3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his denial that 40,000 jobs have been lost since the Job Summit; if so, what advice has he received on the number of jobs lost during this period?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
The Prime Minister stands by his statement; the advice he has received is that no agency routinely collects information on the number of jobs lost in the economy. The member misunderstands what happens with jobs in the economy. Even when employment is growing, tens of thousands of jobs disappear each year, and tens of thousands of new jobs are created. If the member wants to dream up numbers, he would do well to listen to a former Minister of Employment, who said: “I have steadfastly avoided the journalistic game of putting estimates on employment figures. I don’t think it is helpful, and, secondly, I don’t think you can do so with accuracy.” That former Minister of Employment was Phil Goff.
I seek leave to table for the acting Prime Minister the household labour force survey for the March 2009 quarter, which shows that 25,000 jobs have been lost, extrapolated over a deteriorating situation—
Mr SPEAKERWhat, if any, plans or policies does the Prime Minister have in order to stop the number of Kiwis who are losing their jobs from reaching Treasury’s projected figure of nearly 180,000 by next year, or does he simply and complacently accept that more than 2,000 Kiwis each and every week will lose their jobs?
There is no complacency among the Government. In fact, there has been a very focused programme over the whole 9 months that this Government has been in office on creating the conditions that will lead to new, sustainable jobs. I point out that New Zealand enjoys one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the developed world. That is not a bad achievement.
Chris TremainThe Government cannot roll back the effects of the worst coordinated global recession in 60 years, but it has initiated a rolling maul of initiatives to give people the opportunity to keep their jobs or to get new ones. For instance, Fisher and Paykel Appliances’ refrigeration plant now has sufficient orders to enable it—[ Interruption] Members should listen to this; it is a good story. Fisher and Paykel Appliances’ refrigeration plant has sufficient orders to enable it to leave the Government’s Job Support Scheme and return to a normal 40-hour working week.
What advice did the Minister of Finance give to the Prime Minister on the accuracy of his claim that 3,700 jobs could be created by building a cycleway, and on the cost-benefit analysis of the cycleway in terms of the effectiveness of creating jobs—a question that this Minister should be very well capable of answering?
The Prime Minister regularly consults with the Minister of Finance on all aspects of Government policy—in particular on the Government’s programme to create a business environment in which new, sustainable jobs will result from investment, and in which the people who depended on the previous Labour Government’s borrowing-driven, consumption-driven jobs will actually get an opportunity for a real stake in the economy.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will be aware, the question was very specific as to what advice the Minister of Finance gave to the Prime Minister on the accuracy of a particular claim. The Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister did not even attempt to address that question.
With respect, I do not believe that that was the sum total of the member’s question; I believe that it went on beyond that. The Minister did answer that the Prime Minister consults with him on those matters.
Mr Speaker, there were two specific things. If you examine Hansard you will see that for neither specific question did the Minister even attempt to address the question asked.
I will examine Hansard. My judgment was that the question had, in fact, been answered. I will examine Hansard for the benefit of the member, but he has many more supplementary questions to pursue the issue.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might have been a slip of the tongue, but I think you meant to say “address”.
On this occasion, I tell the Hon Trevor Mallard that I will choose to ignore his interjection, but I warn the member that it was not very parliamentary.
I have heard reports that there will be a recession response package. I understand that the first element of the package was to extend the welfare State to higher-income earners, rather than to save a single job. I think the package came from the same party that has found work for the pixies by sending them to the bottom of the garden to print money.
What is the Prime Minister doing to assist the 60 fellmongery workers who lost their jobs yesterday in Dunedin, the 190 workers in Gisborne who lost their jobs through redundancy over the weekend, and the 17 workers in Timaru who were made redundant at Duncan Ag, and what is he saying to them about the effectiveness of this Government’s policies on reducing unemployment?
The Government is doing two things. First, it is providing direct assistance through the Ministry of Social Development to workers who are made redundant. Often, that assistance is provided on-site. In a number of places the assistance has been quite successful in giving workers choices about how they can adapt to their situation. Second, and just as important, the Government is in the process of borrowing $30 billion to $40 billion to pump into the economy to keep it ticking over. The obvious demonstrations of that investment are, for instance, the national insulation plan and the large-scale investment in infrastructure. Those are two Government initiatives that are employing a large number of people.
How will the Prime Minister’s commitment in the Budget to helping the most vulnerable translate into practical action to help those who have lost their job through redundancy, through no fault of their own, who are suffering personal hardship and the risk of losing their home, and who cannot get any assistance if their spouses are still working, albeit on a low income?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very straight question. It did not need personal reflections or abuse as an introduction to answering it.
The member makes a perfectly good point. The Hon Bill English should not commence an answer with such a comment.
Many of the people who are experiencing the hardship the member outlines are experiencing it because they relied on his Government. Those people did not realise that bad economic policy, too much borrowing, too much consumption, and too much Government spending meant that their jobs were unsustainable. When the global recession hit, they found that out. They are paying the price for the previous Labour Government’s economic mismanagement.
Does the Prime Minister believe that in addressing unemployment the Government should learn some lessons from previous recessions?
Yes, and in particular we can learn from the period when there was last a very substantial rise in unemployment, which was between 1987 and 1990, when Phil Goff was the fresh face of the Labour Party. He said then that the real solution to unemployment must lie first in creating an efficient, low-inflation economy that allows New Zealand’s exports and industries such as tourism to be internationally competitive. It is a pity he cannot show the same clear thinking now, 20 years later, as he did then, when he was the fresh face of the Labour Party.