10. Question No. 10—FinanceJAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 10—Finance10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement A turn to austerity measures will simply mean it takes longer for us to rebuild society in pursuit of numerical goals that ignore the real world we are living in"; and if so why is the Government suppressing public sector pay in the name of "taking financial pressure off the public wage bill"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes I do stand by my statement that a turn to austerity measures will simply mean that it takes us longer to rebuild society. I also stand by my statement that our recovery from COVID-19 has to be about getting the balance right. The Government has used its strong balance sheet in response to COVID-19 to support New Zealanders and provide confidence to households and businesses. But we also owe it to future generations to work on reducing the higher levels of debt that we have taken on. In doing so there are hard choices to be made and we are focused on investing where it is needed the most. I disagree with the premise in the second part of the member's question. Our focus in public sector pay is on the lowest income earners especially the 25 percent of public servants who earn below $60000. If we want to reduce inequality that is where our priority should sit when it comes to public sector pay increases. I also note that those between $60000 and $100000 in pay can get pay rises under certain criteria.Jan Logie: Is it possible to prioritise wage increases for the lowest-income earners—as I support—and also allow unsuppressed wage bargaining for teachers nurses and border workers etc.?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Minister for the Public Service just noted in his last question when we're talking particularly about teachers nurses police officers and so on many of them will be receiving increased wages over the next few years as a result of the steps that they will take on their pay grades. In terms of the first part of the member's question I like her support for the idea that it is the lowest-paid people that we need to be lifting the wages of. If we want to reduce inequality and we are in the environment that we're in with the balance that we have to strike we are focusing on the lowest-paid earners. If indeed we are suppressing wages for anybody it is for those earning more than $100000.Jan Logie: Did he ask for any advice or do any modelling on the effect of this wage suppression on public sector capability churn retention or the likely impact on individuals and families paid between $60000 and $100000 and if yes what did it say?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say in answer to that question is that we seek a range of advice on matters to do with public sector pay. As we looked at the situation that the Government finds itself in having taken on significant debt we have made the choice to focus on reducing inequality and that starts for us with the public sector pay by focusing on those who are the lowest-income earners.Jan Logie: Has he considered the risk that public servants might start moving around agencies becoming contractors or leaving the country to try to get a pay rise to keep up with the rising cost of living and that that might undermine the Government's work programme.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I would say in answer to that question firstly is that public servants do move around a lot within the Public Service and always have done. But secondly I would point to the fact that across the first term that we were in Government we have seen significant pay increases across the Public Service including in professions such as the police nursing teaching but also in other parts of Government. So we have a Public Service that works extremely hard we have a Public Service that we want to continue to support but in order to get the balance right here we're putting our focus on the lowest paid within our Public Service—25 percent of public servants earn less than $60000. That's something we should be focusing on doing something about.Teanau Tuiono: How will he be responding to calls from the early childhood education sector to deal with pay parity within the sector given the announcement to freeze public sector wages?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Minister for the Public Service said during the announcement yesterday there are certain issues that fall outside this. We will continue work on pay equity we'll continue work on pay parity and we'll continue work on making sure that those in the public sector workforce such as Māori Pasifika and others from ethnic minorities continue to be supported as well—those that sit outside of the pay guidance given yesterday.Jan Logie: Why is he happy to grow the economy through astronomical levels of housing debt but not through higher wages for our teachers our nurses and our core public servants?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that question.Jan Logie: Is it a Labour Government value to suppress collective bargaining?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. This Government has supported improvements to collective bargaining over the last three years and continues to do so. We are strong believers in the power of collective bargaining. What we are doing here is making sure that our focus when we need to get a balance right between reducing the debt that we have taken on and investing where it is needed most is in the lowest-paid public servants and we will continue to do that.Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is it a Labour Party value to support those low-paid workers?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely it is. This Government has committed itself to reducing inequality and if we are serious about reducing inequality and we are working within a constrained fiscal environment then our focus will be on lifting the wages of the lowest-paid people in our economy.Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker that question was to the Minister of Finance and asked him about his responsibility for the Labour Party values. How can he possibly have responsibility for the values of the Labour Party?SPEAKER: I should probably have ruled it out or got the member to ask it again. I apologise for being looser today on both sides.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: No the point of order is finished."