Tuesday, 30 May 2023 [Volume 768] The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Members, in celebration of Samoan Language Week, I have asked Lemauga Lydia Sosene to say the prayer in the Samoan language. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e, matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa'amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa'au'uina ai i matou. E lafoa'i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta'ito'atasi i le amana'iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa'amaoni fuafuaga ma fa'ai'uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta'ita'i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao, le fa'apalepale ma le agamalū, auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea, e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso, Amene. [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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PRIVILEGE Oral Questions—Correction of Supplementary Answer SPEAKER: Members, a matter of privilege has been raised with me alleging that the Hon Jan Tinetti deliberately misled the House by failing to correct a misleading statement at the earliest opportunity. In a supplementary question on 22 February 2023, the Minister was asked to categorically state that she played no part in the delay of release of school attendance information. The Minister replied that she already had, and that it was a decision for the Ministry of Education. The Minister corrected this answer on 2 May, stating, "I subsequently became aware that my office did have input into the timing of the release of the data through email correspondence with officials at the Ministry of Education." The Minister has stated that she was informed by her staff after question time on 22 February of her staff's correspondence with the ministry on the release of data. She has also stated that she did not know that her answer needed to be corrected until she received a letter from me on 1 May, after which she corrected it. It is an important principle that the House can trust the accuracy of ministerial replies to parliamentary questions. While mistakes are sometimes made which can result in the House receiving an answer containing a misleading statement, it is vitally important that as soon as this is discovered, the Minister returns to the House to correct their answer at the earliest opportunity. I have considered the matter raised and considered its degree of importance. It is for the Privileges Committee to determine whether the delay in correcting an inaccurate statement, in this instance, amounts to contempt. I rule that a question of privilege does arise from the time taken to correct a misleading statement to the House. The question, therefore, stands referred to the Privileges Committee. OBITUARIES Her Royal Highness Princess Mele Siu'ilikutapu Kalaniuvalu Fotofili Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I seek leave to move a motion without debate to mark the passing of Her Royal Highness Princess Siu'ilikutapu of Tonga. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: [Other language text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] I move, That this House express its condolences to the people of Tonga and to His Majesty King Tupou VI on the passing of Her Royal Highness Princess Mele Siu'ilikutapu Kalaniuvalu Fotofili, note that she was a formidable leader and a proud advocate for women, and that she played an instrumental role in the Government's apology for the 1970s Dawn Raids, and courageously fought for causes that were important to both her people and the wider Pacific, such as the preservation of the Tongan language. [Other language text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] Motion agreed to. PETITIONS, PAPERS, AND SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Responsible Campers Association Incorporated, requesting that the House provide better access to camping facilities including toilets and kitchens, and invest in technology to prevent overcrowding in camp sites. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2021/22 Annual reports of Drug Free Sport New Zealand Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori—Māori Language Commission Government responses to the Report of the Petitions Committee on the Breast Cancer Foundation New Zealand: Restore and extend screening for breast cancer Report of the Regulations Review Committee on its Briefing on best practice for publication of secondary legislation 2023 Long-term Insights Briefings Preparing all young people for satisfying and rewarding working lives Let's talk about our national security. SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the 2021/22 annual review of the Health Research Council of New Zealand Crown Minerals Amendment Bill report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill reports of the Justice Committee on the Declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 Legal Services Amendment Bill petition of Make It 16: Lower the voting age to 16 report of the Primary Production Committee on the petition of Cobie Curtis: Ban the use of whips in horse racing reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Long-term Insights Briefing 2022 petition of Save the Children New Zealand: Retain the role of a named Children's Commissioner. SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefing, and the report on the declaration of inconsistency are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. 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, in particular this Government's decision to scrap the $5 prescription co-payment, meaning that an estimated 3 million New Zealanders will no longer have to worry about the cost of collecting their medication. More than 135,000 adults didn't collect their prescription because of cost in the last financial year. We know that this is a particular issue for low-income families, and it does, on occasion, result in avoidable hospitalisation. This policy will make a difference. Christopher Luxon: Does he think it's a good use of taxpayer money to lecture Kiwis about taking shorter showers and unplugging appliances on the very same day that interest rates were hiked for the 12th time in a row? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do recall, as a brand new member of Parliament back in 2009, being summonsed to a launch held by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, no doubt advised by Chris Bishop, launching the Energy Spot campaign that did exactly what the member is now complaining about. Hon Gerry Brownlee: That one was brilliant. Christopher Luxon: Yeah, exactly. That was a good one. Will the "finding money in weird places" campaign look at wasteful Government spending—maybe like the $3 million being spent on advertising telling Kiwis to take shorter showers, use steam cookers, and unplug their appliances? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do believe the "finding money in weird places" is going to be the title of National's alternative fiscal plan when they do finally work out how it is that they're going to pay for all the promises that they're making. Christopher Luxon: Well, in that spirit, has he actually asked his Ministers to look for taxpayer money in other weird places—maybe like the $30 billion for light rail or the hundreds of millions of dollars he personally wasted on a failed polytechnic megamerger? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the cost of light rail, of course, the overall cost of light rail has not yet been determined, and it has not been budgeted for. With regard to the polytech system, I make no apology for putting extra money into vocational education and training to clean up the mess that was left behind by the last National Government, where our polytechs were going broke. Christopher Luxon: How much can a typical family save by taking shorter showers and unplugging appliances, and how does that compare to the extra $760 a fortnight they're now paying for their mortgage thanks to his Government's addiction to spending? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of the latter part of the member's question, one of the reasons that we have been very clearly focused in this year's Budget on making sure that we get the books back into balance—that we continue to manage the economy responsibly so that inflation does continue to track down—is that we do want to see interest rates coming down over the medium term as well. I note that the member and his party still aren't being upfront with New Zealanders about the effect of their proposed tax policy, which would be to keep inflation higher for longer and interest rates higher for longer. Christopher Luxon: Does he agree with Megan Woods that "small steps can add up to savings that make a real difference" and, if so, why has his Government refused to take any steps—big or small—to reduce wasteful spending to take the pressure off inflation and interest rates? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Small steps can make a big difference—just ask the member sitting beside him, who has been taking all sorts of small steps! The Government has been very focused on taking the pressure off inflation, and I do quote the Reserve Bank Governor, who said that the Government is "being more a friend than a foe to monetary policy when it comes to reducing inflation." Christopher Luxon: Why did he increase spending by another $19 billion at the Budget, which Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and all the major bank economists say will lead to inflation and interest rates being higher for longer? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That is not what they are saying. In fact, I'll quote the Reserve Bank: "We totally understand the challenges that society's going through, and the Government spending/investment that's needed. It's net contractionary through the forecast period." If the member is going to quote the Reserve Bank, he should at least try and do it accurately. Christopher Luxon: Has he been following his own Government's excellent advice by taking shorter showers and unplugging the appliances, or is it that he just tells Kiwis that to distract them from his Government's economic mismanagement and addiction to spending? Hon Grant Robertson: He's so tight he'd always do that! Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Minister of Finance is suggesting that I'm so tight that I always do that! But I think the point remains: it is valid to encourage New Zealanders to think about the decisions they take on a day-to-day basis and what that can do for their energy demand, and it's just as valid to do it now as it was when Gerry Brownlee was doing it. Question No. 2—Energy and Resources 2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to reduce emissions in the energy sector? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. On 21 May, the Prime Minister announced the Government is partnering with New Zealand Steel to install an electric arc furnace, which will remove 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. This is New Zealand's biggest ever emissions reduction project. This project, from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, or GIDI, is evidence that decarbonisation does not mean de-industrialisation and demonstrates that a low-emissions economy can not only be good for the climate but also can be a win for minimising waste, retaining jobs, and improving New Zealand's economic resilience. Helen White: How does the marginal abatement cost of this investment compare to the cost of purchasing units overseas? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government's investment in this project is excellent value for money, with an abatement cost of $16.20 per tonne of carbon. For context, this is much less than the current carbon price of $55 per tonne and significantly less than overseas emissions trading schemes are currently paying, and the forecast price. This is an effective way for us to invest in New Zealand jobs rather than paying other countries to offset their emissions. Helen White: Why can't we rely on the emissions trading scheme (ETS) alone to drive emissions reductions? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The independent Climate Change Commission has been clear that the ETS alone is not sufficient for New Zealand to meet its climate goals, with the ETS needing to be significantly higher than it is today to justify fully funding projects. One industrial user I've spoken to has said that without the complementary measures like GIDI, the ETS price would have to be over $200 for these vital decarbonisation projects to stack up for their businesses. This would massively impact the New Zealand economy, including driving up the cost of New Zealanders' energy. For example, this would add more than 40c per litre to the price of petrol. Helen White: How will this project support jobs at New Zealand Steel's Glenbrook mill? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Government's partnership with New Zealand Steel will massively reduce emissions while keeping 1,300 highly skilled jobs in New Zealand. New Zealand Steel has committed to a reskilling programme for existing workers as part of their transition. The project will also provide significant benefits to the local community as the Glenbrook mill is the largest single-site employer in the Franklin Local Board area, employing more than 4,000 full-time roles across its New Zealand and Pacific Island operations. Stuart Smith: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Government giving $140 million in corporate welfare to a foreign multinational company who had a nearly $3 billion net profit in 2021, and, instead, why won't this Government stop giving money to wealthy corporates so that everyday Kiwis can get ahead? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: While I reject the premise of the question around corporate welfare, I would point that member to the point that this is a recycling of the money paid by emitters, that New Zealand Steel is what we call one of our climate exposed trading companies, and that the money that is being invested in New Zealand Steel is less than three years of the money that they get paid as an offset. I am still waiting to hear from the National Party where they are going to cut 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year, the equivalent of all the cars in Christchurch. They signed us up to climate agreements—time to show us the plan. Question No. 3—Prime Minister 3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, the Government's work to ease the cost of living pressures by extending 20 hours of free early childhood education to two-year-olds. We know that childcare can be one of the biggest costs that families face. Families with a two-year-old child who attends early childhood education 20 hours a week will save an estimated $133 a week in childcare costs as a result of this policy. David Seymour: How is it possible that someone could spend $50 a month on prescriptions when there are 12 months in a year and the cost of prescriptions under current policy is capped at $100 per year? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the member answered his own question in the last part of his question. David Seymour: How much is his Government budgeting to spend this coming financial year, and does his repeated reference to "a coalition of cuts" mean that he can't imagine saving a single dollar from that amount? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can give the member the precise amount. If he's asking for core Crown expenses in this financial year, it's $128 billion. David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to clarify, it was this coming financial year. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, it's $136.99 billion. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not believe that a single dollar can be saved from that $137 billion, meaning anyone who wants to save is a "coalition of cuts"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has already indicated that there is significant reprioritisation within the Budget. David Seymour: Does he believe that the majority of Kiwis who told 1News Kantar that they want a tax cut are also part of the "coalition of cuts", or does he agree with his deputy leader who told Breakfast TV yesterday that maybe those people answering that poll just don't understand tax cuts? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well I certainly understand that low-income earners don't want to have a tax increase, which is the member's proposal. David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister read ACT's alternative Budget, A Time for Truth, and, if so, how did he miss the bit where every single earner, including low earners, are better off? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have indeed reads the ACT Party's tax policy and it is without doubt that they want to increase tax rates for the lowest income earners. It's there in black and white. David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister see the low and middle income tax offset and carbon tax refund that would leave every single earner better off, and if he missed that, what else is he missing when he's in charge of the country's finances? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can assure the member that I did read his tax policy, and I don't think that the name on the front of it truly reflects it. David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister think that $2.8 million being spent by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to tell people to have shorter showers could be cut, given anyone with an ounce of common sense knows they can already save money by using less power, or is it time for this Government's spending to take a cold shower? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do think it is important that consumers are given good fact-based information about how they can reduce their energy use in order to save money, and in order to overall reduce our energy demand. It is just as important now as it was when the National Government repeatedly launched energy efficiency campaigns when they were in Government supported by the ACT Party. David Seymour: Does he think that the $18 million in the Budget for "public awareness of Matariki" could be cut given a popular website called G-o-o-g-l-e dot c-o-m can find 3.4 million results mentioning Matariki in 0.31 seconds? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's good to see the member has diversified his Google searches away from his own name. But I do think that Matariki is a holiday that New Zealand should be proud of, and I have no issue with us spending a very modest amount of money helping to promote Matariki, understanding of what Matariki is, and New Zealanders' celebration of it. David Seymour: Will he stand and tell this House that every single one of the 15,458 extra fulltime-equivalent bureaucrats his Government takes on have added value for New Zealand taxpayers; and if so, can those results be found where—in health, education, safer streets, or maybe the cost of living? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That includes people protecting our border so that we don't end up with things like Mycoplasma bovis, for example—an area where we might have under-invested in the past. It includes the case officers working at Work and Income who are getting record numbers of people off benefits and into work. It includes teacher aides who work with some of our most vulnerable children, and particularly those with additional learning needs. It includes the social workers who work through Oranga Tamariki with some of our most vulnerable children. I could go on—it includes people working in the corrections system, and I note the member himself is promoting to employ even more people in the corrections system so he can lock more people up. The member might like to call those people "bureaucrats"; I don't agree with that characterisation. David Seymour: After six years of spending $50 billion a year more than when he started—with no demonstrable results, just spending—can the Minister honestly deny that he is not leading the "coalition of klutz"? Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government is delivering results for the extra spending for New Zealanders. Question No. 4—Transport 4. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: How will Budget 2023 help to get more Kiwis on to public transport? Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Last week, in Budget 2023, the Government committed to delivering one of the largest packages of investment in public transport in New Zealand's history. As a part of this, we've announced that we're making funding available to councils to provide free fares on buses, trains, and ferries for children aged five to 12, and half-price discounts for all passengers aged between 13 and 24, with that funding available from 1 July this year. We know that transport can be a big cost for Kiwi families, and this policy will help to ease cost of living pressures for those families right around the country. Free fares for under-13s could save around $30 per week for the average household of two children, and half-price fares for under-25s as well as community services card holders and total mobility card users in the disabled community will help save over 1.6 million Kiwis money if they use those services. By delivering cheaper fares to targeted groups like children and community services card holders, Budget 2023 will deliver Kiwis a more sustainable, inclusive, safe, and accessible transport system while helping the bus congestion and keeping prices down, and will lower our carbon emissions. Shanan Halbert: How will the funding made available in Budget 2023 help to tackle bus driver shortages? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In addition to delivering targeted fare reductions, Budget 2023 enables further progress to improve bus driver wages, which will help to reduce bus driver shortages and make services more reliable. The Budget enables public transport authorities to raise the base wage to $30 per hour for urban drivers and $28 for regional drivers, and introduces split-shift allowances and penal rates for those working late at night. This builds on our work in Budget 2022, which supported phase one of improvements to bus driver conditions. The result of that work has meant that we've been able to reduce the bus driver shortage from a peak of 860 in December of last year, to under 500 now, with hundreds more bus drivers currently being recruited. We've delivered an average increase to bus drivers' wages of over 58 percent since we came into office, and this will help to deliver more sustainable and reliable services. Shanan Halbert: How will Budget 2023 funding support councils to restore more bus services? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Budget 2023 also puts more investment on the table for councils to restore public transport services to pre-pandemic levels. Public transport patronage has been steadily recovering since the pandemic, but it hasn't yet reached the same levels. The additional funding that we've provided will help councils to look at restoring services where they've had to make reductions and avoid any further cuts to those important services for our communities. Shanan Halbert: What other investments has the Government made in Budget 2023 to boost public transport availability and reliability? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Late last week, I was very pleased to join regional council chair Daran Ponter and local MPs Terisa Ngobi and Tangi Utikere to celebrate Budget 2023's investment to co-fund a fleet of 18 new trains for the lower North Island, which is going to deliver a step change to public transport services along both the Wairarapa and Kāpiti lines. The investment will strengthen those public transport routes, reduce time for travellers, and result in a much cleaner service. Everyone in New Zealand will benefit from the investments made in Budget 2023 for improved access to public transport, cheaper fares, and reducing congestion. Question No. 5—Finance 5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Treasury's statement in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 that "relative to the Half Year Update ... interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer to manage inflationary pressure", and what impact does he expect this will have on mortgage holders? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, I would note that the forecasts in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) are Treasury's independent forecasts. But I would agree with the full quote from the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, which reads: "relative to the Half Year Update, the unemployment rate is forecast to peak lower, while interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer to manage inflationary pressure. Inflation has already begun moderating, and the Treasury expects further moderation ahead, with inflation falling to 4.5% by the end of 2023 and dropping inside the Reserve Bank's target band of 1-3% inflation by late-2024." In answer to the second part of the question, the impact of the higher interest rates since the Treasury's previous set of forecasts in December 2022 will obviously depend on the specifics of any household's individual situation, including, for example, the term of their mortgage and the reaction of their bank. Nicola Willis: Well, has he considered the situation of a family with a $500,000 mortgage who were paying $492 in interest a fortnight just two years ago and who, when they re-fix their mortgage this week, will find themselves paying $1,258 in interest a fortnight—that is, $765 more each fortnight—and did he think about them when he decided to put his foot down on the spending pedal yet again? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We gave considerable thought as we put the Budget together to the circumstances of all New Zealanders, including those who the member references. It's the reason why the Budget acts as a disinflationary measure across the forecast period. Nicola Willis: Does he see a connection between historic levels of borrowing, spending, and money printing on his Government's watch, and the fact that New Zealanders are now experiencing the sharpest increase in official interest rates in our history? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I often reflect upon the period of time during which New Zealand faced up to the COVID pandemic, and both the Reserve Bank, through its monetary policy, and the Government, through its fiscal policy supported New Zealanders to get through that period of time. During that period of time, I was constantly asked by members opposite to spend more money. I also note that when the Reserve Bank began raising interest rates, almost consistently in the first couple or three times they did it, the Leader of the Opposition called for more spending during that period. Nicola Willis: Was Treasury correct to point out that in each of his past five Budgets, he has blown his own operating allowance, such that, on average, he spends $600 million more than he says he will, and why is that Minister incapable of sticking to his own spending limit? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two points in response to that. The first, as the member knows, is 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. The second point I'd note for the member, in respect of this year's Budget, is that between the half-year economic update and when we delivered the Budget, New Zealand had the second-biggest ever weather event or natural disaster that we have faced. I do note that the member asking the question has not explained to New Zealanders how her party would be paying for the recovery and the rebuild of those areas. We are standing with those regions. Yes, it does cost a little bit more, but it happens to be the right thing to do. Nicola Willis: Well, isn't it correct that his Budget provided more cash for the Government's struggling landlord Kāinga Ora than it did for the entire national resilience plan? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member is standing up in front of the House today and saying not only will she not commit to building an additional 3,000 public houses but she won't commit to completing the 4,500 that are currently being built, that is a pretty big thing for the member to say in this House. Mind you, she might just be taking lessons from her leader about making up policy in public meetings. Nicola Willis: Does he accept Treasury's conclusion published last year that "government investment and consumption tends to have the largest effects on domestic demand and interest rates," while transfers and tax changes have less effect, meaning that, dollar for dollar, tax relief is less inflationary than Government spending, and why didn't he in his Budget reduce taxes and let New Zealanders keep more of what they earn? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member needs to look very carefully at the design of the tax package that she is putting forward, and ask herself, in the environment that we're in right now, if she really, really thinks that giving the kind of tax cuts to the highest-income earners would not be inflationary and, apart from anything else, would be the wrong thing to do. In answer to the first part of her question, I just invite the member to read past the executive summary of the BEFU, where her quote came from, to page 15, which shows real Government consumption declining over the forecast period. Question No. 6—Pacific Peoples 6. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How does Budget 2023 foster the development of Pacific language initiatives? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Fa'afetai Afioga Fofoga Fetalai. Budget 2023 prioritises investment in skills alongside the cost of living support and infrastructure investment for cyclone recovery. For Pacific communities, our languages, cultures, and identities are essential to health and prosperity. The Budget brings this to life with a new investment of $13.3 million to deliver our Pacific Languages Strategy. The Budget investment ensures our communities have more opportunities to hear, speak, and learn our languages. It is also another reason to celebrate during Samoan Language Week. "Mitamita i lau gagana, maua'a lou fa'asinomaga", which translates to "Be proud of your language and grounded in your identity." Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Are there wider implications for Pacific languages and wellbeing through Budget 2023? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Fa'afetai tele lava. In the Pacific peoples portfolio, we are funding new initiatives worth a total of $51 million, on top of other investments to date. This year's Budget built on $683 million invested since 2019, which means over $734 million has been invested over successive Pacific wellbeing packages. Thriving languages is a key goal for Pacific communities under the Lalanga Fou framework, and so too is the goal of building prosperous communities. We are investing almost $17 million in this goal, which will be focused on Pacific workers and businesses. Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has the Minister received from Pacific communities to the Budget initiatives? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Malo lava. Feedback from a week of touring the country to answer questions about the Budget made it clear: the top impacts on Pacific communities are those shared across other Kiwi families. Alongside our Deputy Prime Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, who is currently representing Aotearoa New Zealand at Samoa's 61st anniversary of independence commemorations, Pacific communities want to make it easy to put food on the table, help our children to get a best start in life, and lower the barriers to good healthcare. When Pacific communities looked at Budget 2023, they identified four major wins: 20 hours' free early childhood education for 2-year-olds; $5 prescription fees scrapped; free public transport for under-13s, half price for under-25s; 100,000 warmer Kiwi homes. Whether you're a pre-schooler, a young person aspiring to get into a new career, or one of our Pacific elders, this is the Budget for our people. Question No. 7—Police 7. 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): I, again, stand by my full statement, which is, "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police. Hon Mark Mitchell: How can she say that New Zealanders feel safer if, by her own admission, there is an increase in crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I can say that—what I did say—is that New Zealanders feel safer with 1,800 extra police on the beat. What I will note is that not only were front-line services diminished under the previous Government but significant numbers of police stations around New Zealand closed when the member was in Government. SPEAKER: Order! That was a straight-up question. It didn't need the political gibe. Mark Mitchell can have an extra question. Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When she said there is an increase in crime, what has been the increase in violent retail crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have acknowledged that there has been an increase in retail crime, and that is exactly why this Government has increased the number of available funds for the fog cannon subsidy—$11 million in additional funds was announced yesterday in order to assist those small-business owners who are experiencing an increase in retail crime. Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has retail crime risen a further 55 percent whilst the Government's failed fog cannon policy has been rolled out? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I note that the National Government—the National Party—[Interruption] Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm happy with that answer. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: That definitely wasn't a point of order, and if you had any more supplementaries, I've just taken them away. Have you finished you answer, Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No, I haven't finished. I would like to say that that figure is too high that's why we are committed to bringing it down. It was not brought down under the previous Government, when there was not front-line investment in services and, further, there was not investment in family harm services in our communities. We know for a fact that young people in New Zealand were left in homes, exposed to rates of family harm and 10 years later, those young people are presenting in our criminal justice system. Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became police Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I didn't hear that question, sorry. Can you repeat the question? SPEAKER: Could you ask the question again? Hon Mark Mitchell: Have ram raids increased or decreased since she became the Minister? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been clear that we have a problem with retail crime in New Zealand. They spiked in August of last year and the average out is at 55 per month over this year. That figure is too high, and that is the reason why this Government is investing in front-line police; that's why our Government is investing in retail crime prevention such as fog cannons; and it's also why this Government is investing in programmes like "circuit breaker" that identify and target the drivers of crime. Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. That was a very straightforward question, which was, "Have ram raids gone up or down since Ms Andersen became the Minister?" There was a long answer that didn't address the question. Hon Member: Yes it did. She talked about a peak. SPEAKER: Shut up. Goodness me. I'm not responsible for the quality of answer, but on reflection, I think it was addressed. It took a long time to get there, but it did. David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by her statement just then, "we have a problem with retail crime", or does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said clearly on Morning Report this morning that we don't have a problem with crime, just a "challenge"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am focused on addressing the drivers of crime. If that member wants to make a word salad over what has been said over different people, that's great for him. I am focused, as the Minister of Police, on addressing the underlying drivers of crime in our community, and one of those is family harm. David Seymour: Point of order. The question was very simple: does she stand by that statement or does she support the Prime Minister's statement? She didn't come close to addressing it; just made a series of unrelated statements about her motivations. If that stands as addressing a question, I don't think we can get anyone to answer anything. SPEAKER: The member can ask the question again. I'm not certain either way, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by her statement just then that "we [face] a problem with retail crime", or does she agree with the Prime Minister, who clearly told Morning Report this morning that there is no problem with crime, just a "challenge"? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: There is no difference to what I have said today and what the Prime Minister has said. Hon Mark Mitchell: Could the Minister explain how a further $11 million being put towards fog cannons is addressing the drivers of crime? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been upfront in saying this Government is tackling the problem from both ends. From one end is to enable those small business owners to feel safer in their workplace. I note that on Radio New Zealand this morning, that member was in favour of a fog cannon scheme, and said it would be funded under a potential future National Government—clearly one of the areas they wouldn't cut. The other area that I would say that we're tackling the problem from is reducing the drivers of crime by enabling programmes like "circuit breaker" and Kotahi Te Whakaaro to work with young people who are in homes which are experiencing complex and ongoing problems. Question No. 8—Housing 8. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Housing: Has she received any advice on the difference between the infrastructure cost and environmental impact of greenfield development compared to providing more homes within existing urban areas; if so, what does the advice say? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes. The cost-benefit analysis (CBA) commissioned from Sense Partners and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for the Medium Density Residential Standards work had material on this. The CBA showed that the 2016 estimated gross infrastructure cost per dwelling was $38,774 for urban intensification and $64,954 for greenfields. These numbers are based on the medium scenario. It is also important to note that infrastructure costs can vary considerably across projects. Further to this, in 2017, Auckland Council estimated the average infrastructure cost of greenfield developments were $146,000 per household. The report also showed that while there were environmental impacts of land development, the consequences of these were less felt in brownfield developments. The environmental costs for brownfield sites were estimated at $289.41 per dwelling compared to greenfield sites, which were estimated at $725.15 per dwelling. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Thank you for that answer. Has she seen the research demonstrating much higher transport costs for households living on the urban fringe of cities like Auckland, which can more than offset the benefit of cheaper housing in those places? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The work commissioned for the CBA from Sense Partners and PwC in calculating those infrastructure costs of brownfields versus greenfields did take into account the increased cost of transport infrastructure as well. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. My question wasn't about the infrastructure in this case; it was about the private transport costs for households in addition to the infrastructure—I mean, as a separate point. SPEAKER: Do you want to add to that? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. My point was that that analysis that was done for the CBA did look at those different costs that fall on households, comparing brownfields to greenfields. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Medium Density Residential Standards that "we were more than willing to come back to the table, to have a discussion"; and, if so, would she be open to measures to enable further urban density together with better environmental outcomes? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do stand by that statement. I think New Zealand is a better place when we can have political agreement around something as fundamental as our planning laws to handle a housing crisis. I am open to working with other parties so that we can have that certainty that we can have the houses built, and that we can have some resolutions to a housing crisis. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has she requested or received any advice on how development bonuses as proposed by the Green Party when the Medium Density Residential Standards changes were going through Parliament could provide for greater development potential, more energy-efficient housing, and more accessible housing? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have done a lot of work on how it is the best way that central government can be involved in funding the infrastructure that is required for the funding of either brownfield or greenfield developments. One of the pieces of work that we've spent a lot of time looking at: is it better for central government to put that funding in through just a simple and reasonably blunt instrument, like a flat fee per household, or is it better to actually work with partners around figuring out how to get best value for money and to ensure that that infrastructure funding is spent? This is, of course, the way in which we're administering the $1 billion fund that we have set up to work to finally put, for the first time since the 1970s, core Government infrastructure funding into local councils and local communities. I can tell the House that if you look across at some places, cost is as low as $3,000 per house. Other places cost as much as $82,000 per house, in places where we haven't seen infrastructure investment for decades, and that's why as a Government we've committed to doing this in the more sophisticated way that actually looks at each project on its merits. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate that answer from the Minister, but I don't think it addressed the question. SPEAKER: I believe it did. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Well, my question was about a specific proposal— SPEAKER: No, I'm not arguing with you. It's not an invitation to debate it. It's been addressed. Have you got another question? Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she agree that enabling development of community services through mixed-use zoning such as doctors, dairies, schools, and retail, where intensified development occurs, would build on the benefits of higher density housing in existing urban areas? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I do agree that we have to look at the cost of the social infrastructure that goes along with any new development, whether that be greenfields or brownfields. One of the things that we do know in greenfield development is that those costs are even higher because they don't exist, unlike in brownfields development. So those numbers that I gave the member in the answer to the primary question didn't include the cost of social infrastructure like education and health; that is additional to the numbers I gave in my primary answer. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she confident the Kāinga Ora build programme is providing quality density in existing urban areas, and, if so, why did her Government not commit to longer-term funding for public housing in the most recent Budget? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This year's Budget, I'm incredibly proud to say, builds on what we have done over our now six Budgets, and that is put a baseline increase for funding for more public houses. We will have added 21,000 places and baselined the funding for that. We have done that over the six years we've been in Government, and that represents the largest increase in public housing since the 1970s. I am incredibly proud of that. What it will take is for each and every political party at this upcoming election to say, in terms of operational funding, what they are willing to put in to further fund the increase of social housing. The public will judge us on our record and see that we have done the most of any Government in decades. Question No. 9—Māori Development 9. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: How does Budget 2023 invest in whānau, whare, and whakapapa for Māori right across the country? Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Budget 2023 continues this Government's investment in areas like whānau, whare, and whakapapa, all of which supports the Government's plans to address the cost of living. Over the past week, myself, along with other Labour Māori ministerial colleagues, travelled the length of the country from Moerewa in the north to Christchurch, sharing with them Whānau Budget 2023. The theme for this year's Māori budget has centred around te rito o te harakeke or putting whānau at the centre of everything we do. We've seen close to $900 million—which was about 17 percent of the new spend—going to a number of areas building on the success of previous Labour Budgets and highlighting this Government's particular focus on supporting Māori. We continue to put our best foot forward for our whānau with the biggest Māori caucus in this Parliament's history and eight Māori Ministers ensuring whānau voices are heard and seen clearly at the decision-making table. Tāmati Coffey: What are some of the highlights from Budget 2023 for Māori? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Many—on top of the announcements already mentioned, such as scrapping the $5 prescription fee and free public transport for our young people, Budget 2023 has secured the following targeted wins for Te Ao Māori: extra funding to build and repair more homes, $295 million in total; boost for Te Matatini and ensuring Matariki is funded into the future, $34 million for Te Matatini and $18 million for Matariki; more funding for Whānau Ora to provide more services, $168 million; increased funding for hauora providers, iwi-Māori partnership 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. I want to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues and particularly our Māori caucus for their support on the road show. Tāmati Coffey: How is Budget 2023 specifically supporting Māori into housing and how will this build on actions already taken by the Government? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Since the launch of Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga in October 2021, we've made significant inroads into accelerating Māori-led housing supply. We are on track to deliver 1,018 homes by June 2025. This is a result of the largest investment ever—ever—in Māori housing: $730 million in 2021. That's why I'm pleased that our Government is delivering on its ongoing commitment and the momentum made to improve housing outcomes for Māori in the Budget with a $295 million investment in Māori-led housing delivery programmes such as the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme. It's going so well, and I want to thank the Minister Megan Woods for her great support. And of that, $150 million will be provided to Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga to provide an additional 322 homes and $10 million for capability-building for the Māori housing provider sector. It doesn't stop there; $50 million will be provided to Te Puni Kōkiri. SPEAKER: It does stop there actually. Far too long. David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Speakers have long held that members should not read their speeches. I noticed the Minister was reading his speech as he tried to answer the question, and I wondered if the rule would apply to Ministers reading out answers that they can't remember or commit to memory and speak off the cuff about it. SPEAKER: Albeit an out of order point of order, I do take the point. Tāmati Coffey: Supplementary? SPEAKER: I'm not sure if he deserves another question. We'll go somewhere else. Hon Meka Whaitiri: To the Minister: how does $850 million of Māori-targeted money from an allocation of $175 billion in Budget 2023 meet the inequity goals of this Government? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This funding is new funding. We are talking about 17 percent of the new spend. There's only 5 to 10 percent of Māori providers, and yet we have got 17 percent of the new spend. You need to do your numbers, Mr Waititi. It's $5 million—$5 million was the new spend, 5 to 10 percent Māori providers, 17 percent of the new spend. The other Māori will get what they need through the universal spend. You need to talk to your president. Hon Meka Whaitiri: Does he agree with the view that the universal options only arise because the "for Māori, by Māori" option is gravely underfunded? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The by Māori, for Māori option has increased substantially under this Government. I'd ask that member to talk to the Māori Party president, John Tamihere, who was ecstatic about the by Māori, for Māori budget. And I'll quote him, I'll read this for Mr Seymour, he said "A very, very good budget. Well done Māori Labour caucus, by Māori, for Māori strategies are the way to go and no other mainstream Government has performed like this mainstream Government and this Māori Labour caucus". Rawiri Waititi: Can the Minister tell me how he worked out his arithmetic of $180 million making up 17 percent of $176 billion? Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Again, sadly, that member is not looking at the new spend. For that member's sake, the new spend was just under $5 billion—just under $5 billion. The Māori take on that was $895 million. That's just over 17 percent. I'd be happy to meet with the member after this to explain the numbers of the Budget. Talk to your Māori Party president. Question No. 10—Education 10. PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement regarding the early childhood education sector's reaction to the conditions attached to the 20 hours' free funding, "I can't explain why they think it's unaffordable", when an open letter representing three-quarters of the ECE sector was sent to her office explaining it to her? Hon JO LUXTON (Associate Minister of Education): I stand by my whole statement: "I can't explain why they think it's unaffordable, that would be up to each individual centre as to how they run their own business." What I can explain is that Budget 2023 delivers a minimum of an 80 percent increase to the current funding rate for children two and over in ECE. This is specifically to help centres adopt and implement the policy. Penny Simmonds: So is the early childhood sector wrong when they say that the criteria attached to the Government's flagship policy will increase childcare fees for families and negatively impact on the viability of centres with the risk of more centres closing, and, if so, why? Hon JO LUXTON: To the second part of the question: centres close for a range of reasons, including population growth. And it is important to note that this is an opt-in subsidy which centres do not have to offer to parents. It doesn't come into effect until March of next year, so there is plenty of time to work with the sector. Penny Simmonds: So is the Minister concerned that 96 early childhood providers have closed between January and May this year, and does she believe the Budget policy announcement will increase or decrease the number of providers closing? Hon JO LUXTON: In response to the first part of the question, as I said in my previous answers, centres close and open for a variety of reasons, including population changes in an area. Penny Simmonds: Who is correct: the Minister who claims the Government's flagship policy is workable, or the ECE sector who say "Quality ECE will be put back 50 years"? Hon JO LUXTON: What I will say is that this is not a new policy. The subsidy has been in place for three- to five-year-olds for more than a decade. So we know it can work because history tells us so. [Interruption.] SPEAKER: Order! Penny Simmonds: Does the Minister agree with the ECE sector who say they were, "expecting a Ferrari and got given a lemon" that will increase fees for families, and will she concede that the Budget's flagship policy should go back to Minister Tinetti's whiteboard? Hon JO LUXTON: The Government's ECE package in Budget 2023 is designed with families front of mind and aims to take the pressure off the cost of living by removing barriers to services. Question No. 11—Digital Economy and Communications 11. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: How is the Government supporting the game development sector? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. This Government is committed to supporting the growth of our game development sector by investing in our digital and technical sectors, and supporting Kiwis into good tech jobs. Through Budget 2023, we are introducing a new rebate scheme for game development studios. This will provide a boost for gaming studios to flourish and grow right here in New Zealand. The scheme, which will see eligible studios receiving up to a 20 percent rebate, will go a long way to ensure New Zealand remains a great place. This is an exciting sector to operate in and will help create New Zealand that we want to see in our future: a high-skill, high-wage, resilient, and sustainable future for New Zealand. Naisi Chen: Why is this investment needed? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The game development sector is a creator of high-skill, high-wage jobs right here in New Zealand. This Government is very proud to support its further growth and development. This sector has been rapidly growing and has significantly contributed to lifting New Zealand's productivity and wealth. In 2022, it brought in more than $400 million in revenue, with over 96 percent of this being in weightless exports. As part of the digital technologies industry, the game development sector aligns with our vision for a low-emissions, high-wage economy, and we are committed to making the best investments possible for the future of our economy. Naisi Chen: How will this scheme work? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The 20 percent rebate will be available to all game development studios who meet a minimum spend of $250,000 per annum. The threshold will enable studios to receive up to $3 million in a rebate funding. It's great news that this scheme will be backdated to 1 April 2023. That means businesses will already be eligible to receive this much-needed support. This scheme will provide an incentive to gaming studios to continue to build and develop right here in New Zealand. Naisi Chen: What feedback has the Minister seen on the announcement? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Heaps. I've had great feedback, both in person and through the media. New Zealand Game Developers Association chairwoman Chelsea Rapp has said, "I'm elated. It's such a relief to see the Government has heard our concerns." The chief executive of RocketWerkz, Stephen Knightly, has said, "It's great to hear the Government is taking tangible action to support not only interactive games, but also the wider digital economy too." BusinessNZ CEO Kirk Hope has said, "This attention to an emerging industry is welcome and it signals New Zealand is in a competitive space for development." I'm also hearing stories directly from stakeholders in the sector that this announcement is going to make a strong, tangible difference to their business. Question No. 12—Police 12. CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT) 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): I stand by my full statement that: "It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police." Chris Baillie: Does she believe police feel safer, given that there's been a 300 percent increase in assaults against police since 2017, and, if police don't feel safe, how can ordinary New Zealanders? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Assaults on front-line police are absolutely unacceptable, and that is exactly why this Government has invested in the Tactical Response Model (TRM). This has been trialled in areas and different districts and now has been funded to be rolled out right across New Zealand. What the TRM delivers is a combination of intelligence and extra kit to make sure police are deployed and fully equipped to respond to higher risk in individual circumstances. Chris Baillie: Does she believe that victims feel safer, considering there has been a 121 percent increase in serious assaults resulting in injury since 2017? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I am never happy to see that there is an increase in victims of crime. That is why we continue to invest in important initiatives like Te Aorerekura, led by Marama Davidson, which enables greater investment in our communities to reduce family harm so that young people do not grow up in homes exposed to high levels of family harm and go on to cause other issues later in life. It's important we invest 10 years from now to see the problems that we are seeing presenting here today in New Zealand. Chris Baillie: Does she believe women feel safer, considering there was a 19 percent increase in aggravated sexual assaults between 2017 and 2022? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is not acceptable that there has been an increase in assaults on women. That is why we continue to invest, unlike the potential of a "coalition of cuts", which would do what has happened in the previous instances where people have had services cut and enabled those responses not to kick in and help people who need it. Chris Baillie: Isn't it the case that when she says she feels safe, it's because she's in the back of a Crown limo, while New Zealanders who are going about their daily lives are being terrorised by thugs and don't feel safe? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No BUDGET DEBATE Debate resumed from 18 May on the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): It is my very great pleasure to rise in this debate to talk about the first Budget that the Hipkins Labour Government has delivered. I'd like to congratulate Chris Hipkins and I'd like to congratulate our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, on delivering his sixth Budget. This was a Budget that did exactly what it said on the tin: support for today and building for tomorrow. We know in our Government that there are many New Zealanders who are doing it tough right now. We're here to support them, as we have in recent years, by doing the basics well. But this is a Budget that also provides strong investment in the services that New Zealanders rely on, and it has to get those priorities right. We still have to do the building for tomorrow piece. While we need to support New Zealanders today, we do need to make sure that we are building for our future so that we are ensuring that New Zealand and New Zealanders are well set up for the decades ahead. Budget 2023 has made significant investment in education, health, and housing, and this is the right thing to do. This is the bedrock of opportunity for each and every New Zealander. A warm, dry place to call home, the right to be well, and the right to an education are all the things that sit as the values base that underpins Budget 2023. But as well as being a Minister of the Crown, I'm also a very proud representative of the Wigram electorate, and when I go around the Wigram electorate, I can see how some of the measures that we have put in place are there for everyday New Zealanders. I want to talk about the $5 prescription fee and removing that. I know from talking to my constituents and talking to pharmacies in my electorate that this is a significant issue for a number of constituents. I visited with a chemist last week who was telling me that he had patients—constituents of mine—who would go into that chemist and make their own decisions on which one of their prescribed medicines from their GP they could afford to pick up that week. They would go in and they would have to say, "I can only afford two of those six medicines that my GP has prescribed for me. Can you help me make the choice on which ones? Is it my blood pressure medication, is it my diabetes medication, or is it something else that I really need?", and that is not the bedrock of a fair and decent society. This does make a difference, so it is alarming—and I know it is alarming for many New Zealanders—to hear the National Party making absolute claims that they will bring back that surcharge for prescriptions, and they believe it because they know it was the National Party that brought in those surcharges for prescriptions in the very first place. The other thing that I have heard from my constituents and from pharmacists in the electorate is how important that local pharmacy is as part of the infrastructure of health within our communities and within our neighbourhoods. While I was visiting one of the pharmacies, a constituent came in and he was so happy that he could actually return to picking up his medicine from that local pharmacy, which he'd been going to for years, because he would no longer, from 1 July, have to pay that surcharge. Getting into the real world shows just how important that prescription charge removal is. We hear belittling of it, saying, "Well, it's OK. It's only $100 a year, and then the free prescriptions kick in.", but if you have to go and pick up $75 worth of prescription in one go and you're on the pension, that's $75 you cannot afford, and I think it shows just how out of touch the National Party are. There were some other things that I was incredibly proud of in that Budget that will make such a difference. I want to talk about the bringing in of KiwiSaver contributions for parents who are on paid parental leave. This was a Budget for women. This was a Budget with so many wins for women in it, and none more than the fact that their retirement security is not undermined by time out of the workforce. They know that they are still building pūtea and their children's future through retirement savings throughout that time they take out of the workforce. These are the things that make a difference, and it is something I am incredibly proud that we've been able to put into this Budget. I'm also incredibly proud—and I know it is going to matter to my constituents—of the savings that can be made around early childhood education. I know that nearly $135 a week for those families that already have their two-year-olds in early childhood education is going to make a significant change. I also know that that up to $135 a week will make a significant difference for those families who are making the decision about whether or not a parent can go back to work. These are the things that make a difference to the lives of everyday New Zealanders, and these are the things that are incredibly important. As well as the support for today that we've put in place, I also want to talk about some of the long-term funding and thinking and vision that sits within the pages of Budget 2023. I want to talk about infrastructure spending. The Government has taken significant steps to finally address the infrastructure deficit that we have in this country. We had committed $71 billion worth of infrastructure investment over five years, in addition to the $45 billion that we have spent in the last five years on infrastructure, and it is this deficit that is one of the most crippling deficits that New Zealand faces and that we simply have to continue to have a commitment to address. Infrastructure sounds like such an abstract thing, but for those in our communities, that is their schools, that is their hospitals, that is our public housing, that is their rail and their road network—the very things that make everyday life absolutely livable and that are critical for our communities, our neighbourhoods, our cities, and our country. One of the things that we will be doing alongside this Budget is also working through the Infrastructure Action Plan. This comes out of the Infrastructure Strategy that is the result of our Government's commitment to making sure that we are taking a strategic approach to infrastructure, that we are doing that plan, and that we do need to do that futureproofing of our infrastructure. But, in the final minute and a bit of my allotted time, I want to talk about the commitment that this Government has yet again made to public housing in New Zealand. This Budget continues the funding that we have put in over our previous five Budgets to amount to the funding of 21,000 new public housing places. This is something that is turning around decades of under-investment— Nicola Willis: The waiting list is longer. There's more kids in motels. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —and worse in public housing. Now, I hear the former housing spokesperson for the National Party calling out, "What's with the waiting list?" Well, what I can tell that member is that if they had not sold off the houses when they were in Government and if they had built at the rate that we are building public houses, there would be over 20,000 additional public housing places in New Zealand today. So I know that there are members in that National Party that feel the shame of not only their inaction but their dereliction of duty on public housing in their nine years in Government. But our Budget 2023 continues our absolute commitment to turning around that dereliction of duty and to rebuilding a commitment to public housing in this country, and that is something that we will continue to do. I look forward to hearing the plans from other political parties about what their commitment to public housing going forward is. What operational funding would they put in to show that they too are intent on fixing a housing crisis? NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Talk about avoid the elephant in the room. Here we are going into the third year of a cost of living crisis, and did that Minister think that she might consider talking about what her Budget actually does for the back pockets and bank accounts of everyday working people? No, they didn't rate a mention, because what that Government is obsessed with and focused on is how many press releases they can issue congratulating themselves for spending New Zealanders' money better—they think—than they could themselves. And what was the latest example of that from the very Minister that just sit down? She decided that the best way to use New Zealanders' hard-earned taxpayer cash was to launch an all guns blazing campaign—ads on TV, ads on social media, a full-colour printed booklet out to hundreds of thousands of letterboxes—advising people on what they should be doing to save money. And what were the tips? The tips were, of course, they should unplug their appliances, they should keep their showers to less than five minutes, and perhaps invest in a slow cooker. That's what that Minister's advice is to everyday New Zealanders struggling through a cost of living crisis made unbearably worse by the decision making and economic management of her Government. It's a disgrace and actually what we needed in this Budget was not Ministers congratulating themselves on yet more press releases; we needed three simple things: (1), a plan to grow this economy and make it more prosperous so this can be a country that can afford the cancer drugs, the high-quality schools, the hospitals that New Zealanders deserve. Was there a plan for growth? No, there wasn't. What this Budget needed to do was to demonstrate that Ministers have finally got the message that people don't just want spending for spending's sake; they want value delivered from every Government dollar. They want to see Ministers tightening their belts on wasteful spending just as New Zealanders have had to do in their own households. And did they get it in this Budget? No, they did not. And the third thing that this Budget needed to do was it needed to redress the balance that has become so out of kilter these past five years, where the Government is taking more and more cash from New Zealanders while they get hit by inflation, hit by the cost of living, and are being required to pay more and more tax. This Budget should have delivered tax relief to working people and it failed to do it. So on all three counts, we have in front of us a failing Budget that doesn't respond to the challenges New Zealand is facing. And, actually, the New Zealand economy is in a really fragile place, and you can see that with the struggles that everyday New Zealanders are having in their homes. Inflation has been out of control for more than two years, and according to these official forecasts, it won't come back into target, not later this year, not next year, but not until 2025. If these people are still in charge, prices are going to keep increasing at a clip and inflation will remain out of control. And that is what New Zealanders talk to me about. They say, "I worry that every time I go to the supermarket, my groceries cost me more." You know, I spoke to someone at the supermarket the other day. She works at the supermarket and she talked to me about this thing called checkout anxiety where she has growing numbers of people who, when they see that number flick up on the screen, they look away and then they look back, and she said that more and more often what they do when they look back at that number is they go to the groceries and they take things away. They take the cheese away, they take the biscuits away. They can't afford them. But what Megan Woods thinks their money should be used for is not tax relief—no, they don't deserve that; they don't deserve to keep more of their own wages; she should have it so she can send colour brochures out to people telling them to unplug their appliances. What we see in our economy is that with the roaring inflation that Grant Robertson has done everything he can to fuel, we are left with one big heavy lever and it's Adrian Orr's interest rate crank-up. Interest rates have gone up faster than they ever have in New Zealand's history. They have gone up so fast that a family with a $500,000 mortgage who fixed it two years ago and who are re-fixing it this week will find themselves having to find hundreds of dollars more every fortnight—more than $700 more, just to service their mortgage. And what happened? The week after Grant Robertson laid down this big-spending Budget, interest rates cranked up once again. But the people opposite don't seem to care about mortgage holders in this country. They are not focused on them at all. Then we look at what's happening with the economy in terms of our ability to pay our way in the world. We now have the biggest current account deficit—the difference between what we're earning and spending—than we've had in the history of records of that number: the biggest deficit since 1988, the biggest deficit in the developed world. And do you know what that means? It means simply this: we are not earning our way in the world, and yet the Budget does nothing to address it. Borrowing is up massively in this Budget. I think New Zealanders deserve to know that while debt pre-COVID was around $5.4 billion, next year it will hit $91 billion. This is quite literally a Government that is borrowing more every day and is set to let debt keep climbing and climbing and climbing. By 2026, the costs of the interest on that debt alone will be the fourth-biggest item of spending in New Zealand after social security, health, and education. What New Zealanders say to me is "What do we have to show for it?" Because the spending has gone up at such a clip that when you break it down to a household basis, it's up $28,000 a year per New Zealand household compared to when Labour came to office. And so every New Zealand household, every New Zealand family should be asking, "Have I got $28,000 worth of value out of Labour? Am I seeing less violent crime? Am I seeing surgery waiting lists being cut? Am I seeing shorter waits for the emergency room? Am I seeing more children attending school regularly? Am I seeing more achievement in our schools?" The answer to all of those questions is no, because we have members opposite who have a remarkable, extraordinary ability to spend and spend and not deliver results for the people whose money they're using to pay the cheques. The result is this: New Zealanders are being taxed more than ever, at a time when New Zealanders are making extremely tough decisions to balance their household budgets, to pay their bills, when we have, increasingly, people turning up at food banks because they cannot pay the mortgage, pay the rates, pay for the swimming lessons and pay for the food, when we have New Zealanders under so much financial pressure that a lawyer I spoke to last week who works in the area of marriage break-ups, said, "Nicola, I've never been so busy. It's really sad. But when mortgages get this big, it puts a lot of pressure on relationships, a lot of pressure on families, and we are seeing those cracks in our community." So what does this Government do? It says not only do you have to face record inflation, not only do you have to face really high interest rates, but we are going to tax you more, too. New Zealanders have been pushed into higher tax brackets. They're paying a far higher proportion of their income in tax. The tax take for the Government is up so much that Treasury warns in these documents that the tax taken from wages alone will grow on average around $4 billion a year over the next four years, and a billion of that is just inflation taking money from New Zealanders pockets. It's not right, it's not fair, and a Government with an ounce of sense, with an ounce of care for the people who are struggling would say, "You know what, we're going to stop some of this silly wasteful spending. We're going to stop Michael Wood spending $51 million consulting on a cycle bridge over Auckland Harbour. We're going to stop giving $2.5 million to the Mongrel Mob to do a little bit of drug counselling. We're going to stop sending colour brochures out, telling people to have shorter showers, because all of that stuff can't be justified when New Zealanders are doing it extremely tough, and we're going to offer tax relief." But they refused to do that. And so what we have, opposite, is a Government that is running out of other people's money. It has completely run out of new ideas for fixing this economy, and this is a Government that is running out of time. Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): The Budget debate that we're engaged in is an important part of the parliamentary process so I do want to start off with some acknowledgments to colleagues around the Chamber. The first one that I want to say is a big tēnā koe—that's "thank you"—to the speaker who's just spoken to us for the last 10 minutes, Nicola Willis. The second thing that I would do is thank every other person in this Chamber for their mahi, or work, for enduring the last 10 minutes of the member's speech. Finally, could I just acknowledge the pīkarikari hunahuna, or rare misstep, of the member opposite earlier this week as he chose to try and make a tacky little culture war out of my colleague Kiri Allan's work to try and bring in bilingual signs across New Zealand. His mistake, of course, was that he didn't speak to Chris Bishop, Chris Luxon, or any of his other front-bench colleagues who have run away from that tacky little culture war just as quickly as they could, and I thank the member for Pakuranga for his efforts in that regard. That particular episode laid bare the small, petty, negative, and divisive approach of the party opposite at the moment. This is a party, as we heard over the last 10 minutes, that is entirely negative in its outlook, has no new solutions to offer New Zealanders, and is focused instead simply on creating division for political advantage—and cuts; cuts wherever they can find them. That contrasted so strongly with the speeches in the Budget debate from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, speeches that were focused on national inclusion, on how we extend a hand of help and a hand up to New Zealanders who are finding things challenging in the current environment, but most importantly on how we plan for the future of our country. There was nothing that made that contrast between this Labour Government and the negative National Opposition so clear over the course of Budget week than the issue of prescription charges. This is a policy that every single member on this side of the House and I daresay on that side of the House has received volumes of feedback about over the past couple of weeks. Let's be very clear and have this on the record. It is the policy of this Government to make it cheaper for Kiwis to access the medicines they need when they are sick, and it is the policy of the "coalition of cuts" to make Kiwis pay more for their medicine when they are sick—no bones about it. And that tells you and everyone who was watching this Budget debate everything that they need to know about the priorities of this Government and the priorities of the "coalition of cuts." I am proud of that investment. I've heard from community members, I've heard from pharmacists up and down my electorate of Puketāpapa Mount Roskill, who speak to the fact that this is the right thing to do to ensure that folks in our community don't have to worry about getting that medicine and that we take their cost of living pressure off them. It just makes sense. We heard from the previous speaker who likes to make so much of the National Party's economic credibility. But this is a party that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing, to the detriment of the long-term interests of our country. What happens when a person can't afford or is worried about having to pay for their prescription charge and they don't go and get it? We had 130,000 people who didn't pick up their scripts last year. What happens to those people that can't afford five bucks to pick up the prescription charge? Well, very often, the answer is that they will get sicker and they will need more healthcare, potentially in the hospital system. Now, that's terrible for that person and their whānau—none of us should be happy about that—but it's also the most economically ludicrous and stupid thing that you could hope to do. It is far better to invest upfront in the health and the wellbeing of our people rather than deal with the long-term consequences of that, which will erode human capital, erode human wellbeing, and cost us all more as a country in the end. I turn to another significant Budget investment that speaks directly to that as well, and that is one that I know that every member on the side of the House is exceptionally proud of, and that is our investment in bringing back the training incentive allowance. We hear so much from the other side of the House about the upgrading of people and the value of work, and that people should get off the benefit and into work, that they should improve themselves, and that they should get into education and climb the ladder. But when it comes to actually providing a little bit of support, a little bit of a hand up to people in that situation who are on benefit and who want to climb the ladder and want to get into tertiary education, the record on that side of the House was to pull the ladder up. It is this side of the House and Minister Carmel Sepuloni who has led that change. It means that from this point forward, that training incentive allowance will be there. Boy, people will still have to work hard for it. People on benefits, sole parents and the like, often have so much that they have to deal with. These people are going to still have to work damned hard to get that degree, to get that diploma, to get into work, but with a little bit of support, a little bit of belief in those people, this Government is going to back them to make their way through. And that is what our Government believes, and that is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. There is so much else to be proud of in this Budget in terms of what we're doing for supporting our young people as well. And I want to ask the other side of the House: how about the Apprenticeship Boost? This is a policy that our Government put in place during COVID, that period when employers were facing hard decisions about whether they kept people on or not. We saw what happened during the global financial crisis under the previous Government, where often the first people to lose their jobs—last on, first off—were the young apprentices, and we were determined not to see that happen again, because, firstly, we want to support those young people, and, secondly, if you have a long-term view about the future, they're exactly the young people that we need to invest in. They're in there building skills and confidence, building and growing our economy. And so the Apprenticeship Boost, which we brought in during COVID, has supported around 200,000 of our young people to make sure that they sustain their apprenticeships, contribute to their whānau, build skills, build great careers in the trades, and contribute to our economy. We're making it permanent—we're putting the Apprenticeship Boost in there to make sure that those young people and their employers have that little bit of backing from our Government. And here's my challenge to that side of the House, who are negative, negative, negative all the time: what would they do about the Apprenticeship Boost? Would they take it away again and see our apprenticeship system crumble as it did under successive National Governments in the 1990s and the 2010s? One final thing on education, one that hasn't been spoken about all that much. On the evening of the Budget after Grant Robertson had read it out, I received a text message from a champion bloke in my community, who leads a team of social workers, working with our young people, often with really tough backgrounds. He said, "Thank you for the investment in alternative education, a sector that's done it really tough over a long period of time. But this is a sector that often picks up our young people who have fallen through all of the other cracks, fallen through the education system in the primary sector—don't even worry about tertiary education—kids that have dropped out of school often have the most difficult and complex backgrounds, and the kids who are powder kegs if we don't get around them and get them on to a better path and help them to realise their potential. And it's often alternative education that does that." The additional $30 million through Budget 2023 is going to help that sector provide that support to some of the people in our communities who need it the most. Finally, I do have to turn to some of the outstanding initiatives in the field of transport that came through in Budget 2023. I'm really proud of the fact that this is a Government that is going to make it cheaper for over two million Kiwis to use public transport around our country, with free fares for our under-13s, half-price fares for under-25s and everyone with a Community Services Card, and half-price total mobility fares for our disabled community. This is double- or triple-duty—it's about easing cost of living pressures for those families. It's potentially a $30 a week saving for a Kiwi family with two kids using public transport. It's about reducing congestion and reducing carbon emissions by getting people on to more public transport as well. It's a policy that wins all round, and it's just going to help Kiwis that little bit more with some of those cost of living pressures. This is the biggest public transport package that any recent Government has offered—cheaper fares for Kiwi families, better pay for our bus drivers, and a huge investment in the lower North Island trains to more than double the services on the Wairarapa and the Kapiti lines so that more people in this region can get on to clean modern tri-modal trains to make journeys around the region We've also invested in the electric vehicle (EV) charging network. Our Government has taken New Zealand from being one of the worst-performing countries in the world to one of the best-performing countries in the world for EV uptake, and with our $120 million to build out a nationwide EV charging network with fast-charging stations around the country, public charging stations in every small town of more than 2,000 people, we're going to open up that opportunity to more and more people. This is a Budget that is about securing things for Kiwis in difficult times now, but planning for the future. What a contrast with the "coalition of cuts." DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Damien Smith. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): The last two weeks have not been kind to Minister of Finance Grant Robertson's Budget. It's his last Budget with this Hipkins Government, and even he and the Prime Minister are flattered to see. It's been a fizzer, a cold shower was needed, and there's only one appliance to unplug: this Government. Sure, it was a big-spending Budget, but there was nothing in it for hard-working New Zealanders and nothing to help with their household cost of living crisis. The kindness proves to have been cynical and Government plays on its big-spending, big-borrowing, driving deficits as the rest of New Zealanders tighten the purse strings. They presented no plan for growth, no tax relief, just costs. Robertson's first objective and legacy should have been on controlling inflation. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Smith, we use full names in the House, please. DAMIEN SMITH: Sir, yes. The Minister's first objective and legacy should have been on controlling inflation and the cost of living crisis. He now leaves the legacy of Government spending reaching an all-time high and billions in debt charged to our kids and grandkids. Rising prices hurt businesses, workers, consumers, and household family members. Even in non-inflationary times, the Public Finance Act requires the Minister of Finance to exercise prudent fiscal management. Simply, tough choices were not made on Government resources in this process, and the recovery process has been set back to 2025, 2026. A budgeted increase, and on COVID spending of 12.6 percent, nearly doubles the rate of inflation, with the economy at full employment. Now, that was hardly prudent in these times. Tax revenue is at 37 percent of GDP under this Budget, and it's up 2.5 percent of pre-COVID taxation levels. Core Crown expenditure in this Budget is up 33 percent, and it was as low as 27 percent in 2018—and $60 billion more in taxes and spending in the last 10 years has doubled. Are we happy with this return? Are we happy with this Budget? Are we happy with this management of the economy? Are we happy with core Crown spending being 11 percent higher than revenues? Then, to add to the cost of living pressures, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) had to raise interest rates by 25 basis points. Governor Orr claimed the bank has raised the official cash rate high enough to contain inflation. This is a mighty statement from the RBNZ, and the Treasury will also be held accountable for its assumptions in this Budget. It required Orr to ignore the Budget's surge in spending and take projected future climbs in expenditure as a percentage of GDP at face value. That's what we've been doing for years now: taking the Minister at face value. Yet, the Minister has persistently failed to keep spending within past forecasts, and this is leading to financial instability. But even if these projections above are accurate, Treasury concluded that Budgets would keep interest rates higher for longer, and a cap on future rates rises is cold comfort for hard-working Kiwis already hurting from high interest rates. Then we come to all the dollops of poorly directed spending. The Minister who talked about wellbeing has issued nothing more than cynical election bribes in this Budget. Had Robertson been motivated by wellbeing—sorry, the Minister—his spending would have been more directly targeted. Free prescriptions for the residents of Remuera and Karori hardly address needs. Middle-class welfare was bad enough, but subsidising the video game industry was unfathomable. This Budget should have been about putting food on the table. It's not a game and game makers can't help with that. Kiwis don't care whether their video games are made here or in Australia. But perhaps the Budget's biggest fault is what it didn't do. It didn't address the affordability crisis, crime, Pharmac, and other health benefits. And now we have a Budget which will show negatives for the next period. As Roger Partridge said, "All-in-all, the whiff from [this] sixth Budget just gets stronger. [And we hope that the] voters don't sniff [this Minister] out." ACT knows it will support hard-working Kiwis in the future. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker—to speak to the Vote and appropriations in the Budget for primary industries, agri, all things forestry, biosecurity, and food safety. Minister, if you're a rural person, you're affronted by the vacuous and asinine nature of this $1.1 billion appropriated in that Vote. It speaks to $176 million for policy design and initiatives. Trying to reconcile that when you're a rural New Zealander, affronted by all the nonsense that the rural sector is trying to digest—policies in and around on-farm management; emissions control, what that looks like; the development of methane mitigation technologies. Well, let's delve into this: $9.4 million extra in that $176 million in this year alone. Gracious me! The Minister, by virtue, is receiving an increase of $9 million extra to develop policies, and yet, by virtue, if you were to argue and ask of any rural New Zealander how they feel about outcomes, they would wager you they are significantly worse. Cameras on boats: $68 million, with a fisheries Vote appropriation of $100 million—an increase, I believe, of nearly $8 million in the Vote alone this year. From proof of concept 2019 to now, there were 300 cameras on boats proposed, and yet here we see 35 to 40 that are installed with 15 operationalised and data-sharing: again, an exorbitant amount of money, and outcomes for the industry when they are, by virtue, helping themselves design their own regulation—certainly vacuous. And on the list goes. A roll-back of funding in—yes, reconcile that: a roll-back in funding for biosecurity. Now, I'm trying to reconcile that with an industry that has been confronted with all manner of biosecurity threats here, already trying to deal with Caulerpa and gold clams, an organism that could actually decimate the aquaculture industry. Now, that industry alone has been proposed by many to be worth hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in the coming decade. A $6.9 million decrease in biosecurity monitoring and clearance—now, again, I'm trying to reconcile that with all the threats that this country faces: biosecurity coming through our border, M. bovis, and foot-and-mouth scares. Now, foot-and-mouth would absolutely decimate rural New Zealand. We're cognisant of it. Every week, I receive emails about the threats, which are literally one plane ride away, and yet here we see a roll-back of biosecurity monitoring and clearance. Decreased funding for expenditure, arguably, is in the most sensible areas as our biosecurity space, but we've pulled that back by, as I say, $7 million. There is a myriad of things that the rural sector is affronted by. Emissions pricing scheme on-farm, freshwater plans—what on earth does that look like?—fisheries and the rural sector: a lot of rural people are fishermen; they're affronted by the development of regulations to come on the back of cameras on boats. Again, I leave this remark for this House when I speak to my fellow colleagues here, representing rural New Zealand: the largest sum I have ever seen on policy design is this, and yet the outcomes, I wager anyone, are perverse—$176 million. Go anywhere in rural New Zealand and ask them what their rural confidence is, or the lack thereof, and they will categorically tell you it has never been so bad. I wonder where this $176 million is actually going and if the advice is being heeded. Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I rise as a proud rural member of this House, and spend a lot of time with my constituents up and down very small rural, regional communities. The things that those rural and regional folk, whether they are farmers, horticulturalists, whether they are trying to break bread in the forestry industry or cafes, whatever it is, the sense that I get is that what they want and what they have been asking for for many years is a Government that shows up, is a Government that listens, and is a Government that responds. Alongside my colleagues, over the last 10 or so days, we have literally been going into small communities—whether that's the Moerewas, whether that's Whangāreis, whether it's Ruatōria, Te Araroa, Potaka. We've been going into those communities to break down what the Budget means for them. I've got to acknowledge my colleague, the Hon Grant Robertson. This is the fifth Budget—the fifth Wellbeing Budget—that he has delivered in this House. It was a very simple message that he gave to New Zealanders on the assertion of our colleague, the Rt Hon Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins. The instruction was clear: everything that we have to do in the current economic environment that we are in, it must be focused on the bread and butter issues. There are four things that Norman Kirk said, and I think that this is why I believe this Budget is the perfect Budget that has been delivered for the times that we're in: somewhere to live, food to eat, clothing to wear, something to hope for. Somewhere to live: this is one of the largest, most significant investments in our Budget. It literally was about education, health, and housing. Of all the parts of that Budget that I look to, two things, in particular, stuck out for me. It's that recommitment to social housing. That's something that we, as a Government, have been dedicated to during the time that we have been in—3,000 more public homes. I saw that the "coalition of cuts", they also released some sentiments around housing and housing policy last week. I eagerly looked through the eight pages of their policy document. The thing that struck me, which goes to the core of the difference of beliefs between that side of the House and this side of the House: they needed to find some money, and the question that we always ask on this side of the House is, "Well, where are you going to get the money from when you propose new policy?" Well, it shouldn't surprise any of us, but guess where it was. It was in their social housing plan. It was to cut the funding that goes into social housing. It was to cut the funding that goes into Kāinga Ora. So there was something funny that happened during the Budget last week or the week prior when the Government announced some of our core platform things that literally target those families that are finding it the toughest right now. When we made the announcement—in particular, the scrapping of those co-payments, those five bucks on the prescriptions, the mask slipped down a little bit from the veneer of the deputy leader on that side of the House. The mask slipped down and she said, "We'll scrap that co-payment." Last year, 130,000 prescriptions weren't picked up—130,000 people did not get the medications that they needed, that their doctors said that they needed, putting, ultimately, more pressure on a healthcare system, because they simply couldn't afford it. When that scheme first came in, it was three bucks; it was put up to five bucks. You know, we all would have, whether it was on that side of the House or this side of the House, we were absolutely full to the brim with correspondence about that. There was a couple of particular types of feedback that I recall—and I might not get it absolutely right. One young woman, she said, "Look, if you don't know what it's like to have to transfer $1.28 out of one account and three bucks out of another account to have to go into that pharmacy and buy your prescriptions, please don't come at me." There was another woman that made some interesting reflections. She was a doctor. She said, "Look, we, as young doctors, used to work in the hospital system and couldn't understand that when we'd prescribe medications to people that their ailments would continue to accumulate and that they'd end up in the hospital system worse than ever." Her proclamation was that that simple act of scrapping that $5 payment would be absolutely lifesaving. It would have an absolute, immediate impact on the healthcare system and, indeed, the profession. So I want to acknowledge my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall, and, of course, with the backing of our finance Minister for something so small, so targeted, that helps ordinary New Zealanders. The extension of the 20 hours early childhood education: up and down my electorate, what I was hearing from our constituents is what that means for a whole heap of—not just mums—mums and dads who are trying to raise their kids, trying to juggle a bit of this and a bit of that to educate their children, but also work part time to pay the bills. I literally had one mum up the coast, she had a big tangi about what that would mean for her as that meant that she could go about her business and could continue her work. It's a little thing, but it is the little things that for most of us on this side of the House—which is why we got into politics, to be champions for those that didn't necessarily have a voice. Because some people, when they let their mask slip down, they let the rest of New Zealand know that their core motivations and drivers for being in politics are to consolidate wealth, consolidate power amongst a handful of a small few, when this side of the House always has been and always will be committed to ensuring equitable distributions amongst those that need it most. I had the privilege of—I don't know if it was a privilege—being stuck in a van with Willie Jackson. But anyway, I had the privilege of going on a bit of a road trip with some of my colleagues: the Hon Willie Jackson, Peeni Henare, Kelvin Davis, Willow-Jean Prime, Nanaia Mahuta. Off we go in a van so that we could go to those communities that often don't have their Cabinet Ministers showing up in force, but to say, "We're here for you. We see you. Indeed, we have developed a Budget that has been designed for you." We were very proud as a Māori ministerial group to be able to go and share some of the things that really impact the lives of many Māori. That was upping the Budget with respect to Whānau Ora. It was investment in housing. But a little star of the show—I don't know what Tāmati is going to say, being a proud lad from Te Arawa, but I can say, as a member of Parliament for Te Tairāwhiti, that has the best kapa haka in the country on our backyard, the $34 million investment for Te Matatini was absolutely so well received. We will see that that's all about ora—wellbeing. It's all about every aspect of what is good within our communities—communities coming together to create, to feast on mātauranga Māori, feast on our tikanga, and to grow that within those homes. That was a big highlight for many of us on that tour. But, look, putting on my other hat now as the Minister responsible for cyclone recovery, I also want to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the hardship that's been felt—real pain within my backyard. Now, whilst we had old mate Simeon Brown, who barely makes a misstep, or [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] as my colleague the Hon Michael Wood said earlier. Whilst he was in my electorate talking about bilingual signs, we were in my electorate talking and working alongside agencies, looking at some of the broken infrastructure as a consequence of Cyclone Gabrielle. I've got to acknowledge my colleagues—on top of the $890 million that's been invested into that cyclone recovery, there was an additional almost a billion dollars through the Budget that was set aside, but particularly, for me, it was the $275 million for regional roading for immediate recovery. Now, for those people up in Potaka or those people up in Te Araroa suffering from literally broken infrastructure that was put in in the 1950s, that type of announcement will be immeasurable. Support for today, building for tomorrow—coalitions of cuts will not deliver for New Zealand, but I'm proud of our side of this House. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Split call—the Hon David Parker. Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I add my support to the original motion put to the House and oppose the National Party amendments. The Finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, has delivered a Budget which decreases Government spending as a percentage of the economy, as a percentage of GDP, which is now coming off the heights that were necessary during COVID, notwithstanding the fact that additional expenditure has been necessary this year to meet the costs of the storm events that we have seen have so devastated some of our communities. The Budget forecasts show that the Government finances are in good shape. New Zealand's debt remains very low relative to our peers, much lower than Australia, Great Britain, the United States of America, as a percentage of GDP and below the ceiling that we have set for ourselves. We returned to Budget surplus in the same amount of time that the last National Government took to return to surplus after the Canterbury earthquakes. You can already see one of the essential debates at the next election will be whether you have tax cuts as promoted by the National Party, allied with service cuts or the alternative proposition that will be coming from the Labour Party by the time we get to the election. Of course, the last time National announced their tax cuts they gave something like a dollar a week to someone on the minimum wage and hundreds of dollars a week to a higher salary earner. It's against that background that I want to spend the rest of my time talking about some reports that were released by the Government through Inland Revenue and the Treasury in respect of an inquiry as to the effect of tax rates paid by high wealth individuals. This work has been done over the last year and a half by Inland Revenue, with cooperation of around 311 families who each—and a family is essentially an individual, their life partner, and dependent children—had an average wealth, their net assets, were $276 million each. Their effective tax rate, including their income tax, the tax paid by their trusts, the tax they paid through company structures, all of the GST that they pay on their personal expenditure: their effective tax rate was 9.5 percent. That was a much lower rate than I was expecting. We know that the super wealthy construct their financial affairs so that most of their income is on capital account rather than taxable income, but nonetheless I was surprised how low that tax rate was. No wonder why we've had rising inequality in New Zealand at the top end. This is a world-leading study because it's based on actual data, it's not modelled data, and it has shown that inequality of wealth in New Zealand is worse than we had previously understood it, in part because of the very low rate of tax that is paid by the super wealthy on their income. At the same time, a report was released by the Treasury called Tax and Transfer Progressivity in New Zealand, and it showed the tax paid by other New Zealanders, by ventile—which is 20 groups of 5 percent—showed that a middle income New Zealander generally pays tax at more than 20 percent, including all of their economic income, their wages, and if they own a property, their capital gains and the imputed rent on their property, if you're into that sort of thing. For someone who has only salary income and they were being paid $80,000 a year, they would be paying an average PAYE tax rate of 22 percent, plus they would be spending about two thirds of their income on GST inclusive goods and services, equivalent to about 8 or 9 percent of their income spent on GST. That 8 or 9 percent, added to the 22 percent average tax rate, means that that sort of person is paying 30 percent of their income in tax every year compared with the super wealthy paying only 9 percent. As a consequence in part of that, legislation has now had its first reading through the Budget process on the tax principles bill so that we can report against sound principles for the tax system like progressivity, efficiency, horizontal equity—people in the same position should pay the same amount of tax but wealthier people should pay higher rates of tax than less wealthy, lower income people. Returning to the Budget, we are on track, back to surplus. We have had these cost of living adjustments, the likes of prescriptions. It's a good Budget and I commend the Minister of Finance's motion to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, five minutes. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Budget 2023 builds on the support that we on this side of the House have been providing to New Zealanders in the face of cost of living pressures. And we know that times are tough. We know that it's particularly difficult for those that are low and middle income households and those who have young children. Budget 2023 is a budget that focuses on targeted cost of living support that will not exacerbate inflation pressures, while also laying the foundations for long-term benefits, including increasing education and health outcomes and meeting our climate change goals. The changes that kicked into place on 1 April were changes that supported over 1.4 million New Zealanders, including those receiving a main benefit, students, superannuitants, and that was funded through Budget 2023. There's also a particular focus on parents and young families, including through the expansion of 20 hours free early childhood education support for two-year-olds, free public transport for children, and half-price public transport for under-25s and community services cardholders, and half-price fares that Budget 2023 makes permanent for Total Mobility services as well. I just also want to spend a short period of time just focusing on the fact that we are also scrapping the $5 co-payment prescriptions. That will lead to better health outcomes for individuals, for families, and will support our health system. Soon after the Budget was announced, a young Kiwi Indian doctor tweeted—I don't know her personally, but her tweet went viral. She said that as a new graduate in the early 2000s at Middlemore, it took a long time for us to figure out why patients were being readmitted when they'd been discharged with antibiotics for pneumonia or medication for heart failure. Turned out that they were too whakamā—that's ashamed or embarrassed—to tell us that they couldn't afford what was then a $3 prescription fee. So they quite rightly came back into hospital for a $700-a-night readmission, and Middlemore started to send people home with packs of medication. This is one simple change that will help the 135,000 adults who didn't pick up their prescriptions because of the cost to be able to do so. It's also one that invests in our health system and will level the playing field for community - and family-owned pharmacies as well. This Budget continues this Government's year-on-year investment in initiatives to eliminate family and sexual violence as well. It will specifically support more accessible services in ways that are relevant to those who need to access them. Budget 2023 will also enable existing mainstream family and sexual violence support providers to be able to meet the accessibility needs of disabled people and tāngata whaikaha Māori. It also expands the safeguarding pilot run in Waitematā which will help to protect disabled people who are at risk of violence through specialist services, because people should be able to access the support they need in the ways that are relevant to them. This is also a budget that adds to our Government's record investment in supporting disabled people, both through ensuring that we can invest to help ease the cost and demand pressures on our disability support services, and also to scrap the minimum wage exemption. 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—that is just not right. We are delivering on a commitment we made and ending this discriminatory exemption. We'll introduce a wage supplement so that disabled people are paid the minimum wage, but in a way such that we can also protect the opportunities that are afforded to them. Finally, on this side of the House, we're committed to supporting all New Zealanders in ways that are equitable and relevant to them. On that side of the House, if given a chance in October this year, the "Coalition of Cuts" will take us backwards. It is their policy to take us back to a time that led to the very inequities that our communities have faced and to worsen outcomes. So many from our ethnic communities advocated for a ministry to ensure that their voices are heard at the highest decision-making levels. That "Coalition of Cuts" will scrap the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, amongst others. We will lose— Hon Judith Collins: How does that member say that? How can that member say that? Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Because that is ACT policy. And in the absence of National policy, that is the policy of the "Coalition of Cuts". They will take us backwards and ensure that the voices of our people are silenced. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I'd like to talk first about what's good in this Budget. When I look at the Budget at a Glance, especially on the first page, cost of living support, I see a whole lot of initiatives that actually were first campaigned on by the Green Party or started by a Green Minister in Government—for example, free public transport for kids, half-price public transport for people under the age of 25. These are policies that the Green Party has been campaigning on for a long time and that I as Associate Minister of Transport last term began work on the Community Connect card, which sees half-price public transport for those with a community services card or with disabilities. Of course, that doesn't go far enough; we'd like to see it go much further. We would have liked to see half-price public transport made permanent for everyone, because we have seen a huge increase in the use of public transport, despite the problems with bus cancellations. We would like to see free public transport for under-18s, and much greater provisions for those with community services card and disabilities. KiwiSaver contributions for paid parental leave—again, very proud to say that this was an initiative that I commenced research into when I was Minister for Women. Extending 20 hours early childhood education to two-year-olds—excellent policy; wish it was coming into effect sooner. The Green Party put this in our manifesto and announced it nine years ago. Scrapping prescription co-payments—we can't take credit for that one, but it is good and we support it. Cheaper energy bills, lowering household energy bills through expanded Warmer Kiwi Homes programme—that's insulation, that's new heating, that's hot water heat pumps, and LED lightbulbs. Of course, this was a longstanding Green Party initiative that Jeanette Fitzsimons kicked off back in 2008, and we've seen hundreds of thousands of homes made warmer, drier, healthier, and using less energy, thanks to those programmes. The Climate Emergency Response Fund is being put to good use, and there are a lot of good initiatives in that space. But then we come to what is missing in this Budget. We have to say that while some steps have been taken in the right direction and we support those steps, it is nowhere near the transformational changes that we need to truly tackle climate change and achieve equity in our communities here in Aotearoa. So what is missing? Let's start with the Climate Emergency Response Fund, which is down more than $800 million because the Labour majority Government chose to ignore recommendations of the Climate Commission against the advice of the Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw. What else is missing from the Budget? Well, I'm sorry to say we still don't see any full implementation of the expert advisory group on fixing our welfare system. So the Government asked, last term, for advice on how to fix our welfare system, but they still haven't implemented the recommendations—really, any of them—nowhere near fully. We also didn't see increases to Working for Families, which is really needed for those working families. We don't see the massive increase to student support that's needed. My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick ran a people's inquiry into student wellbeing, and found two-thirds of students can't afford the basics on a regular basis; 91 percent of those students said they would take public transport much more if it were free—that would mean they were able to access more classes at university. We don't see paid parental leave for all parents. We don't see it at a reasonable rate, it's less than the minimum wage, and not everybody can access it. We don't see free high-quality early childhood education for all children from the end of paid parental leave. That's a gap we have to close. It just doesn't make sense: you finish your paid parental leave, which is extremely inadequate by global standards; and then there's a gap, still, of at least a year and a half before you get the support for early childhood education, and many people can't afford to return to work; not to mention, in places like Wellington, you can't even find a place at an early childhood centre, it's extremely difficult. So we need more investment in that area. We see a gap of an ambitious programme of regional rail investment. This is something that people around the country have been calling out for. If we're going to address our climate targets and connect our communities, including in rural areas, we need to see a step change in our investment in regional rail and we need to see public investment in bus services. Aotearoa once had affordable, high-quality, and frequent bus and train services right across the country, connecting our communities, even to very rural areas. We can have that again, but we need to see the step change in investment. The 18 trains that will be purchased for the lower North Island business case is welcome investment, well overdue, we were campaigning for that more than a year ago, but we need to see much more than that to achieve the real low-carbon connectivity for our communities, and we need to see more public transport in our towns and cities right around the country. It's great to have the half-price public transport and free public transport for kids but it doesn't benefit those who don't have bus or train or ferry services available to them, and that's where Government need to do a whole lot more. There were no e-bike or cargo bike subsidies, and the high cost of those vehicles is a barrier to purchasing them. But once people have access to those vehicles, they have very quick, convenient mobility, and that is one way we can help reduce both congestion and enable more mobility while reducing emissions and reducing the cost of living for households. Unfortunately, the Government has not taken that on. What else is missing from the Budget? Future years of the public housing programme. Yeah, that's an interesting one. The Green Party would like to see a commitment to future years of the public housing programme. And nature and conservation—we would have liked to have seen Jobs for Nature made permanent. We need much greater investment in conservation research and that work to do the trapping and pest eradication so we can truly achieve the goals of a predator-free Aotearoa. Why are these things missing from the Budget? I don't believe it's because the majority Labour Government doesn't want to do them; it's because the Labour majority Government didn't fix the tax system when they had the opportunity this term. I mean, they have a majority. They could fix the tax system. We have the research which shows that the very wealthiest New Zealanders are paying extremely low marginal tax rates on their income. So we know inequality's getting worse in New Zealand. It's just a fact: if we don't have a fair tax system, wealth will become more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. That is a mathematical fact. That's why, during the 20th century, we had a decrease in inequality at a time when there were extremely high marginal tax rates in that post – World War II era. If we want to achieve anything like that again, if we want to have declining inequality—that is, a fair society—a society where people truly have access to the things that they need and the income that they need to live good lives, then we need to tax the rich. Inequality is a political choice; it is not inevitable. The Green Party is not shying away from the fact that it is our political priority to make sure that we have a fair tax system so that we can afford to invest in the services and infrastructure that benefit all of us as a society. We are not better off letting the rich get richer. Even the rich know this. That's a why a huge number of the super-rich wrote a letter saying that, actually, they would very much like to be taxed at a greater rate so that we have a fairer tax system. But we don't need their consent. The reality is that the majority of New Zealanders would be better off with a fairer tax system. So, I guess, the message for those people is that if you want a fairer tax system—and we saw more than 50 percent of New Zealanders support a wealth tax—then you're going to have to put the Greens back in Government, because Labour, unfortunately, are just tweaking around the edges; they're not willing to take on the political leadership needed to achieve the goals that we all want, which is action on climate change, protecting nature, achieving equality in our communities, which means investing in our people, and we can afford to do that. The inequality we have seen in New Zealand was the result of political choices, many of which started in the 1980s but carried on in the 1990s, and we still haven't done anything to address that inequality that was caused in 1991 after Ruth Richardson's "mother of all Budgets". We know that in the 1990s, child poverty massively increased in Aotearoa New Zealand, and it really hasn't declined since then. If we want to take on the serious issues—because climate change is, in part, driven by inequality. Those who own the most and who have the most wealth contribute far more to damaging climate emissions than people on low incomes or on median incomes. We need to make sure that every person in our country has access to the things they need to live with dignity and to live a good life. That means support when they are sick and they cannot work. That means decent healthy affordable housing that is available to all. It is not right in this country that some people can have many, many houses, and some have to sleep in cars. The Green Party will address this in the next Government. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Peeni Henare—five-minute call. Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for ACC): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute. Can I first start off by congratulating the Prime Minister for once again, alongside the Minister of Finance, delivering a Budget that actually delivers for our people. Over the last week, we've visited a number of places around the country to talk about the Budget, and I'm really proud of the work that we've done. I want to start by talking about the $168.1 million investment into Whānau Ora. A small journey over the six years I've been the Minister for Whānau Ora, I can hand on heart say that is a 145 percent increase in funding going to Whānau Ora. We know Whānau Ora have stood up right across the country to support communities during crises that have sadly afflicted our communities right up and down the country. Whānau Ora stood into the breach, Whānau Ora delivered for them, and we are continuing to deliver for Whānau Ora. What's interesting when you look at the Whānau Ora aspiration plans for community, one of the things that they continually bring up is our kaumātua and kuia who, not only for themselves but also for the many grandchildren that they care for, as they go to the pharmacy they continue to talk about the high costs of actually getting the medicines that they need to look after themselves and their tamariki, mokopuna. On this side of the House, the removing of the $5 fee for prescriptions is a huge move, and I want to point out two particular people who have already spoken to me about this matter. There are only a handful of qualified Māori pharmacists in this country. I'm proud to say that one of them is my nephew, a young fellow by the name of Hemi McKechnie, named after our grandfather. He said to me, "Uncle, this is one of the most amazing things for the community in the Far North that you will ever see. It's for those rural whānau, it's for the whānau who simply can't afford prescriptions.", and what they end up doing is having to make a call on whether or not they're going to buy food or whether or not they're going to buy medicine. What this particular initiative did in this year's Budget has made it clear we care about those families receiving the medicines that they need. We need our kaumātua and kuia to be healthy. We want our tamariki to be healthy as well, and this goes a long way to making sure that there is equitable healthcare for those people who are looking for the medicines that they need to be well for their families. The other one is a place called Horouta Pharmacy, owned by Māori run by Māori. When I was in Tūranganui-a-Kiwa, I got to have a chat with them about what this means to their people. In a place like Tairāwhiti, which has been hit so hard by the recent weather events, they are saying whānau are coming in, celebrating, and talking to them about how much this means to them. Five dollars to that side of the House might not mean much, but when you're a kaumātua, a kuia or a family member trying to weigh up meeting the challenges that they have in their household, $5 goes a long way, and what's clear on this side of the House is we've made it clear that this particular initiative is one that we will not back down from and we will continue to support. On that side of the House, they've made it clear that it's gone. They've made it clear to our families out there that actually, no, no, you should be able to afford it and you should just go and get it. Well, that's not the reality. I've been around the country, spoken to these pharmacies, spoken to those who work in the sector, and it tells them that on that side of the House they don't actually care whether or not our families receive what they need. I'm really, really proud of this Budget. Continued support for Te Matatini. What was interesting is while the other side might bemoan the fact that we're giving money to Te Matatini, they weren't shy in showing up to Te Matatini in February with their blue t-shirts on trying to look for support from the Māori community in what was an event that brought together not only Māori communities but actually people right across this country. So $34 million is an investment, not just in Te Matatini but in te reo Māori, mātauranga Māori, and Māori enterprise which supports Te Matatini, which many on that side won't know because they don't fully understand how Te Matatini works in our communities and how important it is. I encourage them to simply head up to Tairāwhiti, where it's known as one of the bigger areas that participate in Te Matatini; also Te Arawa Waka, my good friend Mr Tāmati Coffey, one of the most successful areas in Te Matatini. They've made it clear to us that not only will that money support Te Matatini and those groups that go there, but it supports the whole industry around it: it supports whānau, it supports those who compose, it supports those who make the outfits, it is really, really important to them that we show that support. On this side of the House, I'm proud on what this Budget delivers, but we know that there's more work to be done and we don't shy away from the challenges that have already been brought to us. But we stand by our Budget. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon Ginny Andersen—five minutes. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Talofa lava. Look, I'd like to talk about all the good things that are in this Budget—all the good things that New Zealanders have to look forward to—during a tough time for Kiwis, who have had a tough time with the cost of living. There are the small changes that look to make a big difference for New Zealand, both in the here and now but also for the long term. When I picked up the esteemed publication known as the Wainuiomata News, I saw Clive, the "Happy Chemist", and do you know what? Clive is even more happy now because scrapping that $5 co-payment will mean a big difference for communities in Wainuiōmata. Ron Chin, the chemist right next door, in the Wainuiōmata Pharmacy, agrees. Some of the reasons that they provide in this esteemed publication are really good to relay and I'm going to relay some of those reasons that our local pharmacists back having this co-payment scrapped. The No. 1 reason, they say, is that it improves the health and the wellbeing of people in their community, and for those people who don't pick up their scripts because they can't afford it, that actually goes towards and contributes to higher rates of strokes, higher rates of heart attacks, sight loss, and mental health instances and episodes that don't need to have happened. A report from the Independent Community Pharmacy Group out this month, which both of these pharmacists referred to, says that all of those negative health outcomes in our community are driven largely by that co-payment being in place, which prevents people from picking up their scripts. The other big point that they make in the Wainuiomata News is that it stops people from going into secondary care—into our hospitals. By having all of those good medicines available—freely available—for people to utilise, it stops small problems becoming big problems, and the really sad thing is that National proposes to scrap it. National proposes to take it away and go back to a time when all of those negative health outcomes were being driven higher because of the fact that there was that co-payment in place. I don't want Clive, the "Happy Chemist", to be unhappy. I want him to stay happy. He does a great job for our community. We deserve to give those local community workers all the support they get to have those great relationships with local people and to understand their clients to help them make sure that they get the right medical treatment as early as possible, and that's what this Budget delivers. My second point—I was going to do three, but I think I'm out of time, so I'll go straight to the amazing game development rebate, which is at the other end of the scale. This is looking to our long term. This is enabling us to be the smart, nimble, and really creative little country that we are by making sure that we back these small gaming industries. By having the 20 percent rebate, we will keep those companies here in New Zealand, and we will make sure we have jobs for our kids that they can aspire to grow into. I've visited PikPok, I've visited CerebralFix in Christchurch, and on Friday, I'll be down in Dunedin with the Prime Minister to meet more of those local gaming industries—along with Ingrid Leary—and, look, all of those ones that we visit say how important it is to back this industry. I mean, PikPok, for example, develop amazing stuff. They're one of the big leaders in game development on phones and apps, and they've got a new one out that those members opposite might want to take note of and download. It's called Clusterduck. You can breed ducks, and you go check it out. It's a great game and it's doing very well. Clusterduck is doing very well for PikPok, and you might want to check that out, I say to those members opposite. It's great—it's a good game. So what does that do for our young people? It means that we've got creative people who think outside the square having jobs here in New Zealand, and it means that we have an industry that's generating a lot of money, not just in our own country but also overseas. Some of those big exports offshore are really driven by having the backing of Government in this space. We knew for a fact that Australia was coming here and headhunting some of our key developers, and that's why it was important to keep them right here. We want weightless exports. We want a high-skill, low-wage economy, and we—a high-skill, high-wage economy, and making sure that we do— Hon David Bennett: And a low-wage economy. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No, what National wants is low wages; we're the opposite, Mr Bennett. We want high wages, and we want to make sure we keep emissions down by having smart schemes like this to make sure that our young people have opportunity and that our Kiwi businesses that are innovative get the backing they need to thrive and grow, and to make sure that we have a strong economy that gives our young people huge opportunities. This is a great Budget, and I look forward to all of the further opportunities that it brings New Zealand. Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak to this Budget. Let's start with the prescription co-pay, first of all. The policy of this Labour Government is to fund the wealthy for free medicines. That's what this is. It's medicines for the wealthy, it's drugs for the wealthy. That's what this Labour Budget policy is. It fails every sense of equity of access, where the wealthy get the same benefit as the vulnerable. So here's a question to the other side: given the policy removes the co-pay for those who pay $5, will it also be removed for Australian and UK tourists who currently pay a $5 co-pay? Is the Government now subsidising tourists as well? Explain that to us. This Budget co-pay policy is better called "Labour's Drugs for the Wealthy". That's what it is. And it's not surprising that the media called it "silly" and "garbage"—not my words. On the day of the Budget, "a silly policy" and "garbage policy" is what independent commentators called it. We had a co-pay policy already in progress that we've announced that removes the co-pay but targets the most vulnerable. Three entities: community service cardholders, beneficiaries, and SuperGold cardholders—everyone that that the opposite side is talking about who will benefit by removal of the co-pay, but those who can pay are then asked to pay the sum of $100 capped, in total, per family for a year. The Government says it'll benefit 135,000 adults who didn't collect their prescription. Here's the question: isn't it highly likely that many of them are community service cardholders, are SuperGold cardholders, and are beneficiaries? Surprise, surprise—exactly those who we were anticipating targeting. And if you don't think that's correct, then show me the data. Show me the data on community service cardholders, beneficiary, and SuperGold on that 135,000 people that you're claiming did not collect their prescriptions, and I bet you'll find they sit well within our policy. So why make a universal policy? Our policy is targeted. Well, Grant Robertson actually had something to say about that. When asked immediately after the Budget why the co-pay was universal, Grant Robertson said, "We don't means test health." Now, let me just think about that for a minute. "We don't means test health."—what a load of rubbish. He's already damaged the economy. Don't come into health and do any more damage than Ayesha Verrall and Andrew Little have already done—they're doing fine, thank you very much, Grant. They don't need you to make it any worse. But, no, no, he had to open his mouth and say, "We don't means test health." Explain to me, then, the means test for the community services card, which accesses health services, or the aged residential care summary that has a financial means test, which also comes from Vote Health. Of course, as a Government, they means test health, and so for Grant Robertson to use that as an excuse was pathetic and it showed he did not understand the domain. Go back and keep ruining the economy, don't come and ruin health. They're doing a good enough job by themselves, thanks very much. There's also a trust factor here, with Minister Verrall, on 2 May, two weeks before the Budget, when asked if she would remove the co-pay, telling Pharmacy Today, "The Government still has no plans to scrap the co-pay." Two weeks before the Budget, when asked by Pharmacy Today, "Would she remove the co-pay?", she said, "The Government still has no plans to scrap the co-pay." Clearly, that was not correct, and it calls into question what other statements—presently, in the past, and going forward—we should also anticipate as being not correct, when she will blatantly tell journalists that "No, we are not considering removing the co-pay." no more than two weeks before she did. I think there's a credibility issue right there. Let's look at how the Budget 2023 weaves into the campaign Budget 2020 and the promises they made. This is the campaign 2020 Budget from the Labour Party and their three budgets they've now had to address these issues. Let's see how the final Budget did—the last one they're ever going to do, and my goodness, we all hope it is the last one. But the last Budget they did just a few weeks ago, let's see what they said. Campaign 2020: fund 20 additional mobile dental clinics. Where are the dental clinics? This was the last Budget. Where are they? Campaign 2020 promised $37.5 million. Where are they? I asked Andrew Little where they were and, in fact, the media did when they asked them the same question when it didn't appear in 2021 Budget or in the 2022 Budget. Here's what Andrew Little said: "The Government is still committed to its dental policy. That's our promise we went with into the last election. We haven't got it in this Budget, but we've got two more to go and I'm determined we will fulfil that promise. We don't get to do everything in a single Budget. It remains a promise to be fulfilled by us, but we're in Government for three years. This is the first Budget of that 3-year period and we'll come back again. We have that commitment and I'm determined to see it through." There's the first failed campaign 2020 promise. The 20 mobile dental caravans disappeared. Let's look at what else was a campaign promise—and if it wasn't so sad, this would be a comedy—Labour will reduce planned care waiting lists by investing a further 200. How's that going for you? How is it going for you reducing the playing care waiting lists? I can tell you: they've quadrupled. They've expanded way beyond what they were when we handed over in 2017, and yet, in your 2020 campaign promise, "We will reduce planned care waiting lists."—no, you won't. You won't. You have no chance of reducing them by the time of the campaign. In fact, with the winter coming up, it's highly likely to be worse. There's two failed campaign promises that this Budget had its last chance to attend to, particularly with the 20 mobile dental caravans, and they just did not appear. They disappeared: the first failed 2020 campaign Budget. I want to talk now about the concern I have with how bad the health system is, and I want to ask the question why Ayesha Verrall hates the Waikato. That's the question I want to ask. Why does she hate the Waikato? Why I say that is because we are aware of several things. First of all, when ambulances divert, it's a big deal. This was a diversion from Auckland Hospital on 8 March. So that's front page news, it led television 1News. When ambulances divert, effectively you shut the hospital and say, "Drive past us and go somewhere else." Front page news, it led 1News, and all the rest. OK, explain to me why, then, last month, in the month of April, Waikato Hospital had three ambulance diversions in the month of April? The instructions to the diverting ambulances, because Waikato Hospital was so full, was that the ambulances could divert from Matamata, and I think it was Te Aroha, and maybe go to Tauranga. That was the advice: "Don't come here, we are full. Go to Matamata or Tauranga." That's a tragedy. Who would have known that there were ambulance diversions at Waikato Hospital last month and, indeed, that an ambulance did divert? The Minister wrote to me, in written question No. 11431, that an ambulance did divert to Tauranga Hospital—unbelievable. Ambulance diversions at Waikato Hospital last month, and yet we have no remedy for Waikato Hospital. It is not one of the eight emergency department (ED) hotspots. How do we explain that? One of the most troubled EDs—they've got ambulance diversion, for goodness' sake—and they're not one of the eight hotspots. Even worse, Minister Verrall's vaunted winter plan: minor ailments for pharmacists; it arranged 24 things, actually. Explain to me why Waikato is not part of the winter plan. How does that work? I've just said to you that they had three sets of diversions in April, that at least one ambulance was diverted to Tauranga—and it is not a short distance if you're going from Matamata or Te Aroha and you go past Waikato Hospital and go all the way to Tauranga. That is not inconsequential. And yet, Waikato Hospital is not considered an ED hotspot and Waikato Hospital does not get the winter ED plan. It was something that said that pharmacists, for example, could deal with minor ailments, and yet Waikato is one of about 10 regions, as we add them up, that is not part of the winter plan. I come back to my first statement: why does Minister Verrall hate the Waikato? I think that needs an explanation. Because every action she does, every indication she gives is that she hates the Waikato, and they are desperate and they need help; not to be dismissed by a Minister who's out of touch and won't even call it a crisis. I want to talk, then, to GPs. GPs are finding it very hard-going. This statement—so the Minister made an announcement about a nursing pay boost and in that same day, one of the GP organisations replied, "Nurse pay boost announcement is premature and insulting." Eight percent was the average rise. They were having discussions the day before with the Minister and she went out, pre-emptively, and already said what they were going to get. Let's look at the 2022 Budget that had $44 million to community care coordinators. Turns out none of that has been spent because they can't organise themselves into what community care teams should be. When I asked the Minister, "Well, what sort of roles could it be?", she said, "Well, care coordinators, pharmacists, physio, and kaiāwhina." I then said, "And how much might they be paid?"—and here's what's riling general practice up. So in this Budget, this Government is going to pay a care coordinator $127,869 a year, a pharmacist $158,242, a physiotherapist $148,936, and a kaiāwhina $99,784—all for teams that haven't even been constructed yet, and they haven't used any of the 2022 Budget. This Budget is a shocker. Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Tēnā koe, te Mana Whakawā, ngā mihi. What a negative, niggardly speech. It must be frustrating for Dr Reti, the spokesperson on health, to find out on the news what the National Party health policy is around prescription charges. Make sure you switch on in a timely fashion because it changes with every news bulletin. First of all they were going to cancel the prescription charges, now they're going to bring them back in some muted way. But I can tell you that in my visits, and my email in-box is full of pharmacists, saying that this is a good policy. A good policy for a number of reasons, but most fundamentally because it makes sure people are healthy. And yes, those people are our elderly, our low-income people, our weak, and our vulnerable. But what would they do? They would get rid of them. On the one hand, we can take peoples' health seriously, removing prescription fees; 100,000 healthier, warmer homes; and national super to stay at age 65. The choice for New Zealand here is clear. What would they do? Impose prescription charges, raise the super age, and not fund healthier homes. Now, the real policy driver over there sits a bit to one side, really, doesn't it? Because it's a coalition that they're looking at, and it is a "chaotic coalition of cuts". They haven't even got a policy out there, but I took some time to read the ACT Party's manifesto. Look, KiwiSaver: we are going to fund KiwiSaver whilst parents are on parental leave, to make sure that people, when they end their working life, aren't disadvantaged by looking after their kids. What would the other side do? Have a look at the policy—the alternative budget that's out there. They would ditch the Government KiwiSaver subsidy. They would make people retire poorer. They would raise the superannuation age. That is appalling and it doesn't look after those that need it most. And what would they do about carbon? How would they decarbonise? We've got the Clean Car Discount, we've been putting money into rail, we're investing more into charging stations so that people can use their electric cars. What were they going to do on the other side of the House? Repeal the zero carbon Act. That is the policy that is out there at the moment. The "Great Leap Backwards" is what we would get from the other side of the House in Government. So think very carefully about the choice that you have. What are we going to do for children and families? Extend 20 hours free childcare to under-twos. What would that side do? What's in their alternative budget? End the Best Start payment. End the payment to give kids the best start that they can. That's what the "coalition of cuts" are going to do. They're going to try and find money by stealing kids' lunches, basically. That's basically where we end up—by taking food out of children's mouths. Here we are supporting our most innovative industries. We're supporting film. We're supporting our innovative gaming industry. I have received correspondence from gaming developers in Christchurch saying: "We need this. We will now stay and employ young people in Christchurch in this industry." What will the "coalition of cuts" do? Read their alternative budget. Ditch the film rebate—the rebate that has a thriving film sector in New Zealand; one of the lowest carbon, highest value industries we have, they would cut it off at the knees. So what have we got here? We've got a party on this side of the House who's willing to see New Zealand grow in a low-carbon way, look after those that need it most. And what do we have over there? Parties committed to a low-wage, low-care economy. Over here we're growing wages, we're growing the economy, inflation is falling. And what does the alternative budget say? Freeze the minimum wage for three years. Over that side of the House, that's what you'll be getting: freezing the minimum wage. And they have the audacity to pretend that they're telling a high-wage story. It's absolutely false; it's unconscionable. This side of the House cares for people. And we know that by growing the economy, by putting money where it's needed, by building long-term and resilient infrastructure, we can do that. Over there, the "chaotic coalition of cuts" will undercut everything we've worked for and earned. This is the Government that does this. Stay here, vote Labour. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you, Madam Speaker for this opportunity to talk about the great Wellbeing Budget 2023: Support for Today | Building for Tomorrow. I'd like to focus a bit on that "Building for Tomorrow" part and talk about infrastructure. It's a wonderful thing to talk about, and it's something that this Government has been very focused on. We started up the Infrastructure Commission, and that group produced a strategy. In response, on the day of the Budget, the Infrastructure Action Plan was launched—or shown to the world. This document is a very important one. It includes 331 actions—you can see them, "Actions at a glance", if you have a look at that action plan. It includes strategic objectives, and one of those is for a circular economy. This is a key Government work plan that goes with that circular economy. We have the Construction Sector Transformation Plan, the Emissions Reduction Plan, and, of course, the Waste Strategy, which Minister Parker launched in March. Then you can got to "Annex 1" of this plan and it includes these 331 actions and the time frame table. Under the "Expected Completion Year: 2025", for instance, that includes progressing bans for hard-to-recycle plastic packaging and enabling business to reduce food waste, as an example. It's a very important plan. I haven't heard that many people talk about, and it's something that I commend to anybody who is interested in the future of New Zealand and how we're going to do infrastructure well to have a read of that. Also in the Budget, there was the $100 million for the new infrastructure delivery agency. So this is for central Crown infrastructure, it was formerly Ōtākaro, and it's really for those agencies that don't do the day-to-day delivery of big infrastructure projects and, of course, there are a lot of those in central government. So examples are Archives New Zealand are building a new building here in Wellington; that's not something that they're expert with, so this new infrastructure delivery agency will be able to help—also helping the plant and health new environment biosecurity facility. Also in the Budget is the $6 billion National Resilience Plan. This is both to respond to the more immediate cyclone recovery and to futureproof our infrastructure. A softer form of infrastructure—it depends on your definitions—is housing. It's obviously incredibly important to our people, and the Budget provides for an additional 3,000 new public houses. In addition to those new houses, there's also the Warmer Kiwi Homes grants—for another 100,000 houses to receive those. Huge wins with that increased insulation, in terms of the health benefits you get with houses being warmer as well. Also on infrastructure, we can think of roads and what goes on roads and why we need more roads. Sometimes it's because people aren't using public transport. So encouraging public transport has a benefit for congestion, which we heard Minister Michael Wood talking about in question time today. It's going to be free for under-13-year-olds and half-price for those under-25-year-olds. This also reduces carbon, and it helps with household budgets. Another issue that we face as a country is distributed renewable energy—particularly when we have natural hazards, not everyone can get power back. So there's $50 million here for energy resilience of low-income and energy-insecure communities. That's something I'm very pleased to see. There's also $39.2 million for improving the mapping of New Zealand's coastline and identifying coastal areas of significant risk of climate-related hazards and natural disasters—also very important for infrastructure planning and important for the part of the world that we come from. There's an increase in electric vehicle (EV) chargers, and, of course, it would be remiss of me not to talk about the scrapping of the $5 prescription fee. That policy work, coming from the wonderful University of Otago, the centre of public health, Professor Pauline Norris there doing a really good study showing that that removal of the $5 decreases hospital admissions and the length of stay in economically deprived areas. We're also increasing EV chargers around the motu. It's a great Budget. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I did an interview with One News on Sunday, and the very first question they put to me was "Does the Labour Party have any new ideas?" Because they, like the public, have realised that after this Budget this is a tired old Government that after six years has absolutely nothing new to offer. The Labour Party talk about their vision, but what we end up with is rehashed, reheated, and recycled, tired, old ideas that will not take this country forward. Instead of serving up vision, they are serving up old, reheated ideas. The fact that Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson had to spend so long in their speeches at the party conference on the weekend talking about the National Party was to make up time in their speeches because they were so devoid of any actual new ideas or vision to take this country forward. Nothing they had to say was of any value. No new ideas, no vision, no aspiration. Nothing to transform this economy. Nothing to fix our broken health system. Nothing to reduce crime. Nothing to fix our dismal results in education. With crime out of control, with gang numbers up 200 in the last two months alone, with shopkeepers literally putting themselves inside cages to keep themselves safe, with a ram raid every 15 hours, with violent crime up 33 percent, we get Ginny Andersen telling us that she feels safer—Ginny Andersen telling us that she feels safer. No new ideas. A few more fog cannons. Just more out-of-touch Ministers telling us that we should feel safer because they do. Well, good on you, Ginny Andersen. With a health system that is so in crisis that we have 35,000 people on surgical wait lists, 54,000 people on a waitlist for their first specialist appointment, and people waiting on gurneys in corridors in hospitals because they cannot get in to wards. What do we get? We get a letter. We get a letter sent to those 30,000 people on the waitlist asking them if they still need that surgery. This is the new ideas that we get from this Government. What we don't get is how do we improve the number of surgeries that our old district health boards but new Te Whatu Ora are doing? We don't get any new ideas on how to drive efficiencies in the health system, how to do more surgeries, how to incentivise and give targets to Te Whatu Ora. We just get tired old ideas of megamergers and centralisation that inevitably, as we all know, lead to worse outcomes for the Kiwis out there who deserve better. With an economy that is in the bottom quartile of productive economies in the OECD. You would think that after six years of this Government that we would have some vision, some aspiration, some solid economic plan to drive sustainable growth so that we can favourably measure ourselves against those other small advanced economies. The Government has the ability to do something about this, and Grant Robertson has done absolutely nothing. In this Budget we got no new ideas, no vision, no ability to grow our economy so that we can deliver better outcomes for Kiwi families. With an education system that in Minister Hipkins' own words over the weekend should have "the power to transform lives". We have 11.7 percent of our decile 1 kids able to pass a basic literacy and numeracy assessment at age 15. Only 30 percent of those same decile 1 kids are going to school regularly—the highest rate of unenrolled kids we've ever had in this country, under Chris Hipkins' ministership as education Minister. For a Labour Government that spews forth platitudes and empty words like from Hipkins over the weekend: "I remain as committed today as I was 20 … years ago as a student protester to breaking down the barriers to participation in education at all levels." For those young people who rely on an education system the most to transform their lives, to lift them out of poverty, to change their circumstance, this Labour Government has failed them in the most insidious way, because education is the great empowerer. It is the lever that we use, that our young people use, to change their lives. The quality of their education should not be dictated on what their parents do or where they live. Yet the record of this Government is something to be utterly ashamed of. Chris Hipkins' words are empty. His Government is tired and there is nothing new in this Budget or in his announcement over the weekend that will see kids achieving at the very highest level. National is the party of educational achievement. We are the party of educational aspiration. We will get this right. We have already announced our first education policy of many to be announced, Teaching the Basics Brilliantly, to set kids up for a life of success by focusing on literacy and numeracy, guaranteeing that no matter where you live you have access to the same curriculum, the same core content knowledge, no matter where you go to school. To guarantee that every single child gets an hour of reading and writing and maths every single day. To guarantee that teachers get the professional development that they need in literacy and numeracy. And to guarantee that every single child will have their progression monitored and reported back to parents. We will set a goal of 80 percent of our kids at curriculum by the time they hit high school so that they have every opportunity to succeed at high school. And we will get our kids back in the top 10 of international rankings. But what we've had from Labour in education is a moral and a social failure. Chris Hipkins' words at conference were empty. They sound good, but when you look at his record as education Minister for over half a decade you find a trail of failure from the megamerger of our polytechnics, which is a variation on the same tune as the health outcomes, which are totally dismal, which we've seen this Government sink $200 million to solve a $40 million deficit. And what have we ended up with? Well, we're going to find out later this month but what it sounds like is between a $60 and $100 million deficit and fewer people training at our polytechs. That's what Chris Hipkins has delivered as Minister of Education. It's been an absolute, unmitigated failure. In six years, he has not been able to get our kids going to school more than 50 percent of the time. And you know, they use these patronising and useless campaigns: Every Day Counts. And what do we see? We see our kids going to school regularly less than 50 percent of the time, and we see, what, one attendance officer in the 84 that they promised in the first three months of that policy being delivered. And I need to talk about the flagship policy of this Budget, which is now lying in tatters around the feet of Jo Luxton, a Minister who should know better because she owned an early childhood education (ECE) centre herself and then said publicly, "I don't know why 75 percent of the sector say it won't work". Well, maybe you'd know if you'd talked to them before you launched the policy. Nobody knew about it. The whole sector is saying, "Well, actually, if you'd come to talk to us, Minister, we would have told you that it doesn't work". Well, guess what? Now 90 percent of the sector have signed that same letter and are coming to a meeting in a couple of days' time in Jo Luxton's office to tell her why this policy won't work; because it was funded on a one to 10 ratio. No one in the whole country for the two- to three-year-old age group works on a one to 10 ratio. Hon Jo Luxton: Yes, they do. ERICA STANFORD: Oh, maybe Jo Luxton does. In the two-year-old room? I have yet to walk in to any centre that operates on one to 10. That's what they're doing to the sector, which will mean that fees will have to go up to compensate for those free hours. So if you have a baby at ECE, if you have a child who is doing more than 20 hours, expect their fees to go up or the ratios to head up to one to 10. If that's what the Minister wants to happen, well then good luck to our under-threes in a one to 10 ratio, which cannot be described by anyone as safe. Or what will happen is that centres will just opt out altogether of 20 free hours because they cannot make it work. And guess what'll happen? Fees will go up. Ninety percent of the sector have now signed this accord, telling the Minister that her policy was rushed, it was ill advised, it was not consulted on, it will not work. And for all of those families out there who believed this Minister and believed this Government on Budget day, that they were somehow going to get $133 a week, well, there will be a backtrack. And I am sorry to those people who believed this Government that they were going to get some help with the cost of living in their childcare policies. We have put forth a childcare subsidy that was welcomed by the sector, that is workable, that puts money back every fortnight in parents' pockets for every age group, no matter where your child is at ECE. This policy is in tatters around Jo Luxton's feet and she is going to have to fix it; so watch out for a back-track. National are the party of new ideas. We are the party to make sure that we're going to get our health, our education, our economy, and law and order back on track, and bring on October. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This a split call. I call the Hon Jo Luxton. Hon JO LUXTON (Minister of Customs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that from the party of backtracks, the party of flip-flops. Honestly, one has to wonder—one has to wonder. Then we hear from that member that this side of the House has no vision. Well, hang on. What is the vision that we hear from the opposite side? Boot camps. Woah, tax cuts for the rich. Well, that's visionary. We hear about the current rates of children that aren't doing so well in our NCEA levels. Well, what Government was in power and had national standards in when those children were attending school in their most formative years? Honestly, I can't believe the stuff that comes out from that side of the House. Well, I want to commend the Hon Grant Robertson for this Budget. It is a Budget for the times, and it focuses on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. It supports New Zealanders with the cost of living, it delivers services that New Zealanders can rely on, and it has fiscal sustainability. It's balanced and it's targeted, and I want to congratulate the Minister for it. One of the things I want to talk about, first and foremost, is something that is near and dear to my heart, and that is ending the minimum wage exemption for those who have disabilities. For whatever reason it is, it is currently legal that they are able to be paid less on the basis that they are perceived to be less productive. That is just wrong and that is discriminatory, and so I am really proud of the fact that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan has brought this to the Budget. We will see those people, or some people, on the disability benefits— Erica Stanford: Come on, tell us how your ECE policy's going to work. Hon JO LUXTON: —that will now receive the minimum wage, and that means a lot to those people. I'm really proud of that. Ms Stanford is very keen to hear about the 20 early childhood education (ECE) hours, so I will talk about that because that is something that I am quite proud of, because it will save parents up to $130 a week in their back pocket, unlike what we've heard from the Opposition, where they may save up to $75 unless the centres just do a workaround and charge fees for that. This Government has put $1.2 billion into the early childhood sector in this Budget, a record amount of money into the sector, because what we saw under the previous Government was not much at all. Actually, I find it really interesting that, recently, I was talking to a previous Minister of Education from another party in this House who loves the 20 free ECE hours policy that this Government is putting forward. What that policy will mean is that it will break down barriers for those who could not normally afford to pay for early childhood fees. We have the most expensive fees in our early childhood sector, some of the most expensive around the world, and what this will do is it will reduce barriers to education. Education is the most transformative influence in our lives. It is one that overcomes every disadvantage with which a child might begin life. That is something I said in my maiden speech, and that is something that I absolutely hold dear. What this will mean is that parents who want to return to the workforce, perhaps they want to return to study but are finding early childhood fees unaffordable as they stand—this provides opportunity. I do want to say that the Hon Dr Megan Woods mentioned before that this has been the Budget for women, and it has. It is largely women who are the main caregivers at home, and this will provide opportunity for our women to get back into the workforce, to get back into study, and therefore be able to contribute to the family income. We do know that, currently, families are struggling, and so the ability to have an increased income will benefit families. The ability to save on early childhood fees and have $133 in their back pockets will mean so much to the families here in New Zealand who are facing the cost of living crisis. This policy has families at the forefront, foremost. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The people of New Zealand can trust this Labour Government to put people first. And when we think about it, there are two propositions going into this election. There is "Chippy", the boy from the Hutt, and there is Christopher Luxon, who caught a ministerial limousine down to the Beehive some few hundred metres away to make an announcement. I want to start by apologising to the people that that Leader of the Opposition may have called "bottom feeders", perhaps who don't have $5 to put towards prescription charges. I want to apologise to them for the fact that some people think that that is a "nice to have" policy when we know that there are parents who have transferred 87c from one bank account to another in order to get the medication for their family. I apologise to them. I think of the people in my electorate of Taieri, the people who are benefiting, will benefit from the early childhood education (ECE) changes that will put $133 back into their pockets because we know that more than 60 percent of people who are using ECE are already putting their two-year-olds into care. This is a direct payment back into their back pockets. I think of the gaming rebate for Balancing Monkey Games—in fact, that fantastic little digital games company in the heart of South Dunedin have advocated to get that rebate because they were really struggling, competing with the Australian game producers. I went and saw them—and I want to shout out to Anna and Sam Barham and the team. They are young, ethically driven, they're edgy, they've made amazing games, and they are bringing the digital economy into what was an industrial area. That's a climate change proposition, an ethical proposition, and most of all, it is a jobs opportunity proposition for our young people in South Dunedin. So thank you for advocating, and thank you to the Minister, the Hon Ginny Andersen, for listening to the backbench coalition that were advocating for those changes to make sure that our gaming industry can continue to thrive in New Zealand. Last week, I went down to the Hillside workshops with the Hon Grant Robertson, a place that has benefited over several Budgets to the tune of $105 million. What we are seeing is visible development happening. We are seeing the prospect of many jobs in my area and again economic development for an area that has long been forgotten by other Governments, particularly the National Government who tried to gut it in 2012. So, on the other hand, we have the National Party: slippery and out of touch. They would change the prescription charge. They have changed their policy on tax cuts for the wealthiest of New Zealanders. Remember how long they hung on to that? For months and months and months until finally it was untenable. They let it go. They didn't just do a U-turn on the clean car discount, they did an absolute doughnut. And we have a leader who is prepared to call some of the most deprived New Zealanders "bottom feeders". They are the "coalition of cuts". They are the ones—may I remind you—who cut the Police. They did cut Hillside in 2012. They would cut superannuation to 65-year-olds, 66-year-olds. So unfair. That is a taonga that was created by Sir Michael Cullen, a very proud member who came from my electorate. They would cut basic services, they would possibly cut the changes that we have made to wages for nurses and teachers. And let's remember, some of those wages have gone up for nurses by 30 percent: the top base rate used to be $60,000, it's now in the $90,000s for nurses. And as my colleague, the Hon Jo Luxton said, that is a feminised sector. These are changes for women. These are changes that benefit women. The tax cuts that the National Party would give would be inflationary, it would hurt the poorest New Zealanders, it would also hurt middle New Zealanders. And let's not forget that a vote for National in this election, it's a double deal: two for the price of one. You get National, and you get ACT. And that is what gets me out of bed every day, the thought of the most right-wing Government that this country has ever seen stripping away the benefits to workers and the support and the rights of hard-working New Zealanders is something that gets me out of bed every day. This Budget looks after them. It's a great Budget. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Angie Warren-Clark, split call. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thanks, Mr Speaker. It's a real joy to stand and speak in regards to this Budget. I have been listening along today and I must say—I've turned some speeches off—the Opposition have spent a lot of time using their very, very dramatic hand movements and not saying very much at all. I'm getting tired of hearing their same old lines. I am delighted for us to be talking about this Budget, and it's because we know that it is a bread and butter Budget. However, it's going to bring us back to the land of milk and honey. It is a delightful Budget that is actually focused on not being inflationary, so it's doing some double duty for us. I was recently in Whangārei and visiting Buchanan's Chemist. Buchanan's Chemist is based in Tikipunga, one of the most deprived communities, very close to Ōtaika, which is the most deprived community in the country. They told us that the $5 clearing of the fees is literally going to change a massive, massive thing for the community there. It means, there, essentially, that people are going to get medicine. Now, we know—everyone knows—the shame that people feel when they put they're actually looking and they get asked whether or not they have enough money to be able to afford their prescription. I know the women's refuge women I worked with, we basically had a donor who would support us to be able to pay for prescriptions so our māmās wouldn't be sicker than they were when they came to women's refuge. This is materially going to change the way that we care for our people in this country, and we're really delighted—we're really delighted—for those community chemists and pharmacies that are actually going to be able to continue to work and care for their people. So I am really pleased about that. I'm absolutely really, really delighted—talking to my niece, who has a little 18-month-old. My niece is an occupational therapist. She is going to be able afford less than $133 in childcare when her little Lucy gets to be able to go into free childcare at the age of two. Not only that, my niece is working in the hospital. She's working as an occupational therapist. It means that she's going to be able to do an extra day's work a week, which is going to help her family and also help our health industry. It's a massive win to have that. I cannot understand for the life of me how the Opposition can consider that this is not a good policy. I cannot for the life of me understand how they cannot understand about this double-duty that this policy does. There is one small policy that I really want to talk about as well. This is a passion of mine and something close to my heart. It hasn't been mentioned to date. I'm really delighted with the $13.5 million put into the food rescue or food security funding. I'm really delighted about that, because this is an industry that essentially has stood up every time we have a crisis in the country and has helped and supported with food insecurity. I'm really delighted that this money over the next two years is going to help those services to be able to do what we know they know how to do well, and that is to mobilise and support our communities who are doing it hard. The good thing about it as well, though, I have to say, and I'm really pleased about this, is that, actually, in terms of the cost to the environment and the cost to the community, it is, again, doing double duty. This is a Budget that I'm really delighted to talk about. The Budget adds on the changes that we've had from 1 April, and there's a huge amount of things that we've done. One of the things that I think we all need to acknowledge and recognise is that our super annuitants who are getting the winter warmth payment have also had their increase from 1 April. We continue to care for our super annuitants; we won't be raising the age to 67. Thank you, Mr Speaker. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's an honour to take part in this Budget debate. It's actually only the second time I've participated in a Budget debate, because the first time when I was elected as an MP I was actually on leave for a short time with my baby, who I had while I was an MP. I'm delighted to be able to sit here today in the House with my colleague Steph Lewis, who is another person in our caucus who has become a mother during this term. The reason I mention that is because there's one thing that stood out to me in this Budget, and that was the emphasis and the focus that this Budget has on mothers and people playing that role of mothers. So, famously, the Opposition brought in the "mother of all Budgets", which devastated our social services. This Government, I'm very proud to say, has bought in the exact opposite: a Budget for all mothers. There are a number of things in this Budget that are really, really significant and really look at the way New Zealanders live their lives and how we can make things easier for them in the really normal, everyday bread and butter issues that they face. The first thing is going to work. How do parents go to work? They need, obviously, someone to take care of their children. We've had a very successful policy of 20 hours free from three. We've now extended that to two, and I have full confidence that this policy will work in the favour of parents, people who are actually pulling money out of their back pocket in order to not only be able to pay for good quality childcare but actually go to work. And how are they going to get their children to work? Well, that's another thing that this Budget has: free public transport for those under 13. They don't have to worry about that anymore. By the way, it's also good for the environment. Another thing that happens to parents: children get sick. We know that. Steph Lewis and I know that. It's something that happens all the time, so people have to pay for medication. People have, unfortunately, budgets which often don't stretch for unexpected costs, so even the $5 fee is a struggle for many. This Government is getting rid of those prescription fees, and I couldn't be prouder of a Government that stands for high-quality healthcare and access to high-quality healthcare. There are other things in this Budget which do really help working parents, and especially women. One thing that hasn't been talked about as much, perhaps, but I think is a really significant policy is the policy of the Government matching employer KiwiSaver contributions to allow parents to take the time out to actually take that parental leave and know that it's not going to be disadvantageous to them financially by the time they retire. This is a fantastic policy which really speaks to the values of this Government: equity, equality of outcomes, not necessarily of treatment—of outcomes. So this means that when people retire, they won't have to worry about the fact that there is a deficit. There are also other changes that will affect, really, the whole life of New Zealanders. The changes that we made to the Warmer Kiwi Homes announcement will really help lower household energy bills—another thing, we know, which is affecting the cost of living for New Zealanders. These are all essential changes that have come in that really will help address the cost of living, and I'm so proud of this Budget for that reason. In fact, this Budget was one of the first Budgets to introduce a gender budgeting snapshot, which is a tool which looks at the Budget and how it affects people depending on their gender. I was really pleased to see this included on the Budget. We need to know that the policies that we implement in this House do not have negative effects on people because of their gender, because of their ethnicity, and these types of tools will really assist us to make sure that we can implement policies that help everyone. But what do we hear from the other side? Negativity. Negative National constantly talking down New Zealand and New Zealanders, telling us not only that they don't agree with our policy on prescription fees but they are going to cut it when they come in, making healthcare more expensive for New Zealanders. That's what the Opposition stands for. Absolutely shocking. And another U-turn: they say they'll bring it back in even if it is targeted. Well, let me tell you that better policy is universally getting rid of that fee so people know that when they go to the pharmacy, they're not having to be paying for that additional cost. So I stand by this Budget and the changes that it will implement. It's a Budget for this time. It's a Budget that works for working people, but particularly for working women. It addresses many of the key areas that affect their life as a whole, and I commend it to the House with the original motion. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So this is a Budget that is set in the context of a cost of living crisis. Where every household up and down New Zealand is doing it considerably tougher than they were several years ago. So what is the Government's answer? Let's spend more of their money for them. Let's have higher interest rates for longer. Oh, and let's tell them to have five-minute showers. Let's tell them to unplug their appliances. Let's tell them how to turn the heater down. It just absolutely smacks of complete disregard and a complete disconnection to the reality of the lives that New Zealanders are facing today. And they've only been in five and a half years, so they've completely missed the point. It's quite interesting, because if you think about the $28,000 of extra spending this Government is spending for every household every year, $28,000. So I want—and I know my colleagues are pretty clear about what $28,000 would spend. And remember, this is the Government who believes they can spend that money better than you can. So I invite people, and as I've been doing and around the electorate in the last week since the Budget, how would an individual or family spend that $28,000? I bet you it would be different ways than the current Government. Oh, but they want you to be grateful for you giving your own money back to them and expecting that that's actually purchasing something. Well, let's have a look. Let's have a look at some of the areas. I want to talk about social development and employment and I want to talk about child poverty reduction, because one of the things that $28,000 for every household is buying is another 33,000 people on the jobseeker benefit in the next two years. So the result from that side after six years in office will be an extra 81,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit. Oh, but this is the time that the Minister of Finance says we've got record low unemployment, times are great. Really? Really? Tell that to the people who are receiving the jobseeker benefit. Tell that also to the businesses who have been desperate for staff. When I had Into Work workshops around New Zealand in every region they're like, "Where are these job seekers? Where are these job seekers?" We want people to be in employment, but one in 20 New Zealanders today is in receipt of the jobseeker benefit. It doesn't sound like a success to me. One in five New Zealand children being raised in a benefit-dependent home. And what we do know is that their life outcomes are worse in health, in education, in income, and justice. So what in the Budget was aimed at supporting New Zealanders into work? Oh, guess what? Flexi-wage, the big unemployment initiative funding has been reduced, Māori trades training has been reduced. So instead of actually putting money into supporting people into work and into training so they can stand up on their own two feet, this is the Government when the number on jobseeker benefit is going to increase by 33,000, they're cutting it. They're cutting expenditure—actually, to me, it's actually investment, but they're cutting it. They're cutting funding into programmes that would support New Zealanders into work. And if you look at the businesses out there, the businesses who don't have a business unless they've got workers will be wondering why on earth a Labour Government is supporting people to stay on welfare, to be stuck on welfare instead of supporting them with practical tools into work. Like our Welfare that Works policy. I'm really proud of that, we've focused on a group of New Zealanders, 50 percent of them under Labour, under 25, now long-term welfare recipients at a time we've had record labour shortages. So that is an absolute failure. That is an absolute failure of this Government for not supporting Kiwis into work and meaning a life of less opportunities, less choices because they haven't done the work to support them off welfare. So their flagship policy, Flexi-wage extension, so in the campaign the Prime Minister, it was Ardern at the time, said "We'll get 40,000 people into work." Guess what? They got to 25 and gave up. And now they're reducing the funding into the Flexi-wage extension. Well, I want to know from members opposite, how do you look someone who's out of work in the face and say we're actually cutting support of the things that could make a difference to you and your family and to support you back up again to work? Well, have a look at those initiatives. Much of the employment support is being reduced. [Interruption] They obviously haven't read the Budget so they don't know the numbers. So let's put a few of them on record. What are we looking at in terms of some of the cuts? Some $14 million for Māori trades training fund, $68 million decrease in their flagship Flexi-wage extension—that is about supporting people into work and supporting them to stay in work so they can look after themselves and their families. So not only did they not make the target, they've given up. They have given up. So when we talk about welfare dependency, yes, it's a fiscal cost. But guess what? It's a human cost. And it's a human cost that that side of the House are ignoring. They are ignoring the impact and the impact of the children who live in those households. And you are writing off their futures. Do you know how you reduce benefit dependency? You actually tackle it right at the very start. Instead, that side of the House is willing to grow the number of people, the number of children being raised in benefit-dependent homes, and their outcomes—I will repeat it again: are worse in health, they are worse than education, they're worse in income, and they're worse in justice. So yep, they might say "This was a Budget for mothers." It was definitely not one for children who are raised in benefit-dependent homes, because that side has given up on supporting people into employment and in actually helping people up and on with their lives. It's an absolute disgrace. And so the other side might say, well, you know, we're a bit negative. Well, guess what? Because we actually see New Zealand has masses of potential, but that actually requires you to do something. It's called enforcing the social contract. That if somebody is out of work and they're looking for work, actually, if they're not playing their part, there should be a consequence. It's called a sanction. No surprise that it's dropped by 50 percent since these guys have been in office. What are we seeing? An explosion in welfare dependency. And their very own flagship policy that was to support people into work—Flexi-wage—they've cut it. Oh, so they'd rather that someone, you know, does some training when there's actually a job there tomorrow. A business who was reducing their hours because they don't have enough staff. Some are actually closing— Angela Roberts: Because you need trained people so you get an apprenticeship. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, there are jobs out there today where businesses and people will train you from scratch. And so Labour ignores the very real challenge of people who are on the jobseeker benefit—100,000 of them have been there for more than a year. More than a year. And actually, this side of the House, we believe in people's ability. We believe in people's ability to get back up. We believe in people's ability to look after their families with the right support at the right time. And that's why our Welfare that Works policy engages community organisations who are connected on the ground and actually supports people not only to get a job but to stay in a job. Because again, Labour has failed to support people into work: 22 percent who come off welfare are back on it within 12 weeks. That's a disgrace. And again, you are gutting people of their opportunities. I don't see this Budget as anything to crow about. If anything, it is absolutely gutting to see that opportunities for Kiwis out of work will be failed by Labour. STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It is my privilege to rise and take a call in support of the Budget 2023. The previous member speaking, Hon Louise Upston, talked about the human cost, and I want to touch on the human cost of 135,000 people not being able to afford to pick up their prescriptions. The cost not just to their physical health but their mental health, the cost to their families, to their children, and also the financial cost to our health system when, because they couldn't afford to pick up their prescription because of a $5 co-payment the previous National Government brought in, they end up getting sicker and sicker and sicker, to the point they need to go in and fill our hospitals. The members on the opposite side want to talk about why aren't we doing more for waiting lists. How do we do more for waiting lists? By freeing up our health resources, by making sure that those we can treat at that early intervention level are getting the help that they need so as we can better target our resources and our healthcare professionals in our hospitals. That is why we have brought in a plan to remove the $5 prescription payment as of 1 July this year. Last week we had a recess, and I took the opportunity over recess to go and pop in to a few of my local chemists in Whanganui, and not only are individuals thrilled with our announcement but so are pharmacists. I spoke to pharmacists who have been helping pay out of their own pocket for peoples' prescriptions. I spoke to pharmacists who have been going down the prescription list, trying to figure out which lifesaving, life-preserving medicines somebody should buy this week because they couldn't afford their full prescription list, and which they can afford to defer until next week. That puts a heck of a lot of pressure on our pharmacists. So I want to acknowledge the work that they do to support our communities. The other side has also talked about targeting. Don't make it universal, we should target it. Well, one of the things that the pharmacist I spoke to said is they don't want that. They don't want to have to have a conversation with the people who walk through their doors about money. People who walk through their doors don't want to have to have a conversation about whether or not they are eligible for free prescriptions or whether they are just over the cusp and have to pay for their prescription. This policy is something that will have a huge positive impact on communities across Aotearoa, and I commend finance Minister Grant Robertson and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins for bringing this initiative in. As the local member of Parliament for Whanganui, I also want to do a shout-out and acknowledge the Budget announcement where we'll see a $12.5 million contribution to the design and initial building stage for a new school in Hāwera, Te Paepae o Aotea, which is the new school that has replaced Hāwera Intermediate, following the fire several years ago, and Hāwera High School. This has been a long journey for the community of Hāwera and I am beyond thrilled to see this commitment that will enable them to move forward as a community and for students, teachers, and staff to be on their way to getting a world-class facility that they can be proud of to work and learn in. I also want to touch on the infrastructure component in our budget. We've committed $71 billion across the next five years for new and existing infrastructure investment. And I'll tell you why that's important. So in Whanganui we've got the suburb of Castlecliff, which is protected by the north and south moles at the end of the Whanganui awa. Without those moles, the suburb of Castlecliff would be prone to coastal erosion. But unfortunately, through lack of investment over decades, they were literally crumbling into the sea. It is this Government that has invested in the Whanganui Port revitalisation project, and that is why I'm so thrilled to see a commitment to investing in our infrastructure now and for the future. This is important to make sure that we build back better from that infrastructure deficit that we have inherited as a Government and make sure that we are prepared for severe weather events. Thank you, I commend the original motion to the House. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's with great pride, as the member of Parliament for Ilam, that I rise to take a short call on this Budget debate. Ilam is, obviously, as we all know, the very best electorate in Aotearoa, but it may be one of the most misunderstood. We do have the traditional leafy lanes, we do have wealthy homes there—very lovely they are. But we also have the second largest social housing area, one of the largest number of different ethnic communities, and we also have our fantastic university—the best university in the country. And this makes for a very vibrant, interesting, and challenging place to be and to be the member of Parliament of. It's in this context that I would like to highlight a few aspects of Budget 2023 in which there is, as we've heard, much to love—far more than I can do justice to in the few minutes that I have. Because, unlike many it seems in the House sitting comfortably on the Opposition benches, I know what it means to have to choose between getting a prescription filled or buying a few loaves of what I would rudely call "plastic bread"—the stuff that they sell as a loss leader in the big box supermarkets. I've seen, in my work as a midwife under—it has to be said—a National Government, first-hand what it actually means to be unable to heat your home, to be unable to complain about the black mould in your home that's making your children sick because you can be evicted without reason or notice, to be unable to afford hot water to wash yourself, your children, or your clothes. So I don't mind admitting that I felt extremely emotional when Minister Robertson came before caucus and told us that we were going to be scrapping the $5 prescription fee, because I know what a massive difference this is going to make to the health of our people. If you care about people, then you know how important this is. If you only care about money, then it still makes sense because it saves money on hospital bills from unnecessary admissions. When people are able to pick up all of the medication that their clinician physician has prescribed for them, they often don't need that hospital visit, and that saves us money. We heard from the Hon Rachel Brooking earlier about the research at Otago University that shows that really clearly: 135,000 unfulfilled prescriptions, which is why, when I read on the day of the Budget announcement that National would reintroduce the $5 charge if elected. Matt Doocey: That's right. SARAH PALLETT: That's right, Mr Doocey says. I thought it was a joke—I thought it was a joke. I thought it was a really bad joke in the style of The Onion satire. But then I heard the party double down, and then I found it in black and white. And in my opinion, it is cruel and economically stupid, and the National Party can never, ever claim to care one jot for anyone who is struggling to make ends meet. They oppose for the sake of opposition, for the simple sake of contrariness. And at this point they've had to walk back so many policy statements or clarify so many positions that barely any of us know, including their own benches, what they stand for now. Whatever the most powerful lobby groups think is probably what they want—whatever their most largest donor thinks. Who knows? Who knows what they think? They don't. They don't communicate it with each other. Simeon Brown says one thing one day, walked back the next. You cannot trust a word the National Party says. You can't trust a word they say. You can't trust a picture they publish. You can't trust them even on legislation they co-wrote, which would be funny if it wasn't so serious. So when I reflect on whether or not women should trust Christopher Luxon when he says on the one hand abortion is murder, and in the next breath that women's reproductive rights are safe in his hands. The legislation that his member co-wrote is not safe in his hands. The National Party have no idea what they stand for. And that's why you cannot trust a word they say. You cannot trust them to stand by people who have less than they do, because they've shown us really clearly how much they care about the people of Aotearoa, the elderly, the poor, children—not one jot. And I commend this to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour): Yesterday, I was asked by a journalist, in my experience in this House, what had I found most surprising and what were the kind of characteristics of it. I said to him that I found it surprising that we had so much in common in all of the parties but had also found it absolutely surprising what a stark contrast there was between parties, and how much of a difference it would make, who led this country. That's really something I've thought about during the time that I have gone out to my constituency and talked about this Budget, because this Budget does show that difference. I take up that point that was raised by the Opposition that the public needs vision and they need a future. They certainly do. That's why this Budget is about building for tomorrow at the same time as securing people now. I think that the public deserves hope and vision in their future. I want to just talk for a minute about some of the things that I think show that hope and vision belongs in the leadership of the Labour Party. The first thing that I'd like to talk about is actually something that most people wouldn't necessarily think of as helping them, and that is the money that has gone into New Zealand Steel. Now, that, to me, was a big deal because the money that's going into New Zealand Steel is going to take out a whole lot of carbon. It's going to make a huge difference and it's going to make a difference to the planet, it's going that wide. But it's also going to secure a whole lot of jobs in New Zealand that are high-paid jobs. That's the economy we need. We have a problem in New Zealand with not having high enough productivity, with not having higher wages. That's a problem. We have to transform our economy—we have to transform our economy. It is not a matter of having a choice. We cannot have a slow transition; we have got to make a good, sound, and visionary transition. So this helps us do this. This is going to reduce our carbon emissions by 1 percent annually. That's a big amount. It's a big number. It's incredibly important that we get behind enterprises that are willing to do that. It was great that we got behind the gaming designers in this country, in the Budget, because I've met with people who are in those industries, and it's a weightless industry. It's incredibly good for our youth that they've got a place that they can go and be creative and actually just earn decent money. It's a really important thing. That's the kind of economy we have to grow in New Zealand. Would we have an economy like that under National? I seriously doubt it, because it hasn't happened. Everything that this Government does that's proactive gets naysaid; there's always a reason why it's got to happen tomorrow or the next day or the day after that or perhaps the next decade! Anything that gets in the way of the short-term gain is actually being put down, and one of those things I saw on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was the Clean Car Discount. I'll never forget what I saw there, the games I saw being played by the Opposition about supporting what was, in fact, an incredibly effective scheme. It has worked. And it was always just going to happen some other time! It was this; it was that. We have to do these things. We have to be visionary. We have to give people hope. That is incredibly important. Finally, I want to talk about apprenticeships, because they've been raised a little bit here. The Labour Government has committed to making the Apprenticeship Boost permanent. It is so important that our youth don't miss out right now, that they go into high-wage work, and this scheme supports them doing that. That is something we cannot turn our backs on. It is important that our older people have the winter energy payment; it's important that their pensions go up. It's important that our young families get childcare at decent rates. That's all important stuff. It is so important that our children actually get apprenticeships. And what did the National Party do? At its crisis, it cut the apprenticeships. That's the contrast. I pack up. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm very proud to be standing in support of this Wellbeing Budget. We have economists around the world who look to us for our leadership in a just transition and our ability to develop a Wellbeing Budget. It is fairly unique actually, globally, and people look to us and the way that we can look at our economy more broadly than just GDP output. This is about the wellbeing of our children, our young people, our businesses, actually, our economy, and our planet. We've had a lot of conversations about all the wonderful things in the Budget, and just about every speaker on this side of the House has been able to get up and go, "But wait, there's more." We've heard a lot about—and I'm going to focus on a couple of bits that everyone knows are dear to my heart: education and our rural communities. Obviously, extending the 20 hours of early childhood education to two-year-olds is critical. It's a double whammy. Not only is it helping with the cost of living for every household that has to pay, at the moment, for those 20 hours, but it frees parents up to make the choice to go back to the workforce or enter the workforce if they choose to do so. We heard from the other side of the House how concerned they are that we need more workers. This helps households, businesses, and our babies. The other thing that we've heard a lot about us is the scrapping of the prescription co-payments. For those of us who live in small communities, this has a profound impact. We really need our community pharmacies to survive and to thrive. They need to know that our communities don't have to wait to go to town once a week and have those big box pharmacies who can cross-subsidise that $5 subsidy. I need my community pharmacy in my local village to survive. It's really important. We see rural communities and we support them. We've heard a lot about free public transport for our students, for our young people, and the half-price transport, which is great for those of you who have that choice. But you know what's great? —and this is the "But wait, there's more."—we have put in money to make sure that our school bus drivers get the pay rise that they deserve. For those of us who live in rural communities, there are 100,000 students around the country who rely on the school bus service. Those bus drivers are amazing. They do a split shift. They do long trips, sometimes in really dodgy weather, and, you know, some of their passengers can be a little challenging, and that $26.4 million over four years is critical. We need to make sure we have a bus service that is what our rural communities need. We see them and we support them. I want to talk about investing in our future with education. Alternative education got a 30 percent increase per student placement. Anna Lorck: Wow. ANGELA ROBERTS: Thirty percent—yeah. You didn't know that, did you? There's so much great stuff in this Budget, we haven't been able to cover it all. This will impact on more than 2,000 of our precious students to re-engage and stay engaged in education—some of our most vulnerable students in our communities. I want to take this opportunity to shout out to Stacey Seyb and her amazing team at a little alternative education centre in Stratford, Ngā Wānanga o Māui Pōtiki, which means the wānanga of little Māui, and I guess it reflects the really positive approach that they take. They value these students in the way that we value Māui. They see them as inventive and creative and possibly a little bit challenging and not easily put into a conventional box. These people are doing amazing things with our most vulnerable students. They uplift them and they set them up for employment and further education. This will help those providers who have done so much with so little for so long to do a little bit more. Finally, like most of my colleagues, I want to just do another mention of the Apprenticeship Boost. I guess the only thing I want to reflect on here is that when firms are planning and building their workforce, they really need certainty and confidence, and an apprenticeship isn't for a few weeks; it is for years, through thick and thin. We will stand with businesses. This Government is committed to businesses and building a workforce that will ensure a just transition for all of our people. Thank you, Mr Speaker. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to talk on behalf of the National Party on this Budget debate. And I want to start with the interesting event last week—wasn't it interesting that TV ONE Kantar poll, who would have thought a Government, after their Budget, got no bounce in the poll. I would say— Erica Stanford: They went backwards. MATT DOOCEY: They did go backwards, Erica Stanford. I would say that is unprecedented. And it speaks volumes to how, on this side of the House, the Government's side, they think like they're connected to New Zealanders but really they are just in the beltway of Wellington. And what was also interesting about last week was a news item that said Te Whatu Ora—or, Health New Zealand—was going to write to 30,000 Kiwis who are waiting on the surgery list to ask them if they still need their surgery, just in case just magically their surgery needs have disappeared. Thirty thousand Kiwis are going to be written to by Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand to ask if they still need their surgery. And the reason I raise that is contrast what's happening at the moment in the UK; the Labour Party in England is actually advocating to fund the private sector to pick up capacity to reduce surgery waiting lists in the UK. And why is that important? Because every funding announcement comes with an opportunity cost. So they can stand on their side of the House and crow that they've removed co-payments so well-to-do and wealthy people don't have to pay their $5 for their prescription, but the cost that comes at is $620 million. I challenge any Government MP to go out and talk to Kiwis and say, "Right, you've got $620 million, what would you like to prioritise?" And I guarantee you no Kiwi says, "Get rid of the co-payment". They would say there's a range of issues in the health system that you should prioritise for that $620 million, like reducing the surgery waitlist. So Kiwis, when you're out over the next six months talking to your Labour MP—that's if you can find them, because they're missing in action at the moment—and asking why you can't get on the waitlist, it's because they prioritised getting rid of the co-payments for wealthy people over thousands of Kiwis on a surgery waitlist. Who in their right mind would have prioritised that for over $600 million of vital health system funding? And that also comes on the back of another event that happened a couple of weeks ago. A mental health patient waited in the emergency department for 94 hours—four days. A doctor at the time in Auckland emergency department (ED) described it as the longest ever wait in ED history. And what was in the Budget for patients like that, gridlocked in ED? Nothing. In fact, what was even more of a kick in the guts was in the last Budget, 2022, the Government announced $100 million for mental health, $27.5 million of that for crisis respite beds who might have prevented that vulnerable Kiwi waiting four days in ED. And do you know how much of that $27.5 million had been spent by March? Zero—absolute zero. And what was interesting, the Health and Disability Commissioner at the time of the reporting of that vulnerable Kiwi stuck in ED in crisis for four days called on the Government for a plan. Who would have thought a Government that came in to power six years ago, promising to transform the mental health system, and the Health and Disability Commissioner is calling on the Government for a plan in mental health. Two years ago, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, in their first damning report—which found despite the $1.9 billion for mental health the Labour Government had made no material improvement—they also called for a plan. Here we are, six years in. So it's not surprising in this Budget mental health was hardly mentioned. In the old days the $1.9 billion was like a trophy; they paraded it around. They don't mention it much these days, a bit like a millstone around their neck, a bit like the 40-odd recommendations from their mental health inquiry just quietly shelved away. And what's concerning today in the UK, as well, which has come out through The Guardian, the police in the UK have said to the health services in England they are no longer going to respond to mental health crisis call-outs unless there is life at risk. We're no different over here. The Canterbury police have said 55 percent of their work is responding to mental health crisis call-outs. Where was the acknowledgment of that in Budget 2023? Because the history of the mental health co-response services is that under the last National Government in Budget 2017 Bill English announced $100 million for mental health social investment projects. One of them was the mental health co-response service to pair up mental health professionals to go out with police to mental health crisis call-outs. Labour came in, after promising to transform the mental health system, and cut that. The first thing they did in 2018. There you had the last National Government, Bill English, $100 million for social investment to go into co-response services to make sure that when vulnerable Kiwis ring up in their time of need for a health response, they don't get a criminal justice response. That's happening today. The last National Government was actually ahead of its time. They were ahead of the curve. This Government's come in, they cancelled the funding, and every Budget we wait for them to reprioritise that funding again for co-response services and in this Budget they didn't deliver. Here we go: 55 percent of police time is taken up with mental health crisis calls. There was nothing in this Budget for them. So they can talk a big game about mental health. But here we have, once again, Budget 2023 was about waving the white flag in mental health. The biggest barrier to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand is the mental health workforce crisis. There was nothing in the Budget to address that. And so you know it's time for a Government to move on when they run out of ideas. These guys are absolutely bereft of ideas in mental health and in health. And their only—or their biggest—flagship policy was to remove co-payments, a $5 co-payment for well-off Kiwis. And then they crow, "Oh, I've spoken to a pharmacist who's really supportive of this". Well, I'm not surprised they're really supportive of this. This helps their business model. They got rolled by private business. Think of where you could have prioritised $620 million in the health system, and I guarantee you Kiwis would have come up with a better option than this. So I'm not surprised. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission's calling for a mental health plan six years in from this Labour Government, the Health and Disability Commissioner is calling for a plan six years in of this Government. We actually have no plan in mental health. What's very interesting is the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will release their next report into mental health tomorrow. I guarantee what it's going to show, just like written parliamentary questions are going to show, skyrocketing vacancy rates in our mental health workforce, numbers accessing services are dropping. The mental health inquiry found an indicative target; we needed to increase access from 5 percent to potentially 20 percent of the population—$1.9 billion; we've made no difference under Labour. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Doocey. Just before I take the next call, can I just compliment the member on speaking without notes. There's been a lot of members who are reading speeches, so it's encouraged that members actually stand up and speak without notes. So I'll compliment the member on that—to bear no relationship to what was in the speech, I might add. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I move, That this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to. Debate interrupted. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is adjourned and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.