Key John: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Key John: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17908] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Part 6 reflects exactly what is wrong with this legislation. It is full of weasel words and drivel and a whole lot of stuff that has been jammed into a very long document in the hope that no one will actually read it. I will start by making that quite clear in a number of interesting facts that have come forward. First I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 192 “Disclosure of payments in respect of members committee members and employees”. This is the clause that essentially states that remuneration must be declared in bands and there is the ability for people who pick up a set of accounts from a Crown entity to understand exactly where there is remuneration and how confidentiality arrangements work. 
I raise that because on page 1 of this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
is quite an interesting article about Judy Bailey’s $800000 pay deal but more important about Ian Fraser’s appearance before the Commerce Committee in which he said there was only one confidentiality arrangement in relation to Paul Holmes. In fact that is not correct. It now turns out that there was another confidentiality arrangement in relation to Judy Bailey. No doubt that will be part of the discussions held this morning with the board of TVNZ. I point out that that is exactly the situation in clause 192 where the law will not be being followed and where there are plenty of out clauses. 
I also want to raise the issue around the ministerial involvements in the statements of intent. The reason this is very important is that Crown entities have really prided themselves in being part of the overall Government process but being autonomous and independent and set up with the view that the boards can control what is happening in the—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right. That was the theory. Back in the good old days when National led the Government the Crown entities were able to operate in the way they should. They were responsible to the boards and if the Government did not like what was happening in the Crown entities it knew what action to take—get in there and sack the boards change them do something about the matter. That is a very simple example and we will see the Government in action no doubt when the board of TVNZ gets the flick. But and this is the point— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: But they won’t. 
JOHN KEY 
: They will not because there will be a U-turn or an out clause or something else. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Another flip-flop. 
JOHN KEY 
: Helen Clark will find another reason to flip-flop. But let us look at clause 185 which is extremely interesting. Despite a Crown entity being independent reporting to a board having its own autonomy and all the rest of it paragraph (a) states that a Minister can actually put into the statement of intent whatever he or she wants—“a responsible Minister may agree with the Crown entity that information additional to that required by sections 181 and 182 be included in the statement of intent:”. It gets a little bit better. Paragraph (c) states that the Minister can just chip whenever he or she wants: “a responsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent …”. It is a matter of “Here we go we’ve got the board. We’ve set it up. Away you go. Go and run this autonomous Crown entity but by the way we can put in the statement of intent anything we want any time we like—and by the way while you are putting out your statement of intent we can sit like the Muppets on the sidelines and chip along.” 
Then the real doozey comes in paragraph (d) because although the Crown entity has been able to put in what it wants with the responsible Minister chipping in along the way the Minister can actually change what was put in anyway—and we are somehow meant to believe in this Parliament that the integrity of Crown entities established under their own Acts of Parliament will somehow be OK! Well that just does not make sense. 
I also want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 181 “Content of statement of intent” which sets out what statements of intent can contain. I wonder whether the Hon David Cunliffe might like to pop to his feet in a moment and explain to me paragraph (e) which states: “how the entity proposes to manage the organisational health …”. What on earth is the organisational health? I understand that on Monday a book is coming out containing new weasel words and that the library has bought it because it needs to understand what is going into legislation in this Parliament. Steve Maharey the third-wayer has been in there with his whole range of weasel words that are now drifting in through the Parliamentary Counsel Office into our legislation. What on earth is the organisational health of a Crown entity? 
Jim Peters 
: He lectures in sociology. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. It gets slightly more interesting as well. There is clause 188 “Amendments to statement of intent by Crown entity”. First the good news is that a Crown entity can change its statement of intent any time it likes.