1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Has the Prime Minister met with management of KiwiRail or representatives of railway workshop workers to discuss the building of railway wagons at Hillside workshop in Dunedin and Hutt workshops in Lower Hutt; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
Yes. I understand that the Prime Minister visited the Hillside workshops and discussed its work on 3 September 2009.
Mr SPEAKERBefore I call the honourable member’s supplementary question, I ask how the member’s primary question started.
I will read it again: “Has the Prime Minister met with”. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was put down for the Prime Minister, and was transferred to the Minister of Transport.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker makes a good point. What happened in respect of this question was that it was put down for the Prime Minister. I suggest that it ought to have been answered on behalf of the Prime Minister, rather than transferred to the Minister of Transport, with, in the process, the member who asked the question being forced to change her question. The original question was: “Has he”—the Prime Minister—“been to Hillside workshops?”. The Prime Minister—and there is nothing untoward in it—cannot answer the question today, so the proper course would have been for the Government to answer that question on his behalf.
What causes me a little bit of concern is that the version of the question I have is somewhat different from what the member read out. The question was transferred, and that is the prerogative of the Government when it is a matter that relates specifically to a particular Minister. But the wording I have does not have “Has the Prime Minister met with”, and I am a little concerned because I do not know how many other members have that. [ Interruption] Before I hear the honourable member, I want to clarify. Can the Clerk please show me the correct version of the question. The question was apparently changed after I received my version of questions for oral answer today.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether you would consider this issue, at a later day, though. Is it possible for a question to be transferred to another Minister when one is asking the Prime Minister whether he visited somewhere? I was not asking the Minister of Transport whether he had visited the workshops; I was asking the Prime Minister. Would that not normally go to the Acting Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister? Instead, it was sent to the Minister of Transport, which made it very confusing as to how I then worded my question, and I got advice from the Clerk. But when a question is transferred and I am asking a specific question of a person—I do not know whether the Minister of Transport has been; I wanted to know whether the Prime Minister had been, as it was worded. It was then worded as to whether the Minister of Transport had been. Do you get what I am saying?
I hear what the member is saying, and I do not think there is any point in our taking more time on this issue today. Obviously, it is the Government’s prerogative to transfer questions as long as the only person who could possibly have the relevant information is not the person from whom it is transferred. In this case, I think it is acceptable that other Ministers will know whether the Prime Minister has met with these people. That is why I think it is legitimate for the question to be transferred. I am concerned, though, that the version of the question I have is not the one that is in front of the House.
Is the Prime Minister aware that New Zealand Railway Corporation tradesmen have been building carriages, building rail wagons, and restoring rolling stock since 1875, and are highly skilled; and will he intervene to keep their jobs in New Zealand, as he has done for the film industry and now the gambling industry?
The first part of the question was directed in regard to the Prime Minister, and my understanding is he would be aware. In regard to the second part of the question, I do not think it is appropriate for that to occur, because KiwiRail is a company, as I have said previously in the House, in a very difficult trading situation. We are seeking to turn it round. We need to give it every commercial opportunity to succeed and, as appropriate, to take the right commercial decisions. It is inappropriate for us to place requirements on that company that we would not place on any other company.
Why was the Prime Minister prepared to wine, dine, chauffeur, change the law, and suck up to Warner Bros to save jobs in the movie industry, and now the gambling industry, but has turned his back on hard-working railway workers who can build wagons and carriages in New Zealand and will not keep their jobs?
The important distinction the member has not made is that the Government often seeks to ease the regulatory burden on companies across the country to enable them to be more successful and to help grow the economy. In the situation of tenders for assets, it is completely inappropriate for the New Zealand Government to prefer New Zealand companies over international companies. If we did, we would be a very, very small trading nation, because countries would not want to trade with us.
Why will he not apply the same logic to his support of a convention centre in Auckland, about which he said: “If we build, they will come.”, to the building of railway wagons at Woburn and Hillside, and give the railway workers a chance to attract contracts and more job opportunities in our country?
I think the previous answer applies to this question as well. I also point out to the member that if she wants to require KiwiRail to pay in the order of 25 percent more than it would otherwise have to, in order to purchase its assets, then that company would struggle. It would not be the case of a number of jobs being at risk; it would be in the order of 4,000 jobs at risk.
Do the 400 people in Dunedin who were protesting last night at the loss of jobs, and who hold fears for the future of their local community, have as much influence on the Government’s decision-making as overseas money interests that came to New Zealand, scooped up millions of dollars from a supplicant Government, and will leave with the cash as soon as the job is done?
Hon Simon PowerI do not think I need any assistance from the Acting Leader of the House. If the member does not like that comment, then she should think about the comments she has included in her own questions.
The question was probably highly offensive to certain members of the Government. I let it go because it was not totally unparliamentary, but I am sure it caused offence.
Leaving aside that tone, I think it is very important to point out to the member that we need to give KiwiRail the opportunity to be successful. It is a company that was bought back by the previous Government at a ridiculously high price. It has been in very poor shape. We have set up a turn-round plan to try to turn it round. We have to give it every commercial chance to succeed. We are talking about 4,000 jobs in total at stake. Yes, I imagine it is very tough for those who were at the meeting last night in Dunedin, as it is when any organisation changes its structure in order that it may be more successful.
That is not actually correct. KiwiRail did a tender for the railway wagons using Hillside. My understanding is that the price difference from the successful tenderer was in the order of 25 percent. In the case of the electric trains for Auckland, KiwiRail took its own decision not to tender for those contracts.