Key John: Third Readings 
Key John: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17961] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We are here today to debate the third readings of the public finance and State sector legislation legislation that National will be opposing. Before I begin I acknowledge the work of the officials who worked on this legislation for a very long time. It is very significant legislation. It replaces the Public Finance Act an Act of Parliament that has served New Zealand extremely well indeed. I know that the officials worked extremely hard and the criticism I am about to make of the legislation is no reflection on their work but rather on the misguided musings of two Ministers who have a political agenda—namely Dr Cullen and the Minister of State Services Trevor Mallard. That agenda is intertwined in this legislation which will be remembered if for nothing else for the fact that the original bill was 500 pages long and contained an incredible amount of drivel. It also contradicted itself on numerous occasions. Other than that the fact that the legislation is so prescriptive means it is likely to lead to lawsuits all over the show involving Crown entities and we are left wondering why we are rushing it through under urgency today. 
I want to make note of the select committee process. In the 2½ years I have been in Parliament I have seen a great many submissions before various select committees. I think it is fair to say that in my limited time in Parliament I have never seen a submission accepted almost in totality in the way that the submission from the Clerk of the House David McGee was accepted. That in part reflects the very widely held cross-party view of the work that David McGee does and the contribution he makes to Parliament. I think the New Zealand public many of whom will not know David McGee have a lot to thank him for for the work he undertook on this legislation because he certainly transformed it. 
I want to draw attention to two of the major issues that he highlighted in his submission and that have been corrected in the soon-to-be-passed legislation. The first of those was around the elimination of the estimates. It is easy to sit back and say there is so much information that removing the estimates would really not have too much impact but we forget that one of Parliament’s most significant jobs is to allocate the spending undertaken by the State sector and to scrutinise and review that spending as it takes place. The estimates process is a very important and detailed process a process under which parliamentarians on both sides of the House—but very often it is left to Opposition members—can drill down into the spending and make sure that taxpayer dollars are being appropriately assigned to where it was indicated they would be so that true reflection can take place. To remove the estimates would have had quite a significant impact on transparency and on the ability of members particularly those in the Opposition to scrutinise spending. 
I also want to highlight a second and very important part of the submission that Mr McGee made. It was around the ability under the Official Information Act potentially to block requests—often from Opposition parliamentarians but also from the media—on the basis of political grounds. At the moment most of those who work with the Official Information Act will know that information can be requested across all matters and can be and often is withheld by the Government on commercial grounds but cannot be withheld on political grounds. Mr McGee pointed out quite effectively I think that there was a great chance that that could take place under this legislation. One has to ask why it was left to David McGee to work that out. I think the answer and the conclusion one draws is that it was not left to Mr McGee; he was smart enough to see it but in fact it was part of the process that the Government was wanting to entwine in the original bill and to bury so deep in that 500-page document that it never saw the light of day. 
I will now reflect on some comments in relation to the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the entwinement of that Act in the new Public Finance Act. I say that that action is an absolute disgrace. Maybe this House needs a small history lesson on where and how the Fiscal Responsibility Act came about. It came about because a National Government came to office and had to look at and work with a set of accounts that were fundamentally wrong. They fundamentally did not tell the truth about the New Zealand economy. To say that the 1984-90 Labour Government cooked the books is not incorrect but to say that New Zealand should never be faced with that situation again is absolutely the right picture. When Ruth Richardson became Minister of Finance in 1990 she worked tirelessly to get the Fiscal Responsibility Act an iconic piece of legislation into our Parliament. She did a magnificent job of it. 
New Zealand has a lot to thank her for because under that Act we get not only some clarity but also some transparency. Most of us will know that just this week we have gained some more transparency under the Budget Policy Statement as a result of the Fiscal Responsibility Act in relation to just how the Government will spend money. And my word it is going to spend money—$23 billion in the next 4 years. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much does your tax policy cost? 
JOHN KEY 
: Well our tax policies are costed thank you I tell the member. The Fiscal Responsibility Act plays an incredibly important part and it is a disgrace that it is being buried in the Public Finance Act. I think that will not be lost on the people of New Zealand when they reflect on that matter. 
I want to talk about another important move within this legislation. One of the reasons I have concerns is the way that the State sector will endeavour to define the way that it should be judged effectively—to put it in layman’s terms. The Public Finance Act in 1989 essentially defined the way that the State sector should be measured—on the basis of outputs. It was relatively easy to go and look at those outputs and to determine and decipher whether the Government department in question had actually reached its goal in terms of outputs. The Public Finance Act makes some movement towards a goal of measuring by outcomes. I think that in one sense that is quite a noble cause and not without merit. I say that because if we take a very simple example like say the Immigration Service and ask ourselves what the outcome is I think most New Zealanders would agree that the Immigration Service’s No. 1 outcome is to allow people to come to New Zealand make New Zealand their home integrate into our society and make the best contribution they possibly can. Therefore the outcome we want from the Immigration Service is that it does that job and allows people to come here and make a significant contribution to our country. That can be different from the output which can be processing the number of people going through the Immigration Service with no regard at all to the kinds of people who come out the other end. 
So in one sense I understand the dilemma but I think it leaves open a very woolly interpretation by Ministers who will all of a sudden find it quite difficult I think to judge whether their departments have actually achieved their outcomes. One can imagine that with biosecurity the argument will be put forward that the outcome—something very dear to our rural background and something that could have a significant impact on our economy—is no incursions but in reality it is likely that any incursion could well be blamed on many others areas over time. I have concerns about that. I have concerns about multiple aggregation of outputs where definition will become less clear and it will become harder for the Opposition to interrogate and decipher the information. 
A lot has been said about the Crown entities. There is not enough time in my address to discuss that unless Mr Speaker you are prepared to give another 10 minutes—and even though this is the Christmas season I doubt that that is the case. So on that note I will leave that and say that National will be opposing this legislation. 
Mr Speaker in case I do not have another opportunity to do so I wish you the very best for Christmas. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you very much.