Parker David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Parker David: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18200] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I am a member of the Government and I agree that Tame Iti should have been prosecuted for brandishing a shotgun. I think many members of the Government would also agree. But the day that the Government makes individual decisions as to who should be prosecuted—whether it be to prosecute Shane Ardern for driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament or whether Tame Iti should be prosecuted for what he did the other day—is the day that I will resign from this Parliament because those decisions should be made by the police not by politicians. The reality that Mr Franks does not like is that the crime rate per head of population is dropping. Rates of violent crime remain problematic but they are dropping in some of the previously worst-affected areas such as parts of Auckland. But I will not focus too much on that because it does not warrant it. 
Rodney Hide 
: No that’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No it is not right that it does not warrant attention but I will not be diverted by the ACT party’s agenda because the more important agenda here is the economic strength of this country and the reversal of the slide in New Zealand’s fortune in prior decades. We should not forget that in 1980 New Zealand was positioned at No. 18 on the international GDP per capita rankings and Australia was at No. 10. We hear complaints that the gap that has since arisen between the fortunes of New Zealand and Australia is the fault allegedly of this Government. Yet the decade of Labour governance in the 1980s saw New Zealand go back one place in those rankings while Australia went back six—from No. 10 to No. 16. So during the decade of the Labour administration New Zealand fared better than Australia. During the 1990s—the decade of National and the policies that are still promoted by National and ACT—New Zealand dropped from No. 19 to No. 20 while Australia advanced four positions from No. 16 to No. 12. That was the decade during which Australia got a jump on New Zealand and it was the decade of National administration and austerity visited upon this country by Dr Brash in his then role as Governor of the Reserve Bank. 
We should not forget that between 1986 and 1999 50 percent of New Zealand families went backwards in their net incomes the next 30 percent stayed static or rose a little and all the gains were effectively concentrated amongst the top 20 percent of New Zealanders. So National and ACT should not cry crocodile tears when they complain about the position of New Zealand workers because their position compared with Australian workers developed during the 1990s when National and ACT policies were at their height. 
Since this Government has been in power 200000 jobs have been created and the number of beneficiaries has decreased by 100000. The latest complaint is that wages have not gone up enough. I asked the Parliamentary Library to look at this. In 1999 the total compensation of employees in New Zealand was $44.7 billion. Since then to the year ended March 2004—and it will have gone up in the year since—the compensation paid to employees had increased by 31.7 percent to $58.9 billion—close enough to $59 billion. That increase is in part because we have 200000 extra people in jobs and 100000 fewer beneficiaries. 
We have heard talk in the last 2 weeks from Dr Brash at Orewa and since claiming that the benefit load on the New Zealand tax system is terrible. The news for him is that the proportion of money spent on beneficiaries as a proportion of the total amount earned in wages and salaries has also dropped very significantly over that same period. In 1999 the amount paid to beneficiaries—excluding superannuitants—equated to 17 percent of the amount earned by those in paid employment. That figure has dropped by close to 20 percent in the succeeding 5 years to 14 percent of the amount paid to employees. 
So far from social welfare becoming more of a problem during the tenure of this Government it is absolutely clear that the situation is getting better. National members know that and that is why Katherine Rich is so dismayed at the extremism of Dr Brash’s policy that is so favoured by ACT and Rodney Hide—a friend of Dr Brash whom he holidays with—but is so opposed by the middle-range and less extreme members of the National Party that it led to the demise of yet another woman member of the National Party. Last year it was Georgina te Heuheu and this year it is Katherine Rich who is a moderate in National. At least she had the courage to stand up for her principles. It obviously shows that Dr Brash does not communicate with his caucus. He is used to sitting in his ivory tower in charge of the Reserve Bank and looking down on people but not communicating with them. I am sure that if there had been a problem and that had been addressed to Katherine Rich or if she had been properly consulted on the content of his speech they may well have been able to work through their differences. 
But that is not Dr Brash’s style. He pushed on with his rigour and showed that the extremism of his policies in a way that for someone as senior and as knowledgable on these issues as Katherine Rich was too extreme for her. She expressed her viewpoint and she was dumped. So we are now in the position where there are no senior National Party women members. It is left with one spokeswoman of some seniority—Judith Collins. Of course she showed her colours to New Zealand women when last year she tried to wind back the rights that New Zealand women had achieved over recent decades to access abortions. She tried to make that more difficult for younger women. 
In addition to creating 200000 extra jobs and having 100000 fewer beneficiaries the Government has also done a good job of managing the total Government book by reducing Government debt as a proportion of GDP. When this Government took office debt to GDP stood at about 35 percent of GDP. That has reduced to 25 percent of GDP. In fact it is quite a bit lower than that now. I think it is sitting at around 22 percent of GDP which is a very prudent figure. The suggestion from ACT that we have a $6 billion surplus to spend is ludicrous. If we were to spend an extra $6 billion a year New Zealand’s debt would rapidly escalate again and we would go back to the days that were visited upon us by Muldoon and the National Government. ACT and National would take us back there by cutting taxes in a way that they say would use the $6 billion surplus. That would then result in Crown debt increasing. We would head back up the debt scale and go back to the days when $1 in $5 of all tax collected was used to pay interest. We now have the situation where only $1 in $20 of taxes collected goes on interest. 
Another thing that the Government has signalled for this year and I agree that it is very important is a move to encourage more saving for retirement. We already have the pre-funding of Government superannuation to make Government superannuation at its level sustainable into the future. This is the so-called “Cullen fund”. It is interesting that the National Party having railed against that for many years now agrees it is a good idea. 
New Zealand First to its credit has always approved of it and supported it and I thank it for that. National has had a road to Damascus experience and now approves of it. None the less the amount people receive in superannuation is less than required for the standard of living that many aspire to. If people want a higher standard of living in their retirement then they have to save more. That is important for New Zealand for another reason. If we have a good savings base in New Zealand we are less susceptible to takeover of our profitable companies by foreign owners because there is competition for the purchase of those assets by New Zealand companies funded by New Zealand savings vehicles. 
The Government has signalled that this year we will see more moves to encourage private sector savings which I believe is very important. Through that together with the prudent stewardship of the economy in terms of our gross debt levels while at the same time improving our infrastructure I think we will have a very positive decade ahead of us.