Maharey Steve: Urgent Debates — Budget Advertising Programme—Report of Auditor-General 
Maharey Steve: Urgent Debates — Budget Advertising Programme—Report of Auditor-General 
[Volume:619;Page:15333] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Recently the speeches of the member who has just sat down Dr Don Brash were described by one leading commentator as having some major problems. Those major problems were listed as follows. Firstly Fran O’Sullivan said that Don Brash’s speeches insinuate things but never prove them. Secondly she said that he has a tendency to rely on inadequate facts. Thirdly she said that he pumps issues up as if there is a doom-laden situation in front of us when there clearly is not. If ever anybody wanted to see a speech that illustrated the ongoing failure—apart from the boredom factor—of Dr Don Brash’s speeches it was the insinuation the failure to give facts and the way he went about saying there was a crisis when there is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a debate on a matter of urgent public business. It is a debate about the disgraceful misappropriation of $21.5 million by the current Government for its own political purposes and that Minister needs to get back on to the topic and face up to his Government’s own frailties in this matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just thank the honourable member for his contribution and refer him to Speaker’s ruling 43/3. A member is entitled to react to the previous speech but he then has to come to order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you probably did not hear the core part of that complaint from the member. He talked about the Government misappropriating money which is theft. That is an entirely unparliamentary comment and I ask for it to be withdrawn and apologised for. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I think the member makes a very good point. I think the term is out of order and I would ask the member to desist. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I simply wanted to establish at the beginning of the debate that members are having a debate based upon insinuation a failure to fully document the case—as is usual—and the usual doom-laden speeches that we are now familiar with from Dr Don Brash. 
Let me just walk through the facts of the matter. The Working for Families package which is $2.7 billion over 3 years—$2.75 billion over 3 years to be exact—has attached to it a $21 million plan to communicate what we are trying to do. The package takes place over 4 calendar years. [ 
Interruption 
] I know the facts are difficult I say to Mr Brownlee but he should listen to them as they are quite useful. We will be spending $2.75 billion over 4 calendar years on family income assistance the accommodation supplement and childcare assistance. We will see around 300000 families—61 percent of all families—in this country gain access to more assistance. Low to modest income households will gain assistance so that they gain more money and most crucially when they move into work the work will pay. I know that the member who has just sat down supports that. 
The package needs to be communicated effectively so that people who are eligible for that large amount of money actually apply for it and get hold of it. I direct the member’s attention to paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Auditor-General’s letter. “In our view” states the Auditor-General “it is appropriate for there to be a communications strategy to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements under the Working for Families package … particularly … when people will not receive a benefit to which they are entitled unless they make a formal application.” 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no point did I contest the need to advise the public about the nature of that package—at no point did I contest that. I pointed out that the Auditor-General had made the point very clearly that the process by which the $21.15 million was appropriated was improper. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I tell the member that that is a debatable issue. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Learn the Standing Orders! That is a debating point. The member made his point; I am making my point—that is how the debate actually works I tell him. I know that he is new but that is how it works. 
I know that he does not like it but paragraphs 14 and 15 of the report state that communications are entitled to be taking place and that it is important to have communications because unless people apply they do not get money. The Auditor-General says that the Working for Families package contains changes that “affect up to 300000 families—including current beneficiaries and significant numbers of people who do not currently receive benefits (and will not do so unless they apply).” OK point No. 1 for Dr Brash is that the Auditor-General agrees that the package should be communicated because otherwise people will not get the entitlements they are entitled to. 
The next point is that the development of the estimates of the cost of the communications campaign of necessity was done under Budget confidentiality. So only limited information went to the advertising agency when it was seeking an estimate of costs. What does the Auditor-General say about that? I refer to the Auditor-General’s conclusion: “The estimated costs of the proposed Communications Strategy in the Budget 2004 bid are consistent with the cost information supplied to the MSD and the IRD by the advertising agency based upon the limited information provided to the agency.” The Auditor-General also notes: “… a need to observe confidentiality requirements of Budget 2004 in regard to that information.” and notes that under longstanding Cabinet financial delegations “… further approvals will be required from the responsible Ministers before any advertising expenditure of more than $100000 is actually incurred.” He goes on to say on the question the member is so excited about—$21 million over 4 calendar years driving a package of $2.75 billion as the Auditor-General notes—“… the MSD and the IRD are continuing to revise and tailor the detail of the Communications Strategy as part of their ongoing assessment of the communication needs for the Working for Families package. As the detail—in particular the mass media advertising campaign which is at the early stage of requesting proposals from advertising agencies—has yet to be finalised the actual cost of the Communications Strategy is not yet certain.” He goes on to say there is potential for cost savings. We will know about such cost savings when those details are in and we would expect of course that there will be cost savings. 
For my next point I go to the Auditor-General saying that the Audit Office was consulted prior to the Budget about the intention to have the communications campaign—in particular the information on the Working for Families package that was released on Budget day—and satisfied itself it complied with Cabinet guidelines for Government advertising. I go back and ask myself what the Cabinet guidelines say about that. They say the following things: “Governments may legitimately use public funds for advertising and publicity to explain their policies and to inform the public of government services available to them and of their rights and responsibilities.” The Auditor-General is of the view that the Working for Families communications campaign is consistent with that statement. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go again. 
Let me take it back here. The Audit Office will be consulted about all future elements of the communications campaign and has recently cleared the advertising campaign about the 1 October changes to the accommodation supplement and the 4 October changes to childcare assistance. Let me repeat that: we have already had two elements of this campaign go to the Auditor-General—as all of them will—and they have already been cleared by him. I want to take that across to extend it to say this: the Auditor-General found that “In February 2004 the MSD and the IRD decided to have a joint Communications Strategy. They worked together on that Strategy from then until the date of the Budget announcement.” To which I can add that the two departments—from the chief executives down—continue to work closely together on those matters. 
I want to stress that for many families this package will be the first time they have qualified for assistance of any kind. As the Auditor-General says “Families who become eligible for assistance for the first time need to apply for it as neither Inland Revenue or the Ministry of Social Development hold information which would enable them to identify newly eligible households.” Payments are unable to be backdated; families have to apply for them when the families become eligible. 
There is much more that I could say about the insinuation the failure adequately to choose the facts that fully tell the story and the way that that member has come into the Chamber predicting yet another crisis when there is no crisis. This is a properly documented piece of spending—$2.7 billion of money going to low and modest income New Zealanders—driven by a package of up to $21 million properly accounted for dollars that will go out during this period of time. That is what is going on here; that is the full story. Yes we had to make sure that under Budget secrecy we did not have the full costed details of the package but yes all of it goes to the Auditor-General and yes it rolls out in tranches which allow it to be controlled. How do we prove that to people like Mr Prebble? Two packages have already gone to and been approved by the Auditor-General. Those packages were rolled out in the normal way. This is a policy that the Auditor-General will be consulted on all the way through. We are happy with that and we will ensure that it happens. 
The very final point I would make is that the National Party may not want low and modest income families in this country to know about their entitlements. That is the real story. In the 1990s did the National Party Government tell people that they could have a benefit that they could have an accommodation supplement that they could gain anything from that Government? No! When Labour came to power we had to clean up the student support system and introduce a full entitlement policy because the National Government would not pay people their entitlements. National hates people who need support from the Government. That is what this is about. It hates them and it wants to make sure that people who are entitled to assistance get nothing. That is what it is about. Dr Don Brash who was used to his half-a-million-dollar salary at the Reserve Bank cannot understand why ordinary everyday New Zealanders who are trying to raise their kids in difficult circumstances should be told about $2.75 billion worth of new spending on them and their kids and on making work pay. Well I am looking forward to being on the hustings and arguing about that. National can take it away from them; we will make sure they get it.