Roche Denise: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Roche Denise: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 November 2012. Volume:686;Page:6928. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to oppose this bill the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. The Green Party will be opposing this bill because although as my colleagues on this side of the House have already explained there are some good parts in it on the whole we see this as part of the National Government’s “Better Public Services With Fewer Resources” agenda rather than just Better Public Services. 
The changes that this bill is promoting stem from the Better Public Services Advisory Group which reported back in March and it did report back some very good things which this bill does take up. Some of the provisions are around the whole-of-Government approach which should reduce duplication. For example chief executives of departments will have to think about the wider interests of Government in their work and Budget appropriations may be based around an overarching purpose rather than focused on particular departments or silos. 
But overall this bill represents a challenge to the employment rights of public servants and together with the changes that this Government plans to make to the Employment Relations Act and with the introduction of youth rates it forms part of an orchestrated attack on all workers. 
There is no fundamental change to the model that was put in place in 1988 and there are changes tucked into this bill that will undermine State sector workers’ employment rights and ease the path to privatisation. I think that is one of the serious consequences of this bill: that public-funded services and public money may go to the private sector without greater public benefit. 
If you look for example at the provisions around technical redundancies under this measure employees who receive a redundancy notice and are offered an alternative position within the State sector—and the State sector is very wide spanning from schools to hospitals to the Housing New Zealand Corporation and every other agency in between—if they get a job in one of those agencies then they are not entitled to redundancy compensation. The mere offer of a job anywhere would mean they are not entitled to redundancy. This measure is a reaction against a few very high-profile cases where senior executives got really big payouts. But this measure will lead to gaming of the system. It will push people into contracting. It will lead to more of that contracting culture that has become so prevalent in the Public Service where millions are spent on consultants. Anyway it also presumes there are jobs to go to. Like many parts of this bill this provision is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A better solution would be to ensure that if an employee is made redundant the employer makes every effort to find them alternative employment and if not then they are granted redundancy. 
The Government also wants to dictate to employers in the State sector through Orders in Council about what they can agree to before collective bargaining takes place. This point has already been made by some of the speakers on this side of the House. It gives the Government the right to set pay and condition expectations and it gives them a legal status that they do not currently have. By issuing the Government’s expectations for pay and employment conditions in the State sector as an Order in Council the Government will be able to set the bargaining landscape and undermine collective bargaining right across the State sector. In effect it is a wage freeze without actually calling it a wage freeze and it undermines the whole concept of bargaining in good faith. 
This bill also gives chief executives of departments the authority to delegate statutory functions to non-government providers. Chief executives will be able to delegate statutory functions and powers between agencies and even to non-governmental service providers. All that would be required is ministerial approval. This is a groundbreaking piece of legislation. It has never been done before. It removes the very clear boundaries between what is clearly the statutory role of the State and what can be delegated to not-for-profit organisations or non-governmental organisations. Privatisation of these functions will be easier. Privatisation will be easier. 
Some jobs in the State sector have special powers that must be used with great care. They might include for example the power to search private property or to detain members of the public. Those are some of the statutory powers that could be delegated to the private sector. Is that what we want—private police forces? In the district health board sector for example those statutory functions include people working in mental health who have the power to section people. 
Non-governmental organisations should be concerned about those fish-hooks those special powers because they do not necessarily come with more funding. Community sector providers may have to take on coercive responsibilities that could undermine their relationship and the trust that they currently have in their communities and with their clients. The public should be concerned about the dangers of devolving the powers of the State—for example enforcement coercion and child protection—and what sort of an effect that can have on vulnerable people. How will that impact on our communities? 
 This bill overall is not a good thing for New Zealand. We are currently seeing a drop in the amount of public services not better public services. We are talking fewer public services for the citizens of New Zealand. We are currently seeing a reduction in jobs. There have been over 7000 job losses—over 7000 job losses—according to the Public Service Association over the last 4 years and this was despite a promise by this Government that it would simply cap numbers. It has gone well beyond that now. In Napier for example over the last 4 years in a radius of 18 kilometres there was a loss of over 200 Public Service jobs. Think—what does that do to a local economy? 
The tragedy of Pike River was a terrible thing but it has unleashed a chorus of voices from across the political spectrum that are saying it is time for a rethink. It definitely is a time for a rethink about our public services. Rosemary McLeod said quite recently in one of her articles that Pike River shows what happens when you tear away at the fabric of our public services. She said it is an ugly indictment of an ugly time and like her I doubt that even now we have learnt our lesson. It is time we did learn that lesson. This bill tells me that the Government has not. 
It is time for a rethink. I encourage the Government to go back to the drawing board to listen to the experts—those people who deliver our public services to us every day and who know better than anyone else how to deliver better public services.