Hide Rodney: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Hide Rodney: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:4004] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
We are here debating the Budget Policy Statement for this year and I ask members to reflect on the fact that this process is set out in the Fiscal Responsibility Act and in the Standing Orders so that the citizens of New Zealand can have a sense of where a Government is going firstly in terms of its own Budget and secondly in the sense of its economic policy. So the first thing that a Government would want to do is to be very clear about the goals that it is setting for the economy and the second thing it would like to do is to be very clear about the plan it has for the economy. Now I ask someone from the Government when taking a call in this House to explain what this Government’s economic goal is because that is not clear to anyone on the Opposition side of the House. It certainly does not seem to be very clear to Helen Clark either because it keeps changing. How would one feel if one was the organiser of or a contributor to the knowledge wave conferences? Government members went along to those conferences hyped up and looking at how to achieve and put New Zealand in the top half of the OECD— 
Darren Hughes 
: Who’s gone to Waiheke? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite OK for Mr Hughes to sit there and interject but to do so continually is out of order. I think you should suggest to him that if he thinks he has a contribution to make to this debate he should wait his turn and take the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for bringing that to my attention. I have mentioned before that running commentaries are out of order and I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3). Could members please look at that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Parliament is about debating the issues and while a Government might not like the fact that it does not have a plan and has been shown to come up short on its economic goal that means that in a parliamentary democracy Opposition members can stand in the House and point out those failings. I know that Dr Cullen does not like it and we know that the Prime Minister Helen Clark does not like it. But it is certainly a bit wrong for them to send their back-bench members down here to try to shut down the debate.  
Let us look at what has happened here. We see that Helen Clark wrote this in a foreword: “These results are greatly encouraging for our goal of economic transformation and a return to the top half of the OECD ratings by 2011.” That foreword has Helen Clark’s signature. When someone speaks like that as a Prime Minister would members business people and the voters and citizens of New Zealand not think that that was the Government’s goal? The Prime Minister said that and signed it. She then turned around a year later and said the goal she had set just a year ago was totally unrealistic. Imagine that! A Prime Minister sets a 10-year goal for the country and a year later says that it is totally unrealistic. 
John Carter 
: She forgot she had said it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well we have seen her do that before. Can members remember the last big goal that the Prime Minister articulated for our great nation? It was to close the gaps. Then Helen Clark realised that under her Government’s policies that was “totally unrealistic” so no one was allowed to talk about it and the very phrase “closing the gaps” was verboten—it was not to be said by any member and members will not hear that talked about any longer. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that Tariana Turia will get a turn to take a call. She wants to sit there and chip away because she does not agree with democracy and this Parliament. 
What happened then? Last December Dr Cullen was reported in  
Metro  
magazine as saying to Gilbert Wong that he happily confirmed that the Government’s economic growth goal remained to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD in 10 years. That was in December last year. 
John Carter 
: Who said that? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance. I notice he has not stood up in this House and denied saying that. Last year the Minister of Finance happily confirmed that the Government’s goal was to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD in 10 years. Now we know that is nonsense but Michael Cullen said it and the question is why he said it. It was because this Government is all about public relations and spin not about policies plans and a proper approach. 
Let us go back to what Helen Clark said at the opening of Parliament in February 2001. She said: “We can look ahead 10 years and see where we could be.” 
John Carter 
: Where was that said? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: In Parliament. She went on to say: “If we embrace innovation wholeheartedly we can be in the top half of the OECD not falling to the bottom”. Helen Clark first of all said that she had not said that. When she discovered it in  
Hansard 
 and realised that she had said it she agreed that she had said it but added that she had not meant it or had said it because she was advised that it was a good thing to say and then when she thought about it she realised that the Government could not achieve it. Then we wonder why business people in New Zealand are saying to us that they do not know what this Government is trying to do! The very big bold goal that Helen Clark came into this House to set has been deemed a little over a year later by her to be “totally unrealistic”. 
Well what has happened? Does it mean that we have not embraced innovation wholeheartedly? Helen Clark the Prime Minister of New Zealand a month later in 2001 went to Massey University. In a prepared speech put out to all the media and reported around New Zealand she stated: “Could we be in the top half of the OECD in 10 years if we set our mind to it? I think we could.” She answered her own question. So she said it was possible to achieve that goal and now she says that it is totally unrealistic. I would like a member of this Government to explain what its economic goal is. Could any Government member possibly explain why the Government should have any credibility when the big bold goal that was talked about for a year is suddenly deemed unrealistic? So worried are Labour Party members by that that they denied leave in this House for a  
Metro  
article to be tabled. In that article Michael Cullen stated: “I can happily confirm to you that our goal is to get into the top half of the OECD within 10 years.” 
What happened is this. In 2001 Treasury prepared a paper—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Government members should desist from that but those guys will do anything to disrupt a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that if they wish to have conversations there is a right place for that. In the Chamber that can be seen as being unparliamentary and discourteous to the member who is speaking. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just by way of explanation I noted that two or three members were on the verge of going to sleep because it was a very boring presentation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a matter for a point of order. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I can tell Mr Mallard what is happening: those members are shutting their eyes in pain. That is what is happening in that Government. I saw Michael Cullen with his head back and eyes shut. He was wide awake but he shut his eyes through Mr English’s speech. Why was that? It was because he knows that there is no answer to this Government setting a goal and abandoning it from the very top. Does the Government have a plan? No! Does it have a goal? No! Does it know where it is going? No! This is a failed administration in terms of the economy. [ 
Interruption 
]  
I would like Mr Hughes who has a lot to say to stand up in the House take a call and explain why in 2001 the Treasury said that the economy needs to grow by 4.6 percent to 7.2 percent per person per year. Helen Clark was still going around saying that we could do that. Dr Cullen still went around last year saying that we could do that. That is not 4.6 percent growth per year; that is 4.6 percent growth per person. Last year when we had good growth—according to Mr Hughes—we only grew the economy by 2.5 percent per person. Even when the Government has a good time by its own admission it is not even halfway to achieving that goal. What a useless hopeless bunch those Government members are!