﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 2, Maureen Pugh.
MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Finance:
What recent reports has he received on the NZ economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):
I am advised today that today was the first release
by Statistics NZ of labour market statistics data
using an updated survey method that is technology-neutral
and improves international comparability. The decision
to change the survey method was made by the Government Statistician,
who is statutorily independent.
The decision was not made by the Government.
Today's release shows unemployment fell by 0.1% to 5.1%, with particularly
large reductions in Auckland— down 1.2 percentage points,
to where unemployment in Auckland is now measured at 4.7%.
Unemployment among women has dropped 0.8% to 5.4%.
The survey also points to strong job growth during the quarter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to call Maureen Pugh,
but I do not want a continuation of the conversation between
Mr Joyce and Mr Little.
Maureen Pugh: What is the outlook for jobs and wages?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The outlook will be fairly positive
if the current momentum is maintained. Statistics NZ
calculates that 105,000 extra jobs were created in the last year,
and 251,000 over the last 3 years. It advises that recorded jobs growth
is supported by other labour market indicators.
It reports that annual average wages have increased 24.9%
to more than $58,000 since the end of 2008, more than double
12% inflation over the same period. There are more jobs,
and people are being better paid.
Grant Robertson: Was ANZ correct when it said today
"Due to methodological changes, many of today's figures
"need to be taken with a grain of salt (particularly the surge in employment).
"Statistics NZ have cautioned against quarterly comparisons.
"In fact, in many ways they look meaningless."?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: ANZ has every right to have an opinion
about the numbers, as does the Government.
However, it refrains from attacking the impartiality
of the Government Statistician.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!
Again, this is a point of order, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.
Grant Robertson: My question asked the Minister of Finance
whether ANZ was correct in that statement.
I did not get an answer to that question.
Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—[Interruption]
Order! On this occasion, I think the question has been addressed.
The Minister immediately said that that was ANZ's opinion.
Maureen Pugh: What else do labour market statistics
tell us about the job market?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government Statistician has introduced
a new measure of underutilisation, which has not been measured before.
It measures the number of people who could work more
if given the opportunity.
The published underutilisation rate is 12.8%. This compares
with the OECD average of around 14.1%, and, somewhat surprisingly,
compares with Australia's underutilisation rate of 21.8%,
which is not much short of double the NZ rate.
Maureen Pugh: What other reports has he seen
about the household labour force survey (HLFS)?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a range of reports
about the economic importance of the data, including some people
who have questioned, for instance, quarterly comparisons,
because the HLFS data does move around from quarter to quarter.
Others, however, have made comments around the impartiality
of the Government Statistician, including that the Government
"actively manipulates official data", which is absolutely wrong—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for that answer
to continue any longer. I consider it is an answer
that will be in breach of Speaker's ruling 197/5.
Grant Robertson: Why is the Government taking credit
for a quarterly increase in employment that is 70% higher
than ever recorded before, which ANZ has said should be
taken with a grain of salt and that Statistics NZ
cautioned against making— exactly the quarterly comparison
that Steven Joyce did in his media release today?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is not taking credit; it is simply
stating the numbers as published— it is simply stating the numbers
as published—because we accept that the Government Statistician
is statutorily independent. If the numbers go up,
it is because the numbers have gone up,
not because the Government Statistician is manipulating
the numbers, as that member has claimed. And he should know,
since he represents more public servants than anyone else
in the Parliament. It is a disgrace.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Grant Robertson: Does the Minister consider it a disgrace
that the Minister of Finance stood in this House and said
that Statistics NZ's statement that inequality in NZ had grown
under his watch was statistically invalid; is that a disgrace as well?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly did not accuse
the Government Statistician of being manipulated by the Government,
and certainly would not do that. We have our own arguments
with how numbers are put together, but, in the end,
that is why they are independent. With respect to those conclusions,
I passed on the advice I was given, which, I understand,
was legitimate statistical analysis that the conclusions
they had drawn were not statistically valid.
Since then, I have had further advice that,
on balance, they probably were.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No 3.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community