Jones Shane: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Jones Shane: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4528] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker mou i pai te tuku maku tenei wahanga e korero. Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for inviting me to make a few remarks. Unlike the speech of the previous speaker Tau Henare my remarks will actually relate to the legislation we are talking about. Also they will not be tedious or repetitive and they will probably be instructive for Mr Quinn. 
Let us come to the first thing that one would really want to say about the Government’s stewardship to date. There is no doubt that we confront very large dangerous issues. There is no debate about that. We also know that debt—Government borrowing—will rise. That means that the Government in the near future has one of two things to focus on. One is that it has to start cutting expenditure. Surprise surprise it has held off on its real agenda. The Government was relying on Graham Scott and a host of other advisers and it has found that the bureaucrats and chief executive officers can find only so many savings. So the Government has to focus soon on where it can slash cut and reduce expenditure or boost revenue. 
You see Labour when it was in Government was about boosting revenue. Not only did we undertake great forays to drive international trade but also we worked constructively with key sectors to boost the revenue of those sectors. That is why in 2008 when the party across the Chamber arrived in Government it inherited a situation that when one took account of our liabilities and assets was actually a net positive position I say to Mr Foss. Admittedly we work in a dynamic framework and things have changed. Borrowing will now rise. But this Budget did not outline what the Government will do to boost revenue nor how it will do it. The Budget recited a host of perceived ills that the Government wants to hold us responsible for but overlooked the fact that the Government has the waka—it has the car. The voters who are the ultimate parents of all politicians have given the Government the keys but this Budget said not a single word about how revenue is to be enhanced. How will the Government grow the economy? No. Tau Henare obviously read the wrong end of the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning. He started to talk to us about the current account balance. I say to Tau that come Thursday he will know the answer. Come Friday he will know the answer in terms of our GDP performance. 
We all know that current account problems have afflicted our country for a long time but what is the Government going to do about that? Where is its plan? What will the Government do? What is its strategy to boost exports and to boost revenue? Members opposite can continue to say the previous Government was slack in some areas and was a little ambivalent in terms of monitoring various pots of expenditure but the Government has to develop a plan. There is no plan in that Budget. There is nothing that shows how the Government will boost exports. 
Craig Foss 
: Which volume did you not read? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Secondly the Government said it is too expensive to work with agriculture. If there is one thing our country can prove to be very successful at I say to Mr Foss it is producing food. The goods and services associated with the food sector— 
Craig Foss 
: You’re good at digging dirt! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Far be it for me to comment on the manure currently being sprayed from the Hawke’s Bay member. I will not do that. But if we are to have this debate we must come back to the key point. The Government did not put a plan forward. It ended up pinching a lot of ideas from our side. OK it took a pale version of working with the agricultural sector for petty political reasons. It rained foul rhetoric upon Mr Anderton and his $700 million approach to enhancing productivity in that sector. The Government ended up taking a tiny piece of his thinking and in a miserly sort of way introduced it as its own idea. That will not cut the mustard—no! 
Let us talk about John Key’s illusion. He will stand as he has stood in the past and continue to tell this House that over his dead body or words to that effect superannuation entitlements will not change. But the reality is that once he decided to change the consensus on superannuation and fracture the model for how we could account for meeting the costs of a rapidly ageing population he has opened up the debate all over again. There is no consensus on superannuation; there is no consensus whatsoever. Members opposite have now decided that for the period of time—mercifully short I would hope—that they enjoy the Treasury benches they will pretend that there is no long-term superannuation problem. What they have not worked out is that in that period of time people who are in their 30s or 40s those who are approaching their 50s will be fearful. Insecurity is rising. Members opposite know that the consequence of their miserly punitive approach towards a savings strategy that would have overcome some of the long-term problems is that they have turned their backs on those problems. They have turned their backs on that vulnerable group of New Zealanders who have been paying tax for a long time based on the social accord that one day when they reached the point when they could have superannuation they would not be denied it. 
The Government ended up having to find dough from somewhere so it has started to gut KiwiSaver. That is further evidence that Government members do not believe in savings. Unlike ourselves members on that side of the House do not believe there is a savings problem in New Zealand. Without thinking it through members opposite moan and complain that Labour was a poor steward in relation to the current account deficit problems. But if there is a deficiency in savings that account is where it would show up. Those members do not believe there is a savings problem. Not only did they gut KiwiSaver but also they have now turned around and plundered the Cullen fund. The Government has plundered it in the following way: it has refused to allocate as was intended the ongoing allocations that were built into that scheme. 
A fund that would rival something akin to one of the more developed economies’ sovereign funds was an item that every New Zealander could have taken pride in and Governments could have looked upon it as a long-term option to deal with the growing costs associated with us all getting older. Of course Mr Key will say that if we do not save the money now there will be more money in the current economy. But that is not the case because a plan was absent from the Budget for how our most vulnerable communities such as the Pacific Island community and the Maori community were to boost their skills. 
It is all very well for Dr Pita Sharples to talk about Maori access to university. I do not really want to condemn him. I am sure he did not intend to say that all Maori could just arrive at university—bypass kohanga reo and turn up at Victoria University. He was seeking to raise the problem that far too many Maori families do not produce enough kids who have either the right attitude or sense of engagement with school—something to that effect. But he has overlooked the fact that if one associates with a party in Government that gives its tax cuts to the rich and denies tax relief to the poor and vulnerable then that Government will have fewer resources to dedicate towards education skills and training. It is a vicious circle. The thing that really requires education in relation to Dr Sharples is what convinces that man to continue to hang out with such a bad crowd. Of course in 2½ years we will visit the answer to that question upon them. 
Let me round up here. Unless we are to invest in education—Mr Quinn needs a great deal of it—we will not raise the levels amongst the vulnerable communities that will be key contributors. 
Paul Quinn 
: I notice you’ve steered clear of Economics 101 in this appropriations debate. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Stick to the point Mr Quinn. “Stick to the point” in Maori is “hangai ki te kaupapa” [ 
remain focused on the topic 
] not “hangia te papa” [ 
bake the earth in an earth oven 
]. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I say the discussions that are going on are making it very difficult for me to concentrate. We have lobbies for that and members may wish to go out into them. But I can hear some of the conversations and I ask that we give members the courtesy— 
Hon Member 
: They are interjections. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: They are not interjections. They are low-volume conversations but I can hear what is being said. I ask members if they want to continue those conversations to please go to the lobbies.