4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What advice if any has she received on the proportion of the Budget operating allowance that will be required to meet cost pressures in Budget 2024?Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Can I first congratulate the honourable member on her appointment as Opposition finance spokesperson. I look forward to our exchanges in this House. I know that the member opposite has had enough experience in the Beehive to know that the calls on the Budget operating allowance are both Budget-sensitive but also subject to change on a weekly if not daily basis. However I am able to be helpful in saying to the member that I received Treasury's briefing to the incoming Minister in November which has been released as has the accompanying slide pack. That slide pack contained a paragraph which stated: Current budget allowances are expected to be sufficient to fund critical cost pressures only with limited room for new spending in the absence of reprioritisation and savings". What's clear is that future Budgets are under significant pressure because of the previous Government's woeful fiscal and economic mismanagement. Fortunately this Government is committed to reprioritisation and saving.Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it correct that 79 percent of the new operating allowance in Budget 2023 was for cost pressures and does she expect Budget 2024 will require a similar percentage to meet cost pressures?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well the definition of "cost pressure" depends a little on who's doing the defining. Say Mr Robertson would probably define the urgent need for more back-office bureaucrats as a cost pressure. I wouldn't see it the same way so I'd be reluctant to endorse the figure that the member has used. However what I would share with her is that what we know is that even before this Government formed the previous Government had pre-committed 68 percent of this year's operating allowance and we know that the sum of the fiscal cliffs they'd left behind at $7.2 billion would more than have evaporated the entire operating allowance before we funded another single cost pressure. Hon Barbara Edmonds: So therefore does she regret calling the money that has been set aside for cost pressures a "buffer" that could be used to pay for tax cuts if she cannot find other sources of revenue?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am both confident and happy about the fact that we have elected a coalition Government that is doing the hard and essential work of reprioritising low-value spending across Government. Members opposite may have been happy that on their watch the amount spent on consultants and contractors boomed the number of people hired in back-office roles boomed and there were low-value programmes but our Government makes no apologies for being on a drive to ensure that dollars spent go to front-line services go to delivering on our commitments such as more police and go to ensuring New Zealanders can have more income in their back pockets. Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister's definition of "cost pressures" then include discovering the books were nearly $2 billion short of funding the pharmaceuticals New Zealanders have been led to expect?Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well the member makes a very good point because we had a Government that was prepared to short fund funding for essential pharmaceuticals leaving a fiscal cliff that we as a responsible Government are committed to filling. They managed to hide the commitment to the Crown in the books by doing that kind of time limited funding and that is a practice that we won't be continuing. Hon Barbara Edmonds: In light of that answer is she committed to meeting the cost pressures required to deliver core public services such as health and education? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes because our Government is committed to front-line services and not backroom bureaucracy. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why therefore is she prioritising tax cuts over providing Kiwi kids with healthy classrooms they can learn in; properly paid teachers nurses and police; and the indexation of benefits to wage growth that would support our most vulnerable New Zealanders? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well the member is going to have to keep up with the changing position of her leader because this morning as he detailed he acknowledged that if he had been faced with the property situation inherited by our Minister of Education then he too would have said "Actually that's not affordable. We're going to have to reassess it." because that actually—as the member should know—is a responsible way to approach things. What I can say about this Government is that we want to ensure that we are delivering the classrooms needed for roll growth and the schools needed for roll growth and that we're ensuring that the school property programme is well funded that it delivers good value for money that it's fair and that it's proportionate. We're going to be doing that while at the same time ensuring there is funding for schools and for hospitals and—by eliminating waste—tax reduction for working Kiwis. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not the $55 million Public Interest Journalism Fund started in December 2020 and still existing now is a cost pressure and are there many other programmes far more worthy than this woke stupidity? [Interruption] Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy—SPEAKER: Just a moment. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister raises—SPEAKER: Just a moment. The questions are being asked in silence. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'll ask it again. SPEAKER: Yes you can ask it again. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much Mr Speaker—you're getting better at the job every day. Could I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not the Public Interest Journalism Fund started in December 2020 and still going now—costing a colossal $55 million—is a cost pressure that could have been far more worthily spent on schools and hospitals and not some woke programme supported by the other side? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well the Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point which is that the outgoing Government was extremely creative in their definition of cost pressures and essential spending. I well recall the COVID money that was used to fund consultants delivering a three waters plan and the COVID money used to rent offices to include those three waters consultants in. So on the other side of the House we have people who claim that everything is essential. Well on this side of the House we know the value of New Zealanders' money and we're going to ensure they get to keep a bit more of it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Hon James Shaw: Point of order. SPEAKER: Point of order Mr McAnulty. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thanks Mr Speaker. The concern I have here is that already you have pulled the Minister up for using patsy questions to attack the Government. In that instance you waited until the end of the question which is fine—fair enough. But it was very clear very early on that that was the intent of that answer and she wasn't pulled up. SPEAKER: Yeah well I apologise for being a bit slow. Another point of order over here? Hon James Shaw: Oh it's the same one Mr Speaker—just sort of noting that the Deputy Prime Minister appears to have a standing exemption from the Standing Orders. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. The first member that raised that point of order talked about "patsy questions to attack the Government". Now surely he got that wrong so therefore the second point of order must fail as well. SPEAKER: Yeah I'm not quite sure I follow that. But I take your point Mr Shaw. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well follow the Hansard. SPEAKER: No I don't—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Follow the Hansard. SPEAKER: Yeah I will. I'll have a wee look. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah. SPEAKER: Yeah good—thank you."