Mallard Trevor: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11644. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I apologise to my colleague David Parker for the confusion but I think he might have had a crack already and no doubt he can be involved in a sandwich—I can be before and after him if he wishes.The first point I would like to make is to compliment the officials who have been involved in the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill and also the Office of the Clerk on what is for me a new approach and that is writing the Supplementary Order Papers into the bill in a substantive way. I know that we had some discussions about this process at some stage in the past. What it does do is make a bill much easier to understand for people like me who are interested in the changes that the committee has made which are not quite as well shown in the version of the bill now. More important when the Minister of State Services’ Supplementary Order Papers as proposed are incorporated in this way it makes it much easier to focus—rather than trying to work on two large pieces of paper and trying to integrate them and work out how they interrelate with each other. So I want to thank the officials and I thank the Office of the Clerk and I think the Parliamentary Counsel Office too for their suggestions and their work in the area. Having said that it may be that officials and the Minister regret the fact that it is now easier to understand because there are more questions that flow from a better understanding of it.The very first one that I have is on clause 78(3) and the definition of “departmental”. It really is a question of why we need to define “departmental”. Who does not know what departmental expenses are? For a very long time we have had departmental expenses and we have had departmental capital expenditure. Most of the stuff has been around ever since we divided out the accounts to have a profit and loss account as far as the Government is concerned and a balance sheet. That is at the point when operating expenses and capital expenditure were divided. My question is really why we need to get to the level of pedantry in having this level of definition. There might be a good reason.The next point I would like to ask is whether—oh they do not number the lines the way they used to; this is a bit shocking. Now we are going to have some criticism. What we used to have down the side in well-drafted bills about every—[Interruption ] Have we? Well I cannot see it.Hon David Parker: You are looking at the tracked version.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am looking at the tracked version. What is the point of having a tracked version if you do not have the lines on it? For people like me whowant to speak and focus it makes it a lot easier rather than having to count down all the lines—you know using our fingers and toes if we have to go too far—to have the lines numbered every 10 or so. If we want a suggestion for people who are doing tracked versions in the future put the lines in the way they are in the report-back version. Clearly they will be at different points and as long as we know what we are referring to it would be helpful.I want to refer to the definition of “lend money” paragraph (a). It is right below the bit about host department. To make it clear it is in Part 2 clause 59 “Section 2 amended” which is the interpretation part. I want to refer to “lend money” in section 2(1) amended by clause 59(3) in the Supplementary Order Paper and first of all to ask whether paragraph (a)(i) could be better referred to as the MediaWorks exemption clause. This is “deferring payment for any goods or services supplied or works constructed for any person organisation or government;”. The question is whether this deferred payment arrangement should be known as the “Steven Joyce previously owned companies” clause or some other approach like that. [Bell rung ] Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Is it 5 minutes already? That is hard to believe. I had hardly started Mr Chairman.The next question I have is that under “lend money” paragraph (a)(ii) it talks about where the department—or I assume it is the department—is “entering into hire purchase agreements or agreements that are of the same or a substantially similar nature;”. The question I have got is does it not depend on which end of the hire purchase agreement they are in? If they are buying something on hire purchase surely they are borrowing rather than lending. It is unlikely that a major Government department would enter into a hire purchase agreement. But under subparagraph (iii) which is the next section where they are entering into finance lease arrangements again the normal finance lease arrangements are those where they are in fact borrowing where they are getting goods and entering into some sort of finance leasing arrangement done I think often by Government departments and which involves those massive big printing photocopiers cars or some similar arrangements like that—what are effectively lease-type arrangements.I cannot conceive where it would be appropriate for a department or a Crown entity or a Crown agency to be the lender in such a circumstance. Do we really want the Ministry of Social Development to start getting into the car lease business—you know the hire purchase finance company for cars? Maybe it is a plan for the Minister in the chair in her area as Associate Minister of Education as far as technology is concerned and maybe it would be valid. It might well be valid if we are going to go into schools and have arrangements whereby there are computers iPads or iPhones given to families on some sort of arrangement. I do not want to characterise the Minister in the chair as one of the loan shark type people who enters into the high - interest rate arrangements because I think that would be unfair. But my question—and she could answer it with some of her other experience—is whether in fact this clause is designed for arrangements such as that. Frankly I cannot think of arrangements where it is appropriate for the Crown a Crown agency or a department to be the loan shark or finance company end of a hire purchase arrangement with the public or in a finance lease arrangement.I do want to ask questions in relation to “responsible Minister” as far as it relates to the Speaker and the Officers of Parliament. I do not want to go back over too much of the previous part of the bill but I want to ask—through you Mr Chair—the Minister who is currently the Minister in the chair about the interrelationship between the salary setting and the responsible Minister being the Speaker. It is something that I haveclearly got some interest in—making sure that the rules are right in this area. I want to ask how this interrelates for example with a policy decision to move within this complex towards a living wage over a period of time. Is it a policy decision that the Minister responsible can take under section 2(1) as amended by clause 59(5) in this particular area? Or is it something that can be done by only the chief executive whom I understand is called the General Manager in the case of the Parliamentary Service the Clerk in other cases and in other cases again the Ombudsman or a number of others? Can the Minister in charge make those policy decisions?