3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Has he given Parents Inc. an undertaking to give them money?
Hon BILL ENGLISHIn light of that answer, on what did he base his comments before the election that Parents Inc. delivered fantastic results and he was going to “make sure they get some money to run their programmes far and wide,”?
The member will appreciate that those comments were made by the Prime Minister in his capacity as the then Leader of the Opposition. But he has made no secret of his support, which I share, for a group that has for the last 15 years educated parents and communities up and down this country, in courses attended by very large numbers of people.
What discussions did he have with the Minister of Finance about providing funding to Parents Inc., and why was this organisation singled out before the election as worthy of funding by the then Leader of the Opposition, even before an application was made?
There were no discussions with the Minister of Finance. In fact, the decision was made in the Ministry of Social Development, I presume with some attention from the Minister for Social Development and Employment. It is actually not unusual at all for decisions to be made to contract social service providers without going through the Ministry of Economic Development tendering system.
Why did the Government approve $2.4 million untendered to Parents Inc. for a parenting programme, when the evaluation of it was not completed and the complete sample, which was to be provided by December 2010, was never compiled or received?
That decision was made within the Ministry of Social Development. But I am interested that the Labour Party just hates anyone who goes out and talks to New Zealanders in a way that is not—
Mr SPEAKERThe question asked why a certain decision was made; it did not actually invite an answer on whom the Labour Party hates or loves. That is not in order.
Why did the Government use an incomplete evaluation—one that had such a low response from parents using the parenting programme—as its justification for giving $2.4 million to Parents Inc., which the Minister for Social Development and Employment did earlier this month?
That member will know, because she was a Minister in the previous Government, that most Government spending is not fully evaluated. A lot of it might struggle to pass an objective evaluation according to any particular measure of political correctness that the Labour Party might apply to it. The fact is that this organisation has for 15 years educated parents around New Zealand in very large numbers. It probably has a better track record on parenting education than any organisation in the rest of the country.
Is he aware that the researchers his Government relied on in handing over the $2.4 million of taxpayers’ money, untendered, had such a low response from the survey of parents that they decided they needed to incentivise the parents by offering them either a 16-piece Maxwell and Williams fine bone china teaset or three books, but they still failed to complete the sample?
Is the Opposition now saying that the researchers were stupid, or that there is something wrong with the course? I think they need to make up their minds. But I invite the Opposition to go to any suburb of Hamilton or Palmerston North and tell people they think that Parents Inc. gets it all wrong. In fact, that organisation would be regarded as a bit more of an expert on parenting education than the bureaucracy or the overfunded Families Commission.
Is he aware that despite the Government allocating $2.4 million to Parents Inc. for its parenting programme, parents have to pay up to $90 a course; and how many low-income parents, who are already feeling the effects of rising costs, will be able to afford that amount?
Given the choice between believing that member’s assertion and the Minister, I believe the Minister.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do I actually need to indicate what it is? I mean, the Minister has indicated there is a question about whether he believes a statement made by a member in this House. Mr Speaker, you know that he cannot do that.
Hon Simon PowerIt is a regular occurrence for the member who has just resumed his seat to yell from that side of the House: “Tell the truth. Tell the truth.”, which would seem to get us into the same territory that he is now complaining about in respect of that comment.
I think the matter can be dealt with fairly simply. When members make statements in questions, they risk those statements being refuted by Ministers. It seems to me that the Minister was making it fairly plain that he disagreed totally with the statement contained in the question. He was doing it in a fairly robust way, and I have no problem with that. This is the danger that members face when they put claims or allegations into a supplementary question in an area of some interest. Where strong political views are held, they can get strong political answers.
I seek leave to table a paper from Parents Inc.’s website, which sets out the cost to parents for its parenting programme, Toolbox.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
What lessons has the Government learnt from the Treasurer’s exercise with the Pacific Economic Development Agency, which was about giving money to people with whom it was associated—lessons that have been applied to this project, which again has given money, over $2 million without tender, to its friends?
Those statements are unbelievable, coming from a former Minister of a Labour Government. Fancy a Government giving money to people that it knew—the previous Labour Government specialised in it! In fact, the $2.4 million is to pay the $90 fee so that foster parents, whom that Government left unsupported with the most vulnerable children in New Zealand, can actually get some support. Labour should actually apologise for its record of failure to support foster parents and to get decent parent education out in New Zealand.
I seek leave to table research prepared by Point Research into Parents Inc.’s Toolbox. It is an evaluation that was uncompleted but used by the Government to give money to its mates.
The member will get to her feet, and withdraw and apologise for that last statement. I will not have the point of order process abused like that. There is nothing wrong with seeking leave to table a document, but that last statement will be withdrawn and the member will apologise.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you ask the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise for the comments he made about me?
I will not, because the member knows that she made that comment under a point of order, when she was seeking the leave of the House. That is quite a different process from answers to questions or any other process, and it will not be abused.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What remedy does a member have immediately when a member is called a liar—
The member will resume his seat right away. This nonsense will stop; it is just petty and pathetic. Members will notice that earlier on I pulled the Minister up when a straight question was asked and he went on to make some comment about the Labour Party. I pulled him up; I stopped him. I cannot run this House in the way that one party may wish it to be run; I have to run it absolutely fairly to all parties. I stopped the Minister when he started to abuse the Labour Party—I stopped him in his tracks. But given some of the questions asked and the implication in questions—I heard the question ask whether money was being given to friends—I do not blame the Minister for giving a pretty robust answer. If members do not like to receive robust answers, they should be careful about the questions they ask.