Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:677;Page:660] 
5. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he support proposals to make redundant 63 people in policy and diplomatic positions within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; if so why? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade change document released to staff on 23 February proposes a structure with 63 fewer diplomatic and policy positions than currently exist. Given the 16 vacancies that currently exist in these roles the proposals would mean 47 fewer actual diplomatic and policy people. That needs to be seen against the background of the 114 new diplomatic positions created under the so-called step change process in 2008. In a press release I issued immediately following the distribution of the document I described the changes as a genuine attempt to create a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that can meet New Zealand’s current and future needs. A 1-month period in which staff will be consulted is now under way. My press release of 23 February emphasised the need for the consultation to be open and genuine. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When he is prepared to see 63 people working hard in the interests of their country sacked why is he also prepared to see $903000 of taxpayers’ money being spent on building a luxury swimming pool at the New Zealand embassy in Tokyo? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The suggestion that the ministry will spend large sums of money on swimming pools while diplomats’ jobs are on the line is ridiculous. The story floated by that member on Television One last night was a complete beat-up. The document that I understand to be in question was an engineer’s recommendation of what should be spent and it was distributed to those who might tender for the property outsourcing work should such outsourcing proceed. There is no proposal to spend the money at the moment. Can I further assure the member that early in January of this year when it became clear to me that some jobs in the ministry were on the line I asked to see the chief executive and I told him that I thought that all non-essential capital expenditure should cease if there was to be discussion about staff positions going. Two days later I received his confirmation that such steps had been taken to ensure that non-essential capital expenditure had ceased. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If there was no such proposal what were the construction engineers bidding for? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The document as I understand it that the member refers to was one of a large number of documents—a very large number of documents—provided in the context of a full disclosure of the ministry’s property interests. Over time as the member will know the ministry does contract engineers and other professionals to carry out survey work and recommend expenditure proposals. It is over to the ministry to decide how to configure its budgets and in this case it will do so after receiving clear advice from me as to what is appropriate in the context of the staffing restructuring discussions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the ministry now preparing to spend $1.33 million on refurbishing the residence in Niue for former backbencher Mark Blumsky who has been politically appointed as high commissioner and why would you spend that much money in a very small country of 1100 people while at the same time you are getting ready to sack 63 core staff members in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have worked hard for their country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is not doing either of those things but— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why would the member? You would never have done those things Mr Speaker. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Can I confirm as the member has suggested that there was indeed a recommendation to spend over $1 million refurbishing the residence in Niue occupied by High Commissioner Blumsky. This matter was drawn to my attention by High Commissioner Blumsky who told me it was barking mad. I agreed with that assessment and told the chief executive that for that sort of reason there should be no non-essential capital works in an environment in which staffing losses were under discussion. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Minister tell the House that the $155 million in capital spend that is being proposed will not go ahead at that level including the $2.5 million refurbishing of the residence of the High Commissioner in London? 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: Are you sure you wish me to proceed Mr Speaker? I can confirm that having received a general instruction from me that it would be inappropriate to conduct major capital works of a non-essential kind in an environment where there was a discussion about staffing losses the ministry came back to me asking for an exemption from that general rule for three or four specified types of capital works. To the best of my knowledge London did not feature on that list. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Minister think that New Zealanders suffering traumatic experiences overseas such as the three young women hospitalised in Bangkok would prefer to have an 0800 number to direct New Zealand consular assistance in those circumstances rather than projects such as the examples I have used or indeed the Minister’s own $75000 air force flight for the day to Vanuatu when he could have got there commercially for $4000? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: On the last point I want to confirm that I could not have made that trip commercially. On the earlier point made by the member can I say this: the question as to whether consular services should be outsourced and if so to what extent is a perfectly valid question for discussion. I believe it is important that New Zealanders who are caught in distressed circumstances abroad are able to have their needs dealt with efficiently. I think that there will be some very difficult questions that need to be answered before there are significant changes in the consular process. What I would say though is that the ministry makes the point to me that a significant number—indeed the majority—of calls that come in on the current system are routine in nature and need to be diverted to other arms of State. It is not unreasonable that they should have a mechanism for working that drafting process but I agree with the member that any steps we take forward in this area need to be looked at very carefully because New Zealanders are entitled to expect a good service in that regard.