Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Well good news—we'll agree to it. It's a pleasure to rise in support of the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill in this second reading debate. I'd just like to acknowledge the kind words that members have made in contributions to date about the work of the Governance and Administration Committee in scrutinising this bill. I'm almost motivated to seek leave to suspend the Standing Orders so that we can increase the number of calls that we can take on this bill. But I do thank them very much acknowledging the work that the members do and I would also acknowledge each of the members on the Governance and Administration Committee for the way that we have all approached not only this bill but also other bills that have been and are before us.We support this bill essentially in full. As Dr Nick Smith has pointed out there were some areas that we on the Opposition side would have liked to have seen a little different in the amendments that the committee proposed and reported back on—particularly they are around CEO salaries and terms and conditions and the State Services Commissioner's pretty much unbridled role in setting those. Although we were able through a discussion to reach a consensus that there should be some criteria to which the State Services Commissioner must give regard if they choose to recommend or require something other than what the board of the entity is recommending some of us at least felt that it would be better and particularly from a true governance sense it would be better for there to be objective criteria—thresholds if you will—that must be met in order for the State Services Commissioner to do other than accept the recommendation from the board. Ultimately these entities we're talking about have independent boards assigned to them. Just as in the private sector if you have a board to govern the company it is only right and proper that that board is not constrained by external influences other than of course those annual shareholder meetings where shareholders can and do express their satisfaction or otherwise with those boards. We felt that it was important that we maintain very much a consistent approach to the governance of Crown entities: that they have an independent board—or have a board—and that that board should not have its powers and responsibilities and authority constrained unnecessarily. We would have preferred that there were objective thresholds that the commissioner would have to show had been met in order to do something other than what the board recommended but we do acknowledge that we can go with a consensus as the bill has been reported back that the commissioner must at least give regard to those certain criteria.I do note as the previous speaker Paul Eagle pointed out when he talked about performance—and of course outside of this bill but very much related to the subject—that the Minister has changed salary settings for State sector chief executives to remove the performance element of their salaries that previously existed. They're all getting most of that by default now; it's the overachievement they won't be able to get hold of. But actually I would argue that that runs very contrary to what the Government wants to achieve and which our Government the previous Government wanted to achieve which is a State sector that is outcomes-focused—not inputs and not outputs but outcomes-focused—and particularly where those outcomes span across more than just a single silo of a given entity or a given department or a given ministry. The ability to create incentives to chief executives through performance pay is a very very powerful lever particularly when it comes to working with others from outside of their ministry. So while it's not part of this bill I would urge the Minister to reconsider that decision. I think it actually operates contrary to the State sector outcomes approach that he's looking to achieve.On to the other parts of the bill I was extremely pleased actually to see the auspices of inquiries through the commissioner to now be very much mirroring that of the Inquiries Act. We listened very closely not only to submissions but to officials and we agreed strongly—particularly in the areas of certain suspension of privacy elements such as during an inquiry—to not compromise the work that is under way. While it does constrain certain other privileges and rights it is we felt very appropriate to the nature of the inquiries to not compromise the integrity of the inquiry process that the commissioner may be undertaking. So look although we have some elements we might like to have seen slightly different there is no question that we do commend this bill to the House.