Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): An important clause in Part 1 is clause 10. It deals with the issue of Public Service principles. I think every member of this House hugely values the New Zealand culture of having a politically neutral public sector. We support the principle in clause 10 around the free and frank advice the merit-assessed appointments the principles of open government and of stewardship but I have moved a Supplementary Order Paper because I think there is a very important principle for the Public Service that is missing and that is an obligation to spend money wisely and effectively.Over the last four months I have never seen a Government spend money as recklessly as what we have seen and I ask for members opposite: why would you not support the New Zealand Public Service being required to spend wisely and effectively? I noted earlier last month the $570000 spent on a little slide outside. I could refer to the waste of public money in so many spheres—the 340 working groups on which this Government has spent over $50 million. I could mention many many areas in which this Government has been reckless with public money and there hasn't been a focus.I'll just give one little example and it's relevant to this part: the Ministry of Education when this Government came to office had 2600 staff. In the brief nearly three years the number of people in the Ministry of Education bureaucracy has increased by 33 percent. Let me just compare the numbers: a 33 percent increase in the number of ministry bureaucrats in Wellington. There has over the same period been a 1.2 percent increase in the number of teachers in the classroom. Let me say those numbers again: under this Labour Government under this Minister a 33 percent increase in the number of paper pushers in the Ministry of Education; a 1 percent increase in the number of teachers.Members on this side of the House don't share that priority. We want to maximise the amount that is spent on front-line services for our children.Marja Lubeck: These are the people that were cut—people that were cut by the previous—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I ask the member who's interjecting: would she like to explain why the numbers of people in the Ministry of Education has gone from 2632 to 3487? It's a 34 percent increase in just three years. The Government has broken its promise on children getting access to special-needs support while at the same time we've got a bloated ministry bureaucracy.Marja Lubeck: Thirty years—30 years; still got no idea.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And the relevance—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member who is interjecting that in actual fact she has a very loud voice and she is not sitting in her seat.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So I would say to that member: will she support a requirement that our Public Service spend the money wisely and effectively? Now I just use one small example that National members would much rather the finances went to teacher-aides to support those three-year-old children for whom we've seen a blow-out against the Prime Minister's promise in the time it takes for them—I think my colleague the National education spokesperson pointed out the time had almost doubled. Wouldn't we rather that than the money being spent on increased bureaucrats?So National's view is that our Public Service does need to be politically neutral. It does need to provide free and frank advice. It does need to have open government. But why in the principles of our Public Service have we not included any reference to spending public money wisely? I'll tell you why. Because it's not part of the Government's DNA. It's not part of their culture. They do not feel the duty that every parliamentarian should feel the duty that every public servant should have.