Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17857. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on what is now Part 1 of this bill. As Dr Cullen pointed out it is Part 1 only because of the excellent work done at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and particularly as a result of the submission made by David McGee the Clerk of the House. In the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill as introduced this very important part the Public Finance Act was dumped at the back; now it is at the front where it rightly belongs. I can see the crocodile tears now from Dr Cullen. I know that it may be symbolic but as Mr McGee pointed out in his submission it is absolutely crucial that we get these things round the right way. 
It is also crucial in our view that we get the content right and I look forward to support from other colleagues in the Chamber particularly those from the Government for the amendments I am putting up to Part 1 and I would like to draw members’ attention to our amendments that are on the Table. 
The first amendment I would like to put up is simply to omit subclause (4) of clause 6 “Interpretation”. This bill does an extraordinary thing; it actually deletes from the Act the definitions of “contingent liability” and “cost”. I would have thought that in this time of increasing contingent liabilities the last thing we would want to do is to delete that definition from the Act but that is exactly what the Government wants to do. I am surprised that other parties in this Committee have not already raised this concern. Yes I know that contingent liability is defined under generally accepted accounting practice but that is not an excuse for removing it from the existing legislation. 
The twin of that amendment is that we are proposing to insert total contingent liabilities under new section 26J in clause 8 because we believe that the Fiscal Strategy Report which sets out the Government’s long-term objectives should not only cover operating expenses and revenues and the balance between them the total level of debt and the total net worth; it should also state the Government’s long-term objectives for contingent liabilities in particular. 
But wait there is more. If members look at our amendment to section 26P “Economic forecasts” in clause 8 they will see that we believe that the economic forecast requirements are far too narrow. What is there is of course all well and good but we believe that the economic forecasts in section 26P(1) should also include forecasts of movements in New Zealand’s overseas trade in goods balance our overseas trade in service balance and our reserves of natural resources. I would have thought that given the Maui gas debacle that would have been an obvious addition to the economic forecasts—to actually know what the state of our stock of natural resources particularly fossil fuels is. But that is currently an omission from the economic forecasts and I hope the Minister of Finance will see the merit of supporting this amendment so that it can be added. 
Of course those economic forecasts should also include some measures of social well-being and environmental quality. The Government has a lot to say about triple bottom lines. Its members go off to Johannesburg to Rio Plus Ten and present a report the Hon Marian Hobbs the Minister for the Environment puts out a statement about the Government’s intentions on triple bottom lines and the Prime Minister Helen Clark waxes lyrical at conferences about triple bottom lines. But do members actually see it in the Economic and Fiscal Updates? No we do not. I think it is time for the Government to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to presenting a whole-of-Government perspective on these issues. We would extend that to new section 27(2) in clause 10 so that in the annual financial statements the Government also reports on the environmental impacts of Government activities on water use energy use waste emissions and discharge and use of hazardous substances and in relation to the impact of Government activities on people and communities such criteria as life expectancy—