Smith Murray: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Murray: State Sector Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7360] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 There is some irony here with the last speaker Mr Sowry—because I read his speech of 31 July 2001 to the House on the first reading of this bill. It was very interesting. He said that the bill was half sensible and half not. The bit he thought was not sensible was that it was going to be rushed through Parliament. But generally he concentrated his speech on wondering why the Greens were supporting the bill and why the bill was going to be rushed through Parliament rather than on anything he saw at that time as not being sensible. Suddenly he has changed his tune. I really wonder why that is. I was going to compliment Mr Sowry however because it seems to me that he was rather prophetic when he gave his speech. Mr Tisch was also prophetic when he gave his speech. 
Way back then when Mr Sowry gave his speech he said: “It is not as though I can say that the track record of the Government is that it will get this bill reported back on 4 September and passed on 5 September.” when the Government intended to do that. “The track record is that we will report it back on 4 September and around maybe 18 December we will deal with it. After the Government has sewn things up and has denied a whole lot of people the opportunity to speak it will not rush this bill through the House.” 
I must say that Mr Sowry certainly did predict that. But his date of December in which to deal with the bill was a little bit short. Here we have a bill that was introduced on 31 July 2001 and sent off to the Government Administration Committee to report back on 4 September of that year. Suddenly 2 years later it is only just coming back to the House. 
Mr Tisch also criticised the legislation and he was prophetic too. He said: “Everything it does is a rush. It is a rush to get things through. Then at the end of the day after the bill is reported back it will take a long time before it is enacted. That is the record of this Government and certainly this bill is on a par with that.” So I must agree with those speakers about the length of time that the bill has taken. So what is the justification for the length of time? Firstly September 11 happened and maybe that distracted the House. That might have distracted it for a few months but it is hard to believe that that kept it distracted for 2 years. Secondly I think that what really happened was that once the bill was introduced the Government’s intention to legislate was signalled and therefore—when the Department of Work and Income’s name was changed to the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Social Welfare was abolished and its functions transferred to the Ministry of Social Development—the redundancy claims dried up. Therefore there was no immediate urgency for the bill. 
However I find a great deal of contradiction in Mr Sowry’s claiming firstly that United Future is now passing legislation that it was not even here for in 2001 which is true; and then claiming that we have changed our position from where we stood in 2001 when we were not here. I find it rather difficult to see how he can take both sides of that. However suddenly 2 years later we find probably through the motivation of the merger of the Department for Courts and Ministry of Justice that we have the bill now before us. But it is hard to accept that the Government could not have tidied up its mess earlier and certainly it should have done so prior to the general election notwithstanding the predictions that it was going to regain the Treasury benches. 
 There are two issues in this bill that need to be considered and that United Future considered in deciding whether to support it. Firstly the bill is altering legislation by regulation and secondly there is the provision about redundancy payments and the denial of redundancy payments to employees. In terms of the altering of legislation by regulation United Future is of course the “common-sense” party and we took a common-sense view about this situation. It is the executive’s prerogative to organise its affairs as it sees fit including changing names of departments or merging departments and once it has done so those changes need to be reflected in schedules—such as that in the State Sector Act—and that should be done in a timely fashion. It should not take the executive 2 years to make those fairly technical changes. 
It is absurd and quite frankly a waste of Parliament’s time that the executive should have to go through the entire primary legislative process merely to reflect a name change in the schedule of an Act. We take the common-sense approach that—notwithstanding this is a change of legislation by regulation rather than going through the House—that such minor changes as simply changing the name of an organisation should not take up Parliament’s time when the bill is only giving effect to something that the executive is entitled to do as of right. 
In terms of the redundancy issues I am conscious that the issues of “similar job descriptions” and “general locality” do not cover everything that employees may look for when they are looking for a change of job position. They look at the office environment—the people they would work with in specific surroundings. They look at the broader environment—the general policy work the goals of the organisation and the culture of the organisation. 
I shall quote from the Public Service Association’s submission to the Government Administration Committee which I think accurately reflects this: “One aspect of reorganisation that is a significant consideration from an employee’s perspective but is seldom catered for in management-of-change provisions is the change in culture. There have been times when the change in culture has been so great that it is difficult to reconcile the difference with the standard definition of ‘same or similar’ position. On paper the job descriptions may look very similar and the status of the employee within the new organisation may be at the same level as it was in the former organisation. However dramatic change in culture may not be evidenced in the job descriptions but may be evidenced in what has driven the reorganisation and the direction of the new department.” 
Should employees then be required under penalty of not getting any redundancy to change from one culture of organisation to another albeit on paper it is simply a name change? Is it fair to require a person to change his or her job or be made redundant without compensation? A number of considerations have led me and led United Future to the position that it is reasonable that these changes be made. Firstly we know that departments can move offices change staff change department focus change policy without the consent of employees. So those factors are something that could happen in any event and are the normal right of an employer including the Government to do. 
Secondly redundancy payments have become rare these days. They are not things that are commonly found out in the business world; and where there is a reassignment simply in terms of one department to another without a real job change then ethically I do not believe that it is appropriate for redundancy to also be paid as a bit of a windfall to employees which they do not really deserve. 
Thirdly there is a balancing of the interests of the public and the individual. It is in the public interest not to lose the valuable experience and abilities of key employees through what in the light of the comments I have made amounts to a technical redundancy. There is a real danger that if a redundancy option were given good employees who are valuable and essential to the organisation might be lost; and also in terms of the public interest it would not be in the public interest that all that happened in practice was that there were significant redundancy payments and then the same people were re-employed by contract or otherwise to fill the jobs in the new department. So in the public interest I believe that it is appropriate in these instances that there is no redundancy payment. 
I commend the Public Service Association for its attitude to this bill. It is there to protect Government employees but it responsibly accepted this position and endorsed it. It stated in its submission: “The PSA has a history of supporting job retention over redundancy. We do not encourage employees to seek redundancy payments when there is the opportunity to continue employment with substantially the same terms and conditions. The PSA recognises that in reconstituting the new public service there is likely to be amalgamation of existing departments with fewer and larger departments. We understand that the motivation of this change unlike the restructuring of the 80s and 90s is to reduce the fragmentation of the public service rather than reduce jobs or prepare services for sale.” I commend the Public Service Association for its attitude and support and it was that support that at the end of the day persuaded me and persuaded United Future that it was appropriate to support this bill and take the common-sense approach that seemed to be so clearly shown.