Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:13217] 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the major long-term pressures on Government spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The two major long-term pressures here and in nearly every other developed country are superannuation and health spending. The former is dealt with by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which has recently been praised in an IMF report. The latter remains a long-term issue which is why continued attention to efficient delivery of services is crucial. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Are there any other fiscal pressures in the health area? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. Within the health area particular pressure is always coming on the cost of pharmaceuticals. The current Pharmac system has saved New Zealand hundreds of millions of dollars. I have been surprised to see people talking about dismantling that system. The only beneficiaries would be the international pharmaceutical companies. The proponents of that change are the National Party’s science spokesperson and health spokesperson. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think the best way to alleviate pressures on future Government spending is by improving economic growth; if so why is he delivering this Thursday what will forever be remembered as a welfare Budget not a growth Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because that member will not get anything out of the Budget does not make it a welfare Budget; 99.9 percent of New Zealanders are less wealthy than he is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the answer given by the finance Minister. It was to say the least flippant. It had a number of aspects that were well outside the Standing Orders. Indeed a personal jibe at the member who asked that question surely cannot be considered to be the end of an answer. I imagine if there had been a more pointed personal statement you would have been down on the Minister like a tonne of bricks. One could hardly say that the comment he made was a debatable point. Surely all members stand here quite equally and they ask questions on behalf of their constituents. I say the finance Minister was out of order. It may be that he just cannot answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly I was not aware the National Party was ashamed of anybody being wealthy. This is a new perspective on those members’ view. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I told the member and I protected the member. While points of order are being heard there will be silence or else people will be leaving. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Secondly Mr Speaker you allowed a question that was itself out of order because it contained imputations epithets and other things that were not essential to the question. I assumed that because you had allowed the member some latitude with his question with its reference to something called a welfare Budget which does not exist I was allowed some latitude on the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately the Minister is wrong there; he should have raised the point about the question being out of order before he answered it. As far as I am concerned I thought the Minister’s comment was flippant and I did not actually think it discredited the member. If the Minister wants to add slightly to that answer I will allow him to do so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For some months members opposite have been inviting me to spend some $6 billion or $7 billion of non-existent surplus. Now that they are faced with the prospect of my coming up with a Budget when in fact there is not that amount to spend they are going to be faced with an answer where the vast bulk of the increased expenditure goes on working families in New Zealand. I invite them to vote against the Budget on Thursday and Friday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister taking great pleasure in the fact that many New Zealanders particularly elderly people are seriously ill and desirous of having First World drugs but his Pharmac fails to provide them as is evidenced by a very sound article on that matter in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last week by a pharmacist? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There will always be arguments around the edges about which drug should be funded by Pharmac and which should not. But if members of this House are to give in to every pressure from every drug company and every group asking for every drug that it wants to be funded then the health budget will blow out and that party opposite can give up any thoughts of tax cuts for the indefinite future. 
Rod Donald 
: What assessment if any has the Government made of the impacts of climate change—including increased frequency of extreme weather events and increased risk of diseases such as malaria to name but two—on the Government’s fiscal position the day after tomorrow and in the long term? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are not expecting any major impact from climate change on the growth of the economy the day after tomorrow. In the longer term there may well be such an impact which is why it is very important for all members of this House to address the issue of climate change and not to take their instructions from Washington about that matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the Budget this week the Government could for just $4 billion reduce the tax on every working person by $100 a fortnight; and that if Treasury’s estimate of the surplus as $6 billion is correct there would still be a surplus left with no change in any Government spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I admire the member’s cheek but he knows very well that the available revenue for increased expenditure is nothing like $4 billion. Actually the cash surplus for the current year will be very very small indeed. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have waited until the end of this question to raise this point of order. During the course of the question a point of order was taken by Mr Brownlee and responded to by the Deputy Prime Minister. His response encouraged—I guess—a whole number of responses but you have ruled quite correctly that there should be silence while points of order are being heard. Can you advise us how we are to respond without taking numerous points of order when during discussion on a point of order a flippant imputation or remark is made which is out of order in itself? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well occasionally I make mistakes and occasionally—[ 
Interruption 
] I hope that during points of order flippant comments are not made and if they are I hope I will jump on them—and perhaps I should have. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was thinking of raising this point at the time as well. I do not think it is within the Standing Orders or the precedents of this House to allege that some party or members of Parliament are taking their riding instructions from Washington. Of course Dr Cullen may well have some evidence of that but in its absence I think he should apologise. If he has evidence then let us have it tabled. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In that regard I am aware of a comment from spokespersons opposite that the National Party would not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol unless Australia and the United States did.