State Sector Amendment Bill

This is an interesting bill. It is one that has been sitting around for the last 22 months. The last time we debated it was on 11 September 2001. At that time, the Government was rushing the bill through without allowing for submissions. National is very concerned about the consequences of this legislation. We agreed at the first reading that it should go to a select committee. We are concerned about a number of parts, but what we should really be looking at is its effect. The explanatory note states that the Crown is to reorganise Government departments by Order in Council, rather than through Acts of Parliament on each occasion. The Crown is to do away with departments—abolish them, merge them, and amalgamate them—as can be seen in the explanatory note, which gives an explanation of the different changes in names and the amalgamations of the different departments.

It is National’s view that the bill should be called the State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill, because that is what it will do. It will disempower a number of Government departments. Or it could be called the State Sector (Abolition) Amendment Bill. The title should reflect what the bill does; that is what should be in a title. If I buy a book, I want to know what is inside the book. When I look at this bill, I should see that its title is synonymous with what it is all about, and this bill is about reorganising Government departments. That is why we believe that the title should reflect that, and it is why I have suggested that the bill should be called the State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill. That is the name of the brand. The title is a marketing tool, and it is the sort of thing that we believe should be important.

When I see the title “State Sector Amendment Bill”, I wonder what it actually means. Until one looks inside the bill one would not know what it means. In fact, I suggest that Government members have absolutely no idea about what is in the bill. There is no indication in the title whatsoever of what the bill does. It does not set out the sorts of things that I have just mentioned. The bill does state, once one gets into it, that a department can change its name. The title does not reflect that, and in our view it is very important that the title should do that.

In fact, the explanatory note states: “Because machinery of government changes affecting Departments are simply the Crown reorganising the manner in which it conducts its affairs, it is considered appropriate to deal with these matters in this Act and by Orders in Council rather than by the enactment of Acts of Parliament on each occasion.” That is what it states. We see that sort of thing here in this bill, but it is not reflected in the title. Why is the power of the executive not reflected in the title? The point about this is that the executive, by Order in Council, has quite tremendous powers to be able to make changes to the machinery of government, without the scrutiny of Parliament—without the debate that we can have here tonight—and that really should be reflected in the title of this bill. It does not reflect the fact that by means of Orders in Council, chief executive officers can be removed simply by the merging of departments. I would have thought that that was a significant matter.

The bill also politicises the whole process, in our view. It goes through the process and politicises it, by providing that the Government can get rid of somebody just by merging departments. It can merge departments and fire somebody without having to worry about paying redundancy, just through a merger, an abolition, or an amalgamation of particular departments. One would suggest that the title should reflect that. Maybe the bill should be called the “State Sector (Removal of Chief Executive Officers) Amendment Bill”. We find that is what can happen, when we go into the depth of this bill. It could be called the “State Sector (Politicisation of Government Departments) Amendment Bill. That would be a more apt title.

The power of, and the Government’s accountability to, Parliament are lost through this bill, by allowing the executive, through Order in Council, to make these significant changes. Another title that comes to mind would acknowledge that. I suggest the name could be the “State Sector (Takeover) Amendment Bill”. It sounds good, and that title gives the power to the executive.

My colleague Lindsay Tisch gave us a number of titles that the Minister and this Government could have chosen to put on this bill, in order to better reflect its contents and to better reflect the mischief in the bill that will affect New Zealanders, whether or not they know it.

However, of the smorgasbord of choices that my colleague Lindsay Tisch gave to this Committee, I would like to support—and I certainly stand to support—his first one, the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill”. That is what this bill does. It disempowers the State sector and certainly empowers those on the executive in this Government. In fact, it gives the Government so much power, and this Parliament so little power, that that should raise the concern of every member of Parliament.

The aims of this bill are to allow the making of Orders in Council that will amend the first schedule of the State Sector Act, in order to change or amend the names of departments in the schedule. With the passage of this bill, by Order in Council the executive can change the names of departments. But it can also deal with redundancy situations that arise when functions are transferred between Government departments. So one can lay off someone without any accountability. That is why the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill” would be a better title for this bill than the present title.

I have a question for Mr Rodney Hide, who should be concerned about this bill. I have a question for ACT members and New Zealand First members about this bill, and I raise this with them. Why is it that this Government decreases the red tape that it has to cut through when it wants to make a change, lay off governmental staff, change the name of Government departments, or do whatever it does best, which is generally to grow the bureaucracy? Why is it that the Government is cutting the red tape for itself, but is always increasing the red tape for everyone else? Why is it that through this bill—and I am calling it the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill”—the Government is cutting the red tape that it has to face, yet through every other piece of legislation that it forces through this Parliament it is increasing the red tape and bureaucracy required for businesses just to make their way every day, and increasing the red tape for every citizen in New Zealand? That is why I think the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill” is a better title for this legislation.

I challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, to tell us why he has hidden from the title any indication that he, as a member of the executive, is now able to deal with redundancy situations within Government departments simply by transferring responsibilities between those very departments. Even by changing the names of departments he can deal with redundancies, whereas other businesses that employ New Zealanders in this country, in going through the same situation—laying off staff, and so forth—will have to jump through a myriad of hoops.

This bill also takes the generic changes and applies them to the merger of the Department of Work and Income and the Department of Social Welfare—to be called the “Massive Ministry of Social Development”. That is what this bill does. If there are any redundancies arising from that, this Minister, through this bill, will not be accountable for that. If people are laid off, he will not be responsible in terms of any legislation that goes through the House. No member of Parliament will have a say on that. We will not be able to scrutinise the situation, at all. Who will decide? It will simply be the Minister and the executive by Order in Council, and I am concerned about that.

Certainly, if this bill is passed, no Government in the future will have to come to the House, as they have normally done, to undergo the scrutiny they have normally had to. Future Governments will be able to do a “Helen Clark.” They will be able to avoid this House completely, and not front up at all. Ministers could go overseas and just have a regulation to merge departments and lay people off, without even fronting up to this House.

I rise just to help the member, and perhaps it will save some time in terms of the issue he has raised if I say the bill does not force employees in any situation to transfer. They have the right to reject any offer of employment, and compulsory transfer is not involved. If the member makes sure he reads Supplementary Order Paper 107, which is on the Table—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but we are talking about the title only.

I am addressing the proposed change of title that the member raised and the underlying cause for it, and giving him some reassurance in that regard.

This bill is a fairly small piece of legislation that we expressed some concern about when it was introduced well over 2 years ago, and today, for the first time, we are seeing the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper amending it. That changes the whole nature of the title of the bill. We have before us a bill that is 12 pages long, but today a Supplementary Order Paper has been introduced that is 13 pages long. We now have amendments on a Supplementary Order Paper that is of greater size than the bill itself. I suggest that this bill is no longer the State Sector Amendment Bill but the “State Sector (Retrospective) Amendment Bill”.

We will be debating the bill at length as we go through it, because now there are 13 pages of amendments that no one has had the opportunity to make any submissions on. Clearly, the Greens or United Future agree with all the amendments that have been put on the Table and have decided that they are worthy of going into legislation, but not worthy of public comment. State sector employees and the Public Service Association have been unable to comment on these amendments, at all.

I suggest that the name of the bill should be the “State Sector (Retrospective) Amendment Bill”, because as we go into it, we will see that one of the issues on the Supplementary Order Paper—in fact the very first issue we will be dealing with—is that the Department of Work and Income, the Department of Social Welfare, and the Ministry of Social Development will be “deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001”. That means that the word “retrospective” should certainly be in the title. People picking up this legislation and seeing what we have passed—we will probably get around to that in August 2003—will see that the bill was deemed to have taken effect in 2001. That has got to be one of the worst retrospective pieces of legislation that this Parliament has seen. It is not reflected in the title at all. If the title were left as it is, one would think that Parliament was passing legislation that Mr Mallard introduced several years ago.

The title reflects the hatred the Government had a few years ago towards the then Department of Work and Income and its then chief executive, Christine Rankin. That is why it brought in this bill. It wanted to move Government departments around at whim. It wanted to be unaccountable, so that it could get rid of departments that had strong work ethics and were strong on forcing beneficiaries into the workplace—like Christine Rankin’s department was. But that Minister and the Government did not like that, so it introduced this bill, raced it into a select committee, fired it back out, and then let it sit—not for 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year, but for over 2 years. Finally, the Government woke up, and, with United Future agreement, came to the House with 13 pages of amendments.

Does United Future agree with amendments that are longer than the original bill? Is it happy with them? We do not know that. Has it seen them? They nod. United Future has seen them. Is it happy that the Public Service Association has not been able to comment on them? There is no comment. Is United Future happy that businesses in New Zealand have not been able to comment on the 13 pages of amendments? No, it is not, but I am quite sure that it will vote for the title, without the word “retrospective”. I am quite sure that it will not vote for our amendments, and there is complicity in that.

With this bill we see the true colours of this Government, and its attitude to our Parliament, the public service, and to the New Zealand public. It is all wrapped up in this bill called the “State Sector Amendment Bill”. I heard members from the National Party say that the bill should be called the “Let’s Disempower the State Sector Bill”, and we in the ACT party concur with that analysis. The bill could also be called the “Let’s Forget about Parliament Bill”. This bill gives enormous power to the executive, without having to come to Parliament, because the Prime Minister and her Ministers do not like Parliament. They can sit in their offices away from public view and the gaze of the parliamentary process and make radical changes to our civil service without explanation and without justification.

We could call this bill the “Let’s Get Rid of Christine Rankin Bill”. That is what it is about—she was too effective, too good, and too good-looking.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.