King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:662;Page:10740] 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What advice has she received on the success of the Government’s employment policies? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have received a lot of advice commending us for our commitment to addressing the recession’s effect on employment particularly the employment of young people. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does she agree with the comment that young people are being impacted very seriously by the recession; if so how many of the 72000 unemployed young people have been assisted by her employment package which the Government claimed would address the impact of the recession on young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will take just one part of the youth jobs package. Under Job Ops and under Community Max more than 8000 young people have come off the unemployment benefit—a very different number from the one the member bandies around. I think that is really positive. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has she seen the latest figures on her employment initiatives which show that in Auckland where there are 26000 unemployed young people a mere 1800 have been helped by the package she has just talked about; on the East Coast where there are over 5000 unemployed young people a mere 629 got assistance; and in Canterbury where there are almost 10000 young people out of work 760 kids got some help from her package—and the pattern is repeated all over New Zealand—and is her enthusiasm for the package an example of her statement at the weekend that she is “a girl prone to excesses”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: When it comes to getting people into jobs then yes I think we are prone to excesses. We are seeing more young people in employment who would have been on an unemployment benefit if not for this Government’s Job Ops package. We have more people going through straight-to-work initiatives. We have more people in industry partnerships. We have put $69.2 million extra through just Work and Income into helping people into jobs. I think this package is responsive and responsible. 
Hon Annette King 
: What explanation has she given to the Prime Minister as to why her employment initiatives have failed to stem the rise in youth unemployment which is now at its highest level since June 1993 in light of his statement that he did not want to see a repeat of the impact of the recession of the early 1990s on young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Prime Minister particularly congratulates those who work at Work and Income. When we look at all the projections for what unemployment benefit levels would be we see that we are well beneath all of them. When we look at the projections from Treasury from all the economists from the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update from everything else we see that we are below those projections and we are bringing down the number of unemployed. 
Todd McClay 
: Is the Minister aware of any feedback on the success of the Youth Opportunities package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs wrote to the Prime Minister: “The Youth Opportunities package you announced in August 2009 has been invaluable in providing opportunities for our young people and mitigating the worst effects of the recession.” I even have a quote that says: “I’m delighted that someone is getting our younger generation motivated to contribute to our district again.” That quote was from Clayton Cosgrove. He was saying that he was delighted with Community Max. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did she toss Treasury’s advice on her employment package that it would “likely have limited impact” and would “represent poor value for money” into her “who-gives-a-damn bin” the place she said she puts advice she does not agree with; if so will she take Treasury more seriously in future? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The quotes the member keeps referring to are from a letter to the editor. I note that she has yet to have one published so she is quoting mine now which is kind of cute. I can table the letter if the member wishes. She can frame it given that she obviously likes it so much. When it comes to Treasury advice I am not the first Minister to disagree with it and I am sure I will not be the last. If we had taken its advice we would not have over 8000 young people engaged in these programmes. We have had to keep extending these programmes quite frankly because they are going so well. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Which Peter Saunders did she intend to appoint to advise the Welfare Working Group on welfare and employment: the Peter Saunders whose book Welfare to Work she cited in the House last week or the Peter Saunders she actually appointed who thinks there is a link between low class and low intelligence? Is she aware that they are actually two different people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do not see how that is relevant to the actual—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. A question has been asked. If members want to hear the answer they need to be a bit more reasonable with the noise level. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will say exactly what I said last week: some of the advice and comments from Treasury I agree with and some I do not. I am not so narrow-minded that I will pick out only the bits I agree with; I will listen to all of them and make a decision from there. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Which one did she intend to appoint? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s question was so long and convoluted that the Minister picked up on one piece of it and she is entitled to do that. If the member wants a question answered seriously it has to be short and concise or the member gives the Minister a chance to pick up any bit of it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker I do not like disagreeing with your ruling but I think the question was a relatively simple question: was it the Peter Saunders who said this or the Peter Saunders who said that? The member indicated that there were two different Peter Saunders and the question was which one the Minister had intended to appoint. It was not complicated. Disagreeing with one of the statements or agreeing with it actually did not address the question which was which of those two people she meant to appoint. It appears from what was said in the House last week that she has appointed someone she did not mean to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not need to have any further assistance on it. The member’s kind clarification has shown that the question was barely in order because it was so far removed from advice on employment policies. Which person she might have appointed somewhere bears virtually no relationship to the primary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the point you may have missed because it was about employment matters was the purpose of Ms Bennett’s appointment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The primary question asked the Minister what advice she had received. The supplementary question from Catherine Delahunty asked her which person she had appointed to something; it was totally irrelevant to the primary question. I was being kind in not ruling it out and to expect me then to insist on the Minister answering a particular aspect of it is not reasonable. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: How can she justify telling a young person offered a job as a trainee landscaper with a productive value of $400 a week that the young person is not allowed by law to take that job and must instead go on a benefit of just $160 a week? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am sure that I have never told a young person that he or she is not to take a job and instead is to go on the benefit. I am not sure what the member is referring to. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: It is very clear that there is a minimum wage of $510— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg the member’s pardon. Is this a point of order or is it a supplementary question? It has to be one or the other. He is an experienced member. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very clear what the question was about. Someone was offered a job at $400 a week. The Minister for Social Development and Employment would clearly know that the minimum wage is $510 a week and that is why by law this young person could not take the job. I was asking the Minister how she could justify that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member because his party has a limited number of supplementary questions to reword his question to make it consistent with the primary question. The primary question asked the Minister what advice she had received on the success of Government employment policies. I invite the member to rephrase his question to make it in order and consistent with the primary question. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Is it not obvious to the Minister that she would have more success in terms of unemployment numbers if she allowed a young person to take up the offer of a job paying $400 and did not insist that instead of that person taking up that job paying $400 he or she had to go on the unemployment benefit because of the minimum wage rules that she operates under? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first relates to the biography of Professor Peter Saunders and it is from the University of New South Wales website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table another document. It relates to the biography of Professor Peter Saunders from the Centre for Independent Studies and it is from the Welfare Working Group website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: What is more important to her: young people getting jobs or pandering to the left? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. There were transgressions from all around the House so I cannot do much about them. I say to the Hon Sir Roger Douglas who has been in the House longer than I have that the question must relate to the primary question. The primary question was very clear. It asked “What advice …”. The member managed in his previous supplementary question to focus on the success of the Government’s employment policies. I invite him again—because his party has only a limited number of supplementary questions—to reword his question to make it in order and consistent with the primary question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find your ruling a bit perplexing and I draw your attention to what the primary question exactly is. The question states: “What advice has she received on the success of the Government’s employment policies?”. The ACT Party was assuming that the success of the Government’s employment policies was measured in people getting jobs which is exactly what Sir Roger Douglas was talking about. It is the success of the employment policies that we are discussing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not difficult to phrase a question that seeks the information the member wants but is more consistent with the primary question. I invite the Hon Sir Roger Douglas to do that if he wishes. He does not wish to do so.