Clark David: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12915. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): In reference to the previous speaker Kate Wilkinson I rise actually to oppose this bill the Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker made a number of unfounded allegations in her very short contribution but it is fair to say added nothing of substance to this debate.The Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill is a bill that paints by numbers fiscal responsibility. As I said in the Committee stage of this debate I strongly suspect that it is an attempt by Treasury to rein in the current spending pattern of the Government—an attempt to pull it back from this $300 million-a-week habit of borrowing borrowing borrowing with no real plan for the economy.Our economy is struggling. It is not working for ordinary New Zealanders. Unemployment in my home region in Otago is at its highest level in 22 years. Last time the numbers were this bad Ruth Richardson was the finance Minister. I think that is a sad indictment on the current Government which inherited zero net debt—zero net debt—just 5 years ago and in the meantime has driven our economy away from the responsible path it was on. Under this Government we now have the greatest gap between rich and poor and we have a growing Government debt. It is outrageous that the Government should suggest that this is something that is necessary for Parliament in order to direct it on the right course. It is specifically the choices of this Government that have put us in the wrong direction. This Government is the one that passed those tax cuts in 2010 that saw 40 percent of the value go to the top 10 percent of earners. This Government—Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How much?Dr DAVID CLARK: Forty percent—40 percent of the value went to the top 10 percent of earners. Outrageous that is what it is—that is what it is. And the bottom 20 percent of earners got just 2 percent of the value of those tax cuts.Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How much?Dr DAVID CLARK: Just 2 percent. That is an outrage. That is not responsible. In this legislation here we have reference to fairness. Well if this bill will change the Government’s attitude to these issues that will be a wonderful day but I very much doubt it—I very much doubt it. If these are the guiding principles this Government wants to put in place and that is what it means by them New Zealanders will be very very very suspicious about what this legislation will achieve.This legislation also talks about the likely impact on future generations in respect of Government fiscal policy. Well that is coming from a Government that will not address the issue of superannuation and making our superannuation a sustainable scheme. There is no issue that is more important to New Zealanders in terms of their future well-being than whether they will be able to enjoy a retirement scheme that is sustainable. This Government has put its head in the sand on that issue.The other crazy thing that was in this bill and I am very glad it has been taken out was something to do with the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with John Banks. This bill as it was originally drafted promised that a spending cap would be implemented. Unfortunately no one asked the independent MP Mr Dunne what he thought of that. On this occasion he was very frank and described it as part of an unnecessary right-wing agenda and inconsistent with constitutional principles. National and ACT did not have the numbers to pass it but that is what they actually wanted in here. They wanted a spending cap—the same type of spending cap that you have seen in Colorado and California. Those examples should be instructive to New Zealanders.If we look across to Colorado and what happened there we see that Douglas Bruce who was in fact the prominent advocate of a spending cap there ended up in prison for tax avoidance. That is a whole other story but it shows you the kind of mind-set that wants to push for this kind of legislation. It is the type that is mean-spirited and does not have the wider public good in its frame and it is all about making the numbers look good on paper.In Colorado the infrastructure rotted. It is the 48th state in terms of education spending and the 44th in terms of road spending. It had previously been a proud state with good social infrastructure and good physical infrastructure and that all deteriorated. There is a whole lot of economic literature on this bad experiment. I am very glad on this occasion that Peter Dunne stood up to the others in this corrupt—well not corrupt Mr Assistant Speaker that would be a step too far. I am glad he stood up to others in this regime which has a number of unsound ideas that it is trying to bring to this Parliament. I am very glad that on this occasion Mr Dunne labelled the spending cap for what it is—part of an unnecessary right-wing agenda and inconsistent with constitutional principles.The provision for the spending cap was taken out of the bill but that is what was sitting behind this in the National Government’s mind. It wanted to bring in legislation that would reduce and restrict the options of future Governments. If we had such a fiscal cap in place we would not have been able to make the Canterbury earthquake response that we made as a Parliament. I ask New Zealanders to think about that. That is the kind of short-term thinking this Government wants to bring to this Parliament. It wants to restrict future Governments from dealing with crises. It wants to restrict future Governments that find themselves in a tight spot from helping out the citizens of thiscountry. Fortunately that part of the legislation fell over but it speaks to the intent of this Government.This is hollow legislation. It is thin legislation. It describes motherhood and apple pie. It describes what responsible Governments have done over the ages and we can see that New Zealand Governments have done different things. We know that the Labour Government in the 1980s brought spending under control. To some extent the 1990s with National continued that pattern. The 2000s had an exemplary Government which brought net Government debt down to zero and ran 9 years of surpluses in a row. How many surpluses has this Government generated Mr Bennett?David Bennett: How many?Dr DAVID CLARK: “How many?” the member asks. Zero—none; this Government has not generated one Government surplus in its entire time in this Parliament. Yet all we hear about from Government members is responsible financial management. This is a Government that knows how to talk responsible financial management—David Bennett: Oh come on!Dr DAVID CLARK: —but does not know how to put it in place. Mr Bennett says: “Come on.” Well the facts speak for themselves. The rhetoric does not stack up.This is an irresponsible Government. It is passing legislation that it did not get bipartisan agreement on. It failed to consult properly with the Opposition to get to an agreed position. In this area historically there has been an agreement across the House. It has been the effort of past Governments to make sure that everyone gets to have their say because the whole point of this sort of legislation is that you have a long-term plan for the country.We think there should be a reference to adequate levels of national savings in this document. There is silence across the floor. Over there they do not believe in an adequate level of national savings because it is not in the interests of the big end of town. That is whose interests they are looking out for. They do not address issues like a capital gains tax which would be about a fair tax system and about pro-growth tax reform. They do not address issues about universal KiwiSaver. They are not interested in making sure New Zealanders are well prepared for their retirement. They are more interested in driving down wages and making sure that the interests of the 1 percent are looked after. They do not address monetary policy issues. They are still committed to the hands-off policies of the 1980s. They do not want to update fiscal policy. They do not want to update financial policies. They are a hands-off Government. They are not addressing the housing issue. They are not addressing the affordability of power. They are not addressing the big issues.This Government has its head in the sand and that is why we oppose this bill. It does not address the big issues. It is a lot of piffle waffle and empty words. It is tinkering and it is not a bill that is worthy of this Parliament’s time. Therefore Labour will oppose this bill through the rest of its time in the House.