Hide Rodney: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10759] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party supports this bill going to the select committee but has some serious concerns. I will highlight those as best I can as we go through. 
The first concern ACT has is that this bill’s purpose is stated as being to enhance responsible fiscal management. The experience the population at large has had of the Labour-Green-United Future Government is that what it actually does is the opposite of what it says. So we have a Families Commission that is anti-family and now we have a public finance bill promoting responsible fiscal management which suggests to me that when we look into the detail it will be the opposite. 
The other thing I notice about this bill is that according to the explanatory note it is intended to “extend the State Services Commissioner’s mandate to provide leadership and guidance to the wider State sector especially on ethics values and standards:”. That is from a Government that has overseen some of the most appalling behaviour in the public service of New Zealand in our lifetimes. [ 
Interruption 
] Michael Cullen is agreeing with that and the idea that the State Services Commissioner who has overseen that behaviour and excused it should be in charge of ethics values and standards is truly a shock. 
When I read a bit further into the bill I see that this legislation will enable the Prime Minister—currently Helen Clark—to direct the commissioner to carry out functions and powers in respect of other parts of the State services. So the Prime Minister is going to provide a lead on ethics values and standards for the public sector—that from a Prime Minister who got caught forging a painting. There is no other word for it. That is from a Prime Minister who had her electorate agent destroy the evidence. That is from a Prime Minister who essentially directed the police to charge Shane Ardern—and the charge got thrown out of court. So driving a little “Fergie” up Parliament steps is somehow something that should occupy the courts but forging a painting is OK 
Let me go back to the claim of this Government that it wants ethics values and standards. It is quite common for MPs to get up in this House and make charges of corruption. Then we have an inquiry and we find out that it was not that bad—that the MP was exaggerating. Well I do not exaggerate; I ask questions in this House. We now have the report—the Doug White report on the Civil Aviation Authority—and we find there that the Civil Aviation Authority from the top is corrupt. That is what we find in that report. 
Then there is the idea that the State Services Commissioner will oversee ethics values and standards. If that is the case how is it that the Director of Civil Aviation John Jones still has a job? That is a question for this Government. We read the report and see that it is clear what happened. A leading flight inspector of the Civil Aviation Authority was paid by the taxpayer to inspect an airline. He recommended that it be grounded. He then went and got paid by that airline on the side. How bad is that? On the one hand he was being paid by the taxpayer to ensure safety—and therefore he held the airline operator on the ground—and on the other hand he was being paid on the side to help the operator get into the air. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to David Benson-Pope that that not surprisingly is called extortion. I hope voters remember that that member tries to interject and somehow to protect it. 
There was extortion going on and—do members know something?—I do not blame that inspector Richard Cox. I do not blame him because the airline operator rang the Director of Civil Aviation John Jones and said: “Hang on this is a bit rough. The guy who has just put our airline on the ground is now turning up seeking private work.” Do members know what the Director of Civil Aviation said? He said: “That’s OK. I know all about it.” So they had no option then—and Government members have gone quiet now—but to pay the money which was essentially a bribe being extorted out of them because what does one do when one’s business is put on the ground and the Civil Aviation Authority turns up and says: “We can help you but you have to pay us.”? One says: “This isn’t right.” and rings the Civil Aviation Authority boss—and he says he knows all about it. 
What do we find in this report? We find what I could have told this House months ago—that John Jones in a letter to the company fully authorised it. He had no problem that his leading flight inspector charged with the safety of the airline industry in New Zealand went to the airline company and said the company was not safe to fly. In fact John Jones recommended that the flight inspector went to work for the company—that is what he recommended; it is in the report—and that he was paid. How can we blame that flight inspector when the boss told him to do it? That is what happened here—he was directed by the boss so that is what he did. He went along and said: “I have to help you. Here’s what you pay.” They put a contract in place and thousands of dollars had to be paid by that airline operator. And what was happening? Richard Cox was then charged by the director John Jones to audit the company to see whether it was up to scratch—on the very work he was doing for it. And this is a Government that will come to this House and say it is about promoting ethics values and standards. How can that be? 
How can we have a Civil Aviation Authority that has the power to put an airline operator on the ground then turns up the next day and says: “What about a bit of money on the side?”—and as it does that it is under the instructions of the Director of Civil Aviation John Jones. What happened? This Government said that it was OK. How was that so? It used a classic Labour Government trick: it fired Richard Cox halfway through the investigation. He was summarily dismissed for doing what he was told to do by the director. Why did the Government do that? It knew it had to do that because it needed a scapegoat. The Government took one man who was doing his job fired him blamed him and said that the Civil Aviation Authority was all right. 
Silly old Harry Duynhoven who plays around in a helicopter being paid for by the industry which is the mate of the Civil Aviation Authority jumped out of a plane— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —jumped out of a plane with a parachute attached which opened and carried him safely to earth—and said that everything was OK. Trevor Mallard said that everything was OK. What did the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority Rodger Fisher say? He said: “Oh! We have a report from the State Services Commissioner saying that the director John Jones authorised what in everyday language is extortion.” He authorised what in everyday language was corruption. He authorised it and said he would give a warning in writing. That is what he did. I say that if this Government were serious about achieving ethics values and standards—and dare I say it airline safety and some respect for the Civil Aviation Authority—John Jones would be gone Rodger Fisher would be gone and we would be looking a bit more seriously at how it was that Richard Cox was fired before the report was finished. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Stephen Franks would be gone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I say to Dr Cullen that that is why we will be taking some great care with this bill.