1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Why did he allocate $4.8 million in the Budget to the Pacific Economic Development Agency rather than making that funding contestable?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
In the first place, the appropriation in the Budget does not amount to an allocation of $4.8 million to the Pacific Economic Development Agency. As I have pointed out to the member many times, there is a process of negotiation going on regarding a purchase agreement that will meet all the requirements of accountability and transparency. The Government decided to allocate some money to improvement of the skills and job prospects of young Pacific Islanders, alongside the tens of millions of dollars that it has allocated to any number of schemes designed to cushion people from the sharpest edges of recession and, particularly, to help younger people to maintain their connection with the workforce.
When the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs reported to him and to his colleague that this agency was unproven and untested, constituted a real risk, and had not completed any projects of real note, why did he decide to maintain the exclusivity of the appropriation to that organisation despite those warnings?
There is no exclusivity, and I think that is where the Opposition is labouring under a misunderstanding. The Government proceeded with the appropriation, and I would have thought that the Labour Party would welcome new money in a tough Budget to help young Pacific Island people get skills and maintain a connection to the workforce. The appropriation having been made in the Budget, negotiations are going on now with Treasury and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. The member should await the outcome of that to see whether there is exclusivity.
If what the Minister says is true, why is there a single-line item in the Budget for the Pacific Economic Development Agency, and why did his Minister of Pacific Island Affairs announce on Budget day that that was exactly where the money was going?
As I have said before, the appropriation process does not guarantee the money to any particular organisation. The appropriation was made with the full knowledge that there would need to be discussion about a detailed business case. This is a completely normal process followed all the time by Governments.
Why is the mechanism for how the Pacific Economic Development Agency is to report on its spending one of self-reporting, as indicated in the Budget document itself, rather than the more robust reporting mechanism that generally applies to non-governmental organisations, as set out under section 32A of the Public Finance Act?
The member raised that question yesterday, and I can give the member the same answer. There are no special arrangements because there is no contract in place. It is very straightforward. I would have thought the Labour Party would be supporting the Government trying to help young Pacific Islanders maintain their connection to the workforce and get some skills—or is the member unaware that this is the group most affected by unemployment in the recession?
When will the Minister get it into his head that the Opposition is not concerned about the fact that he might belatedly put some money into supporting the Pacific Island community, whose unemployment rate has doubled, but is worried about the lack of transparency and the shonky way in which he has put it in place?
What I have in my head is the alarm among the Labour Party that a National-led Government is talking to the Pacific Island community, and doing so constructively. I point out to the member that the kinds of bullying tactics from the Labour Party that failed in the Māori community will also fail in the Pacific community.
In claiming that the criticism of the Pacific Economic Development Agency is based on party politics and conspiracy theory, how does the Minister explain the statement made by National’s pollster and blogger David Farrar that giving the agency $4.8 million when it has no track record is “a reckless decision”?
Did the Prime Minister discuss with him as Minister of Finance any funding proposals that arose out of a meeting in Auckland last year between Mr Key and the Pacific Economic Development Agency director J R Pereira, a meeting that was also attended by Inga Tuigamala and Michael Jones; if so, what undertakings were made at that meeting?
I know that the Leader of the Opposition is somewhat resentful of the Prime Minister’s popularity, but he—
Mr SPEAKERMr Speaker, I think you know what the point of order is. It was quite unnecessary to preface the answer to what was quite a straightforward question in the way that the Minister did.
I hear the honourable member. The Minister was asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed matters with him following that meeting, and I think the Minister should attempt to answer that.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a question is asked in that sort of carping, name-dropping manner, I think you need to ask yourself whether the question itself had validity. It was just totally—
No, the member should be careful about what he says. I listened very carefully to that question, and I contrasted it with the previous question. In respect of the previous question asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Minister had licence to say almost anything that is permitted in this House, because the question was a very loose question with a lot of political comment in it. The question before the House now is a reasonable question: it asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed this issue with the Minister some time last year, following a meeting with one Pereira and a couple of other people in Auckland. I do not know whether the meeting took place, but the Minister should tell the House whether any discussions took place between the Prime Minister and him on this matter following that meeting.