Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 03 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1559. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he take responsibility for the $9.2 million being spent on the change process in his Ministry this year and does he consider it money well spent? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: The figure quoted by the member is a budgeted figure only. Operational matters are for the chief executive. The chief executive has established a change team to engage in a modernisation project as he is entitled to do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he agree with the concerns expressed by top exporting groups like the Meat Industry Association and Fonterra that the change proposals put forward could put at risk the effectiveness of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in work critical to the New Zealand economy; and having already lost recently two of the top trade negotiators will he risk losing more? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is no secret that the Minister listens very carefully to the comments that have been made by the various people to whom the member has referred. The Minister himself has expressed some reservations about the ministry’s change proposals. He has conveyed his views in a manner that is appropriate under the State Sector Act to the chief executive.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: When a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade stated that it had been in discussion with the Minister “throughout the process” and that he has provided “clear direction on their priorities” how credible is it for him to distance himself from responsibility for the botched change proposals as he has just done again? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister is acting exactly in accordance with the requirements of the State Sector Act. The Minister knows the rules that matters of detail are for the chief executive and it would be quite improper for him to cross over that line. He is not a micro-manager. His name is McCully not Stalin or Helen Clark.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the Minister has long had the reputation in politics of being a micro-interferer—in more ways than one—and how can he possibly expect people to understand what his role is when he said last Thursday that as a Minister he was no more than “the purchaser of the ministry’s services”? Does he not understand parliamentary democracy? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister understands parliamentary democracy very well.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it fair for him to continually blame the chief executive officer for the mess-up in the change proposals when John Allen is unable to defend himself against Ministerial criticism and when constitutionally he as Minister is responsible for what is happening within his ministry? 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he understand that? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Indeed I do. It is a question of what is constitutionally proper. Under the State Sector Act the chief executive has the burden of responsibility in carrying out the change plan. Unlike other Ministers in the past the Minister knows what the bounds of propriety are where a Minister can act. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that this is the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has introduced the hub and spokes concept whatever that means has a business model applied to a serious governmental service—namely foreign affairs—and chose the chief executive whom he now blames for everything why does— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: Is there a question coming? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Do not worry honey. We will get around to it. Even you will be able to understand. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No I am on my feet; the member will resume his seat. Members know that if they interject sometimes they will bring disorder. It is better sometimes just not to interject if they do not want disorder. I cannot blame a questioner for responding when someone makes some unhelpful interjection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that this is the Minister of Foreign of Affairs who introduced the hub and spokes concept whatever that means applied a business model to a parliamentary and governmental service and chose the chief executive whom he is now blaming why does he not just resign? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is not a question of blaming people. It is no secret that the Minister has expressed reservations about aspects of the ministry change proposals. The Minister has conveyed those concerns to the chief executive and in doing so has conveyed his views in a manner that is appropriate under the State Sector Act. What is so difficult to understand about that? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the Hon Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was it not his responsibility under the Public Finance Act to vote $9.2 million to be spent on a change process that nobody believes is credible; and if it was not his responsibility to vote that money who was responsible for wasting it? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is important to note that that is the budgeted figure as I said in the answer to the primary question. What exactly it turns out to be at the end of the day remains to be seen. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Three-quarters of the way through the financial year how much of that $9.2 million has been expended and does it include the latest $200000 spent on the heads of mission meeting or redundancy payments? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The member is sloppy with his facts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well he is. He is wrong and I can say this. The amount— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We will not have this carry-on. The Minister has acknowledged in a previous answer that the budgeted amount was $9.2 million—I think the Minister acknowledged that. The member questioning the Minister asked how much of it had been spent at this stage of the financial year—three-quarters of the way through the financial year how much of it had been spent—and asked whether the amount spent included the $200000 cost of a recent meeting or something. If the Minister was disputing the cost of the recent meeting then I apologise to him because I should not have interrupted if that was the case but I would ask him to answer. The question asked was not an unreasonable question. It was based on figures already acknowledged except for that last one. I think to accuse the member of sloppiness in asking a reasonable question is going to provoke disorder. To answer the question the Hon Chris Finlayson. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are two limbs to the question and I am answering the second limb as you perhaps prospectively observe and he got it wrong. The amount is not $200000. The projected expenditure is $154000 and that is what— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: We have got a bit of a dilemma here because the figure I quoted was the figure that the Minister himself had used in the House last week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! There is nothing I can do. I mean the member’s question was answered—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member’s question was answered and the answer cannot be disputed by way of a point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did he or his office seek the deletion before it was made public of the reference in the Ministerial briefing to him as incoming Minister that the Government “required” annual savings from the ministry of $40 million; if not who did seek that deletion? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am an acting Minister and so I am unable to comment on that level of minutiae about what lines were excised from a briefing to an incoming Minister. What I can say is that that member has constantly referred to the figure of $40 million and he is wrong. The correct figure as the Minister has told him on many occasions is $24 million.