Oral Questions

Point of order. Can I just ask you to consider, with respect to question No. 10, and compare it to question No. 7—

SPEAKER: Sorry, question which, sorry?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Question No. 10, as opposed to question No. 7. In question No. 7, the questioner is asking and putting the quotes in inverted commas to signal that it is a quote. When you get to question No. 10, there is no such precision, no such exactitude, and I think it’s wrong.

I think it’s because it’s a quote.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, continuing the point of order, if it’s a quote, it’ll be in quotes, won’t it? That’s the only reason why you’ll know that you can verify that. If it’s a quote, it’ll be in inverted commas so that you can then check to see its accuracy. At this point in time, none of us knows whether that’s accurate or not.

My apologies; it’s not a quote.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, Mr Speaker, if that’s the case—

SPEAKER: Can I just make it clear—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Does she stand by her statement—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a minute. For those who are watching, just to make it clear, questions are lodged with the Clerk’s Office. They are considered by the Clerks, who have considerable experience of these things. They’re signed off by the Speaker later in the morning. But the advice that comes from the Clerk’s Office, generally, is that—in fact, most days—all the questions are in order. That has been the case today. But if you’ve got a point, I’m happy to hear it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, my point is that, if it’s a quote, it should be in quotes so that we can, therefore, check against the evidence to see whether it’s honestly reported or not. If it doesn’t have any quote marks to it, no one knows what’s going on here, and with the greatest respect to the Clerk of the House, if this was a court of law, they’d ask for that as well.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but we’re not quite a court of law just yet.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re the highest court in the land.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and we should do things properly. I’m assuming that the Clerk’s Office has done the right thing here, and if that’s not the case, they’ll clearly review it, but we’re not going to review it in time to rectify it for this question time. So we’ll come to question No. 1, in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment

1. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “We are focused on lifting New Zealand families out of hardship and giving them more opportunities to get ahead by helping all who can work into jobs”?

Yes. This Government is implementing a more proactive welfare system to support New Zealanders into work, because in the six years before we came to office the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent. For part of these six years, businesses were desperate for staff, which underscores why the welfare system needs to do more to support job seekers into work. We’ve already taken action, such as providing 4,000 more young job seekers case management over the phone and requiring job seekers to attend a work seminar in the first two weeks on benefit. This is to make sure the welfare system is more proactive.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the additional 21,000 people on benefits since she took office lead to an increase in children living in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we do know from what we have inherited over the last six years: the number of job seekers increased by 70,000; the number of children living in benefit-dependent households increased by 44,000. So now there are one in five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent household. That is why our Government is making sure the welfare system is more proactive in supporting those off welfare and into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did officials warn the Government that the number of children living in poverty would likely increase by 7,000 as a result of her benefit indexing changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, Ministers receive advice around changes that may be made, including the Budget 2024 tax changes, which will reduce the number of children in poverty by 17,000.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can she confirm that the Government received advice from Treasury on 23 February, stating 9,000 beneficiaries would be worse off as a result of the tax changes, and how does this support families to get ahead?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member has asked before and we have traversed, changes around tax and tax refunds are the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won’t she admit that her policy decisions are leading to increased numbers of New Zealand children forced to live in poverty?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very proud of Budget 2024, of tax relief, of focusing on the cost of living because the cost of living crisis is the single biggest impact on the number of children living in poverty today. That’s why our side of the House is unwilling to tolerate that level of hardship.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Before I call Sam Uffindell, can I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister, I reread the point that he was making. Question 7 is a quote; it was a quote from the Hansard yesterday. Question No. 10 is not a quote; it’s more general. If there’s a presentation issue here, then we’ll take it up with the Clerk’s Office for the future, but thank you for bringing it up.

Point of order. Perhaps I can explain the situation to the House so everybody understands. The reason that it wasn’t put in quotes is because there was a misspelling of the Minister’s name, and we didn’t want to include that. We provided authentication to the Clerk’s Office, and as such they’ve approved it accordingly.

Thank you.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. to the Minister of Finance: Why were tax thresholds increased yesterday?

As I’ve said in the House previously, incomes rise over time due to inflation and growth in the economy, but if tax rates and thresholds remain the same, more and more of people’s incomes are taxed at higher marginal rates, and they will pay a higher and higher proportion of their income in tax. Periodically, Governments should adjust tax thresholds or rates to address that, at least in part. Otherwise, we get into the ridiculous situation which existed the day before yesterday, where a person could work full-time on the minimum wage and be in the 30 percent tax bracket. The Government has done something about it.

Sam Uffindell: How do other countries deal with fiscal drag?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Almost all OECD countries either index their personal income tax thresholds or periodically adjust rates or thresholds as a response to fiscal drag—or bracket creep, as it is sometimes called.

Sam Uffindell: Has she seen any support in New Zealand for this approach?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. As my colleague Chris Bishop pointed out yesterday, at least one commentator has endorsed this approach, saying, “Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do, and I think it’s a sensible thing to do.” I agree with that particular commentator, who was Chris Hipkins. However, that commentator goes on to argue that now is just not the right time to give tax relief.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It never is.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It never is for some people, as my colleague Mr Goldsmith says. In fact, further, I am advised, having asked about New Zealand’s track record on this, that every Government since 1980, whether National-led or Labour-led, has, at some stage, adjusted rates or thresholds to provide tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders—oh, with one solitary exception. The solitary exception is the previous Labour Government.

Sam Uffindell: How many people have now used the Budget calculator?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am advised that as of this morning, 638,000 people have used the tax calculator to see what they are getting in long overdue tax relief. That is 39,000 more people than yesterday, and 121,000 more than this time last week. New Zealanders are clearly very interested in tax relief and glad to be receiving it. I am not advised as to how many of them were Labour voters, but I’m guessing some. Let us not forget that members opposite voted against it.

Question time interrupted.