2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Is he satisfied that the measures he has announced are adequate to stop the projected surge in unemployment?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
The measures we have announced so far, and further measures that we will announce as economic events unfold, are designed to take the sharpest edges off this recession. Job losses would have been greater had these measures not been introduced, and support packages like the ReStart scheme will help to soften the blow of redundancy for many people, but they will not prevent an overall increase in unemployment over the course of this recession, and the Government has been very upfront in saying that. This is a very serious global recession affecting employment in every country in the world.
Does the Prime Minister intend to set out clear and consistent criteria on which the Government will base its decisions on whether to bail out specific companies in trouble; if so, when will he publish these so that all companies that are facing difficulties are clear on where they stand?
The Government has already made it clear that there would be a very high benchmark indeed for the Government to be involved in bailing out companies. Our preference is that companies look to the classical banking solution to their problems. That is not to say that the Government could not or would not get involved; we reserve the right to do that. I suggest that if the member does not think the Government should ever get involved, he should go back to the shop floor and tell New Zealanders his message.
What conditions will the Prime Minister place around, for example, financial assistance to companies in trouble, to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers’ money is being used to protect New Zealand jobs, not jobs that have been or will be transferred overseas?
The member is jumping to conclusions in assuming there will be any bail-outs from this Government at this point. If there were any, then there would be conditions, of course, and we would expect New Zealand jobs to be maintained, but the member should not jump to conclusions.
Nathan GuyThe Government has taken a number of measures, and will continue to take even more, but at this point we have overseen the wholesale funding and retail deposit guarantee schemes, tax cuts will come in on 1 April 2009, and we have introduced a small to medium sized enterprise package worth $480 million. Can I say there has been an overwhelming response from the small to medium sized enterprise sector thanking us for that well-targeted package. We are bringing forward expenditure on infrastructure of $483 million, and my good colleague Mr English just made reference to the packages that will be delivered through the changes to be made to the Resource Management Act. There will, of course, be the Job Summit, on 27 February, and more measures may well come from that.
Does Mr English—his good colleague, I think he said—support his assurance to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that the firm would not be allowed to fail, or are Mr English’s comments, as reported in the Dominion Post this morning, just further evidence of his view that while Mr Key floats from cloud to cloud, Mr English makes the real decisions?
Firstly, no assurance has been given to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it will not be allowed to fail. Those are the facts of life. Mr Mallard’s running around the press gallery, trying to tell its members that something was said on Radio New Zealand National that was not said, is just a further example that Mr Mallard makes it up as he goes along.
I seek leave of the House to table this document, which says that Mr Key says allowing Fisher and Paykel Appliances to fail would be unacceptable.
Mr SPEAKERThe member will sit down. Leave is sought to table a document from a blog site. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Yes, I have seen other measures, and members will be relieved to know that I do not look just at blog sites to see those measures. I have seen a report from Ruth Dyson, who said last year, when the largest quarterly decline in employment for 19 years had taken place: “Oh well, I don’t think that this is bad news at all, actually.” I have also seen a report from the Opposition finance spokesman, who apparently is developing his own suite of measures to address growing unemployment. He said that New Zealanders will be delighted to know that he intends to release that report some time before the next election.
Is the Prime Minister telling the House that his comment quoted on NewZealand.co.uk that letting Fisher and Paykel Appliances fail would be unacceptable is therefore inaccurate?
I think the member should read out the whole quote. The question was whether, if an offshore company—I think it was in reference to—wanted to come into New Zealand, we might look at changing the rules. The answer was that I think failure there is unacceptable. No assurances have been given to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it will not be allowed to fail. That does not mean that the Government does not reserve the right to look at whether there are things we can do.
How many companies are on the list of businesses that the Prime Minister referred to on 21 January as being those that the taxpayer could be asked to bail out, how much is he prepared to spend on bailing out such companies, and where will he draw the line between which companies will be bailed out and which companies will be allowed to collapse?
There is no list of companies to bail out; there is advice from Treasury of sensitivities within the market and challenges that companies could face. There is no long list of companies to bail out.
I seek leave to table a document that is headed “Key has business bailout list”. Is the media wrong again?