1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
How much money, if any, was appropriated to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in Budget 2010?
Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) Link to this
As announced on Budget day, the Budget provides $4.8 million over 4 years for Pacific youth training and job opportunities. The intention is for this money to be used by the Pacific Economic Development Agency for those initiatives, subject to the negotiation of a purchase agreement and the usual rules around that. There is no specific appropriation to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in the Budget.
What due diligence was undertaken on the one and only shareholder of the private company Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd before Cabinet approved $4.8 million worth of taxpayers’ money to that company in Budget 2010?
Although I do not have immediate details of the specific issue raised, I am sure it was appropriate.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you think it is an appropriate answer for the Minister to say he was sure it was sufficient, when I asked “What due diligence was undertaken …” I did not ask whether it was sufficient or insufficient, but about what was actually undertaken.
Mr SPEAKERI hear the honourable member. I think, in fairness, though, the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Finance. He indicated that he did not have the particular details needed to give a more precise answer to the member.
Will the private company Pacific Economic Development Agency, allocated $4.8 million of taxpayers’ funding as set out on page 186 of the Budget supporting documents, be required to report to Parliament under section 32A of the Public Finance Act, as an organisation like Plunket, for example, is required to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funding; if not, why not?
I do not have advice in respect of the section of the Public Finance Act that the member refers to. I know that a contract that is currently in the process of being negotiated will require all of the normal capacity to deliver—ability to collaborate, accountability, and measured outcomes—that any purchase agreement for Crown funding would.
Was he aware that the author of the original Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal has stated as recently as 29 June this year that others would have to be engaged to deliver some of the proposals, because “PEDA won’t be able to.”; and why would he risk allocating funding to an organisation that will have to hand funding to a third party, where it will not be accountable to the taxpayer?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have quite a number of questions to ask the Minister. I seek leave to hold them over, because the Minister obviously has not come prepared to answer any of my questions.
First of all, perhaps the leave should have been put before the question was asked. Secondly, the first part of that question asked whether I was aware of such-and-such. The answer to that question was “No.”
We do not—[ Interruption]—I am on my feet, and members will be silent. The Minister has pointed out that he did answer the question that was asked. But leave has been sought to have the questions deferred. The member is perfectly entitled to seek that leave. Would the member like me to put that leave?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know how good your memory is. You will recall that his answer was “No.” He is answering on behalf of the Minister, not on his own behalf. So if he has information that the Minister is not aware of that statement, then he must have other information that he has not been able to provide today.
The member makes a perfectly fair point in pointing out that the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister, so therefore the answer means that the Minister of Finance is not aware. Unless the Minister wishes to correct the answer, that is how the House will take it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even then, he did not get there.
I have ruled that he has answered, and the honourable member may wish to ask further a supplementary question.