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:11613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I have had some experience working in this area as the Minister of State Services for 6 years and I was one of the lucky people who sat for many hours through the night in 1987-88 when the original legislation was passed. I think by way of introductory comment on Part 1 of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill it became my concern as a Minister that in fact the original legislation set up silos to too great an extent. As a result of that there were a number of areas of whole-of-Government action that could not be implemented because the priorities of the chief executives were to their specific responsibilities rather than to the Government as a whole or New Zealand as a whole. So I certainly do support the policy intent behind Part 1 of the bill which is really around reducing or removing barriers to closer cooperation and alignment of agencies within the State sector. I think there has been a bit of loose talk in this debate especially from membersopposite and a little bit of a lesson about the Public Service and the State sector is something that is worth some focusing on as far as members are concerned.Members also need to understand the different position of Crown entities and the relationship of Ministers to them and the relationship of the State Services Commissioner to those different organisations. There are some areas where he has some quite direct responsibility including the appointment and the reporting function for the chief executives as far as their performance is concerned and there are others where he or she has an advisory role. It is important I think that we do not get that mixed up and there has been a tendency to do that. Again there cannot be much argument about the primary focus here—about the need to deliver value for money from taxpayers’ funds. To do that there needs to be properly coordinated leadership across the Public Service in particular and this bill especially in Part 1 does go towards that to some extent.I think there are questions though that need to be asked about the term—about whether we are talking about value for money in the short term whether we are talking about this year’s Budget or whether we are talking about value for money in investment over a period of time and the building up of a Public Service that works in the medium and longer term and the investment that is required to do that. It is more in the next part but there is some relationship here around the Public Finance Act and the multi-category appropriations which I am sure we will get back to.I do want to say having reviewed the bill when it was first introduced and when it came out of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that I think the select committee did a very good job. There are some significant improvements in the bill. What I am not sure of—and I am sure one of my colleagues will be able to by way of interjection let me know—is who was chairing the select committee at the time.Hon Phil Goff: Todd McClay.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Was it Todd McClay? Oh well I was going to be complimentary but seeing that the man wants to line dogs up and kill them for drug dealers I will not be as complimentary as I would otherwise be. But maybe there are some talents—Hon Ruth Dyson: He wants to do what?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well it is only right at the edge of this but I think it is fair to say that it does go to the question of policy advice and the question of which Ministers are run by departments and which of them have their own opinions and the balance here. It is clear that Todd McClay showed some independence as the chair of the committee in order to get a bill around which if not full consensus then a large consensus could be built. But apparently now that he is a Minister he has fallen straight into the arms of the bureaucracy and he wants to kill dogs so that drug dealers can have bigger profits. Normally it takes 4 or 5 weeks for a Minister to fall into the arms of the department and to stop showing any independence—Hon Ruth Dyson: He ran.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well he ran and he jumped. He ran and he jumped straight into the arms of the department. It smothered him and any sensible opinion went with it. But I think we will be talking about that more as time goes on. The idea of sacrificing dogs so that drug dealers can have bigger profits is something that I just cannot believe. I just cannot believe any Minister would accept any such advice that came from a department that was set up under the legislation that we are currently amending.As I indicated there are some reservations that we are concerned about. Some areas have been strengthened. Conflict of interest provisions have been strengthened where the delegation of powers is proposed from any State sector entity and the application of the Ombudsmen Act has been clarified. That especially the clarification is useful. Ithink there are still some discussions to be had as we go on as to the question of the delegation of powers and the appropriateness of that.There is one area where I want to take issue with both the decision of the select committee and maybe even some of my own colleagues and that is around the statements of intent and their usefulness as actual planning documents. I have been around long enough to see a whole pile of different contractual arrangements between Ministers and their departments and I think there is some overrating of the statement of intent process as to whether or not they are actually useful. It does depend very much on the Minister and the department.As we look particularly at clause 49 which replaces sections 61A and 61B and areas around that part of the bill I think we will end up finding that in respect of redundancy and the advice in that area there will be different opinions and different approaches that are appropriate.I am certainly of the view—and I think I share it with my Labour colleagues—that the delegation of powers from the core State sector to non-State partners and implementing agencies is constructed too broadly. I think it is fair to say that we will be watching very carefully how these delegations occur and what use is made of them. In a funny way it does not matter whether they are used—if they are used not at all well then they are useless and if they are used too much then there is a problem. It might well be that there is an overlap between the two.My colleague David Parker has spoken on the question of immunity and indemnity. That is a technical legal area that I am sure pointy-head QCs will be—Hon Ruth Dyson: Probably Jonathan Hayes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No. Pointy-head QCs will be having some discussions about going forward. No doubt when David Parker is the Attorney-General he will be involved in some of that as well.It is my view that on balance this bill is something that is now worth supporting. [Interruption ] Sorry? Well actually Mr Bennett will never ever be in a position where he has any chance of being directly involved in the State Sector Act as a Minister. He is someone who has been leaped over by talented colleague after talented colleague. He has been left behind. The sort of inane interjections that we are hearing from David Bennett on this bill are just an indication—and even his colleagues are looking embarrassed. He is going red and his colleagues are rolling their eyes because they know that David Bennett just does not understand this area at all.