Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Bennett David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:5090] 
2.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefit system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I have received reports of a policy from Phil Goff and Annette King to pay the unemployment benefit to people who have been made redundant but whose partners are still earning a good income. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was it last century? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No this was yesterday. Their justification is that these people— 
Hon Annette King 
: I hope the Minister’s quoting correctly. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —hang on; no listen the member might learn—have paid income tax while they have been working so they should get something back for it. The policy of Phil Goff and Annette King represents a fundamental change in Labour’s thinking about welfare. Assistance will now be targeted to those who have paid the most tax rather than to those who have the most need. 
David Bennett 
: Do the reports the Minister has received imply that the welfare system should be considered more like an insurance scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The policy proposals of Phil Goff and Annette King essentially turn the welfare system into a form of insurance against redundancy to replace lost income and to help people who have made poor investments. I am surprised that the rest of the Labour caucus has gone along with this policy which turns the welfare system on its head. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask Ministers to be careful in answering questions; they are not responsible for the Labour Party’s policies. They can certainly refer to them if they have reports on them but they are meant to answer about their own policies. Certainly some comparison could be drawn but an entire answer should not be focused on attacking the Opposition’s policies. I ask Ministers to respect that convention. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it now Government policy to bring back asset testing of beneficiaries and superannuitants—something the previous National Government including Bill English introduced and which caused hardships to thousands of older New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to that is no. The National-led Government is however firmly committed to the welfare system as a safety net for those most in need and we will continue to keep that policy in place. We understand that Labour wants to move unemployment to an insurance system where those who are paid the most get the most benefit from going on the unemployment benefit. 
David Bennett 
: Do the reports he has received indicate that a good policy process has been followed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reports of the policy proposal I have seen from the Labour Party demonstrate that the policy was— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr English has amused himself by talking about matters long past and in previous Governments and that has been accepted by you Mr Speaker. He is now straying to venture his own personal opinions about whatever he considers to be the internal processes of the Labour Party. That is quite clearly out of order and I ask you to help him curtail himself. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Quite apart from the fact that the issues raised by David Cunliffe are in fact debating points I think that it would be fair to say that the honourable Bill English in referring to so many of the current Labour members who were Ministers or at least active in that party in the 1980s serves simply to demonstrate just how fresh the face of Labour is today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I blame myself for allowing that because points of order should not be used to make disparaging comments about other parties or members of this House. The Standing Orders are very simple on this matter. Ministers are not responsible for any other party’s policy. They can certainly comment on reports or can report the information they have from reports on other parties’ policies. That is perfectly proper. But they should not comment on other parties’ policies be hypothetical about them or offer their own analysis on them because that is not within the Standing Orders. The Minister may tell the House what is contained in reports about which he was asked. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen reports on the front page of the newspaper of a man who was in a vulnerable situation and who was used for political purposes by the Labour Party which has now left him high and dry. Apparently he is to blame for the fact that he is not eligible rather than Phil Goff and Annette King who dragged this person and his misfortune into the centre of political debate and did so misrepresenting his situation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will the Government’s new asset-testing policy include shares in companies like Tranz Rail whether the holding is 30000 50000 or 100000 shares? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is those kinds of questions and implications that mean that no one takes that spokesperson seriously. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon David Cunliffe put a question to the Minister of Finance. It was a factual question and he got a completely dismissive response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point the member is making. The slight dilemma I have on this matter is that the supplementary question was so far wide of the primary question. The primary question was actually about reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefits system. I believe that the supplementary question asked about shareholdings in State-owned enterprises. That is why I had some difficulty in pulling the Minister up on it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the point of order and there will be silence. I will not have that kind of barracking or a Government member will be taking an early shower. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There are two points to be made in relation to that matter. The first case is that the primary question was extremely broad. It referred to any reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefits system. The second point is that in my first supplementary question I asked whether it was Government policy to bring back asset testing. My second supplementary question directly followed from the first in asking for a specific aspect of that policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the attempt by the member to link asset testing for welfare benefits to shareholding in State-owned companies. I believe that that is a pretty long bow to draw which is why I wondered whether I should allow the supplementary question. I allowed it because I do not want to interfere too much. When the Minister did not answer the question precisely I felt that I could not intervene there either because the supplementary question was so far wide of the primary question. 
David Bennett 
: What advice does the Minister have for people who are experiencing financial difficulty because of redundancy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I strongly advise people in that situation to make an appointment with their local Work and Income office to have a full assessment made of their circumstances and eligibility for assistance. Work and Income can provide a wide range of assistance for people who have been made redundant. However I strongly advise them not to make an appointment with the Labour Party because they will never quite know when they will be dragged into political debate and have their personal circumstances misrepresented for political purposes. 
Hon Annette King 
: “Mr Angry”! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We always get into trouble when on the front benches members start interjecting on questions that have already been covered when I have called another member. I ask members to show some simple courtesy to their colleagues.