O'Connor Damien: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11629. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):I will take the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill on two particular areas. One follows on from my colleague Jacinda Ardern on the issue of delegation and the other one is on the protection of liability for Public Service chief executives.If I could just refer to a recent situation—and I am glad the Minister for Food Safety is in the chair because she can probably answer some of these questions—around meat getting into China. Clearly there were delegated responsibilities to a public servant in China who had the responsibility for clearing large consignments of meat. Yesterday in fact we had an announcement from the Minister for Primary Industries that the Government is going to increase resources into China. I think actually the truth is that they are going to go from one person to three people up there. The question is whether the delegation was a responsible delegation that put with it the resource to do the job properly. We had a bizarre situation where presumably the Minister delegated to the chief executive and then to an employee powers very important powers for certifying and clearing the meat. As it turned out the Minister criticised the chief executive and all the staff. So the question I have for the Minister in the chair is whether in that delegation the resources went with the delegation to ensure that the work was carried out properly and therefore the employee was responsible back through the chief executive or indeed whether the chief executive could have said that actually they did not have enough resource to be delegated the role and that is why the inadequacies and in fact the lack of performance occurred.The bill has got a whole lot of detail here and I acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee which has clearly gone through and looked at this very very carefully and recommended that “… delegations must be in writing and that functions or powers delegated to a chief executive by a Minister ... may not be delegated further without their prior written approval.” So the question is when you have such an important market in meat such as China where you have hundreds of millions of dollars going through and we are told that there was one employee in China to deal with the certification for that huge meat trade whose responsibility was it for the delegation? And when something went wrong who should take responsibility for that problem? The Minister very quickly shunned it on to the ministry so we assume that it is the chief executive’s responsibility. He or she could say: “Well we didn’t have enough allocations through the Budget process so we had to have only one personthere.” In fact we have found a bit more money for two other people. It is pleasing to hear that for that particular incident.The issue of delegation that has been clarified as to how the chief executive should delegate the powers and how the Minister delegates them to the chief executive is all nice and dandy and all tidied up here in the bill. But the issue of accountability I suggest is something that also needs to be clarified. The age-old assumption—and my colleague Mr Mallard here would know this all too well—Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m not that old.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Sorry he has been around for a while.Hon Trevor Mallard: Unlike the member.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have not been the State services Minister I have to say like he has.Hon Trevor Mallard: And the member never will be either.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No that is probably true and I do not want to be. Can I say that the issue of a Minister taking responsibility for the actions of his or her department is something that has been kind of accepted in politics for a while. But we had the very unusual situation with the Minister for Primary Industries dumping fairly and squarely on his ministry. That was a new situation. I am not sure whether that is perhaps an indication of the new approach that the Government is going to take under these changes here or whether it is the right approach or not. Did the select committee discuss it? That would be my question. Perhaps the Minister for Food Safety who is in the chair can answer that.If I can move on to the second issue which is in some way related to the incident I referred to and that is protection from liability for Public Service chief executives and employees. The Prime Minister who is also a Minister indicated through that whole meat debacle that there was a possibility of compensation being paid. I guess that what we have here of course is clarity of the status quo—that is that no single individual should be liable for such a mistake. Indeed the chief executive should not be. A Minister on behalf of the Government then carries the can for liability—in fact the taxpayer does. One of the questions that the taxpayer does raise quite often is whether bureaucrats should be made accountable and why it should be that a Minister or we as the taxpayers carry the can for any compensation from what they would call a stuff-up or a mistake or a major logistical problem or clearly inadequate performance. What this bill does is confirm that the public servant the civil servant should not be liable if they have done something in good faith. When a Minister then turns round as the Minister for Primary Industries did and criticises the ministry for its lack of performance then the question of liability being sheeted home in some way maybe not in a monetary way to an employee or more appropriately to the chief executive is a very fair question that each and every taxpayer should ask because it is their money that is paying compensation.In Part 1 here we have as has been the accepted norm removal from the chief executive or an individual employee any liability for mistakes. So the Prime Minister rides in on his white horse and says to the meat industry: “Well there may be compensation payable.” And then the Minister instead of saying: “My department got it wrong and therefore I should be liable.” muddies the water by saying: “No actually the ministry the department didn’t perform here. It was at fault.” So the taxpayer rightfully might say: “Well what then is the penalty that should be imposed upon the public servant or the individual who made the mistakes?”. In every other part of the law or I guess Government systems there is general accountability. People should be held to account for their mistakes but this bill is actually shifting it up the line effectively to the taxpayer. Is that the right thing? Maybe the Minister in the chair can take a call andanswer that because if the Government is going to change and alter these things then it should look at the situation that arose quite recently. I am not saying that the Minister for Food Safety was just as liable as the Minister for Primary Industries but I am not sure whether she would have dumped on her agency in the way the Minister for Primary Industries did.The hard-working New Zealander out there who pays their taxes to run these Government agencies to carry out these crucial roles expects performance all the way down the line and expects liability all the way down the line. So when as has happened in the past a Minister says: “I take full responsibility.” if it is a big enough mistake such as happened in Cave Creek or indeed at Pike River then the appropriate Minister resigns. I think people see accountability in that way. But when the Minister does not resign but turns round and dumps on the chief executive then the question should be whether this protection here provides adequate accountability for taxpayers’ money. So I leave it now to the Minister in the chair to maybe take a call and explain those things. It is a complex area of State sector accountability and responsibility. I can see her being really keen there.Hon Trevor Mallard: Not really. There’s a lot of common sense involved. What does Peter Dunne think about it?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well there could be. I do not know actually. We are not allowed to talk about the absence of any Minister but I am sure that common sense could come into play here.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well he’s permanently absent as the Minister now.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well I think the party is anyway. I am not sure about the member but the party certainly is.Hon Trevor Mallard: No no he’s not a Minister any more.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Look I must come back to the point here. I do not want to be distracted by my colleagues—