Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:655;Page:4662] 
5.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How many jobs will be either saved or created as a consequence of the six Job Summit work streams he is responsible for? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Associate Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: The six Job Summit work streams that the Minister is responsible for will collectively improve the environment in which business can prosper. For instance in the case of the advancement of the energy and environmental initiative with particular focus on housing 1 week ago the Government launched the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart campaign which will retrofit 180000 houses. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was directed to the Minister for Economic Development. Mr Brownlee has a role as energy Minister—although the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise just as I asked the Hon Rodney Hide to do. The member has sought to abuse a member through a point of order. That is totally unacceptable. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The six work streams that Mr Brownlee is responsible for as Minister for Economic Development do not include insulation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is litigating the quality of the answer. The member will sit down. He cannot use a point of order to litigate the quality of the answer; he can use further supplementary questions to dig into the quality of the answer. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Job Summit designated six work streams. They did not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. This is not a matter of order. At the end of the Minister’s answer the member who is asking the question may claim that the Minister has not answered it. I will consider that if it arises. But he cannot raise a point of order in the way that he has because we are still listening to the Minister’s answer. I have not heard the Minister abuse anyone in the House. I invite the Minister to start his answer again; I want to hear the answer to the question. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Minister is responsible for six Job Summit work streams one of which for the education of the questioner is the development of an action plan to advance energy and environmental initiatives with a particular focus on housing. In respect of that particular initiative 1 week ago the Government launched a scheme called Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart. It will retrofit 180000 houses over the next 4 years. This will create not fewer than 2000 jobs. I wish the member would do his homework. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why in relation to his work stream to “actively manage regulatory approval process for complex and/or major projects” has it taken him 4 months to decide whether a ministerial task force should be established when his fellow colleagues have established 22 reviews or is he timing his decision to take effect in the next recession? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: This particular work stream is quite wide ranging. It includes reforming the Resource Management Act and establishing an environmental protection agency and also in direct relation to the role of the Minister developing an infrastructure plan that is led by the Treasury infrastructure group of which he is part. Frankly this Government has done a great deal more regarding infrastructure than that lot did in 9 years in Government. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What criteria will he or his officials be relying upon in order to advance the policy to save iconic companies as reflected in the recent select committee discussion and the discussion that is under way in the Ministry of Economic Development? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: One of the work streams is redeveloping business assistance schemes which obviously relate to companies—[ 
Interruption 
] They are business assistance schemes for the information of those members who need to listen. This will involve establishing a new fund that will focus on providing greater and more targeted support for businesses that are seeking to internationalise New Zealand products and services. That is a very specific set of work which the Government has to pick up because frankly the previous Government left the economy in a shambles. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had difficulty in hearing part of that answer. Was the Minister if I could ask him to repeat his answer referring to business assistance schemes? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the answer could not be heard the Minister has been asked whether he was referring to business assistance schemes. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Stream No. 4—and presumably the questioner has researched the six streams—directly relates to business assistance schemes. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How does cutting $10 million from the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise budget help business assistance schemes? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The reductions in funding of course were almost invariably in areas that were unfunded. I might add that the Minister for Economic Development the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Research Science and Technology are working on a programme to improve business-facing assistance. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very pithy and lucid. Ten million dollars has been cut. Please invite the Minister to repeat his answer without saying it was unfunded. We cannot cut something if it does not exist. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty is for the Speaker to have specific knowledge on these things. The Minister did answer the member’s question although I accept it may not have been to the member’s satisfaction. It is difficult for me to arbitrate on an issue such as that. I believe I have to allow that the Minister did answer the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Although I fully respect that it is not for the Speaker to wade into judgments on the quality of the response or the satisfaction of the member I believe that my colleague’s point is a more technical one. It is not logically mathematically or indeed legally possible to cut something that has not been funded. That would mean there was nothing to cut. The whole point of a cut is that an allocation must have been in the Budget previously. I guess that is the point. On that technical point I believe my colleague is on strong ground. Could you ask the Minister to clarify his point? We would love to know what he meant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are relitigating the quality of the Minister’s answer. We cannot do that. Further supplementary questions are available to the member. If the member wishes to ask a further supplementary question I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s answer. I sense he does not wish to use a further supplementary question in which case we will move to question No. 6.