Cunliffe David: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Cunliffe David: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:4016] 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is rather sad to see a member who once showed promise as a young Minister being pushed further and further away from the front bench by his own colleagues but having listened to his speech I understand exactly why that is. Lockwood Smith is nothing more than a trained parrot for the Business Roundtable and Business New Zealand. He gets up in the House and rattles off their submissions like the organisations themselves before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Guess what Dr Smith—times have moved on. The recipes of the 1990s have been tried and they failed. That is why he is on that side of the Chamber and we are on this side. I will prove that case in my remarks today. 
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Budget Policy Statement debate today. As the quality of debate in and submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee indicated the Budget Policy Statement is indeed a useful part of the Government’s accountability framework under the Fiscal Responsibility Act. As Dr Brash said that is a matter of bipartisan agreement in this House. 
In saying that there are three key points that stand out from the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. First that progress of the economy in the last year was not just good; it was outstanding. It was underpinned by sound and prudent fiscal management by this Government. Second we are turning round the social deficit of the 1990s. No the job is not finished yet. There is much more to do. Third there are external risks of a deepening recession which means we have to manage extremely carefully in the years ahead. 
I turn first to the economic results. The Budget Policy Statement shows higher than expected tax revenues with the Government’s operating balance rising on average by $1 billion a year to a 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) surplus by 2007. That is an outstanding result. It has not been matched in 20 years in this country. Let us pinch ourselves—no we are not dreaming. [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not want Dr Smith to pinch me. Gross sovereign issue debt is predicted to fall below 25 percent of GDP by 2006 and net debt is predicted to fall below 2.9 percent of GDP by 2007. We are very nearly in credit as a Government for the first time since Vogel borrowed for the railways. The Government has new operating spending of $1 billion a year and it is focusing on reducing social inequality and crime and investing in our future. 
Contrast that performance with that of Dr “Back to the Future” Brash. Bizarrely in his remarks he appeared to confuse the technical growth assumptions in the Budget Policy Statement documents with forecasting. Of all people he should know better. Just because a technical assumption of 2 to 3 percent is in the document it does not mean we will not do better. What it means is that unlike the Opposition this Government does not count its chickens before they are hatched. National cannot get its act together. On the same day that Don Brash called for smaller Government Katherine Rich bemoaned the fact that we were spending only $10 million on the Television New Zealand charter Nick Smith demanded more for State housing and Murray McCully wanted more for the America’s Cup. The day before Roger Sowry wanted a superhighway from Auckland to Wellington. 
Darren Hughes 
: A successful member of Parliament. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: He is a very successful member of Parliament. He lost twice to Judy Keall and once to my esteemed colleague Mr Hughes. 
ACT on the other hand is so busy imploding that Rodney Hide is talking to his counsellor while we are having this debate. As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 says Richard Prebble has many many problems of which Rodney Hide is but one. 
More than anything Don Brash stands for the failed policies of the 1990s. Let us recall what they are. First it is indisputable that real incomes fell for those at the bottom of the heap. Second there was growing inequality. Third there was gross grinding poverty for the children of the poor. Let us look at some facts. In 1989 there were 120000 people on the unemployment benefit. By 1998 there were 152000—the numbers were up by 25 percent. In 1989 the Labour Government spent less than $1 billion on the dole. By the end of the National era $1.5 billion was being spent. We may conclude from that that the worst thing a Government can do is to deny people the opportunity to work—not only does that take away their dignity but also it results in a Government spending a lot on unemployment benefits. 
Here are some more facts. When we took office the unemployment rate was 6.5 percent. Now it is under 5 percent. There are now 123000 people in jobs who previously did not have them. New Zealand has growing inequality. In 1988-9 under National the eightieth percentile of income earners earned two and a half times more than that of the bottom twenty. In 1999 after a decade of a National Government the eightieth percentile of income earners were earning three and a half times more than that of the bottom twenty. That is indisputable. Data supplied by the Ministry of Social Development and by Statistics New Zealand shows that National widened inequality like Robin Hood in reverse—taking from the poor to give to the rich. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not care if New Zealand First is a circus within its own caucus but I resent it here in the House. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet Mr Mark. I am dealing with the point of order. The member will withdraw that last remark. It was unnecessary. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point is that the continuous banter and conversation on the far side of the House is interrupting the flow of the debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There has been banter on both sides of the House. If the member wants less banter that has to apply on both sides. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide I have attended to the point of order that has been raised. If this relates to the same point of order I have dealt with it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not the same point of order. What we look for in this House is some consistency from the Chair. It is very very important. I will describe for you exactly what has happened here. Mr Cunliffe was on his feet giving a speech when he interrupted his own speech to raise a point of order. The point of order he raised was not a point of order. Mr Cunliffe could have raised a point of order to say “The member is making too much noise and interrupting my speech.” and that would have been perfectly in order. However Mr Cunliffe interrupted his own speech with a point of order to hurl some gratuitous abuse at New Zealand First. Funnily enough it was the sort of abuse that he could have made in his speech without raising a point of order. You have said to me today that if a point of order is raised it has to be a serious point of order. The member’s point of order cannot be allowed to stand in this House. The member interrupted his own speech and raised a point of order to abuse another party. My point is that it is not enough for the member to withdraw and apologise to New Zealand First. He has to apologise to the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is up to me as Chair to deal with the point of order. I have dealt with it. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I offer an apology to the young member on that side of the House though I do not have any need to. The point is that I was engaged in a private discussion with an Opposition colleague which had no bearing whatsoever on the sensitivies that that young man may be carrying for whatever reason. To call a point of order in the manner that he did was unnecessary. If he has taken any offence whatsoever and if it has prompted a knee-jerk response from the Labour whip I apologise for talking loudly and for interrupting his speech. However if he comes back with the sorts of comments that he made he should expect precisely the treatment he got. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The matter has been dealt with. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is good to see that the balanced member opposite has a chip on both shoulders. 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw my apology. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will stand and withdraw that remark. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw and apologise. It is a fact that between 1982 and 1998 the disposable income of the richest 10 percent of households grew by 43 percent. In the same period income for the poorest 10 percent dropped by 5 percent. The conclusion is that under National the rich got richer the poor got poorer the gap got wider and we all stagnated. But enough of numbers. What does all that mean for real people in real communities in New Zealand? 
According to the Ministry of Social Development’s Centre for Social Research and Evaluation the poorest 28 percent of the population experienced some or all the following. They could not afford fresh fruit and vegetables to put on the table. Shame! They stayed in bed to keep warm because they could not afford heating. Shame! They put off going to the doctor and therefore got sicker. Shame! They lacked the following “luxuries”—telephones washing machines winter coats decent shoes a decent bed to sleep in books for their children and raincoats for the children to go to school in let alone a bike. Those members opposite may think this is funny because they have never lived in that kind of environment. However many many people in this country live that kind of life. That is the legacy of the 1990s. 
Ron Mark 
: Have you been to west Auckland? 
DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have been in Wellington today. What a strange question from that member. That member has been shuffled around from electorate to electorate for the last 20 years and is trying to find one that will have him for pre-selection. That is rich! 
The Opposition attacked closing the gaps but when one looks at the numbers one sees that Labour’s policies are not based on race; they are based on real need. The fact is that Maori and Pasifika are 40 percent more likely to live in overcrowded housing so of course income-related rents benefit them more than others. Are there issues to be managed as we balance the demands of fiscal prudence with the reality of the social deficit? Yes of course there are. The world economic downturn is deepening in the face of an imminent war in Iraq that sadly nobody seems to want. Oil prices are up above US$33 a barrel. The US dollar is sliding in the face of the biggest budget deficit since Ronald Reagan. In the face of that the Kiwi dollar is up above US60c and Deutsche Bank predicts the current account deficit will deteriorate. That is but one of the risks we have to balance. That is why members opposite would do well to note that of the $2.2 billion of extra tax receipts we are getting this year we are spending very little of it. We are paying off an extra billion of debt and we are putting much of the rest aside against the future needs of this possible downturn. That is why this Government is prudent and sound and is managing its way through the rocky waters of the international scene.