Wong Pansy: Third Readings 
Wong Pansy: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17963] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 That was a stunning speech from the Minister of Fisheries—a few little words! As I have said before during the first reading debate on the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill National has tried very hard on it. We understand that the officials spent a lot of time drafting the legislation and we learnt during the Committee stage that the concept for the bill came from the Hon Simon Upton. But unfortunately as was pointed out by my colleague John Key the incoming Minister of Finance it has been politicised interfered with and tinkered with by the Minister of Finance—the current one—and the Minister of State Services. 
When the original bill was introduced to the House at some stage in February it was said that it was meant to fix problems with Crown entities’ behaviour and governance to provide leadership and development among the State sector to improve flexibility and to retain accountability for public money. But how much real impact that 500-page bill will have in terms of changing behaviour and culture remains to be seen. It is important to bear in mind that behavioural and cultural change come about by having leaders with clear vision who can articulate expectations and put in place transparent and appropriate measurement systems. The mere fact that everything is written into a 500-page bill will do little to motivate individuals to behave in a way that is conducive to producing the desirable outcome. Rules regulations and legislation alone will not achieve that. The fact is that the minority Labour Government for far too long—5 years—has shown a lack of independence and objectivity in enforcing a policy that will enable New Zealand to move forward in a way that benefits all New Zealanders. I would certainly not expect the public sector to behave any differently because of this legislation. 
I also want to make a sad observation on the behaviour of two political parties United Future and the Greens during the debate on this legislation. Both those parties campaigned on the promise that they would come to Parliament to hold the Government to account. They told their supporters that they stood for integrity and excellence. We have heard Rod Donald time and time again say that this legislation is not as good as it could be but it will have to do. We have heard from United Future that this legislation is a step in the right direction but that United Future members are looking forward to it returning to the House for further amendment. The New Zealand Parliament is not a place where mediocrity should be respected or accepted. Members of Parliament come to this House to do their best. It is a place where political parties are supposed to be accountable to their supporters and to all New Zealanders. 
Let us examine why the National Party eventually decided after much deliberation that we cannot support this legislation. In the debate on Part 1 I continued to point out that the Finance and Expenditure Committee acknowledges and is grateful to the Clerk of the House for standing up to defend the supremacy of Parliament over the executive’s attempts in the way that Part 1 was drafted to undermine that supremacy. It would have made MPs’ lives difficult in seeking answers and also digesting aggregated financial information from Government departments. The acknowledgment of that fact still has not removed the lingering doubt in our minds as to why it happened in the first place. If that drafting was the result of deliberate political instruction that is very worrying. If it was due to a lack of understanding on the part of the officials that it would undermine parliamentary supremacy that certainly makes me very worried as to the capability of the officials involved. I would like to think it was unintentional but certainly the doubt is there. 
It was very much of concern to us on this side of the House whenever we saw a statement about the whole-of-Government approach in terms of Part 2 and Part 3 which concern the management of the State sector and Crown entities and State-owned enterprises. The very famous line about the Immigration Service of “lying in unison” gives me more reason to doubt whether the executive would allow Government departments to remain independent. If the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State Services can jointly instruct that there be a so-called whole-of-Government approach I doubt whether Parliament would ever get to the bottom of answers to any questions we want to pose about Government departments in terms of outcomes outputs and accountability for their performance. 
I think the universities have raised a valid point not so much about the drafting of this legislation but in pointing out that in the last 4 years the Labour Government has chipped away the autonomy of the tertiary education sector. That is why they are concerned about this legislation. As I say sometimes it is not so much what one puts in the legislation; rather in this case it was the consistent chipping away of academic autonomy that had the university sector making very strong representations to the select committee. 
Mr Speaker I would like to utilise my last few seconds to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very well-earned break. After all we are going to miss you because this will be your last Christmas in your long and shall I say— 
Darren Hughes 
: Distinguished. 
PANSY WONG 
: —distinguished—that is a good word—career as Speaker of the New Zealand Parliament which is one of the oldest democracies. I say bon voyage to wherever you may be going and have a very good break. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much and I am sure all the other members of your party join you in expressing those wishes.