Public Service Legislation Bill

Before I call the member the Hon Dr Nick Smith, could I just remind him of the new process that the House has agreed to undertake. We no longer have a limit on speeches of four five-minute speeches. The expectation is that you don’t always speak for five minutes and that the point of your contribution is a direct question to the Minister, who is then expected to answer it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are in an extraordinary situation where we’re under urgency. We’re debating one of the most important pieces of legislation on our statute book governing the Public Service, and we are dealing with 200 pages of amendments that the Opposition only received 48 hours ago. So I do ask in your consideration that you do, in fact, allow us to scrutinise the changes that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is proposing.

That’s not a point of order. I give you the call, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Part 2 of this bill deals with the issue of Public Service reorganisations and there’s a really important debate for this Parliament to have in this area. In some countries, we have jurisdictions where their public service structures are so moribund that they’re not able to adapt and change to new issues. And those countries require bills and Acts of Parliament, many in jurisdictions to go through multiple Houses of Parliament and sometimes also to have the approval of their President or executive to be able to reorganise Government departments. I do fear that we have in New Zealand the opposite extreme that I have seen occur over and over again, where it is so easy for Governments of the day, of whatever political persuasion, to be able to shift around the Public Service all the time. I sometimes believe that there’s sort of an attitude from Ministers and Governments that if they change the name and reorganise Public Service organisations, that somehow that results in better outcomes for New Zealanders.

So the really important question for our Parliament in Part 2 of this bill is when the Government of the day wants to reorganise the Public Service, how do we give them sufficient tools to be able to make our Public Service efficient and responsive to the challenges of the time where, on the other hand, it’s not so loose that you can have almost a constant churn in the name and the different agencies that make up the New Zealand Public Service? And so my first point in respect of Part 2 and a question for the Minister is: does he share the concern of many submitters that this bill just makes it too easy? It makes it possible, without any reference to Parliament at all, to make massive changes in the make-up of the public sector. And what does he view is the right balance between a reasonable level of stability within the Public Service that means that you can build careers, that you can build brains and expertise, that the general public know “I’ve got this issue. That’s the agency I go to.”—all that social capital that makes for a country to work well.

I’m not an extremist in the sense that, of course, Governments need to be able to make changes. They do need to be able to adjust to challenges of the time and the changing ethos. In my political career, I’ve seen far more emphasis, rightly, on protection of the environment, so changes in agencies in that area. I was responsible for creating the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as an arm’s length regulator, so I’m not one that’s opposed to change. In that instance, I put an Act through Parliament to provide the stability that I think an independent agency like the EPA that New Zealand has.

What this bill does—what this part does—is, effectively, say that it can be done by Cabinet, by decree of simply—the executive can pretty much make any changes it likes across the public sector. I am of a view that if you’re actually going to build up the career and the credibility, you need a bit of brake, you need a bit of slow-down. You actually want the reorganisation of Public Service departments not to be the first option when you’ve got a policy problem or issue in our country that needs addressing but actually down the order a bit and actually more of a last resort rather than a first resort to dealing with new challenges.

As I interpret Part 2 of this bill, my view is that you can change any Government departments simply by Order in Council, by decision of the executive. I think that’s too loose. I think that results in a continuing culture in New Zealand of a constant churn of a number of public agencies. I would like to know from the Government and from the Minister as to whether the intent of Part 2 and the way this bill is drafted is for those changes, effectively, to be made by Order in Council. If so, are we not establishing a new Public Service law in which we are going to see over the next 20 years—and we hope this Act has got a similar life to the old State Sector Act 1988 that’s done about 32 years—this constant churn of public departments and not actually building what we want, and that is a stable, effective Public Service that allows New Zealanders to hugely contribute to our country in those Public Service organisations? And I would like the Minister’s views on Supplementary Order Paper 556 that I’ve tabled that actually says this Parliament needs to take a view about the organisation of the State.

Thank you. I think the member raises a series of very legitimate points. I think, reflecting on the operation of the Public Service over the last 30 years, Ministers on both sides of the House have often rushed to reorganisation ahead of looking at effectiveness. And reorganisation, of course, is not always the right solution to get better effectiveness out of our public services, and there is a big disrupting factor. I think back to the biggest reorganisations of the Public Service—the core Public Service, the departments in the Public Service—and we’ve seen in my time in politics the creation of the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the creation of the Ministry for Primary Industries: significant reorganisations of the Public Service. They did not come before this House; they were done by Order in Council by the Government of the day. In that case, both were National Governments—or the same National Government, in fact, both of those reorganisations—because that is what is allowed for now under the State Sector Act. So these provisions carry forward the existing mechanisms that apply to Government department reorganisation as apply within the State Sector Act.

There is a legitimate argument about whether or not we reorganise the Public Service too often, and my view is that we do. I’ve been quite resistant to that in my portfolio areas, and actually resistant to that as other Ministers have put forward proposals to do that as well, because I think sometimes we do structural reform too readily and create disruption, which doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes. So I think it’s a very legitimate point the member makes.

However, I do believe that the flexibility in this Act is important. The executive, the Government, and the Public Service shouldn’t need to come to Parliament every time a function shifts from one department to another, which does happen on a regular basis. I think that that would create all sorts of bureaucratic problems that wouldn’t be necessary. I think the member himself would acknowledge that there is a degree of change that is acceptable as part of the day-to-day operation of the Public Service and getting people in the right place. The main changes that we’re dealing with here are actually how we connect up the silos that exist within the Public Service in a more effective way. The last Government was doing things in this regard. We’ve talked about the Social Investment Board. Some of the work that was happening there, I think, was trying to solve the gnarly problems that have existed ever since the State Sector Act direct was passed, which is that we’ve created very effective silos and they’re very effective when they’re only dealing with issues within their silos. But when they’re trying to deal with issues that cut across silos, the system doesn’t work as well as it should. So the provisions in this bill are designed to create new mechanisms, and it is consistent with the work that was being done by the last Government to create new opportunities to join up those silos, to work on some of those bigger cross-cutting issues.

I would also, in the same conversation, that I want to extend, refer to this Government’s establishment of the housing and urban development ministry, and the subsequent reports that have shown the failure of the Government to deliver KiwiBuild was contributed to the fact that there was this massive reorganisation going on around those agencies that distracted them from the delivery of houses, in which we have seen such an appalling failure, where 100,000 homes were promised and only 400 delivered, reinforcing the fact that simply moving around Government agencies does not result in better public services.

Now, the question that I want to ask the Minister is a very important one, in respect to public services, and is as much in my role as the member of Parliament for Nelson. The most important public services delivered in my community are health and education, and I think across this Parliament, we would recognise that they are two of the most important practical areas for the citizens of New Zealand, for which they are pleased to pay their taxes, and they want to have good services. I have to say to the Minister of State Services that there is a huge level of anxiety in my community about the reorganisation of Public Service departments and agencies with the plan to nationalise the polytechs of New Zealand. My own Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, that’s been an independent agency for 115 years, a controversy raging—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just interrupt the member. This is the second reference he’s made in just two minutes to matters that are fundamentally outside the scope of not only this part but, actually, this bill. So if the member—

Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —please wait till I’ve finished my sentence—would like to resume his speech and address issues in Part 2, he’ll be able to continue.

The item that we are debating is Part 2. It’s about the reorganisation of departments and departmental agencies. Now, quite clearly, two of the largest parts of the public sector are the education and health services. The Minister in the chair, Chris Hipkins, is currently dealing with two major reforms, one of polytechnics and proposals to merge or reduce the number of DHBs in New Zealand from 20 to eight. They are absolutely relevant to the provisions in Part 2—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Dr Smith. That’s a direct challenge—could you please resume your seat. That’s a direct challenge to the contribution that I just made. You have directly defied the request that I made that you now refer your comments to Part 2. Neither the DHB proposals nor the tertiary education proposals are covered in Part 2. If the member goes back to them, his speech will be terminated. The Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Part 2 of this bill deals with the establishment and the reorganisations of departments and departmental agencies. Now, there is inevitably with these provisions—it allows Ministers to have very extensive powers around reorganising Government agencies. Now, the question I have for the Minister is: would it be his intention to use these powers to implement aspects of the Simpson review into our district health boards, the creation—

Third time unlucky—the member will resume his seat.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to raise a point on Part 2 for the Minister in relation to local government and Public Service agencies. And I understand your previous ruling, but if you just let me explain briefly.

I am critical of the process that’s been followed here in the report-back provisions, but there is absolutely an ability for New Zealand’s public sector to work across local and central government, and the ability for reorganisations of central government to include members of the local government fraternity in and out of those sectors. Largely, in my view, this bill is completely silent on that, and that would’ve been something I would’ve liked to have seen if we’d managed to get it referred back to select committee or, in fact, if we’d had more time.

Because it is my view, when I look at a large number of Government agencies and reorganisations and I think of entities like the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Transport, and many others who have key links to local government, that there has been an opportunity lost here. Also, the thing I’d raise, and I’d ask the Minister to speak to this, relates to the State Services Commission’s inability to have any input or say in local government as it currently stands. In my view, that’s a missed opportunity.

So I specifically come to reorganisations, and, bearing in mind how we’re operating, I’d like the Minister to respond to how local government could or should be included in any way, shape, or form in this, if possible, please.

Yeah, very happy to comment on that because I think it’s actually a very legitimate issue. It isn’t specifically covered here, but I think it’s worthy of comment because it does relate to reorganisations, and the member is right: I think one of the frustrations that local government expressed to central government is that the way we organise ourselves in silos at central government doesn’t always work for local government and for good, constructive relationships between central and local government. So I think some of the tools that are introduced here in this part that help to join up Government in a way that can then better partner with local government, I think, do provide part of the solution to that.

I think local government gets frustrated when they feel, and I’m sure the member will have some personal reflections on this, they’re shunted from one central government agency to another, when, actually, what they want to do is they want to sit down with Government—you know, with central government, and with the Public Service, not necessarily with a particular aspect of it. And if you look at something like COVID-19 and the economic challenges that are posed by COVID-19, central and local government are going to have to work together very closely, I think, on aspects of our recovery phase out of that. So, for local government, they’re going to want to make sure that they’ve got a good partner there who can join up in a way that, you know, creates good scope for that work to take place. I think that these provisions, particularly around things like joint ventures, provide the opportunity for central government to be a better partner with local government.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In his Supplementary Order Paper, on page 25, clause 3, he says that the commissioner may appoint one or more independent advisers who are not chief executives of departments to the board. So my question is to the Minister: on whose advice is the commissioner going to appoint these independent advisers, and why is there no limit to how many advisers he can appoint? Is he free to appoint as many as he wants, or is there a limit as to how many of these advisers can be appointed by the commissioner?

I would expect the commissioner to use his or her judgment in making those kinds of appointments. As is inherent within the existing legislation, of course the commissioner does have powers of appointment where they do have to exercise judgment.

Part 2 covers Public Service agencies and joint operational arrangements. I understand that we did have what you’d call departmental agencies since 2013. The bill itself would improve—make more flexibility. At the same time, the bill introduces new organisational forms, including interdepartmental executive boards and interdepartmental ventures. The question is: because these will be relatively new, will the Minister or the Government take steps to make sure that these things will be reviewed after a certain time? I understand that the officials have replied saying that there will be some kind of update from time to time, but it would be more reassuring to include a particular clause to say that these new agencies—because these are new, never tested properly—including interdepartmental executive boards and interdepartmental ventures, will be reviewed after two or three years to see whether they are operating properly. So will that happen or will we simply say OK, we won’t have any time frame and we will simply check as we like?

I want to refer to clause 21 in Part 2. It specifically is in respect to the reorganisation of Government departments in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill specifically lists the Government agencies that are going to be able to be restricted in Part 2 of this bill, and specifically lists the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. Now, myself, as the member of Parliament, the most important public service for my area is the delivery of health services and the delivery of education services. We have—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, you will resume your seat. I have ruled on that matter. Please resume your seat. I have ruled on that matter. You are now, for the fourth time, directly challenging me, and that is not acceptable.

I’m quoting the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I realise you’re quoting the bill, and I know why. This is not about the tertiary education review and reforms, or about the proposals in the Simpson report on district health boards. That is not referred to in Schedule 2 relating to Part 2. So if the member please resumes his contribution referring to relevant matters in Part 2.

The core issue for the Parliament in Part 2 of this bill is what is the process that Parliament expects of reorganisations of the public sector. Sometimes, you require legislation, so, for instance, in a previous sense, when the Government chose to restructure district health boards or Crown health enterprises, that required legislation. The key issue for the Parliament in Part 2 and clause 21 is what powers we give to the Cabinet for reorganising public sector agencies—so, for instance, if you wanted to take the Ministry of Health, that is listed in the schedule, and you wanted to divide it into Healthcare New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. The real question for the Parliament is should that require legislation or should we pass generic legislation that lets the Government make those changes without any reference to the Parliament?

That is a very real issue. So my question for the Minister in the chair is that if under clause 21, where you have specific reference in Schedule 2 to the Ministry of Health, and the Government wanted to proceed with a very significant restructure of the health sector, and, for instance, provide for new organisations like Healthcare New Zealand or the like, is it the Government’s view that the empowerment provisions in clauses 21 and 22 would enable that to occur without any reference to Parliament?

I say again: some of the most important public services that are provided for New Zealanders are in the education and health sector. The way in which they’re delivered is absolutely core to this Parliament, and if we are to pass legislation that allows significant restructuring of Government agencies, whether they be the Ministry of Education, whether they be the Ministry of Health, or any other agency in Schedule 2, there is a real issue for this Parliament as to when does the elected representatives of the communities get to have a say in that.

So my question to the Minister in the chair, in his role of the State services Minister, is: is it the intention to use the provisions of clause 21 and 22 to be able to progress the very substantive reviews and reports that have been received by the Government in those core areas, will there be reference back to Parliament if those reforms are progressed with, or is it the Minister’s expectation that with the powers that are provided in Part 2 of this bill, effectively, the Government would say, “Well, you’ve authorised the Executive Council, the Cabinet, to make these decisions, and as a consequence we would be able to make those very radical changes to those core public sector agencies, without reference back to Parliament.”? That is actually a really important issue for New Zealand, it is a really issue for the Parliament, and that is why I seek an answer.

I seek also an answer as to why there is no provision in this Part for any public consultation requirement.

The member’s time has expired.

Very happy to say to the member that, of course, the current Government has not made any detailed decisions on the health and disability review, but it is the Government’s intention, if re-elected, at the time that we do that, that we would bring forth separate legislation to the House to implement the Government’s decisions in that regard.

I wish to ask the Minister in a subsequent contribution about the establishment of joint operational agreements. Minister, I raise—under clause 37(1), it says, “Two or more chief executives or boards of public service agencies may enter into a joint operational agreement for their agencies to work together to achieve stated goals.” and “(2) Before executing an agreement under this section, the chief executives or boards must obtain the agreement of the Commissioner.”

Minister, I ask this question in relation to the relative power between the commissioner and the executive—in other words, Ministers. I liken it to things like when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was formed, when the Ministry for Primary Industries was put together, and the subsequent dismantling of it by the current Minister. I look at where is the ministerial oversight in that mix? I would have thought that Ministers have a duty and an obligation to understand—and you as the Minister of State Services would understand this—what’s happening. But I look at this clause, and it seems to me that the commissioner actually has all the say. Things can be done—one would hope they couldn’t be done without ministerial oversight, but it seems like these clauses allow an awful lot of power to be given to chief executives and their boards to make arrangements, and no overriding provision of either of those Ministers or the Minister of State Services.

So, Minister, I’d like to understand your interpretation as to how that’s actually going to work in reality on the ground. And it’s available for any Minister of the executive, with Cabinet approval, I would have thought, to make changes, but this appears to give a whole lot of power to the State Services Commissioner and public sector chief executives and boards to reorganise things.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d encourage the member to read on just a little bit further and he’ll find under clause 37(3) “The agreement must not purport to—(a) alter the responsibilities that exist between the chief executives or boards and the appropriate Ministers;”. So the answer to the member’s question is it does not alter that arrangement.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 3 of this Public Service Legislation Bill deals with the issues of those that are employed in the Public Service. The issue on which we received the most submissions from members of the public was this core issue of the structure of the senior levels of what is currently the State Services Commission, with a significant number of proposals for, rather than a single person having the powers invested in them as the protector and independent leader of the Public Service, that to be held by a number of people, and, obviously, the bill provides significant provisions around the role of the Deputy Public Service Commissioners. Effectively, this bill does not change things significantly from the existing State Services Commissioner and the deputies.

The question I firstly have for the Minister of State Services is that the bill does not make any provision for connecting the very significant public service that exists within local government, and a question and a discussion that we had was whether, actually, the need for us to have a better connected Public Service in New Zealand would make good sense in having a Deputy Public Service Commissioner with responsibility for local government. There are a number of real public benefits for that. Certainly, my experience, in 14 different ministerial portfolios, is a real quality of public servant, where they’ve been able to have part of their working life in a district council, maybe a regional council, working with environmental issues, and then another part of their career within the Ministry for the Environment, that writes many of the laws and regulations that local government has.

Equally so, I do think this country has some performance issues in local government. If you had an agency the likes of the Public Service and a deputy commissioner in local government, that would be able to review and to provide for mayors and councils some degree of independence around the capacity of those organisations to deliver. At the moment, we do have an organisation of local government managers, and, yes, it does fill a little bit of that gap, but the truth is that it’s run by the local government managers themselves, and I’m not sure they want a really robust oversight of it.

So I think this bill is a missed opportunity in which to better connect our Public Service and to include a Deputy Public Service Commissioner for local government and to include in the provisions of the bill that allow public servants to be able to continue their careers by moving from different Government agencies to include local government agencies, because I think we can generate a really good quality of public servants and service by allowing that. This bill makes some useful changes to allow people to have parts of their career in different central government agencies, but it excludes that local government sector.

So I would like to know from the Government why, in doing this reform, the option of broadening the mandate of the Public Service Commission to include local government, the option of having a deputy commissioner with specific responsibilities for local government, and the options for public servants to be able to move between central, regional, and local Government and protect their employment elements were not considered in the bill’s development. Finally, in the same way in which the Public Service Commissioner plays a really, in my view, constructive role of reviewing the performance of agencies, they could actually provide a very powerful central government tool to improve the capacity and the delivery of that big part of New Zealand that’s involved in the local government sector.

It’s my view, just to conclude, that so many of the Acts that we pass have a component for local government to deliver, and we often see that the intent of Parliament is not achieved because the local government sector hasn’t had the capacity to be able to deliver those. So, yes, it’s a detailed question with respect to Part 3, but it’s a broader policy question about the interconnectedness of our Public Service and where, in our view, it would be constructive to have better links with local government, and we wonder—[Time expired]

The member will resume his seat. The Hon Chris Hipkins.

I thank the member for his contribution, and it’s an argument that I have considerable sympathy for. Of course, I’m not the Minister of Local Government; it’s one of the portfolios I’ve yet to hold. But it is something that I do agree with him. I think the connection between central and local government, certainly from a workforce perspective, is something that we could do a lot more work in that area.

Part 3, of course, doesn’t grapple with those issues. I think there would be a significant policy process required. There are some significant constitutional issues that that would throw up, including the fact that, at local government level, of course, their accountabilities are to the relevant elected representatives at local government. But could we do a better job of joining up the Public Service workforce and the local government workforce? Yes, I do believe we could. I think that’s a big piece of work. If that’s something that the member is keen to pursue in the next term of Parliament, whatever the election results are, he will certainly have an interested party in me to take part in those discussions, because I think they would be well worth having.

To further that debate, though, this is the biggest reform of our Public Service legislation in 30 years, since the 1988 State Sector Act. Why would we not get on and make that change now, if the very purpose of this legislation is to set the framework for our Public Service for the next 20 or 30 years? National members see it as a missed opportunity. That is why we think we would be better to do this legislation properly and make sure we cover that off. I find the response from the Minister of State Services, who says, “Oh, but local government has its own election process and the accountability is to those local members.”—I remind the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, that they are creatures of statute, and we as a Parliament, equally with the powers we give to the local government commissioner and other agencies, are perfectly possible to be able to provide by legislation the extension of that public sector role.

Now, the Minister, in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), has proposed 13 changes to this Part, and these are part of the 200-page SOP that we are passing under urgency. I think the Minister should answer questions about the nature of those changes that he is making, and, particularly, I’m interested in the changes in Part 3 around the issue of collective employment contracts. Some of those are an interrelation between this Public Service legislation and our Employment Relations Act. It is National’s view that we should not use our public sector legislation to try and screw the scrum, as one might say, either towards individual contracts or collective contracts. We think it’s a very important principle that employees should be able to organise themselves. We don’t believe in compulsory unionism. We want the people to be able to organise the way in which they contract to be neutral.

I do ask the Minister, in Part 3 of this bill and the changes that are being proposed in his SOP, a very direct question, and that is: is there any intent or are there any specifics in respect of promotion under 42(c)? He has proposed amendments around good employer obligations. We’ve seen amendments that he has made in respect of the roles and responsibilities that chief executives have as employers. A key question within that context is: is it the intention of these changes to maintain a core part of the State sector reforms of 1988, where pre-1988, the Crown was, effectively, the employer of our thousands of public servants? The 1988 State Sector Act shifted that and made it the chief executive of each particular agency.

We see changes here in the functions in clause 51 of this Part 3 around the functions of chief executives. I would like the Minister to go through those 24 changes in this Part and explain why this is, effectively, the employment part of the bill that affects over tens of thousands of public servants. What is the reason for the changes from his original bill around those issues of the good employer requirements, those changes around the responsibilities of the chief executives, and is he able to assure the committee that the Government, in these changes and in the bill, is not attempting to screw the scrum either in favour of individual or, my greater worry with the union involvement in the Government, screw the scrum towards collective agreements? And can we take reassurance that this legislation is neutral on that and will allow the Public Service to reorganise themselves in terms of wage bargaining on the basis that best works for them, without any inherent bias?

Before I call the Minister to respond to the member, could I just say that I understand that when you’ve been following one process for a long time, as the member has, it’s quite difficult to change to a new process. But the House has agreed that the committee stage of debates are no longer where members aim for the target of five minutes, but they have a conversation with the Minister. In every contribution the member has made, he has aimed for his target of five minutes and put a question in the middle of it. That is not the process any longer that the House has agreed to.

I can respond to the member’s contribution. I’m not entirely sure exactly what his question was, but with regard to negotiation of collective agreements and the good employer provisions in the bill, the Government’s intention is to align these provisions with the Employment Relations Act, which is what we believe the bill does. It’s not our intention to change the employment relationship as defined in the Employment Relations Act. Of course, it does carry forward the provisions of the conventions, the current processes under the State Sector Act, where the departmental chief executives are the employer. That continues.

I’ll ask a very direct question, then. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, in introducing the bill, made exactly the same statements; what the Minister has not answered is that he is making 24 amendments to Part 3. So my simple question to the Minister is: what are those 24 changes? In clause 42, in clause 45, and clause 48, there is a whole series of changes. Something has obviously changed from what was in Part 3, in which all the same assurances—it’s just a transfer of the old Act; that it’s just reinforcing the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. What are the changes that have been made from the bill in his Supplementary Order Paper 549, and why?

They are the changes agreed by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister, a direct one. In clause 73 it says “Chief executives and boards to promote diversity and inclusiveness.” In his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) he has proposed to delete some part of it. In the last sentence of subclause (1)(a) it says it should “reflect the makeup of society;”. So I did ask the State Services Commissioner whether he was satisfied with the diversity presently in the public sector and his answer was no. So my question to the Minister is: how is he going to ensure that there is a true reflection of the society which makes up New Zealand today and how is he going to address this issue when there is a clear clause 73—what he’s proposing in his SOP?

If the member refers to clause 73(1), I think the important words to refer to are the very first ones: “A chief executive of a department and a board of an interdepartmental venture must—(a) … [be guided by] the principle that … the group comprising all public service employees … [should] reflect the makeup of society;”. So it puts the onus to ensure that happens back on to the chief executives.

I move, That the question be now put.

Firstly, I want to respond to the point that was made by the Minister when he claimed “Oh, I don’t have to answer those questions because they were agreed to at the select committee.” Having been a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, can I make absolutely plain to the Minister that the committee did not agree. The committee did not have time to agree. So for him to avoid my very real questions about the changes to Part 3 of the bill, saying “Oh that’s just what the select committee”—the select committee did not agree on any of the changes. It was not able to conclude its deliberation. We did not get the Parliamentary Counsel Office. This is the first that we have seen of the specific changes.

I want to refer quite specifically to clauses 73 and 74 of Part 3 of the bill. Clauses 73 and 74 provide for the commissioner’s obligations in respect of promoting diversity and inclusiveness. My question for the Minister is: what’s changed from when he introduced the bill? Why is he proposing to delete clause 74? Clause 74 sets out the commissioner’s functions in relation to diversity and inclusiveness and says that the commissioner’s functions include developing and maintaining guidance and standards for diversity and inclusiveness in respect of the employment of persons in the public sector, and reporting three-yearly on the diversity and inclusion. So my simple question to the Minister—in fact, if I refer back on when this bill was introduced, a number of Labour members specifically made reference to how good it was that clause 74 was in the bill. So my question to the Minister or any member of the Government is as to why clause 74 is being deleted.

I thank the member for his comments. If he refers to the next part—but this is a drafting change. It’s not a question of removing the obligations; it’s a question of how they’re reflected in the legislation. So clause 74 has been removed, but in the next part, he will see that diversity and inclusion has been added into clause 97(2)(da), which is included there, and there are further obligations around the reporting of that contained elsewhere. So it’s simply a question not of whether those things should be required but where they are reflected within the bill.

The Minister has said that in respect of the provision that he’s deleting in clause 74—and I remind the House that this is a 200-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 549, that we’ve had for 24 hours. It has not been possible in 24 hours for me to go through and cross-check each of the amendments. My first question to the Minister: what is the substance of the change in deleting clause 74 around the commissioner’s obligations for diversity and inclusiveness? It’s not enough to simply say that, well, the provision has moved from there to there. I think Parliament deserves an answer. What is the effect of the changes in deleting clause 74, as he proposes to do in the SOP? I have a similar set of questions with respect towards—

Well, can we just get that answered now? Do you want to just answer that?

The answer is that in terms of the substance, none. The different clauses that are referred to—and Schedule 3 has the other part of that around the reporting requirements—still require exactly the same thing. They’re just expressed in a different part of the bill.

But the Minister is still not providing an explanation. If the effect of the change is absolutely nothing, why do it? Why wasn’t his original bill, the requirements around providing the three-yearly reports, putting a specific function on diversity and inclusiveness—if the intention is to make no change at all, well, why is—there must be some reason why the bill as introduced and the bill on which members of the public submitted is being changed by the SOP. It is not a good enough explanation to simply say, “Oh, well, look, I’m changing it, and there is no reason to change it.” Well, I’m sorry. That doesn’t stack up. There must be a reason for making the change around that issue of diversity and inclusiveness.

Improving legislative quality is, of course, a legitimate part of the parliamentary process.

I know that this Parliament has had huge debate over the issue of pay equity. Pay equity is a really important issue. It’s something that the select committee spent a significant period of time on. In the SOP that we have had less than 24 hours to study, I see that clause 80 has been deleted and has been replaced by a new set of nine new clauses. It’s been difficult, in the very brief one day that we’ve had access to this huge SOP, to be able to establish what the impact—why we’ve deleted the original clause 80, why we have introduced a new clause 80, and what is the material effect of the changes. So my question to the Minister: why change clause 80 around pay equity claims? What’s the practical effect of the extensive changes made to provisions in Part 3 around those pay equity claims?

The new clause 80 reflects the feedback received in the submissions to the select committee. Those changes were, of course, outlined in the departmental report, which the select committee agreed. The select committee did not then get the revision-tracked version, which reflected the decisions that the committee had made, because the committee was unable to do that in the time that was available to it. But the member is wrong to say that he is unfamiliar with these changes. These were the changes that were outlined in the departmental report by the officials who were working at that point not as advisers to Government but as advisers to the select committee.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Madam Chair?

I’m just going to keep the train of thought, so save your thighs.

The Parliament’s not seeking an answer around process, Minister. The Parliament is seeking an answer as to what is the effect of the changes, and it’s not good enough to say, “Oh, it’s in the departmental report.” This is the first occasion that Opposition members have had to see the detail of legislation, and in an area like pay equity, it’s important. So I ask the Minister again: what is the actual practical effect for pay equity claims of the deleted clause 80 as compared with the new clause he’s wanting the Parliament to adopt?

I think, as I indicated to the member before, the substantive change really is just to clarify things. It doesn’t make substantive change. It does clarify the responsibilities of the commissioner in the process, which, of course, is something which there hasn’t been good clarity around before. It was one of the things that came up in the submissions process. So these changes reflect that. The main thrust of the change, really, is to clarify the role of the commissioner.

It is hardly good enough to tell the Parliament that, well, what we’re doing in clause 80 around pay equity claims is clarifying the role of the commissioner. We were told when the bill was introduced that it clarified the role of the commissioner. We were told now that, well, the new clause clarifies the role of the commissioner. My question for the Minister is how it clarifies the role of the commissioner. What is different? If you’ve deleted a whole clause and introduced another new page of law, we deserve an answer as to what has been changed, and how does this better clarify it, if he wants to put it that way. What is the difference in the role of the commissioner under the old bill and the new law as to what he’s seeking to clarify?

The wording is clearer.

That is about as clear as mud, if I might say, and it does show what a sham of a process we have over such important law.

I now turn to the redundancy provisions. This is hugely significant for our thousands of public servants, and, again, where the Minister is expecting the Parliament under urgency to ram through legislation that impacts on tens of thousands of public servants, legislation and wording that we’ve only seen for a bit over 24 hours, and the way in which those redundancy payments take effect. We heard a huge number of submissions from members of the public, including the Public Service Association, on when there is eligibility for a redundancy payment and when it is ineligible. Now, the National Party’s on the provision that says if a person moves from one public agency to another and they have a continuity of their employment conditions, then we don’t think it is wise use of taxpayers’ money for them to receive a big redundancy cheque.

So there is a need for reform from the old State Sector Act 1988. We understand and actually share the frustration of taxpayers that someone that gets made redundant from one department and picks up a job at a restructured department the next day walks away with an unusual bonus. But my question, and equally the opposite way round, is nor do we want to in this legislation put it so much in the powers in the hands of the State that you can do a workaround to, effectively, disentitle a member of the Public Service from their redundancy payments. Now, what we see again in clause 87 and in respect of 89 around interdepartmental arrangements is changes to the law around these redundancy entitlements. My question to the Minister: what is the practical effect of the changes he is making to the redundancy entitlements of public servants in respect of Government changes in agencies and in respect of the issue of interdepartmental agencies?

The changes that the bill makes are, of course, the very issue that the member has referred to, which is where there is a restructuring or a rearrangement and someone gets basically offered their job back but at a different department or agency, but they’re still doing substantively the same job, then they shouldn’t get redundancy. So in clause 87(1), paragraphs (a) and (b) set out how we define whether it’s the same job—you know, whether it’s a comparable or equivalent job—to ensure that we’re not providing redundancy where those conditions are met.

My specific question, though, is—know all of that; had extensive discussion in the Governance and Administration Committee about all of that. What we didn’t know was that this subclause (2) is being deleted and replaced, and my simple question to the Minister is this change that he’s made at the last minute, in the last 24 hours, to these redundancy provisions—what is its practical effect?

Its practical effect, as with many things, the member will be aware, is greater clarity and clearer wording.

Well, again, we get to this position where the Minister says it provides greater clarity. How? What is the level, because at the moment it is as clear as mud. To simply stand up and to say, “Oh, we’re deleting that clause and putting this new clause because provides it greater clarity.”—you’re talking about tens of thousands of public servants, their rights to redundancy payments and making sure that’s fair, making sure public money’s not being wasted. What is the practical effect of his Supplementary Order Paper in deleting and replacing section 90 of the old State Sector Act?

Semantics.

I move, That the question be now put.