Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:641;Page:11255] 
2.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has he received on proposals to reduce the amount of financial support available to New Zealand families? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a report suggesting that Labour’s recent extension of the Working for Families package should be “put to the sword” to fund tax cuts. Under this proposal 160000 families would lose around $50 per week 60000 families would lose entitlements to tax credits and the majority of the losers would be couples with annual incomes of between $45000 and $80000. This is another example of how the National Party’s policy of slashing Government spending to pay for tax cuts would in fact result in New Zealand families being put to the sword. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What has been the impact of Working for Families on Kiwi families with children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Working for Families package has enabled up to 360000 Kiwi families to share in the gains New Zealand has made after 8 years of great Labour-led Government. For example a couple with two young children that is earning $45000 a year is now over $7000 a year better off. A couple with four children that earns $90000 a year is over $6000 a year better off. Seventy thousand Kiwi children are being lifted out of poverty because of this package. Unlike the National Party a Labour-led Government wants to provide real opportunities for New Zealand kids and families. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister explain whether the delay in providing grandparents raising grandchildren and other kinship caregivers with more equitable financial support for foster parents is due to financial constraints policy difficulties or is it just not a priority? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member may not be aware that people who are in the position of supporting children through the unsupported child’s benefit or the orphans benefit just received around $20 extra per week. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has he received on how much better off families are under Working for Families than they would be with tax cuts? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report where John Key says that no family will be worse off under National’s plan. I have also seen a report where he says that they would be. To help clear up that confusion let me say that a two-child family with a joint income of $60000 a year would lose as much as $82 a week under National’s plans because the money that it would get from this would fund an across-the-board tax cut of less than $5 a week—$5 or $82; I think anybody can figure out it is better off with Labour. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister waste his time on speculating about hypotheticals when he should be doing something about those people on the average wage who today pay more of their income in tax than they did when he came to Government because his Government has done nothing to implement the promise it made twice to increase tax thresholds and reduce fiscal drag? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That cannot possibly be a question. The member began by asking: “Why does the Minister waste his time on speculating about hypotheticals …” and then he made a statement. Which part of that has ministerial responsibility? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes members are reminded that this is question time and not a time for making statements or debating. Could the member please rephrase that as a question. 
Hon Bill English 
: It was a question actually but I am happy to state it again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member is quite happy that it has actually gone through would he please be seated. I think my problem is the ministerial responsibility—whether in fact it was a question that would have been better directed to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister in charge of income tax so the question is ruled out of order. Are there any further supplementary questions? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In answer to an earlier question Mr Maharey spoke about people being better off under Labour and he seemed quite happy to make that statement against general public opinion now but nonetheless he then surely opened himself up to a challenge about the assertion he is making as the Minister responsible for the family support package. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution but because it was a combination of question and statements that were made it was very difficult to have the intent known. I have ruled accordingly. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the difficulty is that there was a statement in there that was out of order but if the question itself were properly phrased it would be within order. It was Mr Maharey himself who drew attention to the comparison of Working for Families with tax cuts and it would strike me that having introduced tax cuts in his answer that would allow a person to question that. It was the statement that was the problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is quite right. I gave the member an opportunity to rephrase and he said he had already asked the question. I have ruled on this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr English made that comment before you ruled the question out of order. He did so knowing he had actually used two question words in the phrasing of his question. Confusion has been introduced by Mr Winston Peters—who knows he has confused things here—but essentially what Mr English said was: “When will the Minister…” and then he spoke about an election promise that Labour has made twice and has not delivered on. In the context of both tax and family support it is quite reasonable. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member; he is relitigating my ruling. I have ruled on the matter and I have considered it fully. If there is any further debate I am afraid I will have to ask the member to leave. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker this is a request that rather than to simply take a question off the National Party you allow that question to be re-put given that Mr English declined the opportunity thinking he had asked the question prior to your ruling that the question itself was out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for another question. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: When will the Minister do something about those families where the principal earner on the average wage was paying 19 percent of income as tax when he came to Government and now is paying 23 percent of income as tax when his Government twice promised to fix that problem and then refused to do so? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member asked a little earlier about the speculation and that is clearly not the case. I am just trying to clear up the fact that as Mr Key leaps from cloud to cloud he tends to leave behind him a series of conflicting statements and what I wanted to say is that to clear up that confusion— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please get to the answer of the question. I ask the Minister to address the question with no interruptions until the Speaker has an idea as to what in fact are the thoughts. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What everyone in the House needs to understand is that every family with a household income over $27000 currently getting family support would lose money if tax cuts of the kind that are being speculated on by the National Party were introduced. Someone with two teenaged children who is on $40000 a year would lose $53; if a person were on $60000 a year with two children he or she would lose $82. The member needs to understand that the comparison is one that means we lose under tax cuts and we gain dramatically under Working for Families. That is what we have done over the last little while.