Connell Brian: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7319] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I have had a full 5 minutes or so to read the bill and I admit that in the first 2 or 3 minutes of perusing it I thought it was rather innocuous but as I read further I started to have some concerns. In particular I am concerned that this bill as it has been drafted will start to create some instability because as Government Ministers determine that they do not like someone they will seek to restructure a whole department just so that they can get rid of an individual or individuals. Of course the name Christine Rankin comes to the fore. 
That must have been a black day in the book of Trevor Mallard. It is a day that he will always remember with some regret. She was too good at doing her job so rather than embracing someone who was strong he decided to get rid of her. What will happen is that instability will creep into the public sector as people get nervous. They will be looking over their shoulder if they have had the courage of their convictions and stood up to the Minister and said: “Minister with all due respect on this occasion I don’t think you are right.” 
Essentially this bill allows the Government to change or amend the names of departments or the structure of departments at a whim. It lacks transparency. There were people who submitted to the Government Administration Committee who warned that Government departments would become destabilised and that departments would be changed at the whim of a Minister. I refer now to an article in the  
Dominion Post 
 entitled “Public service under threat” that was relevant to those submissions. It reads: “Appearing before the Government Administration Select Committee on behalf of Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Ms Wallace said the proposals had repercussions for State agencies.” It goes on to say: “In particular the bill proposes allowing technical changes to departments to be authorised by Cabinet and not involve legislation in Parliament.” 
That is a very very dangerous precedent and the creation of the Ministry of Social Development is just an example of it. Fancy having a ministry with the name of “social development”! What we are doing is encouraging welfare entitlement as opposed to trying to do something about it. I do not have to but I want to commend the contribution made by Dr Muriel Newman when she attacked Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey on their support of those who would rather seek welfare than work and make a contribution to this country. Good on Dr Muriel Newman—she was dead right! What is happening in this country under the guise of social development is an absolute disgrace. It is of extreme concern to me and it is extremely dangerous. 
Muriel Newman pointed out that one in four people in this country is now on a benefit of some sort. [ 
Interruption 
] That makes for a population that is bigger than that of the city of Christchurch—indeed one would need a shoehorn and a crowbar just to get the population on welfare in this country into the city of Christchurch. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Go and join the ACT party. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Those members who are yelling out support that. That is what those members across the Chamber are doing. 
The other issue I want to address is that of technical redundancy. [ 
Interruption 
] The bullfrog is yelling out again. Does he want to say something? I thought not. He will make cheap shots but he has no courage: he does not want to take a call but he will yell out. Technical redundancy is something that concerns members of this party and members on this side of the Chamber. I remember very clearly that it was the Labour Government of 1984-87 that introduced it. The Minister forgot that but his party introduced it. When I was trying to introduce companies to New Zealand I faced—