Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:665;Page:12980] 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: When I asked him last Thursday will he give us a milestone date by which the wage gap with Australia will stop getting wider when he replied “I will give that some consideration.” how much longer will he need for his consideration? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: No further time. When he made that remark last week he was giving that member what is technically known as a brush-off because although it may be of great academic interest to dream up arbitrary milestones they will not make a blind bit of difference to the ability of New Zealand businesses to grow and take on new staff. There are any number of economic indicators out there including the latest trade surplus figures that show the first signs of an export-led recovery with the largest quarterly trade surplus since September 2001. 
Hon David Parker 
: In light of the Minister for Economic Development’s answer earlier today on behalf of the Prime Minister when he was asked by Mr Goff: “What are the targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025 which his Minister for Economic Development told the House last week that he had?” to which the Minister for Economic Development said on behalf of the Prime Minister that we should ask the Minister for Economic Development I now ask him what are those targets? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can only reiterate the answer to the primary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem we have—and we are not allowed to table  
Hansard— 
is that when asked earlier whether such things existed the answer was “Yes.” It was not “Maybe at some stage in the future.”; the answer was “Yes.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the quality of answers given although he may even go as far as to claim that he is debating the accuracy of answers given. But that is a matter for further questioning and for the public to judge. It is not a matter that can be dealt with by way of a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know this is really unusual but this question asks: “Does he have targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025?” The answer is “Yes.” I seek leave to table that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is  
Hansard  
that the member seeks to table? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
:I will not put leave to table  
Hansard 
. That is the end of the matter. The member cannot argue with me. The member I am sure has made his point perfectly adequately. There is no need to waste further time of the House by seeking leave to table documents that are readily available. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Government continue to dodge providing any meaningful milestone by which the Government can be judged by New Zealanders on its election promise to close the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government does not dodge its milestones. It has made it clear that over a 15-year period we will fix up the damage caused by the previous Government with our very careful economic growth agenda. I am happy to run through it for the member: personal tax reform investment in new highways and new transport projects cutting red tape science investment employment law reform putting more money into tourism lower company taxes electricity transmission investment sorting out irrigation in Canterbury aquaculture ultra-fast broadband trade negotiations— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Someone at the back of the Chamber has a very loud voice. Please keep it under a little control. 
Chris Tremain 
: What examples can the Minister draw upon when considering the potential to impose milestones on economic development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Under the previous Government the much-touted “jobs machine” which members may recall promised that handing over 4 hectares of prime Auckland waterfront land for less than 5 percent of its value to a company called Sovereign Yachts would deliver 350 jobs within 2 years and generate $600 million in export earnings over 5 years. None of those milestones were met and Sovereign Yachts was ordered into liquidation by the High Court last year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order because we have had an ongoing discussion on exactly the same matter. You have previously ruled that it is not acceptable in this House for a Minister to base the main substance of his reply upon Opposition policy and the policy actions of a previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member knows full well that the Minister is not in any way commenting on Opposition policy. He was asked something to do with milestones and the Minister is reporting on what he claimed to be a situation that occurred previously. That has nothing to do with the Opposition’s current policy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ruled that it is acceptable for the Minister in his answer to the primary question to admit to having dodged a substantive answer earlier in response to a question on the Government’s targets. You are now ruling it acceptable for the Minister to quote a random example of a previous Government target. Why is it not acceptable— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to resume his seat. The Minister has reporting responsibility for what happened under the previous Government. In respect of whether in answer to a question he admitted to something having previously been brushed off that gives the Opposition the opportunity to ask further hard-hitting questions and not waste time with points of order. Hard-hitting questions are what make a difference. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Minister for Economic Development last week in response to this question: “Does he have targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025?” say “Yes.” but this week refuse to say what they are? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said in answer to the primary question when the Minister made the remark last week he was giving that member what is technically known as a brush-off. The Government does have a milestone and it is to achieve parity with Australia by 2025. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does his Government’s refusal to provide New Zealanders with yardsticks by which they can measure the success or otherwise of National’s pledge to close the wage gap reflect either an admission by National that it does not intend to keep its promise or an arrogant assumption that Kiwis can be kept in the dark and fed the proverbial? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: One has to find it a little amusing that the Opposition is hassling us about milestones when Labour was the crowd that came up with a whole range of terms that had absolutely no milestones attached to them: closing the gaps the growth and innovation framework the knowledge wave economic transformation sustainability— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are now well into the answer from the Minister and he is talking about the previous Government not the one that he has responsibility for and the one that we are trying to ask questions about in the public interest of New Zealand so that we can talk about today not yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I think that the member should reflect on the nature of the question that was asked. It invited not the most precise answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister understand that John Key’s replies to similar questions from Phil Goff last week showed Mr Key to be to use Duncan Garner’s words a “slippery politician” and does Mr Brownlee accept any responsibility for Mr Key’s fall from grace? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for the Prime Minister. It might work the other way round as the Prime Minister has responsibility for his Ministers but a Minister does not have responsibility for what the Prime Minister might say. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have seen that question and I heard it being asked then and I think it asked about the Prime Minister’s response to Mr Brownlee’s misleading statement. It was a question about whether Mr Brownlee felt responsible for the Prime Minister’s response to the inaccuracies that Mr Brownlee gave to the House and to the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a nice try at making the question come within the Standing Orders but the Minister does not have responsibility for what the Prime Minister might think or say. The Minister does not have responsibility for that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reflecting upon the exchange that has just occurred and seeking your guidance for future exchanges what is the difference between the technical definition of a brush-off and contempt of the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I might have some sympathy with the member’s concern but that is not a point of order. However I remind everyone that this is Parliament and everyone in this House should be careful in terms of what they say to this House.