Parker David: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11646. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Well I am very glad that the Hon David Cunliffe made the earth move for the Minister. That brings me to capital expenditure incurred in emergencies some of which will be seismic.Clause 127 of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill repeals section 23 of the Public Finance Act then the next clause amends section 24 and then we jump to inserting new section 25A after section 25. On that order it seems that we are not repealing the existing section 25; we are just inserting a new section 25A after section 25. I thought well why are we doing this? I thought that maybe this is arising out of the Canterbury earthquakes because now new section 25A says: “Capital injections may be made in emergencies … The Minister may approve a capital injection to meet an emergency or disaster described in section 25(1).” So I went and looked up section 25(1). It says: “This section applies if—(a) a state of emergency or state of civil defence emergency is declared under the Civil Defence Act 1983 or the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002; or (b) a situation occurs that affects the public health or safety of New Zealand or any part of New Zealand that the Government declares to be an emergency.” So I thought yes I could see where those capital injections that can be made in emergencies could be authorised under new section 25A.But then I saw that under section 25(2) the Minister can already do something very similar. Under section 25(2) of the existing Public Finance Act which is not being repealed by this bill “The Minister may approve expenses or capital expenditure to be incurred to meet the emergency or disaster and whether or not there is an appropriation by Parliament available for the purpose and despite [some other sections] the … capital expenditure may be incurred accordingly.” Then section 25 goes on to say that if it has not been appropriated in advance then under subsection (5) that amount has to be included in the annual financial statements and in an Appropriation Bill for confirmation. So you can do it in the interim but eventually the appropriation has got to be confirmed by Parliament.That is already allowed for under section 25 and I would like some clarification. I am sure there is a proper reason as to why we need the new section 25A inserted by clause 129 in addition but it seems to me to be very close to the situation that is already covered by section 25 which already allows appropriations for capital expenditure in those emergency situations. So to the Minister in the chair the Minister for Food Safety I would ask her to explain why it is that the new section 25A extension to the sorts of capital injections in emergencies is necessary because it seems to me that it is pretty well covered already by section 25 in the existing Act.This is just following on the theme that the Hon Trevor Mallard has raised as to why it is that we sometimes overcomplicate legislation. I thought the point that he was making earlier was that if you have already defined “department” why do you have to define “departmental” because “departmental” obviously refers to a department. That was the point that he was making. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment could address that because I am not sure that the previous Minister in the chair the Minister for Food Safety quite got the essence of my colleague Trevor Mallard’s point in that regard.The other point I would like clarification on is in respect of strategic intentions. Sections 38 to 41 of the existing Public Finance Act are being replaced. They are being replaced in clause 136 with a new section 38 which refers to strategic intentions whereas previously the departments had to provide information on future operating intentions. I am not sure whether this is because the Government has formed the view that the information that departments have been providing on their future operating intentions has become so detailed or so general as to not be strategic and whether either because it is too detailed or it is too superficial the Government does not think the existing information being provided is strategic enough. But in the new wording the point of difference seems to be that instead of providing information on future operating intentions the departments have now got to provide information on strategic intentions.In terms of the timing of that information the Minister can at any time require the department responsible to that Minister to provide new information on strategic intentions. I can see a number of areas where that would be necessary in the current Government given its failure to meet election promises that were made to the electorate which it must be feeling at risk about in terms of future voting intentions.John Hayes: That’s not true.Hon DAVID PARKER: “That’s not true.” says John Hayes. Well I would like to list a few examples: “Wave Goodbye to Higher Taxes. Not Your Loved Ones.” Remember that one?David Bennett: Oh come on.Hon DAVID PARKER: “Come on.”—you do not like being held to account for your promises do you? That was one of your election promises. Mr Chairman sorry. I did not mean to—the member for Hamilton—David Bennett: Name one.Hon DAVID PARKER: I will name you more than one not just the promise to halt the people going to Australia. To halt the reason for them leaving National said it was going to overcome the wage gap. It was going to deal to the wage gap. What has happened since? It has grown—it has grown. So I would have thought that Ministers who were up to their game would be revising the strategic intentions for their department so that they do a bit better in that regard because until now it has been an abject failure. I mean this Government talks about introducing national standards for schools but maybe instead of strategic intentions being the topic here it should actually introduce some standards for itself including being held to account for its election promises.There was another area of strategic intention that Bill English used to talk about. He came to power saying he was going to rebalance the economy towards exports. Exports as a percentage of GDP are flat. They are flat and indeed this year they may go down as a percentage of GDP. Another strategic area of failure—and I can see how it might be more meaningful for members of the public. Instead of requiring more information on strategic intentions for the department it might be more useful for the public to have some report on whether the strategic objectives of the Government as promised prior to the election were being met by actual outcomes in New Zealand. So I wonder why it is that the Government has moved from information on future operating intentions to strategic intentions.It is interesting that once these strategic intentions are produced a department must as soon as practicable after providing the information to its responsible Minister publish the information on an internet site maintained by or on behalf of the department. That is provided in the new section 39 which is also inserted as part of this clause 136. So clause 136 does not just insert a new section 38; it also inserts a new section 39 which says that these things have to be put up on a website as soon as practicable except if there is a Budget coming up. Then if the Government wants to keep it secret during that period in the 3 months before the Minister delivers a Budget that department must not publish the information. When I say “information” that means the strategic intentions that the department is identifying perhaps after the Minister has asked it to change them.