State Sector Amendment Bill

Part 1, as introduced, was a relatively straightforward part. It contained the commencement date of the Act, and the purpose. It was relatively straightforward, given that the bill was introduced a couple of years ago. But with the passage of time, the Minister of State Services has really abandoned the bill. He has wandered off and decided that he does not really have the heart to follow it through.

What has happened in that period of time, of course, is that there have been some departmental mergers. The Government decided it did not like the culture in the Department of Work and Income. It was a culture that forced beneficiaries to front up and meet their obligations. So the Government merged that department into a much softer Ministry of Social Development. The Government has decided it does not like the stand-alone Department for Courts. I do not know exactly what the department has done to offend the Minister and the Government, but, clearly, it has done something, and it is going to be rolled into the Ministry of Justice. Of course, we see the potential—and the Government is already talking about it—for a whole lot of other smaller departments to be rolled into some of the larger ones, so that their voices will not be heard.

We have a Supplementary Order Paper that is longer than the bill. In it we are being asked today to deem that, with regard to the Department of Work and Income and the Ministry of Social Development, parts of the bill came into force on 1 October 2001. So here we are, 2 years later, passing some retrospective legislation to say that we deem that all of this came into force 2 years ago. That is because the Minister might well face some sort of challenge in the courts. He rushed through his ideological change to that department, and never bothered about the details. His attitude was just to bully everybody into place, shout loud enough, look like he was going to be tough enough, and it would all hang together, and it kind of does. The Minister nods because that is the way he operates; he thinks it is fine. But now he has to come to the Chamber to say that he wants Parliament to rubber stamp this and say that all of this came into force a couple of years ago.

The irony is that the Minister is going to get there with the votes of the United Future party, which was not in Parliament 2 years ago. The United Future party is going to vote to deem that those provisions became law at a time when it was not here. That party is going to support that. [Interruption] One of its members was here, but a whole lot of others were not, yet they are going to vote for this measure as if they were here.

The other great irony is that the purpose of this bill is to allow the Minister and the Government to roll up a whole lot of departments they do not like. They do not like some of the advice they get from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and from the Ministry of Youth Affairs. Those Ministers are a risk to them, so if the Minister of State Services and the Government can roll those ministries into a bigger department, then that is fine. Those Ministers will not lose their salaries and perks. They can become Ministers of State. The Government is very adept at keeping Ministers on high salaries, with chauffeured cars and Ministers’ houses—the whole works—but without their having a job. So the Government will just roll up some of the ministries into bigger departments. I predict we will now see a whole lot of Government departments being either rolled together or under the threat of being rolled together. That is the sword that hangs over a chief executive’s head. Should he or she deem to give advice that the Minister might not like? If the Minister does not like it, or if the Minister is not competent, the department could just be rolled into one of the bigger departments. That shields some of the more junior and incompetent Ministers from questions in the House, shields them from any real accountability, but protects their salaries and their perks. That is what this provision is about.

I was thinking back to the time when State sector reorganisation was going on, in the early 1990s. I was thinking of some of the speeches that Labour members used to give in which they opposed technical redundancies. They used to rail against them.

I have some sympathy for the thrust behind this bill, as have my New Zealand First colleagues. The thrust is to remove the potential for payment of redundancy to a person who was employed in the public sector but now has a job in an associated area. We see that as an issue that needs to be looked at, examined, and addressed. But, my having said that, it is the procedure that the Government has taken that causes us immense concern. It is not a new procedure. It is quite common now for this Government to present Parliament with a bill of a certain size and to present a Supplementary Order Paper of equal size.

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s bigger.

In actual fact it is not. I say to Mr Carter that if he examines the pages, and takes out the contents and the explanatory note, he will find that it is about the same size. It is 12 pages. But it is disgraceful.

And, of course, it is retrospective legislation. As the Hon Roger Sowry indicated, part of the bill is retrospective to the degree that it relates to a time before United Future was in this Parliament, yet its members are going to vote for it. In actual fact, I think it relates to a time before United Future was formed. I do not think United Future was formed on 1 October 2001, yet its members are going to vote for legislation that goes back to that date. United Future is supposedly the common-sense party that stands for fair play, yet it is going to support this measure. I would welcome United Future members taking the call to explain that.

In Supplementary Order Paper 107 the Department for Courts is mentioned for the first time. The wording of an amendment to clause 3(b) is: “(iii) the abolition of the Department for Courts and the transfer of its functions to the Ministry of Justice.” What effect will that have on the people there? Frankly, we do not know. What opportunity will they have to table their concerns? None. There is no select committee and no public hearing. It is simply a fait accompli. The Minister feels like getting rid of the Department for Courts, of taking it and putting it under the Ministry of Justice, and that is it.

I ask the United Future people whether that is what they stand for. Is that what the Greens stand for? I know that it probably is what the Greens stand for. They have allowed significant legislation to go through this House without their giving any explanation whatsoever. I remind both the Greens and United Future that there is pressure to televise this Parliament eventually. The public will see, first hand, MPs sitting here, not prepared to make a contribution at all, and allowing a Supplementary Order Paper equal in size to the bill to go through without their making any word of comment at all.

💬 Hon David Carter: It’s outrageous.

It is. It is shameful. This is not democracy. These are dictatorial and autocratic procedures. I have already stated that the thrust behind the bill has merit, but the way that it has been handled is absolutely deplorable. Come the next election, United Future members will have to stand on the platform and say that they put their hands up for bills that the public did not even have the chance to contest before a select committee. That is absolutely shameful. The Greens have a habit of giving support lightly, but I thought more of United Future, particularly as it makes much in its advertising of it being the common-sense party, the party for fair play that looks after the interests of New Zealanders. And United Future members sit there in silence.

💬 Hon David Carter: They’re called the “Doormat Party”.

Why is it called the “Doormat Party”? Is it because people walk all over it and wipe their feet on it? Surely not! I find that incredible. I see Mr Baldock following this with extreme interest. I look forward to his call, when he will explain the briefing he got, and why, as he understands it, these people will have their potential right to redundancy removed without their having any opportunity whatsoever to go before a select committee. Is that what the member stands for?

I congratulate Peter Brown, the deputy leader of New Zealand First, on that superb contribution. I am superb—I am so pleased that the member walked in today. I thought that was a wonderful contribution.

💬 Sandra Goudie: You are superb, Mr Carter.

I thank the member. I want to talk to clause 2, “Commencement”, and the purpose. I am surprised. We have before us a bill that went through the select committee process 2 years ago, and that sat on the Order Paper until yesterday, but suddenly Mr Mallard decides that it is appropriate to advance this legislation, so he tables Supplementary Order Paper 107, which is longer than the original bill. I say to members of the Committee that they should examine that Supplementary Order Paper with care because it will not have the opportunity to go before a select committee. That is fundamentally wrong. When one examines the Supplementary Order Paper—and I direct these comments to the United Future party particularly, whose members are not giving me much indication that they have even picked it up and had a look at it—

💬 Simon Power: Ask Larry Baldock what’s in it.

My colleague suggests that we ask Mr Baldock what is in the Supplementary Order Paper. The record will show there was no response.

I will take some time to talk about this Supplementary Order Paper, because its amendments to clause 2, as alluded to by my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry, provide for the retrospective nature of the commencement date. The amendment to clause 2(1) retrospectively validates the Government’s restructuring of Work and Income New Zealand, which was done only to get rid of Christine Rankin. Various provisions will be deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001. That is unacceptable. Legislation should not be backdated the best part of 2 years to make sure this Government can attempt to dig itself out of a hole.

There is another aspect of retrospectivity. The amendment to clause 2(2) states that various provisions, in so far as they relate to the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice coming together, will come into force on 1 October 2003. The Opposition feels so deeply aggrieved by that move that we will still be here debating it on 1 October. Mr Mallard does not have a hope of getting it passed for the royal assent by 1 October. That is the second aspect of this legislation that is retrospective.

The third point I want to make is about any future restructuring coming into force the day after the legislation receives the royal assent. That is a relatively typical clause that we see in this Parliament from time to time, but I suggest that there should be a time delay on any further restructuring, and that it should come into effect on 1 June 2006. The reason I say that is this Government is, obviously, intent on another round of restructuring that it is not prepared to bring before Parliament for debate. I know that before 1 June 2006 there will be another election, and I, as a member of the National caucus, will take those further restructuring plans to the electorate, which will have an opportunity to comment on them. If those people vote for a National Government in the next election, as I am sure sensible people will do, we will have a chance to undo the restructuring plans that are about to be initiated under the cloak of darkness by this Government.

Those are the three points—[Interruption] He is the knight of darkness, is he not? Those are the three points I want to make on the commencement. The fourth issue I want to raise is about the purpose of the bill. A very substantial amendment to the purpose of the bill is tabled in Supplementary Order Paper 107. I do not recall, in recent times, a substantial amendment to the purpose of a bill being tabled in a Supplementary Order Paper, which does not have the opportunity of going before a select committee. That is a very dangerous precedent that the Minister—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: An abuse of the process.

Absolutely! It is an abuse of process. Surely, Mr Mallard, in preparing the original regulation, knew the purpose of it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I simply cannot resist making a contribution on Part 1. It is the part of the bill that looks at the commencement. As we know, the commencement date in the first subclause of clause 2, on Supplementary Order Paper 107, is 1 October 2001, which shows the sort of shambles that this Government is involved in—it having legislation here that is so far out of date. That is the first point.

But this bill is the biggest fraud ever to go through this New Zealand Parliament. It is absolutely appalling legislation, because it involves this Government using this Parliament to shield itself from a huge embarrassment it faced in its first term of office—the huge scandal and embarrassment over Christine Rankin, the chief executive whom it wanted to destroy. What did the Government do? Rather than go through the proper employment process—so that she might have a payout, or whatever—it decided to use the power of Government and the power of this Parliament to bring in legislation that had no other purpose at all but to restructure the Department of Work and Income so that the Government could axe Christine Rankin, the chief executive, in a way that did not bring it public embarrassment. The Government went out and said: “This is a big department. We need an umbrella organisation. We need a Ministry of Social Development.” It was a plot hatched by the Minister sitting in the chair, Trevor Mallard; by the Prime Minister; and by the social services Minister, Steve Maharey. It was those three who decided that that was a perfect way to put up a front and get rid of a chief executive without having to give her a golden handshake.

I say to the Minister of State Services that, of all the things he has done since he has been in Government, he should be more ashamed of this bill than of anything else. It brings the whole of Parliament into total disrepute. Those three people announced a restructuring of the biggest Government department, the Department of Work and Income, without the chief executive knowing, without the chief executive of the Department of Social Welfare knowing, and without any of the 5,500 staff knowing, and with no costings, no consultation, and no research. It went against all the papers that had been produced about what should be done about the social services sector, if changes were wanted in the future. The Government did that for one reason, and for one reason only—to be able to restructure the public service without it having to go through due process. So, now, with an Order in Council, the Government can change everything in the public service without there being any checks and balances, and without there being any proper scrutiny of the reasons that those changes are being made. I say to that Minister that I still think it is the most appalling thing that he ever did. I do not care what answers he gives in this Parliament; he knows in his heart that it was simply a way for his Government to avoid embarrassment.

I say to Green Party members, who went along with it, that they should be ashamed of themselves, as well. I can understand that they did not like the Department of Work and Income. They did not like the work-for-the-dole scheme, the department being tough on benefit fraud, and all those things, so I can understand why they supported that change. I cannot understand why United Future members would ever support it. They say they want to be tough on welfare. Well, that mechanism allowed this Government to go totally soft on welfare. It got rid of all the good things, and that is why sickness beneficiary numbers are increasing.

When there is a downturn in the economy, welfare will be the single biggest problem that this country faces. It already is, with about 400,000 people on benefits, in spite of all the employers out there who want people to go and work for them. We have a Government that already has created a huge problem. Do members remember that before Labour changed welfare back in the 1970s, there were 28 workers to every person on a benefit? Right now, there are four workers to every person on a benefit, and when the economy turns down, under this Government’s changes to the welfare system there will soon be three workers to one, then two workers to one. This Minister, in introducing this bill, which allows the Government to manipulate the public service, is responsible.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak against this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 107, and to speak in relation to the commencement and the purpose of the bill. I take up the cudgels on behalf of people in the public service who are doing their job too well. If they do their job too well, if they get people off the dole, if they get people away from being beneficiaries, they are liable to find themselves restructured out of a job, and on the dole themselves. That is what this Minister of Sate Services is all about.

Under Supplementary Order Paper 107, subclause (1) of the commencement provision, which has been spoken about so eloquently by speakers from this side of the Chamber, provides that sections 6 to 11(1), as they relate to the Department of Work and Income and the Department of Social Welfare, are now deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001. That is a disgrace. It is 2 years too late. It is retrospective legislation.

The Supplementary Order Paper, which we were given yesterday, is longer than the bill itself. One of the reasons that this is so shocking is that this bill went to a select committee and the Supplementary Order Paper did not, yet the substantial part of the legislation is in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is a disgrace. We note that the New Zealand Public Service Association gave submissions on the bill, on behalf of its members. But what about all the thousands and thousands of individual members of that association who would have loved to give submissions on this bill, but who really could not because they know what happens to any public servant who says “No” to this Government? That is a shame.

This bill is all about retrospectively trying to tidy up the Government’s mess in relation to Christine Rankin, who was too jolly good at her job. Now I see that the Government is trying to do it to the Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice. How many other Supplementary Order Papers will we have slotted in today? How many other departments are going to be done away with, or is this a way of getting a rid of a Minister? The Department for Courts and the Ministry of Justice have two different Ministers. Why are those departments being merged? Is it because the Prime Minister has lost confidence in one of those particular Ministers, or is it because she has lost confidence in both? Certainly, this Parliament has lost confidence in both, as has the public of New Zealand. How many others will be included here?

This bill is all about giving powers to the Government that it wants to take away from the private sector. It wants to make technical redundancies in the public service just that—technical, with no capability of their being paid out, no capability of any due process. Yet, in relation to the private sector, there is talk about getting rid of any possibility of the same sort of protection for employers. The Government wants to do away with it, to get rid of any technical redundancy provisions. That would make private sector employers far more responsible than this Government will ever be for its workers who happen to be public servants. This bill is bad for public servants. It is bad for the chief executives. It is bad for New Zealand, and it is bad for employment generally, because it has two different standards: one for the Government, and one for private employers, who have mortgages on their homes, and whose businesses are on the line every day that they are at work. Those are the people who create most of the jobs in the country, and who keep the country going, yet they are getting a tougher standard applied to them than what the Government gives to itself.

This Government bullies its chief executives, and, in fact, bullies its own members—as we saw today in the House with Dianne Yates—to try to keep them in line. This Government is a disgrace. As Dr Newman said, this bill is something that Trevor Mallard should be absolutely ashamed of. It is an acknowledgement that he cannot organise his own departments without having to fire chief executives in some way or other. He is too frightened of treating those chief executives with decency and restraint, as a good employer would, so he wants this Committee to get rid of those chief executives by law.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I have had a full 5 minutes or so to read the bill, and I admit that, in the first 2 or 3 minutes of perusing it, I thought it was rather innocuous, but as I read further, I started to have some concerns. In particular, I am concerned that this bill, as it has been drafted, will start to create some instability, because as Government Ministers determine that they do not like someone, they will seek to restructure a whole department just so that they can get rid of an individual or individuals. Of course, the name Christine Rankin comes to the fore.

That must have been a black day in the book of Trevor Mallard. It is a day that he will always remember with some regret. She was too good at doing her job, so rather than embracing someone who was strong, he decided to get rid of her. What will happen is that instability will creep into the public sector as people get nervous. They will be looking over their shoulder if they have had the courage of their convictions and stood up to the Minister, and said: “Minister, with all due respect, on this occasion I don’t think you are right.”

Essentially, this bill allows the Government to change or amend the names of departments or the structure of departments at a whim. It lacks transparency. There were people who submitted to the Government Administration Committee who warned that Government departments would become destabilised, and that departments would be changed at the whim of a Minister. I refer now to an article in the Dominion Post, entitled “Public service under threat”, that was relevant to those submissions. It reads: “Appearing before the Government Administration Select Committee on behalf of Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, Ms Wallace said the proposals had repercussions for State agencies.” It goes on to say: “In particular, the bill proposes allowing technical changes to departments to be authorised by Cabinet and not involve legislation in Parliament.”

That is a very, very dangerous precedent, and the creation of the Ministry of Social Development is just an example of it. Fancy having a ministry with the name of “social development”! What we are doing is encouraging welfare entitlement as opposed to trying to do something about it. I do not have to, but I want to commend the contribution made by Dr Muriel Newman when she attacked Trevor Mallard and Steve Maharey on their support of those who would rather seek welfare than work and make a contribution to this country. Good on Dr Muriel Newman—she was dead right! What is happening in this country under the guise of social development is an absolute disgrace. It is of extreme concern to me, and it is extremely dangerous.

Muriel Newman pointed out that one in four people in this country is now on a benefit of some sort. [Interruption] That makes for a population that is bigger than that of the city of Christchurch—indeed, one would need a shoehorn and a crowbar just to get the population on welfare in this country into the city of Christchurch.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Go and join the ACT party.

Those members who are yelling out support that. That is what those members across the Chamber are doing.

The other issue I want to address is that of technical redundancy. [Interruption] The bullfrog is yelling out again. Does he want to say something? I thought not. He will make cheap shots, but he has no courage: he does not want to take a call, but he will yell out. Technical redundancy is something that concerns members of this party and members on this side of the Chamber. I remember very clearly that it was the Labour Government of 1984-87 that introduced it. The Minister forgot that, but his party introduced it. When I was trying to introduce companies to New Zealand, I faced—

I move, That the question be now put.