Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 27 June 2012. Volume:681;Page:3416. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is narrowing the wage gap with Australia the fundamental purpose of his Government if so where is the specific target in National’s 120-point action plan National’s revised six-point Brighter Future plan or his more recent ten results for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes it is a fundamental purpose of the Government as the Prime Minister has pointed out and the target has been well articulated. That is why the member is asking us questions about it and he can monitor it any day of the week. I note that after-tax wages have grown a bit faster in New Zealand than in Australia since we became the Government. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well they have. But we accept that in the light of the commodities boom in Australia closing that gap is a real challenge and we aim to do so by 2025. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the gap in gross wages on the purchase-price parity basis he favours increased from $122 per week in December 2008 to $144 per week in March this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that may be the case; I have not looked at those numbers in detail. But I think the member will understand that we are aiming to close that gap. In the last few years that has been quite a challenge because Australia has had a once-in-a-100-year commodity boom. That has pushed its wages up in parts of Australia and it is difficult to compete with that. But we are pressing on with our plan for a stronger economy and we believe that if we stick to that plan we can close that gap. 
Hon David Parker 
: Excluding the top 10 percent of income earners who received approximately 40 percent of his income tax cuts has the after-tax wage gap with Australia as he calculates it closed or widened for the other 90 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member’s representation of the tax package is of course wrong. The impact of the reductions in income tax combined with the increase in GST and significant increases in property taxes means that most New Zealanders were in about the same position after that tax package as they were before. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that is true. We have not done the measurement that the member asked about. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister willing to calculate whether the after-tax wage gap with Australia for 90 percent of wage earners in New Zealand is larger now than it was when he took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well we can do any calculation that the member likes. The fact is we are getting on with dealing on planet Earth rather than “Planet Labour”. We are dealing with the real challenges that the New Zealand economy faces particularly in respect of Australia and that is to make ourselves more competitive so that our businesses can grow. That means not following the policies of that Government of higher taxes— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question was actually fairly simple and did not really need quite that long an answer—especially ending up with a negative comment about the questioner’s party. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. The question actually asked whether the Minister of Finance would be prepared to calculate the after-tax income gap for the 90 percent if the top 10 percent are excluded. I am not 100 percent sure what the answer to the question was. I do not know whether the Minister of Finance is prepared to enlighten the House on that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: My answer to the question was that you can do any calculation you like and then went on to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! But that was not the question. The question did not ask whether the Minister was prepared to do any calculation. The question asked whether he was prepared to do that calculation and that is what question time is about. Members ask questions and Ministers are meant to answer them. I acknowledge that it is not exactly a huge issue. But it was a simple question and to avoid it totally is not reasonable. I invite the Minister to answer the question. Does he intend to do that one or not? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just listened to what you said and you have come I think very very close to suggesting that Ministers could be required to give yes and no answers. You will find in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 a number of references to the fact that that is not a necessary response from Ministers that Ministers are the ones who judge what is appropriate for an answer to a question and that when questions are asked that have a degree of catch-22 to them Ministers have a right to be able to explore that particular possibility in the answers that they give. The assumption that you seem to be making is that any question asked by the Opposition is in fact factually based and reasonable and it may not be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question contained no fact in it at all. It just asked a question. It contained no assertion whatsoever. It just asked whether the Minister of Finance was prepared to do a particular calculation. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: For what reason? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There does not have to be a reason and the member should not be interjecting. What is more Ministers can certainly choose not to answer a question if they invoke the public interest. If they invoke the public interest they do not need to answer a question. But unless the question is totally unreasonable I expect an answer. That is not unreasonable. The Standing Order requires that an answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given so long as it can be given consistently with the public interest. It is not the end of the world. I would not have even raised the matter if the Minister had not gone on to be critical of the questioner’s party. But where Ministers choose to be a bit vague in answers they should then not choose to be critical of the questioner’s party. It is a matter of being reasonable and sensible in all of this. I do not see why it is such a huge issue for the Minister to need to avoid that question because the question was a straight question. If the Minister is not avoiding it if I recollect the question was very simply whether the Minister was prepared to calculate the after-tax income gap between Australia and New Zealand excluding the top 10 percent of income earners. If it has not been avoided I am interested in hearing the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why should anyone accept his promises on the economy when his Government will not even set targets for closing the wage gap or reducing New Zealand’s net international liabilities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think it is an issue about promises on the economy; it is about applying sensible policy in difficult circumstances to help businesses make the decision to grow—that is employ another person invest a bit more money and pay a higher wage. And we will stick to that plan which is much more constructive than following the policies that that member might propose. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: By how much have total after-tax wages grown in New Zealand and Australia since 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Real after-tax wages have increased by 11 percent in New Zealand since September 2008. By comparison they have increased by 8 percent in Australia over the same period. So the wage gap has narrowed a bit but it is a long-term challenge and it is still a significant gap so there is plenty more work to do. This is a vast improvement on the 9 years to September 2008 when New Zealand’s real after-tax wages increased by only 4.4 percent—that is slightly more than one-third of the increase in the last 3 years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was he told while he was preparing to answer this question why after describing narrowing the wage gap with Australia as a fundamental purpose of his Government the Prime Minister was not prepared to defend his record in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that the Minister of Finance is responsible for that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Questions are often asked of Ministers about whether they have specific information or not. My question is was he informed why and cutting right to the chase the Prime Minister was not prepared to answer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No if I had any sympathy with the member I am afraid he has just blown it now. That question has now been ruled out.