2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What reports has he received on how the economy is rebalancing towards savings and away from debt?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
Well, we have been trying to help the member, because we are quite worried about his career prospects. The Reserve Bank last week issued data on household financial assets and liabilities for 2009. It showed that households increased their financial assets, excluding housing, by $17 billion last year—the second-largest increase in the last 20 years. It also saw the debt increase by just $5 billion, the smallest increase since 2000. I tell the Opposition that this is a sharp turn-round from the deterioration that occurred under the previous Labour Government, when people saved less and borrowed more.
What trends are evident in household savings and borrowing over the past 10 years; and does the Minister think that members opposite may learn something from that?
Over the past 10 years, because of the economic mismanagement of that Labour Government, household borrowings in New Zealand went through the roof—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last part of Mr Foss’s supplementary question, I suggest to you, was out of order, when he asked the Minister what members opposite could learn from—
Mr SPEAKERThe member will resume his seat. It is up to the Speaker to determine whether the question was in order, and I say there was nothing wrong with the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What possible responsibility could the Minister of Finance have for what members opposite think of something?
He was asked for an opinion, and he gets asked for an opinion every sitting day by members of the Opposition.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Clerk passes to you the intended answer to supplementary question No. 3, you will see a continuation there of the trend that has already occurred, where the Minister responds to a question from his backbench by mischaracterising the policies of the Opposition, for which he has no responsibility. You have previously warned him on that point. But it is intriguing to us to find that in direct violation of your previous ruling, not only is the Minister doing that but in fact his own officials have pre-scripted for him a—
I think I have heard sufficient from the member. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s answer, and if he breaches the Standing Orders I will pull him up.
Over the previous 10 years household borrowing increased significantly, and household savings dropped. The reason for that was the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. We intend to turn that round. The Reserve Bank figures produced yesterday are evidence that that turn-round is beginning.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
How can the Minister take credit for an increase in savings, when he is taking more out of New Zealanders’ pockets through increasing GST, increasing tax on property—which will feed through into higher rents—increasing accident compensation levies, and increasing the tax on student loans?
The member should wait for the Budget to see just what is coming in and out of New Zealanders’ pockets. But I have to point out to that member that the tax revenue the Government will collect this year is unlikely to be higher than it was last year. In fact, the total amount of tax collected has been dropping, not rising—in case the member has not noticed that.
How will the Budget that is to be read this week help to rebalance the economy towards savings, investments, and exports, and away from debt, property speculation, and unsustainable increases in Government spending?
As I have explained to the House, the Government intends to do a couple of things in the Budget. One is to change the tax system, in order to undo the damage done by the previous Government; the other is to bring under control the reckless and fast rise in Government spending and debt—a legacy of the previous Government.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Why does the Minister still maintain that Thursday’s Budget will make tax fairer, when today’s Dominion Post makes it clear that someone on $70,000 a year will get only 50c of tax back a week, but someone on $500,000 a year will get up to $360 a week back; and has the Dominion Post not got it right in saying this is a Budget gift for the rich?
No, the Dominion Post has got it wrong, and I am not surprised at that.
Before the member continues, I ask him to resume his seat, and I say to the Hon Paula Bennett that when a point of order was clearly being heard, for her to make a loud interjection across the House was not good enough for a Minister to do. The Minister should respect the House more than that.
The member who interjects is not being helpful, at all. I am sure that the Minister had not realised what she was doing. I have pulled her up in a fairly pointed way, and it is very unhelpful for the member to interject further on the matter. I will leave the matter there, though. I want to hear the point of order from the Hon David Cunliffe—
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Further to your earlier ruling on this question, Mr Speaker, when you said we should wait for the question before seeking a ruling, I point out that supplementary question No. 3 asks: “What alternative economic approach would jeopardise New Zealand’s prospects”, and the Minister is scripted to respond across half a dozen documents, which he says are the confused policy—
No, the member will resume his seat. This is not a matter of order. I have neither heard this be question asked nor heard the Minister’s answer. The member knows that that is not a point of order.
What alternative economic approach would jeopardise New Zealand’s prospects of getting on top of its debt problem?
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Coincidentally, those are exactly the words that I have just read out. I am very happy if you wish to wait to hear the Minister’s version of the answer.
No, the member will resume his seat immediately, and there will be no noise while I am dealing with this point of order. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the supplementary question asked by Craig Foss. I want to hear the Minister’s answer. The member has not raised an issue of order, at all.
I have seen a range of propositions that are an alternative to what the Government will be proposing in the Budget: to put up personal taxes, to fiddle with the GST system, to borrow more and more money, to increase Government spending rapidly, and to meddle with the Reserve Bank’s tool kit for controlling inflation. As it happens, all of these suggestions have come from the Opposition.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has, with a little paraphrasing, essentially given the answer that he was expected to give. As you have previously ruled, Mr Speaker, he has absolutely no responsibility for the Opposition, let alone the fact that these are not the Opposition’s policies. I ask that for once and for all, faced with absolutely incontrovertible evidence, you clearly rule that the Minister, retrospectively at least, was out of order in his previous answer.
I hear what the member is saying by way of his point of order, but the interesting thing is that the Minister, in his answer, did not say those were the policies of the Opposition; he said they were all suggestions that had been made by the Opposition. He has not made the allegation that they are the Labour Party’s policies or anything like that, at all. I think that is a very—[ Interruption] I am on my feet. That is a somewhat different issue, and I do not see that that was out of order.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377(2) requires that the Minister’s answers be limited to statements of fact that are strictly necessary to answer the question, and, as we have traversed on a previous day, Speaker’s ruling 145/7 makes it very clear that the Minister can have no responsibility for the Opposition, at all, whether he speaks of policies, ideas, conceptions, whims, or any other adjective. That is ruled out by Speaker’s ruling 145/7, and, I might add, by about a dozen other Speakers’ rulings that I have raised with you previously. I would not wish to venture that one was trying to find loopholes through which the Minister could evade your ruling, but it would appear that trying to change one word and then regurgitating his misconception of the Opposition’s views is completely outside—
I think that the House has been sufficiently patient in listening to the point of order. The member has quoted the Standing Order strictly, but if he had listened to half of the questions asked in this House so far today, he would know that most of them did not comply with the Standing Orders. As Speaker, I cannot intervene—
Some members look as though they are surprised. They need only to go back, look at the Hansard, and check some of the questions that were asked. Those questions did not comply with the Standing Orders, at all. They inserted all sorts of opinion, and I heard one question that went on with about four parts to it. But I do not intervene, because I want the House to be able to flow reasonably freely. The Minister was asked about alternative policies. He identified a range of alternative policy stances, and he then said as a throwaway line that he had heard some of those policies being suggested by the Opposition. If I were to pull up Ministers all the time when they made that kind of answer, then the House would become pretty sterile. This is, after all, a political debating chamber. If members, in asking questions, cannot cope with dealing with that kind of situation, then I think that the remedy is in their hands. I have tried to encourage members to ask very clear, concise questions. If members want to minimise the risk of having Ministers become political in their answers, then they should keep the questions clear and precise.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order. I understand your ruling, which is that a bit of give and take is part of the business of the House, and of course we all make jests both ways across the Chamber. But this is a more serious situation. This is Budget week. This is the middle year of a triennium, where we are expecting a substantive Budget, and the Opposition’s alternative economic policies are as much in debate as the Government’s view is. I would submit to you that a mischaracterisation by the Government of the Opposition’s policy intent in Budget week is a relatively serious matter, and that it should be treated seriously—
Hon Gerry BrownleeHon David Cunliffe Link to this
—under the Standing Orders, as provided for in the Speakers’ rulings and in keeping with your ruling. It is not a matter of whether the Labour Opposition has a sense of humour; those policies simply are not our policies, and it is simply not within the Minister’s rights to describe to the—
The member is now litigating the substance of the issue. I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. In response to the question, he identified a number of issues that he believed would put at risk the strategy that he had identified previously. I cannot now remember all four or so of the items that he mentioned, but he then said he had heard some of them being suggested by the Opposition. I do not believe that he alleged that they are Opposition policies; he did not say the finance spokesperson had made those statements. I believe that it would be a bit unreasonable if I was to try to prevent Ministers from making that kind of comment.