Dalziel Lianne: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDalziel Lianne: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11686. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East):I could not agree more with my colleague Grant Robertson when he says that the need to focus on breaking down those silos is fundamentally important which is why I am pleased that this part of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill deals with the whole-of-Government approach that we so need.If there is one place in New Zealand that needs a whole-of-Government approach it is Christchurch. What we have had established there I think was a mistake in terms of the nature of the organisation. I think there have been a few comments lately about my views around the recovery effort and I want to place it clearly on the record that the Government has to be involved in Christchurch. It is so big and that whole-of-Government focus that is dealt with in this part of the legislation is fundamental to getting it right. But the model chosen for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority which sounds like it is an independent Crown entity or an autonomous Crown entity—in fact it is not; it is a Government department. It has a direct line of reporting to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. It has a statement of intent as set out in this part of the legislation as well but not as a Crown entity; it is as a Government department. It should have been a Crown entity. Everyone in Christchurch who has any understanding of the need for good governance in a recovery situation agrees that there needed to be a layer of governance between the Minister and the Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.But the real problem lies in the fact that there is not the joined-up approach that we have been looking for. I was speaking to an engineer recently a geotechnical engineer when I was up in Auckland and I said to him: “I have discovered the problem. I have discovered why things are not working in Christchurch and why we have not got the joined-up approach.” I said it was here in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General:Roles responsibilities and funding of public entities after the Canterbury earthquakes  which is of course extremely relevant to Part 3 of this bill because it is precisely the issue that is concerned. I said it was all on one page. He actually could not believe me that I could have found the solution for the problem—the statement of the problem—in such graphic terms until I opened the report like this. This diagram shows what the Canterbury earthquake recovery looks like.I think that everyone on that side of the Chamber should take a very careful look at this document—a very careful look at it. What it identifies is the whole range of public sector entities private companies Ngāi Tahu and Canterbury earthquake recovery tasks as they are undertaken by regional or local public entities and whether they are part of the central government entity. So we have got Treasury the State Services Commission the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Transport Agency the Tertiary Education Commission the Ministry of Education schools and tertiary providers Housing New Zealand Corporation the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment Southern Response Waimakariri District Council the Earthquake Commission the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—it appears again because one represents when it was formerly the Ministry of Economic Development and one when it was formerly the Department of Building and Housing—Selwyn District Council the Department of Internal Affairs Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Christchurch City Council Canterbury District Health Board the Ministry of Health the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Environment Canterbury.You know if anything is screaming out for a joined-up approach for a whole-of-Government direction it is the Canterbury earthquake recovery. In fact when the Canterbury earthquake recovery legislation was passed in this House its intention wasclear. It was to facilitate to coordinate and to direct the recovery—anything that supported the recovery. And yet we have not got anyone in charge. Still there is no authority; nobody stands in charge. So you have got the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery not knowing what is happening under the Minister of Building and Construction’s watch. We have ended up with a situation where the Christchurch City Council loses its accreditation on Monday next week and it is losing it because of a report that was prepared for International Accreditation New Zealand back in September last year. It was sent to the city council in October and it was copied to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.I cannot for the life of me understand why there has been no connection made no joining of the dots. Yes there are lots of dotted lines lots of squiggles but guess what is completely missing from all of this? What is completely missing from all of this is people the community the people who live in Christchurch.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member must relate this back to Part 3. To use Canterbury as an example is fine but you must bring it back to the content of Part 3.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: In clause 162 amended section 107 states: “(1) The Minister of State Services and the Minister of Finance may jointly direct Crown entities to support a whole of government approach by complying with specified requirements for any of the following purposes: (a) to improve (directly or indirectly) public services: (b) to secure economies or efficiencies: (c) to develop expertise and capability: (d) to ensure business continuity: (e) to manage risks to the government’s financial position.”I would say that a direction to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—which OK is not a Crown entity it is a Government department but it should have been a Crown entity—could actually have brought this whole thing together. But given that it is not there are many Crown entities that are operating in the Canterbury region but they are not joined up. They have not received a direction around the whole of Government or if they have it is not obvious to anyone. People who ring the Earthquake Commission EQC for example are told to ring Fletcher’s—Fletcher EQR. Then they are told by Fletcher EQR: “No it’s really still an EQC matter.” So they ring back EQC and it says: “Well ring the Christchurch City Council.” So there is this lack of a joined-up approach.The ministry—formerly the Department of Building and Housing—issued new guidelines part-way through the process of the rebuild and that has led to people having to go to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment as it is now. That is the problem. We do not have this whole-of-Government direction approach. So it is important that we have this not just within Government departments because Government departments themselves are operating in silos but within Government entities and where they connect in.So another Crown entity that could really benefit from a whole-of-Government direction is International Accreditation New Zealand. That is New Zealand’s accreditation body which enables an organisation to have confidence in its processes and provide assurance to customers and clients. It is part of Telarc the Testing Laboratory Registration Council which is an autonomous Crown entity that was established way back in 1972. It has a really important role around accreditation. But now we have got a huge question mark over what buildings are safe and what buildings are not safe in Christchurch. It should be in there as part of a whole-of-Government response to the issue leading the issue alongside the Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and obviously the Minister of Local Government will now be in there today with a Crown manager.I presume that that will have a similar role or maybe even a more extensive role than the monitor’s role which is also provided for in Part 3 of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill and what it is allowing itself to do is to assist the responsible Minister to carry out his or her role. The trouble is that sometimes there is not a responsible Minister when there are many Ministers who cut across and I think we heard that from the Speaker the other day when I tried to get a snap debate on the issues that were occurring in Christchurch. We could not get that responsible Minister and the failure to take any action was not regarded as a matter of recent occurrence because the failure to take action did not form a ground for a snap debate.That is the problem that we have got. I hope that this legislation has been designed with addressing problems like we have in Christchurch in mind. I hope that it does and I am really looking forward to seeing how it works in practice. But it really cannot come soon enough for Christchurch. We have had enough of the silo thinking and the inability to bring everything together for the sake of Christchurch.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments not agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.