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: 01 March 2012. Volume:677;Page:746. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he stand by his statement in his answer to Oral Question No 8 yesterday that the current account deficit is forecast in the PREFU to deteriorate by “about just under $5 billion over the next 4 years”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 As I said in my statement to the House earlier this afternoon the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update forecast the current account deficit to go from $7.2 billion in 2011 to $12.6 billion in 2014 which was a difference of about $5 billion over 3 years rather than 4 years as I said yesterday. Over 4 years from 2011 to 2015 the forecast is to widen by $8.4 billion. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether the country’s net international liabilities are forecast to grow in the next 4 years and if so by how much to the nearest $10 billion? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not have those exact numbers but they are forecast to grow over the next 4 years and the member is aware of that as it was stated both in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and in the recent fiscal update. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not addressed the question which was could he tell the House to the nearest $10 billion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said he did not have the figures and given that the primary question was about the current account deficit it is not unreasonable if the Minister does not have the figures on net liabilities. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he know whether his Government has achieved any of the economic growth forecasts projected since it came to office including the Budget 2009 scenario written during the darkest days of the recession? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Some of the forecasts since we came to office have changed and the member may well be aware—I am not sure—that the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes were not projected in any of those forecasts in 2009 to the extent that they have occurred. That is the nature of forecasts. Treasury in fact makes forecasts and Governments go on to deal with the real world which as we know has changed quite dramatically in the last 3 years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a pretty straightforward question. It was has the Government met any of its forecasts? The fact that forecasts have changed was not the question. The fact that circumstances have changed was not the question. It was has the Government met any of its forecasts including I think the one that was made in the depths of the recession. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister could assist with that because the question did specifically ask that. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I did answer it. I was asked whether the forecast had changed and I said yes and I went on to give some reasons. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If there is dispute over what the question was I will invite the Hon David Cunliffe to repeat his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To repeat the question has the Government achieved any of the economic growth forecasts projected in any of the official forecasts since it came to office including the Budget 2009 scenario written during the darkest days of the recession? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: My response is the same and that is that the forecasts have changed and that the reality has changed and that is what happens when you go from forecast to reality given the level of changes including the nature and ongoing uncertainties associated with the global financial crisis and also the fact of the Canterbury earthquake which occurred after the forecasts the member mentions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was the same answer to the same question and he did not answer it—in exactly the same way. It is a question of whether it met the forecast not whether the forecast changed. Any of them—one would do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My understanding from the Minister’s answer is the answer is no. If that is not the answer that the Minister is giving there he should correct me and he is not correcting me. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a graph of Treasury data showing that the Government has not in fact met any of those forecasts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The source of the graph? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Treasury data. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Who prepared the graph—the source of the document? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: My staff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document prepared by the member’s staff. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I cannot hear the member. Is he seeking a supplementary question? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: A point of order. I seek leave to table this graph showing that GDP— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before the member says what is in it he must say the source of the document. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Treasury data. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But the source of the document. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The source of the document is my office—Treasury data. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK the source of the document is established: the member’s staff. He may seek leave. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table this table which shows that the Canterbury earthquake— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No the member must identify— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —was responsible for only— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member must establish the source of the document. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The source is the Parliamentary Library. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may proceed. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is data that shows that only 26 percent of the loss or the variance of those forecasts could be attributed to the earthquake not 100 percent as said yesterday by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well we should deal with this first. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I just have an objection to the way that was described because— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well we can deal with that. Leave is sought to table the document then I will deal with the point of order. Is there any objection to the document being tabled? There is objection. Now the member had a point of order. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was just to clarify that the description by the member of what I said yesterday was incorrect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. But of course the problem arose because in seeking leave to table the document the member went on to express a view about the relationship between what the document said and what some other member said. That is not in order when seeking leave to table a document. The leave should be sought describing simply the source of the document and what the document is not whether or not it is consistent with what anyone else said. That is why we got into this trouble.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 of question No. 8— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We do not do that; the member will resume his seat. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member now have a supplementary question? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am very grateful. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I inquire of the Speaker whether it is customary for him to express his gratitude for supplementary questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat right now and if he wishes to ask his supplementary question he will cease trifling with the Chair. He has been using a process of seeking leave to table documents—a perfectly valid process—when he knows that some of the documents he was seeking to table were not valid documents for which leave could be sought. Then he went on when describing a document to make comment about another member of the House which is again outside the Standing Orders. I am just asking the member to be reasonable and please just ask his supplementary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he know what the benefit-cost ratio of allowing Skycity Casino to operate 350 to 500 extra pokie machines would be and if so what is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: How on earth does that relate to the primary question? If I have missed the point I will give the member the chance to explain to me. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The explanation is very simple. If there is a net economic benefit—for example from incoming tourism—then that would contribute to an increase in the current account. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a long way from this primary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This casino project was a major feature of the Government’s pre-election promises and its economic delivery— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have heard sufficient. All sorts of things were major features of many parties’ pre-election promises. This question asked about whether the member stood by his statement in answer to oral question No. 8 yesterday about the current account deficit forecast in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and how much it was going to deteriorate—a very specific question—and the supplementary questions should relate to that. And that one clearly did not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I have actually ruled it out so I am not sure what the point of order is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am going to ask you to take some time afterwards to reconsider whether a major economic project can or cannot make a different to the current account deficit. We work on the basis that major projects are meant to help with that deficit. You Mr Speaker might have a different basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. It is a very specific primary question and to ask details about a certain particular project is unreasonable. The Standing Orders were never designed to facilitate that. I am very liberal in allowing most supplementary questions but that one is clearly well wide of the primary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he confirm whether New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s priorities for addressing the current account deficit exclude casinos and media companies formerly owned by himself; and if so can he explain why he has made it a priority to do private deals with those companies? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I confirm that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has a number of priorities to deal with the balance of payments deficit but it is not particularly addressed to the two things the member raises. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having been asked three times whether the Government has met any of its 2009 forecasts—a point discerned by the Speaker thankfully as being no—why could he not rise in this House and just say that rather than try to dissemble as he did? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is sort of “pot black” territory is it not—the pot calling the kettle black. But— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What can that possibly do towards the answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should reflect on his question. He accused the Minister of dissembling and the Minister is perfectly at liberty when faced by a question like that to offer some views in return. The Minister was perhaps being quite modest in the view he was offering in return. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point I was making is that in terms of the best laid plans of mice and men a number of things occurred that changed those growth patterns such as the Canterbury earthquakes.