9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Economic Development
How many additional Cabinet papers has he submitted to Cabinet since he told the House in July “In my capacity as Minster for Economic Development I have submitted 14 papers to Cabinet in the last 6 months”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this
I have submitted 11 papers as Minister for Economic Development, 18 papers as Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, and 20 papers as Minister for Energy and Resources since that time—49 in all.
Do any of those papers update Cabinet on the ever-growing wage and salary gap between New Zealand and Australia, given that even when using John Key’s massaged purchasing parity figures, the wage gap with Australia has risen, yet again, to total $175 per week for each worker, with the gap having widened by $37 per week since the election?
If he refutes those figures on the basis that the Prime Minister previously used, is he aware that the alternative and official measure of using the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the official New Zealand figures show that the gap has increased yet again; and will he at least promise the House that by the election next year the gap will be no higher than it was when he took office?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Answering the first part of the question—actually I cannot recall the first part of the question, so the answer is no.
Mr SPEAKERI guess that is not an unreasonable request, since the Minister did not recollect. I ask the Hon David Parker to restate his question.
Is he aware that the official measure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the official New Zealand figures from the quarterly employment survey show that the gap has increased yet again; and will he at least promise that by the next election the gap will be no higher than it was when he took office?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
This is a Government that does not sit around twiddling its thumbs and reading reports from other countries. We are about the business of helping this economy grow.
Did any of those Cabinet papers include consideration of milestones for closing the wage gap with Australia; if not, is the reason for his continued refusal to give us milestones by which his Government can be judged the same reason that his Government has stopped promising a step change in the New Zealand economy—that is, that the Government is so obviously failing on both counts?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
All papers submitted to Cabinet by all Cabinet Ministers are submitted with the intention of making life better in New Zealand for New Zealanders.
I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library, showing, on the basis that the Prime Minister used earlier in the year—purchase price parity—that the wage gap has grown yet again.
I seek leave to table a second document comparing the Australian official statistics and the New Zealand quarterly employment survey, which shows that the gap has grown 37.7 percent since the election.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the nature of that question. I did not want to interrupt, because I knew the Minister was more than capable of answering it, but the nature of the question—[ Interruption]
The nature of the question was: “How many papers had the Minister submitted to Cabinet?”. Then the next question asked: “Did any of these papers cover the wage gap?”, and then we had a whole series of supplementary questions that were actually about the wage gap, which, to my mind, amounted to a question without notice. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that you might care to reflect on whether it is appropriate that someone asks a question about the number of Cabinet papers and then proceeds to ask a whole series of supplementary questions about what was not in them.
I think the point of order the member has raised is a perfectly fair point of order. The member will note, though, that the Minister’s answers to some of the questions that did not relate directly to the primary question were not very precise. The member asking the question knew better than to seek my help to get a more precise answer when the supplementary questions did not relate closely to the primary question. The Speaker has to assess all of these things on balance, and there was no way I would expect the Minister necessarily to give a more comprehensive answer under those circumstances. But the point the member makes is a perfectly reasonable point.