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:671;Page:17609] 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he rule out making cuts to Working for Families payments this year; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes; if there were to be any changes to Working for Families they would take effect after the election probably from 1 April next year. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did he say: “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government and the reason for that is we want to ensure that there is certainty and there isn’t greater complexity in the system.”; and does he intend to break that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has kept its word. We have maintained Working for Families and therefore security for families’ weekly incomes despite the fact that since the Prime Minister made that statement we have had a global financial crisis we have had finance company meltdowns in New Zealand and we have had two major earthquakes as well as flat economic growth. I think that is a major achievement of this National Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very clear and asked whether he intends to break that promise. I did not hear the answer to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the answer very clearly. He said that no the Government has not broken its promise. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further time wasted on it. In his previous answer the Minister made it very clear—[ 
Interruption 
] If the Hon Pete Hodgson wants to remain in the House he will not interject while I am on my feet. I am not in a mood to be trifled with this afternoon. The Minister’s previous answer stated there would be no change until after the next election. The member should listen. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did listen and I resent the reflection that I did not listen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. Please just ask your supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister also say: “I’ve said earlier there will be no changes. People will not be worse off under Working for Families.” and will National continue to honour that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I explained to the member National has honoured that promise. If there are any changes as I explained to him they would come into effect after the election. It seems to me that keeping that promise despite the fact of a global financial crisis finance company meltdowns and two major earthquakes is a remarkable achievement. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When those promises were made were they qualified with the words “we will honour them for 3 years” or were those promises unequivocal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The promise was made and has been kept. If there were to be any changes we would do what any respectable Government would do and that is go to the electorate with those changes. If they are endorsed we would implement them and if they are not endorsed we would not implement them. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister’s colleague the Minister of Finance say: “Whether it’s national super or student loans or Working for Families we’ve said we’d leave that stuff alone and we have despite the fact that we’re running a large deficit.” and does that assurance still stand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I give the same answer I gave to questions about the Prime Minister’s statements: that is what has happened despite the fact we have had a global financial crisis a couple of large earthquakes and a finance company meltdown as well as dealing with the leaky homes problems. These things have incurred billions of dollars of extra costs for the Government. We have stuck to what we promised and any changes in any of it would be put in front of the electorate at the election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When the Prime Minister talked about cutting Working for Families for those whose joint household incomes are over $100000 is it correct that cutting Working for Families for those whose joint incomes are at that level would return only $1.7 million as the Parliamentary Library sets out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not seen the Parliamentary Library calculations so I cannot comment on that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table the workings of the Parliamentary Library which point out that the savings for joint incomes over $100000 would be $1.7 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the savings on cutting back Working for Families payments to those whose joint incomes are at that level are so insignificant can he give an assurance to this House that any cuts to Working for Families would actually dig down to people whose joint incomes reflected each income probably being less than the average wage? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will have to wait and see what decisions the Government makes in that area but he ought to keep these things in proportion. Those same families are currently paying about 6 percent on their mortgages whereas under his Government they were paying 10 percent. I think they are grateful for that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What integrity do the promises of the National Government have when it has already broken the promise not to increase GST and when he is now telling the House that National is going to break its promises on Working for Families and probably on KiwiSaver as well? Where is the integrity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure today is the day for the Leader of the Opposition to make claims about integrity around public statements. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should know that his own leader has raised a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker I think if you reflect on that answer you will see it went nowhere near addressing the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will not be any comment when I am on my feet—I got to my feet to make sure there was no comment during a point of order. The member should reflect on the question he asked. He basically accused the Prime Minister of lacking integrity and surprise surprise he got an answer that questioned his own integrity. He should not ask the Speaker to intervene under those circumstances. He should reflect on the question asked.