2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he still believe that New Zealand is coming out of recession “reasonably aggressively”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, and I will make three points. The first is that it would be worth reading out my full quote. Although I said: “I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively,” I then went on to say: “I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” That statement was right. Secondly, it proves that I am better at economic forecasting than the Leader of the Opposition, who at exactly the same time I was making that statement was predicting that growth this year would be 6 percent, which is actually wrong. Maybe the most important point is that the economy has actually grown more in the last 6 months than it did in the entire last 4 years. That is what I define as “reasonably aggressively”.
If New Zealand were coming out of recession reasonably aggressively this year, as the Prime Minister predicted, how does he explain the dramatic increase of more than 20,000 additional New Zealanders unemployed in the last quarter, when he told the country that unemployment would be coming down?
Unemployment is always a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator. [ Interruption] The member was a Minister of Labour and if he wants me to quote some of the statements he made at that time, I am more than happy to. The second point is that average unemployment is lower.
How is his claim that this year the country would be coming aggressively out of recession consistent with the fact that last month 2,700 people—2,700—lined up for 150 jobs at the Mount Roskill New World supermarket?
If the New Zealand economy is recovering, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance repeatedly claim, how does he explain the surge in business liquidations and receiverships and the record number of mortgagee sales for domestic homeowners over recent months?
A picture speaks a thousand words, so let us look at this picture. This is a sign of the economy, and this is the enormous recession that we have had. Members will note that the recession we inherited from the previous Labour Government was deeper than anything we saw in the 1990s. We are a good Government, but even we struggle when we have to inherit the mess we got from the previous Government.
If the Prime Minister is so confident that he is closing the gap with Australia and that the economy is recovering, how does he explain the comment by major construction suppliers and by major retailers in the last 24 hours that the situation today and in the last couple of months is the worst that they have seen in 20 years?
I will say a couple of things. Firstly, one of the things that the Government has been doing is running an enormous cash deficit in the order of $8 to $10 billion. The vast bulk of that deficit is going into things like infrastructure support. If it was not for the Government spending so much in that area, the construction sector would be worse. Secondly, in terms of retail, I think the member may find that he is inaccurate. He should go and check his facts, because the last time I looked retail sales were not as weak as they were 20 years ago.
If the Prime Minister is so confident that he is closing the gaps and that he is getting the economy to recover, how does he explain that after the high level of confidence at the start of this year, in the last 3 months the business surveys by the major banks in New Zealand have shown that each month confidence has gone down because of inaction by his Government?
The only thing the Leader of the Opposition is proving this afternoon is that he does not know anything about economics. Firstly, unemployment is a lagging factor—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My questions have been quite consistent, quite clear, and quite straightforward. They do not require personal abuse from the Prime Minister; they require an answer.
Mr SPEAKERI ask the House to settle down a little. I think that the question was reasonably clear about how the Prime Minister would explain changes in business confidence. When someone is asked how they would explain something there is a fair bit of latitude around the answer, but the Prime Minister’s answer should be related to the question.
If the member thinks that that was personal abuse, I should introduce him to Pete Hodgson and Trevor Mallard. Anyway—
I apologise to the honourable member. I say to National members on this occasion that just because they do not like the fact that a member has called a point of order, that is no excuse to carry on like that. Their only good fortune was that so many were involved that I could not pick on any one of them. I will now hear the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is a relatively simple point of order. The member has been here for some time. He should know that when you have ruled, Mr Speaker, no comment is made on that ruling. In a funny way, I am not very unhappy, because it shows that the pressure is getting to them.
No—[ Interruption] I have just told National members that when a point of order is being heard they are to be silent. The fact that the member making the point of order had strayed outside the Standing Orders with his last comment is no excuse for the error to be compounded by other members carrying on the way they just have. I tell the House that it will come to order or some members will be getting an early shower—I make that very clear. I will not tolerate some of the noise that was in the House yesterday.
Having said that, the Hon Trevor Mallard was perfectly in order at the start of his point of order, and the right honourable Prime Minister should not make those kinds of comments after the Speaker has just given a ruling. However, the honourable member then deviated from what is allowed under points of order. I guess I have to allow that on this occasion both sides deviated equally. Therefore, that is where the matter will rest, but I ask the right honourable Prime Minister not to do that again. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat the question, because it has been so long since the House heard it.
If the gap with Australia is closing and the economy is recovering, why is it that after high business confidence at the start of this year, in each of three successive business surveys, month after month, the level of confidence is going down because of inaction by his Government?
Firstly, I do not think business would see this Government as inactive. Certainly that flavour came through the mood of the boardroom when David Cunliffe forgot to turn up. But moving right along, one of the reasons why business confidence surveys move around is that they are an expectation of what activity will be like. Business confidence was extremely low when we were at minus 3.1 percent—the conditions we inherited from a Labour Government. Of course, the figures will move around a bit but overall business confidence is still positive.
If the gap with Australia is closing, as he and his fellow Ministers have claimed, how does he explain the fact that in June the level of New Zealanders leaving for Australia was up 50 percent on the same period last year?
There are a couple of things. To put the member’s mind at rest, I say that the gap with Australia is definitely closing, so it is not a matter of “if”. If he wants to pop up for a coffee I will take him through the numbers, and I can take him through a few others. Migration will move around a lot, but the last time I looked at it, I saw that the number of people leaving for Australia under this Government is about half the number who left under the Labour Government. Does that not say it all?