Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17885. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 3 I want to pick up on a contribution the Minister made a short while ago when he alleged that these reforms were originally the work of the Hon Simon Upton. That is a classic example I suspect of political licence—to be kind. Mr Upton may well have been involved in the initial concepts around reform of State sector management but he surely would not have approved of some of the detailed prescriptive measures in the bill. 
I am particularly interested in asking the Minister what he seeks to do. Again I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation about some of the provisions. In particular I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 51 “Interpretation” where the definition of “direction” states: “direction means a direction given by a Minister under this Act”—the Minister should know what this means because it refers to him—“or the entity’s Act to an entity”—that is fair enough; OK it might be possible for the Minister to give an entity a direction—“or to a member or employee or office holder of an entity”. 
I think the Minister should explain what he seeks to do with this provision. Why would the Minister want to be able to direct an employee of an entity to do something? What is it that the Minister is seeking to achieve there? Because the whole idea of Crown entities is to have them governed by a board to have them separate from political interference. That is the whole idea. Our tertiary institutions are Crown entities. Are we going to see this Minister able to give an employee of a university a direction to do something? Because it would seem on the face of this bill that that is possible. What is it the Minister wants to do with that definition? Why does it include an employee or office holder? What is it? What is the intent? I think the Committee is owed an explanation about that. 
If the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard wants to give a general direction to a Crown entity that is one thing. It makes me a bit nervous because the whole idea of Crown entities having their own boards is that it makes them a bit more separate from political interference. But when the definition of “direction” goes right down to “employee” what is it the Minister is seeking to do? Why have that wording? Why have that in the bill? I think we are owed an explanation. What is intended with that? It is not unreasonable to request the Minister to explain that. 
While I am on clause 51 I will go to the “fees framework” definition which states: “fees framework means the framework determined by the Government from time to time for the classification and remuneration of statutory and other bodies in which the Crown has an interest including statutory entities and their subsidiaries and tertiary education institutions”. What is it the Minister is seeking to do with that provision? Are we going back to the pre-1990 provision that the Minister’s colleague the Hon Phil Goff would be familiar with where the Government set fees for tertiary institutions? Why is “tertiary education institution” specifically included in the definition of “fees framework”? Are we talking here about going back to the Crown being able to tell tertiary institutions what their fees will be? That went out in the law in the early 1990s and the tertiary institutions appreciated getting— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No the upper limits were set under your legislation. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: There were no upper limits under National’s legislation. The tertiary institutions were free to charge fees. Now what is it? The Minister should take a call and explain exactly what the Government is trying to do here. It may be OK but it is not clear. There are two issues under clause 51. One is the issue of directions by the Minister to an employee of a Crown entity including tertiary institutions it would appear. That is dangerous. The whole issue of academic freedom is at question here. I think we are owed an explanation.