2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Will he rule out making cuts to Working for Families payments this year; if not, why not?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; if there were to be any changes to Working for Families they would take effect after the election, probably from 1 April next year.
Did he say: “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government and the reason for that is we want to ensure that there is certainty and there isn’t greater complexity in the system.”; and does he intend to break that promise?
The Government has kept its word. We have maintained Working for Families and therefore security for families’ weekly incomes, despite the fact that since the Prime Minister made that statement we have had a global financial crisis, we have had finance company meltdowns in New Zealand, and we have had two major earthquakes, as well as flat economic growth. I think that is a major achievement of this National Government.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clear and asked whether he intends to break that promise. I did not hear the answer to that question.
Mr SPEAKERI do not need any further time wasted on it. In his previous answer the Minister made it very clear—[ Interruption] If the Hon Pete Hodgson wants to remain in the House he will not interject while I am on my feet. I am not in a mood to be trifled with this afternoon. The Minister’s previous answer stated there would be no change until after the next election. The member should listen.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did listen, and I resent the reflection that I did not listen.
Did the Prime Minister also say: “I’ve said earlier there will be no changes. People will not be worse off under Working for Families.”, and will National continue to honour that promise?
As I explained to the member, National has honoured that promise. If there are any changes, as I explained to him, they would come into effect after the election. It seems to me that keeping that promise, despite the fact of a global financial crisis, finance company meltdowns, and two major earthquakes, is a remarkable achievement.
When those promises were made, were they qualified with the words “we will honour them for 3 years” or were those promises unequivocal?
The promise was made and has been kept. If there were to be any changes, we would do what any respectable Government would do, and that is go to the electorate with those changes. If they are endorsed we would implement them, and if they are not endorsed we would not implement them.
Did the Prime Minister’s colleague the Minister of Finance say: “Whether it’s national super, or student loans, or Working for Families, we’ve said we’d leave that stuff alone and we have, despite the fact that we’re running a large deficit.”, and does that assurance still stand?
I give the same answer I gave to questions about the Prime Minister’s statements: that is what has happened despite the fact we have had a global financial crisis, a couple of large earthquakes, and a finance company meltdown, as well as dealing with the leaky homes problems. These things have incurred billions of dollars of extra costs for the Government. We have stuck to what we promised, and any changes in any of it would be put in front of the electorate at the election.
When the Prime Minister talked about cutting Working for Families for those whose joint household incomes are over $100,000, is it correct that cutting Working for Families for those whose joint incomes are at that level would return only $1.7 million, as the Parliamentary Library sets out?
I seek leave of the House to table the workings of the Parliamentary Library, which point out that the savings for joint incomes over $100,000 would be $1.7 million.
If the savings on cutting back Working for Families payments to those whose joint incomes are at that level are so insignificant, can he give an assurance to this House that any cuts to Working for Families would actually dig down to people whose joint incomes reflected each income probably being less than the average wage?
The member will have to wait and see what decisions the Government makes in that area, but he ought to keep these things in proportion. Those same families are currently paying about 6 percent on their mortgages, whereas under his Government they were paying 10 percent. I think they are grateful for that.
What integrity do the promises of the National Government have when it has already broken the promise not to increase GST and when he is now telling the House that National is going to break its promises on Working for Families, and probably on KiwiSaver as well? Where is the integrity?
I am not sure today is the day for the Leader of the Opposition to make claims about integrity around public statements.
Mr Speaker, I think if you reflect on that answer you will see it went nowhere near addressing the question. [ Interruption]
There will not be any comment when I am on my feet—I got to my feet to make sure there was no comment during a point of order. The member should reflect on the question he asked. He basically accused the Prime Minister of lacking integrity, and, surprise, surprise, he got an answer that questioned his own integrity. He should not ask the Speaker to intervene under those circumstances. He should reflect on the question asked.