SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair because that's exactly what I want to speak to. I'd first note though that Rachel Boyack refers—quite rightly in my view—to the heroes of our Public Service. I'd tend to agree with that. But if they're heroes why does she not trust them to do their jobs well because essentially what this bill is saying is that she does not trust them to do plain language in plain language. She quite plainly does not trust them. But she also said that despite the fact that we still don't know except to the extent that—I now know Mr Brown where the 88 number came from. It was actually in the initial briefing to the select committee that it's 88 and probably about that many thousand public sector employees would be responsible for complying with the Plain Language Act. It's probably closer to the population of Dunedin—over 100000—that are actually going to be infected by this or covered by this in which case the heroic part about this is not so much the work that they do but the assumption from the bill's sponsor that there won't be any extra resource deployed to give effect to it. So my challenge to the member is that if she is that confident that there won't be a need to deploy resources—taxpayers' funds—to comply with the Plain Language Act she must support my Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 242 and 243 because I have a disdain for this bill. I think this is a waste of Parliament's time and it's going to be a waste of public sector organisations' time and frankly it's an insult to them. But if she believes as she has said that the research shows that this saves money—it doesn't cost money—then the very least she can do is support SOP 243 in my name which amends clause 8 to include subclauses requiring reporting agencies to meet the cost of employing a plain language officer from within the agency's existing funding and it must not receive any additional funding for the purposes of employing a plain language officer and that subclause applies despite any provision or appropriation contained in any appropriation Act or imprest supply Act. That's the bit of the side door closing so even if there is a little bit more money it cannot be used for plain language officers. If she believes her own rhetoric—Hon Gerry Brownlee: How have they checked that out? Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —if she believes the research—goodness only knows Mr Brownlee but we've got to try on behalf of the taxpayers—then she must support SOP 243. She's just told this committee that there won't be any extra cost but that in fact we might save money. Fine—put the amendment where her mouth is and support my SOP. SOP 242 is pretty much along those lines as well because it ensures that any appointed plain language officer comes from within each department to ensure that the bill doesn't increase the size of the Public Service because goodness only knows—yes they're heroes. There are a lot more of them than there were five years ago—14000 to 15000 I think Mr Brown? Simeon Brown: That's right. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is a lot of public servants and that's a lot of extra people that could be designated our plain language police. Give them the high-vis vests and the clipboards and set off what is effectively a make-work scheme for people who hopefully are already there but not for people to be employed for this ridiculous purpose. I can't support this bill but the least we can do is to control the profligate spending on stupid projects.