2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
What evidence does he have to support the statement he made in the House yesterday, “… the Job Summit has and will create thousands of jobs”?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
I can give the member one simple example. One of the initiatives proposed at the Job Summit was to accelerate environmental initiatives for employment and productivity improvements. We have done that through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme, and I am advised that this will supply about 2,000 jobs over the next 4 years.
Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that that programme was a Labour policy that he abolished on becoming Prime Minister, and that he is now implementing a scheme that is one-third the size of it 6 months later?
For a start, what we know about Labour policies is that Labour promises a lot, but does not fund its promises. That is the first thing. The other quite interesting thing is that last week I understand the Minister of Finance challenged the Opposition spokesperson on finance about the billions more going into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the $3 billion going into the Waterview tunnel, and the billions of dollars going into tax cuts and all the other initiatives that this Government is trying to get on top of in order to get our fiscal position in order, and, according to David Cunliffe, they were not policies. No, they are not policies. They are just a wish list, like everything else that comes from Labour.
Is it evidence of the failure of “Mark I” and “Mark II” of the 9-day working fortnight programme that I have received this note from the Department of Labour, which indicates that, given the failure of the first two measures that the Prime Minister implemented, the department is now looking at a third measure, “Mark III”, to try to get that scheme to deliver anything significant at all?
Call me old-fashioned, but I say it is a perverse kind of Opposition that thinks it is a good thing when the country goes on to a 9-day fortnight. We are happy to do it to help companies out, but why would we want to rush on to it? By the way, I remember being in this House just a few months ago when the Opposition was criticising me for doing that programme for Fisher and Paykel Appliances. Well, today Fisher and Paykel Appliances has got its balance sheet in order. The private sector has come to a solution. We have saved an iconic New Zealand company. We are acting on this side of the House.
Jo GoodhewThat is a very good question. The Job Summit is only a small part of the Government’s actions to support jobs during this recession. The most important thing the Government has done for jobs is to maintain its spending on entitlements and public services. This has created a very sizable fiscal stimulus to sustain economic activity in New Zealand, and therefore support jobs. We have done a lot of other things as well, including bringing forward nearly $500 million of capital spending on roads, housing, and school buildings, introducing a tax assistance package for small and medium sized businesses, and avoiding a credit downgrade, which a Labour Government would have almost certainly delivered to New Zealand.
Is the Prime Minister’s “third time lucky” approach to the 9-day working fortnight just evidence of his Government’s ad hoc approach to the soaring rate of unemployment, and evidence of the fact that the Government has no plan at all to keep Kiwis in work?
If we want to see an ad hoc approach to this debate, we should look across at the Leader of the Opposition, who is rapidly turning into the “Phil-who-cried-wolf”. Let me tell members why.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can anticipate what my point of order might be with regard to—
Hon Gerry Brownlee
Mr SPEAKERThis is a point of order. I might say to the honourable member, though, that it should not be a quiz time in which to question the Speaker.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
You know that members of Parliament have to be referred to by their full name. Yesterday you told us about your desire to protect the dignity of the House. I think you would have to argue that the Prime Minister, not by insinuation but directly, used a phrase about an honourable member that was not correct. I wanted to make this intervention because I was surprised that you had not corrected him on that.
Forgive me, but I did not hear the comment. I would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw it, though, if he made an unparliamentary comment.
Certainly, I withdraw it. I should have said the “Philip-Goff-who-cried-wolf”. The reason why I said that is that the Leader of the Opposition has been running around telling people that, in fact, there have been 2,800—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [ Interruption] I am just waiting for it to be quiet, so I can have my point of order heard in silence. I do not mind how long it takes.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
As you know, members of Parliament must withdraw and apologise if requested to do so, and if they qualify the comment in any way then they must withdraw from the Chamber.
The member will resume his seat. I asked the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment, because I did not hear it. I asked him to withdraw the comment; I did not ask him to apologise. He withdrew his statement, and I am satisfied by that.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
That is not what I was saying. My point of order referred to the fact that once members have withdrawn a comment they are not meant to relitigate or refer to what you have asked them to do. No sooner had the Prime Minister withdrawn his comment than he straight away qualified what he had said by saying “I should have said”, and then he repeated the other phrase in a slightly modified form. In fact, the member concerned is not known as Philip Goff in the Chamber, so the Prime Minister compounded the original transgression. The second point is that previously when members have not withdrawn fully and left it at that, you have asked them to leave the Chamber. That was not the case on this occasion—not that I think he should leave the Chamber.
Hon Rodney HideDarren Hughes was quite right on his first point of order, and you correctly asked the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment. But it is getting a bit prissy for this Parliament to suggest that members cannot say “Phil-Goff-who-cried-wolf”. If that is going to be ruled out of order, my goodness, what can we say, and just how sensitive is the Leader of the Opposition?
I thank the honourable members. I accept the point from the Hon Darren Hughes, and I say to the Prime Minister that the name the honourable Leader of the Opposition goes by is the Hon Phil Goff, and that name should be used. Has the Prime Minister finished his answer? The Prime Minister was interrupted by a point of order.
If anyone is guilty of making ad hoc statements, it is the Leader of the Opposition. He has been running around saying that in the building sector 2,800 apprentices have been laid off. He is right, but that was for the 14 months to March this year, and for 9 of those 14 months Labour was in Government.
Metiria TureiHas the Prime Minister seen the report Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation, which shows that for every dollar he spends on new motorways he could create 40 percent more jobs if he spends it on bus infrastructure, bus and train services, walking and cycling infrastructure, and road maintenance, and is that not exactly the kind of spending that his Government likes, that commuters, particularly in Auckland, want, and that is good spending that our environment needs?
Two things seem to be lost on the member: first, we are spending $1.6 billion more on public transport, including the electrification of trains in Auckland; and, second, pretty much every day the Opposition bags me for building a cycleway.
Hon Sir Roger Douglas Link to this
Could the Prime Minister please explain to the Leader of the Opposition that the creation of thousands of well-paying jobs requires an increase in productivity back to the 3 percent rate of the 1984-99 period, instead of the paltry 1 percent rate achieved under Labour?
The member makes an excellent point. On the advice I have, the 2 percent differential over 15 years would increase the average income by 35 percent. That is why the National and ACT parties have sought through their confidence and supply agreement to try to narrow that gap. We will be working very hard with the members of ACT to try to achieve that outcome.
Is it crying wolf to point out to the Prime Minister that since his Job Summit 16,000 Kiwis have lost their jobs, that since his Budget 4,000 New Zealanders have lost their jobs, and that all the Prime Minister’s department could do yesterday was have officials scramble around to find 32 additional jobs that have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight, which is less than 10 percent of the jobs lost each day?
I have three very quick points. The first is that we have always argued that in the worst recession since 1930 unemployment would rise, and it is rising in every country. Second, the only reason we would be going out there to get more information is to put some accuracy into the debate. It may be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition to learn that tomorrow the Tertiary Education Commission will be releasing its latest statistics on apprenticeships. The member may be interested to know that far from shrinking, the number of apprenticeships grew by 4 percent in the first quarter. There are now 133,000 industry training graduates receiving support from the Government. That is a record level. Third, one thing we know for sure is that if we had followed the Phil Goff plan of seeing New Zealand’s credit rating downgraded, which would have happened if Labour was running the country, thousands and thousands of New Zealanders would have lost their jobs.
New Zealand has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD, despite all countries experiencing the same global recession. The unemployment rate in New Zealand is currently 5 percent; in comparison, in Australia it is 5.7 percent, in the United Kingdom it is 7.2 percent, in the eurozone area as a whole it is 9.2 percent; and in the United States it is 9.4 percent. This shows that we are doing a good job in New Zealand of holding down the growth in unemployment, despite this being the worst recession since 1930.
How many jobs will the Prime Minister’s cycleway proposal create in the next year, over which time, according to Treasury and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, 60,000 to 70,000 extra New Zealanders will lose their jobs?
Well, what I can say is that in years to come New Zealanders will look back at the cycleway and realise what a great addition it was to New Zealand’s tourism. What is more, if Opposition members do not believe in the cycleway, I challenge them to rip it up if they ever become the Government one day.
Funnily enough, I have. I have seen reports that between April 1987 and August 1989 employment as measured by the household labour force survey—
Opposition members do not want to hear this, but let me repeat that between April 1987 and August 1989 unemployment as measured by the household labour force survey rose from 70,000 to 119,000. Also, between 1987 and 1989 the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit almost doubled, rising from 64,000 to 124,000. That was the exact period when the Minister of Employment in New Zealand was the Hon Phil Goff.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement yesterday that roads are a form of public transport; if so, does he not accept that if commuters who want to leave their cars at home have access to adequate bus and train services, their cars will not be on those roads and there will be enough room on the existing roads for those who need to use them?
In answer to the latter part of the question, no, I do not accept that there would be enough roads if we did not build any more. Secondly, I say if the member goes and has a look at, say, the busway in Auckland, she will see that that road is used as a very effective form of public transport.
Why has the Prime Minister been doing nothing while one in five young New Zealanders has gone straight from school to the dole queue—20 percent of all teenage New Zealanders?
Far from doing nothing, we have actually delivered a Budget that saw a credit rating upgrade in New Zealand, as opposed to the downgrade that Labour would have delivered. Secondly, one of the fastest ways for a bit more infrastructure to be built in New Zealand would be for the Resource Management Act to be reformed. I challenge the Labour Opposition to vote for the reform that is to go through this House in a few weeks. One of the fastest ways to make sure that industry in New Zealand can get a foot up and continue to operate in New Zealand would be to have a balanced emissions trading scheme. I challenge the Opposition to vote for that. One of the fastest ways to see youngsters get an opportunity was the introduction of the 90-day probationary employment period. I am very sorry that the Opposition did not vote for that. I could go on for hours, because this has been a very busy Government.
John BoscawenFar from doing nothing, as the Leader of the Opposition just alleged, does the Prime Minister agree that crucial to achieving higher paying jobs in New Zealand is higher productivity growth, and that this will be provided for by the soon-to-be-announced 2025 commission?
The member is absolutely right. To quote the Opposition, the reason that help is on its way is that over the last decade productivity collapsed under the previous Labour Government to one of the lowest levels that we have seen. That is why we have a new Government; that is why we are focused on raising productivity.
Funnily enough, I have. I saw a report on an employment conference organised by a former Minister of Employment, Phil Goff, in February 1989. This is really interesting reading, actually. Mr Goff said at the time that the public should not expect any major new employment schemes to emerge from the conference, and that no amount of further education or participation in retraining schemes could guarantee employment for New Zealand’s jobless. The conference was, as described by the National Business Review, “a total flop”. The only concrete thing to come out of Mr Goff’s all-day talkfest on unemployment was the creation of another Cabinet committee. By the time Mr Goff was voted out in 1990, the unemployment rate had risen by 150 percent. [ Interruption] I know the Leader of the Opposition is negative on these things, because he does not know how to run one. But ours was quite good.
Given the very limited uptake of the 9-day working fortnight, why did the Prime Minister decide to sack 1,400 decent, hard-working public servants, instead of making the 9-day working fortnight available to people in the public sector and having one standard for all citizens?
Firstly, I challenge that number from the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly, we know that the Leader of the Opposition shoots first and then asks for a bit more detail later on. We will go away and look at that; it is not the advice that I have had. I know this is lost on the Opposition, but this is the worst recession since 1930. The Minister of Finance will have an economy that will produce $50 billion less revenue over the next 3 years. The Government has to tighten its belt and get on top of the issues. We are doing that in a responsible way, and I think New Zealanders support us in that.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table a document. It is the Department of Labour’s weekly report to its Ministers indicating that its employers are now working on “Mark III” of the 9-day working fortnight. It is still trying to get it right.
I seek leave of the House to table a document entitled Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation. It shows how expanding urban highways exacerbates future transport problems and threatens future economic productivity—