Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19034] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When she stated in relation to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union call for an across-the-board 5 percent pay rise “Of course 300000 families are getting very substantial targeted tax relief starting on April 1 so one would hope that would be taken into account in any negotiations” had she been advised of what the impact of a 5 percent pay increase would be on the take-home pay of a worker on $50000 with two children receiving the Working for Families package and an accommodation supplement; if so what was that advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it correct that a 5 percent pay rise for a journalist earning $50000 a year supporting two children and receiving the accommodation supplement could leave as little as $5 extra in the hand each week; if so is it not true that the primary beneficiary of a 5 percent across-the-board pay rise would be her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This may well be true in a single-income household with two children in an expensive area where there is qualification for the maximum accommodation allowance but that is not a reason to deny all other workers on $50000 a wage increase. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that in fact Working for Families is a major form of corporate welfare because the taxpayer will be subsidising up to 61 percent of families with children by 2007 due to the low wages paid by employers and given the extent of the support for business why is the Labour Government not backing the union push for a 5 percent across-the-board wage increase? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member said it is true that 60-odd percent of families will benefit from the Working for Families package. It is the Government’s belief that over time we want to see more workers benefiting from higher wages from higher productivity and skills—not have the National Party policy of making people pay for their own wage increases through tax cuts. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister have any calculation available as to what sort of tax cut would be required to match the fiscal impact of the Working for Families package on individual families? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Last time I looked at such costings and looked at the family on $55000—one earner four children living in Waihi—it was clear that for that family to get the same benefit from the Working for Families $1.1 billion package which was around $149 extra a week one would have to have a flat tax rate of 20c—costing $5.5 billion which is presumably what the National Party would want to do—and cut public services. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Now the Prime Minister has confirmed that for most families the bulk of future pay rises will simply fund the Government and not the families concerned what advice does she offer workers who are considering taking industrial action to secure a pay rise most of which they will not receive? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is a fundamental flaw in the logic in that question—that is Working for Families benefits 300000 families with dependent children who happen to be on low and modest incomes. This is a targeted tax relief to low and modest income families. The Leader of the Opposition is arguing that no other workers should get an increase because some workers are getting Working for Families benefit. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister’s answer to my earlier question mean that there will be cases where there are families who will receive more under the Working for Families package than they actually pay in tax at the moment? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have those figures at my fingertips. It is possible. Of course if I were the Leader of the Opposition I would be worrying more about whether I was going to get an income at all given today’s front page where Mr McCully has told him he is unlikely to have a job. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why will her Government not be offering tax cuts to all workers and thus allow all New Zealand workers a pay rise? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I regard it as ludicrous to suggest that workers should be getting their pay increases out of tax cuts. Why should workers not be getting a fair distribution from the gains for growing firms and the economy—and no amount of silly yelping from the Leader of the Opposition and his cronies can change that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does she seek to belittle and demean Parliament by constantly referring to the National Party’s policy—a policy that has no hope in Hades of being put in place given that party’s current leadership and internal disruptions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only say that the member’s question conveys a point of view utterly subscribed to by Mr McCully who said National did not have a hope of winning. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does she think it ludicrous that working people keep more of the money that they earn each week? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Because unlike ACT I know that it is the Government’s responsibility to fund good health education and pensions for people. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can working people have any confidence in this Prime Minister who professes to care for them when she has not bothered to figure out what the impact on their net wage is of her Working for Families package combined with the union call for 5 percent and she is quite happy to tell this House that she has had no advice on what the net effect of that would be? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am not sure that was a question but does the right honourable Prime Minister wish to comment? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not helpful when an Opposition member gets up and asks a question—and that certainly was a question—and the Speaker then interlopes and says: “Well I am not sure that that was a question.” Either it is a question or it is not and if it is a question then I suggest Madam Speaker that you stay out of it and let the Prime Minister answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I was trying to be helpful to you by asking the Prime Minister whether she would wish to comment. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was a question. It is not for you to decide that the Prime Minister might wish to comment. It is for you to ensure that the Prime Minister addresses my question. I would very much appreciate it if you would do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I will take that on board and apply it the next time you ask a question. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Unlike some parties opposite I do not assume that every worker earning $50000 has a single-earner household two kids and gets the maximum accommodation supplement. That is the shaky construction the question is built on. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Prime Minister bothered to get advice from Treasury which the department has tabled with the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the Government could keep the present low tax rebate and reduce the income tax and the company tax rate to just 21c in the dollar at an overall cost of just $5 billion which Treasury says would be just as progressive as the present tax system and would result in an additional 1 percent growth; if so would that not be a better course of action? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What is very progressive about the tax changes taking effect from 1 April is that 300000 families with dependent children will get significant income boosts. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question actually asked whether this would be a better course of action. Instead we were just told that having 300000 people get some money from the families package was a good thing. That does not answer the question at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The answer addressed the question. It does not necessarily have to satisfy the member.