Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4855. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the change in real equivalised median household income (before housing costs) of New Zealand households from 2009-10 to 2010-11 as measured in the Household Economic Survey in dollar and percentage terms? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Over that particular time period real equivalised median household income fell by $900 or 2.7 percent. The report notes that this is a direct result of the global financial crisis and the recession so it should come as no surprise to members. The measure is quite volatile and in six of the last 14 observations it has fallen. This means that the long-term trend is very important. Since 1994 for example real equivalised median household income in New Zealand has increased by 43 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the answer the Minister has just given that median incomes fell by nearly 3 percent in the years in consideration does he agree with the Prime Minister’s answer to question No. 3 on 28 August that said: “Median income in New Zealand has risen.”; if so why does he consider a 3 percent drop to be a rise? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the point is over what period of time the median household incomes have increased. The member has—[ 
Interruption 
] No the member has selected a period from 2009-10 to 2010-11. He has to look back only a couple of years prior to that to see that it has actually grown. But the fundamental point is that there has been a global financial crisis. I know that on “Planet Labour” it did not happen but out here in the real world it did and that has undoubtedly had an impact on the growth rate of people’s incomes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the Minister’s reply that it was all the fault of the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquake can he explain to the House why he thinks that the global financial crisis has increased the average and the income of top income earners while decreasing the median and the income of bottom income earners? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The incidence of the impacts of the global financial crisis has occurred with different effects across the income spectrum. I freely acknowledge that. That is largely because there are fewer jobs in the New Zealand economy and we all know that because those numbers have been there and the unemployment rate as we know has been at 6.7 percent to 6.8 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How about those tax cuts? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually tax cuts do not affect people who are on benefits. What affects people on benefits is the opportunity to obtain a job which means encouraging businesses to have confidence and grow which means creating opportunities to do so such as intensification of agriculture gas and oil exploration—all those things that the Opposition shouts down. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the answer he has just given that the tax cuts had no impact on the level of upper income earners why does he believe that policy changes that gave tax cuts to the top increased GST on the rest and cost the country a deficit of an extra $1 billion over 4 years— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s just factually incorrect. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —it is factually correct Minister—have not impacted negatively on median incomes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well the member makes about four or five propositions that are frankly incorrect. He runs a question that is: “Given this which I believe given this which I believe and given this which is rubbish what do you think?”. The answer is this: the tax changes that we made were broadly equivalent across the sector. Yes some individual elements of them have different effects. [ 
Interruption 
] They do not want to hear it but it is true. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister has addressed himself to the precise nature of that question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Where members insert what they claim to be fact into question the risk they run is the Minister may dispute them which the Minister did and that is perfectly legitimate.