Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister of Finance): Thank you Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise on the debate on the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the associated imprest supply bill and I have to say there is a saying about when you're damned with faint praise. It was interesting to me that the worst criticism that the Hon Judith Collins could find on the associated Supplementary Estimates was to do with heritage buildings—the single greatest economic crisis that this country's faced since the Great Depression and the worst criticism that the Hon Judith Collins could find to direct at the Government related to our spending on heritage buildings. What that tells me is we've probably got it about right. The thing that she was criticising us for was not spending enough money. I know that COVID-19 has sort of upended the world but it does say something about where this debate has gotten to. In the spirit of this being a proper debate I just want to pick up on some of the points that previous speakers—including Andrew Bayly who kicked off for the blue team on this followed by the Hon Paul Goldsmith—made. They talked about a number of things which were that we weren't spending enough money and we were spending too much money and we were spending it too slowly but also we were spending it too quickly. So I couldn't quite get a read on exactly what it is that the National Party thinks because it clearly thinks quite a lot of different things about this particular situation that we're in. Andrew Bayly talked about how the amounts that are being appropriated are staggeringly large and he is absolutely correct. He was voicing some concern that obviously all this is going to have to get paid back some day and he's absolutely correct—it is. At the same time—and this point was actually reiterated by the Hon Paul Goldsmith in question time the other day where his lead line of questioning the Minister of Finance at that time gave the presumption that National could spend money faster than the Labour Party; the whole point of that line of questioning was that National can be more profligate and push money out the door even faster than the Labour Party—that's a real challenge. It's a real challenge and I'll tell you why. It's because this Government has put over $11 billion in the wage subsidy in less than three months. We got money out the door to where it was needed in a staggeringly short period of time to businesses that needed it. This is one of the other areas where the National Party were being completely inconsistent about this. They were saying Oh you're borrowing too much money and you're spending too much money and it's all going to have to get paid back." and at the same time saying "We would have spent all of that money on the wage supply and then we would have doubled down by paying everybody's rent for them at the same time." Well where was that going to come from? Plus they were intending to have a GST refund. So they're going to give away GST they're going to pay for everybody's rent and they're going to pay for everybody's salaries and they're going to do that faster than they think that this Government has been able to get money to where it's needed—that they can do that faster—and at the same time—Hon David Parker: Borrow less. Hon JAMES SHAW: —they say that they're going to borrow less money and pay it back faster. It is an extraordinary series of claims. Now I remember. Having been on the Opposition benches I know what it's like when you're in Opposition. You know there is this temptation to say what you need to say in order to kind of please the folks out there. But for a party that has been a party of Government for as long as it has been you would think that the moment those members were in Opposition they would be able to maintain some coherent thinking about something as basic as the maths of finance. So I have been listening to this debate and—DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I've been listening to the member and I'd like him to address the bill. Hon JAMES SHAW: Well I mean it is a debate on the bill but I do—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a debate on a bill that's on the Table. Hon JAMES SHAW: —take your point Madam Speaker. So the amounts that are contained in this bill as Andrew Bayly said are very large. But there is a reason for that and that is because at a time like this it is imperative that the Government injects enormous amounts of capital into the economy as fast as possible to keep it afloat. The last time that we had a significant economic downturn which was during the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquake the Government actually borrowed comparable sums of money within the context of the time in order to get us through that period of time but then put a lid on spending and it's been demonstrated afterwards that the lid that we had on spending under the National Government of the time actually prolonged the economic downturn. So it is actually entirely appropriate that the amounts that are being appropriated at the moment and being pushed into the economy at the moment are actually exactly what the Opposition is calling for: the right level of stimulus to keep the economy afloat and to keep as many people in their jobs as possible; where someone isn't able to stay in their job to give them retraining and get them back into work in a new job as fast as possible; if they are stuck in a situation where they're unemployed for a period of time to make sure that they have enough money coming in to put a roof over their head; and so on. Honestly you know I've been listening to the debate on this bill and I cannot for the life of me work out where the criticism actually is because there is really only one course of action available to us at this particular time and we do have the lessons of history to guide us. So I find absolutely nothing to fault in this bill and I commend it to the House."