Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 29 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15607. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in 2011 that “for the average New Zealand child most of them are doing extremely well”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: How can the Prime Minister say that the average child is doing “extremely well” when 265000 of them live in poverty when 180000 children go without things that they need like shoes and when one in threeMāori children and one in three Pacific children is in poverty?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I would be interested in the Leader of the Opposition tabling this source that he keeps using saying that one in five New Zealand children own only one pair of shoes. I would be very interested because that is what he has been saying. We know from his speeches that when he says 59000 families will all get $60 a week for 52 weeks it is not true—25000 of them get paid parental leave and will not get it for 52 weeks. Today we learnt that 15000 currently get the parental tax credit and they will not get it for 52 weeks either. In fact one in three families are the only people who will get $60 a week for 52 weeks of the year and they are beneficiary families and the new working poor who according to Labour earn $150000 a year.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question has now been answered. [Interruption] Order!Hon David Cunliffe: If the Prime Minister cannot answer that question then perhaps he can answer these numbers.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Why does he oppose increasing early childhood education opportunities for kids when independent international evidence shows that for every dollar invested $11 is returned in the long run and when the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty report says that the economic cost of child poverty is around $6 billion a year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing is that if we want to move people out of poverty—and the way that poverty is defined in New Zealand is 60 percent of the average wage—by far the fastest way of doing that is through work. This is a Government that is pro-jobs and that is an Opposition that is opposed to jobs. Secondly the member should get his facts right because once again he has got it wrong. So in 2007-08 under the previous Labour Government $860 million was spent on early childhood education. The member says that we are spending less. So how much are wespending now? Well the answer is $1.5 billion. And as for fewer kiddies getting it well actually we now have a 96 percent participation rate in early childhood education. So here is the top-line message that you will not need to check the fine print for: 96 percent of kids a record number are now enrolled in early childhood education. This Government is spending nearly twice as much as the previous Labour Government.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the article inChild Developmentjournal “Age 26 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Child-ParentCenter Early Education Program”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The document has now been—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The document has been suitably described to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just a clarification: I think the Prime Minister might have been asking what the document referred to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume his seat if he wishes to continue. Leave was sought. I have put the leave. The document has been tabled. That is the end of that matter. I invite the member to now continue with his supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the Children’s Commissioner’s expert advisory group report that provided the $6 million—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let me just clarify. Has that not been presented to the House already?Hon David Cunliffe: I am unaware whether that has been presented to the House or not.Mr SPEAKER: Well on the basis that the member is unaware whether it has been presented to the House it is easier that I put leave. Leave is sought to table the expert advisory panel’s work. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Louise Upston: Does Working for Families currently include a parental tax credit of $1200 for parents of newborn babies; if so how many families get that credit and has he seen any reports that the $1200 tax credit might be scrapped?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes Working for Families currently does have a parental tax credit of $1200 for parents of newborn babies. It is a $150 payment paid eight times or it can be taken as one lump sum. Fifteen thousand families currently get that and they are the same families whom on Monday David Cunliffe told would get on top of that 52 weeks at $60 a week. In fact those families will not get that; they will get only 32 weeks. So maybe Mr Cunliffe needs to explain. [Interruption] Well we are shaking our heads too—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question has now also been answered.Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Prime Minister’s new-found enthusiasm for Working for Families can he confirm that he voted against the introduction of Working for Families and described it at the time as “communism by stealth”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely and that is because under the old tax system and abatement rates under the previous Labour Government it was actually possible for people to lose more in abatement than they actually got. And by the way today we have found the parental tax credit yesterday we discovered the paid parental leave and mark my words there might be more news coming on misleading the public on that little bit as well.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister has now shifted his position on Working for Families and has shifted his position on various coalition partners can he tell the House whether he has also shifted his position on the following quote—that some mothers in receipt of such benefits are just “breeding for a business”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well that was made in an article from memory from 2002 or 2003 and that is a very long time ago. But actually I do not think we should have a welfare system that encourages people to stay on welfare. I think we should undertake the reforms that this Government has which are actually to encourage people off welfare and into work. If the member really cares about poverty in New Zealand then he will move people—like this Government is doing—off welfare and into work. We are doing it for 1500 people a week and 17000 people left the benefit last year. So the member gets up and says that there are too many poor people the majority of whom are on welfare and his response is: “Stay there on welfare. Don’t get a job. Back the policies of the Greens.” who are anti-growth. See you at the election. It is going to be a lot of fun.Hon David Cunliffe: Indeed it will. Why did National vote against paid parental leave when introduced in 2002 and again last year yet last week it shifted its position to support it just not as much as Labour; and is that because he thinks it is creating a welfare trap or has he shifted his position again?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot answer the first question in respect of 2002. I am not sure whether it occurred when I was even in the House because I came inin 2002 and I can go and check that time. In terms of paid parental leave here are a few facts that might be interesting to the New Zealand public. We currently pay 14 weeks of paid parental leave. It costs $165 million and only 40 percent of the people can take up the scheme. That is because it is actually not well targeted so not everybody gets it. There are lots of people who actually miss out. So what this member is saying—[Interruption] Well actually here is a really interesting point. What this member is saying is that he wants to spend $500-and-something million on this policy annually and he is saying that somehow he wants to be fiscally conservative. This is the only way through that: you have to tax more and spend less in other areas. And mark my words when that caucus starts talking about: “Do you want more police officers? Do you want to pay teachers more? Do you want more cancer drugs? Do you want more—”Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That question has now been answered.Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he has got more positions than theKama Sutra when it comes to tax policy and does he consider it OK for National to give away $1 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy and tell other New Zealanders not to be jealous but consider giving money to support kids and middle-income families a “spend-athon”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly from time to time conditions will change. As we have always said when it comes to paid parental leave yes when there is more money maybe it would be a nice thing to extend. I do not think the country can afford to go to 26 weeks. It may over time be able to afford to go a little bit more. The member seems to think as conditions change that slightly tweaking one’s position is a bit odd. Was he having a bit of an amnesia fit about his own press conference last week when he did somebackflip on a couple of other crazy policies? Things do change. But—Hon David Cunliffe: Answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Actually I will happily answer the question. OK where does the top personal rate cut in in New Zealand? Seventy-odd thousand dollars a year. Who is going to get his $60 a week for 52 weeks? Well not many as we now know but some of them are going to be people earning $130000 $140000 $80000 $90000and $110000. Guess what is happening to those people under Labour? The top personal rate is going up—mark my words. And guess what—Hon David Cunliffe: We said it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Exactly you said it. So OK—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I will have a debate later on.