Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16709] 
7.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Does he believe that the average household is overtaxed; if so does he rule out announcing tax cuts before the next election? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 No. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he think it fair that for the average household the tax take has increased by $5840 since Labour came to office while its income has increased by only $4800; and if he thinks that is fair then why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would strongly challenge those numbers presented by the member. I do note that on the key polling question of “right track wrong track” there is very strong support for the notion that this country is on the right track which suggests a degree of fairness is accepted out there. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think it is justified that for the year ended 30 June 2004 hard-working New Zealand individuals and companies paid an extra $8 million a day in tax according to Statistics New Zealand’s release this morning? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not know what time frame the member is presenting—an extra $8 million a day compared with when? I assume he means over the previous year. We had extraordinarily strong growth in the last year—strong company profit growth and strong household income growth—and that translates into strong revenue growth. What I can tell the member is that the present fiscal projections for the coming years show that under the Government’s planned expenditure and revenue reduction forecast the debt to GDP ratio will remain flat. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If he believed that New Zealand families were overtaxed what steps would he propose to reduce the level of overtaxation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If I believed that I would look at ways in which to particularly assist low to middle income families as we did in this year’s Budget. I thank the member for his party’s support for the Working for Families package. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister believe that reducing taxes would improve New Zealand’s comparative advantage in respect of Australia; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we had the Australian capital gains regime and the Australian payroll tax regime we could probably more than halve our company tax regime in New Zealand. 
John Key 
: When the Prime Minister said today in the Christchurch  
Press 
 that the Working for Families package was “tax relief for 300000 families” did she know that two-thirds of the 300000 families she mentioned are welfare beneficiaries and do not pay PAYE tax while 400000 working families that actually do pay tax got absolutely nothing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is wrong on both counts. He should investigate the benefit structure in New Zealand rather more closely. More than half the families are and 60 percent of the money goes to working families and beneficiary families in New Zealand pay tax. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister think this Government can spend the increase in taxation better than Kiwi families can; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure this Government can spend it better than the ACT party ever would. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That last reply from the Minister did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should address the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The alternative proposed by the member’s party is that people pay for their own health and education. I think it is better that we have publicly provided health and education. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In light of that answer does the Minister not think that parents would be in a better position to contribute to their children’s schools and education if they were allowed to keep that money and spend it themselves on that rather than to have this Government take it off them and spend it on what it thinks is best for them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member’s proposition is that somebody in her circumstances would get many many thousands of dollars a year in tax reduction which would not be spent on schools or hospitals and that somebody on a lower modest income would get very little tax reduction and would end up paying far more for his or her health and education.