Tisch Lindsay: State Sector Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: State Sector Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7286] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 This is an interesting bill. It is one that has been sitting around for the last 22 months. The last time we debated it was on 11 September 2001. At that time the Government was rushing the bill through without allowing for submissions. National is very concerned about the consequences of this legislation. We agreed at the first reading that it should go to a select committee. We are concerned about a number of parts but what we should really be looking at is its effect. The explanatory note states that the Crown is to reorganise Government departments by Order in Council rather than through Acts of Parliament on each occasion. The Crown is to do away with departments—abolish them merge them and amalgamate them—as can be seen in the explanatory note which gives an explanation of the different changes in names and the amalgamations of the different departments. 
It is National’s view that the bill should be called the State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill because that is what it will do. It will disempower a number of Government departments. Or it could be called the State Sector (Abolition) Amendment Bill. The title should reflect what the bill does; that is what should be in a title. If I buy a book I want to know what is inside the book. When I look at this bill I should see that its title is synonymous with what it is all about and this bill is about reorganising Government departments. That is why we believe that the title should reflect that and it is why I have suggested that the bill should be called the State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill. That is the name of the brand. The title is a marketing tool and it is the sort of thing that we believe should be important. 
When I see the title “State Sector Amendment Bill” I wonder what it actually means. Until one looks inside the bill one would not know what it means. In fact I suggest that Government members have absolutely no idea about what is in the bill. There is no indication in the title whatsoever of what the bill does. It does not set out the sorts of things that I have just mentioned. The bill does state once one gets into it that a department can change its name. The title does not reflect that and in our view it is very important that the title should do that. 
In fact the explanatory note states: “Because machinery of government changes affecting Departments are simply the Crown reorganising the manner in which it conducts its affairs it is considered appropriate to deal with these matters in this Act and by Orders in Council rather than by the enactment of Acts of Parliament on each occasion.” That is what it states. We see that sort of thing here in this bill but it is not reflected in the title. Why is the power of the executive not reflected in the title? The point about this is that the executive by Order in Council has quite tremendous powers to be able to make changes to the machinery of government without the scrutiny of Parliament—without the debate that we can have here tonight—and that really should be reflected in the title of this bill. It does not reflect the fact that by means of Orders in Council chief executive officers can be removed simply by the merging of departments. I would have thought that that was a significant matter. 
The bill also politicises the whole process in our view. It goes through the process and politicises it by providing that the Government can get rid of somebody just by merging departments. It can merge departments and fire somebody without having to worry about paying redundancy just through a merger an abolition or an amalgamation of particular departments. One would suggest that the title should reflect that. Maybe the bill should be called the “State Sector (Removal of Chief Executive Officers) Amendment Bill”. We find that is what can happen when we go into the depth of this bill. It could be called the “State Sector (Politicisation of Government Departments) Amendment Bill. That would be a more apt title. 
The power of and the Government’s accountability to Parliament are lost through this bill by allowing the executive through Order in Council to make these significant changes. Another title that comes to mind would acknowledge that. I suggest the name could be the “State Sector (Takeover) Amendment Bill”. It sounds good and that title gives the power to the executive.