4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
How many jobs will his Government’s infrastructure package create; and, of those jobs, how many will be green-collar jobs?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
I have seen estimates that the State housing package could retain between 850 and 1,050 jobs, and that the State highway package could save up to 400 jobs. These figures are very imprecise, however, not least because the Government does not make individual hiring decisions on infrastructure projects. Regarding the second part of the member’s question, I say it is not my practice, nor is it the practice of Government departments, to classify jobs as being white-collar, blue-collar, green-collar, or any other type of collar—all jobs are important to the Government.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does he agree with the editorial in the New Zealand Herald that he should reinstate the Green Homes Fund insulation programme for low and middle income private homes, a programme that is particularly job rich?
I agree that improving insulation in New Zealand homes will play an important part for social, health, and climate change reasons. The member can rest assured that the Government is working on that. I take issue with the fact that somehow the billion-dollar Green Homes Fund was anything other than a fantasy, because, unfortunately, it was unfunded, like so many other promises of the previous Government.
Yes, I have seen a press release from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions today, saying that: “The investment in schools and housing are exactly what is needed at this time”. I have also seen a very interesting report from Goldman Sachs, which said today it was unclear how much of the overall package was new work, but that it could see its 2009 forecast for national GDP to contract by 1.4 percent could improve by 0.6 percent. Lastly, I have seen a press release from the Leader of the Opposition, which states that education funding “might just paint a few classrooms”. Mr Goff might want to read just a little further on after his cornflakes this morning, and realise that five brand new schools are about to built and fast-tracked, a further seven schools will get funding to replace outdated and rundown buildings, 64 schools will receive funding for halls, gyms, libraries, and other buildings, and four Upper Hutt schools will get a major upgrade. I know that members out in that area, not the least of them being Mr Mallard, will be very appreciative that the National Government has finally fixed up the schools in Mr Mallard’s electorate.
What advice has the Prime Minister received on the number of jobs lost not just through the scrapping of the retrofitting of insulation but also through the biofuels legislation rammed through the House by Gerry Brownlee before Christmas—for example, at the Waharoa biofuels facility, which has now been mothballed as a result of that legislation?
I have not received any advice on the former or the latter, except to say the following. Firstly, it was all very well for the previous Labour Government to promise things, but if there was no money allocated to them, then it was not going to go far. Secondly, even if one was to believe that the billion-dollar package was real, it equates to $60 million a year. Today we announced that by 30 June 2010 this Government, with real money, will actually be spending $220 million on the improvement of insulation and the improvement of State houses. This Government acts; that Government talked.
Does the Prime Minister really believe that building an extra 69 State houses over the next 6 months will met the increasing need, especially at the most urgent end of the State housing waiting list, and will he commit to accelerating the State house building programme over the full 3 years ahead, rather than just the next 6 months?
No, I do not think anyone could practically believe that 69 extra State houses will fix the entire waiting list. There needs to be a recognition that there is a long waiting list, but there also needs to be a recognition that over the last few years the Government that was in place prior to the election totally failed to renovate and keep up to date those houses, and this Government is now being forced to fix that up.
Yes. These projects have been costed and will be charged against Budget allowances. We have made provision for all those projects, and they will actually happen. That is completely different from the last Government’s practice of making lofty infrastructure announcements, with no idea of and no concern about how they would be funded.
Can the Prime Minister promise New Zealanders that the process for awarding these and future infrastructure contracts will be absolutely transparent; if so, will he ensure that all those who bid for these contracts are required to declare any donations to political parties?
I am not aware of the operational process that is undertaken for the administration of such contracts, but if in any way, shape, or form the member is implying that somehow contracts will be issued and the upgrading of these State houses is because National is now the Government, then I find that offensive. The reason we are doing this is that we want to improve the State housing stock in New Zealand.
Will the Prime Minister match his excellent promise of more schools and school facilities with a commitment for more teachers and support staff—a commitment that would employ far more people per dollar invested than buildings will?
I cannot comment on the need for more teachers; I can say that there has been a significant increase in teacher numbers recently. We are now looking to ensure that teaching practices are changed through the administration of things such as National’s literacy and numeracy plans, which will make a significant difference to the output of students in New Zealand.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the difference is between announcing a programme today that is not funded but will be funded in next year’s Budget and announcing a programme last year to be funded out of the emissions trading scheme, which had already been legislated for?
When we announced the projects this morning we intended to start paying for them as of tomorrow, when people start to work on them, as opposed to the announcement of the Greens’ fund, which effectively, as Dr Cullen pointed out when he asked the patsy question to David Parker last year, was all based on whether State-owned enterprises eventually gave some money back. As Mr Parker said at the end of the question, without that increased investment—in other words, unless the State-owned enterprises put up their money—there was not the slightest prospect of meeting the targets. In other words, there was no money.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Did the Prime Minister, in deciding to spend more on new roads, take into account research quoted in The Economist that spending on buses and trains creates 19 percent more jobs than the same money spent on new roads, or research quoted by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute that each million dollars shifted away from purchasing motor fuel into anything else creates 4½ new jobs per million dollars?
When reaching the decisions we reached today and the decisions we will be reaching over the months ahead about further infrastructure investment, we take on board the fact that our roading infrastructure has a need for improvement that will help the environment. That is not to say there is not the need for further investment in both rail and public transport. I assure the member that both will get additional funding.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
I seek leave to table the paper Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, which contains one of the figures I quoted.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
I seek leave to table the Economist article “Be careful what you wish for: spending on infrastructure could easily run amok”.