2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What reports has he received on Budget 2009?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
The reports we have received on Budget 2009 are almost all positive. Most ordinary New Zealanders understand that the Government has made pragmatic decisions that will keep this economy on the right track and ensure that they do not face large burdens of debt and higher interest rates in the future, which they would have done if the Government had not struck the right balance between supporting the economy in the short term, and supporting thousands of jobs, but in the long term making sure that our debt does not get out of control.
As I told the House last Thursday, protecting the most vulnerable has been a priority in Budget 2009. The Budget maintains New Zealand superannuation at 66 percent of the average wage, to be paid at age 65, and it maintains benefit levels, student support, and Working for Families. We have managed to do this despite facing the worst global recession since the 1930s, and despite having inherited an economy that was already in its fourth quarter of recession.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Has the Minister seen the report from Television One’s NZI Business presenter Corin Dann entitled “Super Fund suspension a big mistake?”, and does he agree that his Government has blown its credibility by suspending $37 billion worth of contributions over 10 years and showing no plan for how to make up the difference; if so, can the Minister confirm now whether he plans to vastly increase taxes on our children or to slash the pension available to baby boomers and seniors, in order to make the impossible happen?
I have seen reports like that and I disagree with them. That member should go back and look at the legislation he voted for. It provides a mechanism to ensure that Governments that find they do not have surpluses with which to make contributions to the fund can suspend those contributions. I ask that member why he supported that then but does not support it now, when the Government is facing a decade of deficits.
The Budget supports jobs in a number of ways. Firstly, it supports them through the significant spending programmes that the Government has undertaken, including a major home insulation programme. Our intention is to spend $7.5 billion on infrastructure over the next 5 years despite the fact that the Government’s books are not in great shape. These measures will support thousands of jobs building and upgrading schools, roads, houses, and hospitals. The Government is also supporting jobs through the fact that, because we have debt under control, our credit rating has not been downgraded. That means that businesses will be able to access credit more easily than they would have, and New Zealand householders will face lower interest rates than they would have.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Does the Minister agree with the Sunday Star-Times business columnist, Rod Oram, who said “by scrimping and saving to make the books look better he seriously set back efforts to make this a bigger and more resilient economy”, including his gutting KiwiSaver, scrapping the research and development tax credits, and allocating “a handful of uncoordinated strategy-devoid dollops of money for science”; does the Minister therefore agree that “Overall, one can only wonder how English has spent his first six months in office. … now that he has compromised the present and forfeited the future for New Zealand.”?
I happen to disagree with Mr Oram. He seems to share the view of the Opposition that this is the time to be completely reckless—to borrow as much as possible, and to spend as much as possible. I tell him that both Mr Oram and the Labour Opposition are out of step with the New Zealand public, who have an instinctive and sensible grip of the issues.
Chris TremainThe credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s made an announcement on Thursday that means that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world whose credit rating appears to have improved, if only slightly, as a result of the Budget. That means that the people who lend us money from overseas, who take notice of credit ratings, will now be more willing to lend us money. A Treasury analysis shows that a downgrade could push interest rates up by as much as 1.5 percent. That would mean an extra $50 a week in repayments for a family with a $175,000 mortgage.
Labour does not seem to be concerned at all about the costs. There is no doubt that it is quite clear now that anyone who supports Labour is supporting more debt and higher interest rates.
Mr SPEAKERI ask the front benches on both sides to please show a little respect to their colleagues who are seeking to ask questions.
No, Budget 2009 stops the previous practice of making large, unfunded commitments. The Opposition has not stopped it, and I think the Prime Minister correctly labelled its approach as “Slap-it-on-the-bill-Phil”.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do I need to take a point of order, or are we going to have some intervention at some stage from you to maintain order in the House?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
That was an offensive comment. It was way outside the Standing Orders, and you know it.
I have asked the member to withdraw the comment. I think it is not an unreasonable thing to ask, because offence was taken. We all know that in this House we are meant to use members’ correct names, and the name the member used was not the full name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to withdraw the comment.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you had listened earlier this afternoon, you would have heard many potentially offensive comments being made on the other side of the House. We tend to ignore them, because that is what the rest of the country does. It would only be fair if you were prepared to pull those members up a little more quickly, particularly the member who was just offended by a comment that was freely used in the debate last week with no offence being taken then. I can only assume that the weekend commentary has made that particular name offensive.
Members, there is no need to interject while a point of order is being heard. The point raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is correct. It is true that I have heard some highly questionable interjections coming across the House. I tend not to pull the House up on them, because I do not want to interrupt the proceedings all the time. But I ask honourable members on both sides to please show some courtesy to each other. That is what it is all about; it is about respect for this House and courtesy to each other.