Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 02 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19119. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Infometrics that after the Canterbury rebuild peaks the New Zealand economy will experience a “hangover” with slow income and GDP growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I agree with Infometrics’ short-term forecast of wage growth of 4 percent in the economy the economy growing by over 11 percent in the next 3 years through to 2018 180000 more jobs over the next 5 years export growth averaging 4 percent per year private investment to remain elevated and a declining current account deficit from 2016. However I am more optimistic than Infometrics about long-term growth for this simple reason: this Government learnt the lessons from the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government particularly in respect of runaway Government spending when the economy was already growing. We are not going to increase spending by 50 percent in the next 5 years and put the export sector into recession so we are likely to have more sustainable growth.Hon David Parker: Does he now accept that unchecked residential housing speculation in Auckland and a narrowing of our export base shows that he has failed to rebalance the economy and is the cause of the weak growth that is forecast after rebuild peaks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. On the contrary I think the export sector has put in a very impressive performance where even with a relatively high currency—in fact I think the highest 5-year average since the Second World War—it has continued to grow and be profitable and New Zealanders have had the strongest Kiwi dollar which can buy more goods than it has been able to in a generation. So I simply do not agree with the member.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that ongoing and increasing inequality in New Zealand including the lowest homeownership rates in 50 years and income gaps widening between wealthy and poorer suburbs in Auckland makes the economy unbalanced and out of whack which means it does not perform as well as it could for everyone?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. As the member will know he is wrong about the facts. Income inequality in New Zealand is not increasing on any measure. Across the country income inequality is not increasing. As for everyone benefiting from the economy that is why the Government had its $500 million families package in the Budget. But as we have small surpluses we want to make sure everyone can benefit from a stronger economy.Hon David Parker: Well then does he agree with the chief executive officer of that far-left institution Goldman Sachs that increasing economic inequality destabilises society or does he agree with Warren Buffett that income inequality which is rising around the world including in New Zealand is a drag on economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Goldman Sachs is not well known as an expert on inequality and certainly its comments may be applicable to the United States of America but they are not applicable to New Zealand where the regular statutory reports set up by the previous Government demonstrate that it is not the case that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Income inequality is flat to slightly falling over the last 15 years.Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking to lock in the gains for the long term from New Zealand’s current growth?Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is another of those questions that contains an erroneous and incorrect assertion that should not be in a question according to the Standing Orders.Tim Macindoe: My question is quite deliberately linked to the primary question and is simply asking what steps the Government has taken. That is not an assertion; that is a question.Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Parker: —there is a loaded statement in the question about locking in gains—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member takes his point of order I was just trying to get silence from behind him so I could actually hear it.Hon David Parker: If the question was as the member just recounted that would be OK but it was not. It included a loaded assertion that plainly we disagree with on the other side and it should not be in a question.Mr SPEAKER: This close to an election I am not surprised that there are issues of difference between the two sides. I will listen to the question again. As I heard it the first time before it was interrupted in my mind it was likely to be in order but I will hear it.Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking to lock in the gains for the long term—Hon Members: What gains?Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking to lock in the gains for the long term from New Zealand’s current growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from Grant Robertson.Grant Robertson: I was waiting to see whether you ruled on whether or not that question was in order. It clearly includes assertions and statements that are not statements of fact. I am also wondering why the member Mr Macindoe said that it related directly to the primary question which was specifically about Infometrics and its opinions and I am not sure that the supplementary question is in order at all.Mr SPEAKER: No I need no further assistance. This is getting to the stage where it is getting a bit silly. The member Mr Grant Robertson says it is not related to the primary question. When I consider where the question subsequently went to and the answers there is no doubt that this is a question about the economy in the future and therefore it is in order in that regard. I do not think this is a question that is out of order in any way and I invite the Hon Bill English to answer it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are plenty of steps but I am not surprised that 170000 more jobs and higher incomes are irrelevant to the Labour Party when you compare that to moa hunting. The Government is focused on further long-term investment in infrastructure—we will continue with that programme—continuing to grow and refine our skills development process so more young people arrive in the labour market ready to work in the skilled jobs of the future; and also dealing with for instance the balance of environmental and economic opportunities in our agricultural sector through the freshwater framework. These are just a few of the steps we are taking to lock in gains and I think they are more important than hunting moa.