Clark David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4618. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North)to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement on who is responsible for the spending at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment: “Well the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is me”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I think that question was directed to the Minister for Economic Development—Mr SPEAKER: It was.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —but I stand by it in the context of my full statement which continues: “I have made it absolutely clear to the chief executive that I do not condone the expenditure on the sign he has accepted that and has given me a very clear assurance.” Overall the ministry has done a good job of reducing costs and actually through the move to a refurbished building—unlike the new buildings that the Labour Government used to build all around Wellington at the time—has actually saved $40 million to $50 million over 20 years. On top of that the merger will save around $9.5 million a year. Nevertheless those particular items were over the top.Dr David Clark: In light of spending on expensive signs information screens sundecks and hair straighteners at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the fact that the project came in $2 million under budget does he concede that he was extravagant when he set the budget at $18 million?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No there were savings through the budget and the budget was set by the ministry and approved by me and the Minister of Finance. As I pointed out to the member overall the savings of this project are $40 million to $50 million—savings of $40 million to $50 million—on top of the merger savings of around $9.5 million a year. But as I have made the point previously there were some individual items that were too expensive and I have taken that up with the chief executive.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether he was extravagant when he set the budget. He has talked about coming in under the budget but he has not talked about the actual budget-setting process.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister certainly addressed that part of the question. There is no doubt about that in my mind.Brett Hudson: How does the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s $16.5 million Stout Street redevelopment $2 million under budget compare with the cost of other Government building redevelopments in central Wellington? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just before the Minister answers—I want it to be within the responsibility of this Minister. I do not want that question to be designed to attack a previous Labour Government.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again this is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member in his question has asked me to compare it with other Government redevelopments which I think is an important—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is an important question and one that I did take into account when considering the situation regarding this redevelopment. So I think it is important for the House for me to have the opportunity to compare it with other Government redevelopments—and I note that in the member’s question he did not actually raise a particular example.Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling the question out of order. I am just asking whether the member is aware of Speaker’s ruling 174/3 which is one that would concern me potentially with the answer but we wait to see what the answer is. It states: “It is not reasonable to use questions from the governing party or its support parties to attack other members of the House.” And that applies equally to other political parties. I wait for the answer with interest.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have looked for other examples to get an understanding of how this particular project went. In fact there was a good example just a block from the new Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment head office in Stout Street. That particular redevelopment which is a Government redevelopment was costed at around $11 million initially. That figure then rose to $29 million and then it was revised again to $45 million. Remember it started at $11 million. It then jumped again to $53 million then to $65 million then once more to $77 million and by the time it opened in 2008 interestingly the cost had blown out to something like $80 million more than seven times the cost of the original budget. I am pleased to report we have done hugely better than that.Dr David Clark: What proportion of New Zealand’s small to medium sized enterprises that he visits have a $140000 TV screen in their foyer?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not aware of that. As I said to the member at the select committee the other day my point is that there were some items in this particular project that I am not happy with. I have made that clear to the chief executive. He has accepted that and he has indicated to me that they will be taking a different approach to the authority that the chief executive sets with particular expenditure items in the future.Dr David Clark: What proportion of New Zealand’s small to medium sized enterprises that he visits have a $260000 sun deck?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again as I said to the member the other day I am not aware of the answer to that question but I would say to him that in relation to the project overall it has saved significant money but there are some items that were too expensive. That has been made clear to the chief executive of the agency and he has in turn advised that he will be changing his processes for authorisation of expenditure as a result.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response relating to the barbecues that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has placed on its sun deck.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act response. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.