1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
In light of the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that money taken from some families getting Working for Families would be used to help low-income New Zealanders, will the changes to be made in his Budget next week make the Alexander family, who appeared on Campbell Live on Monday night, be better or worse off?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
The Prime Minister has said the scheme will be better targeted to low-income families and it will be a little less generous to families higher up the Working for Families scale. In relation to the Alexander family, I simply cannot comment on the family’s individual circumstances. What I can say is that the Government has a strong track record of protecting the most vulnerable families, and I would expect that family has benefited from increases in Working for Families payments and tax cuts.
Will a family with a baby and on one income, who received an $11-a-week tax cut from the Government’s tax switch, and who are receiving Working for Families, have more or less money from Working for Families if the changes foreshadowed yesterday are implemented?
The House will just have to wait for the Budget to get the details of that. But the Prime Minister has stated that the scheme will be better targeted towards lower-income families.
Will the one-income family, with four children, paying mortgage, rates, insurance, power, gas, telephone, and car expenses, who have told Campbell Live that they have $50 a week left to feed and keep their family and that without Working for Families they would be lost, be better off after his Budget; if so, when?
Again, the member will have to wait for the details. But as she will know, in respect of both types of families it depends crucially on their level of income, because those with higher incomes get lower Working for Families payments. I might say, with regard to the family who is paying off a mortgage, that they have the benefit of the lowest mortgage interest rates in 40 years.
If the commitment is to redirect Working for Families from higher-income New Zealanders to low-income New Zealanders, does he intend to release tables outlining exactly how much better or worse off people who currently receive Working for Families will be before the election, so they can decide whether the policy is fair; if not, why not?
This Government will continue with the same way that it handles these kinds of policy issues, and that is being considered, responsible, moderate, and totally transparent.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: about whether the Minister would release tables outlining who will be better or worse off before the election.
Mr SPEAKERI accept the member’s question was totally free of any political content or innuendo, but I think the Minister indicated that the Government will handle it in the way that it has previously handled it. It would be a bit precious for me to force him to say whether that would include a table. The member does have further supplementary questions in which to put more heat on that issue, if she wishes.
In light of the Prime Minister’s statement that low-income families have a much greater need for assistance, in what form will that assistance come—for example, greater access to budgeting services, so that they can make, as John Key said, better lifestyle choices?
Assistance to low-income families comes in a number of forms. Working for Families is in the form of cash payments. In terms of access to education, of course, it is in the form of funding directly to schools and to salaries. Families are enjoying the benefit of having a Government that is very focused on lifting the achievement for their children in the health services. The assistance comes in the form of better, sooner, and more convenient health services. The Government has done a reasonable job of protecting our most vulnerable families through what has been a very difficult time for Government finances and for New Zealanders.
Why did he recently reduce the additional funding that was to be given to budget advisory services following the promise from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that they would be adequately funded, when she said they were doing invaluable work and she considered them to be local heroes, and when many of them now face a 70 percent increase in their client numbers in just the last year?
The Government has provided what we believe to be adequate increases in social assistance and social services. There have been a number of changes for particular grants and particular services. We often find that when the increase is not as large as some people expect, the Opposition calls it a cut—and I think that basically sums up its economics.
John BoscawenIs it correct that if New Zealand had not had the previous Government’s spend-up between 2004 and 2008, the Government would not have to borrow over $180 per week on the Alexanders’ behalf?