Press Release – Office of the Clerk
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 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 …THURSDAY, 23 JUNE 2011
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
KiwiRail—Railway Workshops
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 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): Yes. I understand that the Prime Minister visited the Hillside workshops and discussed its work on 3 September 2009.
Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member’s supplementary question, I ask how the member’s primary question started.
Hon Annette King: 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.
Mr SPEAKER: My version of the question has it wrong. I thank the member for clarifying that.
Hon David Parker: I 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.
Mr SPEAKER: 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.
Hon Annette King: 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 workshop; 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. 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?
Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member is saying, and I do not think there is any point in taking more time now on this issue today. Obviously, it is the Government’s prerogative to transfer questions so 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.
Hon Annette King: 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?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: 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 as a company, as I have said previously in the House, is 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, 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.
Hon Annette King: 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 keep their jobs?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: 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.
Hon Annette King: 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?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: 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.
Hon Annette King: 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 STEVEN JOYCE: A slightly xenophobic tone is appearing in some of these questions.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment.
Hon Simon Power: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I 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.
Hon Annette King: It was not xenophobic.
Mr SPEAKER: 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.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: 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.
Hon Annette King: Why was KiwiRail not given the opportunity even to tender for the railway carriages?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: 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 of 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.
Child Abuse Investigations, Wellington—Multi-agency Initiative
2. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister of Police: What steps are being taken in the Wellington police district to improve the investigation of child abuse and the care and support provided to victims?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I am pleased to report that today I opened the country’s fourth multi-agency centre, which will provide one-stop access to services for child abuse victims and improve the investigation of abuse allegations. The Wellington Police District accounts for about 12 percent of all child abuse investigations nationally, with more than 8,000 family violence reports last year. The new centre in Pētone, which is called Koru House, is a joint initiative by the police; Child, Youth and Family; and the Hutt Valley District Health Board. It follows the establishment of similar centres in Auckland City, Counties-Manukau, and Tauranga. It illustrates this Government’s commitment to putting victims back at the heart of the justice sector.
Paul Quinn: What services will be available at the new centre to help child abuse victims?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The centre will provide a safe and supportive environment where child victims can interact with a team of police, Child, Youth and Family, and health professionals. This will include specialised medical, forensic, and psychological services. It will also provide a vital link from those agencies back to the many community groups that work so hard to provide ongoing support to the victims. When a child’s life is marred by the horror of abuse or violence, the child must have somewhere to go and someone whom they can turn to for help. The centre will help to ensure that they receive a caring, compassionate, speedy, and professional response.
State-owned Assets, Sales—Public Consultation
3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Is it the Government’s position that a referendum on asset sales is unnecessary and the election later this year will be the public’s chance to make their views on asset sales felt?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government’s position in this policy area is in fact in relation to the mixed-ownership model that was pioneered by the previous Government. It is the Government’s position that a referendum on the mixed-ownership model is not necessary, and that voters will have a chance to make their views known on that model later this year.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does the acting Minister think that the public will be pleased to learn that without any mandate, his Government has budgeted $6 million to spend before the election on preparing to sell these assets, as his colleague Tony Ryall confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that the public would expect the Government of New Zealand to take a prudent look at potential future policy areas, and that they would also be very pleased to know that this Government has saved multimillion times more than that in its alterations of waste in the public sector inherited from the previous Government.
Hon David Cunliffe: Given that it is obviously a fait accompli, does he agree with Mr Ryall’s statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday that the Government had no way of preventing the onselling of individual shares to foreign corporates, but that the Government would proceed with sale if re-elected, regardless of that fact?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate the member’s vote of confidence, but we do not think the election result is a fait accompli. Our view on this matter is that there will be long-term holding of these assets by investors. The sorts of investors that are interested will include KiwiSaver funds. I know that iwi are interested in investing; they are long-term holders of assets. Obviously, the Superannuation Fund is a long-term holder of assets, ACC is a long-term holder of assets, and I am sure mum and dad investors will be long-term holders of those assets, as well.
Hon David Cunliffe: Can the acting Minister tell the House how much he expects that middlemen and ticket-clippers would cost the taxpayer if the Minister’s privatisation agenda goes ahead, given that in the Contact Energy sale alone, $32 million of taxpayers’ money was spent in fees to consultants and bankers, and that officials yesterday told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that they estimate sales costs to be in the range of 2 to 5 percent of the asset value, which would be between $136 million and $340 million?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I disagree with the member’s question because it is not a privatisation agenda. Again, in relation to the matter of fees, I point out that I was talking to the Minister for Tertiary Education the other day and the amounts the member refers to have been wasted many times by the previous Government in the tertiary education area.
Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to reflect on that answer. The member asked essentially about the cost of the transfer. What we got was a reply that talked about whether it was privatisation and about tertiary education. The Minister did not address the central theme of the question, which was to comment on the cost of the sale.
Mr SPEAKER: The remedy for that kind of situation is very simple: to use objective language. Had the member asked a question about the cost of the partial sale of shares to investors, I would have insisted on the Minister giving a more precise answer. When members load their questions with their view of the facts, I cannot expect Ministers not to respond if they disagree with that view of the facts.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I now seek your guidance. The word I used that I infer that you may be describing as being in some way loaded was the word “privatisation”. Is it your ruling that selling down 50 percent of a State asset is in some way not a privatisation?
Mr SPEAKER: I am not involved in the debate, at all. If the honourable member uses that kind of language, though, Ministers are likely to pick up on it. I cannot help that. If members want to get to the nub of issues, they should keep their language as objective as possible, and I will help them all that I can then.
Hon David Cunliffe: I will repeat the question, using other words. Can the Minister tell the House how much he expects the cost of sale to be, given that in the Contact Energy sale alone those costs amounted to $32 million in fees to bankers and consultants, and that officials yesterday told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that they estimate sale costs to be in the range of 2 to 5 percent of asset values, which would be between $136 million and $340 million?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister obviously does not know, and neither do the officials know, what it was going to cost at this point, because normally in those situations one has some form of competitive process for assessing the sorts of fees that might be payable. But I remind the member that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said in the House that they will be expecting a very competitive, and the lowest possible, price for such an activity.
Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister is apparently not in possession of the briefing that his own officials gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday, and given that only 8 percent of New Zealanders ever bought shares in Contact Energy and only 2.5 percent of them retain any interest in it now, can he tell the House what percentage of New Zealand families he expects would be able to front up with the $4,000 that would be needed to keep their personal share of ownership, at current levels, in the strategic assets he is preparing to sell down?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister would not agree with the member’s characterisation of the current ownership model. But I think the member does touch on a very, very important issue, which is the importance of ensuring the success of the New Zealand sharemarket in the growth story of this country, and the importance of ensuring the opportunity for New Zealanders to invest and hold assets and to receive returns on those assets. I sense that the member is very concerned about that issue, but the reality is that, again, with the KiwiSaver funds, the ACC, iwi who have now had settlements, and other investment funds, I am very sure that they will want to invest in and hold these long-term assets.
Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table advice from the Parliamentary Library setting out the proportion of New Zealanders who owned shares in Contact Energy and who do now.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Broadband, Rural Initiative —Reaction of Regional Stakeholders
4. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki – King Country) to the Minister for
Communications and Information Technology: What has been the reaction of regional stakeholders to the rural broadband scheme?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Staff from the Ministry of Economic Development have been travelling up and down the country informing rural communities about how the Rural Broadband Initiative will benefit them. Throughout the country they have received extremely positive feedback, as people understand the exciting potential that faster broadband can bring to their communities. For example, the Timaru Herald proclaimed: “Rural schools in South Canterbury are set to benefit from world-class internet speeds …”; the Hawke’s Bay Today celebrated: “residents to reap ultra fast perks”; and of particular interest to the member will be the Taranaki Daily News, which stated: “Rural Taranaki internet speeds are about to improve tenfold as the Government gets set to roll out its $500 million Rural Broadband initiative next month.”
Shane Ardern: How will the expected passage of theTelecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill this afternoon provide better broadband services to rural communities?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Those members in this House who understand that providing better internet speeds will be a massive economic enabler for rural communities, and those members who recognise that 230,000 households on dial-up in 2011 is just not good enough, will be supporting the bill’s third reading this afternoon, as we correct the mistakes of the previous Government. The bill provides for the telecommunications development levy to be invested in 3,100 kilometres of new fibre into rural areas, and an extra 154 cellphone towers. When completed, 98 percent of New
Zealanders will have access to broadband services of 5 megabits per second or more, and 98 percent of schools will have an ultra-fast broadband connection, as well.
Clare Curran: How does he respond to the hundreds of schools and dozens of mayors, some of whom are now writing to me to express their concern about the zone 3 schools that have been left out of both the urban and the rural broadband initiatives that are now being subjected to an uncosted tender process next year?
Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the House to be a bit more reasonable on the interjection level. I do not know whether the Minister even got to hear that.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I have heard it a number of times before, so actually I am able to hear it.
Mr SPEAKER: Silly me!
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have tried to point out to the member previously, there is no delay for those schools. They will, in fact, be connected. There is somebody writing to some schools, though, scaremongering that those schools will not be connected, and I wonder whether the member might know who it is, because it is signed by one Clare Curran.
Clare Curran: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I want this to be heard in silence, members, please.
Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a letter dated 17 June from Linton Camp School to the Hon Anne Tolley in response to her letter, expressing concern that it had been left out of the broadband scheme although the two schools on either side of it had not been.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 3 to Minister
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Mr Speaker, this may assist your reflection on an earlier ruling in relation to the use of the word “privatisation” and whether it was an emotive term. The document that I seek leave—
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need that lecture from the member. He will resume his seat.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I seek leave to table a Treasury report dated 21 December 2010 entitled Privatisation in New Zealand: An assessment of a series of company experiences.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
New Zealand – Australia Migration—Economy
5. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “we are trying to change the economic picture to encourage more New Zealanders to stay” in light of the total of 3300 New Zealanders who left New Zealand for Australia last month which topped the previous record of 2900 set in May 1979?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Hon David Parker: Does the Prime Minister accept that the 3,300 New Zealanders who left for Australia in May topped the previous record for May of 2,900, which was set 32 years ago under his predecessor Mr Muldoon’s National-led Government?
Hon SIMON POWER: That may be the case, but because of fluctuations it is better to take a year-by-year perspective, and that shows that net migration of New Zealanders to Australia in the year to May was lower than in the year to May 2009, the year to May 2008, and the year to May 2001.
Hon David Parker: Which factor is most behind the record surge in New Zealanders leaving for Australia: the wage gap, which has grown substantially rather than narrowed under this Government, despite National’s election promise to the contrary; the higher minimum wage in Australia, which at A$15 an hour converts to NZ$20 an hour; or the better savings and investment record that Australia is heading for, instead of the cuts to KiwiSaver here?
Hon SIMON POWER: None of the above, because the fluctuations on a month-to-month basis are better looked at on a year-by-year basis, 3 of which did not have higher numbers to May than when that party was in Government.
Hon David Parker: Why does the Government keep blaming the earthquake in Christchurch for New Zealand’s problems, when the increase in departures from Christchurch over the previous year was 300, which is less than 10 percent of the total departures in May; and does he accept that even after the Christchurch increase is excluded, the 3,000 departures to Australia in May was still at a record level?
Hon SIMON POWER: Over the last 3 months, for example, 1,600 people left the Canterbury region permanently for overseas. In respect of the more broad numbers that the member used—a May month indicator—I can tell the member that on average over the last 2 years about 1,900 New Zealanders left each month for Australia. Under that party’s last 2 years in Government that figure was over 2,600 a month.
Hon David Parker: Are more New Zealanders leaving for Australia despite National’s 2008 election promise “Wave goodbye to higher taxes. Not your loved ones.” because only a small proportion of New Zealanders—high-income earners—did well out of his tax cuts, while the rest are worse off and are either leaving for Australia or waving goodbye to their loved ones?
Hon SIMON POWER: Using year to May figures, no, because that number was higher in 2001, 2008, and 2009.
Mr SPEAKER: There will be no interruption from the gallery, thank you, or I will be asking the visitor to leave.
Parity with Australia—GDP Per Capita
6. JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Has the gap between GDP per capita in Australia and GDP per capita in New Zealand narrowed or widened since his Government came to office?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Since the September 2008 quarter real GDP per capita in New Zealand has fallen by 2.9 percent, while real GDP per capita in Australia has fallen by 0.3 percent. This reflects the fact that we inherited a recession from the previous Government, which Australia did not have, combined with Australia’s unprecedented minerals boom. However, these figures move around from year to year, and quarter to quarter, and will continue to do so. For example, in the first quarter of this year the New Zealand economy looks like it has grown a little, while the Australian economy has shrunk by 1.2 percent. In the long term we believe that sound policies and careful and considered decisionmaking will mean that we will close this gap with Australia over time, and the resilience the economy has shown in recent times is a positive indicator towards that.
John Boscawen: Given that he has just acknowledged that the gap between New Zealand and Australia has widened in the last 2½ years of his administration, is it still a concrete goal of the Government to close the income gap with Australia by 2025; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is still the goal of this Government. I point out to the member that, as he may well be aware, the 2025 Taskforce, which was set up to consider how to close this gap, noted that “Year to year fluctuations in the income gap will occur, but may or may not reflect the relative merits of the policy frameworks in the two countries. For this reason, changes in the income gap are most accurately assessed over the medium term.” As I say, I refer that member to the 2025 Taskforce.
Hon David Cunliffe: If it remains the Government’s goal to close the gap with Australia, how long does he think it will take to do that, and when will he give the public targets and milestones, given that New Zealand’s GDP has fallen 3 percent since his Government came to power, that the wage gap has widened from 30 to 35 percent of GDP since 2008, and that a record number of New Zealanders are now voting with their feet and contributing to Australia’s economy, not ours?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is wrong on a number of counts, as my colleague Mr Power referred to in relation to the numbers in the previous question. Also, the member persists in using before-tax incomes for the comparator with Australia, which is, again, misleading. I am surprised, actually, that the member wants to pop up and complain about the performance of the New Zealand economy, when his Government was responsible for the mess that we inherited at the end of 2008.
John Boscawen: What has to be the productivity growth rate to achieve his Government’s concrete goal of closing the income gap, and does he think it is feasible with current policy settings?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have that exact figure here, but a significant improvement in productivity is required and that is why we are taking the steps we are taking. They are, for example, a much more competitive tax system; better regulatory reform, which the member’s colleague has been involved in, to actually reduce the cost of doing business; investing in infrastructure that will improve productivity across the economy, particularly in the bottlenecks of areas like transport and telecommunications; ensuring more productivity in the public sector, something that this Government is very, very focused on; improving trade opportunities—the Prime Minister is going to India next week—and improving education and skills. All those things, which are the policy prescription, will improve productivity over time.
John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question basically had two prongs to it, and the Minister refused to answer either particular question. He could have answered one or the other, but he answered neither. In particular, I asked him what the productivity growth rate was and he acknowledged that he did not know. He acknowledged that he did not know what was the productivity growth rate required to close the income gap. I then asked whether he believed that the current policy settings were feasible. He went on to outline a number—
Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to let the member litigate any further by way of point of order. The first part of the member’s question was answered. The member may not like the answer, but it was answered and I cannot assist any further with that. The member has a further supplementary question, though.
John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the Minister actually acknowledged that he did not answer it, because—
Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to have the member arguing with me. He asked the Minister what the productivity growth requirement was to achieve the closing of the income gap by 2025, whatever it was. The Minister answered: he said he did not know that, or that he did not have the actual figure for that. That is a perfectly reasonable answer for the Minister to give. As for the second part, the Minister did go on to attempt to answer it, when he did not actually have to.
John Boscawen: Does he believe that the Government’s concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025, set at the start of this administration, was a good idea; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure about this whole “setting in concrete” thing, but it is the Government’s goal, and it continues to be the Government’s goal. It is absolutely something we are seeking to do, and, as I explained to the member, a number of major policy settings have been enacted in the first period that this Government has been in office that we are putting to the country as evidence of how we are moving to close that gap.
Youth Minimum Wage—Government Support for Proposed ACT Bill
7. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Did she state in relation to Hon Sir Roger Douglas’ proposed bill which would reintroduce the
youth minimum wage, that “we will not be supporting the bill, as we are not convinced it would reduce youth unemployment”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): No, I did not say that about a proposed bill.
Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave of the House to table the statement, which is in Hansard—
Mr SPEAKER: No, we do not table Hansard. The member has further supplementary questions to ask; that is the best way to test the Minister’s answer.
Jacinda Ardern: As the Minister with responsibility for employment, does she believe that a youth minimum wage would reduce unemployment?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am open to looking at discussions on that at the moment. I think we need to concentrate on what actually does work. I am a member of Parliament and a Minister who likes to look at a number of options, and I can be convinced in a lot of ways.
Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister explain to the House what has changed in the past few months from when she would not support Roger Douglas’ youth minimum wage bill to now, when she is considering it as an option?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is different to a proposed bill. What happened was that months ago, when the bill was before the House—
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have been forced to waste a question because she talked about the difference between a bill and a proposed bill. I think that is really dallying with question time. That first answer of hers was out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I do not know which National member wants to take an early shower, but that was a point of order and there was just a barrage of noise. I ask members, please, to show a little more respect to the House. In respect of the answer to the question, the Minister did answer the question. But the Speaker cannot judge whether or not an answer is accurate; that is the idea of having supplementary questions. If a member can pin down a Minister on the accuracy of an answer, it is a pretty effective thing to do. It seems to me to be a shame if members go on and follow a pre-prepared line of questioning, instead of listening to the answer. If the answer is not what is expected, the member should dive into it. Points of order are no use, because I cannot judge a Minister’s answer; I can judge it only as far as it appears to be an answer to the question. Some answers clearly are not, and I give members a chance to repeat their question or I ask Ministers to answer the question. But in this case it seemed to me that the Minister answered the question, and I cannot judge the quality of the answer. I do not believe that it wastes a supplementary question to dig into a Minister’s answer and test its accuracy.
Jacinda Ardern: Did she state, in relation to the Hon Sir Roger Douglas’ minimum wage bill, that “we will not be supporting the bill, as we are not convinced it would reduce youth unemployment”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.
Darien Fenton: Does she stand by her statement that “any job is a good job”; if so, does she have a bottom line for the minimum wages of young workers?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I do—yes, I do. In fact, I stand by a young woman who wrote to me just yesterday, on Wednesday, who said that she had been looking for work for quite some time. She had applied for over 300 jobs, but she starts work tomorrow at a supermarket. She is damned proud to be going off the benefit. She has said “At 52 years of age I am so proud to be a checkout chick, and I’m going to love my job.” So, yes, I back her in her job.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon David Parker.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That job wouldn’t be good enough for the Labour Party—it wouldn’t be good enough for the Labour Party.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. The Minister for Social Development and Employment will cease interjecting when a point of order has been called. She has just given the Opposition a further supplementary question.
Hon David Parker: The original question that Jacinda Ardern asked is set out on the Order Paper, so I do not need to re-read it. It includes the words “proposed bill”; the bill was proposed, but the question was identical in substance to the question she just asked. Yet the Minister, playing with the House, said “No” to the first question and “Yes.” to the second. I suggest that that is trifling with question time.
Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot really hold Ministers to what members might intend with their questions, because, in fairness, members asking questions often insert claims into questions that are totally outside the Standing Orders. Yet I allow them to go forward, because I do not want to limit the Opposition’s opportunity to question Ministers. Ministers have to be careful, obviously, because some people who are listening will have been surprised at the change of answers; they might have interpreted the question in the same way as the Hon David Parker did. Therefore, they will wonder at the answers given. But the member will note that because the Minister did not cease interjecting when a point of order was called, I have now given Labour a further supplementary question. So I do not believe that Labour has suffered through this question, at all.
Jacinda Ardern: Why was she not convinced that a youth minimum wage would reduce youth unemployment?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because at that time the caucus had not seen the sorts of results from there, so we were not convinced. If a bill comes back to the House or is drawn from the ballot, then the caucus will make its decision, as it does, accordingly.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What specific initiatives is the Government undertaking to reverse the disproportionately high levels of unemployment for young Māori?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are working alongside Māori on a number of initiatives. To give the House an idea of the issue, of those aged from 18 to 24 on the unemployment benefit, 36 percent are young Māori. However, that is mirrored by the numbers coming off the benefit; about 37 percent of those are Māori youth who are cancelling their benefits. We know that Job Ops and Community Max have made a big difference for that population. We also do a lot of work with our Māori strategy, which is partnering with iwi to implement programmes and services that assist Māori into employment. So far we have done an extra six iwi partnerships, and we are very close to signing up another few, which we think will make a difference.
Pay Equity—Gender Gap
8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Labour: Does she agree that women workers are entitled to equal pay?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Yes. The law is clear: people cannot be discriminated against because of their gender, as it would be a breach of the Equal Pay Act and the Human Rights Act.
Catherine Delahunty: What is her response to the comments this morning of Employers and Manufacturers Association head, Alasdair Thompson, that women do not have equal pay because they take more sick leave because of their “monthly problem”?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not responsible for Mr Thompson’s suggestion, but I do not agree with it.
Catherine Delahunty: Will the Government continue to take advice from a business leader who has just attacked the productivity of 50 percent of the workforce on the basis of their gender?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I listen to the views of a number of people who say things I disagree with or find offensive. It is simply part of being in Government.
Catherine Delahunty: Does she agree that the sexist and ridiculous views espoused by business leader Alasdair Thompson this morning are proof that the Equal Pay Act needs to be modernised and strengthened?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not responsible for his comments. I do not agree with his comments.
Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask whether the Minister agreed with his comments; I asked whether she agreed that the Equal Pay Act needed to be modernised and strengthened.
Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat her question.
Catherine Delahunty: Does she agree that the sexist and ridiculous views espoused by business leader Alasdair Thompson this morning are proof that the Equal Pay Act needs to be modernised and strengthened?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The mere opinion of one person on one occasion is not necessarily justification to have a review of the legislation.
Catherine Delahunty: How can women who are concerned that they might not be getting equal pay for equal work find out whether that is the case in their workplace?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: There are remedies and recourses under both the human rights legislation and the Equal Pay Act.
Catherine Delahunty: Given the difficulties of taking a case under the Equal Pay Act and the extremely small number of cases taken in the last 40 years, how can she ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The legislation is there to protect women who feel they have been discriminated against. The procedures are there, and there is nothing to stop them taking that course.
Carol Beaumont: Can the Minister reassure New Zealand women that despite comments by close National Party ally Alasdair Thompson, they will not have to wait until they hit menopause to close the gender pay gap?
Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to using those types of descriptors in the question, as far as I am concerned Mr Thompson’s first association was with the Social Credit Political League.
Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have observed Mr Thompson over a long period—
Mr SPEAKER: Labour has just lost its extra supplementary question. I was on my feet, and that was not a point of order. What is fair for the goose has to be fair for the gander. I say in relation to the question asked that it was unusual, but it was not unparliamentary, although questions should not make that kind of assertion. Would Ministers prefer I deprived their colleagues of the opportunity to have a bit of licence to give as much back as they receive? I do not rule those sorts of questions out, because Ministers hearing a question like that have pretty free licence.
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have forgotten what the question was.
Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat her question.
Carol Beaumont: Can the Minister reassure New Zealand women that despite comments by close National Party ally Alasdair Thompson, women will not have to wait until they hit menopause to close the gender pay gap?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: As I have said before, I certainly do not agree with the ridiculous comments of Mr Thompson. I do believe in good, fair treatment for women, and I think there are protections under both pieces of legislation that I have already quoted.
Catherine Delahunty: Will she consider adopting my amendment launched yesterday to the Equal Pay Act, which requires employers to report on gendered pay rates in their workplaces and release aggregated information on gender pay to employees on request?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have not read the member’s bill, so I have yet to form an opinion on it.
Health and Safety, Workplace—Government Support
9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does she have confidence the Government is doing everything possible to ensure health and safety in the workplace?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, but we are constantly looking at what more we can do to ensure health and safety in the workplace. Ultimately, under our legislation, the responsibility lies with employers to provide safe workplaces. This Government is working hard with business to promote a stronger safety culture.
Darien Fenton: Does she believe that training workplace health and safety representatives is an important means of ensuring health and safety in the workplace; if so, what response would she have to the Minister for ACC’s claim at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this morning that the generic training of workplace health and safety representatives is a touchy-feely notion?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I understand that 6,000 places for training were offered, and only 4,000 people took them up, so we have an issue with workplace culture and with encouraging both employers and employees to make sure that their workmates are safe.
Darien Fenton: In light of recent tragedies such as the Pike River mine disaster, will she reconsider her decision to restrict union organisers’ access to workplaces for health and safety reasons, which was a decision she took against departmental advice?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: No.
Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister still stand by her response to me in a letter dated 10 June 2010, in which she said: “I do not see any need for a review of the current mines inspection regime.”, and does this mean that she will do nothing to improve mine safety until 2013, when the royal commission is due to report back?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part, no.
Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table two documents—
Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order? [Interruption] What do I need to do?
Hon Member: Chuck her out.
Mr SPEAKER: No. I have just given Labour back their supplementary question; Labour now has 28 supplementary questions today. Ministers will learn to stop interjecting when a point of order is called.
Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a letter from me to the Minister, dated 6 May 2010, in which I alert the Minister to deficiencies in the mines regulations. The second is the Minister’s response to me, dated 10 June 2010, in which she refuses to do anything.
Mr SPEAKER: Members must not describe a letter in that way—“refuses to do anything”. What do I do about that? When members do not use the point of order procedure properly—
Hon Simon Power: Take a supp off them!
Mr SPEAKER: There will be no more interjections. When members do not use the point of order properly, it makes it very difficult. Leave is sought to table a document. Let me hear the description of the first letter again.
Hon Damien O’Connor: The first document is a letter I wrote to the Minister raising issues of concern in relation to safety in mines.
Mr SPEAKER: And the date of that letter?
Hon Damien O’Connor: The date is 6 May 2010.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon Damien O’Connor: The second document is the Minister’s response to me, dated 10 June 2010. In the letter the Minister refuses to take up my advice to review the regulations.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection on that occasion.
Question No. 8 to Minister
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to introduce my Equal Pay Amendment Bill, which will assist women to find out whether they are getting equal pay for equal work.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to introduce that bill. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Foster Carers—Agreement with Fostering Kids
10. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and
Employment: What agreements has the Government recently made to support foster carers?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today we have signed a new memorandum of understanding with the newly named Fostering Kids, which was formerly the New Zealand Foster Care Federation. This memorandum of understanding formalises further our much valued relationship. From July 1 the training that Fostering Kids provides will be aligned alongside New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards, counting towards a national qualification in family, whānau, and foster care.
Katrina Shanks: What other individuals have lent their support to foster carers and their children?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would like to take this opportunity in the House to thank outgoing Children’s Commissioner John Angus, whose farewell is being held in Parliament this afternoon. John has brought great independence, commitment, and knowledge to the role of Children’s Commissioner, and he has been a tireless advocate for foster children, children in care, and those amazing people who look after them. I have very much valued his considered counsel over the past few years, and I would like to publicly thank him on behalf of New Zealand children for the work he has done.
Interest Rates and Lending Practices—Controls
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): My question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs—
Mr SPEAKER: I say to front-bench Ministers and members, especially members on the Labour side whose colleague I have just called, to please be quiet.
11. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What actions has the Government taken to date to control excessive interest rates or irresponsible lending?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Consumer Affairs): The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has been working on a review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act since 2008. The ministry has also assisted individuals to take cases to the disputes tribunal concerning irresponsible lending practices. I am advised that the Commerce Commission has taken action against a number of parties over unreasonable fees, and misrepresentations about terms and conditions of loans. In August I will be hosting a financial summit in South Auckland. This summit will have a particular focus on irresponsible lending and, no doubt, excessive interest rates.
Carol Beaumont: Why did the Government deprioritise the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which included improving security and disclosure provisions, and delay it by over 12 months when financial pressures on low-income families have been increasing?
Hon SIMON POWER: It was not deprioritised; priority was given to consumer law reform work. That work has now been completed and priority is now being given to credit reform.
Carol Beaumont: How will another summit in August on targeting loan sharks create enforceable changes in this parliamentary term?
Hon SIMON POWER: It will give communities who are affected by this issue the opportunity to have input into policy before I form a final view on this matter. Given that I have been in the role for 6 weeks, as opposed to 9 years when nothing happened, I think it is a considerable degree of action.
Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think my question was quite specific. It sought to know how this summit will create enforceable changes in this parliamentary term. I do not believe that the Minister addressed that at all.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it would be pretty rough for me to claim that the Minister did not answer the question. It may not have been quite the quality of answer that the member wanted, but she should be aware that she has two more supplementary questions should she wish to pursue the matter further.
Carol Beaumont: Why is the Minister now saying that he will consider interest rate caps; and what has changed since the Government ruled out supporting interest rate caps?
Hon SIMON POWER: In respect of the first part of the question, I say that my colleagues will no doubt be able to reinforce the view that I am regarded as very open-minded.
Carol Beaumont: I seek leave for the Credit Contracts (Oppressive Lending Provisions) Amendment Bill to be set down as a members’ order of the day.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Drugs, Illegal—Border Interception of Internally Carried Substances
12. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Customs: What recent reports has he received on the interceptions of drug-internal couriers at the border?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): In the last 18 months the Customs Service has caught 10 drug couriers, or mules, trying to bring a range of narcotics into the country by hiding these drugs inside their bodies. That compares with only one drug internal courier interception for all of 2009. These swallowers have arrived from a variety of countries: South America, Thailand, South Africa, Iran, and the United States. The largest individual swallower on record for New Zealand ingested 175 pellets, which was made up of 890 grams of methamphetamine and 104 grams of opium.
Nikki Kaye: What was the most recent interception of P at the border using a drug mule?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Most recently, customs officers intercepted a Polish man who was later found to have 74 plastic pellets containing 370 grams of methamphetamine, or P, concealed inside him. The value of that would have been somewhere between $220,000 and $370,000 on the street. Intelligence work by customs officers at the border, and the techniques used to detect swallowers, hopefully will mean that attempted smuggling like this will happen less and less.
ENDS
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
