Robertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3360. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “we believe the strong underlying economy and responsible fiscal management can deliver a surplus when the final Government accounts are published next October”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement made at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update which was: “falling dairy prices and low inflation are restricting growth in the nominal economy and Government revenue. This makes it more challenging for the Government to achieve surplus in 2014-15. However we remain on track to reduce debt to 20 per cent … by 2020. Although this latest Treasury forecast predicts a small deficit for the current year we believe the strong underlying economy … can deliver a surplus when the final Government accounts are published next October”.Grant Robertson: Can he explain to the House how it is an example of “responsible fiscal management” to allow a blowout in expenditure from $34 million to $210 million for the upgrade of the Child Support system at the Inland Revenue Department?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may want to delve into the details of that. As I recall it at least a fair bit of the expenditure came from two sources. One was that the complexity of the proposals was underestimated while trying to take into account the income of multiple parents with regard to particular children. Further changes were then made by the select committee which made it even more expensive. Underlying the expense is the fact that the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system is now so old that it costs an enormous amount of money to make relatively small changes. That is why we are investing in a 5 to 10-year programme to upgrade the Inland Revenue Department’s system. We believe that children deserving the support of their separated parents cannot wait around until the Inland Revenue Department’s system is all changed.Grant Robertson: How is it “responsible fiscal management” to ignore the advice of Treasury which told him “We believe the costs of the proposed change outweigh the benefits.” and which recommended postponing or not proceeding with the proposal? How is that responsible?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be surprised but the Government quite often disagrees with Treasury. Occasionally I wish it would agree with Treasury more but it quite often disagrees with it. In this case the Government decided that it needed to make changes to what was a 25-year-old formula for child support. Families constitute themselves differently these days and there are different sets of expectations so we went ahead.Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table a memo from Treasury dated 6 August 2012 in which it recommends postponing or not proceeding—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this particular memo from Treasury. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: How is it “responsible fiscal management” to ignore the further advice of Treasury the State Services Commission and the Government Chief Information Officer which recommended that the delivery of the Child Support system reforms be discontinued despite the large sunk costs?Hon Gerry Brownlee: They didn’t get elected.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think my colleague Minister Brownlee made exactly the right point. In the end the Government makes decisions as the elected representative about what it believes is going to work for the community. Officials saw that the costs were higher than expected. The Government decided to incur those costs; they did not. I have to say that it is more fiscally responsible than that member protesting for excessive wage increases and now saying that the Government should prop up a failing social services provider—more money for every problem.Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House to table an email from Treasury dated Tuesday 18 February 2014 at 2.51 p.m. with advice from Treasury the State Services Commission and the Government Chief Information Officer that the Child Support—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described enough for the House. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: Is—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can we ask Treasury what Labour’s policy is?Grant Robertson: Hundreds of millions of dollars being wasted is funny is it Gerry?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called Grant Robertson to ask his supplementary question.Grant Robertson: Is one of the reasons that he will not be delivering a surplus in this Budget or any meaningful changes on child poverty because he wasted hundreds of millions of dollars pursuing a project that all of his key advisers on fiscal State sector and technology issues told him to bin?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No and the member should try to get his head around what changes have been made to child support. As he will know as a constituency MP for the last 20 years families have been complaining about the way the formula works. It is always difficult to change it but it was changed in ways that Parliament and the select committee decided were fair. It did cost more than was expected. The Government came to the view that it was in the interests of the thousands of families affected by child support to make those changes.