7. Question No. 7—Public ServiceHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister for the Public ServiceQuestion No. 7—Public Service7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her answer I make that promise" said in response to the question "Will you promise no cuts to any front-line services"; if so why has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been told their front-line services are "not necessarily immune" from Public Service cuts?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): Well yes I do. With respect to the second part of the question about Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) the member is referring to an email written by somebody at FENZ an extract of which I've seen for the first time today. I am not responsible for that email although I can't see why the member is so offended by an email that says "front-line services are to be protected" and "unless clearly obvious that efficiencies can be gained without affecting services". Perhaps if members opposite had had a thought about efficiency over the past six years we wouldn't have 80 percent increases in spending without better public services delivered. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Weren't New Zealanders entitled to know before the election that cuts to the 111 emergency call centre and vital supports for firefighters were part of her plan and that her promise of no front-line cuts was worthless?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Point of order Mr Speaker. The member opposite has made a series of factually wrong assertions which I was always advised as an upcoming member that you should be very careful in your questions to ensure that any statements you made were correct and defendable. The statements that member has made are incorrect and indefensible. SPEAKER: That would also be a reasonable answer to what was a borderline question. So perhaps if the Minister would like to address those same points as an answer to that question.Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well how wrong she is—let me count the ways. Fire and Emergency New Zealand has not been set a savings target. As a Crown entity it has been asked by its monitoring agency the Department of Internal Affairs to look for savings and to operate efficiently. I would also note for the member that the vast majority of the funding that Fire and Emergency New Zealand receives is received by way of levy not by Crown funding. So the question from the member is confused. It is wrong. Firefighters can be assured under this coalition Government they can get on and fight fire.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by the Government's commitment to 6.5 percent savings in Police when they have advised their Minister that the cuts they would need to make would undermine their ability to recruit an additional 500 front-line police officers?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I have said on a number of occasions our Government will ensure that front-line services are protected in the Budget 2024 savings exercise. We have asked agencies to put forward their proposals for delivering more efficiency; for eliminating back-room waste; for ensuring that they're not spending too much on consultants and contractors low-value programmes and ineffective programmes. Agencies have been asked to put forward proposals. We will then as Ministers evaluate those proposals before making any decisions.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So in that case can she guarantee that the 6.5 percent savings she has asked for from Police will be reinvested in the Police budget?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she conduct her line-by-line analysis of wasteful spending in a way that puts public servants out of work but didn't manage to uncover that the Prime Minister was claiming an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home he owns while being able to stay at Premier House?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well it may be the view of that member that every single extra public servant her Government employed was the best use of a Government dollar. But on this side of the House we know that the needs in our schools the needs in our hospitals and the need to fight law and order are such that we must ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money goes to its best use in our front-line services and we make no apologies for driving more value from the enormous amount of Government spending that goes on.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she justify the Government prioritising an unnecessary sixth investigation into the benefits of giving poor kids lunch when the Prime Minister's claiming of an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home went unnoticed?SPEAKER: No hang on. Have a go at bringing that question into line. There was a use of a term in there that's not appropriate.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she justify the Government's prioritisation of a sixth investigation into the benefits of giving poor kids lunch when the Prime Minister's claiming of an accommodation allowance for a mortgage-free home went unnoticed?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well as the member should know the outgoing Government left an enormous fiscal cliff for the school lunch programme. What that meant was there wasn't funding provided for that programme into the future. Now our good responsible Government has decided that we will safeguard funding so that programme can continue. And in doing so in line with our values we will ensure that we're delivering it in a cost-effective high-value manner because unlike that member we don't think it's a good use of taxpayers' funds to have uneaten lunches stacked a tower high. That's wasteful and we're going to make sure the programme's more efficient."