English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:642;Page:12423] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding tax cuts in Australia in 2005 that “Australian taxpayers earning up to $58000 a year receive a measly $6 a week”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I also stand by my comments yesterday that a programme that focuses on the highest paid is not the sort of programme people would expect to see from a Labour-led Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is now his position that he is opposed to larger tax cuts because of their potential impact on inflation and Government spending and at the same time he is opposed to smaller tax cuts because for instance if they are only $6 a week they are measly; so if he is opposed to both larger and smaller ones then what kind of tax cuts is he talking about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is a pity the member has never heard of Goldilocks. But apart from that if the member cared to read the entire speech which I think was one of my more brilliant speeches delivered to the Waipukurau Rotary Club in 2005 he would see that I said that Australian taxpayers earning up to $58000 would receive a measly $6 a week—and the important point was the next sentence—meanwhile those earning $125000 or more would receive an extra $87 a week. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the widely reported gap between taxes on average New Zealanders and taxes on average Australians? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. According to the latest OECD report  
Taxing Wages Report 2006 
 which is the last period for which we have the data an Australian one-earner married couple with two children on the average wage had a tax burden six times higher than the equivalent New Zealand family. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wake up Bill! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Comments like that lead to disorder. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister regard a tax reduction of $6 per week as measly when this has an annual value of $300 yet he regards cheaper doctor visits which have an annual value of something like $50 a year for an average New Zealander as extremely valuable; so why does he regard cash delivered through a tax cut as insignificant when it is $10 a week but he regards cash delivered through cheaper doctor visits as very valuable when it is about $1 a week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is clearly getting more and more convoluted in his arguments. The point I was making to the Waipukurau Rotary Club which some day may invite Mr English to talk to it was— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why not answer the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Comments like that also lead to disorder. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The contrast was between the $6 a week that somebody on the average wage and well above the average wage got and the $87 a week that somebody earning A$125000 a year got. The point about doctors’ fees of course is that people who need to go to the doctor who are often people on lower incomes have had a massive reduction and I thank the member for reminding the House that National plans to increase doctors’ fees and lift the cap. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Minister’s position that a tax cut of $6 to $10 is significant and why has he not offered one of those when he could afford them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A New Zealand tax cut across the board at $10 a week—which of course National would never offer—costs something over a billion dollars a year. Even in National Party terminology I would have thought a billion dollars a year was reasonably significant. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister had any reports of anyone in the political arena who advocates significant tax cuts while at the same time wanting the Government to expend more money on every single conceivable Government administrative area in the country? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Less bureaucrats. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we had more teachers then that member might have said “fewer bureaucrats” instead of “less bureaucrats” but never mind. Yes the National Party daily calls for more spending in almost every area of Government activity and calls for lower taxation but of course we now know how those members make it up. Mr English has now been clear. Every weekend for about the last three he has quite clearly said that a National Government would borrow more money. That borrowing would be disguised for something but it would actually be for tax cuts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm his statements made over the last 2 years where he has ruled out adjusting tax thresholds for inflation he has ruled out changing the top tax rate the middle tax rate and the bottom tax rate he has ruled out implementing a tax-free zone he has ruled out cutting taxes when growth is strong and cutting taxes when growth is falling and in fact the only thing he has not ruled out is to promise tax cuts in election year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm any single one of those statements. I remind the member firstly that we are cutting corporate tax on 1 April next year which the member voted against. I remind the member that we have cut tax on working families in New Zealand which the member voted against. I remind the member that we have cut taxes on savings which the member voted against. All I know is that Mr English has said that it does not matter whether we have high inflation low inflation a Government surplus or a Government deficit; he would cut taxes and he would borrow to do it. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does he explain to people on $39000 paying 33c in the dollar on every extra dollar they earn that he is so keen to avoid cutting income taxes he has now decided that he is the biggest tax cutter there ever was and he has cut everything except the personal income tax rate which they must continue to pay? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The fact is I have cut taxes more than the previous National Government did but they have been targeted on families targeted on savings and targeted on economic growth. They have been targeted on what does good things for the country. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When will the Minister commit to a proper investigation of replacing some of the tax on the bottom band of wages and salaries with equivalent taxes on pollution waste scarce resources and unearned income as the Greens have been advocating for many years given that New Zealand makes less use of these eco-taxes than most of the OECD? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A number of options have been under consideration and are under consideration. The member also needs to realise that any tax changes at all have to pass through Parliament. They must also not be regressive and many forms of taxation—the form that she mentions—are capable of being regressive because they tend to hit low to modest-income families higher than families on higher incomes.