5. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his reported statement from February 2009 that Ministers had been “aggressively” working on line-by-line expenditure reviews?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, and they continue to do so. They have had to look carefully at Government spending, because between 2003-04 and 2008-09 Government spending increased by 50 percent in just 5 years. That was under a Labour Government, and we have had to rein in those things.
Has he ensured that the departments and agencies for which he is responsible have been subjected to the same line-by-line scrutiny; if so, is he confident that all of the potential savings have been identified?
Does he believe that Ministers should lead by example when it comes to living without “nice-to-haves”; if not, why not?
Mr SPEAKERI say to the Labour front bench on this occasion that I have called their own backbench colleague Chris Hipkins. I want to hear his supplementary question.
How does he justify approving expenditure of more than $275,000 on redecorating his prime ministerial residence at a time when the elderly are finding that their home help is being cut, parents are paying more for their children’s early childhood education, police cars are being taken off the street, and night classes are being cancelled throughout the country?
Because it is a $14 million property. It is having maintenance work as it has not been painted for 11 years. The advice was that if we did not paint the property, because it is weatherboard in Wellington it would deteriorate more. If he wants to ask me about “nice-to-haves”, a “nice-to-have” is Phil Goff as Leader of the Opposition. [ Interruption]
Why was it appropriate for him to cancel the upgrade of Premier House back in February 2009, when his Government was dishing out large-scale tax cuts, but appropriate to go ahead in early 2011, when his Government is promising a Budget that will severely cut into many of the public services New Zealanders rely on?
Because my understanding was that in 2009 the money would be spent on things such as couches, which, frankly, do need changing, but they are a “nice-to-have”, whereas painting a Historic Places Trust category I building will actually save the taxpayer money. If the member is saying we should not maintain New Zealand’s historic buildings, that is fine by me; that can be the new policy of the Labour Party. Goodness knows, Labour needs to save money somewhere in its policies, with the way it is spending it everywhere else.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why was the 2009 decision his to make, but the decision this year not?