4. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by all his statements on KiwiSaver?
Rt Hon JOHN KEYDid he promise New Zealanders in a television broadcast: “We’re backing a KiwiSaver scheme by putting in 2 percent and being matched by 2 percent from the Government and 2 percent from your employer. For every $1 you put in under our scheme, $3 ends up in your account.”, and will he honour that promise?
Yes, and if there are any changes to them, New Zealanders will be able to vote on that—it is called election day.
Mr SPEAKERWhat does the Prime Minister say to Eric Hayward, who states that National has changed the rules on us, and has gone back on its word that it would not cut KiwiSaver entitlements?
We will be making changes to KiwiSaver and announcing those changes on Thursday. New Zealanders will have a chance to vote on all of those changes and decide whether they want to endorse a National Government. If the member is seriously telling us that, by the way, a Government cannot have a new manifesto and take it to the people of New Zealand, then Labour will be selling assets; Labour did that in the 1990s with Phil Goff. Labour would actually have a proper tax system, as opposed to the one that Phil Goff is proposing. It would have rational economic policy, like Phil Goff had between 1984 and 1990. Governments change their position; good Governments in transparent times take it to the people. [ Interruption]
That was not very satisfactory all round, with the applause and then the Leader of the Opposition feeling that he needed to say something. Let us have just the supplementary question.
Having now reversed the first reversal that he made to the level of contribution into KiwiSaver just 2 years ago, does he understand that changing the rules every time the Government wants to cut spending simply erodes trust and confidence in KiwiSaver?
The No. 1 way to gain trust is to have a series of policies, go out to the public, and campaign on them. One cannot start claiming that this Government does not do that, because we have kept our word. Where we want to have a new prescription for the economy, we will campaign on it. The trouble for Labour is that it has nothing to campaign on. We do not know what its policies are—
I apologise to the honourable Leader of the Opposition. That was unnecessary from the National back benches. I will not tolerate more of that today.
Why is it the Prime Minister’s priority to cut $500 a year from low and middle income earners who are saving through KiwiSaver ahead of taking back some of the enormous tax cuts that he gave to the highest income earners, including people like himself, who got more than $1,000 a week in tax cuts?
If one looks at the tax package that National delivered in 2010, one sees that two-thirds of all of those tax cuts went to the bottom two bands. I think the member should stop making personal statements about me that are not correct. [ Interruption]
Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the warning from the credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s that says that KiwiSaver cuts have the potential to push New Zealand further into debt, not take it out of debt?
That is not what Standard and Poor’s said. What Standard and Poor’s recognise is what the Government recognises—that is, when the Government is borrowing to put money in people’s KiwiSaver accounts, that is not real borrowing.
Why is it “borrowing” to put money into KiwiSaver but not “borrowing” to give $2.5 billion a year in tax cuts to the top 10 percent?
That is an outstanding question. For a start off, National’s tax plan 2010—it does not matter how many times Labour members want to disagree with it; they are just making it up as they do with so much other stuff—was fiscally neutral. By the way, the entire personal tax cuts right across the board for every New Zealander totalled $2.5 billion. As we see so often, when Labour members cannot win the argument with facts, they just make it up and they say it only inside the House, not outside the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does he stand by his reply to the supplementary question last week that asked whether he was aware of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and takeover 3 weeks before he made his KiwiSaver commitment—[ Interruption]
I cannot hear the question, despite the questioner being right next to me. The honourable member may start his question again.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does he stand by his reply to the supplementary question last week that asked whether he was aware of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and subsequent takeover 3 weeks before he made his KiwiSaver commitment, when he said: “I was not aware of the takeover by the Bank of America by Merrill Lynch. That happened long after I left the company.”?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated that he had no responsibility. He does have responsibility—
The member is litigating the answer given. The Prime Minister has given an answer and the House has to accept that answer. I cannot second guess Ministers’ answers. Whether or not the member likes the answer, it was an answer. It can be tested further, either now or in the future, but it was an answer.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is your view that there is some liberalness with answers when it comes to questions that are political. Can I ask you, Mr Speaker, since when has it not been the Prime Minister’s responsibility to answer questions about a question that he answered last week? It is absolutely—
If the member wants to get too technical on it, today’s primary question asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by all his statements on KiwiSaver. The primary question had nothing to do with Merrill Lynch or whomever. As I heard the supplementary question I thought it was getting pretty wide of the mark. For me to try to insist that the Prime Minister answer any more than he has is, I think, unreasonable, because the supplementary question asked was pretty wide of the mark. If the member wants to put down a primary question about that area, then that is no problem at all, as long as it is in an area that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for. That is my dilemma this time, because that was well wide of the mark.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will make it clear again that when I asked the supplementary question, I indicated that the Prime Minister had spoken of KiwiSaver in his answer. It was an answer to question No. 2 on Wednesday, 11 May. It was entirely about KiwiSaver.
Just mentioning a word in a question does not automatically bring it into line with the primary question. It was a big stretch, but I did not rule the question out. There is a limit to how much I can ask a Minister to answer. In respect of that kind of supplementary question, I believe the Prime Minister gave a pretty clear answer when he pointed out that he was not responsible—and he is not responsible—for Merrill Lynch. Whether there are any other avenues through which members can pursue these matters, well, certainly, primary questions can pursue matters in greater detail, but today I feel it would be totally unreasonable of me to pursue that one further.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for pursuing this, but I would ask you to go back and listen to the tapes. Each time I attempted to ask that supplementary question, it started: “Does he stand by his reply”.
I accept the point the member is making: if in the supplementary questions the Prime Minister had mentioned Merrill Lynch in his reply today, then, indeed, that would have been a perfectly fair supplementary question. But given, though, the questions today, I felt that the supplementary question was on the margins. I did not rule it out because I thought that would be unreasonable of me. But then I think it would be equally unreasonable of me to insist, under those circumstances, on any further answer from the Prime Minister today. I am sure that if the member wants to pursue the issue in the future, he will think of a primary question that brings it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep this going, but the primary question was about statements relating to KiwiSaver. This was a supplementary question to a question about KiwiSaver. It was something that the Prime Minister said in this House when being questioned about KiwiSaver. I do not think you can—
I think I have been pretty reasonable. Had the Prime Minister mentioned Merrill Lynch today, I would have had no problem whatsoever, because the supplementary questions to today’s primary questions must relate to today’s primary questions. Merrill Lynch has nothing to do with statements the Prime Minister has made on KiwiSaver. That is the difficulty I have. Had he mentioned Merrill Lunch today, there would have been no problem at all, because Ministers can certainly be questioned on supplementary questions on anything they include in their answers during question time. But to try to make the link back today, I think, is asking me to be unreasonable, and I do not believe that I can do that.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I seek leave to table the summary table from the Executive Summary of Budget 2010, which shows that—