Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Speaker and I rise to oppose the second reading of the Public Service Legislation Bill. I'd first like to congratulate the Greens and New Zealand First members who both took very substantial calls on this bill and listening to part of this bill and watching the amount of legislation today from my office it appears that Labour members are restricting themselves to just seven-word calls which really doesn't show the public—or indeed in this case the public sector—much respect for the legislation that is before the house. This bill has much in it that is to be welcomed and commended but it is in fact a wasted opportunity very much a missed opportunity for a couple of areas that I'll touch upon. One is the way the process was conducted particularly in the times it was conducted and indeed what isn't in the bill but should be if it really intends to deliver on what the Minister claims is on the tin when he introduced the second reading. So much of the select committee process was undertaken during our COVID-19 lockdown and there was a time as we went into the lockdown when we were told by the Leader of the House that only COVID-related legislation would be progressed while we were in lockdown and there was an exchange between the Leader of the House the Minister responsible for this bill and myself in the early part of this debate tonight and I happened to point out that we'd been told that lockdown was for COVID-related bills only and his response was Some of us were working." Well one could claim that's a bit offensive but you know some of us are robust and stout characters—and there's not an ounce of irony in that statement from me; there is a bit of coincidence but no irony—we can take that sort of gibe from across the House but the truth is the work we were doing included things like helping someone who had discovered that cancer had returned to get a cancelled biopsy test rescheduled helping someone to get approval to potentially move a child with mental health issues from the opposite end of the island to their home where they could be best cared for in very difficult circumstances helping someone in education understanding that yes they can travel back to their home of residence under lockdown to best be able to perform their professional duties. That was the work for MPs. No matter what party they belonged to whether they were electorate or list that was the work of MPs over the lockdown. It was the work that our constituents the people of New Zealand needed us to perform and so to take members away from those very personal and very important duties for committee processes for legislation that was not directly COVID-related was not only against what we as members were told as we headed into lockdown but was indeed taking time from members that could have been spent on that most important and real work that they were doing under the lockdown. Instead we end up with what can only amount to a more rushed process than it needed to be. Members on this side sought very fair and reasonable extensions to the select committee report back date to allow more scrutiny and more consideration—they were rejected by Government members. That in itself is a shame but it's quite frankly wrong given that the circumstances of the scrutiny were so impacted by the COVID-19 lockdown and there isn't even an excuse that somehow the changes in this bill not only warranted but needed to be progressed so quickly. Some areas that we do agree with for instance are the areas focused around collaboration between Government entities the ability to work together principally to deliver a better outcome for our citizens. Now we think that it's important and is very worthy—in fact it's stuff that we had started doing in Government in terms of legislation. More importantly though it was things that we had already put in practice in the last National-led Government. Ministerial-led clusters were delivering that very on-the-ground operations across separate entities with a singular focus that was led from the top and was all about delivering the right and better services for citizens no matter what particular area of Government we were looking at. One that was very interesting to me now in my police spokesperson role—although I didn't hold a role in that area when we were in Government; I was only a backbencher—was the justice sector and the Greens member in her contribution spoke a lot about how this bill will help across family harm and all of the contingent areas and interest in that area. Well I would absolutely agree that these measures will help but in terms of the need to hasten or refuse greater scrutiny I would point out I just really hope that member—I'm sure she has but I'd really hope that member—has visited the integrated service response team perhaps in Christchurch. There are a couple of them around the country where on the ground you have representatives from core Government agencies dealing with family harm response quite literally the day after the harm has been reported and working very practically pragmatically sensibly to seek to ensure the right response but also the measures that can be taken to minimise the risk of repetition or repeat offending. And they are extraordinarily successful. Their funding was in doubt for some time and that is a crying shame—very pleased that it was extended for a period of time. It really needs to be something that we bed in in the family harm area. It should be the standard way of operating. It is a phenomenal success but it is an example on the ground under current law under current modes of operation where people from various Government agencies can come together—they come together in the same room they have all the information they talk freely and frankly they make decisions together and on the spot and they take collective responsibility and support the specific people who are tasked with leading the management of that response. It can work today. The current situation is not a need to have rushed this legislation but yet they did. On top of that what is missing from this is really where the focus of these improved public services should be which is on outcomes. It just assumes that by doing these things we get better outcomes yet this is a Government that eschews targets and measurements. It claims that they create perverse incentives. Actually that's what should be in here. They scrapped our Better Public Service targets. Those are the things that should be embedded in this legislation. More than that earlier this year the Productivity Commission released their report on productivity in the State sector and quite frankly it was a shock. Their finding is that many—far too many—Government entities have no fundamental grasp of the concept of productivity certainly not in their own operations and far too many of them think that productivity is not relevant to what they do. Well that absolutely should be fundamental to what they do and how they look at doing what they do because productivity in a State sector sense is not simply about the amount of money. In fact that's only a part of it—the amount of money they spend to deliver their services. It is all about the quality of the outcomes they deliver for the funding that they receive from Government from this Parliament in fact through the appropriations. That should be in the bill; it should absolutely be a centrepiece of the bill. It's not. It may not have been introduced in a select committee had it been allowed to continue as it should have would have been a perfect opportunity to have raised that. This bill as it stands is a missed opportunity. We should expect much more of the Government. We should expect much more of what we can come together to seek from our Public Service. I just want to finish to reiterate also my thanks to the Public Service particularly those that were assisting in the COVID response. They were truly phenomenal. How they worked with the interests of our citizens our people at the forefront of their mind and their action. I'm going to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the elected officials' line. By pure circumstance I just happened to deal with Alma more than most and she is truly phenomenal. We oppose this bill."