Migration—Net Position and Australia

What is the Prime Minister’s response to the latest statistics that show that in the last year 80,000 people left New Zealand permanently to live overseas—the highest exodus of New Zealanders since 1979—and that net migration to Australia has grown by 53 percent in the last 2 years alone?

Goff Hon Phil Goff Link to this

My response is that for the last 8 years under Labour, net migration to New Zealand has been positive. For the last 2 years, of course, of the previous National Government the figures were negative, and I also note that in every year under National, from 1991 to 1999 inclusive, there was a net outflow to Australia.

Has the Prime Minister seen the latest edition of Trans Tasman, which points out that because of international factors such as soaring fuel prices and the credit crunch, in the last month in New South Wales alone 17,000 net jobs were lost; and does that suggest to her that Australia is not simply the land of milk and honey?

It certainly does, and, of course, it is a matter of record that unemployment is higher in Australia than it is here. I also note that young New Zealand family people are being quoted in our media as talking about how the higher cost of living for families really kicks in for them in Australia. Their small children are generally not getting free health care, as they would get here, and they have to pay to get on to the kindergarten waiting list. And, of course, in some places the public schools are so poor that people are paying hard-earned money for private education.

Can I ask the Prime Minister whether she has seen the latest June report from the Reserve Bank, which forecasts that we are going to face the number of 95,000 more unemployed, and that that will cost $7.4 billion through our economy and will also mean minimal growth for this economy for the next 4 years; and is she not now coming to the conclusion that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—so beloved of the old political parties—simply does not work for an export-dependent nation?

I have seen the Reserve Bank’s forecasts. I note that they are probably the most pessimistic of those of any forecaster around at the present time. In relatively recent memory New Zealand has gone through years of extremely high inflation. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act brought that steadily down, and it has maintained low inflation. I think that has, overall, been to the benefit of New Zealanders and savers.

Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement, made before the 1999 election by the then Leader of the Opposition: “The real issue this election is whether we are going to build an economy that can retain our talented and skilled people, because that’s the only way we’ll prosper.”, and how does she see that statement in the light of the recent emigration statistics?

Wilson Madam SPEAKER Link to this

When I am looking at year after year after year of positive net migration to New Zealand, I know this country is very capable of attracting and retaining its best and brightest.

I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters for a supplementary question.

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

Tell us about the emissions trading scheme!

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

The what?

You’re worried about the cost to the economy. What about the cost to the economy of the emissions trading scheme—do you have a position?

He suffers from a condition called recognition hunger. I do not want to help him out today. If the Reserve Bank forecasts are the same as Treasury’s forecasts in respect of minimal growth in the economy and a virtual doubling of unemployment, when will this country begin to understand that an economic theory that was designed for an economy that exports 8 percent of its GDP does not fit one that is designed to export 38 percent of its GDP, and understand that that economic theory now sees us paying the highest interest rates in the Western world, while seeing a currency movement of 34 percent in just 3 years; and how is that designed to help this country in the future, which is the position, sadly, that the two old parties have taken?

My recollection is that there is quite a variation between the Treasury forecasts and the Reserve Bank ones. Treasury continues to predict 1.5 percent growth in the year to March next; the Reserve Bank came in at 0.9 percent, as I recall. Treasury also had rather more optimistic forecasts about the labour market. But the Reserve Bank in its last Monetary Policy Statement did say that it thought it would be in a position to reduce interest rates later in the year. That, in itself, had a downward impact on the currency, which is, of course, beneficial for exporters—and I know the member’s concern about that matter. But, of course, one person’s nirvana is another’s misery, and there is no doubt that if the dollar comes back a little, that will feed into other imported prices.

Does the Prime Minister agree that the fact that thousands of people are leaving for Australia—in fact, in record numbers—means that she failed to do what she said the 1999 election was about, which was to “build an economy that can retain our talented and skilled people”?

Wilson Madam SPEAKER Link to this

I think the member is making rather a big mistake in isolating only the figures for Australia. One has to look at the figures for the whole world and at who is coming and going. Those figures continue to be very positive. I would also note that in this international slow-down New Zealand is in a far better position than it was in the last one of 1997-98. Let us not forget that in that last recession Bill English was part of a Government that cut New Zealand superannuation and sold one of the jewels in the crown of our State-owned enterprises: Contact Energy. That was a ridiculous decision, which this country has rued ever since.

Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

This is the easiest one.

It is coming. Does the Prime Minister have any reports about the last time we had a tightening in our economy, occasioned by the Asian monetary crisis, which saw us lose in some cases 6 percent of our export markets; and at a time of such international crisis was it the right response to tighten liquidity on the local market, which is exactly what Bill English did?

I agree with the implication in the member’s question—that at that time of slow-down, the National Government did exactly the opposite of what it should have done. It took away spending power from our superannuitants, it kept the purse strings tight on health and education, and it sold a State-owned enterprise so the Government could try to pay its bills. That had a contractionary effect on New Zealand’s economy, and that is not the approach of this Labour-led Government, supported on confidence and supply by the member and his party.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is now Labour’s policy to argue over what happened 10 years ago while 80,000 people have left New Zealand permanently to live overseas; and is it now Labour’s policy that it is unconcerned about near-record levels of emigration from New Zealand, so long as the number of people arriving from overseas is greater than the number of New Zealanders leaving?

No, it is Labour’s policy to tell the truth about National’s policy, which it will not tell itself. National has the cheek to talk about it being time for a change, but it will not tell the voters what it would change. We are very happy to fill in the gaps.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House how, in her election campaigning around the country, she has been able to avoid all those hundreds of people who come up to us and say that if Helen Clark and Labour win the election, they are going to leave New Zealand?

No. On the contrary, I am approached by hundreds of people who say they fear the possibility of a National Government because they know that National has voted against every progressive thing this Government has ever done. Working for Families has no future under National, KiwiSaver has no future under National, 20 hours’ free education for early childhood has no future under National, and Kiwibank has no future under National. Those are things valued from a Labour Government, which is why I believe we will prevail.

Having regard to that last question from Mr English, has the Prime Minister received some reports to suggest that given the financial funding by the big corporates of a certain political party, such a departure to Australia would be by only 18,000 people—the total membership of the National Party?

Indeed, the National Party today is not the party the member joined many years ago. It is a party that he left because it stopped caring about New Zealanders and was always running us down and trying to claim Australia was a better place than New Zealand. If that is the way the National members feel, they should join their mates who have gone there.

Does the Prime Minister not realise, given that she is meeting people around the country who support everything that Labour has done, that if she wants to win an election she needs to talk to some people who are neither members of Labour Party electorate committees nor Labour candidates?