Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:631;Page:3032] 
4.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did he when deciding there would be no tax cuts in this year’s Budget consider Treasury’s advice that the Government should think about tax reductions as well as new spending when developing Budget initiatives; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: When he said last week that Treasury is “out of step with a lot of thinking” was that because Treasury disagrees with him on tax the size of Government the number of bureaucrats the waste in Government expenditure KiwiSaver and the payroll tax or are there any other things he would like to add to his long and growing list of things he is in disagreement and open hostility with Treasury about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have a very good relationship with Treasury. However unlike the member opposite I have no intention of being Treasury’s poodle. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has he received any recent reports on the affordability of tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Along with a number of reports both oral and written that make it clear that neither the fiscal nor the macroeconomic position would make substantial tax cuts a sensible move in this year’s Budget I have seen a report casting doubt on the affordability of tax cuts. It is headed “Nats rethink tax-cuts policy” and represents either a sudden outbreak of fiscal responsibility or another split between Dr Brash and Mr Key. 
John Key 
: What confidence can the public have that this year’s Budget is not full of just spin and third-grade economic logic when he consistently ignores the advice of Treasury the very people he employs to give him those costings and that advice? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not ignore the advice of Treasury at all; indeed in many many respects I happen to agree with Treasury. But I am not going to be Treasury’s poodle or perhaps in these days I should say Treasury’s blue heeler given the desire of those across on that side to become Australia’s mates. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that as part of the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with United Future a discussion document will be developed to assess the impact of income splitting on reducing the tax burden for New Zealand families with dependent children; if so would he consider including in future Budgets constructive initiatives arising from that document? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed I can confirm such a document is being prepared; so is a document in relation to business taxation measures in time for implementation in April 2008. That discussion document will be one for serious intelligent discourse. I do not expect the National Party to participate in it. 
John Key 
: Does he still have confidence in the Secretary to the Treasury John Whitehead given that he publicly disagrees with him all the time or is Mr Whitehead likely to find out as the Telecommunications Commissioner Douglas Webb did via the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 last Sunday that he too is surplus to requirements? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have great confidence in the Secretary to the Treasury. He and I agree on a very very large number of things. But he is the chief executive of Treasury; I am the elected person the Minister of Finance. Clearly Mr Key has no ambition to make any decisions himself—just to be the mouthpiece for Treasury. 
John Key 
: Is it not the case that it is no longer relevant what Treasury thinks about the merits of economic policy because after the disaster of the “chewing gum Budget” last year the Prime Minister has taken control has inserted Heather Simpson to direct the policy work has told him to stop calling his Budgets boring even though they are and has made it clear via the  
Listener 
 that he is now vying with Dover Samuels to be our next Ambassador to Niue? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister is not the person in this House trying to render redundant any MP aged over 60; that role belongs to Mr Key who is trying to kick out the poor man opposite whose only desire in life is to graduate from being a joe to a joey. 
John Key 
: When he reads the Budget on Thursday will he allow Treasury publicly to join the rest of the New Zealand workforce in asking in relation to tax cuts: “Where the bloody hell are they?” 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One thing Treasury would tell that member is that an operating balance is not the measure of what can be spent on tax cuts. Treasury would regard Mr Key as thoroughly ignorant and dangerous in that respect and would not support his attempt to delude the public; half of what he mentioned earlier today is booked for transfer to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund alone—and that is the man who convinced Dr Brash to change his mind on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update which shows quite clearly that the operating surplus over the next 3 years will be around $13.4 billion and that from that sum capital expenditure could be paid which would allow the Government to have tax cuts—if Dr Cullen were not so stuck in the past. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. May I suggest that when people seek to table a document they simply state what it is and not draw conclusions. The document has of course already been tabled—it has to be tabled. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a timely reminder that when people are tabling documents they should do it succinctly. The purpose is just to identify what document they are tabling. Is there any objection to the tabling of that document? There is objection.