Coddington Deborah: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Coddington Deborah: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party which is voting against this bill. We support the extensive changes that occurred in the select committee under the guidance and hard work exhibited by the Clerk of the House but we are still voting against this bill for two main principles: the first concerns the spending of taxpayers’ money and the second is the enormous threat this bill poses to the autonomy and academic freedom of universities. 
In fact with regard to the second principle I find it astonishing that a Government most of the senior Cabinet members of which have been privileged to go through a university education and enjoy the academic freedom that that brings—one of the few areas in life where one can have that kind of protection—is now passing legislation that has outraged the Vice-Chancellors Committee. It has caused the vice-chancellors a huge amount of grief and has forced them to go public with their concerns after repeatedly lobbying and making submissions on what the legislation will do to the autonomy of universities in bringing them under the control of the Government. 
But first of all I would like to talk about the changes that this bill is bringing about to—the watering down of—the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Every single day in New Zealand every taxpayer should go down on his or her knees and thank the Hon Ruth Richardson for bringing in that Act. It places a safeguard—it is a gatekeeper—on the amount of taxpayers’ money that Governments can spend and where. Politicians love spending taxpayers’ money. They write out cheques for things they would never write out cheques for if it were their own money. What politician what MP would write out a cheque for $500000 to send a port-a-loo that makes a noise like a donkey to an international art exhibition? If there are any politicians or MPs who would do that I challenge them to get out their chequebooks and do that right now with their own money. 
What politician would write out a cheque for thousands of dollars for a hip-hop tour or for bounty hunters to go around suburbs mostly in Auckland in vans pick up little children and collect a bounty for enrolling them in an early childhood centre? They are not checking the quality of the education that the children will get in that early childhood centre or checking to see whether they will stay in that centre then go on to school and learn to read—all those things that taxpayers’ money should be spent on in terms of adding value to or improving the lives of people. No the money is just for ticking a box. No politician would write out a cheque for his or her own money to do that. If politicians wrote out a cheque for children to go to early childhood centres they would make damn sure that the children were getting a good education and that they would come out each day having learnt a little bit more than they knew when they went in. 
What politician would write out a cheque for $400000 to double the salary of a newsreader who was not actually poached by a rival television company? Because negotiations had gone on for so long and were so inept the newsreader could have walked so the salary was doubled. No politician would do that but when it is taxpayers’ money it is another story. Other people’s money is a drug—it is an opiate—and politicians get high on it. 
That is why instead of watering down the Fiscal Responsibility Act we should be building on that Act. We should be passing legislation that requires value-for-money tests. In fact we should go so far as to have a taxpayers’ bill of rights that safeguards taxpayers’ money by limiting Government spending to the rates of inflation and population growth. To spend more than that a referendum would need to be held; if 75 percent or more of the people give their support politicians could spend more money than that. Instead this legislation is as it says almost a watering down of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. 
Trevor Mallard has said that this legislation gives greater financial transparency in ensuring the proper spending of taxpayers’ money. It does nothing of the sort. It still leaves the way open for Governments to succumb to the temptation to spend money to buy votes. With a 3-year term a Government can save it all up in the first and second years and spend it in the third year to ensure that it will get in again at the following election—or promise more. That is what we will see more of and that is why we cannot support this legislation. 
I would like to move on to the issue of universities and academic freedom. Crown entities will include universities as organisations in which the Government has a controlling interest. The ownership of universities is an interesting issue. They are on public land but students have to pay to go there. They also get quite a lot of private funding. More and more universities look to the private sector for sponsorship and funding. That private sponsorship and funding saves the taxpayer millions of dollars. If members have been to Auckland University and seen the Icehouse which grows entrepreneurs and young business people they will know that just about all of that has come through private donations and private funding which the vice-chancellor worked very hard at getting. How will private institutions feel about sponsoring or putting money into universities when they see what happens to universities under this legislation? 
There will be a Minister specially designated to control universities. The Minister will have the ability to sack members of the council if the university is not carrying out Government policy. I seriously question how the Government can say this bill is not a threat to academic freedom. If it is not a threat to academic freedom how come the Vice-Chancellors Committee hardly the most libertarian organisation in New Zealand has taken it upon itself to write a public letter seeking support from senior businessmen and senior academics—and many graduates and alumni as I said are in this House—to oppose this bill? But the lobbying has fallen on deaf ears. 
I will continue on this issue in the Committee stage. I will be urging those in the Government who are concerned about academic freedom to think again before they include universities in this bill and I will do so again during the third reading. As I said this bill in its present form is not a bill we can support.