Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Lockwood: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17875. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to pick up from where my good colleague the Hon Bill English left off because this is just junk law. As Bill English told the Committee a moment ago there is no purpose in having this prescriptive garbage in our law. How on earth do we determine whether someone has breached it? I draw the Minister’s attention to clause 41 in Part 2 and in particular to new section 57 in that clause. New section 57 purports to lay out standards of integrity. In fact section 57(1) states: “The Commissioner may set minimum standards of integrity and conduct that are to apply in—(a) the Public Service: (b) all or any Crown entities:”—and that is what Bill English was getting at as Crown entities of course include tertiary institutions—“(c) the Parliamentary Counsel Office: (d) the Parliamentary Service.” But then if we go on to new section 57A it states that if the Minister approves under section 57A(2)(a) they do not have to have any integrity. 
Hon Bill English 
: And this Minister would be the first. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair the Hon Trevor Mallard would be a classic to say: “No no you don’t have to worry about that.” Section 57A(2) states: “However an agency referred to in section 57(1)(b) to (d)”—which is the public service Crown entities the Parliamentary Counsel Office and so on—“may derogate from a particular standard …”. So they can actually be excused from performing with integrity if the Minister says that they can. What on earth does that provision mean? What is the Minister proposing should be allowed there that necessitates that law? I think we deserve an explanation of that. If the Minister proposes to say that a Crown entity can tell lies he should tell Parliament now. If not why is that provision there? Why on earth does the Minister require a provision in the law that states that the Minister can give approval for a Crown entity or the public service— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wasn’t this member in charge of trade? Would the member like to talk about that? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: The Minister owes it to this Parliament to tell us what that clause means. What was that bit from the Immigration Service about “lying in unison”?So now we can have the public service lying in unison if the Minister gives it derogation to do so. Is that what this clause is about? I think the Minister owes Parliament an explanation. If he expects Parliament to support this junk law—which is what it is—he owes us an explanation. This Parliament should not pass this part without an explanation of why the Minister wants the opportunity to tell the public service it can lie in unison and sing from the same song sheet because this is about integrity. This clause says the Minister can allow a department not to exercise integrity to deviate from the standards set out. 
What does it mean? I think we are owed an explanation of what it means. If the Minister is not prepared to tell the Committee what it means does that mean he supports lying in unison? What is it that the Minister seeks with that clause? What kind of lying in unison and singing from the same song sheet is that clause meant to allow the public service? The public service is important to this country. I believe that the public service has integrity. This kind of junk law actually belittles and damages the public sector the State sector because it puts in our law a provision for the public service to behave in a lesser manner than the manner expected from the principles of integrity. I think this Chamber deserves to know what on earth this clause means. I am prepared to sit down so that the Minister can take the call and explain to the Committee why he has put this clause into the legislation.