Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1382] 
10. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What is the cost budgeted for this financial year of the 30 or more positions in the Change Programme Office within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the consultants engaged by the Ministry on the change process? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised that the 30 positions referred to in the question include both Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff temporarily assigned to the change team and change programme consultants on fixed-term contracts. In addition services are being contracted from a range of external consultancy firms. The cost of all three of these categories in the current year is $9.2 million from the ministry’s budget of $398 million.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the $9.2 million that he has invested in what is regarded as a failed change process include the quarter of a million dollars paid to a man in Singapore to come to New Zealand once every 6 weeks—$250000 which annualised equals $1.5 million a year—and an organisation called Change By Design being paid thousands to give advice to stressed employees such as to get a pet or take up yoga? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The contracts that the member refers to would have been entered into by the chief executive who has authority to enter such contracts without—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I say to the Labour front bench again to show some courtesy to their colleague. I believe he has asked a question in which there is genuine public interest and I believe members of the House want to hear the answer. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The particular example that was cited by the member is a contract that the chief executive had full authority to enter into. As he is probably aware the matter has been raised in a number of media articles in recent times and I have raised the matter with the ministry accordingly. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Have 49 out of 53 of his heads of mission written to the ministry on 15 March expressing that they are “deeply concerned” that the new business model that he has just admitted spending $9 million on will “undermine or even destroy” the ministry’s key strengths and capabilities? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I cannot confirm that statement but I can say that there have been a large number of exchanges taking place between heads of mission and other staff members and the chief executive. I have taken an overview of some of those comments and it is fair to say that many of them are strongly critical of the change programme. That is one of the reasons I decided to issue a 4-page letter trying to ensure that the future discussion should focus on those areas in which change could be constructively considered and eliminating those areas where further discussion was going to be destructive. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter dated 15 March 2012 and headed “MFAT in confidence” signed by 49 of our top high commissioners and ambassadors saying precisely what I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When 95 percent of his top front-line staff most of whom he has personally approved the appointment of say that the proposed changes that he has spent $9 million on will “severely curtail … NZ economic and foreign policy objectives …” for years to come does he consider that $9.2 million spent on consultants and the change office a total waste of money? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member’s original question asked for the budget for the year not for the amount expended so far and so the figures I have given him are the budgeted figures for the entire year not the amount spent as he has just asserted to the House. I do want to say though that the heads of mission and other staff members who have made their concerns known as part of this consultation process have been listened to carefully by me and from the beginning of this process I have publicly urged that the ministry leadership should listen to their comments carefully. That is why I have tried to ensure that future discussions are focused on areas where there can be constructive dialogue and tried to eliminate those areas in which further discussion would be destructive. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Minister not consult with his top front-line staff before committing the expenditure of $9.2 million which he has practically admitted now to this House has been a waste of money? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member as a former Minister will know that the process of modernising the practices of the ministry is entirely a matter for the chief executive and one that he has full authority to engage in. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Minister now take responsibility for budgeting for $9.2 million—and he will have spent $9.2 million—on change proposals that he has been intimately involved in from the start or is he continuing to blame his chief executive officer who constitutionally cannot answer back to his Minister? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have made it very clear from the beginning that this is a change process driven by people who have been engaged by the chief executive. I have conveyed my views—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A member has asked a serious question and I think the House deserves to hear the answer. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The chief executive established the change team to engage in a modernisation project as he is fully entitled to do. To the extent that I had concerns about elements of that programme they would have been known in advance of the consultation document being distributed. At the end of that consultation process I thought there were some steps that I should take to focus the discussion going forward and I took those steps.