Smith Nick; Hipkins ChrisHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well can we just get that answered now? Do you want to just answer that?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Improving legislative quality is of course a legitimate part of the parliamentary process. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): 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?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm just going to keep the train of thought so save your thighs.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The wording is clearer.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): 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.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Its practical effect as with many things the member will be aware is greater clarity and clearer wording.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): 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?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Semantics."