Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Foss Craig: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:3137] 
1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will Budget 2009 address commitments that were made but not funded in Budget 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The previous Government made several unfunded commitments as part of Budget 2008. These were promises that could not be paid for within the generous operating allowance in Budget 2008 so they were charged up against future Budgets. They included a $200-million-a-year economic transformation package $70 million a year for an expansion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and $190 million to fulfil contractual pay increases for teachers. As part of Budget 2009 the Government will decide whether they will be kept or dropped. 
Craig Foss 
: What criteria is this Government using to decide which unfunded commitments it will fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Some of the obligations are contractual and will be met. Such obligations are teacher pay rises. Others will be assessed against other spending priorities. For instance we have to decide whether pre-commitments to adjustments in tertiary institutional funding 3 or 4 years away are more important than the growing demand on the probation service and corrections service. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he confirm that the biggest unfunded commitment he has cut so far is John Key’s cycleway and that that is why he said: “we won’t be spending $50 million on it this year or next year or the year after.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is wrong. In the next few days the Prime Minister will show exactly who is boss. 
Craig Foss 
: What will the ending of some of the unfunded commitments mean? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Most of the unfunded commitments are related to Budget years 2 or 3 years away so ending them will have no immediate effect. It will mean that some people will not get some of the things they might have been expecting but equally no one will lose anything they already have. Unfortunately we discovered that because no funding had been allocated to these commitments when we removed the commitments we were unable to make any savings. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What measures does the Minister intend to introduce in the Budget to help the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are struggling to pay their mortgages and small business loans and who are suffering from the banks’ reluctance to lower lending rates in line with the reduced official cash rate? Does he take note of the fact that taxpayers are footing more of the risk via banking guarantees and Reserve Bank asset-building? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those ordinary New Zealanders decided to do something for themselves by voting the member’s Government out and this one in just a few months ago. In respect of the banks the Government and the Reserve Bank are keeping a close eye on them. No doubt there will be a bit of pushing and shoving while we sort out how the banks will share the burden of getting through the recession. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How much will the restructuring of Auckland governance cost? Will these costs be part of Budget 2009 or will all the transition costs be passed on as a debt to Auckland ratepayers when the transition agency winds up? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: My understanding is that the costs of setting up the transition board will be appropriated in the Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: Will Budget 2009 continue the previous Government’s practice of making large unfunded commitments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer is no. Budget 2009— 
Hon Member 
: Oh! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is possible to commit only to those things you are actually going to spend money on and that is what is going to happen in this year’s Budget. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday in points of order around question time we traversed the issue that the phrase “unfunded commitments” in the question was ruled out of order yet we see it come back in this supplementary question. It is clear that no evidence has been presented for any unfunded—as opposed to unappropriated—future spending commitments. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No such ruling was made. The member over there took offence at the use of the term “unfunded” and quite understandably. The mistake the member David Cunliffe makes is that National voluntarily removed the term “unfunded” from a question. It appeared therefore on the sheets that the member probably saw. It was certainly not ruled on nor was it ruled out of order. Quite frankly it would be absurd to have it ruled out of order because unfunded promises are a fact. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any more assistance on this matter. The phrase is not out of order. Members often do not like supplementary questions but they do have supplementary questions of their own in which to pursue the issue. I thought the point of order the member was going to raise was that in fact the Speaker is not spending any money. The Minister perhaps should not have referred to the Speaker by saying “you”—as in what “you are actually going to spend money on”. Does the member wish to ask further supplementary questions? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Perhaps as a point of order just to clarify for the record that the supposed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use the point of order process to clarify things for the record—it is either a matter of order in this House or it is not. Clarification for the record is a matter that is dealt with through elucidating answers to supplementary questions if the member wants to do that.