﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 3, Grant Robertson.
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour— Wellington Central)
to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement
that he would post a “meaningful surplus” in 2014/15; if so,
what approximate dollar figure would constitute a meaningful surplus?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by that statement.
In answer to the second part of the member’s question,
in the current circumstances of low interest rates and inflation
that could be heading to zero, any surplus will be meaningful.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Grant Robertson: Why, then, if any surplus at all would be meaningful,
did he and John Key make that promise the centrepiece of two election campaigns,
and would not a failure to post a decent surplus actually mean
he had broken his promise to NZers?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The centrepiece of our election campaigns
were the outstanding leadership of the Prime Minister
and the very good management of the economy, which is helping
lead to higher incomes and more jobs. We are on track to surplus,
but, of course, it would be easier to achieve that if that member
stopped organising protests in Wellington against any constraint
on the Public Service, as he regularly does.
Jami-Lee Ross: What progress can the Minister report
on the Government’s track to surplus?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our record is one of steady improvement
in the movement towards surplus, in what I might say were
somewhat trying circumstances. For instance, a deep recession
followed by an earthquake, where the Government has contributed
$15 billion to the rebuilding of Christchurch. So I can report
that from a large deficit of around $18 billion,
current forecasts have us headed towards surplus over the next 2 years.
Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why then,
knowing about the global financial crisis and the recession,
did he promise to NZers for two elections in a row
that a meaningful surplus would be reached in 2014-15?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we believe that is achievable.
We believe that, uniquely among developed countries, we are able
to protect the most vulnerable, not reduce any entitlements,
improve our public services and get better results,
maintain stability in our public services without large-scale change,
and get back to surplus. I admit to the member it is a bit difficult,
but we are just about there.
Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm his answer
to the primary question that a surplus of $1 will constitute
a meaningful surplus in his world?
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. As I said, any surplus will be meaningful,
but they are likely to be larger if that member stops organising protests
against restraint in the Public Service, as exhibited by him here in this photo
with his megaphone protesting outside Statistics NZ against reasonable constraints.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Grant Robertson: Does the Minister think he might be able to manage
a “$1 Bill” surplus because he is overcharging NZers $178 million
because the ACC worker and earner accounts are fully funded,
and why will he not give NZers a fair go and not overcharge them for ACC?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—either of those two supplementary questions.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with any of that. As I said to the member,
the Government has been consistently conservative in the way it has handled
ACC levies, and we have had smaller increases than officials recommended
and smaller decreases. But even in that context, by 1 April next year
we will have reduced ACC levies by $1.5 billion per year,
the equivalent of a moderate tax cut for every household in NZ.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Grant Robertson: Given that he is satisfied with a $1 meaningful surplus,
will he now not give NZers back the $178 million
that he has ripped off them from overcharging them for ACC?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: ACC is giving back something like $450 million
of ACC levy cuts on 1 April, including a reduction of $130
for every NZer who registers a car. That is not a bad effort.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 4.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community