Parker David: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11611. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):The State Sector Act which this State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill amends is a 1988 Act.Hon Trevor Mallard: Yeah who sat on that select committee?Hon DAVID PARKER: Well the Minister who was in charge of that legislation before it became an Act was the Hon Stan Rodger.Hon Trevor Mallard: A good man for technical amendments.Hon DAVID PARKER: Exactly. That is the very point I was going to make. It is still famous within the Labour caucus some two decades later that the Hon Stan Rodger was said to have said in respect of the State Sector Act which made some very fundamental changes to the arrangements of the time that it was a minor technical amendment. It went through caucus and it was duly passed by this Parliament. I think Stan Rodger for a period was stripped of his life membership of the Public Service Association which was later to be reinstated.Hon Trevor Mallard: A part-of-life membership really.Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes that is right a part-of-life membership rather than a life membership as it proved to be. The Hon Stan Rodger is still alive and well. I met him again the other day actually. I think he can be proud that his legislation from 1988that minor technical amendment that slipped through the Labour caucus has really lasted close to three decades before being substantially amended.I want to make reference to an amendment made by clause 6 of the bill in respect of ministerial staff who are on time-limited contracts. This provision is intended to refer to the people who are largely in quite political roles within Ministers’ offices whose entitlements are not the same as those of normal long-term ministry appointments because they are very political in terms of their duties and their fortunes and services are tied to the Government of the day or the Minister of the day.To show that this legislation is intended to have effect across more than one administration the example that the Finance and Expenditure Committee or the officials inserted was of “The Hon Honour Able’s ministerial staff”—a description that probably applies more to Ministers of other administrations than this one. What the provision says is that “employees ... who are employed on events-based employment agreements—(a) by the department that is responsible for the employment of ministerial staff across all Ministers’ offices; and (b) to work directly for a Minister in a Minister’s office rather than in a department” are covered by these unusual provisions. That amendment was made at the select committee to make it clear that we are not talking about the secondees who come from a ministry work inside the Minister’s office and assist the Minister but remain a departmental official and are not party political and to defend the principles of the Public Service which are politically neutral.The problem with the prior legislation was that this distinction was not made. Despite the fact that some of the people who are under the old definitions “ministerial staff” and were theoretically covered by codes of conduct that require political neutrality some of these staff who were really very political and clear in their political agencies—and it is proper that they are—were caught up in the provisions of the Act that require political neutrality. That is fixed by the amendments we agreed at the select committee.Another issue that was raised by submitters which I do not think we have properly addressed in this bill—although it is not so serious a flaw as to mean that the Labour Party is going to vote against it—is that we have in a description sense weakened the provisions relating to equal opportunity. The provisions that are in the existing Act relating to equal opportunity are still there in some way in the replacement legislation but they are not as up there in lights as they were. Given that there remain substantial disparities in the remuneration of women there are also substantial income gaps—[Bell rung ] Mr—Paul Foster-Bell: Mr Chair I move that the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I had actually indicated to the Hon David Parker. And the member must call. You do not just state what you want to do; you must call “Mr Chairman” so that it gets my attention. All right? You must do that. I am giving the call to the Hon David Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER: It is a new point and it is notable in respect of the contribution of the last member the Hon David Cunliffe that there has been no repetition; we are actually all covering new points because there are many of them to make. The—now I have lost my train of thought.Hon Ruth Dyson: I’m sorry about that.Hon DAVID PARKER: That is all right. One of the other amendments made by this legislation to which we agree in principle is the broadening of objectives across the State sector. I do not want to give this too much elevation because what is now being given statutory effect to in terms of the way in which appropriations can be voted across departments should be able to be achieved through cooperation between departments now.It has always been the case that certain complex initiatives reach beyond one department. An instance that I personally was involved in was of course trying to get down New Zealand’s emissions growth rate in respect of climate change emissions. The ministries that touch the parts of the economy that interact with emitting industries include to name but some: the Ministry for Primary Industries; obviously the energy division of the former Ministry of Economic Development now part of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment; the Ministry of Transport; and the Ministry for the Environment.In respect of the need to change our direction across departmental efforts that was achieved under the existing legislation. Although the Government claims that the changes that are proposed by this legislation will ensure that you can get more cooperation across departments I think it is somewhat of a slight to the Government departments of the past to suggest that that cannot be achieved if there is a political will to do so. The key to that lies more often than not in the personnel the forcefulness of Ministers the clarity of direction from Cabinet and the capability of the different parts of the Public Service that need to cooperate in respect of achieving complex change.The area that I did not finish talking about in my previous contribution was this issue as to indemnity compared with immunity from prosecution. The area that I—and I am a lawyer—felt that we did not quite get to the bottom of was whether we are creating a lacuna or a gap in the rights of an injured party where the public servant acting in good faith but in a way that is against an express instruction of their employer because they have made a terrible mistake and they did not read the instructions or do whatever they were told by their employer might do something that causes harm to a citizen that might give rise to a right of civil action against the public servant but not against the Crown because the actions of the public servant are so wrong as to not fall within the vicarious responsibilities of the Crown as the employer.By granting immunity from civil suit we risk leaving the injured New Zealander without remedy. It is a very narrow set of circumstances but it is I think possible and I was not satisfied that through this legislation we are not—because we are taking the immunity route rather than the indemnity route. We are giving immunity from civil suit rather than indemnifying the public servant against the consequences of civil suit. I think there is a possibility that an injured party can have no right of civil redress because they have not got a right to include the public servant in a civil proceeding and they have got no right of claim against the Crown itself. So I thought the Law Commission advice in that regard was correct and that we should not be trying to fix it in this legislation. We should await the review that the Law Commission has under way into that serious point of law. The other point I was going to make will have to wait for a later contribution.