2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement that after his tax switch New Zealanders will “be no worse off, and for the vast bulk they will be better off”?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. The Government is increasing GST, but at the same time, it is cutting income taxes and compensating people who receive income support. It is very clear that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off as a result.
How will the mum and dad, each on the average wage, who are paying $30 a week more for early childhood education for their child because of Budget-imposed costs be better off when that $30 by itself is much more than the tax cuts they will get between them?
I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition raised the example of someone on the average wage, because someone on the average wage in the period of time that we have been in Government—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specific to the person on the average wage with a child in early childhood education.
Mr SPEAKERI think that the member makes a fair point. The question related to someone with a child in early childhood education and the claim of him or her paying $30 a week more. The Prime Minister’s answer should focus on that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I ask you to look at the Hansard later this evening, or perhaps even listen to the tape of this afternoon’s proceedings. You will see that that intervention came literally 20 seconds, if not less, into the Prime Minister’s answer, in which he said: “I am glad that the member raised the issue of the average wage, because”, and at that point, we had a point of order. The member could not have possibly anticipated where the Prime Minister was going to take it, and your suggestion that the Prime Minister’s answer was inappropriate was, I suggest, inappropriate.
Let me say that you neither are stupid nor you look stupid. But, anyway, let me go back. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his question people who are on the average wage and have a child, because under a National Government I am pleased to report that they are $48 a week better off with tax cuts than they were before. The couple he is talking about are Bill and Mary Smith, who live in Auckland. Their child goes to an early childhood facility that is less than 80 percent teacher-led and will face no increase. Bill and Mary rang me last night to thank me for the $48 a week.
How will the thousands of frail elderly people whom he has stripped of their home care worth about $30 to $40 a week be better off as a result of this Budget?
I suspect they will respond the same way they did when I spoke to Grey Power and Probus Club members in Tauranga about a week and a half ago. There was an overwhelming response to the fact that I was able to tell them that a married couple on New Zealand superannuation in the time we have been in office has seen their fortnightly income go up by $142. Those pensioners were grateful that they have a National Government that is striving for growth, which is seeing a situation where after-tax wages are rising and, therefore, their pensions rise.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We let the Prime Minister make his full speech, with rhetoric, but I put it to you that I asked how the thousands of frail elderly superannuitants who have been deprived of their home care this year will be better off as a result of the tax switch, which takes away their home care and gives them much less in return.
I think on this occasion I have to say that the Prime Minister did answer the question. I accept that it was maybe not the way the member wanted. The Prime Minister could have challenged the statement in his question about taking home care away from the frail elderly, so it is difficult for me to insist on a particular answer for that kind of question.
Why did the Prime Minister say in the media this morning that wage increases would outstrip price increases, when I show to the House his Budget document from this year, which shows that increases in prices this year will be double increases in wages, and for the next 2 years the price increases will be one-third higher than the wage increases? They will not be better off, at least for the next 3 years, and the Prime Minister knows it.
My facts have been challenged. I seek leave of the House to table the document that shows exactly what I set out to the House. It is the Budget document, page 63.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has not answered the question yet—[ Interruption]
I am on my feet. This time Government benchers will be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition may recollect that he interrupted the Prime Minister’s answer with his point of order. I assumed therefore he had heard enough of the answer. Normally, the convention is to wait to the end of an answer to seek leave to table something. I think it is a bit rough for me to then ask the Prime Minister to come back and answer the question when he has been interrupted by way of a point of order by the questioner.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This could be new territory for the way points of order are interpreted. So, when the point of order interrupts an answer, does that conclude the answer? A Minister under pressure could arrange for a point of order from his or her own side in order to truncate the answer. I think that could be a very troubling development if it becomes the new standard. Or, perhaps, someone could say something deliberately offensive in order to generate a point of order.
I invited the member to be a little bit sensible about it. The member asked the Prime Minister a question, did not like the answer he was getting, and interrupted with a point of order. That meant he did not like the answer, and chose to interrupt with a point of order. He cannot then go back and say that he now wants to hear more from the Prime Minister, when he did not like the answer he was being given. Supplementary questions are the way to pursue that.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an important point. I think everyone in the House and everyone listening to question time now appreciates the support you give to Opposition MPs in making question time relevant, but it seems to me we have to also be careful that points of order should be points of order. We are noticing that points of order are being used, and every time a point is being made by the Opposition MPs they are putting in a political point. In effect, they are reinforcing a political message rather than making a simple point of order. I suggest to you, for the good order of the House, that it is a bit tough if you allow a questioner to constantly raise points of order regarding questions to, say, the Prime Minister when each time that member makes a point of order, he or she makes a political point with that point of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I say very briefly that members over time have been studying experts in that area, and when we get to about half the level that that member used to—
The member will resume his seat immediately. I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to reflect on how that helps the order of the House. All I can say is that the Hon Rodney Hide has raised a reasonable point that points of order should not be used to try to score political points. Where I perceive that that is happening, members may note that I do not give them a lot of time—as the Hon Darren Hughes observed a moment ago. Where points of order are made for good cause, I take much more notice of them. The Hon Rodney Hide might note that when the honourable Leader of the Opposition sought leave to make a political point there, I closed it down pretty quickly by saying that we would not be doing that and I put it down pretty fast. It is in members’ own hands. If they misuse points of order, they cannot expect a lot of assistance from the Speaker.
How does the Prime Minister justify his claim this morning that wage increases will outstrip price increases, when his own Budget document explains that wage increases this year will be 2.6 percent and inflation will be 5.9 percent, and that wage increases next year and the year after will be less than the CPI inflation?
The member is demonstrating to the House that he does not understand economics. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has made it quite clear that he will be looking through the inflation implications of the GST increase, and those GST increases—
Grant RobertsonI tell that member that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is not wrong; that is what he does. From that point on, New Zealanders will be a lot better off because of the personal tax cuts they get. I stand by the statement I made that New Zealanders will have a $4.3 billion personal tax cut or thereabouts that is funded off a $2 billion GST increase,
How will 500,000 home renters be better off when the Property Investors Federation has made it clear that the extra costs imposed on them in the Budget will be passed on directly to tenants, and tenants on average will be paying $34 a week extra in rent?
They will be better off because as Treasury quite correctly points out in the Budget documents that the member has just been quoting, so I assume he has read them, it expects rents to rise by 1.4 percent over the next 3 to 5 years. That is an awful lot better than the 2.6 percent they went up by under the previous Labour Government. I must say that when I looked at the New Zealand Herald this morning, I thought the subeditors had taken a little bit of licence. They wrote on the front: “John Key says we’ll all be better off, but extra costs are here ahead of extra cash”, and I thought to myself thank goodness it is not Prime Minister Phil Goff, otherwise they would have written: “We will all be worse off with more extra costs and no extra cash.”
How will home owners be better off this year when, for example, a young family in my electorate with a $300,000 mortgage will by the end of this financial year be paying $60 to $100 a week extra in interest rates on that mortgage, which will far exceed anything they will get in tax cuts?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and precise. It asked how a family like this will be better off when their interest rates, this year, will exceed the amounts they get in tax cuts. There was nothing about a Labour Government.
I think it will get a bit ridiculous if, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition is going to make open-ended statements that cannot be proven to be correct, and, secondly, if he gets to his feet and tries to interrupt me. The point I was about to make is a very clear point that specifically goes to the fact that interest rates were higher under a Labour Government—
We will hear the Prime Minister answer the question, and it is preferable for answers not to attack the questioner’s party or the questioner, first off. But let us hear the Prime Minister’s answer.
Under a National Government official cash rates have been at virtually all-time lows. They are currently now at 2.75 percent, which means that the mortgage rate is currently 6 percent. Under a Labour Government the mortgage rate was 10.9 percent. One of the reasons that interests rate will not go up as fast under this Government as they did under the previous Government is that the way we get interests rates up is to have a Government that wastes a whole lot of money and puts pressure on the system. That is what Labour did for 9 years.
Which statement are we to believe: the statement that the Prime Minister made that Bill and Mary Smith rang him this morning, or his statement to Gerry Brownlee a moment ago when he said in answer to the question: “I just made it up.”?
Hon David CunliffeI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Prime Minister to repeat that answer. Which was it: was it true—