English Bill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
English Bill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17879. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister to explain just how clause 41 which substitutes a new section 57 of the State Sector Act will work. Let us establish first of all that by way of example Christchurch Polytechnic is a Crown entity—so I do not want to hear from the Minister that this provision is not relevant to it. It is proposed that the new section 57 will provide that: “(1) The Commissioner may set minimum standards of integrity and conduct that are to apply …” in this case to Crown entities. Now it so happens that as far as I am aware the State Services Commissioner has not set standards with regard to Crown entities like the Christchurch Polytechnic but under this legislation he or she can. I want to know from the Minister whether this legislation will compel the commissioner to set standards that would prevent the kind of conflict of interest that arose at Christchurch Polytechnic. If the Minister is not familiar with those circumstances I can tell him that a senior employee of the polytechnic was able to make substantial private gain by virtue of the way that employee used her public position. Will the standards be high enough to prevent that? 
The next question is: what happens when someone does not comply? I would imagine that any standard that the State Services Commissioner sets for a polytechnic would prevent senior employees from getting themselves in a position where they could make substantial private gains from their public offices. It should go further than just stating they have to declare an interest. The minimum standard should be that there be no conflict of interest and not just that a conflict of interest is declared. But if senior employees do not comply with a standard set by the commissioner what will happen? New section 57B inserted by clause 41 states that if there is a breach of the minimum standard “The Commissioner may advise the responsible Minister if … a serious breach … has occurred or is likely to occur.” That is it—the commissioner advises the responsible Minister. I presume that the real powers are there under new section 57C(1) which refers to the powers in sections 7 to 9 of the principal Act that “the Commissioner may exercise in respect of Departments including the powers in section 25.” Can the Minister just tell us what will happen apart from the responsible Minister being advised? In the case of Christchurch Polytechnic senior civil servants including those in the State Services Commission knew about the conflict of interest. We know they advised the Minister—because the official papers show this—that an individual holding public office there was a shareholder in a company that had pocketed $6 million of public money and nothing has happened. Absolutely nothing has happened either to the individual or to the Crown entity. 
So the Minister needs to explain to me why it is that even with paraphernalia like that in place—not exactly what this bill provides for but like it—when there was a clear breach of not only the formal standards but any general understanding of the role of someone in a Crown entity nothing has happened. The State Services Commissioner the chief executive of the Ministry of Education and the Minister have done nothing about the worst breach of any kind of public service standard that I have seen in 20 years. So the Minister needs to tell us why this wet lettuce leaf will make any difference at all. None of this law will matter if there is no determination on the part of the Government to enforce the standard. In the absence of that determination this measure is a total waste of time. It is worse than a wet bus ticket because it gives people the impression that something may happen. They will think they can go somewhere and something will happen—that they can tell someone and that at least those responsible will get slapped with the bus ticket. But in fact without the will to do so nothing can happen. That is why I say the public service is operating in an ethical vacuum right now. 
This measure is all rhetoric. It is meaningless and it is hollow because in the one chance that the Government has had to enforce it it did not do anything.