Copeland Gordon: Third Readings 
Copeland Gordon: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17959] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the public finance legislation which we have now been debating in the House for more than 24 hours. I begin with a comment about the universities. As the previous speaker Rod Donald mentioned we had some submissions from the universities. Their argument—which I think was in the end fallacious—was that they did not want their assets and liabilities consolidated into the Crown accounts on the basis that that would somehow threaten their academic freedom. As I said in a previous speech I think we need to decouple those two things because realities are realities. 
I suggest to the universities that if they want the totality of academic freedom in the way that for example Harvard University exercises it in the United States then their only option really would be to become private. That is not completely out of the question. I understand that Oxford University either has or is in the process of or is certainly looking at the possibility of becoming a private university. Private status confers upon a university the opportunity to have complete academic freedom and also complete freedom to challenge the Government or any other part of society from time to time. I think the only answer I can give to the vice-chancellors who came to see us is to tell them to look at the Oxford example and consider whether it is possible for some universities in this country to become private. Maybe that is a way out. 
This bill accomplishes some important things in the interests of the clearer presentation of the public accounts and the absorption of the Fiscal Responsibility Act into the overall public finance framework. It is important to appreciate that this bill does not bring the Fiscal Responsibility Act to an end. On the contrary it affirms and embeds that world-leading legislation into New Zealand law for the long term. The bad old days when a Government could keep the public in the dark about the state of the nation’s books particularly in an election year are now a thing of the past—and a somewhat shameful past it was at that. We can thank Ruth Richardson for that Act although some of her other innovations are not fondly remembered. However credit where credit is due. The targeting and control of Government expenditure is also at the heart of this bill and it is in that regard that I think the nation still has some way to go. In my view the focus of the estimates on outcomes is conceptually correct but they do not yet in general really measure the worth or otherwise of expenditure with sufficient precision. 
The big question is whether taxpayers get bangs for their buck in the delivery of services by Government agencies and their departments. Let me mention a couple of examples. What really is it that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is trying to do? I must say that when I put that question into my speech I did not realise that the Hon Ruth Dyson would be in the Chamber to hear me. I assure the Minister that I am not picking on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services; I simply want to use it as an example. I put that question at the Finance and Expenditure Committee to Dr Graham Scott former secretary of the Treasury and therefore someone with a fair bit of experience in the whole concept of outcome-oriented expenditure controls. His reply was that the core function of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services should be preventive. I do not know for sure that that answer is correct but if it is then obviously the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is a failure because sadly as is well known the department’s list of clients—children at risk—grows ever longer. In other words if the goal is preventive it is not working. 
Parliament and the Government need to know that because if it is not working then we need to do something about it. It needs to be reformed and we then need to reallocate the necessary resources into something that does work. What difference for example might result from a much smaller sum of money being put into the financing of vouchers to subsidise all New Zealand parents into parental training courses run not by the nanny State but by charities and other non-governmental organisations? There are many fine organisations already in New Zealand that offer parenting programmes but they are often scratching pub charities to try to find the money to keep those programmes going as well as charging fees to parents to participate in them. I believe that the Government could remove some of those barriers and have as a policy goal to ensure that all parents in New Zealand become educated on how to become great parents. If that were done I think it would result in less children being at risk. Then truly the outcome-goal of preventing children from becoming at risk in the first place would certainly be better delivered than it is under the present system. 
It is fundamentally important that our departments and agencies do the right thing in terms of outcomes for our society. I remember a speech that Bill Clinton gave at the APEC conference in Auckland a few years back. He made that very point. He said that if we are not doing the right thing—if the idea we have in the first instance is not the right idea—then we can work away and pour a lot of money into the wrong thing for a very long time. If we are doing that then our system which is outcome-based should pick that up. We then need to stop that start again and do things differently. 
The mechanisms provided in this bill are merely tools. We still have to do the job. At least when it comes to children at risk we clearly are not doing the right thing. We will not be doing the right thing until we see the statistics about the abuse and neglect of children and about other situations that put children at risk coming down. Indeed we should see a decrease in the involvement of young people in the criminal justice system—that situation should begin turning round. In other words the ideas around outcomes-focused reporting are: why are we spending the money what are we getting for it and how do we measure that? Otherwise Government initiatives merely become like a giant super-tanker that moves forward under its own momentum absorbing megabucks compulsorily extracted from taxpayers but doing little that truly makes a positive difference to our society and its families. The bill provides a methodology and a system but it will deliver real benefit for New Zealanders only if we skilfully use it to deliver measurable outcomes that are designed to enrich the life and welfare of the people of this country. 
I could perhaps give a further example to emphasise the point and the importance of outcomes-related expenditure controls—something I know that the Secretary to the Treasury is continuing to work on. As I have said of this legislation we have provided a good framework a mechanism whereby the estimates in particular that come to this House are outcome-driven. But again we have only to look for example at an area like the money dispensed through Sport and Recreation New Zealand and say: “OK we are putting all this money out but are we actually getting something back for our buck?”. Is it actually making a difference? What is the goal? Is it through physical exercise to improve the health of New Zealanders? If so has it done that and are we measuring it? If on the other hand we use anecdotal evidence—for example evidence of a rugby league club that decides to have a Saturday night booze-up for the members of the club and their spouses—then quite obviously the money is being misspent against an outcome that is negative not positive in terms of improving the health of people through sport. 
I believe there are some very real questions that need to be continually worked on by Treasury and by the Government in that area. However having expressed those sentiments let me say that overall United Future is content that this legislation is a good step in the right direction. It will put in place some very robust rules around public sector finance and the State Services Commission in terms of management. Accordingly we are happy to signal that we will vote for the legislation on its third and final reading.