1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Does he stand by his statement to Morning Report on 18 June, when he said the $4.8 million appropriated to the Pacific Economic Development Agency would be contestable?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
Yes. What I said was that the money will be contestable if the purchase agreement cannot be reached satisfactorily. I expect officials will look at the same issues with regard to this contract as they would with any other—that is, the capacity to deliver, the ability to collaborate, accountability, and how to measure outcomes.
Why did he claim that the appropriation would be contestable, when the leaked memo of 25 March 2010 from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs states explicitly that the Minister of Finance had made it clear that the Pacific Economic Development Agency was to be the preferred provider for the delivery of these initiatives?
As the member will be aware from his time as a Minister, there is an appropriation process, and then there is a contracting process. The contracting process will focus on achieving what the Government wants to achieve out of this, and that is jobs and skills for young Pacific Islanders. The member may not be aware that they are the group most affected by the recession, and we need to take positive initiatives to keep them connected to the workplace.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that the question was about why he said it was contestable, when the memo stated that this organisation was to be the preferred provider, which is a contradiction of what the Minister had claimed. The Minister gave a long discourse about what he was doing, but he did not answer the question.
Mr SPEAKERWith respect—[ Interruption] Hold on a moment. With respect, I think the Minister said a normal appropriation process was involved here. Members can question him further on that—whether they accept that is a reasonable answer or not. But I think it is an answer to the question that was asked.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How could saying this was a normal process be an answer to an either/or question?
The member is asking a further question. The person to direct questions to is the Minister. That is exactly what supplementary questions are all about. Members have every right not to be satisfied with an answer that is given, and if they are not satisfied with the answer, they can question the Minister more about it and pin him down.
Why did the Minister of Finance ignore the advice of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that the projects promoted by the Pacific Economic Development Agency “overlap with many programmes that are currently being run by the Pacific Business Trust and other local and central government programmes”?
The advice was not ignored. The Government always takes some notice of officials’ advice. This was a unique proposition, and it is focused on achieving something that I think even the member would like to achieve, and that is to help to lift the skills of young Pacific Islanders and keep them connected to the world of work, so that as the economy recovers they can get jobs.
Why did the Minister of Finance decide to appropriate the money to the Pacific Economic Development Agency, notwithstanding that the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs drew his attention to the fact that this was not an agency that had delivered on any projects of note, that this was an agency that had no track record—this was an agency that was untested and unproven—that the experience of the ministry was that local and central government agencies had found that Pacific Economic Development Agency did not work well with other groups, and that the advice from the ministry to him was that this contradicted Government procedures for tendering processes?
Officials are often cautious, and that is their job. But as the member knows, the appropriation did not create any obligation to pay any money to anybody, and that is why right now officials are going through a process to ensure that young Pacific Islanders will get the benefit of an investment of Government money in developing further skills and better opportunities to get jobs. In the end, I think the member will find that both the Pacific Island community and even the Labour Party will come round to supporting doing something active for those young New Zealanders.
Katrina ShanksUnemployment is 14.4 percent among Pacific people, and it is even higher among young Pacific people. The Government simply has to take some positive initiatives to ensure that we do not end up with one in five young Pacific Islanders being disconnected from the workforce and having no skills. That would be a bad legacy from the recession.
How does the Minister justify his claim to the House on 23 June that the Pacific Economic Development Agency agreement would “meet all the requirements of accountability and transparency”, when the process of deciding that it would get the money was anything but transparent, and when the only legal requirement in the Budget is of self-reporting, rather than the more usual, and certainly the more stringent, reporting requirement set out under section 32A of the Public Finance Act?
The member is trying to describe a contract that has not yet been negotiated or completed. The contract with this organisation, or with any other organisation, will go through exactly the same process as for every other public contract. I might say that at the end of it, we will be very pleased to see arrangements that will help young Pacific Islanders get skills and get jobs. I am surprised that the Labour Party is so opposed to that.
Was Inga Tuigamala, an aspirant National candidate, at any point involved in discussions with him or Mr Key in relation to the Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal?
Was the reason that the Pacific Economic Development Agency was granted the appropriation—against all officials’ advice and in a totally non-transparent manner—that it was mired by party political considerations, rather than being motivated by how to best and most effectively deliver the services needed by the Pasifika community?
No, and it does not matter how often the Labour Party says that, because it simply is not true. It was motivated by the need to stop doing what Labour did for years, which was to talk endlessly, write strategies, and hold workshops, and to turn the aspirations of the wider Pacific community into some real change for some real young people with real needs.