7. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he stand by his statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in relation to comments previously made by the Minister of Revenue, that “… I’m the person responsible for either having or filling fiscal holes. In the end, that buck stops literally right here.”; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) Link to this
Yes; because I try to be helpful to select committees.
Why is the Minister hiding from the country the most simple of facts—whether the business tax review is revenue neutral—when, after all, he is happy to tell us that the fiscal buck stops with him and only with him, and when he must surely know that a tax review that is revenue neutral has vastly different implications from one that is not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Minister of Revenue and I are working on a range of options, some of which may and some of which may not be revenue neutral.
Does the Minister agree with the comments of the Minister of Revenue with regard to the business tax review that he is not interested in a smoke and mirrors game, that it is not a matter of rearranging the deckchairs, that he is not only interested in a regime that lowers costs for business, and that it is very difficult to make a real difference without having some fairly sizable numbers attached; and does he think these comments imply significant fiscal costs arising from the review?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
As I said, the Minister of Revenue and I are working on a range of options, some of which may and some of which may not be revenue neutral.
Chris TremainWhat is so secret about the business tax review that, despite its being the biggest review of taxation since 2001, the terms of reference have never been released, the only paper on the scope of the review has been withheld under the Official Information Act—it began in secret—and only very sketchy details about what the review is actually doing have been announced?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Nothing. It is the nature of the review that when we release a discussion document, the discussion document will contain the material the member seeks.
Should any of us be surprised by the fact that the Government has not worked out even simple details like the fiscal implications of the business tax review, when the Prime Minister does not even know whether the Minister will be reading the Budget in 2007?
Madam SPEAKERHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The Prime Minister is very clear that I will be reading the Budget in 2007; the question is whether by then the member will have achieved his ambition and be sitting in Dr Brash’s seat as opposed to his present one.
Shane JonesHas the Minister seen any international reports comparing the way revenue is collected to meet fiscal needs in New Zealand and in other OECD countries?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Yes. Last week the OECD released a report showing that New Zealand has the third-lowest tax wedge in the OECD for the average worker, and that income taxes are significantly higher, on average, in the OECD than in New Zealand.
Has the Minister seen today’s report that one of New Zealand’s premier companies, Fletcher Building, is considering joining a long list of New Zealand companies that have relocated their head offices to Australia, and does this concern him; if so, why does he not think it important enough to rush along his business tax review, to do something about just that situation?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I am advised that Fletcher Building has denied that report. Indeed, the chief executive of Fletcher Building has been prominent in the debate in the last year or two, rejecting the bumper sticker slogans coming from the National Party.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
On the question of the collection of revenue, for which the Minister is responsible in terms of the policy—[ Interruption]—you wouldn’t know, Gerry, would you?
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to apologise to the member. I was not laughing at him, but I am not surprised he is sensitive.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member has compounded his error now with his smart-alec so-called apology. I ask you to ask the member to get up and apologise without any constraint as to what the apology means.
There was an interjection. Would the member please withdraw and apologise without any other comment, so that we can proceed.
Everyone is on a last warning. When an interjection is made while a question is being asked, that member is normally removed from the House. I now put everyone on a last warning.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I going to get an apology for Mr Brownlee’s remarks in respect of that so-called apology? He offended against the rule about not making any comment during the asking of a question. He has been on notice about that before. Then he compounded it with a so-called apology, which was not an apology at all. I am asking to be treated in the same way as the rest of us, and for him, regardless of his supposedly temporary position, to be told to apologise and withdraw.
I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise, please, without comment. [ Interruption] You are not doing so? Right.
Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we are in grave difficulty, because Mr Brownlee has told the House that all he did was smile. [ Interruption] Laugh. Mr Peters can hardly take objection to that; we would have to withdraw and apology every time someone laughs in the House. That would become ridiculous, because the entire Opposition would be apologising right through question time.
Mr Brownlee said he laughed. I thought I heard an interjection; the laughter was extraordinarily loud if it actually got to that level. I want you all please to just settle. You are all on your last warning. You can be capable of being misinterpreted, if there are any loud interjections when members are asking questions. So, please, can we proceed, with Mr Peters just asking his question at this point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you ask a member to apologise, he does; he does not refuse, in the way that Mr Brownlee just did. You asked him whether he was going to apologise, and he said “No”. If the answer is no, then he is out of the House.
Yes, there was an interjection. I have tried, in fact, to be reasonable on this. Mr Brownlee, will you please apologise so that we can proceed.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You actually have not established that it was Mr Brownlee who interjected. In fact, what you are insisting on is that Mr Brownlee apologise for laughing, and I say it is a pretty dark day in the House if that is cause for an apology. I think you might have the wrong person.
Would the member please be seated. He is only repeating himself, and there is also a ruling about not making persistent points of order. Whether or not it was laughter, I heard it as an interjection. In order to try to progress the business of the House, it seemed easier just to ask the member to apologise, rather than remove him, because I had not given the final warning for the day. He is refusing to apologise. I will ask him one more time. Would the member please apologise.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Madam Speaker, with respect, that also is a challenge to you. He was told—and he admitted it initially—that he was being asked to apologise for laughing in such a raucous manner that question time could not happen. That is clearly in the Hansard. He compounded that by making some smart-alec comment for which he was asked to apologise again. Then he refused twice to do so, and now, when he has finally apologised, he has challenged your authority by saying, in short, that you have made a ruling that is meaningless. He has interrupted question time. That is what he has been ordered to apologise for, and it is as clear as daylight.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
On the question of filling fiscal holes, what reports has the Minister seen that would make that extraordinarily difficult, should there be a borrowing programme of the type envisaged in the last election campaign, where tax cuts were a central issue?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can the Minister of Finance be required to answer that, and stay within the bounds of the ruling that you gave to the House just last week? What you made clear is that a Minister can answer questions if they relate to the Minister’s portfolio. National’s election pledges—advertised by us at our own expense, I might add—have nothing to do with Michael Cullen.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
The facts are these. This question has been asked in various forms for many, many months. It was the subject of questions before the election campaign and substantially after it. To try to say this is a question without precedence is a nonsense. The National Party should get somebody who knows the Standing Orders to run its procedure in relation to order in the House.
We are not at all arguing that there is a problem with questions asked in the past; I asked how this fits in with your new rulings, which, presumably, applied from the day you gave them last week.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, as Minister of Finance I am responsible for consideration of all suggestions about changes to fiscal settings, whether in terms of revenue expenditure, borrowing, or whatever else, and what the implications of those may be for New Zealand.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I have seen suggestions that the Government should borrow money in order to pay for tax cuts. That will lead to rising debt, and is quite different from any suggestions around borrowing to pay for capital expenditure. Indeed, the National Party itself costed the increased borrowing at $3.5 billion.