Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10661] 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will Budget 2010 create jobs and reduce the cost of living for hard-working New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In many ways it will support growth by getting the economy back to saving exporting and investing rather than relying on borrowing and Government spending. It will provide better front-line public services particularly in health and education. It will continue the Government’s multibillion-dollar investment in infrastructure supporting jobs and growth. It will control public debt and it will deliver a fairer and more incentivised tax system. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did his Government gut KiwiSaver and defer New Zealand Superannuation Fund savings when the Australian Government has further increased its rate of compulsory savings; and why does he not follow Australia’s example and increase Government contributions to KiwiSaver? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In respect of the Australian decision on its superannuation contributions it is talking about a 3 percent increase over 10 years. We expect to do much better than that. We expect New Zealand wage earners to have a bigger increment in their hands much sooner than that and they will have a choice as to whether they save it in KiwiSaver or in some other way. 
Chris Tremain 
: How will the Budget 2010 outlook compare with that of 18 months earlier? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Fortunately this Budget will be prepared against a background of 12 months of sound management by this Government rather than 9 years of mismanagement by the previous Government. In October 2008 the pre-election forecast showed net debt climbing rapidly; by December 2008 the forecast showed net debt soaring past 50 percent of GDP and permanent deficits. In this Budget we will not have to take action to improve that kind of mismanagement. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why when New Zealand’s unemployment is rising and Australia’s is falling is he still doing the opposite of Australia: raising GST cutting contributions to the Superannuation Fund and removing incentives to save? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is wrong about some of those things. We are putting together a Budget and a tax package that will be suitable for the needs of the New Zealand economy. Unfortunately the New Zealand economy was managed badly for 9 years. The previous Government squandered the best opportunity for economic growth in a generation and we have to fix it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Speaker I am still on my feet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But he has raised a point of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He has not Mr Speaker; he simply stood up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he has called a point of order and I must hear it. The Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Sit down Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better have a good point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I recall the preceding point of order with the same Minister in question No. 1. Mr Speaker you have ruled that historical references to a former Government are in bounds where they are succinct and related to the question asked. You have further ruled that hypothetical references to another party’s policies are out of bounds. This Minister has in his reply to this question tried to reinterpret the historical record making up stories about the previous Government’s performance and that would be out of the bounds of the ruling you made earlier Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member thinks back to his question he will see that he asked the Minister for his opinion about something asking why the Government was doing this or that. The Minister has to have some licence in answering a question asking for his opinion. I cannot rule that the Minister give a particular opinion; he will give his opinion. Sometimes when Ministers are asked for their opinions members may get answers that are not exactly what they want to hear. I believe the reference he has made so far was not ascribing any particular policies to Labour; he was giving his opinion about previous policies. I think the Minister is entitled to do that when he is asked for his opinion. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why unlike in Australia will this Minister not roll out a real plan for jobs and growth such as creating more than 1200 jobs by building train carriages for Auckland’s electrification project? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As has been explained the business of building those trains is reasonably sophisticated. One would not expect a taxi company to suddenly decide to manufacture its own cars in New Zealand. In the end the KiwiRail board will make that decision. It is clear that KiwiRail will need to renew its rolling stock. It has the capacity to do that and perhaps its workshop should focus on something that is within its capacity where it can be competitive. 
Chris Tremain 
: What economic recipe would see hard-working New Zealanders lose their jobs and increase their cost of living? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The kind of recipe that would have that effect for New Zealanders would be promulgated by a Government that set out to borrow a whole lot more money spend it on low-effectiveness public services raise taxes and leave a lot of debt for future workers to pay back. That recipe is the one promulgated by Phil Goff and his finance spokesperson. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that we could have had a clearer example of a breach of your ruling from earlier in the day than that. Not one part of that reply as he finished it and made it clear was within the areas of responsibility of the Minister of Finance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The great bulk of the Minister’s answer was absolutely within the Standing Orders. It was the last bit that he should not have ascribed. But this is a political Chamber. If he had gone on I would have absolutely cut him off but for goodness’ sake he added only about five words there that were what I would consider to be in breach. But most of his answer was describing policies that he believed would be the wrong recipe. OK; then he did transgress in suggesting that those policies are what Labour is promoting. But we cannot divorce this place from political exchange. I have heard several Ministers and members particularly Labour’s spokesperson on finance asking questions where they have inserted their views about things into the question. That is the dilemma but I do not think I should try to stop that. After all this Chamber is a political debating chamber and I try to make sure that transgressions do not go over the top. But if the Minister had continued to ascribe a whole lot of particular policies to Labour I would have stopped him because the Minister has no right to do that.