Tisch Lindsay: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7367] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It has been interesting over the last couple of sitting days to debate a completely new State Sector Amendment Bill because that is what we have. A Supplementary Order Paper was lodged at the eleventh hour—when we started the Committee stage—the other night that was longer than the original bill. This Government brings this sort of legislation in at the last minute there is no opportunity for debate or for referral to a select committee so the close scrutiny that is what this House is about does not happen. As I have said in previous debates and as I reiterate now that is an absolute abuse of the parliamentary process. This sort of legislation can be brought in and those who are affected by it and those who know something about the area do not have an opportunity to have a say. 
National is opposing this bill. We are opposing it because first we do not agree with the concept of departments being able to be merged amalgamated or abolished by way of an executive decision by Order in Council. That is what this bill does. This Government by way of regulation will be able to say that it does not like a particular department or that it thinks particular departments should merge. The Government will not bring that to the House for us to say what we think about it to hear some submissions on it and to look at the pros and cons the advantages and disadvantages. That will not happen. What will happen is by Order in Council this executive will politicise the process and will be able to merge a couple of departments if it wants. If one of those departments has a chief executive that it does not like this is one way that it can get rid of that person. Members will be aware as it has been discussed over time of the Christine Rankin affair. This bill is a consequence of that. 
If this piece of legislation is so important why has it been so long since its first reading in July 2001? At that stage there were only 4 weeks for the select committee to have a look at it and of those 4 weeks there were only 9 days in which submissions could be heard. In addition one of those weeks was an adjournment week. I was on the select committee that looked at it and at the time we said— I said—that it was very hasty legislation. It is very important legislation and the Government gave us only 4 weeks and cut down the submission time. We reported it back in September 2001 and what has happened since then? Twenty-two months later we are having the Committee stage and the third reading and as I mentioned the Committee stage dealt with a completely new bill by way of a 13-page Supplementary Order Paper. We had never seen it before. No one had had an opportunity to have any debate on it or input into it. There was no transparency or accountability. We are now debating the third reading. National does not like that sort of process. We believe that if legislation is important it needs to have a fair hearing. People who will be affected by it need to have a say. 
It was also interesting that during the Committee stage not one Government member was prepared to stand up to defend or support the legislation or to add value to the debate in terms of what the bill was about and more particularly what the Supplementary Order Paper was about. Even United Future party members who support the bill did not bother to take a call. I was interested in the comments from Murray Smith who said he supported some of the points made by National but when it comes to the crux to voting on something like this those members vote with the Government. I remind the United Future party that way back in September— 
Peter Brown 
: When was that? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Back in September 2001 the leader of that party voted against the bill. National held the proxy for him at that time and I have here the record of his vote. 
This bill is now retrospective. Clause 2 “Commencement” now states that sections 6 to 11(1) 12 to 15 and schedule 1 will be deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001. This is retrospective legislation. These things have already happened and what we are doing here today in the debate on the third reading is supporting that. I would have thought that a party that is supporting the Government in order to allow this legislation to be passed would be able to stand up during the Committee stage and advance its position by looking very closely at whether it supported the legislation and say what the advantages or disadvantages were. Well it did not surprise me that United Future members did not stand up to support it. They were not even around way back in 2001 when their leader voted against this legislation but they have not given us the courtesy of giving us their experience and knowledge of the bill. They probably have not read it—that is why. They probably do not know what it really means and therefore they have not come forward to say what it really means and how it is to be implemented. 
 I want to recap on what the bill does because we have major concerns about it. In essence it allows the Crown to reorganise abolish or merge Government departments to do whatever it wants by this very important power that the executive of this minority Government has—by Order in Council. The Government does not have to bring that proposal back to Parliament ask us what we think about it and have a debate on it to see whether it is in the best interests of the country. No that will not happen. It will be done by Order in Council by the executive. Members should remember that this is a minority Government. That is the power that it will now be exercising and we— 
Darren Hughes 
: This is a super-minority Opposition. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: “It’s a super-power.” he says; he is right as it is super-abuse of the system. In my view the parliamentary process is being abused. It is being abused in two cases. First we had a Supplementary Order Paper that no one knew about and we had to debate it. Second the Government is taking all the power and will be making these important decisions by Order in Council. We are not happy with that. We are voting against it and I have said that before. Not only are we concerned but organisations like the Law Society are concerned. The society said that there was a need for cautious assessment of the proposed provisions. That is given emphasis here because one of the parties to the contracts to be overridden by statute is the Crown. The Crown not only is promoting this legislation but also will be the contractual beneficiary of it. In this legislation the Crown is determining its own destiny. National members look for accountability and that is why we are not happy with the bill. 
The Regulations Review Committee also put out a warning at that time. It said: “We question there are sufficient reasons to allow an Act of Parliament to be amended by a regulation in this way.” The committee sent out a caution. It was not happy about this happening. The bill may be administratively convenient but that must be weighed up against the loss of parliamentary oversight. National says that when legislation comes in with no accountability and with no opportunity for members to have a say then that is an abuse of the system and we are not happy with it. The Regulations Review Committee had a very very powerful message for us but this Government said that it was not interested in that message and would go ahead regardless with the points it wanted to make. 
For the points I have mentioned—the abuse of the system and the way that this bill will allow the executive by Order in Council to make decisions that will affect all of us in the future—I say that National is strongly opposed to this bill.