English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3909] 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Further to her response last week that she did not stand by her foreword in the  
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: New Zealand 2001 
 in which she said that “these results are greatly encouraging of our goal of economic transformation and our return to the top half of the OECD ratings by 2011”; when did she decide that the 2011 target is “totally unrealistic”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: As I stated earlier during 2001 in the course of developing the Government’s formal growth and innovation goals which were announced in February 2002 we sought advice on the feasibility of various options and concluded that it was unrealistic to set a time frame. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is she aware that in the document she quoted last week as a document that contained the Government’s formal policy on this issue  
Growing an Innovative New Zealand 2002 
 there is a diagram in the first chapter on vision and objective that makes it absolutely clear that her goal is the top half of the OECD by 2011 some 12 months after the Minister just said the Government changed its mind? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes she is because her colleague the Minister of Finance said in the House on 27 February 2002: “The Government does not have a target date for reaching the top half of the OECD. The text of the  
Growing an Innovative New Zealand 
 document which was cleared by Ministers does not have any reference to a target date. A date appears in a graphic illustration”—which I would have thought the member as an English honours graduate from the University of Otago would know is different from the text of a document or perhaps the English and history departments had lower standards in those sorts of respects—“taken from a Boston Consulting Group document.” Members should listen to this bit very clearly from 27 February last year over a year ago: “The illustrations were not cleared by Ministers.” 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has he seen any other economic proposals that set targets without time frames? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a document that purports to provide an alternative economic growth framework for New Zealand. It actually contains neither targets nor time frames nor details. It was put out by the National Party last week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In addition to the Prime Minister seemingly having changed her mind over the period of 18 months is it not a fact that the Minister’s statement that the Government did not have a target of reaching the top half of the OECD on any set date as he has outlined and reiterated relating to 27 February 2002 is patently and absurdly untrue—it did up to that time have a target; what he has been asked in the House now is when it was changed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is patently and obviously true because the Prime Minister can remember discussing with the Minister of Finance when that document came out how on earth a graphic illustration appeared with a time frame in it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: In elaboration of the Minister’s answer which was that the graph should be ignored in this Government publication can the Minister advise the House whether we are to ignore all graphs and tables in Government reports; if not which graphs and tables in which reports should we ignore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say: rule one if it is cleared by the Prime Minister one can be absolutely sure it is reliable. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister advise us which of her absolutely reliable explanations is actually the correct one: that she set the goal and took advice afterwards to find out it was totally unrealistic; that she actually just repeated the objective that others had set—she did not actually set it; or that she never reads anything she signs out; all of which explanations we have been given today? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the member has not been given that. I suggest he consult  
Hansard 
.