Key John: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Key John: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Those who have taken some time to review the bill will understand that it is quite complex in parts. Part 1 is about amendments to the Public Finance Act Part 2 alters the State Sector Act and Parts 3 to 7 affect Crown entities. 
Part 2 is very interesting indeed because it looks to extend the role of the State Services Commissioner in building a strong State sector and showing leadership. It is very interesting because this bill came to the House at the time when the Amokura Panoho incident broke. The Government did not necessarily like it that someone in her position was involved in the Maori Party. As I understand it a number of Ministers less than covered themselves in glory. In fact to put it bluntly from memory the Minister in the chair Mr Mallard shot his mouth off on public radio and was forced by amongst others the Minister of Finance to make a few conciliatory statements and apologies. 
Hon David Carter 
: Cool it. 
JOHN KEY 
: “Cool it.” I think was the expression. A lot of “cool it” was going on at that time. It is quite interesting because this provision will allow the State Services Commissioner to go out and set a code of practice and a code of ethical standards on the way that the State sector should behave. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does he belong to the Labour Party? 
JOHN KEY 
: That could be part of the dictum that comes from the State Services Commissioner’s role. 
It is interesting that one of the areas where I think there is likely to be quite intense debate and it goes back to the Panoho incident is behaviour during the run-up to an election. The State Services Commissioner is likely to come out and say that here is the code of conduct for the way that State sector employees should act in the run-up to an election. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact there is a bit of sense in having a code around the way that State sector employees should act and the way they should engage. They could clearly have a conflict of interest and we would acknowledge that. 
However in the submissions that took place the Public Health Association made quite an interesting point. The association supported the provision in general but raised the point that the commissioner has no statutory requirement to consult with relevant parties in developing a code. There is no responsibility at all to consult with anyone in terms of developing a code. So we could see all sorts of different spin being put on exactly what that code could do. But equally this is all about central government starting to try to dictate more and more in a statement of conduct the way things will happen extending it to some really interesting parts of the State sector and potentially on into Crown entities and the like. 
The second element of the code that will be developed by the State Services Commissioner was referred to by the Nurses Organisation which thought that the code not only was unnecessary but also could be unfair to employees. We have seen some interesting behaviour by one or two Ministers and by one Minister who is sin-binned at the moment when they have felt challenged or threatened by members of the State sector and their involvement in potential political parties— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s actually the public service. It’s not relevant to this bit. If you are already a public servant you will not be affected by these changes. 
JOHN KEY 
: The Minister should take a call and clarify the matter but we accept that point. 
The second issue I want to raise is the extension of the State Services Commissioner’s power to issue codes that are more widely intended and could override the existing professional codes in place. While that is not the intention it is possible that the professional code could cut across existing codes of conduct that are actually in place. 
In part the whole issue around the State sector its behaviour the way it interacts and the way in which it should be able to operate is likely to create some interesting situations not only as we go into an election but at various other times. At the moment the Judy Bailey incident is quite an interesting example of where the State sector on the one hand is telling—