1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement that the “vast majority” of New Zealanders will be “better off” as a result of the tax switch?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, because the combination of putting up GST, increasing superannuation, benefits, and Working for Families payments, and cutting income tax rates across the board have made people demonstrably better off. Of course, I guess the proof of this policy working is that there is not one political party that is campaigning on reversing the tax switch.
How are the vast majority of New Zealanders better off when the household economic survey released recently by the Government Statistician shows that the average household income in the year to June 2010 for New Zealand households dropped by $28 a week, and that individuals were each $17 a week worse off?
As we have been through this question several times before, I will give the Leader of the Opposition the same answer as previously, which is that it is a very broad measure of income and it is not solely normal income. It includes investment income and a lot of other issues.
How many New Zealanders got wages increases in the last year that matched the 5.1 percent increase in food prices in the year to October 2010 and the 20 percent increase in vegetable prices in the September quarter alone?
I cannot answer in relation to what individuals got in pay increases; I simply do not see the pay packets of 2.5 million full-time New Zealand workers. But what I do know is that real after-tax incomes have grown by about 8 percent in the time that National has been in Government and grew by 3 percent in the entire 9 years that Labour was last in office. I also add that food prices, up until the point that I am looking at, at the moment, were actually down by 2 percent at 3 June, compared with much higher food prices under the previous Labour Government.
I seek leave to table a Government document showing that food prices in the last year went up, in fact, by 5.1 percent, and that vegetable prices went up by 20 percent.
Mr SPEAKERThe documents are both publications by New Zealand Government agencies—the Government Statistician, I think. I will have a look at the papers; I have them with me. Statistics New Zealand is the source of the figures. [ Interruption]
It is my fault, and I accept the blame for this exchange happening. It should not happen. We do not normally table current or recent releases from Statistics New Zealand, because every member has them.
Chris TremainI am proud to say we thought of it all by ourselves, with a little help from some advisers. We did not have to google Ed Miliband’s statements and shamelessly plagiarise them, like Phil Goff did with his “squeezed middle” speech. [ Interruption]
I apologise to the member. Can we have a little order, please, so that at least the Speaker can hear the question?
Are the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, economist Bill Rosenberg, and Treasury’s own figures all wrong in showing that for middle and lower-income New Zealanders prices have increased, and continue to increase, faster than wages?
Hon Trevor MallardFor a start, no. I get my Davids right, I tell Trevor Mallard. I come back to the business at hand. No, the increase in real after-tax wages is 8 percent. But let us look at those middle-income New Zealanders, because it is quite interesting. When we look at middle-income New Zealanders and at the tax that they pay, we can see that under the National Government their personal tax rate has halved from 33 percent to 17.5 percent.
Are more than half of the New Zealanders in recent surveys wrong in stating that they are worse off after the tax switch, and is the Prime Minister telling them that, contrary to what they think, they are actually better off?
I am not one to go out and criticise polls. But if the member is quoting from the HorizonPoll, which he is, and if he seriously believes that Winston Peters is on 6 percent and he is on 28 percent, then he is underestimating even his performance in other public polls.
The House is having a bit of fun, but I ask members to treat question time with a little more respect than that.
How does he expect anyone to believe that real incomes are rising, when today’s figures show that manufacturing sales in this country are at a 10-year low and that housing consents are 20 percent down from what they were earlier this year, and retailers are comprehensively saying they are facing the worst situation in decades, simply because wage earners and salary earners do not have money in their pockets to spend?
I am glad the member raised that, because there is an article on the front page of this morning’s “Business Herald” about Paymark and what it is seeing in terms of consumer spending. The article indicated that spending had increased by 5.5 percent. When Paymark was asked in November why that was happening, the answer from the chief executive was: “Oh, because New Zealanders have more money as a result of the tax cuts, and they’re out there spending it.”
I seek the leave of the House to table a document that the Prime Minister has not seen, which shows that manufacturing sales volumes continue to fall—the lowest level for more than 10 years. It is from Statistics New Zealand.
There is a proper process for seeking leave to table documents, and it does not include comments about whether the Prime Minister may have seen them. The member should identify the source of the document before saying what is in it. The habit of saying what is in a document, when there is no real document to be tabled, is not good enough.
Members will be leaving the House. [ Interruption] The member will be very careful. The member will leave the Chamber. I will not tolerate that.
The House will come to order. What I was saying was being said for good reason. There are times when members seek leave to table a document that is clearly outside the current rules for tabling documents, but they want to get across a political point. That is why I require members to identify the source of the document, so that members can make a proper decision on it. I will allow the member to seek leave again to table his document.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the implication that I was seeking to table a document that does not exist. I have it in my hand. It was out of order for you to make that allegation.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that your comments were out of order in implying that I wanted to table—
I am on my feet. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. If he wishes to stay in the House, he will show the Speaker respect. I have invited him to seek leave again properly to table his document. He does not need to take that opportunity, but he is welcome to do so if he wishes.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do respect your role as Speaker, and I expect you to respect the members of this House and their integrity when you make comments like that, which reflect on it. I do not think that is good enough.
The member should just reflect on the way that he sought leave to table the document. The member, when seeking leave to table the document, made a comment about whether the Prime Minister had seen it. He then went on to say what the document contained—in other words, the points that he wanted to make—instead of first identifying where the document was from. That is not good enough, and that is why I clamped down on what the member was doing. If the member took offence at that, I apologise to him for the offence caused. But I am serious about the way that members will seek leave to table documents, and I am serious about the respect that will be shown in this House. Any further nonsense today will be treated just as firmly as I have treated the Hon Trevor Mallard—and that includes party leaders.
I seek leave to table a document from Statistics New Zealand, the Acting Government Statistician, dated today, which shows that manufacturing sales volumes are at the lowest level for more than 10 years.
All members have the release from Statistics New Zealand. We do not seek leave to table those kinds of documents.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made that comment on two occasions today. I cannot remember your previously ruling out documents by Government agencies. You have ruled out press statements. Are you setting a new precedent today?
The member will know that the process for seeking leave to table documents, and for the House to consider the tabling of documents, is intended to provide members with information that they do not have. All members have been circulated that information today. All members have that information, so there is absolutely no point in wasting the time of the House. It is clearly an attempt to make a political point, and that is not what the tabling of documents is about. We have established that very clearly. It is about providing information for the House: providing members with information that they otherwise would not have access to. That is why I am not seeking leave for that matter.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on this matter. If I interpret it correctly, your previous ruling was made because the release in question was available on the Internet to members, whether they had sought it or not. I seek your clarification of whether you are now ruling that any document released generally on the Internet, or available on the Internet, is unable to be tabled in the House, because that would be a significant extension of your previous ruling in respect of media statements.
I just ask members to look back at the relevant Standing Order. The provision is there to provide members with access to information that they otherwise would not have. Clearly, in the case of recent releases from Statistics New Zealand, all members have them, and that is why I am not seeking leave for that purpose.