2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statement last week that “the Government has to tighten its belt and get on top of the issues. We are doing that in a responsible way …”?
Hon JOHN KEYWhat action will the Prime Minister take to help the iconic Line 7 clothing company, given his inconsistent approach when he did nothing to help another iconic clothing company, Lane Walker Rudkin, but he boasted last week in the House that the Government had saved an iconic company in reference to Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd?
I am glad the Leader of the Opposition raised the last bit of his question, because when I stood up and tried to do something for Fisher and Paykel Appliances, the Leader of the Opposition bagged me. It is actually a company that went on the 9-day working fortnight, and has managed to sort out its financial position from there. In relation to Line 7, I say that the Government has had no approach from the company.
The member should pay attention; I am giving him the answer, if he wants it. If the company wants to approach us we are quite happy, of course, to look at the circumstances, but it is worth remembering that 19 years ago Line 7 was brought out of receivership. If this company is to continue I hope that it can be brought out of receivership as well, because it employs 100 people and we do not want to see it lost.
Why did the Prime Minister, Bill English, and Paula Bennett all refuse to front up to the Television New Zealand programme Sunday last week to explain why they had axed Enterprising Communities, given the fact that Enterprising Communities has a proven track record of success in getting young people into work and training?
Hon Clayton CosgroveWell, I am not, because I get a lot of them. What I can say in relation to the Enterprising Communities scheme is that by and large it was set up for 3 years of funding. At the end of that, the schemes were meant to be sustainable. The vast bulk of them have not been. In the case of Ōtorohanga, that has been successful; we acknowledge that. It got an additional year’s funding, and in all likelihood it will be funded in the future when its funding matures in November.
Why did the Prime Minister axe Enterprising Communities, which had a proven track record of success, yet he has found $35 million for boot camps, which have a proven track record of failure?
Firstly, I would not agree with the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the first statement he made. It was 3-year funding that was meant to be sustainable and it did not prove to be sustainable. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition saying that he does not think that boot camps or programmes that have a bit of structure and discipline to them are any good, because funnily enough, in 1996 Phil Goff said that “Labour would also encourage young offenders into the armed services to gain discipline, self-esteem and trade qualifications.” Excellent idea!
Chris TremainWhat other reports has the Prime Minister seen about Government responses to tough economic conditions?
I have seen a report from a Minister of a previous Government facing debt and the threat of credit downgrades, who supported the decision to impose a surtax on older New Zealanders: “It is true that the Labour Party said that a Labour Government would not cut superannuation. Frankly, to have sustained that point of view against all the evidence would have been totally irresponsible.” That statement was from none other than Phil Goff. Well, we are facing tough international times, but unlike when that member was a Minister, older New Zealanders can know that their superannuation is safe under this Government.
Mr SPEAKERWhy did the Government cut $2.5 million designed to provide therapy assistance to the most disabled kids in our community, while providing $35 million to help the most advantaged kids in our community going to private schools, when he claims that this Budget was about helping the most vulnerable?
We cut the $2.5 million, I suppose, because we put in an additional $51 million, which is the greatest increase that has been seen in funding for special-needs kids. You see, the trouble with the Leader of the Opposition is that one cannot rely on any of the figures he uses in this House. Just last week he said in this House that a third of all new money—and I quote from him—going into tax cuts applies to just 3 percent of taxpayers. He said it was just the top 3 percent. Well, I thought that that sounded a bit odd so I went off to the Inland Revenue Department and asked what the real number is. The real number is that 3.2 percent of taxpayers—
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition’s question was about education matters. The Prime Minister is now giving us a recitation on revenue policy. There is no connection between the question and the answer.
The honourable member will note that the primary question is very wide in what it asks. I accept the point that he made, though, that the Leader of the Opposition’s question was specifically about education matters. I think the Prime Minister should probably conclude his answer right there. I take it that he has concluded.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific: why did he cut $2.5 million from funding for disabled kids. He went on at length about other matters and he never answered the question.
Actually, as I heard the Prime Minister, he disputed the allegation in the honourable member’s question. I recollect that the Prime Minister told the House in his answer that more money had been added to that funding. So by disputing the allegation made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I believe that is a very fair answer, a real answer to the question.
We will have the $2.5 million back, then. Does he stand by the statement made by his Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy that cutting $2.5 million—which she acknowledged had been cut, even if the Prime Minister will not—from funding for severely disabled children would “have no adverse effect on the children”, and has he asked her why she has refused to front up to the parents of those severely disabled children to explain why those cuts have been made and to listen to the vicious effect that those cuts will have on those vulnerable children?
Yes, because the Associate Minister knew that the Government had put in $51 million extra. That is why she was confident. She was a lot more confident than these numbers from the Leader of the Opposition, who just cannot get it right when it comes to tax and should be honest enough to admit that he got it wrong and misled New Zealanders.
How does the Prime Minister justify the budget for ministerial support and staffing services jumping by more than $1 million a month—from $1.844 million in December 2007 to February 2008, to $2.955 million a month in December 2008 to February 2009—when elsewhere in the Public Service he has cut staffing numbers by more than 1,400?
Well, back in 2004-05 the Ministerial Services budget was $45.518 million. In the last year of Labour’s term in office, which would be 4 years on, it rose to $63 million and this year it will be $61 million. We have value for money on this side of the House.
John BoscawenHow do the costs of his travel compare with the previous Government’s entrepreneurial excursion into the train business?