Key John: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Key John: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21987] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I was going to take my call during Vote Revenue but I just cannot help myself from replying to the Associate Minister of Finance Mr Cunliffe who is affectionately known as the “Minister of Homework”. He needs to do a bit more homework because he spent quite a bit of time telling the country that gross debt to GDP had fallen from 35.1 percent to 22 percent and what a wonderful thing that was for the country because Labour had worked hard to repay debt. Sorry David wrong on that one! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will refer to other members by their full name or their portfolio title. 
JOHN KEY 
: Sorry Mr Cunliffe but Labour has repaid $1 billion of debt; and that is all. That is the lot. Nominal debt has gone from $36 billion to $35 billion. Debt to GDP has actually fallen of course but only because GDP has grown and not at all because Labour has assiduously paid off debt. You have not paid any debt so do not run around the country telling people that you have been so efficient paying off debt because you have not paid off any debt at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
JOHN KEY 
: Mr Cunliffe’s second claim was that the Government had been so great because it had cut spending as a percentage of GDP in the 6 years it had been in power. Firstly he claimed that the figure had gone from 35 percent to 30 percent. Unfortunately the “Minister of Homework” needs to do a bit more homework. The number was actually 31.3 percent. Mr Cunliffe should look at the facts. It is not my fault that you want to claim that you came into office before a period of time you were actually here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot use the word “you”. 
JOHN KEY 
: What is very interesting is that I asked the Minister of Finance about those numbers. I asked him what was the number if one took into account the right years and the non-discretionary spending items which was essentially a reduction in the unemployment benefit and took financing costs out for a second because there has been no change. In fact the numbers would show that Government spending as a percentage of GDP had been rising. That is a shock. It has been rising not falling. 
And then of course there are the plans Labour has for the next 3 years to take Government spending as a percentage of GDP from 29.6 to 32.6 roughly spending about $12 billion annually on the baseline. So sorry Mr Cunliffe is not right on any of those figures. 
Then there was the last claim of course that the Government is fiscally prudent. “Yeah right!” I suppose they say—when one looks at a student loan scheme where the message is pretty simple such as it announced today which is to borrow as much money as one can and never voluntarily repay it and never have a job to try to repay that through one’s student holidays or anything. One should just borrow to the hilt and then one will be absolutely fine because one will never have to repay it to any great extent and there will be no incentive to do so. 
I want to go back to the issue of policy advice and ask what advice there was on tax. What advice did the Government and the Minister of Finance receive in relation to thresholds? In fact the change in thresholds will take place in 2009. No consideration whatsoever has been given for the last 9 years or it will be 6 years and then 9 years prior to that—none at all. Those years have mysteriously been forgotten. That was about a 14 percent reduction because of inflation in New Zealanders’ incomes but there is no consideration there. 
What will happen to the $1.4 billion in additional taxes that New Zealanders will pay in the 3 years because of fiscal drag? No consideration has been given to that. Was that all part of the advice given on thresholds—advice that saw a Government deliver 67c a week to New Zealanders earning $38000 a year but it has enough money to fund singalong courses that are meant to be fiscally prudent? Today we found out that it has enough money to fund Little Hiawatha and sort of Cowboys and Indians parties and Sound of Music parties but it does not have enough money for the poor old family that is out there working hard and doing an honest day’s work because they will get 67c a week. All that largesse is paid for by taxpayers in New Zealand whom that Government has absolutely no regard for. It is a disgrace. No wonder it is on its way out!