Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 17 June 2009. Volume:655;Page:4355. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by the statement in his Minister of Finance’s Budget speech that “Protecting the most vulnerable is a priority”; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; a key objective of the Budget was to give people a sense of security in the depths of a recession so despite declining Government revenue we have preserved national superannuation benefits student support and Working for Families at their current levels. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why then did the Budget cut $2.5 million in funding for the most vulnerable people in our community the children in physically disabled units in schools with the consequence that those schools and those pupils will now suffer a loss of physiotherapy speech therapy and occupational therapy to the serious detriment of those pupils? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Clearly the intention of the Government is that a group of students like that have the services they need in order to participate in education. Across the board the Minister of Education and the Government have made a number of decisions about priorities. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Minister say to the parents and the teachers of those children who tell me that those children’s safety and well-being will be damaged by the Government’s cuts; and will he front up to schools like the Mount Roskill primary intermediate and grammar schools and tell the families who are affected why he has picked on them in order to disadvantage their already disadvantaged children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The first thing a responsible Minister would do would be to verify the claims made by that member given his extravagant and misleading public claims in recent months. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just been informed by way of a text message that your television service is showing Mr English as answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I ask that you investigate that and have it corrected please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member and I am sure that it will be looked into immediately. 
Chris Tremain 
: Will the Government guarantee a range of entitlements in future Budgets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Maintaining national superannuation entitlements benefit levels student support and Working for Families at their current levels is factored into all the Budget projections of future expenditure. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister deem it to be more important to provide an extra $35 million to private schools when most of the children at private schools come from advantaged backgrounds than to take $2.5 million off severely disabled children who are the least advantaged in our school system and in our community? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any New Zealand child has the right to a 100 percent free education. The National Party made some commitments prior to the election to make a marginal increase in the subsidy for children who go to private schools. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. It asked why the Minister decided to spend money on that group rather than on the other group. I do not think the Minister actually addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I heard the Minister’s answer he explained why the Government has chosen to allocate the money in the way that it did. The Minister spoke of the commitments in the Government’s election policy programme. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it acceptable that 150000 New Zealand children are living in poverty; and will he commit to raising the benefit levels so that these families can live on their benefits without descending into poverty while they are out of work? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is concerning if any child is living in poverty because that tends to limit his or her life opportunities. The Government will need to make it a priority in the next year or so to deal with the large number of additional people who are coming into the benefit system and we are getting the Ministry of Social Development and the Government set up to handle that growing volume. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister decide to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme which was a proven success at helping those who are most vulnerable to unemployment by giving them jobs and skilled training when both of the Ministers in this area would agree that that scheme was a success and was achieving positive outcomes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any number of schemes that were running in past years had some merit. However because the fiscal outlook has changed dramatically and the economic outlook has changed dramatically the Government has had to make a series of decisions to focus on the core priority of supporting people who are losing their jobs and maintaining entitlements for those who are most vulnerable and cannot adjust to the recession. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Who is telling the truth: the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett who said she consulted fully with Pita Sharples before deciding to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme or Pita Sharples who said he had not been briefed on this at all? Both of them cannot be telling the truth. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a bit rich coming from that member who is losing public support because of his inability to be open with the truth. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You surely cannot accept that as being a valid answer to the question. There are two opposing statements made by two Ministers. I am asking the Minister of Finance which one of those statements is accurate and truthful. That is straightforward. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just wish the honourable Leader of the Opposition had asked which one of those statements was accurate. Instead of that his question implied that an honourable member of this House may not have been telling the truth. He asked which one was telling the truth. The member knows from past rulings in this House that one cannot allege that someone is telling lies or not telling the truth. I allowed the question to go but in fact the way that the Minister answered it was not unexpected given the allegation that someone was not telling the truth. Had he asked how the Minister accounted for two apparently conflicting statements then I could have assisted the honourable member more. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Had my question been out of order I would have expected you to rule it out of order. My understanding is that it is not outside the Standing Orders to ask the Minister which one of those statements is truthful. That is what I did but the answer to that was not given. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to the advice that you just gave him because he is now getting into a different interpretation of things. But in any event Speaker’s ruling 163/3 makes it very clear that there is now greater scope for the way in which questions can be asked in the House. By the same token there should also be an expectation that there be greater scope in the way in which questions are answered. The way in which the Hon Bill English answered that question was not at all unreasonable given the way in which the question was answered. That was nowhere near as distinct and precise as the suggestion you made to the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need to take more time on this matter. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that he cannot allege someone is not telling the truth. There is a way of asking that question. I am sure he is perfectly capable of asking the question and he has further supplementary questions available in which to do that.