Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill

Part 6 reflects exactly what is wrong with this legislation. It is full of weasel words and drivel and a whole lot of stuff that has been jammed into a very long document in the hope that no one will actually read it. I will start by making that quite clear in a number of interesting facts that have come forward. First, I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 192, “Disclosure of payments in respect of members, committee members, and employees”. This is the clause that essentially states that remuneration must be declared in bands, and there is the ability for people who pick up a set of accounts from a Crown entity to understand exactly where there is remuneration and how confidentiality arrangements work.

I raise that because on page 1 of this morning’s Dominion Post is quite an interesting article about Judy Bailey’s $800,000 pay deal, but, more important, about Ian Fraser’s appearance before the Commerce Committee, in which he said there was only one confidentiality arrangement, in relation to Paul Holmes. In fact that is not correct. It now turns out that there was another confidentiality arrangement, in relation to Judy Bailey. No doubt, that will be part of the discussions held this morning with the board of TVNZ. I point out that that is exactly the situation in clause 192, where the law will not be being followed and where there are plenty of out clauses.

I also want to raise the issue around the ministerial involvements in the statements of intent. The reason this is very important is that Crown entities have really prided themselves in being part of the overall Government process, but being autonomous and independent and set up with the view that the boards can control what is happening in the—[Interruption] That is right. That was the theory. Back in the good old days when National led the Government, the Crown entities were able to operate in the way they should. They were responsible to the boards, and if the Government did not like what was happening in the Crown entities, it knew what action to take—get in there and sack the boards, change them, do something about the matter. That is a very simple example, and we will see the Government in action, no doubt when the board of TVNZ gets the flick. But, and this is the point—

Gerry Brownlee: But they won’t.

JOHN KEY: They will not, because there will be a U-turn or an out clause, or something else.

Gerry Brownlee: Another flip-flop.

JOHN KEY: Helen Clark will find another reason to flip-flop. But let us look at clause 185, which is extremely interesting. Despite a Crown entity being independent, reporting to a board, having its own autonomy, and all the rest of it, paragraph (a) states that a Minister can actually put into the statement of intent whatever he or she wants—“a responsible Minister may agree with the Crown entity that information additional to that required by sections 181 and 182 be included in the statement of intent:”. It gets a little bit better. Paragraph (c) states that the Minister can just chip whenever he or she wants: “a responsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent …”. It is a matter of “Here we go, we’ve got the board. We’ve set it up. Away you go. Go and run this autonomous Crown entity, but, by the way, we can put in the statement of intent anything we want, any time we like—and by the way, while you are putting out your statement of intent we can sit like the Muppets on the sidelines and chip along.”

Then the real doozey comes in paragraph (d), because although the Crown entity has been able to put in what it wants, with the responsible Minister chipping in along the way, the Minister can actually change what was put in, anyway—and we are somehow meant to believe in this Parliament that the integrity of Crown entities, established under their own Acts of Parliament, will somehow be OK! Well, that just does not make sense.

I also want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 181, “Content of statement of intent”, which sets out what statements of intent can contain. I wonder whether the Hon David Cunliffe might like to pop to his feet in a moment and explain to me paragraph (e), which states: “how the entity proposes to manage the organisational health …”. What on earth is the organisational health? I understand that on Monday a book is coming out containing new weasel words and that the library has bought it because it needs to understand what is going into legislation in this Parliament. Steve Maharey, the third-wayer, has been in there with his whole range of weasel words that are now drifting in through the Parliamentary Counsel Office into our legislation. What on earth is the organisational health of a Crown entity?

Jim Peters: He lectures in sociology.

JOHN KEY: That is right. It gets slightly more interesting as well. There is clause 188, “Amendments to statement of intent by Crown entity”. First, the good news is that a Crown entity can change its statement of intent any time it likes.

I will carry on from where my good colleague John Key left off. I ask the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, whether he is hell-bent on bringing Parliament into derision. Some of the clauses in Part 6 are simply derisory. I will give members an example of what I mean. The Labour Government now finds it necessary, under clause 186, to put into our law the process for providing the statement of intent to a responsible Minister. The Labour Ministers are so incompetent, hopeless, and useless that the law has to spell out how a statement of intent is to be provided to them by a Crown entity they are responsible for.

Is this serious stuff? Here we are, debating this under urgency just before Christmas. If it were April Fool’s Day I would say, “OK, you caught us out. Fair enough, we were fools to think you were serious about this.” But it is not April Fool’s Day, and clause 186 is bizarre garbage. How hopeless, useless, and incompetent are Labour Ministers that they have to put that into legislation? It is not simply a set of recommendations. It is the law of New Zealand. We pass the law of the land in this Parliament, and Labour finds it necessary to spell out how a statement of intent is meant to be provided to a Minister. For goodness’ sake, a Minister worth half a pinch of salt can pick up the phone and say that he or she wants the statement of intent tomorrow, and it had damn well better be delivered. Oh, no, Labour is so useless that its legislation spends great paragraphs spelling it all out.

But there is worse. That is just the farcical bit. Let us look at some of the serious stuff. Clause 180, “Statement of intent for new established Crown entities”, states in subclause (3): “The responsible Minister may give directions to the Crown entity on any matters referred to in section 181(1)(b) to (d), (g), and (ga)”. I have no problem with the Minister being able to give directions, as provided in clause 181(1)(b), over the “scope of the entity’s functions and intended operations”. Clearly, there is a responsibility to make sure a Crown entity is proposing to carry out functions consistent with overall Government policy. But paragraph (d) states that the Minister can also give directions on “how the entity intends to perform its functions and conduct its operations”. So under that paragraph, the Minister can give direction to a new Crown entity as to how it is to perform its functions. He or she can meddle absolutely in the management of a Crown entity.

That is totally contrary to what Crown entities are meant to be all about. They are meant to be at arm’s length from the Government, with a board of directors able to perform independently of Government political interference. Clause 181(1)(d) gives the Labour Government the chance to meddle absolutely in the management—how it intends to perform its functions—of a Crown entity. That is not just farcical but bad legislation.

While I am talking about statements of intent, I want to come to clause 185, which puts in the law of New Zealand, under paragraph (c), that a “responsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent”. What on earth does the law need to state that for? I just cannot believe this stuff. I spent 9 years as a Minister and promoted a lot of legislation. If a department had come along to me with a bill with that sort of junk in it, I would have told it to take that garbage away and get rid of it.

Why does the law of the land of New Zealand need to state that the “responsible Minister may make comments on a draft statement of intent”? What dopey, dopey, dopey stuff! How much more does the Government want to denigrate the laws of New Zealand? It is demeaning our laws. To have this junk in the law simply demeans it.

I want to comment on clause 210, “Offences”, too. Tertiary institutions were deeply concerned about these provisions. If we take that clause and clause 211, “Penalties for offences”, put them alongside some of the other clauses relating to statements of intent—whereby a responsible Minister can direct a supposedly stand-alone Crown entity as to what can be in the statement of intent, and can amend it—then relate them to clauses that have been debated in earlier parts, we can see a pattern emerge. That pattern leads to the final nail in the coffin for Crown entities being stand-alone and at arm’s length from the executive.

The definition of what now comes under the control of the executive includes not just universities but also the Symphony Orchestra, the Historic Places Trust, and all those stand-alone entities. Sure, they have always been Crown entities, but this legislation gives far more power to the responsible Minister in terms of interfering with those entities.

An example of how that is manifest today is the Government’s huge embarrassment over what is happening at TVNZ. First of all, the Government appointed Ross Armstrong as chairman of TVNZ. That turned to custard. It appointed Craig Boyce as chairman. Do we have an effective board? No, we do not. Another Government appointee, Ann Hercus, who is also on the financial committee, signed off on Judy Bailey’s salary rise. Those negotiations have dragged on for so long and have been so ineptly handled. There was no poaching of Judy Bailey by any other company. It was simply the ineptness of the board that led to the situation whereby her salary was doubled.

So what happened? The board signed off on it. Then one of the board members rushed to the Minister of Broadcasting to tell him what had happened, and what did the Government try to do? It tried to manage the situation and pre-empt it with damage control by leaking the story to the media. Well, has that not backfired hugely? We have only to look at the letters to the editor in the Dominion Post today to see how it has backfired for the Government—a Government that campaigned on ending the culture of extravagance. The same Prime Minister who said the public was revolted at Paul Holmes’ salary will now say that heads will roll at the board, but it is a bit too late for that.

What will happen when a vice-chancellor or the council of a university does something that gets up the nose of the Government of the day—any Government—under this legislation? Will the Government come out swinging, have a little hissy fit, and say that heads will roll at that university because it has not followed the responsible Minister’s interference and meddling in the statement of intent? What will happen if the Symphony Orchestra—which, as I said yesterday, is under the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Judith Tizard—plays the music of what she calls “dead, white men”. Beethoven and Bach, she said, have had their day and should not be played.

Hon Member: Extraordinary!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Absolutely.

Hon Member: Who said that?

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage.

Craig McNair: She didn’t!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: She did. The member should go back through Hansard. The point is that the Government should not have the power to meddle in day-to-day affairs.

Of course, it suits the Government very well not to provide information about what goes on, when it does not want to. If, for instance, one submits a written parliamentary question about the policy of TVNZ in checking the background of senior employees in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars, the Government does not want to know.

In the debate on the previous part, I mentioned to the Minister of Education that he was obviously waiting to put into practice those provisions relating to the actions of the present Teachers Council—a council that has reached an all-time low. But in clause 192 in this part I detect something else.

I recently read a number of Education Review Office reports, and I saw a trend developing in those reports that is completely contrary to the Education Act but allowable under clause 192—that is, that a member of a board of trustees, apart from the principal or staff trustee, may be an employee of the board. As I understand it, the Education Act expressly states one cannot.

Recent Education Review Office reports on schools have outlined where a ministry direction has arisen surreptitiously by virtue of a board member. In one particular report, express mention was made that that board member was being paid. When I searched through the Education Act and its relevant amendments, I did not quite see how that could be, and I am composing a letter to the Minister of Education on the very issue at the moment, but now I see a sudden light in relation to clause 192.

The provision says, contrary to the fundamental Act regarding boards of trustees, that such employment is possible. Not only is it possible but so long as the total value of the remuneration is disclosed and the employee is known, payment is also possible under this clause. For boards of trustees that marks a significant departure and gives some legality to what was said not to be possible under the previous Act people worked with—so much so that the Ministry of Education has given advice to its advisers that they should not be on boards of trustees.

This legislation goes far beyond that. It allows expressly for State control in the old-fashioned Labour sense. That is the problem with this Labour Government: new Labour and old Labour are all mixed up. That goes right back to the ministry having pernicious influence—almost by stealth, as it were—over individual boards, which now gives legality to those actions. Subclauses (1)(a), (c), and (d) in particular give that ability, which is a significant departure.

If that is so for boards of trustees and groups I know of in the education sector, it will also be so for others. When we combine the trends in this legislation for State direction and control that we hitherto had not seen but that are now being compressed legally provision by provision, and when we have the ability to pay in a way that before was not legally possible, we really start to see—although I am not a believer in conspiracy theory, at all—why this bill marks quite a departure from the past, despite its ordinary, everyday, mundane provisions. New Zealand First will be opposing the legislation on that ground.

This part of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill deals with Crown entity reporting and financial obligations. I will pick up on the theme established by Mr Key and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in their contributions earlier. It seems to me that they were fundamentally asking why we need to have 100 pages of legislation that set out how a Crown entity must report when it has always been implicit that that agency must report anyway.

What does that suggest? Does it suggest that somehow this Government is stacked full of incompetent Ministers who do not know how to go through the reports of the various departments and entities they are responsible for and find the information they need? I do not believe that. I think they are capable of doing that. I think most people in this Chamber are capable of doing that. But this 100-odd pages of legislation is about the philosophy of the Labour Party and the Labour Government in trying to make the State bigger and in having greater control over it, so that it can meddle much more directly in the everyday lives of New Zealanders.

United Future members might sit over there, grin, and say that that is a ridiculous and preposterous suggestion, but they have not yet bothered to make a contribution to this debate. They have been good enough to put us into urgency until some time next week so that we can get this legislation passed, but they have no opinion on it, whatsoever. As far as United Future is concerned, whatever Helen Clark says is the rule. That is it—one just goes by it. One just takes on board whatever Michael Cullen says, too, and runs with it. I think I am right in suggesting that the Labour Party is about growing the bureaucracy in this country and gaining greater control of it, so that it can meddle more directly in individual New Zealanders’ lives.

I refer the Committee to clause 190.

Gordon Copeland: Are you for or against?

GERRY BROWNLEE: The United Future member wants to know if National members are for or against. We are against the bill; we are opposed to it.

I refer the Committee to clause 190(4): “A Crown entity must publish its annual report”—it is a preposterous suggestion that it may not anyway—“as soon as practicable after it has been presented to the House …”, etc. The clause then states that the Minister may have some effect on how that information is reported under clause 213. If we look at clause 213, we see that the Minister will receive the information from the Crown entity or department and can then determine just what part of it will be reported to the public. If that is not about trying to control the information flow to prevent New Zealanders from knowing what is going on in the entities they own, then I do not know what is.

Clause 213(1) states that the Minister may: “(a) prescribe minimum requirements concerning the publication of information …”. He can tell the entities how much to publish, what not to publish, and when to publish. As other colleagues in the Committee have pointed out, the clause also gives the capacity for the Minister to ignore official information requests and to obfuscate any expectation that an answer to a parliamentary question may be given correctly. Overall, the clause is consistent with my view that it is about saying to New Zealanders: “We are the Government; we know best; listen to us and we will do what we think is right for you. You New Zealanders do not need to have a say in this.”

Just to point out how ridiculous, petty, and pathetic this entire part is, we need look only at the tiny little clause that deals with the issue of gifting. Clause 206A states: “(1) Any money or property that is gifted to a Crown entity may be accepted or disclaimed by a Crown entity.” What on earth do we need to put that in the law for? Entities may accept a gift or bequest, or they may not. If that were not in the law, what would be different?

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Noting that neither the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, nor the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee seem particularly interested in participating in this debate, I seek the leave of the Committee to ask questions about this important part of Mr John Key, who has done an enormous amount of work on the select committee and knows a terrific amount about the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

I must say that that speech from Gerry Brownlee, the deputy leader of the National Party, was a bit more constructive than the one we had from Simon Power a few minutes ago. Simon Power spent three-quarters of his 5-minute speech criticising United Future and the other quarter slamming the Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe. I have never heard such a lot of bluster with such a lack of content in any speech on any occasion in my 2½ years in this Parliament. At no time did National member Simon Power tell this Committee why his party is opposing this bill. It was a novel way to discuss a 500-page bill—never once to refer to the bill’s contents but just to huff and puff to see whether the hot air generated might eventually ignite the bill so that it went up in smoke. It was hardly credible.

Let us take clause 190, for example, which was just spoken on by Gerry Brownlee. Does National really think that Crown entities should not publish their annual accounts? Because I think they should. Let us take clause 192. Does National believe that Crown entities should not tell the New Zealand public what they are paying their staff? Because I think they should. Maybe we should look at clause 196 and ask whether National believes that Crown entities should not have their accounts audited. Is that the proposition that the National Party has brought to this debate today—that Crown entities should not have their accounts audited? Because I think they should. Let us take new clause 199. Does National believe that Crown entities should not have a bank account—that we should operate the agencies of this Government without bank accounts—and that, because bank accounts are mentioned in this bill, we should oppose that provision? I actually think that bank accounts might prove to be quite useful for most Crown entities and most organisations to operate.

Here is a really good one: clause 208 in Part 6. The National Party believes that Crown entities should not pay tax. It believes that they should operate, make a profit, and simply keep the money, whereas other entities in this country, those in the private sector, should pay tax. Well, I think that Crown entities should pay tax, and that this is a good bill. The provisions in it are constructive. They move things forward. If National members disagree with that, then, for goodness’ sake, they should get up and tell the Committee for once why they are opposing the bill, because all we have heard is hot air and bluster.

It is a sad thing that the once-proud and constructive National Party, now bereft of policy and unable to make a reasoned contribution to this Parliament, is simply resorting to bluster and hot air. Mind you, there may be a secret behind all of that. We have heard recently, on a number of occasions, to do with a number of policy initiatives, that the National Party will keep them secret until nearer the election. I think that when Simon Power goes out next time on the hustings in Rangitikei to campaign for re-election in 2005, he will tell his electors why his party members voted against this bill. Then perhaps, at last, this Parliament and the New Zealand public will find out why they are opposing the bill. I have listened very carefully to this debate and I have not yet heard one decent reason why those guys are opposing it. But they should keep trying, because I have an open mind and maybe they can convince me if they really work hard.

In speaking to Part 6 I want to alert the Committee to clause 212, “Regulations under this Part”. I will read it out very carefully, because there is something very, very important in it that I think most politicians have overlooked up to this point. I believe that there are many important parts, but this is an extremely important part: it has the possibility of being very, very dangerous. Clause 212(1) states: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes:”. Members should listen to this: “(a) requiring Crown entities to include information in a statement of intent or annual report that is”—and they should listen to this—“additional …”. So after they have done everything, after they have complied with everything that this Minister and this Government have wanted them to comply with, after all of that, the provision states they may be required to include information “that is additional to the information required by this Act:”.

Brian Connell: It’s an outrage.

CRAIG McNAIR: That is right. I say it is a constitutional outrage of gigantic proportions. That is what it is. It is the epitome of State control. It is what Gerry Brownlee was talking about—nanny State coming in and taking control of our lives. That is what the Government wants to do. It does not just want people to have to comply with certain requirements and so on to a certain degree; it wants to go one step further. The Government wants the authority to send the KGB in with its guns and regalia, in order to have a look into every nook and cranny of our lives. That is what this bill is about.

Jim Peters: Draconian socialist legislation.

CRAIG McNAIR: Draconian socialist legislation of the worst type! That is what it is. I have members over on this side of the Chamber agreeing with me on that—because they know that it is true. The members over on that side know that it is true, as well. It is a fact and they know it. I want to talk to the Committee regarding clause 212, because despite all the guidance this bill is supposed to provide to State entities, the Government had to add an additional clause to it. The Government threw it in when it thought nobody was looking.

Brian Connell: They hide it in a huge bill.

CRAIG McNAIR: The Government hid it in a huge bill when it thought no one was looking. It was hidden in a bill that is 400—

Brian Connell: 500 pages.

CRAIG McNAIR:—exactly 500 pages long.

Hon Maurice Williamson: How does the member know that?

CRAIG McNAIR: Because I just read the page numbers. I read the bill, unlike some members on the Opposition benches who have not even read the bill but who are supporting this draconian legislation. It is an outrage, and it will provide more power to this Government to have more impact on our personal and social lives.

The amount of hot air that comes out of the mouths of those members opposing this bill is extraordinary. I wish they would shed a little more light and a little less heat on the subject. I am still waiting for the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the ACT party to put forward any amendments to this bill. If the bill were so terrible, one would think they would want to try to fix it. But has there been a single initiative on the part of those parties to improve this bill? No, there has not been, whereas the Green Party has engaged constructively in this debate. I would like to thank Simon Power for acknowledging that in his last speech.

My last constructive contribution is to Part 6, because the Greens have another amendment that we would like to put on the Table. I am pleased to advise the rest of the Committee that the Minister of Finance has decided to support our amendment. It is an amendment to clause 199(1)(a), which will insert after the words “registered bank” the words “or registered building society”. It is an extraordinarily positive step forward for the Government to acknowledge that building societies play a crucial role in the New Zealand financial sector, and that they are appropriate institutions for Crown entities to deposit their funds in. If members read the commentary on this bill, they will see that the bill was amended in the select committee to accommodate the Taranaki savings bank, TSB Bank Ltd, in which I declare an interest. It is a fantastic institution where not only I do my personal banking but the Green Futures Superannuation Fund does its banking. So the bill has been amended to ensure there is no discrimination against the Taranaki savings bank. I would like to say that now, as a result of the Government agreeing with my amendment, this bill will no longer discriminate against building societies.

That is an important step for building societies. At the moment there are numerous bank preference clauses in many pieces of legislation that stop Government departments, tertiary institutions, hospitals, and schools from investing their hard-earned savings in building societies. So adding building societies to clause 199 is a significant step forward in recognising that building societies not only play a crucial role in our society but should not be discriminated against. Indeed, we have had the reverse situation up until now. By only banks being referred to, there is an implied Government endorsement, which I think is unfortunate and unfair.

So I am pleased to propose amendments to clause 199 and clause 177 to fix this anomaly, and in proposing those amendments I acknowledge what an important role building societies play in New Zealand. I do declare an interest. I have a $10 account with the Southland Building Society, and I am currently studying that society as part of the Business and Parliament Trust, which is an excellent exchange for members of Parliament to learn more about businesses. I can tell members that there are 10 building societies in New Zealand. They have 150,000 members. They have assets of $2.7 billion. The oldest was established in 1862. The Southland Building Society, which I am studying, had a record year this year. I was pleased to be at its AGM. Its assets were up by 12.7 percent to $1.5 billion, which is roughly half the assets of all building societies. Its equity was up 14.6 percent. Its advances were up 19 percent. Its pre-tax operating surplus was up 11.5 percent to $18 million.

Thank goodness it still exists, and thank goodness Stephen Franks did not get his way when he was acting as an adviser to the old board and advised it to sell the building society to Westpac! Chapman Tripp, which he worked for at the time, was paid $290,000 for its advice, and thank goodness the parochial Southlanders ignored that advice and decided to keep their building society in local ownership, instead of selling out to yet another foreign-owned bank. We need our building societies, and Kiwis recognise that. They do not like foreign-owned banks. They do not like profits going offshore. They want to support local financial institutions such as building societies and the TSB Bank Ltd. The Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, comes from Taranaki, and I know that he has been a strong advocate of that bank.

I am pleased that the Government has agreed to support my amendment to enable Crown entities also to save with their local building society.

I also want to speak to Rod Donald’s amendment to clause 199. I just imagine now, in Auckland, Judy Bailey pulling up to TVNZ’s office in her Audi convertible, thinking that the first item on the news tonight will be that Rod Donald has successfully moved this dramatic amendment in Parliament today—this dramatic amendment whereby we are going to add the words “or registered building society”. What an achievement for a man who has been here for 6 years! Six long years!

Simon Power: Eight!

Hon DAVID CARTER: Eight long years! Rod Donald has been here in this Parliament for 8 long years, and he comes up with this dramatic amendment that can justify his—

Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s been working on it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, he has. It must have taken him a long time. Not only does he achieve this monumental step in his parliamentary career but he takes the opportunity of revealing to Parliament today that he may have a vested interest because he has an account with a credit of $10 at the Southland Building Society. I say to Barry Coleman that, as he is preparing the next NBR Rich List, he needs to check out this man. He needs to check out Rod Donald and show what a remarkable capitalist that man has become and the progress he has made with this huge amendment in Parliament today.

I also want to comment on the incredible contribution I heard from Gordon Copeland. He said he is supporting this legislation because it empowers a Crown entity to open a bank account. What are we doing rushing a bill of this size through Parliament today? Gordon Copeland says his party, United Future, is supporting it on the basis that he has found a clause in here that states that Crown entities must establish a bank account.

I am more worried by the level of Government interference in Crown entities that can occur if this legislation is passed today. There are clauses like clause 213, “Minister of Finance instructions”. Subclause (1) states: “The Minister of Finance may issue instructions to Crown entities, that,—(a) prescribe minimum requirements … (b) prescribe the non-financial reporting standards …”, etc. What we have seen over many years is the establishment of Crown enterprises as a means of getting politics out of their operations, so that they can operate to the best economic performance and deliver to the shareholders—in other words, the New Zealand taxpayers. But what this Government does with this legislation is put its ever-increasing political manipulation into the operation of State-owned enterprises and Crown entities. I say that is fundamentally wrong. We will see issues like the performance pay of Judy Bailey become something that is decreed by the degree of political embarrassment that the Prime Minister feels. She appointed every one of the board members of Television New Zealand. They are all well and truly recognised as Labour Party lackeys.

Russell Fairbrother: Did the Lyttelton voters appoint you?

Hon DAVID CARTER: No. The Lyttelton voters do not exist. The electorate, I tell that member, is actually Banks Peninsula. It is a Labour electorate, and I am proud to represent the people who have the sense to vote for me every time we have a general election.

Rod Donald: And you lost that seat.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Rod Donald has stood in that electorate on four occasions, and he hardly gets his deposit back, so he can chip in all he likes. I will make one guarantee to Rod Donald: he will never win the Banks Peninsula electorate as long as—

Brian Connell: He’ll never win an electorate.

Hon DAVID CARTER: That is true—but he may now, because of this remarkable development today. He has done a deal with Labour. He has said the Greens will support the urgency motion, and will let Labour rush this huge bill through Parliament, provided that he can have the audacity to include the words “or registered building society” in clause 199. I say to the Committee that it should take note of this monumental achievement from the Green member Rod Donald. He has been here a long time, and has achieved very, very little, but today he has his first significant win, and the words “or registered building society” will now be included in the legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I cannot help reflecting on the fact that Judy Bailey was attacked by the Prime Minister for getting paid $800,000 a year for 4½ minutes’ work on 5½ days a week, but Rod Donald, a co-leader of the Green Party, just demonstrated to us that he has earned his whole year’s parliamentary salary of over $100,000 by producing an amendment containing two little words—“building society”! I thought that was very interesting: if one aims low one gets to where one wants to be. That member has proposed a lot more amendments during this debate that were totally ignored. Those two little words are his Christmas gift from Dr Michael Cullen. At least he got something, but the Minister would not give any tax reduction, not even a small one, to the hard-working New Zealanders.

I would also like to take up the challenge posed by the United Future member Gordon Copeland. I suddenly realised that he is a sensitive new-age man. He was offended because the National Party whip Simon Power asked United Future to answer the question why United Future supported this part of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I am feeling a bit sensitive, too. Gordon Copeland and I are both members of the very prestigious Institute of Chartered Accountants. I thought that we, as chartered accountants, understood statements of intent and financial statements. And, of course, Gordon Copeland and I happen to be fellow committee members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Even Air New Zealand, a publicly listed company, has come before that select committee to present its financial review, and we certainly have done financial reviews of Meridian Energy and numerous Crown entities for as long as the chairman has allowed us to. So what makes Gordon Copeland think those Crown entities would not supply Parliament with their financial statements and statements of corporate intent, without this 500-page legislation?

I want to raise an issue of concern, and that is the overkill in this legislation. First of all, clause 195 spells out what a statement of responsibility, which a Crown entity has to provide, should comprise. One would have thought that what it provided would be enough for the responsible Minister to get all the information he or she wanted. Further on, this provision also allows him or her to interfere by directing additional responsibility. But after all those stringent requirements we then find clause 209, “Power to require output agreement”. On top of all those provisions requiring Crown entities to say what they want to produce—what sort of outcome—and how they intend to achieve it, and to report whether they fail or succeed in achieving it, a Minister can have the authority to “require a Crown entity to have in place an output agreement for any or all outputs that the Crown entity intends to provide that do not qualify for an exemption …”. I wonder why the Minister does not just put in a clause to say that the Minister can request whatever he or she wants!

It is really good to see the young guns of New Zealand First start to hit their straps. It is good to see a bit of energy and a bit of passion, in stark contrast with the drivel we heard from Gordon Copeland and Rod Donald.

Hon David Carter: Did they win?

BRIAN CONNELL: Rod Donald has put $10 into the Southland banking society. My advice to him is to get his money out before he goes broke, because that will be his last $10. It is very good of him to invest everything he has in it, but we suggest he should get his money out now, before it is too late. Gordon Copeland was really upset because Simon Power suggested we did not need to legislate for Crown entities to open bank accounts.

Hon David Carter: I don’t think we do.

BRIAN CONNELL: I do not think we do, either. I think Gordon Copeland was very right to say, with such gusto, passion, and determination, that he was really upset. Let me say this to Mr Copeland. Producers in the productive sector of this country are fed up to the back teeth with red tape and bureaucracy. This bill is a classic example of it. This bill is 500 pages long, and most of it is repetitive. I think I could reduce this bill to at least one-third of its size, by cutting out some of the nonsense that we see in it. The United Future members get to their feet and want to legislate for more of that sort of nonsense.

I will tell Mr Copeland this, for nothing: National is voting against the bill. Gordon Copeland and the United Future party purport to support the productive sector and small business in this country, in particular. But he stands in the Chamber and wants to legislate for this type of nonsense. Let us look at some of the stuff that I am talking about. The statement of intent starts on page 229 and goes right through to page 236. There are seven pages in the statement of intent. In anybody else’s language, it is just a forecast. Any board member worth his or her salt would look at that and wonder why he or she should bother. The Minister in the chair, Mr Duynhoven, knows what I am talking about. He is a man who has been around a little. He knows that we do not need to legislate to tell people how to do up their shoelaces before they go outside. That is exactly what this bill does.

Let me look at clause 181. Someone has already mentioned subclause (1)(e), which states: “how the entity proposes to manage the organisational health and the capability of the entity:”. Will a Government member stand and take a call—maybe Mr Copeland will stand and take a call—and explain exactly what that means? Maybe Mr Donald will stand and take a call, because he is very keen on supporting this legislation. Then subclause (1)(g) states: “the matters on which the Crown entity will consult or notify its responsible Minister before making a decision …”. That is like having a dog and barking, too. Why would any self-respecting board member want to get involved in a Crown entity that gave the Minister that type of power—that type of interference? What we get is boards of inferior quality, because their members are the only types of people who would take the job on. It is no wonder that Judy Bailey was able to snow the board of Television New Zealand. Because of the quality of that board, which is made up of Government appointees—ex-Labour hacks—she was able to snow them by convincing them that she would go somewhere else. All the competing organisations said they were not talking to her and did not want her.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I missed the vote from United Future, and I ask that it be repeated. I apologise.

Eight opposed.

I ask the member from the Green Party whether there is a vote from the Māori Party.

I apologise, Mr Chairperson. I was just trying to clarify for the benefit of Mr Copeland that having voted to incorporate building societies, he is now voting against the definition of building societies. I apologise for interrupting the vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept the member’s explanation in his point of clarification, but the Committee needs to be assured that United Future is not being persuaded to vote in a certain way by other political parties in the Chamber.

I give an assurance that I was not trying to persuade United Future; I was just concerned about how inconsistent it would look when its votes were examined.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 199 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1)(a), after the words “registered bank”, the words “or registered building society”.