Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18860. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Does Budget 2014 show the full effect of revenue cuts and expenditure that the National Government expects over the next four years?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes. It reflects all the decisions the Government has made and also any risks that Treasury sees both to expenditure and to revenue over the next 4 years.Hon David Parker: What did he mean when he said that his next Budget “will be the most radical restructuring of government spending in 50 years” as quoted in the Rod Oram column in the Sunday Star-Times?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think that I actually said just what he wrote down but it was in the context of a discussion about the greater use of data and analysis to understand at an individual level the needs particularly of our most challenged families and children so that we can act individually across departments to change the path that those people are on—investing now to save money later.Hon David Parker: So when will he show us the money?Hon BILL ENGLISH: You can see in the surpluses the impact of a much more focused Government spend on reducing welfare dependency and on reducing crime and the flow of people into the very expensive justice system. So the money is there in the surpluses.Andrew Williams: Can the Minister of Finance assure the public that no Government payments arising under the Christchurch rebuild were deferred in order to achieve the surplus announced in Budget 2014?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.Hon David Parker: Why will he not commit to maintaining the real value of health and education spending adjusted for inflation and population change through to 2021?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is a very good reason why we will not commit to that. We do not fund the services just in order to have them; we put in more money to get better results. For instance the Government has put more money into health and it has achieved higher immunisation rates shorter waiting times in emergency rooms more elective surgery and faster access to cancer treatment even though the new money going in has not been as much as the Labour Party says it should be. That is Labour’s problem: it just shovels money in and it thinks that is an indication of success.Richard Prosser: Is the fact that police are having to choose between protecting vulnerable children or pursuing organised crime yet another hidden cost of the so-called Budget surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member followed the activities of the Government he would know that we are doing both actually. We are pursuing organised crime in a vigorous manner backed up by changes in policing activity and better use of intelligence with a 20 percent reduction in crime. We are also spending more on doing a better job of supporting our most vulnerable children where the issue is not so much about money; it is actually about how the Government organises itself and whether it is serious about protecting vulnerable children or is just maintaining its own agencies.Hon David Parker: By what date does his Government plan to have paid down all of the debt it has borrowed since 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have got a date and a track that is honest about the numbers. The Labour Party says it can reduce debt by redefining it to make it look a lot smaller; we are not going to do that.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question—Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat the question.Hon David Parker: By what date will the Government have repaid all of the debt it has borrowed since 2008?Mr SPEAKER: It is a slightly different question but—the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give the member an exact date but what I can tell him is that by the time of the election we will not have done dodgy accounting to make it look like we are paying down debt.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister of Finance read pages 15 and 16 of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s record last week where Mr Brownlee confirmed that in the last Budget the Christchurch repair costs were down by approximately $500 million and that the Prime Minister has talked about an extra $5 billion being required into the future? That $500 million is of course the same sum that is in the surplus. Why should not someone conclude that the people of Christchurch—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just bring the question to a conclusion.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —are paying an awful cost for his mythical so-called surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm that simply because it is not correct. There has been no doubt about the Government’s commitment to the rebuild of Christchurch and at the same time there are ongoing discussions with the Christchurch City Council to ensure that it can meet reasonable costs but does that in the context of strong Government support. Of course we do not know yet what the final numbers will be because there are still some years to go in the rebuild of Christchurch.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seeing as it is apparently not available at this point in time to the Minister of Finance—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member has the opportunity to raise a point of order. I have failed to understand what the point of order was that the member was raising but it is not a means of contesting the answer that has just been given.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will listen to the member.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is the last thing I did. What I did was seek to table the transcript—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then if the member wants to table something the procedure is he rises to his feet and he seeks leave to table. [Interruption] No he did not. He took a point of order and then there was a long lead-in to a rather garbled message—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to table a transcript from a select committee that is something that I assume is freely available—Hon Gerry Brownlee: No. No.Mr SPEAKER: It is not available?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from—[Interruption] Order! The member wishes to speak to the point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes I do.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Mr Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am loath to make any comment because the member is attributing a certain comment to me which I am not disputing. However these are transcripts from the estimates hearings which are not yet reported to Parliament. They cannot be tabled.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that they are not yet reported to Parliament I do not think it is appropriate to put that leave and I will not.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I hope it is a point of order. Let us hear it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You may be able to tell me before I make it—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You made a ruling in respect of Mr Peters. When you ruled you said I think that Mr Peters put a preamble in front of his point of order. Mr Brownlee did exactly the same thing by contesting—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! The member will be accompanying other colleagues if he also continues to talk when I rise to my feet.Kris Faafoi: There’d be a rather long queue.Mr SPEAKER: There could be a rather long queue; that is indeed so. [Interruption] Order! I was informing the Rt Hon Winston Peters of the correct process for tabling a document. The correct process is to raise a point of order and then simply say “I seek leave to table a document.” The member himself Mr Cosgrove has been here now for a few years. He should actually know that.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In this I am going to plead guilty immediately to contesting a ruling. A public—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member does not need to go any further. [Interruption] Order! The member does not need to go any further. I warned the member that if he was going to raise spurious points of order I would be asking him to leave the Chamber. The member will now leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallardwithdrew from the Chamber.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have another point of order. There is a habit developing here but I will hear it.Chris Hipkins: It is a new point of order. The issue that I want to ask you to give further consideration on is that where a select committee meeting is held in public and a transcript is taken of it that would not otherwise be available to all members of the House it seems quite reasonable that a member may seek leave to table that. If it was a confidential part of a meeting it would therefore be subject to the privilege of the committee but if it is a public session of the committee then in fact members who were not present at the meeting would be disadvantaged compared with members who were. So I wonder whether you could give some further consideration to that matter.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will give it further consideration but also affecting my decision will be the fact that all transcripts after the report back are subsequently available to all members.Louise Upston: How has the Government used revenue reductions to make the tax system fairer for New Zealand households and families over the last 5 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over successive Budgets the Government has made a number of changes to repair the damage done to the tax system by the previous Labour Government. In particular we have removed the ability for people to shelter their income raised the effective tax rate on property investment increased funding for the Inland Revenue Department to target property speculators prevented people using investment losses—including from rental properties—to make themselves eligible for Working for Families and other Government support and brought in stricter rules to ensure multinational companies contribute their fair share of tax. The result of all that is that people on the highest incomes now pay a slightly larger proportion of the tax then they used to when rates were higher but there were more loopholes.