Goff Phil: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11606. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):It is my pleasure to support the State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill and it is worth noting that it is not the initial position that the Labour Opposition adopted. I have to applaud the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on both sides but particularly the Government side for actually listening to what the Opposition was saying on this occasion. That is not a common occurrence regrettably but when it happens the select committee—John Hayes: Oh I don’t know.Hon PHIL GOFF: Mr Hayes on a good day will listen to what the Opposition spokespeople say at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as you well know Mr Chairman Hayes. It happens from time to time. But looking at this bill it was a rare occasion on which members on both sides of the select committee were prepared to listen to the evidence particularly the evidence from the stakeholders before the select committee and to act on the evidence. I have to also acknowledge that the Minister of State Services Jonathan Coleman was prepared to listen to the select committee.In a perfect democracy—and regrettably we fall well short of that—that would happen in a commonplace way. However we have seen with the Family Court legislation and the legal assistance legislation that we debated before this bill that this is unfortunately using tonight as an example a rare occasion. But it is good on this occasion because I think all sides of the House have a vested interest that the legislation that relates to the State sector should have as much continuity as possible between Governments rather than being used as a political football that goes one way and then the other way when there is inevitably a change of Government. So I want to welcome the role of the select committee and I want to welcome the readiness in this instance of the Minister to take on board the advice that the select committee gave him. As a result we end up with a better piece of legislation. That is most important but equallyimportant we end up with substantial support across the House for this legislation which therefore makes it stronger legislation.There were three changes that were made that I think were very positive changes and which allow Labour to support the legislation. The first was in relation to redundancies. It is a really important principle that when a person loses his or her job through no fault of their own they are protected with the compensation that a redundancy payment gives. They are not being sacked because of wrongful behaviour; they are losing a job because of structural change. What Labour was able to achieve on the select committee was a protection of those redundancy provisions. The one exception is that if a person goes to another job that is no less favourable than the existing one within the public sector—they are not losing anything and there are various provisions including you know that it needs to be reasonably convenient in terms of travel and so on—then that is fair enough. It is an equivalent job with no less favourable pay and conditions and we would not expect redundancy in that situation. But in other situations the redundancy provisions are protected and that is the right and proper thing to do. I am glad—again unusually from the National Party on industrial relations—that the Government was prepared to do the right and proper thing. The second change that was achieved was a better transition so that the existing agreements are covered for 3 years. There is a sunset provision for 3 years. It means that those on collective agreements will not be disadvantaged in relation to those on individual contracts of employment. The third change that was made was to change Government Workforce Policy Orders which in the original bill would have had the effect of being Orders in Council into statements so that when a policy was being pronounced it was a statement rather than having a legally binding effect. That ensures that existing legal and bargaining rights have been protected. Each one of those changes was important and those changes justify the decision by Labour to support this legislation rather than oppose it as it did on the first reading.There is a lot about this bill in terms of what its objectives are that I think all sides of the House could support. We support a framework that encourages an innovative flexible efficient Public Service. I think everybody should be in favour of those things. And we also support a joined-together Public Service where there is cross-sector collaboration and those are positive changes. When I look at the purpose clause new section 1A inserted by clause 5 the purposes of the bill are purposes that generally should get the support of the Committee. We want a State sector system that “(a) is imbued with the spirit of service to the community; and (b) operates in the collective interests of government; and (c) maintains appropriate standards of integrity and conduct; and (d) maintains political neutrality; and (e) is supported by effective workforce and personnel arrangements; and (f) meets good-employer obligations; and (g) is driven by a culture of excellence and efficiency; and (h) fosters a culture of stewardship.”I want to say a little bit about what those purpose statements mean because it is all very well having a purpose clause in the bill that talks about good-employer obligations on the State sector but regrettably we have seen in recent times a practice that is quite different from the theory that is being proposed here. I think for a start of the changes that were made in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade where people had their working conditions unilaterally stripped away from them and were given inferior conditions particularly security of employment where people lost pay—for example those people transferring overseas together with their partners. There is no point in having legislation before this House that states that there should be good-employer obligations if the Government is not going to carry that through in practice.I want to use another example of this and it is pertinent to the Minister of State Services because he is also Minister of Defence. You know I have talked before about the need for redundancy provisions but it is also about how you go about it and whether this bill will translate into a change of practice. I want to read this to the Committee. This is a standard letter from the Defence Force in this case to employees in the army: “You are in the New Zealand Army which is a rank from which the army was directed to release a number of military personnel.” That means that it was going to cut costs and people were going to be made redundant. “When considering you against the army business rules for future potential you were assessed as having Low Potential given that your future employability was limited to a small number of employment streams your medical grading is permanently downgraded you are unable to attempt the minimum required fitness standard.” This is a case of a letter—there were hundreds of them sent out to each of the services—that told people who were the victims of restructuring that they were to blame for the loss of their jobs. Everybody in this Committee knows that loyal members of the Defence Force who had served this country for 20 or 25 years were being made redundant. So why send out a letter that insults and degrades the personnel who were being made redundant? That was an absolute disgrace.Yes the Defence Force has now said that it is sorry and that it should not have happened but I want to know how it happened and I want a guarantee from the Minister in the chair the Minister for Courts that this legislation which sets good-employer obligations would not allow that sort of thing to happen again. What we saw through that process of civilianisation was a high level of attrition—21 percent. Every year one in five of the Defence Force was turning over. We saw the lowest morale in the history of the surveys and we saw a lower capability of the Defence Force. Hopefully this legislation in setting an important condition like good-employer obligations would not allow that to happen. Why did that happen? It happened because the Defence Force handled it badly but also because it was instructed by the Government to save $400 million a year and that meant laying off—you know the Defence Force is down a thousand people. So let us not waste our time debating legislation that is theoretical legislation unless we have a Government and a State sector that are prepared—