Tax System and Benefit System—Alternative Approaches

King Hon Annette King Link to this

No, this was yesterday. Their justification is that these people—

I hope the Minister’s quoting correctly.

Bennett David Bennett Link to this

—hang on; no, listen, the member might learn—have paid income tax while they have been working, so they should get something back for it. The policy of Phil Goff and Annette King represents a fundamental change in Labour’s thinking about welfare. Assistance will now be targeted to those who have paid the most tax, rather than to those who have the most need.

Do the reports the Minister has received imply that the welfare system should be considered more like an insurance scheme?

The policy proposals of Phil Goff and Annette King essentially turn the welfare system into a form of insurance against redundancy, to replace lost income and to help people who have made poor investments. I am surprised that the rest of the Labour caucus has gone along with this policy, which turns the welfare system on its head.

I ask Ministers to be careful in answering questions; they are not responsible for the Labour Party’s policies. They can certainly refer to them if they have reports on them, but they are meant to answer about their own policies. Certainly some comparison could be drawn, but an entire answer should not be focused on attacking the Opposition’s policies. I ask Ministers to respect that convention.

Is it now Government policy to bring back asset testing of beneficiaries and superannuitants—something the previous National Government, including Bill English, introduced, and which caused hardships to thousands of older New Zealanders?

Bennett David Bennett Link to this

The answer to that is no. The National-led Government is, however, firmly committed to the welfare system as a safety net for those most in need, and we will continue to keep that policy in place. We understand that Labour wants to move unemployment to an insurance system, where those who are paid the most get the most benefit from going on the unemployment benefit.

Do the reports he has received indicate that a good policy process has been followed?

The reports of the policy proposal I have seen from the Labour Party demonstrate that the policy was—

Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr English has amused himself by talking about matters long past and in previous Governments, and that has been accepted by you, Mr Speaker. He is now straying to venture his own personal opinions about whatever he considers to be the internal processes of the Labour Party. That is quite clearly out of order, and I ask you to help him curtail himself.

Quite apart from the fact that the issues raised by David Cunliffe are in fact debating points, I think that it would be fair to say that the honourable Bill English, in referring to so many of the current Labour members who were Ministers or at least active in that party in the 1980s, serves simply to demonstrate just how fresh the face of Labour is today.

I blame myself for allowing that, because points of order should not be used to make disparaging comments about other parties or members of this House. The Standing Orders are very simple on this matter. Ministers are not responsible for any other party’s policy. They can certainly comment on reports or can report the information they have from reports on other parties’ policies. That is perfectly proper. But they should not comment on other parties’ policies, be hypothetical about them, or offer their own analysis on them, because that is not within the Standing Orders. The Minister may tell the House what is contained in reports about which he was asked.

I have seen reports on the front page of the newspaper of a man who was in a vulnerable situation and who was used for political purposes by the Labour Party, which has now left him high and dry. Apparently, he is to blame for the fact that he is not eligible, rather than Phil Goff and Annette King, who dragged this person and his misfortune into the centre of political debate, and did so misrepresenting his situation.

Will the Government’s new asset-testing policy include shares in companies like Tranz Rail, whether the holding is 30,000, 50,000, or 100,000 shares?

Hughes Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

It is those kinds of questions and implications that mean that no one takes that spokesperson seriously.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon David Cunliffe put a question to the Minister of Finance. It was a factual question, and he got a completely dismissive response.

I hear the point the member is making. The slight dilemma I have on this matter is that the supplementary question was so far wide of the primary question. The primary question was actually about reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefits system. I believe that the supplementary question asked about shareholdings in State-owned enterprises. That is why I had some difficulty in pulling the Minister up on it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [ Interruption]

I have called the point of order and there will be silence. I will not have that kind of barracking, or a Government member will be taking an early shower.

There are two points to be made in relation to that matter. The first case is that the primary question was extremely broad. It referred to any reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefits system. The second point is that in my first supplementary question I asked whether it was Government policy to bring back asset testing. My second supplementary question directly followed from the first in asking for a specific aspect of that policy.

Bennett David Bennett Link to this

I appreciate the attempt by the member to link asset testing for welfare benefits to shareholding in State-owned companies. I believe that that is a pretty long bow to draw, which is why I wondered whether I should allow the supplementary question. I allowed it because I do not want to interfere too much. When the Minister did not answer the question precisely I felt that I could not intervene there either, because the supplementary question was so far wide of the primary question.

What advice does the Minister have for people who are experiencing financial difficulty because of redundancy?

King Hon Annette King Link to this

I strongly advise people in that situation to make an appointment with their local Work and Income office to have a full assessment made of their circumstances and eligibility for assistance. Work and Income can provide a wide range of assistance for people who have been made redundant. However, I strongly advise them not to make an appointment with the Labour Party, because they will never quite know when they will be dragged into political debate and have their personal circumstances misrepresented for political purposes.

“Mr Angry”!