Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3979] 
3.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he accept that Statistics New Zealand data shows the real disposable incomes of the poorest 20 percent of New Zealand households increased over the 1990s despite the cuts to welfare benefits in 1991; if so does he agree that the Statistics New Zealand data contradicts comments made by the Prime Minister that the reforms of the 1990s left “the poorest New Zealanders an estimated twenty to twenty five per cent worse off”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No and no. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I am stunned I must confess. Further to the Minister’s comments yesterday that welfare cuts in 1991 left the poorest New Zealanders 20 to 25 percent worse off should we conclude that the Government believes that increasing the benefit payroll by nearly 10 percent over the next 4 years as predicted by Treasury in December is the ultimate way of improving the lot of the poorest New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. In fact what the data shows clearly is that the most important factor is the number of people in employment and how that affects household income. But could I point out to the member that firstly the Statistics New Zealand data shows very clearly that the bottom 20 percent were worse off in 1998 than they were in 1990; secondly the bottom 10 percent were worse off in 1998 than in 1991; and if we take the full gamut of the entire reform period between 1982 and 1998 we find that the bottom 10 percent fell 5 percent and the top 10 percent increased their real incomes by 43 percent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very close to the member but I could not hear that final figure. Could you ask him to repeat it please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I could hear it. 
David Cunliffe 
: What other aspects of change in the 1990s did the Prime Minister mention in her speech? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: She reminded us that after those cuts the unemployment rate rose to double figures the public health system was rearranged on a commercial model and the cost of gaining tertiary education access rose very steeply indeed. These seem to be the reforms of the 1990s that Dr Brash continues to praise. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister have any estimate of how much of the social wage was lost in the 9 years of National rule from December 1990—that is the loss of a wide range of things that were formerly provided by the State—and does he agree that income alone is only a part of what keeps people in poverty? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a very perceptive question. I do not have the exact figures in front of me but clearly there are other factors that come into play—for example the abandonment of income-related rents is very important in terms of the impact upon low-income households; the increased cost of health care; and the increased cost of education. People may have slightly more money in some cases but that money has to stretch further than it did in 1990. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister seeking to lay the blame wholly at the door of National when he knows full well that he Helen Clark and a number of his front-bench colleagues today happily went along with the Rogernomics revolution which did so much damage to New Zealand between 1984 and 1990? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister and I both disagree with the word “happily” in that question. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Could the Minister tell the House exactly what were the facts or reports on which the Prime Minister based her statement that the reforms of the 1990s left “the poorest New Zealanders an estimated 20 to 25 percent worse off”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister did not actually say that. I suggest people read what she said. She said: “It was part of a radical right menu of change which also slashed welfare spending and public housing subsidies leaving the poorest New Zealanders an estimated 20 to 25 percent worse off.” That is undeniably correct when one looks at the benefit cuts of 1991. The poorest were worse off by up to 25 percent. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find that this House gets itself into a terribly unacceptable position. The Minister just answered saying to this House that the Prime Minister did not say that. He then went on to quote the Prime Minister’s words and the words included those words: “leaving the poorest New Zealanders an estimated 20 to 25 percent worse off.” Both cannot be true. He cannot say the Prime Minister did not say it then read a quote from her that included those words. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Unfortunately that is debatable material not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Of course it is Parliament and the member will behave himself. I made a ruling. I said that the comment that had been made by Mr Williamson could well be in his own view correct and he is entitled to say it but that is not necessarily in any way related to the question and answer period. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that even on the basis of the Minister’s own figures which are certainly different from the ones I have the assertion made by the Prime Minister that the living standards of the poorest people in New Zealand dropped by 20 to 25 percent simply is not true? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No that is not correct. Some poor people had their benefits cut by up to 25 percent in 1991. Their incomes— 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s not what she said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh yes that is what she said. It is also clearly true that during the 1990s the bottom 20 percent got worse off. There is the graph; read it. Down is down; up is up. See that—1990-98. It is not like looking at interest rates on a Reserve Bank table. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would be good enough to assure the House that the Prime Minister approved that graph. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order.