2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement that “this Government is working on two fronts to lower the cost of living for New Zealanders and their families”; if so, why?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes; because it is true. On the first front, the Government continues to support monetary policy that is focused on maintaining a low level of inflation. I might add that this is a point of difference between us and the Labour Party. On the second front, the Government is working to build a stronger economy that delivers rising income. Actually, that is also a point of different for this Government.
When the Prime Minister talked last week about this being a “monster year for dairy”, was he referring to the fact that butter has gone up a massive 65 percent in the last 2 years, and cheese 22 percent, with both due to go up by 10 percent and 12 percent respectively next week?
No, I was simply referring to the fact that high commodity prices actually support the New Zealand economy overall in terms of better jobs. Funnily enough, I am not alone in my thinking in that area. I read a very interesting speech, given on 30 September 2008, and I quote: “As a net exporter of food products, New Zealand is a beneficiary of high international food prices.” That speech was given by Phil Goff.
Does the Prime Minister recall saying in this House that New Zealanders “cannot afford to fill up their car or go to the supermarket checkout, and that they are going without, and why does the Prime Minister not do something about those people”, and why was it the Prime Minister’s responsibility for dairy prices and petrol prices then, but it is not his responsibility now?
Because back then we had very poor levels of rising after-tax wages. That is because the Prime Minister of the day did nothing about it. I do note that on 8 March that very question of petrol prices was asked not just of me but of Phil Goff. The question from Corin Dann was “But is there anything you could do for petrol?”. Phil said “No”.
When the Prime Minister claims that people are better off, can he explain this: how is a person earning $40,000 a year, who got a tax cut last October of $22 a week, better off when that person now spends that entire amount each week just filling up their petrol tank and has nothing left to pay for other rising costs like lamb chops, vegetables, cheese, and butter—all up by over 10 percent?
The first thing that that person would want to do is vote National, because under Labour’s emissions trading scheme it will be a hell of a lot more expensive. That is the first thing. The second thing is that I am glad that the member raised the issue of someone on $40,000. Over the last 12 months, these are the facts when it comes to after-tax wages: the average wage in New Zealand has risen from $39,518 to $42,214, a rise of 6.8 percent, or, in real terms, a rise of 2.7 percent. The last Labour Government achieved 4 percent in 9 years—what a disgrace for New Zealand consumers!
Is the Prime Minister still denying that the rise in the cost of living in the December quarter of last year was the highest in 20 years, as he did a couple of weeks ago in this House, or have his staff put him right, by now?
As we know, that included GST and was compensated for, for all consumers. But while we are on numbers, let us just look at the rise in food prices for all of last year. According to Statistics New Zealand, the rise is 5.5 percent.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is very interesting, but it does not answer my question. The question was straightforward, as you will recall: it was whether he was denying that the last quarter had the highest price rise in 20 years.
Mr SPEAKERThe member’s wording was “Does the Prime Minister still deny”—from memory—“that the CPI rise in the last quarter was the highest for 20 years?”. That gives the Prime Minister, or any Minister, a fair bit of licence in answering that type of question—
It is seeking an opinion about the CPI. The question asked whether the Prime Minister denies that the CPI was the highest in the last quarter. That leaves a fair bit of latitude, and it would be wrong of me as Speaker to unfairly clip the wings of a Minister too much. However, I would not want the Prime Minister to go on for too long.
No, I will not go on for too long. If one looks at the rise in all food prices over the last 12 months, one sees that it was 5.5 percent, and that included the 2 percent increase for GST. In the last year of a Labour Government, food went up by 10.8 percent, on average, and there was no increase in GST then.
When the Prime Minister in February talked about delivering faster-rising incomes for New Zealanders and their families, why was it that in 2010 all he delivered, according to Statistics New Zealand, was a fall in the median income?
Well, I go back to the rise in incomes over the last 12 months—which was 2010—which, based on statistics from Statistics New Zealand, went from $39,518 to $42,214. That was a rise of 6.8 percent in nominal terms, or 2.7 percent in real terms. In other words, we delivered 2.7 percent in real terms when Labour delivered 4 percent over 9 years.
A point of order has been called. I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that he is skating on thin ice. He made that interjection well after the point of order was called.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
That was, I think, according to all of your instructions, a very narrow question about the median income. The Prime Minister did not answer with regard to the median income; he used average income.
A point of order is being considered. I invite the member to compare the language used in the question with his own language in questions. He will observe that his own language is very precise when he asks questions. I accept that his colleague’s language referred to the median income—I absolutely accept that. But the Prime Minister, in answering the question, is disputing the information contained in it. The Prime Minister, obviously, in answering the question, is saying that average after-tax incomes may be, in his view, more important than median before-tax incomes. In asking that kind of question, in the way it was worded, it is my view that that is not unreasonable. I think it would be pedantic of the Speaker to try to constrain Ministers.
Moreover, yesterday the member saw me stop the Prime Minister in full flight. When he was asked a straight question he went on to make a comment about the Opposition. Where I hear straight questions without implied criticism of the Government, I will insist on answers.
Where members can help themselves is to take out of questions the language that gives Ministers the chance to get off the hook. Today we have heard too many questions that have language that lets Ministers off the hook. I listen very carefully, and I will do my best; where the question is a straight question and a fair question I will do my best to make sure it is answered.
Is the rising cost of living, and the fact that New Zealand workers are earning a third less than their counterparts in Australia, the reason why every day in February of this year 139 New Zealanders left permanently for Australia—1,000 more for the month of February this year than February last year, according to the figures just released?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can it be in order to dispute numbers that I have just quoted from Statistics New Zealand, released today, and available to the Prime Minister and to you?
It is absolutely in order to dispute figures. When Ministers do dispute figures, of course, they place themselves at risk, as future questions can be put down on the Order Paper to ask for specific answers in relation to those matters. Ministers are entitled to dispute the content of questions, but they face further questioning when they do that.
OK. I seek the leave of the House to table the statistics just released proving the point that I have just stated, which was disputed by the Prime Minister.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to avoid answering a question by disputing figures that are available to the Prime Minister publicly?
This is question time, in case the honourable Leader of the Opposition had forgotten that. It happens every day, and when Ministers dispute figures that the honourable member believes are proper figures, they open themselves to tighter questioning on that issue. It is a risk Ministers run. The sanction is in the tough questions—the member should not be interjecting. The sanction is in tough questions. Questions that insert or seek opinions are not tough questions. I accept that the final question from the Leader of the Opposition was a fairly precise question. But the Minister is entitled to dispute the information contained in it. I as Speaker cannot judge that, but Ministers leave themselves open to further tight questioning when they do that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you, not now, to review your response to this, and especially the reflection that is made on the Government Statistician by the Prime Minister disputing his figures.
The member was doing perfectly fine with his point of order until that point. He is now debating the issue. The matter is very simple: I cannot judge the accuracy of a Minister’s answer. Ministers are absolutely entitled to dispute figures, but if they get them wrong, they leave themselves vulnerable. There are further supplementary questions today, there is another question time tomorrow, and members have the chance to pursue these matters.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You started your answer in the House saying it is question time. It is also answer time. It was a straight question—
The member will resume his seat immediately. He will not dispute my ruling. The Minister gave a straight answer. He disagreed with the information.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition will cease that or he will leave the House; he has the choice. I have ruled on the matter, and Ministers are absolutely entitled to dispute information contained in supplementary questions. They are even entitled to dispute information contained in primary questions. Even though it is validated, it may not be in the—the Leader of the Opposition needs to be careful. I do not wish to evict him from the House but I will not hesitate if he carries on down this line.
Hon RODNEY HIDEThe Labour front bench?~@~T[ Interruption] That just let them off the hook. [ Interruption] Senior members should know better than that. I heard two members use totally unparliamentary language. I will not do anything about it on this occasion, because of the responses from the other side. But the House will come to order. It may not have liked my rulings, but I am satisfied that I have ruled appropriately.