Power Simon: Budget Debate 
Power Simon: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:5950] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I am delighted to follow my colleague from the Manawatu. I have to say I did not agree with a word he said but I am delighted to follow him in this Budget debate. Two things struck me as I sat in the Chamber while Dr Michael Cullen read the Budget speech—and this is the fourth Budget I have sat through. Firstly I was stunned that not once during the reading of the Budget did anybody from the Government clap at any one initiative. That is the first time that has ever happened in the four Budgets I have heard since I have been in this House. Secondly I was absolutely stunned to see at the conclusion of the Budget speech delivered by Dr Michael Cullen that members of coalition partner United Future sat on their seats. 
 They sat on their seats and did not get up and applaud the Minister. They did not get up and support the Government. It was very noticeable that while we on this side of the House sat on cue all the Government members leapt to their feet. But United Future members who sit over in that corner of the Chamber who support this Government and who no doubt will vote for this bill at the end did not get to their feet. Nor did the Greens get to their feet during the course of that speech and I found that absolutely fascinating. The reason was that this Budget was lukewarm at best. 
I want to concentrate on the three areas of the Budget I am concerned about and then on one area in particular at the end that I know will interest my colleague the Hon Richard Prebble. I will spend a bit of time talking about what has happened to the convention of individual ministerial responsibility but before I do that I just say how disappointed I am that defence did not get one mention in this Budget. There was not one word about defence or foreign policy in this Budget. I thought that was appalling. It was appalling for two reasons. Firstly the Minister of Finance started this debate by saying that we live in an uncertain environment and that the Government has to be fiscally prudent in what it does. He did not explain anything about that uncertain environment. He did not explain what this Government is doing to support a credible foreign policy. He did not say what this Government would do to bolster up our defence force to meet that uncertain environment. There was no mention of any of those things at all. 
We have done some forecasting on this side of the House and we know this: defence spending is now at 0.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) falling to 0.8 percent in 2005. Compared with other figures over the last 15 years that is an appalling state of affairs. But worse when we compare this Budget with the Australian Budget that came out last week—a Budget with a major focus on defence and on foreign policy—we saw increased spending of A$2.1 billion over the next 5 years. More significantly than that up to nearly 2 percent of GDP is to be spent on defence—double what this Government will be spending on defence over the next short while. That is a sad indictment on this Government. 
One other thing was missing from the Budget which I thought was very interesting— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Have a drink. 
SIMON POWER 
: To give him credit Clayton Cosgrove did notice this although it did not get him into Cabinet. In all the discussion about a $4 billion surplus not one mention was made of agriculture—the very industry that delivered that $4 billion surplus to the Government. Did that industry get a word of thanks or a word of recognition? There was nothing—zip. There was not even a mention of those people who are the backbone of this economy and the backbone of New Zealand’s economic state of affairs. I tell the people of Rangitikei that this Government does not care that they have provided the surplus for it to spend. The Government will take the money but will not give thanks where thanks is due. 
Speaking of giving thanks where thanks is due I point out that during the course of this Budget debate we have not heard a lot about the missing generation—the generation of students who will have to stare this Government down over the fee maxima. In 1999 a very young and airbrushed looking Helen Clark made a statement on the credit card— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is that who it was? 
SIMON POWER 
: Well it could have been anyone actually. Helen Clark made a statement on the credit card that her commitment was to cut the cost to students of tertiary education. Wrong gone finished end of that! Then on a second credit card is a picture of a very different-looking Helen Clark—it could be the same person although it is difficult to pick; obviously the computers were down that day but it looks sort of similar. It states in the third point under the headings “The Next Steps” and “Our commitments to you” that Labour will “Keep tertiary education affordable.” 
Hon John Tamihere 
: I didn’t see that. 
SIMON POWER 
: Oh Minister Tamihere has not seen that! The fee maxima will see the average cost of a BA go from $3000 to $3900 overnight. Those Government members have to understand that those credit card promises are breached. Those covenants are breached and they mean nothing. I look forward to standing on the platform at the next election with the candidate who is put up for Labour in Rangitikei and asking how those credit card promises are coming along and whether there have been any breaches. Well I can tell members that that promise is the first of six to go. 
The port and sherry tax—“No other taxes will come along”—is another example of how this Government is introducing stealth revenue-gathering activities while the people who matter most to this imagined knowledge economy the students will be left out in the cold. What worries me most about that is this Government saying those credit card promises would be kept no matter what. Well I am looking forward to the media reports of Helen Clark at Otago University tomorrow. I bet $1 they will not be favourable. The reception will not be favourable. I see John Tamihere having a quiet chuckle there and wishing her well at Otago University. I tell those members sitting opposite that students now do not trust Labour. That party has come full circle and students do not trust members on that side of the House from this point on. 
I want to spend a couple of moments talking about the convention of individual ministerial responsibility. I have noticed over the course of the last 3 years that in particular Minister Dalziel and the Prime Minister are very good at blaming officials when something goes wrong in their portfolio areas. But in the last 2 days we have seen a complete erosion of the convention of individual ministerial responsibility with the Hon Parekura Horomia’s total reluctance to take responsibility for what his officials have done. I thought it was worth spending a bit of time looking at what Geoffrey Palmer had to say about these matters. He said that the idea of ministerial responsibility is often said to be one of the great protections of our constitutional system. Well so much for that. I worried when Bob Semple said: “I’m responsible but not to blame.” and did not resign as a result of the tunnel works that were not up to scratch; or Jack Marshall with the corrections issues. Those are Ministers who carried on in their portfolio areas. Denis Marshall my predecessor was caught in exactly the same predicament over Cave Creek in respect of individual ministerial responsibility. 
A spectacular example of where the doctrine of individual ministerial responsibility worked most—and my colleague Richard Prebble will remember this—was in 1986 when Budget documents were released prior to Budget day. Roger Douglas went to David Lange and said: “I am responsible for my officials mucking up and I will resign.” The doctrine of ministerial responsibility was invoked in the environment properly. David Lange said “No.” The point is this: in an MMP environment individual ministerial responsibility is a far more important convention than it was under the Westminster system because it is the only mechanism by which multi-parties have the opportunity to pin Ministers down to the departments they are responsible for. It is not good enough for a Minister to come into this House and blame officials for their department’s work when that doctrine which is one of the pillars of the Westminster model is being eroded by this Government in a disgraceful way—and that Prime Minister has a lot to answer for. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.