Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “superannuation is an issue but one thing that is worth noting is that increasing the age of eligibility has much less of an impact than commentators might imagine”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and I note that lowering the age of eligibility to 60 for many workers which the member has proposed would reduce the impact even further. 
David Shearer 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports from Treasury which says that keeping superannuation affordable will mean increasing GST to 19 percent or everyone paying $30 a week more tax; from Mercer which notes that increasing the age of eligibility by just 2 years would save $100 billion over 30 years; from the IMF which says that the pension spending in New Zealand will increase in net present terms by 66 percent of GDP; or from the OECD which says that increases in the retirement age are under way or planned in 28 of the 34 OECD countries? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a few of those and I have also seen the following which is a report from the OECD that looks at pension systems around the world. It asks the question of what the cost as a percentage of GDP would be if there are no changes made. Interestingly enough New Zealand is the seventh lowest in terms of cost if we were to look at countries at about 8 percent of GDP. If we were to look at countries that would cost just a bit more they are Austria Belgium Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Luxembourg the Netherlands Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland the United Kingdom Brazil and I could go on. That is the first thing. The second thing I have seen is something that the member does not want to talk about and that is that if you raise the age to 67 yes it has a minor impact. That is because— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually it is quite interesting. Let us have the debate. It has a minor impact. That is because what is actually driving the cost is not just that. It is actually the link to average wages and what the member does not want to talk about is that Diana Crossan actually wants to decouple it from the average wage and by the way people want a means test. Interestingly enough I see Andrew Little nodding his head. Well let me say these words: “The current … superannuation system reflects a balanced approach to ensuring New Zealanders’ dignity in their retirement.” Raising the retirement age “won’t work”. That was by Andrew Little. Those are the words of Andrew Little.  
Michael Woodhouse 
: What policies has he seen that have significantly reduced the Government’s fiscal costs in the future? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In late 2008 Treasury expected net debt to reach around 60 percent of GDP by 2026 under the fiscal settings we inherited from Labour. Net debt is now forecast to be almost zero— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to go back to your ruling that questions should be related either to the question or to the reply. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member would need to be a bit more specific. I believe that the Prime Minister is in order. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am happy to be more specific. The primary question was about superannuation. The supplementary questions were about superannuation. The Prime Minister’s answers were about superannuation and this question is not and neither is the answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The entire question and debate is about the affordability of superannuation. This Government is making sure it is affordable in its current form. If the Opposition does not want to have that pointed out to it it should not engage in debates it will not win. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are there further supplementary questions? Sorry the Prime Minister will finish his reply. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the question—let me start again because it was a bit interrupted—in late 2008 Treasury expected net debt to reach around 60 percent of GDP by 2026 under the fiscal settings we inherited from Labour. Net debt is now forecast to be almost zero in 2026 because of all the financial decisions we have taken: the tightening up of Government spending running zero Budgets and paying down debt. So that bill represents a huge saving in the Government’s interest bill of somewhere around 3 percent of GDP. That is far greater than increasing the superannuation age to 67 which would save only 0.7 percent— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the Prime Minister— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —of GDP and that is in 2033. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Supplementary question the Leader of the Opposition. 
David Shearer 
: Finally! Can he today identify any thinktanks groups or political parties that support his position on superannuation other than his National Party caucus? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let me quote from one: “In a low wage economy such as New Zealand shifting more of the burden of superannuation funding onto working people doesn’t make sense.” says Andrew Little. 
David Shearer 
: How much notice does he believe New Zealanders need of an intention to change the age of eligibility for superannuation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If such a change was to occur they need some time to adjust. I accept that. But let me go back to this fundamental point. This is a Government that went to the election in 2011 and said— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question and we are getting a speech about the election.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think we will move to the next supplementary question if there is one. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not finished Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have determined that the Prime Minister did answer the question and I have called for another supplementary question. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has he seen an example of a policy to raise the superannuation age in New Zealand and why was that proposed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have. At the last election I saw a policy to raise the superannuation age to 67. However the policy was not introduced to reduce the Government’s fiscal pressures against an ageing population. Together with a capital gains tax the purpose of the policy was to pay over a long period of time for a whole lot of expensive spending promises like the $5000 tax-free threshold. Let us distil this for New Zealanders: they want to spend truckloads of money— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has absolutely no responsibility for any of those matters. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leader of the Opposition a further supplementary question. 
David Shearer 
: Given all the advice on superannuation and the position he has taken even with his own coalition partners who have a completely different perspective on superannuation what does he say to John Armstrong who writes that he “is now almost a man alone in insisting there is no need to raise the age of eligibility ...”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I say to John what I always say: he is a wonderfully gifted columnist and I love reading his columns. But I am not a man alone; I am a man with over a million people who voted for our policy in 2011.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister then that the increase of the surtax which National brought in in a former time and which was repealed by New Zealand First and the reduction of superannuation down to 60 percent of the net average weekly wage which was revised upwards to 66 percent by New Zealand First are not going to change in the future? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have made our policies in terms of superannuation very clear. We are maintaining the age and we are maintaining the floor at 66 percent linked to average wages. What I can say to the honourable member is that if one day he forms a Government with Labour and the Greens it is going to be really interesting because he hates their policy and he hates that party.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am rather concerned that you did not bother to do anything about that last answer. The Prime Minister is not free to get up and let his lips blow around in the wind when he feels like it. He is required to answer the question directly and leave it at that. If he wants to behave like that then I am very happy to entertain him because in fact the only reason— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished yet—I haven’t finished yet.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not care. The member will resume his seat—the member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has answered the question. Yes he made some comments that probably went beyond what was required but he has now ceased answering the question.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are not in the business of running tackle for a Government here in your important position. The fact of the matter is that nothing in that question asked his opinion as to my view of for example the Green Party. That is not part of his ministerial portfolio. It has no part in his job whatsoever and you cannot let him get away with it.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The Prime Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Do your job properly.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Look I did not hear—there is so much noise that I am having difficulty hearing the member which may be just as well. It may be just as well—I am not sure. But the Prime Minister has now desisted. He answered comprehensively the member’s question but he did add some that was superfluous and I will accept that but we are now moving on.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 383 which is about the content of replies. The Standing Order is pretty black and white. It says that replies “must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked”. They must not contain “arguments inferences imputations epithets or ironical expressions” etc. I appreciate that you have some latitude and so you should. But consistently in question time today the Prime Minister has abused Standing Order 383 and I would ask you to call him up on it.  
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: There is no doubt that Dr Norman’s recitation of the Standing Order is correct but it is simply a mirror of what must be in questions as well. The question asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters would have been completely out of order had you been forced to enforce these Standing Orders. So I think your call that we should move on is a good one.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We will be moving on but I would just say to the member who raised the point of order that I did stop the Prime Minister in the previous supplementary answer so he cannot say that I have not moved to try to curtail answers in a way that is appropriate to the House. I am trying to apply the rule evenly. We will move on.