Mallard Trevor: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11651. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I have got lots of dog-eared corners of this State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill but there is a particular issue that I would like to start with and that is on page 69 of Supplementary Order Paper 262 about 10 lines from the bottom at new section 34(1)(b) clause 65B where it says “by the Minister or the responsible Minister.” The question I have got is whether the words “the Minister or” are in fact superfluous. Do we need to have “the Minister or the responsible Minister.”? If one goes back to page 63 of Supplementary Order Paper 262 at subclause 5 of clause 59 “responsible Minister” means in relation to the Office of the Clerk etc. or the Speaker; in relation to any other department the Minister for the time being responsible; in relation to a Schedule 4 organisation the Minister responsible for the financial performance; and in relation to a Schedule 4A organisation the Minister and the other shareholding Minister. The question I have got is who the Minister could be who is not the responsible Minister except if one goes further into Supplementary Order Paper 262 to page 127 where you might have a Minister other than the responsible Minister who is responsible for a big report and this part of the reporting requirements are part of a bigger report and therefore the Minister who is notthe responsible Minister is in fact the Minister responsible for the report that this particular segment is part of.I think that at least the officials know relatively well that Ministers act for other Ministers. That is part of the parliamentary process. Ministers can act for other Ministers and can act for responsible Ministers in fulfilling both their parliamentary and their statutory functions. The question I have is—and it might be a bit pedantic and there might be a very simple answer for it that is passing me by—going back to that original point: who might be the Minister who is not the responsible Minister who is being referred to in that particular clause? I cannot think of a circumstance and I have been going back and forth a bit. I have been worrying at it now for about 20 minutes. I cannot work it out. I do not want to call it a non-responsible Minister because I think having the words “the Minister” indicates that it is in fact the Minister who is responsible. But then why do we say “or the responsible Minister.”? Is it belt and braces or does it have a particular meaning that adds some value to it?I do want to say to the current Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment that the previous Minister in the chair Nikki Kaye was most helpful with some of the explanations that she gave on these technical points.Hon David Cunliffe: That’s right.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She was quite good at reading out the responses that were given to her by the officials behind her. She did not know the name of the actual bill but that did not matter that much. I would be interested in a response from the Minister on this. In fact I would be interested in a response from any Government member. I think we could have a bit of an exemption if Mr Ryall who used to be responsible for these areas is across the detail about the difference between “the Minister” and “the responsible Minister” and the added value. In fact I would be prepared to wager quite a lot that he would be more across it than the current Minister in charge of the bill or the Minister who is currently sitting in the chair. If anyone knew the difference between “the Minister” and “the responsible Minister” in this particular context I would say other than the officials it is likely to be Mr Ryall.The next question I would like to ask is whether anything should be read into the last couple of lines on page 117 of Supplementary Order Paper 262 where there appears to be an exclusion for “an intelligence and security department”. The question that goes with that is whether “an intelligence and security department” is defined within this legislation. I have been looking for it and I cannot find a definition of “an intelligence and security department”. I think the one thing we have learnt in recent weeks is that there has been a bit of bouncing around as to what these different agencies do and how they work and interrelate with each other.Is for example the Ministry of Defence an intelligence or security department for the purposes of this Act? Do we still have a Defence Force as opposed to a Ministry of Defence? Is the Defence Force a security or intelligence department? [Interruption ] Is it? Is the Police an intelligence or security department?John Hayes: It’s in the Act.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is in the Act? Sorry I did look for it in the Act. Mr Hayes says it is in the Act. Can you tell me which section of the Act Mr Hayes? Mr Hayes has grunted that it is in the Act but he appears not to be able to point out the particular section—Hon David Cunliffe: Which Act?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I assume it is in the Public Finance Act. That is the Act to which we are currently referring. If it is that is good; if it is not or if there is something—just forgive me for being suspicious. I think there are a number of things that used to be above the radar and used to be pretty clearly legal or illegal and nowthey are being blurred. What appears to be the case here is that expenditure which should previously have been transparent is in fact becoming less transparent under the Act.The next question I would like to ask goes to page 80 of Supplementary Order Paper 262 and the replacement of section 65K of the existing Act. That is the very old one: “The Crown must not lend money except under statute.” I want to say that when I was Minister of Education one of the things that used to drive me spare was schools that got into trouble for either borrowing or lending when they did not have the authority to do it. It happened all over the place. They were borrowing and lending money. One of the questions I have got in fact is whether schools have actually had the legal authority to lend money from their boards of trustees’ operational funds to teachers who have not been paid by Novopay. I am just going to venture a guess unless there has been a change in the legislation—I think that in the time I was the Minister of Education they would not have been permitted to lend money in that way.What I would like to ask is which Acts are being referred to in new section 65K? Is there any intention of doing a list or a cross-reference? It is all very well to say unless “expressly authorised by any Act the Crown [shall] lend money to a person or an organisation.” Actually if some lending occurs it is pretty hard on a random basis to work out the authority for that lending if in fact there is not the sort of decent listing and cross-referencing that is normally the case.Something that I do very much support is clause 70AAG set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 which is the Auditor-General directing “Ministers to report to House of Representatives in cases involving unlawful expenses etc”. I have some experience in this area. I had the unfortunate experience back when I was the member for Hamilton West of chairing the Māori Affairs Committee when we were doing “the supplementary estimates to the supplementary estimates to the supplement to the supplement to the supplement”—I think we had about seven levels of it. I get a slightly knowing nod from the officials’ bench as to the problems—