Norman Russel: Financial Review Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNorman Russel: Financial Review Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 04 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16255. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): The issue of the Government’s fiscal performance stands as the centrepiece of this debate. I think it is very important that we remember our history in this. During the 9 years of the Labour-led Government every Budget paid down debt. It ran 9 years of surpluses. The current Minister of Finance voted against every Budget. The reason he voted against every Budget is that he said the surplus should be given away in tax cuts to upper income earners. That was the argument that Bill English and John Key made day after day year after year during the years of that Labour-led Government.You have to give credit to Michael Cullen and Helen Clark. Although we had differences with that Labour Government the fact remains that the reason why the incoming National Party Government did have a buffer was that Dr Cullen paid down debt rather than giving the surpluses away as tax cuts to upper incomer earners. That is just an historic fact. Mr English voted against every one of those Budgets because they did not give the surplus away in tax cuts to the wealthy. Instead they paid down debt. Then Mr English takes over as Minister of Finance. After the global financial crisis and the earthquakes he is able to use the fact that the previous Government reduced debt in order to buffer the effects of those two events yet he continually criticises the previous Government. The only reason that Mr English has the buffer is that the previous Government ignored Mr English’s advice and paid down debt instead of giving away tax cuts to upper income earners.Then we move into the current Government and now we have had these five Budgets. The Budgets that Mr English votes in favour of are Budgets that increase debt and give away tax cuts to upper income earners. The cost of the tax cuts to the top 10 percent of income earners is $1.1 billion every year which has had to be borrowed every year to pay for those tax cuts for the top 10 percent of income earners. Think about the priorities of this Government. When we have 300000 children living in poverty the priority for spending borrowed money by the incoming Government and the finance Minister was to spend it on tax cuts for the top 10 percent of income earners—while we have 300000 kids living in poverty. We have all of those kids who say they cannot get to school in the rain because they cannot afford raincoats who are going to school without lunches who are going hungry and who are not learning in our education system because the Government’s priority the National Party’s priority is to give tax cuts to the top 10 percent instead of putting food into the bellies of poor children so that they can learn properly.When the Green Party puts up a policy that would put food in the bellies of poor children so that they can learn properly and get an opportunity to escape poverty by getting an education the Government says it is too expensive. Our policy would cost $100 million a year. The tax cuts to the top 10 percent cost $1.1 billion per year. That is about values. The Green Party has values that say we should support poor kids to get an education. The National Party has values that say we should give money to the richest people in the country through tax cuts. That is about the differing values that are reflected in financial priorities between the National Government the Government of borrow and borrow and give it to the wealthy and the Green Party policy which is to put food in the bellies of poor kids so that they can get an education so they can get an opportunity like we all had.Lots of us in this House got an opportunity through education so that we could escape poverty. Lots of people in New Zealand had that opportunity. This Government does not want to give it to poor kids. It has introduced national standards for goodness’ sake which mean that teachers are now having to neglect poor children in their classes in lower-decile schools. They cannot afford to spend the time on those poor children because they have to try to get the kids who are near the national standard over the line. What it means is that poor kids not only are hungry at school but also they get less teacher time because the national standards policy tells teachers to focus their work on just the kids who might be pushed over the standard so that their numbers can look good.Once again poor children are left to rot by this Government. That is the Government’s priority. Instead of spending where it is needed to help out those kids so that they can get a foot on the ladder of opportunity and get an education because they are not hungry all the time the Government gives tax cuts to the top 10 percent—tax cuts that are costing $1.1 billion every year. That is $1100 million every year. It is the cost of the tax cuts to upper income earners. All that money has to be borrowed. Is that really the right priority for New Zealand?