Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:660;Page:8723] 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements on GST? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about his own statement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We will get to him in a minute. Yes I do and if someone asked me whether I would want to raise GST to cover deficits the answer would be no; it remains no today. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: On what basis does he claim a mandate for increasing GST when he explicitly promised the nation that he would not do so? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I never made that promise. I said I would not raise GST to cover deficits and we are not doing so. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a DVD in which the Prime Minister explicitly promises not to raise GST. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that object. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
DVD by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister now admit to the country that he misled the country in promising not to raise GST to 15 percent and that he has broken his word? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because my word was that I would not raise GST to 15 percent to cover deficits and I will not do so. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has he seen reports of people supporting a rise in GST accompanied by compensation through tax cuts increases in benefits and increases in superannuation? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. As members will know the Labour Government in 1986 introduced GST at a rate of 10 percent accompanied by personal tax reductions increases in benefits and increases in superannuation. At the time that proposal was greeted with enthusiasm by a person who said these words: “… every New Zealander will be better off under the proposals announced last night. … it introduces a fairer system for New Zealanders. It reduces the burden of personal tax which wage and salary earners have to pay … If the goods and services tax is such a bad system why has the National Opposition not pledged itself to repeal it? It will not do that because it is not a bad system.” That was a great little speech from Phil Goff back in 1986. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members a little decorum please. The honourable Leader of the Opposition called a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table this document which says National is not going to raise GST National wants to cut taxes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has not indicated what the document is. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I am sorry Mr Speaker. This document is from www.stuff.co.nz today—an article by Tracy Watkins. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that seeking leave to table stuff that is in the common media is no longer approved in the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister ever said that raising GST will not be necessary if National was doing a half-decent job in growing the economy and is his decision now to raise GST an admission that National is not doing even a half-decent job in managing the economy? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The question was whether I would be required to raise GST to cover deficits. The answer to that question is: “No we will not.” In fact National will not be increasing taxes; National will be reducing taxes which actually proves we are doing a really good job. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Government ever raised GST without compensating people through tax cuts benefit increases or superannuation increases? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes actually. In 1989 the Labour Government raised GST from 10 percent to 12.5 percent with no tax cuts no increase in benefits and no increase in superannuation. People on lower incomes were left significantly worse off. That will not happen under a National Government. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: When the Prime Minister as the then Leader of the Opposition told New Zealanders at his media interview 18 days before the last election: “National is not going to be raising GST.” what did he mean by the word “not”? Does he have a lot of other definitions that most of us do not understand? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I urge everyone to look at the video. The exact question was whether I would raise GST “to cover deficits”. The answer to that question is no I will not be raising GST to do that. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister in that question a very simple point: to explain to the House his understanding of the word “not”. I expect to hear the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further help on the matter. The Prime Minister disputed in his answer the basis of the question the member asked. I think he is perfectly entitled to do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was his answer word for word: “National is not going to be raising GST. National wants to cut taxes not raise taxes.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes because we are going to cut taxes not raise taxes. Secondly the question— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh not raise taxes! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I know it is a real downer for their story but if I get asked a question I answer it. Am I going to raise taxes and raise GST to cover deficits? The answer is no. But why let the facts get in the way of the story? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The facts were set out on the DVD that has been tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask both sides to please settle down a little. It is obviously a fiercely contested issue and I have allowed a bit of noise and robustness but please as the member is seeking to ask his question could we have a little more order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the top tax rate is lowered from 38c to 30c what percentage of the total spend of this tax package will go to the top 10 percent of income earners in that bracket? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have that answer to hand. If the member wants me to go to the Inland Revenue Department I can get him the answer to that question. We know that one in four New Zealanders who are tertiary qualified lives overseas. The probability of someone who is tertiary qualified paying the top personal rate given that 300000 New Zealanders are paying the top personal rate— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific as you know. The Prime Minister answered that question by saying that apparently he did not have that information. There is nothing else to add. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Leader of the Opposition makes a fair point. He asked a question that was very specific following a very general primary question. The Prime Minister was very upfront and said he did not have that particular information. In fairness I have to acknowledge that that should have been the end of the answer. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Under the policies he foreshadowed yesterday which taxpayers will receive the highest dollar amounts per week in personal tax cuts? Will those taxpayers be the ones who need the money the most? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We do not know yet because the tax package has not been formally put together but of course one would logically assume that the highest taxpayers would receive the highest personal tax cuts and that is because they pay the most tax. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Instead of giving the lion’s share of the tax cuts to the very top income earners why does not the Prime Minister bring in a package that gives fairer tax cuts to those on $40000 $50000 and $60000 a year in line with his undertaking that this tax package would be fair to all New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that he is jumping to conclusions. He may find soon that he is factually incorrect. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated that he did not have an answer to one of my supplementary questions and that is a fair answer to a question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would provide that answer subsequently. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not strictly a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: He offered to. I just wanted to clarify that he is going to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But I do not think the House’s time should be taken up in that way. It is not a valid point of order; it is something the member can pursue privately with the Prime Minister.