2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he agree with all the comments of his Minister of Labour regarding minimum wage rates for young people?
Rt Hon JOHN KEYWhich view best represents the position of this National Government: Kate Wilkinson’s suggestion that a return to youth rates might be a good idea, or Paula Bennett’s contradictory view that youth rates would not reduce youth unemployment?
I have not seen the context of the statements, and even the member himself said they were suggestions. It would be better to frame it by saying the view of the Government is that it is concerned about high levels of youth unemployment, and we will be announcing policies that will address that.
Why does the National Government not, in order to reduce youth unemployment, focus on upskilling young New Zealanders to meet the critical shortage of skills in this country, rather than wasting time on talking about cutting the wages of young people?
Because we are doing exactly that. That is why we have announced 7,500 youth places; that is why we have looked at implementing and rolling out eight trade academies in New Zealand schools this year; that is why we have a record number of young New Zealanders going to universities, polytechs, and wānangas; and that is why we are working very aggressively through the Budget to allocated $42 million to additional training places.
If the Prime Minister claims that he is “doing exactly that”—to use his words—how does he explain the $90 million cut in this year’s Budget to Youth Training, on top of a $55 million cut in the supplementary estimates last year, cutting skill training so that fewer people are going into skill training now than at any time over the last 5 years?
All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that he is wrong in his facts. But one thing worth looking at is that if one looks in some areas where there was a reduction of training, one sees that that was simply because the completion rates in those courses were so abysmal that no training was actually taking place.
If the Prime Minister claims I am wrong in my facts, does he deny that $57.7 million has been cut from industry training on the basis that the demand for trainees has reduced, $32.9 million has been cut from industry training by industry training organisations dealing with health and safety courses, and Mr Joyce took $55 million out of skill training last year through the supplementary estimates?
No, I cannot confirm those facts. I can confirm that the Government is very focused on having good outcomes. That is the big difference between this Government and the previous Labour Government, which simply threw money—
Grant RobertsonI tell members what is happening: obviously the Labour Party is training people in Te Tai Tokerau, because none of them are here today—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you are aware that there is a cross-party agreement that those people who are concerned about Christchurch are able to be there. We happened to win seats there—
Mr SPEAKERThat is enough of that sort of thing. The Prime Minister erred on two counts. The first was that there is a cross-party agreement that Canterbury members can be looking after the needs of their constituents and treated as present in the House. He also knows that it is not in order to refer to anyone’s absence from the House. The Hon Trevor Mallard erred in his point of order because he put a political statement in his point of order, and that was totally unnecessary. So I guess that is—
If the Prime Minister is worried about youth unemployment, why has he allowed a consistent decline in the intake into apprenticeships since he became the Prime Minister, and why does he not do something about that, instead of looking at cutting the wages paid to young people?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could ask the permission of the House to table a series of documents from the news media, widely reporting the facts that I have just mentioned. You would not normally allow that to be done, but I ask you to consider allowing it on this occasion, as the Prime Minister’s standard answer is to reject the facts that he claims are wrong in what I have been saying to him.
One of the reasons why we do not do that is that the information is readily available to all members of the House. What is more, what is printed in the media may be no more “fact” than anything else. In all my 27 years’ experience in this place, I have found that it is extremely unlikely to be “fact” if it has been printed in the media. That is one reason why we do not table recent newspaper clippings. I realise that the member could be frustrated by that kind of answer, but a Minister is entitled to dispute the information provided in a supplementary question. Ministers should be careful in doing so, and I am sure the Prime Minister will have been careful in doing that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to dispute facts that are available to every member in this House in order to avoid answering a question?
If that was established to be correct, that would be a very serious issue, because the member is suggesting that a Minister not only gave the House incorrect information but also did so in order to impede the business of the House. That is very serious, and that is why Ministers need to be careful if they refute information contained in members’ questions. But we also acknowledge that information in supplementary questions has not been validated. As the Speaker I cannot act as a referee on any of that. Certainly, refuting the information is a valid answer, but if it was to be done simply to avoid answering a question, that would be a very serious issue.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes, I think, to your original response. You were somewhat critical of news media reports and the quality thereof, but in the earlier set of supplementary questions the Leader of the Opposition asked questions of the leader of the National Party using Budget figures that had been tabled in this House, and Mr Key disputed those figures and used that to avoid answering the question.
The member is now getting into a debate on the issue, and I do not want to prolong that. But if Ministers refute information contained in questions, they need to be careful about doing that. I have made it very clear that were it to be established that it was done to avoid answering a question—that is, if it was not correct—and incorrect information was given that impeded the business of the House, then that would be a serious issue. Members have to be careful when making claims in their supplementary questions. I hear all sorts of claims made that even I know may not actually be factual, but I still accept the point that it may be perfectly factual information. If it is refuted, then Ministers need to be careful about doing that.
Does he believe that a young person doing the same job with the same skills should be paid less than an older person, simply because of the younger person’s age?