3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
How many jobs have resulted from his Job Summit held in February 2009?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
That is impossible to tell. In some cases we can estimate the number of jobs created by a Government initiative. For example, over 2,000 jobs were created by the home insulation fund. However, we have no way of knowing about the jobs that were created or saved in the private sector as a result of the summit. All we know is that it was a success, and was welcomed by the parties.
Does he recall telling New Zealanders that around 30,000 jobs would be created or saved from the big ideas generated from his Job Summit, when in reality fewer than 3,000 have eventuated, so can he now tell the House on what basis he made that exaggerated claim; was it to look as though he was doing something about the plight of the unemployed, or was it just another kite to be flown?
Firstly, I would need to see the source document, because we know Labour members come into the House and make things up, as they did in the first question.
Mr SPEAKERI think that is a fair objection and the Prime Minister should refrain from saying that in an answer.
We know that from time to time things are not necessarily the way that they are presented in the House by Labour members, who make things up. What I can say—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think maybe because of the angle of the Prime Minister you did not hear him, but I did hear him repeat the comment that you asked him not to make.
I heard the Prime Minister’s comment. He was subject to some interjection and provocation at the time, and I think that under such circumstances members invite reactions from other members.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now saying your rulings about what you are—
Let me clarify my point. In answering the member’s question, to me it was unacceptable to make that statement. When provoked by interjection, it is a different matter, and I saw that as two totally different situations. I maintain that it is unacceptable in answering a question, unless the question is highly provocative, to launch an attack on the questioner or the questioner’s party, and that it why I ruled in favour of the member’s first point of order. The second issue is that the Prime Minister was then faced with a barrage of interjections. I believe that is a different circumstance.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a statement of fact. In question No. 1 the Leader of the Opposition came to the House and he did not have a quote from me. He then paraphrased and said that that was what I had said to people. If he comes to the House and says he will contrast quotes from me, he needs to have the quotes; otherwise I can just make up whatever I like that I think the Leader of the Opposition might have said.
We will not take this matter any further; I have taken it as far as I intend and there is no point in taking it any further. I think both sides have had the opportunity to make points, and there is no point in taking this any further. I have made my ruling that Ministers should not attack questioners in answers unless the question is highly provocative. I think the Prime Minister takes that on board. Likewise, I think it is in members’ interest, when asking questions that are not validated—and supplementary questions are not validated—to be careful not to make claims that are not valid. I think we can all learn from that.
Does he recall telling New Zealanders that around 4,000 jobs would be created from the national cycleway, a big idea from his summit, when in reality around 56 have been generated so far, with most of them being jobs that last between 3 weeks and 14 weeks, and does he agree that the whole project is increasingly looking like a bureaucrat’s dream—lots of meetings, lots of schedules being drawn up, lots of writing of reports, but little action?
There are 18 cycle trails planned. They are being built in conjunction with local government, and they will cover over 2,000 kilometres of New Zealand’s landscape. They have been welcomed from Kaitāia to Bluff, and if Labour members want to campaign on ripping up the cycle trail, they can go ahead.
I asked whether he can recall telling New Zealanders that around 4,000 jobs would be created, and then went on to tell him how many have been created so far. He told us about the plans for the cycleway.
I hear the member, and I think it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could answer with something about jobs.
Over time—well, that is very appropriate—when those 18 cycle trails are completed, my estimate is that there will be a lot more than that.
Does he recall telling New Zealanders that the 9-day working fortnight scheme—a big idea from his summit—would be picked up by between 20,000 and 25,000 people, when in reality only around 600 people have been assisted in this way; if so, was saying there is no need to extend this scheme, which he did this week, an admission of the failure of another big idea from his Job Summit?
There are a number of things in response to that question. Firstly, it is impossible to know how many jobs were saved because of the 9-day fortnight, because many companies used it as a backstop. Secondly, if fewer people did use the 9-day fortnight, then that is to be celebrated, because it means fewer people were losing their jobs. Thirdly, I remember Opposition members getting up to say the unemployment rate would be 10 or 11 percent. The Government has done a lot better than that and the rate is on the way down, which shows the success of the Job Summit.
Jo GoodhewAs I remember, at this time last year there were very real possibilities of large-scale redundancies and mass lay-offs around the country. The Job Summit played an important part in galvanising all the different groups who attended behind the issue of preserving jobs. As it turned out, none of the worst-case scenarios came to pass, and New Zealanders should be very pleased with that. One of the strongest proponents of the Job Summit was no less than the Council of Trade Unions.
In light of the Prime Minister’s answer regarding unemployment, with the Māori unemployment rate having risen from 9.8 percent to 15.4 percent since he became the Prime Minister, what impact does he believe his summit and the $4.5 million spent on a Māori Economic Taskforce are having on these appalling statistics, every one of which is a real person?
There are two things to note. Firstly, when a recession occurs, unquestionably it often hits the least skilled workers the hardest, and a lot of Māori fit within the least skilled category. They have been affected; there is no question about that, although the Māori unemployment rate, like all unemployment rates, is falling at the moment. Secondly, one of the strongest things we can do as a country for Māori in order to make sure that they are protected from future recessions is to ensure they have appropriate literacy and numeracy standards. On the back of that, I hope Annette King will lead the charge from the Opposition for there to be national standards to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of young Māori New Zealanders.
We are now facing a different sort of employment challenge than we did a year ago, especially regarding young people and new entrants to the labour market. That is why the Government’s focus remains squarely on jobs. It is my estimate that the unemployment rate will drop this year. Businesses have reported being positive about hiring new staff over the coming year, and we have already seen the number on the unemployment benefit drop by over 4,000 in the last month. This week’s results were a significant improvement on what everyone was expecting.