Cunliffe David: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11597. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I rise to take a large number of calls on this detailed and very important bill the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill and to confirm that Labour supports this bill with certain reservations and it will be supporting a number of the Supplementary Order Papers despite the late timing in which they have been brought to the Committee.It would be remiss of me to continue with this debate before adding a quick personal comment about the proceeding. May I enter into the record my deep deep concern about the removal of access to justice and the tightening of the legal aid provisions. That is a huge backward step for this country.Labour supports this bill with reservations. We were opposed to it at the first reading and it is not often that an Opposition that opposes a bill changes its vote to support the bill at the second reading and at the Committee stage. This for those watching is a rarity and it has occurred for the following reason. The bill as introduced had a fundamentally damaging effect on the rights of civil servants. It made it much much more difficult for them to transfer between agencies while retaining their existing rights to redundancy provisions. It trampled all over the negotiation rights in wage bargaining that civil servants have under the law. There were a number of other provisions that were at odds with the existing standing of public sector rights and good practice.I am very pleased to be able to offer compliments to the Minister of State Services the Hon Jonathan Coleman to officials who worked very hard on the bill and to members opposite who chaired by the Hon Todd McClay entered into a good-faith process of negotiation by which the core intent of the bill was preserved. Its good effects in terms of introducing more flexibility and teamwork across the public sector will be achieved but the offending provisions that had an undesirable effect on the rights of public sector workers have been changed. They have been changed so dramatically that I am able to enter into the record the support of the State sector unions not only for the changes but for the position that our party is taking in supporting the bill. That is a significant turn-round given the state of the bill as introduced.I would like to address some of the specific provisions in Part 1 of the bill which covers the amendments to the State Sector Act. We understand that the Government will move to split the bill into a number of bills that affect different underlying core legislation. Part 1 of the bill was in fact the most contentious. Mr Chairman I hope that you will allow the Minister to take a number of calls to underline the Government’s thinking on the bill as introduced and on the changes that it has made. Mr Chairman I hope that given the importance of this part of the bill that you will allow members on this side of the Chamber to debate its provisions in some detail. Several of the issues that we will wish to canvass in our comments today include firstly that the redundancy provisions have been improved so that State sector employees retain their entitlements unless accepting a position that is “no less favourable” than the position that they currently have in terms of terms and conditions.You know sometimes there is an argument in lawmaking about one word. I think it was Oscar Wilde the writer and poet who said a long time ago: “I spent all morning putting the comma in [to the sentence] and all afternoon taking it out again.” He might have said it with a slightly different accent of course. We spent the best part of a day arguing about whether we were going to put the word “overall” into clause 49 whichsays the terms and conditions had to be no less favourable and we ended up taking it out again. The reason that we were able to take it out by agreement—and we appreciate the work of officials on that matter—was that it was agreed common ground that the existing case law in fact allows a court to look at a package of terms and conditions and no change was needed. From this side of the Chamber we would want to underline the fact that the core principle that is being given effect to remains that the terms and conditions must be no less favourable and in seeking to address this as a package a court must not sell short the key provisions of the existing—[Bell rung ]Reminded by the bell let me move on to the transitional provisions in Part 1. These have been improved so that collective and individual agreements are sunsetted equally 3 years after the bill takes effect. There was a considerable debate about this issue too. It was of concern quite rightly to the Public Service Association to the Council of Trade Unions and to a number of individual submitters that the bill as introduced would have given individual employment agreements—individual contracts—longer life under the provisions of bills than some collective agreements which would have expired before the individual agreements. By a process of discussion and mutual agreement in the Finance and Expenditure Committee the 3-year sunset clause clause 49 was introduced to ensure that collective agreements did not expire before individual agreements and therefore that the results of collective bargaining by State sector employees were not undermined.I have to recognise members opposite who were members of the select committee. It was a good-faith discussion ably assisted by officials. As with a number of bills that Parliament has been debating today it was an example for the public of where Parliament can through select committees actually do its job of changing the detail of legislation to iron out in this case some pretty fundamental kinks and creases so that we have ended up with a bill that in our view does achieve the intent of the Government—the Government would be pleased about that—and also removes at least the most part of the issues that would have been at odds with worker rights and social justice.Another example of that was the Government Workforce Policy Orders as introduced. This would have been a problem legally because an order would have been potentially construed as legally binding upon the chief executives of Government agencies and Crown entities so that they could not enter into or sponsor employment discussions that for example might end up in a wage settlement at a higher level than the order prescribed. In so doing our advice was that that could undermine the existing rights to good-faith bargaining that State sector employees enjoy. It is therefore gratifying to be able to record in this Committee stage of the debate that by a process of good-faith discussion amendments have been made not only to change the word “order” to “statement” to better reflect its actual status as providing guidance rather than as a binding proclamation but also to ensure that clauses were introduced into the bill that actually enshrine in very specific terms the existing legal rights of State sector employees to good-faith bargaining.There are a number of other clauses that attracted the attention of the select committee which we will have the opportunity to go through as this Committee stage works through the different parts of the bill. I would like to mention just a few of them. The conflict of interest provisions have been strengthened there is enhanced governance for delegated powers and there are strengthened accountability requirements which we will detail later about public sector financial reporting.We have worked very hard to ensure and we will come on to this that the proper constitutional cascade—that line of moral authority—of the voice of the people vested in the balance of Parliament which is in turn vested in Ministers of the Crown and isthen reflected in the ability of Ministers to direct their departments is not lost in seeking to streamline the Public Service. Crucially the key accountability instruments such as the statement of intent which is a binding contract between the Minister of the day and the chief executive of the day—in seeking to make that more flexible and on a multi-year basis we have preserved the rights of Ministers to amend and update the “SOI” as the statement of intent is known each and every year and placed an obligation on their Civil Service advisers to inform the Minister of those rights.Speaking personally I would be very keen to ensure that the accountability contract between Ministers and civil servants remains effective and remains in place because ultimately that is the moral authority upon which departments of State must operate. In these days—[Bell rung ] Mr Chairman.