6. Economic Programme—Tax Cuts and Government PrioritiesGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of FinanceEconomic Programme—Tax Cuts and Government Priorities6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with yesterday's Dominion Post editorial it would be absurd for National to hand out tax cuts while refusing to restore contributions to the Cullen fund"?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): As it happens no. Every Government has to make decisions about balancing the needs of investing in people today versus tomorrow. For this Government our focus is on hard-working Kiwi families today as well as on what happens in the future. Therefore our Budget which is coming up has four key priorities: delivering better public services for a growing country; building the infrastructure we all need to keep growing the economy; paying down debt as a percentage of GDP; and working towards reducing the tax burden on lower and middle income earners to help them with raising their kids or saving for a home.Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts ahead of actually housing the 41000 homeless New Zealanders living in cars and garages?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I invite the member to go out and tell every New Zealander every hard-working Kiwi family that giving them back a little more of their own money is absurd. I invite him to do that—to go and tell hard-working Kiwis who are trying to bring up their families and are saving for a home that they do not rate according to the Labour Party. He should do that all day—in fact I recommend he gets on with it in the next question.Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts rather than helping the 530000 hard-working Kiwis who said that they could not afford to go to the doctor last year?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have some doubt about the member's numbers but nevertheless again it is important for a Government to focus on delivering public services and we are doing that with big increases in investment in the health sector and the under-13s policy which is allowing young Kiwis to go and see the doctor. We do all of those things and we focus on doing that in a more effective way with things like the Better Public Services programme. And then when we get the room we also trust Kiwis to have the opportunity to spend a little of their own money to bring up their own kids and to actually do the saving for the things that they want. That is what is really important to them.Andrew Little: What are you doing about lifting incomes?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are doing that too.Grant Robertson: Why is he prioritising absurd tax cuts when there are 90000 15- to 24-year-olds not in education not in employment and not in training?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again we are investing huge amounts in that area. In fact just a couple of weeks ago I was in Kaikohe—I am not sure whether the member has ever been there—where there was a graduation ceremony for the kids who have been "neets" for a long period of time. There is a Government investment to get those young people into work. Some of those kids have very challenging social issues. We have Project 1000 in Hawke's Bay we have the new Project Tamariki programme in Northland and we have the Youth Guarantee—fees-free.Hon Member : Why is it getting worse then? Twenty thousand over the last year. Get it right.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually it is not getting worse. It is getting better—considerably better. We are also looking at ways of supporting Kiwi families in other ways. But again I invite the member to keep rubbishing Kiwi families.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister of Finance please save New Zealanders and himself from the indignity of more cartoons like this one in the Dominion Post today stop the slow striptease on tax cuts and actually prioritise investing in housing health and education?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Can I just say to the member as much as he is hanging on to his copy of the cartoon it is not a particularly good likeness.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister admit that his Government's decision not to contribute to the Cullen fund has cost $22 billion already or as Adrian Orr said yesterday: "So the fund at the moment is $34 billion. We estimate if the capital contributions had continued and the investments had been as they had performed the fund would be around $56 billion."?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that Mr Orr would be the first to tell the member that actually past performance is not necessarily a guarantee of future performance in any investment. But more importantly I think the question the member would need to answer—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker I specifically referred to the period that Mr Orr was referring to which is yesterday not the future and I am asking the Minister of Finance: are we down $22 billion as a consequence?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No the question was a very long-winded question and when the member continues to ask long-winded questions like that he invites a very generalised answer from the Minister. If the member wants more specific answers to his questions he has got to tighten them up in line with Standing Order 380.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am referring to a quote from a well-performing fund run by Mr Orr and I think I am entitled to quote what he said. It is all in two sentences.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave the member the chance to use the quote. There is no reason why I should not allow that to happen but in using such a long quote and a substantial part to the question before the quote it is a very long question which gives far more licence to the Minister when he answers. Does the Minister wish to complete his answer?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you Mr Speaker I would like to. I think the point that is raised is that the question has to be asked: where would that $13.5 billion come from? We did not put that money into the Superannuation Fund because we had to pay for the Christchurch earthquake recovery and we had to support New Zealanders through the global financial crisis. So what the member needs to answer if he wants to ask that question is: would that be $13.5 billion in extra debt or would he spend $13.5 billion less on New Zealanders or would he tax New Zealanders $13.5 billion more? Those are his three choices; he cannot magic it up.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So when Adrian Orr says "So we've added around $16.5 billion over and above the cost of debt." is he wrong and the Minister right?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot speak to Mr Orr's particular quote because I think it might have been mangled a little bit but my point is in that context that it does not count against our net debt Mr Peters. It is actually hypothecated to superannuation so it is not part of our debt. If we borrow to put more money into the fund that goes against our net debt. So I come back to my question: does the member recommend us borrowing $13.5 billion more—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are getting to the stage now where the Minister is asking the member questions. It is question time for Ministers to answer questions."