Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3847] 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he intend to renege on any of the promises he has made to New Zealanders about actions his Government will follow; if so which promises? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am not going to comment on what is in the Budget because members can wait another day for that. But what I would say is that one of the promises that New Zealanders were made by a National Party in Opposition now a National Government is that we will show good leadership when it comes to the economy. When New Zealanders see the Budget tomorrow they will know that just like Standard and Poor’s comments on Tuesday National tends to be a much better manager of the economy or words to that effect. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Phil Goff 
: A great clap for somebody breaking his word! [ 
Interruption 
] If members opposite are going to interject before I even ask my question I am going to reply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would members just settle down a little. I note the deputy leader of the Labour Party was interjecting while her own leader was trying to ask a question and interjected in a very inappropriate way I might add but I will not take that matter further. Please if members would settle down a little. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister recall saying in this House: “Most of all New Zealanders will be able to believe our tax cuts they will be able to trust our tax cuts … You see we believe in tax cuts we believe in the power of tax cuts and we will deliver them. What is more we can afford to do it.” and what do his plans to renege on those promises say about his credibility and his trustworthiness now? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As if it were only yesterday I remember making those comments and that is why so many New Zealanders have thanked me for the tax cuts that we delivered on 1 April only months after being sworn into office. 
Nathan Guy 
: Has he seen any reports about tax cut promises being reversed? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have seen two such reports. The first was in the 2007 Budget where Michael Cullen cancelled the income tax cuts he had promised. I note that at the time he cancelled them the Government surplus was $8 billion. The second was a recent report in the  
Weekend Herald 
 regarding Labour’s promised tax cuts in 2010 and 2011. Because of the severity of the global recession someone who likes to tweet on Twitter from time to time David Cunliffe said: “It therefore follows that we would likely have had to scale them back to maintain a fiscally prudent stance.” 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister say: “… I personally guarantee that we will: … [reduce] personal taxes on 1 April 2009 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011.” and did he personally guarantee that reduction after the International Monetary Fund had publicly warned that the world economy was entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous shock to financial markets that the world had seen since the 1930s and after the collapse of Lehman Brothers; if so were his promises naive irresponsible or dishonest—or all three? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: For a start the piece of paper that David Cunliffe is holding up looks a lot like the Labour seating plan after the election. The second answer is no. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: When the Prime Minister said at the launch of his party’s tax policy last year before the election that his policy was “appropriate for the current conditions” and would require “no additional borrowing” why did he not tell New Zealanders that the reason no extra borrowing would be required was that those tax cuts were not going to proceed? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I thank the member for reading out the full quote about the appropriate conditions. They would have been the same conditions under which Labour promised a tax cut that actually cost more than National’s. All I can say to the member is what I would say to any New Zealander: that the Government has to deal with the dynamic conditions it faces. These are the worst economic conditions for 70-odd years. This Government will face up to those conditions and ensure that the good ship  
New Zealand 
 sails through them out of the very rough waters that it is currently in. 
Nathan Guy 
: What negative surprises did the Government find on coming into office? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first surprise was the speed and extent of the global economic downturn which took all Governments in the world by surprise. [ 
Interruption 
] Opposition members are bleating on like a bunch of sheep but I remember them in January when they said these were the worst conditions for 70 years—maybe ever—and the Government should be doing something about it. Well tomorrow we are doing something about it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister not get it: that what makes people really angry is not that he is not now delivering on the tax cuts but rather the self-serving dishonesty and irresponsibility of promising them in the first place when he knew he could not deliver on them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If I had the support of the House to give a 15-minute speech on dishonesty I would do that in relation to the previous Labour Government—its pledge card its Electoral Finance Act and its endless bits of legislation that robbed New Zealanders of hope. No wonder its seating plan looks like that piece of paper now! 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: In interviews the Prime Minister has given about himself he claims to have evidently a reputation as a smart market dealer so did he know before the last election that the economic situation in New Zealand and around the world was deteriorating or did he find out only when Treasury told him and would the cancellation of his party’s tax cuts mean that National now accepts that tax cuts are not always the best way to stimulate the economy? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The answer is no. I do not think anyone would have predicted the level of economic downturn that has taken place in the last 6 months. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the commentary in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning on National’s plans to renege on its tax cut undertakings which said that “in the commercial world such an obvious breach of promise would be actionable in the courts” and that we seem to be going back to the bad old days of the 1990s when campaigning politicians lied to the public who never got what they voted for; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can only guess that that came from a Brian Rudman column and as a general rule I do not read those. But in the same fine newspaper earlier in the week in a much better written column Audrey Young made the very good point that even if the Government were to break a promise in relation to tax cuts by delaying them it would be keeping a promise that it will manage this economy well—or words to that effect. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: On what basis can the Prime Minister guarantee superannuation entitlements when he intends to cut the funding that makes it possible to ensure those entitlements; or is this just another example of his being ready to promise something now while knowing that he cannot deliver on it in the future? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first thing is that I can make an absolute guarantee in relation to the funding of New Zealand superannuation entitlements irrespective of any pre-funding of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I do that on these grounds—and I would be on exactly the same territory as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen when he was asked exactly that question back in October 2000. When he was asked how pre-funding would affect New Zealand superannuation entitlements he said that pre-funding relates to how New Zealand superannuation is funded overall and “it will not have any direct impact on New Zealand superannuation entitlements”. He was right. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the Prime Minister’s explanation to the more than 1000 decent hard-working New Zealanders who worked in the Public Service and who now have been deprived of their livelihood since he promised not to cut but only to cap public sector employment? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly the Government has moved a lot of people from the back office to the front office. The Budget will spell that out clearly tomorrow. But one of the reasons why Labour was turfed out was that all it knew how to do was spend money. These are economic conditions that require good rounded economic management and all I can say is thank goodness we have Bill English. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister promise New Zealanders that within 6 months of his becoming Prime Minister 1250 people extra net would be enrolled on the dole in the course of 1 week which is apparently what happened last week? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the exact number who enrolled last week on the dole. But I do know that all countries around the world are struggling with rising unemployment. I do know that New Zealand’s unemployment rate is 5 percent and we can contrast that with the rate in Australia which is 5.7 percent or the United Kingdom’s rate which is 6.8 percent or the United States’ rate which is 8.5 percent. I do know that when I stood up in this House and supported a 9-day fortnight which saved jobs at companies like Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd—and good on them for sorting out their problems today—the Labour Opposition criticised it. I do know that when we held the Job Summit to try to save jobs the Labour Opposition criticised it. I do know that on this side of the House we care about jobs. If anybody should be worried about unemployment it should be Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a document in which the Prime Minister personally guarantees to do things that he has now reneged and broken his word on. It was published and authorised by M Oldershaw Fergusson Drive Heretaunga and proudly paid for by supporters of the National Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House did settle for a while and then it got very unruly again. I am struggling to hear. Seeking leave to table documents is an important right that members have and it should be treated seriously. It appears that leave is sought to table what appears to be a policy document of the National Party. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.