John Armstrong: Disharmony at the top on how to pay the bill for Christchurch

Finance Minister Bill English. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Nothing excites an Opposition quite as much as discovering the Prime Minister and his or her Minister of Finance are not singing from the same song sheet. Or, if still singing from the same song sheet, then not singing in harmony.

The apparent difference of view between John Key and Bill English over how to meet the burgeoning costs of the Christchurch earthquake falls into the latter category.

Neither is the disharmony that unusual in their case. The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have different audiences to satisfy - be it voters, the money markets, the credit rating agencies or whomever.

That leads them to emphasise different things. Even so, the different stances taken by Key and English on the Christchurch rebuild have raised eyebrows around Parliament.

Last Thursday, the Finance Minister indicated the Government would borrow to fund its share of the reconstruction. On Sunday, however, the Prime Minister told TVNZ's Q& A the fiscal demands of the rebuild meant the $800 million set aside in this year's Budget for new spending would go on education and health, but would now have to be found from savings in other Government programmes.

Alongside the spending cuts, Labour naturally wanted to make the most of this apparent split between National's No. 1 and No. 2 when Parliament sat yesterday.

English, however, had already donned his pre-Budget cone of silence even though there is still the best part of two months before that document sees the light of day.

His stock line to questions about where Key's cuts would be made was that the process would be "considered and measured". If he said that once, he said it half a dozen times.

However, Labour's finance spokesman, David Cunliffe, wanted to know what was considered and measured about English saying there would be no cuts to operating spending and the Prime Minister then saying there would be no new operating spending.

English replied that Cunliffe's assertion was incorrect as Key had flagged the Government would be tightening up on spending earlier in the year. Having offered that unconvincing explanation, the Finance Minister then went back into his shell. "We have set about a considered and measured process for doing so," he added for anyone who had not got the message by then.

Labour leader Phil Goff had earlier asked if English could confirm that cutting Working for Families for couples with a joint income of more than $100,000 - one of the money-saving options known to be on the table - would raise only $27 million.

This time Labour was rewarded with two bland assurances for the price of one. Not only would there be a "considered process" for determining the savings, National would keep its word and "protect the vulnerable".

While English was tight-lipped, Key, however, had discovered Goff had been a bit loose-lipped in his recent interviews. National's media monitors had picked up Goff giving a varying answer to essentially the same question.

When asked by one reporter if he thought someone earning $140,000 a year needed help from the Government, Goff's answer had been "probably no". When he was asked elsewhere if the Working for Families payment for two parents each earning $70,000 a year should be cut, Goff had replied: "I'm not going to go through that, because I haven't worked through the detail."

Knowing he had been caught out by Key, Goff had the good grace to smile as laughter echoed around the chamber. Just as well. It will be a long haul until Budget Day on May 19 - and those making the journey are sure going to need a sense of humour.