1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answers yesterday in the House about protecting families from the recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister said “we have lost 60,000” jobs over the last year and “that is a pretty good result”, what is so good about an additional 60,000 hard-working New Zealanders losing their livelihoods, and why has he not intervened as effectively as the Australian Government, which, for the first time in a decade, has reduced unemployment below the level that exists in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister said that because it was a good result. The forecasts that were based on Labour’s economic mismanagement and the global recession forecast 120,000 job losses. Because of this Government’s policy, only 60,000 jobs have been lost.

Hon Phil Goff: When he said yesterday that he was giving pay increases to low-paid workers, why is the Government continuing to demand a zero wage increase from the thousands of people who work in our hospitals as orderlies, kitchenhands, and cleaners; and why is he offering a zero wage increase to the thousands of New Zealanders who work as caregivers for the elderly and disabled?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is clear from that question that the member does not know what negotiations and processes are going on.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. What does he say to the New Zealand family who have been refused a food grant, and the local food bank is empty; and what does he think the family should tell their kids they will be having for Christmas dinner?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is aware of a particular family in that situation, then I suggest they approach the Ministry of Social Development, because there is provision available to ensure that families have something to eat for Christmas dinner.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that low-paid workers had been given a tax cut, what precisely was the tax cut given to those families, with dependent children, who earn under $40,000 a year, and how did that compare with his own tax cut?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the October tax cuts, which were set out by the previous Labour Government, those families all received tax reductions. When it came to the 1 April tax cuts, a large group of New Zealanders had not had tax reductions, and we made sure that they got the benefits of a growing economy, as well.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was relatively straightforward. As this Government claimed that it had given tax cuts to low-paid workers, I asked about the tax cut given to the particular group, with dependent children, that earns under $40,000. I could not tell from the Minister’s comments whether he even addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I must confess, as Speaker, I could pick up what he said. He said that in fact a group of people—probably that group of people—received tax cuts in October last year, and that a further group of people who did not receive tax cuts in October last year received them in April this year. Although it may not have been exactly the answer that the member wanted, it was an answer to the question.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Prime Minister say to the family referred to yesterday by the Auckland City Missioner, where the income earner in the family has lost his job, the family have lost their home, and they “have nothing for Christmas, nothing for extras and are really struggling and yet a year ago they were OK”; and how has he protected that family from the sharpest edges of the recession, as he quaintly puts it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we pointed out, as a result of Government policy 60,000 families, who would have otherwise lost their jobs, have kept them. That member knows that in a recession—

Hon Members: That’s just rubbish.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unfortunately, that family probably relied on the reassurances from the Labour Government that it had fixed the economic cycle and had provided them with a permanent job. That is not how it turned out, and we are spending every waking hour cleaning up the mess left by him, which is hurting our families.

Hon Phil Goff: How many additional children have been forced below the poverty line over the last year as a result of the near-doubling of unemployment and as a result of most workers on low to middle incomes actually having a reduction in real income, or has he not bothered to ask about that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, of course, the member is trying to copy political tactics from other countries, as if—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that you had a discussion about the Prime Minister’s repeatedly not answering the question but going off on a tangent, and the Acting Prime Minister is doing that on this occasion today. I ask you to bring him to order.

Mr SPEAKER: The slight dilemma I have is that if the honourable Leader of the Opposition reflects on his question, he will see that he basically accused the Government of not caring about people who may have lost their jobs. Under those circumstances it is difficult to expect the Acting Prime Minister to give a totally objective answer, when he has been accused of that sort of thing. If the Leader of the Opposition objects to the way it was answered, I invite him to repeat his question without making that kind of emotive allegation, and we will see whether we can get a more objective approach from both sides.

Hon Phil Goff: Has he asked how many additional children over the last year have been forced below the poverty line as a result of the near-doubling of the unemployment rate and the fact that a great many workers have suffered a reduction in their real incomes, as the Minister of Finance pointed out in a statement yesterday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to that is yes. I have to say that this Government has found it hard work to deal with people who are hurting because the previous Government so badly mismanaged this economy. When the recession came along—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer to my question could not possibly be “yes”. It asked how many additional children have been forced below the poverty line. “Yes” is not an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that—and I stand to be corrected—the member, in his question, asked “Has he asked how many … children … have been forced …”, and the Hon Bill English replied “yes”, which meant yes, he had asked that. My dilemma is that I think an answer to the question that was asked was given. Does the honourable member have a further supplementary question?

Hon Phil Goff: I am still waiting for the answer to the first one.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question was answered.

Hon Phil Goff: Having asked that question, how many additional children are now living below the poverty line as a result of the doubling of the unemployment rate and the fact that a great many workers have suffered a cut in their real incomes this year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot tell him the number off the top of the head, but I can tell him why they might be. First, workers lost their jobs because of the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. Secondly, if families have found themselves below the poverty line—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH:—it is because they are on a benefit level set by the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: If it was not the last day of this sitting of the House, I would probably be asking the Hon Bill English to leave the Chamber, because I was on my feet. What he said was beyond what was necessary, given the question that was asked. He answered the question, and he went on to make far more comment than was necessary. It is the last day, and I will put up with it for today, but I will not do so in future.