Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Donald Rod: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17866. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that the previous speaker has sat down before she embarrasses herself any further. I wish that Deborah Coddington had taken some advice from whoever the ACT member was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when it considered the bill. I know that the ACT membership changed midstream because of the party’s change of leadership. The other thing Deborah Coddington should do is read the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper which removes a number of the requirements on tertiary institutions from this bill including the Minister’s power to request information relating to clause 175 “Good reasons for refusing to supply requested information” and omits and substitutes provisions in clause 199 relating to bank accounts. However I do not want to use up my 5 minutes on that. Everything I have heard Deborah Coddington say tonight relates to Parts 3 to 7. At the moment we are dealing with Part 1 so it was entirely inappropriate for the previous speaker to talk about schedule 6B. 
I return to Part 1 to discuss further the amendments I have put on the table. The first one which I talked about before relates to triple bottom line reporting—the Government’s commitment to triple bottom line reporting and the fact that it has not put its money where its mouth is. The Government says a lot about triple bottom lines but is not prepared to incorporate them in this legislation. It ought to in section 27(2) inserted by clause 10 and in section 45B inserted by clause 17. After all what will be crucial to the future of New Zealand is not just its financial well-being but its environmental and social well-being. So I invite the Government and other parties to support our amendments on that. 
I also invite the Government and other parties in this Parliament to support our amendments to section 27(2)(b) inserted by clause 10. I am looking forward to Mr Keys’ comments on that—as a man with considerable experience in this area; in fact as someone the select committee relied on a lot for technical advice about derivative transactions securities investments and guarantees—and whether he thinks we need to insert a subparagraph that adds to the Government’s annual financial statements a statement of all securities derivative transactions investments and guarantees. We think it appropriate for that to be specified in addition to the requirements under generally accepted accounting practices. It is very much a belt and braces approach in relation to derivatives. 
We do have some concerns there which is why we also propose that in section 30(2) inserted by clause 14 in addition to the requirements that the Auditor-General must audit the annual financial statements of the Government the Auditor-General should also conduct an annual performance audit of the management of Crown debt. When I discussed this issue with officials they said that that was a rather unusual and exceptional thing to require the Auditor-General to do. But the extent to which the Government is engaging in derivative transactions usually for the right reasons does require such a performance audit. I am concerned that the internal scrutiny of the Debt Management Office could be changed through a change in management practices but there is also the need for some external scrutiny. 
The next amendment we will be putting up is to section 39(1) inserted by clause 17 which is simply to remove the words “(other than an intelligence and security department)”. We believe it is appropriate for Parliament to know what the intelligence and security services are doing in relation to future operational intentions. That is after all something that every other Government agency does and we do not see why those services need to be an exception. There needs to be much more accountability to Parliament about the work of the security services. 
That effectively encompasses the additions we want to see to Part 1. We believe that the part would be more robust if the Government took a triple bottom line approach to all of its forecasting reporting and accounts and if the Government extended its economic reporting to include trade in goods and services reserves of natural resources and social well-being and environmental quality.