Parker David: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Parker David: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7704] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Listeners can turn their radios up again now after being shouted at with that diatribe. I expect most of them turned their radios down. I would like to speak to the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill that we are considering tonight which is the mechanism through which Parliament authorises the Government to spend the money needed to meet the governmental programmes. Firstly I would like to thank both the Progressive party and the United Future party for their support in the passing of this legislation. We are reliant upon them and without that support the legislation would not pass. The Labour Party—and I am sure I speak for all of my colleagues—is grateful for that support. 
The appropriations that are met by this bill include some important additions to the funding of the areas that are at the heart of the concerns of most taxpayers: health and education. Health gets $737 million which is a 9 percent increase in funding—well above the rate of inflation. Education too does well with $481 million of additional funding which represents a 6 percent increase—again well ahead of the rate of inflation. This is being done in a context of a Government that is managing the Budget very well. Dr Cullen deserves to be congratulated on managing to report a $4 billion surplus before capital obligations. Those capital obligations include $1.8 billion being pre-funded into the Superannuation Fund in order to more sustainably fund it into the future leaving a surplus of about $1.4 billion after those adjustments. 
Against that background growth is running at about 4 percent—amongst the highest in the OECD—and probably coming off that high but still very healthy in comparison with other countries. Our gross debt which at the time when the Labour Government took over was about 36.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is dropping. In the next year or two that will drop to 23 percent of GDP which is a vast improvement—a substantial decrease. Net debt drops even further to 14 percent of GDP so one would wonder against that background what Dr Brash and the National Party would be saying. 
It is interesting to look at Dr Brash’s comments reported in the  
Dominion Post  
on Thursday 15 May 2003 around the time of the Budget. He was talking about the rate of growth in New Zealand and comparing the projected New Zealand growth rate with Australia’s. He said: “This is too slow a rate to narrow the large gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia that emerged during the 1970s and 1980s.” I thought to myself when I read that on 15 May 2003: “What happened to the 1990s the years of the National Government?”. 
So I thought I would go and have a look at the statistics. Those statistics make interesting reading. I am referring to the OECD GDP per capita rankings. Those OECD figures compare the relative performance of Australia New Zealand and the rest of the OECD countries. If one looks at 1980 and the time between 1980 and 1990—which was by and large the period of the Labour administration when our Labour predecessors were responsible for our economy—during that period Australia started at No 10 in the OECD rankings and ended six places back at No 16. During that same period New Zealand went back one place from 18 to 19. So in comparison with Australia under the stewardship of the then Labour Government New Zealand did far better. 
Members should look at the 1990s. One would expect from Dr Brash’s comments that the National period of stewardship had been an improvement on what had passed before. Curiously the 1990s the period that Dr Brash ignores in his article of May this year had Australia going forward from position 16 to 12 while New Zealand went backwards from 19 to 20. So in the 1980s under a Labour administration New Zealand went forward compared with Australia or at least not backwards as fast as Australia was going backwards; whereas in the 1990s New Zealand went backwards while Australia went forward. It is no wonder that Dr Brash ignored the 1990s when he presented his views on the Budget of Dr Cullen. 
What then do Dr Brash the National Party and ACT for that matter have to offer us for the future? What they offer is a return to the past. They offer a return to the neoclassical fundamentalist policies that failed during the 1990s as is clear from the OECD statistics that show that New Zealand performed badly when compared with Australia which had more moderate economic policies similar to those the Labour-led Government is now running in New Zealand. 
But will they admit that wrong? No they will not. They still cling to the purity of their neoclassical fundamentalism. It does not matter to the National Party and ACT that there are great big disparities in wealth and income. They do not think that the gap between the haves and the have-nots was growing. They say that it does not matter. They think the economy performs just as well with those disparities. We disagree. Our philosophy is that social cohesiveness and equality of opportunity are important to economic prosperity and to personal security. We think the failed neoclassical policies that widened the gap in wealth and income in New Zealand undermined our security and threatened our economy. 
That is evidenced by the fact that during the 1990s under the stewardship of the then National Government New Zealand went back one place in the OECD rankings per capita while Australia went forward four places. The lost decade—the decade that not only Dr Brash lost but New Zealand lost and can never catch up with—is the decade when New Zealand charged backwards from 19 to 20 when Australia was forging forward from position 16 to position 12 in the OECD rankings. 
I am pleased to say that so long as the Labour Government remains in power we will not see a return to those failed neoclassical economic policies or the stringency and the austerity that strangled the economies in provincial parts of New Zealand. I am pleased that we will have a continuation of the sound stewardship that members see under the control of the purse strings by Dr Cullen which puts us in the happy position of having a $4 billion surplus before capital obligations and being able to fund $1.8 billion into the Superannuation Fund and to audit it and more sustainably fund it in future leaving a surplus of $1.4 billion. As I said before that is after contributing to the areas that taxpayers wish to see properly funded by the State—namely an additional $737 million to health an increase of 9 percent well ahead of inflation; an increase of $481 million to education a 6 percent increase: again well ahead of the rate of inflation. 
Another area being funded is an increase of $76 million to enterprise and industry development. That increase is quite substantial in proportionate terms albeit $76 million is a smaller amount compared with the likes of health and education as it should be; but it is an important part of the increased focus that the Government has on industry and regional development. This supports the growth and innovation framework that is assisting New Zealand to develop higher-value exports to increase the value of our exports overseas and therefore improve the wealth of our country. 
It is one of the reasons New Zealand’s unemployment rate has been decreasing remarkably with unemployment now at a very low 5 percent against a background where labour force participation is at an all-time high. Again that 5 percent unemployment rate compares very well with most of those in the OECD and reflects the same confidence that people can have in the Crown accounts with low debt both gross and net debt and a substantial Budget surplus.