “leaker” they’ve got.

NATHAN GUY: That is right—leaks like a sieve.

We know that Budget 2006 will be the last one from Dr Cullen. I liken it to a “doughnut Budget”, because the centrepiece fell out a couple of weeks ago. Then we saw the spectacular Cunliffe gaffe, which caused the sale of $79 million of Telecom shares. I am concerned about what that announcement means for rural New Zealand—for people living up in the valleys and in the gullies of provincial New Zealand. I quote from a Cabinet paper, although I am not sure whether it is the leaked one.

Jo Goodhew: It might be.

NATHAN GUY: It could well be. They fly around all over the place, up on the ninth floor of the Beehive.

I quote: “A risk—Telecom slows investment in rural areas”; and at another point: “Increased competition should create pressures in urban areas.” And, hello, hello: “Prices in rural areas may increase.” So let us wait and see whether rural New Zealand is going to be better off with the Budget and the telecommunications announcement. Right now, the telecommunications service that rural New Zealand gets from Telecom is absolutely shocking. When people ring Telecom they are told they might come this week, but more than likely next week.

The Budget talks about economic transformation. Well, people out in the provinces, up in the valleys and in the gullies, struggle to get dial-up access. So we will wait and see whether that announcement will actually benefit rural New Zealand—whether the copper wire network up in the valleys and in the gullies of provincial New Zealand will be maintained, or will we be forgotten?

The Budget is all about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Peter will always prop up Paul. We have heard a lot from members opposite about Labour’s package of welfare for families, and how reliant those people will be on the State. It is a real concern to me that so many people are now dependent on the State, at a time when we look to drive the productivity of this country forward. People who were earning a good income, with a lot of children, are now relying on the Government to prop them up. What about actually driving productivity in this country? The Government has a huge surplus—something like $9 billion.

Hon David Carter: Something over $8 billion.

NATHAN GUY: I thought $9 billion, but when we get to those numbers what the hell does it matter! But we have an arrogant, tired Government that thinks it knows what is best for hard-working taxpayers. It decides where the money goes. It does not care about tax reductions for people without kids. It thinks it knows best. It just whacks them around with high taxes. People earning over $60,000 are paying 39 percent tax. We have called it the “Bondi Budget”, because New Zealanders are getting on planes and heading across the Tasman to Australia—gone, never to come back.

The Budget is silent on several things. [Interruption] I say to Mr Barker, who was trying to interject, that if I was him I would be up in Tukituki trying to look for those lost votes. The Budget is silent on some of the biggest issues facing the country. What about environment and energy? What about more hydro investment? The Budget is silent. What about the big issues that we face as a country going forward with our environment? What about actually doing something and planting some trees? It is interesting that tree plantings in the country have dropped from 70,000 hectares down to 9 hectares.

Lindsay Tisch: How many?

NATHAN GUY: 70,000 hectares down to 9.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Do you want the Government to do that?

NATHAN GUY: There might be a few over on the West Coast still planting, but that is what that member’s Government has done. It has been mucking around with a silly Kyoto Protocol, with a carbon tax, and it is now trying to take the credits from forestry owners. It is great to see Roger Dickie leading a pan-organisation that is trying to sort out all the disasters in forestry. He is at a stand-off with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. So nothing will happen there. But, once again, a real issue for rural New Zealand is the planting of more trees. The Budget talks about sustainability of those erosion-prone areas in rural New Zealand, yet the whole industry is topsy-turvy as to whether it should plant trees.

We also have real concerns about the walking access issue. I am looking forward to heading along tomorrow night to a consultation meeting on walking access. Last year it was land access—where the Government was wanting to grab a 5-metre wide strip from rural New Zealand farmers, which was a blatant abuse of property rights, to trundle through their properties to get down to a lake or a riverbed. We know that the Prime Minister’s pet project is the right to roam willy-nilly all over farmers’ properties.

In our particular situation in the Horowhenua, where we have 3 kilometres of formed tracks down to the Manawatū River, what has worked well for three generations is that people pick up the phone, they ring, and they ask, and we are able to tell them to look out for the 3-year-old bulls, look out for the stags that are roaring down in the back paddock. That has worked well. A courtesy call has worked well—for decades in our situation.

Hon David Carter: It’s just good manners.

NATHAN GUY: Exactly. I will be interested in going along to hear, tomorrow night in Wellington, the Government’s proposition about walking access, and just what that will mean for farmers throughout New Zealand.

I want to touch on local government, because I am still on the council in Horowhenua. Every bit of legislation that comes through the House affects ratepayers, but there is no cheque, following through from the House, to the ratepayers of New Zealand. Every bill tends to wallop ratepayers around their wallets. Look at the Building Act. People now need to have an inspector looking over their shoulder when they are doing a bit of DIY on their house. Look at the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. In terms of drinking water standards the crossbar has been raised on the goalpost. Now rural communities are going to have to fork out. Look at the whole auditing process around the glossy long-term council community plan. It was interesting before, because I was hoping that Ms Mahuta might still be in the House as right now we have this jolly microchipping of dogs—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a convention of the House that members do not refer to the absence of members. All members at one time or another need to leave the Chamber.

Hon Tau Henare: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have made a ruling on that, Mr Henare.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think there was any need whatsoever for that intervention by you. It was a small, minor infraction and I think you need to take that on board.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Henare. I have made a decision. It is a convention in this House that the absence of members is not to be referred to.

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During your ruling, you were constantly being interjected on by the member who last spoke. He then went on—contrary to your exhortation—to challenge your ruling. That is a challenge against the Chair and it will bring disorder to this House. I think you should remind the member of that.

Brian Connell: You have already ruled on this matter. I do not think it is necessary for that Minister to carry it on.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I ask members to desist.

NATHAN GUY: I was talking about microchipping and the implications of what it means for dog owners in this country, which is $3 million to $7 million. This is a Government that has lost contact with New Zealand.

The microchipping legislation that will come into effect on 1 July for every dog will cost between $70 and $100 per dog. It is now one rule for all dogs. National is saying we should get rid of this, except for dangerous and menacing dogs. It is atrocious legislation. There are dog rallies happening throughout the country where urban and rural dog owners are saying that the Government should not wallop the good dog owners, but target the owners of the dogs that are not registered. They are saying that the dog rangers should have more power, as they are the people who are out there trying to do their work. The Government should give them more power. We all know that the bad, menacing dogs are those that are not registered. Their owners are the ones who should be targeted, not the good dog owners, the responsible dog owners.

To close, I want to touch on a couple of things happening in my electorate, in my patch. It is interesting to hear that $80 million has gone into Transmission Gully. Will it be another 5-year-long report where we will not see the bulldozers operating? It is also interesting to hear that it is costing $200,000 a year to fund the two people who are spotting traffic in the T2 lane between Paremata and Plimmerton.

Hon David Carter: How many tickets have they got?

NATHAN GUY: There have been no tickets, just a few warning letters sent out. To sum up, this Budget is boring. It is Michael Cullen’s last Budget. It does nothing for rural, provincial New Zealand.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) : If there is one time in the year when we can sort out the Tories from the rest, it is Budget time. It is the one time in the year when in terms of philosophy we can sort out those who live for money from those who think that money should be for living. National members think that we have to live for money, that self-interest will drive every behaviour of every individual in this country, and that tax is nothing but a cost on the individual. Well, Labour thinks that money should be for living. Money should drive society and support the individuals in it. Labour believes that tax is not a cost on the individual but an opportunity for individuals to invest collectively in the future. That is exactly what Labour has provided in the Budget.

National members speak of a surplus, but I will explain the situation to them. If they were to run a household budget they would have some income, there would be a cost of living—they would pay for their food and petrol—and there might be some money left over. The Tories would call that a surplus, but Labour says that is money to be necessarily invested in the future. People might have to fix their fences, paint their houses, and even invest in their retirement years, and that is exactly what this Government has enabled through the Budget. Yes, there is a surplus, because this Government has managed the economy well. Yes, the Government will invest in the future, because it has a responsibility as a responsible Government.

That is not like the Tories. What would they have done? They would have offered massive, unaffordable tax cuts and not invested in the future—not painted the house, not fixed the fence, and not put any money in for retirement. Those are the kinds of irresponsible policies that we saw through the 1990s, and National would continue with them if—God help us—it ever got its hands on the reins again.

I am proud of this Budget. Labour has a few objectives for this country. It wants to transform this economy, because it believes it can improve productivity. I have never been able to understand the other Tory philosophy that says to increase productivity, more money has to be paid to CEOs and less money to workers. I tell National members that wherever people come from, and whatever their political philosophy, human beings have the same basic drivers—that is, incentives to improve their lives. Productivity will not be increased by driving down wages and by paying CEOs huge salaries.

This Government has invested in infrastructure through this Budget, because it knows it has to transform this economy and lift productivity, to take us into the future. Members may ask what for. It is basically to improve the quality of life for Kiwi families, young and old, rich and poor—not just for those who are privileged enough to be able to grab the tax cuts that would have been put on the table by that Tory party over there—tax cuts that were rejected. National members have not yet realised that. Labour was voted in on the basis that it would take taxes, spend them wisely, and invest in the future—and that is exactly what this Budget has done.

The third thing Labour is doing is investing in building the pride of this country. If members had wanted to hear the difference between the National Party’s approach to building pride and the Labour Party’s approach, they should have listened to Don Brash’s speech on Budget day. What did he do? He talked up Australians and talked down New Zealanders. In my view, that is treacherous behaviour in this House and it undermines the confidence of every young New Zealander who wants to get on with his or her life.

Australians, though, are not that dumb. I say that because less than a week after the Australians’ own Budget, which gave them billions of dollars of tax cuts, a poll stated that two-thirds of them would rather have had the increased spending and investment in their economy than the $10 a week they got in that blind, simple little political bribe offered by John Howard. The Australians are not that dumb; they saw through bribery. In fact, New Zealanders saw through it at the last election when they voted Labour into Government.

Labour has done a huge amount to invest in the future of this country through this Budget—not in a Tory way and driven by self-interest, but on the basis that all New Zealanders want to build a better life for their children and grandchildren, and to secure their retirement. That is why the Government has invested in roads, hospitals, education, and ongoing training in the workplace.

Would National have done that with its $11 billion worth of tax cuts? It would not, because it would not have been able to afford to do it. How would it have paid for those tax cuts? It would have cut services, for a start, and it would have sold off—flogged—State assets, as it did in the 1990s. That scandalous behaviour must be stopped at all costs. I fear for the time the National Party ever gets into power in this country—although I do not think it will, thank God, because, like Australians, New Zealanders understand the value in investing in the future through their taxes, rather than frittering away money hard-earned through the tax system in tax cuts.

If there is a place for tax relief, then that relief should be given to working families rather than to wealthy people like Mr Bob Clarkson or the millionaires around the country—which is what the National Party would have done. I say that it should be given to hard-working Kiwi families.

Do members know what? That is exactly what we did. Using the Working for Families package, I will give members an example of what will happen. We have been able, through wise management of the economy, to give 350,000 families in this country tax relief of about $1.6 billion. On average, it is about $88 per week. We did not insult people with a $10-a-week bribe, as the Australians tried to do. We did not insult them with something that would have been insignificant. No, the Australian tax cuts, in fact, gave $52 a week to someone on $100,000. With Working for Families, on the other hand, in order to help good, hard-working Kiwi families, this Government is giving to a family on $51,000, with one child, an extra $70 a week. If families have more children, they will get more money, often up to $150 a week. That is what we want to do.

The Tories say we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Well, yes, to some extent tax is taking from those people who can afford it and giving to those who cannot afford it. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having a country that has equality of opportunity, a fair justice system, and good infrastructure and roading—because that makes for a country where people want to live. That is why people want to live in New Zealand.

Bob Clarkson: Why are they going to Aussie?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: People have always gone to Australia. I lived there for 5 years myself, and I came back to try to work in this country and build on that for my children and their children. If that member wants to fritter away tax cuts and go to Australia, then he should go. He, Don Brash, and all the others can go to Australia, and let us get on with managing this economy and looking after those people who are loyal and patriotic. The Australians are not as stupid as that member. They have seen through tax cuts. They know that people cannot be fooled by cheap tax cuts and that we need investment in the future.

This Budget has done exactly that for this country. Labour has invested in transforming the economy, in protecting families young and old, and in building pride in our identity. We will continue to do that as long as we are in Government, and I hope that that is for a very, very long time.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : Does Damien O’Connor, a Minister of the current Government, have such a short memory that he has forgotten about the “chewing gum Budget” with its “chewing gum” tax cuts? The Government offered hard-working Kiwis the equivalent of half a packet of chewing gum less than 2 years ago. When the people of New Zealand resoundingly rejected that, Dr Cullen put his hand in his pocket and created a lolly scramble. Damien O’Connor might forget who his mates are, but the National Party will not forget. We will not forget.

It has been over 20 years since the last time the Christchurch Press did not lead with the Budget as its main item of business the day after the announcement of a Budget. When a socialist rag like the Christchurch does not support this Government, we know that the Government is on the slippery slope off the Treasury benches. The article of business that bumped the Budget off the lead story was serious, but the Budget was nowhere near being of the national importance that a Budget should be.

Simon Power: Wasn’t it on the front page?

BRIAN CONNELL: It was on the front page, but it was not the lead story, for the first time in over 20 years. Do members know why that was? It was because the editor, in his judgment, said it had no public appeal. A Budget from the Minister of Finance was rated by the editor of one of the largest dailies in the country as having no public appeal.

Documents being leaked to Telecom are not the only thing this Government needs to be concerned about. I will be in receipt of a document any day soon that has a whole list of names on it, which I am told in advance will include these people: Pettis, Mackey, Hawkins, Yates, Fairbrother, Swain, and Sutton. Unless I miss my guess, there will be one other name on it—I think that will be Cullen, because—

Simon Power: Ah!

BRIAN CONNELL: I will give the member my logic. The Minister mucked up once with a Budget, and the Prime Minister came out and denounced him. Can he do it twice and escape the hatchet?

Russell Fairbrother: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member should give my full name, as he should with Dr Cullen. I would like that list of names to be read out loud again, including my proper name. I do not think we should have that sort of insult.

BRIAN CONNELL: Speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just a minute. The member—

BRIAN CONNELL: Speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just a minute. I am ruling on the point of order. Members should always use members’ names properly.

BRIAN CONNELL: Speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on it.

BRIAN CONNELL: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on it.

BRIAN CONNELL: It is a new point of order. I was clearly referring to a list that was to be presented to me, which I was told in advance would have those names on it. I was not referring to members. I was referring to the list.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): It does not matter what context it is taken out of, if you are referring to members of Parliament, as you have, you must refer to them by their proper names.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is worth making the point at this stage in the debate that it has been a free-flowing and reasonably robust debate. In fact, the last speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, brought you into the debate on at least 13 occasions that I counted. At no point did you or any other member in the Chamber deem it appropriate to intervene on that particular speech. I ask you to take into account the fact that members are trying to conduct their speeches within the 10 minutes offered, and if it is a rule that we are allowed to disrupt the debate because of an alleged breach of Standing Orders, then that should be applied to both sides of the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Mr Power, you are quite right. People have been bringing the Speaker into debate in, I would say, nine out of 10 speeches on both sides of the House. I have spoken to the whips to suggest that they might talk to their members. Members are consistently bringing the Speaker into the debate, all the time. It still does not matter, though. The point, in this respect, is that it does not alter the fact that a member must always be referred to by his or her correct name. We do have a lot of points of order on that, as I am sure the member knows. All the member needs to do is refer to people by their correct names.

BRIAN CONNELL: Can I have an assurance that that time has not come off my speaking slot?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No.

BRIAN CONNELL: No? Well, I had better move along quickly then. The question that needs to be asked of Dr Cullen, and which is being asked right around the country, is this. When the country has a surplus of $8.5 billion, at what point does the country qualify for a tax reduction? If we follow Dr Cullen’s logic with regard to fiscal management, that time will never arrive. But the sceptic in me says that come 2008, he will throw away his principles of good fiscal management and out will come huge bribes. Clearly, raw politics will take over.

The members of Government are mounting—or spouting—an argument that this is a Budget around investment. I can tick roading, but I have a question mark over its funding. When we have such a huge surplus and a good balance sheet, is it not prudent to borrow money for infrastructure development, particularly roading, when the value of that will take 50 or 60 years to be realised? That is the first thing I ask the House. It is not fair, nor reasonable, for one generation to be expected to pay for infrastructure and then for it to go without.

The other area of concern is that one of the largest tranches of money that will go into the roading fund will come from Meridian Energy’s asset sales in Australia. The irony that that investment was in Australia—the very place the Government is thumbing its nose at—is not lost on me. It is good enough for Meridian Energy to go across there and earn its bucks and bring the money back, but it is not fair if anyone else does it. It is only the Government that can do that. The key point is that $800 million that should be going into energy generation is now going into roading. Not one red cent is going into energy generation, when that industry is looking down the barrel of a crisis. The chief executive of Meridian Energy, in concert with other industry chief executives, has warned that by 2010 the demand for electricity will outstrip supply. That is 3½ years from now, and Michael Cullen did not even mention it in this Budget, except to give one assurance—that the Green Party is working up a plan to solve our energy crisis. With that knowledge, we on this side of the House feel much better for now. When the lights go out in New Zealand—and they will, the way this Government is going—the damage to New Zealand as an investment destination will be huge.

I want to provide an example. The forestry industry, which is our third-biggest export earner and our fourth-biggest employer, is in free fall. What do we expect when we have an advocate like Jim Anderton? It would have to be in free fall. The salvation of that industry is in processing, which is very energy hungry, but it is not getting investment. Our third-biggest export earner and fourth-biggest employer is not attracting investment because there is no certainty around energy generation. That is an appalling set of circumstances. When we ask investors and industry leaders in that industry why people will not invest, they say it is because the current Government did not have the vision, the capacity, or the inner fortitude to fix up the Resource Management Act. It is not about the cost of energy—that is secondary. What is keeping people away is a lack of certainty.

We have been told that this is a visionary Budget—one for investment. I say to members of the House that if they want to share wealth, they first have to create it. I looked to see what was on offer for rural Canterbury. I looked for vision and momentum around things like water infrastructure for irrigation. That was not mentioned once, yet Dr Cullen says he is serious about growth. There is an industry that, if properly funded, would produce two America’s Cups in terms of revenue, back to back, every year, ad infinitum.

Dr Cullen tells us that he is serious about growth, but he simply cannot be. He tells us that he is investing more money in health. It might come as a surprise to Dr Cullen, but we simply do not need more money in health. What we need is smarter thinking. At the moment we have direct to indirect labour ratios of one to two. Let me make that clear for members opposite. That ratio deals with the number of direct labour units with administrators. At the moment, for every doctor or nurse there are two administrators, and we wonder why our hospital boards cannot balance their books. It is not the amount of money; it is how it is being spent. Best practice in banking, way back in 1992 when I was examining it, was 10 to one, and in 2006 it is two to one.

The issue I conclude on is that Michael Cullen simply cannot be serious about growth when in this Budget he ignored our biggest export-earning industry. Seventy-two percent of our export income comes from farming, but farming was not mentioned in the Budget—with one exception, which related to the slashing of the sustainable farming fund from $18 million down to $9 million. Yet Dr Cullen has the temerity to tell the country that he is serious about investing. We in the National Party simply have no confidence in this Budget.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I asked for a speaking slot in this Budget debate because I wanted to speak about the Gateway programme, which will receive $8.1 million over the next 4 years. As I listened to the debate I noticed that nobody picked up on that and bothered to address it. The Gateway programme is an important one, and it should not be overlooked. But having listened to the last speaker I am forced to move away from my speech notes on the Gateway programme in order to answer his questions as to who does not want a tax cut. He should look to his own caucus.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I don’t.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I tell the member not to worry about that.

I had sent to me today, by a bemused and somewhat interested person in Napier, a misery column written for Mr Chris Tremain. This is what he says about the Budget: “We are an amazing country”—well, we agree with that; we are an amazing country—“and our education system produces some of the best talent in the world.” Too right it does! There have been 7 years of a good Labour Government and we have produced some of the best talent in the world.

He does not want a tax cut. He wants more money in education. Hear, hear! No wonder he has not taken a call in this debate, because he would have to stand apart from those other confused individuals on the other side of the Chamber. He would have to admit to Mr Allan Peachey, his teacher in education, that his previous philosophies of slash-and-burn education will not work, because “our education system produces some of the best talent in the world.” Hear, hear! There have been 7 years of a Labour Government, and the interim member for Napier, Mr Chris Tremain, a National Party caucus member, says that our education system produces some of the best talent in the world.

But there is more. Under this Government, he adds, “I also believe that most Kiwis grow up with a strong work ethic, generally wanting to improve their lot for themselves and their families.” So much for the trip to Bondi! Of course, by now we are talking about 7 years of a Labour Government—half the life of a child who is growing up—and the member for Napier recognises that most Kiwis want to stay in this country and develop a good work ethic. They want to work hard for their future.

No wonder the member has not stood up to speak in this debate, because he would have to stand apart from those miseries among his caucus. What a lonely position the member for Napier must be in. That is perhaps why the talk around Napier is that this was a young man who promised much, as a real estate agent standing for office, and has delivered nothing—so much so, in fact, that I have had to increase my constituency work because constituents are discovering there is a difference between talk and delivery.

But let us go on with what the member for Napier said: “The Government policy must continue to offer incentives to these people.” Well, of course it does. The growth and innovation network, the jobs training skills network, more money into education—these are the incentives that the member for Napier recognises and celebrates.

In answer to the last speaker, I say that there was one member in his caucus who was too scared to speak in this debate—because one does not want to stand out against the rest of the caucus. That member failed to see the value of this Budget—the seventh Budget from a far-sighted Government that is spending money to correct the infrastructure that was run down over the years. I say to Mr Foss that we will provide a hearing aid for the hard of hearing.

So after receiving this misery column, which—quite grudgingly, I may say—has to allow that in the last 7 years this Government has done well for education and has done well for young people growing up, I thought I would go back to Mr Tremain’s speech of 22 March. Of course, that speech is further proof as to why he will not come and speak in this debate. On 22 March he stated: “This tax depreciation legislation is good legislation”—this is Government legislation—“but we need more of this. So this tax legislation is long overdue, but it is one part of the recipe needed to put the economy back on the path towards higher achievement. We need investment in transmission and energy.” What do we have in the Budget? We have investment in the infrastructure for transmission and energy. We have a very competent Minister of Energy, who has long-term plans, and there will be no power cuts this year.

What is Mr Tremain’s next item? It is “Transport infrastructure. We need investment in transport infrastructure.” What do we have here? If those members do not understand the figures, they should have picked up the New Zealand Herald on the day after the Budget was announced. The headline on the front page was: “Roads, roads, roads”. Do those members understand that? “Roads, roads, roads”—there is no more to the headline. So Mr Tremain refuses to come down to the Chamber tonight, because two of the four items on his wish list have been delivered on. Transmission and energy—yes. Infrastructure and transport investment—yes.

What else did he say? There were four things on his list. The third one is: “We need to invest in research and development.” Have we invested in research and development? There has been a tremendous investment in research and development in this Budget. Of course that is what we need. That means that Mr Tremain could not come down here to argue against this Budget. We have delivered three out of four of his wishes. We are delivering transmission and energy investment, transport infrastructure, and research and development. Yes, it is a strong Labour electorate, and Mr Tremain knows how to pull his vote. There was an intervention by the Exclusive Brethren at one point to the tune of $1.2 million during the election, but that electorate will revert to Labour because Mr Tremain knows it is a Labour electorate and he is speaking about Labour values.

Mr Tremain’s fourth item stated: “We need employment flexibility.” Well, what that tells us is that he approves of the change from the Employment Contracts Act to our Employment Relations Act, because he said that we need a probationary period. But we have a probationary period in the Employment Relations Act.

Mr Tremain wants more things, and from this Budget and this Government he gets them—transport spending, infrastructure on energy and transmission, research and development, and employment flexibility. They are all the things he said he wanted.

Then he praised the Government’s education policy. Boy, I bet his benchmate Mr Peachey has not had a discussion with him about education recently. If this is proof that we can slash-and-burn education and get good scholars, it is not proving the case very well, is it?

Craig Foss: Who wrote this?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Chris Tremain wrote this speech.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: Yes, he wrote this speech, because he knows Napier is good Labour territory. He is trembling in his boots as the next election looms. He will have to come to my place this time and concede defeat. He will be offered a beer when he comes around, rather than the stunned silence I received when I went to his patch to tell him he had won the seat temporarily, but that I would look after that seat. I will be back and I think he knows that.

Mind you, I have to say I am worried. I was listening to the radio today and I heard John Carter—

Darren Hughes: Who?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I tell the member that it was John Carter. [Interruption] Oh no, John Carter is still awake. He and I spent some time in Nairobi. Then when I tried to patch up the damage with the , I asked the Prime Minister to save me. She said I was doing OK—I might be OK—and now John Carter has come down to the Chamber and said: “That Russell Fairbrother is a pretty good bloke.” Well, the ninth floor rose even higher and the steam came out from the gunwales, because I had been told when I was first elected: “Look at those Nats. Do not get too friendly with them.” When I first walked into the House I thought: “That won’t be too hard to do.”, then I met one or two of them. I met John Carter. He buys a good whisky, he pours a good wine, he tells a very good story—and some of the members opposite would not want to hear those stories—and I thought he was a good chap, too. But I thought that what happened in Nairobi stayed in Nairobi, and that he would not come down to the House and shaft me, as he has, with that comment. I hope John is listening. He owes me one, but I will be back next term for it.

So I say to the writer of the Sunday Star-Times article that if she wants to make predictions, she should get her authorities right. I am told that the man who was said to be the Beehive source has not worked in the Prime Minister’s office since Mike Moore’s day. Mike who? “Ten-week Mike Moore”—he has not been seen around this place since then, I hear, and if the National Party wants to make that the basis of its arguments, I say “Bring it on!”. I am ready for it, because I cannot wait for the next election. I am having trouble handling the constituency work in Napier because of the lack of success of the member for Napier.

Craig Foss: You haven’t got an office.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I could give members details of that work now if I could have another 5-minute call. If Mr Foss wants to give me 5 minutes of his time I will go into what the work from Napier entails.

I have had a good response to this Budget from Napier. I have heard self-employed people saying that this is the Budget they have been looking for—a Budget that is building infrastructure, making investment, and inspiring confidence in this country. It is the Budget they have been waiting for. People in Nairobi said to me that I would have seen the effect of a Don Brash Government. If we had 10 years of a Don Brash Government, we would have roads like the roads in Nairobi. They have not seen a tarseal machine for 25 years in that country because the infrastructure has been run down. Children in Nairobi cannot go to school and cannot go to hospital because of the user-pays system. That is what we get with tax cuts—a neglect for infrastructure.

John Carter will confirm that fact for National members. He rode on those roads, and he knows what infrastructure neglect does. He knows that this is a good Budget. He knows that I am a good chap, because I am in a very good party, and I will be here after the next election and urging National members to defect, because the party-hopping bill will allow them to change at the time of the next election.

This Budget is a very good Budget. It is a Budget about investment and about what we are as New Zealanders, and it is a Budget for the young, for the old, and for our families. It is a very good Budget from a very good Government.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : First of all, I would like to take a moment to address the vexed matter of the tax cuts that are being promoted so vigorously by National and its friends. Since Thursday we have had the right, inside and outside the House, baying for tax cuts, on the basis that they will stop workers going to Australia and will increase capital investment. The reason workers are going to Australia just happens to be that wages are much higher there than they are here. Even if the thousands of New Zealanders who are on $11 or $12 an hour were to pay no tax at all here, they would still be earning more in Australia.

Many New Zealand employers stubbornly refuse to compete in the international labour market, and that has nothing to do with taxes. Would our corporates invest in capital expenditure and higher wages if they received a tax cut? If the past is anything to go by, they would be unlikely to do so, in most cases. The trickledown theory exists only in mythology. Increased profits in recent years have not been spent in that way. If Mr Key had his way, I suspect we would simply see increased dividends being paid out to overseas shareholders, and hear calls for even higher tax cuts in the next year.

The calls for tax cuts seemed to be very coordinated. It reminded me of the 1980s, when right-wing thinktanks around the world promulgated ideas of deregulation and asset sales, which somehow suddenly became a sociocultural norm. In New Zealand we had an unfortunate cabal that actually put those radical ideas into practice. The result was massive public debt, thousands of jobs being lost, and a huge transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. We have slowly recovered from that, but the looters and pillagers are back. The same voices are calling for tax cuts now, and they are doing it for the same reasons as they did then. Luckily for ordinary New Zealanders, Dr Cullen has the intelligence to see through their arguments to the underlying truth. Luckily he has had the fortitude so far to resist them.

I now turn to the area that I have been most involved in with regard to this Budget. I am, of course, delighted that it includes $11.5 million over the next 3 years for the Buy Kiwi Made programme, for which I am responsible as Government spokesperson. Since I have taken over the programme following the death of Green co-leader Rod Donald, I have been working hard with my own adviser; with the Minister for Economic Development, Trevor Mallard; with his office; and with officials from the Ministry of Economic Development to turn the dreams that Rod had for the programme into reality. Key to that work has been consultation with businesses, unions, sustainability organisations, Māori organisations, and local government and central government agencies.

I have met with a large number of individual firms, and have been very impressed with the determination of both owners and workers to continue production in this country, even against what at times are severe odds. Although the owners of those companies have had plenty of opportunity to express criticism, I have heard very little criticism from them of my bill to remove age discrimination from the minimum wage. I have heard no demands for tax cuts nor complaints about compliance costs. If there was any criticism of the Government, it was in areas of trade policy and came from firms that felt they were not being given a fair go with regard to Government procurement. Many firms seem to feel unloved, unvalued, and unacknowledged by the Government and by the general public. The fact that the small-scale Buy Kiwi Made project values those firms and their workers is appreciated by many of them. I am, of course, hopeful that the programme will achieve much more than that. None the less, it is important that we respect and not take for granted the people who produce the goods and services we all use every day—that we do not acknowledge only the smart suits and the moneyed men and women who just play with the wealth created through the production process.

I was pleased to make the announcement of the funding for Buy Kiwi Made at the iconic Swazi Apparel factory in Levin last week, together with local MP Darren Hughes, who was representing Trevor Mallard. The launch was attended by representatives from the local council, Business New Zealand, Textiles New Zealand, the National Distribution Union, the Clothing, Laundry, and Footwear Workers Union, and the Buy New Zealand Made campaign. Since that launch, I have been inundated with emails from firms and ordinary citizens, congratulating the Government and the Green Party on the Buy Kiwi Made initiative. Just today the Trade Liberalisation Network, not a traditional ally of ours, issued a media release expressing support for it.

I have seen only one negative comment regarding the Buy Kiwi Made campaign since its funding was announced. That comment came from one of ACT’s two part-time MPs, Rodney Hide, who took a few minutes out from Dancing with the Stars on State television to complain about the use of taxpayers’ money for Buy Kiwi Made. That was in stark contrast to the previous deputy leader of the ACT party, Ken Shirley, who has just taken up the position of executive director of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand. That organisation has been a recipient of taxpayers’ money through another Government - Green Party Budget initiative. Mr Shirley is quoted as saying that his new organisation received a much-appreciated $1.5 million in Government funding for the next 3 years, as part of the overall $2.2 million package. It seems there is not one law for all in the ACT party—or perhaps Ken Shirley, like hundreds of other ACT members, has left the party to join reality.

Turning to other aspects of the Budget, I would like to commend the Government for some of the better features contained within it. For example, the ongoing extension of Working for Families and the removal of interest payments on student loans for graduates who remain in New Zealand are both supported by the Green Party, apart from our serious reservations about the fact that Working for Families continues to entrench discrimination against beneficiary families and their children. We welcome the increased funding for the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents programme, and more help to deal with bullying in schools and for family violence prevention. However, I do not quite understand how the extra $9 million over 4 years allocated to a range of crisis support services will actually go anywhere near to meeting the real costs placed on some 400 organisations that are struggling to survive at a time of increased demand.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of ongoing inadequate funding on groups like Women’s Refuge that are absolutely at the front line and are receiving ever-increasing numbers of referrals from State agencies. That situation highlights a number of problematic issues at the juncture of the relationship between the Government and the community sector that Labour still fails to adequately address, despite years of task forces, consultations, and other such attempts at mutual understanding. For example, organisations like Women’s Refuge, which provide critical services, should receive adequate funding on an ongoing basis, as a matter of course. As the Government sends more and more referrals to them, so the funding should increase. And why does the Government continue in some cases to prioritise giving money to itself in order to increase its own capacity, when, if the money was given to groups that provide front-line services instead, a lot more could be achieved?

Similarly, the Budget fails to deal with the crisis in residential aged-care. Although of course I am glad that an extra $68 million over the next 4 years is heading that way, the average 51c an hour per worker it will add to wages across the board, if it actually gets to all the staff, will do very little to alleviate the bitterly low wages and stressful working conditions that afflict large parts of the sector. The Government should be making sure that all the additional money goes into boosting wages, and it should also be guaranteeing minimum staffing standards through regulation, for the sake of all concerned. I believe that Labour should seriously reconsider its overall strategy. Does it really want to go on endlessly sinking taxpayer dollars into for-profit aged-care, rather than consider steps to move it back to a mix of public and not-for-profit provision?

In the housing arena, the Greens welcome the ongoing funding for some State house acquisition in the $16 million - plus allocated for third sector housing. But that is nowhere near enough, while we have around 11,000 people still on Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting lists and the potential of community-based housing providers still remains largely untapped. The number of people who are living homeless remains a concern and continues to rise. The Government should take a lot more responsibility for assisting voluntary groups to provide safe, affordable accommodation to our most vulnerable citizens, as well as work across departments to ensure that health, housing, income, and employment needs are met for those who are the most vulnerable.

Finally, I cannot help but conclude by joining my fellow Green MPs in expressing sheer amazement at the wilful blindness of the Government in spending $1.3 billion on roading in this Budget. What price do all the MPs who scoff at us think oil will be at in 5 or 10 years’ time? The Government continues to pour billions of dollars into roads that will end up being nearly empty, at a time when we should be racing against the clock to get our rail, sea, and bus infrastructure into place as fast as possible, before petrol and diesel hit $5 a litre, or more. We would also do well to invest some of the apparent roading largesse into doing more to help our most vulnerable citizens and the community-based organisations that serve them.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I seek leave to table a newspaper article dated Monday, 5 September 2005, from a South Island newspaper that confirms what was said today about the National Government borrowing offshore to fund infrastructure, which was “common in practice”, said Jacqui Dean.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : My voice might be a funny this evening, for which I apologise, but I am afraid the content of this speech is not funny. This is a Budget in which agriculture does not rate a mention, except, of course, to slash the sustainable farming fund. Shame on the Government! I represent plenty of farmers and I can tell members that they are not impressed, either.

I was thinking about those 300 people who leave New Zealand each and every week—people who are lured over the ditch—as the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand becomes a gaping chasm, and I thought that for the socialist city-dwellers who sit opposite, the Labour MPs, 300 people might not mean too much. After all, in cities people are everywhere, right? People are on every street. They are clogging all the roads with their cars, they are filling the malls, and they are filling the rugby stadiums. People are spilling out of schools and out of supermarkets. So 300 people probably does not seem so much to our socialist friends. This head-in-the-sand Government is probably not noticing this mass exodus of people, because clearly it has absolutely no idea what to do about it.

It is interesting that in question time in the House whenever the heat goes on Government members and they are called to account for their actions, they blame us. It is always National’s fault. It is so easy, is it not, to blame somebody else? But hang on, they have had 7 years in Government. Have they learnt nothing about how to govern a country? Can they not yet grasp the business of Government? Why do they not take responsibility for those 300 people who leave New Zealand each and every week? The reason is that they do not particularly care. There are plenty more people where they come from, in their cities. But, much more tellingly, they do not have the slightest idea of what to do about it. They simply do not have a plan.

Well, I care about losing those 300 people. This is what it means to me in heartland New Zealand to lose 300 people every week. If Queenstown were to lose 300 people per week, it would empty out in 40 weeks. That is 10 months. Every 10 months we lose the population of Queenstown, or, if we put it another way, every 17 weeks of net loss we lose the population of Wānaka. Every 4 months of net population loss is Wānaka gone. A few people here and there leaving the cities does not leave too much of a gap. We still see people in supermarkets and queuing up for their middle-class welfare. But I can tell members opposite—and they would not know this—that losing our brightest youngters, losing our tradespeople, and losing our professionals overseas is hurting provincial New Zealand. What is the Government’s answer? What is the vision in the Budget? I cannot find one.

Jo Goodhew: There isn’t one.

JACQUI DEAN: Well, I have looked and I cannot find one. Government members talk the talk about transforming New Zealand, but in the time it took to deliver the Budget speech a couple of planeloads of Kiwis headed off to Australia to take advantage of higher wages and lower taxes. Why would people in small businesses not want to go somewhere else? They are squeezed by compliance costs; they are squeezed by accident compensation levies; they are squeezed by Holidays Act provisions; and they are squeezed by the Employment Relations Act. What is Minister Lianne Dalziel’s vision? It is a review! She is going to do a review—big, fat deal! Do members know what would really benefit small businesses in New Zealand? The introduction of a 90-day probation period for new employees. A while ago a young guy phoned me—

Bob Clarkson: A young guy phoned you, did he?

JACQUI DEAN: Yes, I know, it was good. He phoned me to talk about his business. Normally it is just an old guy called my husband, but it was a young guy who wanted to talk about his business. He and his wife run a rural agricultural contracting business around Wānaka. The demand from farmers—the farmers that this Government does not care a jot about, but I do—is there to expand their business. But, because of the Holidays Act, because of occupational safety and health regulations, because of accident compensation levies, because of the price of diesel, and because of the risk of employing someone under the Employment Relations Act, they decided it was just too hard to take on any workers, so the business will have to remain just him and his wife, and he really regrets that.

National MP Wayne Mapp’s member’s bill to introduce a 90-day no-fault probation period between employers and employees would achieve so much. It would encourage small employers to have a go, to give somebody a chance, to grow their business, and, more important, it would give young people, who may have been unemployed for a long time, a chance. Is that not a whole lot more constructive than a review? National’s policy is a whole lot more visionary.

I have had a few phone calls from people in my electorate who got a little bit excited about the increase of $1.3 billion in the State highway roading programme. I will tell the House why they got excited. The Kawarau Bridge just out of Queenstown is a little single-lane bridge that serves the needs of locals and tourists. That bridge fails to meet the needs of the fastest growing region in New Zealand. I have to tell members that Queenstown’s roading problems are not the same as Auckland’s, they are not the same as Hamilton’s, and they are not the same as Wellington’s, but they do need to be addressed if Queenstown is to continue to make a significant contribution to New Zealand’s economy through tourism.

Queenstown people were hugely disappointed to learn that in Transit’s draft 10-year plan put out in April the Kawarau Bridge replacement project was not even in the planning stage. But they said: “Never mind, it will be OK. The Minister of Transport said we should just wait for the Budget. A couple of years ago, in his submission to Transit, the then MP for Otago, David Parker, said that unless something was done about the Kawarau Bridge soon, Queenstown would be a complete shambles. He should eat his words.

As members can imagine, there is a high level of expectation that some of that extra $1.3 billion will be put towards Queenstown’s roading problem. So in the Minister of Transport’s release in the Budget, under appendix A “Projects to be advanced due to today's $1.3 billion funding package”, right down at the very bottom, I find this: “In addition: Transit NZ is also investigating a number of other improvement projects.” Right down at the very bottom of that small list is State Highway 66A, Queenstown. Well, whoop-de-doo, that is exactly where Transit was in its draft plan. I say to the Government that I love the idea but I am waiting, and I want to see it deliver for Queenstown. This Budget is boring. It does nothing for hard-working New Zealanders, for the wealth creators of Otago and New Zealand.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take pleasure in taking a call in the Budget debate tonight. This is a very, very good Budget. It is a Budget that only a Labour-led Government could deliver.

Before I get into that I want to comment on a point raised by the previous speaker in relation to the 90-day probationary period bill introduced by Dr Wayne Mapp. I cannot figure out how that bill will help young workers. What I can figure out is that that bill will allow the boss to sack workers at will before 90 days are up. I think the real intention of that bill is to allow employers to add another definition to the workplace. We already have casual, part-time, and full-time workers. If this bill proceeds we will have a definition for workers who last fewer than 90 days at work. I cannot understand or imagine why the previous speaker welcomes that for our young workers.

I want to get back to the Budget, because it delivers on our promises. It not only delivers on the promises of this term, it also fleshes out the promises that have been set in place since 1999. They are policies that the Labour-led Government initiated in 1999. I recall the feeling of Opposition members about how inadequate Labour would be in determining and managing the finances of our nation. Do members recall that? I recall that very clearly. Well, that has been proved wrong, has it not? This is our seventh Budget and the economy is booming. The economy is booming under the strong stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen. He will be around for a long time yet, I can assure members.

Some of those policies that we had in 1999 have given us the opportunity now to manifest a position that allows us to use this 2006 Budget as an investment—an investment into our future. That opportunity does not just fall out of the sky; it has come about through prudent management of our economy—responsible management by, again, our Dr Cullen. I want to congratulate Dr Cullen on delivering this Budget because it does have the vision, it does have the foresight, and it does look towards the three things that we are aiming at ensuring we get on with.

The first thing is families young and old. We recall the State housing stock being depleted prior to 1999 by 13,000 homes. I wonder who did that. Nobody wants to own up, but that is a fact. Pre-1999, 13,000 State houses were sold. Since 1999 we have increased that stock to 60,000. With the latest release of this 2006 Budget we are intent on increasing that stock even further, to over 70,000. That is what we heard at the select committee today. We are increasing that stock to 70,000, so we will improve the opportunity for families to get into houses. But we did not leave it there. No, we did not. We also introduced a policy to make State housing affordable. Do members recall that? We introduced a policy to make State houses affordable. How did we do that? Can members recall how we did that? We did that by introducing a policy surrounding income-related rents. That brought the rent down for some housing tenants by 106 percent. Now, that is huge. In effect, that meant State house tenants had another $1,800 per year in their pockets to spend on their families. That is a Labour-led Government policy. That was fleshed out in the Budget that we are promoting, and that is about families young and old. But it does not stop there. We have provided more houses and we have made them affordable, and we are going to make sure that we keep that stock in line with the growing population. We are committed to ensuring that families are housed in the future.

The other area that, I have heard, has been of some concern to Opposition members is the question of what is in the Budget for Māori. Is there anything at all in the Budget for Māori? I will describe what is in it for members because it is very specific about where the allocated funding for Māori is targeted. The Budget has relocated $23.9 million from existing spending to three investment areas. The first, under the heading “Rawa”, better positions Māori to build a leverage of their collective financial and natural resources. Under another heading, “Mātauranga”, which I am sure members have seen before, comes traditional and contemporary knowledge. The third area is skills and leadership capacity, and that comes under the heading of “Whakamana”.

That is about targeted investment in building knowledge, growing skills and talents, and generating innovation and creativity. That is what Mātauranga is. These investments will build greater financial literacy in Māori communities. They will link the opportunities to portray Māori culture on an international stage, which we currently do, with economic development opportunities, and will transfer capability to future generations. That is about a vision of the future. It is an investment in strengthening leadership and decision making. It is about recognising that Māori success relies on their capability to lead, influence, and make positive and confident decisions that result in benefits for themselves and others. These investments will revive community pride and link Māori to key economic and social transformation processes within our society.

It is an investment to assist Māori to use, develop, and retain their own assets, under “Rawa”, for collective and individual benefit. These investments will use available resources as a tool for greater participation in businesses and enterprise, and will strengthen whānau and hapū links to assist community development. We are confident these new steps will make immeasurable gains in improving the quality of life for Māori, and for the development of new knowledge, skills, and expertise.

The Budget will also allocate new funding to help achieve the Labour-led Government’s target for all historical Treaty claims to be lodged by 2008 and settled by 2020. Treaty negotiations have been funded by an extra $5.2 million over the next 4 years to provide the Office of Treaty Settlements with additional staff and resources to further progress Treaty negotiations. Increasing the capacity of the Office of Treaty Settlements will build on the momentum generated to date and ensure that we are able to settle all historical Treaty claims in a fair, final, and timely manner.

Before finishing, I reiterate how good this Budget is. It is a Budget that only a Labour-led Government could deliver. I must say I am proud to be a part of our team and I look forward to an ongoing relationship with our team as a Government.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : The “National Front of Australia” is sitting over there. I have heard speech after speech in this Budget debate from National Party members telling us how marvellous Australia is. I invite National Party members—if they think it is so marvellous—to go there.

Hon Member: Where did you come from, anyway?

PETER BROWN: I think the member is touching on my background. I tell the honourable member that I am a New Zealander by choice. I came here, and I was picked. I was not inflicted on this country like the member over there.

Darren Hughes: An accident of nature.

PETER BROWN: The member says it was an accident of nature. I say it was a disaster.

I was so intrigued by the National Party members’ assertions about tax levels in Australia and how they compare with New Zealand’s that I did some research and checked the figures. I will not bore the House with the figures—because there is quite a number of them—but is fair to say that lower to middle income people earn more in Australia when tax levels are taken into account. But that is more than compensated for by the New Zealand Government’s Working for Families legislation, which New Zealand First is delighted to support. Having said that, I do not want to leave members over there in any doubt whatsoever that we have a few reservations. The legislation might be a little too generous at the top end, but it does serve a very, very important need by helping hard-working families get a start in life, and we applaud the Government for that.

In terms of Australia and higher pay, if one looks at the tax levels one can see that higher-paid people are better off in New Zealand. But if one compares apples with apples—and members over there know what an apple is—that is, if one compares Australian wage rates with those in New Zealand, one can see that Australian wages are significantly higher than those in New Zealand.

Darren Hughes: Why is that?

PETER BROWN: That is a good question; it is one I ask myself. It is because legislation was brought into this House in the 1990s and passed. That legislation was the Employment Contracts Act. That legislation drove down wages. I do not know a country in the Western World where wages actually went down.

David Bennett: Did you vote for it?

PETER BROWN: No, I did not vote for it. I was not in the House, but when I came here I did my level best to get the Minister of Labour at that time, Max Bradford, to modify the legislation. Had he modified it, National would probably be in a stronger political position than it is right now. New Zealand First never voted for the Employment Contracts Act.

On top of that legislation that drove down wages, National opened the door to unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. It let anybody come in to New Zealand to compete for jobs at the lower levels.

Anne Tolley: Show us the evidence.

PETER BROWN: If National members do not believe me, they should go and check the figures themselves. It is something they should be totally ashamed of. I saw that happen in the UK many, many years ago, and the National Party used the same tactics here.

New Zealand First is delighted with aspects of this Budget, and no more so than with the funding that is going into roading. We are the only political party that has said for many a year—since our inception in 1993—that all the money taken from road users, vehicles, or whatever, should go into roading. I know the Government has not tagged the methodology of what is taken for roading, but, according to this Budget, it is putting in fractionally more than it will take.

David Bennett: National was going to do that.

PETER BROWN: The honourable member tells me that National will do that. Let me tell members what National did in 1995. I am glad the member raised the subject. In 1995 there was a member’s bill entitled the Road Transport Revenues Fund Bill. It was brought to this House by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Minister of Transport at the time, the Hon Maurice Williamson—the Minister in the National Government—said: “The first thing is, there would not be enough roading projects out there to do, or enough contractors to do them.” Now, Maurice Williamson says we need to put money urgently into roading. But it started in 1995. That is when National could have started to address the roading problems of this country.

It had a second opportunity. In 1998 the Treasurer, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, started—

David Bennett: Oh, rubbish!

PETER BROWN: The member does not believe me, but he can check his facts. The Rt Hon Winston Peters started transferring money from the Crown’s consolidated account into the roading account at the rate of 2.1c per litre per year. Had that process continued, a further $2.5 billion would have been in the roading account by now, and it would have advanced our roading and public transport at costs current in the 1990s rather than costs in 2006. This year, the cost of bitumen is 30 percent higher than in recent times, the cost of oil products has gone up, and the cost of concrete has gone up.

National had a second bite at addressing the roading problem, in 1998. In 1999, after New Zealand First was dispensed with and put out of the coalition, National—[Interruption]—oh, I can see that the truth hurts—reneged on that. And last year, in 2005, when Don Brash announced the National Party’s voting policy at the Automobile Association convention, he had the audacity to stand and say that Labour had closed the door on the transfer and had cancelled it. But Labour did not do that. What Don Brash told the Automobile Association was a blatant distortion of the truth.

David Bennett: Oh no!

PETER BROWN: The member was not there; he does not know what he is talking about. I say to those Opposition members that if that money had been continuously transferring across, there would still be money in the Crown account that Treasury could have. But let me ask them three questions, because I can see they are taking this seriously. If that had occurred, would the country be economically better off? That member opposite is screaming for roads in Hamilton. That would have been done a long time ago. Would the country be socially better off? The answer to both those questions is yes. Would there be people alive today who have died on our roads because they are not up to pace? The answer to that, too, regrettably, is yes. Those members should not brag about what they have done for roading or transport in this country. They should be hanging their heads in shame, because New Zealand First is the only party that, from the very beginning, from its inception, has said that all the money taken from roading and vehicles should go into roading. At long last, the Government has listened to us.

I do not think anybody wants to take a call after this speech, and the members over there are learning quite a lot, so I seek leave to continue until the House rises in another 3 or 4 minutes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to extend the speech by 3 minutes. Is there any objection? There is.

PETER BROWN: Yes and no. They are not united even in that respect. They cannot make up their minds on a simple thing like that.

New Zealand First has fought hard to get 1,000 extra police. We tried it with the previous National Government. When we were in coalition with National we had an agreement for a few more police, but it wanted cardboard cut-outs and a computer to address the law and order system in this country. I ask myself time and time again what has happened to the National Party, which was once led by such distinguished people as Robert Muldoon, Jim Bolger, Jim McLay, and Don McKinnon.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) : The Budget is a glorious example of why Labour will win the next election and again be in Government with United Future, New Zealand First, and the Greens. It is a wonderful example of how the Helen Clark - led Labour Government is able to knit together the necessary majority in the House and persuade the public to support sensible policies.

The National Party went out there at the last election on three policies: tax, race, and Brash. It went out there and said it would slash Government spending, but would also keep up investment. No one believed it. National was going to slash Government spending, whereas the Labour Party went out there with its coalition partners and said it wanted to invest in New Zealand. It said it wanted to invest in families, to give tax credits for working families, to put more police on the beat and more money into roads, hospitals, and health. The New Zealand public supported Labour at the polls. That is why we are still in Government and why we will be in Government after the next election and into the future.

The point is that the National Party can cry as much as it wants, but it has no vision. I say that, because there are scales on the eyes of National members. They cannot see the investment in New Zealand. They think that if they bash New Zealand and say things are better in Australia, that will win them votes. I have never seen a proud Kiwi who will stand up and say that Aussies are better than Kiwis, that Australia does things better. The National Government drove more New Zealanders to Australia than any other Government, when in the 1990s it slashed benefits, cut wages, cut penalty rates, and smashed in the workers’ conditions. It did everything it could to drive New Zealanders to any country in the world but here. New Zealand went down the tubes under National in the 1990s. The New Zealand public understand and know that. The last time a National Government gave out tax cuts, it cut superannuation for our superannuitants. That is what National did. That is its record—cut, destroy, slash, and burn.

• Debate interrupted.