4. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What are the Government’s priorities to support jobs and manage the economy through the recession?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
As the Budget laid out, over the next 4 years the Government will borrow an additional $30 billion to support the economy, and, particularly, to support jobs and help protect people from the sharpest edges of recession. Unfortunately, despite our having one of the more significant stimulus packages among developed countries, unemployment will still rise over the next year or so. The Government cannot turn back the tide of a global recession, but we can take off its sharpest edges and set out to fix the underlying economic problems, which arose from 10 years of economic mismanagement under the previous Government.
How did Budget 2009 contribute to the Government’s programme of supporting jobs and driving economic recovery?
The Government delivered a balanced and responsible Budget that is setting New Zealand on the road to recovery by keeping our credit rating up, which helps to keep interest rates down; maintaining welfare entitlements; investing $7.5 billion in productive infrastructure in the next 4 years; investing $323 million in a very successful insulation and heating programme for 180,000 Kiwi homes; and providing record spending on front-line services in health, education, and law and order.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
If the Government is so concerned about protecting jobs and getting the economy moving, why did it today block the proposed banking inquiry, or does the Minister not care that thousands of businesses are paying way too much for their loans at a time when they can barely meet their payroll costs; and can the Minister confirm which of his big-banking mates got to him or to John Key to force him to roll over and drop National’s own terms of reference?
Mr SPEAKERI invite the honourable member to reflect on whether that question complied with the Standing Orders for supplementary questions. It went way outside them. What is more, it even impugned the integrity of a member by implying that he was influenced by outside forces; that is totally outside the Standing Orders.
The member will resume his seat. So that the House does not waste further time, I will allow the Hon Bill English to answer the part of the question that was relevant.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the question is out of order, it is out of order, and that should be the end of the matter. Labour has used up one of its supplementary questions. The member has been here long enough, and he has been a Minister; he knows the rules. The question was completely gratuitous. At some point, a line in the sand has to be drawn and that sort of thing stopped.
I do not need further assistance on this matter. I accept the point the member has made, but part of the question was in order. I want to make it clear to the Hon David Cunliffe that in future I will rule out that sort of question, but on this occasion I think the Hon Bill English could answer the first part of the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a request that you listen really carefully to the answer and make sure that it too is entirely within order. I think we are—
That cannot be a matter of order, because the Minister has not even started to answer. The member is seeking to influence the Speaker, and that is not on.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you now to rule whether the opening part of that answer was an “in order” response to the part of the supplementary question that you allowed.
The supplementary question was highly political. The bit that was totally out of order was to impugn the integrity of the Minister. It was a very political question and the House is hearing quite a political answer. If members ask political questions, they will get political answers. Do not appeal to me as Speaker to intervene when that is the case.
The nature of the supplementary question illustrates that the Labour Party has not yet learnt that one of the reasons it was kicked out of office was that instead of dealing with real issues, it resorted to dirty tricks. Nothing has changed.
Hon Pete HodgsonI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, it seems to me that what has happened is that the Minister of Finance has answered specifically that part of the supplementary question that you ruled out of order, and, by implication, has failed to address that part of the question that you ruled in order. [ Interruption]
The Hon Annette King should not interject when a point of order is on the floor of the House. I accept that the Minister’s answer perhaps did stray into that part of the supplementary question, but I think there is a huge difference between referring to dirty tricks and actually impugning someone by saying he may have accepted bribes or been influenced by parties outside of this House. The issue of politicians getting up to all kinds of tricks is nothing new, and I do not see it as being out of order. But if the supplementary question had been more straight, I would not have accepted that answer.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It does go to the ruling you have just made, and I ask you to reflect on it. There is nothing in the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings that indicates that members, including Ministers, cannot be influenced by people outside the House. People are influenced; they are advised, they change their decisions, and that is part of being a good Government. You ruled that one cannot say that people have been influenced, but I think you meant to say “improperly influenced”.
We could have taken the advice of members opposite when in Government, which was to spend on everything they could think of and borrow billions of dollars to do it—for instance, $3 billion for the Waterview tunnel. We have not done that, because it would have put New Zealand’s credit rating at risk, and it would have blown out the Government’s books, blown business confidence, and cost thousands more jobs than are currently being lost.
Yes, I have seen a report from 1989, when the then fresh face of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, said: “We will not end unemployment by borrowing to sustain an artificial level of consumption and demand.” I agree with the comments of the fresh-faced Phil Goff, not the 26-years-later, retread Phil Goff.