Hipkins Chris; Smith NickHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): So the issue is that at the moment under current law the Clerk of the House has to consult with the commissioner. We have that so that is what clause 106B does—it removes the obligation on the Clerk to consult with the commissioner. But that of course then creates a bit of a gap which is what clause 106D fills. It means that it is the Clerk of the House of Representatives who has the overall responsibilities here. So it is literally—these are significant wording changes and I do understand that. But they all have the same effect which is to mean that the Office of the Clerk will operate completely independently. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I thank the Minister of State Services for that explanation that no new function is being added but what we're doing is simply separating the Clerk of the House from some of the overview currently of the State Services Commissioner. Now the amendments that the Minister is making to the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act are actually pretty important. If we look at tragedies that have occurred where the Public Service has failed and if we look at the commissions of inquiry that occurred with Cave Creek—which was an example where the Crown failed in its obligations with the Department of Conservation conducting negligible actions and there was some argument as to whether they were criminal. My question for the Minister is that with those amendments to the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act—and it may feel pedantic but I have to tell you that when you get a tragedy like Pike River or a tragedy like the CTV Building or the likes of Cave Creek there are very important questions that the public ask about accountability and liability. The key question I have particularly in respect of the specification that the Minister is amending with his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around the departmental agencies—so the debate here Minister is in respect of the criminal liability of Crown organisations. When they really screw up which are the agencies that get covered by that Act for that criminal liability and how is that being changed with the SOP and the specific provisions of Government agencies? In other words what I'm interested in is how are we changing the criminal liability of Government departments when they screw up really badly and from a practical effect which Government agencies are being included and excluded from the parameters of the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act? Again I say it may sound a bit nerdish and a bit technical but I have to tell you that when you have a tragedy like Cave Creek and you have the loss of life and there is a question of manslaughter or criminal negligence the coverage of the Crown organisation is a very very real issue and what the Parliament needs to be clear about is when that criminal liability is being changed. The reason we need to be a bit cautious is that I'm one of those that says that the liabilities of the Crown or of Government departments should be no greater or any less than a private organisation and sometimes because we write the law we exempt those issues from liability. So I'd appreciate a Minister's answer around the questions of criminal liability. Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): There is no change to criminal liability here. All this does is insert an interdepartmental venture or a departmental agency into the coverage of the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act. As these are a new type of Government entity it ensures that they would be covered. If we didn't make these amendments then we'd potentially end up with some parts of the broader Public Service not being covered by this legislation so the effect of these amendments is to ensure that they are covered. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My question to the Minister is that as a consequence of these new Crown agencies including interdepartmental ventures and departmental agencies being brought out of the general law and into the specific law around Crown organisations does that increase or decrease their liability? In other words if you didn't put this in the law—if the Minister is correct—that means that these organisations both Crown agencies and interdepartmental ventures would not be covered by the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002. Does that as a consequence increase or reduce their liability? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): It means effectively that they'll be treated the same as if they were a Government department. So if a function for example is taken from a Government department and put into either an interdepartmental venture or a departmental agency it would be treated exactly the same as if it had stayed in the department in so far as the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002 applies. These organisations don't currently exist so it doesn't increase or decrease their liability because they don't currently exist. It means that if they are created the provisions that would apply if they were a department will stay exactly the same. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Minister I'm sorry but it's not quite there. The bit I totally understand is that with regard to the level of liability these Crown agencies and these interdepartmental agencies through the Minister's amendment are going to be treated the same as a core Government department. I get that bit but it doesn't answer the question as to whether if you didn't include them and they were a generic organisation the likes of a community organisation a private company or a private individual—are we increasing or decreasing the level of liability that they have currently? My understanding—and I'd love clarity—is that the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act actually has the effect of reducing the level of liability as compared with an incorporated society a private company or a private individual. In other words what we are doing through this provision—yes I get it that it makes it the same. But if you didn't do it wouldn't those organisations have a greater liability? This is relevant for this reason and I will explain it to the Minister. All the time the Public Service is making decisions about what stuff is done in-house and what stuff is contracted out. The Government extensively contracts out social services building roads and all sorts of activities and there are different levels of criminal liability that apply. In other words if an agency for instance in health contracts out to an organisation like IHC the criminal liability of IHC is different to that of a DHB or the Ministry of Health. So it is absolutely relevant to know that for these interdepartmental ventures and departmental agencies will their liabilities be greater or less than an IHC or a drug foundation or any of those types of organisations. Is the impact of this bill to increase or to reduce their liability as a consequence of extending the jurisdiction of the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act?