Cunliffe David: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to take a brief call to oppose this bill the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill. Being lectured to by the National Party about fiscal responsibility is a bit like being lectured to by I do not know John Hayes about probity advice or something—Hon Maryan Street: Idi Amin on democracy.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Idi Amin on democracy—many things come to mind. In its last two Governments Labour has never run a fiscal deficit. There were nine surpluses out of nine. How many fiscal surpluses has the National Government run? None zero zilch zip nada never. It has never run a fiscal surplus and it is some sort of jealousy factor that it is trying to elevate fiscal restraint as an overriding aim over all other objectives of economic policy through this legislation. I am going to briefly tell you why I think that is a very bad idea but firstly the history of the bill.This bill came out of the confidence and supply agreement with the ACT Party. It was the price of coalition. It was the ridiculous notion ditched everywhere else in the world that the best way to restrain public finance was to put on a strict cap. Of course that stupid idea went down the river and it was to have been replaced with a genuine process of multiparty consultation that would have led to an updating on what has hitherto been a bipartisan bill. But unfortunately the scrum got screwed—the scrum got screwed—and the draft before us is none of those things.Let me just turn the attention of the House to what it actually says. This will come as a surprise to the National backbench who no doubt have not read it. Firstly it elevates monetary policy above fiscal policy. The Labour Party argued that it would be fairer to have that as a two-way street—to have the Reserve Bank making monetary policy with regard to fiscal settings and Treasury advising on the fiscal stance having regard to monetary policy. That is what all well-managed developed economies do but it was not good enough for the National Government. For the Government it is a one-way street. It is that No. 2 The Terrace—the Reserve Bank—and the Governor run the Government. Well that is ridiculous. It is an outgrowth of Milton Friedman’s monetarism. It has gone the way of the Ark in most places except under John Key’s National Government.The second point is to “formulate fiscal strategy with regard to its likely impact on present and future generations”. Look that sounds good but you have got to be careful. It sounds good because we do want intergenerational fairness. We do not want the young people of today being screwed because of greed by the old people of tomorrow. But that is not as simple as it sounds. Is it not ironic that the National Party’s leader has said that he would resign before he addressed the problem of superannuation eligibility? Before he touched that he would resign his office. The grey-rinse brigade has nothingto worry about from John Key. Where is the fiscal responsibility in that? Just ask “Gabs”Makhlouf Secretary to the Treasury who says there is a $220 billion problem by 2050.The third point is to manage the Crown’s resources “effectively and efficiently”. It sounds innocuous enough. Where is the word “fairly”? Where are the words “fairly” and “justly”? Where is the reference to equity? Where is the reference to closing the inequality gaps that mean a quarter of a million kids in this country are growing up without their warm bellies full and with no shoes on their feet? Where is fairness? I will tell you where it is—