Jones Shane: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Jones Shane: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:637;Page:7755] 
SHANE JONES (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2007 
. In contrast to what we hear from the Opposition I would like to start by reminding members and those folk in the public who have suffered the mental dandruff from the Opposition during question time and thankfully the very lucid answers from my colleagues on this side of the House that underlying this document is a very clear strategy. The strategy is to ensure that the nation is endowed with a very robust fiscal strategy that actually enables us to deal with future problems—in particular our ageing population. 
At the broad foundation of our Budget Policy Statement are three very important building blocks. Firstly during the 8 to 9 years in which we have enjoyed fantastic opportunities to take a role in growing the economy we have built up assets in our superannuation fund—building block No. 1. What is talked about in our Budget Policy Statement? The statement says how fantastically well the value of that particular asset has grown and that it represents a very sensible and far-reaching investment in the future. 
Secondly how is this strategy to be addressed in relation to the expenditure side of taxes and expenses? The idea is to provide certainty to our households by ensuring that they understand both through transparency and a lack of any surprises what sort of tax system we are running and in what ways it will be improved. Since the time of the last election 15 to 18 months ago there have been substantial improvements to our tax system in the areas of savings and of dealing with the vexed area of overseas taxation. And of course this year we will see a further improvement in the area of business taxation which our Budget Policy Statement refers to. It also refers to our needing not only to continue to refine a sensible and sophisticated taxation system—expenses of running the State—but to pay careful attention. 
I must remind members of the House and members of the select committee—who I must say were constructive in the main—that there was an exchange between our Minister of Finance and the Opposition spokesman on finance Mr English as to whether we were running an expansionary policy. The policy we run is in response to the multiple entreaties we hear from the community to ensure that the deficit we inherited is in a social sense not worsened and that incrementally we invest not only in the physical capital the human capital but in particular in our social capital through large expenditure areas such as health etc. 
Let us talk about what is perhaps one of the crowning definitions of Dr Cullen’s time here as Minister of Finance in relation to managing debt. Debt during the 1990s was a substantial problem. One of the things that certainly defines our Minister of Finance which is reflected in this document is that financial costs are being kept low. How are we managing to do that? We are doing it with high quality stewardship which enables ourselves on behalf of the community and the electorate to play a key driving role in relation to the economy. We see buoyancy huge levels of revenue etc. that were previously virtually unseen. To suggest that that was serendipitous—that it was a positive cohesion of various random forces—is to overlook the high quality of stewardship and the very careful approach taken to managing debt. At a deeper level it is to ensure that our gross debt level never moves far away from being 20 percent of GDP—a very very important feature. 
An additional issue that has been the subject of ongoing discussion in our Budget Policy Statement is the question of what to do with the cash position—how to handle it. The cash position which is referred to in the statement does dip slightly but it fulfils an important discipline so that we do not race off and incur debt and so that our economy is not saddled with a problem that future generations will have to inherit—in very much the same way that our Government inherited a host of deficit problems from the previous National Government. 
Let us talk about some of the other overdue issues that are touched on in our Budget Policy Statement. Revenue as referred to there is up. Why is it up? GST and PAYE payments are up. Why are they up? The reason is that employment is up. Employment is up because it reflects ongoing business confidence. Yes it might be said that company profits have dipped slightly but despite the best efforts of both major parties in this House we remain powerless in the face of currency speculators and the creep upwards of our dollar. Not only has revenue gone up but Crown debt has come down. Crown debt has come down because of the growth in assets. The growth in assets is reflective of the far-sighted decision taken by the Government to invest in what we colloquially call the Cullen fund to ensure that we are building up and husbanding a range of assets to meet future demands—demands that both demographically and naturally we are unable to stand against. Of course I refer here to ageing. 
The New Zealand economy which we heard about in relation to the Budget Policy Statement when Mr Cullen came to see us at the select committee has enjoyed the strongest period of expansion and growth in over 30 years. Unemployment is low growth is up as I said earlier and confidence is up. Let us talk for a moment about why unemployment remains low. It remains low because first employers are willing to take on more workers and secondly to work with the Government on a range of social programmes and human capital interventions in order to see workers’ levels of skill grow. We can contrast that with the experience suffered by workers in the 1990s when that area was chronically overlooked. 
What is in the Budget Policy Statement can be contrasted to the total absence of ideas from the other side of the House other than ongoing niggling disruptive chipping in. We see that particularly in question time. I hope I never have the misfortune to sit directly across from Dr Nick Smith. He reminds me of some fowl moulting; he continues to peck and chip. Nothing constructive comes forward because there is nothing there. On the one hand we have Mr John Key wandering around barnstorming promising all sorts of things to different communities—who are unwise at the moment to listen to him—and on the other hand we have Mr English attacking the document and saying it is too expansionary. They cannot have both: they cannot on the one hand give away lollies and on the other hand—back where the power apparently is—screw the lid on very tightly. There will be no lollies—no expenditure of the nature we have been able to sustain in our time. 
I cannot really go much further in this short contribution without isolating the obvious confusion we will hear about and which our Budget Policy Statement actually highlights. I refer here to where the Opposition will draw its expertise from in order to match what we have done here. The newspapers—very foolishly in my view—recently profiled Mr Groser and Mr Hayes. They have identified these two obscure—I was about to say “skeletal” but that would be very offensive to Weight Watchers—individuals who have been completely overlooked while John Key seeks to get views from first Ruth Richardson and secondly Jenny Shipley. I do have a charitable thought or three for Jim Bolger. He did go out of his way in contrast to Don Brash to uphold the kaupapa of the Treaty and the Maori world. But these two individuals have been superseded—eclipsed. They have hardly even made an indentation in their chairs—well one has. And hello they are being eclipsed circumvented by the very people who drove a toxic mix of policies in our view—I ask about the deficit that we were elected in 1999 2002 and 2005 to overcome. So what do we have? We have a group of advisers hoping to take care of the fresh leader but they are yesterday’s people. Kia ora tatou.