Parker David: Estimates Debate —  
Parker David: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7164] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Well after that rather light-hearted contribution from Mr Key I would like to reflect on Vote Finance which is under the capable responsibility of Dr Cullen the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister. The adequacy of the management of his responsibilities can be gauged from the $4 million Budget surplus before capital obligations that is estimated to be the outcome of this Budget. That surplus is before capital obligations which include $1.8 billion going into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in order to fund superannuation more sustainably well into the future. That leaves a $1.4 billion surplus after those capital adjustments and that is after substantial additional votes going to the areas where taxpayers want to see that money focused. 
Health is getting an increase of $737 million which is a 9 percent increase in funding—well ahead of inflationary increases. Education is getting $481 million which is a 6 percent increase—again well ahead of inflation. This is being done in an environment in New Zealand in which growth is about 4 percent which is one of the highest rates in the OECD and unemployment is at a very low 5 percent—one of the lowest rates in the OECD. Crown debt levels are at their lowest since Treasury began collecting data in 1971. Gross debt was at 36.8 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) when the Labour-led Government took over from National and over the next year or two that goes down to 23 percent of GDP which is a very substantial decrease. Net debt drops even further to 14 percent of GDP. 
Now against that background I wondered what Dr Brash was going to come and say to us today as we debate Vote Finance. He gave us again his edited view of the growth prospects of New Zealand and when I hear that I like to reflect on what he said at the time of the Budget. On 15 May 2003 Dr Brash stated in the  
Dominion Post  
that the rate of projected growth is too slow to narrow the large gap between us and Australia. He said that the rate of projected growth “is too slow a rate to narrow the large gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia that emerged during the 1970s and 80s.” I read that and I thought it seemed very strange that the 1990s were not mentioned in that quote so I went and had a look at the statistics which make for interesting reading. Comparing New Zealand with Australia I find that Australia was No. 10 in the GDP rankings within the OECD in the 1980s and New Zealand was 18th. 
The 1980s were by and large the decade of Labour Government. During that decade New Zealand went back by one place as against the Australians who went back by six places from 10 to 16. Clearly the New Zealand performance was better during that decade of Labour Government stewardship. 
I look at the next decade of the 1990s which seems to have escaped Dr Brash. It was the decade of National and the decade when Dr Brash was in charge of monetary policy strangling the productive parts of our economy. During that decade New Zealand started at position 19 and went back a position to position 20. During that same decade Australia—to which Dr Brash now doffs his cap—charged forward from position 16 up to position 12. During the period under the National Government Australia went forward and New Zealand went back. 
What is Dr Brash’s prescription for an alternative? His alternative to the very wise Budget under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Dr Cullen is to go back to those failed National policies which would see New Zealand charge backwards in comparison with Australia. This Government will not allow that to happen. These appropriations are most appropriate and I recommend them.