Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15226] 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his answer of $12.793 billion to the House yesterday when asked what the cumulative nominal increase in all taxes received since 1999 was; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 On behalf of the Minister of Finance I stand by my answer which stated that the nominal increase in all taxes received since 1999 was $12.793 billion. That is a far more meaningful figure to use as it compares the tax take in 1999 with that take now. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member wants to be given useless data I say the figure for the cumulative nominal increase in taxes since 1999 is $33.992 billion—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows full well that he cannot bring me into the debate. He brings me into the debate every time he uses the second person. That is the end of it; he will leave the Chamber if he keeps on doing that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member wants to be given useless data I say the figure for the cumulative nominal increase in taxes since 1999 is $33.992 billion as John Key told the House yesterday. Why did Dr Brash not just ask his finance spokesperson that? 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister ashamed of the fact that the Government has increased tax cumulatively by almost $34 billion since 1999 when he was quite specifically asked for the cumulative nominal increase in tax revenue since that time; if so will he consider reducing the tax burden on the average New Zealand worker who now pays $2800 per year more than was the case in 1999? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Hell no. This Government is proud that it has had economic growth. It has put tens of thousands of people into jobs. They are paying tax when previously they were getting benefits. Tories do not like that but we are proud of it. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were some interjections. I do not mind a few interjections but some of them were just banal in the extreme. [ 
Interruption 
] The member knows perfectly well what I am referring to. That is a matter for a supplementary question to draw out. 
David Parker 
: Is the Minister worried about the level of increase in the tax take? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. What has occurred has been a massive increase in the number of people in jobs. Some people are in very well-paid jobs. There are some people who work only an hour a week and they get $5700 an hour for it—like Don Brash. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot make personal reflections on a member. He will withdraw that last statement. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you for an explanation? What I gave the House was the rate divided by 34—the annual salary for someone who does an hour of work in here per week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is compounding things at this point. I am warning him. I do not want to have to ask Ministers to leave the Chamber because they may have other questions on the Order Paper to answer. The Minister is in grave danger of being asked to leave. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no other questions on the Order Paper that another Minister could not answer. The point Mr Speaker is that a senior Minister in the Government has stood up and completely defied your previous ruling. It seems to me that whenever that happens on the Opposition side of the House we go. I am letting you know that as far as the National Party is concerned we do not mind if Trevor Mallard is not in the House. He adds nothing to its business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can make his point of view known. I have made my point of view known. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will the Minister consider reducing the company tax rate from 33 percent given that when this Government came to office in 1999 the average company tax rate in the OECD was 35 percent and it is now below 30 percent and given the fact that the net company tax take has increased by 72 percent over the last 5 years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are two points to be made. The first is that the reason the net company tax rate has gone up so much is that companies are much more profitable in a growing economy than they used to be. The second point is that any reduction in the company tax rate is in the end a transfer to overseas owners and we do not support that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not getting anything out. The member will; he has had his warning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister been advised by Dr Cullen that the answer to this question—first asked by Peter Brown on 17 August—was given by the Minister of Finance and can he confirm when it may be that “New Zealand Second” will stop stealing New Zealand First’s material in politics? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is absolutely correct. The material was given to the House by Dr Cullen in an answer to a question from Mr Brown. On the second question I would not hold my breath because the National members are hopeless. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister be kind enough to clarify to the House why he is proud of this Government taking a record amount of tax from the community in light of this card which members may not have seen before—it is called “We will deliver” it has a picture of what I understand to be our Prime Minister on the front and it states: “No rise in income tax for the 95 percent of taxpayers earning under $60000 a year.”—and the fact that this year 10 percent of all taxpayers are paying the top rate of tax and 20 percent of all full-time taxpayers are paying the top rate of tax; and I know he said yesterday that in 2002 there was an election with a different manifesto so could he point out to us where the Labour Party promised New Zealanders that this country would have a higher rate of personal and company tax than our trading partners? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I remind the member that commitment No. 7 on that card referred to taxpayers earning under $60000 a year. The fact that the economy has gone so well that there is a smaller number of people in that group is a good thing not a bad thing. The facts that people are better off earn more and are more likely to be in jobs than previously are something that this Government is proud of. Tories hate that. They do not like workers to earn money. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement he made in April 2000 in Hong Kong when he said that he would like to reduce the company tax rate “as fiscal conditions permit”; and if a $34 billion cumulative increase in the tax take and a 72 percent increase in the net company tax rate annually are not enough to justify a cut in that rate what on earth is? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think two points should be made. The first is that the tax take as a percentage of GDP is very similar to the rate in 1999 so that the proportion of our economy that is going into taxation is very much the same as it was then. The second point—and I repeat this point—is that in the end individuals get dividends from companies and pay tax on them. If we cut the company tax rate the people who win will be the people who are overseas residents. I stand up for New Zealanders not for overseas owners. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know what the member is going to say. The Minister was asked whether he stood by the statement that he made. He did not address that part of the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say on behalf of the Minister of Finance that his Acting Minister does not currently recall that statement. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s speech in April 2000 in which he made it clear that as fiscal conditions permit he would consider reducing the company tax rate. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a question asked by Peter Brown to the Minister of Finance on 17 August and I wonder why TVNZ interviewed the National Party about the result of the answer to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the statement. The rest of that is irrelevant. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave to table a very rare document: the Labour Party’s promise at the 1999 election that there would be no rise in income tax for 95 percent of taxpayers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document not tabled.