Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:7961. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement made on the day Statistics New Zealand reported that 151000 people were unemployed that “the Government did not intend to do anything specific to tackle rising unemployment”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No I do not stand by that because I did not say it. What I did say is that—Grant Robertson: How could they have got it so wrong?Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would have to ask Radio New Zealand. What I did say was that the Government would not be chasing around the unemployment numbers 3 months to 3 months. We take a longer-term point of view because that is the realistic one and that is to reinforce and encourage businesses that are doing well to invest to employ more people and to grow. In fact the Government has around 500 specific actions to achieve this all listed in the Business Growth Agenda which I hope the member has read. This is part of the reason why the proportion of 15 to 19-year-olds not in education employment or training has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded.Grant Robertson: In light of his taking a long-term view why has New Zealand slipped in the OECD rankings on unemployment from first in 2005 to 15th under his watch?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a number of reasons why that has changed and that has a lot to do with the global financial crisis which we know—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to be able to hear the answer. I do not mind some interjection but when it is a barrage that is not acceptable.Hon BILL ENGLISH: The other significant reason was the unwinding of the debt-funded Government-funded bubble that led to those low levels of unemployment but unsustainable levels of unemployment back in 2005.Grant Robertson: Given his reference to the global financial crisis did the United States and the United Kingdom also experience the global financial crisis and how is it that their unemployment levels are now lower than they were in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There were of course higher levels of unemployment in those countries back in 2009-10 so they are still in a recovery from a recession that actually started in those countries back in 2009. We have recovered and now we are going through another softer patch for the obvious reason of lower dairy prices.Hon Annette King: So we’re going up in unemployment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Economies do go up and down and the member should get used to that.Barbara Kuriger: What steps is the Government taking to support more jobs and higher wages?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said the Business Growth Agenda sets out 500 specific actions but I will list just a few: introducing the 90-day trial period which I understand the Opposition is still against; reduced income taxes and taxes on investment and savings; reduced ACC levies by $1.5 billion since 2012; alongside local government spending $110 billion on infrastructure in the next 10 years; and negotiating a wide range of free-trade agreements so our businesses can sell more—for instance to North America—and create more jobs. But the Labour Party is apparently—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: Given that list of actions and his 500 actions in his glossy Business Growth Agenda how come unemployment is 6 percent and heading towards 7 percent?Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the pretty obvious reason that when an economy slows down the rate of job creation slows as well. The fact is that the drop in dairy prices has taken billions of dollars of income out of the New Zealand economy as the member has pointed out himself. If it is not coming in it cannot be there to pay wages for more and more jobs. So we have had strong job creation. It has flattened out a bit at the moment but we have every confidence that because of our 500 policy initiatives it will pick up again.Sarah Dowie: What further steps is the Government taking to support employment?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In particular the Government has taken a large number of the steps to assist the transition of young New Zealanders into the labour market. A range of schemes from targeting NCEA level 2 pass rates through to the Youth Guarantee mean that there are now more young people than ever—or a larger proportion than ever of young people—who are going to employment or training and that is a real success.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that under his watch New Zealand has never ranked higher than ninth in the OECD in terms of unemployment and the only times we have been as low as 15th have been under his watch?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not checked that information but I will—I have not checked that information but I will. The important thing is that New Zealand is showing considerable resilience in the face of global economic shocks and domestic ones: a recession in 2009-10 a large earthquake and now a softening in our commodity prices. All through that we have had consistent job growth up until quite recently. The labour market has worked very well and we have every confidence that although there is a slow-down in job creation at the moment it will pick up again.Grant Robertson: Can he promise New Zealanders that he will get back to first in the OECD rankings on unemployment as we were in 2005 at any point in his three terms as finance Minister?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No because for a lot of New Zealanders it would be a meaningless promise; for instance for most New Zealanders what matters is the employment rate—that is the proportion of the available workforce that has jobs—and in New Zealand that is at the highest levels that it has ever been. We have got among the highest levels that we have ever had of the proportion of working-age New Zealanders who actually have a job and are available for work. So for most New Zealanders that is actually a more important measure of success.Grant Robertson: Does he think that his employment policies are a success and if he was to go ahead and say that would that not make him a liar and a hypocrite?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I am not going to allow that question. I will allow the member to rephrase it—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday in this House you made a very specific ruling about what was and was not unparliamentary language. I phrased my question carefully to fit within what you said yesterday was acceptable in terms of unparliamentary language.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not got exactly what was said yesterday but I am not happy with that question which effectively implies that a member is a liar and a hypocrite. [Interruption] Order! It will lead to disorder—[Interruption] Order! I am inviting the member to rephrase this question. If it is not rephrased I will not allow the question.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your explanation you said that the reason that you were not accepting the question was because of the implication that a person was a liar and a hypocrite in this case. That is precisely the thing that yesterday you said was acceptable: the implication from the Prime Minister that if we were to say something that would mean that we were to protect rapists “go ahead”. That is exactly the same formulation that you found acceptable for the Prime Minister but it is somehow not acceptable for me.Mr SPEAKER: No it is not and I do not want to spend much more time on this or we will move to the next question. The first instance with the Prime Minister was when no one took objection at the time. That is the point I have laboured to this House. If exception had been taken and I should have acted quicker and I have acknowledged that to the House—but no one took exception at the time. In this occasion I have taken exception to those remarks at the time. I am therefore saying they are unacceptable. They will lead to—Hon Annette King: But has the House?Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to ask the member to leave but if she is going to interject while I am on my feet she gives me no choice. So I am inviting the member to re-ask the question without that imputation. Otherwise we will move immediately to the next question.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Well no—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: No Mr Speaker you yesterday—I raised a point of order as the person who had raised objection to the Prime Minister’s statement. I raised the point of order on Tuesday immediately after the Prime Minister used the phrasing that I have used in this question—immediately after. The “if” in the “go ahead” which you told me yesterday made the Prime Minister’s statement acceptable—that is the framing I have used in this question today. And I raised my point of order about that immediately when the Prime Minister did that.Mr SPEAKER: No I happen—that is not correct according to Hansard because I happen to have the Hansard in front of me. You raised your point of order after the Prime Minister had finished saying: “if those members want to protect sex offenders rapists or murderers go ahead. I am not going to.” I do not find—[Interruption] Order! I do not find anything unparliamentary in that but to imply that a member of this House is a liar and a hypocrite I do find unparliamentary and therefore I will not allow the matter to be relitigated. I do not want to take a question off the member but if he does not want the question we can move very quickly—Grant Robertson: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No no. Order! I am on my feet. We have spent now approximately 5 minutes on this matter. My decision is absolutely final. Members do not have to agree with my decision but they have to accept it. I am happy to accept a fresh point of order but I will not have the matter relitigated.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have the Hansard in front of me from yesterday in fact where you were ruling on the point of order that Grant Robertson raised.Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the page of the Hansard?Chris Hipkins: I have got the online version printed out but it is immediately after—I am happy to read it for you if you want me to. But you said that the member needs to actually quote the words that were said and I happen to have them: “The Prime Minister towards the end of the answer says ‘If those members want to protect sex offenders rapists … go ahead. I am not going to.’ I see nothing unparliamentary in that as I have already stated categorically.” The issue is: what is the difference between that statement and the statement that you did rule unparliamentary? The only difference is the word “if” at the beginning of it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Bill English.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Whatever the merits or otherwise of the issue of logic that the members raise it is a longstanding convention in this House that those terms that the member used have always been ruled out no matter what the circumstances or context. It would be a drastic departure from convention in this House if suddenly on the basis of that sort of specious argument they are now regarded as parliamentary. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I look back at the offensive remarks on Tuesday those remarks were “You back racists”—Hon Member: “Rapists”.Mr SPEAKER: —“rapists”; I apologise. That implies that we all do including me; in fact it was addressed to me more than to members. That should have been addressed at the time. I should have addressed it at the time. Other members should also have addressed it at the time. No one did so we have got to move past that situation. This one I am addressing at the time.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just would like your guidance on this. How do we create a convention that protects us from that kind of language which you have just said is unparliamentary? Because presumably those other words were created and that convention was accepted. How do we do that in this House? Because some of us really need that to happen.Mr SPEAKER: The way we need to do it is by making sure that I act at the time and in the times that I do not act—because I do not hear everything; this is a noisy environment—members themselves must act immediately. The problem with Tuesday was the time lapse that occurred and other statements that occurred in those 3½ minutes.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I would be pleased.Chris Hipkins: I think going forward it might be useful for the House if you were to consider in a more deliberate way and perhaps come back to the House with whether in fact premising any unparliamentary remark with a question or a hypothetical—saying “if” “what” you know or so on—would also make it unparliamentary. I think if you were to make such a ruling you would have the full support of the Opposition in that because an unparliamentary remark is unparliamentary regardless of whether it is made in a statement or in a question.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think it requires any further work. The members themselves can look at Standing Order 380 “Content of questions”: “Questions must be concise …”—and if you look particularly at paragraph (1)(c)—must not include “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.” I am very lenient in the way I interpret Standing Order 380 because many many questions from all members—particularly supplementary questions—if I was strict according to Standing Order 380 would be ruled out. I think it would make this place quite antiseptic; I do not think it would be helpful to political debates. I do not think I can respond in the way the member is asking me to because it is a matter of me judging situations as they arise. To try to formulate them and set down a Bible to guide me I think would create difficulties for me and frankly would create difficulties for members of this House.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have one more point of order. Just for absolute clarity for my sake: the second statement that the Prime Minister made which was when I did take my point of order on Tuesday—when he said “If members want to protect [etc. etc.] then go ahead”—for you that is acceptable and that is not an unparliamentary piece of language? Can I just clarify that.Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly what I have said.Grant Robertson: So why was my question unacceptable?Mr SPEAKER: Because of the terms you used. But I have explained it.Grant Robertson: The terms I used? OK.Mr SPEAKER: Yes.Grant Robertson: Why does he think it is acceptable that after 7 years as Minister of Finance the best that he can do is 15th in the developed world and rather than telling unemployed New Zealanders as he did on Radio New Zealand the other morning to “try harder” to get a job should not he be the one who is trying harder?Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member the question in my mind is certainly in order but if I were to strictly interpret Standing Order 380 that question would not be in order. I think it is a good example of where we have moved. The question is in order; it can be answered.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would certainly have to check the member’s second probably wrong allegation of something I said but in respect of unemployment—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the—I will hear from the member.Chris Hipkins: On a strict interpretation of the Standing Orders the Minister’s answer would also now be out of order.Mr SPEAKER: And I absolutely agree with that. It was unnecessary for the Minister to respond in the way he did. That is absolutely true. Would the Minister now complete his answer.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with the member’s statement. The fact is that New Zealanders have a strong rate of job creation. It has—Grant Robertson: 15th in the world Bill.Hon BILL ENGLISH: If he wants to measure them against the rest of the world New Zealand’s participation rate is one of the highest in the developed world. That is the proportion of the working-age population that is in work or available for work is one of the highest in the developed world. That is a measure that matters to a lot of New Zealanders. So we can trade measures but the economy has shown it has been remarkably resilient through difficult circumstances and we have every confidence that to the extent that the Government can influence it the employment outlook which is currently soft will strengthen over the next couple of years.