Roche Denise: State Sector Amendment Bill Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) Crown Entities Amendment Bill — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: State Sector Amendment Bill Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) Crown Entities Amendment Bill — Third Readings[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11936. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]State Sector Amendment BillPublic Finance Amendment Bill (No 2)DENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to take a call for the Greens on the bills that were formerly part of the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill. When we vote on this legislation today we will be voting on three bills: the State Sector Amendment Bill the Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Entities Amendment Bill. The Greens will be opposing the State Sector Amendment Bill. However we will be voting in support of the Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Crown Entities Amendment Bill.We maintain that the changes being made to the State Sector Act erode the current conditions of State sector workers. In my previous speeches on this bill I have acknowledged that the Labour Party has made substantial changes to the original bill that are improvements on what was on offer before. Even so under the State Sector Amendment Bill workers will not get the same access to redundancy as they had before because the provisions are more restrictive. More worrying is that Public Service workers will also lose their rights around transferring to a new job when the functions of their jobs and duties have shifted to another department.Given that there has been massive restructuring in the Public Service mergers of departments commissions like the Charities Commission suddenly becoming departments and the loss of over 5000 jobs in the State sector over the last 4 years taking away the possibility for staff to have some discussion and an opportunity to transfer when their jobs are transferred as of right is a retrograde step.The public sector workforce is facing ever-increasing workloads as the Government puts the squeeze on staffing levels but this has its costs. Yesterday in the Government Administration Committee we heard from the Chief Ombudsman Dame BeverleyWakem that the Office of the Ombudsman has had an increase in demand for advice and guidance from State sector agencies. When I asked why she explained that there had been a churn of people in the Public Service a huge turnover of staff and consequently a loss of institutional knowledge and a loss of experience. She explained that even though they were not strictly charged with the work it was a better use of resources for the Office of the Ombudsman to offer advice and training about theOfficial Information Act to try to reduce the number of complaints and requests coming through the Office of the Ombudsman. And there has been a sharp increase in complaints—a 30 percent increase over the last year and more Official Information Act requests than ever before.Some of this can be credited to the fact that the Public Service is finding it hard to attract and keep skilled and knowledgable workers especially since the private sector can offer better pay and conditions. In this type of environment one would think that enabling employees to transfer if their jobs shift to another department would make sense. I remind the House that this ability to transfer in this bill applies to chief executives but not to other staff. This is hardly fair—or even consistent—and it is the reason why we will not be supporting this bill.For the Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) we support the intent of the bill. We do believe that in the Public Service there should be ways for departments to work across appropriations and votes so that there is access to good public services. We do support the ability for there to be joined-up thinking and a joined-up Public Service and we support the provisions in this bill that will contribute to that. We do support efforts that promote innovation in the Public Service and the efficient use of public resources. We recognise that this is what has been the driver for this bill.Certainly for those who contract with multiple departments to provide services like some in the not-for-profit sector there have been ongoing concerns for years and years about the duplication and costliness of multiple reporting and monitoring systems when there is more than one Government department involved in their provision of services. Having said that we do acknowledge that the Public Service is not moribund and it can already be innovative in its approach to the provision of services. I think I have previously mentioned the gateway programmes for youth at risk where their educational health social and welfare needs are attended to across departments.There are other examples. Last week I heard a talk by Judge Tony Fitzgerald from Auckland’s New Beginnings Court. I was one of two MPs—the other was Jacinda Ardern from Labour—who slept outside for the night to raise money forLifewise an organisation that works to end homelessness in Auckland. There were over 80 participants sleeping rough for the night. We heard about this effective and innovative system within the justice system that screens out people with low-level and persistent offending—theft and nuisance-type stuff—because if a person is homeless it is likely that they will be conducting petty crimes to get by. So they are screened and they are assessed by the New Beginnings Court and then they work with the judge and a host of other agencies to address their underlying behaviour mental health or addiction issues and their housing problems as well. They report back regularly to the New Beginnings Court until they graduate—with due ceremony I might add. The results are very very heartening. They report a remarkably low level of reoffending within 6 months after graduation.The funding for this initiative comes from a range of Government departments and the provisions in the Public Finance Amendment Bill (No 2) will make it easier for these types of initiatives to access funding. That is desperately needed for the New Beginnings Court because although it has been in operation for 2 years ongoing funding is by no means secure and maybe it is even less secure given the reduction in funding that is happening in the justice sector at the moment. So although we agree with these intentions we will be closely monitoring how the multi-category appropriations in votes remain traceable and we share that concern with the Labour Party as outlined by Mr Cunliffe.We will also be supporting the Crown Entities Amendment Bill. We do have some reservations about the shifting of statements of intent to 3-yearly or more frequently ifrequired by the Minister. We note the changes in definitions of subsidiaries that will cover partially sold-off State-owned assets. However on balance we support this bill. The State services in New Zealand deserve more than mere tinkering. We echo Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s comments that the legislation needs to be examined in closer detail—he suggests through a royal commission. In the meantime the Greens will oppose any bill that leaves public servants worse off. Thank you.