Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17877. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Quite a few submitters came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and complained about the provision that the State Services Commissioner “may set minimum standards of integrity and conduct”. The complaints came particularly from the education sector—from the boards of trustees and the principals. They told the select committee that teachers were already subject to two three or four sets of codes of conduct they were not sure how demanding that was and asked what was meant by the provision that the State Services Commissioner might proceed with another set of standards of integrity and conduct. 
I must say that I personally have a lot of concern with the State Services Commissioner setting minimum standards of integrity and conduct. I wonder how far it would have stretched because the present commissioner is one Mr Mark Prebble and I know that Mr Mark Prebble has quite a lot to say about the dress codes of public servants including that they should shop at The Warehouse or at Farmers not wear earrings etc. I would like to know how far the public service can expect the State Services Commissioner to intrude into the dress code of employees or into the behaviour of individual departments. 
The other power that this provision is supposed to give to the State Services Commissioner is the ability to review the machinery of government across all areas of government including the allocation of functions to and between departments and other agencies. On the one hand it could be scary if the State Services Commissioner is to interfere in each individual department’s functions thereby causing unnecessary undermining of the department’s head but on the other hand one has to question what authority is granted to the State Services Commissioner when he or she can only review. What happens after he or she reviews? Does the commissioner once again report to the relevant Minister? What if the State Services Commissioner reviews and recommends changes to Government departments that concern two Ministers or even three or four Ministers? Would that review yield any tangible result? 
We also see this provision giving the State Services Commissioner the desirability or need for the creation of new departments and other agencies. Now this is quite interesting. I wonder whether the State Services Commissioner can do that based on his or her own opinion or does the State Services Commissioner have to seek guidance from some higher authorities such as the Ministers about the creation of new departments and agencies? How can we ensure that the provision does not become a tool that might be used to undermine Governments and agencies that might be proving too difficult to deal with? Of course the one thing in a positive light that I can think of is that it could be good for the State Services Commissioner to interfere in the current saga of TVNZ where the Prime Minister is complaining about it exhibiting a culture of extravagance.