Prasad Rajen: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePrasad Rajen: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):At this late hour it is a pleasure to take a call on Part 2 of this particular bill the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. The bit that I want to talk about—David Bennett: You are really getting to the bottom of the barrel Cunliffe.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Will the chattering classes be quiet and listen. You might learn something. The risk exists—[Interruption ] Those three members there just be quiet. It is late now and I know you are tired. You are making noise for nothing. We know you are tired. We know you are tired. Just concentrate—concentrate. Those members sitting at the back have got no mortgage on financial thinking.I am particularly interested in the new category the multi-category appropriation the MCA and the notion of a single overarching purpose because I think there is something quite fundamentally radical about these proposals particularly as we apply them in the social development area as I will attempt to do. It is a commendable idea to bring those two things together. Indeed other members have spoken about—and the Opposition whip just spoke about—the accountability in this. When David Clark was speaking he raised a fundamental question and he said that it does change the fundamental nature of accountability—just these particular provisions. I agree with him; it does. I wonder how this will unpack itself as we go on.One reflection one can make is that over the years or over decades—and I am going to focus and apply this to the social development area—we have increased expenditure in social development and in every decade problems in social development have increased. We are talking about children we are talking about families and we are talking about that sector of our society that for some reason multiple generations get locked into. The interpretation that this Government has made is that that is all about welfare dependency and I do not agree with them of course.But here is an approach that could possibly signal that there is something different that the Government anticipates and if it does then certainly we support that. But it does present some major challenges to the Government and to those who are considered to run programmes and deliver services in different ministries and departments that contribute to this single overarching purpose—in this case social development or development of children. I wonder how the Government has conceptualised this because here we are in silos as others have said and here is an attempt to link the Public Service together and to join it up a little bit more. We have been trying for probably over a decade now to join the Public Service departments together. But here is something conceptually different.I wonder—and maybe the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment might want to give us some ideas as to what the thinking was here—whether it is anticipated that there will be a different type of conceptualisation of the overarching purpose that the Government wants to achieve and if it has anticipated that then what that might be. [Interruption ] They are still chattering in the back there. Obviously they are not following the argument. Those three are not following the argument the chattering classes up the back there.How would the Government conceptualise this? If we applied that to the welfare of children for example as a single overarching purpose—here the Government has decided that there is a single overarching purpose to increase the development if you like of children to remove risk etc. We know from all of the science that is available to us that there are multiple contributions to that development pathway the trajectory that children have whether it is in housing or in health or in income adequacy or actually in physical environments in which children live—the communities in which they live and the neighbourhoods in which they live. If there was here a single overarching purpose to improve the outcomes for those children then one can anticipate that indeed those ministries and those departments—the ones I have mentioned and a number of others—are actually going to be doing something quite different. All of the science that I know actually does reflect the fact that the conceptualisation of what contributes to those problems is at multiple levels is ecological and is holistic.So I wonder whether the Minister can tell us that the officials and others have conceptualised this in such a way that there actually will be a different way of doing business a different way of addressing the needs of children rather than leaving them in silos. At the moment it is just a rough schema stating that there will be multi-agency appropriations and there will be a single overarching purpose. But what will make that effective and this will be fascinating to see is the conceptualisation behind it: how the area that the single overarching purpose is designed to address has been thought through whether all of the ministries and departments that have contributed to it have actually done the work to design if you like this schema in which they contribute and then how those services will be delivered.This comes back to what I was saying earlier. We have poured money down these silos and in the end social exclusion has actually increased. The problems have not gone away. If this is a different way of doing it then clearly there has to be some fundamental change in our education system in our housing system in the child welfare system in the social development system and in our environmental design and how we design our environments in which our—Maggie Barry: His speech is as irrelevant as he is.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Will Maggie Barry please listen for a moment because I doubt whether Maggie Barry is actually following the argument. We are not planting a shrub now at the moment; we are talking about something quite serious. I doubt whether those three members have actually understood at all what this is about. I know that it is late in the evening. Go back to sleep. You will probably be much better off tomorrow morning.If that thinking has taken place then I believe that this is indeed quite a radical change. Other speakers from this side have actually already indicated that there is a huge promise in what this model gives us but to actually deliver it is something quite different. Of course the other point and Chris Hipkins was talking about this earlier is that when the reports come back to the select committees and the reporting frameworks that are being used—and that is being changed as well under Part 2—then we actually have a whole different way in select committees of interrogating the performance of those Ministers and departments that contribute to the overarching purpose.So really this is a radical change. If it works and if it is well conceptualised then it will be effective. But if some of the light-minded people who have been interjecting are responsible for actually designing how these things work then I doubt very much Mr Bennett whether any contribution that that member might make is actually going to have any effect on this. God help us if that member becomes a Minister. Some of the others might. But the Ministers have got to be smart enough to demand the kind of conceptual thinking that this very simple change actually requires.David Bennett: What’s the name of the bill? Tell me the name of the bill.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I beg your pardon?David Bennett: What’s the name of the bill?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Oh come on. Does the member think that I am that stupid? Just take something seriously. Do not be an idiot all your life. I do not think that that member remembers the bill and if that was all that that member required me to understand about this bill then I think that member is in cuckoo-land. The fundamental clause I am addressing concerns the multi-category appropriations and the single overarching purpose. If that member has not understood that then I do not know whether that member has anything useful to say. I challenge those three members on the other side to take a call and explain their understanding of this particular provision in the bill.David Bennett: Are you voting for the bill?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Come on go back to sleep—go back to sleep.There is something quite serious about these provisions which we support on this side of the Chamber. I think they could fundamentally change the silo thinking that prevails in many Government departments and agencies. The overarching purpose is a very important way of trying to bring it together. If that is the intent of these provisions then I think it is a very good bill and we support it. Thank you.