Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 29 June 2010. Volume:664;Page:12215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 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) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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 SPEAKER 
: With 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 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How could saying this was a normal process be an answer to an either/or question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: 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 Shanks 
: Why did the Government make an appropriation in Budget 2010 to help young Pacific people? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Unemployment 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that the member has asked that question about three times and he is— 
Hon Members 
: Still hasn’t got an answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: 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. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: 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? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: 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.