Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:653;Page:2280] 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “From 1 April every working New Zealander will get more money in their pocket”; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I certainly do. Those families who receive Working for Families had their expected 1 April increase brought forward to 1 October last year. That was part of the National Government’s policy. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it was part of our policy I am afraid. All other full-time workers get an increase from 1 April. Therefore it is true to say that after 1 April all working New Zealanders not just those on Working for Families will have more money in their pockets. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that in fact most New Zealanders who earn under $40000 and have the responsibility of raising kids get absolutely nothing from the tax cuts today despite the fact that those are the families that are really struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am prepared to admit two things today. The first is that 1.5 million New Zealanders will be grateful they have a National Government because they have a tax cut. The second thing that I am prepared to admit is that not all is happy within the Labour ranks. You see unlike my good friend Mr Brownlee I happen to be a little bit versed in cyberspace so I went on to David Cunliffe’s Twitter statement— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know what the point of order is. You know what the Prime Minister is about to do. As he has done constantly—and you have not pulled him up for it—he is about to give an answer that is totally irrelevant to the question that was asked. That will provoke disorder from this side of the House. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was just making the very valuable point that Mr Cunliffe on his— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister must not use— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The matter will be dealt with because the Prime Minister will not answer the question any further. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I seek leave to table David Cunliffe’s Twitter statement where he says that he should be given more chances to answer questions in the House that he would “kick their proverbials” if he was given more of a chance and that if he is not given the chance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister must resume his seat [ 
Interruption 
] And that member will resume his seat as well. When I am on my feet even the Prime Minister will resume his seat. I will not tolerate that rule being breached further. Leave has been sought to table a Twitter statement. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the honourable member will excuse me for a moment. Points of order must be heard in silence. I know that the House is in a fairly boisterous mood but points of order do need to be heard in silence. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Standing Orders provide a remedy for misrepresentation. I submit to you that the Prime Minister has misrepresented me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member cannot use a point of order to make a debating point. He can if he wishes seek leave to make a personal explanation. Alternatively during question time he can ask questions to establish whether the Prime Minister has in fact perhaps not represented something correctly. During question time that is the correct manner for addressing these issues. He cannot use the point of order process to do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You allowed the Prime Minister in seeking leave to table a document to read at great length from a document that cannot have come from my colleague because he does not have a Twitter account. Somebody else has done it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During question time it is quite easy to establish these kinds of things. Further supplementary questions are available to the members. That is the correct way to establish whether there is concern over answers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to make a personal statement in regard to the matter that has been raised by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection. The member will resume his seat. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister had not actually raised the matter in an answer to a supplementary question. He had not had that opportunity. So how can the member give a personal explanation about a matter that had not been raised in answer to the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need to hear anything further on this matter. Obviously a member can seek leave to make a personal explanation in this situation. I see no Standing Order that prevents that from happening. As I understand it though the member did seek leave to make a personal explanation. There was objection. I take it that that objection is sustained? 
Hon Bill English 
: Ask him again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may seek leave again. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I am happy— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member should resume his seat. Leave has been given for the member to make a personal explanation. I think it is not appropriate to then interrupt that with a point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: My personal explanation is simply that I do not have and have never had an account on the Internet site Twitter. I have never sent a tweet and I have never even to my knowledge received a tweet. So whoever it was who made that statement it could not have been me. I leave it to members to surmise who may be behind this jack-up. 
Chris Tremain 
: Why has the Government introduce the independent earner tax credit? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The independent earner tax credit gives tax relief to those hard-working lower-income earners who have regularly missed out on increases in Working for Families benefits and superannuation. In particular lower-income earners with children have received considerable tax relief over recent years through Working for Families amounting in many cases to several hundreds of dollars a week. This Government is maintaining those payments but we also want to tell lower-income earners who do not have children that they are valued as well. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister justify his comments on TV3 the other day that these tax cuts are fair when the changes made by National to the tax package last year result in a third of all the new money going into tax cuts going to just 3 percent of taxpayers—the top 3 percent of taxpayers—while 81 percent of taxpayers earning less than $50000 a year get less than $2 a week extra? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Today 1.5 million New Zealanders got a tax cut; 630000 New Zealanders will get $10 extra a week. They have been waiting for a long time. This Government has not taken 9 years to cut taxes. I call that fair. 
Chris Tremain 
: How many people would have received the tax cut today under Labour? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I regret to tell the member that not one single person would have got a personal income tax cut today under Labour—not one person. The other point I want to make is that the previous Labour Government took 3231 days after being elected to cut taxes; this National Government took just 144 days. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is it fair that someone on a high salary—let us use for example somebody on a salary of the level of the Prime Minister’s—gets $120 extra a week today while someone on the median wage with kids gets nothing? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said earlier the reality of a progressive system is that higher-income earners pay a lot more tax. The reality is that a very small percentage of New Zealanders pay a lot of PAYE tax. But today the National Government has been very fair in its tax cuts. The average worker is getting around $20 a week. It is a very fair tax system. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is this as good as it is going to get for families and low-income earners who get nothing given the clear signals from the Minister of Finance that the future tax cuts promised so sincerely by National in the campaign will now likely be scrapped? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: What is not fair is that New Zealanders had to wait 3231 days in some of the best economic conditions that the world has seen in order to get a tax cut. New Zealanders are doing well under a National Government—630000 people who got nothing for 9 years now get $10 a week. New Zealanders under a National Government are having their entitlements maintained. That is why the tax cut programme announced today delivered today when compared with the Labour programme of nothing today is being well-received by everybody except the Labour members who are very grumpy that the National Government is actually delivering on its promises. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the Prime Minister’s answer to critics including his coalition partner Roger Douglas who say that these tax cuts are a scam because he is borrowing to pay for them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe that stimulation is important for the economy when a global recession is going on. It is quite important. It will help the retail sector. I fondly remember coming back in January of this year and hearing Phil Goff say that the Government was not doing enough when every country around the world has some sort of tax cut programme going on at the moment. When Phil Goff wanted to argue that the Government was not doing enough he was happy to shout from the rooftops but now that we are cutting personal taxes Mr Goff wants to take those cuts away from New Zealanders. The only message coming out today is vote for a Labour Government and taxes will go up. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why should Mr Key’s high-minded protestations about not wanting a rise in salary this year be seen by the public as anything other than double standards when today the Government has just given its members and other high-income people much higher effective wage increases by biasing tax cuts to the well-off? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The tax cuts are not biased to the well-off. They are across the board and fair. But we know the way that Labour members feel about successful entrepreneurial well-off people. It was the same when they were in Government; it is the same now that they are in Opposition.