8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services
Were the capital and running costs of the self-drive car used by the Hon Bill English in the first 6 months of this Government properly appropriated under the Public Finance Act 1989; if so, will he table official advice, if any, to that effect?
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) Link to this
Yes; the Department of Internal Affairs capital expenditure intentions were included in the estimates of appropriation, as were the non-departmental other expense costs for the operation of those vehicles. The answer to the second part of the question is no.
If he thinks he broke no regulation or law, then why did he sign consultation letters to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the chair of the Remuneration Authority on 6 March, only to consult them again on 18 May with one late change, which is the one that removes the requirement for self-drive cars to be based at a member’s primary place of residence?
Because it was appropriate for me to do so. Can I—[ Interruption] Yeah, I know that this is the thing that is holding the country back, but members must bear with me for a second, because I will just help them through their afternoon. The member pays a lot of attention to part 2 of the 2003 determination. Unfortunately for him, he seems to have overlooked part 1, which I will just draw to his attention. It states—
Hon Ruth Dyson—no, I am not a smart-arse; this is the answer to the question. It is the cost-effective principle, which provides exactly this: “Wherever reasonably practicable, members of the Executive should endeavour to use the most cost-effective alternative available.” That is exactly what we are doing. We are actually saving taxpayers money, and I am sure that they welcome that.
Why did the Minister make the hasty, hurried, and late change in May of this year, which he now tells the House that he did not really need to do so; which part of that is not true?