6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he stand by his statement “advice we disagree with is bad advice; advice we agree with is good advice”?
Hon BILL ENGLISHHon David Cunliffe Link to this
Does he consider it good advice that Treasury confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that Government expenditure actually fell, as a percentage of GDP, by a full percent from 1999 to 2008?
Whatever advice Treasury gave to the member, what I can confirm is that in the 5 years to 2009 the actual level, in dollars, of Government spending went up by 49 percent, and in the 5 years to 2010 it went up by 45 percent. This Government is wrestling—
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It cannot be an acceptable precedent in this House for a Minister of Finance, when asked whether a particular statistic was good advice, to answer by choosing a different statistic.
Mr SPEAKERHon David Cunliffe Link to this
Does the Minister consider it good advice that Treasury confirmed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that Government expenditure actually fell, as a percentage of GDP, by a full percent from 1999 to 2008?
That may be correct. As we discussed at the select committee, the actual dollars spent rose by 49 percent in the 5 years to 2009, and this Government is wrestling with the consequences of mismanagement and reckless spending by the previous Government.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Does he consider it good advice, when he created that 49 percent figure by including the effects of inflation, economic growth, economic cycles, calculation and assumption changes, and his own last Budget, in order to overstate the expenditure trend for political purposes—that is, to blame the previous Government?
No. The member is wrong about that. He can look at the figures. They establish what everyone else seems to understand, which is that Labour was a big-spending Government, and we have to shut down that spending.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Is his deliberate manipulation of these figures a precursor to substantial spending cuts in next year’s Budget, as foreshadowed by his stalking horse 2025 Taskforce report?
The Government has been very open about its intentions in respect of Government spending. We want to provide more and better public services for less money. That will be a challenge, because in the last 5 years, up to June 2009—mostly under Labour—Government spending went up by 49 percent when the economy grew by half that amount. Government spending has been out of control. There is a lot of waste and a lot of weak governance, and we are trying to clean it up.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not mean to interrupt the flow, but you were quite precise before about the fact that Ministers need to answer without diving into too much criticism of those who are asking the question. But that last question led off with an accusation that there had been deliberate manipulation of the figures. That is total supposition, it is an allegation, and the Minister should not be put in the position of answering material that has no factual base whatsoever.
No, I ask the member to resume his seat. I assessed that the language used was not abusive. I accept that, strictly speaking, the honourable member is quite right in saying that questions should not contain assertions like that. But I think it was not unreasonable, and members will note that I allowed the Minister in his reply to punch back. He made some comments in his reply that the questioner would not have liked, and that is the way it flows. Had the language been more offensive, I would have stopped it.
Hon Phil GoffHow can he defend his comments about poor economic management, when, during the term of the last Labour Government, Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s both increased New Zealand’s credit rating to the highest level in 22 years; when New Zealand reduced its net debt by 78 percent; and when New Zealand, under Labour, built up net Crown worth from $10 billion to $105 billion? How can he sustain an accusation that is clearly false?
The electorate will be ready to take Labour seriously when it apologises for squandering the best 10 years New Zealand could have had.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
How can the Minister reconcile his statement now that his focus is on getting debt under control with his statement at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that “frankly, I’m not overly concerned about a reduction in debt” when it comes to the cost of superannuation or the cost of subsidising carbon pollution?
The Labour Party, of course, would like the Government to cut national superannuation, but National gave an undertaking about the level of national superannuation and we are going to stick with it. Alongside it, we have to get control of Government spending, which got out of control under the previous Government.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, when this Minister is in trouble on the facts—
Hon Annette King
Hon Clayton CosgroveMembers should not interject when I am on my feet. I called the member for a point of order; he must not start it in that way, because it always leads to disorderliness.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
To rephrase, it seems to me that the Minister has made two errors under the Standing Orders. Firstly, he has replied to a question about Government policy by making an allegation about a policy of the Opposition, for which he is not responsible. That is the first point. The second point is that what he is alleging to be the Opposition’s policy is not, in fact, the Opposition’s policy; it is a fiction. On either ground he is at odds with the Standing Orders.
I am not going to continue this matter any further. What is happening now is a debate under a point of order, and I am not going to allow that. But I note that the Minister, in answering, did refer to an alleged Opposition policy and make a comment about that, which is strictly not within the Standing Orders. However, this question has gone to and fro and both sides have contravened the Standing Orders. I think we had best let it lie. It has been a reasonable exchange up to this point, and I do not want to let it carry on under points of order.