Hipkins Chris; Smith Nick; Allan KiritapuHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I think the point that I was making to the member is that the offices concerned—so the Office of the Ombudsmen the Office of the Auditor-General the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—were covered by parts of the existing State Sector Act. The decision that we have made is to remove them completely from the State Sector Act. With regard to these workforce provisions of course some of these provisions are new so they wouldn't have been included in the previous legislation. But the principal point that I was making to the member is that aspects of the operations of those entities were previously covered by the State Sector Act. They are now being completely removed from this legislation and they will be covered by their own legislation.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): That's where I think the Minister was incorrect. He said that Well look the reason this was in the initial bill was because it's just a carry-over from the State Sector Act." That is not correct. These workforce policy statements are new provisions. He made a choice incorrectly and made a mistake in introducing the bill with the provision of those offices. It is simply misleading for him to be saying "Oh well the reason they're in there is it's just a carry-over from the State Sector Act." That is not correct and actually it's really important that the House recognise that and correct the overstretch.The consultation with other political parties about crossing over into the powers of the House of Representatives and including them should have occurred before the bill was introduced rather than now. I do ask the Minister about those agents that are still included and that is—I'll give a good example: the courts. They have a very important independence. Is it his intention that the workforce policy statements would apply to the bench of the judiciary and how does that deal with the proper separations between the courts and the Government? I look at an agency like parliamentary counsel that is specifically listed. So I go back to my original question. The Minister has effectively said "Yeah I got it wrong. I shouldn't have included the House of Representatives. I shouldn't have included the Office of the Clerk. I shouldn't have included the Parliamentary Service." My question is: do these provisions cover workforce planning for the judiciary? And is that appropriate?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The answer to the question is yes they do. The member can see that it covers all of the—the courts of course are covered; they are administered by a Government department. There is separate legislation of course that governs the courts. Nothing in here could override the independence that they have under the legislation which gives them that independence. The distinction made here around the Office of the Clerk the House of Representatives and the Parliamentary Service of course is that they do not report to the executive.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well I'd say to the Minister with due respect neither do our judges. Has he consulted with the judges that they will be covered by these workforce planning documents? And it is appropriate for the State Services Commission both in developing Government workforce policy statements to have the influence that is provided in these set of clauses. Would he not accept that our judges deserve the same level of independence as the House of Representatives? So I ask: has there been consultation about the inclusion of the judges in the workforce policy statements and is that constitutionally appropriate? We've properly separated the House of Representatives. I would suggest the judicial bench is in a similar position.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I have just received clarity for the member. Judges are not covered by this; it's only Public Service employees of the Ministry of Justice who would be covered.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This shows the nonsense of under urgency passing 300 pages of Supplementary Order Papers on the hop—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No what I think it shows is the benefit of the committee where the Opposition are able to ask the questions that the member is asking and get the clarification of what is the legislation that is before us. There may well be a process that the member doesn't like and the member's taken many opportunities to refer to that. But the benefit of this process is exactly what the member's doing now which is asking questions and getting answers and clarifying what this legislation is about.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely Madam Speaker. But I ask a question of the Minister: does it cover the judiciary? He says yes.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no he didn't.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes he did.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No he didn't actually. In those words he did not. It has now been clarified that they're not covered because they're not—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Which I am much reassured by—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good so can we move on?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well that was only as a consequence of the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Of asking the questions—my point.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right indeed. Indeed that as a Minister any member listening to the House to the Minister's would've drawn the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Move on.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —conclusion that they were included. Well can we get some clarity in other areas? We have a Children's Commissioner we have a Retirement Commissioner we have a large number of those. Can the Minister clarify whether they are included in these provisions?Hon Chris Hipkins: I'll check if the member wants to keep going—I'll check.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister doesn't know.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He's going to ask advice.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I do have to say when we're being asked to pass law under urgency where we have only 24 hours I make no apologies for this House for not understanding 200 pages of legislation I only got 24 hours ago.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah look I am going to stop the member because the new process that we are implementing here in the committee stage is a question and answer. In fairness where we had five-minute speeches and sometimes a member could expand on that and take a 10-minute speech the Minister had adequate time to seek advice from the officials who are here to help with the detail. But in this case where it is a pretty quick question and answer and we don't need to have five-minute speeches for each question the Minister is able to seek advice. That's why every committee stage has officials here and he is perfectly able to seek clarification and advice from the officials. That's what he's doing.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can't wait for the answer.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I refer the member to clause 101. I do just want to pick up a point that the member made. All of these provisions of course have been through the full select committee process. There are only two minor wording amendments to these provisions that have not been through the full select committee process. So all of these provisions—the member has had ample time to scrutinise those.But with regard to clause 101 it does specify the difference between an autonomous Crown entity and a Public Service agency. So a Public Service agency or Crown entity must give effect to the workforce policy statement; an autonomous Crown entity must have regard to a Government workforce policy statement.So the people that member just raised like the Children's Commissioner would be regarded as an autonomous Crown entity. So they have to have regard to it but they would not have to follow it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I strongly disagree with the Minister that the select committee had ample opportunity to ask these questions. We did not. I remind the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins that the Parliament was in the COVID emergency for a good period of the three months. When the Minister says that the select committee did a complete process that is not true. The committee could not agree on the bill. The bill was not reported back to the House. So that statement is simply false.Now I want some clarity in respect of this part as to where it covers. We've had a mistake from the Minister as to whether the judges are in or out. The Children's Commissioner—I'd like to know is he covered? I'd like to know whether the issue of the Tenancy Tribunal—is it covered? Is the Tenancy Tribunal covered by the workforce planning documents? Simple answer: yes or no.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Well it would depend which categorisation they're under. So look can I clarify for the member the bill makes it very clear what's regarded as a Public Service agency and what's regarded as an autonomous Crown entity. So the member is of course welcome to read the bill to—I'm not going to go through every individual department or agency and identify which categorisation they fall under. The member's welcome to do that at his own leisure if he wishes to. But it makes it very clear that if they're part of the Public Service—so they are a Public Service agency or a Crown agent—they must give effect to the workforce policy statements. If they are an autonomous Crown entity such as the Children's Commissioner which clearly is then they only have to have regard to it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It's not good enough for the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins to simply say "Oh well the Minister should read the bill." This is a 200-page bill for which the Minister introduced a Supplementary Order Paper 24 hours ago to make 200 pages of changes. I'm a diligent member of Parliament but actually to give that sort of level of detail the scrutiny it deserves is simply impossible for any human being and I suspect there's not a member of Parliament in this House that has gone through the 200—Louisa Wall: Did you read the departmental report?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I did but here's the—the member opposite says "Have I read the departmental report?" You know what that says?Louisa Wall: That you're a good member of the select committee.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No it says that we just do what the Public Service says. Whatever the department says; that's what the Government does. Well actually I don't have that view.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is very important to note in terms of Parliament's constitutional principles that we operate under when Public Service departments are advising committees they are acting as advisers to the committees not as advisers to the Government. What the member is saying is an outrageous slander on the quality of our public services and it should not be allowed to stand.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well are you speaking to the same point of order or is it a different point of order? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I am.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You're speaking to the same point of order. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am. The Minister has made the claim that the advice that is given to officials at select committee is completely independent of the Government of the day. That is not correct. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No that is not correct. The Minister has said that the department officials are providing advice to the select committee; they are not providing advice to the Government. That's a true statement.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is true. But equally it is true—and I've been in many select committees where officials have made plain the advice that they are giving to the committee is on the direction of Cabinet and the Minister.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But let's see what's occurred here. The Labour—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no we have a point of order taken by the Minister. I gave you the opportunity to speak to that. I think that the Minister is correct and rightly we must not in this House attribute the accusations against public servants. They are doing their job and they are—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I didn't.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I think you were. I think you were very close to it and I am upholding the objection by the Minister so let's continue but let's—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make my point very plain Madam Chairperson and it is this. The Labour member interjected—and that was that the departmental report should stand and that's it. Actually it's the job of this Parliament to not just rubber-stamp the departmental report but to scrutinise it and I shall continue to do so. I simply want an answer from the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins. If you take the Ministry of Justice he'd have said that the judges are excluded. My question to him is that there are a whole lot of layers within the Ministry of Justice. Is the Tenancy Tribunal? Is the Employment Tribunal? Are the disputes tribunals—are they covered by the provisions of this part?Hon Chris Hipkins: I think the comment that I made to the member before is that their independence as specified in the laws that establish those bodies is not changed.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The question I asked the Minister was not whether they've changed but whether they are included by this part. Does Part 4—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That isn't a point of order. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I haven't had an answer. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well that's the point of order.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So my point of order is: I've asked the Minister does Part 4 of this bill that we cover cover those aspects of the justice ministry—Tenancy Tribunal Employment Tribunal disputes tribunal?Hon Chris Hipkins: As I said to the member before it would depend on the legal form of those various agencies. If they are a Public Service agency or a Crown agent then they must give effect to it. If they are an autonomous Crown entity then they must have regard to it.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm still none the wiser.KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think we'll have a little bit more but we don't want to get repetitive. You've asked a question—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No I've asked the question but I haven't had an answer.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well it has been answered. You might not be satisfied with the answer but it has been answered.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well no what the Minister in the chair has said is "Well I actually don't know whether those tribunals are included." He made a mistake about whether the judiciary was included. I'm expecting the Ministry of Justice—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look I'm sorry but I have already said that he did not make a mistake with the judiciary because he did not use the word "judiciary". You used "courts".Hon Dr Nick Smith: I used the word "judges".CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): And he talked about—his answer to you was about the courts being public servants and using public funding so let's stop that because that's not correct.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is reasonable to ask over Part 4 of this bill as to which Government agencies are included and which parts of them. What we've got from the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Hipkins is confusing answers: go look at this schedule or go look at that to determine that. Actually we're making amendments. We have seen that the original bill made a mistake in including the House of Representatives the Clerk's Office the Auditor-General and other officers. I'm just simply seeking clarity as to whether those tribunals that sit within the Ministry of Justice—we've got clarity that our District Court judges our Supreme Court judges our High Court judges are not included and my question to the Minister is: are those large number of tribunals that deal with tenancy disputes and employment covered by this part?Hon Member: Stop asking the same question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just want an answer—[Interruption] Well are they? Are they in or out?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We're not going to have a debate across the Chamber. We're either having a debate properly or we'll move on. But I think in fairness the member's asked a question. He's had an answer.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well my question was whether they are included. What I've been told is "Have a look at another part of the bill." I've had a look at another part of the bill. There is no specific reference to those tribunals and I am none the wiser. Now what I do know is that the original bill made a mistake including agencies that properly should be independent. For me to be told that I've had an answer when I have not—does any member in this Parliament know whether Part 4 of this bill applies to the large number of immigration employment judicial disputes and other tribunals? Can any member in the House—Minister or anybody else—tell me whether they are included? So here we are under urgency passing law and not knowing what we're doing. I make no apologies as a member of Parliament for saying when I pass law I want to know what it's about because in the last two months we've passed laws and we've found out afterwards it was a very different law to what we had requested. So if any member of Parliament or the Government could tell whether those tribunals are included or not I think the Parliament deserves an answer.KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to."