2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
When will New Zealanders see any concrete results in terms of jobs saved or created as a result of last Friday’s Job Summit?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
New Zealanders have already seen concrete action. They would have noticed last week that the ASB Bank announced a $1 billion job creation fund. Last week at the Job Summit, Stephen Tindall and the University of Auckland both generously agreed to offer $1 million for schemes to help keep workers in place. I think that the Leader of the Opposition might want to be parading tough in Parliament this afternoon, but when he was on the radio just the other day he was saying that he thought the Job Summit was a very good idea.
Is one of the big ideas to emerge from the summit—that of the 9-day working fortnight—in effect a 10 percent cut in wages for the workers concerned; or is it the Prime Minister’s intention that employers and the Government will provide some offset in terms of income assistance, so that the full burden does not simply fall on the worker?
I can confirm that one of the ideas coming out of the summit was the 9-day fortnight. I can also confirm that at 12.30 tomorrow afternoon Rob Fyfe, Helen Kelly, and representatives of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand, and the Industry Training Federation will be coming in to have discussions with Ministers about the workability of a 9-day fortnight. I can also confirm that even if workers are to take a reduction in their pay, we have always made the case that it might be a lot better for workers to hold hands and for all of them to keep their jobs, even if on a slightly reduced pay, than for some of them to lose their jobs.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question, as you will be aware, was very straightforward: is this big idea actually just a 10 percent cut in wages for workers, or will the Prime Minister offset that? That is a very straightforward question. Neither of those points was addressed in his answer.
Mr SPEAKERI think that if the member were to think back to his question, he would remember he had an earlier part to his question that was answered. He cannot insist on the Prime Minister answering more than one part of the question. The member has the opportunity to ask more supplementary questions; I invite him to do so.
How did the Prime Minister reach the calculation that to build a cycleway would create 4,000 jobs at a cost of $50 million, when simple mathematics suggests that that represents $6,250 per job and takes no account of overheads or materials?
That was the advice I received from people who had had a quick look at it. But the Leader of the Opposition will be aware that we now have officials working on the cost and jobs of that particular idea. I think that it is an idea with quite some merit.
Rahui KateneWhat actions will be taken to implement recommendation 7 from the Job Summit—namely, to ensure that Government services to Māori deliver effective results?
Ministers will be working closely with our ministerial colleagues in the Māori Party to ensure that Government services are delivering for Māori, and we will be doing so because we acknowledge and recognise that Māori are at risk of being the group that is most heavily affected by the recession. If we look at the shape and structure of the Māori economy, we see that about 60 percent of that economy is outward-facing because of its exposure to forestry, fisheries, and agriculture. We also acknowledge that Māori workers are disproportionately represented in low-paid and unskilled jobs. Therefore, it is very important that the Government gets its responses correct.
Was the Prime Minister’s answer to the first supplementary question that the 9-day working fortnight was, in fact, a 10 percent reduction in wages, without any offsetting assistance by way of income support from the Government or employers? Was his answer to the second supplementary question that yes, the mathematics was absolutely wrong and this was a half-baked idea that he had not thought through?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to contemplate what you just said. It is not your role to—
The member will resume his seat. Experienced members like the Leader of the Opposition know they are entitled to ask only a single supplementary question. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked two distinct questions. I could have pulled him up for doing that; instead, I tried to make my point by inviting the Prime Minister to answer one of the two distinct questions.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will find that if you look at a large number of rulings and a vast amount of practice—not the least of which are under the previous Government and the previous Opposition—many multiple questions were asked. There is nothing to prevent a member asking multiple questions. A Minister is required to answer only one of those questions. A Minister is not required to answer more than one of those questions, but may answer more than one if he or she chooses to do so.
I appreciate the honourable member’s point, but the point does not make my ruling wrong. The Prime Minister could well indicate that he wants to answer both questions, and the Speaker could allow him to do that. The point I was making is that he is required to answer only one of those two questions. They were two such distinct questions, and that I think is something we need to avoid when asking supplementary questions.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to rise again, but I think there is something of a danger creeping in here. Your ruling is quite correct, but I think the issue is whether there is a necessity for you to keep saying it on each occasion, rather than assuming that Ministers will know that those provisions are in the Standing Orders. I am sure they do know that, because they have been well briefed on that particular Standing Order. To use the rugby analogy, if the whistle was not blown more frequently than was perhaps necessary, one could allow the advantage to flow.
Hon Rodney HideI think the issue with the question is this: Dr Cullen knows that it is quite in order to ask a question with two limbs, but they have to be limbs on the same tree. What we had with the Leader of the Opposition’s question was two different trees. I do not think that is acceptable, because that is asking two questions, not one question with two limbs.
I will hear the issue, because it is in the interests of the good order of the House that there is some understanding of how this is to be handled.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I think Mr Hide’s point was in some danger of being a legless contribution to the point in front of us. The member’s supplementary question clearly and directly arose out of previous answers by the Prime Minister. It is actually impossible to distinguish between supposed limbs and supposed trees. In any case, there were obviously two parts to the question—the point that you quite properly raised, Mr Speaker. The point I am raising is that Ministers can be left to their own devices to answer one or more questions as they choose. It is only if a member on this side of the House or some other member raises a point of order to say that the Minister addressed only one of those questions that you would quite rightly rule that the Minister had to address only one of the questions.
Hon Peter DunneI just want to pick up on Dr Cullen’s point, because I think he goes to the nub of the issue. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 159/6 and Speakers’ ruling 159/7. Speakers’ ruling 159/6 makes it clear that the opportunity to ask about two presumably unrelated matters in a supplementary question is not permitted, and Speakers’ ruling 159/7 makes it clear that if members ask multiple questions they run the risk of Ministers answering the parts that they regard as less important. I think that there is some merit in this. In this instance, the Leader of the Opposition clearly asked two unrelated questions, but equally the Minister could have simply made the choice as to which part he wished to answer. I am not sure that we need to keep drawing attention to the number of legs and the number of parts. I think members know full well what the rules are. I think that Dr Cullen’s point actually had some merit.
I thank honourable members. Members will be aware that I have been trying to assist the Opposition in holding the executive to account by requiring Ministers to answer questions. In that endeavour it is obviously helpful if questions are more simple, because then it is more possible to discern whether they have been answered. Of course, just as we do not want questions to be too long, we also do not want answers to be too long. It would be in the interests of the good order of the House if we could move more towards asking a single supplementary question. On this particular occasion, as the Hon Peter Dunne has pointed out, Speaker’s ruling 159/6 does make it clear that two separate matters cannot be asked in a single supplementary question. It was my view that the honourable Leader of the Opposition did ask about two separate matters in that supplementary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that was your view, then your ruling should have ruled out one or other of the questions—you made that clear—rather than coaching the Government as to how to answer it.
The honourable member has been in the House a long time and I think it is unreasonable, where two unrelated questions are asked, to expect the Speaker to choose which one should be answered. I think a bit of common sense is needed here.
My answer to the earlier question was the answer I gave when I gave it. It is not for me to interpret it; it is for the Leader of the Opposition to do so.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The initial questions were both quite specific. They were simple, as you have suggested. In both cases I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that an attempt was not made to address the question. Mr Speaker, you then invited me to put the question again. I did precisely that, and you heard the answer. The answer made no effort at all to answer the substantive points in the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is absolutely a new issue. During that point of order, while the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, the Prime Minister interjected. You did nothing. Could you do something, please.
If a 9-day working fortnight is adopted, will the entire burden of that fall on the worker losing 10 percent of his or her wages, or will supplementary assistance be given by the Government or by employers to offset that income loss?
What is the current status of the New Zealand Skills Strategy developed by Business New Zealand, the Council of Trade Unions, and the Industry Training Federation, and how does he intend to progress that strategy in order to assist skills training?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it your advice to the House that if a person does not know the answer to a question, he or she is simply to say—
The Prime Minister was still answering the question. I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat a question a moment ago, and I asked him to be reasonable and fair in terms of the balance in this House.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While you were on your feet giving a ruling, the Minister for Social Development and Employment repeatedly interjected on you. This is a matter that the Opposition has raised with you, and it is the second time a Government member has done it. I want to be given an understanding of what the rules will be this afternoon.
I must confess to having been very focused on the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, and therefore I did not hear anything going on in the background. Having not heard the interjection I say I cannot rule on it, but I ask members to not interject during points of order. The honourable Prime Minister was answering the question.
In relation to the basic point about training anyway, I just make one point. It is that as Business New Zealand pointed out in its press release today—because training was such a big part of the summit—there was a remarkable degree of consensus between business, unions, and the Government on those ideas. We are now bringing them to fruition.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, the question, as you have suggested, was very specific. It was “What is the current status of the New Zealand Skills Strategy … ?”. Either the Prime Minister can address that or, if he does not know what it is, he should simply acknowledge that and—
The Prime Minister did answer about skills training, and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to ask a further supplementary question if he wishes to.
You see, this is the difference. It is quite interesting, is it not? This is the difference between the National Government and the now Labour Opposition. Labour knows all about strategies, because for 9 years it devised strategies; it just did not have any action.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be appropriate that a straight and non-political question is answered with bluff and bluster, but I do not think it is. I asked what the status is of the New Zealand Skills Strategy—
The member will be seated. I ask the House to consider this. We are getting ourselves into some trouble here today, because members are interjecting loudly during points of order. That is absolutely, totally out of order. I accept that there is frustration in the House, though, because I believe that points of order are being used very liberally today. I have given the honourable member the chance to repeat a question earlier. I believe the Prime Minister did answer that question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the Leader of the Opposition; I accept that. But he does have further supplementary questions and he can ask a further supplementary question, should he choose to do so.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition was concluding his comments and you rose to your feet, I think it was Mr Chester Borrows who yelled out: “Sit down.” I do not know whether he was saying that to Mr Goff, who was raising a point of order, or to you, as you were actually standing up. In either case, it was out of order. I think it is time that a strict approach was taken on interjections, even though that may affect some of my own colleagues during points of order.
The member makes a very good point. The honourable Leader of the Opposition should have sat down sooner than he did when I got to my feet, but I warn honourable members that they must not interject or I will have to ask them to stand, withdraw, and apologise for such interjections during points of order. I do not want to waste the time of the House, though.
I seek leave to table the New Zealand Skills Strategy, so that the Prime Minister can be better informed.
Hon Paula BennettI will ask the honourable Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise for interjecting during a point of order.
We are still under a point of order. The senior whip may not have realised that his own leader, under a point of order, has sought leave to table a document. The senior whip may just acknowledge the position of his leader in seeking leave. Leave has been sought to table a document that purports to be a skills strategy. Is there any objection to that document being tabled?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the Government is in so much trouble that it likes some light relief to be provided, but I have to object to your saying something “purports to be a skills strategy.” This is the New Zealand Skills Strategy, which was agreed between the Council of Trade Unions, Business New Zealand, the Industry Training Federation, and the Government, and it should be being put in place right now, during this recession, as a matter of priority.
Honourable members, the dilemma is that although it is claimed to be a Government document it may not be a Government document, so I suggest to the honourable member that where leave is being sought, it should describe the document exactly. Now if the honourable member wants to re-describe it, I ask whether it is a document of the previous Labour Government. If that is the case, the House has a right to know that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When, as Speaker, you say it “purports to be”, you draw the inference that it may be something else, which draws an inference about my honesty in tabling it. I think you should reconsider that wording.
If I have caused offence to the member, I apologise. I would ask him therefore to re-describe the document, so that the House can be absolutely clear what it is. If it is a Government document, the member must say it is a Government document, so that we know exactly what it is.
Hon Bill English—between Business New Zealand, the Council of Trade Unions, and the Industry Training Federation, together with the Government. That is the document that the Prime Minister is obviously unaware of, and I seek leave to table it.
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection to that document being tabled.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked the Leader of the Opposition to describe in full the document. While he was doing that, the Deputy Prime Minister interjected. I want to ask again whether there are rules that used to apply, or—
The member will resume his seat. He may recollect that I did not take action against his own party’s senior whip when he interjected on a point of order that was being raised by his own leader.
I think the House should just take a deep breath. We move on to question No 3, in the name of Craig Foss.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, you may have inadvertently misunderstood or misled the House. At the time that my colleague interjected, I had resumed my seat. That was very clear to me from where I am sitting.
Hon Simon PowerFollowing on from the approach that the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen have taken during this question time regarding people interjecting on points of order, we now have the situation where the Leader of the Opposition interjected on you, Mr Speaker, while you were on your feet.
I thank the honourable member. That is why I suggested that the House take a deep breath. The honourable Leader of the Opposition might note that a point of order does not cease when the member who is making the point of order resumes his or her seat. The point of order continues to be under the consideration of the House until a ruling is made by the Speaker. Just because the Leader of the Opposition had resumed his seat, that gave no right to his senior whip to interject on that point of order, because it had not been dealt with. The member should know that. I invite the House to come to question No 3, in the name of Craig Foss.