4. Inequality Economic and Social—Income and Wealth DistributionGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of FinanceInequality Economic and Social—Income and Wealth Distribution4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that there is no evidence that inequality in New Zealand is increasing"; if so how does he explain Statistics New Zealand's statement this week "between 2003 and 2010 the Survey of Family Income and Employment found that the top 10 percent had an average 55 percent of total net worth over this time. For the year ended June 2015 the top 10 percent owned around 60 percent of total net worth."?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): Yes; Statistics New Zealand's latest estimate is that around 50 percent of total household net worth is held by 10 percent of households and that is the same as reported in 2003-04 in Statistics New Zealand's Survey of Family Income and Employment (SoFIE). I would also add that Statistics New Zealand makes the point that comparing the two surveys should be done very carefully because they are very different.Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that the Statistics New Zealand report released this week says at the bottom of page 4: "the top 10 percent of individuals accounted for around 60 percent of net worth compared with the average of around 55 percent … between 2003 and 2010."?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm two things for the member: he is trying to talk about individual wealth distribution; I am talking about household net worth. That was the basis on which the Minister of Finance made his comments on the radio this morning. The member is right but he is also right to note that household wealth distribution has not changed over that 12- or 13-year period.Grant Robertson: It has; I just read it out.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not households; it has not. That is individuals Grant.Jami-Lee Ross: What else does Statistics New Zealand say about comparing the latest data on wealth distribution which is collected as part of the household economic survey (HES) with old data—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.Jami-Lee Ross: —on wealth distribution which is collected as part of the Survey of Family Income and Employment survey?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In the same report Statistics New Zealand said "Methodological differences between HSS SoFIE and HES (Net worth) mean the three surveys are not directly comparable. Differences include questionnaire structure subject population and the breadth and depth of questions. We advise caution in any comparison customers make between the surveys." and that is possibly advice for the member opposite.Grant Robertson: Is he saying that a report prepared by Statistics New Zealand that says in bold on page 4 "Individual net worth is more concentrated" is statistically invalid?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not saying it; Statistics New Zealand is advising caution. I just read out what it said in the same report about comparing the two surveys. The member may not like it but he cannot selectively quote a report and not be prepared to read the rest of it. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will just wait until we get a bit of assistance.Grant Robertson: Is the Government doing all it can to support low-income people?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is doing everything it can to assist low-income people and on top of that it is addressing the issue of wealth distribution in the most important way in which you can do that which is by providing more opportunities for New Zealanders to succeed to get higher-value jobs and to bring up their families which is why we are focused on building skills in New Zealand on—Mr SPEAKER: Just bring the answer to a conclusion.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —providing new access to markets for our companies and also on encouraging investment in New Zealand. That provides—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was answered at the start.Grant Robertson: What was the Minister of Finance referring to in his interview on Morning Report this morning when he used the term "confiscating people's assets" in relation to addressing inequality?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I am not privy to exactly what the context was of that particular quote.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to take the opportunity to raise this point of order at the end of question time today but given that answer by the Minister I am going to raise it now. For eight of the 12 questions that are set down today the Ministers are not present to answer. I think we have a problem with the integrity of question time. Ministers should be prioritising their attendance at question time and when we have eight of 12 questions unable to be answered by the Minister we are going to get answers like that one.Mr SPEAKER: For a long time it has been the practice in this Parliament and I recall it when I was an Opposition member on that side that particularly on a Thursday Ministers may be away. I note the member refers to eight questions not being able to be addressed by the appropriate Minister. A number of those are addressed particularly to one Minister—the Minister of Finance. It is just not possible for a Government to insist that every Minister is available for every question time and I think the convention for as long as I have been in the House would acknowledge that.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to give some consideration to making a Speaker's ruling that would apply for the remainder of the Parliament which would require the Government by 9 o'clock on any given morning that the House is sitting to furnish the Opposition with a list of Ministers who will be available for question time because—[Interruption] I think this a fair point—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a—Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No this is a point of order that is to be heard and it will be heard in silence.Chris Hipkins: —because then the Opposition would be in a position to decide whether to ask a question of a Minister they knew was not going to be present and then not be able to get an answer or whether to ask questions of the Ministers who are going to be here.Mr SPEAKER: I do not—Hon Steven Joyce: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance on it and I do not think it would be appropriate to consider doing that via a Speaker's ruling. The appropriate course of action for that would be to bring it forward as an alteration to the Standing Orders and that process the member will be aware is about to kick off shortly where he will have an opportunity—I think the member may well be on the committee. If there was a general consensus around Parliament to do that then we would build that into the Standing Orders.Grant Robertson: Given that this week in respect of inequality the Government has been through denial anger bargaining and depression when will he move to the fifth stage of grief—acceptance of the problem—and actually do something about inequality?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That sounded particularly autobiographical. The member is the one who has been in denial. The member is the one who has been angry. The members are the ones being grumpy. Actually the facts of the matter say that wealth distribution of families has not changed in households wealth distribution for households has not changed and the Government is in any event moving to help families with any number of initiatives including a number that are starting tomorrow which the members opposite did not want to hear—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been answered. Is this a—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just trying to get some assistance from my left.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When under National the top 10 percent own 60 percent of the country's wealth and the bottom 40 percent own 3 percent of this country's wealth why does he not admit what abysmal hopeless economic managers they are?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member might be wrong with his figures but the key point is that wealth distribution in New Zealand is actually very similar to the OECD but in terms of how you actually address that it is about creating opportunities for New Zealanders. And that means encouraging investment which the member hates; it means doing deals to get free-trade agreements which the member does not like; it is encouraging New Zealanders to be connected with the world which the member—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Now the answer is getting to be too long.David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that 3 percent of income tax payers pay a quarter of all income tax that 11 percent of income tax payers pay half of all income tax and that the Government spends over $80 billion a year $17000 per citizen or $85000—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.David Seymour: —to a family of five every single year?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Address the first part of the question. It was too long.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well people who have greater income and wealth at their disposal do pay more tax and actually I believe that it is only fair that they do. But in fact this Government through that tax collection provides a huge amount of support for those who need it—as we should—and importantly we focus on creating the opportunities for people to work and bring up their families in this country through the sorts of economic policies that encourage the growth of jobs and investment. And I know the Opposition—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the answer to a conclusion.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —does not want to focus on that but that is what is important.David Seymour: Does the Minister know whether John Key still regards Working for Families as "communism by stealth"?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have not taken that matter up with the Prime Minister in many years."