Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8870] 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement: “any move with tax tax affects everybody any move with it has to be not only fair but seen to be fair”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with John Key’s statements that either the “bulk” or the “vast bulk” of New Zealanders will be better off as a result of the Government’s tax package including the full impact of new taxes and their flow-on effects or does he stand by his statement that the tax package is an opportunity only to ensure that people are not worse off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With an either/or question surely a Minister cannot simply answer “Yes.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the member’s question quite carefully and I have to acknowledge that Ministers are entitled to answer just one part of a question. Although I accept that the thrust of that question was either/or the member asked fairly bluntly whether the Minister agreed with a certain statement and the Minister in answering said “Yes.” I cannot really do a lot about that. I think it is within the member’s ability to reword the question in order to pin down the Minister a bit more tightly if he wishes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are therefore interpreting the Minister’s answer as confirming that the Prime Minister’s statement was correct and the Minister’s was not correct? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—that is not a point of order. I ruled that the Minister had answered the first part of the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it be that the Minister has addressed the question when he was given two alternatives and he has not chosen—apparently—either one? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: It is clear in the Standing Orders that we cannot expect a Minister to answer a yes or no question and say it has to be a “Yes” or a “No”. An either/or question is in the exact same category. A member can ask a question; it is then up to Ministers to frame the answer as they best see fit as Ministers and in the public interest. It is also quite within the wit I think of the front bench of the Labour Party to ask that question in two parts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Hon David Cunliffe to ask a further supplementary question should he wish. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister seen reports that say that almost two-thirds of New Zealanders oppose an increase in GST; does he think that that is an indication that the vast bulk of hard-working Kiwis see the increase as unfair? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with the last statement. As to whether people agree with the increase or not will depend on two things: one what changes the Government actually decides to make; and two I think the vast bulk of hard-working Kiwi families know they need a stronger economy that produces new jobs sustainable jobs and higher incomes. If we keep doing what that member’s party did when in Government we would be strangling the export sector and running up unsustainable debt. We are not willing to do that. 
Amy Adams 
: What steps is the Government considering to make the tax system fairer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Under the previous Government a proliferation of loopholes was created by a wide range of differential tax rates particularly for people on higher incomes with the effect that for instance half of the Inland Revenue Department’s wealthiest taxpayers reported taxable incomes of under $70000. The number of people paying tax on a million dollars did not change in the whole time Labour was in Government. That means high-income New Zealanders are not paying their fair share of tax and we are going to fix that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm on that point that the net effect of his proposed tax cuts now will result in more tax reductions for the top few percent than the tax cuts he cancelled in Budget 2009; how can that either be fair or do anything for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I cannot. The member needs to take into account any changes the Government makes in respect of the taxation of property. It is clear from the data the Government holds that the ownership of property is in the hands of higher-income people so calculations on GST and income tax paint only part of the picture. If there is revenue that comes from property it is almost certainly revenue coming from higher-income New Zealanders. We will have to wait and see how the numbers shake out.