Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This legislation represents a lost opportunity to substantially upgrade one of the most important statutes that we have within our Parliament. This legislation has been the victim of both poor policy and poor process and National is disappointed that we are not able to support them. Now we absolutely agree that the Public Service that supports the Government of the day is a defining factor that makes New Zealand such a great country—hugely proud that we have a Public Service that is to a large degree free of corruption. In fact when National left Government in 2017 we were ranked the least corrupt country of 196 countries in the world and that reflects well on our Public Service. I am one of those that hugely values the fact that we're not like the United States where all the senior levels of the Public Service disappear. We have a genuinely politically neutral Public Service and that needs to be jealously guarded. Equally so it's important that our Public Service is as open and transparent as is possible and practical and that is an area that needs further reform and where this legislation represents some lost opportunity.National's biggest concern with this legislation is the lack of focus on getting good value for money for the taxes that New Zealand's 5 million citizens pay. Yes it's important the Public Service is politically neutral that it's transparent and those things but actually one of the most important things is that it spends public money wisely and carefully. I cannot believe that the parties in Government—Labour New Zealand First and the Greens—voted against National's amendments that would've put a value in the public sector that they have a duty to spend public money wisely and effectively.The reason I think historically that's so important is that when the State Sector Act 30 years ago—when we last wrote this legislation the public sector had an appalling reputation as being bloated and wasteful. All those trends are coming back again that the needs of the centre outweigh the actual delivery of public services for New Zealanders. I give a simple example: the Ministry of Education one of the agencies the Minister of State Services is responsible for had 2632 staff when our Government left office. It now has 3487. That's an increase of 33 percent in the number of officials within the Ministry of Education a one-third increase in the same time as there's been a 1.2 percent increase in the number of teachers. I think the average tax-paying New Zealander wants their money going into those front-line services rather than into a bloated bureaucracy and that is the risk of this legislation that simply we expand an ever-growing Public Service that is not focused on the activities—the health services the education services the justice services and the other things—that are so important.The second disappointment I have with this legislation is with respect to the linkages with local government. What this legislation does is miss the opportunity to get a far greater level of connectedness between that huge part of the Public Service that is in local government. So many of the Acts the laws the grants the public money that we in this Parliament provide is actually delivered either in regulatory services or in terms of finances by the local government sector. There was a real opportunity to create a deputy commissioner of public services for local government. There was a real opportunity to enable staff to be able to move between local and central government and to build their skills. There was a real opportunity to provide our elected representatives our mayors and our councillors with a robust audit of the capabilities of their organisation in the same way that our State Services Commission does for public agencies. The Government missed that opportunity for an incredibly important improvement in the public services.Then the third issue on which I must express concern is the way in which the changing of Government agencies and departments has become an excuse and made easier rather than actually improving services. This is a Government that is radically changing our polytechnic sector. All of our polytechs are being merged into one amorphous big institution. We've got a report from the Government that they're going to make radical changes to the other really important public service of health services with a report that recommends whole new organisation of health and of our district health boards. What this legislation does is reduce Parliament's role in the reorganisation of Government departments.Here's the balance that we need to find in this legislation: in the United States it is my view that their public service legislation is so restrictive that the institutions of State cannot adapt to the changing issues of the time that they've got old cumbersome departments that are out of step with the issues that face that particular country. I fear we're in the opposite and that is that every time there's a new issue we reorganise the Public Service—continuously changing. A classic example in the term of this Government is this Government created the new housing and urban development ministry and it supposedly was going to deliver the 100000 KiwiBuild houses. I have never in my political career seen as big a public policy failure as KiwiBuild. That promised New Zealand 100000 homes and is yet to deliver 400 of those homes. It was an example of where the Government believed that they were going to be able to address a real issue through reorganising Government departments rather than actually being focused on the delivery.I want to point out the very poor process with this important legislation. The Minister introduced a 200-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) with 500 clauses in it on Tuesday night—law that will be in place tomorrow. Who in this Parliament seriously believes—I'll put a bet on it: there is not a single MP in this Parliament that has read that law. I found an error in the law that subsequently was corrected just by chance during the committee stages that we had to repair. This is Mickey Mouse legislation. Not a single Government member chose to take a call. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee. I have never seen and been so embarrassed that MPs were so lacking in engagement on one of the most important Acts that this Parliament in this term will pass. Nobody could give a hoot from the Government benches about the detail of that legislation. There was zero engagement at the select committee. Parliament has just rubber-stamped a massive SOP without any of the proper investigation and proper consideration of a bill that is so important to New Zealand.This legislation is a lost opportunity for New Zealand to make a step change in the improvement of our Public Service and the fact that the Government voted down amendments at a time when we are facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and refused to put a requirement on the public sector to spend public money wisely and effectively speaks volumes about this Government. They somehow believe that just throwing money at problems solves them without the requirement that actually it's the effectiveness in the way in which that money is spent that we should be focused on. National does believe there is a need to upgrade the old State Sector Act of 1988 but we would want that focus on efficiency that important issue of development of a stable and professional Public Service and look forward to the opportunity to amend this legislation and provide the sort of framework for New Zealand's Public Service that will not just work for public servants but one that will work for the New Zealand public.