Wednesday, 31 May 2023 [Volume 768] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker—National): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. IMPROVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR SURROGACY BILL Procedure SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Minister of Justice informing me that the Government, with the agreement of the member in charge, has adopted the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2021/22 Annual reports for: Health Promotion Agency Taranaki District Health Board Whanganui District Health Board Updated Government Response to the Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Inquiry into the Review of the Radio New Zealand Charter 2023-2026 Statement of Intent for the Retirement Commission Statement of performance expectations for the year ending 30 June 2024 for the Retirement Commission Updated Strategic Intentions 2021-25 for the Ministry of Transport. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Health 1. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. How has Budget 2023 reduced the cost of healthcare for New Zealand households? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I was proud to announce that this Government is reducing the cost of healthcare to New Zealand households by removing the $5 co-payment for prescription medicines in July this year. Removing the $5 charge will make it easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need, having a meaningful impact on many households, particularly those who have multiple prescriptions to fill on a regular basis. Dr Tracey McLellan: Can the Minister tell us more—why has the Government removed the $5 prescription fee from medicines? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The $5 charge is a barrier to some New Zealanders getting the medicines they need. As a doctor, there were times when my patients couldn't get the medicines they needed to stay well. This is particularly the case for low-income households, Māori, Pasifika people, and disabled New Zealanders at a time when people are facing increasing pressures on household budgets. Dr Tracey McLellan: How will this support the health and wellbeing of those New Zealanders? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: By removing the $5 co-payment on prescription medicines, we are investing in simple treatments that prevent chronic conditions becoming emergencies that need hospital treatment. We're making it easier to get blood pressure treatment so fewer people have strokes. People will have more access to diabetes treatments that prevent kidney failure and blindness. We're also making it easier to get cholesterol treatment to prevent heart attacks. This will help seniors on fixed incomes, young people needing contraception, and people with chronic conditions. Dr Tracey McLellan: What feedback have you received about this policy? Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Pharmacists and health advocates across the country have welcomed this policy. Unichem Central Pharmacy Rotorua owner, David Honore, said, "It was a huge help. The co-payment has been a barrier for many of our patients" Bindi Norwell of ProCare said, "Today's announcement will save the Government money and shift the dial significantly from an equity perspective." And Pharmacy Guild chief executive Andrew Gaudin, who has advocated for this policy for many years, said it would make a huge difference to patients who have previously had to make difficult choices when they are sick. Question No. 2—Prime Minister 2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly this Government's action in securing a gold-standard trade agreement with the United Kingdom. From today, the UK Free Trade Agreement unlocks unprecedented access to the UK market for our exporters, adding up to a billion dollars a year to our GDP over time. Implementation of the agreement will immediately save around $37 million, with the instant elimination of tariffs and new duty-free quotas covering 99.5 percent of our current exports. This is a major delivery milestone and sits alongside the seven new or upgraded free trade agreements secured to date by the Labour Government—which is helping to contribute to record earnings for our exporters and thereby helping to soften the pressure of the current global economic environment. Christopher Luxon: Was his police Minister correct when she said, "New Zealanders feel safer under Labour.", despite violent crime increasing 33 percent, retail crime doubling, and gang membership up 66 percent? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I know the member has concerns about literacy and numeracy in schools. One of the things that kids learn in schools around comprehension is to read the whole of the sentence rather than just a little bit of it. Because if he had done that, he would find that the Minister was specifically talking about the 1,800 extra police that have been put on the beat under this Government, which stands in quite stark contrast to the reduction in the number of police relative to the size of the population under the last National Government. Christopher Luxon: Does he think New Zealanders feel safer? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think Kiwis feel safer when there are more police on the beat. And 1,800 extra police on the beat is a pretty good track record from this Government. Christopher Luxon: Is violent crime higher or lower than six years ago? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member himself will know that the statistics around violent crime show that there has been an escalation in violent crime, and I think all Governments should take that seriously. Christopher Luxon: Is retail crime higher or lower than six years ago? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is higher. Christopher Luxon: Is gang membership higher or lower than six years ago? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We've been very clear—the member himself has been very clear—that there has been an escalation in gang membership and gang activity in New Zealand. In particular, I note the member himself blames the Australians for that in his public comments when he talked about the fact that it was the 501s that have contributed to that. I'm very proud of the work that the police have been doing to crack down on gang activity. I note that something like 33,000 charges have been laid against gang members as part of Operation Cobalt. We are backing the police to do that work with extra resources and extra cops on the beat, which is more than they got under the last Government. Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his claim in January about ram raids, when he said, "I think it is a very significant priority and you can be reassured I won't be taking my eyes off that one."; and if so, why have ram raids increased 55 percent since he became Prime Minister? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question: yes, absolutely, and our work in that area is not done. The focus that we have had is on reducing offending rather than having young people going into a repeat cycle of offending. So the turnaround programmes that we've put in place, for example, have seen between 70 and 80 percent of the kids referred to those not reoffending. I note that the one policy the National Party have come up with—which is to send those kids to boot camps—results in about an 80 percent reoffending rate. So given the choice between a policy that could reduce reoffending by about 80 percent or have about 80 percent of them reoffending, of course only the National Party—or maybe the ACT Party—tend to choose the one that results in the higher level of reoffending. Question No. 3—Environment 3. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Talofa lava. Does he have confidence that the approach to regulating wastewater discharges to the coastal marine and estuarine environment is fit for purpose, taking into account environmental and Te Tiriti o Waitangi values? Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): There are longstanding problems with sewage discharges into the coastal marine and estuarine environments. Storm overflow events have become more common. Sewage discharges have continued because of under-investment in sewage treatment infrastructure. Improvements cannot be achieved via the planning system alone, which is why the Government is addressing these issues through the affordable water reforms. It is appalling that many of New Zealand's beaches and estuaries are regularly polluted by sewage. We're meant to be a First World country. Teanau Tuiono: Does he consider it consistent with the aims of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement for waste water to be discharged from sewage plants into Hokianga Harbour, and, if not, why not? Hon DAVID PARKER: No. It's transparently obvious that we shouldn't be pouring sewage into our estuaries. Hon Marama Davidson: Talofa lava. What assurances can he give to the people of places like Kohukohu, Rāwene, Ōpōnoni, Ōmāpere, Waimā, Whirinaki, and Motukaraka that changes to the planning framework and water services will stop community waste-water plants discharging sewerage into Hokianga Harbour? Hon DAVID PARKER: There is, I've seen from the media, a live application to the Far North District Council in respect of some of those issues, and I expect those decisions will be taken by the council responsibly. I do note that the shorter, medium, and longer term solutions to these lack of infrastructure problems lie in the affordable water reforms rather than the resource management reforms. Teanau Tuiono: What, if any, funding is the Ministry for the Environment providing to help Far North District Council shift to discharging waste water on to land rather than into the Hokianga Harbour? Hon DAVID PARKER: None, because that's not the role of the Ministry for the Environment. Affordable waters will address those issues. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he consider it fair that tangata whenua have to respond to every application made to destroy or degrade their local environment so that taonga can be protected? Hon DAVID PARKER: I think it's one of the strengths of the New Zealand system that people who are dissatisfied with applications to pollute have a right of participation. That includes tangata whenua as well as other New Zealanders. Question No. 4—Finance 4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that "the operating allowances are designed to enable us to achieve particular fiscal goals. We have been able to achieve those goals, including keeping debt low and including our return to surplus", and how have those goals changed since he became Minister of Finance? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the member's question, I announced the changes to the Government's fiscal rules ahead of Budget 2022. The first of those is to maintain an operating balance before gains and losses surplus between 0 and 2 percent of GDP on average over time in order to allow us to respond to economic shocks as the situation requires but also ensuring that day-to-day spending is not adding to net core Crown debt over time. The second rule is to keep net core Crown debt below a ceiling of 30 percent of GDP on the new debt measure. As I said to the member in my response to her question yesterday, even though Budget allowances have from time to time been updated in light of events and additional forecasts, this is consistent with our overall strategy and is something that the Government should do in order to make sure that spending decisions remain consistent with our fiscal rules. Nicola Willis: Does he still agree with the fiscal goal outlined by Grant Robertson MP, who, in his 2017 Budget Responsibility Rules, stated, "For the last 20 years, core Crown spending has been around 30 percent of GDP, and we will manage our expenditure carefully to continue this trend."? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That very insightful comment from that member all those years ago is one that is still the goal. However, as the member is well aware, events occur—events like COVID or events like the global financial crisis (GFC), all of which require Governments to respond. The member needs to reflect that if she doesn't believe that spending should have got to the levels that it did during COVID, be upfront with New Zealanders and tell them what wouldn't have happened. Was it no wage subsidy? Was it no funding for the health system? New Zealanders needed a Government to step up and respond, and we did it. Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that Government spending has not just exceeded that goal in the COVID lockdown years but every year since 2020 and is forecast to fail that goal for each of the next four years, and why is he now prepared to fail what he once believed was a core part of Budget responsibility? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, what the Budget forecast shows is that we will return to around 31.5 percent as core Crown spending. The decision that the member could make, if she were in the position to do so, to click our fingers and say we're going to go to 30 percent, would have a dramatic impact on the services that New Zealanders rely on. If the National Party wants to campaign on cutting funding for health and cutting funding for education, that's fine. We're not doing that. Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that core Crown spending will lift to 33 percent of GDP next year, and doesn't he think it's a bit rich to keep blaming COVID for what is in fact his inability to control his expenses so that New Zealanders can have tax reduction? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the member now needs to answer the question for the people in Tairāwhiti and in Hawke's Bay and in Auckland about how the National Party would pay for the recovery from the Auckland anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, because the member well knows that the additional expenditure that the Government had to take on, from the half-yearly update up until now, in large part relates to that recovery and rebuild. On this side of the House, we think it is our job to support those communities. If the National Party wants to abandon them, they'll have to answer for that. Nicola Willis: Does he recall the 2018 Budget Responsibility Rules—here they are—which aim to reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP, and can he confirm that by that measure debt will hit 43 percent of GDP next year? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can confirm is in the year following on from that, net core Crown debt was 18.6 percent and the Government met its objective. Then, an event called COVID happened. I know the member wants to wish it away, but she and her colleagues consistently asked for the Government to spend more money during the period of COVID. And yes, it is true that that means, on the old debt measure, which was not internationally comparable, we do reach the levels that the member is talking about. Again, this is all fine for the National Party to say this; they have to answer the question: what would be cut if they were to do anything different? Nicola Willis: Does he still stand by the Budget responsibility rule that the Government will deliver a sustainable operating surplus across an economic cycle, and can he confirm that not only has he delayed surplus twice in a row but he is forecast to run six deficits in a row from 2020 to 2025? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I refer the member to my primary answer, where I did indeed explain to her last year's Budget, where we updated the fiscal rules from the ones that she has just shown, also noting that, yes, it is correct that it will be six years. That is exactly the same length of time that the National Government took to get itself back into surplus after the GFC and the earthquakes. This is what Governments do. Governments step in to look after people during times of crisis. Again, the National Party has to explain what gets cut, which communities don't get rebuilt after a cyclone. That's what the National Party is, effectively, telling New Zealanders. Nicola Willis: Isn't it in fact the case that his Budget Responsibility Rules from 2018 are no longer worth the paper they were written on: he's spending beyond what he promised, he's running deficits, he's loaded up the debt because he can't control Government spending? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, and the member, as I said, needs to keep up. Last year, we had a thing called Budget 2022, where we reissued the fiscal rules to make sure (a) that we were operating on an internationally comparable basis and (b) that we set goals for ourselves to get back into surplus. The National Party can't have it both ways. Asking for more spending, thinking that they can reduce taxes, thinking that they can reduce debt—it's the fiscal Bermuda Triangle, and Nicola Willis is right where Paul Goldsmith was. Question No. 5—Māori Education 5. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): Talofa. How is Budget 2023 supporting Māori education? Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The balanced approach taken in Budget 2023 has enabled the Government to continue our substantial support for Māori education with a further $225 million investment to support ākonga and kura across the country. This funding will improve and modernise kura infrastructure across Aotearoa, fund learning support co-ordination for schools and kura providing kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education, and support the roll-out of our local histories curriculum to make sure ākonga learn more about their home and its people and much more. Paul Eagle: What is the significance of the investment in kura infrastructure? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, Budget 2023 sees the biggest ever investment in kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium infrastructure, with nearly $135 million targeted at building more classrooms and modernising existing ones, acquiring new land for more kura, and setting aside specific funding for the maintenance and remediation of kōhanga reo and puna reo across Aotearoa. This record investment builds on our consecutive investments in kura property across our previous two Budgets. Paul Eagle: How will ākonga Māori benefit from the new funding for learning support? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ākonga Māori and kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education have been under-served by the education system in terms of their access to learning support. This $40 million initiative provides support for learners with the highest needs. It will impact about 25,000 ākonga Māori across 325 kura providing kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education—that's levels 1 and 2—and their whānau. It offers resourcing for the design and delivery of solutions to strengthen the capacity and capability of these schools and kura to identify, plan, and coordinate responses to the learning strengths and support needs of ākonga Māori, in partnership with whānau. Paul Eagle: How else will ākonga Māori be supported through the Budget 2023 Māori education package? Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, there are a number of ways, but I'll just touch on two. First of all, nurturing mātauranga Māori through the continued support of Te Matatini and national primary and secondary school kapa haka competition, but also nearly $18 million providing 6,500 ākonga Māori to enter the Pūhoro STEMM Academy. This will enable them the opportunity to study and have employment opportunities in science, engineering, technology, the arts, and mathematics. Question No. 6—Education 6. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the principal of New Zealand's largest high school when he described the Government's roll-out of the NCEA changes as creating a "ridiculous" situation which "doesn't make any sense" and as "harming student outcomes", and has she heard of any other schools that are planning on dropping NCEA level 1 next year because of similar concerns? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): No. I do, however, hold the view that schools should make decisions based on what is appropriate for their students. NCEA level 1 has always been optional and remains so. Schools are not required to notify the ministry of whether they are offering NCEA level 1. I am aware of four secondary schools that have notified the ministry that they have opted not to offer NCEA level 1. The reasons for this vary greatly. Erica Stanford: Can she explain why schools who have always offered NCEA level 1 are now choosing to pull out, specifically citing her changes to NCEA as the reason, as they are harming student outcomes? Hon JAN TINETTI: NCEA level 1 remains an optional qualification. It has been optional since the introduction of NCEA in 2002. It is up to each school to decide what subject-based course offering for NCEA is best for their school community. I also point out that most other countries we benchmark against only have two years of high-stakes assessments, equivalent to our levels 2 and 3. So it is not unusual that level 1 is optional when compared to international standards. Erica Stanford: Why didn't she just pause the entire level 1, 2, and 3 NCEA reforms to ensure consistency, rather than forcing year 11 students to sit both new and old standards that top principals are now saying will harm student outcomes? Hon JAN TINETTI: Because the evidence does not show that. We have piloted the new level 1 standards extensively, and none of the results found any issues with the transitioning between the new level 1 standards and the existing level 2 standards. I would like to highlight a quote from a science teacher from a large Auckland secondary school, whose students participated in the level 1 pilot and are then being taught the level 2 standards. I quote: "Students who entered level 2 chemistry and biology this year have brought a stronger systems-thinking approach to their studies of ecology, a deeper grasp of variation, leading to level 2 genetics, and level 1 understanding of microbes that feeds well into cell biology and physiology, etc., at level 2." Erica Stanford: Is the principal of an Auckland girls' school wrong when she says the NCEA changes "dumbed down fundamentals like writing and maths" and a level 1 maths examination that "keeps standards high" is being removed? Hon JAN TINETTI: What I would say to any principal is that the NCEA change programme has been developed with experts, with the sector, and decisions have been made in strong consultation with the professional advisory group on NCEA, who are made of experienced sector leaders, who, only this morning at the SPANZ conference in New Plymouth, told me that they are very happy with the changes that have been made. Erica Stanford: What does it say for educational equity in this country when high-performing schools with more resources can offer superior quality diplomas while everyone else is forced to use her second-rate NCEA level 1 qualification that will "harm student outcomes"? Hon JAN TINETTI: I absolutely refute the characterisation of our NCEA programme that that member has made there. What I will point out is that, when the changes about NCEA first went out in 2018, one of the proposals was that level 1 was going to be dropped completely, but, ironically, it was the schools that came from low socio-economic areas who told us that, no, it was important for them to retain NCEA level 1, and that is exactly what we have done. Question No. 7—Trade and Export Growth 7. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: How will the New Zealand – United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement benefit New Zealand? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): It's a great day for exporters, for importers, and for the wider New Zealand economy. The United Kingdom – New Zealand free-trade agreement (FTA) has now officially entered into force. From today, New Zealand's exporters will reap the rewards of this Government's gold standard agreement. The UK FTA delivers unprecedented access to the fifth-largest economy in the world and a consumer market worth $3 trillion. As of today, 99.5 percent of current exports will now enter the UK duty-free, thanks to a combination of tariff eliminations and duty-free quotas. That saves Kiwi businesses $37 million from day one. I want to thank officials and the two Prime Ministers—Ardern and Hipkins—who have both pushed hard to get this FTA completed so quickly. Ibrahim Omer: What does that mean for everyday New Zealanders? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We know that one in four New Zealanders' jobs depend on trade, and that employment grows up to 12 percent faster when businesses start exporting. In a cost of living crisis, the UK FTA cuts cost for exporters, boosts opportunities for small business, and creates and protects Kiwi jobs. The Labour Government knows that trade is key to our growing economy, and the UK FTA will boost our GDP by up to a billion dollars. Ibrahim Omer: How does the UK FTA support our primary sector? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: More good news. The primary sector is hugely important to our economic security. Last year, we saw primary export earnings reach a record—a record—$53 billion. The UK FTA unlocks unprecedented access to the UK market for our farmers and growers, the kind of access that we haven't seen since the 1970s. For example, our wine industry, New Zealand's biggest export to the UK, has had at least $25 million in tariffs disappear overnight; honey producers will no longer face a 16 percent duty; and our dairy and red meat sectors will transition to duty-free quota access for the first time in 50 years. Ibrahim Omer: How does the UK FTA support the Government's trade recovery strategy? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It just keeps getting better, I tell you! The Labour Government is committed to opening as many doors as possible for Kiwi exporters. Since 2017, we have signed seven new—seven new—or upgraded free-trade agreements: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, thank you, Mr Parker; the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership; the EU FTA; the UK FTA; the Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement upgrade; China upgrade; and Singapore. What we have secured for New Zealanders is historic and I want to, once again, thank all the officials and politicians involved in that. Question No. 8—Police 8. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer"; if so, why? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): As per my response to written question No. 11101 and oral questions on 9 May, 11 May, 17 May, and yesterday, on 30 May, I again stand by my full statement that, "In my view, New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 additional police officers." Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became police Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Ram raids peaked last year in August, with 116. Since that time, we have seen peaks and troughs. I acknowledge there is a problem, and I will continue to work to make sure we see those numbers come down. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was direct and time-bound, and it was not addressed in the period since the Minister became the Minister. SPEAKER: That may or may not be correct; I wouldn't have a clue. I didn't hear it. The House is clearly telling me that it did not want to hear the answer. Settle down, and we might get to hearing some questions. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order— SPEAKER: Another point of order? Hon Michael Woodhouse: —yes—I think you're absolutely right, Mr Speaker, but I would add that disorder arrives when Ministers do not address questions which are clear and obvious. SPEAKER: Not in this instance. I was listening very carefully, and it started before the Minister opened her mouth. Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became police Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: We have seen in August 2022 a peak of 116; as of April, there were 68. There's been a decrease of 41 percent since peak levels in 2022. We are now averaging approximately 55 a month. Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That time—in silence—it was a very tight, clear, direct question. The Minister did not address the question at all. SPEAKER: I disagree with you. You can use your supplementaries to find out more information. Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister the Minister of Police in August of last year? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I couldn't hear the question, sorry. Hon Mark Mitchell: Was the Minister the Minister of Police in August of last year? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No. Hon Mark Mitchell: Supplementary. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Well, that just cost the—you can have an extra question for that. Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So can the Minister please answer the question for the period that she has been Minister: have ram raids increased or decreased since she's been Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As I've said clearly, there has been a peak at 116. Those levels fluctuate on any given month. If that member wants to get into the details per month, we've seen an increase of 10 from last month to this month. Question No. 9—Agriculture 9. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Agriculture: What official discussions, if any, has he had with his ministerial colleagues about a levy on nitrogen fertiliser used in agriculture, and what advice, by date and title, if any, has he received about a levy on nitrogen fertiliser used in agriculture? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): This Government is committed to pricing agricultural emissions. Global trends and consumer expectations are changing, and it is imperative that we continue to lift our sustainability credentials and futureproof our export growth. The use of nitrogen fertiliser on farm and associated nitrous oxide is something we have always been looking at. It was in the He Waka Eke Noa partnerships proposal. It was in the Government's consultation document. It was in Pricing agricultural emissions: Report under section 215 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. I've had ongoing discussions about a range of options for nitrogen fertiliser with various ministerial colleagues, partners from the He Waka Eke Noa partnership, and from my officials, and those discussions have been supported by advice and briefings from officials, a large number of which are publicly available online. Mark Cameron: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two legs to that question, and I seek your clarity and guidance, if I may. The question was on notice about the dates and titles of advice he received. He didn't provide that information in his answer. SPEAKER: I'll give the member an extra question and he can ask further questions to try and find out. David Seymour: Point of order. The ACT caucus is very grateful for that additional supplementary question. However, I just do raise with you that quite often a Minister gives an answer that is very unsatisfactory and you say, "Well, you can have more supplementary questions.", but I do question what is the point of having more supplementary questions if they never actually answer one. You just end up getting the same result more often. SPEAKER: Yeah, and, as you can imagine, sometimes it's difficult presiding and deciding against whether the Minister has answered or not in that moment. I'm not absolutely 100 percent sure that he didn't, but I'm giving the member an extra question anyway. I mean, I could have said, "Well, yes, it has been addressed." I've decided to err on the side that the member can explore further. That's the reason why I've done it this way. Mark Cameron: Has he asked for advice about what the average cost per hectare on any tax on nitrogen fertiliser will be for the average vegetable grower and/or dairy farmer; if not, why not? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have asked for that at a different range of carbon prices and different scientific calculations. There is a whole range, and I'm sure it will be available for the member when he wants to inquire. Mark Cameron: Will the Government remove barriers to technology that allow farmers to reduce their nitrogen footprint before it tries to introduce a fertiliser tax? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We have no proposal to introduce a fertiliser tax. What I discussed with a number of partners from across the sectors was the dilemma that we face is that if we are to continue and, thanks to the Minister of Finance and Budget 2022, we put a billion dollars—a billion dollars—into the agricultural sector, $338 million of which went into research for agricultural emissions. But if we are to continue to put investment into R & D and then to support farmers with the uptake of that R & D, we need to generate some revenue. The generosity of the taxpayer can't continue forever. And we have in the 1980s actually removed subsidies from agriculture and farmers are quite proud of that. So the discussion I had with some industry leaders was: did they think that a levy on nitrogenous fertilisers was a good way of raising revenue to pay for the research and development and the assistance that might be needed for the uptake of technology when it was discovered? Mark Cameron: Has he asked for any advice on the likely impact the tax on nitrogen fertiliser will have on the cost of living; if not, why not? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Not directly. Can I point to the average price of urea: over the past two years, it's gone from about $500 to $600 a tonne up to $1,400 a tonne, and farmers and growers have had to continue to pay for that. That wasn't sustainable. It's now dropped back down to about $900 a tonne and it may come back down further. The idea of a levy that would have contributed to money for research and development was my idea of a possible good investment. The industry leaders have come back to me and said they don't like that. We now have to sit down and work on the best way forward of following through with He Waka Eke Noa, but dealing with the dilemma that they don't want to pay anything until they've worked out the full analysis of sequestration options. That will take some time. It will take more research and development. The issue is who will pay for that. Mark Cameron: Will he now rule out a tax on urea; if not, why not? Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There has been no considerate, comprehensive consideration of this by Government or by Ministers at all. I've had brief discussions with sector leaders; they've indicated that they don't want to proceed with that. The question I have is whether I should then bother to put that proposal up to my colleagues. I probably think not, but I'm not going to rule anything in or out here and now. Question No. 10—Disability Issues 10. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Fa'afetai lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. How does Budget 2023 support disabled people? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Disability Issues): Budget 2023 increased the support for disabled people to access disability services, and continues our transformation of the disability support system. This includes $863.6 million to help ease cost pressures for disability support services. It also ensures that we can meet increases in service volumes due to demand—this includes increased demand for individualised funding, which gives disabled people more control over the support that they receive. Through this Budget, we're also ending the minimum wage exemption, improving access to family and sexual violence prevention services for disabled people who need them, and making half-price fares for total mobility permanent. Budget 2023 adds to this Government's record investment in supporting disabled people. Anahila Kanongata'a: How will these investments impact the lives of disabled people? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: These investments are significant. Our disability support system currently supports approximately 120,000 people to access over 2.2 million days of care in residential care and the equivalent of 4.9 million funded support hours through individualised funding, as well as providing for equipment, vehicle, and housing modifications. This Budget funding continues support for Whaikaha—the Ministry of Disabled People, which we established last year—to continue their work to transform the disability support system to ensure that disabled people have greater choice and control over the support that they receive. Anahila Kanongata'a: What can she tell us about the changes to the minimum wage exemption? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Currently, we have disabled people being paid less than the minimum wage for their work on the basis that they are perceived to be less productive, and that just is not right. Our Government will end the discriminatory and unfair minimum wage exemption that allows more than 800 disabled people to be paid less than the minimum wage. Going forward, the current exemption will be replaced with a wage supplement that will ensure that employment opportunities are protected and that disabled people are paid at least the minimum wage. Anahila Kanongata'a: How does Budget 2023 support the elimination of family and sexual violence against disabled people? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: For decades, disabled people have either had to turn to mainstream services that often try to accommodate their needs but don't always have the skills or the facilities required, or they just don't access those services at all. We are addressing this in Budget 2023 by funding extra support to enable our existing mainstream family and sexual violence providers to meet the accessibility needs of disabled people and tangata whaikaha Māori. We are also providing funding for specialist support. This twin-track approach gives disabled people choice in the types of support that they can access when they need it. This is a Government that's committed to investing in disabled people, and that's exactly what Budget 2023 does. Question No.11—Prime Minister 11. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by the track record of this Government, which has not fully implemented any of the key recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group designed to ensure people have an adequate income and standard of living and can live with dignity? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because this Government's made enormous progress towards implementing the recommendations from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, including delivering significant increases to those on the lowest incomes, and particularly those who are reliant on the State for their income. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that it is unacceptable to be punishing the poorest in society by slashing the little income they have with benefit sanctions, especially at a time when one in 10 children and one in five tamariki Māori experience material hardship; if not, why not? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do think it's important that in considering welfare policy we seek to get the balance right between ensuring that we are supporting the most vulnerable, that we are encouraging people to go into work when they're able to go into work, but that we also consider the consequences of those decisions on children. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he, then, remove all benefit sanctions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That's not something that we're currently considering. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is he comfortable that some disabled adults and children will get less from Work and Income via the disability allowance and temporary additional support because of the prescription fee policy when levels of support for disabled people have been identified as severely inadequate; if so, will he finally increase the disability allowance and child disability allowance? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The people that the member is speaking to will get the benefits of not having to pay the $5 prescription co-payment, so I think the whole thrust of his question is incorrect. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing, if anything, to respond to the 165 percent increase in food bank use across the country over the last three years, highlighted by the recent report of the Auckland City Mission that it now distributes 65,000 food parcels a year, up from 9,000 ten years ago? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'm particularly aware if we're talking about food banks in Auckland that one of the pressure points for them in recent times has been the effect of the recent severe weather, and we have been working to support them through that. We are very focused as a Government, and have been in the entire time we've been in Government, on improving the lot of the New Zealanders who are living on the lowest incomes. That includes those working on the minimum wage—they've seen the minimum wage increase every year since we've been in Government. It includes those who are dependent on the State for their income, whether that's superannuitants or those on the jobseeker benefit, or those who are unable to work. We have been focused on making sure that we are increasing the amount of income that they are getting as well. I don't think any party in Parliament should be satisfied with people having to go to food banks to seek that level of support. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to rule out removing GST from food when a recent poll showed that more than half of the country are buying less fruit and vegetables due to rising food costs, which in the last year have had the highest annual increase for three decades? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Removing GST off food would be an incredibly expensive policy. As I have indicated before, repeatedly, the Government has had a difficult balancing act in this year's Budget to make sure we're supporting people through a cost of living crisis whilst also making sure that we deal with some of the underlying drivers of that, the most notable of which is the level of inflation that we have experienced. As the Reserve Bank indicated last week, the Government's Budget is putting downward pressure on inflation, and we should see inflation back within the target range by the end of next year. That is actually one of the best things we can do to ease the financial pressure that all New Zealand families are facing. Question No. 12—Statistics 12. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Statistics: Does she stand by her statement to media when asked if she would stake her job on a 90 percent census collection rate, "Absolutely", and does she stand by all her statements and actions relating to the 2023 Census? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Absolutely, I stand by my confidence in Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ to deliver a census that gives us a robust dataset, giving Government agencies, city and district councils, iwi and community groups, and business good information to plan for the future. In answer to the second part of the question, I stand by my actions and statements in the context in which they were made. Simon Watts: Can she confirm that despite spending over twice as much as the 2018 Census, the current Māori response rate is just 4 percent higher than the 2018 Census and well below the 90 percent target? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There were some considerable issues with the 2018 Census, which resulted in an overall response rate of, unfortunately, around about 81 percent overall. Significant effort has been made in this census to ensure that we get a good overall response rate. We're now sitting close to 88, 89 percent overall, and we're confident that we'll get there. In terms of the Māori response rate, the response rate in 2018—the raw individual partial response rate—actually sat at about 67 percent. We are now tracking along at about 72 percent from Māori. We would, of course, like that to be higher, so I encourage any iwi leaders, any people who are prominent in the Māori communities, any sports players who can, to encourage people in the Māori communities to complete their census. Simon Watts: Can she confirm media reports that the number of people undertaking personal grievances relating to the 2023 Census has doubled since it was last reported, and what is the number of personal grievances received to date? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I do understand that there are some personal grievances being taken by some census workers against the person or agency which employed them. That is an ongoing process, and it is an operational matter for Stats NZ. Simon Watts: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be expecting what I am going to ask, but my question was pretty clear, in regards to the number of personal grievances received to date, and that wasn't answered. SPEAKER: It was definitely addressed, though. Simon Watts: Has she spoken to the Minister of Justice about reports that they will be using that same recruitment contractor for the general election as was used for the 2023 Census, given that contractor now has multiple personal grievance cases taken against them, and, if so, why not? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I have not spoken to the Minister of Justice about that. BUDGET DEBATE Debate resumed from 30 May on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): It's a pleasure to take a call on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. There is a lot to be optimistic about in the two portfolios I lead: Health, and Research, Science and Innovation in Budget 2023. This Budget funds the critical services that New Zealanders rely on day to day, and it is vital that we continue to deliver these services well. Our Government is reducing the cost of healthcare for ordinary New Zealand households by removing the $5 co-payment for prescription medicines by July this year. Removing the $5 co-pay will make it easier and cheaper for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need, having a meaningful impact on many households, particularly those that have multiple prescriptions to fill on a regular basis. We know the $5 charge is a barrier to some New Zealanders getting essential medicines, and this is especially at a time when there are pressures on household budgets. Removing the co-pay will also help remove demand on hospitals and other health services. There's been a lot said about this initiative since it was announced, but I know from my experience as a doctor, there were many times when my patients didn't collect the prescriptions they desperately needed. We know that more than 135,000 adults did not collect their prescriptions because of cost in 2021 and 2022. This was particularly the case for low-income families, Māori, Pasifika people, and people with disabilities. We will make a massive difference for them with this initiative. We will make a difference for the Dunedin man who told the Minister of Finance that his mother cried when she realised the four or five prescriptions she needs each month will now be free. It will make a difference to seniors, because, as Grey Power advocates report, some older New Zealanders are taking their medicines on every second day because they can't afford the cost of prescriptions. It will make a difference to local pharmacists who play an integral part of our health system, making their businesses more sustainable so that they can be encouraged to practice at the top of their scope, as we are doing through the health reforms. It will make it easier to get the essential medicines people need. Now, on the other side of the House, the "coalition of cuts" has said that these lifesaving medicines are "nice-to-haves". They are so out of touch. The Pharmacy Guild disagrees with them and has written to them to say so. We've heard them say that "those who can pay should pay", as if that's some sort of principle to be proud of. Will that apply when you go to the emergency department? Will you need to pull out your credit card under the "coalition of cuts"? Will you need to take out a personal loan if your child needs their tonsils out? That's what it means when they say "those who can pay should pay". This Government cares about people and keeping New Zealanders healthy even when times are tough. On this side of the House, we're tackling the pay and workforce pressures in the health systems by allocating $1 billion at Budget 2023 to increase pay and increase the number of nurses by 500. We have also allocated half a billion dollars in the Te Whatu Ora Budget to the primary and community care sector to reduce pay disparities over time between hospital and community health sector staff. Budget 2023 reflects my three priorities of the workforce, winter preparedness, and waitlists. It includes $63 million for progressing safe staffing. Key workforce initiatives such as Te Pitomata Grants for tauira Māori and Ngā Manukura o Āpōpō nursing and midwifery leadership training will also receive funding. We are putting $99 million towards the winter preparedness plan for primary and community care closer to people's homes, reducing pressures on hospital, and speeding up discharge through community-based care for older people. We have allocated $118 million to help clear waitlists, enabling outsourcing, insourcing, Saturday operating, and community initiatives to make our surgery system more efficient. We are spending $20 million to establish outreach to lift immunisation and screening coverage for Māori. Budget 2023 includes targeted investment of $37 million over the next two years to enable equitably allocated primary care funding for general practices based on high-needs populations and those providers with the highest Māori and Pacific populations. As part of this, we're funding 193 additional front-line clinical team members across the country to focus on early intervention, faster treatment, and better support for whānau. I want to now turn to the other portfolio that I'm responsible for: Research, Science and Innovation. It has an essential role in the low-emissions high-wage economy this Government wants to see for its country. Through Budget 2023, we're backing our scientists to do exactly that. The centrepiece of Budget 2023's Research, Science and Innovation is three new research hubs here in Wellington, making Wellington a true science city focused on health and wellbeing; oceans, climates, and hazards; and advanced manufacturing, biotech, and energy. There will be no more siloes or ivory towers. We'll be connecting our researchers across institutions to enable the good collaboration and linkage to industry that will get our economy and our science sector humming. Another matter really close to my heart is progressing the role of young researchers in our science system. They are our future science leaders, and this Government is backing them with close to $50 million in support for them—be that across fellowships for early- and mid-career researchers to make sure that that hamster wheel of grants doesn't force them out of the system and that they can stay on being productive. In addition, we're also going to link our talented young scientists and researchers into industry to make sure that they can get the economy to put their skills to work. We'll do this through setting up applied PhDs that will be linked between universities and Crown research institutes. Through all of this, we're also making sure that our senior researchers can showcase New Zealand's ability on the world stage. We've joined the Horizon Europe research initiative; we're one of the first countries outside of Europe to join that European Union initiative. This means that our scientists can collaborate with the best in the world to be working on some of humanity's great challenges like health and climate change mission-led science. This is the optimistic and bright picture the Labour Government is supporting through Budget 2023. To get our post-pandemic recovery going, we are investing in science and innovation. Now, that is an entirely different vision for our country on this side of the House than what you'll hear from the "coalition of cuts". I am very certain that the investment we are laying down now will build a better future, both in terms of the health and wellbeing in our community and the vigour and ambition and innovation in our economy. I commend this bill to the House. CHRIS BISHOP (National): This is astonishing. Here we are, and one of the Government's senior Ministers—I'm slightly taken aback; I was watching the clock, thinking "This will be good; two minutes to go off this long, laborious speech.", which I don't even think the Minister of Health believed, with her political attacks. She's not a politician, and you can tell because the political attacks fell flat. It was a long eight minutes. I thought, "There's two minutes to go; I have to sit there and listen to more of this.", and then she sat down. Astonishing. But I'm prepared to stand up. When they write the history books about this Government, they will remember it as the most incompetent, useless Government in New Zealand history in the last 50 years. They will remember it for three things: (1) massive spending, (2) waste, and (3) the fact that they are and remain soft on crime. Let's talk about spending, because this Budget reflects a Budget that increases spending massively. Over the six years of Grant Robertson's time as finance Minister, spending has gone from $76 billion per year to $128 billion. That is an 80 percent increase in Government spending in six years. It is an astonishing increase in spending. That is $28,000 per house— Hon Judith Collins: Addicted. CHRIS BISHOP: —$28,000. He is, as Judith Collins says, addicted to spending. Every year, he turns up at Budget day, 2 p.m. on a Thursday, and hands around the documents with his merry henchmen—Megan Woods and James Shaw and all the rest of them—and proudly displays the wellbeing agenda. We don't hear much about wellbeing any more from Grant Robertson. But every year, he hands round the Budget documents, and the year before, he said he'll spend a certain amount of money, and then every year he breaks that promise. Things have got so bad that the Treasury has to write into the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update—write into the documents—that he always overspends. It's right there in the documents. They've had to put a note to the financial statements that say, on average, the Government exceeds the new operating allowance every year by $600 million—every year, on average. Now, you add that up over six years and it all adds up. That's how we've got to a position where, after just six years, Government spending is up by over $50 billion and there's been an 80 percent increase and $28,000 per household. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House and to New Zealanders that we are not 80 percent better off for that spending. Child poverty is not down 80 percent. Violent crime is not down 80 percent; in fact, it's up by a third. The environment is not 80 percent better. We have not got 80 percent fewer people on welfare; in fact, the number of job seekers is up by 50,000, at a time of allegedly full employment. So I put it to the people of New Zealand: are you 80 percent better off for the 80 percent increase in Government spending? Actually, I think they know the answer is, no, they aren't. What does the Budget also say? The Budget documents say that inflation will be higher for longer because of this Budget. That's in the document written by Treasury. They say that interest rates will be higher for longer. That's because, at the very time Grant Robertson should be taking the foot off the fiscal accelerator, he is doing the opposite. He has massively blown out the operating allowance again. We are now in a situation where the operating deficit for this year is $7.6 billion; last year, he said it would be $600 million—well, now we're $7 billion out again. Because of that, the surplus has been delayed again. Does anyone seriously think Grant Robertson will ever— Hon Willie Jackson: Yes. CHRIS BISHOP: —deliver a surplus? Oh, yes, yes, "Sir Willie Jackson" says, yeah. Whatever. The next Government to deliver a surplus will be a National-led Government because we know how to get spending under control. So interest rates will be higher for longer, and so every time, in the next six months, in the run up to the election, New Zealanders go into the bank, and say to the bank manager "I need to re-fix my mortgage because I was on a one- or two-year rate two years ago, and I was paying 2.5 percent or maybe 2.6 percent or maybe 2.8 percent in my fixed-rate mortgage and I need to re-fix because it's expired.", and "Mr Bank Manager" says, "I can offer you 6.5 percent or maybe 6.4 percent, if you're lucky, and it's not going to change much." New Zealanders need to know they are paying more in interest bills every week or fortnight or every month because of Grant Robertson. That is the take-home point: people are paying higher mortgage and higher interest bills and paying more to the bank manager and don't have as much in their back pocket because of Grant Robertson, because, at the same time as the Reserve Bank printed money, he kept spending—he's utterly addicted to it. What is he addicted to it for? That's the second thing the Government will be remembered for, and that is waste. There was $55 million on a cycle bridge that never got built; $3 million for the Mongrel Mob to run a money-laundering scheme about anti-meth operations; hundreds of thousands of public relations consultants swimming around the Wellington vortex doing, frankly, not a lot; and Te Whatu Ora running weird Instagram ads and surveys so people can tell Te Whatu Ora that they don't like the health system. Ayesha Verrall has just resumed her set, and her ministry is spending thousands of dollars running weird Instagram surveys so that people can click a button saying, "I don't think the health system delivers for me." Well, guess what! By the way, you all pay for this—all taxpayers pay for this—90 percent of people clicked the button that said the health crisis is in crisis, because it is. Just crazy spending throughout the bureaucracy and throughout the weird vortex that is the Wellington political industrial complex. So, as a result, the size of the State just continues to increase—it just goes on and on and on. That's why we have 14,000 more Public Service workers in Wellington, enjoying their lunches—I'm not having a go at them; many of them work very hard, but they have an ill-disciplined, unfocused Government that's got rid of all of the targets, that's got rid of all of the accountability, that's got rid of all of the leadership from the top. That's why we have a hapless education Minister who's got no control— Hon Willie Jackson: Who's going great guns—great guns. CHRIS BISHOP: —over her ministry—no control even, apparently, over her ministerial office, as Erica Stanford has demonstrated. That's why we have a hapless broadcasting Minister who spent two years trying to merge TVNZ and RNZ together for reasons that were never articulated by anyone—never actually articulated properly—and then had to get rid of the idea because, finally, the new Prime Minister came in and said, "This is crazy. Why are we spending hundreds of millions of dollars merging two functioning agencies together?" In fairness to Willie, it's not entirely his fault; his mate Kris Faafoi was partly responsible for that, and, of course, he has shuffled off the mortal political coil because he got to the point where he probably said, "Why are we doing this? I have got no idea. I'm out of here. I'm going to hand this baby over to Willie to shepherd through.", and then, of course, it's been killed. But that's the problem—that's the problem. We don't have a Government that's actually focused on getting kids to school; we don't have a Government that's focused on, once they're at school, getting them to be able to read and write; we don't have a Government focused on actually giving the police the powers that are required to get tough on crime; and we don't have a Government that's focused on targets in the health system so that surgical waiting lists go down and emergency department waiting times are taken seriously. We have a Government that is obsessed with fluff and nonsense, spending for the sake of spending, consultants for the sake of consultants, and not delivering anything. They are soft on crime. There's been a 33 percent increase in violent offending; a 55 percent increase in the last three months of ram raids; a 41 percent increase in victimisations; and a 60 percent increase in gang membership in the last six years. So when they write the history books about this useless Government, they will remember it for massive spending, for blowing the fiscal limits. They will remember it for waste. They will remember it for being soft on crime. Mostly, they will remember it for not being able to actually get anything done. After six years, there's been an 80 percent increase in Government spending; we're not 80 percent better off. We will oppose it at the election. Finally, a National Government— SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): What a— Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We had a Minister that was unable to finish her 10 minutes talking about her own Budget. Mr Bishop has run out of time, so I'd like to seek leave so that he has the two minutes remaining of the Minister's 10 minutes' time. SPEAKER: I think you know that's out of order. This is a timed debate— Andrew Bayly: Well, Willie's not going to do 10 minutes. SPEAKER: Well, you can come to my office later on, but, no, you can't seek leave for someone else. Matt Doocey: So you're ruling that I can't seek the leave of the House with that motion? SPEAKER: No—that's right. Matt Doocey: OK. So we've had a change, have we? SPEAKER: No. This is a timed debate. Each party has a number of minutes and they can use it how they like. OK? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What a useless speech from a useless member, who dared to criticise somebody who beat him by 3,370 votes last time. Here's the question: how much will the Minister of Police, Ginny Andersen, beat the so-called whatever he is—Mr Bishop—by next time? She's doing such a brilliant job as police Minister, and I want to congratulate her and her contribution to the Budget. Mr Bishop went out, because he knows that our Minister Andersen is on a roll. Can I congratulate our Minister of Finance. What an exceptional Budget— Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Mr Speaker. A member can't—yeah, the Minister might have to sit. He can't refer to someone's absence. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He just walked out—he was on the way out. SPEAKER: Are you finished? I was going to say in response to that point of order that I heard what the Hon Willie Jackson said, and it might have been taken one particular way or another. His interjection while you were taking a point of order confirmed that, actually, you are correct—absolutely correct—and I've said this to the Hon Willie Jackson on a number of occasions. He cannot—he cannot—mention the absence of any other MP. I'm pretty sure that's probably about the fourth time I've told you. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker. In a tight economic environment, though, you have to say that our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, has delivered—no doubt about it. We've got a focus on young families, with 20 hours' early childhood education support, $5 prescription charges—I want to thank our Minister for a fantastic delivery of a balanced Budget. Then we come to Māori: $900 million—$900 million—delivered to Māori. As I said yesterday, for our Māori Party friends: 17 percent—17 percent—of a new Budget. It's massive, really. We're talking about a home pūtea of $295 million. I'm particularly proud of that in the Māori-targeted Budget because we're talking about by Māori, for Māori strategies there. In Ngati Porou, we've got a great set-up with Annette Wehi and Willie Te Aho, and right around the country, we have found that by Māori, for Māori strategies are the way to go. More funding for Whānau Ora: $168 million. Increased funding for hauora providers, iwi Māori partnerships, our boards, rongoā practitioners, and more prevention funding: $132 million. More support in Māori education for kura, kaiako, and ākonga across the country: $225 million. More funding to strengthen Māori media: $51 million. A boost for Te Matatini in terms of that going forward: $34 million. Matariki is funded into the future, for an extra $18 million. On top of that, of course, we have funding for Mātāwai. Mātāwai is our Māori language entity that has been doing a lot of good work lately, which, sadly, the National Party have been criticising. Bilingual signs has been a huge strategy from them, welcomed very much by most of the New Zealand population, apart from the National Party. Simeon Brown and others have rubbished this strategy, and I'm really disappointed with the National Party. I look at their leader, and it seems very sad that they can't and he can't support something when we've seen clear strategies in terms of Māori language. With Air New Zealand, that was rolled out by the National Party leader—rolled out by the National Party leader—in terms of the increase of te reo Māori, and the real confusing thing for us as a Government is the number of confusing positions that National have made and have had in the 24 hours. It must be a hard time for the National caucus when the rug gets pulled from under you, first on housing, and now on this. I mean, bilingual signs is something that the National Party support. Harete Hipango has been very clear that she disagrees totally—totally—with the leadership position. I was watching Harete and I thought, "You're in the wrong party, Harete Hipango." She said, "My comment is te reo Māori is an official language of this country." Asked if she was disappointed with her colleague's comments, she said yes. Harete Hipango: No, I didn't, Willie. I said something different. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, you didn't. No, she said, "I would say it's a view I don't agree with."—there you go. Harete Hipango: That's right. Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I've got to quote the member very, very clearly, and we're in agreement with that. Yes, she totally disagrees with the member. Tama Potaka, who is generally a confused sort of bloke, said, "I heard about the comments, I read about them, we've had a kōrero. … I am pretty relaxed about [bilingual signs]." But, clearly, he has got huge discomfort with the National Party position. But I think Shane Reti summed things up really, really well when he said, "You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who can't identify a big read stop sign, regardless of whether it says stop in English or te reo or any other language." So Shane Reti—who should have stayed, really, as the deputy leader of the National Party just so that they could get some real strong leadership—is clearly articulating a position, along with their leader, who now agrees in principle with the Māori language signs. So I'm really pleased that they've come to their senses over this, particularly given that in past history, they have supported a number of kaupapa Māori initiatives. In terms of this Government, we've invested close to $4 billion in terms of Māori kaupapa. It's an incredible amount of pūtea—an incredible amount of money—compared to previous National - Māori Party coalition pūtea. In 2016, for example, the National Party and Māori Party celebrated a minuscule $105.5 million across specific Māori initiatives. Now, that was peanuts. So we've delivered more in one year than the Māori Party could do in their entire term, and that's the reality when you have a scale in terms of a Māori caucus. You've got a Māori caucus of 15, and having the largest Māori caucus in the history of Parliament is actually producing results for our people. So I'm proud of the mahi that's being done at the coalface, and that's why I come back to the spend that keeps getting confused out there. Our people do get a bit confused, because you hear all the misinformation, and I think it is misinformation, because you hear the waffle from the Māori Party about 1 percent—isn't it? They talk about 1 percent of the spend. I'll remind them again today that $895 million of just under a $5 billion new spend is 17 percent—17 percent. Now, the Māori population is around 17 to 18 percent, so that is a very, very good and productive spend. It's nothing to frown at. So this nonsense about "You don't get to all Māori." is just nonsense, particularly when Māori providers number between 5 and 10 percent, and having 17 to 18 percent of that pūtea go to Māori providers is very good. The rest of the Māoridom is hit with the universal fund, so 90 percent of Māoridom are getting access through that universal fund, and I'm particularly happy that that's the case. It really needs to be reiterated how far this Māori caucus has come in terms of funding. The Matatini funding—and I give credit to our previous Minister Kiritapu Allan and our current Minister Willow-Jean Prime for fronting this—has been a huge win for Māori. Māoridom has celebrated everywhere, and I'll say that at least the National Party and ACT Party haven't opposed this. If we go way back to 2007-08, the Māori Party only got a $700,000 increase. That's not enough over nine years, but we've walked the talk in terms of getting a real difference and a real increase in terms of funding. Our funding increase has been applauded by Te Ao Māori, and there have been a number of leaders who have come to the party and congratulated us. Tuku Morgan, for instance, said, "Absolutely an excellent budget for Māori" as far as the pūtea goes. Furthermore, he said, "Labour Māori … Ministers have shown responsible and courageous leadership and our people need to ensure they continue as the Government beyond the forthcoming election." Ngāti Whātua Orakei deputy chair Ngarimu Blair also praised the Labour Māori caucus for putting Māori front and centre in tough economic times. Referring to Matatini, he said, "[Ministers] should be applauded for getting an increase for an event that resonates widely with [all] New Zealanders". Mr Wharerau, our Ngāpuhi leader from the North, said that the Budget was glowing and "would support poorer communities." Finally, John Tamihere, Whānau Ora chief executive and Māori Party president, welcomed the extra funding, saying, "Māori have done well and the Māori caucus have done particularly well." We need him to talk to his Māori Party members. Finally, I want to say in the last few seconds here that the National Party needs to look at themselves. At least the ACT Party has come up with a bit of a plan going forward. Even if it's a plan that's going to destroy Te Ao Māori and the rest of the country, it's still a plan—you know, they're going to cut Māori affairs, they're going to cut women's affairs, and we as a party know that the "coalition of cuts" will be disastrous for this country. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Chris Baillie—five minutes. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thanks, Mr Speaker. It was great to see Willie Jackson attempt to support his Minister of Police—admirable effort, but I don't think anyone's really buying it. I looked hard in this Budget to find something that would give me hope—give me hope—that this Government is taking crime seriously, but, unfortunately, no such luck. We're in the middle of a crime crisis: unprecedented youth crime, violence, sexual crime—you name it—every single statistic has increased in record numbers. We have a Budget that's so underwhelming it must make our police officers very depressed, and it's no wonder that morale is at an all-time low. There's a couple of things that aren't new that the Budget has continued. There is an early intervention programme, it's been going for four months; 13 re-offended so far out of 52. And, I think, if stats can be manipulated, that's a good example. Proper funding of youth aid would do a very similar thing. And I note that youth aid funding has decreased by $2 million. Youth crime has decreased significantly over the past decade until 2017, and the Government needs to ask itself why. There's $56 million in the Budget going to the firearms registry. I think people know ACT's opinion about that: it won't work, it will be a waste of money, and it won't take any guns away from criminals; we know it. Not one gang member handed their weapon or gun in during the buyback at all. There's a roll-out of the tactical response model—better training for high-risk situations. I remember something that was going earlier on, a few years ago—in 2020 it got canned because it was deemed as being racist and offensive. And I remember Poto Williams at the time said that it was hurting her people, forgetting that she was the Minister of Police and her people were actually police officers. Then we have the policy of 1,800 front-line officers and allocating officers for population-based funding, which we absolutely agree with because it's ACT's policy—we've had it out for a few years now—so well done taking up ACT's ideas. It all looks good to say the 1,800 police officers, fine men and women—they won't make a jot of difference, which really does show the ignorance and naivety of what we've come to expect. No credit is given to the experienced police officers that are out there—their knowledge and their abilities—and they're very underappreciated and they know it. Along with the 40 percent increase in mental health incidents, we have a 41 percent increase in serious crime victimisations since 2017, a 121 percent increase in serious assaults since January through to December, and a 114.9 percent increase in serious assault victimisations from 2017-22. It just keeps on going. Labour's soft on crime ideology just is the reason for these increases. It's a result of no consequences and being soft on crime. The Budget doesn't have any targets, which is really disappointing if we look at the percentage of people who have reported offences that are advised of the results of updated investigations within 21 days. Burglaries were expecting an 11 to 15 percent clearance rate. Really, it's just not good enough. Crime against a person—greater than 35 percent is acceptable. Targets—they're just not there. Every day, we're reading about a crime committed by young people out of control. I've got some here: a dairy in Canterbury, in Darfield; we have Ōtara—this is just over the last week. An example from the Dairy and Business Owners Group—he really sums things up by saying the Government has given up on crime. "It will be news to the insurers who have hiked rates and excesses as a result of crime." So what we got today is a "Crime without Punishment Budget". Unfortunately, the horse has bolted, and it's going to be up to a Government of adults to rein it in. Thank you. SPEAKER: Karen Chhour, five minutes. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I sat and listened to Willie Jackson and the Māori Party during question time. They were engaged in a debate centred around whether it was fair that Māori only received a Budget allocation of $850 million and whether the Labour Party genuinely cares about equity. Their discussion struck a chord with me, prompting me to reflect on the issues that affect all New Zealanders: fairness and equity in our society. I stand before you with a very genuine question, a question that's been asked to me around the country by many people: is it fair to have a parallel Budget that specifically targets one race over all others, with funding initiatives that can impact all New Zealanders, regardless of their race? Housing, food, mental and physical health, and the list goes on. This question also stems from the response I heard from Willie Jackson yesterday, who mentioned that other Māori receive what they need through the universal spend. Well, I'm uncertain about the specifics of his reference to "other Māori". I find myself wondering if the universal spend is good enough for some Māori, why not for all? I can speak to two personal examples that highlight my concerns. Firstly, why is it acceptable for me, as a Māori, to be eligible for a COVID booster shot based solely on my ethnicity, while my husband did not qualify? We live under the same roof. We share all the expenses that come with housing and feeding a family of six. How can it be right that I have access to healthcare resources that he does not simply because of our different ethnic backgrounds? How many other households are being divided like this? We need to unite New Zealand behind good ideas, not divide them. Secondly, I recall a time when I was granted a free parking ticket while I had a child in hospital. It was a small act of kindness during a very difficult time, but I did not need the help and was given it without even being asked. When I asked why, I was told it was because I was Māori. However, sitting next to me was another woman whose husband was unable to visit his child because the cost of parking was too expensive. They did not qualify for the free parking, leaving them struggling to be there for their own child during a critical moment. How can we justify decisions like this that are based on race and not need? While I understand the importance of addressing historical injustices and supporting marginalised communities, we must make sure that our efforts to rectify past wrongdoings don't unintentionally create new ones. I have no issue with Māori-run services, and I think they should be available to those who do want to use them. My question is around how we are funding them. Everyone should be treated fairly and have equal access to opportunities and resources, regardless of race or ethnicity. So I just ask this question again, respectfully: is it fair to have a parallel Budget that targets one race over all others? What if we consolidated the funding into a universal fund and eliminated the race-based conditions and had an equity index similar to what Labour has proposed in education funding? We could ensure that the resources are allocated where they are needed the most, and that not only would it capture Māori in need, it would capture all New Zealanders in need without discriminating against any particular group. I understand that this is a complex issue and that people feel passionate about it. I hope that we can have these kinds of debates without being labelled racist, because if we can't have these reasoned debates here in the House, and bring our thoughts to this table, what is the point in all of this? We are in the middle of a cost of living crisis and all New Zealanders are feeling it right now. And I would hope that we can find a balance that promotes fairness, justice, and unity where, irrespective of race or ethnicity, we can strive to work together for all of those in need. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call, so I called the Hon Kieran McAnulty. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I do enjoy a Budget debate, because I think it tells the general public quite a bit about what parties stand for. I particularly enjoy a Budget debate in election year, and today's contributions from the Opposition have been quite telling. None of them have talked about what they would do. None of them have talked about their priorities. They've just whinged—they've just whinged and complained. This Budget is an incredibly balanced Budget that delivers relief from the cost of living and that the Reserve Bank themselves have said has assisted them in their job to bring down inflation. It outlines quite clearly that unemployment remains at record lows, that wage growth is expected to go beyond inflation over the forecast period, that inflation is forecast to come down to the target range next year. It shows that the GDP growth in this country is still admirable and comparable to those from overseas. If the shoe was on the other foot, that crowd would be crowing, absolutely crowing, but it's not and they know it and they hate it. That's why they whinge. We didn't hear anything about their policy to bring back prescription charges. We didn't hear anything about their policy not to confirm the Police budget until after the election. We didn't hear anything about ACT's policy to increase taxes to our lowest paid and most vulnerable workers. We heard nothing about the ACT Party's policy of getting rid of Working for Families and getting rid of the winter energy payment—all the things that are supported in this Budget, all the things that help people through the cost of living crisis. All we hear about is their complaints about what we're doing to help people. We do not hear a thing from the National Party about their proposed tax cuts, which will help the highest earners and do almost nothing for the average worker. Two bucks a week—two bucks a week, which will be swallowed up as soon as they bring up prescription charges. Nothing to talk about their cuts in real terms to health and education, which will have to happen if they cut taxes. They like to lecture the Government and New Zealanders about inflation and about the cost of living but won't front up to the fact that if we cut taxes now like they propose, it would make inflation worse. This Budget is about as balanced as you get. When you've got the Reserve Bank saying that it is assisting them to bring down inflation, you know that Grant Robertson got it right. Andrew Bayly: That was a change of heart wasn't it? Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And you know, when Andrew Bayly doesn't need a microphone and starts piping up, that we've hit a nerve. Andrew Bayly: Only three weeks ago they were saying the opposite. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Only to prove my point, he carries on. But what I challenge Mr Bayly to do is, if he gets a speech in this debate, tell New Zealand what they would do. Tell New Zealand how cutting taxes now and making inflation worse and cutting in real terms to education and to health and putting prescription charges back on—how is that going to help New Zealand, when they've already got a $1.5 billion hole in their costings. They can't even afford to do the tax cuts that they've said—they've identified $400 million that's put aside for consultants; they've already spent about four times that to pay for God knows how many promises they've made. They are sleepwalking into another Budget deficit coming into the election, just like last time. That was what made Paul Goldsmith's reputation never recover, because the first rule in politics is: learn how to count. They didn't learn that last election, and they're going to make the same mistake again. We've seen it time and time again. We saw it this week with the issue of bilingual signs, where they think they can say one thing to one group and pretend it didn't matter. They always get caught out, and they're going to get caught out again because their numbers don't add up. They cannot go round the country promising to spend more, promising to tax less, and promising to pay off debt. It doesn't add up. And the ACT Party can't go around saying that their alternative is better for everyday New Zealanders when they're going to increase the tax rate for the lowest earners. They're going to cut tax rates for the highest earners and they're going to raise tax rates for the lowest earners. That is backwards. It doesn't make sense, and it actually doesn't add up. The fact is that this Budget builds on the success of the last five years of this Government, where we have seen wages increase, where we have seen conditions improve, and we've actually seen record investment in infrastructure and public services—the things that actually matter to New Zealanders. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister of Internal Affairs): That was a beauty. I almost didn't want to stand up to take my call, because I thought Minister McAnulty should have just taken it right through. What Minister McAnulty was talking about was legacy. Just this afternoon, I went with Onehunga High School into our caucus room. It was a leadership group, a group of young, thriving Pacific young leaders coming through, who were being fostered by Anahila Kanongata'a. I took them through the caucus room and I showed them the different legacies and the pictures of the leaders of the Labour Party. Michael Joseph Savage: State houses and the benefit system that we have; Peter Fraser: education; David Lange: nuclear-free; Helen Clark—now, this is a beauty for me—KiwiSaver, Working for Families, which, for a low-income family like my family, meant that we had an additional $100 in our hand when she was the Prime Minister; and interest-free student loans. We don't yet have the picture of Jacinda Ardern, because she's in that Speaker's aisle, but what I would have said to those children is: winter energy payment, Best Start, and the extension of paid parental leave, and the contributions into New Zealand super. So my question to the other side of the House is: what is the legacy that you will be leaving for our young children to look up to? Well, I can tell you, basically, based on the speeches that we've had before and over the last week for the Budget, it will be less money for people when they retire. It'll be colder people in the middle of winter, because they'll get rid of the winter energy payment. It'll be less money for our families, and it'll be less money for those on the lowest of incomes, because, since 1 April, we've increased the minimum wage. We increased benefits. We increased super to match inflation. It will also mean—and this one was a bit of a clanger, which I thought was quite unfortunate—less than a few hours after the Budget was announced, no sooner did we have the $5 prescription fee removed they wanted to return it, because it was a "nice to have". You go and ask the people in Porirua East and in Cannons Creek if it's a nice to have—medication that helps deal with the pain that they suffer every day through arthritis or through gout. You go and talk to the people in South Auckland who need medication for their diabetes and say it's a nice to have. We on this side of the House know exactly why we need to remove that fee: because it saves money on the other side; it prevents people getting more sick. It prevents our hospitals having to deal with them because they're at the other end of the spectrum because they couldn't afford their $5 prescription fee—not just for one prescription; it's per script. They wouldn't be able to get the medication to make them better. Just last week, on Friday, I was speaking to our local Cannons Creek pharmacist Kas Govind, and he said to me, "Thank you so much. Thank you so much for removing the prescription fee." He said, "It's going to save my business, and it's going to save lives." That's the legacy that this side of the House wants to support. That is the legacy on this side of the House that means, by keeping superannuation at 65, when our people retire—in particular Pacific people, who will retire earlier, because of a number of reasons—they will have more money in their retirement plans. This particular Budget, for Pacific people, builds on investment over the last five years of over $683 million. With an additional $51 million added to that, it means we have specific Pacific initiatives that can help our Pacific people. I remember, when I was young, my grandmother used to have her transistor radio blasting in Māngere with Radio Samoa. As I've grown older, I've lost my mother tongue, but this Budget has money in there to help deliver our Pacific languages strategy. That's $13.3 million to help New Zealand - born Pacific people be able to hear our language on the radio, hear our language on TV, and read our language so that we can be bilingual, we can be bold, and we can be founded in our culture and identity. There is also an additional $14.1 million around the Pacific Community Resilience and Wellbeing Fund. That is a direct result to thank all those people in the Hawke's Bay, all those Pacific churches across the country, who stood up and responded to our natural disasters. This is a Budget for children, this is a Budget for our elderly, and this is a Budget for all our people, to ensure that we help them with this cost of living crisis. SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think there's a definite pattern emerging out of the debates on this Budget that go across the House. On the Labour side, they talk about how much money they can spend; and on the National side, National talks about outcomes. Frankly, Willie Jackson— Hon Ginny Andersen: Cuts! Cuts! Cuts! Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, we'll come to that. We'll come to that, Ms Andersen. Willie Jackson talks about pūtea. What he was really talking about was poaka because the amount of pork that's in this Budget absolutely sums up the Labour Government. For six years, they have put the word "wellbeing" on the front of Budget documents. Well, I simply ask this to all New Zealanders: do New Zealanders feel better off or worse off under a Labour Government? We can talk about prescription charges. Frankly, I don't need it. Millionaires don't need it. People getting the winter energy payment who are on six-figure salaries don't need it. I daresay Mr McKelvie would agree with me. But I ask this: what's the point of removing a $5 prescription charge if the poor patient can't even get to see a GP and has to wait for months for a first specialist assessment, the waiting list for which has gone up by tens and tens of thousands of dollars? What about the cancer patient who can't even get in for a definitive diagnosis, much less the prescriptions and treatments that they need? Elective surgery has ballooned out to a disgraceful level. Don't even start me—Barbara Edmonds talks about Pasifika. What is the immunisation rate for our young Māori and Pasifika? It has drastically dropped on Labour's watch. The previous National Government took a disgraceful rate of childhood immunisations—from about 65 percent—and brought it up to 95 percent. It didn't use people's situation as an excuse for not making them better, and we've gone right back down to the 60s. It's a disgrace. So we can talk all we like about how much money is being spent in the health sector—most of which, by the way, is being spent on a socialist centralised model; half a billion dollars to take away local decision making and centralise it into Wellington. It's a pattern with Te Pūkenga, it's a pattern with three waters, it's a pattern with a number of— Harete Hipango: Te Whatu Ora. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes, Te Whatu Ora. Exactly. Let's talk about education. If they want outcomes—if we want our young to be better off—what about the woeful attendance rates at our schools? What about the significant reductions in numeracy and literacy when compared with other countries that we have observed in the last five-and-a-half years? And the industrial action continues in our education system. We've talked about law and order incessantly because people, despite what the Minister of Police says, do not feel safe. They don't feel safe despite the—I don't know how many police; I don't think we've got to 1,800 yet. But the question is not how much money; not how many police, but how they're being deployed. In straitened times, technologies were deployed to enable front-line police, on the watch of the previous Government, to remove 1.2 million hours of non-contact time. That's the equivalent of putting 600 police on the beat. That's what a sensible Government would do. It's about outcomes, not money. We see that in—well, I was going to say in economic development; actually it's in the non-development of our economy because we don't have an economic plan under this Government. I'll tell you which particular industry is being enhanced by the industry transformation plans that this Government is now going to spend over $200 million on. It's the consultancy industry. It's the contractors and consultants that have been paid something along the lines of $75,000 per page to write a report. Reports that have very little and have been criticised extensively for their lack of imagination and the fact that millions and millions of dollars are going to consultants. Not a single original idea. Well, I've got a good idea. How about we create the conditions for businesses and Kiwis to thrive, and then just get out of their way? How about we reduce regulation; encourage proper productivity, not fair pay agreements and ridiculous increases in minimum wage that are driving the inflation; that create the wage-price spiral that we're seeing and that we won't get out of until we change a Government? Well, those people who don't feel better off will have a choice, and it's coming soon. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Oceans cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface. They provide 95 percent of the space available for life. They regulate our climate. They have absorbed 90 percent of the heat from a changing climate. We have a marine environment that is 15 times the size of our land area, and yet this Budget has not delivered for oceans and fisheries. We are a coastal people. Most of us live near the coast, and 85 percent of our biodiversity is in our oceans. There is much in this Budget that the Green Party supports, but like Budget 2021, 2022, and now 2023, it does not deliver for oceans and fisheries. There's $102 million as part of Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety for oceans and fisheries, and another $35 million which is recovered from the industry. But we know that ecosystems with the greatest biodiversity are much more resilient to climate change. Maintaining biodiversity should be a priority for fisheries management, and yet the amount of funding for fisheries marine research has been stuck for years. We welcome the new multi-institution research hubs that Minister Verrall outlined and the fact that one of those hubs will focus on climate change and disaster resilience as part of a national centre for research on oceans, climate, and hazards, but that's very much focused on that, rather than biodiversity. We welcome the small amount of funding—some $10 to $18 million—for the roll-out of cameras on boats, but we don't see any substantial increase in fisheries research. The level of funding for operational advice on sustainability and management controls in 2023-24 is the same as the current year—about $35.8 million. This static funding is despite the recognition by the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor and many others that we need to invest more in research. We've got a huge deficit in fisheries management, big shortfalls in information about fish stocks, about species bycatch, and about the ecosystem impacts of fisheries. In 2019, only 160 fish stocks had been scientifically evaluated, and there were over 200 stocks that hadn't even been assessed. How can we know if they are sustainable if they haven't been assessed? And we've got at least nine stocks that have collapsed. So we need a much better understanding of the complex interactions between fishing and other marine life, about the cumulative pressures on ecosystems, and how that can then translate into actionable policies and regulations. Yet we don't see this increase in Vote Fisheries, nor do we see any significant increase in Vote Conservation for marine spatial planning. I was pleased that there is a small amount of funding which increases slightly for the Kermadec/Rangitāhua Ocean Sanctuary and progressing that bill. Perhaps we will see an announcement on that long-awaited ocean sanctuary. But we depend on our oceans for breath, for life, and we need to invest more in the marine environment. In Vote Conservation, we see a number of performance measures for land, but no specific ones for the marine environment. And yet, we have, in the industry transformation plan, the draft one for fisheries, we have the fishing industry proposing that there be $18 million spent by Government on buying three new fishing vessels. So we've got the industry pushing for more funding to provide vessels, but not the Government recognising that we need to invest more in fisheries management and marine research. We've got a lot of goals that the Green Party would implement if we were in Government. It would increase the investment in oceans and fisheries; many more marine protected areas; reform of the outdated Marine Reserves Act—we haven't seen any action on that; implementing the commitments for marine protected areas in the Hauraki Gulf; and banning bottom trawling through the Hauraki Gulf so that we can have a healthy marine environment. Jono Ridler, in his marathon swim of 33 hours—nearly 100 kilometres—did it for the Gulf. Now we need a Government with the political will to invest in oceans and fisheries and to take action to better manage our important marine environment and our oceans. Kia ora. SPEAKER: This is a split call—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa, i tēnei ahiahi. [Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker, and I'd just like to begin with a mihi to my lovely colleague Willow-Jean Prime for that beautiful kōrero in te reo. I know it's something she works on, and gosh, that was beautiful. There is a particular item in this Budget that I was delighted to see and I want to talk about it this afternoon. It was a change that, when it was announced, I just cheered—I was so pleased to see it coming. That is the change to prescription charges, the simple removal of a $5 fee, and I want to talk about why it matters so much. It matters a huge amount to so many people. Let's start with the impact on family budgets. One of the things we know is that people who have very tight income, who don't have a lot of money in the house, they budget down to the last dollar. They're incredibly careful with how their money is spent, and that extra charge can just be a charge too many for them. Only $5—maybe a bit more if it's a specialist script—but that $5 can make a real difference in a family that is living pretty close to the breadline. As one of my friends tweeted, saying: "If you've never had to transfer 87c from one bank account to another in order to pay the $5 charge, then you don't know what you're talking about." The difference that that $5 charge—removing it—will have for so many people is enormous. It takes real pressure off people. We know that about 130,000 people chose not to get their medication, the medication they needed, because of that $5 charge. Now, those people will genuinely be able to get their medication for $5. But it's not just the impact on individuals. In the last few years, I've spent a lot of time talking to pharmacists in my electorate and talking about how their businesses operate, the services they offer, what prevents them from doing a better job. Of course, I was in close contact with them as we were rolling out vaccinations, but I've talked to them frequently about this prescription charge. And I'd like here to thank, in particular, Liz Young, who is the pharmacist who runs the Avondale Family Chemist—it's at 1794 Great North Road in Avondale. Liz spent an hour or so one day talking me through why that $5 charge made a difference, and it made a difference in that, when it has been in place, it has undermined pharmacists—it has undermined our community pharmacists. And what she said was that the problem is it might only be $5, but there are people who can't pay it. So instead of going to their community pharmacists, they'll go to one of the big chain pharmacists, the big ones that are backed by the wealth of supermarkets, that are backed by the wealth of a large chain, who can afford to say that they will pay the prescription charge on behalf of the customer. Now, you might think that doesn't really matter, but that $5, it didn't go to the pharmacy; it went to Government. So what the pharmacy was doing was collecting it on behalf of Government, and the pharmacists themselves earn their income from the fees that Government pays to them for each script they fill. So when a big chain went with a loss leader—said it would pay the pharmacy charge themselves, the prescription charge themselves—it removed business from a local pharmacy, and that undercut the model of our community pharmacists. So it really mattered to community pharmacies. And why does that matter? Well, it's fairly straightforward. It was not only undermining the local business; it undermined a local healthcare provider. Pharmacists are front-line healthcare providers. They're the people we go to for easy advice. They're the people who know which medications we are on so they can give us good advice about it. They are the people who will respond to the need in front of them when someone walks through the door, and yet we were undermining their business. So removing that $5 prescription charge means that our community pharmacists now have a much more viable model for doing business. So this is why that removing—it's only $5, but it mattered: it mattered to families, it matters to the business of pharmacists, and it mattered for the quality of healthcare that we can get in our communities from our community pharmacies. It has made a real change, and what it shows is what this Government is all about: supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living, delivering the services that New Zealanders rely on, and doing it in a way that is fiscally sustainable. This is a great change. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Judith Collins—five minute call. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I quite enjoyed that presentation by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, primarily because I thought it was excellent to talk about people who do not have much money to pay for stuff and things that they need. And I want to do that too; I want to talk about people who genuinely cannot pay their mortgage or people who genuinely are striving to pay their rent. And that is actually—a lot of that is on the cost of borrowing at the moment. And as we know, when we look around other developed nations that we like to compare ourselves with, our interest rates are going up and theirs are going down. Recently I was in Australia—they were complaining about things like 4.5 percent interest rates, and we are seeing in my electorate in Papakura and all around the country, people who have either bought their first home or they've expanded to another home or they're just dealing with the fact that they were able to borrow at 2 to 3 percent interest rates and they are now facing the loss of all of their equity because their house prices that they paid, often on the KiwiBuild scheme, were actually inflated to what they really should have been given what they were buying. And they have had Kāinga Ora move in to their street and put gang members in it. And that is the sort of thing that we deal with in my electorate office in Papakura. How we deal with the worst landlord in the country, Kāinga Ora, which I see is now getting $71 million extra. This was an agency that used to have no borrowing, no debt, and did its job. It is now so in debt, around $14 billion, I understand, and not doing its job. It is now the worst landlord in the country and unfortunately now the worst neighbour in the country. We have, now, a situation where people can't pay their bills. But what we should do is keep these sorts of things like prescription charges, the $5 co-payment, which I can certainly afford to pay, and I think every member of Parliament should be able to pay for themselves and for their immediate family, particularly those living with them in their own home, rather than charging them extra power or something for their room. It is very important that we do our bit for that, but we also know that that is a charge that should be—or lack of charge that should be—targeted to those who really can't pay; those on community services cards, those who are on national superannuation, those who really do not have extra money to spend, and particularly those who are very unwell and need repeat prescriptions. And that is already in place as those of us who have actually looked at what situation people are in would know rather than trying to grandstand, as we saw the other day from Arena Williams. What a disgrace for the MP for Manurewa being blatantly, let's say, untruthful. What we are seeing now is a Government that has spent as though— DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member can't make that statement, so she will withdraw and apologise. Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh yes, I withdraw and apologise. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker has of course reminded me of what I really feel about this, which is how despicable it is coming out and talking about a father having to choose between paying for a $5 prescription or pay for heating his room when the room is in that member of Parliament's own home. It is an absolute disgrace and I am very pleased that somebody in the media has finally picked it up. Now, looking at the debt that this Government has put on New Zealanders: $28,000 per New Zealander extra to when they came into office six years ago—$28,000. Interest rates through the roof. Nothing to talk about in this Budget except another $7 billion - odd being borrowed again on top of last year's $7-odd billion extra to what there was before. This country is getting into debt. One of the worst finance Ministers that I can recall, and I remember a Labour Party person shouting out the other time I said that, "Well, what about Rob Muldoon?" Well, I tell them this: at least Rob Muldoon got some hydro schemes built and everything else built that's running our renewable energy. He had some faults but I can say this: at least he got something done. This Government has been treating money as though it's confetti, throwing it around, not wondering about targeting, trying to get as many people as possible on taxpayer money. New Zealanders are being treated as though they are fools, and they are going to turn, and this election is going to be it; it's the last Budget from that finance Minister. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this Budget debate. You have to ask the question: who was this Budget written for? It seems like it was written for Australia and written for Brisbane rather than written for New Zealand, because that is what many, many New Zealanders will be doing after looking at this Budget. This is not a Budget which will help keep New Zealanders here. This is not a Budget which gives tax cuts and tax relief to hard-working, middle-income earners like the ones that I represent in the Pakuranga electorate. This is a Budget for people moving to Brisbane, and that is unfortunate, because, unfortunately, this Government has lost sight of what their job is to do, and that is that their job is to serve New Zealanders to make sure that they are able to get ahead and not to go backwards. Unfortunately, this Government is growing the size of its bureaucracy and spending money in all the wrong areas rather than focusing on what they need to do. I was expecting this Government was going to provide some tax relief. For the last six years, New Zealanders have seen a Government which increases taxes, which spends like there's no tomorrow, which wastes money like it grows on trees, and now we see the Government is wanting to spend more—$7 billion more of expenditure, yet they couldn't find some money to provide tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders who deserve that tax relief. Todd Muller: Tip it into the potholes. SIMEON BROWN: That's right, they tip it into the potholes, with 54,000 potholes—a record number of potholes they had to fill last year. This is a Government which has failed when it comes to transport. I just want to give a few numbers when it comes to transport in this Budget. You would've thought, after last year's record number of potholes on our highways, that they would've increased the amount of money being spent on road maintenance, but no, the amount spent on State highway maintenance is going to go down from $660 million to $496 million. That's gone backwards, and the amount for local road maintenance: down from $744 million to $429 million, a more than 40 percent reduction in local road maintenance. This is a Government which wants more potholes, which doesn't care about the State highways which move our goods around our country, which doesn't care about people who drive on our roads, who have noticed that the roads are in the worst state ever. But what has this Government got money for in this Budget: $131 million for some land acquisition for Auckland light rail—Auckland light "fail", which still hasn't even left the consultants' train station. It's now spending $131 million on some land acquisition, on top of $250 million for vehicle kilometre reduction plans, because "We want you to get out of your car; at the same time, we don't build new public transport. We spend six years talking about light rail in Auckland, six years talking about Let's Get Wellington Moving"—which sounds more like "Let's Get Wellington Consulting", not that they needed more consultants in Wellington—"and at the same time spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to force you out of your car." This is an ideological Government which hates the fact that people choose how they drive around this country and wants to waste our transport money in all of the wrong areas when New Zealanders are saying, "Get back to basics." It was meant to be a no-frills Budget. Well, there's money for Africa when it comes to what this Government's own ideological pet projects are, but there's no money for getting the basics done right and doing that job properly. A National Government will make sure the National Land Transport Fund is focused on doing its core job of building and maintaining the roading network. That is what New Zealanders pay their petrol taxes and road-user charges for. This Government sees it as a slush fund to spray that money around for its own ideological purposes. But what's more is it's quite scary what Treasury said about the transport fund in New Zealand. It's now listed the National Land Transport Fund as a fiscal risk. There are 11 fiscal risks when it comes to transport in New Zealand, greater than any other area in terms of what Treasury has highlighted for fiscal risks. Transport is the top of that pile, and it's across the transport sector we are now seeing fiscal risks. The Inter-island Resilient Connection Project is a fiscal risk. The National Land Transport Fund is a fiscal risk. Transport, local government's share, is a fiscal risk. Auckland light rail is a fiscal risk. Let's Get Wellington Moving is a fiscal risk. This Government has destroyed transportation policy in New Zealand. National will get it back on track. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Talofa lava. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Budget. I listened to my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty earlier and his contribution to the House, and he challenged members opposite to effectively share their plan with New Zealanders and with the House. We have had three speakers from the Opposition this afternoon. We've had Mr Woodhouse, Mrs Collins, and Mr Brown. Not a single one of them have taken up that opportunity to share with New Zealanders what their alternative plan is. They like to rabbit on about tax cuts—tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy at the expense of those who are far worse off than them. But they have not shared with New Zealanders the plan to deliver those supposed tax cuts. They need to share with the House. They need to share with New Zealanders what essential services they will cut, because the maths does not add up when members opposite say they will deliver tax cuts for the rich. How are they going to pay for it? They should be up-front and clear. What cuts to education, what cuts to health, and what cuts to police are National proposing to deliver on money for the rich at the expense of those who are worse off? I am proud to stand in support of this Government's Budget. We have heard a lot about the real difference that removing that $5 levy or that $5 co-payment will mean for communities. Perhaps members of the Opposition haven't actually spoken with the local pharmacist, because they clearly don't know. They clearly don't know the difference that this will make to communities all around the country. But, of course, in the words of their leader, the Leader of the Opposition, they are only bottom feeders—it doesn't matter to them. Well, it matters to this Government. It matters to Labour that we are delivering where it counts. We are delivering where it counts. Last week I had the opportunity in Palmerston North to talk with just one of our local pharmacists, James Carroll, at the Botanical Road Pharmacy. He's been there for a wee while. He was able to show me the shelf of uncollected items, the uncollected scripts, because people had to prioritise their own health and wellbeing—in that case, not, and were not able to pick up the script. We know that there is a minimum of 133,000 people who fail to collect their script every year in this country—every year. And, actually, that is a conservative estimate because it doesn't call into account those individuals who know that it's going to cost them some money so they won't bother to go to the pharmacist. So tell us, members opposite, where those cuts are going to be. Health, education, law and order, or elsewhere? Be upfront about this. They're silent because they have no plan. They have no response. They are happy for Kiwis to think actually that they have a plan when, clearly, they do not. I am proud of this Budget. I am proud of the fact that it will see a huge investment in rail, and I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Ōtaki Terisa Ngobi. She and I have been strong advocates for the Capital Connection and rail that connects the capital and the Manawatū line. Actually, I took the Capital Connection here to Parliament this week. I'll take it home tomorrow. But the reality is under a Labour Government we are going to see huge investment—a huge investment—to ensure that there is more frequency, that we have a service that connects our capital and the Horowhenua, and the Kāpiti Coast, Palmerston North, and the Wairarapa to ensure that our communities are able to be connected to the capital. It's going to be a more environmentally friendly solution. It's going to be more efficient. It's going to be more effective. It's going to deliver on all of those needs for our local communities all along those main trunk lines as well. That's Labour—that's a Government delivering for my community. That is a Government who is investing in rail after decades of under-investment. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: $8.7 billion. TANGI UTIKERE: Absolutely, Dr Webb—absolute under-investment from those opposite. This is a Government that is focused on the basics. It is a Government that has delivered a Budget that is going to mean so much to our communities. I know that because I've heard it. I really don't think that members have been out and about listening to the difference that this will make. This is an absolute Budget that will make a huge difference. Finally, I just want to touch one other pre-Budget announcement, and that's around increases to Defence Force personnel's remuneration. It will make a huge difference to the people in Palmerston North. We have the RNZAF base Ōhākea nearby. We have Linton Military Camp as well. To be able to deliver significant increases, more so than in a decade, is going to make a huge difference. It shows the value that this Labour Government places on serving personnel. I am proud of it. I am proud of this Wellbeing Budget and I commend it to the House. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It comes to this time every year where we get up and obviously we're the Government so we talk about the good things in the Government, the Opposition sit there and say that we've done nothing and it's all going down the drain. This is very same, same. And for me, this is time number six. I'm starting to understand how this goes. But I've got to say, I went out into the Waiariki community last week, I went down to Tūrangi, I went to Taupō, I went to Tauranga, I met up with some of our locals in Rotorua, and I really canvased some of these policies out there. And I want to say that, actually, first of all, in acknowledgment that not everybody lives in our little political bubble, so they don't all understand what's in the Budget. So you have to say it again and again and get out there and talk to communities and help them to understand. This is another opportunity for us to be able to do that. But the thing that resonated with me was a thing that has been addressed by my previous colleagues here, and I wasn't expecting it to, but it is that part payment on medical prescriptions. It was poignant because the conversation that I had with Leanne, who owns the Life Pharmacy in Taupō CBD—I went in there just on the off chance. Hadn't set it up. Just popped in to say, "Hey, can we have a yarn about this stuff and tell me what's going on." She referred me to the shelf of brown bags behind her. She showed me the shelf. It was a very big shelf. It went from about where I'm standing to where my colleague Tangi Utikere is standing—brown paper bags that hadn't been picked up. But not just for this month, for last month and for the month before as well. And she had a whole other shelf and a couple of boxes just for large medication packages which hadn't also been picked up. What she said to me was, first of all, she was sad about the wastage, because all of that that doesn't get picked up ends up going upstairs into the yellow bins. I said, "Can I have a look at the yellow bins?" She said, "Sure." She showed me these big, yellow bins, and they were just filled with medication that had expired—"expired" in their terms—because after three months you have to get rid of it because it's not as effective. So I went through the bins. She was quite happy to show me through the bins, and I saw the wastage in those bins. And it broke my heart, but it also broke the heart of her and her employees too. People who— Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did the member take a photo? TĀMATI COFFEY: Yeah, I did. People that had to stand there with their pharmacist—their community pharmacist—and go through the script. And they had to pick out the most important medication to them. Some of them didn't have enough for the $40 or the $50 that it was, so they had to go through the scripts with them and say, "Well, maybe you can afford no. 1 and no. 5, even though the doctor's prescribed you all of this medication. If all you've got is this amount of money, then that's what we're going to do for you. We would suggest this and this. And what we'll do is we'll put the rest in the bag and we'll put it back here on the shelf and you can come and pick it up, maybe next month, maybe next week, whenever you get some money." And she knew—she said to me she knew that as they walked out the door, she was never going to see them again. So I relay that sad story because it's symptomatic of other stories that I've gone and heard around the country. And I heard members of the Opposition before say, "Oh, go to the Chemist Warehouse—go to Countdown." They can give it for you because they've managed to absorb the cost of that part-payment into their operations, which is great for them. The people it does a disservice to are our community pharmacists and our community chemists who know their communities well and they know their people. They look them in the eye. They know their family situation, they know that they can't afford the medication, they have those personalised relationships with them that if you ask some of those community chemists, they'll say, "At Countdown they don't necessarily have that. At the Chemist Warehouse they don't necessarily have that bespoke, personalised relationship with their chemist." And for that reason, they were very proud of it. Actually, some of the people that I spoke to in those chemists, they weren't necessarily Labour voters, but they knew that it was the right thing to do. Can I say that I was mortified just to open up my Newshub app just then and to see the leader of the National Party say that he was going to continue to make women pay for contraceptive medication that actually they were passionate—so passionate—about putting that $5 charge on that they're going to continue to charge women that are seeking medication for contraception, and that seems like advice that if I was giving advice to the Leader of the Opposition to tell him how to lose an election, it would be to do that. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Meka Whaitiri—five minutes. Hon MEKA WHAITIRI ((Independent)—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I'm pleased to take a call on the Wellbeing Budget 2023. I do hope that the nation receives this Budget a lot warmer than Mr Jackson is reported to have received at the Tairāwhiti breakfast last week, where he asked for a candidate to stand in the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti for Labour. So let's try and see that we get some warm reception to this. But I do want to acknowledge the gains in this Budget. I do want to acknowledge the Whānau Ora gains, the Te Matatini gains, of course, Māori housing. But when asked yesterday in the House, to Mr Jackson, around the percentage of the $850 million—and look, I've gone through this book; I see there's $836 million of targeted Māori funding. But I hear the total of $850 million used, and today I heard another figure of $900 million targeted funding. Whatever it is, the point that I tried to get across to the Minister was, was it—and it's not even 0.1 percent; it's actually 0.005 percent. His response was around the universal Budget, in which case I said, "Well, if there's $5 million that's newly allocated money and you have deducted $850 million, that gives you 17 percent. What about the other $170 billion that's allocated every year?" But I've got some ideas, because some of the Government members have been saying there's been no ideas from this side. I do have an idea, and I want to talk about some of our local solutions. We saw it from Māoridom, both in COVID, where hauoras are vaccinated—not just Māori communities, but they've vaccinated all communities: in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in my area of the East Coast, and of course down Hawke's Bay. We also saw in Gabrielle—in terms of the response, we saw many marae stand up as evacuation centres. My point being—as Māori have proven themselves time and time again—when there's a crisis, they come to the fore. I would have liked to see more in this Budget because it does a nod to those that are always at the cutting edge when communities are in crisis. I'm talking about our Māori communities; our rural communities, who all banded together. So in the $6 billion National Resilience Plan, I want to do a plug for those very communities. I know members across have talked about the $5 removal subsidies against prescriptions. On the East Coast, there is no pharmacy. There's no pharmacy on the East Coast; you have to go all the way to Kaiti, which for some is a two-and-a-half-hour drive. So there are no pharmacies on the East Coast, but those are small beans. The point being is that Māori communities, up and down this country, stand and deliver and look after their own. What I wanted to see in this Budget is a nod to them; a nod to them to say, "Listen, we recognise your contribution both in response to Cyclone Hale and, of course, now Cyclone Gabrielle." From the people up at the very top of the East Coast to Te Karaka who have their own silt removers. I met the team the other day—they've done eight homes, removing silt, but unfortunately the Government has funded Gisborne District Council to remove silt, and yet you've got a local band working at this minute removing silt from houses in Te Karaka. This is just one of the examples that I want to talk about in this short time I have on this Budget. It is around local solutions, locally led. In this instance, I want to represent those people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti from the East Coast right through to Te Matau-a-Māui—Hawke's Bay—right down to Wainuiōmata. Our people—that I come to this House proudly representing—talk about "when do we ever get to see the returns and the investments" of what they do?" In times of great need—and it isn't about the cost of living, I'd hate to say—it is a poverty issue for many of our communities. So this Budget does go some way towards addressing poverty. But for me, I'd like it to have gone a lot further. I'd like to see policies that have direct funding straight to those communities that have put their hands up. I'm talking about Māori hauoras, I'm talking about iwi organisations, and I'm talking about marae. I'd love to see more go to them because they know the communities better. But I also want to see more of the funding that's allocated in this Budget ring-fenced against population, which is about 20 percent—17 is a start, but I'd like it to be lifted to 20 percent, going forward. This is a Budget to acknowledge. But from my perspective, it could go a lot further—I've identified how it could—in delivering greater gains for our people. Thank you. Hon RINO TIRIKATENE (Minister for Courts): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Talofa lava. It's a pleasure to speak in support of this year's Budget. But can I first acknowledge the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who's just resumed her seat, Hon Meka Whaitiri. I know that she is like a beautiful manu from Te Tairāwhiti: she's free in the great forest of the ngahere, associating with the Māori Party. But I thank her for her tautoko—qualified, albeit—for this Budget, because this is a wonderful Budget in very, very challenging times. And I want to acknowledge our Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, for his stewardship of our finances and for being able to craft this budget. It's about support for today and building for tomorrow. And we are showing that it is challenging times—we know that we've come through a global pandemic; we know that we've been dealing with devastating weather events that have impacted the regions around the country. Throughout those difficult circumstances, we are managing the books and we are also making sure we are getting the support where it's needed—for today—to address the cost of living pressures that whānau are facing up and down the country. So I want to acknowledge this Budget. I'm very proud of the support that we are giving. We're scrapping the $5 prescription co-charge. That is greatly appreciated by whānau up and down the country, as we've heard in contributions this afternoon. And we're particularly giving support for parents and young families, and the free early childhood education for two-year-olds, which my colleague the Hon Jo Luxton is shepherding—wonderful initiatives that are going to be able to support our young families. This is a balanced Budget. We know that these are very challenging times, but I'm also proud of the fact that right across the board, as with all Budgets, we are ensuring that the resources go to the right place to ensure that we are actually delivering a thriving economy for our country. And I know we have industry titans here in the House who will be celebrating today—celebrating the coming into force of the New Zealand - United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement (UK FTA). Right from today, there is an extra $37 million of money, more returns, actually coming back to our New Zealand exporters, right across our export sector, and that agreement is actually going to be better into the future. So not only are we doing things for the present, we are also making sure that we that we strengthen our economy, strengthen our trade, and strengthen our future prosperity as a nation. And we're not only doing that with the UK FTA, we have seven free trade agreements, including upgrades that we have achieved in this Government—the EU FTA, which is coming on stream. We want to also ensure the regional groupings that we have in South East Asia—very, very important trade agreements for our country. And we're supporting our digital economy as well, an emerging sector, where we are getting wonderful support for rebates for those firms, which are actually very, very, very productive and great, great wealth generators right across our regions. That is a very welcome initiative from those sectors. But I want to finish by coming back to electorate that I represent, Te Tai Tonga, and the wonderful Māori caucus that we have here within this Government, on this side of the House, and the strong endorsement, the strong support that we have encountered up and down the country when we did our post-Budget road show; the support for not only our cost of living measures—to address those—but our specific targeted support that we are doing to address Māori housing, Māori education, Whānau Ora, Māori broadcasting—right across the board. In fact, it was quite moving to see and listen to the strong tautoko that we received from the likes of Te Matatini, the likes of the kōhanga reo, our providers, our Whānau Ora—right across networks. There is strong support for the work that we're doing. We know it's challenging times. That's what makes me especially proud that, under our Prime Minister, we have been able to reprioritise our programme, and that has been evidenced now. Adjusting to the challenging conditions and challenging times that we are in, we have put together a very balanced Budget. We are looking right across New Zealand society, and we are able to provide that support, for today, for our whānau while also being able to look ahead to tomorrow to ensure that we have that long-term prosperity that we all desire for out Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora tātou. SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Talofa lava. Tēnā koe e te Mana W'ākawa. I am delighted to take a call on Budget debate, Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill, second reading. There is much to celebrate. It supports people today and builds a strong tomorrow. I stand to reinforce the highlights, the highlights of: the $5 prescription fee scrapped; free early childhood education; free public transport for under 13 years, and half for under-25s; 100,000 more heating and insulated homes; continuing to deliver school lunches. I visited Marton Primary School recently, and the children were delighted with their lunches. They love the hot lunches that they get. Prescriptions will go a long way in my electorate, Te Tai Hauāuru, also known as the seat of Te Ārepa. Many whānau can't afford this fee. It might seem like pittance to some, but it means a huge amount of money to others, include kaumātua. It is sad to see negative National looking to cut this service and other services that people rely on, in terms of their social wellbeing. I want to focus on the continued investment in w'anau, in w'are, and in w'akapapa. Extra funding to build and repair more homes, boost for Te Matatini, and ensuring Matariki is funded into the future, more funding for Whānau Ora to provide more services, and increased funding for hauora providers, iwi Māori partnership boards, rūnanga practitioners, and more prevention funding. This Budget continues to invest in whānau wellbeing, access to whare and w'akapapa, all of which supports the cost of living. He whare—housing. We continue to improve housing for Māori, with a $200 million investment by kainga by ora programme for long-term housing supply, capability building, and w'are repairs. This Government has approved 1,018 homes and enabled 1,615 infrastructure sites for further development for Māori. He w'enua—the land; precious. In addition to the status quo, we are extending Te Ringa Hāpai Whenua Fund to enable landowners to undertake w'enua-based economic, cultural, social, and environmental projects, an estimate of $23 million over four years. Oh, how we so much need that. I have seen for myself the struggles of landowners. Māori land landlocked—20 percent in the Rangitīkei. It's a shame—shame on the history of this country that so much undeveloped land should be landlocked. It makes you wonder why, doesn't it? This helps whānau to unlock that potential of their w'enua. This is about building resilience, including adapting to current cost of living pressures. The Rangitīkei alone, as I said, 27 percent - plus of Māori land is landlocked. As quoted by the Minister for Māori Development, Willie Jackson, "Whenua Māori development creates regional jobs and enables Māori landowners to strengthen the economic security and prosperity." Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where is it? Where's the bill? SORAYA PEKE-MASON: In addition: a further $8 billion funded to Te Tumu Paeroa to support w'enua Māori owners—I'll tell you in a minute. He w'akapapa—the family. Whānau Ora navigators are the ones who recognise the needs of whānau. They work at the coalface. This Government backs Whānau Ora by committing a further $168 million over four years, a total package of by Māori, for Māori, of over $820 million-odd. That is why I am proud to be part of a team in Government who cares about people, who cares about their relationship with tangata w'enua, and who takes steps to honour the founding document of this country. I reiterate the words of Minister Jackson: "We have walked the talk in terms of our seven Ministers and 15 MPs getting kaupapa Māori policy across the line for Māori, by Māori." Some on the other side talk about a race debate; I say what about Te Tiriti? What will you do to honour a document that your forbearers signed? A document you breached and ripped my tīpuna off. I commend this to the House. Kia ora. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have listened carefully to some of the contributions from our Government backbench members, and I think one of the things I'd just reflect on—that speech from Soraya Peke-Mason—is that one of the travesties of the Labour Government over the last six years has been not to pass the Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, which we were keen to do when we were in Government six years ago. If we talk about economic outcomes for Māori, I think that is the greatest disservice that this Government has done over the last six years. It sounds great—Willie Jackson stands up in the House and talks about the $900 million that's been allocated to Māori, and that's fine; that's the prerogative of the Government—but the biggest thing they could have done, and what the Government should have done for Māori, is actually unlock those vast landholdings that the member talked about, because that is the way to create economic wealth for Māori and to be able to build houses and to be able to create successful businesses, which, no doubt, they are very good at and have a history of being successful business people. But we've got a Government that doesn't see that opportunity, doesn't see that prospect for Māori, and all they want to do is give them band-aid solutions around creating new houses, building new houses, and giving them lots of money rather than dealing with the root cause. So I find that contribution from that particular member actually a disservice to Māori, because I think it's shameful what has happened. The other thing we've heard a lot about is prescription fees and how that's going to solve everyone's woes. Of course, prescription fees don't apply if you spend more than $100 on medicines over the course of a year. But then there was a reference to the Hon Jo Luxton's reforms around the early education centres. What a disaster—what a disaster—how to get a policy absolutely, shamefully wrong. First of all, you say to the early education centre managers "We're going to shove up the costs of your labour."—and, by the way, who's going to bear the cost of that? Oh, they're going to bear the cost of that, of course. And then they're going to say to the parents—because, obviously, it's a big stretch out into the people they want to try and target for the voting public—"Oh, by the way, we're going to give you some extra time for your kids at an early education centre." And who picks up the cost of that? Who picks up the cost? Is it the Government? No. Who normally picks up the cost when the Government's got a smart idea? Well, every business owner, including every early education centre owner in the country. And, of course, they are screaming at it. I can tell you that, the week after next, I've already got two meetings—one in Hamilton and one in my electorate, in Pukekohe—where the early education people are lining up in their droves because they know that it's going to take their business to the brink of failure. And, of course, when you overlay that with councils, who allow new education centres to be built wherever, whenever they want—of course, they are marginal businesses right now. But here we are; we've got an insensitive, or maybe unsuspecting, Government that doesn't actually understand the sector, proposing these types of reforms. What did we come up with? Well, we came up with a $3,900 saving paid to the parent, effectively, on top of our tax cuts, which would mean the hard-working mums and dads with children get nearly $5,900 of savings a year. The reason we were targeted on that is that benefits have gone up—we put up benefits; Grant Robertson has put them up twice. Beneficiaries have had a large increase—and I'm not saying for a moment it's easy being a beneficiary. Superannuitants have seen their superannuation go up. And, of course, with rampant inflation driven by high Government spending, that means they are slightly better off. But the group who have had no benefit—the vast majority of New Zealanders—have actually seen their incomes go down, are behind in terms of inflation and seeing what they can take home and pay for their kids, to buy food and groceries, all those types of costs, and have seen that dissipate because of inflation. That is the issue for New Zealand. That's why the Budget should have been targeted at them. They are the hard workers of New Zealand. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I'd like to take the opportunity in the House to acknowledge the passing of Senior Constable Bruce Lamb after 45 years service in Christchurch, most of that on the New Zealand police dog section and Armed Offenders Squad—one of our most highly decorated officers and probably best known for the incident that he attended in Christchurch when he was shot in the face by an offender with a shotgun and his police dog, Gage, went to his defence and was shot and killed. I just want to acknowledge Jill, his children, Christopher, Michael, and Kimberley. Christopher and Michael have followed in their father's and their mother's footsteps. Jill was also a member of the New Zealand Police and Michael is now a police dog handler working in Christchurch, and Christopher is a Detective Sergeant on the organised crime unit up in Auckland. I want to pass on to them and thank them and acknowledge the service that Bruce gave to our country, which he was extremely proud of. He loved being a police officer. Many of the headlines that the media have reported on have referred to him as a famous dog handler. He would have loved that. That's the sort of headline he would have written for himself. But I just want to say that his service in Christchurch on Sunday is the biggest police service I have been to since I attended Constable Matthew Hunt's service in Auckland. It was a tribute to him, and I want to let the family know that they will continue to be wrapped in the support of the police family to make sure that there are people walking alongside them to try and soften the blow of what was a truly remarkable and extraordinary man. Thank you very much. The Budget this year clearly showed that the Government has put up the white flag and is surrendering on law and order, public safety, and crime in this country. There was nothing in there. There were no new initiatives. There was nothing to bolster any of the initiatives that are currently ongoing. The only thing that we have seen from this Government was a knee-jerk reaction with an $11 million announcement for fog cannons, when on the same day, the data came out showing that there had been a 55 percent increase in ram raids. When this Government came into Government in 2017, the first thing they did is they held a justice summit, but they forgot to ask the victims. They invited the gang members along, and they forgot to ask the victims. The next thing they moved on to do was repeal the three-strikes legislation, the only tough piece of sentencing law that we had on our books. If that wasn't bad enough, what was their third priority? Their third priority was emptying the prison muster by 30 percent. Well, they've actually been successful in that one, because it's down to about 22 percent. But at the same time, we've seen a 33 percent increase in violent crime, we've seen an over 500 percent increase in ram raids, a 41 percent increase in victimisations, an over 60 percent increase in gang membership and gang numbers in this country, and, on top of that, our assaults on police have gone through the roof. Quite simply, at a time when they were repealing the three-strikes legislation, we were saying to them, "Stand up a dedicated gang task force." We needed that back in 2017. When did they do it? They did it 18 months ago with Tauwhiro, which, actually, was just a spreadsheet exercise. Cobalt—can I acknowledge the officers on Cobalt. They're still spread too thinly. They're doing the best that they can. But in the last two or three months, we've seen gang numbers increase by 300. It's obvious that what the Government are doing is not working. At the same time that we were saying, "Take our firearms prohibition order (FPO).", which will actually make a difference and give the police some real powers, what did this Government do? They passed an FPO that's been used twice in nine months. Why? Because they were warned. They were warned by the National Party and they were warned by the Police Association that unless you give our front-line officers a warrantless search power, this is useless. It's not worth the paper it's written on, and it's been used twice. So unless a member of the Opposition wants to stand up and explain to me that there are only two gang members in New Zealand that actually carry firearms, it's been a complete waste. What's the other piece of legislation that they passed? The other piece of legislation was the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Act 2023, where we said to them, and the Police Association, again, said to them, "Lower the threshold. Don't make the threshold $30,000. It'll be difficult for the front-line officers to use. Disrupt and put pressure on the gangs." What did this Government do? They passed the legislation with the $30,000 threshold. This Government cannot be taken seriously in terms of public safety and crime. Everything that they've done is lip service. It's ineffective, and it's only been done because there has been political, media, and public pressure. They don't take it seriously. That was reflected in this Budget, when there's no new funding for any of the projects that the police need to actually be able to roll out, and the only funding that did come was $11 million as a knee-jerk— DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has come to an end. DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to be speaking in this Budget debate. This is actually my first Budget debate and I'm honoured to have the opportunity— Matt Doocey: And your last—your valedictory. DAN ROSEWARNE: It won't be today, though—not today. It's fantastic to celebrate the success of this Budget, a Wellbeing Budget that provides support for today while building for tomorrow. This Budget does a lot of good things. My colleagues have made that clear. I could easily spend the next five minutes on the positive impact of the removal of the $5 co-payment. And like many here, I've received a lot of emails from pharmacists just highlighting how successful that is going to be for their local communities. I can also speak about the Apprenticeship Boost initiative that has supported 57,000 apprentices already. It's a good policy that will help our businesses and our economy, and provide a viable career path for our young people. But there is one aspect of the Budget that has not really been mentioned much, and that is defence—something the Opposition has barely mentioned, and I'm assuming that's because they think that Budget 2023 delivers for defence. This Budget represents an unprecedented investment in our armed forces, and this Labour Government has consistently delivered for the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) and continues to increase its commitment to the wellbeing of our armed forces with this year's Budget. This year's defence Budget will represent an overall increase of around about 6 percent on last year. The Government is tackling the attrition that the NZDF has been facing for quite some time now, and to be fair it's been an issue since the global financial crisis. This Budget will deliver the biggest pay increase in over a decade for our Defence Force personnel. In the past, 77 percent of military personnel have been paid between 5 and 15 percent less than what they would get in equivalent civilian jobs. Thirty-eight percent of Defence Force staff say that remuneration is a key factor in leaving, and this pay increase is essential so that the NZDF can attract and retain some of the best people that Aotearoa has to offer. Our Government addresses this issue by investing more than $419 million to increase the pay of Defence Force personnel. Many NZDF personnel, including new recruits and skilled, lower-ranked service personnel, will see an increase of between $4,000 and $15,000 from 1 July. Now 90 percent of the NZDF personnel will be paid at or close to the market rate after this year's Budget, and this will go a long way to attracting and retaining the skills and expertise that are vital to the operational effectiveness of our Defence Force and allow it to deliver on its outputs for the people of New Zealand. This Budget also invests in the ageing infrastructure and buildings available for our soldiers, sailors, and aviators. This Government will invest more than $85 million to improve NZDF housing in Waiouru, Linton, Burnham, and Ōhākea. And this is one of the main advantages of life in the NZDF—your accommodation is subsidised so you are better able to save to buy a house, and that's a good thing. So it's important that we invest in the Defence housing estate, and being deployed on a ship, being on training or operations, or living on a camp or base, it creates more fluid boundaries between people's work and personal lives. So housing is an important part of life in the military. These investments are even more crucial as they come at a time when the pressures and demands placed on the NZDF are only increasing. And we saw that with Cyclone Gabriel, where the NZDF mobilised nearly 1,000 personnel along with vehicles to reach cut-off communities. With the increasing number of emergencies that climate change will bring, the NZDF will keep playing a crucial role to keep Aotearoa safe. So this Budget is about restoring the meaning and worth of military service. Labour is the party, the only party, with a consistent record in providing the armed forces with what they need to do the job. So in that vein we are delivering for defence. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So if you walk into any pharmacy around the country and you look behind the counter, you're likely to find either a shelf or, in some cases, big plastic boxes, and what they're filled of is little brown paper bags with labels on them. They're the prescriptions that never got picked up. A recent survey of community pharmacists asked them about the effects of these prescription co-charges on people in their community. I'd just like to read you some of their responses. One said, "Every week, we go through the shelf and check for prescriptions not collected. We fill two big baskets with items. When we ring them to say, 'What's the reason?', the same thing comes up all the time: 'We can't afford it.'" Other pharmacists spoke of patients waiting to see if their infection got worse before taking their antibiotics. For others, if there was a charge, then they didn't pick up their medication for things like diabetes, heart diseases, gout, kidney disease, asthma, mental health—some really significant conditions. One talked about how it was heartbreaking to see patients trying to choose which medication is most important. Another talked about a patient who came in with strep throat. She was in so much pain, but she only had $5. She wanted to get the prescription for the anti-inflammatories to relieve the pain, but, instead, the pharmacist encouraged her to take the antibiotics because of the risk of rheumatic fever. So what the pharmacist did was let her put the painkillers on her account; the person never came back to pay them. This illustrates that while $5 doesn't seem much, for many people, particularly those on low incomes or who are having to take multiple medications, it can mean the big difference between taking everything on their script or leaving some of their vital medication on the pharmacy shelf. That's why I'm pleased that in Budget 2023, what we're going to see from July is the $5 co-payment be scrapped. That will not only make it more affordable for people to be able to get their medication, I think it will make a big difference for our stretched health services. If you've got people delaying their antibiotics to see if it gets worse, if you've got people not taking their medication for diabetes or gout, they're going to be the ones that end up in the emergency department. For me, I was, I guess, quite dismayed to hear National say that if they come in they're going to be reinstating these co-payments, although they'll be taking a very targeted approach and making, maybe, some exceptions for those who desperately need help. Unfortunately, for women needing contraception and things like that, I don't think they would fit that category. So I'm really proud of what our Government is going to be doing to make sure that people can afford the prescriptions they need by reducing and removing that $5 co-payment. But there's quite a few other things that Budget 2023 also does to help households with their living costs. I'm just wanting to highlight a few—particularly for families with two-year-olds, so including 20 hours of free early childhood education from March next year makes a huge difference to those who are actually having to pay those costs. Free public transport for children under 13 and half-price fares for those under 25—I think that will make a difference, for example, for tertiary students going to their studies. Expanding the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme: this will make quite a big difference down where I live, where we've got a lot of old housing stock that hasn't been insulated or renovated in many cases. So what this will mean is that more homeowners who are low incomes or who live in low-income areas will be supported to insulate their homes or get clean heat sources. This Budget, though, is not in isolation. It builds on the work we've already been doing over the last 5½ years to support families, to support households with their living costs. Can we imagine—it's really tough right now, but what if we didn't have those increases to superannuation or the increases to the benefits or the increases that we put in to the minimum wage. So many households now rely on the winter energy payment. It's something that we still get feedback on every single year: people are now being able to turn the heater on without worrying about the cost. Low-cost doctor visits for community services card holders—that's something that we now take for granted, but it was something that we brought in very quickly when we came into Government. This is a Government that really cares for people and for households and for supporting people through the cost of living. This is a brilliant Budget, and I'm very, very happy to commend it to the House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee—full 10-minute call. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin by acknowledging the comments made by my colleague Mark Mitchell in support of the late Bruce Lamb and his family and the great service that he gave to the New Zealand Police and, by virtue of that, the community that he lived in and the example that he gave to so many that have seen his own family continue his legacy inside the police force. A truly valuable member of our community who will be, I'm sure, sorely missed. Well, this afternoon, of course, we're talking about the Budget. And this is a Budget that people on the other side of the House have been standing up, repeatedly saying, "It's wonderful, it's fantastic, it's the Labour Government caring about New Zealanders." Well, here are some things to consider. First, this Budget was constructed and based on $4 billion worth of savings that were announced by Mr Robertson ahead of the Budget. And then it includes $1.3 billion worth of what was his new allowance. So that takes us up to $5.3 billion. And then, on top of that, add the $7.2 that we're in deficit. And suddenly you see a Budget that has spent $13 billion that the country doesn't have. Somehow this is, according to members over the other side, about how to build a future for a nation. Well, debt is no way to do it. And I think some of the targeting that should have gone on in this Budget was totally missing. Let's just look for a minute at the headline policy that everybody on the other side of the House, the Government members, have been talking about today: prescription charges. Well, there was no public clamour that I was aware of or that any of the media were aware of for the removal of co-payments. And if there was a problem that was being articulated, then targeting would have been the answer. I heard the member from Palmerston North stand up and say that, "Oh, I go down to my local chemist, he's a good bloke, he's been there for 30 years, and he's got shelves and shelves of unclaimed prescriptions." Well, I am quite sure that he would have been able to work out whether or not those people had a community services card or whether there should have been some targeting of that. Because people like Anna Lorck don't need the $5 prescription charge. She does not need to save $100 a year on her prescriptions. I think you can look across the country and say, "Well, of that $680 million policy, how many are going to benefit who were not asking for that, who did not need it, and who are on incomes that allow them to pay for that sort of level of prescription?" It would be a reasonable speculation that there is about $500 million being spent there that could easily go into alleviating some of the massive waiting lists that this Government has managed to accumulate because of their health changes and because they don't like targets being set for health delivery. No answer over there. Targets are the way—members over there might like to consider—of knowing that the service that's supposed to be provided is being provided. And that $500 million would have made a huge difference to all those people who are sitting at home with bad hips, bad knees, cataracts, and all range of other sort of conditions that will be found on that waiting list. The worst of it is that they're saying, "Well, we're going to attack the waiting list by writing to people who are on that waiting list and asking them if they still need the surgery." Now, what sort of an abdication of responsibility is that? So all the back-slapping over the $5 prescription charge being taken off is a waste of time, because the people who really, really need services are not getting them through the health budget in this particular 2023 Budget. I've got some responsibility for the foreign affairs vote. And I've been looking through it and I've found a very interesting sort of statistic in here: one is that we are going to spend apparently $87 million—$87 million—on capital improvements for the ministry. You'd assume, then, that most of that is going to go on upgrades for various facilities that the ministry has across the world. And some might say, "Well, that's perfectly reasonable. We've got to look tidy, got to look up to it." But the interesting thing is that there's about $26 million earmarked for the upgrade of the embassy and residence in Moscow. Now, just in case people on the other side of the House don't know, Moscow is the capital of Russia, Russia is the nation that has put the whole world on alert through its attack on the Ukraine—its unsolicited and indiscriminate attack on the Ukraine—a country that's put the rules-based system of the world out the window. Their capital is Moscow, and the New Zealand Government, having condemned Russia for their actions, are turning around to spend $26 million upgrading the interior—just the interior—of a building that would house our embassy there. The building itself, interestingly, is owned by the Russian Government. So here we have all these sanctions—all these sanctions—against the Russian Government. Business can't deal with Russia, and everyone agrees with that. Cut them off, they're terrible, get rid of them. But then the Government turns around and says, "Oh, but we'll spend $26 million in the Russian economy, because we want to keep channels open." Channels open with who? I think it's a disgrace and it makes me think that when there is a pencil taken to all the lines in this Budget, there will be more than the $4 billion he was able to find that apparently didn't upset anything. There will be billions in there. So some of that $13 billion that this Government chose to spend when we don't have it can be sliced back. And it's interesting that in a time when New Zealanders are saying they would like some tax cuts, all the Government can say is, "Well, look, people in the middle bracket, all they're going to get is $800 a year under National's bracket-moving proposal."—$800 a year. "But guess what, folks, we're not going to give it to you", says Labour, says Grant Robertson, "but we'll save you $100 on your prescription fees." What sort of a Government is it that imagines that because it spends money there is no inflationary effect? Treasury makes it extremely clear—and this is something the Government always used to when they did those early budgets: "Treasury says this, Treasury says that." I've never been one to actually listen to Treasury, just by the way, but they are saying that if a tax cut is given, it does not have the same inflationary effect as expenditure by a Government. Very clear. What they're saying is that if people keep more of their earnings—and it might only be $800 a year that's of no consequence to members on the other side of the House; no consequence at all. Rail about the difficulties people have with cost of living but then deny them that extra $800—that's the sort of mentality that we're dealing with. Those people are likely to use that for debt reduction. They're likely to, in some cases, do a bit of saving, and that has a deflationary effect. But no, they've just gone out and spent $13 billion the Government doesn't have, encumbering New Zealanders with a greater level of debt than they already have managed to pile upon them. I just want to finish with two comments from a previous speaker. One was about the wonderful apprenticeship scheme and the $500 payment that's now going to be, apparently, paid out perpetually. Well, the big question to look at is what's the completion rate on apprenticeships? That's the big question. How many start an apprenticeship and finish it? And I think that's the unanswered question, and we got absolute silence on the other side of the House. Perhaps over the next few hours we'll be able to get some degree of answer. I think we're going to find that that is not the great panacea that they are proposing. Then there was the ridiculous comment that this Budget has done wonders for defence. All it's done is correct the damage that was done with the long duty that they had to perform on the isolation hotels. And that's not disputed. I think the other point that's worth making is that this barely brings New Zealand's defence spending up to 1 percent of GDP—barely brings it up. So I think it's interesting to listen to some of the speeches on the other side of the House. It would be more interesting to read the propaganda that they've all been supplied by the Labour research unit in order to make their outrageous support speeches for the Budget. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tracey McLellan—five minutes. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I feel very proud to stand in support to stand in support of this Budget, Budget 2023. Why? Because it's clear that we are focused on the issues that matter to most New Zealanders. We're supporting people with the cost of living, we're delivering on the services that people rely on, and we're doing so in a fiscally sustainable way, which is important. How were we able to do this? The Hon Gerry Brownlee touched on this earlier: under the leadership of Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, we have had a significant reprioritisation and savings have been made. That's allowed us to reinvest in helping to ease the cost of living pressures; it's helped us to reinvest back into health; back into education and housing; and to boost our infrastructure, including the immediate needs of the cyclone-affected areas. But the particular initiative that I wanted to speak to today was the $5 prescription charge, because for some people it's an insurmountable barrier. This initiative is not just about the cost. Universalism—having universal free access—actually removes a variety of barriers. What we know is that people go without their medicines, their health problems get worse; some of them even end up in hospital. That's bad for them and it's also bad for our health system. You don't have to take my word for it. Andrew Gaudin, who's the CEO of the Pharmacy Guild, said, "Removing the prescription charge is an investment in New Zealanders' health and the wider health system." He goes on to say, "It means more New Zealanders will get the medicines they need and help keep them out of hospital. This means there will be less pressure on the health system and will result in savings for taxpayers." I also want to give a shout-out to Des Bailey—a constituent of mine in Banks Peninsula who's the president of the Pharmacy Guild—who has done a fantastic job of advocating about this issue. Although his pharmacy is actually in the Selwyn Street shops, which is technically in Wigram but we love Wigram too. He has made sure that this is an issue that has been to the forefront of many of our concerns. This initiative is also a genuine two-for, in so far as removing the $5 charge also levels the playing field for many of those community pharmacies who are small businesses. These are professionals who know the people in their community. They're used to managing the medication and the needs, and they need to thrive and do what they do best in our communities, and I'm proud that we are supporting them. In fact, a constituent of mine—a good friend, Paul McMahon—texted me on Thursday to say that he was in his local Woolston pharmacy. The pharmacist was "over the moon" and said that customers were talking about it while he was there. But the scary thing is this win might be short-lived should National reach Government—heavens forbid. Because the National Party have explicitly promised to bring it back; they've explicitly promised to put up all those barriers. What we know is that for every dollar that's forgone in prescription charge co-payment, we actually save $18 in health costs down the line. So they've done their special maths. Nicola Willis has got out a calculator—probably borrowed Paul Goldsmith's calculator—they've done their very special brand of adding things up, and they've calculated that saving $18 by spending $1 simply isn't worth it. Keeping people out of hospital apparently isn't worth it. Making sure that women don't have to pay for contraception apparently isn't worth it—praise be. The other phrase that really hit a nerve today was, "Those who can pay should pay." That quote alone should send shivers down the spine of all New Zealanders who treasure our publicly funded health system. It's a sad state of affairs, but we shouldn't be surprised. The "coalition of cuts" over there have already said they'll cut super—yes, we know that they can't afford their tax cuts without cutting other services. Will that be police? Will it be nurses? Will it be teachers? Who knows? They haven't put their plan in front of people. About the only thing that National have yet to say that they won't cut is this $420 million policy to make Apprenticeship Boost permanent. Let's see how long that lasts, having just listened to Gerry Brownlee bag it while Nicola Willis was supporting it earlier on. Who knows? I want to commend the Hon Grant Robertson for this Budget. It's his sixth Budget—his fifth Wellbeing Budget—and he's done a fantastic job. This Government has done what good Governments do, and we've leaned in and we've looked to look after people when they need it most. I think that's something that we can all be very proud of, and I know that everybody on this side of the House is—hence the fact they've been going out around their electorates and talking to people and finding out what really matters most to people as they do so. So I have no hesitation to commend this Budget and I do so gladly. Thank you. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Over the past almost two weeks I've done exactly what has just been said; I've been around and about the electorate of New Plymouth talking with people. And I've been humbled by the interactions I've had with people in my electorate as we've shared our Government's Budget with them. I've appreciated being part of this Government and I continue to appreciate being part of this Government. I appreciate being part of a Chris Hipkins - led Government; our hard-working Prime Minister who is doing right by New Zealanders. I appreciate being part of a Government with a finance Minister like the Hon Grant Robertson and his laser focus on ensuring that we get today's issues right while looking towards our future. As I've got around New Plymouth and talked with people, I've been blown away by the appreciation that has come back to us in terms of what we've been putting in to the people in our regions around Aotearoa New Zealand. I was at the 50th jubilee of Tainui Village, a rest home in my community, and we were celebrating the amazing achievements of that community-run facility and all it's done in the past 50 years. During the celebrations, I had the local pharmacist who administers the medicines to that rest home come and see me, and the appreciation he had for this Government's policy—removing the $5 co-payment for prescriptions—was evident as he was shaking and telling me did I realise the difference this was going to make for his customers and his clients, but also the appreciation that he had as a small-business owner. The fact that this change meant a lot for a place like New Plymouth, a small city, and we have two of the Australian big brand retailers who have come in to town, who have been selling their wares, and it's been a challenge for our pharmacists and they've appreciated what's happened. Rather than, I guess, what we look at in terms of the other side of the House and their deprecation when they pull these things to pieces and they say, "It's just $5, what the heck, what does it matter?" Or that they're going to reinstate the $5 prescription and then they're going to roll that back and then they're going to sort of have that bit where they carve parts out for SuperGold card holders or for community services card holders. But $5 is actually a decent chunk of money. I was doing my maths—$5 is three loaves of bread; it's two litres of milk with a bit of change left over; it's half a dozen eggs with a bit of change left over; it's a kilo of potatoes with change left over; it's a kilo of bananas, and the list goes on. So this does make a difference and it concerns me when I hear the deprecation, the cuts that come from the other side of the House. Even Christopher Luxon, this afternoon, talking about what he might do in terms of cutting—whether it be for women's contraception products, whether it be them being in coalition with the ACT Party who are going to axe the Ministry for Women; the "coalition of cuts" and, obviously, the "coalition of cutting women in spaces where they should be". I also want to mention that during the break and during my time getting around the electorate, I was part of the Reducing Energy Hardship conference in New Plymouth and there were about 300 people who came along looking at the challenges that we're facing. We are doing work on this side of the House around alleviating poverty, alleviating energy hardship, but, boy, we've got a lot more work to do. As I was at that conference there was the appreciation for the work that we're doing around reducing power bills and adding 100,000 more additional heating and retrofitting to create warmer, safer, healthier homes. And at this conference I got chatting with one of our local providers, the WISE Charitable Trust, and they last year did a partnership with Te Whatu Ora and their paediatrics ward. They worked with families who'd had their children come in with respiratory issues. And they went into the homes and they looked at the heating in the homes, they looked at energy efficiencies, they looked at ventilation, they looked at moisture control, they looked at reducing heat loss. And as I spoke to the organisation and how it had gone in terms of the retrofitting work they'd done, and they'd insulated, they had done the work in many of these homes of these families with these children with respiratory issues—last winter none of those children went back to hospital, none of them. None of them went back to hospital because they had found ways to ensure that their homes were warm, their homes were healthy, their homes were in a state that they could care for their own children. And that comes down completely to this, where we have ensured that 100,000 more additional homes will be warmer, will be healthier, will be safer for children, for our tamariki. That's why we on this side appreciate the work that we do. We appreciate the appreciation we received, and we don't want to see the deprecating cuts from the other side that they are spouting. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Stuart Smith—five minutes. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I believe it's not my turn, but I'm going to take it! So thank you very much, Madam Speaker. There's been a massive spend-up in this Budget. Matt Doocey: I wouldn't want to talk about the Budget, either! STUART SMITH: Well, that's right. It is hard to actually be positive about this. We saw this earlier with Ayesha Verrall in the House, and I did feel for her. My colleagues have been making the point that, in the six years since this Government's been in, expenditure on the Budget has gone up by $50 billion—where it was $28,000 a household; an 80 percent increase—and we are no better off. We've got rising crime, our education system is failing, and, of course, our health sector is a complete and utter mess. I wanted to focus on some of the issues that come from that, and I'll come to that in a minute, but I think the warnings that have been touched on by the Hon Gerry Brownlee just before, about Treasury giving warnings about this Budget, have pointed out that the finance Minister has a track record of overspending on the Budget of $600 million. Of course, the Governor of the Reserve Bank came out and kind of saved the finance Minister's bacon a bit by, while raising the OCR by 25 basis points, giving soothing words about there being no more rate rises. However, Treasury's warning in those Budget papers, about the finance Minister overspending by $600 million every year after a Budget, has not fallen on deaf ears. I see that one of the banks today has come out and said there will be another rate rise. That's quite contrary to what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said, and that's something that we should listen to. I think the disenchantment with the Government, and the anger out there, is really palpable. I had Erica Stanford in my electorate on Monday night. I didn't spend a cent on advertising and we had a huge crowd inside a pub to hear her. People are angry, I can tell you that—they're not angry with us—and I don't feel good about that. All this money—where's it going? The wasteful spending—we heard about that. I thought I'd give you some examples. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) spent $300,000—$300,000—on a TVNZ climate change special. Is that good investment of our taxpayers' money? I would argue it's not. They spent $470,000 on the world car-free day. That's another waste of money. But it gets worse: $2.8 million on telling us all to have shorter showers. Now, I would have thought, with the mood on that side of the House, they would want to have longer in the shower, not less time in the shower! And the mental picture that was put up with the memes of poor old Grant Robertson on the shower story is quite, quite amazing! They've spent $3.4 million on EECA campaigns, on Google advertising. I think that's outrageous. But, of course, the worst is the $600 million they are giving in corporate welfare to large multinational companies. In the case of New Zealand Steel, that company made a $3 billion after-tax profit in 2021, and they gave them $140 million of our money—money that we have all paid. They only got that money out of the carbon credit scheme, which we've all paid for by paying more for our petrol—when people are paying, in a cost of living crisis, and then it goes on corporate welfare. We've had so much with those 14,000 more bureaucrats, $1.8 billion, but it is finding money in weird places, and those weird places are where the Government is spending it themselves. Don't lecture New Zealanders, in a nanny State way, about having shorter showers; save the money in your own backyard first. They're wasting money on stupid things, and New Zealanders have really had enough of it. They are absolutely fed up with this Government. Anna Lorck: Go on; have a cold shower every morning! STUART SMITH: Well, I know Anna Lorck has a lot of cold showers, and it's quite clearly not good for her. Anna Lorck: What? What? Go on! STUART SMITH: My case in point. Fine—if you want a cold shower, that's fine, but don't tell us what to do. I like a warm shower, and I will have my showers for as long as I like. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not going to talk about showers, whether they be long or short, because my colleague Stuart Smith— Hon David Bennett: Whether they're cold or hot. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —has done a very good job on that—whether they're cold or hot as well, says David Bennett. But Grant Robertson's last Budget as finance Minister was a typical Labour Party socialist Budget—big spending; tax, tax, tax; spend, spend, spend. That's what it was all about—a last, desperate throw of the dice to try and bribe New Zealanders with their own money. We were told, in the lead-up to Budget 2023, that there would be $4 billion having been found down the back of a couch somewhere, that Grant Robertson had somehow miraculously managed to save somewhere. Well, what we found was, actually, a Government that in their last year of office is actually collecting $100 million a day extra tax—$100 million a day in extra tax—from hard-working New Zealanders who can least afford it during a cost of living crisis. This is a Government that is spending a billion dollars a week more—$1 billion a week more—than they did when they came to office in 2017. So where is some of this massive spending going? Well, some of it's going into the massively bloated Ministry for the Environment, a policy advisory department that is twice as large as it was five and a half years ago, employing now nearly 1,000 people, most of them mired in the minutiae of resource management reform. I want to put it to you and to members of this House that, actually, our environment is no better—arguably, far worse—than it was five and a half years ago. For all the big words and the highfalutin talk, there has been, actually, mostly a reversal of environmental benefits that have occurred during this Government's term. Extra funding has been required to feed the beast, and the beast is the policy bureaucracy that has actually achieved very little, had an awful lot of meetings, an awful lot of hui, but very, very little actual positive results. On first glance, people would think that probably the budget for the environment had gone up massively. Well, actually, if you drill down into the weeds of the Budget line, $500 million of the increased spend in Vote Environment has gone to prop up the collapse of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) unit price. That ETS scheme requires an extra allocation of a massive $500 million because of the loss of sales on the emission units. Now, that's just a sad indication, a policy decision made by the Government to have that impact. But there was some good news—well, I hope it's good news—because for my area of the Coromandel, still with munted roads, the main highway closed, there was an allocation of extra money for the repair of local roads. And that's good news—and that's good news—but I'm very sceptical, because this is a Government that's very good on announcements, very good on the press releases, but absolutely hopeless on the delivery. So what I want to see as the member of Parliament for Coromandel is that money allocated quickly so that the roads administered by the Thames-Coromandel District Council can be fixed, and fixed quickly. The Tapu Coroglen Road, a council road that is still closed after the cyclones from earlier this year in January, needs a lot of money spent on it. Now, the Thames-Coromandel District Council doesn't have the resource to do it. We are hoping that central government will quickly allocate some of that money from Budget 2023 to do that. So far, no sign. All we've had is the press release and nothing actually happening. That is typical of this Government—no sense of urgency, no sense of actually understanding the needs of people in electorates like mine that are still suffering and doing it tough because of the consequences of the cyclones earlier this year. State Highway 25 remains closed with no prospect, according to the current Government, of it being opened this side of Christmas. That is a shameful and devastating prospect for the people of my electorate who are going to face the fourth consecutive miserable trading summer that they have to face if that road isn't open. So I call on the Government to actually pull finger, get on with it. They've allocated the money in the Budget. Why don't they just get on with it, do the job, get things done, and get regions like mine back on track? SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I graciously take the opportunity to speak in the House because I am proud of this Budget 2023. Our Government is focused on the issues that matter to most New Zealanders, supporting New Zealanders with the issue in front of us at the moment: the cost of living; delivering the services New Zealanders rely on, recovery and resilience and fiscal sustainability. I get tired of the Opposition talking down our economy. We have to end it. We have to talk up New Zealand. Yes, times are tough—yes, times are tough—and we feel the pressures of inflation. But let's get real and let's look at the facts. The Reserve Bank has said to us that inflation has peaked. Mortgage rates have peaked. Things have peaked, which means, because of good fiscal management from Grant Robertson, our Minister of Finance—he has set us up well for some very challenging times in front of it. But I will not have a bar of it where we talk down our economy, where we talk down hard-working New Zealanders, when we call people "bottom feeders"—yes, Madam Speaker, call people bottom feeders. That is unacceptable. And all I've seen from the Opposition since Budget time is them being mean-spirited—mean-spirited, negative National. They're negative, negative, negative. How mean-spirited is it to take away a $5 prescription fee—a $5 prescription fee—that is going to change the lives of over 130,000 New Zealanders? That is just mean-spirited. Not only are they negative, but they haven't shown us their fiscal plan. In fact, they haven't actually shown us any of their plans. They're showing us a bit of a flip-flop plan, post-housing of course, and walking away from the mutual relationship, the partnership, and legislation that we collectively put in place in this House to build houses, because we simply don't have enough. But I come back to: you can't trust National—you can't trust National—you can't trust ACT. Simon Watts: Oh, come on. That's a bit unfair. Come on, where's the friendship? SHANAN HALBERT: And we've got to ensure that we protect that. So the question for us, here it is: in this Budget, what are National going to cut? Are they going to cut, Simon Watts, our increased police numbers on the beat on the North Shore? Is that what you're going to cut? Are you going to cut the community policing teams or the mental health teams or the online community police that we know serve our community? Because you cut them; we put them back. Are you going to cut our harbour bridge? Are you going to cut the harbour bridge? What's your plan? It's in this Budget. These are the things of our realities that you're going to cut. Are you going to cut the beds being built in North Shore Hospital? Are you going to stop the investment in our local community, post-Auckland floods? Are you going to stop the investment in water infrastructure in the Wairau Valley that you talked about in this House? What are you going to cut? It's time for National to stop the negativity, stop the politics; let's talk about it and stop being mean-spirited. Because I will hold you to account on the things that we have invested in— Matt Doocey: Why can't you talk about your Budget? SHANAN HALBERT: —in this Budget. So let's talk about it. The $5 prescription fees that National will repeal—you will do it. The Defence Force increase in pay—Simon Watts' electorate, are you going to cut that? Cheaper energy bills. KiwiSaver contributions for paid parental leave. Free public transport for under 13s, and half-price permanent public transport for under 24s. Those are the things that matter in this Budget, because Aucklanders—North Shore people—have asked us to front up to the cost of living. They've asked for real measures that respond well to the inflation challenges that are in front of us. National might give cuts—they'll certainly cut things from this Budget—but our people will not be better off. So it's time for National to front up. If this isn't your Budget, what will you cut? Is it our police, Simon Watts? Is it our investment in the coast? Is it our nurses? Is it our police? What is it? Potentially— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member's time has expired Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai. It is a pleasure to rise as the MP for Takanini to speak on this Budget, as it shows the support for my community and also the communities around Aotearoa Niu Sila. This Budget, as reiterated by my colleagues, focuses on four themes, and that's supporting our Kiwis, our whānau, our aiga with the cost of living. It also delivers the services within New Zealand that we rely on heavily throughout. It also focuses on whānau and communities that have been hit hard by the cyclone and the environmental changes here. It also focuses on whānau and communities that have been hit hard by the cyclone and the environmental changes here. And it also looks at fiscal sustainability. I give it up to Minister Grant Robertson: it was a hard task to do, and he has brought a balance to it, in order to support our whānau in the here and now while also building for tomorrow by not putting the pressure on inflation that many of our whānau are facing. I want to comment on the busyness of last week, when we went as a Pacific caucus—and many of our colleagues around Aotearoa went around with their roadshows—to show the Budget and also to get the feedback from our communities. We started off in Porirua, where Minister Barbara Edmonds, the MP for Mana, was. I just want to acknowledge the EFKS church that hosted us there. Christchurch was our next stop, and we went to St Paul's Trinity Pacific Presbyterian Church, where we met up with our community. One of the big things was, like many of our colleagues have mentioned, the $5 prescription fee. I just want to acknowledge the University of Otago. In 2015, there were a couple of studies that showed that we needed to make a policy of removing the $5 prescription fee. In February of this year, the University of Otago did another study, where Professor Norris mentioned, in one of the articles, that we need to make sure we remove this in order to support our whānau to have access to medicines in order to get better health outcomes, especially for our vulnerable communities. I know that Minister Ayesha Verrall has mentioned, as a doctor herself—and I myself have been a GP in the community—that it is a huge thing to help our community remove this barrier. Many of our patients that come through will say, "Look, can I delay my antibiotics prescription till Thursday, when I get paid?" or "Is there any medicine in the clinic that I can have access to?" It's such a vulnerable position for our communities to have, and, to be frank, we do go into the cupboard—obviously, we record everything—to make sure that our patients are getting the right medicines at the right time. I know our local pharmacists who say, "Look, we're getting a build-up of medicines in the back corner. Is there anything else that we can do?" So it is a huge thing for us to remove the $5 prescription fee, even though the Opposition will say, "Oh, it's just a cup of coffee. It's nothing. I want to pay for my medicines." They neglect the fact that there are thousands of people that need this barrier removed in order to get better health outcomes for our people. I want to mention the different areas that we went to, across the motu, ensuring the Budget. Ōtaki—thank you to the member Terisa Ngobi for hosting us there at the Levin Memorial Hall. We came to my own electorate of Takanini, and some of the organisations that came through were organisations that will benefit greatly with the Budget, as mentioned. Our local early childhood education centre came through and said their feedback on the extension of the 20 hours' free for two-year-olds—that being extended. In my community of Takanini, almost two-thirds are under 35 years old: young families, young kids who are either at home or at day care. So this extension to the two-year-olds will have a great benefit for our people. It will make mum or dad be able to go work or do the things that they need to do to serve in the community. I want to mention our New Zealand Sikh Women's Association, which did come as well; our Takanini rest homes; our R and R groups that came to discuss the Budget—all these things, all these organisations—I want to say a huge thank you to them. One of the things I did last week was get my booster: my COVID vaccine in one arm; my flu vaccine in the other arm. And I also got to speak with the local pharmacist at Unichem at Gateway Shopping Centre, and he obviously said, like many of our colleagues said about the local pharmacists, it is a huge thing for them—not only, on the one side, to support the patients that come through and have access to better medicines but also, on the other hand, to support local businesses as well. So I give it up to all our local pharmacists. We do have to work together, and they do a great job in supporting our community, and this policy will make a huge difference for Takanini and for all the electorates across the motu, as well. I commend this Budget to the House. Fa'afetai tele lava. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A (Labour): Fa'afetai e te Mana Wakawā. It is an honour and a privilege to stand to contribute in this Budget debate. The Wellbeing Budget is a balanced Budget, with support for today and building for tomorrow. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Grant Robertson as the Minister of Finance. I've heard a lot of talk thrown around this House, and I feel that I need to remind this House that in 2019, Grant Robertson led the Wellbeing Budget—the Wellbeing Budget, which was incorporated from advice from experts like the Government's Chief Science Advisor. I want to say it again: this Budget is a balanced Budget. It is about support for today and it is about building for tomorrow. The cost of living: I spoke to Ramona Durie. She's a budgeter in Papakura, and I asked her what she thinks about of the $5 co-payment. She said—and I quote—that not only would it help me with her medication, or her with her medication—I'll just get my English correct. It's Samoan Language Week, so I might flip-flop around that, just like the National Party leader—flip-flop. Anyway, she said to me that it will benefit her as a person who receives medicine, and the people who come to her for budget advice. That's the $5 co-payment. What she also said to me was "Do you realise that the free public transport for under-13s and the half-price for under-25s is going to add more money into families' grocery budgets?" I said, "Is that right?", and she said, "Yes, that is right." She said that that was what she liked about this Budget, because it speaks to the people she sees every day for budgeting. I was also out in Ōtaki and there was a person there—and I'm still talking about the leadership of Grant Robertson, which brings me to the winter energy payment. I was at Ōtaki, and a pensioner there said to me, "Thank you for the winter energy payment. It's doing a lot, but can we have that all the time"—so, listen up, that's something that we might do—"because it makes a huge lot of difference?" For the leadership of Grant Robertson, throughout the country, we were in Mana with the Minister for Pacific Peoples, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance, where he delivered a speech on the Budget to share with the Pacific people of Mana. When he finished talking about the Budget, one of those people said, "Actually, I had a lot of questions to ask, but you have answered them all." That tells me that our Minister of Finance is correct in what he talks about with regard to our Budget priorities, where he talks about lifting opportunities for Māori and Pacific people. I want to move now to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. I want to move to him to share with you what I experienced in Beachlands. Beachlands is part of Papakura. I went along with the Minister of Education, the Hon Jan Tinetti, where they have opened up this school wing that houses a lot of students, who told me about that. What they said was that they wanted to acknowledge the Prime Minister now, who was then the Minister of Education, because under his leadership, these schoolchildren were so proud to talk to us about their school. I was honoured to be there. There was a whaea there. Her name was Zaelene Maxwell Butler, from the local iwi, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. She named that school block—which under the leadership of our Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Education—Kāpia, which is the kauri gum. She named it after that, and then she talked about the history of kauri and Beachlands, and she talked about that. Our investment in teaching Māori local history in our schools—from that moment, the penny dropped for me. Those students who will be using that classroom will learn about the history of their school and will learn about the local Māori of their school. Leadership is about judging people on what they did in the past. Past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour, and we see what we see in just over a hundred days, with the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, leadership that we can rely on in tough times, unlike the other side, who are flip-flopping away. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What an opportunity it is to stand and talk about Budget 2023, that provides support for today and builds for tomorrow. However, I thought it might be appropriate to start with the description of what "tukituki" means, as the MP for Tukituki, in te reo, and it means "attack". It is appropriate tonight to tukituki the National Party for what has to be one of the worst things that I can think of that I heard prior to coming into the House. The National Government is going to make women pay—women pay—for contraception if they are elected. They're going to make them pay for the fee for contraception. As a mother of five daughters, it is a duty of mine to stand in the House tonight and say that the National Party is doing an absolute disservice—a disservice—to play politics against a policy that will change people's lives, will protect people, will help the health system, and care for women. For the National Party to think it's right to fight a policy like this purely on politics speaks absolute volumes for how sad and negative, and, frankly, despicable, that the National Party will go to those sorts of lengths when this is the right thing for women and it is the right thing for New Zealanders. You cannot trust the National Party. You cannot trust them on what they will cut next. Will they cut police, like they cut our community cops? Shanan Halbert: They cut them last time. ANNA LORCK: They cut them last time. Will they cut the winter energy payment that keeps people warm during winter? They have said that they will; that is their plan. The only thing they are prepared to put up is the super age. They want to cut super for 65-year-olds and 66-year-olds. The only other thing I reckon they'll put up is GST, because they have a track record. They told New Zealanders to trust them, that National would cut taxes and they wouldn't put up GST, but they did. And they love tax. Don't think for a minute that the National Party doesn't love tax. So in tukituki-ing the National Party, I want to bring it back home to what we are doing for Hawke's Bay right now. We've just announced a billion-dollar cyclone recovery package as part of our commitment to working together with Hawke's Bay. Part of that is $100 million to help regions hit by cyclones to build back stopbanks. We've put forward a $6 billion resilience plan to build back that critical infrastructure that has been smashed through the cyclone—roads, electricity lines, communication lines, lifelines that were so necessary. We have to have the resilience for the future to make sure that we build back safer, we build back smarter, and we build back for a better future for our region. That's what the National Party should actually be saying: "Good on you. Good on getting on with the job." But instead, I've heard nothing but negativity and attacks on women's health tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): You know, it's always a sign of a Government on its way out that it releases its Budget and its backbench members spend not the time talking about the Prime Minister or Grant Robertson or what they're doing for the community; they spend five whole minutes attacking His Majesty's loyal Opposition. I think that's all you need to know. They're obsessed. The Labour Party is obsessed with the National Party, and at one level I'm flattered with that, because I suspect, come the election, the New Zealand public will be obsessed with us and we will win hands down. This Budget is a failure, and that is certainly the feedback from my constituents in Tāmaki. As I've been out and about, particularly in the last week of recess, a few people asked, "What Budget?"—it was that boring they didn't realise. A lot of others, though, completely see through the spin. They understand that, yes, if they are someone who receives a dollar or two of support, that, yep, they're a winner at one level, but what my constituents understand is the enormous cost and burden which this Labour Government, over six years, is putting on the people of New Zealand. As I've said at several public meetings and engagements, at one level it doesn't affect me; I'll be dead, but my children and my grandchildren will be paying the costs of this Government's spending. We know that six years ago we spent about $60 billion a year in Government; now we're almost at $140 billion—a billion dollars more a week. Do those Kiwis struggling, like my constituents in Tāmaki, feel that the cost of living is getting better for them because Labour's spending a billion a week? Course not. It's getting worse. So for all the talk of free transport and early childhood education centres (ECEs)—by the way, we'll come back to the ECEs—it's costing us more and more, and a debt projected to be around about $100 billion; like, four, five times higher than six years ago, projected to be in 2026. It's outrageous—it's outrageous. People in my electorate, I'm sure in others on this side as we go out and engage—parents, grandparents and others—are going, "Who is going to pay for this?", and the answer, again, is very simple: our children and our grandchildren. As I say, the cost of living is getting worse, and the Government has not addressed this. Crime is getting worse. Just last week, three—actually, four; there was a robbery at one of our jewellery stores, and three of our shops ram-raided. I think I'm up to 45 of our businesses now. They're soft on crime. They talk about the 1,800 new police officers; not one of them, I understand, is actually reaching the proper and full front line. The only thing that's succeeding is our Eastern Bays Community Patrol, but they're not funded by Government. They're out and about—that's probably a lesson there. I mentioned the ECE network. Well, I've talked to the ECE providers; they're furious about what this Government is doing. Elements like pay parity and so forth need to be addressed, but no, Labour's splashed the cash around in the wrong way that's actually—and this is from ECE, or early childhood providers, that are telling me—going to make the system worse, not only for them but obviously for the children. And then all the talk of infrastructure. Well, look, again, Labour's great at promising, they're great at putting out press releases, but they can't deliver anything. Again, my electorate's been struggling through the flooding of recent months, and I want to be really clear: Tāmaki has not been as hit as, obviously, some areas of the country, but I've been visiting families whose homes have been flooded out, their businesses. It's a disaster, and where is the funding to improve the infrastructure? Now, granted some of that's at a council level; let's be fair, but some of it's at a central government level as well. It's just not happening. Then, of course, well, actually, in recent days, and it's not so much on the Budget per se—well, it is the Budget—we've seen a little bit of a change around our housing policy. I have to say to people in Tāmaki, that is something that they fed back to me very strongly about, and I'm really pleased to see a growth in development—that's probably a pun—in National's approach to housing policy there. The assurance I can give to the people of Tāmaki is we will continue to see an intensification that is helpful and healthy in our area but one that's not going to be too oppressive, and I think it's really good to see that new policy there. Look, on the final bit, because I think we can't always throw too many bricks. We can't throw too many bricks at the Government; they are very sensitive souls. So, on the positive side, I am glad to see there's more money from Customs to fight on illegal tobacco. The Government has a big challenge there. I'm actually quite pleased to see, overall, the funding in arts and the likes of Te Matatini being acknowledged, and, putting on my IPAC, or Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, hat, delighted to see the extra money to Internal Affairs to target the likes of foreign interference in our media. So I think that's incredibly positive, but as I said right at the start, what a failure this Budget's been—so much that Labour can't even talk about it. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Watts—five minutes. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, an absolute pleasure to rise to talk about what can be without doubt a failed opportunity by this Labour Government to actually course correct an economy which is heading completely in the wrong direction. And we've heard the members on the other side just continually talk about the National Party—continually talk about the National Party. Not about their own policies, not about the fact that their policies have led us to this position. Oh, no, no, they want to talk about the National Party and the opportunities that lie ahead for Kiwis in the next 134 days from today. I want to refer to a key few aspects in regards to this Budget. Sadly for my constituents on the North Shore, there was very little in this Budget that they can take away and say that will actually deal with some of the core issues that they are facing, particularly around the impacts around the cost of living, the high degrees of inflation, the high impacts in regards to their interest rates on their mortgages. These are significant costs on families in the North Shore, and the Government had an opportunity of which they have wasted not to deal with the underlying issues. A topic that we have not heard much about is the increasing levels of debt—the amount of money that this Government has borrowed. So let's take a little walk down memory lane in regards to where we have started and where we are now. In 2017, gross debt $87 billion. That is about $45,000 per Kiwi household; $16,000 per person in this country. That was in 2017. So let's do a little bit of a quiz. What do we think in 2022 the gross debt level is? Well, I'll tell you: $119 billion. Up to $62,000 per household, up to $23,000 per person in this country in that short amount of time. OK, maybe we think that was just a blip. Let's go to 2023 forecast: $135 billion; $71,000 for every single Kiwi household in this country of gross debt that is feeding the addiction of spending by this Labour Government; $25,000 of debt per every single Kiwi individual. That is a Toyota Corolla sitting in every driveway for every Kiwi that reflects on finance that it represents the gross debt that this Government is incurring—55 percent increase in gross debt since 2017. And let's look forward to 2027. God blimey I hope we've got a National-led Government by that point, because the debt level is going to be $215 billion per the forecast: $114,000 per Kiwi household; $41,000 for every single man, woman, and child in this country of gross debt. Wow. That is a lot. But let's talk about paying for that debt, because that is the aspect that no one is talking about. In 2022, $2.8 billion is spent on the interest costs of that debt; $1,400 per Kiwi household is being spent on interest costs of that debt in 2022. In 2023 we go from $2.8 billion to $6.3 billion; $3,300 per Kiwi household. That is the fourth largest amount of spending above social service and welfare, health, education, the fourth most expensive thing that this Government spends its money on is paying for its debts and its addiction to spending. And let's go forward to 2027, because this is where it gets pretty scary: $8.6 billion of interest costs per annum; $4,500 for every single Kiwi household in this country of interest costs alone per annum. Law and order budget dwarfed by the interest costs being funded on that debt. And what do we have to show for it? Very little. A missed opportunity, set up for failure in the future. We need to turn around and National will do that in 135 days. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break and the House will resume at 7 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.