Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17526] 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that due to inflation no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It depends on which part of the Budget—and I am not trying to be clever about it. Some services will continue to get somewhere near an inflation adjustment such as health and education. Inflation adjustments will continue to be made to income support programmes such as superannuation and benefits which are very large components of the Government’s annual Budget. There will be services that will have no increase in spending and that means they will be cut in real terms. We have a strong expectation that everyone supplying public services needs to focus on providing more services for less money and that is not a new message. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Focusing on just one of the programmes that the Minister has identified how does he intend to cut $250 million from Working for Families without affecting middle-income earners when he himself pointed out in 2008 that: “Taking higher-income families out of WFF saves very little money”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the Government has signalled over the last month or so we have been looking at whether it is possible to restrict the very broad scope of Working for Families to higher-income families. The member may well be right that savings from that are not significant. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that in order to save $250 million from Working for Families a number that he has floated previously he would have to cut well into the middle-income brackets possibly removing all or some of the entitlements to families on a combined income of more than $60000? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure where the $250 million figure came from. The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see what progress the Government has made. As I think I said in the House yesterday there is unlikely to be radical changes to income support programmes including to Working for Families. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will he therefore rule out cutting Working for Families for someone on the average wage of $50000 a year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will just have to be patient. He can be reassured that the Government is taking a very considered approach and we will continue to protect the most vulnerable and help New Zealanders through recession. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the alternative to his Government’s spending cuts and Labour’s proposal to increase debt is actually a third option which is to introduce a small temporary levy to fairly spread the cost of earthquake recovery across a large number of New Zealanders who could afford it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the alternative and I want to compliment the Greens on taking a principled position over the levy unlike Labour members who are not quite sure where they are going on it. The Government has outlined the reasons why it does not prefer to put a levy in place. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that John Key promised that “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government …” and does he intend to honour that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government will continue with the same approach it has had since it came into Government and that is to protect the income support measures that were put in place. We have in past Budgets trimmed those at the edges because we believe that we need to stop the rapid rise in the cost of those measures because that would be unsustainable. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. I asked whether he can confirm that promise was made and whether he intends to honour it. That answer did not answer either of those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that it might sound like there is a simple answer to the question but I think the Minister did address the question the member asked. Clearly decisions have not yet been made. He has made that very clear in his answers. Decisions have not been made on the matter and I cannot force him to be more precise when decisions have not been made. That is the dilemma I have as the Speaker. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question asked whether he can confirm that promise was made. That decision has been made and either he can confirm it or he cannot or he does not know. Any one of those answers would have done. But no effort at all was made to address any of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will reflect that there were two parts to the question he asked and the Minister is obliged to address only one part of a supplementary question. The second part asked whether that alleged promise is to be kept and the Minister pointed out that decisions are yet to be made. I cannot force him to be more precise than that on a question like that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In considering his options of how to pay for the earthquake what would hurt a family with an income of $60000 a year more: permanently losing all or part of their $100 a week Working for Families payment or temporarily paying $3.50 a week in an earthquake levy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: With regard to an earthquake levy for the kinds of numbers we are talking about with the Christchurch earthquake there would have to be a pretty significant levy for quite a long time. I would not want to contest the member’s numbers but my guess is that it would be a lot higher than $3.50 a week. With regard to his issues around Working for Families the Government will make decisions based on the merits of those programmes on fairness on the amount of debt the Government has and on other spending priorities. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not true that the bill for the earthquake recovery will be passed on to New Zealanders one way or another and that the most compassionate way to pass on the cost is to spread the burden across a large number of people each paying a small amount rather than concentrating the burden on a small number of working families that are already struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can assure the member that nothing contemplated about changing Working for Families would go anywhere near paying the earthquake bill so equating the two is simply not correct. Paying the bill will be spread across all New Zealanders in a number of forms ranging from the Earthquake Commission levy higher insurance premiums for homeowners and higher debt obligations that will have to be met by taxpayers today and in the future. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that seeks to identify where Working for Families would have to be cut in order to save $250 million. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.