1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
What is the plan he said yesterday he has to mitigate rising unemployment and why, after 7 months, has he still not announced it?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
I am glad that the member asked me that question, actually, because there is a wide-ranging plan on this side of the House to take the sharpest edges off the recession. Parts of those plans have already been outlined. There will be $30 billion worth of borrowing to take the rough edges off the recession, $500 million for infrastructure, $500 million going to the small to medium sized enterprise sector—
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not like to interrupt, but this is the first question of the day, which has been put down on notice. Presumably, the House is interested in the answer. I have not heard anything from the first sentence on, given the barracking from the party that asked the question. I think those members are surprised that the Prime Minister does have a plan, and I am interested—
Mr SPEAKERThe member has gone quite far enough. I think the point he raises is relevant. I admit that my ears are not functioning properly at the moment, and I apologise to the House for that. I could not hear what the Prime Minister was saying, so I ask that interjections be a little more reasonable.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Of course, the $323 million that went into the home insulation fund budget delivered a credit upgrade, not a downgrade, which is what we would have got from Labour. There have been changes to legislation and regulations that have seen 90-day probationary periods and a balanced response to climate change. The Resource Management Act will be changed under this Government. There is the 9-day working fortnight, the ReStart programme, lifting productivity—and there will be a lot more to come. This is a Government that is working hard for the people of New Zealand.
Is it part of the Government’s plan to mitigate rising unemployment by sacking hundreds of workers in the public sector, including the sacking yesterday of 18 community social workers involved in early intervention, detection, and prevention of child abuse, which child advocates have said has put children’s lives at risk?
As is so often the case with the Leader of the Opposition, he was a day late in asking a question. His deputy asked that question yesterday. I will give him the same answer. The 18 people who were involved in awareness of child abuse will be replaced by 21 people who will act on prevention of child abuse. This party and this Government campaigned on moving resources from the back office to the front office. There has been widespread support for that move out there in the community.
How high is the Prime Minister prepared to allow the unemployment rate to go in the Māori and Pacific Island communities—it is currently running at 12 percent and 13 percent—before he is prepared to take targeted action to prevent the huge social and economic costs of unemployment in those particular communities?
Firstly, I lament the loss when any New Zealander loses his or her job, not just Māori and Pacific Island New Zealanders. Secondly, we need to acknowledge that there are higher levels of unemployment with Māori and Pacific Island New Zealanders, and that has been the case for a very, very long period of time. Thirdly, there are targeted actions that we are taking around training, but I make just one point—
There are actually a number of good things coming. But I make this one point: Mr Goff is being dishonest with the New Zealand public.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is grossly unparliamentary language from the Prime Minister and it does not help with the free flow of question time.
I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that statement. He cannot allege that another member is being dishonest.
I withdraw. The Leader of the Opposition is being quite economical with the truth when it comes to New Zealanders. No one can magic away a recession. It is not the case in the United States, where the unemployment rate is 9.4 percent, and it is not the case in the European Union, where the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. So to believe and portray that anyone can magic away a recession like that is being quite economical with the truth. If that were the case—I make this one point—in 1986 the unemployment rate—[ Interruption]
I hesitate to stand when the Prime Minister is on his feet but I want to hear the last of the Prime Minister’s answer. I hope it will be relevant.
Hon Peter DunneI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last thing I heard the Prime Minister say was “1986”; we have not heard anything since that. If he repeats the answer, I ask that he please repeat it from that point onwards.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might facilitate progress if the Prime Minister were able to restrict himself to the current century.
If I could just take members back to a time when Phil Goff was the new face of the Labour Party, back in 1986. Back then he was the Minister of Employment, and under his watch the unemployment rate went from 42,000 to 149,000 people. When he gets his magic wand out, he should go and give it to someone else, because it obviously did not work for him when he was the Minister of Employment.
Chris TremainHas the Prime Minister seen any reports of employment Ministers being able to reverse the trend of rising unemployment during a deep recession?
No. Two of the least successful employment Ministers in that regard were Phil Goff and Annette King. I took a moment last night to read some of the Leader of the Opposition’s memoirs.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to rule on whether the Prime Minister in his reply, which we can now hear, is answering in an area for which he is responsible.
I think it is a perfectly fair point the honourable member has made. I caution the Prime Minister not to wander too far out of areas of his responsibility.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked whether he had received any reports. If he has received a report, clearly—and he has received that report as the Prime Minister—it is within his responsibility. To suggest otherwise diminishes the Opposition’s ability, or anyone’s ability, to ask questions of Ministers.
I do not need any further assistance on this matter. The Prime Minister was asked about reports. The honourable member is quite right. The Prime Minister identified those reports and gave the House some information from them. But then he started to comment on the people involved at the time. That is the bit that is outside his ministerial responsibility.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question accepted asked whether the Prime Minister has seen any reports of employment Ministers being able to reverse the trend of rising unemployment during a deep recession. Naturally, he would go back to the last deep recession, and would want to contrast the way the current Government is handling things with the successive employment Ministers in office at the time, who are, of course, the current Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Labour Party. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I remind you of two things, Mr Speaker. The first is that quite recently in this House, people who have relitigated your rulings have got into serious trouble. We have now had two Ministers who have done that, again without being stopped. The second point is that if one could take that sort of ruling and have things being within the area of the Prime Minister’s responsibility, we would have had a lot more questions for the Prime Minister on the Worth affair than we have to date.
I thank the honourable member. The situation is very simple and straightforward. Where a Minister is asked about reports, of course the Minister can comment on those reports and provide information on them. But where it is not within the Minister’s ministerial responsibility, the Minister cannot make comment about the quality or the policies of another party. I ask the Prime Minister to stay within the scope of his responsibility, otherwise I would, as Speaker, have to rule out answers that start to stray outside that territory. I would rather not do that.
I have seen a report from Phil Goff when he was the Minister of Employment. The report made quite interesting reading when I read it last night. It said: “Easy answers and quick-fix solutions exist only in the imaginations of politicians running for election.”
Why did the Budget cut funding to programmes like Career Services, which will lose $12 million over 4 years, and axe funding to Enterprising Communities, when 32,000 15 to 19-year-old New Zealanders are out work—that is, one in five young people who are in the job market are out of work?
The Budget made it quite clear that there is additional funding going into Youth Guarantee, which will provide a great bridge between secondary schools and polytechs, and I think will deliver fantastic results for New Zealanders in an area of tremendous need. I would reject the suggestions that the Leader of the Opposition made.
Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that take a realistic view about unemployment during a recession?
Yes, I have seen a report from 1988 that says: “New jobs take time to emerge. … We would all like recovery, growth and full employment to happen right now. Unfortunately the economy does not work like that.” That quote was from the then Minister of Employment, Phil Goff, or, as he was affectionately known back then, the “Minister of Unemployment”.
Metiria TureiWill the Prime Minister finally adopt more of the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package in light of the World Trade Organization’s statement today that states: “Investing stimulus funds in such sectors as energy efficient technologies, renewable energy, public transport, sustainable agriculture, … ecosystems and biodiversity, reflects the conviction that a green economy can create dynamic new industries, quality jobs, and income growth while mitigating and adapting to climate change and arresting biodiversity decline.”?
The Government is actually addressing many of those issues. We are putting $1.6 billion into transport—including the railway electrification in Auckland starting today—and $36 million into biofuels, and we have put $323 million into home insulation. I think this is a Government that accepts that good environmental policy makes sense, and we are adopting that.
Is the Prime Minister so bereft of any ideas for the future because his officials have spent all of the last 24 hours dredging back 25 years to find out what was happening then?
Well, the reason—[ Interruption] Yes, this is the answer. The reason we look back is that it is very interesting what someone said when he was in control of the reins and completely failed to deliver on the results. But today, as Leader of the Opposition, he is quite happy to believe that we can magic away a recession—the worst recession since 1930.
What analysis did Treasury do on the cost-effectiveness of the national cycleway scheme in producing jobs, and is he prepared to provide the Treasury analysis, oral and written, to members of this Parliament; if not, why not?
Rigorous analysis was done. We do not need to show the Leader of the Opposition the analysis; I can take him on the bike rides, because they are starting soon. They are going to be fantastic and there will be lots of jobs as a result of them.
Will the Prime Minister remove spousal income-testing, which prevents a person who is being made redundant from getting an unemployment benefit, in order to help families through the really difficult times they are experiencing at the present time; if not, why not?
That is a complex issue that we need to consider. It is expensive, and the member will know that there is quite a difficult interaction between the tax system, which is based on individual income; and the welfare system, which for a large part is based on family income. That situation in some senses has been made worse by Working for Families because it is so broad ranging. The member knows that, and I just say to the member that if it was such a great idea, so affordable and so easy, why did the member not do it when the Government had a lot more money hanging around over the last 10 years?