1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he have confidence in his Minister of Finance?
Rt Hon JOHN KEYDoes he agree with his Minister of Finance’s statement that the fact that wages are 30 percent cheaper in New Zealand than in Australia is “an advantage and a good thing”?
I agree that it is likely to attract investment in certain areas, because the New Zealand workforce is highly skilled.
When he claimed on Television One that his finance Minister had been quoted out of context in saying that cheap wages were an advantage, what from the following quote of what Mr English was saying is not clear? Espiner: “you said … that one of our advantages over Australia was that our wages were 30 percent cheaper. I mean, is that an advantage now?”; English: “Well, it is a way of competing, isn’t it?”. And, later, Espiner: “But is it a good thing?”; English: “Well, it is a good thing, if we … attract the capital …”.
The finance Minister gave a speech in Auckland that was quite wide-ranging. That was one point that he made. But I would make the point that when one looks at real after-tax wages from September 2008 to the present point in time, one sees that in New Zealand terms they have grown 10 percent and in Australia they have grown 6.2 percent. On my calculation this Government has closed the gap with Australia.
Mr SPEAKERWith inflation under his Government in the last quarter at a 20-year high, does he think New Zealand workers facing a rising cost of living agree with him that having wages 30 percent lower than those of their Australian counterparts is an advantage and a good thing?
For a start off, the wage gap blew out under the 9 years of the Labour Government, so let us get a few things right. Secondly, inflation was higher because of the GST adjustment, which was fully adjusted for. New Zealand workers are happy that this Government has been cutting taxes and therefore lifting real after-tax wages.
Why does the Prime Minister go on pretending that the wage gap with Australia is closing, when the 2025 Taskforce, which he himself set up, reported last year, and I quote: “we do not see any realistic possibility that the gap in real per capita income has narrowed in the past year …”?
If anyone is pretending, it is Phil Goff to be the leader of the Labour Party, because it is about to be Andrew Little.
Members know that when a point of order is called they must treat it with respect and silence. I have not asked anyone to leave the House for breaching that very strict rule, but my patience is wearing a bit thin.
Is it in order for the Prime Minister to answer in that way, simply because he knows that he is wrong—
No, no. I extended the member the courtesy of making sure the House was quiet for his point of order, and the point of order was fair enough in the way it started, but then it departed from what is acceptable by way of point of order. The reason why the Prime Minister answered in the way he did was the nature of the member’s question. The member asked why the Prime Minister pretends something. When members ask that kind of question they will probably get an answer about why the Prime Minister pretends, or what pretentions there may be. It is the sort of question where, as Speaker, I cannot insist on any particular answer. The solution is in members’ own hands, and they need to be a little more cautious with the language in questions.
Was the $43 million bail-out of MediaWorks by way of a deferred payment a loan under the Public Finance Act, as set out in the document that Mr English signed, or not a loan, as Mr English claimed on the television programme on Sunday?
I do not have the public accounts with me, so I cannot confirm that. The member can look at it. But I will say one thing about that particular situation, and it is this. That deal was offered to any media company. Nine companies, from memory, took it up. A number of companies did not. If it was such a good deal, why did not every company take it up?