4. Government Financial Position—Tax CutsGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of FinanceGovernment Financial Position—Tax Cuts4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he recall his statement I'm sure we'll talk about tax policy again between now and the election but we'll deal with that at the time"; if so were the Prime Minister's "hints" of further tax cuts in the weekend what he was referring to?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes I recall making that statement the day after the Budget. In terms of further discussions about tax policy my comments related to the fact that between the Budget and election day the issue of tax policy would likely be raised many times. The member is right to be observant to work out that the Prime Minister's statement of priorities on the weekend was indeed one of those times.Grant Robertson: What is the fiscal impact of the new proposed further round of tax cuts on the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update released in May?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member should note that the Government and the Prime Minister made the comments in the weekend that if we get the economy to grow faster then we would have the room to do more. That implies faster than the current Budget position and that is indeed what the Prime Minister was referring to. On the basis that the economy grows more strongly and the Government's fiscal position is contained then we would have the opportunity to potentially do more over the next term of Government.Grant Robertson: Further to that answer is the Minister of Finance confirming he has made no attempt to gauge the fiscal impact of the proposed second round of tax cuts that the Prime Minister noted in the weekend?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sherlock over there has not quite worked out that the Prime Minister said that he would like the opportunity to do it again and that if we got the room we would be able to do so. But of course we have to first get the Family Incomes Package into place on 1 April next year. I note the Labour Party is still opposed to the Family Incomes Package so we have to deal with that one first.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. The first of—[Interruption] When the Prime Minister is ready. The first of those is that Mr Joyce has been here a long time and he knows not to refer to members by anything other than their name or the electorate that they represent. The second point of order is that I asked him a very straight question and then a very specific follow-up question to assess whether or not any work had been done on the fiscal impact of the proposed second round of tax cuts. He did not answer that question.Mr SPEAKER: I missed the point in the answer where Mr Joyce may not have referred to the member correctly—I did so and I apologise. I missed that because I was busy looking through my Speakers' Rulings—I knew the member would raise a question about the quality of the answer he was giving. I refer the member please to Speaker's ruling 195/6 which talks about the answer the member can expect if he asks hypothetical questions.Grant Robertson: We are not going to deal with the first point of order?Mr SPEAKER: No I did deal with the first point of order. I said I did not hear it because I was busy looking for Speakers' rulings—I knew the member would raise a point of order about the answers he was getting. But I do advise the member that if he continues with hypothetical questions like a proposed round of tax cuts he is likely not to get an answer that satisfies him.Grant Robertson: So is he telling the House that the National Government has done no costings for what the Prime Minister said would be a priority for a future National Government and does he not recognise that the Budget he produced in May is now completely irrelevant?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Steven Joyce in so far as there is ministerial responsibility.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part of the question no.Grant Robertson: Why is giving every member of this House a $1000 a year tax cut a higher priority for him than more funding for housing health education or police?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We actually think that people working in New Zealand should get rewarded for their labour. Actually I think we are getting though to the crux of the problem from Grant Robertson's perspective which is that he hates the idea of returning tax income to New Zealand families. This $2 billion Family Incomes Package is delivering to New Zealanders. He hates that. He is against it because he thinks he should be able to spend all the tax that the Government collects."