Goudie Sandra: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7309] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 We in the National Opposition oppose this bill and for very good reason. I commend Mr Hide for his description of what the bill’s title should be. In speaking to the title I say the bill could very aptly be named the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill” and I shall proceed to tell members why I say that. 
There are some guidelines for the formulation of a bill. First one has to ask whether the legislation is actually needed at all. Secondly one should consider the need to involve lawyers early in the policy formulation stage. I would like to refer to the New Zealand Law Society’s submission on this bill because in my view it addresses a very very critical part of something that has been totally overlooked in the formulation of this bill. The submission states that the proposed provision overrides contracts by means of statute and that that point of principle requires careful consideration. It goes on to state that whilst Parliament has the power to pass laws that alter the terms of existing contracts that power should be used with caution and sparingly. That comes from the New Zealand Law Society. I do not see any reference to those issues that are present in the bill because there is no commentary on it. 
That is why I refer members back to the title “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill”. There is no reference to the Law Society’s submission on the bill or to the matters it raises which are of significance. I will read out to members a little more of what the society has to say. It states that the legislation involves a statutory interference with private rights that arise from negotiations undertaken and concluded pursuant to other statutory provisions. Here I would like to refer members to another basic principle in the formulation of legislation: the legislation that is being formed must fit appropriately into the general body of existing law. The question could well be asked as to whether that has been considered in this case. Again the bill has no commentary to explain those matters or to address the concerns put forward in the Law Society’s submission. 
I refer to another crucially important point in the society’s submission—the last point that it makes. It states that the Crown is not only promoting the legislation but also will be the contractual beneficiary of it. Because no reference is made to the serious concerns raised by the submitter—there is no commentary—this bill is ill-conceived so hence my suggestion that it should be called the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill”. 
I have further reasons for calling this bill ill-conceived. In 2001 there was a 6-page Supplementary Order Paper on it. We now have Supplementary Order Paper 107 which at 13 pages is exactly the same length as the bill itself and it has a Bills Digest covering it. There is absolutely no commentary on any of those documents. When one has a Supplementary Order Paper that is exactly the same length as the bill itself I ask how one could possibly suggest that the legislation has been well conceived. I refer back to my suggested title of the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill” because the Supplementary Order Paper is the same length as the bill itself. 
I would also like to raise another matter. The Public Service Association made a whole lot of recommendations in its submission. These amendments have all been done to satisfy the concerns raised by the Public Service Association. Was there no consultation on the policy that was being established prior to the drafting of the bill? Again I say this is the “Ill-conceived State Sector Amendment Bill”. If the proper guidelines had been followed and met lawyers would have been involved at the outset and those matters would have been addressed. I say to members again that the Crown is not only promoting the legislation but also will be the contractual beneficiary of it. 
I would also like to refer members to another issue that was raised and that is the issue of transparency and accountability.