Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he agree that the Government’s review of telecommunications law which may benefit Chorus by up to $160 million and the $30 million taxpayer funded subsidy to the RioTinto-ownedTiwai Smelter are examples of corporate welfare; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No I do not agree with that or the member’s assertions. I regard them as examples of the Government making pragmatic hands-on decisions a style that I know that member and his three leaders strongly support and I thank the member for what might be one of his last questions.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. How can he justify doling out $30 million in corporate welfare for the benefit of RioTinto when it posted a half-year profit of $1.7 billion and he did not even bother to ask it for a guarantee that the jobs atTīwai would be safe?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have explained before the Government was asked to provide extensive subsidies to the aluminium smelter both through transmission charges and a lower electricity price. We refused to do that because it could have cost hundreds of millions of dollars and I believe it would have been a subsidy to the ongoing operation of RioTinto. The payment we made was a one-off incentive to get the contract signed. The contract has been signed and I am surprised that while the Labour members’ leaders are campaigning around the regions for Government intervention to create jobs in those regions they are—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not part of the Minister’s responsibility.Hon David Parker: Why are the rules different for companies like RioTintoSkycity and Chorus which are already profitable companies that gain breaks from his Government after dinner or phone calls with the Prime Minister yet other companies such asNorskeSkog Summit Wool Spinners andHolcim cement that do not have the ear of Steven Joyce or the Prime Minister are forced to retrench and make staff redundant?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that the member would understand that the Government cannot—and certainly this Government will not—support every company that is under economic stress. On the basis of our strategic intentions such as bringing forward the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband—supported I understand by the Opposition—we do occasionally make decisions to intervene in the market. We are quite happy to explain those interventions transparently and for the public and the Opposition to see all the rationales behind those interventions.Te Ururoa Flavell: Would corporate welfare extend then to compensation or subsidies for ultra-fast broadband subcontractors affected by non-payment fromTransfield Services with some owed more than $1 million and who have laid off most of their staff; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that relevant Ministers are inquiring into the circumstances to ensure that there is no action that the Government has taken or no aspect of its contract that prevents the fair payment of people who have worked hard delivered their side of the bargain and not been paid. I would point out though that the contractors have work—which of course they deserve to have—because the Government put up a billion dollars in a market intervention in an openly negotiated contract with Chorus. As part of the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband which we brought forward by 10 years these contractors have the opportunity for work but of course they should be paid.Hon David Parker: Why is the Government intervening to keep a high price for copper broadband for Chorus now when Minister Joyce refused this to Chorus’ competitors when he oversaw the granting of the ultra-fast broadband contract?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit rich to have this member asking these questions while his leaders are out promising pork to every part of the country.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. His irrelevant opinion is not an answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! I invite the member to ask his question again.Hon David Parker: Why is the Government intervening to keep a high price for copper broadband for Chorus now when Minister Joyce refused this to Chorus’ competitors when he oversaw the granting of the ultra-fast broadband contract?Hon Steven Joyce: It’s incorrect. It’s just incorrect. It’s incorrect. It’s wrong.Hon David Parker: It is correct Mr Joyce.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is incorrect. The hard reality about prices for this infrastructure is that having made the decision to bring forward the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband by probably about a decade that does bring forward the cost of meeting the capital investment—which is many billions; probably $4 billion or $5 billion—of that network. One way or another the network has to be paid for. If it is not paid for you do not get ultra-fast broadband.Hon David Parker: Given that he is aware that many of the people laying the fibre for the Chorus ultra-fast broadband project have not been paid for weeks how can he justify yet more corporate welfare for Chorus—a profitable billion-dollar company—when the people doing the actual work are not being paid?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that although the member may be trying to stick to his corporate welfare theme the facts of this matter are thatTransfield has a contract with Chorus andTransfield is responsible for the payment of those contractors. Of course they should be paid and I would expect that Ministers andTransfield will get to the bottom of that issue before too long. Contractors have every right to complain if they have not been paid for work that they have completed.