Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3903] 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When did she decide that New Zealand reaching the top half of the OECD by 2010 was “totally unrealistic” and what changed her mind given that she previously stated “Could we be in the top half of the OECD in 10 years if we set our mind to it? I think we could.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: During 2001 in the course of developing the Government’s former growth and innovation goals which were announced in February 2002 advice was sought on the feasibility of various options and it was concluded that it was unrealistic to set a time frame. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given that the Prime Minister now thinks it is unrealistic to reach the goal of the top half of the OECD what in the Government does she put this failure down to; was it a change in the mindset of the Minister of Finance who decided last year to have the tax of the average New Zealand worker increased more than that of any other OECD country does she blame the failure on the Minister of Labour who is increasing the compliance costs of every small business in New Zealand or does she take personal responsibility for that failure? Who is responsible? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not a matter of failure. It is a matter of setting realistic goals. If the member would care to refer to last week’s  
The Economist 
 magazine he will find that New Zealand is ranking rather lowly in productivity measures in the OECD. Nearly every country above us has a higher tax rate. 
David Cunliffe 
: Has the question of the time frame for reaching the goal of being in the top half of the OECD in per capita income rankings been raised before? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the House last February Mr Hide asked the Minister of Finance essentially the same question but clearly Mr Hide failed to inform his leader of the answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of Treasury’s advice in April 2001 that concludes: “It appears more likely that New Zealand’s ranking among the OECD countries will continue to fall.” and why did she not take that advice before she set the time frame? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister did not set the time frame. 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes she did so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member’s memory is failing him. The notion of a time frame—[ 
Interruption 
] Raucous laughter does not change the facts. The notion of a time frame was raised by many people proposing a 10-year goal. The Prime Minister repeated that time frame. Subsequent analysis showed that the time frame was unrealistic. Nobody could possibly have economic policies to raise productivity 4.5 percent per annum on average. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the quote: “These results are greatly encouraging for our goal of economic transformation and a return to the top half of the OECD ratings by 2011.” from a foreword that the Prime Minister wrote for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor of 2001 which was a year before the 2002 election and is she now seeking to disown that statement because she said one thing when seeking an election victory and something else when facing a declining economy and the consequences of failing to get a decent majority? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister was Prime Minister throughout the period. The statement that it was unrealistic to achieve such a target and that such a timetable would be eliminated was made well before the 2002 election. 
Rodney Hide 
: How can New Zealanders ever take the goals that the Prime Minister sets seriously when she said at Massey University in 2001: “Could we be in the top half of the OECD in 10 years if we set our mind to it? I think we could.” and then said 2 years later that after further analysis that goal is totally unrealistic? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The goal of getting into the top half of the OECD is not unrealistic. Analysis from Treasury and others has demonstrated that the time frame of 10 years cannot be achieved on any realistic assumption about policies.