3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterCHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes particularly our work to boost the incomes of New Zealanders and protect New Zealand families from the sharp edges of the global economic downturn we are experiencing. The list of things that we have done includes of course our work to support New Zealanders at the pump with the fuel excise reduction public transport cost reduction healthy food in schools the cost of living payment and the winter energy payment. We also saw yesterday Statistics New Zealand publish employment indicators which showed that gross wages rose 7.8 percent from a year ago. New Zealand is in a strong position to support households and businesses through this economic volatility. Unemployment is low exports are growing and Government debt is substantially below most other nations.Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with the Auditor-General who wrote yesterday that Good stewardship of public money required greater care when designing and implementing the cost of living payment."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My view is that the cost of living payment demonstrates a much more targeted and focused way of supporting New Zealanders through this cost of living crisis than a tax cut for those on $180000 or more which is the Opposition's policy.Christopher Luxon: Is she concerned that according to the Auditor-General "Inland Revenue does not know and has said it may never know how many ineligible people might have received the payment." and if so does the Government have any plans to work out how much taxpayer money has been wasted as a result of the cost of living payment?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We stand by this Government's effort to support New Zealanders through this cost of living crisis and it seems a complete reversal of policy for the National Party who called it a crisis to then attack every single measure we have put forward to support New Zealanders. When it comes to the initiatives that we've put out from the response from New Zealanders I'm confident that those on $70000 or less was the right thing to do in this period of time. I would absolutely stand by it relative to that party's decision for instance to have someone on $300000 getting a tax cut of $8000 whereas someone on $45000 would get $2.15 a week. That is an example of wasteful.Christopher Luxon: Has she asked for an estimate of how much taxpayer money will be wasted as a result of the cost of living payment going to people who aren't eligible such as expatriates and backpackers and if not why not?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two things. Firstly we've already identified a number of people—31000 to be precise—who will not automatically receive the payment this time who did in the first round. That does not mean they are necessarily ineligible. It means that they will have to attest that they are. Secondly I find it frankly rich to have someone on that side of the House who promotes an $8000 tax cut for someone on $300000 to accuse a $116 payment to hard-working New Zealanders as being wasteful when they are promoting those kind of policies.Christopher Luxon: What actions did the Government take if any to avoid sending taxpayer money overseas when as the Auditor-General has reported "Inland Revenue told the Ministers of Revenue and Finance that it could not verify whether someone was living at a New Zealand address."?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have continually—IRD I should say—worked to refine the screening for what was very clearly an unchanged criteria. The member obviously I will have to grant this has not had the experience of in-Government administering superannuation welfare payments energy payments—things that do not always reach precisely those they should. The question is here: was the cost of living payment the right thing to do? Absolutely yes.David Seymour: Why didn't the Government do something as simple as excluding people who filled out a non-resident tax return from automatically receiving the cost of living payment from the get-go?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously the way the screening processes are put in place here is a matter for the commissioner and the commissioner has added not only that but even things like for instance IP addresses used for logging on to myIR. There's a number of refinements that they have continued to make through each stage of this payment and we are of course very supportive of them continuing to do that work.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not have competent Ministers who would ask such basic questions in formulating the policy or were they just rushed?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is correct to point out that the Minister is able to ask questions but not to issue instructions. I'm sure the member is clear on the statutory conditions under which the commissioner works.Christopher Luxon: Does she understand that thousands of Kiwis actually had to go out to work and earn money that her Government is wasting or does she just believe that taxpayers are a bottomless ATM for her Government to abuse?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject the assertion there. The very reason that we put in the cost of living payment was to support New Zealanders through the cost of living crisis that we are seeing globally as a result of international forces. I think I'd also like to remind the member that he previously hasn't had an issue with overseas tax breaks—for instance for the copious number of landlords who he wants to provide tax breaks to who do not live in New Zealand. The difference here is that we've worked hard to target those who need support the most. The member believes in universally wasting money at a time that we shouldn't.Christopher Luxon: Isn't it the case that after spending weeks pretending that there was in fact no cost of living crisis the Government rushed the design of the payment to try and get a good headline on Budget day and because of that ended up wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money?Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely not. I again point out that some of the work on this of course formally started in April and it was implemented in August. Secondly I would say that if the member's alternative is tax cuts for those on $180000 or more—because that would result for instance in areas where there would be errors—then that is his prerogative. We believe that this was much fairer targeted and less likely to be inflationary."