Cunliffe David: Address in Reply 
Cunliffe David: Address in Reply 
[Volume:652;Page:1153] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I thank the Minister Bill English for his contribution and say there are significant points of commonality between the Government and the Labour Opposition on these important matters. We agree that 2009 will unfortunately be the year when the global recession bites hard on many thousands of New Zealanders who will lose their jobs. We agree with the Minister that a judgment has to be made between the degree to which we stretch the Government’s balance sheet to protect New Zealand jobs and businesses and the fact there will have to be repayments someday as we stabilise debt levels. 
Therefore New Zealanders deserve a bold and comprehensive plan to get the country through the economic downturn rather than the kind of tinkering we have seen in today’s announcements. Let us just stop the rhetoric for a moment and return to the facts. For roading across the whole country over the next 3 years the total announced today is only about half that of a single major project under the previous Government. For education the expenditure if averaged across all schools is worth only about $8000 a school. That is not even enough for a coat of paint. For housing there is a total of 69 new State houses across the whole country for 10000 people on the waiting list. That is about one house per electorate. 
We have heard all of that at a time when the US Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner is saying that given the scale of the crisis the policy response has to be comprehensive and forceful. The IMF—the IMF—has warned Governments around the world about the dangers of under-investing and under-reacting but that is exactly what this Government has done. That stands in such stark contrast to what a Labour Government would have done and what it had announced pre-election. In October 2008 on the data available then Labour committed to a multibillion-dollar investment package that included at least a billion dollars in insulation for housing retrofits and hundreds of millions of dollars for education health and new roading projects— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Rail. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and rail and public transport which dwarfs what is in this package today. Labour signalled that those plans would have been reconsidered as new data arose. And what data we have seen come out in the last few days! By Treasury’s own estimates between 67000 and 87000 New Zealanders will join the unemployment queues by this Christmas. Let us say 70000; it is a round number. There will be 70000 extra Kiwis on the dole and a quarter of a million New Zealanders and families who have a family member newly unemployed. This package today which is supposedly a “sufficient” response might save 2000 jobs. That is not taking the rough edges off a recession. That is not an adequate response to the pit of fear that is growing in the stomachs of many New Zealand families and many New Zealand businesses. Today’s investment package could prove to be a turning point for this Government. It is so patently inadequate so woefully short of what is required that it is actually less than what Labour promised 6 months ago. The fiscal injection is in short so small it barely rates as a small prick. Mr English told the House today that we face the worst recession in 90 years. One takes that to mean that it is worse than the Great Depression yet this package is worth maybe 2000 jobs. It just does not measure up it is worse than spin it is a joke. It is worse than insufficient; it is illusory and it is an insult to the honest hard-working New Zealanders who are worried for their families worried for their homes and worried for their futures. 
Mr English in his remarks tried to give relative quantum between this package and those of some of our key trading partners. Let us get the facts on the table. If we do not count what Labour did last year—and it is time the National Government got over that because Mr Obama does not count Mr Bush’s budget—and if we just count what the new Government is supposedly doing its package adds up generously to about 0.5 percent of GDP between yesterday’s tax cuts for small businesses and today’s figure of about 0.25 percent on infrastructure. Australia’s package is NZ$53 billion—2.2 percent on infrastructure and 4.5 percent of GDP in total. In the US with Obama’s package only—not counting Bush’s—it is $ 828 billion 5.8 percent of GDP— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Change you can believe in. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and change you can believe in not dithering and deckchairs. In the UK the package is over £30 billion and there is €200 billion across the Euro-zone. Labour’s tax package injected nearly $11 billion into the economy but National’s has added no more because its changes are being funded from canning things like the research and development tax credits and the KiwiSaver contribution which of course is contractionary. 
If those are the economic facts I think it is timely to reflect in this Address in Reply debate on the overall results of the Government’s so-called 100 days of action. It started with the Government doing its best to create the impression of action rather than have real action with a whole bunch of relatively unimportant bills hitting the House in extreme urgency before Christmas. Let us then fast forward to Hawaii and to John Key while his mind was on a pina colada lying on the beach trying to emulate Barack Obama’s tan—aloha John Key. The response was a Job Summit meeting of five Ministers in Wellington. As one of my colleagues asked: if five Ministers is a summit meeting what do they call a Cabinet meeting—a Nuremberg rally? That is not a response; that is not a plan. Meanwhile across the continent from Mr Key’s largesse Mr Obama was planning an $800 billion stimulus package before he was even inaugurated. 
John Key’s 100 days of inaction have been a disaster. Of course 2009 started with a bang for him; he has now auctioned the results on TradeMe instead of focusing on Kiwis who are losing their jobs. In the absence of a comprehensive plan we have a so-called rolling maul of initiatives. As I said a meeting of five Ministers is a summit and the small business tax package—wait for it—cut the use of money interest on provisional tax by precisely half of what Labour had already announced it would cut pre-election. That is bold. That is bold—that is so bold. 
Hon Bill English 
: Yours was reckless. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: He cannot have it both ways can he? Now he says ours was reckless but when he is asked about fiscal stimulus he counts everything we have done. What was it? Was it a good idea or was it reckless? Because if it was reckless I say to him that he should not count it. If it was a good idea he should commend it. We say that if what the Government does is worthwhile we will support it because this crisis is not about us; it is about Kiwis out there. It is not about National and Labour and the Greens and the Maori Party; it is about New Zealanders. It is about families putting food on the table and it is about businesses surviving week by week. 
Bill English should know; he was in Australia the day the Rudd package was announced. No doubt he was given a good briefing. He had taken time out of his busy schedule to go to talk to Mr Rudd and hey presto there was $53 billion of spending over there. Mr English came back and what did he do? He announced half a billion over 3 years—if we are lucky. I ask Mr English to spend more time in Canberra. 
Where does the charade leave New Zealanders watching in fear of their jobs their homes and their businesses? While our economy is being ravaged by an economic wildfire not of our making but from which we have no chance to hide 70000 more by the Government’s estimates will be joining the dole queues by this Christmas—merry Christmas. Maybe 2000 of them will be helped by today’s package. Meanwhile back in the Beehive Bill and the dries beat John and the wets and the so-called infrastructure package had not a bang barely a small prick and not enough to induce a whimper.