3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he stand by all his recent statements?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is an appropriate way in this House to address a Minister, and that was not it. I ask you to have the Hon David Cunliffe address Parliament appropriately and not be a smart alec.
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to the member and to the House that I was not quick in remedying that situation. The Hon David Cunliffe will not do that again. He will ask his question correctly.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Given the Reserve Bank’s projections of a return to GDP growth, will he now commit to maintaining the level of health, education, and accident compensation services that were built up over the last 9 years and that hard-working New Zealanders once again deserve to enjoy?
We will of course continue to invest in improved health and education services, but I must point out that as a result of the very large expenditure increases made by the previous Government, this Government has very strong fiscal challenges moving ahead over the next several years, and will need to limit additional expenditure to $1.1 billion per annum to bring fiscal expenditure as a percent of GDP under control.
Chris TremainBy how much did core Crown expenditure increase in Labour’s last five Budgets—that is, the 5 years to 2008-09?
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to draw the Minister into debate on this matter, but I believe that it was established yesterday in question time that those numbers include the—
No, the member will sit down immediately. I say to the Hon David Cunliffe that he knows he cannot do that. It is totally outside the Standing Orders to debate an answer by way of a point of order. I invite him to just ask a supplementary question.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Let me rephrase that as a supplementary question. Given that the Minister could not deny, and Treasury confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee only yesterday, that the 49 percent number the Minister has repeated in the House today is complete nonsense because it includes the most recent Budget, which was run by his Government, why does the Minister persist in misrepresenting the reduction of Government spending as a percentage of GDP from 32.8 percent in 1999 to 31.8 percent in 2008?
I think it is important to point out that initially in Labour’s term, during a period of strong global economic growth, Government expenditure did drop as a percentage of GDP. But in the latter years of Labour’s Government period it grew substantially. Not only did it grow, but in the last Budget additional expenditure was appropriated, and a bow wave of expenditure increases meant that this Government inherited expenditure as a percentage of GDP heading to 35, 36, and 37 percent.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
When today the Reserve Bank confirmed that it is actively exploring new tools, such as liquidity policy, dynamic provisioning, and capital policy, to take pressure off the official cash rate, does he still stand by his statement that nothing more can be done to assist exporters and moderate our volatile and overvalued exchange rate?
The Reserve Bank is always looking to fine-tune its monetary policy framework. But I can tell members what this Government is not prepared to do, and that is what Labour suggests, which is to abandon 20 years of a monetary policy framework and not have anything to replace it. That would be the most vandalistic thing that we could do as a Government—to abandon it without even knowing what we were going to do next.
John BoscawenDoes he agree with Treasury’s 19 August paper to him, which concludes that “There is little in the current policy mix that would make a material difference in terms of closing the income gap with Australia.”; if so, has he a plan to achieve the Government’s concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025?
I cannot recall that particular paper. But I can say that the Government does have a plan. It is a very strong plan. I will not take up the House’s time at this point by going through all six pillars of economic growth, but I can refer the House to this particular document that I am holding, which is available and is just one of many documents about what the Government is doing to tackle economic growth and close the gap with Australia.
Phil TwyfordHow does he reconcile his Budget calls for more effective use of taxpayers’ money with the Minister of Local Government’s use of $100,000 of taxpayers’ money for a 12-day world trip, in which he spent only 13½ hours on official, portfolio-related meetings and 3 whole days on a wedding and a visit to an amusement park?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a requirement of the Standing Orders that facts and allegations in a question be validated. A series of assertions in that question are false, and the only validation that Mr Twyford has got is from Mayor Andrew Williams’ madness. I am quite happy to table the document—
No, no—I am on my feet. The member is not actually strictly correct; it is primary questions that must be validated. In fact, for supplementary questions to be strictly within order they are not meant to contain allegations or statements of supposed fact, because they cannot be validated; there is no way of validating them. As personal objection has clearly been taken to the way in which the question was asked, I will invite the member to rephrase his question. Strictly, questions should not contain statements of supposed fact that cannot be validated.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that you are being generous in the circumstances, but the primary question to the Minister of Finance asked whether he stood by all his recent statements. How that links to this particular question, or to the intent of this question, is something I think the House needs to consider. We are getting less and less relevant to the primary question as we progress through the various supplementary questions. I say, Mr Speaker, that that has been happening over a number of days, and we have to be a bit careful about it.
I do not see why I need to hear anything further on that point of order. The point is well made that, in fact, the primary question asked whether the Minister stood by all his recent statements. I accept that that is a wide primary question, but in allowing Mr Twyford to restate his question, I ask him to make sure he reflects on the fact that the primary question does ask the Minister whether he stood by all his recent statements, and to be careful not to insert into the question, where there is sensitivity, an allegation of what is supposed to be fact that cannot be substantiated.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to make it clear, I have consulted the acting leader of the Labour Party in the House today, and the Labour Party will not object if the Minister of Local Government wants to make either a ministerial statement—
The member will resume his seat. Well, that is an absolute abuse of the Standing Orders. If the Minister wishes to make a personal statement, then that is his prerogative; it is not the prerogative of the Hon Trevor Mallard to make such grandiose statements under the guise of a point of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member indicated earlier to the House, by way of a point of order, that personal matters to do with him were incorrect—
I have heard all I need to hear, and the member will resume his seat. The Standing Orders on this matter are very clear: supplementary questions must not contain that kind of allegation. The Standing Orders are very clear on that. Often I allow it because it allows question time to flow more freely, offence is not taken, and it assists the good order of the House. But where a question clearly does reflect on a member of the House, and contains an allegation that cannot be validated, it is wise for the member to rephrase the question in a way that is more consistent with the Standing Orders. And that is the way we will proceed.
Dr Russel NormanI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have missed it, but in the point of order that the Hon Rodney Hide raised, he talked about Mayor Andrew Williams’ madness. You may not have heard it, Mr Speaker. In my view, for the Minister of Local Government to use a point of order to accuse the mayor of one of our largest cities of being mad is a totally unacceptable use of the point of order process, and I would ask you to rule it out. That is what he said.
I can only apologise to the honourable member. I did not hear that, at all. If the member, under a point of order—[ Interruption]—I am on my feet; there will not be any comment—did make some allegation referring to someone as being mad, I ask him to withdraw and apologise for that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling, but I suggest to you that it is wrong, because it is not possible in this Parliament to have to apologise for what one might have said to someone outside, and, secondly, I did not say—
No, no. The member is now starting to engage in a debate with the Speaker over the ruling. The simple matter is that the member said something that was clearly inappropriate under a point of order. Under a point of order one cannot abuse anyone. It is absolutely inconsistent with the Standing Orders. It does not matter who the person is; a point of order cannot be used for that. I am perfectly prepared to be told I have made a mistake, and I am prepared to apologise for mistakes, but I do not believe that was a mistake. I would like the House to make progress, and I would like Mr Twyford to rephrase his question in a way that does not cause offence and is consistent with the Standing Orders.
Does he stand by his calls for fiscal restraint, in light of the Minister of Local Government’s report to Cabinet, released under the Official Information Act, that demonstrates that on a 12-day world trip he spent only 13½ hours on official, portfolio-related business and 3 whole days at a wedding and an amusement park?
The Minister has no responsibility for that particular portfolio, but what I will say is that the Minister of Local Government is doing a fantastic job of unifying Auckland local governance, which will have a fantastic benefit to the economic growth of our largest city. The previous Government took 9 years to think about it, and set up a royal commission. Labour members hate the answers the royal commission gave, and would not have done anything about it even if they had been in Government.
I seek the leave of the House to table the itinerary of my trip, the report to Cabinet on the trip—all of which have been made public—plus the budget for the trip.
Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ Interruption] Was there any objection? [ Interruption] Let me put the question again. Leave is sought to table the documents outlined. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ Interruption] I apologise to the honourable member; there is objection.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the confusion arose because you had been very clear and very forceful about the ability of members to table documents that you judge are easily accessible to members. The confusion came about because Mr Hide in describing the documents said they were already public documents—they were available—and he was seeking leave to table them. I think the confusion was over trying to work out how many of the papers were publicly available. If they all were, then his tabling them would breach what you had told the House—and you have been very tough on the House—about seeking leave to table documents.
I hear what the honourable member is saying. Normally, Cabinet papers are not publicly available, and the member sought to table a report to Cabinet. I did not want to make a judgment on the spur of the moment about whether it was available, and that is why I sought leave. An offer to table Cabinet papers or reports to Cabinet is often a useful opportunity for members.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respectfully suggest that you may wish to ask for clarification from the member, given that at the end of his leave application—and we all heard it—he said that the documents are all public. You may not have heard that, Mr Speaker.