King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 April 2011. Volume:671;Page:17830. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that the Government is not prepared to penny-pinch when providing money for the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will he also not penny-pinch for the children of low-income New Zealanders like the three children of a woman who has longstanding physical and mental health problems as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today but who was refused a food grant by Work and Income because of this Government’s tough new hardship rules? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand that some of the facts as represented in the story are incorrect. In fact the woman was not refused a hardship grant. She has received a large number of hardship payments in the past. She is welcome to sit and discuss her issues with Work and Income if she chooses to do so; she has not done so. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the Government can loosen the money and the rules on tendering for a $2 million plastic waka for party central then why can the Government not loosen the rules for poor families when they face unexpected costs at a time when their food their power their rent and their petrol have all gone up at a rapid rate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has on 1 April just increased payments to families on a benefit. The rules that are now in place provide for hardship and tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on hardship payments over and above benefit payments. The rules are there to ensure that corrective action is taken for families who are struggling to live on the benefit. Of course there are many of them and Work and Income works with them consistently and usually successfully. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can he tell us what rigorous assessment and evaluation was undertaken by the Government to ensure that the plastic waka which is costing taxpayers almost $2 million met his requirement that expenditure must be on necessities and not “nice to have” projects in light of his admission yesterday that he did not know the project had not been tendered? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The proposal went through the usual kind of officials and Cabinet process and is paid for largely by the cancellation of other spending. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister confirming that this project went through the full Cabinet procedures with evaluation and a business case presented before a decision was made? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I repeat my answer to the original question. It went through the Cabinet process. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Further to his correction in the House last night who recommended and approved the decision to transfer the contracting responsibility for the plastic waka to Ngati Whatua removing the need for a competitive tender? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not actually know the answer to that question but I can tell the member that my advice is that arrangements are in place to oversee value for money. The project is being overseen by Beca which is also overseeing the Cloud and fan zone construction in the same part of the Auckland waterfront. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was John Armstrong of the  
New Zealand Herald  
correct when he wrote today that funding of the waka is nothing short of abdication of fiscal responsibility on National’s part; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer the question I point out that he is not responsible for anything that John Armstrong might say. I do not want to deprive the Minister of the chance to answer the question. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he correct? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for whether John Armstrong is correct but I am happy for the Minister to answer the question. I am just pointing out that he is not responsible for that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Mr Armstrong is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. On this occasion he is wrong. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: How does he avoid the perception that this is a sweetheart deal to Ngati Whatua reinforcing the conclusion that there are two rules in New Zealand with a National-led Government which is happy to hand out hard-earned taxpayers’ cash to hopeless projects just to keep the Maori Party on side? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is not correct. The worth of this project will in the end be measured in the same way as the worth of many other Rugby World Cup projects and that is according to whether they excite tourists and fans and whether they take part in the events that go on in that venue.