Goudie Sandra: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7369] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 As members are aware the National Opposition opposes the bill. One of the greatest concerns I have is the continual stream of ill-conceived legislation being put through the House by this Labour Government. In the formulation of legislation there is a set of guidelines that can be referred to called  
Legislative Changes: Guidelines on Process and Content 
. Submitters referred to those guidelines because of their grave concerns about this legislation. There have been a number of revised editions of those guidelines and the copy I have is of Report No. 6 December 1991. The committee members were people with significant experience and I will name a few of them: Professor Brookfield Fogarty QC Galbraith QC Sir Kenneth Keith Justice Robertson and Judge Sheppard. 
The first question to ask is whether the legislation is necessary. Essentially the bill does two things. First it removes structural change to State departments from public scrutiny. Do we need legislative change for that—in the interests of maintaining accountability to the public? No it is neither needed nor wanted because for any of those sorts of changes Parliament must be accountable to the public. We have here a bill that intends to ignore the guidelines already mentioned. Page 29 of those guidelines states that Parliament has to approve the addition of new departments to the list of departments scheduled in the State Sector Act as well as deletions and alterations. The reason for that recommendation is quite simple: Parliament must be open to public scrutiny. The august body of significant expertise that comprises that committee has already described the reasons for that and makes that recommendation objectively and free of constraint or political interference. 
One very valid concern about this bill is that the ease of changes to departments would result in the politicisation of the public service and give the Government the ability to use the disbandment of a department as a threat. The committee’s concern was expressed during the public submission process of the original bill way back in 2001 but as members are aware the bill has sat on the shelf since then. We come to 2003 and there is an amendment to that bill even longer than the bill itself which has not been through the public process. 
The second critical aspect is that the bill allows the Crown to override contracts by statute. That was a major concern of the New Zealand Law Society and so the question arises: do we need legislative change for such a purpose? Again the answer is no. It is neither needed nor wanted. Here the Government is not only promoting legislation but promoting legislation knowing fully that it intends to be the beneficiary as a result of that bill being passed. 
How does this bill fit with the Employment Relations Act? The Public Service Association’s submission makes it quite clear that many aspects of the bill are based on principles already negotiated in management-of-change clauses in collective contracts and agreements so that outcome can already be achieved through the negotiation phase of those agreements. We do not need legislation to do that. What will this bill do to the Public Service Association’s ability to negotiate contracts freely? Without going through a full legislative process and the scrutiny of a select committee the bill has absolutely no commentary to address any of the real questions of concern that have been raised. 
 So what are the legal implications of so-called technical redundancies where employees of Government departments are not entitled to compensation even though their employment contract agreements might provide for compensation? As I have already mentioned their negotiated contracts—whether they are individual or collective contracts—can address those areas of concern and so they do not need to be part of a legislative change. Yet again I refer members back to the guidelines. 
Another basic principle in the formulation of legislation is that the legislation being formed must fit appropriately into the general body of existing law. Moreover the guidelines also state that where there has been any departure from the guidelines set down in the No. 6 report the departure needs to be indicated along with the reasons for it. Clearly that has not been done with this bill. There is no commentary on the substantive changes that were introduced into the House last week. 
I am sure that all of the questions could have been answered had the bill been allowed to go through the proper legislative process by which amendments would have been referred back to the select committee. That is where the proper parliamentary process has been sidestepped. This Government has failed the people of New Zealand in the promotion of this bill. Apart from the denial of public process when undertaking changes in the State sector there has been a denial of public process when attempting to find answers to the many questions that have been raised as a result of substantive amendments to the original bill. 
The responsibility for developing legislation in accordance with the guidelines rests with the Minister and it is quite clear that the Minister has failed in a number of respects in introducing this legislation. He has failed to provide the opportunity for the Supplementary Order Paper to be put before the select committee which is a gross omission on the part of this Government and a failure of its fiduciary duty. Lianne Dalziel mentioned fiduciary duty last week but I wonder whether this Labour Government understands what fiduciary duty actually means. It means governing for the benefit of the nation as a whole and to do that one has to go through proper legislative processes and invite the public to be a part of that process. But although this Government requires a huge amount of consultative process on the one hand—particularly with local government—it is sidestepping its responsibility in not providing for a consultative public process on the substantive amendment to this bill on the other hand. It has absolutely failed in its fiduciary responsibility to the people of New Zealand. 
National is glad to oppose this bill. We would expect the Government to reconsider it and send it back to the select committee although I doubt it will do that at this late stage of the process. I think that is shameful and we expect more. We can see the deterioration of the processes of this House in question time and we can now see it with regard to legislation. This Government has absolutely failed in its fiduciary duty to the people of New Zealand.