Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. The Public Service Legislation Bill is something on which I hope to have much more to say than the member for New Lynn is able to manage. The Minister when moving the particular reading that we're in at the moment said that the COVID-19 lockdown and associated issues had brought out the best in the Public Service. I'd like to join others who have noted with gratitude the commendable work of so many Government departments and indeed individuals within what we'd loosely call the Public Service. During that time as a local MP it was very helpful to be able to interact with so many who were working very hard in that environment. However the Minister's point that the crisis had brought out the best in those individuals and in those agencies indicates actually that it's not necessary to have this particular legislation in order for that to happen. And so what he's indicated by doing that is actually that perhaps to the extent that there are times when the best is not brought out in the Public Service that's a matter of culture rather than one of law. So to that extent the legislation would seem to be redundant. Of course it's a worthwhile aim for the legislation to join up our services that are not joined up currently. The Holy Grail that is whole-of-Government approach is a worthy aim of course in itself. But the reality I fear is that the instinct for autonomy—not to say pack protection; I wouldn't go so far as that—but the instinct for independence amongst Government departments I think is not something that can be so readily solved at the stroke of a pen albeit many strokes of a pen. Truth be told it's rather a large piece of legislation and one more so I think as I said before of a culture and a mindset rather than a matter of law. Others have talked about the missed opportunities within the legislation and there's always a moral dilemma for an Opposition as to whether one supports changes that are worthwhile in themselves but do not go as far as they should in terms of areas that are not addressed. The place that we've landed on this particular bill as you'll have gathered by now is that we shouldn't reward that lack of vision by the Government in particular I think the lack of emphasis on accountability of actual tangible outcomes as distinct from organisational matters—Government's matters you could say. And so that explains our position on the bill. I would say however that there's some pretty high-flown language and some pretty stirring stuff in the explanatory note of the bill—for example that the single broad policy aim is to provide a modern legislative framework for achieving a more adaptive and collaborative public service by expanding the types of agencies that comprise the public service unified by a common purpose ethos and strengthened leadership arrangements." ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): There are people in the gallery listening Mr Penk just in case you want to up your game a bit. CHRIS PENK: I don't think there are people in the gallery listening Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No truly. They are awake. CHRIS PENK: I think there are people in the gallery but whether or not they're listening—I'll do you a deal: I'll give them the opportunity to listen but whether they then choose so or not will be of course up to them. So forgive me I was running out of breath among other things by the end of that sentence. What I was really saying—and you've given me an invitation I suppose to repeat which I will not take up fear not—was that there was some pretty high-flown language some pretty stirring stuff in respect of the "broad policy aims" as the bill describes. I see that it's the result of an extensive consultation process and if there are any more fearsome words in combination than "extensive" "consultation" and "process" in the context in the civil service legislation then I can't think of them while staying awake. I would say though that there is one positive change that I was able to identify when reading through the bill. There is provision for public servants to effectively transfer between different agencies and keep their accumulated annual leave. That seems a pretty sensible kind of thing to do. And also amusingly there's a new type of chief executive established called a functional chief executive as opposed to I suppose a dysfunctional one. So that's pretty positive I guess but it can't overwhelm our instincts nevertheless to oppose the bill."