5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
What programmes does he consider “nice to have” and should be cut?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
If the Opposition want an indication of it, it should look at a number of the programmes that the Government has cut in previous Budgets; for instance, reducing funding subsidies for hobby courses in adult education, abolishing the “Wassup!” badges for promoting achievement among Māori students, and reducing the tertiary tripartite funding pool by $55 million, which was just a political agreement between Labour and its union mates.
Is funding for Te Rito: New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy, which helps to tackle the growing level of family violence in New Zealand, a “nice to have” or a necessity; if it is a necessity, why has $382,000 been cut from women’s refuges from 1 April?
I understand that the Minister who is in charge of that, Ms Turia, is involved in a vigorous discussion with people who are providing family violence prevention services. The parts of that programme that do not work are “nice to have”; the parts that do work are necessities.
Is having advocates for vulnerable children and young people who have witnessed family violence, who have had their funding cut, a “nice to have” programme, and what is the likely impact of these cuts on hundreds of children?
I think this is an area, like many others, where it is important to be able to have sensible discussion about what works and what does not. I understand that on that issue there are a range of views among people who understand the issues about whether it works or does not work. We will not shy away from discussing the effectiveness of hundreds of millions of dollars of social programmes, some of which work, some of which do not.
Is the $13 million allocated to Te Puni Kōkiri for whānau engagement over the next 2 years “nice to have”, or will this funding be redirected to necessities like skill training, for example, so that young Māori can get a job, rather than to paying for a family meeting?
The Government is doing a very good job of rearranging funding around skills training. We discovered that a lot of the money Labour had committed to skills training was resulting in thousands of young people getting zero credits and no qualifications. So we are reallocating funding to much more effective skills training.
Why are budget advisory services effectively having their funding cut at a time when, under this Government’s policy, these services are seeing almost five times the number of families they are funded for and are having families sent to them by Work and Income? Is it because those services are “nice to have”?
Hon Paula BennettAs is evident from the members’ exchange, when the member says “effectively cut”, does that mean it is less than what Labour promised 3 years ago or something?
If the member is trying to give the impression that the Government is cutting funding to social services, she is wrong. This Government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars over the last couple of years to dealing with the effects of the recession. But at the same time as spending more, we make no excuse for thoroughly scrutinising which programmes are working and which are not. Good intentions are not enough.
I seek leave to table a letter from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges to the deputy chief executive officer of the Ministry of Social Development asking for an explanation as to why it has had $380,00 cut from family violence prevention programmes, advocates for children, and the family violence prevention education fund.
Mr SPEAKER
Hon Shane JonesWhy is spending $2 million on a plastic waka the highest priority Government spending when he is cutting $55 million from industry training for young Māori on the basis that it is a “nice to have”?
Hon Tariana Turia Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the member realises that $33 million was spent on a black waka—by Labour.
I think that is a very good point. Why did the Labour Government spend $33 million on the America’s Cup yacht—which apparently will show up here some time? The project the member refers to is a pavilion, not a waka. When New Zealand is on the world stage, with billions of people watching the third-largest sporting event on the globe, we want to present New Zealand positively so that everyone sees us as a country that is progressive, multicultural, and economically robust.
I apologise to the member. I say to Government members on this occasion that I simply cannot hear with that level of noise.
If a plastic waka is such a high priority for Government spending, why did the Minister not give any consideration to tendering for such a contract?
In the first place, most of the money for the project the member is talking about is coming from cancelling other projects. In the current environment, that is as it should be. Of course, the building of the project will be tendered.
Why does the Minister think this $2 million Tupperware gift—or in this case “Tupperwaka” gift—will improve the daily lives of the members of the Ngāti Whātua iwi?
The Ngāti Whātua iwi seem to believe that it will improve the daily lives of their members. They are keen participants in showcasing New Zealand to the world. Despite the fiscal constraints, the Government is not cutting back the Rugby World Cup budget. We want to do a good job of it.
The honourable member will get to his feet and apologise for that abuse of the point of order system, because I was on my feet and he just carried on regardless. I have already made it very clear to members that when I am on my feet they are to stop, so I ask the member to apologise to the House for that.
I thank the honourable member. The thought of being on the honourable member’s feet was all a bit much for the Speaker for a moment.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. And I am standing on one of my feet, anyway. There are two points I would like to make. First of all, during that exchange, the Leader of the House interjected. Secondly—we did not take it up at the time, because we thought you were going to deal with it—Tariana Turia also did not sit down when you stood up. She continued.
There will be no interjections or the Minister will be leaving the Chamber. There will be no further interjections. The point the member makes is not unreasonable. I accept that I have probably been a little bit tougher on the Hon Shane Jones, but that happens from time to time. I am not unaware of that. I warn Government Ministers—all Government Ministers—that when I am on my feet, there will be no interjections. They will cease speaking and will resume their seats when I get to my feet, because I do it for very good reason. I accept that the score may be a little against the Opposition at the moment on that count, but I am aware of that.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
Does the Minister of Finance agree with his colleague the Hon Pita Sharples that the $1.9 million plastic waka is “authentically Māori”, and does the Government have any plans for other authentic Māori plastic-fantastic inflatables?
I do not think it should be any surprise that when New Zealand is on the world stage, showcasing this country to a global audience, there will be some Māori content. If the member is advocating there should be no Māori presence, I have to tell him that that is not New Zealand.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister of Finance agree that it is rather inconsistent for the Labour Party to criticise an investment of $2 million in a waka cultural centre—
I invite the honourable member to reword his question, because the Minister has no responsibility for what the Labour Opposition might think.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
Has the Minister of Finance seen any reports that might indicate that it is inconsistent for the Labour Party to criticise a $2 million investment in a waka cultural centre, given that a party in this Parliament—namely, Labour—invested $33 million in Team New Zealand waka?
Before I call the Minister I just alert him to the fact that the question is very marginal, because the Minister has no responsibility for Labour Opposition views, at all. I will allow the Minister to answer the question as long as he is careful.
As the Minister of Finance I would dearly love to cancel the Team New Zealand funding of $33 million, because it is a “nice to have” and there are necessities we need to fund. But the contract signed by the Hon Trevor Mallard was so tightly specified that we have to honour it despite the fact that it is a very low priority.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
How can it be appropriate for Cabinet to vote funding for a plastic waka to the largest hapū in the electorate of the Minister of Māori Affairs at a time when polling shows he is in danger of losing his seat to Labour, when an election is imminent, and without even putting the project out to tender?