Questions for Oral Answer
28 May 2009

Questions to Ministers

1. Debt, Government—Prudent Levels

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

1. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What level of public debt does he consider prudent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The ideal—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You expect silence tomorrow, do you, English? Talk to your mate.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Is that some sort of threat? I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will resume his seat, right now; I am going to deal with this matter. The member is being unnecessarily unruly. He may not have liked my previous ruling, but I have ruled and the member must accept that. It is totally unacceptable for him to bellow across the House like that. I have called the Hon Bill English to answer the question, and he will do that. I have ruled on this matter. I warn the honourable member that he will be out of the House for the rest of this day if he challenges my ruling.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am in no way challenging your ruling; you ruled absolutely correctly. It was the Government that turned down the leave, and it is losing the cooperation—

Mr SPEAKER: That matter has been dealt with, and that is not a valid point of order. The member had better watch his behaviour.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The ideal level of debt is one where debt levels are low enough to allow a Government to borrow during a recession in order to support the economy, and where interest costs are not a significant burden. What constitutes prudent debt has changed numerous times over the years, and in the present circumstances it is appropriate that the Government tolerates an increase in debt. We will ensure, though, that as the recession passes, debt returns to lower levels so that New Zealand is well positioned for future recessions. This will not be the last recession.

Hon David Cunliffe: Would the Minister agree that gross debt levels of 17.5 percent of GDP and net debt levels of 0 percent, which were achieved under the Labour Government, are prudent; and can he confirm that New Zealand’s gross and net sovereign debt is far less than that of either the UK or the US, and than the OECD average, prompting Moody’s Investors Service to rank New Zealand as having amongst the least indebted Governments of the world?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The figures are correct. But the member needs to remember that the reckless spending of his Government, particularly in the last 3 years, is what will be giving rise to the rapid rise in public debt over the next 5 years.

Chris Tremain: Will unfunded commitments in Budget 2009 be a source of future debt increases?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The Government is breaking with the previous Government’s habit of making unfunded commitments. All initiatives—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have previously ruled on the Government’s use of the phrase “unfunded commitments” in this House. You have ruled in line with the Clerk, who has prevented—quite rightly—such language from being set down in prepared questions, because, firstly, it is without justification on the facts, and, secondly, it bears no resemblance to the Budget practice used in the past by the Labour Government—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point; he will resume his seat. There is nothing inherently unparliamentary about the term “unfunded”. No one has ever ruled it out.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. This Government will break with the practice of the previous Government of making unfunded commitments. All initiatives announced tomorrow will be charged against Budget 2009. This will apply, for example, to the scheme to insulate New Zealand homes, which will be outlined in the Budget tomorrow. The previous Government promised a billion-dollar scheme, but not one single dollar was committed to that scheme.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree that the cost of the unemployment benefit is $793 million per annum at 7 percent unemployment, rising to $1.019 billion at 9 percent unemployment, based on Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts; does he then agree that rising unemployment poses a significant fiscal risk; and can he clarify for the House the levels of unemployment that he considers to be prudent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I can clarify is that unemployment is rising, and that this Government will do every single thing it can to offer to those people who have lost their jobs the hope that they can get a new job.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister see any prudential difference between increasing debt to fund more consumption and debt to fund investment in a more resilient economy with lower carbon emissions, less dependence on oil, and more ability to withstand future price shocks; and if he does see a difference, will the Government be putting forward a plan to transform the economy in that way?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been stated in the media in the last 24 hours, the Greens have made a significant contribution to the Government moving in that direction.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table an article by Moody’s Investors Service entitled “How far can Aaa Governments stretch their balance sheets?”, which rates New Zealand as being amongst the least indebted countries of the world.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

2. Prime Minister—Promises

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: Does he intend to renege on any of the promises he has made to New Zealanders about actions his Government will follow; if so, which promises?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : I am not going to comment on what is in the Budget, because members can wait another day for that. But what I would say is that one of the promises that New Zealanders were made by a National Party in Opposition, now a National Government, is that we will show good leadership when it comes to the economy. When New Zealanders see the Budget tomorrow they will know that, just like Standard and Poor’s comments on Tuesday, National tends to be a much better manager of the economy, or words to that effect. [Interruption]

Hon Phil Goff: A great clap for somebody breaking his word! [Interruption] If members opposite are going to interject before I even ask my question, I am going to reply—

Mr SPEAKER: Would members just settle down a little. I note the deputy leader of the Labour Party was interjecting while her own leader was trying to ask a question, and interjected in a very inappropriate way, I might add, but I will not take that matter further. Please, if members would settle down a little. The honourable Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister recall saying in this House: “Most of all, New Zealanders will be able to believe our tax cuts, they will be able to trust our tax cuts … You see, we believe in tax cuts, we believe in the power of tax cuts, and we will deliver them. What is more, we can afford to do it.”, and what does his plans to renege on those promises say about his credibility and his trustworthiness now?

Hon JOHN KEY: As if it were only yesterday, I remember making those comments, and that is why so many New Zealanders have thanked me for the tax cuts that we delivered on 1 April, only months after being sworn into office.

Nathan Guy: Has he seen any reports about tax cut promises being reversed?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have seen two such reports. The first was in the 2007 Budget where Michael Cullen cancelled the income tax cuts he had promised. I note that at the time he cancelled them the Government surplus was $8 billion. The second was a recent report in the Weekend Herald regarding Labour’s promised tax cuts in 2010 and 2011. Because of the severity of the global recession, someone who likes to tweet on Twitter from time to time, David Cunliffe, said: “It thereforefollows that we would likely have had to scale them back to maintain a fiscally prudent stance.”

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister say: “… I personally guarantee that we will: … [reduce] personal taxes on 1 April 2009, 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011.” and did he personally guarantee that, after the International Monetary Fund had publicly warned that the world economy was entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous shock to financial markets that the world had seen since the 1930s, and after the collapse of Lehman Brothers; if so, were his promises naive, irresponsible, or dishonest—or all three?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, the piece of paper that David Cunliffe is holding up looks a lot like the Labour seating plan after the election. The second answer is no.

Hon Jim Anderton: When the Prime Minister said at the launch of his party’s tax policy last year before the election that his policy was “appropriate for the current conditions” and would require “no additional borrowing” why did he not tell New Zealanders that the reason no extra borrowing would be required was that those tax cuts were not going to proceed?

Hon JOHN KEY: I thank the member for reading out the full quote about the appropriate conditions. They would have been the same conditions under which Labour promised a tax cut that actually cost more than National’s. All I can say to the member is what I would say to any New Zealander: that the Government has to deal with the dynamic conditions it faces. These are the worst economic conditions for 70-odd years. This Government will face up to those conditions and ensure that the good ship New Zealand sails through them out of the very rough waters that it is currently in.

Nathan Guy: What negative surprises did the Government find on coming into office?

Hon JOHN KEY: The first surprise was the speed and extent of the global economic downturn, which took all Governments in the world by surprise. [Interruption] Opposition members are bleating on like a bunch of sheep but I remember them in January when they said these were the worst conditions for 70 years—maybe ever—and the Government should be doing something about it. Well, tomorrow, we are doing something about it.

Hon Phil Goff: Does not the Prime Minister get it: that what makes people really angry is not that he is not now delivering on the tax cuts, but rather the self-serving dishonesty and irresponsibility of promising them in the first place, when he knew he could not deliver on them?

Hon JOHN KEY: If I had the support of the House to give a 15-minute speech on dishonesty I would do that in relation to the previous Labour Government—its pledge card, its Electoral Finance Act, and its endless bits of legislation that robbed New Zealanders of hope. No wonder its seating plan looks like that piece of paper now!

Hon Jim Anderton: In interviews the Prime Minister has given about himself he claims to have, evidently, a reputation as a smart market dealer, so did he know before the last election that the economic situation in New Zealand and around the world was deteriorating, or did he find out only when Treasury told him, and would the cancellation of his party’s tax cuts mean that National now accepts that tax cuts are not always the best way to stimulate the economy?

Hon JOHN KEY: The answer is no. I do not think anyone would have predicted the level of economic downturn that has taken place in the last 6 months.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister agree with the commentary in the New Zealand Heraldthis morning on National’s plans to renege on its tax cut undertakings, which said that “in the commercial world, such an obvious breach of promise would be actionable in the courts”, and that we seem to be going back to the bad old days of the 1990s, when campaigning politicians lied to the public, who never got what they voted for; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can only guess that that came from a Brian Rudman column, and as a general rule I do not read those. But in the same fine newspaper earlier in the week, in a much better written column, Audrey Young made the very good point that even if the Government were to break a promise in relation to tax cuts, by delaying them, it would be keeping a promise that it will manage this economy well—or words to that effect.

Hon Phil Goff: On what basis can the Prime Minister guarantee superannuation entitlements when he intends to cut the funding that makes it possible to ensure those entitlements; or is this just another example of his being ready to promise something now while knowing that he cannot deliver on it in the future?

Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing is that I can make an absolute guarantee in relation to funding of New Zealand superannuation entitlements for New Zealand superannuation, irrelevant of any pre-funding to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I do that on these grounds—and I would be on exactly the same territory as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen when he was asked exactly that question back in October 2000. When he was asked how pre-funding would affect New Zealand superannuation entitlements, he said that pre-funding relates to how New Zealand superannuation is funded overall, and “it will not have any direct impact on New Zealand superannuation entitlements”. He was right.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Prime Minister’s explanation to the more than 1,000 decent, hard-working New Zealanders who worked in the Public Service and who now have been deprived of their livelihood since he promised not to cut but only to cap public sector employment?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Government has moved a lot of people from the back office to the front office. The Budget will spell that out clearly tomorrow. But one of the reasons why Labour was turfed out was that all it knew how to do was spend money. These are economic conditions that require good, rounded, economic management, and all I can say is thank goodness we have Bill English.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister promise New Zealanders that within 6 months of his becoming Prime Minister 1,250 people extra, net, would be enrolled on the dole in the course of 1 week, which is apparently what happened last week?

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know the exact number who enrolled last week on the dole. But I do know that all countries around the world are struggling with rising unemployment. I do know that New Zealand’s unemployment rate is 5 percent, and we can contrast that with the rate in Australia, which is 5.7 percent, or the United Kingdom’s rate, which is 6.8 percent, or the United States’ rate, which is 8.5 percent. I do know that when I stood up in this House and supported a 9-day fortnight, which saved jobs at companies like Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd—and good on them for sorting out their problems today—the Labour Opposition criticised it. I do know that when we held the Job Summit to try to save jobs, the Labour Opposition criticised it. I do know that on this side of the House we care about jobs. If anybody should be worried about unemployment, it should be Phil Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a document in which the Prime Minister personally guarantees to do things that he has now reneged on and has broken his word. It was published, and authorised, by M. Aldershaw, Ferguson Drive, Heretaunga, and proudly paid for by supporters of the National Party.

Mr SPEAKER: The House did settle for a while, and then it got very unruly again. I am struggling to hear. Seeking leave to table documents is an important right that members have, and it should be treated seriously. It appears that leave is sought to table what appears to be a policy document of the National Party. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

3. Budget 2009—Broad Based - Low Rate Tax System

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

3. Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: What progress will he announce in the Budget tomorrow on the Government’s medium-term goal of a “broad-based, low-rate tax system”, as agreed to in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The Government continues to support the principle of a broad-based, low-rate tax system. Decisions that were taken earlier with regard to KiwiSaver and research and development tax credits are consistent with this approach. The Government has assured that there is no further erosion of tax bases. By international standards New Zealand’s tax bases are already broad, and are relatively efficient at raising revenue. It would be fair to say that tax strategy is not at the centre of the Budget.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Why is the Minister apparently willing to renege on his lower tax policy promises but not on his high Government spending promises?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is our view that the decisions in the Budget will reflect a fair balance between on the one hand supporting New Zealanders through the most difficult time of a recession, and on the other preparing to grow the economy. I expect that some people on either side of the political spectrum will believe the decisions did not go exactly how they wanted. That means the decisions will probably be about right.

4. Families Commission—Appointment of Christine Rankin

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What due diligence did she undertake before and after recommending the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Due diligence is defined as undertaking voluntary investigations, and I can assure the member that I undertook voluntary investigations into Ms Rankin’s commitment to fighting child abuse. I found her to be a strong and dedicated advocate on behalf of children. I do not pass judgment on gossip and speculation. I am cautious about delving into anyone’s private life, whether it be in relation to an appointment, an MP, or a member of the public.

Hon Annette King: What questions did she ask and what information did she receive from Christine Rankin, when she personally undertook her own due diligence, as was stated by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can assure the member that proper process and due diligence were followed, as, no doubt, they were followed when the previous Government appointed the member’s colleague Dr Rajen Prasad to the same organisation just a few years earlier.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took particular care in the preparation of my questions today, in line with the rulings you have given in this House over many weeks. I asked a very specific question of the Minister. I asked her what questions she had asked and what information she had received from Christine Rankin, when the Minister personally undertook her own due diligence, as stated by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday. The Minister then gave an answer about due process having been followed.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the honourable member—because, obviously, the member has more supplementary questions—to pursue the matter, and let us listen to the answer.

Hon Annette King: Oh well, I will ask it again, Mr Speaker. Is that OK? I will ask the same question.

Mr SPEAKER: No; it would be a further supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked you to rule based on the fact that you have ruled before that when a specific question is asked without any other surrounding information included—when a straightforward question is asked—the Minister is required to answer it. I have only a certain number of supplementary questions. You are asking me to give up one of my questions in order to ask the Minister a question that she should have answered in the first place.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: By any measure the Minister has addressed the question. To expect that the Minister should be required to give detailed answers on a matter like this seems to me to be a little over the top. The answer that came from the Minister was that the same level of attention was paid to this appointment as had been paid to appointments by successive Governments in the past. That, surely, is a satisfactory answer. It does address the question. It will not make the questioner happy, but that seldom occurs.

Mr SPEAKER: I absolutely accept that there is a bit of a dilemma in the nature of the question asked, because it is highly questionable whether it would be in the public interest for the Minister to try to detail the exact questions asked. I am loath to rule that the Minister should give a more precise answer, because it seems to me that it would be extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to tell the House precisely what questions she asked. I think the member has the right to pursue the issue through further supplementary questions, but it would be very difficult for me to rule that the Minister must tell the House exactly what questions were asked of a private citizen.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you took into consideration in your ruling the fact that normally, for an appointment such as this, officials would do due diligence and give advice to Ministers. What has been clear from questioning in both the week before last and this week is that the Minister took more of a personal involvement in the level of due diligence. That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The deputy leader of the Labour Party said to you, Mr Speaker, that she carefully constructed her question based on previous answers. There was no political language in the question, unlike the answer, which came back with a political attack on a Labour member. Mrs King is making the point that the Minister has taken a personal level of involvement, so she should be in a position to answer the question, separate from what officials would do if they were giving departmental advice.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is most surely a debatable point, because it requires the House to accept that the assumption made by the Opposition is the basis on which all questions should be answered from that point. Perhaps the assumptions are a leap too far. The Minister has indicated how she dealt with this matter. That surely has to satisfy the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate members’ contributions to this issue. I accept that it is a serious issue. I ask the Hon Annette King to accept the dilemma she places the Speaker in, because if I were to rule that the Minister had to detail exactly every question asked, it would mean that I was setting a precedent for this House that members could ask exactly what questions any Minister had asked of any ministerial or Government appointee to any public position. I think it would be a fairly dangerous precedent for the Speaker to set. To ask about the principles of how the matter was handled is perfectly proper, but to ask the Speaker to rule that the Minister should give that kind of detail is being a little unreasonable. I invite the honourable member to pursue her questions.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening to this exchange with some interest because I was involved in the original appointment of Dr Prasad, which was the subject of the comparison. Without going into detail, and just to pick up on your final comments—I think there are matters of personal information that should not be bandied around the House—in that instance the process was quite rigorous. It involved a short list process, consideration by officials, and a series of subsequent reports being made on the suitability or otherwise of some of the nominees. It seems to me that that level of questioning is in order; it does not go to the heart of what particular information was available. But it raises another issue, and that is if the Minister is saying that the process that was followed in this case is comparable with the process followed in that case, then she does open herself to having to answer questions about the extent of that comparability and whether, in fact, those steps were followed. So I accept the point about no delving into personal information, but surely there is a line about process that can be tested.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the honourable member’s contribution to the issue at hand, and I think what he has just said is perfectly reasonable. I invite the honourable member to pursue her questioning along those lines.

Hon Darren Hughes: So she’s not getting an answer?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling that the Minister must provide that personal information—exactly what questions. It is the process—

Hon Ruth Dyson: What about just addressing it?

Mr SPEAKER: Members will not question my ruling. It is perfectly proper to question the Minister on the process undergone.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister directly ask Christine Rankin if the rumours circulating about her personal life, which were subsequently discussed by Christine Rankin on Television New Zealand’s Sunday programme, were true; if so, why did the Minister not warn the Prime Minister of the potential for criticism and ridicule, before the appointment was made?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Rumours and speculation fly around this place all the time. I am one who chooses not to listen to them and not to engage too much. When I heard what was very much speculation in respect of Ms Rankin—and I have heard much other speculation in respect of this matter—I told her that there were rumours circulating. She assured me that none of them were true; I took her at her word.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister ask Christine Rankin about her relationship with the For the Sake of Our Children Trust, including what payment she received from it, and why it was not a registered charitable trust at the time she was on Dancing with the Stars, seeking votes from the public, with any money raised to go to the trust?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I did not.

Hon Annette King: Will she remove Christine Rankin from the position of Families Commissioner if it is shown that she did not tell the truth in her recent public announcements?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have no reason to believe otherwise. If that member has any proof, or anything that she would like to put on the table, then we would be more than happy to look at it.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very straightforward question—will she remove Ms Rankin—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be reasonable about this matter. The honourable member cannot expect a precise answer to a “what if” type of question. The member asked what the Minister would do if something was shown to be correct. A precise answer cannot be expected to that kind of question. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition is being reasonable.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you were rising to your feet because a number of members of the Government were injecting while I was raising a point of order. That is against Standing Orders. I would like you to address that question, and then I will come back my point of order, which you interrupted before I had even got to it.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the honourable member to reflect a little on how helpful he is being. I did not hear members of the Government interjecting, because I was concentrating on the point that the member was making. It seemed to me immediately that he was being unreasonable. I am not prepared to waste the time of the House on points of order when I have judged—and I am the sole judge of that matter. I have shown myself to be pretty reasonable to members of the Opposition; I have required answers that no other Speaker in recent memory has ever required. I have been pretty reasonable to members of the Opposition, but when I hear a point of order that, to me, is simply unreasonable, I get to my feet and rule on the matter. That is what I did.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377 on the content of replies requires that an answer must seek to address the question asked. I ask you, Mr Speaker, in respect of those two questions, where in any way the Minister on her feet sought to address the question asked.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further help on this matter. As I explained to the honourable member, the question asked about a future possible scenario, and there is no exact answer to that. It does not take a lot of thought to see that. I invite the honourable member to reflect further on the matter.

5. Street Racing—Deterrents

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

5. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What measures is the Government taking to curb illegal street racing around New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Yesterday the Prime Minister, the Minister of Police, and I unveiled new legislation to help combat illegal street racing. The Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill will ensure that the penalties for this antisocial behaviour are a strong deterrent to repeat offending. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill allows the police and courts to target those repeatedly committing offences, even in someone else’s car. These two laws will target the things illegal street racers value most: their cars and their drivers’ licences.

David Bennett: What specific initiatives does this legislation involve?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The new legislation will allow local councils to create by-laws preventing cars from repeatedly cruising city streets in a manner designed to bring attention to the power and sound of the vehicle—much like the power and sound of the vehicles opposite. I am sure this will come as a great relief to the residents of the four avenues in Christchurch. The legislation includes tougher penalties for noise offences, failing to give driver details, licence breaches, and registration plate offences. In addition, my colleague the Minister of Police has also introduced legislation to target the worst offenders by taking away their vehicles permanently.

Nicky Wagner: What reports has the Minister seen in reaction to yesterday’s announcement?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The overwhelming reaction to the proposed bills has been positive. The only negative feedback I have had is from the illegal street racers themselves. The police have said that this new legislation will make a significant difference to the problem. The Automobile Association has welcomed the legislation, saying: “The legislative changes will send a very clear message to illegal street racers”. The Mayor of Christchurch, Bob Parker, called the draft legislation “a big step in the right direction”.

Amy Adams: How are the enforcement penalties designed in the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the main focuses of the bill is on a greater use of demerit points as penalties. We are introducing demerit points for noise offences, licence breaches, and registration plate offences, and increasing demerit points for graduated licence breaches. This is because it is clear that illegal street racers have not been paying their fines, so the focus will become on removing licences and/or the vehicle.

6. New Zealand—Credit Rating

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What issues does he believe are of most concern to credit rating agencies in respect of New Zealand: Government debt or the resilience of the wider economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Both of those issues are important to the economy, and the Government wants to make sure we get control of Government debt and increase the resilience of the wider economy. The Government will continue to do what is best for New Zealand; rating agencies will continue to form opinions on the results of our decisions.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that Moody’s Investors Service rates New Zealand as having only a “limited debt challenge” and places New Zealand as being amongst the most resistant economies to the global downturn; if so, why has he been attempting to scare New Zealanders into accepting his Government’s contractionary policies and his leader’s broken promises?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That question is full of assumptions that are incorrect. The Government has set out to make the best decisions for New Zealand, according to our own judgment. The rating agencies will make whatever decisions they want to make.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What previous approaches by New Zealand Ministers of Finance to dealing with rating agencies is the Minister aware of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can quote my predecessor, Michael Cullen, who said in 2006 “when rating agencies call they largely ask the questions and I supply the answers. What the agency wanted assurance about was that there would be no sudden lurching around in the Government’s fiscal policy”. That is a reasonable approach for any Minister of Finance to take, and it remains the case. I have been happy to brief rating agencies when major decisions have been taken, to assure them that the Crown’s finances are on a stable and sensible path.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can the Minister reconcile his statement to the House yesterday that “The Government actually has not talked about the credit rating agencies—hardly at all—since it came to office.” with his leader’s statement that “We have to make sure we don’t deliver deeper recession by allowing ourselves to blow our debt profile and threaten our international rating.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is an entirely sensible reference to the fact that New Zealand has to borrow billions of dollars from overseas lenders, and lenders’ perceptions of this country matter.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree that it is a “nonsense” to suggest that New Zealand would have to borrow $50 billion extra by 2013, because any Government—National or Labour—would adjust its policy to ensure a sustainable fiscal path?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Certainly, the National-led Government is adjusting policy in order to make sure we have sustainable debt. All the signs from Labour are that it has not learnt the lessons of losing an election and is still advocating endless spending and a lot more debt.

7. State Highway Projects—Funding

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is it Government policy to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs for new State highway projects prior to approving funding for them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Yes, the Government’s general approach is to ensure that not just State highways but all transport infrastructure projects are assessed for full benefits over costs and are value for money. That policy is, of course, implemented by the New Zealand Transport Agency. We also take into account the wider economic development, productivity, and safety benefits when evaluating transport projects.

Dr Russel Norman: What are the corridor benefit-cost ratios for each of the seven roads of national significance announced in March?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We do not yet have full benefit-cost ratios for every individual project on the roads of national significance, as the New Zealand Transport Authority is currently developing and assessing the way in which those projects will be developed. I can, however, tell the member that the Victoria Park tunnel in Auckland has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.8 and the proposed Waterview Connection has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.4. That compares with the previous Labour Government’s twin two-lane tunnel option, which had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2

Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen any reports that go back and analyse the benefits and costs of State highway projects after construction, and look at how that compared with the pre-construction analysis?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I have. The Motu group has conducted an interesting post-construction analysis of the economic benefits of the Auckland Northern Motorway extensions to Silverdale and Ōrewa. Its report showed that the benefit of building the motorway, expressed in cost-benefit terms, was between 6.3 and 21 times the cost. This was far better than the pre-construction analysis, and it shows the potential for major new State highway projects to create strong economic benefits in the regions in which they are developed.

Dr Russel Norman: How can it be economically responsible for the Government to announce in March seven roads of national significance and commit an additional $1 billion towards building them, without any prior analysis of the economic costs and benefits of the projects, as the Minister admitted in his answer and as has been confirmed from this letter from the New Zealand Transport Agency, which says that even after the announcement of the seven projects, no benefit-to-cost ratio analysis has been done?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, some elements of the roads of national significance have benefit-cost ratios that are known currently, and for the others that will become known as the projects develop over time. On the subject of benefit-cost ratios, I say they are only one part of the answer, because the Auckland rail infrastructure upgrades that were signed off by the previous Government, with support from the Greens, suggested that the upgrades had a benefit-cost ratio of, to quote Treasury, “about 1”. That is about the most generous benefit-cost ratio assessment I have seen Treasury come up with so far.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he support the commitment of his Government towards high-quality spending, and how does he know that these seven projects, involving billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, are high-quality spending, when he announced that he would progress them before he had done the analysis as to the benefits versus the costs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is well known that the seven projects referred to are on corridors of absolutely national significance across the country, and of course the projects are supported by road users and others in the communities. Each project, before it proceeds, is subject to a full analysis on the construction costs and the benefit-cost ratios, and the decisions will be made on that basis.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister not operating a double standard, because on the one hand he said to the Bus and Coach Association, with regard to public transport projects, that there has to be a cost-benefit analysis to see that they make sense in their own right, whereas when it comes to the ideologically driven, economically illiterate decisions to invest in these seven motorway projects, there is no requirement for the seven projects to have a benefit-to-cost analysis done prior to the decision to go ahead with a project—it is a double standard?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am happy to have a conversation about economic literacy with the member opposite, at any time that he cares to name.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was absolutely no attempt to answer or address that question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance. The member should reflect on the question he asked. Where he introduces that kind of material into the question, he can expect that kind of answer.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the letter from the New Zealand Transport Agency, in which it says no benefit-cost analysis has been done on these seven major projects.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

8. Health Care—Policy

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

8. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, that is the Government’s plan, despite inheriting a public health system that has serious workforce shortages, many services under severe pressure, and was on track to financial crisis under the previous Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: If National’s policy has a real focus on retention of current staff as it states—

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me for interrupting the honourable member, but her own colleagues were interjecting loudly while she was trying to ask her question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I had not noticed.

Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the member that the interjecting members were sitting right beside her, and I could not hear her. I would like to hear the question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: If National’s policy has a real focus on retention of current staff as it states, why has the Minister stood by and watched the loss of the two child cancer specialists in Wellington, and done absolutely nothing?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is very easy for that member to criticise this Government’s performance, when that member’s Government had done nothing over the past 9 years in the area of child oncology in Wellington. I can assure members that this Government is determined to deliver the best possible paediatric oncology service for the children of Wellington and the lower North Island. We will be taking advice from the paediatric oncology steering group as to how this will be achieved.

Hon Ruth Dyson: If the then Minister’s actions in 2007 and 2008 in relation to child cancer services in Wellington were “unacceptable, idle, and lacking in heart” as he described them, why is the Minister’s total inaction OK?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The previous Minister of Health’s actions were a complete failure, quite frankly. We have seen that, in that a comprehensive, sustainable paediatric oncology service could never be run at Wellington Hospital. As in every other area of health, that mob has left a huge mess that this Government will have to clear up.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What are some examples of how the Government is delivering “better, sooner, and more convenient health care”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are many examples of how this Government is delivering “better, sooner, more convenient health care”; amongst them is access to elective surgery. We will build an extra 20 theatres dedicated to elective surgery, train several hundred more surgical staff, and increase elective surgery discharges by 4,000 per year. Unlike the previous administration, this Government finds it completely unacceptable that elective surgery discharges have not matched the increase in population. I can tell members that—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we need more information on the previous administration. We have had enough of an answer. The Associate Minister will resume his seat. His own colleague asked him a question about what the Government had done to carry out its policy of sooner, more convenient health care, etc. To answer that question was fine; members did not need to hear information about the previous Government. That was not part of that question.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: What has the Minister done in the last 6 months to address health productivity, which under the previous Labour Government decreased 15 percent for doctors and 11 percent for nurses, but rose for orderlies and cleaning staff, services that were often contracted out to the private sector? In these circumstances, when will the Minister be announcing the contracting out of elective surgery to the private sector, thus saving $1 billion or more?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is right. We were left huge productivity challenges after 9 years of neglect of health by the previous Government. One of the key areas we are having to address is clinical leadership, and once we get the clinicians engaged—they were very disengaged and morale was poor under the previous Government—and the frontline service people engaged, productivity will increase, and that will be a focus for this Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the wage increases for doctors and nurses for the last 9 years, under the Labour-led Government, and the impact on productivity.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. There is a document? What is the document?

Hon Ruth Dyson: There will be—yes. [Interruption] Mr Speaker, I can clarify the point—

Mr SPEAKER: All members will resume their seats. Points of order are meant to be heard in silence. I am a little troubled, though, by leave being sought to table something that does not exist. I will give the member another chance to clarify that.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Speaker, the information exists—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member will resume her seat. There is provision to table documents, but there is a dilemma if members seek to manufacture documents after seeking leave to table them. Either the document exists or it does not, and I have to trust the honourable member’s integrity in respect of that. I am asking her whether the document exists as she seeks leave to table it in the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: The information exists, and can be provided in a document in the time—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. That is trifling with the Standing Orders of this House. One cannot seek leave to table a document, then manufacture the document after the leave was sought. Were the House to give leave, I would find that absolutely improper. When leave is sought to table a document, that document must exist. And it cannot just exist in one’s mind; it must exist in reality.

Hon Maryan Street: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and I have ruled on the matter. Let us be very clear about it: I have ruled on that matter. Members cannot seek leave to table documents that do not exist. I am absolutely clear on that. This House has got itself into enough trouble over many years because of members seeking to table stuff that did not exist. Creating it afterwards is not good enough. I trust the member; if the document exists now, it can be tabled—if the House provides leave—but if the document does not exist, then leave cannot be sought.

Hon Members: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I warn members that I have ruled, so I will listen only to new points of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes right to your last point. You cannot rule at all that members cannot seek leave to table something. They can, and you cannot stop them.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the honourable member is making, but I do try to clarify for the benefit of the House what the document is. What has been clarified is that the document does not exist; therefore, leave cannot be sought to table it—because it does not exist. And that is the end of the matter.

Hon Darren Hughes: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I warn members: do not trifle with my ruling.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. The first point of order is that when Opposition members have been raising points of order with you, as they are entitled to do, you have begun editorialising before we have even said a word about what our point of order is. I want to raise a point of order with you about the generic issue of tabling documents. You have ruled—

Mr SPEAKER: I am listening, and members are meant to come quickly to the point of order. I am listening.

Hon Darren Hughes: It is very hard to, Mr Speaker, when you jump down our throats, before we have even started, about whether it is a proper point of order. You have got to accept that we can raise points of order with you.

Mr SPEAKER: I have been very tolerant today—very tolerant—and I am warning the member. I have ruled on this matter; there can be no further points of order on it. Leave cannot be sought to table something that does not exist, and that is absolutely a simple matter of fact. There is no debate on it, and I will not tolerate more points of order on that issue. I am alerting members: I will not tolerate more points of order on that.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am attempting to raise a generic point of order with you about the tabling of documents, and to get your advice. Where a range of information exists—published statistics, published information, matters of record that are available to members—but it does not exist in one published document, and a member seeks leave to bring those statistics together into one piece of paper that can be tabled for the benefit of the House, because they might not be publicly available in one form, which is the whole point of seeking leave to table a document, are you ruling that it is not possible for members to do that? I think, Mr Speaker, that you put us in a very difficult position, and you have taken a ruling—

Mr SPEAKER: Now the member is starting to question my judgment. The matter is very simple. If the member wishes to create a document, that is fine. Once the document has been created, leave can be sought to table it. But the House cannot be expected to make judgments about things that do not exist. I have ruled on the matter, and I am warning members that I will not tolerate more wasting of time on this issue. I invite the member to think about how leave can be sought to table something that does not exist. Once it exists, leave can be sought to table it, but if it does not exist, leave cannot be sought to table it.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table the collective agreements applying to the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation from 2004 to 2009, which go to the question of productivity and rates paid. They are documents that exist, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

* Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

9. Education, National Standards—Consultation

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

9. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about the consultation for national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : Last Monday the Government published on the Ministry of Education’s website the draft standards in reading, writing, and mathematics, and examples of the reporting to parents. Packs of the standards and examples of reports were also sent out to schools, educators, and interested groups towards the end of last week. The release of the draft standards and reports marks the start of consultation with the sector, parents, and whānau, with feedback due back to the ministry by 3 July.

Allan Peachey: What type of engagement is planned with educators, parents, and whānau?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Last week the first of about 42 meetings was held with parents and whānau, and this morning the first of 14 education sector meetings was held in Paihia. I am glad to say that interest in the meeting was so high, with 176 registrations received, that we had to find more space. The ministry has also committed to sending representatives along to meetings of educators wherever requested, and as at this morning it has agreed to attend a further 12 meetings. The ministry will continue to receive such requests.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What consultation has she had with Māori education groups and whānau, hapū, and iwi about national standards, and what has been their advice?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I and my colleague the Hon Dr Sharples have spoken to a number of Māori education groups about the national standards. A recent example was 2 weeks ago, when I met with all the iwi groups with which the Ministry of Education has a relationship, and discussed the issue.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How many of them?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Between 70 and 80 iwi leaders were at the meeting. Their advice was to make sure we have a strong research basis before setting the national standards for Māori-medium education.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the consultation over national standards of literacy and numeracy include asking whānau, parents, and teachers whether they want individual school results to be published, and will whānau, parents, and teachers be told about the possible effects on schools of publishing that information?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, there is a question in the consultation document about what information parents want to receive and how that information should be phrased. I look forward to continuing to receive from parents, and from some sector representatives, advice about what the shape of that information might be. As to the question around the damage that might be done to schools if that information were published, I have made it very clear that neither the ministry nor I will be publishing any information in the form of league tables.

Allan Peachey: What feedback has the Minister received on the standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am very pleased that the feedback from the sector so far suggests that many, many people in it are happy with what we have produced. I quote one example. The New Zealand Educational Institute president, Frances Nelson, said: “The ministry and Minister have worked on something much more robust than anything I have seen in the world at this time.” That is a credit to the extremely good work of the experts inside and outside the ministry, who have worked to produce the standards.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Minister confident there is a sufficiently robust research basis to develop national standards for kura kaupapa Māori; if not, what will she do to ensure that the policy will be successful in Māori-medium education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised there is a significantly robust research basis from which to develop national standards in kura kaupapa Māori. We have given the ministry further time to develop those standards, before they go out for consultation later in the year.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister regard professional cooperation as being vital to the implementation of her standards; if so, does she understand that the publication of league tables would undermine that cooperation?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I understand perfectly that professional cooperation is necessary for the implementation of those standards, and that is why I have been at great pains to involve the education sector throughout the development and consultation period. That is why I have also taken great pains to assure the sector that the Minister and the ministry will not be publishing league tables at any time or at any stage.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister support an amendment to the Official Information Act to prevent the use of that information for the publication of league tables?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If that member wishes to put something in front of me, I will consider it. I reassure the member, who with his party is intent on scaremongering amongst the sector, that, in fact, this Government—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have made no public comment on this issue. The Minister cannot say that.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister has given a sufficient answer to the question, anyhow, because she has made it clear she would consider the matter that the member put to her in that question. I think it has been answered and we do not need any further information.

10. Education, Minister—Priorities

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What are her priorities for the period between now and 30 June 2009?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : The overall priority of this Government is to raise achievement in the education system. That priority guides my actions at all times. In order to achieve that goal, I have a number of priorities in early childhood education and the schooling sector, and also in the tertiary sector in my role as Minister for Tertiary Education. I can give the member two examples from a long list of work on our priorities up until 30 June: I would include the current consultation with parents and the education sector on national standards, and the expressions of interest that we have called for in terms of trades academies.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What priority is the Minister giving to literacy and, in particular, to the importance of spelling and proofreading?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I thought I had made it fairly clear in the previous answer, but I say that this Government is committed to the national standards, which include reading and writing, of which spelling is a part. We see those standards as the foundation for children’s learning, so we want to ensure that every young New Zealander gets the opportunity to learn to read, write, and do maths while they are at primary school.

Nikki Kaye: What indications has the Minister received of the education sector embracing the Government’s priorities for education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received numerous indications, and I have outlined in the House today the overwhelming support for the national standards consultation process. I also tell the House that we have received over 100 expressions of interest for the trades academies. The Ministry of Education is currently reviewing the submissions so that we can decide which submissions should be taken further to a business proposal stage and then on to final approval and construction. We are delivering on one of our priorities—that is, to support at least five trades academies in the next 3 years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Minister’s comments on the importance of literacy and the importance of academies, how does she spell “academies”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Mr Speaker—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I say that Parliament is not a spelling bee, and the Minister has no responsibility for the spelling of a particular word.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: So long as it is a matter of order, I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I have a document from the Minister that within an inch or so spells “academies”—

Mr SPEAKER: This is not a point of order. I invite the member to reflect on what he has just done. That point is nothing to do with order in this House and it is not helpful. Members have been grumpy about my rulings but it is not helpful when members raise that kind of point of order. OK, I could have ruled the question out—I am sure the Opposition would have been very grumpy had I done that. I thought the Minister could handle the question whatever way she chose. It was the kind of question that could get any kind of answer; I am not going to insist on any particular kind of answer. Members can see the dilemma for the Speaker because if I had ruled out the question the Opposition would not have been happy. I have not ruled it out, and I think the Minister is at liberty to answer it.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is the sort of question that I would expect from the member. Why does the member not talk about why he opposes trades academies? Why does he think that young New Zealanders are better sitting in rows in classrooms instead of attending something like a trades academy, where secondary education can interface with both the workplace and tertiary education, and which gives people opportunities to live better, fulfilled lives? Why does the member continue to—

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a sufficient answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why does the Minister promote higher education standards and at the same time put out a document signed by her that is riddled with spelling errors?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If that member would like to send me the piece of paper that he purports has spelling mistakes on it, I will correct them for him.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I wonder whether the Minister could confirm that it is highly likely that the people who actually wrote that document were educated some time during the 9 years of the Labour Government when there was absolutely no care for educational standards whatsoever.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am happy to confirm that. I also confirm that the member asking the earlier questions was the Minister of Education at the time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the document signed by the Hon Anne Tolley, “Quotes from the Minister of Education”, which is filled with spelling errors.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

11. Communities—Community Response Fund

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

11. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What plans does the Government have to support communities during the economic downturn?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Last week I was pleased to announce that we are establishing the Community Response Fund as a short-term fund to respond to immediate pressures faced by critical social services. Up to $40 million will be available in the first year for communities to support services they need, with more available in year two.

Jo Goodhew: Has the Minister seen any reports in the media about the Community Response Fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I have. An article in the New Zealand Herald titled “Social services welcome National’s Budget boost” said: “Social service agencies can hardly believe their luck after a National Government yesterday gave them more money for the coming year than the former Labour Government had planned, despite intense pressure to cut spending in the recession.” The Otago Daily Times said that voluntary organisations have welcomed this Government’s handouts to help them through the recession.

Tim Macindoe: Could the Minister comment on the reaction of the non-governmental organisation sector to the announcement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. I have had an extremely positive response from sector representatives. In particular, I have seen media releases from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services that praise the Government for social services support. Relationship Services welcomes the new funding announcement. Barnardos welcomes the new Community Response Fund. Women’s Refuge said the Government’s plan to establish the new Community Response Fund is a “sensible measure to address the imminent impact of the recession.”

Hon Annette King: Did she create a $40 million emergency fund that provides only one-off funding to hide the fact she intends to cut over $210 million allocated to help fully fund the essential services of up to 800 community organisations; if not, will she give those groups her personal assurance today that they will receive the increases of up to 20 percent they were expecting in 2009 and 2010, as not to do so will mean a cut for those organisations?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am very pleased to answer the question. This Government has brought forward $20 million on top of the $20 million that was available via Pathways to Partnership, because we understand that in this recession those social services desperately need the support now. They have an increase in demand and a decrease in the money coming in. I can assure the non-governmental organisations out there that the money from Pathways to Partnership is staying there. We are going to be working closely with them, as we have in the past, with this fund to discuss how to fund them and how to move forward in the future.

12. Job Summit—Minister’s Statement

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

12. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: Does she stand by her statement that the Prime Minister’s Job Summit “demonstrates the power of working together to find creative solutions and it demonstrates the power of taking immediate action.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) : I am afraid that the member has misquoted me; that quote was with regard to the Job Support Scheme. With regard to the Job Support Scheme, I certainly say that it demonstrates the power of working together to find creative solutions, and that it demonstrates the power of taking immediate action.

Jacinda Ardern: Why then, given the Minister’s belief of, and response to, the development of new policies around joblessness—and, as she stated, the power of taking immediate action—has she not announced a plan or invested in any new initiatives to address the problem of youth unemployment, despite an extra 10,300 20 to 24-year-olds becoming unemployed in the March quarter alone, and almost one in five 15 to 19-year-olds being unemployed?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am pleased to stand up and talk about what we are doing on youth unemployment—

Mr SPEAKER: I prefer that the member answer the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member asked about youth unemployment, and I am very happy to stand up and talk about that. The Mayors Task Force for Jobs is a good example of a budget allocation being increased for assistance. McDonald’s and Work and Income have just signed an agreement for a partnership that will bring in 6,000 new jobs over the next 3 years. At the Job Summit Work and Income talked to TradeMe, and they have an agreement that at the end of each week the jobs from TradeMe are downloaded and go directly to young people that need jobs. I tell members to watch this space for more that we will do.

Jacinda Ardern: Will the Minister adopt any ideas other than those generated by McDonald’s, such as those ideas generated by the Youth Jobs Summit I hosted last week, including greater investment in skills and training, lifting the cap for tertiary education, and introducing a guaranteed employment or training scheme for the long-term unemployed under the age of 25 years, given that the Minister sees the power of working together to create creative solutions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member keeps getting the quote wrong, but we will just go with that. The Opposition has been very critical of the Job Summit as being a talkfest, but faced with the success of the Prime Minister’s Job Summit and the 13 regional job summits, which more than 1,700 people attended, Labour is starting to change its tune. Unfortunately Labour’s Youth Jobs Summit was a bit of a fizzer: contrary to Ms Ardern’s press release, only 20-odd delegates were not Labour Party people. Actually, those delegates were seen to be complaining at the lack of—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the House has heard sufficient.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table the full list of those who were registered and attended the Labour Youth Jobs Summit, which includes over 60 delegates—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—[Interruption] There will be some silence in the House. I know that today has been very testy, but there will be a little decorum. Has the member sought leave to table a document?

Jacinda Ardern: Yes, Mr Speaker—a document listing the registrations of those who attended—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—

Jacinda Ardern: —including a representative—

Mr SPEAKER: When leave is sought to table a document, once the document is established there is no need to add further to it. The member will do well to learn that.

Hon Darren Hughes: Don’t yell at women members!

Hon Member: He’s got to go for that!

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorely tempted. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but can I just confirm that the member will be tabling a document that gives the names and addresses of all the attendees?

Mr SPEAKER: The House gave leave for tabling a document and that is the end of the matter.

Simon Bridges: Can the Minister give an example of initiatives that demonstrate the power of working together to find creative solutions and of “taking immediate action.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly can. At the time of the Job Summit Work and Income and TradeMe began talking about how to better connect people to the jobs that are advertised out there. They agreed that TradeMe would send Work and Income a weekly list of all of their vacancies broken down by region. Work and Income would then forward those vacancies directly to unemployed beneficiaries for them to follow up. As a result, we are seeing more jobs filled by people on the unemployment benefit.

ENDS

© Scoop Media