Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1144] 
7.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What will be the gain in real income per week adjusted for inflation since 1 April 2008 of a full-time worker on the minimum wage as a result of the Government’s decision on the 2009 minimum wage increase? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It will be $3.78. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Maori Affairs or the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector before she took this issue to Cabinet? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am always open to receiving representations from the Government’s supply and confidence partners. I received a letter from the Minister of Maori Affairs. Te Puni Kokiri also made a submission. We took those submissions into consideration when calculating a fair balanced and realistic minimum wage. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the minimum wage? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen a report on the recent change in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which notes that in the present recessionary environment “only the hopelessly optimistic or the ideologically blinkered could object”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was her original proposal in which she did not support an increase a result of submissions from either the ministerial summit group to which she was not invited or her former Exclusive Brethren clients who run sweatshops? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday you set new very pedantic standards for the answering of a question. Those standards should apply to the asking of a question. I ask you to rule which bit of that question from the Hon Trevor Mallard—a man well known for his abuse of the question process in this House—actually complies with your new standard. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Firstly you should be taking objection to having been described as having given a pedantic ruling because that is a pejorative term and one not appropriately used by the Leader of the House. Secondly the member simply made factual references. There were no epithets terms of abuse or any of the other terms referred to in the Standing Orders. It referred to the fact that the Exclusive Brethren were formerly clients of the member when she was a practising lawyer. There is no— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point; he does not need to add to it. The Hon Gerry Brownlee made a perfectly valid point that where questions contain a number of issues the Minister can choose to answer which bit she chooses to answer. I must say we have a bit of a problem emerging where some answers and some questions especially supplementary questions are too long. I applaud members on the structure of the primary questions today. They are good short and to the point but some supplementary questions get too long and some answers get too long. In this case the honourable Minister may answer which part of that question she chooses. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Can I just refer to my answer to one of the questions yesterday and it is the same answer today: the member is assuming too much. There was significant consultation throughout the process of the minimum wage review and the decision was made based on that consultation and based on the information received.