1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he stand by the statement in his Minister of Finance’s Budget speech that “Protecting the most vulnerable is a priority”; if so, why?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
Yes; a key objective of the Budget was to give people a sense of security in the depths of a recession, so, despite declining Government revenue, we have preserved national superannuation, benefits, student support, and Working for Families at their current levels.
Why, then, did the Budget cut $2.5 million in funding for the most vulnerable people in our community, the children in physically disabled units in schools, with the consequence that those schools and those pupils will now suffer a loss of physiotherapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy, to the serious detriment of those pupils?
Clearly, the intention of the Government is that a group of students like that have the services they need in order to participate in education. Across the board the Minister of Education and the Government have made a number of decisions about priorities.
What does the Minister say to the parents and the teachers of those children, who tell me that those children’s safety and well-being will be damaged by the Government’s cuts; and will he front up to schools like the Mount Roskill primary, intermediate, and grammar schools and tell the families who are affected why he has picked on them in order to disadvantage their already disadvantaged children?
The first thing a responsible Minister would do would be to verify the claims made by that member, given his extravagant and misleading public claims in recent months.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been informed by way of a text message that your television service is showing Mr English as answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I ask that you investigate that and have it corrected, please.
Mr SPEAKER
Chris TremainMaintaining national superannuation entitlements, benefit levels, student support, and Working for Families at their current levels is factored into all the Budget projections of future expenditure.
Why did the Minister deem it to be more important to provide an extra $35 million to private schools, when most of the children at private schools come from advantaged backgrounds, than to take $2.5 million off severely disabled children, who are the least advantaged in our school system and in our community?
Any New Zealand child has the right to a 100 percent free education. The National Party made some commitments prior to the election to make a marginal increase in the subsidy for children who go to private schools.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. It asked why the Minister decided to spend money on that group rather than on the other group. I do not think the Minister actually addressed that question.
As I heard the Minister’s answer, he explained why the Government has chosen to allocate the money in the way that it did. The Minister spoke of the commitments in the Government’s election policy programme.
Metiria TureiIs it acceptable that 150,000 New Zealand children are living in poverty; and will he commit to raising the benefit levels so that these families can live on their benefits without descending into poverty while they are out of work?
It is concerning if any child is living in poverty, because that tends to limit his or her life opportunities. The Government will need to make it a priority in the next year or so to deal with the large number of additional people who are coming into the benefit system, and we are getting the Ministry of Social Development and the Government set up to handle that growing volume.
Why did the Minister decide to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme, which was a proven success at helping those who are most vulnerable to unemployment by giving them jobs and skilled training, when both of the Ministers in this area would agree that that scheme was a success and was achieving positive outcomes?
Any number of schemes that were running in past years had some merit. However, because the fiscal outlook has changed dramatically and the economic outlook has changed dramatically, the Government has had to make a series of decisions to focus on the core priority of supporting people who are losing their jobs and maintaining entitlements for those who are most vulnerable and cannot adjust to the recession.
Who is telling the truth: the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, who said she consulted fully with Pita Sharples before deciding to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme, or Pita Sharples, who said he had not been briefed on this at all? Both of them cannot be telling the truth.
That is a bit rich coming from that member, who is losing public support because of his inability to be open with the truth.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You surely cannot accept that as being a valid answer to the question. There are two opposing statements made by two Ministers. I am asking the Minister of Finance which one of those statements is accurate and truthful. That is straightforward.
I just wish the honourable Leader of the Opposition had asked which one of those statements was accurate. Instead of that, his question implied that an honourable member of this House may not have been telling the truth. He asked which one was telling the truth. The member knows from past rulings in this House that one cannot allege that someone is telling lies or not telling the truth. I allowed the question to go, but, in fact, the way that the Minister answered it was not unexpected, given the allegation that someone was not telling the truth. Had he asked how the Minister accounted for two apparently conflicting statements, then I could have assisted the honourable member more.
Had my question been out of order, I would have expected you to rule it out of order. My understanding is that it is not outside the Standing Orders to ask the Minister which one of those statements is truthful. That is what I did, but the answer to that was not given.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to the advice that you just gave him, because he is now getting into a different interpretation of things. But in any event Speaker’s ruling 163/3 makes it very clear that there is now greater scope for the way in which questions can be asked in the House. By the same token there should also be an expectation that there be greater scope in the way in which questions are answered. The way in which the Hon Bill English answered that question was not at all unreasonable, given the way in which the question was answered. That was nowhere near as distinct and precise as the suggestion you made to the Leader of the Opposition.
I do not think we need to take more time on this matter. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that he cannot allege someone is not telling the truth. There is a way of asking that question. I am sure he is perfectly capable of asking the question, and he has further supplementary questions available in which to do that.