Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18471] 
5. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported statement from February 2009 that Ministers had been “aggressively” working on line-by-line expenditure reviews? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and they continue to do so. They have had to look carefully at Government spending because between 2003-04 and 2008-09 Government spending increased by 50 percent in just 5 years. That was under a Labour Government and we have had to rein in those things. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has he ensured that the departments and agencies for which he is responsible have been subjected to the same line-by-line scrutiny; if so is he confident that all of the potential savings have been identified? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does he believe that Ministers should lead by example when it comes to living without “nice-to-haves”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes but it is always open to interpretation what a “nice-to-have” is. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Labour front bench on this occasion that I have called their own backbench colleague Chris Hipkins. I want to hear his supplementary question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How does he justify approving expenditure of more than $275000 on redecorating his prime ministerial residence at a time when the elderly are finding that their home help is being cut parents are paying more for their children’s early childhood education police cars are being taken off the street and night classes are being cancelled throughout the country? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it is a $14 million property. It is having maintenance work as it has not been painted for 11 years. The advice was that if we did not paint the property because it is weatherboard in Wellington it would deteriorate more. If he wants to ask me about “nice-to-haves” a “nice-to-have” is Phil Goff as Leader of the Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both sides of the House I think are being equally difficult today. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why was it appropriate for him to cancel the upgrade of Premier House back in February 2009 when his Government was dishing out large-scale tax cuts but appropriate to go ahead in early 2011 when his Government is promising a Budget that will severely cut into many of the public services New Zealanders rely on? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because my understanding was that in 2009 the money would be spent on things such as couches which frankly do need changing but they are a “nice-to-have” whereas painting a Historic Places Trust category I building will actually save the taxpayer money. If the member is saying we should not maintain New Zealand’s historic buildings that is fine by me; that can be the new policy of the Labour Party. Goodness knows Labour needs to save money somewhere in its policies with the way it is spending it everywhere else. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was the 2009 decision his to make but the decision this year not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: For the same reasons. The decision is made by the department but its advice is to me. I was aware the building would be painted in 2011. My view was on the advice we had that it would maintain the property.