1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What lessons can the Government take for New Zealand’s economy from the current Greek financial crisis?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
The lesson we can take is that in a world where many Governments are borrowing large amounts of money, it is very important to focus on having sound finances. The adjustments in Greece are going to be harsh. It is looking at large tax increases, 14 percent cuts to State pay followed by a multi-year pay freeze, the closure of many agencies, and reductions in pensions. This is somewhere we do not want to go to, and we can keep away from it if we focus on having sound Government finances.
The Greek situation is a more extreme version of the position that New Zealand faced about a year ago, with a deep recession, rising debt, and a credit rating that was perhaps in jeopardy. In such a crisis, prevention is better than cure. Most observers agree that the two best preventive mechanisms are to have a flexible exchange rate and to keep debt at prudent levels. That is what we want to do.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Despite the fact that both Crown debt and unemployment have grown markedly under his administration, does the Minister not think that he is being just a little too hard on himself, comparing his management to that of Greece?
I think, unlike that member, that we have to be aware of where things could go wrong, and the fact is that the forecasts we inherited from that member’s Government when we became the Government were sending us in the same direction as Greece.
What light does the Greek situation cast on alternative proposals for managing the New Zealand economy?
If the Government had continued to manage the economy in the manner that the previous Labour Government was managing it, we would have ended up with ever-increasing public debt and question marks over our credit rating, and we probably would have ended up with some kind of major adjustment programme. Unfortunately Labour has not learnt any lessons from that, and the policies it is advocating now would make things much worse—
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your considered ruling on this matter. Standing Order 377(2) requires answers to be “concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked,” and to avoid “arguments, … imputations, … [and] discreditable references”. It is established that Ministers can refer to the historical record, as the Minister of Finance has done, including the record of former Governments. However, you have previously ruled that hypothetical references to another party’s policies are not within the Standing Orders. Speaker’s ruling 145/4 defines tightly the area of a Minister’s responsibility, Speaker’s ruling 145/7 specifically excludes Opposition policy from that, Speaker’s ruling 153/3 underlines the need for content to be factual, Speaker’s /ruling 164/7 rules out hypothetical references to another party’s policies, and so on. Taken together, the intention of the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings is clear on this matter. It is to facilitate the accountability of the Government to the Opposition’s questions, rather than to allow the Government an opportunity to make up Opposition policy. The Opposition has no problem with having a debate about the previous Government’s record, but we would ask you to consider the matter of whether the Minister has on this occasion stepped across the line into hypothetical Opposition policy.
Mr SPEAKERI say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that a point of order is being considered, so he must not interject. Had the Hon Bill English gone on at some length about Labour Party policies, I would have agreed with the Hon David Cunliffe’s point of order. But there was only the briefest possible reference at the end of his answer. In relation to this whole issue, I would say that if Opposition members do not want Ministers to comment on Opposition positions, they need to be a little more cautious about their interjections. I heard all sorts of interjections as the Minister started to answer his questions today about his having been lucky to inherit good things from the previous Government, and all that kind of thing. So if Opposition members do not want Ministers to comment on either past policy or current policy of the Opposition, they need to be more careful with regard to their interjections. I believe today that the Minister has not transgressed.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To clarify that point of order—I am not trying to relitigate your ruling, but for future guidance—can we be clear that historical references to a former Government’s policy or performance are within bounds, but at least extended references to hypothetical positions that an Opposition might take are out of bounds?
I accept the general point that the member is making. But on this particular occasion, if I recollect what the Minister said, he said something along the lines of the policies that Labour is continuing to espouse would have a similar effect. I do not think there is enough detail in that to argue that the Minister is ascribing hypothetical policies to the Opposition. But I sympathise with the fundamental issue that the member is making.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Can the Minister explain why, when Greek public debt is around 115 percent of GDP and New Zealand’s net debt is around one-tenth of that amount, he is running down his country and putting New Zealanders’ exports and jobs at risk?
I am simply drawing attention to the fact that when the Government came into office, it faced forecasts in the December 2008 Economic and Fiscal Update that showed net debt soaring to 50 percent of GDP and permanent deficits—that is, never-ending deficits and ever-rising debt. That certainly would have been a path to the Greek kind of crisis.